Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Imagine the whole encyclopaedia is evenly fleshed out, so that every town of 100,000 people in Namibia has an article as good as a town of 100,000 in the US. Now is your local library in the top 10,000,000 articles? I only found one town of 100,000 in Namibia, and Wikipedia has an article on a library in it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windhoek_Public_Library As far as I'm concerned my local library is in the top 10,000 articles. If you want to even things out, try adding articles, not deleting my top 10,000. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Imagine the whole encyclopaedia is evenly fleshed out, so that every town of 100,000 people in Namibia has an article as good as a town of 100,000 in the US. Now is your local library in the top 10,000,000 articles? I only found one town of 100,000 in Namibia, and Wikipedia has an article on a library in it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windhoek_Public_Library As far as I'm concerned my local library is in the top 10,000 articles. If you want to even things out, try adding articles, not deleting my top 10,000. Oh yeah, by the way, only 7% of Namibia speak English. And only about 5% are Internet users. So the usefulness of having information on places in Namibia pales in comparison to the usefulness of having information on places here in Florida. But deletionist arguments rarely consider usefulness. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: So all the biographies of women could be tagged woman? That would work, but only if the woman tag wasn't applied to other things as well. Maybe you would have to have woman + biography? Even then, it might not be exact. And then you would have adult, boy, girl, child, male, female. Tags and categories are different. Ideally, you would have both, or a clear of idea of what would be primary tags (what we call categories) and what are descriptive tags. This is similar to what de.wp use, I believe: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Tuchman [[Kategorie:Literatur (20. Jahrhundert)]] [[Kategorie:Literatur (Englisch)]] [[Kategorie:Autor]] [[Kategorie:Pulitzer-Preisträger]] [[Kategorie:Journalist]] [[Kategorie:Person im Spanischen Bürgerkrieg]] [[Kategorie:US-Amerikaner]] [[Kategorie:Geboren 1912]] [[Kategorie:Gestorben 1989]] [[Kategorie:Frau]] Note that in English, we'd consider most of these very high-level categories, and indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Tuchman [[Category:1912 births]] [[Category:1989 deaths]] [[Category:American Jews]] [[Category:American military writers]] [[Category:Historians of the United States]] [[Category:German-American Jews]] [[Category:Jewish American historians]] [[Category:Morgenthau family|Barbara Tuchman]] [[Category:Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction winners]] [[Category:Radcliffe College alumni]] [[Category:World War I historians]] Almost all of those are *much* more specific categories - you wouldn't get a Historians of the United States or American military writers category in German, and you wouldn't get Authors or Women in English. Though, that said, it's very interesting to note that they each reflect entirely different aspects. In German, being a writer is emphasised. In English, the writing is dealt with more by subject matter (...military writers / ...historians), and the Jewish background is emphasised as much if not more than the nationality. A German reader finds out about the Spanish Civil War; an English reader finds out about Radcliffe. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
2009/8/9 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning categories into tags - so that e.g. [[Category:Left-handed dead Jewish lesbian presidents of the United States]] could become a query combining a pile of tags, rather than a ridiculously specific sub-sub-category as we have now. So would tags replace categories or work alongside? Ideally, they'd work much as cats do now, but you could easily run Boolean queries on them without MediaWiki falling over. The application for Commons is obvious - minute sub-sub-cats are not nearly as useful for an image database as tags. But the same thing could be applied to a text encyclopedia quite productively. Another useful aspect for Commons would be one tag having multiple names - which solves the present problem that most things on Commons are categorised in English, which is completely inadequate for an image repository for projects in any language, and particulary for ones like es:wp which store *all* their images on Commons. For a text encyclopedia that could resolve some arguments about what to call a category, or at least provide a working equivalent of category redirects. (I just looked through Bugzilla and tag appears to mean something else in internal MediaWiki jargon. But that's basically the idea. Extensive wishing about this in the commons-l and wikitech-l archives. No-one has a deployment-ready version of the feature yet - the closest anyone's come is using Lucene as the back end, which basically requires a server all to itself - so the whole thing's currently wishful vapour and probably awaiting a genius with MySQL tweaking to write it.) - d. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: So all the biographies of women could be tagged woman? That would work, but only if the woman tag wasn't applied to other things as well. Maybe you would have to have woman + biography? Even then, it might not be exact. And then you would have adult, boy, girl, child, male, female. Tags and categories are different. Ideally, you would have both, or a clear of idea of what would be primary tags (what we call categories) and what are descriptive tags. This is similar to what de.wp use, I believe: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Tuchman [[Kategorie:Literatur (20. Jahrhundert)]] [[Kategorie:Literatur (Englisch)]] [[Kategorie:Autor]] [[Kategorie:Pulitzer-Preisträger]] [[Kategorie:Journalist]] [[Kategorie:Person im Spanischen Bürgerkrieg]] [[Kategorie:US-Amerikaner]] [[Kategorie:Geboren 1912]] [[Kategorie:Gestorben 1989]] [[Kategorie:Frau]] Note that in English, we'd consider most of these very high-level categories, and indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Tuchman [[Category:1912 births]] [[Category:1989 deaths]] [[Category:American Jews]] [[Category:American military writers]] [[Category:Historians of the United States]] [[Category:German-American Jews]] [[Category:Jewish American historians]] [[Category:Morgenthau family|Barbara Tuchman]] [[Category:Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction winners]] [[Category:Radcliffe College alumni]] [[Category:World War I historians]] Almost all of those are *much* more specific categories - you wouldn't get a Historians of the United States or American military writers category in German, and you wouldn't get Authors or Women in English. Though, that said, it's very interesting to note that they each reflect entirely different aspects. In German, being a writer is emphasised. In English, the writing is dealt with more by subject matter (...military writers / ...historians), and the Jewish background is emphasised as much if not more than the nationality. A German reader finds out about the Spanish Civil War; an English reader finds out about Radcliffe. Very interesting. Particularly that the German Wikipedia uses Woman as a category. It looks like my idea isn't so crazy after all. 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: So all the biographies of women could be tagged woman? That would work, but only if the woman tag wasn't applied to other things as well. Maybe you would have to have woman + biography? Even then, it might not be exact. And then you would have adult, boy, girl, child, male, female. Tags and categories are different. Ideally, you would have both, or a clear of idea of what would be primary tags (what we call categories) and what are descriptive tags. This is similar to what de.wp use, I believe: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Tuchman [[Kategorie:Literatur (20. Jahrhundert)]] [[Kategorie:Literatur (Englisch)]] [[Kategorie:Autor]] [[Kategorie:Pulitzer-Preisträger]] [[Kategorie:Journalist]] [[Kategorie:Person im Spanischen Bürgerkrieg]] [[Kategorie:US-Amerikaner]] [[Kategorie:Geboren 1912]] [[Kategorie:Gestorben 1989]] [[Kategorie:Frau]] Note that in English, we'd consider most of these very high-level categories, and indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Tuchman [[Category:1912 births]] [[Category:1989 deaths]] [[Category:American Jews]] [[Category:American military writers]] [[Category:Historians of the United States]] [[Category:German-American Jews]] [[Category:Jewish American historians]] [[Category:Morgenthau family|Barbara Tuchman]] [[Category:Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction winners]] [[Category:Radcliffe College alumni]] [[Category:World War I historians]] Almost all of those are *much* more specific categories - you wouldn't get a Historians of the United States or American military writers category in German, and you wouldn't get Authors or Women in English. Though, that said, it's very interesting to note that they each reflect entirely different aspects. In German, being a writer is emphasised. In English, the writing is dealt with more by subject matter (...military writers / ...historians), and the Jewish background is emphasised as much if not more than the nationality. A German reader finds out about the Spanish Civil War; an English reader finds out about Radcliffe. Having had a conversation with a German Wikipedian who clearly thinks our way of doing it is broken, I'm interested in the arguments on the other side. In zoology, for example, following the Linnean classification in the category system just makes good sense: the experts have sorted through the various attributes of (say) a fish species for us, and come up with answers that make sense for classifying articles as well as species. In my own field of mathematics, good subcategorisation will be a great help to those who want to read around a subject, and I'm not very struck with [[de:K-Theorie]] as categorised by [[Kategorie:Algebra]] [[Kategorie:Topologie]] when [[en:K-theory]] is categorised as [[Category:Algebra]] [[Category:Algebraic topology]] [[Category:K-theory|*]] and [[Category:K-theory]] has over 20 specialised articles. Presumably one hopes to find those flopping around under the German system in algebra and topology categories. But the first example I found where there was an interwiki was [[de:Calkin-Algebra]] which lies in [[Kategorie:Funktionalanalysis]] [[Kategorie:Mathematischer Raum]]. Believe me on this: it looks like you'd have to search a big chunk of mathematical articles just to find those K-theory articles. Not so good. (Even if you could get algebraic topology by intersecting algebra and topology, which is a big stretch because topological algebra is not at all the same thing. Confusion of method and subject matter.) More comprehensibly (perhaps) [[Category:Puritanism]] was bugging me, as a fairly unverifiable concept in numerous cases. So I created 15 or more subcategories in the hope of having verifiable historical information the predominant factor in 17th century English religious history. I'd like to think I wasn't wasting my time on that. Charles ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: snip Nice example there of where en-wiki's classification systems are better. Some people would, of course, create a K-theory navbox template. Does de-wiki have those navboxes? More comprehensibly (perhaps) [[Category:Puritanism]] was bugging me, as a fairly unverifiable concept in numerous cases. So I created 15 or more subcategories in the hope of having verifiable historical information the predominant factor in 17th century English religious history. I'd like to think I wasn't wasting my time on that. It can be worrying to create lots of subcategories and then have people who have different views on categorisation come along and propose to tear down the structure. The most annoying thing is being unable to point to what a particular area of the category tree looked like before you spent a few days overhauling it. People only really see the end result, not the work done to produce that result. A while back, I overhauled this category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arctic I was most pleased with this category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arctic_research Mainly because I hadn't realised we had so many articles on Arctic research. Other ones I felt were interesting creations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Industry_in_the_Arctic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_in_the_Arctic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transportation_in_the_Arctic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Environment_of_the_Arctic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_the_Arctic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Culture_of_the_Arctic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protected_areas_of_the_Arctic Admittedly, this one might have been a step too far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arctic_in_fiction But people have been adding to it, so there is demand there. A similarly offbeat category is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arctic_challenges One bugbear of mine is how terminology articles get mixed up with specific place and event articles, so I created this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arctic_geography_terminology A different perspective on Arctic exploration is possible here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arctic_exploration_vessels This all led to a portal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Arctic An excellent protal, in my view (though not created by me, I hasten to add). There was even a WikiProject started, which may hopefully gather steam again at some point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arctic I'm particularly pleased that someone has taken on the task of tackling this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arctic_expeditions But to get back to categories, there was, at some point fairly soon after that big overhaul of the Arctic category, a discussion on how precise Arctic needed to be. The discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_23#Category:Settlements_in_the_Arctic At one point, there seemed to be serious consideration given to deleting all the newly created categories because it was unclear what Arctic meant. there [are several definitions to what constitutes the arctic, which in itself is a ground for deleting this category [...] there is Category:Arctic with a host of subcats so the problem (if any) is widespread Some countering views were: The Arctic Circle demarcates a very real physical phenomenon, and as such is not, in fact, an arbitrary line. (Remember the Land of the midnight sun, etc.?) The fact that they're all categorized according to their countries doesn't address the fact of their extreme northern latitudes. So I think it's quite useful to have a catalog of all the settlements in this unique region. [...] I'll give the Arctic a good talking too and tell it to stop crossing national boundries. I made the rather pointed comment: It would be good if those skilled in categorisation could help out with constructive comments on how to organise Category:Arctic. A centralised discussion would be preferable to having numerous categories put up for deletion in separate debates. Then someone suggested a solution that led to this template being used on the categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:The_Arctic I would hope that the reason the categories were saved was because they were useful. But I fear it was only because the template satisfied those who wanted precision in category names and classification. And the rather obsessive need to subcategorise everything by country, even in a category that clearly is intended to be a trans-national, regional one, is something I still don't understand. The response to the queries I left at WikiProjects was varied, from nothing, to brief, to some very useful suggestions (I've only given three examples below):
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: If anyone could hazard a guess at how many of the 725,635 biographies we have where there might be a dispute over gender, that would be good (note that for some reason that figure, from the WikiProject Biography statistics, includes music groups, and also some other group biographies, rather than single biographies). But really, if it is only a couple of hundred where the gender is disputed or not known, then there should be no objection to classifying the others by gender. Okay, estimate time! When LibraryThing began their common knowledge cataloging program - essentially an attempt to gather structured information on books and authors via a user-editable database - they tangled briefly with the problem of gender for authors. On the one hand, it's a very important detail to record, if only from a pragmatic perspective - hang around a bookshop or a library and see how long until someone starts looking for a female crime novelist, etc. For practical reasons, they wanted it a restricted this field has value X record rather than free-text, which was used for almost everything else. On the other hand, it's even more complex for books than for our biographies, as many books are authored by someone about whom even the most basic biographical information is unknown, or who isn't a real person at all, before we even worry about people who don't fit the normal classifications. In the end, they went with a fourfold structure: * male * female * other/contested/unknown * n/a The third was for those who are people who don't fit neatly into the first two, for whatever reason; the fourth was for corporate bodies, and so also served as a way to differentiate real people and not-real people. This is quite handy, because the ratio of the third to the first two gives us some idea of what we're likely to encounter in Wikipedia - it won't be the same, but it'll be the right order of magnitude. There are currently 8,736 n/a, 57,047 female, 118,069 male... and 431 other. Roughly speaking, that's 0.25% of catalogued people aren't defined neatly as male or female. Scaling that up to Wikipedia would mean we'd be looking at, at most, 1,500 to 2,000 biographies where we shouldn't simply do male/female. Given that not all the other cases are people who fall outside the binary - the data is a bit choppy and includes some who should be n/a, plus oddities like joint pseudonyms - our proportion would probably be lower. The chronological weighting of the two datasets complicates matters; a set of authors will skew towards modernity, but then again more than half our biographies are BLPs, so we ourselves also skew towards modernity. I can't say which of those is the stronger pull! So I think, all told, we're going to be looking at a few more than a couple of hundred, but perhaps not more than a thousand cases. If we're consciously trying to get good coverage of people who fall outside the usual classification, and addressing those articles rigorously - itself not a bad idea - we might end up pushing a couple of thousand. