Re: [WikiEN-l] Atlantic on Wikipedia and PR
I'm not sure if I'm a kid. But I do know a copyvio when I see it. This is a little much, Cunctator; a link to the article would have been sufficient, with perhaps one quote. Risker On 18 August 2015 at 06:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: the function of wikien-l is for eldsters to grumble about kids these days On 18 August 2015 at 11:48, Anthony o...@theendput.com wrote: Fred Bauder and The Cunctator! Are we having a reunion? Hi guys! On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:33 AM, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:21:25 -0400 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/ The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay Good to hear from you again Cunctator! The article goes on to point out that many of us, despite not being paid, nevertheless are trying to make points. True enough. Fred Bauder ___ 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 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] Licensing IP edits and vanished users under CC0
There is no such creature as a vanished user. There never has been. It is a fallacy that was created based on some internet meme from ancient times and was designed for websites where attribution was not a condition of licensing. All edits are attributed. If one digs deeply enough, and has the right access levels, one can always find the original account name. We should never have pretended that this was a realistic option; what is done is done, but we should stop pretending now that it's 2015 and we've pretty much never actually vanished anyone. It's not even an option in the majority of Wikimedia projects. We need to stop pretending that users can vanish. They can't. they can be renamed. Their accounts can be blocked. But there is no such thing as a vanished user on Wikimedia projects, where the licensing conditions have always been that all edits are attributed to either a username (which can be changed to vanished user 111) or an IP address. Nobody vanishes from Wikimedia projects; the records are akashic. It's right there in the licensing conditions, and always has been. Risker/Anne On 18 August 2015 at 05:04, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Nathan, Whether other projects follow what we do on EN wiki is up to them. Licensing choices vary by project, EN wiki allows Fair use which neither DE wiki nor Commons allows. Re Risker's point, there is no difference in the current copyright between vanished users and others, but logically there should be. By attribution means you want to be attributed, vanishing means you don't. It seems logical to me that the process of vanishing at least include the option of waiving attribution. On 17 August 2015 at 16:34, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: This is not a conversation for the -en list, this is a conversation for the lawyers and/or wikimedia-l. Individual projects should not be messing with licensing, wherever possible; it creates a highly confusing and contradictory environment. No danger in a discussion, wherever it happens. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Licensing IP edits and vanished users under CC0
There is no difference in attribution to a vanished user than there is to any other user who has an account. I don't understand why anyone would think otherwise. Risker On 17 August 2015 at 16:20, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 17 August 2015 at 16:04, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Currently our default license for EN wiki is CC BY-SA 3.0, but isn't this a bit odd for IP editors and vanished users? Wouldn't it make more sense if IP editors were licensing their edits as CC SA, and vanishing users as part of vanishing were relicensing their edits as CC-SA? The CC-SA license doesn't exist ;-) Presumably you meant CC-0. I'd agree with Oliver that changing this would probably be more complexity than it's worth. The vanishing users thing is also a bit concerning. I agree that attributing something to anon-655345 is a bit silly, but equally I don't think we can practically insist that a vanishing user is required to relinquish their copyrights before we let them vanish. A. -- - 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 ___ 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] research about wikipeida
On 12 March 2015 at 23:14, zy zyla...@163.com wrote: Here is a queationnaire about wikipedia, We are sincerely looking forword to your reply. And we promise that all the answers will be secretive. here is the link address about the questionnaire http://www.sojump.com/jq/4358387.aspx ___ Who is we? How are you maintaining the secretive nature of the responses? Where will the responses be published? 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] People who died in 2014
Well, aside from that Few of the death dates are sourced on either site, and a couple of the Enwiki articles actually have two different death dates, one in the infobox and one in the text. A few other enwiki articles give a death date but haven't had their categories changed. I'd suggest that the list is useful for cleanup, but not for transfer of information one way or the other. Risker On 20 April 2014 14:53, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote: Doing this for 2014 only creates recentism bias (or has it already been done for all previous years?) Also, the presence of Wikidata does not necessarily indicate notability for Wikipedia. Alan On 20/04/2014 8:38 p.m., Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, I am working towards the point where all the people who died in 2014 are known as such in Wikidata. At this time all the people of the en,wp who are in the category 2014 deaths are included. At this time there are over 2900 people known in Wikidata as to have died in 2014 [1]. It uses the AutoList tool by Magnus Manske. Amir Ladsgroup wrote a routine that checks against the en,wp and adds missing deaths to Wikidata. He will also compare the values known to Wikidata with what is known at Wikipedia and report it [2] In this way there is the opportunity to improve quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata. That is one objective. If you can come up with more things we can do in a similar way, please consider this.. the technology to report on differences between a Wikipedia and Wikidata is starting to become a reality. At this time the job of Amir has run a few times.. What is needed is better integration with practices on the English Wikipedia and a proper place for this report. Obviously this report can be run against any Wikipedia that has a category for the deaths of 2014. It will take some modifications though. Thanks, GerardM ___ 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] The most controversial Wikipedia pages?
