Re: [WikiEN-l] Lobbyists and Wikipedia (again)
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Tom Morris wrote: > > This sounds like a splendid idea. Perhaps we could supplement it by > informing criminals that they can avoid a life of crime by getting an > education and a job, or maybe we could tell politicians to tell the > truth. Or maybe News of the World journalists could be informed of the > many story-gathering opportunities that don't involve hacking into > people's voicemail systems. > I don't know, but do any of the examples you cite involve the use of Wikipedia, you know that website where they assume good faith? -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Lobbyists and Wikipedia (again)
There's an interesting story leading in the British newspaper the Independent this morning based on an undercover sting of lobbyists Bell Pottinger: "Discussing techniques for managing reputations online, Mr Wilson mentioned a team that could 'sort' Wikipedia. "'We've got all sorts of dark arts,' added Mr Collins. 'I told him [David Wilson] he couldn't put them in the written presentation because it's embarrassing if it gets out.'" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/caught-on-camera-top-lobbyists-boasting-how-they-influence-the-pm-6272760.html There might be some editors who want to start an immediate investigation to search for the members of this 'team' but I think that would probably be a waste of time which would put suspicion on a large number of innocent editors. It's always possible Bell Pottinger were boasting. What might be better is to stress that any lobbyist seeking to use 'dark arts' to correct inaccurate or unfair Wikipedia articles, or to add properly sourced positive information, is best advised to use OTRS and to provide sources. It seems to me that current policy and guideline pages are much heavier on telling people what not to do and threatening dire consequences, than they are on helping people to help us. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Rating the English wikipedia
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: > > There is a project (even longer-running and slower-burning than the > ODNB) to construct a reference work covering all MPs, at least as much > as they're known, along with various other bits and pieces: > > http://www.histparl.ac.uk/about.html > Or try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Parliament for some explanation of its history. > In the past sixty years, they've managed to cover a little over half > the timeframe in twenty-eight (!) volumes. I have never seen their > work, I admit, but I'd be intrigued to... > I have the CD-Rom containing the volumes published up to 1998 and 12 volumes published since then are on a shelf just above the computer. They are very interesting studies, delving very deep into manuscript sources and using as their sources letters between various senior politicians preserved in the archives. They concentrate only on the subjects' Parliamentary and political activities, so for example the only mention of the diary of Samuel Pepys (MP for Castle Rising 1673-79, Harwich 1679 and 1685-88) is that Pepys stopped writing it before he became an MP. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Hello world! (was "Hello world?")
I have to report that I always believed the confusion over Jimmy Wales' birthdate to be a covert and ingenious attempt to demonstrate to the community the need to use the facts given in reliable sources, and not to prefer what might be honestly expressed views but which are not supported by reliable sources. Perhaps I may have too conspiratorial a mind. Nevertheless, there are similar disputes for other articles. See the biography of the great playwright Sir Terence Rattigan for a case where the date of birth is also in dispute to the tune of one day, and where reliable sources are in disagreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Rattigan I had to deal with a case where the dispute was over a year, where it is possible to guess at which date is the more likely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emlyn_Garner_Evans -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] New articles from the third world
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:50 AM, WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequ...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > And most of the time I think they are being treated OK by the > > deletionists. Though I did see one speedy tag where I wondered if the > > tagger would have tagged as non notable a nature reserve of over > > 10,000 ha in North America or Western Europe. > > Do we need affirmative action in favour of articles about Africa? > No because we already have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias What we do need is more of an understanding by AfD participants and by admins processing speedy candidates that African topics are far less likely to have sources immediately apparent on a simple search of Google. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BENDELfor an example (not to single out its nominator, but it is a good example). This is a former state of Nigeria which had a population of several million. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] BLP task force meeting
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Giacomo M-Z wrote: > > > Having to have secret little chats because you can't have it all your own > way on wikipedia. It's not secret. Anyone can come and the log of the last meeting is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/BLP_Task_Force/Meeting_agenda/Minutes I imagine the log of the more recent meeting will appear on meta soon. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] BLP task force meeting
