Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/4/28 doc : >> I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The >> burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to >> delete. What level of "evidence" or "proof" will convince a consensus of >> wikipedians is up to the wikipedians participating. I suspect many >> people will be satisfied by different things. > > The burden of proof has to be on the author. The person wishing to > delete it would have to prove a negative, which is borderline > impossible (in this case, anyway). How great the burden is is another > question and, as you say, that depends on who is taking part in the > discussion, but there is no choice about who the burden is on. > If that is true, the burden would be on those wishing to retain, rather than the "author" (which is a concept best left out of wikipedia). But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any burden is discharged. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes: > >> We have always placed the burden of proof-of-notability on the > contributing >> author, not on the rest of the AfD posters. That's been true across > each >> AfD for notability that I've seen. I doubt it's going to change. I > did >> not create that, it's just the way it is. >> >> Will Johnson > > I disagree. To delete requires a consensus to delete. That is, a > consensus of people believe the article has no place on wikipedia.>> > > > - > You can't disagree, because I never said what you are disagreeing to. > Read what I said more clearly and you will see that I'm not speaking about > a consensus, nor a lack of consensus. I'm not talking about deletion, nor > keeping. I'm speaking of *who* has the burden of proof to show > "notability", or the lack of notability. The author? Or everyone else? > We've always > recognized that it's the contributing author who has that burden-of-proof. > > Will Johnson > > Oh, I assure you I can disagree. I can disagree with almost anything. I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to delete. What level of "evidence" or "proof" will convince a consensus of wikipedians is up to the wikipedians participating. I suspect many people will be satisfied by different things. ___ 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] Rachel Marsden
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes: > > And all that information will probably be [[WP:OR]], since I doubt that > the media bothered doing a "Jimbo's pants: where are they now" follow-up > a few months later. ;)>> > > > - > It's only OR if you personally interview Rachel or Jimmy. > If you re-report what Rachel states on her own site, it's not OR. > > Will > > Actually, I'd say this thread isn't so much OR as TROLL. I'm hardly Jimmy's biggest fan, but this smacks of "hey we haven't discussed Jimbo's sexlife for a bit, have we?" Is there a substantive point to this? Otherwise, perhaps take any content issue to [[talk:Jimbo Wales]] and any other issue to somewhere like "Wikipedia Review" (although even there many will find it somewhat off-topic) Scott ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > sainto...@telus.net writes: > > Requiring the author > to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting > goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.>> > > > > - > > We have always placed the burden of proof-of-notability on the contributing > author, not on the rest of the AfD posters. That's been true across each > AfD for notability that I've seen. I doubt it's going to change. I did > not create that, it's just the way it is. > > Will Johnson I disagree. To delete requires a consensus to delete. That is, a consensus of people believe the article has no place on wikipedia. There are still some of us who remember that [[WP:N]] and other notability guidelines are only guidelines for a reason, they indicate how debates have tended to go in the past, they don't determine them, or legislate them. For myself, I look at the merits of the article, and use common sense. Actually, I NEVER read notability guidelines. ___ 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] Rachel Marsden
Ray Saintonge wrote: > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> The Rachel Marsden article is out-of-date. There is no ending material on >> the ebay Auction for one thing. It just says items were put up for >> auction. How much did they get? Who won them? etc. > > The initial listing, when prices became silly, was cancelled by eBay > because the listings contained personal comments about a person. They > were subsequently re-listed with a somewhat cleaned up description. The > items received no bids, and the listings expired. > > Ec > And all that information will probably be [[WP:OR]], since I doubt that the media bothered doing a "Jimbo's pants: where are they now" follow-up a few months later. ;) Once more a news-story, no-one now cares about. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I'd have to be convinced as to why a person or > thing, which cannot be found there, is notable. > > Will Johnson > Fine. As long as you are willing to listen to any argument that something is significant, and aren't going to spout some arithmetical google mantra to replace having that discussion. The lack of entry in google books may well be indicitive, but it is not conclusive. If you remain open to "being convinced" then we are not disagreeing. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/4/27 : >> In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >> doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes: >> >> If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it. >> That's what IAR is all about, and why "multiple third-party sources" may >> be a good rule of thumb, but, like most rules, must never become Holy >> Writ. (See WP:IAR).>> >> >> >> - >> >> So we let creep in such chestnuts as "King Arthur is the ancestor of the >> present Queen Elizabeth" because this is repeated on 12 websites of "local >> genealogy" societies. > > That's completely unrelated. Using a source to establish notability is > very different to using that source to establish facts. That King > Arthur is mentioned on 12 local genealogy society websites might well > be enough for him to be notable, but some other source would need to > be used for actually writing the article. There is no reason to take > reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just > that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make near > the beginning of this thread. > No. That's worse. The reliability of the site is precisely the point. Lot's of popular culture stuff will be discussed over multiple sites, but may have little verifiable substance (see e.g. internet rumours of Richard Gere and his hamster). Where if my exampled 18th Cent village church does have an internet presence it may be limitted - but if it has concrete reliability that should be enough. Let me give an example: Barry Mill (for which we have no article) is a working watermill It is on the National Trust's website (but that's not a third party source, because they own it) http://www.nts.org.uk/Property/10/ Now, it does actually appear on other websites, http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/features/featurefirst111.html However, even if it did not, I'd say that the National Trust's website alone is a sufficiently reliable source to verify existence and content. And the information given on the NTS site is sufficient to convince any reasonable party that this property is notable enough to merit inclusion, regardless of whatever other web presence it might have. Now, there are fairly likely also to be mentions of this in written sources - but it is equally the case that no-one may locate them during a 5-7 day afd. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
> - > > "Common" sense is not "common", when one sides thinks it's not "sense". > > One side of the argument doesn't get a pass on what common sense is, or > isn't. If the consensus doesn't agree, then it isn't common sense. It's > uncommon perhaps, or it's nonsense ;) > > Will > Which is fine, is the argument is between 5 people who think x is common sense, and 5 people who think y is. Then sense is not common, and there is no consensus. However, if 9 out of 10 people agree something is common sense, then common sense it is. If 5 of these 9 say "I agree it is common sense, but common sense should be ignored in favour of applying rule c, because common sense is not policy". Then the correct response is to get one's cluestick out and hit the idiots really hard. If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it. That's what IAR is all about, and why "multiple third-party sources" may be a good rule of thumb, but, like most rules, must never become Holy Writ. (See WP:IAR). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