I was pointed to this article in the Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/06/05/top_10_most_controversial_wikipedia_pages.html that in turn points to this study listed on the Cornell University Library site, and is intended to be a chapter in a book to be published next year: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5566 I note that at least one of the authors has published a significant number of studies about Wikipedia in the past. 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] Wikimedia Elections 2013 - Last call for Candidates
This is a reminder that the deadline for candidates for the Board of Trustees, Funds Dissemination Committee, and FDC Ombud will close at 23:59 UTC on May 17, less than 48 hours from now. For the Election Committee, Risker On 2 May 2013 00:53, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are now being accepted for the 2013 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year, elections are being held for the following roles: - Board of Trustees The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Board_elections/2013. - Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDCmakes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia funds to eligible entities. There are two positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/FDC_elections/2013. - Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/FDC_Ombudsperson_elections/2013. The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 24 to 23:59 UTC May 17. More information on this election can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013. Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump, or to translate it and distribute it on other Wikimedia movement mailing lists. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections AT wikimedia.org On behalf of the Election Committee, 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
[WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Elections 2013
I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are now being accepted for the 2013 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year, elections are being held for the following roles: - Board of Trustees The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Board_elections/2013. - Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDCmakes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia funds to eligible entities. There are two positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/FDC_elections/2013. - Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/FDC_Ombudsperson_elections/2013. The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 24 to 23:59 UTC May 17. More information on this election can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013. Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump, or to translate it and distribute it on other Wikimedia movement mailing lists. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections AT wikimedia.org On behalf of the Election Committee, 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
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement *please read*
Forwarding for community information. Risker -- Forwarded message -- From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org Date: 27 March 2013 18:00 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement *please read* To: Wikimedia Announce Mailing List wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello Wikimedia community members, This is not an easy e-mail to write, and it’s been a very hard decision to make. But I’m writing to tell you that I’m planning to leave my position as the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. My departure isn’t imminent -- the Board and I anticipate it’ll take at least six months to recruit my successor, and I’ll be fully engaged as Executive Director all through the recruitment process and until we have a new person in place. We’re expecting that’ll take about six months or so, and so this note is not goodbye -- not yet. Making the decision to leave hasn’t been easy, but it comes down to two things. First, the movement and the Wikimedia Foundation are in a strong place now. When I joined, the Foundation was tiny and not yet able to reliably support the projects. Today it's healthy, thriving, and a competent partner to the global network of Wikimedia volunteers. If that wasn’t the case, I wouldn’t feel okay to leave. In that sense, my leaving is a vote of confidence in our Board and executive team and staff --- I know they will ably steer the Foundation through the years ahead, and I’m confident the Board will appoint a strong successor to me. And I feel that although we’re in good shape, with a promising future, the same isn’t true for the internet itself. (This is thing number two.) Increasingly, I’m finding myself uncomfortable about how the internet’s developing, who’s influencing its development, and who is not. Last year we at Wikimedia raised an alarm about SOPA/PIPA, and now CISPA is back. Wikipedia has experienced censorship at the hands of industry groups and governments, and we’re --increasingly, I think-- seeing important decisions made by unaccountable non-transparent corporate players, a shift from the open web to mobile walled gardens, and a shift from the production-based internet to one that’s consumption-based. There are many organizations and individuals advocating for the public interest online -- what’s good for ordinary people -- but other interests are more numerous and powerful than they are. I want that to change. And that’s what I want to do next. I’ve always aimed to make the biggest contribution I can to the general public good. Today, this is pulling me towards a new and different role, one very much aligned with Wikimedia values and informed by my experiences here, and with the purpose of amplifying the voices of people advocating for the free and open internet. I don’t know exactly what this will look like -- I might write a book, or start a non-profit, or work in partnership with something that already exists. Either way, I feel strongly that this is what I need to do. I feel an increasing sense of urgency around this. That said, I also feel a strong sense of responsibility (and love!) for the Wikimedia movement, and so I’ve agreed with the Board that I’ll stay on as Executive Director until we have my successor in place. That’ll take some time -- likely, at least six months. Until then, nothing changes. The Wikimedia Foundation has lots of work to do, and you can expect me to focus fully on it until we have a new Executive Director in place. I have many people to thank, but I’m not going to do it now -- there’ll be time for that later. For now, I’ll just say I love working with you all, I’m proud of everything the Wikimedia movement is accomplishing, and I’m looking forward to our next six months together. Jan-Bart’s going to write a note in a couple of minutes with information about the transition process. We’ll be hosting office hours this weekend as well, so anybody with questions can ask them here or turn up to talk with us on IRC. Thanks, Sue -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a rampant porn problem
In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to prevent access to pages that include certain keywords. I've sometimes been stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that has some form of net nanny software. As it turns out, it seems that software isn't all that great and can significantly affect performance. And certainly we don't know much about what expectations they had if WMF projects accepted the free offer. Risker On 10 September 2012 16:08, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.comwrote: Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say best. Having never browsed around specifically for porn, and Wikipedia having been the only site that's put porn in my face without my asking for it, on top of the fact Wikipedia has an excellent categorization system and is allowed even in the workplace and schools, and is a globally-famous site, this qualifies my statement. On 9/10/2012 2:19 PM, Nathan wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote: I can't imagine a site more accessible and better organized than Wikipedia for someone seeking porn. They're quite correct. Bob Really? Wikipedia is the best porn site you can imagine? Welcome to the Internets, Bob, take a look around. __**_ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttps://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-lhttps://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] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: snip The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the ratio of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a hatchet job or an infomercial. This is something that can be addressed by Pending Changes. Let all those who only edit an article to defame or advertise, to write hatchet jobs or infomercials, make their suggestions. And let an editor who understands what a coatrack is, and who is committed to core policy, decide what the public should see when they navigate to the page. The right to edit BLPs, and approve pending changes, should be a distinction that people are proud of, just like they are proud