Re: [WikiEN-l] European History Primary Sources portal launched
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:47 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/6/8 Oskar Sigvardsson : >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:14 PM, David Gerard wrote: > >>> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5748748/ >>> Of course, ideally Wikipedia wants secondary sources. But this will >>> still be of great use. > >> No Poetic Edda. Less stuff than Gutenberg. Lame. > > > It's a start. If it can be improved, then good! I was trying to make a funny (see http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257&tid=107 for reference), apparently not very successfully. I think it looks great! It's like a directory for those obscure university sites that have insane amount of material collected, but that you never can find. --Oskar ___ 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] European History Primary Sources portal launched
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:14 PM, David Gerard wrote: > http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5748748/ > > Of course, ideally Wikipedia wants secondary sources. But this will > still be of great use. No Poetic Edda. Less stuff than Gutenberg. Lame. --Oskar ___ 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] Navify
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > Navify Is An Interface For Viewing Wikipedia With Photo Galleries, Videos > And Comments > > http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/27/navify-is-an-interface-for-viewing-wikipedia-with-photo-galleries-videos-and-comments/ > > http://navify.com/ > > "Navify is a visual encyclopedia that combines Wikipedia articles with > images, videos, and comments." > > http://navify.com/article/the-beatles Doesn't seem to be working all that well. I checked the images on that Beatles article, and a solid half of them was some random girl listening intently to her headphones (presumably to the Beatles, but who knows). Are they just attaching a list of Flickr images with tags that match the article, or what? --Oskar ___ 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] September 11, 2001 coverage
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: > Folks, > > I have had the opportunity to read, and to review, all of the English > Wikipedia articles, materials, and various lists related to the September > 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States; and I want to thank, and to > congratulate, everyone who contributed. Wonderful job! It is an excellent > example of what a truly collaborative community can do. I completely agree. It's a curious paradox that the subjects that are the most controversial, difficult and will-to-live-draining often end up being some of our finest articles. Out of all that vicious discussion and difficult collaboration, often something fairly great emerges. It's just too bad it drives so many of our best editors insane. --Oskar ___ 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] Perfection
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > I must have been away too long, but seriously, guys, what's up with > this style of posting? "Here's my totally cryptic comment, see if you > can figure out what the hell I mean!" > > Do everyone a favour and give people a bit of context. This goes > equally for the "slog rank" post which inspired 10 replies and still > no one knows what the hell you were talking about or where that 8.5% > came from. > > Steve Hear! Hear! --Oskar ___ 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's new search options
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Angela Anuszewski wrote: > Are they looking to make sure they are poised to compete with Wolfram Alpha? In all honesty, I don't think that Google is worried in the least about Wolfram Alpha. I just think they want to improve their product. --Oskar ___ 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] someone after non-active admin accounts
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I would hope RFA is good enough to weed out people stupid enough to > respond to such things... Hey, you wanna hear a really stupid thing *we* could do? The exact same thing! We write emails to a bunch of inactive admins, pretending to be disgruntled wikipedia-haters asking for their accounts, and if they bite, we ban and de-admin them! It would be like a sting! Or entrapment! Or something! We'd be like the Dirty Harry/Lethal Weapon/Archetypal-amoral-movie-cop of the internet! Or not... whatever... --Oskar ___ 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] NYT on history of Encarta
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:59 PM, David Gerard wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/business/03digi.html?_r=1 > > By Randall Stross. He blames Google, not Wikipedia, for Encarta's demise. I completely disagree with him. Being at the top of Google's search results is one of the major things that made Wikipedia as successful as it is. It's entirely plausible to conceive of a world where wikipedia didn't exist and Encarta would be listed as the first hit when you searched for "James Clerk Maxwell", or whatever you were interested in. The reason that they're not is simply because Wikipedia is better. (btw, that's a small insight into my subconcious; I was thinking "pick a random historical person", and came up with "James Clerk Maxwell". Don't know what that's about) --Oskar ___ 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] Notability in Wikipedia
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia *Delete, non-notable, vanity --Oskar ___ 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 morsel of substance, a truckload of nonsense