David Goodman wrote: > The question isn't whether the material is verifiable. The question is > whether we want to include articles on all village churches, some of > them, or none of them. The current answer is we include all of them > that are on official historical monument lists--which makes sense-- > and also those that happen to have 2 findable references with > substantial coverage from third party independent published reliable > sources--which is not necessarily based on anything fundamental, but > does offer a rough screen. The screen will use its usefulness when > Google Books Search gets all of published local history on record. > > I mention that information from churches and schools and similar > institutions about their earlier history is not always reliable: they > tend to claim a long connection with prior institutions that may or > may not be correct, and a connection with notable bodies or > organizations that may or may not have been real. > > > Fair points. However, my problem with our "multiple third party sources" algorithm goes further. It distorts content very badly. Not only does it prejudice the pre-1995 subjects, as has often been said. It tends mean that the thresholds for the inclusion of "human interest," and "are passing newsworthy" subjects are a good deal lower than on places, buildings, and more "solid" subjects. Because news media feature more on living persons than they do on other subjects. Sure, an 18th century church might get a feature in some local paper on a significant anniversary (if it has had an anniversary since 1995!) - but that local paper is far more likely to write about Joe, who did something kinky with a kid, or who founded his own business. And the story on Joe is far more likely to be picked up by other media - giving you your multiple sources. And even if Joe's business went bust just after 1997, in 50 year's time, he'll still have "multiple third party sources" whilst St. Anne's Church (est 1791) may still be waiting for its anniversary write-up. And when you stop and think about it, which articles are the one's that give us the maintenance headache? If we allow St. Anne's, we are far more likely to have content that will remain NPOV and verifiable, whilst Joe's article will be subject to his disgruntled attacking him. And, as much as "potential for harm" is disliked as a criterion, we know where the problems lie. We'd do much better, if we didn't apply the same metric of "multiple third party sources" to all subjects. If we really were serious about maintainability, posterity, and systemic bias, we'd demand much much higher standards for the post-1995, popular culture and the BLP, and we'd drop to bare verifiability for other subjects. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting we relax verifiability. But asking "is it reasonable to rely on this source for this information?" should be the metric. A church website, if it is obviously aimed at PR and full of blurb, should have claims of membership and influence taken with a pinch of salt. However, a page on a small church which narrates that it was built in 1791, built of sandstone, and has a clock tower of gothic style dating from 1806 built by village subscription to celebrate Trafalgar, and that six generations of the family of the Lord of Boggle, is hardly likely to be lying. And if the same information can be verified for the website of the county historical society, then common sense says we have enough. Can there be some common sense between inclusionism and deletionism? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/27/2009 12:06:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes: > > >> You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably >> trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some >> level of enduring significance, then finding a book should be unnecessary.> >> > > How can you have "reasonably trustworthy information" without a citation? > Maybe what you mean is, "I have a citation, it's just not on Google Books". > If that's what you mean, than of course you can use it. You have to show > that the subject is notable, that is still up to the contributor. > > Commonsense is notoriously slippery. > > > Human life is slippery and subjective - and encyclopedia that wants to record and reflect it needs to take that on board. The initial scenario was an article, created from sources connected with the subject - sources that common sense tells us are fairly reliable - yet lacking "multiple third party sources" (or at least ones produced by an afd). To be precise, the case study I had in mind was (and I can't find the afd - it was some years ago) an old village church. The sources were 1) a write-up on the church's website giving its history and some architectural details. 2) A similar page on the local village website. Now, the chances of those sources lying are fairly low. Yet, because no one could produce "multiple third party sources" we got people wanting to delete. There are quite likely to be written sources of local history - but they may not appear on the internet, in any case we have neutral, verifiable information of a building which will have some level of sustainable significance. Common sense says this is verifiable, neutral and accurate - indeed more so than the average borderline BLP with 25 hits on googlenews. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
David Gerard wrote: > 2009/4/27 doc : > >> Google books is fine, as is google itself. >> Neither is a substitute for common sense. >> I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of >> search engines any day. > > > Certainly. But when someone seems not to be engaging it, it can be > useful to wave the actual book (or a scan), not merely say "there's a > book." > > > - d. You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some level of enduring significance, then finding a book should be unnecessary. Commonsense, where it is more than just one person's view, should be sufficient. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:27:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: > > >> "Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the >> architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be >> mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this >> won't google up." >> >> Doc's saying that people delete based on Google results.>> > > --- > > Google Books changes everything. > If they delete based on Google and fail to search Google Books for items of > historical note then they are acting without a duty of actual research. > > I'm not saying that people should delete based on Google results in the > first place. In fact I am the one who put that note on historical subjects > into the policy in the first place a few years back. Subjects who are not > necessarily currently talked-up might have been quite the popular rage back > in > 1920 or 1920 or 1420, and should not be deleted based on current Google > searches. > > With Google Books we can now allow the Chair Potato to see that for > themselves. > > Will Johnson > > Google books is fine, as is google itself. Neither is a substitute for common sense. I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of search engines any day. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
geni wrote: > 2009/4/27 doc : >> The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the >> brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important >> in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical >> formula: sources *n / PI = notability. >> >> To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which >> has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and >> perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention >> on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not >> notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources". > > If an 18th century church has managed to avoid appearing in any of the > books on random bits of village architecture and in any of the local > histories that fill the shelves of libraries it's not very notable. If > a church has managed to exist since the 18th century without being the > subject of even one local news piece it's heading towards impressively > non notable territory. I can see it happening with some of the 60s > built churches (assuming the local newspaper has a ban on printing > anything religion related) but even 19th century would be rather > surprising. > Fine in theory, but doesn't actually work. Because the 18th century church, unless it is architecturally unique or historically significant, may well be in print sources, but almost certainly none that anyone can find during the 5 days in afd. Local histories for location y, are not generally held by libraries in place z - even if any afd person bothered to look. Whilst one click on google will provide "multiple third party sources" for Numpty the one-hit-wonder for Kentucky. No, some element of common sense and subjective judgement needs to be used, as much as the afd objectivists hate it. Why on earth delete something, when the source is trustworthy, and the thing obviously has some degree of sustainable significance? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia >>> >> Rather misses the points that (a) the "sources" metric for notability is >> horribly bad, in that "famous for being famous" rates much higher than >> "made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a >> year", unless you work on it, and (b) notability is a really bad concept >> for determining inclusion, except that we have no snappy replacement. >> Inclusion is what matters, ultimately. "Voting on notability" is >> obviously evil piled on evil, but somehow the double negative has worked >> for us. > > Another point: I've never understood (at least since starting to think about > it) why notability should have anything to do with reliable sources. It > seems to me that what we really want is *widely used* sources. If something > receives heavy coverage in an unreliable source, it makes no sense not to > include it. > > > ___ The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical formula: sources *n / PI = notability. To take an obvious example. An article on an 18th church building, which has been created using a well-researched webpage from the church and perhaps some mention on the denomination's site, plus one brief mention on the site of the village in which it is situation, is deleted as "not notable" because it lacks "multiple third party sources". Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this won't google up. Yet, the subject, as minor as it is has reasonably reliable sourcing and a degree of enduring importance. Sure, it isn't very significant, but such significance as it has will persevere. Meanwhile anyone who gets 4min of media fame passes the "multiple third party sources" test and gets included. Despite the fact that their fame is passing. Oh, the notion that notability isn't temporary is quite absurd. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
