Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
So does that mean we can restore the article on the? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The Good example of a poor decision. If nothing else, a discussion of how Russian does without the, or a, or an but English seeming needs them would be very interesting. The question is how we could somehow modify this rigid approach. What does it take to modify something that ingrained into policy? 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] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On 12/21/10 4:17 PM, Carcharoth wrote: Has anyone ever suggested a way for people to highlight a mistake and click to bring it to someone else's attention? But without logging any IP address. I suppose that sort of system would get overwhelmed by trolls very quickly. Maybe an off-wiki system to allow people using Wikipedia to generate a note for themselves on corrections to make later on? That seems more complex than fixing a simple typo. If I can go in and make a simple spelling correction it's done very quickly. On the other hand if I need to explain what needs fixing and where it is in a site it's just not worth my while. Ec This would be a generic equivalent of the Fix family of templates based on Template:Fix I hate this coding but selecting the text which needs attention and hitting enter could create a popup where the problem could be explained or at least noted, if the person did not want to spend time on it. Selection from a checklist would put tags like spelling verification needed Source? in at the end of the highlighted text. We have a wide variety of such template, although I would be at a loss to remember them all or use them without a crutch like the popup I suggest. A new editor, could never, of course. These templates are simple but there are lots of them, often duplicating each other. 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] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. Well, is there interesting or relevant material published in a reliable source? How did we get from difference engine to computer? And I guess if Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is more explicit about being a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline, that would then reflect the de facto policy. Appropriate, although that language has been there probably since Larry Sanger. 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] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Wait a second. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline? What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so, then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them? The various What wikipedia is not... standards evolved before the notability guideline reached it's current form, so the ones dealing with inclusion/exclusion should probably be thought of as complementary policies. Notability is more or less a generic test. Wikipedia is not... standards dealing with exclusion are a non-exhaustive list of specific cases where something probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of it's notability - they serve both as a shortcut around notability and an addendum to it to cover the corner cases. Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that, guidelines, that means that not a dictionary is it's own EXCLUSION test, aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any other exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, that means that not a dictionary stands on it's own. When it applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions. There are a number of other confusing and misapplied parts of What wikipedia is not. I would say one of the most consistently misapplied ones is to consider Wikipedia is not censored. to be an inclusion guideline on it's own. The intent should be clear on that one - it means that offensiveness, obscenity, tastelessness, and any other reason to find content objectionable are simply not considerations - if the content stands under whatever other applicable content guidelines apply, then the content shouldn't be removed on account of someone's objection, BUT not censored isn't by itself reason to keep something - that's for other guidelines to decide. Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on. Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia. 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] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
While there may be cases where the guideline's been taken too literally, or some cases not literally enough, the point of not a dictionary to me in our current state is to avoid overlaps with our sister project - if we didn't have that, we'd have tremendous duplication of content. For the most part, an encyclopedic article about a word is just a very verbose dictionary entry - there's no need to have a word defined in both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. If it's a definition, regardless of how much fluff we can put behind it, it belongs on Wiktionary. If it's more than just a word then it might have a place on Wikipedia. It's usually not all that hard. -Steph Extensive information on the development of a concept is inappropriate in a dictionary. For example the word robot. 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] Anyone noticed this?
We could have had quite a conversation if that article had been public. But, of course, the cited trolls would have weighed in too. Usually, these days, if I'm editing I'm using a reference to start with rather than trying to find references for some point. A scientist, or anyone, with full access to the published literature, and better yet familiar with it, knowing what references are generally respected in the field, can easily make major additions to any scientific article if they start with facts then add them with references. Some interesting misunderstandings: the idea, for example, that a Wikipedia article would deviate from what is in textbooks. That is what we do. Fred User Fred Bauder On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Jacob De Wolff jfdwo...@doctors.org.uk wrote: Alex Bateman and Darren Logan have written in this week's Nature, suggesting that scientists contribute content to Wikipedia rather than simply using it. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/468765c I can't read the entire article (requires subscription), but thanks for pointing that out. I agree whole-heartedly with this bit from one of the comments: the principal value of Wikipedia is as a point of entry to the literature, rather than as a source itself. It should be made clear though that being a research scientist and writing encyclopedia articles are two very different skills. Some of the skills involved are transferable, others need to be acquired to be successful at both. If you consider those with a deep understanding of a particular science (or science in general), acquired from training and education in a science discipline, then what they are bringing to the collaborative process called Wikipedia is their knowledge of science and most specifically their knowledge of the sources and how reliable different sources are. Those skills are best used, in my view, in identifying sources to be used, reviewing articles to spot mistakes, explaining the mistakes and what to write instead, and so on. But in so doing, the need is still there to work with others (such as prose writers, illustrators, editors, template coders and so on - just as you would work with an editorial team if working for a print encylopedia). This is the key point that some topic area experts who misunderstand Wikipedia don't seem to get. Editing Wikipedia involves working as part of a team to improve articles, not working as an individual - the latter approach doesn't work except on the most obscure of articles. 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] CZ fork: Tendrl
On 11 December 2010 17:36, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote: I know everybody is tired of hearing me bang on about this, but the whole Featured article edifice has always seemed dubious to me. It seems to concentrate our limited resources on a tiny number of articles, and the emphasis has always been more on dotting eyes and crossing tees than improving overall quality of coverage. As far as I know, only a small minority of Wikipedians work on getting articles featured. There are plenty that like to create lots of articles that are just of reasonable quality. There are plenty that like to go around making small improvements to lots of existing articles. A big part of Wikipedia's success is our diverse community. There are lots of jobs that need doing (including dotting i's and crossing t's) and everyone can choose for themselves which job they want to do and (rather amazingly) we end up with almost every job getting done (there are a few backlogs that build up, but relative to the size of the project they are pretty small). Like what goes on the Main Page, featured articles is pretty much a snake pit (IMO), but a small group gets a lot out of both of them, so it's fine, but not central. You gotta give the devil his due. Fred User: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
[WikiEN-l] Get Listed! Wikipedia Marketing Secrets Revealed
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101207006158/en/VMS-Sponsoring-Wikipedia-Marketing-Webinar The program, focusing on the dos and donts of getting information about your company on the Wikipedia site, will include insight from Richard Laermer and Sharon Nieuwenhuis, two Wikipedia marketing experts from RLM PR. It is being hosted by CommPRO.biz, a new online source featuring news, tools and training for marketing communications professionals. Laermer is the author of Full Frontal PR and Punk Marketing, as well as the creator of the extremely popular BadPitch Blog. Nieuwenhuis is an account manager for RLM PR focusing on Wikipedia marketing. Were very excited to bring this information to PR or marketing professionals free of charge Fred User: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
[WikiEN-l] Use Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool
http://www.inc.com/managing/articles/201001/wikipedia.html 'Wikipedia is a complex culture, and sometimes it can feel like the free encyclopedia everyone can edit -- except me, acknowledges Jay Walsh, a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that oversees Wikipedia. He notes that Wikimedia has only about 30 paid staff, and that Wikipedia is edited by a huge number of volunteers. And he says, though its not an absolute rule, people are strongly discouraged from creating articles about themselves or their organizations because the site strives for neutrality. If you want your organization to be listed in Wikipedia, Walsh and others whove succeeded recommend the following steps:...' Fred User: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] Use Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool