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM, wrote: > Not the point. > This article is not about the feudal system, not about an example of a > person with a hundred plots of land. It's about one person, their life. Not > their land holdings. > > By the way. I didn't "target a constructive editor". I did not look, and > don't make it a habit to look at *who* edited an article. It's a waste of > time. The article is the thing, not the people behind it. > > This article is poor. Whether it's a good example of the feudal system or > not (and it's not) isn't relevant to whether it's a good example of a > stubby biography (which it's not). > > Will First off all, this is not the place to bring this issue to light. Articles have edit-buttons and talk-pages for a reason. If you feel the article is poorly done, we have plenty of avenues for you to try and do something about it. This mailing-list cannot function if every problem someone has with any article is brought up here. Here is where we discuss general issues concerning wikipedia, not small problems with individual articles. Second, I'm very vary of arguments that go "this information shouldn't be in wikipedia", especially in cases like this where there is no doubt of the factual basis, no problem with sources, the notability of the article in question is firmly established and the information is completely uncontroversial. Why shouldn't it be in the article? Wikipedia is not paper, if we can have an article on every Simpsons episode, why not include this information? It's not an unthinkable scenario to imagine a person wanting to know the land-holdings of this particular earl, and going to wikipedia to find out. Why shouldn't we provide that information? It seems to me you are essentially making a stylistic argument, like "the article looks strange with this list at the bottom". But I don't quite see it. The biography is there, the family and intro is there, and the list doesn't make it any harder to read. If it really did clutter up the article, I suppose you could make a separate "List of landholdings by William de Warenne" and link it, but I think the information works just fine where it is. --Oskar ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:12 PM, wrote: >> And I would like to thank the Phoenicians for inventing the alphabet. >> >> W.J. the Current. > > > I'd like to thank Necessity and her baby-daddy for inventing inventions. I was going to thank the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but this is getting silly. --Oskar ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:45 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Larry isn't on moderation. However, when he's going headlong into > green ink territory, I'm most certainly going to say so. I seriously doubt that you'd be the only one. --Oskar ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> Pot meet kettle. >> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=100448194&oldid=100448185 >> > > And don't forget > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&oldid=100448877 And that right there is why Citizendium will never be as good as wikipedia. --Oskar ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Larry Sanger wrote: > It certainly has changed since I wrote it. > > It looks as if you're trying to imply Wikipedia is not devoted to free > speech, even in discussions about the community--even in discussions about > the roles and public behavior of the most prominent representative of the > community. Perhaps you need to rethink what you're trying to say, David. No, he's exactly right. Wikipedia is not, and it has never been a free speech zone. It has never been a goal of the project to provide people a platform for people to say whatever they want. Wikipedia is absolutely not "devoted to free speech". See, we're an *encyclopedia*, not a public forum. We may let anyone edit, but we're always going to be first and foremost an encyclopedia. Everything else is second to that. If you want free speech, use your blog. You can say whatever you want there. --Oskar ___ 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 Icons
You mean like the icons on this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Portals Don't think there's a "master list", the icons are sorta culled from different places. But one page with a lot of them is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuvola_SVG_icons (check the subcats also) and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_Nuvola_2.0%2B (these are for the Nuvola icons specifically) A good tip is that if you see an icon that you like, open the page for that image (and the Commons page that it links to) and check the categories and links to pages. There you can often find great big lists of icons. --Oskar On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Tris Thomas wrote: > I'm looking for a page I found the other day that has all the WIkipedia > icons that are free to use. Can anyone direct me to them? > > ___ > 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Larry Sanger wrote: > Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, > but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, > transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. This is completely untrue. Both wikipedia and this mailing-list are run by the Wikimedia foundation, a private entity, meaning that they (and, by extension, the moderators and the administrators on wikipedia) can absolutely decide what does or does not go on here. This is a concept you should be very familiar with. On the Citizendium Fundamentals page ( http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Fundamentals ) you find this little nugget of information: "...there will be a process for rapidly removing rulebreakers from the project. While most people will enjoy the privilege of contributing to the Citizendium if they are able to make a positive difference, there is a blanket right neither to contribute nor to participate in the project's governance." As I understand it, you are quite happy to suspend the editing rights of anyone that's causing trouble or causing strife within the community (something I don't have any problem with; it's