of rollback or adminship. And like rollback, it should be a privilege they will lose if they abuse it. The really hard calls on how much negative material to include in a BLP should be made by teams with a diverse composition. A whole new culture needs to be built around BLP editing. Andreas, I generally agree with you on matters relating to BLPs. I don't, however, understand why you think Pending Changes will have any effect whatsoever on improving BLP articles. Bluntly put, the policy that is currently being discussed on the current RFC[1] does *not* authorize reviewers to shape the article (in fact, it doesn't really give any instructions to reviewers), and it permits any administrator to grant or withdraw reviewer status on a whim; there's no requirement or expectation that the status is granted or withdrawn in relation to actual editing. During the trial, we had a rather significant number of experienced editors refuse to accept reviewer status because they do not want to have any permissions that can be withdrawn by one single administrator. Please go back and read the proposed Pending Changes policy in the RFC, and tell me that you really and truly believe that it will have the effect you desire. It is essentially the same policy that was in effect during the trial, and there was never a determination of whether it meant reject only vandalism or reject anything unsourced or reject anything you do not personally think will improve the article. There are problems with all of these interpretations of the policy, just as there were considerable problems with them during the trial. It just seems that nobody cares to actually mine the data from the trial itself to figure out whether or not Pending Changes does what some people want it to do. Of course, it's quite possible that the proposed policy is so vague specifically so that people can read into it what they want, and use it in ways that aren't supported by the majority of the community. Risker/Anne [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012 ___ 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] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On 18 April 2012 12:41, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: snip The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the ratio of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a hatchet job or an infomercial. This is something that can be addressed by Pending Changes. Let all those who only edit an article to defame or advertise, to write hatchet jobs or infomercials, make their suggestions. And let an editor who understands what a coatrack is, and who is committed to core policy, decide what the public should see when they navigate to the page. The right to edit BLPs, and approve pending changes, should be a distinction that people are proud of, just like they are proud of rollback or adminship. And like rollback, it should be a privilege they will lose if they abuse it. The really hard calls on how much negative material to include in a BLP should be made by teams with a diverse composition. A whole new culture needs to be built around BLP editing. Andreas, I generally agree with you on matters relating to BLPs. I don't, however, understand why you think Pending Changes will have any effect whatsoever on improving BLP articles. Bluntly put, the policy that is currently being discussed on the current RFC[1] does *not* authorize reviewers to shape the article (in fact, it doesn't really give any instructions to reviewers), and it permits any administrator to grant or withdraw reviewer status on a whim; there's no requirement or expectation that the status is granted or withdrawn in relation to actual editing. During the trial, we had a rather significant number of experienced editors refuse to accept reviewer status because they do not want to have any permissions that can be withdrawn by one single administrator. Please go back and read the proposed Pending Changes policy in the RFC, and tell me that you really and truly believe that it will have the effect you desire. It is essentially the same policy that was in effect during the trial, and there was never a determination of whether it meant reject only vandalism or reject anything unsourced or reject anything you do not personally think will improve the article. There are problems with all of these interpretations of the policy, just as there were considerable problems with them during the trial. It just seems that nobody cares to actually mine the data from the trial itself to figure out whether or not Pending Changes does what some people want it to do. Of course, it's quite possible that the proposed policy is so vague specifically so that people can read into it what they want, and use it in ways that aren't supported by the majority of the community. Risker/Anne [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012 Hi Anne. I did read the proposed policy, and I agree it's not brilliant. The reason I support the current proposal is simply because it's the only proposal on the table, and to my mind having even some minimal support for Pending Changes established is better than nothing. German Wikipedia has had a similar system of Pending Changes for years – with the rather large difference that it is applied to *all* articles by default – and I believe it does make a difference. In part, the difference is a psychological one. Vandal fighting and approving/rejecting changes foster and attract very different psychologies, and create a different working climate. Reverting a vandal edit is a dramatic event, because the edit is live, and may already be read by hundreds of people; reverting it goes along with feelings of having been invaded, of defending the project, being a hero, and so forth. It's like the company troubleshooter who secretly *hopes* for trouble, so they can glory in being a troubleshooter. People wedded to their troubleshooter role are psychologically conflicted about systemic changes that would make their role obsolete. Approving or rejecting proposed changes, on the other hand, is a calmer and more reasoned act; one that can be taken time over. It's more akin to what editing, in the traditional sense of the word, is about. I'd like to see Pending Changes applied preemptively, at least for all minor biographies (i.e. those watched by less than a given number of editors). And yes, there should be a process for withdrawing the reviewer flag from an editor other than one admin deciding that it should be withdrawn. But those are things that I hope can come over time. How would you approach the issue? Having been very involved in the trial, I would not re-enable
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediaindia-l] Pure Fiction: Nichalp and Wifione
Not to state an opinion in any direction about Wifione, but has anybody bothered to tell him that he is being discussed on these mailing lists? Risker On 9 February 2012 05:23, CherianTinu Abraham tinucher...@gmail.com wrote: I think, some are getting it all wrong. It is not about sympathies to Nichalp or who so ever. The problem is not conflict of interest editing... It is not even a philosophical debate of Paid editing Vs Volunteer editing... The problem is getting paid to white wash negative materials in favor of the clients, which eventually render Wikipedia articles biased and information suppressed... And if those people can get favors from the level of Admins, it is definitely wrong. What is more shocking is that if that if an account created possibly with a single purpose ( of protecting the interests of a business group) can manage to climb up the ladder of admin-ship of a stronger Wikipedia like en.wiki , it is definitely alarming ! At this point of time, I am giving the benefit of doubt of whether Wifione is actually Nichalp or not. But definitely an account like Wifione aka Wireless Fidelity Class One must be investigated. It is not the first time, IIPM related folks tried to infiltrate Wikipedia to get the articles in their favour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mrinal_Pandey I am sure that scores of such sock puppet users are still having a free run with related articles. Previous sockpuppet investigations against Wifione in 2009 returned a possible result. Imagine having an admin also with ACC ( Account Creation) toolserver authorization in the favour. What is more shocking is that one user who slapped the notice on Wifione got this message on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Makrandjoshioldid=104617335 (which closely translates to DONT YOU GET SCARED? THESE IIPM GUYS WILL KILL YOU) Now tell me, can volunteers like you and me fearlessly edit articles related to IIPM to remove its bias, in such situations of death threats? Least I want to go to Silichar after being sued. -TC On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Pradeep Mohandas pradeep.mohan...@gmail.com wrote: hi, I think we mean this criticism only in the Wikipedia reference. It's not as if we're going to catch and hand over this guy to the Police. Such paid editing lowers the morale of other editors. Efforts must be made to stop such work that is detrimental to other Wikipedia volunteers. Then again, we're putting the cart in front of the horse. It's not been proved Nichalp and wifione are one and the same. It is hence best to discuss only about paid editing and how this practise can be identified and stopped. Pradeep Handheld On 09/02/2012, Ashwin Baindur ashwin.bain...