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/9 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning categories into tags - so that e.g. [[Category:Left-handed dead Jewish lesbian presidents of the United States]] could become a query combining a pile of tags, rather than a ridiculously specific sub-sub-category as we have now. So would tags replace categories or work alongside? Ideally, they'd work much as cats do now, but you could easily run Boolean queries on them without MediaWiki falling over. http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?categories=1912+births%0D%0AWorld+War+I+historians Cheers, 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Carcharoth wrote: Tags and categories are different. Ideally, you would have both, or a clear of idea of what would be primary tags (what we call categories) and what are descriptive tags. I asked about flickr tags years ago, but never understood the replies I got, see: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-January/021346.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-January/021348.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-January/021352.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-January/021374.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-January/021350.html Sam Wantman and Rick Block came up with [[Wikipedia:Category intersection]], which might be of interest. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Is there a summary of what's changed? Well, it's completely new, so check out the manual link on the page, and the original requirements, which have been met or exceeded: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMDE_contract_offers/Rewrite_CatScan (note that, once my beta did all that was required, this contract offer was retracted) One thing: when selecting depth, sometimes you want one category to be 0 depth, but the other category to be a different depth. Is that not possible? It's explained on the manual page - just append |2 to the category you want to use with a different depth (in this example, 2). Cheers, 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php? sigh I've been trying for 10 minutes to get it to locate articles in a category tree but missing a specific WikiProject tag, but either it's not working, or I'm not selecting the right options. Is there a way to run this scan tool over something like Category:J. R. R. Tolkien or Category:Middle-earth (to about a depth of 6) and see which articles *lack* the template ME-project (a redirect to the template WikiProject Middle-earth)? An example is this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Sigurd_and_Gudr%C3%BAn Not yet tagged, but none of the searches I do are detecting this. If the category depth is a problem, use the category Poetry by J. R. R. Tolkien. But no matter what I do, putting a single category name in the categories box, switching the tick box from article space to talk space, and putting a template name in the Has none of these templates bit, nothing works. But then it is still in beta! :-) I also noticed this: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMDE_contract_offers/Rewrite_CatScan Ah, maybe... tries something silly - fails reads Magnus's next e-mail with link to manual... Aha! Thanks! :-) 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: snip It's explained on the manual page - just append |2 to the category you want to use with a different depth (in this example, 2). blush Would you believe I completely missed that link to the manual? :-/ 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Is there a summary of what's changed? Well, it's completely new, so check out the manual link on the page, and the original requirements, which have been met or exceeded: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMDE_contract_offers/Rewrite_CatScan (note that, once my beta did all that was required, this contract offer was retracted) One thing: when selecting depth, sometimes you want one category to be 0 depth, but the other category to be a different depth. Is that not possible? It's explained on the manual page - just append |2 to the category you want to use with a different depth (in this example, 2). On closer examination, I don't think I can do what I'm trying to do with that tool. I want to take a category tree of WikiProject tagged articles (containing pages tagged in the talk namespace), and compare to a category tree of articles tagged in the article space (normal, reader-facing categories). And see where the overlap or lack of overlap is. That requires some option to ignore namespaces when comparing page names, OR for the check for template bit to have an option to check the talk page of the articles in the category, rather than the actual pages in the category. Can this tool do that? 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Is there a summary of what's changed? Well, it's completely new, so check out the manual link on the page, and the original requirements, which have been met or exceeded: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMDE_contract_offers/Rewrite_CatScan (note that, once my beta did all that was required, this contract offer was retracted) One thing: when selecting depth, sometimes you want one category to be 0 depth, but the other category to be a different depth. Is that not possible? It's explained on the manual page - just append |2 to the category you want to use with a different depth (in this example, 2). On closer examination, I don't think I can do what I'm trying to do with that tool. I want to take a category tree of WikiProject tagged articles (containing pages tagged in the talk namespace), and compare to a category tree of articles tagged in the article space (normal, reader-facing categories). And see where the overlap or lack of overlap is. That requires some option to ignore namespaces when comparing page names, OR for the check for template bit to have an option to check the talk page of the articles in the category, rather than the actual pages in the category. Can this tool do that? Not in its current form. You can make category and template intersections only on a page or a talk page, not on page/talk in combination. I could try to build an option to collapse the talk namespace into the page namespace, but most of the stuff uses the internal page_id, which makes it difficult... 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Is there a summary of what's changed? Well, it's completely new, so check out the manual link on the page, and the original requirements, which have been met or exceeded: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMDE_contract_offers/Rewrite_CatScan (note that, once my beta did all that was required, this contract offer was retracted) One thing: when selecting depth, sometimes you want one category to be 0 depth, but the other category to be a different depth. Is that not possible? It's explained on the manual page - just append |2 to the category you want to use with a different depth (in this example, 2). On closer examination, I don't think I can do what I'm trying to do with that tool. I want to take a category tree of WikiProject tagged articles (containing pages tagged in the talk namespace), and compare to a category tree of articles tagged in the article space (normal, reader-facing categories). And see where the overlap or lack of overlap is. That requires some option to ignore namespaces when comparing page names, OR for the check for template bit to have an option to check the talk page of the articles in the category, rather than the actual pages in the category. Can this tool do that? It can now :-) Try: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?depth=6categories=Middle-earthshow_redirects=notemplates_no=ME-project%0D%0AWikiProject+Middle-earthtemplates_use_talk_no=1doit=1 One can now use template filters on talk pages instead of actual pages. Not the most generic option, but should cover many cases. Also, I found that your example query yield a rather astonishing amount of categorized redirects (750 out of 813). Therefore, I also implemented filtering the results by redirect (no redirects/only redirects/either). Cheers, 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Is there a summary of what's changed? Well, it's completely new, so check out the manual link on the page, and the original requirements, which have been met or exceeded: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMDE_contract_offers/Rewrite_CatScan (note that, once my beta did all that was required, this contract offer was retracted) One thing: when selecting depth, sometimes you want one category to be 0 depth, but the other category to be a different depth. Is that not possible? It's explained on the manual page - just append |2 to the category you want to