your project, do what you like). Wikipedia is likewise not a free speech zone, nor is it some sort of grand democratic experiment. Just because anyone can edit initially, it doesn't mean that we have to keep what you say live on our site. Same thing goes for our mailing-list. If you spend even a little time on our site, you'll find that there have literally been hundreds (if not thousands) of extremely destructive trolls who have made exactly the same argument that you are making. "You're restricting my freedom of speech! I'm gonna report you to the Hague!" By acting like this, and using this argument, you're rapidly becoming part of that group. Is that something you desire? Let me ask you, if someone made that argument on CZ, what would you do? I admire both you and Jimmy quite a bit, but on this issue, you're both acting like petulant children. Grow the fuck up. --Oskar ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > If he is telling the truth it seems like a perfectly legitimate request. > Wikipedia obviously cares about the issue enough to have Wikipedia articles > covering the subject and put out press releases mentioning it. If so, then > Wikipedia should care enough to get those correct. This controversy has been going on for a long while now, and I just want to say something to both Jimmy and Larry: Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what happened in the early days of wikipedia, and I don't much care to. You have different versions of the same story, and the constant carping is getting tiring. And wikipedia and wikipedians are getting caught right in the middle. Wikipedia is getting a bad rep because of all this, and many different users are locked in an endless struggle trying to do either Jimmy's or Larry's bidding. We don't need it. This is an issue between *you two*, and every time you start one of your diatribes or Jimmy asks for articles to be changed, it puts us, the community, in an impossible situation. It needs to end. So, on behalf of those who actually write wikipedia, I say: suck it the hell up! Larry, Jimmy readily admits that you where the original Editor-in-Chief of wikipedia, and with helping to form some of the early core policies. Isn't that enough? You've already basically denounced wikipedia in as many ways and places you can think of (not least this thread), why would you even want to be considered one of its chief architects? You've got a whole project to yourself, I suggest you stick to improving that. Jimmy, stop getting involved in the articles that concern yourself, Larry and the history of wikipedia. It's an impossible conflict of interest, not only for you, but for the wikipedians that are loyal to you (who, again, are put in an impossible situation). You know better than anyone that the wikipedia process works beautifully. Trust the process that works for the rest of the encyclopedia, and stay the hell away and let the editors sort it out. I think you have enough insight to realize that you're not neutral on the issue. So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash it out away from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't need it. Rant over. --Oskar ___ 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] NPOV is a big lie
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Bill Carter wrote: > These single article experiences sure seem to crop up often, huh? Anyhow, I'm > talking about many articles involving one subject: journalist Alan Cabal. It still proves absolutely nothing. Lets say this issue had "cropped up", as you say, one thousand times. In terms of the things we talk about on this mailing-list, that would be staggering, we wouldn't be talking about anything else! But wikipedia has around 2.8 million articles. A thousand articles are a lot, but it's only 0.03% of the total. Looking at it from that perspective, 99.97% can achieve some sort of NPOV, which is an absolutely incredible result. My point isn't that 99.97% of wikipedia articles don't have NPOV problems (I have no idea what the number is, but I reckon it's high), my point is that ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Saying "article X has NPOV problems, therefore NPOV is a stupid and unattainable policy" is an absurd argument, and if you argue that way no one is going to take you seriously. --Oskar ___ 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] Jimbo interview
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM, David Gerard wrote: > NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit > the website. Two things which, incidentally, go hand in hand. NPOV would be virtually impossible to achieve without open and public debate about every single damn sentence. --Oskar ___ 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] Jimbo interview
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:05 PM, geni wrote: > If we look at the more successful wikis however the only successful > ones appear to be allowing original research, Some level of POV and > totaly non wikipedia style. TVTropes is probably the best example. I disagree with this. Some of the most successful non-wikipedia wikis I know of are in fact extremely similar to wikipedia. I'm thinking here mainly of pop-culture wikis, like the Battlestar Wiki, Wookiepedia and the Lostpedia. They all borrow heavily from the Wikipedia "style", so they all look just as dry and formal, and they generally have similar policies when it comes to POV and original research. An interesting case study is Lostpedia. Since most of the fun that comes from endlessly discussing Lost is speculating about what the hell is going on and coming up with your own pet theories, you'd expect the wiki to be infested with original research. In fact, it is not. They only allow confirmed canonical information in the articles themselves (i.e. no speculation), and then each article has a sub-page called "Theories" (essentially a discussion page) where people can speculate to their hearts content. But