This information was directed at public relations professionals. Optimizing the public image of the firm is the point. Fred User:Fred Bauder The only reason companies and organizations strive to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool is because of its high visibility on Google, which is attributed in turn from Wikipedia's immense popularity. I would argue this would not even be discussed if WP was not in the ten 10 most popular websites in the world. That being said, I am not necessarily worried about companies having their own articles on Wikipedia, assuming said topics meet our understands and plays by our community norms and policies. What I am worried about, though, is that these companies want to control and own these articles and block out anybody else who wishes to contribute, edit, or cleanup by any means necessary including threatening legal action. It's like with paid editing - once money or professional reputation get involved, things turn a lot more ugly when something does not go right, and that's when the threats start flying. -MuZemike On 12/7/2010 10:31 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: http://www.inc.com/managing/articles/201001/wikipedia.html 'Wikipedia is a complex culture, and sometimes it can feel like the free encyclopedia everyone can edit -- except me, acknowledges Jay Walsh, a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that oversees Wikipedia. He notes that Wikimedia has only about 30 paid staff, and that Wikipedia is edited by a huge number of volunteers. And he says, though its not an absolute rule, people are strongly discouraged from creating articles about themselves or their organizations because the site strives for neutrality. If you want your organization to be listed in Wikipedia, Walsh and others whove succeeded recommend the following steps:...' Fred User: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 ___ 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] Amazonified Wikipedia
This stuff will apparently show up in Amazon search results soon-ish: http://www.amazon.com/wiki/James_Joyce Interesting idea, though I find it slightly disturbing for some reason... Shopping-enabled Wikipedia Page Their mouse over was not yet functioning when I tried it., Loading, Loading, Loading... Amazon, as it sells nearly every product known to man, is doing a clever thing, using a Wikipedia article to sell stuff. It can extend well beyond books. And any firm selling anything is welcome to do the same thing, if they can figure out software linking mentions of a product with their product page, although a simple internal link [[Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man|Buy Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man]] would serve if wiki software is used. I wonder how you would put a cart onto a wiki. I guess a external link to PayPay would work. So is the foundation helping them in any way, or getting any thing from them? Fred User: 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] Amazonified Wikipedia
To Magnus' suggestion -- they would have no real motivation to divert some of their margin to Wikipedia, would they? I'm not sure attributing the content to Wikipedia, and using Wikimedia marks for that purpose, would fall far enough afoul of trademark law to give the WMF a lot of leverage. And in any case, do we want to get into the habit of asking content reusers to contribute to the WMF financially? The whole object is to make freely reusable content available, isn't it? Nathan Asking Amazon is not the same as getting into the habit Fred User: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] Amazonified Wikipedia
A Kindle costs money? Yes. Thus it is sold for money? Yes. Actually no. The download is free. Fred User: 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] Differentiators from Wikipedia (was CZ fork: Tendrl)
On 24 November 2010 08:40, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 23/11/2010 11:15, David Gerard wrote: I meant, of course, a fork of Citizendium. Buh. The knives seem to be out for the fork of (fork of WP). As you say, if Tendrl is CC-by-SA it's all good, in terms of spooning content around. Apart from noting that social dynamics of the uneasy kind is not confined to our own shores, is there anything to do here? I've pointed out they'll need more differentiation than another slightly-tweaked set of rules. As such, I declare it: time for the differentiation from Wikipedia thread again! What could a general encyclopedia project do to differentiate itself from Wikipedia and gain a niche? * Put data in in such a way that it can be easily manipulated and redisplayed. (Semantic MediaWiki or similar.) * University affiliation such that an expert policy doesn't result in the cranks flooding in waving pieces of paper. The result might end up just a Wikipedia feeder in effect, but it may provide a good environment for the writers that might actually produce something. What else? Pick a problem with Wikipedia and a solution to it that hasn't already failed. - d. It is not the specific variation which is central. Anything that successfully incorporates social media can succeed, as some Wikia wikis have such as Lostpedia: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Enthusiasm is what makes the difference. Why does FourLoko succeed where root beer fails? 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] cleaning up the Kosovo geographic names
I would like to point out that the List of mountains in Serbia and List of mountains in Kosovo are again POV forks. They contain the same data in different levels of quality. Additionally, the editors refused to include to albanian names so that we can even find the article. This is a problem with the wikipedia to allow such confusing things to happen. People don't care if some editor recognizes kosovo or not, they just want to know where the mountain is so they can go hiking or whatever. we cannot allow every list to be a POV fork. Either we define the individual mountains as templates to be included by both pages, or we include the kosovo list as a separate list on the serbian list, or we remove the kosovo list items from the serbian lists. We cannot have two lists of everything that have two POVs. thanks, mike Even if we do have two lists, both names should be on both lists. 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] cleaning up the Kosovo geographic names
Here is another prime example of how the user is misled when using the english wikipedia. lets say you are looking for Maja Pançiq, you wont find the article, because someone commented out the name in the article Pan%C4%8Di%C4%87%27s_Peak. Just because albanian is not an official language in central serbia, they say. First of all, there are many albanians living in that area, and second of all, the point is listed as a border point between Kosovo and Serbia in the GNS database. We cannot have a dysfunctional wikipedia, we need to contain both names and make it possible to navigate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan%C4%8Di%C4%87%27s_Peak thanks, mike You are, of course, correct, assuming the mountain has a commonly used name in the Albanian language, whether it is on the border or not. 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] cleaning up the Kosovo geographic names
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Here is another prime example of how the user is misled when using the english wikipedia. lets say you are looking for Maja Pançiq, you wont find the article, because someone commented out the name in the article Pan%C4%8Di%C4%87%27s_Peak. Just because albanian is not an official language in central serbia, they say. First of all, there are many albanians living in that area, and second of all, the point is listed as a border point between Kosovo and Serbia in the GNS database. We cannot have a dysfunctional wikipedia, we need to contain both names and make it possible to navigate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan%C4%8Di%C4%87%27s_Peak thanks, mike You are, of course, correct, assuming the mountain has a commonly used name in the Albanian language, whether it is on the border or not. The name is common, it is listed even in the albanian wikipedia, http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maja_Pan%C3%A7iq It is on wikimapia http://wikimapia.org/7522941/sq/Maja-Pan%C3%A7iq listed in wikibooks http://sq.wikibooks.org/wiki/Tokajon/Fjalorthi It has 32 results on google, and at least it should be mentioned. The point is that we are forced to monitor all changes all the time because some editors have a bad habit of POV deleting data, it is reoccurring and very annoying. thanks, mike I think we'll have to have two lists for a while, as, according to one strongly held point of view, Kosovo remains part of Serbia. Our selection and naming of articles should not attempt to resolve an international political issue. 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] cleaning up the Kosovo geographic names
This is what I have to deal with : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan%C4%8Di%C4%87%27s_Peakcurid=16209969diff=397646009oldid=397630575 any suggestions? mike I left a note on his talk page: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Vanjagenije#invite_to_discuss_Kosovo_geographic_names At some point this will all end in arbitration, but don't try to force it. Keep on talking to him. And don't edit war. Address editors directly, not through edit comments in the course of edit warring. 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] cleaning up the Kosovo geographic names
I think we'll have to have two lists for a while, as, according to one strongly held point of view, Kosovo remains part of Serbia. Our selection and naming of articles should not attempt to resolve an international political issue. OK, well then it is a tolerated POV Fork. a exception to the rule. I have no problem with that, so what do you think about making the Albanian names of Serbian (and Kosovo) towns list, that should be also tolerated according to the existing pages. I would be happy with that, at least it would give our Kosovo team something that they would be happy to do, can I get some support for this idea? thanks, mike I'd focus on places in Kososo, although Belgrade, doubtless, has an Albanian name which is in use. The article should probably include both names and be a guide to the reader with respect to alternative Serbian-Albanian place names. 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] cleaning up the Kosovo geographic names
Hi there, I am working on a suggested set of guidelines for improving the poor quality of the kosovo geographical articles while avoiding edit wars. I wrote up a summary here and would appreciate any comments and support. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages Basically my points are : 0. There is no point in trying to rename the funny characters in the serbian named articles, but we can hope to improve the quality in general. 1. we need to make sure the english language articles are useful for English speaking people dealing with albanian and serbian names. 2. we need to get rid of the POV forking of the Districts of Kosovo in Serbia. We dont need parallel articles describing the same administrative structures. 3. I need an agreement from the serbian wikipedia team that they will not continue to remove the albanian names from the articles, we need to encourage more local kosovar editors and I have been recruiting many of them. I have send this mail to the list before, but it did not get through. We should setup a wikipedia mailing list for the albanian language editors, can someone help with that? thanks, mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org I support your efforts. Please take this to the Wikipedia:Serbian Wikipedians' notice board and Project Serbia as well as keeping touch with Albanian and Kosovo editors. Do something to get everyone involved so that guidelines can be developed to deal with this matters. 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] The Editor as Artist
On 05/11/2010 22:52, Carcharoth wrote: On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/magazine/07FOB-medium-t.html That has to be the first time I've seen WP:OWN analysed in a newspaper article! When it says no author is tempted to showboat, it is sadly mistaken, though. Charles A fleet of showboats... 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] The Editor as Artist
Finally, one fan: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/magazine/07FOB-medium-t.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
[WikiEN-l] The 12 most amazing (and useless) Wikipedia pages in the world
A list has been prepared by Alastair Plumb of Asylum: http://www.asylum.co.uk/2010/10/21/the-12-most-amazing-and-useless-wikipedia-pages-in-the-world/ 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] Building a community or building an encyclopedia?
