Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Anyone else see something wrong here? [[Beauty contest]] ''A C-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'' :''For the concept in economics and game theory, see Keynesian beauty contest.'' A '''beauty contest''', or '''beauty pageant''', is a competition based mainly... -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
[WikiEN-l] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
G'day folks, The New York Times reports on flagged revisions: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?partner=rssemc=rss Wikipediahttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?inline=nyt-org, one of the 10 most popular sites on the Web, was founded about eight years ago as a long-shot experiment to create a free encyclopedia from the contributions of volunteers, all with the power to edit, and presumably improve, the content. Now, as the English-language version of Wikipedia has just surpassed three million articles, that freewheeling ethos is about to be curbed. Officials at the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home, the nonprofit in San Francisco that governs Wikipedia, say that within weeks, the English-language Wikipedia will begin imposing a layer of editorial review on articles about living people. The new feature, called “flagged revisions,” will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version. (More in article) Regards *Keith Old* ___ 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] And other observations...
wiki doesn't mean quick to me That derivation I think is pretty obscure. To me when someone says Wiki whatever or wiki whatever for that matter, it means collaborative editing. W.J. -Original Message- From: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:31 pm Subject: [WikiEN-l] And other observations... A success Wikipedia has thus far been, though issues there are still. Observations, on these issues I will make. 1) Wikipedia is a collaborative website that tries to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's got a funny name: It was named by the founders after the technology it was based on, rather than the philosophy it was based on - openness, egalitarianism, honest and honorable conduct, etc. 2) Thus the name wiki itself is misapplied to en.w.pedia Wiki is a technological concept. Wikipedia is an egalitarian one. Though people have for years tried to turn wiki into a larger, more philosophical term, it just doesn't want to go there - wiki ultimately doesn't mean anything more than quick. We want Wikipedia to be more than just a quickie resource. 3) Wiki facilitates easy editing, but then not everything we do is editing. In fact the main thing Wikipedia does is just exist - existing in a digital form at a free/open-access online database for ease of reading/viewing. Wiki makes lots of things easy - some of which are conducive to making an encyclopedia. The wiki made vandalism easy too, but we learned that collaboration itself could deal with that. ( 3b) (It's the infrastructure/databases/operatingsystems/browsers themselves that facilitate this ease - not just wiki. Still, we don't call ourselves the inter...pedia or the web..pedia for a reason: Those domain names were already taken. ;-) ) -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 ___ 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] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
I'm waiting for actual definitive information on enwiki or meta. FT2 On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote: G'day folks, The New York Times reports on flagged revisions: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?partner=rssemc=rss Wikipedia http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?inline=nyt-org , one of the 10 most popular sites on the Web, was founded about eight years ago as a long-shot experiment to create a free encyclopedia from the contributions of volunteers, all with the power to edit, and presumably improve, the content. Now, as the English-language version of Wikipedia has just surpassed three million articles, that freewheeling ethos is about to be curbed. Officials at the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home, the nonprofit in San Francisco that governs Wikipedia, say that within weeks, the English-language Wikipedia will begin imposing a layer of editorial review on articles about living people. The new feature, called “flagged revisions,” will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version. (More in article) Regards *Keith Old* ___ 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] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
Similar story also reported by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm Before you shout, Mike's already been on to them to correct the subsidiary wording. Wikipedia to launch page controls Jimmy Wales, Getty Images The call for flagged revisions came from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia is on the cusp of launching a major revamp to how people contribute to some pages. The site will require that revisions to pages about living people and some organisations be approved by an editor. This would be a radical shift for the site, which ostensibly allows anyone to make changes to almost any entry. The two-month trial, which has proved controversial with some contributors, will start in the next couple of weeks, according to a spokesperson. I'm sure it will spark some controversy, Mike Peel of Wikimedia UK, a subsidiary of the organisation which operates Wikipedia, told BBC News. However, he said, the trial had been approved in an an online poll, with 80% of 259 users in favour of the trial. The decision to run this trial was made by the users of the English Wikipedia, rather than being imposed. The proposal was first outlined by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in January this year. It was met by a storm of protests from Wikipedia users who claimed the system had been poorly thought out or would create extra work. 