Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
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 news orgs claim to follow? Al-Jazeera participated in the blackout: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673247-2703,00.html -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 question is though is is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a reliable source? 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 Pakistan. The Italian news agency Adnkronos International did spill the beans, reportedly spurring a number of blogs into action. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673247-2703,00.html -- gwern ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 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 admins? So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable can be discussed. 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, rather than some less savoury purpose? -- -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 ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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). -Sage (User:Ragesoss) I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier. After all, massive publicity hardly worked out badly for [[Jill Carroll]]. -- gwern ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 Pakistan. The Italian news agency Adnkronos International did spill the beans, reportedly spurring a number of blogs into action. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673247-2703,00.html Sorry, Adnkronos International is not a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdediff=nextoldid=277012138 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdediff=nextoldid=277012138 Michel ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 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 admins? So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable can be discussed. 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, rather than some less savoury purpose? -- -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 -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 admins? 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. We have IAR because not all circumstances are normal, and application of policy can lead to the wrong answer. WP:BLP has as nutshell Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, which I agree with; together with stuff about ethical and legal responsibility (which I find somewhat surprising). Anyway, the greatest attention to verifiability means that high standards such as more than one source can be applied, even if news agencies were always reliable sources (which is very debatable, I think). Be very firm about the use of high quality references, it says. That's the letter. 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 your sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example. 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. -- gwern ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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. We have IAR because not all circumstances are normal, and application of policy can lead to the wrong answer. The problem is that there are always cabals as well as single people that simply believe strange things. So if somebody (anybody, but particularly an admin) does something strange, are they a member of a cabal or is there something happening they can't tell you? If they're a member of a cabal or simply believe something strange then they need to be resisted, but if there is something they can't tell you then that's much more likely to be OK. 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. WP:BLP has as nutshell Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, which I agree with; together with stuff about ethical and legal responsibility (which I find somewhat surprising). Anyway, the greatest attention to verifiability means that high standards such as more than one source can be applied, even if news agencies were always reliable sources (which is very debatable, I think). Be very firm about the use of high quality references, it says. That's the letter. That wasn't the problem here. The source was probably more or less sufficiently reliable that it shouldn't have been removed on those grounds. So the admins were essentially lying to the editor. IMO that's the real problem, and the anonymous editor was actually behaving quite normally and fairly reasonably. Charles -- -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] News agencies are not RSs
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 not imagine being willing to take the personal responsibility of publishing this. There is an argument otherwise, but that's abstract, and people judge differently when it is not abstract, but a known individual. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com 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 it comes *anywhere* near proving your sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example. 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. -- gwern ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 ticket in case people decided to ask about it. It was for informational purposes only. But there was no drama before. Only a few edits and a few reverts (as well as the previous protections). --- Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.orgwrote: 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 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 admins? So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable can be discussed. 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, rather than some less savoury purpose? -- -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 ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 it comes *anywhere* near proving your sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. By calling it censorship you are of course assuming what you want to prove, that it was unjustified. Censor is the name of an official position. If there were a position within the WMF devoted to keeping _news_ out of Wikipedia when there are reliable sources, beyond a quibble, supporting it, just because someone was lobbying to have it suppressed, then you'd have a case. I'm not aware of that type of arrangement. 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 than less careful Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified. 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 very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia. -Durova -- -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] News agencies are not RSs