Now on AfD as "not notable". I'll expect the trout on my face later. ___ 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
David Gerard wrote: > 2009/4/22 doc : > >> I suspect that most of such critics have reached the conclusion that a >> wiki is not a suitable way of creating an encyclopedia. >> It does seem to me that most of this discussion is predicated on the >> assumption that Otherpedia.org will be a wiki and will be free-use. I >> strongly suspect that anything that starts from that basis will be too >> much like wikipedia to be anything more than a small-player in some niche. > > > Hmm. Wonder what a next model could look like. > > > - d. > If I knew, I'd not tell you, and I'd be setting it right now. If you know, do tell me, and I'll let you be the co-founder. ;) ___ 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
David Gerard wrote: > 2009/4/22 doc : > >> You need to offer a writer something very different, if you are to >> motivate him to write in the early stages when readership will be low. >> Or indeed, you have to attract the type of writer who would be wholly >> disinterested in writing for wikipedia. > > > More - you need people who are actually disinterested, not embittered. > Note how many Wikipedia Review regulars have managed to get banned > from Citizendium as well as Wikipedia in record time. It's entirely > unclear why they don't start their own wiki encyclopedia, and thus > demonstrate our evil and worthlessness. > > > - d. > I suspect that most of such critics have reached the conclusion that a wiki is not a suitable way of creating an encyclopedia. It does seem to me that most of this discussion is predicated on the assumption that Otherpedia.org will be a wiki and will be free-use. I strongly suspect that anything that starts from that basis will be too much like wikipedia to be anything more than a small-player in some niche. ___ 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
George Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:27 AM, doc wrote: > >> I'd say that "the reader question" is less pertinent for any start up >> than the "writer question". Readers will not be interested until you >> have enough writers to produce the goods, and do so in a reliable way. >> So you really need to find a motivation to make qualified people want to >> contribute (or Wikipedia's best to switch). Ultimately, having a lot of >> readers will do that, but any start up needs initially to offer >> something else to the writer. > > > > I think that's a nice theory, but a number of new projects have in some > sense (either people-wise or concept-wise) spun out of Wikipedia to try and > do that, and in practice have not had readership follow them or build up on > their own. > > There are a number of possible explanations... Wikipedia just has grabbed > public mindshare and others don't have a wedge to get in right now. > Wikipedia's readers to editors curve being so easy may in fact be a key > innovation and enabler to get and keep reader mindshare. The other > encyclopedias may just not get "reader friendly" well enough and thus be > ultimately doomed walled gardens. Or perhaps we're being too harsh, time > and content will bring critical masses of readership. > > If any of these projects really don't value readership, then they're truly > doomed. > > As I've said, the other projects basically fail for being too like wikipedia. Why write for something which you might consider "a little better than wikipedia in area x" when you can write for Wikipedia, which is read far more. You need to offer a writer something very different, if you are to motivate him to write in the early stages when readership will be low. Or indeed, you have to attract the type of writer who would be wholly disinterested in writing for wikipedia. Readership WILL eventually be the incentive for writing. But any startup begins with zero readers, and can't possibly attract any readers unless it has content, for which is needs writers motivated to write only in the expectation of future readers. Your first task is to find a model people want to write for. ___ 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
Depends on the people. Wikipedia is full of people who like participating in an online community, and respect within that community is then a motivation. However, Wikipedia is notoriously bad at attracting expects, and even the experts we have tend to run away from their specialist areas. Imagine a project where someone wrote the article on Quantum Physics, The Beetles, or the Latin declensions, not primarily because they cared about kudos in the virtual community but because they were experts in their field, cared about it, and liked the writing an article and having their name associated with it. Imagine a project where a doctoral student who usually writes research papers was attracted to write an general article in their field and add it to their publications resume, knowing that other knowledgeable people in the field would offer feedback and assessment. Wikipedia does well at attracting and retaining the type of people it has, doing their things they do - and that produces the product you get. A different model, based on a different motivational psychology, would yield different results. I think the problem for the Wikipedia vs Citizendium debate is that it too much assumes that the Citizendium model succeeds only if it manages eventually to duplicate all that is good about Wikipedia, whilst improving on some of the downsides. Indeed, I think Sanger made this mistake from the outset - seen in his initial ambition to use the whole Wikipedia database. You can go for an authoritative, reliable, encyclopedia, written by experts, or you can go for size and wide scope. You can't square the circle. Complaining that the ordinary web user can't easily edit CZ, misses the point that you don't want them too. Elitist encyclopaedias are written by elites. (Although I think they've pretty much failed in attracting that elite group.) If at any time Otherpedia.org succeeds, you will not be able to compare it with wikipedia. It will be apples to the WMF oranges. I, for myself, I don't think it it will be a wiki at all. David Goodman wrote: > Very few people manage to acheive in their lives either fame in the > world as a whole, or much money. What motivates people is the extent > to which they can become a respected (or, if you will, famous) member > of whatever their own circles are, at work and outside it. Both > Wikipedia and Citizendium are large enough to offer this. To a > certain extent its easier in a smaller community, but a large one > offers more sub-groups. Large communities typically form as many > subgroups as necessary to provide all the people after a period > awaiting acceptance with an opportunity for this. Primates typically > want to become alpha in their own band, not king of the jungle. > > The next step in self-respect is knowing that one's community has a > role of some significance in wider circles--that one's band will come > out ahead in conflicts with other such bands. Typically, the actual > alpha primate in a band doesn't have much direct function here--it > depends on the younger ones. This at present is why people come to > Wikipedia: whatever small role one has with it will be seen much more > widely. > > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, doc wrote: > . >> There are two things which motivate people - fame and money. Wikipedia >> offers neither. It is not impossible that a formula could emerge that >> allows revenue to the writer or the writer to get the type of kudos that >> is bankable on a CV. Knowl and CZ have both realised this - but neither >> seems to have got the formula right. (If, indeed, it is possible to.) > ___ 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
