Leave the list open! There are lots of important people subscribed, and you
never know when an interesting conversation will pop up.
I'm the present moderator of a mailing list that's been active since 1988.
When an interesting conversation starts, it's fascinating to see all the
famous people
and appreciate the
WMF, if I turn out to be a hypocrite, *I* will call myself one. Just as I
will do it to others.
Best,
Brian
*Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends.* -
Diogenes the Cynic
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote
PM, David Carson carson63...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Brian,
I'm still not entirely clear on your complaint. Are you talking about
Wikimedia (not random users, nor Wikipedia Administrators) having access to
IP addresses from system logs? Or something else? What does The IP address
is helpful
I think now that we are suing the NSA that it's deeply hypocritical to be
surveilling users. A quick fix: stuff the ip field with random numbers.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 8:38 AM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
The idea of the IP being more private in the history/ public logs
is broadly analogous. If no...a
better analogy is needed.
On 28 March 2015 at 11:44, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
I think now that we are suing the NSA that it's deeply hypocritical to be
surveilling users. A quick fix: stuff the ip field with random numbers.
On Sat, Mar
. Brian: The NSA needs to store data without the permission or
consent of the people generating it, sometimes through forcible
interception, decryption and the introduction and maintenance of
software exploits that allow them to do this but also allow any other
reasonably technical nation or non
really getting somewhat off-topic; Brian, if you
want to continue this discussion about the trade-offs around privacy
and oversight, feel free to drop me an email. In the meantime, we
should probably leave the thread for the original subject ;)
On 29 March 2015 at 14:55, Oliver Keyes oke
to fight spam, detect socks, and respond to
emergency@ issues, unless I've missed something?
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
From: Brian J Mingus
Date:03-29-2015 4:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: David Carson
Cc: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study
wrote:
Hi Brian,
Dox'ing yourself? That's a pretty wild hyperbole.
But just to clarify: are you taking issue with the fact that not-logged-in
users have their IP addresses publicly visible? Or with the fact that all
edits have IP addresses privately recorded?
I originally thought you were
PM, David Carson carson63...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Brian,
I'm still not entirely clear on your complaint. Are you talking about
Wikimedia (not random users, nor Wikipedia Administrators) having access to
IP addresses from system logs? Or something else? What does The IP address
is helpful
-0400, Brian J Mingus wrote:
I think it's rather curious that edits to Wikipedia aren't private. Why
log
the IP address? Why log anything? It's invasive.
I guess it's a sensible choice against abuse (vandalism) while still
allowing non registered users editing rights
, 2015 4:15 AM, Francesco Ariis fa...@ariis.it wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:19:35PM -0400, Brian J Mingus wrote:
I think it's rather curious that edits to Wikipedia aren't private.
Why
log
the IP address? Why log anything? It's invasive.
I guess it's a sensible choice against
, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:19:35PM -0400, Brian J Mingus wrote:
I think it's rather curious that edits to Wikipedia aren't private. Why
log
the IP address? Why log anything? It's invasive.
I guess it's a sensible choice against abuse (vandalism) while still
allowing non registered users editing
I think it's rather curious that edits to Wikipedia aren't private. Why log
the IP address? Why log anything? It's invasive.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Andrea Forte andrea.fo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I'm representing a team of researchers from Drexel University who are
researching
Isn't this list moderated?
On Dec 27, 2014 8:59 PM, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
Thanks for that. I usually reach for google or wp to answer questions but
forgot in this case.
So how did they get hold of this list. Is Ron on Badoo??? And did Badoo
get hold of Ron's email
What is there to say?
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
If the moderators of this mailing list are around, would they or
anyone else subscribed to the list be able to throw up some statistics
about how much the traffic has declined over the past few
-viewed list for the week of July 27
to August 2, 2014 (and was still at number 15 the following week):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report/July_27_to_August_2,_2014
On 8/11/14, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
You can use Google image search to search
You can use Google image search to search for openly licensed content. This
includes images from Flickr.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Of course Carcharoth. Cany promise anything but happy to try!
On 11 Aug 2014 13:02, Carcharoth
I don't see why this script shouldn't be permanently installed into
Common.js assuming it works.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 01:02, Richard Farmbrough rich...@farmbrough.co.uk
wrote:
On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
I
*Most often requested* nonexistent articles per day (based on *149* days in
year *2008*).