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 logic of *why* we did it the way we did. That is a very valid question in my opinion also. We need to know why this decision was made so that we can consistently apply that logic in the future so that there will be transparency and trust in a system even when all the details *can't* be made public. I would agree with other people in this thread, an OTRS or office action would have been preferable to claiming problems with WP:RS when they didn't exist. I agree OFFICE is a little high profile, but OTRS isn't. We do have a system in place for saying, there is more detail here, but we can't publish it all now. Not saying anyone did anything terribly bad by any means, there was a lot of hard work involved in keeping this from being published and posing a danger to the reporter. That doesn't mean we can't learn from it though. :) Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia. Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of protection. -- Um, no. The less notable don't have articles, so we have nothing to contribute there. Risker ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia. Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of protection. -- Um, no. The less notable don't have articles, so we have nothing to contribute there. Remove X bit of information that has not been previously widely published or random kidnapped tourist dies. But of course we don't have an article on random kidnapped tourist. -- geni ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 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 than less careful Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified. 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 very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia. If this is to be codified that could begin by taking it out of the already contentious BLP arena. Endangering lives can apply just as easily to individuals about whom we would not otherwise have biographies at all in the first place. If the information was already published by an Italian and an Afghan news agency, one can hardly say that Wikipedia was publishing it for the first time. The whole reliable sources argument too easily becomes another way of pushing a POV when there are no guidelines whatsoever for determining ahead of time what is or isn't a reliable source. What will be reliable in an era of citizen journalism when reports do not go through the filter of paid editorial staff, and the traditional sources of original news are no longer consistent with the economics of news consumption? What makes tweets out of Tehran reliable? Is it merely because they support our preconceptions? If saving lives is the issue where do we get the arrogant idea that we are so important that our reporting will make any difference. If we are smart enough to suspect that a person from Montreal with the name of Hechtman might be Jewish, it underestimates the Taliban enemy to suggest that they would not be able to figure that out for themselves. Do we apply the policy even-handedly? Doing so would require treating a Taliban life, or that of his innocent family member, with the same respect as a Western life. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
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 techniques used by Western military interrogators. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
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 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 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 than less careful Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified. 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 very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia. If this is to be codified that could begin by taking it out of the already contentious BLP arena. Endangering lives can apply just as easily to individuals about whom we would not otherwise have biographies at all in the first place. If the information was already published by an Italian and an Afghan news agency, one can hardly say that Wikipedia was publishing it for the first time. The whole reliable sources argument too easily becomes another way of pushing a POV when there are no guidelines whatsoever for determining ahead of time what is or isn't a reliable source. What will be reliable in an era of citizen journalism when reports do not go through the filter of paid editorial staff, and the traditional sources of original news are no longer consistent with the economics of news consumption? What makes tweets out of Tehran reliable? Is it merely because they support our preconceptions? If saving lives is the issue where do we get the arrogant idea that we are so important that our reporting will make any difference. If we are smart enough to suspect that a person from Montreal with the name of Hechtman might be Jewish, it underestimates the Taliban enemy to suggest that they would not be able to figure that out for themselves. Do we apply the policy even-handedly? Doing so would require treating a Taliban life, or that of his innocent family member, with the same respect as a Western life. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ 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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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 something should be kept out of Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles. 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. The reason to suppress the news of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to protect Rohde. It is still a draft, comments are welcome. /Apoc2400 Newspapers sometimes avoid publishing information that could have severe consequences to individuals if the public interest is small. While Wikipedia is not a news source it is often updated with the latest developments, leading to similar concerns. Therefore, Wikipedia should not include information, even if it can be reliably sourced, if: * Spreading it is likely to have very severe direct negative consequences for one or more individuals. * It has not been widely published in reliable sources. * The public interest is small. * It is withheld only for a limited time. Whether mainstream news sources are actively suppressing a news report should be taken into consideration. Administrators or other editors enforcing this may avoid directly explaining why or referring to this rule, if doing so would negate the purpose (see Streissand effect). In those cases it would be prudent to explain the reasoning later. The news