it can't make it into the article. Just for funsies, check out the article on Lostpedia on the DHARMA Initiative and tell me if this doesn't look like a wikipedia article: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/DHARMA_initiative I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works. --Oskar ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM, doc wrote: > Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a > pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? > > This proposal aims (without causing any deletion spree of backlogs) to > instigate the idea that basic sourcing is necessary for any BLP to > remain on wikipedia. People are given time to source it (and can even do > so retrospectively) - but we set time limits on unreferenced BLPs. > > We've currently got 30,000 of these unreferenced things - that needs > sorting (preferably by sourcing rather than deletion) - but stemming the > tide is the first step. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concrete_proposal I'll tell you why I like this proposal: it's very binary, and there's very little room for interpretation. If it's an article on a living person, and it has no sources, then it should be speedied. Very little wiggleroom there. I'm totally pro. --Oskar ___ 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] Earth Deletion Discussion
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of > "we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny. > Meanwhile, everyone else has to follow them." > > (And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an > article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR > and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that > different from other examples that we're supposed to take seriously as being > COI.) Oh, lighten up! People are just having a little fun, no one takes it seriously, and no one is "breaking the rules". People are just having a laugh! It's a small bit of satire at the culture at AfD, and an opportunity for people to make Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (our spiritual ancestor) jokes. --Oskar ___ 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] Firefox extension: Smarter Wikipedia
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Jack Park wrote: > Really quite amazing. I just moused over "Anyone" below and used right > click to go to that topic in wikipedia. Amazing. > Thanks > Jack Firefox can already (sorta) do that, you know. If you have Wikipedia selected as the search engine in the top right search bar, you just select a word (easy to do with a double-click) and select "Search Wikipedia for "whatever"". --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How to ignore wikien-l.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Guettarda wrote: > Or you can dedicate an email account simply to wikien-l, and only check it > once or twice a week, preferably when you only have a few minutes to devote > to reading it. And make sure it's gmail, so that threads are grouped. It's > much easier to ignore a grouped thread, especially when it has accumulated > 40 messages... :) You don't even have to really do that when using Gmail. It's trivial to set up a filter that automatically archives and adds a "wikipedia" label to any email from the mailing list. That way it stays out of your inbox and doesn't clutter up your regular mail, but is readily available if you just click the "Wikipedia" label in your sidebar. --Oskar ___ 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] Ooh, shiny: Wikirank
Very shiny indeed! And look at that, Vi is kicking Emacs' ass! http://wikirank.com/en/Vi,Emacs Apparently no one looks up articles on Unix text-editors on weekends :) (although I imagine that's a wikipedia-wide drop) --Oskar On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote: > Did anyone see? > > http://wikirank.com/en > ___ > 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] Who knows what reusers will come up with?
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:54 PM, David Gerard wrote: > http://greatdance.com/thekineticinterface/2009/03/dance-wikipedia-html/ To quote the great philosopher St. Hubbins, "There's a thin line between stupid and clever". (or was it Tufnel? Probably was) --Oskar ___ 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] xkcd
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Sam Korn wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> Our template code may be Turing-complete, but I don't think it has >> live feed access to the stock markets... > > [[WP:BEANS]] Are you seriously suggesting that if we keep this discussion up, someone might *actually* stand up at a conference and *actually* do this thing? That's completely absurd! Are you going to answer the same thing if I asked "What would happen to wikipedia if someone nuked Florida?". No stop it, don't give 'em any ideas! --Oskar ___ 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] xkcd
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Judson Dunn wrote: > For your comedy pleasure :) > > http://xkcd.com/545/ > > chaos! :) Ahh, but Black-Hat Man hasn't anticipated our response! We'd delete the article on grounds of notability! We'd be the only ones (besides his girlfriend) to ever have bested him! --Oskar ___ 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] Reporting Grawp to Verizon
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:03 AM, brewhaha%40edmc.net wrote: > You can safely assume that all ports, source and destination, are 80. No, you can absolutely not assume that all ports are 80. The destination port is 80, but the source port could be pretty much anything, it gets randomized every new connection (this is a big part of the reason NAT works, for instance). I imagine that it would be hugely helpful for Verizon to have that information, it's much easier to then pick up the right connection from the deluge of wrong connections. --Oskar ___ 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] Jesus edit ninjas (no subject)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:23 AM, David Goodman wrote: > Oskar, I agree with you totally, and was trying to give some context > for why what you said is the case generally with all discussions of > controversial subjects, and of key religious concepts in particular. Ahh, sorry, I see what you're saying :) I suppose I have a habit of misreading people. --Oskar ___ 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] Jesus edit ninjas (no subject)