David Gerard wrote: > Yes. This is a fallacy we see over and over: "Wikipedia would be so > much better if you did X for the writers." Whereas that doesn't serve > the readers, so is why we don't do it. So other projects come along > that will do X for the writers, and fail to gain traction. Knol is the > highest-profile failure so far - untrammeled freedom for the writers > has made it a spam repository. > > > - d. > Ultimately, I think this is true. Almost Wikipedia has cornered the market in "huge coverage, but somewhat questionable reliability" online encyclopedias. Whilst it is true that Wikipedia could be improved on and a Wikipedia+ system devised, it will fail. Just as surely as any new operating system will fail if it tries to sell itself as "Windows but a bit better". The saturation of the established product will squash it. This is also why content forking is quite useless. The only hope for An Other is to offer an entirely different formula from "huge coverage, but somewhat questionable reliability". (If you up the reliability by selecting your writers, then your coverage will be proportionately decreased anyway.) You would need to be able to offer a product which was *substantially* more reliable, but still wide and participatory enough not just to be another Veropedia. If you could do that, comparisons with wikipedia would be pointless - the point would be that people looking for reliable, citable, material on any core subject would use that encyclopedia in preference to/or alongside Wikipedia. That Wikipedia had 100 times more articles would be beside the point. (It is interesting to consider what would happen if Encarta had been made available and maintained free to use by Microsoft - perhaps ad funded - it might well have taken the business from Wikipedia on many core topics.) I'd say that "the reader question" is less pertinent for any start up than the "writer question". Readers will not be interested until you have enough writers to produce the goods, and do so in a reliable way. So you really need to find a motivation to make qualified people want to contribute (or Wikipedia's best to switch). Ultimately, having a lot of readers will do that, but any start up needs initially to offer something else to the writer. There are two things which motivate people - fame and money. Wikipedia offers neither. It is not impossible that a formula could emerge that allows revenue to the writer or the writer to get the type of kudos that is bankable on a CV. Knowl and CZ have both realised this - but neither seems to have got the formula right. (If, indeed, it is possible to.) The Other does not need to think in terms of replacing Wikipedia - or scoring more Goggle juice. Success is where someone looking for a source they can quote in their school essay says "better try Otherpedia.com". Indeed would it not be great if in ten years time I can google a subject, easily find the wikipedia article, and then, if the subject is not so obscure that only Wikipedia will cover it, follow the link to the academically respectable Otherpedia.com article (which, indeed, is reliable enough to have been allowed as a source for Wikipedia)! ___ 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...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > And as a counter-balance, your approach is flawed. > > Any person who says "this article is Wrong", needs to show why it's wrong, > not just say it. Even the subject. There is no such thing as "Right" and > "Wrong" when dealing with biographies. That is why hard scientists should > not try to stick their toes into biography, they just do not comprehend the > distinction between Non-Fiction and Biography. > > Right, Wrong, True, False, White, Black, and so on do not exist. They > don't. No existence. They aren't there. Nowhere. Ok ... > > Now on to step B. > > > Will Johnson > > > Not so. If I say, "you (wikipedia) have an article about me and it is libellous". Then, given that we know anyone could have written it, and it may well say "Joe is a brothel-keeping cocksucker, who murders children", Wikipedia has an obligation to check the article and ensure that it is defensible. If, having done that, Wikipedia cannot see any libel. Then it may ask the subject "can you specify what your problem is with the article" Then the onus is on us to double-check that the material he has a problem with is fair, sourced and accurate. Whilst many shades of grey exist, that isn't an excuse for saying that some things are not "wrong". ___ 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...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/21/2009 11:37:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > arrom...@rahul.net writes: > > >> And this doesn't even touch the issue of what to do with information is >> verifiable but false.>> >> --- >> >> > > Biographical details aren't "True" or "False". > They are reported, repeated, cited, confirmed, evidenced, and so on. > > Biography is no longer under the Dewey Decimal system. The idea that a > biography, or even an auto-biography (or especially) is reporting "Truth" is > an > old fiction itself. > > If the subject of a Wiki-article feels that something is "false" the best > way to combat that is to publish themselves, on their own official website, > the "truth" of the matter and then link it in, or cite it. > > We do not give BLP's control over what we report. We give them equal > access. If that person cannot be bothered to do that simple simple thing > than > apparently they don't really care enough about the matter. > > Will Johnson This is the typical silly response that lies behind the BLP problem. A few things need taken on board: 1) Having a fair and balanced BLP is not simply a matter of sources and verification. The most damaging BLPs I've seen, are the ones that select sources, spin facts, omit counterbalance to create a picture that looks neutral on a quick glance, but is actually a total distortion of truth. 2) Whilst it is very difficult to distinguish between the subject who is intent on getting his own hagiography or whitewash on his article, and the innocent subject who has been genuinely and unfairly maligned, that is NOT the damaged subject's fault. We need to assume all subjects have a genuine grievance until we are sure they don't. It is a bit like an asylum seeker argument - many/most may be "bogus" but you really can't initially treat them as such because some will be the victims of horrible torture and your system must not perpetuate that. 3) There ought to be NO onus on a BLP victim to do anything other than say "this article is wrong". Once the victim has complained, the onus is on Wikipedia to fix it. Does that make our job difficult? Yes. But we are the ones who opened a wiki and let someone write about him, not him. It is useful if he works with us, has patience and learns our system - but we cannot expect this or demand this. It is a perfectly understandable response for a maligned person to blank, change, and spout legal threats. That's what I'd do. ___ 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 living people
David Gerard wrote: > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Michael Snow > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia > community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, > accurate information, by: > > 1) Ensuring that projects in all languages that describe living people > have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles > of neutrality and verifiability in those articles; > > 2) Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account > when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral > or marginal interest; > > 3) Investigating new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly > when they affect living people, and to better enable readers to report > problems; > > 4) Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described > in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging > others to do the same. > > --Michael Snow > And? Where's the beef? ___ 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] wow
I can't wait to see their faces at Citizendium when they realise that
en.wikipedia.org will be the default desktop for all Windows systems.
But, the best bit will be the built-in "edit this webpage" button
powered by the universal wiki-engine, which means that every webpage
will be open for editing. Haven't you always wanted the ability to
correct spelling errors on Guardian.co.uk, place a {{fact}} tag on the
New York Times, or template the Whitehouse site as {{POV}}?? Well, all
you will have to do is click on the large "Jimbo Icon" and you're off.
Just don't redirect uk.gov to [[Clown]]!
FT2 wrote:
> It seems they spotted our cunning plan. But never fear - that was intended
> to be discovered all along! The /real/ cabal's secret plan is Windows 7which
> has Wikipedia built in as its preferred search engine. oh the billions
> we'll make from those people who just /have/ to see the latest pokemon!
>
>
>
> FT2 (in 2009-style crimson red with sable chevoronels)
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:53 PM, doc wrote:
>
>> Black velvet? Gah, so 2006. You obviously cancelled your "Wikipedian
>> In-Style" magazine when you handed in your sysop bit. Further, I'm
>> afraid the check from Microsoft has long since been spent on paperclips
>> and cheese fondues at the Secret UK reunion.
>>
>>
>> Durova wrote:
>>> Magnus: Vanuatu changed its reporting practices in 2008, remember? My
>>> windfall from the naked short selling conspiracy is in the Cayman
>> Islands.
>>> Just a moment while I drop by the dry cleaners to pick up the black
>> velvet
>>> cabal robes on the way to the airport.
>>>
>>> -Durova
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Magnus Manske
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:33 AM, David Gerard
>> wrote:
>>>>> Apparently we're conspiring with Microsoft.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nike6/3457023387/
>>>> Damn, they found out! Quick, grab the money stash, I'll get our
>>>> tickets to Vanuatu!