'Lock down' The two-month trial will test a system of flagged revisions on the English-language Wikipedia site. This would mean any changes made by a new or unknown user would have to be approved by one of the site's editors before the changes were published. Whilst the changes are being mulled over, readers will be directed to earlier versions of the article. Wikimedia said the system was essentially a buffer, to reduce the visibility and impact of vandalism on these articles. There have been several high-profile edits to pages that have given false or misleading information about a person. For example, in January this year the page of US Senator Robert Byrd falsely reported that he had died. If a page has a number of controversial edits or is repeatedly vandalised, editors can lock a page, so that it cannot be edited by everyone. For example, following initial reports of the death of Michael Jackson, editors had to lock down two pages to stop speculation about what had caused his death. For these articles, flagged protection will actually make them more open, said Mr Peel. The decision had been made to focus on the pages of living people, he said, because they were the most high-profile pages with the highest probability of causing harm. [The trial] may also be extended to organisations which are currently operating, he added. The system has already been in operation on the German version of Wikipedia for more than a year. The changes to the English language site - which now has more than 3m pages - will be rolled out in the coming weeks, said Mr Peel. The changes will be discussed in Buenos Aires this week at the annual Wikimania conference. - Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote: From: Keith Old keith...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 08:06:05 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People G'day folks, The New York Times reports on flagged revisions: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?partner=rssemc=rss Wikipediahttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?inline=nyt-org, one of the 10 most popular sites on the Web, was founded about eight years ago as a long-shot experiment to create a free encyclopedia from the contributions of volunteers, all with the power to edit, and presumably improve, the content. Now, as the English-language version of Wikipedia has just surpassed three million articles, that freewheeling ethos is about to be curbed. Officials at the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home, the nonprofit in San Francisco that governs Wikipedia, say that within weeks, the English-language Wikipedia will begin imposing a layer of editorial review on articles about living people. The new feature, called “flagged revisions,” will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version. (More in article) Regards *Keith Old* ___ 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] Secondary sources
Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement. The difference is that you have someone in between the source - the journalist in this case - sifting, analysing, compiling and interpreting the primary sources. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS for more details. - Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 24 August, 2009 07:48:11 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BB... On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Steve, news articles *in general* are primary sources. Here is how you can tell: Is what I'm reading the first time someone has published what I'm reading? So and so was hit by a car today -- primary source, first time published. Oh, for some reason I thought primary source meant the subject themself had published it. Like a blog, autobiography, etc. I was just confused. 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 ___ 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] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
2009/8/25 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: Similar story also reported by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm Oh dear. Same picture as for the previous BBC story on Wikipedia. At least Dana Blankenhorn used the bouncy Wikipedia logo from Uncyclopedia! http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4715 I've posted two lengthy reply comments explaining how BLPs work (or are supposed to work) and what flagged revisions are meant to achieve. - 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] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
Note for Jimbo - we need new free pics of you. FT2 On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: Similar story also reported by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm snip Oh dear. Same picture as for the previous BBC story on Wikipedia. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
2009/8/25 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: Note for Jimbo - we need new free pics of you. FT2 There are better free pics but BBC sticks to Getty for the most part. -- 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] Secondary sources
In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement. That is not correct Andrew. Each source must be published. Typically witness statements are not themselves published. You are confusing first-hand experience with primary source. A primary souce, even a census return is not first-hand, it's merely first publication. If you took you example to extreme, then there would be no primary sources at all. W.J. ___ 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] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the copyright violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to rely on free photographs, so they don't use them. Bizarrely they'd rather pay someone for an image, and hence be able to sue them if they had copyright problems, than get it for free. Which brings to mind an interesting business proposition. :) - geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: From: geni geni...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 17:33:38 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People 2009/8/25 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: Note for Jimbo - we need new free pics of you. FT2 There are better free pics but BBC sticks to Getty for the most part. -- 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 ___ 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] Secondary sources
Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable pre-date Wikipedia. Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research. - wjhon...@aol.com wrote: From: wjhon...@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 19:01:49 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement. That is not correct Andrew. Each source must be published. Typically witness statements are not themselves published. You are confusing first-hand experience with primary source. A primary souce, even a census return is not first-hand, it's merely first publication. If you took you example to extreme, then there would be no primary sources at all. W.J. ___ 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] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
In a message dated 8/25/2009 11:12:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the copyright violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to rely on free photographs, so they don't use them. Bizarrely they'd rather pay someone for an image, and hence be able to sue them if they had copyright problems, than get it for free. Which brings to mind an interesting business proposition. --- Fork! Fork! spoon? Here at um wikifreeverified.com we ensure you that all our content has been triple-checked by expert triple-checkers to ensure that it's all free free free! To use that is. For your ease of mind you will pay us $1000 per year plus 25 cents per image. ___ 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] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:17 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: snip Here at um wikifreeverified.com we ensure you that all our content has been triple-checked by expert triple-checkers to ensure that it's all free free free! To use that is. For your ease of mind you will pay us $1000 per year plus 25 cents per image. That's cheap. You can go higher than that. Do more market research. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned! I NEED INFORMATION. * When's Flagged Revs being switched on? * Where's the latest version of *precisely what's happening*? * etc? I can arse it through for Radio 5, but Newsnight is a bit scary! - 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] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: The latest estimate is 2 weeks time, or probably a bit later. A trial of it on a test wiki started today. And this is the proposal that's being tried: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions So, two months of it live to see how this runs? Another thought: this is actually more open than just locking the article. :-) - 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] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:43 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/25 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: The latest estimate is 2 weeks time, or probably a bit later. A trial of it on a test wiki started today. And this is the proposal that's being tried: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions So, two months of it live to see how this runs? Another thought: this is actually more open than just locking the article. :-) Try and read up on as much of the reliable on-wiki stuff as you can, and try and get in touch with people who will be talking about it at Wikimania maybe? And mention Wikimania, where I believe it will be discussed. Are you actually going to be in the studio or will it be via a sat link? And is it just you or others as well? How long are you going to get? And what colour is your tie! :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned! I NEED INFORMATION. * When's Flagged Revs being switched on? * Where's the latest version of *precisely what's happening*? * etc? I can arse it through for Radio 5, but Newsnight is a bit scary! For those not familiar with British TV, Newsnight is probably the most highbrow current affairs program we have. This is a very big deal! Best of luck to you David, I know you'll do a fantastic job. I wonder if Jeremy Paxman or his researchers read this list? :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
Brion's blog: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/weekly-wiki-tech-update-pre-wikimania-edition/ Risker 2009/8/25 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:43 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/25 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: The latest estimate is 2 weeks time, or probably a bit later. A trial of it on a test wiki started today. And this is the proposal that's being tried: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions So, two months of it live to see how this runs? Another thought: this is actually more open than just locking the article. :-) Try and read up on as much of the reliable on-wiki stuff as you can, and try and get in touch with people who will be talking about it at Wikimania maybe? And mention Wikimania, where I believe it will be discussed. Are you actually going to be in the studio or will it be via a sat link? And is it just you or others as well? How long are you going to get? And what colour is your tie! :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: Try and read up on as much of the reliable on-wiki stuff as you can, and try and get in touch with people who will be talking about it at Wikimania maybe? And mention Wikimania, where I believe it will be discussed. I don't want to confuse stuff at all. I just confused the hell out of the researcher on the phone trying to keep stuff simple ... so it's going to be REALLY DUMB SOUNDBITES ALL THE WAY. Are you actually going to be in the studio or will it be via a sat link? And is it just you or others as well? How long are you going to get? And what colour is your tie! :-) Studio. Black, black as my SOU. It's 7:50pm and they haven't called back to confirm. Could be false alarm, I'll let you all know ;-) - 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] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: It's 7:50pm and they haven't called back to confirm. Could be false alarm, I'll let you all know ;-) Are you going to be on or not? If so, I'll watch. I don't usually, but the flagged revisions thing is particularly interesting! Good luck David! -- Regards, Isabell Long. isabell...