On 17 October 2010 06:22, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: We're an educational institution in two senses: we write educational material forv the world in general, and we educate each other. I strongly suggest you start a Wikimedia-related blog and crosspost posts like this to it, not just leave them in a mailing list archive that isn't even in Google. - d. Yeh, it was good, worth archiving and continuing to discuss. 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
Are you speaking of the article on the German Wikipedia? Fred Ryan, All, (Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]]) Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as your philosophy articles go. If anything, the discussion of his arguments on infanticide may be too prominent. But there are no serious problems that I see. Have you compared the German articles (at least using online translation)? It's not an ivory tower philosophy discussion, it got a lively real world controversy with activists from the disability rights movements and other (mostly far left) organisations trying and often succeeding to prevent Singer speaking in Germany (and elsewhere). A stream of articles and books published against and in defense of Singer? And while I have no overview about the situation in the US, there seem to be parallels, e.g. http://www.thearclink.org/news/article.asp?ID=426 Peter -- Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief! Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail ___ 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Guettarda guetta...@gmail.com wrote: I think that Wikipedia is big enough that we have room for all points of view by drilling down far enough. We are not going to state in our main article that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy organised by the US government, but we have an article on the various conspiracy theories. In fact we have sub articles on specific theories. If critics claim a bias in Wikipedia, then rather than battle over the main article, just write a child article focussing on the specific concerns. If there is any merit, then it will be revealed and promoted. Contrariwise, if it is tripe, it will be labelled as such and eliminated. -- Peter in Canberra The limiting factor with respect to such endless proliferation of viewpoint is notability, whether there is substantial published information about that view in a reliable source. A good source for subtle political motivations for expression of political positions is political memoirs, and private correspondence, such as that entombed in Presidential libraries. Not real helpful for the latest news of a current campaign of course. 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Guettarda guetta...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: That's not neutral. That's not representing reality. That's outright conservatives are so batshit we don't care about them bias. And the argument doesn't deserve being simplified to that, in part because people seeking to understand it who tend to agree with the opponents who come look at our pages will immediately see the bias and turn off of Wikipedia as a useful information source, at least on this topic. Oh, also, we're supposed to be neutral POV. Minor thing there... This is Not Good for the Encyclopedia. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Right, that is the unacceptable outcome. And someone thoroughly familiar with the Bible, which is usually their source of authority, instantly sees that their familiar arguments are not accurately or fairly presented. 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] Building a community or building an encyclopedia?
Focus on the task is the work involved. It is only with great difficulty that a group can develop the skill necessary to deal successfully with the dynamics inherent in group work and get something done. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Bion#Basic_assumptions and his book Experiences in Groups. Fred I get this feeling sometimes that some people are more interested in building a community on Wikipedia rather than helping to construct an encyclopedia. I tend to think that there is a notion which existed upon Wikipedia's founding: Always leave something undone. Whenever you write a page, never finish it. Always leave something obvious to do: an uncompleted sentence, a question in the text (with a not-too-obscure answer someone can supply), wikied links that are of interest, requests for help from specific other Wikipedians, the beginning of a provocative argument that someone simply must fill in, etc. The purpose of this rule is to encourage others to keep working on the wiki. I say this is not readily followed anymore, and I personally disagree with that tenet, because of the sheer volume of the English Wikipedia (almost 3.5 million articles) that will always have some sort of positive article creation rate due to developing and new events that occur worldwide all the time. Anyways, I think the reason why we had something like that in there is so that we could preserve or expand this community of editors. However, that implies that a certain level of drama should always exist, not to mention that perfection is near-impossible to achieve (though I'm sure many of us strive to do the best we can to improve the encyclopedia), and that one's interpretation of an article or topic being complete varies. That comes to my question regarding whether or not we are here to build an online community or an online encyclopedia. Should we focus outwards toward the reading/viewing audience, or should we focus inwards towards the editors? -MuZemike ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Alleged Liberal Bias
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote: #167 is the allegation that we fail to understand what the Tea Party guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much, just to compile articles from sources. I think that as a serious response, this is disingenuous. People don't write with 100% precision, and they certainly don't use Wikipedia terminology. It may be literally true that we don't claim to understand anything, but that doesn't make the complaint invalid. It just means that you need to apply a bit more intelligence to understanding the complaint beyond literally parsing the words. (And there's *far* too much literalness among Wikipedia policy wonks). I would guess that a complaint that we don't understand something is a claim of undue weight and unreliable sources. Almost any claim about the Tea Party has been made by someone; whether it has been made by someone who we ought to pay attention to is another story. I note Fox News is excluded from this list: External links * Collected news and coverage at The New York Times * Collected news and coverage at The Guardian * Collected news and coverage at CNN * Tea Party Movement at History News Network at George Mason University * Tea Party Movement at SourceWatch I can make a good faith argument that it is not a reliable source, as I could for any other news source with obvious bias, but I don't think there would be consensus on that point. 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
Is there anything on this list: http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about? I was led there by a link from this post: http://www.redstate.com/docquintana/2010/10/11/fighting-liberal-bias-on-wikipedia/ Which complains bitterly. 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
On 13 October 2010 14:45, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Is there anything on this list: http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about? Every word. Then, when we've gone through that list, we can fix our articles on the physical sciences: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Conservapedian_relativity - d. Not fair... But is it clear God made the Earth? Seriously, do our articles Creationism, Creation myth, Ex nihilo and Genesis creation narrative adequately and appropriately deal with the matter? I'm a little skeptical about Ex nihilo, too many big words, well not too many or too big, but a bit obscure. Keep your eye on the ball d., the question is the adequacy and appropriateness of our articles and behavior. What they do is another matter. We do not list Consider the source among our logical fallacies, but perhaps we should. 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
So we got Conservapedia and some other conservative website accusing Wikipedia of having a liberal bias. What else is new, or what else are we to expect? -MuZemike Well, is there anything at all to it, or is it just bull? 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] Alleged Liberal Bias
On 13/10/2010 14:45, Fred Bauder wrote: Is there anything on this list: http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about? I don't know. One of them (#67) may be about you, but it's kind of hard to tell whether it is, and whether we can edit you to improve matters. Charles Yes, 67 is a more or less accurate treatment of my reaction to Michael Moore's shennanigans, but the question is about problems we can do something about. Policies are like spider webs, they catch flies, but hawks fly through. There is little we can do to control the behavior of people who are wildly popular. Nobody can control Glen Beck either. I didn't actually go down the list, so I didn't see that or want to draw attention to it specifically. 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] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
John Doe has been desysopped, or possibly resigned as an administrator. He has not been outcast from the human race. He has minimum responsibilities which he performs in a reasonably competent manner. We are not pure and have no intentions of attempting to become pure. However, as always, John Doe is reminded to be consistently courteous regardless of circumstance. If you feel the rough and tumble of the agora is too much; well, sometimes it is. Fred Bauder On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no record of a request or email from you to either group. So Unless your using even more sockpuppets than your claiming, (or used an unknown email address, failed to state your IP address, user account or blocking admin. Which is very unlikely) You are full of bullshit. Please stop lying, or admit to all your sock puppets, because with the information that you have provided, the logs for both unblock-en-l and OTRS prove that you did not send or get a message from either group. John As a OTRS member, do you really believe the language you just used in that email as appropriate? Seriously. It is beyond depressing to be continually reminded that this kind of behavior is still condoned and even expected. I'll be singing off this mailing list shortly. Good luck turning things around. - causa sui ___ 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] OED goes print-only
The problem remains that and individual subscription of $295 a year stinks, to say nothing of $995.00 for a printed copy. Basically, only institutions or major publishers would find a subscription worthwhile and those are higher yet. Essentially it is a paradigm that does not deliver the goods. Fred Third edition of OED unlikely to appear in print format Very unsurprising. Publishers confirm that print dictionary market is disappearing so third edition is unlikely Does anybody know the rough statistics on printed encyclopedias (which admittedly constitute a far smaller market than dictionaries)? In any case this movement away from print can only be promising news for our readership statistics. (One therefore wonders the continuing usefulness of edition numbers.) For ease of reference, I guess. In academia, when a vagueism crops up in texts being studied or researched, attempts to pin down the precise meaning intended are often supported by reference to a dictionary; to disguise the fact that nothing more complex than reading the dictionary is being undertaken, full references to the OED will be supplied. There *is* something nice about edition numbers, though. Even online, I suspect you would have edition numbers to identify major updates, with more frequent updates occurring between those save points. Aye, that may well be the compromise they arrive at. AGK ___ 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] What Fact-Checking Means Online