>>>>
>>>> Magnus
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] wow
Black velvet? Gah, so 2006. You obviously cancelled your "Wikipedian In-Style" magazine when you handed in your sysop bit. Further, I'm afraid the check from Microsoft has long since been spent on paperclips and cheese fondues at the Secret UK reunion. Durova wrote: > Magnus: Vanuatu changed its reporting practices in 2008, remember? My > windfall from the naked short selling conspiracy is in the Cayman Islands. > Just a moment while I drop by the dry cleaners to pick up the black velvet > cabal robes on the way to the airport. > > -Durova > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Magnus Manske > wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:33 AM, David Gerard wrote: >>> Apparently we're conspiring with Microsoft. >>> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nike6/3457023387/ >> Damn, they found out! Quick, grab the money stash, I'll get our >> tickets to Vanuatu! >> >> Magnus >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
Sage Ross wrote: > > A related observation: presumably because of the delayed sign-up > process, only about half of new users ever make a first edit on CZ: > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:New_users.png > > -Sage > (User:Ragesoss) > I wonder what percentage of new accounts make a *useful* first edit on wikipedia? ___ 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
Ian Woollard wrote: > Ironically, even the conservapedia homeopathy article is probably more > accurate than the citizendium one in this case: > > http://www.conservapedia.com/Homeopathy > I /really/ don't think Wikipedia wants a pissing contest here. Do we really want to compare the worst article we can find on Citizendium with Wikipedians worst? I think we'd clearly lose. ___ 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] AFD has gone to a 7 day cycle
Risker wrote: > Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside. > > Risker > It is really about time that Wikipedia regulated the means by which policy changes are made. Personally, I've long been in favour of a policy making body. However, I understand many people prefer the "consensus model". But even if we stick to the consensus model, we perhaps should have a regularised means for closing the discussion and ruling where consensus lies. When we have an afd, an uninvolved admin closes. When the community considers adminship, a crat calls consensus. Is there a need for the selection of a group of trusted users who can be called upon to to declare (after discussion) when a policy change has consensus has been made? Perhaps we should have [[Wikipedia:Requests for policy change]], where an uninvolved crat or arb, or new class of user, closes the debate. ___ 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] AFD has gone to a 7 day cycle
Al Tally wrote: > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days >> > > I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a > minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, > what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my > view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've been > practising for years. > Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it. AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough? ___ 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
George Herbert wrote: > That's not what wikien-l is for. > > So, to raise a more important point, which should be more pertinent to the purpose of this list, and of more immediate concern to Wikipedia's integrity. I thought I should alert the august and serious readers of this list, to the fact that we now have a "Requests for Comment" on the pressing question of whether or not we should include Richard Gere's rumoured altercation with a Gerbil in his biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Gere#Gerbil I mean, why discuss founders and co-founders when we have other Serius Bizniz on the wiki? Scott ___ 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
David Gerard wrote: > > So far it's only been respect for his role in the founding of the site > that's stopped that from happening. > > - d. > You mean co-founding, surely? ;) Scott ___ 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
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" ___ 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 Forum
As someone who does post to WR, [queue hiss boos from the true-believers], I did consider taking your case there. However, then I looked at your "article" and the surrounding debate and decided it had no merits whatsoever. Perhaps I can refer you to this page for further help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:STICK Bill Carter wrote: > Wikipedia Review will make me feel right at home? You mean they'll address > this issue which none of you Wikipedia administrators intend to, particularly > David Gerard? What's the fucking point of you guys being administrators when > you won't address important issues? Since when is it okay to speedy delete a > new article re-created with the intentions of addressing all of Wikipedia's > notability demands? You guys are running a reckless website and actually > receive a deserved amount of negative press. > > The article in question about journalist Alan Cabal: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article > > Bill > > > > > > From: Charles Matthews > To: English Wikipedia > Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 4:23:02 PM > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Forum > ___ 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
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. > > In summation: Larry says Jimmy is a self-serving liar, and presents (IMO) compelling evidence of the same. The question then is: 1) Does Wikipedia/WMF care? and 2) Should Wikipedia/WMF care? Well, perhaps not: *unless its articles reflect something other than reality. (We are committed to NPOV) *or unless Jimmy were abusing his position within WMF and the community to push his POV, or distort Wikipedia for his own benefit. (If the leader/exemplar were engaging in POV-pushing and COI meet puppetry, that should concern us!) Is he? I don't know. Are these IRC transcripts accurate? The source is questionable, but as a minor participant in one of the discussions, it does seem to tally with my (admittedly fuzzy) memories. http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out ___ 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
phoebe ayers wrote: > I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in > subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix > blp's. > > -- phoebe > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > A very simple and non-controversial start might be to ask New Page patrolers, when they see a new unsourced BLP (or indeed any unsourced article) to put a polite message on the creator's talk page saying "Thanks for your article [XYZ]. Wikipedia asks that all material be verifiable from reliable sources, it is important that readers and other users can check what's been writen. You don't seem to have told us the source you used for this article. Please can you edit the article to indicate what the source is? (Click here for help if you don't know how.) Unsourced material about living people may be removed if challenged." That doesn't bite or threaten any newbies, although if established editors keep getting these on their talk pages, threats might be warranted. ___ 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
geni wrote: > 2009/4/4 doc : >> Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of >> ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally >> take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV >> etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV. > > If we look at the more successful wikis however the only successful > ones appear to be allowing original research, Some level of POV and > totaly non wikipedia style. TVTropes is probably the best example. > > I do not assume that a future competitor to wikipedia will be a wiki. Indeed I doubt anyone could compete on that basis. ___ 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
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> I do however in the larger scheme of things think that
>> having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this
>> stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive,
>> ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I
>> have very little hope of that happening in a form that is
>> genuine, and not just a mocker.
>>
>
> Agreed. At least in theory it counter-balance the rule-oriented and
> corporatist tendencies that have developed. The difficulty is that it
> would take a lot of resources and tenacity to pull this off.
>
> Ec
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
At this stage, I'd say that the odds of a successful fork are roughly
nil. The problem for a fork is that it is immediately competes with
wikipedia, and is offering a product that the average reader or
contributor will probably not differentiate much from wikipedia. If it
takes the whole database, it won't have enough initial users to maintain
it. If it doesn't, then why would anyone use it when they have wikipedia?
The only real hope for a competitor would be one that offered something
substantially different to both reader and writer. Only then can it
overcome the "motivation problem" of getting people interested in an
initially small project, when there's the giant wikipedia available.
The ingredients of a "different product" are there:
Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of
ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally
take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV
etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV.
Readers could be offered things like: 1) useful commercial links
("people interested in this topic might like to buy the following
books") 2) a more reliable - stable product 3) a more "child friendly"
product. 4) ability to know the qualifications - or even online
reputation - of the author. 5) ability to read articles written from a
POV you share.
Now, some of those attributes were offered by veropedia, some by
Citenzium, or Conservapedia, and some by others. Some are obviously
incompatible, or possibly infeasible, and so far no one has found a
recipe to combine any of them successfully. (I'd class all current
offerings as failed or failing). However given that the rewards for
success here could be remarkably high, I'd suggest that there will be
more attempts in coming years, and possibly by very well-resourced
players (Wikipedia is vulnerable in that the WMF is underfunded - what
happens if a competitor goes for advertising with a massive publicity
budget could be interesting). It is not beyond possibility that someday
someone will stumble on a formula that works, and will either complement
or overshadow wikipedia.
