Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other
responses to avoid being tainted by them.
Since I think you make several insightful observations
well worth focusing on, I hope you will in return not
mind me
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
* Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the
question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may
include the
Fred Bauder wrote:
This would exclude a great deal of pornographic actresses and actors.
Which I don't think is a bad thing, in fact. I'm far from a prude,
but someone who is solely notable for appearing in a few pornographic
films seems to contradict what our policy is regarding other
Sue Gardner wrote:
I am just clarifying - default to delete unless consensus to keep would be
a change from current state, right?
In terms of policy, default to delete is the current state for BLPs.
To be more exact, the important bit is: If there is no rough consensus
and the page is not a
In Norway its covered in Lov om behandling av personopplysninger
(personopplysningsloven) §7; Forholdet til ytringsfriheten (Relation to
freedom of speech) [http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-2414-031-001.html#7]
It is an exception for kunstneriske, litterære eller journalistiske,
herunder
In Norway it seems that neglecting to do something will not lead to any
real danger of legal actions, its phrased uforstand, but gross
neglectence, or grov uforstand could be punishable by law. An example
given is that if an admin is notified on email about specific child porn
in an article (that
If I'm not mistaken it should be possible to detect the presence of a
text which describe a person, and then include a link to a contact form
about BLP.
John
Nathan skrev:
Personally, I'd like to see a prominent Report a problem with this article
link or box only on BLPs for starters. We don't
Hi!
I realise, and beg of people not to actually believe I buy into
this, but
when someone makes an accusation that someone is claiming to be a WMF
employee and claims that there is a conspiracy, I tend to bring it
up. I beg
of people to not take me for an idiot.
Thats what more
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers?
We've been in repeated conversations with CC about
Sue Gardner wrote:
2009/3/3 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net
But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a
hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our
standards. So the reversed presumption of default to delete, unless
consensus to keep
2009/3/2 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
(My usual answer: Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia
with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of
contacting us end up there anyway. This seems to work a bit.)
Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion...
...print up
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/3/2 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
(My usual answer: Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia
with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of
contacting us end up there anyway. This seems to work a bit.)
Ha.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive.
1) Have
On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion...
...print up a sheaf of business cards, with Got a problem? info @
wikimedia.org in nice clear bold lettering, the puzzle-globe at one
edge; the other side just WIKIPEDIA writ large. Distribute them to
2009/3/2 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
As far as I can make out, the present situation on en:wp is: a
proposal was put which got 59% support. That's not a sufficiently
convincing support level. So Jimbo is currently putting together a
better proposal, with the aim of at least 2/3 support
If we were doing such a thing:
1. we wouldn't be paying anyone
2. we'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
Nice idea, actually. Anyone feel they could put together a serious
programme to recruit academics to such a cause?
(changed subject as this is an interesting discussion)
I was
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
with such a small sample size, those
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
1) Have the numbers been released? All I saw was a selective summary.
2) What do you think they're conclusive of?
The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
unacceptable
first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
their answers randomly.
Now, how many of the 20% who wants their name
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
You're assuming that those who ranked no credit is needed first will be
happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
credit can be given to the community will by happy with attribution by
URL. But these people will also probably
2009/3/4 Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
unacceptable
first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
their answers randomly.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
You're assuming that those who ranked no credit is needed first will be
happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
credit can be given to the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their
way, they don't
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
We should. If someone
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release
*everyone's* work into the public
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
unacceptable
2009/3/4 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com:
I know there's time pressure on this... but on the other hand, we've
waited years :) It would be worthwhile to get better stats before
making sweeping generalizations about the community's desires.
That we've waited years is irrelevant. We make a
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I imagine
most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority
disagree with
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
into the public domain. Would
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
This is more than just an argument if it's being used to purport to give
copyright licenses away. In fact, it's not much of an argument at all -
arguments aren't won by voting, unless you're defining the argument as
which position more people agree with.
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and
uncomplicated BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing
digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would have
been avoided by flagged revisions.
(Last email, since I received this I was I was typing what was meant
to be the last one. Then I'll really stop.)
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
What if the FSF could be convinced to come up with a GFDL 1.4 which makes it
legal?
They can't. The GFDL requires future versions to be in the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority
is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level,
say?) that a majority of the population as a whole agrees.
If the 570
2009/3/4 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and
uncomplicated BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing
digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would
Sue,
As far as default to delete goes... There was a high profile proposal
about it awhile back, written by Doc_glasgow (now en:User:Scott_MacDonald),
which got significant support but appeared to fall short of a consensus.
