Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Michael Peel wrote: On 12 Jun 2009, at 11:13, Sam Korn wrote: Right. I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author. But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that would be different for images. Images are generally the work of one, or a few people, whereas Wikipedia articles are the work of many. In the case of the images that I've taken myself and uploaded to Commons (CC-BY-SA license), pretty much the only thing I'm after for myself is attribution. I believe that's a standard stance amongst photographers that aren't also after money as a matter of routine. I'm not sure whether I'd go through all the trouble of uploading images to Commons/Wikipedia were that not the case. TBH, I think giving a list of usernames/authors of Wikipedia articles when they're reused would be best, but due to the number of authors that's more often than not impractical. And for the (not insignificant number of) cases where there is more than one contributor to an image? E.g. where an image has been touched up by another user? I'm suggesting a simple, catch-all method. If the method we suggest isn't simple, it won't be followed. I agree entirely that giving a list of users would be *best*, but I'm not sure that practically we have that option. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Korn wrote: (Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg";>Wikipedia) I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone. Hell no. You didn't even credit the author. Photo: WikiWitch at Wikipedia, under GFDL. That's about the minimum you could get away with. You could probably ditch the "Wikipedia" actually, maybe link to their Wikipedia user page though. (In this case, the photo is actually PD, so it's all moot). Right. I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author. But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that would be different for images. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] RFC on paid editing
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: > 2009/6/10 AGK : > >> In practice, however, it would be exceedingly rare for that type of editing >> to not be problematic to some degree; the nature of the business world is >> such that paid editing would almost certainly not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV >> policies. Consider this: if a client commissions a Wikipedia article's >> creation, would the client be satisfied with an article that did not reflect >> a stance that was at least a smidgen flattering? I wouldn't imagine so. On >> that basis, I think a blanket discouragement from editing for payment to be >> the most sensible approach to the issue. > > This only really applies to one type of paid editing, doesn't it? > Commercial or quasi-commercial, ones where the client has a definite > stake in the "message" of the article. > > You can easily have paid editing where this isn't the case at all - an > educational group, for example, which pays people to produce content > about a specific field without presupposing the tone of that content. > In many cases, it may just be that the topic is one where it's hard to > put the "sponsor's" slant in - mathematics, for example, would be a > lot more resilient than alternative medicines! > > We've already had a very limited form of this - the project on Commons > which pays for the creation of images - and there's no doubt that, if > done carefully, this could be extended to article-writing without the > danger of producing editorial slant in the end product. This is pretty > much the traditional encyclopedia model, in fact - paid generalist or > specialist editors, who may well bring their own prejudices to the > text but aren't expected to comply with the "central editorial slant" > on each. > > I agree entirely paid editing can be a bad thing - but so can unpaid > editing for a topic you hold dear. Likewise, both can be forces for > good. I'm not sure it's wise to completely throw away the opportunity > for a powerful tool which we haven't used much yet, due to short-term > fears about commercial interests. > > (In short: regulate, sure. Don't forbid; it'll bite us in the long run.) These are all excellent points. I would like to see the guideline state something along the lines of "You are not required to state that you are being paid to edit. However, if it is later discovered that you have been doing so and you did not state this openly, people will be very suspicious about your motivations. If you are open, honest and neutral, people are more likely to trust you." Also, I would like to see the end of COIN and direct its traffic to the NPOV noticeboard -- it is highly misleading to suggest that the conflict of interests is the problem; it is the lack of neutrality that is the problem. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Call for Participants: NICE interface modification
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote: AGK, Good point. Our only concern is having to re-apply to the IRB. It seems that this change does not materially affect the general consent/installation process, so we pulled it out and will make it available upon requests from individuals. Thanks for doing this, Aaron. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 thinks Wikipedia is a news source
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Turvey wrote: - "Joe Anderson" wrote: From: "Joe Anderson" To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard said: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/ > Could someone speak to Google? Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat? Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, surely? This is a great endorsement of our material. If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews. Andrew ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Call for Participants: NICE interface modification