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:42 PM, David Goodman wrote: > Even people with similar general understanding and the utmost good > will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a > creed, or a lede paragraph. > > In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is > an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now, and > many of the nastier of the debates have involved single words--in one > case, a single letter. As this is what the intellectual and > spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is no reason to expect > anything other than that here, unless we are all too ignorant to know > about the controversies or totally indifferent to the issues. The main > advantage we have over the RW is that it is not possible to spill real > blood over the internet. My point is that in the context of wikipedia, what the lede should say, the issue has been hammered out by megabytes of discussion and revision. It's not like you can walk in there and say "hey guys, you know, the article should really say so-and-so, so I'm just gonna fix it for ya!". There is a reason the articles says what it says. As I said, there's surely been battles about where to put every comma, and the version that is there now represents some form of consensus about how the article should start. You can't go in and change that, and not expect to be reverted. --Oskar ___ 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] (no subject)
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Listen, I'm very sympathetic to your desire to be able to edit >> Wikipedia freely, but this isn't just any article. This is the article >> on *Jesus*. As in, half the world thinks he saved humanity. > > Closer to a third, actually, but you're right, of course. Yeah, that was more of an idiomatic usage, and not strictly a mathematical one. But point taken. --Oskar ___ 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] Jesus edit ninjas (no subject)
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:59 PM, S wrote: > I understand your concern. But your understanding of what happened is not > accurate. The edits in question today - the object of the reverts - was > never dealt with in substance on talk. SLR's response today dealt with the > issue I raised yesterday, namely the issue of Yeshua as Jesus' actual > Hebrew name in life. This issue is certainly debatable, and I give > thoughtful consideration to everything SLR has to say on that subject. But > it was not the subject of the edits I made today. > > The issue today had to do with how the lede paragraph dealt largely with > the concept of Jesus being an "incarnation of God". Not all Christians > agree with this, and in reality this needs qualification, as being a > Nicene Creed concept not a concept belonging to all of Christianity. I > simply clarified this issue. I also separated Islam from the lede to the > second paragraph. As Islam does not regard Jesus as the object of its > religion, it needs separate treatment. > > SLR responded to neither of these issues, and gave no explanation for his > reverts. I don't know why? Did he just assume that I was re-adding the > material we were dealing with yesterday? Reverting without explanation - I > think this kind of action to be ninja behavior, not wikipedian behavior. > > Stevertigo This is an article that has had -- literally -- tens of thousands of edits on it. It has 106 talk-page archives. On the talk-page, I count a full browser-page of templates informing me of the controversial nature of the article (one of which says "Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views. Please review the archives"). And you suppose there's never been a thorough discussion of the divinity of Jesus and his role in Islam? If you choose to edit an article like that in that way, *you're going to get reverted*. That's just how it is. If you want to make a substantive change to the lede, you're going to have to battle it out in the talk-page. You cannot expect people just to listen to your side and be convinced. If you want to make such a change, you have to find consensus among your fellow editors. Maybe work together to get a compromise. Or maybe you'll find that the consensus disagrees with you, and want to keep it the way it is. It's tough cookies, but then you'll have to swallow the edits as they stand. In my (admittedly cursory) overview of the situation, I don't see any improper behaviour. I just see several people editing a high-profile article, and the behaviour that is to be expected when that happens. --Oskar ___ 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] (no subject)