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-medium-t.html ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] FBI vs. Wikipedia
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:47 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: ... Oh wait, I found a page here: http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/priorities.htm That would be a better source for images, but the images don't seem to be there. Older revisions have the image: http://web.archive.org/web/20040825160713/http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/priorities.htm Thank-you! I was right about the badges changing over time. The badge in 1908 is very different from the other ones. Carcharoth So, is this possible section appropriate or over the top: ==Badges== [[File:HistoricalFBIBadges.jpg|thumb|right|200px]] Beginning in 1908 when agents of the precursor of the FBI were known as the Special Agent Force s series of similar badges have been displayed by agents. Badges have consistently featured a shield topped by an eagle with the prominent initials US and either Bureau of Investigation or Division of Investigation at the top and Department of Justice at the bottom. There is a central image of Justice which is blindfolded with a scale in her right hand and a sword in her left.ref[http://web.archive.org/web/20040825160713/http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/priorities.htm Archived FBI Facts and Figures] which contains Badges.jpg displaying historical FBI badges. Display and possession of FBI badges and other identification and insignia is governed by 18 U.S.C § 701 which provides: blockquoteWhoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both./blockquote 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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: So, is this possible section appropriate or over the top: snip In principle fine, but would be better discussed on the talk page of the article. Discussions that specific are not really suitable for a mailing list, but you could link from here to there. Indeed, there is a discussion there already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation#Wikipedia:Logos.2C_Specific_cases.2C_U.S._government_agencies_-_guideline_apply_as_internal_standard.3F Carcharoth That discussion is not about using the recently discovered image of historical badges. Obviously they have removed it from their website. It is very low resolution, indeed, the details of the badges are almost unrecognizable. But would the section put too much emphasis on what are, in fact, trivial details, simply because the question exercises us? 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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
Well, I tried that and quickly found http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike and the FBI are discussing. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_0701000-.html I've nominated this for deletion. There may be others. Also, this is a object not an image. It presents the same problems as an image of a statue. Fred I think the high resolution helps forgers and impersonators argument is spurious. Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the right logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) would fool most people if it looked professional whether technically accurate or not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with someone who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something anyone can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to look clean (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most impersonators only need to google image: fbi badge to get close enough. In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to do the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator will not be affected by Wikimedia's decision. FT2 On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard is more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement. Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm! - 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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
Well, All of us who are or have been arbitrators are pretty much in the anti-cynicism business. Nothing the Commons administrators do would surprise me, but it's time we grappled with them. I'm not an active uploader of images but I do edit there. Fred Not to be too cynical, but I hope that doesn't get speedy kept as well. I *had* mentioned that image of the badge earlier, at the Commons Village Pump, but no-one seemed to be that bothered. I also suggested adding the restrictions note that Fred also added to the image, but again, the response I got was: We may choose to add a warning to the file description page, as we do for several other types, but I don't personally think it'd be very useful in this case.. This whole debate makes the point that when the WMF legal counsel gets involved because some outside organisation has sent him a letter, and this debate between lawyers then becomes public, the community sometimes looks like a deer caught in the headlights, unsure whether they should debate the issue, or apply what counsel has said, or ask counsel for further advice. The problem with the first two approaches is that the debate might end up with the wrong result, and if people say but we followed the WMF legal counsel's advice (even if they misinterpreted what he said), that might be bad for several reasons. The problem with the third approach is that the WMF legal counsel doesn't scale, and you can't ask him everything about every image (though if someone thinks it worth contacting him, they should always do so). The best of several poor options seems to be for the community to judge as best they can, contact the WMF legal counsel in rare cases only, and take note if an external request leads to the WMF legal counsel over-riding a community debate and learn the lessons from that. On a completely different note (though I see Fred raised it as well), is that badge really genuine? The source isn't that reliable, and it would be nice to have a date, as I'm positive the design of such badges has changed over the years. For all images, you really do want to try and find the most reliable source possible, not some random website. Carcharoth On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Well, I tried that and quickly found http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike and the FBI are discussing. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_0701000-.html I've nominated this for deletion. There may be others. Also, this is a object not an image. It presents the same problems as an image of a statue. Fred I think the high resolution helps forgers and impersonators argument is spurious. Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the right logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) would fool most people if it looked professional whether technically accurate or not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with someone who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something anyone can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to look clean (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most impersonators only need to google image: fbi badge to get close enough. In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to do the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator will not be affected by Wikimedia's decision. FT2 On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard is more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement. Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm! - 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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] FBI vs. Wikipedia
That would be an interesting conundrum, if only official sources will do as confirmation but the FBI has a practice of keeping the images hidden. Sets up the ironic situation of people being fooled by impostors with obviously fake badges only because it's impossible to determine what the real ones look like. Nathan Only reliable sources are acceptable. If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and change such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which would permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge or identification of the correct design. By the way, that position has nothing to do with liking the FBI or Secret Service. It has more to do with understanding the suffering that can result from such lapses in security. Congress could, if they were quick on their feet, which they are not, bill those who disclose such images for the expense of changing design and issuing new badges or identification cards. 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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
But really, I'm sure the FBI do have images of their badges somewhere on their website. Why aren't we finding 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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
Now this is fascinating: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Q-clearance_badge.jpg That image deletion debate appears to be over some security badge. The debate started in February 2007 and was closed in June 2007 (deletion debates were closed faster back then). But the image is now deleted. And look at the deletion reason: 18 U.S.C. §701 https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoomTicketID=1236826 I think that is an OTRS request pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §701. I would be very interested to know how many OTRS tickets and/or deletion logs involved citations of 18 U.S.C. §701, which is one of the statutes being cited here as well. Carcharoth That would seem to be a valid basis for oversight. However, the image of the badge is on Commons. 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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
Well, you know, I think there is a duty of care involved. If a genuine badge can be purchased along with a genuine identification card and uniform there is an obvious danger to the public. Even to the agency itself. Fred If I were the FBI or secret service (or a member of the public) I wouldn't rely on a badge. Waving round a badge, no matter the design, proves nothing - any more than waving round a badge would prove the person or people who ring the bell, have a nice uniform, and want to enter your home, are genuine police officers. FT2 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and change such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which would permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge or identification of the correct design. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] FBI vs. Wikipedia
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Duty of care is a legal term. But I note no-one has been able to refute the argument that we don't know who took the photograph and thus the photograph has not been freely licensed and hence should be deleted. What is needed is a way to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who took this photograph and get them to release the photograph. But there are problems with both these approaches (namely, getting permission to photograph a genuine FBI badge and finding who took this photograph). Carcharoth Yes, but those devastating arguments fail to gain a purchase at Commons:Deletion requests/File:FBI Badge.jpg at least so far. 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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
On 8/9/10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
What is needed is a way
to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it
and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who
took this photograph and get them to release the photograph. But there
are problems with both these approaches (namely, getting permission to
photograph a genuine FBI badge and finding who took this photograph).
Crop this:
http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/badgegun.jpg
From the FBI media gallery: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/photos.htm
I assume {{PD-USGov-FBI}} applies here.
-User:Avicennasis
Explicit permission is given:
FBI Photos
High Resolution Photographs
These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions
are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to
download the high resolution images.
