Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins
> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 20:04:43 -0400 > From: Gwern Branwen > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins > To: English Wikipedia > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:34 PM, David Goodman > wrote: > > Are you saying that a _declining_ number of administrators means a > > _growth_ in bureaucracy? ?It would normally mean the opposite, either > > a loss of control, or that the ordinary members were taking the > > function upon themselves. ?What I see is a greater degree of control > > and uniformity, not driven by those in formal positions of authority. > > If you assume that administrators are identical to the bureaucracy or > some non-shrinking proportion thereof, then that does look like a > falsehood. > > If you assume that administrators reflect rather the number of > committed long-term contributors, and their numbers wax and wane > pretty independently of the need for administrators, then that makes > sense. Little kills enthusiasm and participation as surely as > bureaucracy. Why are so few even trying for adminship? > My guess is that it's because the bureaucracy has become too intimidating. I suspect many editors do not want to commit the time and effort to learning it all. ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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?
> > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:16:48 +0100 > From: Carcharoth > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher >Ed: DoesWikipedia Suck? > To: English Wikipedia > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs > wrote: > > > > > ?I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend > their > > additions to an article when disputes arise. ?That's a pretty standard > > expectation in any collaborative environment. ?There's no lack of > assumption > > of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have > reason > > to believe it is not beneficial to the article. > > But what if the editors can't agree on whether the link benefits the > article? > > To get specific, I found a resource and was getting ready to add links > to lots of articles, but pulled back after others didn't seem as > excited as me about the resource: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_24#British-Path.C3.A9_news_clips_archive > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_2#British-Path.C3.A9_news_clips_archive > > It now has 359 links: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=250&offset=250&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britishpathe.com > > Back in January, there were 130 links (you will have to take my word > for that, as posted in that discussion, as I didn't take a > screenshot). So it seems the use of such links (to archived news reel > clips) can spread without too much pushback or people worrying about > spamming. > > But if someone had added 200 links in just a few days, that would have > worried some people. > > Should they have been worried? > > Carcharoth > When a high volume of links to one place are inserted, I can understand why some people would tend to take a close look: spammers are a major annoyance. However, a spammer is usually not going to be able to make a solid argument for why those links belong, and it will quickly become apparent if the link offers little in the way of benefit to the articles. The slightly panicky anti-spam response seems to be more of a problem with poor judgment, and not easily addressed through rule changes. Sxeptomaniac > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:57:25 +0100 > From: Charles Matthews > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher >Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? > To: English Wikipedia > > > Matt Jacobs wrote: > > I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend > their > > additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard > > expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of > assumption > > of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have > reason > > to believe it is not beneficial to the article. > > > But if they remove it from a generally anti-spam ideological point of > view, or on the grounds of "conflict of interest", then there is such a > problem of good faith being disregarded. Quiddity has now gone into this > in greater detail, and WP:EL is _very clearly_ drafted from an anti-spam > perspective. > > Charles WP:COI is the most-abused of all the guideline/policy pages on WP, in my opinion. It should never, ever be used to win a content disagreement, yet it frequently is. Spam is a problem when the links are misleading, not directly relevant, duplicate more well-known or less commercialized sites, direct to very unreliable sources, etc. However, if an editor can't argue why the link is not useful, then they shouldn't be labeling it spam/COI. Perhaps WP:EL could stand to be edited, but I consider it more a matter of poor judgment than anything else. Sxeptomaniac ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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?
> > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:33:36 +0100 > From: Charles Matthews > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher >Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? > To: English Wikipedia > > Matt Jacobs wrote: > >> Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically > >> persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few > >> actual rights. > >> > >> Charles > >> > >> > > > > And why should links have any particular "rights"? External links should > be > > justified in the same way as any addition to the article. They may not > > require the same verifiability standards, but they should be judged to be > a > > recommended place for further reading. In some way or another, they > should > > add content the editors judge to be useful, and not simply be about the > > subject. Considering that for every good link I've seen inserted, I've > also > > seen one that was useless or even misleading or libelous, why would they > > need any special protection? > > > The point would be no different from (say) unreferenced content: there > the distinction between "may be removed" and "must be removed" is quite > important. And there is the "right", not of the link but the editor > adding it, to have "good faith assumed": other things being equal, > assume that the link was added to help develop the encyclopedia. The > onus is not always on the editor adding to an article to "justify" > additions: that is a very unwiki-like attitude, if I may say so. > > I see no reason why we need additional policy and bureaucracy > specifically > > for links. > > > > > For one thing, the page WP:EL is very bureaucratic as it stands; the > good part of it is the "maintenance and review" section, where templates > for tagging links regarded as potential problems are mentioned. > > Also, this discussion thread reveals fairly clearly that there are > differing views on the matter. > > Charles > I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of assumption of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have reason to believe it is not beneficial to the article. Sxeptomaniac ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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?
> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:49:26 +0100 > From: Charles Matthews > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher >Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? > To: English Wikipedia > > > 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. > > Charles > And why should links have any particular "rights"? External links should be justified in the same way as any addition to the article. They may not require the same verifiability standards, but they should be judged to be a recommended place for further reading. In some way or another, they should add content the editors judge to be useful, and not simply be about the subject. Considering that for every good link I've seen inserted, I've also seen one that was useless or even misleading or libelous, why would they need any special protection? I see no reason why we need additional policy and bureaucracy specifically for links. Sxeptomaniac ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 74, Issue 64
> > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:47:57 -0500 > From: Emily Monroe > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting > To: English Wikipedia > > > > Editors/admins who are regularly rude to others are not only > > tolerated by most of the community, they often have a group of > > supporters around them always ready to praise everything they do, > > manipulating RfCs and other voting (sorry, !voting) situations. > > Do you think that civility blocks and bans pre-arbcom will help the > situation at all? > > > If we want to make WP more friendly, we have to make sure admins and > > high-profile editors are actually trying to BE friendly. If they > > can't handle that, they shouldn't be working in a collaborative > > environment. > > Exactly the reason why I support civility blocks. > > Emily > > I do agree that they need to be applied, but I also think that civility expectations need to be higher for admins, followed by long-term editors. These people 1) should know better, and 2) are often newbies' first experience with WP. Otherwise, I can see Civility being gamed by groups of editors in content disputes. My own experience was that a number of editors accused me of making personal attacks for calling out a boldfaced lie made by an admin(!) attempting to undermine my credibility in a dispute. I think a first step would be for arbcom to start desysopping admins who are uncivil on a regular basis. This would help remove some of the leniency problems, IMO. > Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:50:58 +0100 > From: Charles Matthews > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting > To: English Wikipedia > > Ray Saintonge wrote: > > > > This is not unlike schoolyard bullies who are usually accompanied by a > > swarm of sycophants. > > > It is certainly true that our systems are at their worst when confronted > with cynicism within the community. Not surprising, since the essential > and founding assumptions of Wikipedia were that people are not like > that. And most really aren't. But this remains an unsolved problem. To > connect it directly with newbie-biting is a stretch, if not an > impossible one: there is something in the idea that people on the site > are assertive beyond the needs of the job because a confident manner is > self-preservation. > > Charles > I would disagree that the connection is a stretch, as my experience is that it was directly related. The editors watched certain articles and would attack incoming editors who even suggested a change they didn't like. Attempting to address the attack on any noticeboards would bring choruses of "it's not an attack," "it was justified," or further attacks on the editor using misleading diffs. One of the group was eventually desysopped for abusing the tools, but the time and level of drama involved was way disproportionate to the clear-cut nature of the case. In most cases the few censures the group of editors received were ignored among the attaboys from the usual crowd. Sxeptomaniac ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
Having been bitten multiple times, I can definitely say the unfriendly atmosphere has been a problem for a while now. Editors/admins who are regularly rude to others are not only tolerated by most of the community, they often have a group of supporters around them always ready to praise everything they do, manipulating RfCs and other voting (sorry, !voting) situations. A newbie running afoul of these people rarely even gets token sympathy if they try to get the problem addressed. The handful of editors who try to address these situations have to wade through multiple attacks and allegations just to try and do the right thing. If we want to make WP more friendly, we have to make sure admins and high-profile editors are actually trying to BE friendly. If they can't handle that, they shouldn't be working in a collaborative environment. In addition, I believe that templates are 1) often not worded in a friendly manner, and 2) overused. Using a template when there isn't a very good reason to is going to often be perceived as rude, especially if an article they've worked hard on has just been speedy deleted. If WP is going to continue to gain editors, it has to do better. Sxeptomaniac > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:36:24 -0400 > From: Sage Ross > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting > To: English Wikipedia > > This isn't a new issue by any means, but here's a nice post by someone > who's been contributing occasionally since 2004, about how daunting > "wikibullying" can be for newbies and other editors who aren't > well-versed in the procedures and processes. > > > http://travel-industry.uptake.com/blog/2009/09/04/bullypedia-a-wikipedian-whos-tired-of-getting-beat-up/ > > Unfriendliness is built into the system, even when admins and others > who enforce the rules are perfectly civil and try to be friendly at an > individual level. > > -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
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression
> > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:52:14 EDT > From: wjhon...@aol.com > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs > To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org, WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's > reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation > given for why? > > You failed to read the article earlier. Al Jazeera also did not report the event until he was safe. You are frequently making assumptions as to motives and supposed double standards without giving any particular reasoning as to why the assumptions are valid. It has severely undermined any argument you are attempting to make. It also doesn't really matter if WP and the news outlets have been consistent or not, as it was the right decision to make in this case. I can't say I've always been consistent, but it doesn't necessarily make me a hypocrite when I do manage to make right choices. > > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:07:59 EDT > From: wjhon...@aol.com > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies >are not RSs) > To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > apoc2...@gmail.com writes: > > > > The reason to suppress the news > > of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to > > protect Rohde.>> > > > > --- > > Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable > way. > I disagree. WP would certainly be harmed if it was the only major media organization to disseminate information the rest kept quiet, and worse if he had died, whether or not if it could be traced to WP's actions. We would have been the assholes more interested in our own overinflated egos than a man's life, and it would probably be the worst scandal yet, undermining the site's credibility (further). Sometimes improving WP means looking a little farther than the few inches/centimeters to our computer screens. It means recognizing that life, particularly human life, is more important than a stupid collection of ones and zeros on servers somewhere. WP hasn't always made good choices, but I'm glad it happened this time. Sxeptomaniac ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
There's a second challenge, in that we don't want to confirm information we are avoiding releasing by replying with, "Shhh. This is being kept quiet." As I'm sure most here realize, various idiots will then spread such a response all over Digg and various blogs, therefore defeating the original purpose. If they use a unique or unusual response, it's not going to work as well as just saying the source is unreliable. Stating that the source was unreliable was actually probably the most effective route. I dislike the fact that this was very top-down and the response was misleading, but would OTRS really have been more effective? Sxeptomaniac Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:04 -0700 > From: Durova > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs > To: English Wikipedia > > Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon > the slippery slope of censorship. > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard >wrote: > > > On 30/06/2009, Durova wrote: > > > Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that > > > causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely, > > when > > > a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be > more > > > careful rather than less careful > > > > Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs > > to be codified. > > > > Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly > > endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may > > be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's > > a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the > > wikipedia. > > > > > -Durova > > > > -- > > -Ian Woollard > > > > "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually." > > > > ___ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > > -- > http://durova.blogspot.com/ > > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 74
> > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:03:33 +0100 > From: Sam Blacketer > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs > To: English Wikipedia > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni wrote: > > > 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen : > > > ?We were really helped by the fact that it hadn?t appeared in a place > > > we would regard as a reliable source,? he said. ?I would have had a > > > really hard time with it if it had.?" > > > ... > > > > The question is though is is > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a > > reliable source? > > > What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian > Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. > > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And > that > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news > agencies were reliable. > > -- > Sam Blacketer > Thank god common sense won out over the egotism of those who insist they must know everything as soon as it happens, and also to tell everyone in every forum possible. It would be utterly absurd to even take the self-centered whining regarding censorship seriously. Waiting several months for the conclusion of the incident in no way harmed WP. It really doesn't matter what policy administrators used to keep it quiet, or even if they abused the rules. The information had a very real probability of affecting whether a man lived or died, so that takes obvious precedence over internal rules on an online website. Sxeptomaniac ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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's our coverage of medications?
On one hand, it would be pretty stupid for a person to rely on WP for drug interaction information, but it also might be wise for us to institute some kind of disclaimer at the top of pages related to drugs (over-the-counter as well as prescription). Matt > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:16:46 + > From: "David Gerard" > Subject: [WikiEN-l] How's our coverage of medications? > To: "English Wikipedia" > > http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINTRE4AN7BO20081124 > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