@gmail.com wrote: I would only like to remind people that showing some sympathy is not a bad thing . Coming from armed forces where there are no second places - to me the greatest sin is lack of competence, whether in language, wiki-writing, techniques or otherwise. I was told by someone that Wikipeding was a voluntary activity so high standards should not be expected in competence. If that is true, then we should not suddenly start witch-hunting on the basis of principle when we are ourselves so casual about other qualities in other ways! Without mentioning specific incidents, I have come across this tendency to crucify others in India community - which is deplorable. Before any one becomes high mighty on morals here, one should look closely at what are harmful crimes against humanity (murder, rape etc) and what are social misdemeanours (wiki-crimes). So many of us condone other faults all the time in Indian society; it is hypocrisy to be principled in issues concerning others, when we ourselves don't apply the highest standards to ourselves. In my opinion. it is NOT the business of this community to go searching for culprits unless the culprit has affected us in some manner, which does not appear to be the case. As Jesus Christ said, let he who is without blame cast the first stone. There are far better and much more important things to do here. Warm regards, Ashwin Baindur -- On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM, praveenp me.prav...@gmail.com wrote: I feel no sympathy for Nichalp or any such users ___ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l -- Pradeep Mohandas How Pradeep uses email - http://goo.gl/6v1I9 ___ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe
Re: [WikiEN-l] English Wikipedia blackout
On 17 January 2012 19:40, Tyler myusernameor...@gmail.com wrote: I wish you luck maintaining your sanity after using conservapedia then, and hope you'll come back to reason after the blackout. On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM, David Carson carson63...@gmail.com wrote: Personally I intend to get all of my information for the day from Conservapedia. So by the end of the day I expect I'll be ready to take to the streets _defending_ SOPA. Cheers, David... Ironically, Conservapedia seems to be in agreement with Wikipedia in opposing SOPA/PIPA. Talk about strange bedfellows 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] Article Feedback Tool 5 Office Hours - 19:00 UTC, 6th December
You might want to change the date Risker On 4 January 2012 11:33, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey guys! Just dropping a quick note to tell everyone that we'll be holding another office hours session on the new Article Feedback Tool ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5) this Friday, in #wikimedia-office, at 19:00 UTC. I'll be staying in the channel until 23:00, so if anyone can't make the session on time, you're welcome to pop in at any time in the following four hours :). If you can't make the session at all, just drop comments or ideas on the talkpage. The agenda (broadly construed) is: *Reviewing the data we've gathered on various types of feedback form; *Taking a look at the feedback page design, and providing comments so we can improve how it looks and works; *Commenting on what classes of users should be able to use specific elements of the tool (the hide button, for example), and starting off the Request for Comment we'll be running on this and similar issues; *Anything else about the tool people want to discuss. Hope to see you all there! -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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] Linkage bloat
On 8 November 2011 17:08, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 8 November 2011 15:32, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: What I'm looking for is the ability to filter links to articles that are due to that template being transcluded on other pages, and links that actually come from the non-transcluded areas of articles. Preferably with the links from transclusions annotated with the name of the transcluded item generating the link. I was going to suggest filing a bug, but it seems the problem's been in bugzilla for six years: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3241 Judging by the comments there, it looks like it's technically quite difficult to do. Back to the drawing board... fixing whatlinkshere apparently won't work, and limiting the templates (by removing links or obfuscating them with redirects) will cause more problems than this one solves, so what's the third option? Can something be scripted on the toolserver as a stand-in? Actually, the answer to the question is to deprecate such ridiculous templates and apply the appropriate categories. These enormous templates make articles difficult to open on slow or mobile connections, which encompasses a significant number of our users. This is a usability issue, and an inappropriate use of templates. Risker/Anne ___ 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] Facepalm?
Like many others, I've seen the facepalm used to represent a fairly broad spectrum of emotions, both directed at one's own actions and that of others. It's certainly been around since well before Star Trek, since I remember it being used before that show was on TV, and in fact I wouldn't be surprised if William Shatner brought it with him as part of his Canadian heritage; it's endemic here, and has been for generations. I've taken a look at a lot of the examples that were provided of uncivil use of the facepalm template. Careful backtracking of several of the discussions revealed that the template doesn't seem to be being used with newbie editors as frequently as was being put forward; in fact, it seemed to be used most frequently when dealing with editors to whom explanations of poilcy/guideline had already been given, sometimes by multiple users. One example in particular hit home to me because it was in response to a multi-project serial sockmaster on his fourth or fifth account, improving an article with his own personal version of history that conveniently also bolstered his financial prospects. So perhaps a better focus of discussion would be how to deal with editors who are unable to or unwilling to understand project guidelines and policies. It seems that the primary use of this template is by editors expressing frustration at the inability, despite their best efforts, to address this issue. Risker/Anne ___ 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] Facepalm?
On 3 October 2011 16:06, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote: I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK. Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick. Every day, I see perfectly civil people facepalming. I have yet to see a civil person turn to someone in public and say Don't be a dick. I think perhaps some peoples' civility radar is somewhat out of tune. Risker/Anne ___ 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 Ambassadors of Morocco's debut single 'Wikipedia' will be released on 15th November 2010
Well, Dick, it's got a good beat and you can dance to it... Maybe not fundraiser material, but it made me smile. :-) Risker/Anne On 1 October 2010 13:54, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: Can we have this in the fundraiser please? On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Fayssal F. szv...@gmail.com wrote: Hahaha... that's funny :) They are not my meatpuppets! Fayssal F. Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:09:58 +0530 From: Anirudh Bhati anirudh...@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] The Ambassadors of Morocco's debut single 'Wikipedia' will be released on 15th November 2010 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: aanlktik0rkembrt4e0syca6mwtpfsjbbehy6tocx9...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ46UXZUvL0 (LT: Fayssal F.) Yours sincerely, Anirudh Singh Bhati B.Com, LL.B. (Hons.), Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, India. Handphone: +919328712208 Skype: anirudhsbh If this email were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill. -- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 87, Issue 1 *** ___ 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] One article, 12 volumes, and a snapshot of how news becomes history
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/07/wikipedia-entry-on-iraq-war-turned-into-actual-encyclopedia/ Technology writer James Bridle (website: http://shorttermmemoryloss.com/) took the [[Iraq war]] entryand turned it into a 12-volume historiography, publishing every edit over five years. It's an interesting exercise that isn't just a snapshot of how our project works, but of how information becomes part of the cultural lexicon. Which battles to include? How is that word spelled? How does one properly describe the impact of various religious sects on the outcome? And can the entire war really be reduced to Saddam Hussein was a dickhead? Bridle raises many good points in his discussion, differentiating history from historiography. Our History button is not just a means of attributing contributions to meet license requirements: it is a window into the manner in which our society collates, discusses, and accretes information about historical events, shaping the way in which current and future generations will view the world in our time. This article is well worth the read. Risker/Anne ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