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] FBI vs. Wikipedia
The permission given seems to invite use of the badge and gun image. If permission was improvidently given, it is up to them to withdraw it. Fred Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of whether we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators. Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good educational value image, in preference to a poor and dubious one, if we keep any. FT2 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:02 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.google.com/images?num=100hl=enoe=UTF-8um=1ie=UTF-8q=badge%20site%3Afbi.gov The point, FT2, is that those images should be used, not the one being debated. Delete the current one, upload a new one. Problem solved as far as official images and the photography license are concerned. 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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] FBI vs. Wikipedia
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:20 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of whether we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators. Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good educational value image, in preference to a poor and dubious one, if we keep any. I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do. Carcharoth Yes, a great resource. 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] Destructionism
On 9 August 2010 21:34, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Not at all. The leap from is to ought, however, is fallacious and an important and damaging error. [1] It's the something must be done, this is something, therefore this is a good idea fallacy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem ... except that the something must be done is also questionable. - d. Imperfection is, in fact, an art, an art we need to master, see: http://thesatisfiedlifenetwork.com/templates/System/details.asp?id=31327fetch=31815 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] Destructionism
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. -SC You would need some examples to credibly demonstrate this. 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] Medpedia
Never heard of it, but the medical profession is piling on to it. I doubt anyone that is not a doctor is going to be allowed to edit. Fred Bauder I recently came across this wiki: http://www.medpedia.com/ It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up. Has anyone else come across this wiki before? 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] Medpedia
Here's what happens when you click on suggest changes The edit window opens and this message: Suggesting Changes to Children and Diabetes Type your suggested changes to the Article in the box below and then click the Submit Suggested Changes to save them. The changes will go live on Medpedia when an Editor reviews and approves them. See Help:How to Suggest Changes for more step-by-step instructions. I don't suppose this would be a problem if you made a useful well-sourced suggestion. This would have to be tested. My usual reaction once would have been to not even try, but now, after years on Wikipedia, I've got a good idea of what a useful well-sourced suggestion looks like. Fred Bauder On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I recently came across this wiki: http://www.medpedia.com/ It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up. Has anyone else come across this wiki before? It launched to modest fanfare last year, but I hadn't seen much about it since. It looks like their main focus has been batch imports of content from other sources, including lots of full journal articles automatically quasi-formatted for the wiki. Actual human edits seem to be minimal, though. Compare all edits (dominated by automatic imports) versus mainspace edits (which trickle in slowly): http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=0limit=500title=Special%3ARecentChanges http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=limit=500title=Special%3ARecentChanges -Sage ___ 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] The Web Means the End of Forgetting
This link is to page 3 of a long New York Times Magazine article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html?pagewanted=3 That page, part of a larger article about nasty information on the internet, deals with our problem with subjects whose only verifiable information is some negative incident and the problem of undue weight. It also discusses ReputationDefender which might be interesting should its operatives show up. http://www.reputationdefender.com/ 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Fred Bauder wrote: It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up and you will fail. And can't do anything about it. Fred IOW, Wikipedia isn't a suicide pact? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen Ideally, Wikipedia is a life-long avocation. 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Fred I failed my first try, and could have failed my second if I hadn't made a serious effort to ameliorate a negative perception from taking a stand earlier. The edge of the knife that we must balance on is both being willing to take stands, and be open to feedback from the community and from other admins if we take the wrong stand. Balancing there all the time is very hard. Being willing to admit you're wrong on something and still come back the next day willing and ready to make a hard call on its merits is not easy. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To tie this back to the original post: It is this sort of insight that enables a person to continue to participate and contribute over long periods of time. That sort of insight has been developed by people who have participated in the give and take of making decisions, some of which have worked out, while some have not. So how can we, in a practical way, socialize administrators in the skills involved in continuing to participate effectively in an important project when everything isn't going as you might like. This happens in all large organizations. I keep thinking that stories of our adventures are relevant. That's what happens in other social situations, building the culture of how difficulties are coped with. Stories of successes and disasters; I'm afraid most of that lore has been closely held by insiders and not widely shared in the administrator community, as much of what when on was confidential for one reason or another. We'd like people who get into trouble to work through it and continue to contribute on a long term basis. That is a different path from someone getting into trouble, then we're done with them. 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
The other side of that coin is that when there are systemic problems that necessarily reduce in stress or even abusive treatment of administrators, you ought to be identifying and correcting that. Right now, you have exactly such a situation. Working toward identifying and correcting whatever cultural aspects of Wikipedia community compound rather than relieve the stress and suffering caused to administrators doing their jobs is an important priority not to be crowded out by the thinking that we need to learn to deal with oppressive bureaucracy or a culture of mob justice. With that in mind, there is a diplomatic pitfall to the approach you suggest. In same cases, focusing on helping administrators learn to cope with the pressure inherent to the jobs they've volunteered to do is going to come off patronizing. I certainly heard it that way when people made this kind of suggestion in real-time, because it was another example of someone telling me what *I* needed to be doing differently. I didn't feel like the problem was that I needed to learn to accept that I was being treated badly; it may well have been better for my peace of mind if I had, but that is not a solution that is going to help the project. So from a strategic perspective (retaining human resources) it's perilous, but also it might lead you to develop blind spots to real and solvable problems. You don't want to get into a situation where any time a problem comes up you recall that Stressful situations are inevitable, we need to [take a break and cool down / come back later / apply whatever other therapeutic technique we've prescribed] because then you'll not do what you need to do to fix a serious cultural problem that necessarily gives rise to administrator flame out. My skin was already plenty thick. A lot of the people who have burned out or resigned as a result of this were experienced editors who knew what it was like to be under pressure for making a decision someone didn't like. You can't do everything right, but you can recognize problems and take steps toward addressing them. Helping people learn to cope with stress may be one prong of your attack, but it can't be the only one -- not here. - causa sui Yes, we need to address the problems, not blame the victims and help them cope with nightmares. 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Yes, we need to address the problems, not blame the victims and help them cope with nightmares. Fred What do you propose? Personally, what I'm going to do is participate more on noticeboards. Adapting that to a general solution would involve experienced administrators paying more attention to the give and take on the noticeboards and jumping in more when something seems to be going wrong. 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of the window. Your requirements like most at RFA are selecting for 3 things 1)some degree of editing skill 2)Not appearing to cause trouble 3)A decent set of wikipolitics skill It's two and three that cause the problem. Anyone whith a decent set of wikipolitics skills is going to archive 2 by playing safe going along with the flow and not challenging things. Almost anyone actually passing RFA is going to have got into the habit of going along with the ah bad faith combined with mob justice. The people who might actually try to challenge such things are unlikely to pass RFA because either they lack the wikipolitics skills needed in order to pass (you would tend to fail them under the nor into politicking clause among others) or because they are not prepared to use them in a way that would let them pass. Upshot is that we have for some years now been promoting a bunch of admins who will go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users. The tiny number of rebels and iconoclasts left are from years ago and have little to day to day stuff. -- geni Yes, that does seem to be the main requirement, a successful candidate must never have taken a stand. This for a job that requires taking stands. 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up and you will fail. And can't do anything about it. Fred Admin Rodhullandemu just retired after being blocked for blocking Malleus Fautorum to win a dispute For reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review On and off wiki I have mentioned before that we are really bad, as a project, at identifying people who have worked themselves into an angry corner and feel that they must blow up and leave, and then talking them down and defusing the situation. This is in my experience the typical (or at least, a major and common) exit mode of longtime highly involved contributors. Our existing policy and precedent really don't address this problem. We have had individual admins and experienced editors spot the pattern start and work to calm situations down on an individual basis, with mixed results. But typically the pattern is not really recognized until it's too late. Posed for consideration - This is a problem worth putting more time and effort into, and which the project will benefit significantly from getting right over the long term. The question is - what exactly do we do about it? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@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] Parallel Articles on topics
Yes, articles from diverse points of view would be good. Fred Bauder I have come across topics that are approached differently by different groups and thought that parallel articles might be appropriate in those cases. I'd like a wider view on the topic. Here is where I've discussed it on talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_Versions_of_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David#King_David_in_Judaism ___ 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] Parallel Articles on topics
It pretty simple to manage. You just need to link to all articles on a particular subject from the top of the page. Articles would need to be limited to notable points of view. Fred Bauder You're proposing to overturn the rules against POV forking? Seems like a bad idea to me - the encyclopedia would shatter into an unnavigable mess if every interest group were to split off their own versions of articles. On 6/27/10, Shmuel Weidberg ezra...@gmail.com wrote: I have come across topics that are approached differently by different groups and thought that parallel articles might be appropriate in those cases. I'd like a wider view on the topic. Here is where I've discussed it on talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_Versions_of_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David#King_David_in_Judaism ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Sent from my mobile device Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P â ××××× ×תת××× ×× ×¦×× elipo...@gmail.com http://elipongo.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Parallel Articles on topics
And war to control the content of the NPOV article is not a disastrous idea? Fred Bauder No, it's a disastrous idea; it's inherently antithetic to NPOV. What you'd be doing is creating articles that are deliberately non NPOV. Content FORKS are never, ever desirable. On 27/06/2010, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Yes, articles from diverse points of view would be good. Fred Bauder I have come across topics that are approached differently by different groups and thought that parallel articles might be appropriate in those cases. I'd like a wider view on the topic. Here is where I've discussed it on talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_Versions_of_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David#King_David_in_Judaism ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Parallel Articles on topics
the stuff of peace. William Who dictates the peace terms? 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] Parallel Articles on topics
On 27 June 2010 17:34, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: And war to control the content of the NPOV article is not a disastrous idea? In practice, it's resulted in a site that seems to work. We've done the experiment, as you know. The POV fork site is your own site, Wikinfo. While it's ticking along fine, its notice in the world is negligible. A single article site seems to fulfill people's needs. - d. It's never too late to do better. The experiment is Wikipedia doing it. 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] Citizendium dead?