?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough
rich...@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles
On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
I recall
it to hundreds of thousands of people and generated
tens of thousands of websites which use it by that name.
The article should clearly stay!
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:25 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 March 2014 09:20, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2014 22:04, Brian J
, and it has recently enjoyed a huge
surge in popularity, *due to its existence on Wikipedia*.
The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of
its notability should be added.
Cheers,
Brian Mingus
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l
might make some
progress. I believe that you should at least agree that the article should
be no more than 2-3 paragraphs in length, with a small handful of citations
to truly authoritative, and perhaps even academic, discussions of the
subject.
- Brian
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Your arguments fail to account for the fact that the article is curated
by
biased anti-Santorum contributors,
Well, you lost me right
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my comment
is
false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min
is being used as a platform to damage Santorum.
Thanks,
Brian
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
. This means that people who are looking for legitimate
information about him are not going to find it right away - instead we are
going to feed them information about a biased smear campaign rather than the
former Senators BLP.
Please discuss.
--
Brian Mingus
Graduate student
Computational
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Hi all,
I'm not sure about the history of this article, but it it was recently
brought to my attention via Facebook.
My take on this article is that it is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability
guidelines. The article goes
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
I therefore award the Wikipedia class C:
Considering that 55% of articles are stubs and 21% are start awarding
Wikipedia a C overall is quite generous.
--
Brian Mingus
Graduate student
Computational Cognitive
. I am actively developing it now. I'm interested in folks who
would like to dedicate some time to writing importers for specific APIs.
Cheers,
Brian
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2011 22:40, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically no
If you look at even [[Template:Cite web]] it requires stuff that you
have
to the personal nature of the appeal and the content of the message.
If this turns out to be correct you should, pronto, start making LOTS of
these.
- Brian
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:14 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/12/11/annual-fundraiser-checking-banner-results/
- d.
I am very happy that the Foundation has finally decided to make data driven
decisions, both in fundraising and the usability
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov
oleg.alexand...@gmail.comwrote:
I have been a Wikipedian for five years. I am an administrator, I have
written tens of articles, created hundreds of pictures, and made tens
of thousands of edits. I love Wikipedia and all that it represents.
I
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
An objectivist in a liberal blog? It happens.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html
(It's a piece about our remarkably accuracy-deficient coverage in the
media in the last
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/9/21 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
It's hard to follow everything that goes on here, but I distinctly
remember
when FlaggedRevisions was developed, and per my recollection openness was
not one of the original
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wittylama.com/2009/09/wikipedia-journal/
Wikipedia currently has no way of addressing any of these issues due
to the very nature of it being an “anyone can edit” wiki. This
alienates a large number of academics
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia.
Why is this clear? It isn't clear to me.
Will
Scholarpedia was
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Brian, scholarpedia doesn't work as a replacement for wikijournal (or
whatever we decide to call it) because they require each editor to have a
PhD or
MD.
There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
That is how I envision this WikiJournal prospective. Not as another
university-driven nowheresville which gets no traction because the vast
majority
of the world doesn't really care to read highly scientific and technical
articles.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
My question Brian was to your remark that this would not pass into
Wikipedia. Your response didn't address why you think that. By pass
into I mean
cited in, quoted in, not *COPIED* obviously. We don't allow copy-paste
right now
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:21:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only.
There is. Right on the main sign-up page
An editor of Scholarpedia should
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/
Wired reports:
*Starting this fall, you’ll have a new reason to trust the information you
find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Agree - trust scores are likely to be divisive and easily gamed. I do not
think trust score league tables will help the project.
However as they are also good ways to spot problems and see the
reliability
profile of an article
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Agree - trust scores are likely to be divisive and easily gamed. I do not
think trust score league tables will help the project.
However as they are also
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/31 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and
it
could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is
difficult to game editors
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried this out the other day; it's a very cool idea, but by and
large, it seems that this hacker doesn't have enough CPU power to
extract the really good wikilinks, the ones that aren't already linked
inside the
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried this out the other day; it's a very cool idea, but by and
large, it seems that this hacker doesn't have enough CPU power to
extract
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
The problem with popups is that even Explorer Six can completely disable
them or enable them for specific sites.