suppression should be minimal. Deleting or oversighting old article revisions or discussion about the topic is often not necessary. Examples * When New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan in 2008, most news media did not report on it, because it would put his life in greater risk. Only a few, rather obscure news sources reported on the kidnapping. After nytimes contacted Jimmy Wales, he and other Wikipedia andministrators kept any mention of the kidnapping out of the Wikipedia article on David Rohde. They did the right thing. * If there is an other scandal like the [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]], then it could be argued that publishing it would lead to more resentment and terrorist attacks against Americans in Iraq. However, such news is of public interest, the danger is not to specific individuals and the consequences are not direct. Therefore it should not be excluded from Wikipedia if published in reliable sources. Related * Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons * Wikipedia is not censored * Wikipedia:Office actions * Kidnapping of David Rohde * Media blackout * Gag order ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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). I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier. Fear is one of the great motivators, and those (motivated by the other great motivator, greed) making big money out of Homeland Security know it. I doubt that their antics would stand up to any kind of cost/benefit analysis. Smaller amounts spent in other areas would be far more effective at saving more lives. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
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, rather than some less savoury purpose? I guess you just have to trust them in the same way you would any other politician. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
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. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 other. Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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 also aims to define when something should be kept out of Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles. 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. The reason to suppress the news of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to protect Rohde. I like what IAR used to say: Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules ... including this one. I think peoplr who think that codification is the only way to deal with anomalous situation, precedents, apparent gaps in policy, and so on, should take this to heart. In particular the restriction of IAR so that it only sometimes applies amounts to saying that common sense is only of limited value by area of application (which is wrong), rather than by mode of application (which is correct). 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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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 Wikipedia in any reasonable way. ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 purpose. If they use a unique or unusual response, it's not going to work as well as just saying the source is unreliable. Stating that the source was unreliable was actually probably the most effective route. I dislike the fact that this was very top-down and the response was misleading, but would OTRS really have been more effective? Sxeptomaniac Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:04 -0700 From: Durova Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: 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 than less careful Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified. 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 very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia. -Durova -- -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 -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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 it's not free of loopholes, and when a loophole in it is used, it's almost always this particular one. Usually it comes up in privacy situations rather than life endangering ones, but it's the same loophole: IAR only lets you ignore rules in order to improve the encyclopedia, helping someone's privacy doesn't improve the encyclopedia, therefore, you're not allowed to use IAR for that. Perhaps a change to IAR. Of course, most people who propose changes to IAR quickly get shot down because the rule is supposed to be simple. But here I'm proposing a change which *widens* the rule, while most proposed changes not only complicate it, but narrow its scope. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, or otherwise doing what's right, ignore it. I understand the desire not to turn IAR into paragraphs, since that defeats its purpose, but it seems to be needed here. Otherwise doing what's right is still a vague term, but no more vague than the rest of IAR, and it would plug the loophole, not just here, but for privacy and BLP issues in general. I also think that this situation is a blatant case of *not* applying IAR (unless you think the rule being ignored is don't lie about the reliable sources rule). Actually applying IAR instead of abusing other rules would have been much better. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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, 2009 at 2:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: 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 Wikipedia in any reasonable way. ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 , and who are similar to them, and when they judge the person involved as not being guilty of harming others. The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking it for granted. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: 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 other. Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 the person involved as not being guilty of harming others. The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking it for granted. - Which parts of the above are you advocating? Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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 heartbeat, and rightly so. That's not suppression, it's removal of content that is out of scope and unverifiable. The intent is significant. Suppression involves intending to keep people from knowing certain facts. ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 a user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason, rather than some less savoury purpose? I guess you just have to trust them in the same way you would any other politician. Standard policy on-wiki is that administrators have to be willing to explain and justify their actions. OTRS is a venue for being somewhat opaque; office is a venue for being more opaque. Issues which rise to this level should presumably be handed to OTRS and/or office - if they're that sensitive, the normal administrator pool is not well enough known and trusted, and fundamentally don't have appropriate private channels to discuss and decide on what to do. If random administrators start playing cowboy on issues like this, it's not helping anyone. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 safety and fate of others like him. Wikipedians have tangible editorial and policy responsibilities regarding the latter. The former is tangential politics. It is best to keep these matters separate. -Durova On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: 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). I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier. Fear is one of the great motivators, and those (motivated by the other great motivator, greed) making big money out of Homeland Security know it. I doubt that their antics would stand up to any kind of cost/benefit analysis. Smaller amounts spent in other areas would be far more effective at saving more lives. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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) 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 the person involved as not being guilty of harming others. The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking it for granted. - Which parts of the above are you advocating? Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 analyzed that, talked it over with security professionals in government and private employ, and decided against it. They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had them kidnapped before. I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume they know perfect. What's would make us presume that they know better? In fact your'e comparing the management of a small newspaper to the staff of a very large encyclopedia. It appears that you give great credit to management. 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, makes such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated Wikipedia and web history analysis experts. This is true for some organizations - but not many. The level of ignorance of advanced information sources is suprising even among groups that use some advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet communications. And thus, if they have not the Google, nor the Wikipedia, why then black them out? That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again. Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while after they're generally disclosed. [Citation needed] Government intelligence agency and military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly. Seems this can be abstracted a bit to general social cognition concepts and might remain true. But abstraction will probably reveal different dimensions to the concept that you have perhaps hardened into a idea about government intelligence. A near-contradiction of terms, by the way. 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 news orgs claim to follow? I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile. The point being that it draws a seriously subjective distinction between certain news orgs and others, in as far as how they deal with extra-journalistic modes of operation that overlap or circumuvent journalism itself. Ostensibly, blacking out reportage of war crimes also saves lives too -- not the lives of the people in the conflict, but the lives of the soldiers who happen to be associated with the hellbound jerks who committed the crimes. The continued blackout of Iraq abuse photos qualifies. In reality its a bit subjective. Not that anyone wants to actually see the photos -- its just that censorship of evidence of factual events deviates from our understanding of human history. Just to correct Mark (?) Al Jazeera at first did report it, but then joined the blackout after being contacted by NYT. An archived version of Al Jazeera's story would have sufficed as a source, and bypassed their blackout. This is all trying to deal a bit with Wales' point that if a less illegitimate news source reported it, keeping it under wraps would have been difficult. The real criticism here is not that they made the wrong call, but that they appear to be attributing to their own cunning and skill what better may be attributable to plain good-old good luck. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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. -- Different issue. We're talking about the suppression of news which does not violate any policy. Your example violates at least two. Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 and I hope and think that they're right. The first thing that Muslim world news orgs would have to do in that regard is to stop calling terrorists jihadis or jihadist organizations. Both Muslim and Western world sources use jihad incorrectly in reference to Islamic terrorism: 1) In Muslim context, the word jihad has positive meaning.The word muharib or hirabis on the other hand connote barbarianism, piracy, vandalism, and uncleanliness (spiritual) etc. (AIUI). 2) The West in fact uses jihad in an ironic way -- to highlight Muslim-world conventional usage of the term as being supportive and even praising of murder. Hence there is a sort of a dualistic game going on wherein both sides are abusive of the terminology. -Stevertigo ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 circumstances can be generalized, it regards the safety and fate of others like him. 1) There were ways to suppress the information without breaking Wikipedia rules, such as OFFICE. It could be argued that this still endangers lives, but to a *much* smaller degree. 