Charles Matthews wrote: Shrug. Sanger is no Wozniak. He did great things in the early days of WP. Subsequently [...] Anthony wrote: Meanwhile, they (especially Sanger) alienated a number of productive individuals by just not being nice enough. They closed down the mailing list just as it was starting to become heavily used. Note that Sanger's didn't magically become difficult to get along with after he left Wikipedia. He annoyed people in 2001 just as he does now. Wikis have a way of losing history, or at least making it hard to find, but you can find hints of discontent at pages like: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_drop-outs -- Tim Starling Larry is doing a lot better controlling his nasty side on Citizendium than he ever did on Wikipedia; there is a collegial atmosphere, more or less. The problem is with the conception, not with his particular behavior. He has not attracted the highly qualified academics he would have to attract to make it a success. Third rate experts are not significantly better editors than amateurs are. Serious academics are knocking down big bucks and writing books, they don't piddle around on obscure websites. 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] Citizendium dead?
On 23 April 2010 15:54, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Stick to numbers, Charles, the human equation clearly eludes you. translation: I have not even anecdotes to support my position, so will resort to ad-hominem abuse. - d. It is a surprisingly harsh comment; Charles comments seemed on point and interesting. They added to the discussion. 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] Citizendium dead?
But this website's defensive attitude and approach to serious academics is well known. And that attitude goes back to its roots. Marc There was certainly a lot of misunderstanding. You can go back to the early history of the article reality a little article I created March 11, 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Realityoldid=27840 At a certain point Larry will chime in... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Realitydiff=356398oldid=356321 His comment is typical of him in arrogant mode, Start on an actual article on this subject, with further explanation as to why the former article didn't really concern the topic as he removes all prior content and substitutes his view. You see, what he taught sophomores in his Intro to Philosophy class trumps all other content. Note the complete absence of any reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Realityoldid=356398 At least the intro to the current article is not bad. Not an easy subject, but certainly one that concerns material outside the discipline of philosophy. Not long after this he wanted to ban me, but Jimbo vetoed him. 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] Citizendium dead?
Many have stories about their contributions being edited, scrutinized, and finally deleted by persons who haven't the faintest knowledge of the subject. When they protest, they are told of the proper channels they are required to take: circles within circles. Marc A lot of this sort of trouble results when an expert edits without citing good sources. Students often can edit more successfully because they have appropriate references at hand. 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] Citizendium dead?
Interesting phenomenon I have noticed here and there: these experts choosing to work on Wikipedia on an entirely different topic altogether. That is to say, someone quite qualified and competent to write articles on Assyrian archaeology in the way we normally mean when we say expert, but instead writing at some length about eighteenth-century music, on the grounds that Assyrian archaeology is too much like the day job - besides, the articles are a mess, and this other stuff is fun, damnit. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I leave as an exercise to the reader. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk I never had much interesting in editing articles on law; and, after a little experience with a developer, little enthusiasm about arguing about generally accepted legal principles with a half-educated horse's ass. So I argued with a guy with a doctorate. Dumb arguments are maddening. Just how is one supposed to prove which way is up? 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] PR consultants: perhaps Wikipedia is not the ideal promotional medium
That's right. It isn't that we don't want an article and a skilled PR editor ought to be able to write an article the average editor could not tell was written by a PR person. The clue to bad work is lifting stuff from the company's website. And, of course, the complete absence of any negative information, however notorious. Fred A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. In the fields I work in, I have frequently worked with PR staff, and about half of them have proved open to learning a new medium. (The basic instruction I give them is to write a dull an article as possible, remove all possible adjectives, use the minimum number of words, give the name of the company only once, list nobody but the successive CEOs, provide specific sourced numbers about market share, and give no contact information beyond the principal web site.) And when I see a promotional article for a notable company, if I have the time i neither delete nor blank it, but rewrite it according to my just those instructions. And if we had a systematic campaign to provide basic information about all companies that meet our notabiliity requirements, the way we do for populated places, it would greatly diminish the tendency for people to think they needed to write their own article. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: This article makes my week. I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its advantages. SJ On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted. -Durova On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-using-wikipedia-to-promote-clients PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010 Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients. (muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.) - 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 -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ 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] PR consultants: perhaps Wikipedia is not the ideal promotional medium
I think continued monitoring of an article by a skilled PR operative would result in an informative, well-referenced article, which notes, but does not dwell on negative aspects. As noted, such an effort would have to integrated with our usual editing patterns. Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong with it? Fred They may presume that the presence of stuff that hasn't yet been de-pufferied (I made that word up) means that what they write will stay. But the key point is lack of control. If you put something on Wikipedia, you cannot control the content and that is what a lot of people fail to understand. It becomes part of the wiki-editing process, which at its best produces great stuff, and at its worst produces some rather bad stuff. Carcharoth On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: That's right. It isn't that we don't want an article and a skilled PR editor ought to be able to write an article the average editor could not tell was written by a PR person. The clue to bad work is lifting stuff from the company's website. And, of course, the complete absence of any negative information, however notorious. Fred A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. In the fields I work in, I have frequently worked with PR staff, and about half of them have proved open to learning a new medium. (The basic instruction I give them is to write a dull an article as possible, remove all possible adjectives, use the minimum number of words, give the name of the company only once, list nobody but the successive CEOs, provide specific sourced numbers about market share, and give no contact information beyond the principal web site.) And when I see a promotional article for a notable company, if I have the time i neither delete nor blank it, but rewrite it according to my just those instructions. And if we had a systematic campaign to provide basic information about all companies that meet our notabiliity requirements, the way we do for populated places, it would greatly diminish the tendency for people to think they needed to write their own article. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: This article makes my week. I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its advantages. SJ On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted. -Durova On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-using-wikipedia-to-promote-clients PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010 Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients. (muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.) - 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 -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Carcharoth wrote: That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like that, I don't think. Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights. I'm not at all convinced there's an actual problem here. Prospective useful links and references can (and should) go on the talk page. - d. Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a few years ago and it diminishes the utility of Wikipedia as a reference work. 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] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a few years ago and it diminishes the utility of Wikipedia as a reference work. Fred Bauder I don't think there's such a consensus, site wide. I have seen articles where someone OWNs it and there is a local consensus. Keep in mind that we risk ending up with our articles web link farms which is are not maintained in any consistent manner. I support good links, and add them. But there's a downside there too. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com External links and further reading are content like any other content. They require maintenance and sound judgment. What I object to is the meataxe approach to editing with respect to external links and further reading as well as article content. We all understand the problem when it's done with article content. 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] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