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote: Hello, I am a researcher in the GroupLens lab (http://grouplens.org) at the University of Minnesota. You might recognize previous work in Wikipedia like "Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia" (http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~reid/papers/group282-priedhorsky.pdf). As part of our continuing work within Wikipedia, my colleagues and I are conducting an academic (non-commercial) study in which we have developed a modification that is designed to help users work together more effectively by changing the interface for reverting other editors. If you choose to participate in the study, you will be automatically assigned a Wikipedia gadget that will consist of a subset of the modifications we have developed. As part of the study, we will be logging your usage of the tool (ie. when you are reverting other editors). We will also be available for tech support and bug fixes. Most likely there will be a survey at the completion and the complete tool will be made available. Consent form/installer: http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/NICE/consent/ This looks interesting -- I might have a look at the tools myself in the week when I have a bit more time. I would, however, urge everyone to use the "manual" installation process. I don't think it's good form to ask people for their credentials on another site. Indeed, it is forbidden (actively prohibited) for those with Toolserver accounts to do this. I am sure that you won't be being evil with the information, but nevertheless I don't think you should request it. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:55 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/6/6 Angela : >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Korn wrote: >>> (Photo: >> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg";>Wikipedia) >>> >>> I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone. >> >> Adding the license wouldn't be much harder: >> >> (Photo: >> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg";>Wikipedia, >>> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html";>GFDL) >> >> Angela > > Not really. You are still entirely reliant on wikipedia servers > staying up and the image staying in that place which is why you should > host the credit and probably the GFDL locally. As I said, *almost* everyone! -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Falcorian wrote: > We have a policy: > > [[Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content]] It would be good to have something that specifically referred to reuse of images, since I think that is probably more common than reusing text. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Unionhawk wrote: So, how *should* it be attributed? I'm confused... (Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg";>Wikipedia) I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Date conditional switching templates
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Ian Woollard wrote: > I suppose you could add a category to the template to help find things > that have passed so as to permit people to remove the template and > check that it actually happened; that would at least be an > improvement. Yes. Indeed, I believe that is the purpose of [[As of 2006|2006]] links -- so you can use WhatLinksHere to find statements that need updating. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Date conditional switching templates
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Luna wrote:
> I've whipped up a quick example at <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luna_Santin/Dateswitch>, currently:
>
> - {{#ifexpr: {{#time:U| {{{date|{{{3|}} }} > {{#time:U}} |
> {{{pre|{{{1|}} | {{{post|{{{2|}} }}
>
> Which would give us:
>
> - {{dateswitch | text before date | text on or after date | date}}
>
> This might have some problems with page cache, and honestly I'm a bit
> dubious about its utility, but from a template standpoint it shouldn't be
> too hard.
Pages with date magic should have their caches invalidated after 24
hours, I think.
Sam
--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
___
WikiEN-l mailing 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 Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/11 Andrew Turvey : >> Automatic suspension of admins who have been inactive after a certain period >> sounds like a prudent idea - and also of admins who turn inactive after >> posting any kind of "resignation" message. By all means allow them to be >> re-activated on request without going through RFA . > > When was the last time an admin actually left after resigning? I can't > think of anyone since Essjay! Wikipedia:Former_administrators#Resigned has a list of quite a few admins who resigned, several of whom appear to have stopped editing about the same time. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 and how to find and maintain it
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Andrew Turvey wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Sam Korn" > > No. NPOV is not determined by consensus. Wikipedia's content is > determined by consensus with NPOV being the guiding principle. > Something does not become more neutral because fifteen Wikipedia > editors say it's neutral. > > -- > Sam > > True - the existence of a consensus supporting the text does not prove that > the text is neutral. However, it is a good indication, particular if the > raters come from a cross section of the community rather than just from those > who edit the particular pages. But of course. The agreement of the editors testifies to its neutrality; it does not define it. What the original poster (I can't remember who that was!) seemed to be saying was "NPOV is what consensus says it is". That is backwards and plain wrong. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 and how to find and maintain it
