Re: [WikiEN-l] The New Look
Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: Actually, there's now a thread on Commons for logo feedback: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/2.0#Logo_revisions_need_input I have tried my hand at tweaking a few things in SVG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-alt.svg Notes are in there too. -SC ___ 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] The New Look
On 15 May 2010, at 03:20, Casey Brown wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Logo stuff can be discussed on the Wikimedia blog here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/05/13/wikipedia-in-3d/ Actually, there's now a thread on Commons for logo feedback: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/2.0#Logo_revisions_need_input Also make sure you see the update on the blog post: We’ve received a lot of feedback about how the new Wikipedia identity functions in different browsers, and we’re working on some minor improvements over the next few days. We’ve captured much of the feedback below, and now encourage users to visit this thread on Wikimedia commons where you can further comment on a revised version, currently being tested on our prototype Wikipedia. Thanks! It's worth while looking at the gallery on that page, showing the old logo, the first new version, and the revised new version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/2.0#Gallery The revised new version is substantially better than the one currently on en.wp, and in my opinion is better than the old logo now: it's a lot cleaner. The sooner this version gets onto en.wp, the better. Mike ___ 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] The New Look
Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Steve, that's getting closer. What's missing is texture. The original looks like a puzzle, and the alternates don't quite get there yet; when you look at a puzzle, you see shadings as you come close to the lines, which in a real puzzle are pressed cuts, so there is a more reflective (whiter) edge at the bottom and right sides and a more absorbent (darker) edge on the top and left sides of each individual piece. That, to me, is what is missing in the new and improved' versions. I really do appreciate all the work that has gone into making all of these versions. A lot of improvements have been made in the lettering, the placement of letters, the 3-D-ness of the globe. It's just lost its puzzle-ness along the way, and I'm sure it can be fine-tuned as time goes on. You're right about the issues with the textures and the 3-D-ness - though some may consider a smoother look to be more 2.0. The issue with the loss of 3-D-ness, as people may have figured out, is that it's next to impossible to emulate a 3-D rendering with 2-D/vector gradients . SVG/vector formats are made for graphical art, not realistic looking things, and my sense is that the 3-D globe looks warped out of shape. -SC ___ 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] Simple vandalism being missed
I was recently looking up which countries were in the Congo Basin, and the version of the article I found was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Congo_Basinoldid=359085351 The list of countries is clearly missing. It was removed with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Congo_Basindiff=357222409oldid=353051579 That was 20 April 2010 (I've now restored the list). Has anyone done a recent study to see how and why vandalism like that is missed and how common it is for such things to be missed? 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] Reliable sources— some of these babi es are ugly
[ simulcasted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Reliable_sources.E2.80.94_some_of_these_babies_are_ugly ] Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, ... 'He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,' a source told FoxNews.com. When asked who was in charge now, the source said, 'No one. It’s chaos.' http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/14/exclusive-shake-wikipedia-porn-pressure/ In the classic tradition of WP:POINT violation I very much want to go around to the Wikimedia, Wikipedia, and Jimmy Wales articles editing them to reflect these surrealist facts as reported by this Reliable Source... but that would be needlessly disruptive. (And I fear similarly inspired people would continue that initiative, grotesquely smearing Erik to reflect the repeated libel from prior articles.) So, for the purpose of discussion, imagine that I did. Many of us have long been aware that the reporting in some professional media frequently has very little connection to reality. Many of us know that they usually perform little to no fact checking, and seldom even run their final drafts past someone with any experience in the relevant area for a sniff test. Since they apparently no longer suffer even the most minor harm from publishing some of the most outrageous errors, why should they? In particular, the online editions from many of these organizations appear to be fairly comparable to randomly selected blogs. Presumably they feel that they are just matching the qualities of their competition. So why do we treat them differently? I don't believe that this is, by any means, only a problem with Fox although they might be the most obvious and frequent example. Wikipedia reports what people say, not the truth of it— but we could report the words of a random blog in context exactly as we do Foxnews.com. We have an ethical obligation to not further misunderstanding when we know better, which is what I always saw as the most important justification for treating some sources as lesser than others. We know high-profile groups with a reputation to lose are going to take more care to get it right, and that their errors are more likely to trigger others to publish corrections. We could reasonably speculate that their journalists' affiliation is primarily to the truth, and this might not be as true of other information sources. We can also argue that the views, even false ones, from a major news provider are obviously more notable. But I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many hobbyist blogs (or even webcomics) with a stronger reputation to preserve, less obviously-compromised motivations, and _significantly_ greater circulation than some obscure corner of Fox News's online product. What can be the explanation for this discrepancy? Can we really continue in denial when these so-called 'reliable sources' make such obvious and egregious errors about our own projects? If nothing else, is it possible to write a circulation based criteria which reflects the reality that not all parts of a source have equal exposure? ___ 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] Reliable sources— some of these babi es are ugly
