Some would state that I'm not assertive which sounds positive, but
aggressive which sounds negative. That is, that I push the
assertive approach too far into the red (if you will).
If someone gets insulted, I state that their emotion is misplaced. I
was arguing against their position, not
Emily Monroe wrote:
I am an aggressive argumentalist and some take that to be
insulting. But being aggressive is not the same as being uncivil.
I think you're talking about assertiveness, not aggresiveness.
Semantical, I know, but still.
I think you're right, though. May I ask a
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I don't disagree at al', but the arbitration committee have tended to
take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin
toolbox and flag.
Well, in my view, if incivility in an admin is a sign of other problems
(in the spectrum of stress to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents. Somewhere in the
middle is a debate struggling to get out: is the volume of reversions
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I don't disagree at al', but the arbitration committee have tended to
take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin
toolbox and flag.
Well, in my view, if incivility in an admin is a sign of other
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'd offer the view that an admin who gets involved as one party in a
long series of trolling may not be suited to the role either. It could
be taken to suggest the admin has an issue with knowing when to step
back, or possibly even too much self-belief in their own
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
I am an aggressive argumentalist and some take that to be
insulting. But being aggressive is not the same as being uncivil.
I think you're talking about assertiveness, not aggresiveness.
Semantical, I know, but still.
I think
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Thinking of teh community as a community, it suddenly makes me realise
I have no idea who the community leaders are.
snip
The episodes and characters arbitration cases
were instances crying out for facilitation, not arbitration, and the
arbitration that resulted
Charles Matthews wrote:
I can't go into private discussions I know about, obviously. I've
several times made public my view that we should give admins plenty of
discretion, and balance that by a small number of de-sysops. So I agree
pretty much with what you say. Sympathy needs to be in
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Thinking of teh community as a community, it suddenly makes me realise
I have no idea who the community leaders are.
snip
The episodes and characters arbitration cases
were instances crying out for facilitation, not
Surreptitiousness wrote:
At some point the arbitration committee is going to have to make tough
decisions, if only to see exactly where the chips fall. If the
arbitration committee is sometimes afraid of acting, what hope have we
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe
2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe that's what
we need to explore once again, maybe we do need to investigate a fork of
the project. Tying this into the Guardian article, maybe a fork would
protect us
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe that's what
we need to explore once again, maybe we do need to investigate a fork of
the project. Tying this into the Guardian article, maybe
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'm not
actually blaming the arbitration committee so much as I'm trying to work
out a solution for the problems I perceive, hence me going on to talk
about facilitators. I can't work out if you snipped that because you
felt it was too much jargon.
No - I felt
2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe that's what
we need to explore once again, maybe we do need to investigate a
David Gerard wrote:
Forkability is IMO a drastically important thing to preserving all our
work here. My blog post from two years ago on the subject (update
numbers per Moore's Law):
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/
I agree entirely with this
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'm not
actually blaming the arbitration committee so much as I'm trying to work
out a solution for the problems I perceive, hence me going on to talk
about facilitators. I can't work out if you snipped that because you
felt it was
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be in favor of a Draft: namespace, which users could use for drafting
articles. Content to be non-spidered. That way we can tell a user to see if
some other user has started work on a draft already.
This would possibly help
On 12 Aug 2009 at 14:59, Emily Monroe wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for
confusion.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell
FT2 wrote:
I'd be in favor of a Draft: namespace, which users could use for drafting
articles. Content to be non-spidered. That way we can tell a user to see if
some other user has started work on a draft already.
This would possibly help collaboration, ensure only credible articles get
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 12 Aug 2009 at 14:59, Emily Monroe wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for
confusion.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
- Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
is the volume of reversions
indicative of good gatekeeping (poor edits to popular and well-developed
articles have little chance of sticking), or bad gatekeeping
I don't think that's an issue, really.
Present process:
- No article exists, google doesn't show anything, any redlinks are
redlinked. and user X or passer-by Y decides to write an article off
their own bat.
Proposed process:
- A draft (but not a mainspace) article exists,
The main obstacle would be getting it used. I can see it being a nice idea
but little used, unfortunately.
If a Draft: space did exist, presumably the main target would be users
unfamiliar with editing norms, to make it easier to start. We might tell new
users:
If you are not experienced at
FT2 wrote:
The main obstacle would be getting it used. I can see it being a nice idea
but little used, unfortunately.
I think if we abolished deletion and rather moved articles to draft
space, you'd see it used a lot. Obviously, really bad articles would be
deleted, but most of those are
FT2 wrote:
Depends, do we see a lot of fixable articles getting deleted due to quality
issues? That would be a reasonable resolution. On the other hand if they
aren't really fixable or they're not encyclopedic, if they haven't much
chance of surviving AFD even if edited a bit more, then it
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Depends, do we see a lot of fixable articles getting deleted due to quality
issues? That would be a reasonable resolution. On the other hand if they
aren't really fixable or they're not encyclopedic, if they haven't much
chance of
It's one way userspace is used right now. But userspace exists for two
purposes - community matters (related to the user, users, project drafting
etc), and article drafting.