2) In most cases (and in pretty much all cases which don't involve a well-connected person) we wouldn't suppress the information to protect lives--we'd publish it. The exact same arguments that are used here would be considered speculative and lacking in proof if anyone else tried them. 3) Giving in to kidnappers like this could help one person, but endanger the safety of more people in the future. It's like how paying ransom can save a person, but also makes it more likely kidnappers would kidnap more people. What do we do if terrorists learn from this and start making other demands on us? ___ 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 problem here. The source was probably more or less sufficiently reliable that it shouldn't have been removed on those grounds. So the admins were essentially lying to the editor. IMO that's the real problem, and the anonymous editor was actually behaving quite normally and fairly reasonably. Yeah. I think in many ways that we're seeing a case here of a fairly reasonable judgement call being defended by quite slipshod means. (I could see myself having done the same thing). If we had people more confident to *say* this is a judgement call, there are Serious Things, and a community more willing to trust established users to say that and not be playing tricks... ...well, we'd have a different community. But it'd be one where this sort of situation would be more likely to play out without abuse of the rules to get the intended result. I guess, as you note above, we could probably see more use of OTRS in a future situation; a way to note that the problem's been looked at by someone generally-trusted, that there's something that probably shouldn't be poked too hard, and please could people leave it there or ask discreetly for details. This is, on the other hand, not something that has historically proved popular to codify. Hmm. -- - 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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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 of a Wikipedia article on a living person just because there aren’t any reliable sources because of a censorious conspiracy to keep him from getting killed is a slippery slope to the destruction of the trustworthiness and usefulness of every article in the encyclopedia,” said administrator WikiFiddler451. “People are seriously suggesting that our rules should be applied using common sense and a clue. I just don’t see how that could possibly work. Next they’ll suggest we ‘assume good faith’ or something.” http://notnews.today.com/?p=546 - 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] Wikipedia:News suppression
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 Wikipedia is there some explanation given for why? You failed to read the article earlier. Al Jazeera also did not report the event until he was safe. You are frequently making assumptions as to motives and supposed double standards without giving any particular reasoning as to why the assumptions are valid. It has severely undermined any argument you are attempting to make. It also doesn't really matter if WP and the news outlets have been consistent or not, as it was the right decision to make in this case. I can't say I've always been consistent, but it doesn't necessarily make me a hypocrite when I do manage to make right choices. Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:07:59 EDT From: wjhon...@aol.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs) To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 Wikipedia in any reasonable way. I disagree. WP would certainly be harmed if it was the only major media organization to disseminate information the rest kept quiet, and worse if he had died, whether or not if it could be traced to WP's actions. We would have been the assholes more interested in our own overinflated egos than a man's life, and it would probably be the worst scandal yet, undermining the site's credibility (further). Sometimes improving WP means looking a little farther than the few inches/centimeters to our computer screens. It means recognizing that life, particularly human life, is more important than a stupid collection of ones and zeros on servers somewhere. WP hasn't always made good choices, but I'm glad it happened this time. Sxeptomaniac ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
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: 2009/6/30 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 of a Wikipedia article on a living person just because there aren’t any reliable sources because of a censorious conspiracy to keep him from getting killed is a slippery slope to the destruction of the trustworthiness and usefulness of every article in the encyclopedia,” said administrator WikiFiddler451. “People are seriously suggesting that our rules should be applied using common sense and a clue. I just don’t see how that could possibly work. Next they’ll suggest we ‘assume good faith’ or something.” http://notnews.today.com/?p=546 - 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 -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 of what the thread you are pointing them towards is about... There is a (rather technical) discussion going on about implementing a new language for writing templates to replace the current mess of parser functions. ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
-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
Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 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 of what the thread you are pointing them towards is about... Dude. Go nitpick someone else. Your response to Thomas' legitimate point is in poor form. Thomas is right: You provide no context, no direct link to a substantive wikitech-l post, no link to an overview on a meta page, and (more to the point) you gave no indication that the techies actually want non-technical input. -S ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 and where it is located (more to the point) you gave no indication that the techies actually want non-technical input. 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 Wikipedia articles the most. They write code, fix servers etc... Anyone interested by MediaWiki's new programming language will have no problem finding the conversation based on the information I provided. It is wholly sufficient. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 to participate in the conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;) Program the encyclopaedia? At least try and give people a meaningful idea of what the thread you are pointing them towards is about... Dude. Go nitpick someone else. Here's the quick summary: The senior techie MediaWiki people (Brion Vibber, Tim Starling et al) are discussing alternatives to the current ad-hoc templating language, including Python, PHP, Lua and server side JavaScript. No decisions have been made, and nothing may eventuate, but with Brion's support, something is sure to happen. The thread is On templates and programming languages on Wikitech-L. 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] [[Linuxconf]] the second most popular article after Michael Jackson?