There are other things to do short of that. 1. try to change the interpretation of NOT DIRECTORY and the EL policy to permit a section of links with more generous standards. Good faith requires an attempt. 2. try to get a policy for adding a subpage for links to articles That is what they did on Citizendium. Fred 3. run a mirror of the project, with links added, which is easier better than a true fork where the articles diverge. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I think the point is to use editorial judgment with respect to what external links and further reading are worthwhile. My experience is that very good links regularly get axed. And there is little you can do other than to fork the project if you don't like it. Fred Bauder On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Of your three points, I don't really find anything to agree with. Taking the attitide that External links is the name of a Further reading section for reading that happens to be online, what exactly _are_ you arguing? That trawling through the first hundred hits on well-known search engines will always produce those links? That is easy to refute. For many sites of high academic value, precisely no (zero) SEO is done. I can easily think of examples. Very good links can be very hard to find, unless you have a good reason to suspect they are there. High value links should always be provided. Can you provide an reference to a Wikimedian arguing that links to the most useful additional resources shouldn't be provided? I'll gladly go and disagree with them. But I do believe that a list of, say, 50 links tagged onto the end of an article typically has negative value for the following reasons: * Readers will be inundated, no one is likely to follow more than a couple so the very high value links will be lost in the less valuable ones. * Wikipedia editors are unlikely periodically review links in a large collection (supported by the high density of dead links, and the malicious sites I've found in prior scans of our internals links). * Long lists provide plausible denyability for someone attempting to profit by placement, as additions to link soup doesn't look suspect. * Someone looking for a large collection of assorted links on a subject can find a larger and more current list from any of the search providers. Given your style of argument, which is that we should be relying on the utility of commercial entities over which we have no control at all, to help our readers find the further information that we know (because WP does not aim to give complete coverage) they will need, I would say that Fred's worries are amply justified. I bothered making the argument here because I believed that Fred was likely mischaracterizing the nuanced position people have taking in trying to balance the value of additional links vs their cost as a simple war on external links, when no one was likely carrying on any such war: Just because someone has decided on a different benefit trade-off than you doesn't make their activities a war on all X. I wish there were a usable non-commercial search engine. But Wikipedia clearly isn't that. Wikipedia's value is in human editorial review. A search engine's value is in enormous scale automation, machine neutrality (not the google results are neutral, but it is resistant to many kinds of bias which wikipedia is not), and automated updates. Everyone on the internet already has access to high quality search engines. I just don't think that making Wikipedia into a poor search engine at the expensive of diluting the selectivity is a net positive for the reader. ___ 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] Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the yardstick for Wikipedia entries
I guess a Ginsburg is our new standard unit of length. And it has the virtue of potentially evolving. Fred Bauder http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2010/03/29/9986468.aspx -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
And further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the topic. Carcharoth That is why I despise the war on external links and further reading some editors seem to think is appropriate. 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] Google bows to censorship
Google has agreed to take down links to a website that promotes racist views of indigenous Australians. Aboriginal man Steve Hodder-Watt recently discovered the US-based site by searching Aboriginal and Encyclopedia in the search engine. He tried to modify the entry on Encyclopedia Dramatica, a satirical and extremely racist version of Wikipedia, but was blocked from doing so. ... Mr Newhouse said Google agreed to take the link down after he filed an official complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Lo and behold they agreed last night to take down the sites. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/google-agrees-to-take-down-racist-site-20100115-maxd.html I'm so torn. On the one hand, the hypocrisy is blinding - filtering its search results is exactly what Google was doing in China. On the other hand, it's Encyclopedia Dramatica... -- gwern Oh, they're cool; shine it on... 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] Climate change on Wikipedia
We all know William Connolley is an advocate for taking climate change seriously. However there remains a lack of reliable information which negates his position. If there was such information, those of us who follow this issue would have settled his beeswax fast enough. Fred Ken Arromdee wrote: Now has a Slashdot story: http://slashdot.org/submission/1137140/Climategate-spreads-to-Wikipedia Which links to two articles: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx At a minimum this sounds like conflict of interest, and worse if any of these accusations are true (although the article counts are probably misreporting, and I bet they include all articles he deleted and all banned users regardless of associations with climate change). Erm, you wouldn't be jumping to any conclusions here? And misinterpreting what we mean by conflict of interest? Which does not equate to academic involvement in a topic (no longer William's situation, by the way?) Or neglecting quite a substantial history of dispute resolution down the years, which at minimum involves people who actually understand policy looking at actual edits? Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, David Gerard wrote: Indeed. Ken was presumably sent this link by a troll and mistook it for something that actually had any chance of ending up published. Actually, I routinely browse Firehose and didn't realize that I had jumped the gun by sending the link here while it's still in Firehose. I did catch the probable distortion of the deletions and bans, though. But the original messages that the Slashdot article links to do sound a little worrisome, though. There is not a lot we can do about it. Sometimes fanatics are right. Consider the case of Pythagoras: The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle DOES equal the sum of the other two sides. 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] The story of an article
Pete, Thanks for introducing us to the Outreach Wiki. I had never heard of it. I think that particular page might be improved to address the dynamics which surround controversial articles such as Global warming, Stalin, Chiropractic, or Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. This treatment should not be allowed to overwhelm the story of articles like Celilo Falls but should be available both for our internal use and to address concerns of external critics. What articles are cited by scholarly critics as examples of unreliability? Fred When introducing non-Wikipedians to the concept of Wikipedia, I've found many people want to know: *how does an article develop?* I just composed an overview of the development of a GA article I worked on with several others over several years: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_an_article_(Celilo_Falls) And also, started a page on the Outreach wiki to link to such stories. I linked to several time lapse YouTube videos I've seen that do more or less the same. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_an_article Does anybody else have an article they'd like to explore in this way? Or feedback on the Celilo Falls overview? -Pete -- Pete Forsyth Public Outreach Officer Wikimedia Foundation +1 415-839-6885 x636 (office) +1 503-383-9454 (mobile) pfors...@wikimedia.org www.wikimediafoundation.org ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Lesson Plan
Fred Bauder wrote: http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/wikipedia-lesson-plan/ Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211 references, an advance on 0 when that was written. I encountered a group of college students editing a somewhat neglected article I had started, encouraged by a professor who had set groups the task of improving historical pages. The article was better than before, but there were some basic issues with what they did that required a little more than the addition of house style by me. Charles No surprise there; you're an experienced Wikipedia editor, and with lots of additional material to work with, can do much better than a bunch of newbies, however scholarly. 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
[WikiEN-l] FTC Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials
This may apply from time to time to certain of our editors. Fred http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm For Release: 10/05/2009 FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved final revisions to the guidance it gives to advertisers on how to keep their endorsement and testimonial ads in line with the FTC Act. The notice incorporates several changes to the FTCs Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers. The Guides were last updated in 1980. Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as results not typical the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor. The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that material connections (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers connections that consumers would not expect must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other word-of-mouth marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement like any other advertisement is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims. Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media. The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act. The Commission vote approving issuance of the Federal Register notice detailing the changes was 4-0. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTCs Web site as a link to this press release. Copies also are available from the FTCs Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTCs online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTCs Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Examples of pro/paid content at Wikimedia?