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > It's time that I pipe up on this. > > Under the subject header, Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal > At 06:30 PM 5/8/2009, Sam Korn wrote: >>On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:24 PM, David Gerard wrote: >>[...] Even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors >> > accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and >> > don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as >> > they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet. >> >>Indeed. The solution to Israel-Palestine disputes on Wikipedia is >>that there be some lasting resolution to the meatspace >>Israel-Palestine conflict. Sadly, I think that is beyond the >>capabilities of even our esteemed Arbitration Committee. > > Actually, no, though it's the community that can help, and the > Committee can only have some influence. There is no way for the > Committee, as far as I can see, to enforce what is needed, but it > could recognize it and encourage it and discriminate between > disruption that maintains lack of consensus and disruption that > increases consensus. I meant that resolving the meatspace Israel-Palestine conflict is beyond the capabilities of the Committee. > The key to understanding this is, first of all, that NPOV isn't a > thing, a fixed state, a property of text in itself, it is a balance > that represents consensus. No. NPOV is not determined by consensus. Wikipedia's content is determined by consensus with NPOV being the guiding principle. Something does not become more neutral because fifteen Wikipedia editors say it's neutral. > We can measure NPOV by the percentage of editors who agree with a > text, and our goal should always be 100%. No. The mere fact that no-one complains that their point of view is under-represented does not mean that it isn't. It is no more possible to create neutrality by public vote than it is [[wikiality|to create reality by public vote]]. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:24 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/5/8 stevertigo : > >> Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and the >> other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how >> does it help our >> discussion to to say either of these things? > > > The trouble with ethnic conflict articles is that, rather than a few > problem editors, there's an effectively infinite stream of partisans. > (For whatever reason: local education is often partisan rather than > NPOV?) So, even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors > accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and > don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as > they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet. Indeed. The solution to Israel-Palestine disputes on Wikipedia is that there be some lasting resolution to the meatspace Israel-Palestine conflict. Sadly, I think that is beyond the capabilities of even our esteemed Arbitration Committee. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:22 PM, stevertigo wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Durova wrote: > >> Please help me nuke it before this well-intentioned notion of arbitration >> does any more damage. >> >> -Durova >> > > And the thought that "NPOV enforcers" would be doing this "enforcing," is.. > it.. it just does not generate the warm and fuzzy feeling we look for in > good ideas. > > It's bad enough we have an Arbcom that likes to think it should'nt have to > explain itself to anybody, let alone discuss things openly. Your vision of > enforcement only conjures up a vision of Sean Connery in red daipers and on > horseback, shooting at people indiscriminately with a revolver. > > SV's choice of scope: "..on Israel-Palestine articles.." cannot be serious. > Everyone knows that theres some subjectivity involved there. "Neutrality" in > that context can only found through lots of shuckling and jihad. > > SV says: "[this idea] could be extended to other intractable disputes if it > works.." Parsing: "Intractable disputes.." [solved by] "enforcement" of > [abstract concept], [by] 'enforcers of [abstract concept].' Sounds like > Zardoz to me. > This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition of neutrality. We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now, SlimVirgin recognises this, which is why the proposal reads "However, looking at an editor's contributions as a whole, it should be clear to any reasonable, and reasonably well-informed, onlooker that the editor is regularly and substantively trying to be fair to both sides." That is obviously an attempt to move away from requiring neutrality and towards requiring a good-faith effort towards neutrality, which is the only way the proposal could work. Nevertheless, I do not think this is enough to actually make it work. The problem is that these disputes are so deep-seated and controversial that such a system will be the subject of constant attempts at gaming. The problem will not be fixed but merely moved. The other problem is that the system pretends that "it should be clear to any reasonable ... onlooker" how the editor is trying to act. Often, this will be the case. Just as often, however, it will not be so very absolutely clear and will rely greatly on the perception of the onlooker. This, I think, is the fatal flaw, because it is the assumption that the whole proposal rests on, that it is always so obvious who is trying to edit in a neutral and helpful fashion and who is being biased. (One additional problem is that it will create bureaucracy -- Wikipedians love bureaucracy and this would turn into something like a rolling Israel-Palestine ArbCom. I don't think that that would be a positive change.) Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] False quote regarding Maurice Jarre
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:09 PM, William King wrote: > Fox News picks up Reuters story regarding the late French composer Maurice > Jarre: > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519283,00.html > > Reuters interviewed Shane Fitzgerald, the Irish student who made up the false > quote on Jarre's Wikipedia biography. "The moral of this story is not that journalists should avoid Wikipedia, but that they shouldn't use information they find there if it can't be traced back to a reliable primary source," said the Guardian's readers' editor Siobhain Butterworth. That's about as good a piece of advice as you'll get on using facts from Wikipedia in a journalistic or academic context. Biographies of people who have recently died need particularly close attention Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 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? -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 11:04 AM, wrote:
>
> In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:03:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> thewub.w...@googlemail.com writes:
>
> At the moment
> though it does rather overwhelm the rest of the article, because of
> the extent and the formatting. As a compromise, how about putting it
> inside a hidey box, set to hide by default? {{hidden}}
>
>
> ---
>
> That's an excellent idea. I have no idea how to code that myself, so I'm
> glad you're going to give it a shot.