___
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
I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with handing out reviewer status at x+1 edits, but making it difficult to remove. It must not be harder to remove than to grant. But as I say, I am strongly opposed to deploying flagging on all articles anyway. > > Those people who are to grant or remove the reviewer right, need to be at a > level *above* the "backlog cleanup crew", and "fight vandalism" people. > Because that level is too fraught with article-space-conflicts, and > additional > content-effecting powers would just tend to create more of that, not less. > > Will Johnson > > > > > > ** > Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or > less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
Personally I could agree that the power to "remove reviewer right" could be restricted to some special class of user, but only if the power to "grant reviewer right" is subject to even more scrutiny. If reviewer right is wrongly removed - we'll have the internal problem of an upset editor (big deal? not - get over it!), however if it is granted to someone who misuses it then it breaches our quality control and can damage living people. I really have little sympathy for those more concerned about internal power structures or egalitarian principles in wikiland, that how what we do impacts on the reader, and more importantly the bio subject who is the victim of our structural carelessness. wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > < carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: > > Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread. > Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and > leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you begin > to address that problem?>> > > You don't address it by allowing any admin who got their badge knowing next > to nothing about NOR (as many don't) do remove the right of established users > > who have been in-project ten times longer than they. I will never, not > ever, agree to giving admins extra powers. They already have several powers > they > should not have in my opinion. The idea behind admins, imho, was supposed > to be that they are helpful janitors clearning up messes, not theat they > were > thought police enforcing the boundary line with clubs. > > If we want to create new powers, then we need perhaps new categories of > user. For those users who do not want to be police, but are quite willing > to > enhance the content of the project, we should create a parallel track, not a > subordinate one. No matter what anyone states, if a reviewer's right can be > removed at the whim (yes whim) of any admin, then reviewers are subordinate > to > admins. They should not be. > > Will Johnson > > > > **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or > less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
David Goodman wrote: > There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at > least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no > encyclopedia. This is a logical fallacy. That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to destroy every living cell within it - is not an argument against ever using chemotherapy or carrying out a hysterectomy. > What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that > can be produced by our methods-- You said "What we are here to do is to produce the most accurate encyclopedia that can be produced" - agreed "by our methods" - yes and no What if a more accurate encyclopedia could, in fact, be produced by modifying our methods at points? Our method - open editing, inclusionism and evantualism are certainly the great engine that has made the encyclopedia possible - but like all engines you sometimes need gears (and breaks) if you want to move to a particular destination. We regularly block, protect and delete - those are breaks and gears. Wikipedia should always be open to using more or less of these as required to manoeuvre. Dogmatic puritanism, and hang the consequences is as unattractive here as it is with any society of zealous true believers. >and it is already much more accurate than anyone would have suspected >beforehand, knowing the chaotic way > in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors > and want to correct them; others join because they see surprisingly > good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason. > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG Wikipedia exists in the real world, has real power, and with that power comes responsibility too. Some errors are fine. Wikipedia is a work in progress. However, untamed eventualism is not a suitable doctrine for BLP. Scott MacDonald PhD etc. ___ 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
This is a fallacy. That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to destroy every cell within it - is not an argument against ever using chemotherapy or carrying out a hysterectomy. "What we are here to do is to produce the most accurate encyclopedia that can be produced" - agreed "by our methods" - yes and no What if a more accurate encyclopedia could, in fact be produced, by modifying our methods at points? Our method - open editing, inclusionism and evantualism are certainly the great engine that has made the encyclopedia possible - but like all engines you sometimes need gears (and breaks) if you want to move to a particular destination. We regularly block, protect and delete - those are breaks and gears. Wikipedia should always be open to using more or less of these as required to manoeuvre. Dogmatic puritanism, and hang the consequences is as unattractive here as it is with any society of zealous true believers. Wikipedia exists in the real world, has real power, and with that power comes responsibility too. It is time for Wikipedians to grow up. Scott MacDonald PhD etc. David Goodman wrote: > There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at > least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no > encyclopedia. > > What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that > can be produced by our methods--and it is already much more accurate > than anyone would have suspected beforehand, knowing the chaotic way > in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors > and want to correct them; others join because they see surprisingly > good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason. > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > ___ 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
I did read what you said, and it is bad enough. The notion that "anyone [with xn edits] can review", and no admin can revoke, makes the right less scrutinised that rollback - that has the effect of making the quality control utterly useless. That someone has xn edits only means that they have not (yet) behaved in a manner to get blocked. It in no sense is equal to clue, perceptiveness, or diligence. The problem with widespread flagging is that in order to prevent backlogs, you will be under pressure to maximise the reviewers, and give the reviewers incentives to rack up numerous reviews per minute. That is inconsistent with useful scrutiny. wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review". > Review what I said again. > I said that established users can review, that it should be an > automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that > right. > > That is quite different from "anyone". > > > ___ 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
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I'm in agreement with David here. > I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly be > interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or > remove spurious details. I think we all do that a bit. Being a > policeman is quite a different role. > > So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all > established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to > unseat a member of the group. It should probably be automatic at a > certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature. > There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for admins, > and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly > disruptive to the system even though long-term participants. We don't > need any more of that. > > Will Johnson > This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism - and quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post for reasoning). If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can review" and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without process and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review. Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the current state of any article. You think giving these same people more work will solve the subtler BLP problem? Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the subject. I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no difference to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and conterproductive. For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen to the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us. Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with legitimate subject complaints? ___ 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
Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The problem is that subtle attempt to insert credible untruths, half-truths, or facts spun to create an imbalanced biased picture of a person will almost certainly walk through this. Only what is obvious to the average lazy reviewer will be prevented - but what is obvious to the reviewer is not harmful, because it is also obvious to the reader. Hence, general flagging will not solve the BLP problem, it will not really even help. We won't dent this until we start to take maintainability into consideration as well as verifiability. Sure, any individual BLPs /can/ be written in good way, but, taken together, our wiki-structure /will not/ maintain this level of BLPs without an unacceptable level of harmful articles. Eventualism does not work here - because shitty biased BLPS in the meantime are not acceptable. We have two choices: 1) delete a large proportion of our lower notability (=less watched by knowledgable people) BLPs. OR 2) tweek the structures so that those motivated to be doing the quality control (and that includes clued readers) are able to maintain more articles. The second option means looking at: 1) Spot banning anyone pushing negative POVs on a BLP. We should not waste resources arguing with such people. 2) Permanently semi-protecting any article where there's been a previous harmful BLP violation that's not been reverted within a few hours. These are the articles that our open editing has failed once - the subject should not be open to it again. 3) *Insisting on sourcing*. Yes, the patroler /could/ google and check the verifiability of the thing for himself. But we simply DO NOT have enough clued patroler to do this. We must put the onus on the editor giving the information to "show his working" - so that the partoler (or the casual reader) will be quicker to see any problems with the sourcing. Why should unsourced BLPs not be tolerated? Because we cannot maintain any level of quality control as long as we keep making the checker do all the work. You want it in? You source it - otherwise NO. ___ 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] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? This proposal aims (without causing any deletion spree of backlogs) to instigate the idea that basic sourcing is necessary for any BLP to remain on wikipedia. People are given time to source it (and can even do so retrospectively) - but we set time limits on unreferenced BLPs. We've currently got 30,000 of these unreferenced things - that needs sorting (preferably by sourcing rather than deletion) - but stemming the tide is the first step. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concrete_proposal ___ 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 revs poll take 2