Nonetheless the deletion of articles on marginally notable living people
2009/3/4 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
Phoebe writes:
This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
just English or German alone, which both
One of your points there was:
6. The current experience (or at least my current experience) is not
really encouraging. The real top researchers just plainly have no time
to edit articles, nor are they really interested. Those who come are
mostly interested in editing article about themselves
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Phoebe writes:
This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
just English
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium a formal expression of praise
http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography a biography that idealizes or
idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)
http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine overly sweet
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen
2009/3/4 quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium a formal expression of praise
http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography a biography that idealizes or
idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)
http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine overly sweet
*cough*
*phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes:
++
I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about anything
on the projects due to anonymity concerns.
++
I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative survey
research. Self-selection bias is a very
This entire field has been formalized but in my experience the key
things to worry about are experimenter and subject bias.
Experimenter bias in a survey context means that the survey writer
(Erik) has expectations about the likely community answers. This has
been clearly demonstrated, as he
Gregory Kohs wrote:
*phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes:
++
I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about
anything on the projects due to anonymity concerns.
++
I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative
survey research.
2009/3/4 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/3 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net
But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a
hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our
standards. So the reversed presumption of default to delete,
Gregory Kohs wrote:
*Phil Nash* pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk said:
++
Except of course, that such a survey would arguably not have
preconceived desires. So much for empiricism!
++
I offered to give some pro bono guidance on overcoming (to a degree)
self-selection bias, even
The official results of the survey haven't even been announced yet,
and already it is being accused of bias. Have any of you actually
looked at the survey? It does include demographic questions and it's a
ranked preference poll. If someone were trying to skew the results in
a particular way, this
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/4 quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium a formal expression of praise
http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography a biography that idealizes or
idolizes the person (especially a person who
For what it's worth, what Nathan says basically sums up my concerns as
well. I think for a (relatively informal, community-opinion) survey
it's less important to have an absolutely rigorous methodology (not
what I was asking for) than it is to ask the question: is this good
enough for our
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm confused. Doesn't the current (English) policy say if there's no
consensus ... the page is kept. So, default to _keep_, rather than
default
to delete...?
It's only the English policy, so I realize it's not
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
According to Dominic's quote, it says default to delete if the article is
*not* a marginally notable BLP. Not a very elegant way of changing the
policy, but perhaps it was intended to slip past wide notice. While deleting
2009/3/4 Dominic dmcde...@cox.net
Sue Gardner wrote:
I am just clarifying - default to delete unless consensus to keep
would
be
a change from current state, right?
In terms of policy, default to delete is the current state for BLPs.
To be more exact, the important bit is: If there is
2009/3/4 KillerChihuahua pu...@killerchihuahua.com:
I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If
NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally
intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even
needed at all. I support BLP existing,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 15:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The final page for people who have a crappy article about themselves
still needs severe tightening and organisation, though with a mind to
not causing trouble for OTRS volunteers, who after all are the ones
getting the
2009/3/4 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as granting significant weight to the wishes of a subject? Subject
request has consistently been rejected as a basis for deleting an
article,
and many comments in the deletion
2009/3/4 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org:
Erik had proposed that articles which meet these three criteria be deleted
upon request: 1) they are not balanced and complete, 2) the subject is only
marginally notable, and 3) the subject wants the article deleted. This would
shift the bar
There are a couple of reasons I can think of why shifting to
delete-on-request for marginally notable BLPs would be problematic.
(1) As Tomasz notes, the idea of marginal notability is one that doesn't
play well to non-Wikipedians and isn't well defined in any case.
(2) We'd still have to have a
2009/3/4 Jim Redmond j...@scrubnugget.com:
I'm working on that now. I've half a mind to increase the point size on the
phrase Wikipedia has no editorial board and put it in blink tags; if
people could actually grok that, then much of the rest of that text could
become unnecessary.
I just
Chad wrote:
While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I
typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the
community
judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a decent policy to
follow: encourage OTRS respondents to send
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Alex mrzmanw...@gmail.com wrote:
Chad wrote:
While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I
typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the
community
judge the article on its own merits. This would actually
But I do not believe that experts should have any special powers in
the editing of articles.
Rather, I think they should be encouraged to act in a pure review
capacity, assessing the existing work of Wikipedians, and making
recommendations for improvement. This might also be partially
61 matches
Mail list logo