We do use userspace for some drafting. But for reasons given it might be
worth splitting those two functions out and using
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
(Snip)
Remember that not all drafts have that in the page title.
It might even be possible to just add a category to all userspace drafts.
Carcharoth
What's nice is that it's intuitive for a new or
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:39 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
(Snip)
Remember that not all drafts have that in the page title.
It might even be possible to just add a category to all userspace drafts.
Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be in favor of a Draft: namespace, which users could use for drafting
articles. Content to be non-spidered. That way we can tell a user to see if
some other user has started work on a draft already.
This
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be in favor of a Draft: namespace, which users could use for drafting
articles. Content to be non-spidered. That way we
FT2 wrote:
- Dispute resolution is the communally mandated way of resolving all
disputes. Because disputes can be volatile, dispute resolution is expected
to be actively promoted by all users who wish to engage in a dispute,
either
by trying to resolve it, or by referring the
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
ad hominen
What does ad hominen mean?
It means attacking the person that made an argument rather than the
argument itself.
The term can go further than that, though I agree that it's more
commonly
Fayssal F. wrote:
I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers the same
yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA Disciplinary
Code]] regulates not just civility but far beyond that and it it certainly
governs the professional lives of millions of
Charles Matthews wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
There's a reason why zero tolerance policies are considered unjust in real
life by just about everyone who's thought about them.
Maybe so. There is also a reason or two why appeasement is considered
short-sighted by people who have seen
Emily Monroe wrote:
It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect
work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own
work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others.
I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary.
Charles Matthews wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Two words in
your message state what is the main, insidious problem with the Project's
culture: It varies. To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
I
In a message dated 8/13/2009 7:32:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com writes:
Depends upon your definition of fixable articles, doesn't it. I think
though, you've really just outlined user space.
I really like the idea of Draft space over user
In a message dated 8/13/2009 5:27:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
d...@tobias.name writes:
Why the doublequote? I notice that all of your messages quote the
message you're replying to twice, once in a trimmed manner above your
reply in the standard interleaved format, but then again in a
Non-logged in people cant create new articles.
- Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, 13 August, 2009 17:10:41 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Well, here's an odd thought. If Wikipedia dies, something to do with
our community will probably be the reason.
Odder thought - mailing lists and newsgroups look more vulnerable (to
civility problems, that is). Wikis tend to become dull,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents.
Sage Ross wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone
Maybe we should stop reverting vandalism. It would improve our statistics,
after all.
-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
Ha, okay, one of those rare lols where I actually laughed out loud.
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
Luna wrote:
Maybe we should stop reverting vandalism. It would improve our statistics,
after all.
-Luna
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Dear Wikipedians,
We're making a 4-part documentary series marking 20 years of the World
Wide Web, Digital Revolution. ). This comprises an interactive website
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalrevolution/), and four documentaries for
broadcast on BBC Two at the beginning of 2010, in the UK and
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
There is a similar discussion at the en.wiki Village pump on this, and I think
it runs parallel to this discussion.
I tend to think that the bigger problems with AFD is the lack of participation
on many of them; if you disagree, then look at the bottom of each page of any
given day's AFD and
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
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Is Wales sole founder? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable
definition of founder by which that is true.
I would make the following
2009/8/12 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Personally I don't think founder or co-founder makes sense. Would you
call someone a co-founder of Firefox? I wouldn't. Co-creator seems
more accurate.
Jargon per project style. Project founder makes sense in terms of
Firefox, i.e. Dave Hyatt and
On a spectrum of what belongs in Wikipedia, the majority of experienced
editors these days probably fall in a similar area that agrees not
everything belongs in Wikipedia. Not every building, person, business,
fictional character, news item, minor band, aspiring politician, has a
place. There are
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/12 Cathy Edwards cathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk:
To add to and enrich the programme we'd really love to interview a UK
Wikipedian. We're looking for a passionate Deletionist - someone who
identifies with the goals of Deletionism to create a high quality
encyclopaedia,
Forking the last discussion, many moons ago I had worked on John Laird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Laird_(California)
You'll notice that he was Mayor of Santa Cruz for two terms. Just on a
lark I scanned for other Mayors of Santa Cruz and came up with a
half-dozen or so and some that
Something like deletionism/inclusionism would only really be useful in terms
of phases Wikipedia has gone through or issues that its editors had to
resolve on the way. There's a lot of those.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/8/13 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
On a spectrum of what belongs in Wikipedia, the majority of experienced
editors these days probably fall in a similar area that agrees not
everything belongs in Wikipedia. Not every building, person, business,
fictional character, news item, minor band,
2009/8/13 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
The way the deletionism-inclusionism debate *now* seems focused is
things like minor BLPs. There's a thriving debate there, still, if you
want to look for it.
Indeed, the debate have moved from general arguments about overall
philosophy to
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
It's interesting to note that, on the whole, everyone is an
inclusionist
It was raised before on the Village Pump, but I think this is so disturbing
that we ought to do something.
Alphascript Publishing has published over 1900 (and counting) books, all
available on Amazon. Prices range from $31 to $179. All of these books are
simple computer-generated copies from
Surreptitiousness wrote:
FT2 wrote:
The main obstacle would be getting it used. I can see it being a nice idea
but little used, unfortunately.