Sorry, I meant "better that nothing passes" doc wrote: > No, you argued that I should not oppose the current measure because it > was all that could pass. > > My response is, better than nothing passes. > > Now you are arguing something else. > > Andrew Turvey wrote: >> No, my argument is not spurious - it's to the point. We operate in a >> community, and there are plenty of things I would do differently too if I >> had my way with everything. There's zero point in pursuing proposals that >> are strongly opposed by a significant section of the community. "Majority" >> (50%+1) is not good enough for something as important as this. >> >> As another poster said: "Dont break the community". Flagged revisions and >> the increasing trend towards deletionism are the two developments that have >> the greatest risk of doing exactly that. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "doc" >> To: "English Wikipedia" >> Sent: Tuesday, 31 March, 2009 23:45:19 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, >> Portugal >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 >> >> Your argument is spurious. >> >> It may well be that this proposal is the only one that would pass - but >> that neither means that it is good, nor that it is a good thing that it >> is passing. >> >> The proposal IMO is damaging to the cause of using flagged revisions in >> a manner that will help BLP victims. >> >> Doing nothing would be better than this. >> >> Your argument is the logical fallacy that because "something must be >> done" means "anything is better than the status quo", or that "any >> movement is a step in the right direction" - which does not consider >> that one can move, and move in the wrong direction. >> >> >> Andrew Turvey wrote: >>> And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board >>> than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way >>> of taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "doc" >>> To: "English Wikipedia" >>> Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, >>> Portugal >>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 >>> >>> Nathan wrote: >>>> Two more problems: >>>> >>>> 1) This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one >>>> day >>>> for further participation. >>>> >>>> 2) None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been >>>> determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily >>>> met with "We'll work that out when the poll closes." >>>> >>>> Nice. >>>> >>>> Nathan >>>> >>>> (expanded opinion at >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) >>>> ___ >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>>> >>> First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as >>> being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous >>> thing. >>> >>> It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is >>> something" over common sense. >>> >>> This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and >>> introduces a nightmare, all at once. >>> >>> Nice indeed. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> ___ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> ___ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
No, you argued that I should not oppose the current measure because it was all that could pass. My response is, better than nothing passes. Now you are arguing something else. Andrew Turvey wrote: > No, my argument is not spurious - it's to the point. We operate in a > community, and there are plenty of things I would do differently too if I had > my way with everything. There's zero point in pursuing proposals that are > strongly opposed by a significant section of the community. "Majority" > (50%+1) is not good enough for something as important as this. > > As another poster said: "Dont break the community". Flagged revisions and the > increasing trend towards deletionism are the two developments that have the > greatest risk of doing exactly that. > > - Original Message - > From: "doc" > To: "English Wikipedia" > Sent: Tuesday, 31 March, 2009 23:45:19 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, > Portugal > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 > > Your argument is spurious. > > It may well be that this proposal is the only one that would pass - but > that neither means that it is good, nor that it is a good thing that it > is passing. > > The proposal IMO is damaging to the cause of using flagged revisions in > a manner that will help BLP victims. > > Doing nothing would be better than this. > > Your argument is the logical fallacy that because "something must be > done" means "anything is better than the status quo", or that "any > movement is a step in the right direction" - which does not consider > that one can move, and move in the wrong direction. > > > Andrew Turvey wrote: >> And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board >> than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of >> taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "doc" >> To: "English Wikipedia" >> Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, >> Portugal >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 >> >> Nathan wrote: >>> Two more problems: >>> >>> 1) This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one >>> day >>> for further participation. >>> >>> 2) None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been >>> determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily >>> met with "We'll work that out when the poll closes." >>> >>> Nice. >>> >>> Nathan >>> >>> (expanded opinion at >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) >>> ___ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> >> First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as >> being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous >> thing. >> >> It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is >> something" over common sense. >> >> This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and >> introduces a nightmare, all at once. >> >> Nice indeed. >> >> Scott >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
Your argument is spurious. It may well be that this proposal is the only one that would pass - but that neither means that it is good, nor that it is a good thing that it is passing. The proposal IMO is damaging to the cause of using flagged revisions in a manner that will help BLP victims. Doing nothing would be better than this. Your argument is the logical fallacy that because "something must be done" means "anything is better than the status quo", or that "any movement is a step in the right direction" - which does not consider that one can move, and move in the wrong direction. Andrew Turvey wrote: > And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board > than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of > taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it. > > - Original Message - > From: "doc" > To: "English Wikipedia" > Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, > Portugal > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 > > Nathan wrote: >> Two more problems: >> >> 1) This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day >> for further participation. >> >> 2) None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been >> determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily >> met with "We'll work that out when the poll closes." >> >> Nice. >> >> Nathan >> >> (expanded opinion at >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as > being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous > thing. > > It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is > something" over common sense. > > This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and > introduces a nightmare, all at once. > > Nice indeed. > > Scott > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Microsoft kills Encarta
Ian Woollard wrote: > On 30/03/2009, doc wrote: >> And then someone will come up with a better way of delivering >> information than a wiki... > > Probably, but I think people, if they still live, will still be > talking about the wikipedia in a thousand years, like they still talk > about the Library of Alexandria. > Ha, hyperbolic optimism, I trust, otherwise perhaps the delusions of a very "true believer" [note to self - avoid koolaid cliché] The Library of Alexandria was with us for between 350 and a thousand years (depending on which history book you read), Wikipedia has been with us for a total of 8. Now, I don't want to underestimate the achievements of Wikipedia, however, Encarta (1993-2009)has had a longer run, and was part of an equally ground-breaking genre of knowledge provision at its start. I do suspect that Wikipedia will be cited in future histories as a significant example of a collaborative community. It will be to online libraries as E-bay is currently to online auctions. Whether wikipedia will prove to be a significant milestone in the collection and dissemination of knowledge, remains to be seen. It rather depends on what the next generation brings, and whether it will owe a recognisable debt to Wikipedia, or whether it will take us in another direction altogether. (If, for example, global copright laws were to change, the future might look more like wikisource - a library - than wikipedia, an encyclopedia.) Further, I'm no historian of technology. But the lesson surely is that not much lasts for long. Few organisations have been able to dominate any field for more than a decade or so. (Microsoft is perhaps the (dis?)honourable exception - and even then.) Today's unassailable phenomena, which no one can see anyone displacing, is tomorrow's footnote. BASIC anyone? Sinclair? Plastic records? The other reason I suspect that Wikipedia's shelf-life will, in fact, be shorter than most imagine, is that in the fast-changing evolution that is the internet, the ability to adapt is critical to survival. The browser that doesn't update is history. Sadly, for a relatively young phenomenon, Wikipedia, and particularly en.wp has shown an enormous conservatism about adapting. An initial winning formula that gave the breakthrough is regarded as sacred dogma - and a demand for consensus before change gives the dinosaurs an advantage. At the moment it matters little, as there is no real competition. But if/when a competitor get the magic formula right, I doubt Wikipedia has the structures to compete. The community hasn't really woken up to the fact that Wikipedia is no longer only an open shelf needing to be stacked, but it is a depository of a huge wealth of material that needs to be protected, sorted and (urgently) sifted. Alexandria's library didn't fail because it stopped importing knowledge, it failed because it was unable to effectively protect the knowledge it had already acquired. ___ 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] Microsoft kills Encarta
And then someone will come up with a better way of delivering information than a wiki... Scientia Potentia est wrote: > Indeed it will, and hopefully that wiki will have worked out the kinks we > haven't managed to fix. > > bibliomaniac15 > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, doc wrote: > From: doc > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Microsoft kills Encarta > To: "English Wikipedia" > Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 3:45 PM > > You realise, someday the announcement will read: > > "Wikipedia has been a popular product around the world for many years. > However, the category of traditional wiki encyclopedias and reference > material has changed. People today seek and consume information in > considerably different ways than in years past." > > Civilisation proceeds obsolescence by obsolescence > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Microsoft kills Encarta
You realise, someday the announcement will read: "Wikipedia has been a popular product around the world for many years. However, the category of traditional wiki encyclopedias and reference material has changed. People today seek and consume information in considerably different ways than in years past." Civilisation proceeds obsolescence by obsolescence ___ 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 revs poll take 2
Nathan wrote: > Two more problems: > > 1) This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day > for further participation. > > 2) None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been > determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily > met with "We'll work that out when the poll closes." > > Nice. > > Nathan > > (expanded opinion at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing. It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is something" over common sense. This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once. Nice indeed. Scott ___ 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] Legal examination