@gmail.com [[User:Isabell121]] on all public Wikimedia projects. Freenode Community Co-Ordinator - issyl0 on irc.freenode.net PGP Key ID: 0xB6CA6840 ___ 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] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/8/25 Isabell Long isabell...@gmail.com: 2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: It's 7:50pm and they haven't called back to confirm. Could be false alarm, I'll let you all know ;-) Are you going to be on or not? If so, I'll watch. I don't usually, but the flagged revisions thing is particularly interesting! Good luck David! Looks like it's a happener. Just waiting for call re: cab. Apparently on ~9:45pm (BST), but times may change at short notice. Knock 'em dead! ___ 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] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: I don't want to confuse stuff at all. I just confused the hell out of the researcher on the phone trying to keep stuff simple ... so it's going to be REALLY DUMB SOUNDBITES ALL THE WAY. Points I'd try to remember, in no particular order: * this isn't locking down editing, it's more open than it sounds * it's to a large degree an anti-vandalism tool, to stop articles being degraded, rather than to limit them improving - it's not for content control, we have protection for that * it's worked on dewiki so far - some problems, mostly delays, we'll see if they recur, but it's not caused a complete collapse of everything * we've been thinking about this for a long time, unlike some past changes Final details will be announced soon, this is all provisional, maybe mention something about Wikimania as an ongoing conference where the details will emerge. The other thing, of course, is emphasising the BLP article part of it - we want to get these right, we have less room to screw up there - but I don't know how much we want to play that if it's still unclear what the final rollout is going to be! There's a bit over 400,000 BLPs out of 3m plus articles; that's a bit under 15% of all our articles. It's hard to say what proportion of our pageviews that represent, but I would put a small amount of money on more than average. We certainly know they have a disproportionate effect in terms of the amount of complaints and corrections we get sent; around a third of articles we get contacted about are BLPs. -- - 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] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk: Final details will be announced soon, this is all provisional, maybe mention something about Wikimania as an ongoing conference where the details will emerge. Thinking about it, this is probably the best one to hammer on. We don't know precised details of implementation; it's not formally announced yet, and we've been discussing various different methods for a long time. It'll all be clear soon, but here are the philosophical bases we're working from: (and talking points) -- - 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] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/8/25 Isabell Long isabell...@gmail.com: 2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: It's 7:50pm and they haven't called back to confirm. Could be false alarm, I'll let you all know ;-) Are you going to be on or not? If so, I'll watch. I don't usually, but the flagged revisions thing is particularly interesting! Good luck David! Looks like it's a happener. Just waiting for call re: cab. Apparently on ~9:45pm (BST), but times may change at short notice. Hang on, Newsnight doesn't start until 10:30pm. Did you mean ~10:45pm? ___ 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] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: Looks like it's a happener. Just waiting for call re: cab. Apparently on ~9:45pm (BST), but times may change at short notice. Hang on, Newsnight doesn't start until 10:30pm. Did you mean ~10:45pm? Evidently :-) - 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] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote: I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the copyright violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to rely on free photographs, so they don't use them. Bizarrely they'd rather pay someone for an image, and hence be able to sue them if they had copyright problems, than get it for free. Which brings to mind an interesting business proposition. Some have attempted to take this route when it comes to free and open source software: to indemnify or provide insurance against copyright problems in the future. The thing that surprises me about the Times article, is that the Wikipedia logo is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. I know I won't be able to afford its usage on my book, and so I wonder if the Times has licensed it or if there is some journalistic fair use. I don't think there is even a public policy yet, only this draft: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_and_trademark_policy ___ 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] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
Interesting. I've had emails from the BBC in the past asking to reuse images I've taken and uploaded to Commons (to which I replied saying yes), but I haven't seen them actually using them yet. Perhaps this explains why. Mike On 25 Aug 2009, at 19:11, Andrew Turvey wrote: I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the copyright violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to rely on free photographs, so they don't use them. Bizarrely they'd rather pay someone for an image, and hence be able to sue them if they had copyright problems, than get it for free. Which brings to mind an interesting business proposition. :) - geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: From: geni geni...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 17:33:38 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People 2009/8/25 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: Note for Jimbo - we need new free pics of you. FT2 There are better free pics but BBC sticks to Getty for the most part. -- 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 ___ 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] Online encyclopedia of life reaches 150,000 species