Unlikely, it's not a real popup. They use javascript to float a div which
contains a form on top
This spreadsheet has all of the data recorded and plotted from
Special:Statistics by Archive.org, 2004-2009.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tkEhxjLanb4hCHAZiS91_MQoutput=html
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
This main page of strategy.wikimedia.org is merely a icon-listing of
all the projects.
There is no obvious link to drill down into the strategy wiki itself.
A daguerreotype of a well adjusted [[Phineas Gage]] holding the rod that
impaled his frontal lobes was recently discovered. It will be published in
The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences imminently. It was, in my
opinion, correctly uploaded to Commons under the Public Domain. It is, after
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
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 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
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
It's hard to imagine someone thinking I bet no one will notice if I just
paste in this paragraph from a Wikipedia article. At the same time, some
users, perhaps even some apparently sophisticated users, may misunderstand
just what exactly is meant by free encyclopedia. And not to his credit
I can't imagine why they would add Wikinews as a source - it has no
authority, whereas Wikipedia does.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
- Joe Anderson computer...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Joe Anderson computer...@gmail.com
To:
does.
What type of authority, Brian? Reliability? Based on original reporting?
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I got the same message from user 'Rx StrangeLove' the other night. To whom,
if anyone, should it be reported to?
Brian
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 1:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/24 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
I doubt it. All the old admin accounts seem to be getting
Many of these very constraints are exactly what are likely to stop
Citizendium from reaching critical mass. Whatever that phrase means
Wikipedia has it and Citizendium does not. I think it's an interesting
question whether Wikipedia would have been successful had these influences
prevailed early
Lets just be clear that this is an IMHO that has nothing to do with my point
- the source of authority on the subject. All primary sources are biased in
that respect.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:24 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
But you know there can only be one benevolent dictator, right?
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Honestly, it's important enough that the Foundation should take an
objective look at the facts and make a statement about Wikipedia's history.
On Wed, Apr 8
So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller in
it.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of
we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny.
This subject is one of the reasons that Semantic MediaWiki was designed.
For example, in the article for [[Marilyn Monroe]] there is an infobox
and it contains a template parameter with this code:
deathdate = {{death-date and age|August 5, 1962|June 1, 1926}}
In order to give the article
For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia has become a complex and byzantine
bureaucracy...it's a maze of process and rules and editors that never get
tired of enforcing either. It'll never happen but we should start kicking
people out of project space.
-Original Message-
From:
Epistemology hearkens to the very early days. Nupedia failed because
of the 7 tenets of proper epistemology.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Thomas Larsen
It's not a split, but Scholarpedia has been fantastically successful.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/
They've gotten authors whose names you will recognize but did not realize
were alive to write up the articles on their discoveries. Thats the project
goal - to get THE living expert on the subject
[[Non-credible threat]]
If you do go overboard and call the cops please send them a link to this
thread.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahew...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM, [[User:Thinboy00]]
thinboy00+wikipedial...@gmail.com
What percentage of his page moves were not picked up automatically by a bot?
What percentage of this users vandalism is not picked up by a bot?
Why is the ISP responsible for what he dumps into Wikipedia, rather than
Wikipedia, as it allows itself to be a dumping ground? The Viacom/Youtube
Potthast, Stein, Gerling. (2008). Automatic Vandalism Detection in
Wikipedia.
http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/webis/publications/downloads/papers/stein_2008c.pdf
Abstract. We present results of a new approach to detect destructive article
revi-
sions, so-called vandalism, in Wikipedia. Vandalism
This is preposterous.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahew...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or more)
of
the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a
Your standards are far too high. Rules + automatic classification + human
eyes converges on 100%.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
On 29/12/2008, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Using logistic regression we achieve 83% precision at 77% recall
I mean that you are are correct:)
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
No No :) I am simply pointing out that the developers (the tool was written
by Brion) clearly think the OP is correct.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Mackan79 macka...@gmail.com
He's wasted some time, but he hasn't hurt anyone. Give him one last chance.
Ensure that he sees this thread, and if it stops, let him go.
Cheers:)
Brian
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit
78 matches
Mail list logo