use with a different depth (in this example, 2). On closer examination, I don't think I can do what I'm trying to do with that tool. I want to take a category tree of WikiProject tagged articles (containing pages tagged in the talk namespace), and compare to a category tree of articles tagged in the article space (normal, reader-facing categories). And see where the overlap or lack of overlap is. That requires some option to ignore namespaces when comparing page names, OR for the check for template bit to have an option to check the talk page of the articles in the category, rather than the actual pages in the category. Can this tool do that? It can now :-) Try: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?depth=6categories=Middle-earthshow_redirects=notemplates_no=ME-project%0D%0AWikiProject+Middle-earthtemplates_use_talk_no=1doit=1 One can now use template filters on talk pages instead of actual pages. Not the most generic option, but should cover many cases. Also, I found that your example query yield a rather astonishing amount of categorized redirects (750 out of 813). Therefore, I also implemented filtering the results by redirect (no redirects/only redirects/either). Wonderful! Thanks so much for doing that! :-) The redirects? I think most of them were left behind after merging. We wanted to keep track of them, so we used redirect templates to categorise them by type. At this point, I would pull out the guideline to categorising redirects, and give a tour of WikiProject-categorised redirects, but it's late here, so I'll go and look at the list you've provided, which has several untagged articles (some of which will be merged soon, in case anyone here goes all faint at the stubbiness and cruftiness of them). At least one of them is a redirect turned back into stub... 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous libraries. The British Library, the Bodleian Library, the Library of Congress, and so on. And then I try and think where my local library fits in on that scale. And I conclude: no article. Well, WP isn't paper. If your world is your town, then the history of your local library - from how it raised the million dollars needed to break ground and build it to its design and placement in the town, to the special collections and the services it provides, are both useful to locals, educational to visitors, and free knowledge about an institution designed to last for centuries. A local library is certainly not must have or important. It's not really even contributes to depth of knowledge. Why would it not contribute to depth of knowledge? That seems like the definition of the phrase... just another layer of depth. I would dearly like to know the nuanced history of my city's landscaping, zoning principles, and architecture over the past 5 centuries -- and would be delighted if I could zoom into the specific details of any given building or greensway of significance. Would you prefer to spin off a separate project such as http://local-free-encyclopedia.org/en/cambridge; for this purpose? US. Now is your local library in the top 10,000,000 articles? Why should WP not have 30M topics instead of 3M? I wish that growth had not slowed; there is so much yet to be covered. It's useful to have a balance among articles, and not to have a million detailed articles on buildings and none on major cities in Africa, absolutely. But notability standards have been steadily shifting for years... SJ ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Trying to hammer every peg into one of just two holes is bound to cause problems. Then there's the issue of people who are inter-sexed (born with mixed or absent gender-specific organs, example being [[Jim Sinclair]]), genderfuck (intentionally ignoring gender-specific cultural expectations), cross-dressers, and generally anybody else who doesn't fit neatly into male or female. This isn't a representation of Wikipedia, but society in general. I've never understood this argument. Just because a vanishingly small minority of people can't be classified as male or female, that is a reason to not bother doing such classifications? If that was a valid argument, many of these information forms that people fill in wouldn't ask for your gender. Those forms usually give a third or fourth option for those who don't identify as male or female, so that is what Wikipedia would do as well. If anyone could hazard a guess at how many of the 725,635 biographies we have where there might be a dispute over gender, that would be good (note that for some reason that figure, from the WikiProject Biography statistics, includes music groups, and also some other group biographies, rather than single biographies). But really, if it is only a couple of hundred where the gender is disputed or not known, then there should be no objection to classifying the others by gender. 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: http://www.dailylit.com/tags/wikipedia-tours Thank you for that link. I had thought to do something like that myself. I have been saved the time now. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
2009/8/9 wjhon...@aol.com: About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call. And a list of all women on wikipedia would be too enormous. However I would think no one would object to something like Women by Nationality and then have a sub-cat for each nation. That you'd just have to all up everyone in that cat. The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning categories into tags - so that e.g. [[Category:Left-handed dead Jewish lesbian presidents of the United States]] could become a query combining a pile of tags, rather than a ridiculously specific sub-sub-category as we have now. The nice thing is that going from the tiny sub-sub-cats to a query on tags can be done gradually without a lot of disruption. At the moment a test version of this feature worked like a dream in PostgreSQL, but failed miserably in MySQL, 'cos MySQL is shit. Unfortunately, it's also what Wikimedia runs on. People are working on workarounds at various rates. - d. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/9 wjhon...@aol.com: About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call. And a list of all women on wikipedia would be too enormous. However I would think no one would object to something like Women by Nationality and then have a sub-cat for each nation. That you'd just have to all up everyone in that cat. The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning categories into tags - so that e.g. [[Category:Left-handed dead Jewish lesbian presidents of the United States]] could become a query combining a pile of tags, rather than a ridiculously specific sub-sub-category as we have now. The nice thing is that going from the tiny sub-sub-cats to a query on tags can be done gradually without a lot of disruption. At the moment a test version of this feature worked like a dream in PostgreSQL, but failed miserably in MySQL, 'cos MySQL is shit. Unfortunately, it's also what Wikimedia runs on. People are working on workarounds at various rates. So all the biographies of women could be tagged woman? That would work, but only if the woman tag wasn't applied to other things as well. Maybe you would have to have woman + biography? Even then, it might not be exact. And then you would have adult, boy, girl, child, male, female. Tags and categories are different. Ideally, you would have both, or a clear of idea of what would be primary tags (what we call categories) and what are descriptive tags. 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: Tags and categories are different. Ideally, you would have both, or a clear of idea of what would be primary tags (what we call categories) and what are descriptive tags. Oh yeah. But in practice, most of our ridiculously specific sub-sub-cats are pretty much someone trying to construct the results of a tag query by hand. However, the point is that any change can be gradual and worked out on the ground. - d. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Just because a vanishingly small minority of people can't be classified as male or female, that is a reason to not bother doing such classifications? If that was a valid argument, many of these information forms that people fill in wouldn't ask for your gender. Those forms usually give a third or fourth option for those who don't identify as male or female, so that is what Wikipedia would do as well. The forms I have filled--and I'm nineteen, so that also includes the forms my parents have filled on my behalf and showed me--if they asked about gender, gave two options. Male, female. Check the one that applies. No Well, it's complicated checkbox. I've seen one form that didn't, and that was the form my dad fills out for his job as a HIV tester and counselor. The form had four options, two of which was transexual, and included which gender the person was transitioning into. I was going to suggest the alternative categories, as well. I was tired, though--my bad. Have a Wikipedian by gender category, then have male female, intersexual, transsexual, this is a gender- integrated group biography etc. as sub-categories. Emily On Aug 9, 2009, at 5:30 AM, Carcharoth wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Trying to hammer every peg into one of just two holes is bound to cause problems. Then there's the issue of people who are inter-sexed (born with mixed or absent gender-specific organs, example being [[Jim Sinclair]]), genderfuck (intentionally ignoring gender-specific cultural expectations), cross-dressers, and generally anybody else who doesn't fit neatly into male or female. This isn't a representation of Wikipedia, but society in general. I've never understood this argument. Just because a vanishingly small minority of people can't be classified as male or female, that is a reason to not bother doing such classifications? If that was a valid argument, many of these information forms that people fill in wouldn't ask for your gender. Those forms usually give a third or fourth option for those who don't identify as male or female, so that is what Wikipedia would do as well. If anyone could hazard a guess at how many of the 725,635 biographies we have where there might be a dispute over gender, that would be good (note that for some reason that figure, from the WikiProject Biography statistics, includes music groups, and also some other group biographies, rather than single biographies). But really, if it is only a couple of hundred where the gender is disputed or not known, then there should be no objection to classifying the others by gender. 