Indeed it is a good idea, and I have implemented it.
Sam
--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium vs. Wikipedia
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Sam Korn wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Carcharoth >> wrote: >>> To be fair, I don't know how long it took Wikipedia to have an article >>> for every country in the world - that would be an interesting question >>> for someone to answer at some point - a standard list of countries >>> with the date on which their Wikipedia articles were created (and a >>> study of how the articles have increased in size since creation): >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states >> >> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/countries >> >> A list generated from that page -- it's not perfect, but it's pretty >> good. The change in size is rather more difficult to study ;-) > > Thanks! > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%85land_Islands&oldid=726060 > > Aland Islands is actually March 2003 - problem with redirects there. > > So it looks like all that low-hanging fruit went by 2002, with the > outliers by 2004. A bit slower than I'd thought, really. Though > Denmark is earlier than the date on your list. > > Not sure what is going on there. I went by the links on that page, and didn't check each one! I think the main problem is cut&paste moves or suchlike. But yes, the overall picture is "most countries had articles by 2002", so within two years of the beginning. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium vs. Wikipedia
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > To be fair, I don't know how long it took Wikipedia to have an article > for every country in the world - that would be an interesting question > for someone to answer at some point - a standard list of countries > with the date on which their Wikipedia articles were created (and a > study of how the articles have increased in size since creation): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/countries A list generated from that page -- it's not perfect, but it's pretty good. The change in size is rather more difficult to study ;-) Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 4:03 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/4/11 Fred Bauder : > >> Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge >> complaints... > > > Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that > wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its > associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising. Can I request that this thread now end and that we don't engage in a wholly unedifying attack on Larry, Citizendium or anyone else. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:37 PM, doc wrote: > Oskar Sigvardsson wrote: >> 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 > > Thank you! > > That's about the most balanced analysis I've read yet. Far better than > most of the pledges of allegiance to Jimmy, or the "two minute hate" > response to Larry, that we've had on this list. > > As long as neutral people write the relevant articles, most of us can > either stop caring, or draw our own conclusions on who (if anyone) is > deluded, self-deluded, spinning, lying or otherwise manipulating history. > > Me, I'll go back to adopting the mantra of a wise man: "Decline to > participate, sorry" Hear, hear (to both of you)! -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 8:21 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > Larry Sanger wrote: >> Two more replies... >> >> Charles Matthews wrote: >> >>> Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. >>> That is a >>> traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your >>> unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; >>> which is more than can be said for some of your past and more >>> insidious >>> comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it >>> lances the boil. >>> >> >> Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user >> talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this >> list. I'm not merely "flaming" Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly >> calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, >> as I've explained. >> > Actually, though I may be an "inner circler", the combination of > forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not > unfamiliar to me. Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes, > you've decided to treat us to some "trolling". Those who have something > in mind that is not merely "effective" - as mudslinging may be - tend to > approach debates in other ways. > >>>Fred Bauder replied: > >> >>> As the promoter of >>> a competing project your interest is transparent. >>> >> >> Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply. >> > I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't. > > Yes, the bit where you write: "Suffice it to say that, outside of > Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, > Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than > sterling." You know, I think you may really feel that some people are > inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems, > that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You > don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in > your own case. You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey > presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's > in the pillory. To quote Mr Sanger, "Wikipedia is bigger than Jimmy Wales." On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sanger wrote: > Sam Korn replied: >> What hole are we in, pray? > > The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, > coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my > views have in the "court of public opinion" to confront the project's > leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. Endless source of scandal and dishonesty? The reputation of Wikipedia? The project's leading light? I credit none of the three. >> Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your >> role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the >> Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. > > That's only part of it, and not the biggest part. My biggest complaint is > that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am > determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. So it's personal. There's nothing wrong with that at all; from a certain point of view, I don't blame you. On the other hand, I'm not interested in getting involved. >> For my >> part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care >> little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and >> for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. >> >> Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the >> Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. > > Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman > does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to > distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say > that will convince you. I do not consider Jimmy Wikipedia's leader or its chief spokesman. Perhaps you underestimate the extent to which the project is community-led, community-driven, community-focussed; I don't know. I am not interested, no, in this personal and now-irrelevant dispute. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 6:15 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/4/9 Sam Korn : >> Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia >> community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. > > It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and > Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary > conflict within wikipedia. "Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that, although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered the founder." Or something like that. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 5:11 PM, Larry Sanger wrote: > In the end, assuming the Wikipedia community and Board reacts to this in a > mature, decent manner, it could come out of this stronger and better. On > the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my > concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're > already in. Remember: the world is watching. What hole are we in, pray? Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 2:24 PM, Bill Carter wrote: > FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts > about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned > over and over again. Who knows how many other > Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people > come forward will we get a good idea. No-one claims we have achieved NPOV. Indeed, most everyone would think that, ultimately, it is unattainable. It is a goal and a guiding principle. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 10:12 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Sam Korn wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> >>> 2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson >>>> 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. >>>> >>> NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit >>> the website. >>> >> I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work is >> with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't >> share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's* >> point of view. >> > > An enforced POV cannot really be neutral. Exactly. My dilemma is between an enforced POV and no POV (i.e. NPOV). >> (Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to manage with a small >> base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is >> essential.) >> >> > Not really, in a paradoxical way. Many rarely visited articles on > non-controversial subjects already achieve that neutrality. An > unchallenged article written by a single person is neutral at the moment > it is written, and remains so until challenged. If the content is > outrageous that neutrality will seldom last more than a few minutes. But on other articles it would be plain impossible, the general point I was aiming at. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 4:09 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >>> Yes, but failures to present a complete spectrum of points of view can >>> be >>> balanced by including a "NPOV" article imported from Wikipedia. >> >> Or, indeed, by linking to the editorial pages of major newspapers from >> an "NPOV" article *on* Wikipedia... >> >> -- > > That would be true if it were not for the campaign to delete external > links and discourage their addition. I think this campaign has passed me by... -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 3:35 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard wrote: >>> 2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson : >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit >>> the website. >> >> I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work is >> with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't >> share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's* >> point of view. > > The obvious alternative is to allow point of view editing but structure > the wiki to include articles from diverse points of view, not an > innovation, editorial pages of major newspapers are typically structured > in that way. > >> (Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to manage with a small >> base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is >> essential.) >> > > Yes, but failures to present a complete spectrum of points of view can be > balanced by including a "NPOV" article imported from Wikipedia. Or, indeed, by linking to the editorial pages of major newspapers from an "NPOV" article *on* Wikipedia... -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 12:36 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson : > >> 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. > > > NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit > the website. I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work is with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's* point of view. (Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to manage with a small base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is essential.) -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > Hopefully it can be tweaked to distinguish between removal and > replacement with a death category. And then people can check edits > made claiming someone has died, and make sure reliable sources have > been provided for such claims. I wrote this script a little while ago for this exact purpose: http://toolserver.org/~samkorn/scripts/recentdeaths.php Might be useful until you can get this filter running? Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 7:24 PM, Brian wrote: > So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller in > it. Personally, I've never understood why deliberately misleading people is supposed to be funny. I don't particularly enjoy having my time wasted by people having a lark just because it is a certain day of the year. I don't see why we should tolerate disruption that would, on any other day of the year, be instantly dealt with. Now, I don't make a big deal out this on the wiki, because dozens of people will jump down my throat with exactly the kind of language you use. I recognise that, apparently, other people find this kind of thing fun and totally acceptable. But I can certainly sympathise with the people who you describe as "buzzkillers". For them, of course, the buzz has been killed already and they are more than a little fed up. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, doc wrote: > The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps > in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia > to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, > it says on wikipedia", is laughable. > > I think that most of this discussion has missed the point that the > English Ofsted chap in no way suggested that Wikipedia should be used as > a teaching supplement at all, or that he had anything to do with > informing people about history or politics. Rather he seems to suggest > that certain internet skills "blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter" > should be taught in schools, and children should be familiar with how to > access their information. So, we no more get Wikipedia as a source of > knowledge than Twitter, and your local blog. > > The reaction "this shows the WMF should go into schools" is as > ridiculous a conclusion as it is a typical wikicentric "OMG they want > us, they really do - we always said they would". As ever, I'm a little more optimistic than you, Scott. I think there is a potential use for members of the Wikipedia community to go into schools and explain how Wikipedia should be used because 1. children /will/ encounter Wikipedia; 2. they need to know how it can be helpful and how it can be harmful; and 3. teachers are unlikely to be able to impart this knowledge. > You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and > give them grammar and dictation. And Latin. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Michael Bimmler wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Sam Korn wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen >> wrote: >>> Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. >>> However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils >>> how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter >>> taking the place of history in primary schools. >> >> To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the >> potential to *improve* history in primary schools. > > How so? Primarily in teaching how *not* to use it! Naturally primary (and early secondary) education should include teaching how to use the Internet in learning. Given Wikipedia's prominence, it would of course be correct for such teaching to include the proper use of Wikipedia. Students might be encouraged not to regurgitate whole paragraphs from Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is the potential that teaching students to question Wikipedia could lead to their being more disposed to question other sources, which is obviously very useful in the study of any subject (and supremely history). Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen wrote: > Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. > However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils > how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter > taking the place of history in primary schools. To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the potential to *improve* history in primary schools. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:07 PM, doc wrote: > Wikipedia in the school curriculum? > > For me, the idea simply proves that Jimmy Wales was, as usual, > far-sighted in his vision and judgement. I think I shall now follow his > lead. > > Time to home-school the kids. :-) When I was in the sixth form a couple of years ago, we had a piece of research on some aspect of seventeenth century English history for prep. All 12 members of the class used Wikipedia, including myself. Being intimately familiar with Wikipedia's inherent unreliability, I also checked the source of the WP article and was saved from an embarrassing error that the other 11 members of the class regurgitated intact. If the lesson is "don't trust Wikipedia" or "use Wikipedia with _extreme_ caution", then it is a worthwhile lesson. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:31 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: > >> Interlibrary loans at your university (or public library) are not free >> at all. They are just free for *you*, because your university picks up >> the tab for you. The average cost of an item borrowed through ILL at a >> typical mid-size university is between $20-$30 per item. (google: >> "average cost interlibrary loan", find lots of studies to this >> effect). This, however, is part of the cost of doing research. > > That's interesting...mind telling my resident University of Zurich > librarians that bit, should you ever meet them at a conference? > I currently get charged (and yes, the figures are the same nevermind > whether I use it as member of the public or as enrolled student or as > faculty member) > > 7 Swiss francs for books from other libraries in the > German-part-of-Switzerland university libraries network > 10 Swiss francs for books from the rest of Switzerland > 20 Swiss francs for books from Europe minus Great Britain > 35 Swiss francs for books from Great Britain > 45 Swiss francs for books from the United States > "depending on how much it actually cost *us* " for books from all the > other countries > > Would love to hear some more experiences on this: Is it common in the > US / UK for academic libraries not to charge at all for ILLs? Then I'm > ever so slightly envious... In the unlikely event that my university library didn't have a book (it's a copyright library), the charge is £3 (c. 5 Swiss francs, according to Google). The request almost invariably goes to the British Library. Next-day ordering can be arranged for £9. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/6 Andrew Gray : >> The BBC, presumably worrying about a slow news day, have an article on >> Wikipedia vandalism, focusing on UK politicians: >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7921985.stm >> >> The Lib Dem advisor quoted, incidentally, comes up with a fairly clear >> rendering of the "undue weight"/"jumbled collection of facts" BLP >> problem. > > I've just commented on the article correcting a couple of > mistakes/misleading statements. Otherwise it is a very good article > and accurately describes some of the problems we face without being > sensationalistic. Yes, but why *that* picture of Jimmy? -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Automatic death flagging?