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Giacomo M-Z wrote: > If there is going to be an IRC meeting concerning Wikipedia, are the logs > of it going to onto the mailing list and to be published on Wikipedia? If > not - why not? > I don't see what's wrong with posting the logs on the BLPTF pages on meta. The log for a previous meeting was already circulated on the BLPTF mailing list and the mailing list is going to be made public at the conclusion of the taskforce. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] BLP task force meeting
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Giacomo M-Z wrote: > Troling? what is trolling about pointing out that IRC is not the place to > be > dicusisng Wikipedia policy affairs? Secondly, it may be free now (I have no > idea), but it certainly was not in the past - £15 was the figure at one > time. No, IRC has never cost anything. If your ISP was charging to use IRC then they were ripping people off and anyway you can get on IRC using the Java interface if you have web access. As a member of the BLP Task Force I'd be delighted to receive suggestions in any way. Having an IRC meeting is just one way in which to discuss issues but it's helpful to have a real time chat. (What's not helpful is having one at 2 AM; no-one's going to be able to make every time suggested but perhaps we could have another in European daytime) -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Observer WP airbrushing story implicates House of Commons IP
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Charles Matthews > wrote: > > And when later sthe tory says "The changes – designed to portray > > [Edward] McMillan-Scott as a europhile – were made from a computer with > > an internet IP address named "Strasburg" ", what do they mean? They mean > > there was an account named "Strasburg", would be the simple > > interpretation. (And this might be another subediting gremlin.) There is > > an implied link between the two editors, but "we couldn't possibly > > comment", I guess. > > Obviously they mean User:Strasburg, as he has 5 edits to [[Michał > Kamiński]]. > But note also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/136.173.162.144 which is registered to the European Parliament in Luxembourg and has a lot of contributions to articles on current British MEPs - including blanking sections of Edward McMillan-Scott's biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_McMillan-Scott&diff=prev&oldid=302006604 -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Another warning that reliable sources are not always that reliable
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/starsuckers-tabloids-hoax-celebrities I haven't yet checked how many of the bogus stories mentioned have found their way into the subjects' BLP articles. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Reliable sources for deaths
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM, David Gerard wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Wylie > > My source for the death is a tweet. > > It is a tweet from the official Bletchley Park feed, so I think it's > reliable enough ... but I've asked them for more, and a photo if they > can :-) > > Remember: "reliable sources" is a guideline and requires the > application of good sense. > Indeed. I would think that twitter feeds can be reliable under the same approach as for blogs - if the blog is an official source of information by a media outlet, or other institution which is reliable, it is a reliable source. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > > If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you > truly restored it? Or have you created something new? > For that matter, what about the restoration of the Dresdner Frauenkirche? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresdner_Frauenkirche -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker wrote: > While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in > the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either. There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same position but it is close enough. * Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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
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 ___ 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] Ramifications to wikipedians of unmasking of police blogger?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Sam Blacketer wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Bain wrote: > >> >> My first impression is that this seems to be consistent with current >> UK "privacy" (ie, expanded breach of confidence) jurisprudence, though >> I haven't read the whole case yet. Does anyone know where a copy of >> the decision might be available? Looks like it will be another >> important case in this developing area. >> > > Best place for current UK court judgments is BAILII: > http://www.bailii.org/ > > Not everything gets there but high-profile cases in the higher courts > normally do. > Update: It's there already: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1358.html -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Ramifications to wikipedians of unmasking of police blogger?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Bain wrote: > > My first impression is that this seems to be consistent with current > UK "privacy" (ie, expanded breach of confidence) jurisprudence, though > I haven't read the whole case yet. Does anyone know where a copy of > the decision might be available? Looks like it will be another > important case in this developing area. > Best place for current UK court judgments is BAILII: http://www.bailii.org/ Not everything gets there but high-profile cases in the higher courts normally do. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Ramifications to wikipedians of unmasking of police blogger?