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 ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning categories into tags - so that e.g. [[Category:Left-handed dead Jewish lesbian presidents of the United States]] could become a query combining a pile of tags, rather than a ridiculously specific sub-sub-category as we have now. So would tags replace categories or work alongside? ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: sob http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year That is ridiculous category use. Hey, someone thought it was useful ... Once upon a time I went through a whole bunch of famous animal articles and added birth and death year categories. Someone followed along behind me and dutifully removed them all as I went. I guess this is how that particular dispute wound up being settled. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Bryan Derksen wrote: David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: sob http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year That is ridiculous category use. Hey, someone thought it was useful ... Once upon a time I went through a whole bunch of famous animal articles and added birth and death year categories. Someone followed along behind me and dutifully removed them all as I went. I guess this is how that particular dispute wound up being settled. So those categories need to be animated, rather than populated? Charles ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Bryan Derksen wrote: David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: sob http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year That is ridiculous category use. Hey, someone thought it was useful ... Once upon a time I went through a whole bunch of famous animal articles and added birth and death year categories. Someone followed along behind me and dutifully removed them all as I went. I guess this is how that particular dispute wound up being settled. So those categories need to be animated, rather than populated? Disneyfied? :-) I think what some people want is more a way to take a category such as Famous animals and its subcategories, and run a dynamic query that returns a list of all the members of those categories sorted by dates of birth and death. A dynamic version of a list. I know I'd love it if that could be done for all biographical articles, so there was some super-list (and very big one at that), which could be sorted by name, dates of birth and death, and other biographical data. That would be more a biographical database than a list, but the potential is there for Wikipedia to be a massive biographical database, but extracting clean data is difficult sometimes, because of how the system is currently set up. The classic piece of data that we don't track, and which I usually drag up in these debates, is the number of articles on men and the number of articles on women. Now, you might say that you can't query an ordinary biographical dictionary to find out these things, but Wikipedia *should* be able to do more than other resources. It seems a simple question, doesn't it? How many biographical articles do we have on women, and how many on men? But it is one of those questions that defies analysis because the data isn't there. We can give approximate answers about historical periods, and about nationality (as far as that is meaningful). But gender? No, we don't document that for some reason. Which is strange, because famous women in history and Biographies of Notable Women are big topics if you search for sources on those topics. I'd like to know, for example, how many featured biographies we have on women from history (and possible contemporary biographies as well)? I might do just that and make another userspace list. While searching for lists of famous women, I found this: http://www.dailylit.com/books/wikipedia-tours-famous-women-throughout-history Welcome to our _Wikipedia Tour: Famous Women Throughout History_. Each day we’ll send you a link to a new article about a famous woman on Wikipedia. The introduction to each day’s article is included in the installment so you can choose to read just the introduction or the full article. Wow. I never knew things like that were out there. From this, is seems there was a list at one point: http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Famous_women_in_history That article was moved on 23 September 2005 to List of famous women in history. It had 542 edits at the point it was deleted on 24 September 2006 following this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_women_in_history One of the comments there: Please leave it - debate criteria if you will, but it's a very useful resource for educators. Does anyone feel that something went wrong there? Surely the data on which articles are about women and which are about men should be present somewhere so people can query and produce such lists if they want them, for educational purposes, such as in the first link I provided? Maybe that is more the domain of wikibooks, but even so, it requires the basic information to be present somewhere in the articles about whether the subject of the article is a man or a woman. I have no idea how many entries were on the list when it got deleted (looks to be several hundred), but the tour of 45 articles (undoubtedly hand-picked) took people through the following: http://www.dailylit.com/books/wikipedia-tours-famous-women-throughout-history Hatshepsut Cleopatra VII Boudica Hypatia of Alexandria Theodora (6th century) Hildegard of Bingen Eleanor of Aquitaine Christine de Pizan Joan of Arc Elizabeth I of England Artemisia Gentileschi Christina of Sweden Catherine II of Russia Caroline Herschel Mary Wollstonecraft Sacagawea Sojourner Truth Victoria of the United Kingdom Harriet Beecher Stowe Julia Margaret Cameron Elizabeth Cady Stanton Susan B. Anthony Florence Nightingale Mary Cassatt Marie Curie Emma Goldman Gertrude Stein Margaret Sanger Hellen Keller Virginia Woolf Georgia O'Keeffe Martha Graham Amelia Earhart Margaret Mead Hannah Arendt Rachel Carson Simone de Beauvoir Babe Zaharias Rosa Parks Ella Fitzgerald Rosalind Franklin Anne Frank Valentina Tereshkova Margaret Thatcher Madeleine Albright [Why on
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Carcharoth wrote: I think what some people want is more a way to take a category such as Famous animals and its subcategories, and run a dynamic query that returns a list of all the members of those categories sorted by dates of birth and death. A dynamic version of a list. I know I'd love it if that could be done for all biographical articles, so there was some super-list (and very big one at that), which could be sorted by name, dates of birth and death, and other biographical data. That would be more a biographical database than a list, but the potential is there for Wikipedia to be a massive biographical database, but extracting clean data is difficult sometimes, because of how the system is currently set up. Absolutely true, but delete the word biographical. The potential is there for Wikipedia to be a massive database, period. And I don't think it would be too hard. Just extract all the key/value pairs that are currently residing in infobox template invocations, and dump them into a nice, flexible, free-form database. Then arrange to invoke the infobox templates out of that database. Then provide a simple key/value editor on the edit page, to edit this metadata. Then provide a user-friendly query wizard. Hey presto, the complaints about editability of infobox template invocations go way down, *and* we've got cool new search functionality, and a whole bunch of strange and tedious-to-maintain categories can go away, and we don't need to worry about category intersection any more, and... ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call. And a list of all women on wikipedia would be too enormous. However I would think no one would object to something like Women by Nationality and then have a sub-cat for each nation. That you'd just have to all up everyone in that cat. Will ** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=115amp; bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call. Heck, in a few cases the Women classification might prove to be based on a judgement call. The panoply of transgender classifications and how they change over time and culture is beyond me. Trying to hammer every peg into one of just two holes is bound to cause problems. Not saying it wouldn't be nice to categorize those that _aren't_ edge cases, mind you. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Trying to hammer every peg into one of just two holes is bound to cause problems. Then there's the issue of people who are inter-sexed (born with mixed or absent gender-specific organs, example being [[Jim Sinclair]]), genderfuck (intentionally ignoring gender-specific cultural expectations), cross-dressers, and generally anybody else who doesn't fit neatly into male or female. This isn't a representation of Wikipedia, but society in general. Emily On Aug 8, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote: wjhon...@aol.com wrote: About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call. Heck, in a few cases the Women classification might prove to be based on a judgement call. The panoply of transgender classifications and how they change over time and culture is beyond me. Trying to hammer every peg into one of just two holes is bound to cause problems. Not saying it wouldn't be nice to categorize those that _aren't_ edge cases, mind you. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous libraries. The British Library, the Bodleian Library, the Library of Congress, and so on. And then I try and think where my local library fits in on that scale. And I conclude: no article. Yes. I had a similar thought after browsing through [[Wikipedia 1.0]] recently, particularly with regard to its importance scale. A local library is certainly not must have or important. It's not really even contributes to depth of knowledge. One way to look at it: how big must the selection of articles be, for that article to be included? Is your local library in the top 100,000 most important articles? Top 1,000,000? Imagine the whole encyclopaedia is evenly fleshed out, so that every town of 100,000 people in Namibia has an article as good as a town of 100,000 in the US. Now is your local library in the top 10,000,000 articles? Train station, just possibly. Once again I like my proposal to think in terms of length of article, not a boolean is allowed to exist. Real encyclopaedias have short articles about unimportant stuff and long articles about important stuff. A train station might well be worth two sentences. The big stately house and park that used to be here before it was built over, yes. Yep. The current local park - probably not. Definitely a couple of sentences. In Wikipedia that probably means a reference in [[Parks of xxx]]. The local supermarket - certainly not. Don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate to refer to it in the article about the supermarket chain, or to say that the town has two Woolworths and one Coles. But a whole article, no. The nearby main road - it does have an article already actually. I'm not up to date on the rules of road inclusion. It's pretty hard to draw a line. Again, articles about road networks would work better than articles about individual roads. Steve ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous libraries. The British Library, the Bodleian Library, the Library of Congress, and so on. And then I try and think where my local library fits in on that scale. And I conclude: no article. Yes. I had a similar thought after browsing through [[Wikipedia 1.0]] recently, particularly with regard to its importance scale. A local library is certainly not must have or important. It's not really even contributes to depth of knowledge. One way to look at it: how big must the selection of articles be, for that article to be included? Is your local library in the top 100,000 most important articles? Top 1,000,000? Imagine the whole encyclopaedia is evenly fleshed out, so that every town of 100,000 people in Namibia has an article as good as a town of 100,000 in the US. Now is your local library in the top 10,000,000 articles? No, but would still be mentioned in the article on the town. One of the prime reasons for libraries appearing in the news, sadly, is when they are closed down. :-( I didn't realise we have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Library That is an interesting sort of article. More than 2,500 Carnegie libraries were built, including some belonging to public and university library systems. Carnegie earned the nickname Patron Saint of Libraries. I'll bet some of the people reading this list have Carnegie libraries near them. And look at the architectural information in that article. Not an article about a specific local library, but about something that many libraries have in common, and actually quite a fascinating article. There are also several lists of Carnegie libraries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Carnegie_libraries_in_Europe etc. Train station, just possibly. Once again I like my proposal to think in terms of length of article, not a boolean is allowed to exist. Real encyclopaedias have short articles about unimportant stuff and long articles about important stuff. A train station might well be worth two sentences. Well, I checked. There *is* an article on the train station. And on the train lines as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Railway_lines_in_South-East_England The big stately house and park that used to be here before it was built over, yes. Yep. No article (yet). The current local park - probably not. Definitely a couple of sentences. In Wikipedia that probably means a reference in [[Parks of xxx]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Green_London But the local parks are too small to be on there. The local supermarket - certainly not. Don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate to refer to it in the article about the supermarket chain, or to say that the town has two Woolworths and one Coles. But a whole article, no. Dare I look? :-) Nah. It's not mentioned. Shops get poor coverage in Wikipedia. Big main article, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesco For the coverage of supermarkets in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Supermarkets_in_Europe_templates etc. The nearby main road - it does have an article already actually. I'm not up to date on the rules of road inclusion. It's pretty hard to draw a line. Again, articles about road networks would work better than articles about individual roads. Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Roads_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transport_templates_by_continent I think you get the idea. A big bias towards Anglophone countries. 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote: snip As the number of editors interested in a topic area grows -- something that happens as WP includes more and more locally-notable entries, for instance -- the capacity to maintain quality in that area grows as well. But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous libraries. The British Library, the Bodleian Library, the Library of Congress, and so on. And then I try and think where my local library fits in on that scale. And I conclude: no article. Train station, just possibly. The big stately house and park that used to be here before it was built over, yes. The current local park - probably not. The local supermarket - certainly not. The nearby main road - it does have an article already actually. The old church, yes. The modern one - no. The local MP, yes. The fishmonger - no. 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On 25/07/2009, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: My point is that despite media publicity about deletionists and people on the fringes of Wikipedia getting annoyed at not being considered article-worthy ... we still include a wider range of stuff than (I think) any general encyclopedia ever before us, and no-one can seriously question that. And we do so to actual standards. If you really want WTF: I recently saw the deletion review of the article '-graphy' which was up for deletion because the article name violated MOS (the title is not a noun or verb or phrase), and because it's a pure list of words, constructed on a lexical rule, which *is* actually in the wiktionary- wiktionary welcomes suffixes and prefixes with open arms as nearly all dictionaries do. In other words, this is a real, bona fide dictionary definition in the encyclopedia. A real dicdef, as opposed to all those articles that haven't 'dun enuf' to be encyclopedic. It was up for review once before, and although IMO the review seems to have been at best, no consensus, it rated a firm KEEP that time by the closing admin... odd... Anyway for the second review the process gyrations they went through this time to avoid the deletion involved renaming it to 'Glossary of graphies' during the review, and then claiming that that made it OK, even though 'graphies' isn't a word either. I'm pretty sure that a glossary that contains words picked based entirely on their word endings is the weirdest glossary in history; they're supposed to be things you refer to when reading. But whatever. The result of the review was, intriguingly, keep again, not even no consensus, after a voting extension which gave only a couple more votes and which included a vote for keep by an administrator