On 15 June 2010 01:12, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: On 06/14/2010 09:56 PM, Risker wrote: If there is no intention at this time to stop the trial and deactivate the extension on August 15th, I'd like the WMF and the developers to say so now. This is, as the community requested, a 60-day trial. At the end of that, unless the community clearly requests otherwise, we'll turn it back off. Assuming that the trial starts on time, it will also end on time. Thank you, William; although I believed this was the intention, it is important to see it in black and white. I have lost count of the number of times someone has told the community oh, let's just try this, if we don't like it we can go back to the other way, without any realistic intention to consider turning something off/reverting a policy/reinstating a practice. I look forward to seeing what all we've learned in the coming two months. Risker/Anne ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
On 15 June 2010 02:38, Cenarium sysop cenarium.sy...@gmail.com wrote: To Risker: *Edits by reviewers to articles with pending changes are automatically accepted. NO, the reviewer has to manually accept the new revision, and you could have asked **before** creating this mountain of drama and FUD on enwiki, or tested the configuration yourself, or read the documentation, as this is stated very clearly in the tables at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes. Actually, it was impossible to try on the testwiki at the time, because the reviewer permission hadn't been activated yet. And the tables clearly state that the edit must be accepted. There was no indication at the time in the documentation that any other option was possible or acceptable, and no way to test it at the reviewer level. *Pending changes will help to reduce visibility of vandalism and BLP violations Yes, classic protection is way too rigid for Wikipedia today, and has always been too rigid. The flexibility of pending changes protection will allow to use protection where needed, and only where needed, more than classic protection would have ever allowed on its own. The protection policy allows for a considerable amount of discretion, and it is evident that administrators in general would be more willing to apply pending changes protection on articles subject to vandalism or BLP violations than they would otherwise have been with the rigid semi-protection. As long as we can keep up with the backlog, this is a win-win situation. Can you please identify methods in which we can measure the improvement here? Are you proposing, even before the trial starts, to start including articles that do not meet the criteria for page protection? Let's be clear, Cenarium; the trial is very specifically only to be used on pages that meet the *current* criteria for page protection; what you're suggesting here is something completely unrelated to the trial of pending changes in and of itself. *Pending changes will encourage more non-editors to try to edit, and these new editors will become part of our community. Yes, and no. We may not gain considerably more editors, because it would concern a small number of articles, but every edit makes an editor, even if one-time. No to the second part, because every editor *is* a member of the community. The community is not only the most active editors. And yes, there are people trying to edit semi-protected pages, and in a constructive way. Since we modified the Protectedpagetexthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to make submitting edit requests more accessible, we've received many more, the vast majority of those are in good-faith, so there are definitely people out there trying to edit. Those who are making good faith edits (or requesting them) *might* be members of the community, but I'm not particularly inclined to include the drive-by vandals as such. *Pending changes will help with disputes. No, and it was clearly stated in the proposal, and now clearly stated in the trial policy (scope section), that pending changes protection, level 1 or 2, should not be used on pages subject to disputes. Remember, my list was made up of things that various people have proposed as good reasons to institute pending changes. I completely agree with you that it was never intended, but some people still think it was. I removed it from the draft policy, in fact; I have no idea who added it in. *Anonymous editors will now be able to edit the [[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] articles. No, and it was clearly stated in the proposal, and now clearly stated in the trial policy (scope section), that pages subject to too high levels of vandalism should not be protected with pending changes but classic protection. Yes, indeed. Another place where we agree! Unfortunately, the very first press publication about this change specifically suggested that the [[George W. Bush]] article would become accessible to unregistered and newly registered editors. I'm not the enemy here. I have something of a well-earned reputation as a BLP absolutist and I spend a good part of every week addressing the fallout of vandalism. But I've been around this project too long, and seen too many exceedingly buggy software deployments and major attempts to hijack policy and practice. I can turn a blind eye to a fair number of these, if they don't affect matters within my usual area of assumed responsibility. This one, however, is openly being billed as one thing (improved editing accessibilty for non-registered and newly registered users on articles they've previously been shut out of), but it's pretty obvious that there is a significant desire to use this tool to do exactly the opposite, and actually restrict automatically visible edits from non-registered and newly registered users on a much larger swath of articles. Keep the trial limited
Re: [WikiEN-l] Pending Changes: first press
On 15 June 2010 04:54, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: On 15 Jun 2010, at 00:39, Risker wrote: On 14 June 2010 19:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_loosen_controls_tonight.php Spotted by Nihiltres. groan The George Bush page is not going to be part of this trial, because there is no reasonable chance that the tiny, tiny percentage of useful edits will make up for all the vandalism and BLP violations that will be added. That was possibly the one thing that everyone working on the encyclopedia end of the trial came to agreement on very quickly. Interesting - really? I was really hoping to see this tried to see whether it could work on such an article. Can you link me to the discussion about this, please? From a media contact point of view: one of the first things the media want are examples where it will be used, which is somewhat of a difficult question to answer when a) the community hasn't made its mind up, and b) even if it has, the community can change its mind at any time. ;-) I'm actually becoming increasingly concerned that the notion that the [[George W. Bush]] article would be unlocked has to be coming from somewhere within the organization, since it's being repeated in every single article in the press. This is not a good sign. The objective of this trial isn't to give us good press, it's to persuade the community that this is a useful and viable tool. Sticking it onto an article that will probably get more vandalism in an hour than all the rest of the pending changes articles put together will get in a week is hardly the way to persuade the community that it's a good investment of volunteer time and energy. This extension isn't being sold to the world at large, it's being sold to the community that will have to work with it. The current planned queue for implementation can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Queue There are plenty of good sound bites in just the first couple of days (World War I and II, Ronald McDonald, Winston Churchill, Rush Limbaugh) that would have made do quite nicely. Risker/Anne ___ 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] Pending Changes: first press
On 15 June 2010 14:54, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 15 June 2010 19:52, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Though I wouldn't recommend trying it _first_ nor would I recommend
trying it while the press is talking about. Perhaps it would be an
intolerable train wreak only because the press is spreading the name
of that article around. It would be unfortunate if we reached
incorrect conclusions on the effectiveness of pending vs protected on
high traffic articles simply due to some temporary attention skew.
Mmm. If we've got a queue - an idea which I have to say I quite like,
even if I was initially a bit confused by it - then why not schedule
in some articles that we expect it not to work very well on? It could
be it has unexpectedly less terrible effects.