G'day folks, Phys Org reports that the Online Encyclopedia of Life has reached 150,000 species. http://www.physorg.com/news170396645.html The Encyclopedia of Life, an online project launched in 2007 with the aim of creating a webpage on every known animal and plant species, has reached 150,000 entries in its second year. * * * In a statement marking the anniversary, the collaborative project said close to two million people from more than 200 countries had contributed to the website (www.eol.org). Users can create a page that describes a plant or animal with text, images or both. The information is then submitted to experts, verified and made available for free. The project's creators hope to accumulate a page for every 1.8 million animal and plant species http://www.physorg.com/tags/plant+species/ known to scientists over 10 years. More in article. This would compare well with Wikipedia's progress over a similar period. Regards Keith * ___ 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] Online encyclopedia of life reaches 150,000 species
Keith Old schreef: Phys Org reports that the Online Encyclopedia of Life has reached 150,000 species. Impressive number. There are 128,000 articles on WP with a Taxobox template; this includes species, but also families, genera, and other ranks. Eugene ___ 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] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com: As far as I can tell from IRC chats with some of the coders hanging out with Brion at Wikimania, a lot of this is still up in the air but this is still the closest thing to canon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions Yep, that page is the closest thing there is to a canon summary of the proposed configuration for en.wp. Generally next steps are: 1) Finalize setup of http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page with article import from en.wp; 2) Test proposed configuration (UI and workflows) and make necessary fixes; 3) Rollout on en.wp. 3) should ideally happen within 8 weeks or so, but that depends in part on people's experience during the testing period, and the extent to which we have to make further revisions to the extension. The FlaggedRevs extension has been used in many of our wikis, including the second-largest Wikipedia, for more than a year. However, contrary to what's been reported in some media, the community has had very thoughtful conversations about the ideal setup for en.wp, which isn't going to be the same as the one used for de.wp, and we want to make sure that the software properly supports it without causing confusion, especially in light of our general efforts to make Wikipedia easier to use and easier to contribute to. WiFi in Buenos Aires willing, I'll try to whip up a summary for the Wikimedia blog at blog.wikimedia.org tonight to help reduce some of the confusion. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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] Online encyclopedia of life reaches 150,000 species
So what was so special about this wiki or pseudo-wiki that it became successful ? -Original Message- From: Keith Old keith...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 2:00 pm Subject: [WikiEN-l] Online encyclopedia of life reaches 150,000 species G'day folks, Phys Org reports that the Online Encyclopedia of Life has reached 150,000 species. http://www.physorg.com/news170396645.html The Encyclopedia of Life, an online project launched in 2007 with the aim of creating a webpage on every known animal and plant species, has reached 150,000 entries in its second year. * * * In a statement marking the anniversary, the collaborative project said close to two million people from more than 200 countries had contributed to the website (www.eol.org). Users can create a page that describes a plant or animal with text, images or both. The information is then submitted to experts, verified and made available for free. The project's creators hope to accumulate a page for every 1.8 million animal and plant species http://www.physorg.com/tags/plant+species/ known to scientists over 10 years. More in article. This would compare well with Wikipedia's progress over a similar period. Regards Keith * ___ 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] Online encyclopedia of life reaches 150,000 species
2009/8/25 wjhon...@aol.com: So what was so special about this wiki or pseudo-wiki that it became successful ? The Online Encyclopedia of Life? No idea, I'd never heard of it until I looked it up after reading this email! Maybe that's me not looking further than Wikipedia for most things?! I do Google search most of the time and have never come across this Encyclopedia of Life. At least we know it exists now! -- Regards, Isabell Long. isabell...@gmail.com [[User:Isabell121]] on all public Wikimedia projects. Freenode Community Co-Ordinator - issyl0 on irc.freenode.net PGP Key ID: 0xB6CA6840 ___ 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] Secondary sources
Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made to exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets from various teachers. However my reasoning is that all of the preparation is merely the necessary steps to create the source. It's instructive to consider whether making images available online of a primary source creates a secondary source. How about making minor editing corrections? At what level of modification of a primary source, do you create a secondary source? Formatting a film for TV size doesn't suddenly turn the film from primary to secondary. W.J. -Original Message- From: Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable pre-date Wikipedia. Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research. - wjhon...@aol.com wrote: From: wjhon...@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 19:01:49 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement. That is not correct Andrew. Each source must be published. Typically witness statements are not themselves published. You are confusing first-hand experience with primary source. A primary souce, even a census return is not first-hand, it's merely first publication. If you took you example to extreme, then there would be no primary sources at all. W.J. ___ 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