who cast aspersions on the laziness of the user calling for AFD for not figuring out a way to save the article After all that tiresome AFD business was completed it was of course renamed straight back to -graphy again... - d. -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Dan Dascalescuddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Aside from that, let's have a bit of common sense: does anyone sincerely think that if Martin Niemoeller were alive, he'd object to the image of that monument being on Wikipedia? Does anyone think that any of Niemoeller's heirs would object? WTF?! Personally, I think Wikipedia made a big step forward when it stopped expecting individual users to understand copyright law, and instead just set policies that were always going to be within the law. (So no, asking for common sense around copyright issues is not a good idea, imho.) Steve ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote: My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which, admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's inclusion policies as currently prescribed) is to ask: would anyone, anywhere in the world (other than the author) ever be interested in reading an encyclopedic treatment of this topic? (And in the case of Bo the first dog, the answer is pretty clearly yes.) I recently checked Wikipedia for an article on my local library, and found that it was deleted. If Wikipedia isn't too deletionist, then it's improperly deletionist. C'mon, a library isn't notable? We'd be more effective if we had notability guidelines that explicitly supported expansion of notability to allow more and more granular articles over time. Any monument or building or park that people invested thousands of hours into, or that people from far away come to see, or that thousands of people use a year, is notable in its own right. Sometimes we address the issue of maintaining balance and quality as a perpetual fight over lines in the sand, when it's an important effort worth continual discussion and refinement. As the number of editors interested in a topic area grows -- something that happens as WP includes more and more locally-notable entries, for instance -- the capacity to maintain quality in that area grows as well. Sj ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote: My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which, admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's inclusion policies as currently prescribed) is to ask: would anyone, anywhere in the world (other than the author) ever be interested in reading an encyclopedic treatment of this topic? (And in the case of Bo the first dog, the answer is pretty clearly yes.) I recently checked Wikipedia for an article on my local library, and found that it was deleted. If Wikipedia isn't too deletionist, then it's improperly deletionist. C'mon, a library isn't notable? ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
geni wrote: Not that I am in the slightest manner interested in any type of pet being added to wikipedia, but is this decision transitive? That is, are (presidential/head of state) pets of any nation notable on the English language wikipedia, Not sure if he actually had any famous pets, but I have it on good authority that Hitler was kind to dogs. Aargh! Self-inflicted Godwinning... More seriously - relatively speaking - I think we actually do have quite a few emperors and the like favorite rides as articles of their own. Granted horse are not generally considered pets. If we don't have [[Bukefalos]] etc. as articles; I, for one, am appalled. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote: snip More seriously - relatively speaking - I think we actually do have quite a few emperors and the like favorite rides as articles of their own. Granted horse are not generally considered pets. Deletionists, look away now... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_animals Carcharoth PS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucephalus ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote: snip More seriously - relatively speaking - I think we actually do have quite a few emperors and the like favorite rides as articles of their own. Granted horse are not generally considered pets. Deletionists, look away now... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_animals sob http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year That is ridiculous category use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_amputees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_lobsters And going full-circle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Presidential_pets 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: snip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_animals This one, on the other hand, is interesting (takes all sorts): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_monuments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Cod_of_Massachusetts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_Perm_Bear Nice to know that Laika is on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_to_the_Conquerors_of_Space 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: sob http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year That is ridiculous category use. Hey, someone thought it was useful ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_amputees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_lobsters And going full-circle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Presidential_pets Some of this will be made less silly when category intersections work efficiently ... whenever that will be in MySQL. - d. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, elipo...@gmail.com wrote: Would he, his heirs, or his estate object if the photo of the poem was modified to be used in a fast-food ad or for a hate group? What does this have to do with the poem being engraved verbatim in a public monument? And while en.wiki does allow fair use, having the entirety of the poem is likely a stretch of our policies - so it should be removed from the article too. If anyone needed more proof that Wikipedia is too deletionist, here it is. The damn poem was intended to be distributed as far and wide as possible. This is similar to the whole fair use brouhaha at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madeleine_close2.jpg#Licence (the photo of Madeleine McCann, a child who's been missing for 2 years) - as if Madeleine's family wouldn't wholeheartedly agree to that picture being plastered on every website in the world. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Dan Dascalescu ddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com ddascalescu%2bwikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, elipo...@gmail.com wrote: Would he, his heirs, or his estate object if the photo of the poem was modified to be used in a fast-food ad or for a hate group? What does this have to do with the poem being engraved verbatim in a public monument? If someone intends to maintain control over how content is used -- which I think is what Elipongo was getting at -- that content is not freely licensed. If content is not under a free license, I believe we generally consider it non-free. Where the clear intent of a photo is to reproduce a given text verbatim, I should think that the original copyright on that text (if any) still applies. Photographing pages of a book doesn't suddenly render the book's copyright moot, for example. -Luna ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Dan Dascalescu ddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com ddascalescu%2bwikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, elipo...@gmail.com wrote: This is similar to the whole fair use brouhaha at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madeleine_close2.jpg#Licence (the photo of Madeleine McCann, a child who's been missing for 2 years) - as if Madeleine's family wouldn't wholeheartedly agree to that picture being plastered on every website in the world. I'm sure thats correct and it also makes it easy to resolve - get permission. I think they're fairly accessible through their website, so an editor could simply email them, explain what's needed and ask them to release an image under a compatible license or to provide one that's already been released under a free license. These types of disputes are usually easier and quicker to actually resolve than it is to complain and argue about it. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Sarah Ewartsarahew...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Dan Dascalescu ddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com ddascalescu%2bwikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, elipo...@gmail.com wrote: This is similar to the whole fair use brouhaha at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madeleine_close2.jpg#Licence (the photo of Madeleine McCann, a child who's been missing for 2 years) - as if Madeleine's family wouldn't wholeheartedly agree to that picture being plastered on every website in the world. I can think of several websites they wouldn't want it plastered on. I'm sure thats correct and it also makes it easy to resolve - get permission. I think they're fairly accessible through their website, so an editor could simply email them, explain what's needed and ask them to release an image under a compatible license or to provide one that's already been released under a free license. These types of disputes are usually easier and quicker to actually resolve than it is to complain and argue about it. And when someone uses the image in an inappropriate fashion (I know they can do that anyway, without it being on Commons), what then? At a minimum, this image should have the various warnings heavily plastered on it (personality rights or whatever the equivalent is for a missing child), and it should be used with decorum in Wikipedia itself. There are some articles some editors would put it on without realising what offence it might cause. 