Well, part of the objective here is to see whether we get enough
encyclopedia-worthy edits to determine if it is worthwhile removing
protection. Myself, I'd generally be happy if we saw a 1:10 useful edit to
vandalism ratio on most articles, but most articles aren't going to get that
many edits anyway. There are some high-viewership articles in the early
going, so we'll see pretty quickly how much of a difference the pending
changes level makes. However, that same ratio isn't particularly workable if
we're talking about an article that starts getting 50 or more edits a day,
especially when the article involved is a {{good}} or {{featured}} article;
remember that even 5 vandalism hits a day is almost invariably sufficient to
semi-protect an article, not just because of the visible vandalism, but also
because it is a huge waste of volunteer time, and it also impedes the
continued improvement and maintenance of articles.
Unfortunately, we don't have a way of keeping track of the number of pending
changes that are (a) rejected as vandalism/BLP problem, (b) accepted
directly into the article or (c) some other variation, such as putting the
proposed edit onto the article talk page for discussion. I am hoping that
we might be able to track how many pending edits are made by anonymous/newly
registered editors versus autoconfirmed editors, though, and what percentage
of edits by autoconfirmed editors winds up being held because of an earlier
pending revision.
We really do need some hard numbers here, so that the community can make
informed decisions about the results of this trial.
Risker/Anne
I
___
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] Problem with the pending changes review screen.
The crux of this issue is that to revert individual edits one has to go to the page history, the pending changes review window does not permit this. Gmaxwell and I have worked out a step-by-step process for even the least technical reviewer to follow. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing#Step-by-step_.22how-to.22_for_reviewing_multiple_edits Best, Risker/Anne On 16 June 2010 00:25, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: As I understand it, and apologies if mistaken, all of this is based on a misunderstanding of the tool. A reviewer faced with any mix of edits and wishing to do something (ie not ignore it all) has two main choices. They can accept the most recent edit, or they can add an edit of their own (which could be a revert or a fix of problem edits). In either case, the latest edit is presumed good quality (because they are doing it) and it becomes accepted. The misunderstanding, as I understand it, is that pending changes doesn't care about any intervening edits or unchecked page history. If there had been 1000 edits since the last accepted revision, or 30 but all vandalism, none of that matters. The aim of the tool is to ensure the public (ie /latest/) version is presentable. It doesn't care for or censor historic revisions. Once a revision is no longer current, then whether it was accepted, reverted, unchecked or the like in the past is immaterial. The vandalism and good edits remain in the page history as normal, users can see them, revert them, sort out complex mixes of vandalism/non-vandalism as much as they like. Past good edits are no more lost than they ever were. The purpose of pending changes is to ensure the current presented version will be presentable to non-editors and logged-out users - nothing more. FT2 On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: Imagine an article with many revisions and pending changes enabled: A, B, C, D, E, F, G... [snip] I don't know how to fix this. We could remove the reject button to make it more clear that you use the normal editing functions (with their full power) to reject. But I must admit that the easy rollback button is handy there. Alternatively we could put a small chunk of the edit history on the review page, showing the individual edits which comprise the span-diff (bonus points for color-coding if someone wants to make a real programming project out of it) along with the undo links and such. [snip] Further discussion with Risker has caused me to realize that there is another significant problem situation with the reject button. Consider the following edit sequence: A, B, C, D, E A is a previously approved version. B, and D are all excellent edits. C and E are obvious vandalism. E even managed to undo all the good changes of B,D while adding the vandalism. A reviewer hits the pending revisions link in order to review, they get the span diff from A to E. All they see is vandalism, there is no indication of the redeeming edits in the intervening span. So they hit reject. The good edits are lost. Unlike the prior problem, the only way to solve this would be only display the REJECT button if all of the pending changes are by the same author (or limiting it to only one pending change in the span, which would be slightly more conservative but considering the behaviour of the rollback button I think the group-by-author behaviour would be fine). The accept button is still safe. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Pending Changes: first press
On 14 June 2010 19:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_loosen_controls_tonight.php Spotted by Nihiltres. groan The George Bush page is not going to be part of this trial, because there is no reasonable chance that the tiny, tiny percentage of useful edits will make up for all the vandalism and BLP violations that will be added. That was possibly the one thing that everyone working on the encyclopedia end of the trial came to agreement on very quickly. Risker/Anne ___ 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?
in this trial. It's time to stop thinking pie-in-the-sky, and get down to what we'd consider a sufficiently positive outcome to proceed. Incidentally, I think it's important that we reinforce repeatedly that this is a trial. Trials end, and this one ends in two months. Unless there is a newly minted community consensus to keep this trial deployment going, I fully expect it to be turned off on August 15th, along with all the other bells and whistles that go with it (such as deactivating the reviewer permission). If there is no intention at this time to stop the trial and deactivate the extension on August 15th, I'd like the WMF and the developers to say so now. Because if that is the case, then this isn't a trial, it's a seat-of-the-pants deployment, and the very large section of the community that is already concerned about how this tool will be used will have every reason to believe they have been handed a pig in a poke. 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] One-sentence explanation of pending changes
On 8 June 2010 17:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2010 21:34, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: No, I'm just wondering how quickly our 2,000 is going to get used up with people playing with userpages ;-) A coupla years ago we had 200 protected pages and 800 semi-protected pages. What are current numbers? If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports you will see some reports pertaining to long and indefinite protections. Some of them are protected redirects and salted deleted articles so are irrelevant, but it should give us some ideas of potential targets for this new technology. 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] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length limit on posting? 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
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] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On 24 February 2010 12:54, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon kanon...@gmail.com wrote: Those edits have been oversighted. More information on oversight can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight How odd. As far as I recall, there wasn't anything in those edits except simple vandalism and reverts of said vandalism. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you that, while some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable for public consumption. The suppressions met the criteria for removal from view to everyone, including administrators. Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b) there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for potentially libelous information to remain accessible. There is a significant difference between the trash-talking one frequently sees (particularly in regard to living persons) such as X is a f***ing a**hole, and a blatant unsourced allegation of wrongdoing by the article`s subject such as X murdered his second wife``; the former would simply be reverted, while the latter qualifies for suppression. 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] Living Person Task Force is starting up
DGG, IRC is but one of the communication means being utilized. Further, this is a cross-project, Foundation-led task group. Perhaps you might wish to review the summary of the preliminary work group, and read the transcripts as they become available over the coming weeks, and provide your opinion on the Strategy Wiki, where this particular task force is being hosted. Risker On 31 January 2010 19:02, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sorry but I will not participate, as I am unwilling to use a process like IRC. The discussion should be on-wiki,. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote: Third time is a charm http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_Persons Or not http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People THERE. Copy and paste is not your friend. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Office hours tomorrow, Thursday, October 15
2009/10/14 Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, This Thursday's office hours will feature Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal Counsel. If you don't know Mike Godwin, you can read about him at http://enwp.org/Mike_Godwin. Office hours this Thursday are from 1600 to 1700 UTC (9:00AM to 10:00PM PDT). Wow, 13 hours. Talk about dedication. :-) ___ 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] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license
Interesting article about how the International Olympic Committee is cracking down even on CC-SA licenses: http://www.thestar.com/olympics/article/707868--olympics-warns-man-about-sharing-photos-on-website I am certainly not in the forefront of the free information pack, but even I find this concerning. 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] So what does Flagged Revs feel like?