[WikiEN-l] Who gets to flag? (BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs)
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Erik Moeller wrote: The FlaggedRevs extension has been used in many of our wikis, including the second-largest Wikipedia, for more than a year. However, contrary to what's been reported in some media, the community has had very thoughtful conversations about the ideal setup for en.wp, which isn't going to be the same as the one used for de.wp, and we want to make sure that the software properly supports it without causing confusion, especially in light of our general efforts to make Wikipedia easier to use and easier to contribute to. In speaking to the press today, one of the things I believe I heard in an intro segment on a live radio discussion was that WP would have professional editors flagging trusted content. I didn't get a chance to correct that, and I know who gets to review is still up in the air to some extent [1], but that's a likely source of confusion to the public apparently. [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewers ___ 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] Secondary sources
Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world. From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified in any manual on doing research in history or any listing of sources at the end of an historical book or article. From the POV of Wikipedia, we've been considering it a secondary source, which is the way most people think of it. what we call primary sources: is the archival material that an historian also calls primary sources, but normally lists separately in a bibliography. if the reporter's notebooks are preserved, that's also a primary source. The analysis of the differences between the primary sources in attempting to reconstruct what happened is what historians do. The articles monographs other historians publish giving their analysis is what they consider the secondary sources. Similarly, in science, the actual archival primary sources are, in a sense, the lab notebooks--and they are preserved as such, for patents and the like. But a primary scientific paper is the one reporting the work, and a secondary paper is a review. The Wikipedia definition is a term of art at Wikipedia, used because we need some way of differentiating between material which is edited, and that which is not. The primary sources are the unedited reports. As a newspaper is edited, its a secondary source. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made to exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets from various teachers. However my reasoning is that all of the preparation is merely the necessary steps to create the source. It's instructive to consider whether making images available online of a primary source creates a secondary source. How about making minor editing corrections? At what level of modification of a primary source, do you create a secondary source? Formatting a film for TV size doesn't suddenly turn the film from primary to secondary. W.J. -Original Message- From: Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable pre-date Wikipedia. Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research. - wjhon...@aol.com wrote: From: wjhon...@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 19:01:49 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement. That is not correct Andrew. Each source must be published. Typically witness statements are not themselves published. You are confusing first-hand experience with primary source. A primary souce, even a census return is not first-hand, it's merely first publication. If you took you example to extreme, then there would be no primary sources at all. W.J. ___ 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:
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online encyclopedia of life reaches 150,000 species
2009/8/25 wjhon...@aol.com: So what was so special about this wiki or pseudo-wiki that it became successful ? $10 million of backing for the most part. -- 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] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/25 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com: According to that plan, for a 2 month trial, active flagging (where unflagged versions don't show up by default) will only be used in place of semi-protection/protection. BLPs will be available for flagging, but unflagged edits will still go live. Yep - flagging as and when needed, in place of protection. If we have days-old unapproved revisions at the end of the two months, that'll be a failure because editors wouldn't stand for it. But, speaking as a BIG FAN of flagged revs for BLPs, I'll be trying to do my part to make this work! - 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] Who gets to flag? (BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs)
2009/8/25 Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu: In speaking to the press today, one of the things I believe I heard in an intro segment on a live radio discussion was that WP would have professional editors flagging trusted content. I didn't get a chance to correct that, and I know who gets to review is still up in the air to some extent [1], but that's a likely source of confusion to the public apparently. IME the problem is the use of the word editor. We use it as in tens of thousands of volunteers, everyone else assumes we mean as in the boss who decides what goes in. It's a jargon versus English problem. [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewers Starting with all the admins. Presumably any active editor who isn't a problem child will get it too, similar to rollback. - 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] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: If we have days-old unapproved revisions at the end of the two months, that'll be a failure because editors wouldn't stand for it. But, speaking as a BIG FAN of flagged revs for BLPs, I'll be trying to do my part to make this work! Me too! I haven't gone on RCP for ages, but I'll find some time to keep an eye on reviewing edits to flag protected pages (assuming I'm given reviewer rights - has a decision been made on what the requirements will be yet?). ___ 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] Who gets to flag? (BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs)