Examination Question: Read the following "Sarah H. Cleveland is the Louis Henkin Professor of Human and Constitutional Rights at Columbia Law School. She is a noted advocate of the use of international law in U.S. courts. In her widely celebrated 2007 Civil Procedure final exam, she referenced Wikipedia to highlight how fraught personal jurisdiction issues have become in the Internet age. Students were asked to analyze whether an allegedly defamatory Wikipedia page edit could establish jurisdiction over the user in an unforeseeable State, so long as the defamation created harm in that State. She is a graduate of Brown University, University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, and Yale Law School." Taken from Wikipedia's article on Prof. Cleveland. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Cleveland&oldid=255771191 Students should now write an essay on one of the following: 1) In terms of personal jurisdiction, analyze whether an allegedly defamatory Wikipedia page edit can establish jurisdiction over the user in an unforeseeable state, so long as the defamation created harm in that state. Or 2) Discuss why this particular Wikipedia article is bullshit. ___ 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
Carcharoth wrote: > [Correcting previous post - can't Wikipedia have editable posts?] > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Carcharoth > wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Charlotte Webb >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths. >>> History textbooks tend to lie by omission but the board of education >>> will be loathe to approve anything that explicitly encourages students >>> to look elsewhere for the director's cut. They don't want to deal with >>> the fallout when students report back to class asking why their >>> curriculum bears no mention of the Mỹ Lai massacre, the bombing of >>> Dresden, Operation Northwoods, the Bonus Army, the School of the >>> Americas handbook, Martin Luther King's FBI fan-mail, Jonestown, or >>> the Tuskegee Study, etc. Indeed, who would? > > Doesn't that make the "board of education" part of the problem? > > Carcharoth > So, replace all such specialist elected and accountable bodies (or bodies accountable to the elected) with a wiki? Replace the expert, who wrote the textbook, with the anarchy of the truth according to whoever made the last edit? I think I'll stay off the koolaid and stick with democracy, professionalism, and expertise - yes it can be, on some occasions, stupid, biased and myopic, but it is still the best system we've got. ___ 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
Thomas Dalton wrote: > > Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school > textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, > children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being > taught how to judge their reliability. > Yes, at its best, Wikipedia is better referenced. But the rest of the Wikipedia promotional comparison does not follow. Children's textbooks are not without referencing because evil educationalists want to suppress other views, thus giving wikipedia a new mission of liberating oppression. Children's textbooks are basic, because that's where Children start. There are libraries - free to Children - full of well referenced books. However. 1) Most of Wikipedia is NOT written from multiple sources. Indeed some of out better written articles are basically mono-authored and use the author's preferred source. 2) The reason kids don't read the highly referenced works is not because "sources are evil" because they are often not written in a manner accessible to children. Wikipedia here is no different. Many of out bloated or complex featured articles are not simple and not particularly child friendly. 3) Read the School textbook, you are less likely to be reading downright bullshit. ___ 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
Carcharoth wrote: > 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. > > Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia > article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some > background reading and research, and the history presented in those > other sources is different to what you are teaching us". > > i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind > Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry > point into reading about the topic. > > Carcharoth > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > Which is about as likely as them reading the endnotes and sources sections in the textbook the school is commending. The notion that using wikipedia properly makes people think any more (or less) than using any other media is flawed. At least the people publishing the dead tree have put their names and reputations to the work, and if it stinks of bias then they smell. The agenda of wikipedia's nameless editors are, in fact, far more hidden. ___ 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
Sam Korn wrote: > > 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. > Dum spiro, spero However, Children will encounter many things that are helpful and harmful: MacDonalds, Disney, Microsoft, Celebrity Big Brother, and the blessed Royal Bank of Scotland. Whilst the odd guest speaker from such organisations appearing for an hour on a dull Friday at the end of term no doubt has its merits, I wouldn't start developing your agenda for "Wikipedia Classes" anytime soon. Or maybe youtube should be there too. If given a good general education, kids will, for the most, figure such stuff out for themselves. And in any case, the law of technological evolution says by the time primary kids hit the workplace, Wikipedia may well be as relevant as my intimate knowledge of the ZX Spectrum. Scott ___ 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
Ray Saintonge wrote: > My son is now in first year of college, and I tried for years to get him > more involved; I even brought him with me to Alexandria. It hasn't > worked, but I know that he used Wikipedia to help him in his research > for school papers. He has had the good sense to know that using > Wikipedia should not be both the beginning and the end of the research > project, but neither should Encarta and Britannica be so. In a recent > paper on Machu Pichu he ran into a stub article about some relevant > person, but there was a link to es:wp which had a much longer article. > I then told him that figuring out the other language was his problem, > and he managed. > > Having Wikipedia as a substitute for a school history curriculum would > not be appropriate. It should be a supplement there, with probably > greater importance than for other subjects taught at that level of > school. Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies > curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official > truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to > formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those > truths. > > Ec > 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". Why I think Sir John is barking up the wrong tree is that children are quite able to teach themselves to blog and edit a wiki. It does not require a high level of education - as the, em, abilities of our community adequately demonstrates. Indeed, the average 40-something classroom teacher is more likely to know less than the kids. But what the children *can't* teach themselves (and what on-line communication drastically requires) is basic literacy skills. You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and give them grammar and dictation. Scott ___ 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
Noah Salzman wrote: > On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:14 AM, doc wrote: > >> More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow >> them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. >> When my >> daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and >> Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school. > > > What about http://schools-wikipedia.org/ ?? > > I'm always surprised I don't see that "promoted" more. > >--Noah-- > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > You'll get more articles in Encarta or Britanicca - and they WILL have all the core ones, rather than a selection of what's been OK on wikipedia. Why would anyone want to use the schools' wikipedia? ___ 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
More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. When my daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school. ___ 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
Durova wrote: > The scary thing is that would probably work. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Al Tally wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova wrote: >> >>> Durova's evil guide to plagiarism: >>> >>> "Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic >> version >>> from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page >>> histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older >>> version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get >> a >>> safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go >> stay >>> out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder." >>> >>> (cackles, flees) >>> >> That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it >> works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over >> the internet, but it is static. >> > I suspect the "UR MOM sucks TEH cock lol" line in the middle of your otherwise fluent essay on the Reunification of Italy might be a bit of a give away. ___ 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
Durova wrote: > The scary thing is that would probably work. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Al Tally wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova wrote: >> >>> Durova's evil guide to plagiarism: >>> >>> "Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic >> version >>> from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page >>> histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older >>> version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get >> a >>> safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go >> stay >>> out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder." >>> >>> (cackles, flees) >>> >> That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it >> works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over >> the internet, but it is static. >> > I suspect the "U MOM sucks cock lol" line in the middle of your otherwise fluent essay on the Reunification of Italy might be a bit of a give away. ___ 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
Durova wrote: >>From across The Pond there's a wonderful book that came out in the mid-1990s > about how dreadful the teaching of history is at the secondary school level. > The gap between high school and undergraduate instruction is greater for > history than for any other subject. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me > > Wikipedia opens new possibilities for correcting that problem. > > Over here it went something like this: > > *When we had our revolution we got help from France. > > *Then we bought the Louisiana Purchase from France, which doubled the size > of our country. Gee, thanks. > > *Then we had the War of 1812, which didn't really happen in 1812, and we > teamed up with France again. > > Somewhere in there was 'Let them eat cake', a guillotine, Napoleon, and > Waterloo. But that was all on another continent and unimportant. As long > as we could be buddies with France whenever necessary, everything went fine. > > -Durova > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM, doc wrote: > Any decent history book opens the possibility to correct that problem. The notion that wikipedia is the solution to the problem of American historical illiteracy beggars belief. ___ 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
I note that Sir Jim Rose, who came up with this lunatic idea, lacks a wikibio. Maybe he should have one so he can see how (cough) educational the wikiexperience is? Personally, I think this is just a cunning plan to get hundreds of thousands of young Brits trained to use wikipedia, so we can control the right articles and edit the Empire back in. Two clicks and 1776 becomes a minor crushed uprising. The world map will be pink once again (virtually). Maybe the "End of History" after all? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
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. Scott ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