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer The place where the comparison to NPP falls short is that NPP doesn't *do* anything, except coordinate with other people using the feature and people don't use it because it doesn't do anything snip To me, as someone who periodically does NPP, the most frustrating part is having to work from that list and not being able to go back and forth easily; if I need to AfD or PROD a page, or even make a small fix, it's a real pain. It doesn't surprise me that there aren't a lot of people doing NPP. 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] Things to do with your home movies
2009/9/27 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comragesoss%2bwikipe...@gmail.com On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:56 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Put 'em on Wikipedia! Is it still super complicated and like a lot of hard work? It's not too hard now if you're running Firefox 3.5. Just edit your video in whatever video software is easiest on your machine (e.g., Windows Movie Maker) and save a high quality version in a convenient format (e.g., AVI, MPEG, other common formats), then go firefogg.org, install the plug-in, click make ogg, and use the default encoding settings. If you're feeling especially ambitious, you can add metadata and/or fiddle with the resolution and bit-rate settings (all through firefogg). Converting to Commons-ready ogg with firefogg is actually easier than uploading a file to Commons. See now...when I read Steve's question, I was thinking about the hard work of taking care of the star of the film... Cheers, Sage. 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] Invitation for review
2009/9/24 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to be reliable; the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable. Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the source, as long as we use it in a consistent (reliable) manner; the qualitative analysis has nothing to do with the source itself, but in the way that it is used on Wikipedia. The issue here is not reliable sources, or your inaccurate characterization of my point that we use reliable sources reliably: (i.e. Even the Bible can be misrepresented, misquoted, inaccurately cited). The source I cited was already in the article in first position, use specifically for the purpose of defining the context. The source gives a reliable overview of the variance in the context term, and states this variance to be subjective. We don't allow subjective concepts to stand as encyclopedic contexts, without appropriate definition. Hence my opposition simply wants to omit using that same reliable source in a reliable way. I wasn't commenting in any way on the sources you were using in any article. I was responding directly to this sentence in your statement: I would prefer instead that we 'use sources reliably.' I am questioning how that is at all a reasonable position. A more recent argument suggested changing the current reliable source to something more in agreement with the preexisting context (subjectively reliable), and designating the current (objectively) reliable source less reliable simply because it doesn't fit the context. I sincerely hope that you aren't suggesting that the quality (reliability) of a source is unimportant compared to the consistency of the source's use in Wikipedia. I dislike your mischaracterizing insinuation that I don't consider the issue of reliability objectively. It reads as disingenuous. Stevertigo, you suggest there is a problem with the theory that sources should be reliable and instead suggest that we use sources reliably. The word objectively didn't come into play in either the post I was replying to, or in my response. I have interpreted what you wrote in the comment I replied to as Let's change the way we use sources in xxx way. You haven't given me any reason to rethink my interpretation, nor have you contradicted what I said except to suggest I am being disingenous. From what you are saying now, it seems more that you want to change the way that sources are used in a *specific* article. We have three million articles now. If you are going to propose a change in how sources are used, please consider whether it is something that would make sense as a standard throughout the encyclopedia. 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] Botspam joe job
Hi Greg - You're barking up the wrong tree here: none of us as individuals are involved in moderating wiki-en-L. The moderators are found here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l#Admins As a general suggestion, you may find you have more success in having your posts accepted if you present your larger point rather than making a pithy comment that is out of context. Risker 2009/9/16 Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com I am asking now for a third time about a post of mine intended for the WikiEN-l mailing list. I have not been given the courtesy of a moderator's reply for over 23 hours. Is this the practice of list moderation, or is it de facto banning? While my comment may have been a bit snarky, my larger point is still a valid concern -- what does the Wikipedia community have to say about detecting a corporate counter-attack on a competitor's well-placed links in Wikipedia? If I worked for Microsoft, would it be beyond comprehension that I might spam-link Wikipedia with Apple.com links, in hopes of getting all 6,700+ links to Apple auto-magically removed? Of course, then I'm sure a well-written lawyer's letter from Apple to the Wikimedia Foundation might lift the Apple name off the spam blacklist. But then, wouldn't that then be a sort of free license to Apple to spam links as much as they want, because it could always be blamed on the competition running a joe job? Greg On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.comwrote: Is this going to get moderated through, or not? Greg On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.comwrote: Risker says: + Amazing how few people realise that we're also perfectly capable of blacklisting their websites, and will do so without hesitation should a spambot show up. Heck, we give people a hard time for putting in half a dozen of the same links. Risker + If someone were to write a spambot script that spammed Wikipedia with outbound links to Wikia.com, would the Wikia.com domain (finally) get placed on the blacklist? Greg -- Gregory Kohs ___ 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] Yeah, let's botspam Wikipedia. I'm sure that'll work out just fine.