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/8/25 Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu: In speaking to the press today, one of the things I believe I heard in an intro segment on a live radio discussion was that WP would have professional editors flagging trusted content. I didn't get a chance to correct that, and I know who gets to review is still up in the air to some extent [1], but that's a likely source of confusion to the public apparently. IME the problem is the use of the word editor. We use it as in tens of thousands of volunteers, everyone else assumes we mean as in the boss who decides what goes in. It's a jargon versus English problem. I think the problem comes from the fact that all our articles are collaborative works. Normally there is a writer and an editor and they are distinct jobs. We have everyone as editors since everyone can change what other people have written. That is very unusual and the English language hasn't had a change to adapt to it. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: Looks like it's a happener. Just waiting for call re: cab. Apparently on ~9:45pm (BST), but times may change at short notice. Hang on, Newsnight doesn't start until 10:30pm. Did you mean ~10:45pm? Evidently :-) And at the end of the program as well. After the interesting feature on the Spanish Civil War legacy 70 years on. And the daily news round up, it was time for Wikipedia! How do you think it went, David? I like the bit you said right at the end about how it was a surprise that Wikipedia became so popular, but though I've got it recorded on DVD, I haven't re-watched it yet. I got the impression the presenter (Paxman must be on holiday) and the Guardian guy were saying quite a bit, and you were wanting to correct them on some points, but didn't get much of a chance. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: Kevin is someone who Knows His Shit about the Internet. Basically we sat there agreeing on everything. Kirsty Wark was somewhat surprised to have two guests furiously agree ;-) I'd been wondering who else they would have on. They usually like to have both sides of an issue represented, but really the two sides here are the media and people that know what is actually going on. They ended up getting someone from the media that knew what was going on! Probably not what they were actually aiming for, but it was inevitable that that is what they would get. I really couldn't fault anything he was saying. In the context of that *horrible* intro it didn't sound great, but he basically really does get it. He spoke of the elites a lot (meaning the top editors), which is technically correct but will fuel the conspiracy theorists.(The connotations of the word as pretentious or oppressors. I'd *hope* the hours-a-day editors don't act like pretentious oppressors ...) Oh well. Yes, I thought everything he said was broadly accurate and fair. Unfortunately, he was forced into saying it in response to leading questions that meant it ended up with a slant on it that I don't think he intended. And I got to call my fellow Wikipedians encyclopedia nerds on national television ;-p I prefer geek myself, but I'll forgive you! ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flagged revs
2009/8/26 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: And I got to call my fellow Wikipedians encyclopedia nerds on national television ;-p I prefer geek myself, but I'll forgive you! Top 10 site, that's prima facie evidence of usefulness. I suppose that advances us from nerds to geeks. - 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] [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight tonight! re: flaggedrevs
Carcharoth wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: Looks like it's a happener. Just waiting for call re: cab. Apparently on ~9:45pm (BST), but times may change at short notice. Hang on, Newsnight doesn't start until 10:30pm. Did you mean ~10:45pm? Evidently :-) And at the end of the program as well. After the interesting feature on the Spanish Civil War legacy 70 years on. And the daily news round up, it was time for Wikipedia! How do you think it went, David? I like the bit you said right at the end about how it was a surprise that Wikipedia became so popular, but though I've got it recorded on DVD, I haven't re-watched it yet. I got the impression the presenter (Paxman must be on holiday) and the Guardian guy were saying quite a bit, and you were wanting to correct them on some points, but didn't get much of a chance. Carcharoth The item seems to have been crammed in as a bit of an afterthought, and although the Spanish Civil War legacy is interesting, it's not particularly time-critical. It seems to have been rushed, and although the Guardian commentator seems to have been largely supportive, it would have meant very little to a previously uninformed viewer. Although it seems to have been vaunted as a major shift in emphasis on WP, it should have been pointed out more strongly as (a) a trial (b) based on previous experience at de:wp and (c) not that much different from what already happens. I'm sorry David didn't get the chance to put that forward, but then, that is journalism as opposed to analysis. It remains to be seen whether they'll follow it up, but of course, Parliament is on vacation and we are in the silly season. I suppose we should be grateful for some exposure, and not bad at that. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