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:11 PM, S wrote: > Long time since I've posted > > I made two edits to the Jesus article. The first dealt with the lede > paragraph, and the second dealt with the etymology section. Leadwind > reverted the edit and left a brief message: (reverted recent edits, lede > should be 4 paragraphs not 5, controversy issue is not cited, see talk). I > explained my edit on the talk. After I waited a while, Leadwind had not > responded, so I restored my version, and considering his comments I > removed paragraph I added on controversy. > > Slrubenstein came along reverted my edits without comment or explanation > on talk. I explained my edit on the talk page and the comment line again > and waited a while for a reply. After a while I decided he was either > somewhere else, in which case I would restore my version and we would deal > with it when he got back, or else he was acting like an edit ninja and I > could disregard him altogether. We were both cautioned about 3RR and the > version stood as I left it - still with no discussion on the present > issues from SLR. SLR commented on a previous issue which we were dealing > with on the talk, but at that point we were dealing with the first issue > of the lede, and on that he still said nothing. Nothing at all to back up > his revert. > > Orangemarlin came along and did the same thing. Instead of no comment at > all, he simply said the issue was NPOV. I waited for an actual explanation > on talk. Nothing, so I restored my version again, telling him that wasn't > good enough just to call something NPOV without discussing it and backing > it up. Fair enough? > > So, in dealing with two edit ninjas, neither of whom gave two cents worth > of reasoning for their reverts, on either comment or talk, other than > NPOV. Now I don't know about you, but I have a problem with people > claiming ownership of articles such that they think they don't have to > deal with the actual content of an edit such as mine. > > I got hit with warnings about "edit warring," and I was blocked. SLR now > claims on AN3 that I am "lying" and conjectures that I "will no doubt > respond to this either by dismissing me, or attacking me, or with some > irrelevant ramble." Indeed. Of course, his explanation is not faithful to > today's chronology, and has nothing to do with his reverts > today, and he instead is dealing with a separate issue. Two separate > issues, and separate edits. He has been responsive on the controversy > issue, but not on the issue of the lede, and his unqualified reverts. > > Now, in the course of yesterdays issues, SLR and I exchanged a few jabs. > He called me a subtle anti-Semite, and I insinuated that he was a peddler > of anti-Christian dogma disguised as scholarship. Other choice words such > as "irrational" have been thrown around. I think I kept my cool for the > most part. > > I happen to really think the edit ninja concept is wonderful; it > identifies a certain kind of editor that we've had on WP all along, (and > now have a name for) without actually resorting to the use of an epithet, > which one might feel quite inclined to do. I have respect for SLR, and > have dealt with him for years. But his apparent responsiveness yesterday > vanished today, and he acted like just another edit ninja. Orangemarlin > followed suit, and likewise offered no substantive reason for asserting > one version over another. He could have just left it alone, as SLR and I > apparently were, as we both recieved 3RR warnings. But he didn't. He, like > other admins like to do stuck his nose in without reason, and without > addressing the substance. > > Am I being a jerk here? ...For assuming that I deserve some kind of actual > response and rationale when someone decides to just undo what Ive done? > Should I just infer that other people know better than I do, and they > should be able to just basically screw with people whenever they want to? > > Stevertigo Listen, I'm very sympathetic to your desire to be able to edit Wikipedia freely, but this isn't just any article. This is the article on *Jesus*. As in, half the world thinks he saved humanity. As in, probably one of the articles that get the most attention from the most committed users, who ruthlessly guards the article. Every single word, sentence and comma probably have fifteen different sources and have been hammered out to conform to some sort of consensus. You can't expect to go in and change the lede of an article like this without discussing it first. It's just not gonna happen! I'm not familiar with the article in question, but from looking at the talk page, the issue you raised had indeed been discussed at length before (according to Slrubenstein, at least). If you want to edit articles like [[Jesus]] (or [[George W. Bush]], or whatever controversial subject you can think of), you have to expect to be frequently reverted, especially if the issue has been dealt with previously. Every single edit that m
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Mirror Question
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM, geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hosting the English wikipedia will get you hammered with a duplicate > content penalty so you tend not to rank very high in search results. > In theory a machine translation of French would avoid that. > > -- > geni >From the Astronomy article: "The astronomy is the Science of the observation of the stars, seeking to explain their origin, them evolution, their properties Physique S and Chimique S." I get the "higher search-results" argument, but I don't see how anyone would ever possibly use this for anything. This is Time-Cube level of internet stupid. --Oskar ___ 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] IWF blacklist
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Presumably Google performs a search of image descriptions and surrounding > texts, and gives results showing where other sites host the images. I don't > think that Google hosts these images itself - but it would be interesting to > see if the IWF would take the enormously public step of blocking access to > Google in order to block access to a particular file. Google takes the image and produces a thumbnail of it, which is what shows in their searches. They do host that. They've even been sued for it. For instance, this is their thumbnail version of the now infamous album cover from our site (regular warning apply, if you don't want to see the image, don't click the link): http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:Amv-tAsRLR7b0M:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg Google definitely hosts these images. --Oskar ___ 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] IWF backing down?