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 at 3:42 PM, Dan Dascalescuddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: What exactly makes Linuxconf the second most popular Wikipedia article after Michael Jackson? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages # Michael Jackson (33,092 hits last hour) # Linuxconf (12,512 hits last hour) ... -- Dan http://dandascalescu.com ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 about. (more to the point) you gave no indication that the techies actually want non-technical input. 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 Wikipedia articles the most. They write code, fix servers etc... ParserFunctions were implemented because there was a demand for them. One of the greatest strengths and also the greatest weaknesses of the way MediaWiki is developed is that there is very little top-down direction and people just get on and do what seems like a good idea. That results in a lot of quick fixes, like ParserFunctions, which means features that are high in demand get implemented quickly but it also means that the solutions are often far from optimal. 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 of the Wikimedia movement). ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 of the Wikimedia movement). I have not forgotten what many of you have. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by everybody in Wikipedia, in full consultation with the community consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 just the English Wikipedia (or even the whole of the Wikimedia movement). I have not forgotten what many of you have. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by everybody in Wikipedia, in full consultation with the community consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales You haven't responded to either of the points you quoted... ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 and powwow about the technically best solution to a problem and can't even imagine what sort of input the community could possibly provide. It's totally backwards. The conversation should start on WikiEN-l, not wikitech-l. You have to first adequately characterize a problem before you start implementing solutions. ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 will wait forever. I wonder what it is. Oh that's right - precedence. I dug through all of the conversations around ParserFunctions. There wasn't much. It takes a lot of diligence to fully consult the community consensus. It's hard work that developers, historically speaking, haven't card one iota about. Whoever finishes their implementation first and is best friends with a core dev wins. ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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. Something tells me that without any griping I will wait forever. I wonder what it is. Oh that's right - precedence. I dug through all of the conversations around ParserFunctions. There wasn't much. It takes a lot of diligence to fully consult the community consensus. It's hard work that developers, historically speaking, haven't card one iota about. Whoever finishes their implementation first and is best friends with a core dev wins. Technical decisions should not be made by a consensus of laymen. ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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
Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
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 Wikipedia articles the most. They write code, fix servers etc... You are not actually correct. Things develop the way they do because they arise as the natural next step. All things improve incrementally, and in accord with available tools and available understanding. You're too young to remember what CamelCase is aren't you? More technically minded folks believe that they can sit down and powwow about the technically best solution to a problem and can't even imagine what sort of input the community could possibly provide. It's totally backwards. The conversation should start on WikiEN-l, not wikitech-l. You have to first adequately characterize a problem before you start implementing solutions. While you are certainly right about this idea that techs can get stuck in certain places that non-tech insights could help with, you are wrong about certain other things. The facts are: They deal with a lot already, they know the work involved for any request, they understand the concepts well enough to know what works and what doesn't, they can reconceptualize ideas and solutions in ways that the rest of us cannot (seen this a dozen times here), and they know very well where the tipping point is when things need to get to the next step. If there's a technical idea that the tech and general communities need to interface about, write it up in detail on the meta wiki, and give us a link. [[meta:New parser language]] or [[meta:New backend scripting language]] might work. -Stevertigo PS: Other comments and responses: The title says it all - MediaWiki is getting a new programming language. What does that even mean? That everything in PHP code will be rewritten in Python? Context for non-techies means something you may not yet understand. It was wholly sufficient. Your initial message, unlike perhaps your typical coded program, was neither wholly sufficient nor actually sufficient. Template parser functions for example, as Tom said, would have provided context. I assume, having signed up to this list, that you understand what wikitech-l is and where it is located 1) Dont assume anything. 2) Always provide a link. 3) Location does not by itself or in context indicate any relevance. 4) Terseness of the type you provide does not facilitate *any understanding. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