Whatever one thinks of the decision by The Times to run a story about him, it is plainly right that he should not have been able to maintain his anonymity through the courts. It would have been very surprising if the court had found otherwise. Attempting to find the real person behind a literary pseudonym has a long heritage; one of the stories that Hitler Diaries journalist Gerd Heidemann worked on for Stern magazine was about the identity of famed and mysterious German thriller writer B. Traven, for instance. The real identity of 'Simon Haxey', who wrote one very well-informed book about the internal workings of the Conservative Party in the late 1930s, is still unknown. As Oscar Wilde wrote, if one tells the truth, one is sure sooner or later to be found out. Take it from one who knows. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > > With vandalism, I think there is a duty of care to check the recent > history and go back to the last version before the vandalism started. > Sometimes you have to stop and look quite carefully, but if you don't, > who else will? > I agree. Quite often vandals will come in and keep making vandal edits until they are stopped. It only needs some other user to make a routine edit in the middle for the reverter to miss the earlier edits, which might mean that the article will be left with vandalism that appears to have been accepted as valid. It's always worth investigating the history, and also whether the account or IP has vandalised anything else, when doing a vandal revert. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Politician praises Wikipedia
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Sam Korn wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:45 PM, James Farrar > wrote: > > Well, in relative terms, anyway: > > > > > http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/04/The_age_of_austerity_speech_to_the_2009_Spring_Forum.aspx > > > > http://tinyurl.com/dxdujw > > > > "Our government spends nearly £400 million a year on advertising to > > reach sixty million people while Wikipedia, one of the largest > > websites in the world, spends about one per cent of that to reach 280 > > million people." > > > > Not sure if his figures are accurate, but it's intriguing. > > Does this mean the Tories will be composing their next manifesto by > wiki? If so, is David Cameron founder or co-founder? > It shows some confidence that he should mention wikipedia, given the problems over the Titian edits not so long ago. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Edward Doran
On 4/23/09, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > In the 1901 England Census, there are four Edward Doran's born between 1884 > and 1894 inclusive, who state that they were born in Lancashire. If we > could know the names of his parents, in his Wikipedia article (I did not > see > them listed) then we could pin it down to a single entry. > > None of them state they were born in Failsworth > Rather the placenames stated, in Lancashire, for these four boys were > > Rochdale, Barrow, Oldham, Newton Heath Failsworth is not a registration district in its own right; it would be part of Oldham. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of l...
On 4/23/09, Andrew Turvey wrote: > > What do we do about well-sourced information which turns out to be > incorrect? I don't think policies cover this area particularly well, but the > commonsense view is to word it something along the lines of: > > "A national newspaper in 2007 reported that celebrity x had been arrested > for taking drugs ; however this was later shown to be untrue > " > > If it's not that important you can always include the details in a > footnote: > > "Joe Blow (b. 15.1.74) Note the New York Times stated he was born on > January 14 - (ref). However, this source shows the actual date to be 14 Jan > > > The added advantage is it means editors don't add the incorrect information > in again at a later date. This is what I've done on a few occasions when it's obvious that one source has got it wrong - see the footnote relating to the birthdate of Emlyn Garner Evans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emlyn_Garner_Evans. However there are always some where it is impossible to tell which of the conflicting sources has got it right; see Edward Doran for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Doran. ___ 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] Green Ink Day (stick to Alan Cabal)
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bill Carter wrote: > NOTE: The deletion review was actually held on March 30th to April 4th or > 5th. You made an error. Furthermore, it was speedy deleted. You CANNOT > speedy delete an article with 40 fucking references. This is scandalous. > It is not really reasonable to say the article was speedily deleted. The third AfD debate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(3rd_nomination)) ran for the full time, and ended in a clear delete consensus. The article was then created again, which made a clear case of speedy deletion under criterion G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). Only after this was noticed and the article deleted under G4 was the AfD close taken to deletion review. During this debate the article history was restored so that non-admins could see the article. A further full time debate was held. There was no consensus to overturn the close, so when the deletion review ended the history was again deleted. Deletion debates do not always come to the right decision, but when they don't, it is a mistake and not a scandal. The reason for the article being nominated for deletion was lack of notability, and not lack of references. The problem with the references is, I suspect, that too few of them are in the sort of mainstream publications which would make a clear case of notability. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Interesting remark in Guardian blog
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/16/internet-copyright-lawcaught my eye because of its rather alarming headline. However it's about copyright law; the headline refers to this paragraph: In a second thought experiment, imagine that it's five years ago and you are responsible for developing the most comprehensive and up-to-the-minute encyclopedia the world has ever seen. One strategy is to create a global company, employ the brightest people available, check every fact produced, and implement the most rigorous editorial controls. A second option is to "just create a website and let anybody put up anything". Again, we'd mostly have opted for the first strategy, and the world wouldn't have Wikipedia<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/10/wikipedia.internet> . I might quibble with the description "let anybody put up anything" but the author makes an interesting point. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC article on vandalism
On 3/6/09, K. Peachey wrote: > > > Yes, but why *that* picture of Jimmy? > > I would say that BBC gets all their photos though Getty Images, and > thats just the image that they had on file when BBC first wanted one > so that became their file photo for jimbo and has never updated it. > BBC News online has always preferred to use wierd/odd pictures to ordinary looking ones. If it's someone for whom there are a lot of images, they will always use the one taken mid-grimace, or when they were wearing a silly hat, or when someone in a gorilla suit was behind them. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] History started in 1995
On 3/4/09, David Gerard wrote:
>
>
> (I've been *really annoyed* lately when a fact in an article has a
> reference ... but it's been tagged {{fact}} because it doesn't have an
> *online* reference. Suggestion: searching for all articles with
> "{{fact" in them and sending 50,000 volts through the chair of
> anyone who tagged a reference on mere paper.