2009/9/11 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu wrote: So, on this note, what are some examples of content that was produced for pay at the Wikimedia Foundation? I can think of some archival material, such as the use of some material form the 11th edition of Britannica and images now in Commons. One difference whether the content was added by someone uninvolved in the paid text, who reviewed it and without any reward to themselves felt this is good material to include. or by someone who stood to gain (directly or indirectly) by having the writing added to Wikipedia. I uunderstand there have been a few cases of organisations sponsoring paid content creation for Wikipedia. The key being neutrality. - d. Personnel from the public relations departments of many organizations edit on Wikipedia. Those that engage in clumsy editing are blocked. Those who operate under the radar in a skillful way are free to edit. Optimally, they should identify themselves and their affiliation known, but we have no way of reliably identifying such accounts, unless, of course, they edit in a clumsy biased way. 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 long does it take to delete an hoax article at en.wp?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KPVK-TVaction=history I am amazed about the speed in which an hoax article is kept alive, even after someone has properly identified this to be a hoax from a German TV producer. Mathias Our policy apparently requires an investigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hoax#Dealing_with_hoaxes Unless it is obvious. So it will be deleted immediately only if at least one administrator finds it obvious and is willing to take the heat. 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Fred Bauder wrote: wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in exactly the same way. Any responsible journalist will. That doesn't answer the question. I wasn't asking about journalists of whatever particular type you consider responsible or not, I was specifically asking if the Foundation would censor WikiNews in the same way as has been done to Wikipedia. My point is that if the answer here is yes, the suggestion that Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews isn't going to be useful in this case. Whatever happens at WikiNews should be responsible just as any other media is. If posting something on Wikipedia is harmful, it will be harmful there too. The question is how to make such judgments reasonably well, and not evoke such considerations in inappropriate circumstances. That is what the Foundation does in such cases, they pass information on from outside sources that are knowledgeable about the situation. 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
And even if do no harm really _was_ a universal principle that we all followed, it's still open to debate whether reporting information like this actually does cause harm. Such matters are a question of judgment. Information about potential harm needs to be accurate and common sense applied. To a certain extent this conversation has been about, Common sense, what's common sense?, I don't want no stinking commons sense, I'll work to rule and, if harm results, tough!, Harm to Wikipedia?, Public relations? Piss on 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Fred Bauder wrote: I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it ever does so, because I think he has more chance of getting the message across that this stuff will happen with or without Wikipedia in the world. To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness the North Korea fizzles. That is because we generally do what it takes to avoid doing harm. And that is a good thing. It is simply wrong to do dumb harmful stuff. I think it is far more likely that it's because we just don't _have_ the detailed information that'd be needed to make an atomic bomb work. I'm sure you don't really think that North Korea would go to Wikipedia for that information, though. And anything that detailed would be more suitable for WikiHow or WikiSource anyway. Perhaps a more grounded-in-reality example of an article that has information that causes harm is the [[AACS encryption key controversy]], which contains a cryptographic key that the movie industry claimed was a secret vital to their business that shouldn't be revealed. It's not directly a life or limb thing but economic harm is harm nonetheless. The problem with that one was that it was already all over, although I don't think we should have had it even then. Each of these is different, mainly in how widespread the information is already. 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Would you have us do different? Fred Folks, From the Huffington Post: Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media around the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the kidnapping, and later drew criticism for this from some quarters. It has just happened again -- with my magazine, *Editor Publisher*, among those not writing about it -- in the case of another well-known *New York Times*reporter in Afghanistan, but for a much shorter period of time. Stephen Farrell, with his aide Sultan Munadi, were seized on Saturday and freed just hours ago in a daring raid by British commandos. Munadi and a commando were killed. Farrell is fine. I saw some indications that Farrell had been snatched in my regular Web searches for media scoops over the weekend. As in the case of Rohde, a handful of not prominent blogs, along with very scattered media abroad (in their original language) reported that something was up, but confirmation was slight, given the silence of the *Times* and U.S. military. This went on for two days, as I kept searching -- and finding that, once again, the media apparently were not rushing anything into print or online. Also, as in the case of Rohde, I noticed that Farrell's Wikipedia entry had been scrubbed -- some user kept trying to post the kidnapping and the news kept getting deleted, before the entry was put under protected status and the cat and mouse game stopped. You can see it in the history there along with complaints of this censorship crap occurring again. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/again-media-and-wikipedia_b_280233.html Given the lack of reliable sources, the removal of information on the kidnapping seems justified. His article is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Farrell_(journalist) Regards *Keith* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: Would you have us do different? I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to the OTRS ticket. Such a protection isn't any less subtle that the current practice, I would argue it is more so. We need to do something that is both effective and does not attract attention. Like maybe deleting and protecting the article and redirecting it to the New York Times. And caste it as speedy delete for non-notable subject. 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: Would you have us do different? I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to the OTRS ticket. Such a protection isn't any less subtle that the current practice, I would argue it is more so. We need to do something that is both effective and does not attract attention. Like maybe deleting and protecting the article and redirecting it to the New York Times. And caste it as speedy delete for non-notable subject. Well, posting a plan like that to a publicly archived mailing list is a good start at not attracting attention. Carcharoth Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious. 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
We are supposed to be community-driven. Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? Link please. Will Johnson Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no harm; any problem with 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Once it's all over the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the article. - d. Yes, we simply need not reach. At least not in such instances. 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com: Well what were the sources? Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what. They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance, seems reliable: Iranian press, sourced in a Taliban regional commander. Since when is that a reliable 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Interesting here is what they say about themselves Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis. Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals. Press TV is extensively networked with bureaus located in the world's most strategic cities. ENDQUOTE We're put in the unenviable position of determining whether this is a reliable source. They certainly seem internet-savvy from mousing around their site. Will Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they probably are much more reliable then other media. They did talk to a Taliban regional commander and got the story. I'm sure the CIA took their information seriously. It is a fiction that they are not reliable as it is a fiction that a Taliban commander is a not lot more trustworthy than, say, the President of Afghanistan. However, we need not be so clever as all that. We can play dumb, and should. And users who come upon this information can chose to play along, or not. At some point, a reasonably perceptive person will realize that the information is hot, and inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Fred Bauder wrote: We are supposed to be community-driven. Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? Link please. Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no harm; any problem with that? At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO. The we should conceal information that could potentially harm people argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorschach Wars. I didn't follow that, but I suspect they've been out there for a long time. And using the same blots for decades is absurd anyway. I think there are universal principles that we follow. Failures in one instance or another is to be expected. A pope having a wife and family does not negate the principles of Christianity. 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in exactly the same way. Any responsible journalist will. 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] Well known
For a change, something on English usage. A trawl through some usage books tells me nothing much about most well known, which I'm convinced is a solecism, and should be best-known. The hyphenation I think is standard anyway. Sadly Google believes there are 11,000 instances for most well known on enWP, and I'd prefer none to be in article space. Charles Well, both expressions, both with and without hyphen, seem to be in general use. Now that you've mentioned it, I can't recall which of the four possibilities I habitually use. Right now best known seems best, but I wouldn't waste one second changing a most well known into a best known. 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] Well known
Only in the context of arbitration cases where some horse's ass took a stand. Establishing a global standard is inevitably an ugly process, as in the old saying that compares the crafting of legislation to the making of sausage. However, we can strive to maintain a high standard, high enough that if someone adapts our style, their writing won't seem eccentric or illiterate. Fred Have you ever read any of the more disputatious Manual of Style talk pages? Carcharoth On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I suppose, as in matters of internet deportment, civility, we must also accept the burden of maintaining the standard for English usage, global English usage. It is a grim and dreary business, but I must admit it is our responsibility. Fred Fred Bauder wrote: For a change, something on English usage. A trawl through some usage books tells me nothing much about most well known, which I'm convinced is a solecism, and should be best-known. The hyphenation I think is standard anyway. Sadly Google believes there are 11,000 instances for most well known on enWP, and I'd prefer none to be in article space. Charles Well, both expressions, both with and without hyphen, seem to be in general use. Now that you've mentioned it, I can't recall which of the four possibilities I habitually use. Right now best known seems best, but I wouldn't waste one second changing a most well known into a best known. Ah ... I would. How about much more well known, versus better-known, because our general style tends to understatement? Anyway I have been zapping those. Any such trawl finds other problems to fix. 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] PR firm accused of whitewashing Wikipedia article on Maldives
Regardless of the truth, reliance on reliable published sources should resolve most of these charges and countercharges. That is what we expect of a public relations firm, both that they identify their purpose in editing and cite appropriate sources. Fred Minivan News, an independent article on the Maldives, has published accusations that a PR company whitewashed an article on the Maldives. A data-mining tool called WikiScanner http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ has purportedly revealed PR firm Hill Knowlton deleted a number of statements critical of the former government while they were employed by ex-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. According to the online tool, edits on the Wikipedia entry, *Politics of the Maldives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Maldives*, included the removal of the following*passagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prevoldid=15778660 *: President Gayoom has systematically suppressed any and all political activity in the Maldives. His use of election rigging and imprisonment of political activists have all ensured that he went unchallenged for over 26 years in office. President Gayoom routinely uses torture, propaganda, and censorship as a means to cling on to political power. Independent news media is non-existent. The three running dailies are controlled by cabinet ministers of President Gayoom. The company further moderated language on the absence of political parties in the Maldives, writing instead: The Maldivian political system was based around the election of individuals, rather than the more common system of elections according to party platform. (...) Critics of the former regime allege Hill Knowlton was hired by ex-President Gayooms government to help him improve the countrys image following growing civil unrest and allegations of human rights abuses. But speaking to Minivan News today, Mohamed Hussein Shareef (Mundhu), spokesperson for Gayoom, said the company was recruited in early 2004, not to whitewash the governments activities but to teach officials how to interface with the international media and develop a communications strategy. On the changes made to Wikipedia, he said he did not believe them to be illegitimate due to the questionable authority of the online encyclopedia, which can be edited by anyone. Wikipedia is a point of view or an opinion. The MDP (Maldivian Democratic Party) used to play with the Wikipedia page on Gayoom all the time, he said. Just as someone has the right to call our government a human rights abusing government, as a government we had the right to say, no were not. (More in article) Regards Keith ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Intellipedia article in Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/26/AR2009082603606.html?hpid=sec-tech -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com While some pages are robust and balanced, he added, there are other pages that leave a lot to be desired, to put it bluntly. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