I disagree that editing turns a primary source into a secondary source. And I disagree that we make that distinction in-project. I also disagree that newspaper articles are secondary sources. Some are, some aren't. Is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a primary source? Yes. Do you believe that every event there described is being described by an eye-witness? No. In fact it's possibly doubtful whether any of it is eye-witness testimony. Being an eye-witness is not what makes an article primary or secondary. -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world. From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified in any manual on doing research in history or any listing of sources at the end of an historical book or article. From the POV of Wikipedia, we've been considering it a secondary source, which is the way most people think of it. what we call primary sources: is the archival material that an historian also calls primary sources, but normally lists separately in a bibliography. if the reporter's notebooks are preserved, that's also a primary source. The analysis of the differences between the primary sources20in attempting to reconstruct what happened is what historians do. The articles monographs other historians publish giving their analysis is what they consider the secondary sources. Similarly, in science, the actual archival primary sources are, in a sense, the lab notebooks--and they are preserved as such, for patents and the like. But a primary scientific paper is the one reporting the work, and a secondary paper is a review. The Wikipedia definition is a term of art at Wikipedia, used because we need some way of differentiating between material which is edited, and that which is not. The primary sources are the unedited reports. As a newspaper is edited, its a secondary source. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made to exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. =0 A Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets from various teachers. However my reasoning is that all of the preparation is merely the necessary steps to create the source. It's instructive to consider whether making images available online of a primary source creates a secondary source. How about making minor editing corrections? At what level of modification of a primary source, do you create a secondary source? Formatting a film for TV size doesn't suddenly turn the film from primary to secondary. W.J. -Original Message- From: Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable pre-date Wikipedia. Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research. - wjhon...@aol.com wrote: From: wjhon...@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 19:01:49 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement.
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
Yes, chronicles are accepted as primary sources, because there is nothing further back from them--they serve essentially the same function as newspapers. Obviously, they have to be used with a good deal of interpretation,just as newspapers. I don't believe everything in a newspaper happened just as they describe it either. However, the ASC, as many other chronicles, also serve as secondary sources, commenting on the events they describe: for example, the famous analysis of K. William I at 1087 is a secondary evaluation, more of less like a modern editorial in a newspaper, which is a secondary source, David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:24 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I disagree that editing turns a primary source into a secondary source. And I disagree that we make that distinction in-project. I also disagree that newspaper articles are secondary sources. Some are, some aren't. Is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a primary source? Yes. Do you believe that every event there described is being described by an eye-witness? No. In fact it's possibly doubtful whether any of it is eye-witness testimony. Being an eye-witness is not what makes an article primary or secondary. -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world. From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified in any manual on doing research in history or any listing of sources at the end of an historical book or article. From the POV of Wikipedia, we've been considering it a secondary source, which is the way most people think of it. what we call primary sources: is the archival material that an historian also calls primary sources, but normally lists separately in a bibliography. if the reporter's notebooks are preserved, that's also a primary source. The analysis of the differences between the primary sources20in attempting to reconstruct what happened is what historians do. The articles monographs other historians publish giving their analysis is what they consider the secondary sources. Similarly, in science, the actual archival primary sources are, in a sense, the lab notebooks--and they are preserved as such, for patents and the like. But a primary scientific paper is the one reporting the work, and a secondary paper is a review. The Wikipedia definition is a term of art at Wikipedia, used because we need some way of differentiating between material which is edited, and that which is not. The primary sources are the unedited reports. As a newspaper is edited, its a secondary source. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made to exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. =0 A Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets from various teachers. However my reasoning is that all of the preparation is merely the necessary steps to create the source. It's instructive to consider whether making images available online of a primary source creates a secondary source. How about making minor editing corrections? At what level of modification of a primary source, do you create a secondary source? Formatting a film for TV size doesn't suddenly turn the film from primary to secondary. W.J. -Original Message- From: Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary
[WikiEN-l] Blog post on FlaggedRevs
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/26/a-quick-update-on-flagged-revisions/ Please reference if there's any further confusion about this. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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] Blog post on FlaggedRevs
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/26/a-quick-update-on-flagged-revisions/ Please reference if there's any further confusion about this. This post says that the Flagged protection and patrolled revisions trial will put biographies of living people under flagged protection. But the proposal itself says there's no consensus to do that and that only passive patrolled revisions will be used on the whole BLP class. -Sage ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