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Sarah Ewart wrote: This is similar to the whole fair use brouhaha at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madeleine_close2.jpg#Licence (the photo of Madeleine McCann, a child who's been missing for 2 years) - as if Madeleine's family wouldn't wholeheartedly agree to that picture being plastered on every website in the world. I'm sure thats correct and it also makes it easy to resolve - get permission. The kind of permission we require would allow the image to used as a part of, say, toy advertisements or political ads. The family of a disappeared child may not wish to give that sort of permission. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Dan Dascalescu wrote: While deletionist folks are at removing the poem from Wikipedia, why don't you delete it from Wikiquote as well? Here's the page, for your convenience: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller Have fun improving Wikipedia. In this case I don't think there's much choice. The poem is copyrighted and we're not allowed to use it. In general, the problem is our free content policy. We're not allowed to use material when permission has been given to Wikipedia, but not to the world. There's no way that Niemoller's heirs would consent to the poem being used to advertise fast food, and they probably wouldn't even let it be used for political causes they disagree with. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Charles wrote: The argument worth having is that reliable sources are a necessary condition for the inclusion of a topic, rather than a sufficient condition. (This is quite obvious, I believe, but one can go blue in the face saying it with no effect.) No way is the presidential pooch going to get deleted, in practical terms. But that only proves once more voting is evil, really. My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which, admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's inclusion policies as currently prescribed) is to ask: would anyone, anywhere in the world (other than the author) ever be interested in reading an encyclopedic treatment of this topic? (And in the case of Bo the first dog, the answer is pretty clearly yes.) ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
No, it just pushed my personal wtf button Here's something that pushed my WTF button: Why was a photograph of a public monument of Martin Niemoeller's poem First they came, removed from Wikipedia? Here is a small version of the photograph: http://www.oicu2.com/afc/Martin_Niemoeller.jpg And here is the article's revision history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_they_came...action=history I contacted the deletionist at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kameraad_Pjotr#Martin_Niemoeller Really, honestly, do some Wikipedia admins have nothing better to do than delete photographs of public monuments on grounds of the poems they represent not being in the public domain, while the very article page reproduces the poem in its entirety? Aside from that, let's have a bit of common sense: does anyone sincerely think that if Martin Niemoeller were alive, he'd object to the image of that monument being on Wikipedia? Does anyone think that any of Niemoeller's heirs would object? WTF?! -- Dan ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
2009/7/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: My point is that despite media publicity about deletionists and people on the fringes of Wikipedia getting annoyed at not being considered article-worthy ... we still include a wider range of stuff than (I think) any general encyclopedia ever before us, and no-one can seriously question that. And we do so to actual standards. It's notable that you don't say that no-one can seriously question *that*! ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
It has to do with license compatibility - Commons has a strict policy that all material be available under a free license that includes commercial use. Would he, his heirs, or his estate object if the photo of the poem was modified to be used in a fast-food ad or for a hate group? And while en.wiki does allow fair use, having the entirety of the poem is likely a stretch of our policies - so it should be removed from the article too. -Elias Friedman (elipongo) --Original Message-- From: Dan Dascalescu Sender: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org To: English Wikipedia ReplyTo: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist Sent: Jul 26, 2009 03:52 No, it just pushed my personal wtf button Here's something that pushed my WTF button: Why was a photograph of a public monument of Martin Niemoeller's poem First they came, removed from Wikipedia? Here is a small version of the photograph: http://www.oicu2.com/afc/Martin_Niemoeller.jpg And here is the article's revision history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_they_came...action=history I contacted the deletionist at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kameraad_Pjotr#Martin_Niemoeller Really, honestly, do some Wikipedia admins have nothing better to do than delete photographs of public monuments on grounds of the poems they represent not being in the public domain, while the very article page reproduces the poem in its entirety? Aside from that, let's have a bit of common sense: does anyone sincerely think that if Martin Niemoeller were alive, he'd object to the image of that monument being on Wikipedia? Does anyone think that any of Niemoeller's heirs would object? WTF?! -- Dan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29 - d. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:21 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29 :-) I don't think anyone could !vote delete for such a cute little dog! 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Saturday, 25 July 2009 8:21 pm, David Gerard wrote: Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29 The current introduction raised my eyebrows. Bo Obama (born October 9, 2008) is the Obama family dog. Barack Obama is the head of the household and President of the United States. and is a neutered male Portuguese Water Dog, or Portie. If we cut off the first sentence, we learn some interesting facts about Mr. Obama ;) -- fl admin @ enwiki http://enwp.org/user:fl ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
fl wrote: On Saturday, 25 July 2009 8:21 pm, David Gerard wrote: Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29 The current introduction raised my eyebrows. Bo Obama (born October 9, 2008) is the Obama family dog. Barack Obama is the head of the household and President of the United States. and is a neutered male Portuguese Water Dog, or Portie. If we cut off the first sentence, we learn some interesting facts about Mr. Obama ;) Fixed. (No pun intended.) ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Seriously?? Are you arguing this kind of article shouldn't be in Wikipedia? Sheesh. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:21 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29 - d. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
2009/7/25 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com: On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:21 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29 Seriously?? Are you arguing this kind of article shouldn't be in Wikipedia? Sheesh. No, it just pushed my personal wtf button, not something I'd actually advocate removing. The dog's famous enough. My point is that despite media publicity about deletionists and people on the fringes of Wikipedia getting annoyed at not being considered article-worthy ... we still include a wider range of stuff than (I think) any general encyclopedia ever before us, and no-one can seriously question that. And we do so to actual standards. - d. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, David Gerard wrote: My point is that despite media publicity about deletionists and people on the fringes of Wikipedia getting annoyed at not being considered article-worthy ... we still include a wider range of stuff than (I think) any general encyclopedia ever before us, and no-one can seriously question that. And we do so to actual standards. It's possible to be wider in some areas and narrower in others; even to be narrower overall with a few specific exceptions. I'm inclined to say that the article on Obama's dog is an exception, not the rule. It's not part of a large category (webcomics, episode articles, etc.) that deletionists like to delete en masse. Also, since it's related to Obama, it's going to be preserved by Obama fans, and we've got lots of those who are already watching the Obama-related articles. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