Gregory Maxwell wrote: I don't believe that this is, by any means, only a problem with Fox although they might be the most obvious and frequent example. To a first approximation, mainstream media reporting about Internet institutions is largely worthless. They mostly know what a webpage is, and look at institutions in terms derived from models they know (the newspaper with its mainly top-down management, the technology corporation). Such reporting can be redeemed by worthly journalism that investigates what actually goes on. The current rumpus being an example of WP being successfully trolled by Sanger with the cooperation of Fox, it is not really surprising that Fox's reporting is slanted. I think we can expect more of this: it is a position of honour, as far as taking the brunt of Rupert Murdoch's war recently declared on free content is concerned (with Google, of course, and the other search engine companies that dare take advantage of non-noindexed pages on the Web). I think the conclusion should be that admins (such as the one quoted) who mouth off about the doings in the usual hyperbolic terms that we get used to on mailing lists, might have to reconsider their approach to commenting so freely in public, given that this is going to be war of attrition against tabloid tactics. 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] Reliable sources— some of these babi es are ugly
Charles Matthews wrote: I think the conclusion should be that admins (such as the one quoted) who mouth off about the doings in the usual hyperbolic terms that we get used to on mailing lists, might have to reconsider their approach to commenting so freely in public, given that this is going to be war of attrition against tabloid tactics. A simpler representation: Don't feed the tabloids. 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] Flagged Protection update for May 13
On 15 May 2010 00:53, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Yes William, you must remember that the Wikipedias - SERIOUS BUSINESS! proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_wikipedias_serious.jpg and no sense or humour or lighthearted banter will be tolerated here. That kind of behavior belongs over at Uncyclopedia (which our new logo seems to resemble a bit) :-) Exactly what I was trying to say :-). AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Reliable sources— some of these bab ies are ugly
On 15 May 2010 15:12, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/14/exclusive-shake-wikipedia-porn-pressure/ From the unflattering photograph of Jimmy wearing a vacant expression and with his mouth open, I suspect the article will be of the same anti-Wikipedia vein as previous coverage of this topic by FOX News. That, though, is secondary to the tenet that everything produced by FOX is unfit to be called journalism. The feature says that Essentially… [Jimbo] has gone from having free reign over the content and people involved in the websites How many years have passed since Jimbo's role in the project has been more than ceremonial? Around three, as a conservative guess? AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Reliable sources— some of these bab ies are ugly
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: I think the conclusion should be that admins (such as the one quoted) who mouth off about the doings in the usual hyperbolic terms that we get used to on mailing lists, might have to reconsider their approach to commenting so freely in public, given that this is going to be war of attrition against tabloid tactics. Are you saying admins are not reliable sources? ;-) -SC ___ 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] Reliable sources— some of these bab ies are ugly
I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing with the public. Emily On May 15, 2010, at 8:16 PM, stevertigo wrote: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: I think the conclusion should be that admins (such as the one quoted) who mouth off about the doings in the usual hyperbolic terms that we get used to on mailing lists, might have to reconsider their approach to commenting so freely in public, given that this is going to be war of attrition against tabloid tactics. Are you saying admins are not reliable sources? ;-) -SC ___ 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] Reliable sources— some of these bab ies are ugly
Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing with the public. Well it's journalistically improper to use admins as sources. At the very least they would have to find an official cabal member. -SC ___ 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] Reliable sources— some of these babi es are ugly
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing with the public. Well it's journalistically improper to use admins as sources. At the very least they would have to find an official cabal member. Can someone point me to the admins as sources bit? On IRC earlier today User:Ottava_Rima appeared to be claiming to be their source, though I could have been completely misunderstanding him. ___ 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] Reliable sources— some of these bab ies are ugly
On 15 May 2010 21:40, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing with the public. Well it's journalistically improper to use admins as sources. At the very least they would have to find an official cabal member. Can someone point me to the admins as sources bit? On IRC earlier today User:Ottava_Rima appeared to be claiming to be their source, though I could have been completely misunderstanding him. There were quotes from Foundation-L in the article, which is, I believe, what Charles was referring to. It's time to recognise that anyone, including reporters, can read those mailing lists; one doesn't even have to subscribe for some of them, I believe. So it is advisable that people think carefully about what they are saying, and to be aware that the audience is not limited to people who are active participants in the various communities. 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] Reliable sources— some of these bab ies are ugly
Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: It's time to recognise that anyone, including reporters, can read those mailing lists; one doesn't even have to subscribe for some of them, I believe. So it is advisable that people think carefully about what they are saying, and to be aware that the audience is not limited to people who are active participants in the various communities. Unless something has changed around here since 2005, we are not a closed community. Also we should regard anyone's participation on these forums as a part of our open mission to assist people around the world write informative articles about the things they know. It is also natural that we should want employees of the most misinformed institutions, FoxNews being among them, to make use of our materials to better inform themselves. -SC ___ 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] Limited usage image tags not working?
For example see vandalism on the [[Talmadge Blevins]] article. -SC ___ 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] Limited usage image tags not working?
Limited usage image tags? please expand so people actually know what your talking about? ___ 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] Limited usage image tags not working?
If you mean [[Mediawiki:Bad Image List]] none of those three images from the last vandal hit are listed on the list. -Peachey ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