I think if we abolished deletion and rather moved articles to draft
space, you'd see it used a lot. Obviously, really bad articles would
-Original Message-
From: Renata St renataw...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikimedia
Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 3:10 pm
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copypasted books
from Wikipedia
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
My guess is that it would eventually be used as people found out about
it, but it could open up a
If we keep draft pages in user space--and I think that a good
idea--perhaps there could actually be a public list of draft pages in
user space, and the understanding that, like all of WP, they are open
to communal editing.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
At 08:41 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
*That* someone is an expert in field xyz is not a WP:COI, although some
may see it as a conflict-of-interest (in lower case). For something to
be a conflict of interest in-project doesn't just require that a person
has a strong opinion on it, or a history of deep
At 05:33 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
expertise and we want them to advise us.
Nothing says we
David Goodman wrote:
If we keep draft pages in user space--and I think that a good
idea--perhaps there could actually be a public list of draft pages in
user space, and the understanding that, like all of WP, they are open
to communal editing.
Whether it is communally editable should be
Why the doublequote?
I was completely unaware of the doublequote. I doubt that it even
shows up in my mail program. It doesn't show up in this e-mail, for
example.
You're too wishy-washy to pick top or bottom posting, apparently.
Uh? See above.
Emily
On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Daniel
Please don't contentiously edit the article applies to all editors,
not just experts. So I can't see the need for this distinction you
think should exist. I'm still not seeing what you want here clearly.
I certainly hope you wouldn't be able to get community consensus to
treat experts as
It's striking a balance between experts who WP:OWN articles and revert
ignorant editors who don't know what they are talking about, and
requiring experts to carefully explain everything. Ideally, you would
tell both lots to edit based on reliable sources, not from their own
authority.
Carcharoth
Any such block for more than 24 hours is likely punitive.
True. Maybe we can do something along the lines of Four 12-24 hour
civility blocks, and you'll be blocked indefinitely. or live
indefinite blocks up to the community. I'd prefer the latter.
Saying we'll give you another chance, and
Personally I don't think any editor, other than simple vandals should
be able to be blocked indefinitely by admin action alone. Too much
room for abuse based on content issues.
-Original Message-
From: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
To: English Wikipedia
I propose that we have a This probably belongs in the draft
namespace. tag. I don't know how to move something from one namespace
into another (do you do it the normal way?), and it will help with
busy new page patrollers. If I see two or three articles that needs to
be moved to the draft
I would agree with Carcharoth's below statement.
Every editor should edit from reliable sources. Every editor, expert
or not, must understand that they themselves are not a source which can
be cited. If a statement is tagged as needing a source, and no source
is provided, in an reasonable
Personally I don't think any editor, other than simple vandals
should be able to be blocked indefinitely by admin action alone.
Too much room for abuse based on content issues.
Maybe have a Except for simple, and obvious, vandals, indefinite
blocks will be voted on in the community or
There is no draft namespace (yet). That would have to be proposed and
discussed on-wiki (discussions here are more like brain-storming). The
closest thing at the moment is userfy (if there is a tag for that).
But you would usually move it to the user's namespace (yes, you do it
the normal way) and
At 08:32 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote:
Just the opposite.
We want experts to edit the controversial bits.
Do you really want a swarm of amateurs who have little-to-no basis in
the field being the sole people editing the most contentious portions?
That just sounds upside-down to me.
Yes, I understand.
At 08:34 PM 8/13/2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Please don't contentiously edit the article applies to all editors,
not just experts. So I can't see the need for this distinction you
think should exist. I'm still not seeing what you want here clearly.
I certainly hope you wouldn't be able to get
It's simpler than that. Move has an option not to leave a redirect.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
There is no draft namespace (yet). That would have to be proposed and
discussed on-wiki (discussions here are more like brain-storming). The
At 08:48 PM 8/13/2009, Carcharoth wrote:
It's striking a balance between experts who WP:OWN articles and revert
ignorant editors who don't know what they are talking about, and
requiring experts to carefully explain everything. Ideally, you would
tell both lots to edit based on reliable sources,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/business/14army.html?hp
I don't have the actual URL for the system (not sure if it's public or not).
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
The main issue is *deception*. There is no disclaimer anywhere (except
inside the book) that this is a copy from Wikipedia or somewhere else.
People are tricked into believing that this is original content by the three
listed editors. It almost got tricked myself... and it came out that I wrote
13
I suppose we should be thankful that according to the Alphascript publishing
site all the work is done ...at no cost to our authors. otherwise they might
be sending us all bills to cover their costs.
Alan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
You said:
The publisher seems to observe the copyright (even includes full edit
history) so legal action seems impossible.
How can a book copy the full edit history without it being obvious that
it's copied from Wikipedia?
We do not require someone to say copied from Wikipedia on the title
Because you keep assuming that the expert would say this is so and if
anyone asks how, they would say believe me. But that is not how we
should be functioning.
The correct functioning would be that the expert would say this is so
and someone asks how and then the expert provide a source which
85 matches
Mail list logo