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I support that - blocking child porn on the internet is a good > thing. What I'd like to see is a little more oversight in the system > and them notifying blockees (they'll probably say they can't do that > because the child porn people would then know to move their site, and > there is a point there, but I don't see a workable alternative - > they'll just have to work harder to find out where they've moved to). Well, everyone agrees that child porn is evil and should be combated (well, not everyone, but those who don't are fucked up), but their method is a spectacularly bad way of doing it. It's good that because of the wikipedia block there's a debate about the IWF. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Cormac Lawler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just get silence on that link - anyone else having problems, or know of a > link that works? > > (Missed it live - gah!) > > Cormac The link works for me, but it is rather low quality. You can also hear it here (at the bottom of the page): http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
Also, check out this Boing Boing post about how now everyone in the UK visiting Wikipedia is now potentially tracked by a third-party server: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward > to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]]) Very nice! I liked the "The FBI told them to go away"-line :) I might be biased, but I certainly came away with the impression that the IWF had screwed up. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Durova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > English Wikipedia strictures on nonfree image use would reduce the number of > acceptable images to a minimum. Unless this is a fair application of IAR, > it would be more effective for David Gerard to have a *large* number of > photos of volunteer editors from around the globe, proudly demonstrating > that the site's article is no worse than an ordinary music store. > > Personally I think the album cover is tasteless. But in the eternal > struggle between bad taste and hypocisy, I usually find bad taste less > offensive. I think most people here agrees with you on that. The cover is tasteless (and repulsive, even), but that doesn't mean it should be censored. A big chunk of the world thought the Muhammad cartoons were tasteless, but we have those up. It's like that Voltaire-quote. You know which one I'm talking about (I'm not gonna actually say it, because only douchebags actually say it). --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward >> to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]]) >> > > http://toolserver.org/~str4nd/virgin-killer-chart.png > > [[Streisand effect]] ? Maybe I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but me, I prefer a [[Herostratus]] reference over a Streisand one. --Oskar ___ 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 Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:46 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe this one has been debated before and was considered to be > covered in the nest of disclaimers linked from the general disclaimer. > > > - d. There's really two arguments here, a legal argument and a moral one. Legally, the talmudic list of general disclaimers (which no sane person reads) probably covers us, but is that enough? Should we stop there? The moral argument says that we should make sure that people don't rely on only our information when it comes to serious decisions with serious consequences. I don't think it would be a bad thing at all if at the dosage section of an article on drugs we say "Consult your physician before taking medication" or on the article on nitroglycerin, have a small little disclaimer in the "Manufacturing" section saying "It is extremely dangerous to try this yourself if you are not a trained chemist". --Oskar ___ 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 definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to dispute > on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather > projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant. This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you write about how there's different views by different people. You write that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put in what people are saying! Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous. But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation to inform the readers about what is happening. The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we* shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on, and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking. --Oskar ___ 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 definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Fred Bauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So how should we treat this from the Fianancial Times: > > Merrill chief sees severe global slowdown > > By Greg Farrell in New York > > Published: November 11 2008 14:42 | Last updated: November 11 2008 20:06 > > The global economy is entering a slowdown of epic proportions comparable > with the period after the 1929 crash, John Thain, chairman and chief > executive of Merrill Lynch, warned on Tuesday. > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/834ebf5e-aff9-11dd-a795-779fd18c.html > > What is true is not necessarily the underlying projection but the fact > that presumably expert people are saying these things. > > Fred Exactly. I see no reason for wikipedia not to say "The total scale of this crisis is as of yet uncertain, but several economists are projecting [whatever]", with references. Saying this isn't trying to predict the outcome, which wikipedia shouldn't be doing, it's just simply reporting what people are saying about the crisis. It provides neutral and relevant information. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
