On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S.
administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
Western
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
“We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
really hard time with it if it had.”
...
The
I don't see why they didn't indef-protect the entry with a reference to an
OTRS ticket. That eventually happened, but only after much drama, and after
branding a news agency unreliable.
Michel
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Rossragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
value if executed).
2009/6/30 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com
Even if we think *they* were not a RS (which of course they are),
there were still other sources:
Word came close to leaking widely last month when Rohde won his
second Pulitzer Prize, as part of the Times team effort for coverage
of Afghanistan and
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist
who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
-Durova
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally
Ian Woollard wrote:
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
technically rouge
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist
who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
-Durova
Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving
On 30/06/2009, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
What are policies for? We tend not to ask this often enough.
I say that policies are generally there to create reasonable
expectations, of editors contributing to Wikipedia, under what you could
call normal circumstances.
I usually consider that BLP should be used very restrictively, but if
there ever was a case where do no harm applies, it is this, not the
convoluted arguments of possible harm to felons where it is usually
raised. I would have done just as JW did (except I would have done it
just as OTRS) . I can
OTRS actions (for lack of a better term) should always stand on their own
merits. OTRS volunteers have no special authority to do anything that a
regular administrator doesn't have. Thus, we do not make actions per
OTRS. In the final protection I did note the summary with a link to the
OTRS
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist
who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
-Durova
Yes, I read it. I don't think
On 30/06/2009, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely, when
a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
careful rather
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote:
In at
least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson
and geni will prevail.
I'm not entirely sure what geni's position is. My impression is that
s/he is not necessarily opposed to the outcome, just the
2009/6/30 geni geni...@gmail.com
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
a
2009/6/30 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
2009/6/30 geni geni...@gmail.com
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
be widely published for the first
Durova wrote:
Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon
the slippery slope of censorship.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 30/06/2009, Durova wrote:
Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
their prisoners in a similar manner.
...not to mention
I absolutely support treating the life of a Talib with comparable respect.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Durova wrote:
Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step
upon
the slippery slope of censorship.
On Tue, Jun
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It also aims to define when
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
value if executed).
Ian Woollard wrote:
I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's
reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
given for why?
**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill.
Or since reporting on people and events can have negative effects in
general including death, are we now not to report on people and events if those
effects are negative toward us or ours? But it's evidently OK using the NYT
double-standard to report on them if they are negative toward the
Apoc 2400 wrote:
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It
In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
apoc2...@gmail.com writes:
The reason to suppress the news
of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
protect Rohde.
---
Suppressing the news can't be said to improve
There's a second challenge, in that we don't want to confirm information we
are avoiding releasing by replying with, Shhh. This is being kept quiet.
As I'm sure most here realize, various idiots will then spread such a
response all over Digg and various blogs, therefore defeating the original
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Apoc 2400 wrote:
Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
you from improving the encyclopedia.
I've complained about this for some time (to no avail). IAR may be short,
but
IAR is based on the premise that it will be actions with which every
reasonable person here would agree. Otherwise improve the
encyclopedia is much too broad a criterion, not to mention do what
is right.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Jun 30,
Ethical problems in the RW are decided not by abstract principles but
of what actual people do, and we are inevitably influenced by our
social situation. Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule
like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named
individuals whom they are aware of
In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule
like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named
individuals whom they are aware of , and who are similar to them, and
when they judge
WJhonson wrote:
Suppressing the news can't be said to improve Wikipedia in any reasonable
way.
But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
and rightly so.
2009/6/30 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com:
WJhonson wrote:
Suppressing the news can't be said to improve Wikipedia in any reasonable
way.
But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is
Is it possible to call foul at this mailing list? This is not an abstract
referendum about the George W. Bush administration policies; it's a
discussion that regards the physical safety of one kidnapping victim. To
the extent that this victim's circumstances can be generalized, it regards
the
I am not advocating, but trying to explain.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
Most (or almost all)
stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
officials
George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM,
wrote:
The NY Times presumably
In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:35:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
s...@eskimo.com writes:
But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
and rightly so.
George wrote:
My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle
eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the
ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary
islamic terrorists. I think Al Jazeera's staff see themselves that
way
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
Is it possible to call foul at this mailing list? This is not an abstract
referendum about the George W. Bush administration policies; it's a
discussion that regards the physical safety of one kidnapping victim. To
the extent that this victim's
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
The trick is that an OTRS ticket is a policy compliant item tells you
that there's an official thing happening without revealing what it is;
the chance of it being a cabal is then low, and most sensible editors
will back-off.
That wasn't the
2009/6/30 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
I'd rather cover it using the expectation that editors not be stupid.
That's actually a rule listed on Meta.
“Keeping details out
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:52:14 EDT
From: wjhon...@aol.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org, WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's
reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on
They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
program the encyclopedia. If you want to participate in the
conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/1 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
program the encyclopedia. If you want to participate in the
conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;)
Program the encyclopaedia? At least try and give people a meaningful
idea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/7/1 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
program the encyclopedia. If
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:19 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
You provide no context
The title says it all - MediaWiki is getting a new programming language.
no direct link to a substantive wikitech-l post
I assume, having signed up to this list, that you understand what
wikitech-l is
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/1 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
program the encyclopedia. If you want
Who knows, it's gone now.
Though when I search for net links to the page, this page comes up:
http://essayparagraphs.hobby-site.com/linux_conf_a.html
Don't go there, it appears to be some sort of spam site. Maybe somehow
it ended up redirecting a lot of traffic to WP.
Steve
On Tue, Jun 30,
2009/7/1 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:19 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
You provide no context
The title says it all - MediaWiki is getting a new programming language.
That doesn't even mention the word template, which is what the whole
discussion is
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't see
how any of that would be fixed by community discussion. I'm not even
sure what community would discuss it - the core Mediawiki code is used
by far more than just the English Wikipedia (or even the whole
2009/7/1 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't see
how any of that would be fixed by community discussion. I'm not even
sure what community would discuss it - the core Mediawiki code is used
by far more than
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/7/1 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
You haven't responded to either of the points you quoted...
Yes, I did. Your comments demonstrate my points. More technically minded
folks believe that they can sit down
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
That's better done by surveying the community, not a community
discussion.
Yeah, still waiting for that survey. Or that community discussion. Or that
usability study. Something tells me that without any griping I
2009/7/1 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
That's better done by surveying the community, not a community
discussion.
Yeah, still waiting for that survey. Or that community discussion. Or that
usability study.
Guys, please cool it. This thread is sucking.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
The fact that the techies do not actively seek out community input
is why we ended up with ParserFunctions. Furthermore these changes are
supposed to be 'community' decisions. The 'techies' are also not the
people who edit
59 matches
Mail list logo