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: >> c) [[Category:Living people]] - dead people have the cat removed > > As far as I know there is no easy way to track category removal. > Special:Relatedchanges/Category:Living_people will not show edits > which remove the category, and any edits previously visible on this > list (prior to category removal) will disappear from it. > > Matters of propriety may have discouraged this in the past but now > that we have the __HIDDENCAT__ feature, we might consider adding dead > people directly to [[Category:Dead people]]. No way to track category removal, but there is already vaguely the function you are looking for in the API. http://toolserver.org/~samkorn/scripts/recentdeaths.php tracks the latest 50 additions to [[Category:2009 deaths]]. A bot could quite easily go through, say, 50 years worth of categories and collate a list of people added to the category in the last day and post it on-wiki. If it would be helpful, I'll do that tomorrow. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 1:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/21 David Goodman : >> Isn't the traditional way to link to some outside number--parimutual >> handle, stock market figures, whatever. > > Our template code may be Turing-complete, but I don't think it has > live feed access to the stock markets... [[WP:BEANS]] -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/16 Alvaro García : >> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid? > > No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software... But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged Revisions: de:wp 99.5% reviewed
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/2 Stephen Bain : >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Gerard wrote: >>> http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english&action=overview&project=dewiki >> >> To my mind the more important statistic is that 98% of all articles >> have had their most recent revision reviewed. > > I agree, that's definitely the most important statistic. A more useful > statistic would be the age of the oldest unreviewed revision. 17.8 days http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english&action=outofdatereviews&project=dewiki -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > If you have *working* ideas feel free to tell us, we have already > programmed bots that do nothing but look for his vandalism. We *have* > done everything we possibly can on wiki that I can think of. The only > on wiki action left to us is to block all of his ISP from editing. If > you have alternative ideas speak out. > > To those on this thread, possibly move this to a page on wikipedia > (the proxy project, or a case in his name on WP:SSP) Regardless some > of his information needs to be published so we can deal with him. (on > wikipedia or here makes no difference, both are public) Wikis have this advantage of being editable, of course... Name, location, IP address, everything, though? This is completely pointless. I fail to see any fashion in which publishing such information aids the effort to counter him. I am not blind to the problems he has caused -- I have spent no little time in dealing with him -- but I will not agree that this thread and the complete disregard for private data that it has contained are useful or justifiable. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Chris Down wrote: >> >> It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected >> in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser >> feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by >> Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations: >> >>1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law >>enforcement, >>2. With permission of the affected user, >>3. When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints, >>4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider >>or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve >> technical >>issues, >>5. *Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently >>behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service provider, >>carrier, or other third-party entity to assist in the targeting of IP >>blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant >> Internet >>Service Providers,* >>6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or >>safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. >> > Am I missing something? No. But it is common sense that we should do the least amount possible to sort the problem out. The publication of private data in a thread like this is completely unnecessary. Repeat: it is quite within the privacy policy to reveal this info to Verizon (and even publicly on-wiki, if an IP block is helpful). This thread is completely gratuitous and unnecessary. I very strongly believe we should not be vindictive in our dealing with problematic users. We should seek to sort out our problems, not to cause problems for others, no matter how many problems they've caused us. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Chris Down wrote: > Divulging his IP to his provider seems standard, advisable, and perfectly > ethical. We aren't just talking about minor vandalism, he has inspired > numerous copycats and has harassed (or his copycats have) many editors. > > I've not looked, but if our privacy policy disallows this even in such > circumstances as this, we need to look at revising it. It does, very explicitly. Discussing it on an open, publicly archived mailing list is a different matter and really seems quite unnecessary. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Nathan wrote: > It doesn't mention the poll, refers to > Jimmy's statement as coming "from a blog" (misattributing a source, unless > it was crossposted from his talkpage), FWIW, there is a link in the right-hand column direct to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Why_I_am_asking_Flagged_Revisions_to_be_turned_on_now describing it as a blog entry. One of the problems with being an expert in anything (be it Wikipedia, nuclear physics, theology or cricket) is that you notice terrible journalism in your field! Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing 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 11:48 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > To ray, you have a point, if it is a 3rd parties copyright, it is > their fight. Generally though I don't like the thought of that ability > being used to undelete stuff that is not helpful to this project and > creates these sorts of distractions, but it is now his fight. I agree mostly with these sentiments. If there was a case to be made, I would argue that it should be presented as "using the admin tools in a way likely to bring the project into disrepute". There has been no breach of our copyright policy, as the content was not posted on Wikipedia. I do not recall ever taking on-wiki actions against a user for breaching the GFDL on another website. 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. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