I've seen that in editing disputes - where one side insists that the other
side's reference isn't actually verifiable because it's not online so they
can't verify it. Feel like pointing out we did actually use to be able to
check things out before the internet happened you know. However I suspect
most of these are fairly tendentious, along the lines of people who tag
articles as unreferenced because they don't have inline references but do
have a list of books from which all the facts in the article were taken.
--
Sam Blacketer
___
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 short article is not a stub."
On 2/23/09, Carcharoth wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Charles Matthews > wrote: > > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> > >> Notability is used to establish whether or not the person gets an > >> article. It doesn't establish what all goes into that article. > > It is correct that you need different terminology: notability relates to > > topics. There is a separate notion of salience, for facts. Articles > > should consist of salient facts on a notable topic. > > WP:SALIENCY? :-) > Dunno about a policy but an essay on that subject might not go amiss. For an example of saliency failure you could look at an article I briefly intervened on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natascha_Engel The subject is a low-profile backbench British MP. Check the family life section: do we really need to know the names and dates of birth of her children? And what of the career details of her husband, who is not notable in his own right? On the other hand, details of campaigns she worked on before being elected are highly salient to political views, and it's her political career that makes her notable. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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 raise the tone of the wiki
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Phil Nash wrote: > > Personally, I'm usually the fourth person, totally boggled as to why people > care about "Celebrity Come Dancing" in the slightest, as an unconstructive > intersection of two concepts lacking in long-term cultural significance, > but > then, perhaps that's why I've become more interested in medieval Wiltshire > monasteries of late. P.Ss, if you know of anyone who would, er, pay me > money > for doing this, please let me know, as I do miss being able to afford > cheese. And meat. > There is the Institute of Historical Review, and has the VCH of Wiltshire been completed yet? -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Flagged revisions in The Sunday Times
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5682896.ece Slightly confused article headed "The wiki-snobs are taking over" by Giles Hattersley. Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'. Towards the end the author claims "My entry features at least two errors, one libellous (unless my mother has been keeping a dark secret, I am not Roy Hattersley's son)" which has me befuddled since there is no entry on Giles Hattersley nor was there ever one (unless it's been oversighted). -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC article on Flagged Revisions
On 1/27/09, Alvaro García wrote: > > It's "have", not "hav". > Unless you are Nigel Molesworth, hem hem. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Rank hath its privileges
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Sam Korn wrote: > As far as I am concerned, this is a minor, if rather stupid, abuse of > the tools. Trout-slapping, rather than arbitration, seems in order. > I agree; also the fact that it seems to have taken place nearly two years ago has some weight in persuading me that a heavy-handed response is not appropriate. The biggest part that concerns me is the dubious judgment in admitting doing it to a journalist from a major newspaper. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] Biography of Living persons
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM, wrote: > < andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk writes: > > In many ways, the most effective solution would be a hard-and-bright > line like the DNB uses - no-one who is alive, end of story, and we > could deal with living people as tangential notes in their work. But > it certainly wouldn't be popular!>> > > Oh silly that would never fly! > No article on George Bush? No article on John Major? > No article on Brad Pitt? > That might look odd but it could certainly be justified. However, the real problem with only including biographies after the deaths of the subjects is that this is a general encyclopaedia and not a specific list of biographies; biographical information is found in a very wide range of articles. Hence it is no use having a rule which prohibits a biography of (for example) Bill Clinton until he dies, which then permits an article about the impeachment in 1998 which must discuss other claimed examples of his infidelity in order to be comprehensive. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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 Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David Gerard wrote: > > > > No-one knew about the IWF before this. Once people knew, they despised > > them and their existence. > > You go too far. We censor actual child pornography out of Wikipedia too. > There are limits and someone enforces them. > I agree with Fred. Not many had heard of the IWF before this except for the people who go looking for child pornography; probably one of the bad effects of their attempt to target Wikipedia is that if they were tracing UK internet users trying to look at blocked child pornography, the list has been swamped by the vast number of users who were just looking in to see if Wikipedia really was censored. It may also have highlighted which UK ISPs don't act on IWF warnings, and in effect advertised them to people who are looking for an ISP which will allow them to view illegal material. It's done them severe damage on their public relations. The fact that an IWF mistake led to a brief struggle with them should not make us their enemy. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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 6:53 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's moot now: > http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm > "However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted in the UK will be assessed in line with IWF procedures. IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board's subsequent decision." Excellent. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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
The latest news is souding hopeful: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/09/wikipedia-censorship-iwf-reconsiders -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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 10:03 AM, Todd Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Great job anyway though. :) I especially liked the bit about the FBI > telling them to go away. And it'll be very interesting to see what > they do about Amazon, and how quick they get the legal papers if they > try to pull anything there. You had her quite on the defensive, and > had the whole thing looking quite foolish (which, of course, it is). > Hear hear. In fact it's not just available on Amazon; a google images search discovers hundreds of versions of this image, including on some very respectable sites. Have we thought of presenting the IWF with a list of 100s of URLs where this album cover is displayed and challenging them to block them all? Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. > How appropriately Orwellian in the circumstances. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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
Covered in the Guardian's Technology blog in a very sympathetic way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/internet "The Scorpions album was released in 1976, so it's amazing to think that civilisation has managed to survive for more than 40 years, in spite of this evil in our midst." Further comments about how the IWF just ensured that millions go to see the cover in order to work out what all the fuss is about. "Millions of people" may just be an exaggeration. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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
Don't know if this is any use but a press search dug up an entry in The Sun's WWW column from 18 January this year. zonicweb.net/badalbmcvrs/index.htm WHAT IS IT? The Museum Of Bad Album Covers - an online collection of the worst sleeve art ever committed to cardboard. WHAT'S ON OFFER? Ever received one of those Christmas gift books about great album artwork? Here is the perfect antidote (or something to make you fully appreciate the covers in your book). This is a truly appalling selection of album art - tasteless (Boxer's Below The Belt), bizarre (Phil Barry's Songs For Gay Dogs) and every one will leave you pondering: "Whatever were they thinking?" Of Course, Kevin Rowland's My Beauty - with the Dexy's frontman pictured in drag and flashing his knickers, earns a place - but more obscure acts like The Frivolous Five and Mike Terry are well worth a giggle. Visitors to the site have also voted for a top ten of the most dreadful offerings, but be warned, the album at No1 - Scorpions' Virgin Killer - is highly offensive. You can enjoy a soundtrack while trawling this site by clicking on Bad Music Radio to hear streams of "the worst music ever". Hear monstrosities like William Shatner's Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds and Mr T rapping. WORTH A CLICK?: Cover your eyes. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > In case anyone is curious, see: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tariqabjotu&diff=255356231&oldid=255352300#Congrats_for_bravery > > and the expected > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Ireland_page_moves > Have to say that regardless of my feelings on the matter, that was a dubious reading of the 'consensus of the discussion'. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland
On 11/27/08, Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 27 Nov 2008, at 01:51, Ray Saintonge wrote: > > > So Ireland as the Republic or the State or whatever term you choose > > to use is clearly about what happened in the part that successfully > > cast off the shackles of occupation since 1922. For certain > > partisans of the "Republic" to assume a monopoly on the name, > > Ireland, seems an improper usurpation of the name for personal ends. > > We haven't proposed that. We proposed "Ireland (state)". > I come at it from the opposite perspective. To have the article on the 26-county Republic at [[Ireland (state)]] would be to gloss over the fact that it is an incomplete Republic. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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] [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland
On 11/26/08, Steve Summit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A reader typing in "Ireland" (or an editor linking [[Ireland]]) > is almost certainly thinking about the country, not the geological > structure. > Most probably, most users who type in "Ireland" are looking for the article about the Republic of Ireland. However, we can't escape the fact that the term Ireland is ambiguous. Some users would be unaware that six of the 32 Irish counties are not currently part of the Republic. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