2009/9/6 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com What could possibly go wrong? http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo-tools/115582-wikipedia-linking-tool.html If your life is suffering from inadequate levels of stupid (I know! Whose doesn't?), that looks like just the forum for you to get a topup from. Amazing how few people realise that we're also perfectly capable of blacklisting their websites, and will do so without hesitation should a spambot show up. Heck, we give people a hard time for putting in half a dozen of the same links. 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] Putting some perspective on the end of Wikipedia
Tony is right that these lists of long-term and indefinitely protected or semi-protected pages should be reviewed periodically. The place to find this information is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports There are about 3000 indefinitely permanently protected talk pages; they are almost all user talk pages and were protected at the time that the account was blocked. Most of those can be unprotected. They run back to 2006. There are 39 indefinitely fully protected article titles, the vast majority of which are soft redirects to Wiktionary or pages salted to prevent recreation. For the others, most are quite recent, and it would probably be appropriate to ask the protecting admin to review and, at minimum, set an end-date. In addition, there are 1478 indefinitely protected redirects, many of them to prevent forking. There are 1900+ indefinitely semiprotected articles, with many of them indicating they have been repeated vandalism targets. These include articles on recent US presidents, certain high profile musicians, politically charged subjects, and those with a wide and opinionated fandom. These should, of course, be periodically reviewed; however, if someone decides to unprotect many of these articles, I would hope they don't just keep it on their watchlist but actively review new edits regularly for a few weeks afterward. There are also 300+ indefinitely semiprotected redirects, which include repeatedly recreated articles previously deemed inappropriate, and titles associted with attempts to fork articles. These might bear review as well, either with a move up to full protection or semiprotection lifted on a trial basis, but again they would need to be monitored closely if they are unprotected. Of the approximately 400 talk pages and talk page redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected, almost all are user talk pages, many of admins who carry out antivandal work. There were about 30 article talk pages indefinitely semi-protected before Tony carried out his review, and there are quite a bit fewer now. There are some opportunities to improve practices here, and to really take a look and decide which articles (and rarely, article talk pages) need this indefinite protection. At the same time, I really do believe that if an admin is going to reduce protection on a page with an extensive history of problems, he or she has a responsibility to keep an eye on the page for at least a couple of weeks afterward to ensure there isn't a fresh outbreak of inappropriate behaviour. Since so many of the articles involved are BLPs, and even on non-BLPs the problems were related to inappropriate addition of information about LPs, this is an area where special sensitivity is required. 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] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
2009/8/26 Andrew Gray shimg...@gmail.com We've had a story in the New York Times. Meanwhile, judging by the way David Gerard and WMUK are dashing around, it's all over the UK media. Is this just observer bias, or is internal changes to Wikipedia for some reason a really interesting thing to the British press? I have no idea... -- No, I also heard a discussion about it last night on the Toronto CBC Radio program Here and Now during their technology report. They segued into the Wikipedia angle from a discussion on the challenges of anonymity online. The host asked how not being able to edit directly would change Wikipedia, and the technology specialist responded that maturity, and finding a balance between openness and responsibility to its subjects, was playing a role. He also pointed out that, in a few short years, Wikipedia has gone from the upstart nobody took seriously to an established reference source that was often the first stop for information. He even called us the new establishment. Unfortunately, this program isn't podcast, although I understand an abbreviated transcript may be available later this week. 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] [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] Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it suppliedmisinformation...
2009/8/21 wjhon...@aol.com In a message dated 8/21/2009 10:40:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gwe...@gmail.com writes: Only if you deny it '*with extreme predjudice*'. And then jump on top of the podium and begin machine-gunning down Congressmen. - While wearing a prom dress. Oh dear. What a mental image. 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] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l - Enough already
Not to engage anyone further in this topic, I would appreciate it if the moderators consider whether this has gone on quite long enough, and some moderation is needed here. I know several people have already switched to nomail for this list. Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/30 geni geni...@gmail.com 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com: Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia. Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of protection. -- Um, no. The less notable don't have articles, so we have nothing to contribute there. Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 wjhon...@aol.com Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in the first place? Will It would raise the price of his release. It would encourage deeper digging into his background, which could make him appear to be more of an infidel and thus less worthy of basic human dignity, potentially subjected to greater physical and mental privations. (Kidnappees who are considered to be aligned with other nemeses are treated more harshly.) It would increase the danger to those who were kidnapped with him, if they were perceived to have been working for an infidel, and he and his fellow kidnappees would be more likely to be executed as examples to others. Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur in the area. Risker 2009/6/29 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations? preventing harm is the argument of all censors David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into obscure is frankly beyond me. Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information, it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by abusing the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have placed in the system. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
Mr. Martinez wasn't kidnapped at the time, was he? I mean, there was nobody actually holding him prisoner, was there? I don't think many westerners realise how endemic kidnapping for profit is in this region of the world; it's commonplace and a longstanding pattern of behaviour that goes back centuries. Most of these kidnappings are economically driven, and target anyone they think might have the money; the overwhelming majority of kidnap victims are non-notable, so they would never have an article about them into which their kidnapping could be added. But people with a larger reputation have a different economic value, and they can be sold to those who wish to make their kidnapping a political/religious issue. And once the people are being held for idealistic reasons, the rules - and the risks - change. Risker 2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote: While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. I already posted this, but... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1 ___ 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] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons, a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list. I don't remember that Jimbo email. Can you give us a link, Fred? -Stevertigo It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't be possible, sorry. 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] Dispute resolution mailing list
As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but fairly, before taking it public. Strikes me that happens all the time, and doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be any group of people. Risker 2009/6/27 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com Risker wrote: It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't be possible, sorry. Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage of private lists for sweeping public project announcements. In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can. -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] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this - One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute resolution (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real life time constraints. Two, discussion. Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I think some people would be more interested in just announcements. I would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their bandwidth... I think this is a good refinement of the idea. I personally don't understand the announce format or its usefulness, George, but I have no objection. I don't know now it would be populated either, as it would require DR to get its ducks in a row overall. Maybe not a bad thing, actually, but let's deal with the main discussion list first though. -Stevertigo ___ Stevertigo, from experience I know it takes some time to set up a mailing list (we're talking weeks, not days). Why not start one on Google groups and see how many people sign up? 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] Dispute resolution mailing list
No, it was not intended that way, Steve. I do know that Brion has a very long job queue, and mailing lists haven't been his top priority for a long time. If the WMF powers that be consider it a priority, then it will move up in his list; if not, then you may be in for quite a wait. Risker 2009/6/27 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is Wikimedia business. It would not be appropriate to involve a third party. Well, I took his meaning to be something like go Google yourself, albeit put in very nice terms. Yes, we might develop an ability to address petty disputes. Your further insights on this matter would be most welcome! -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] AFD has gone to a 7 day cycle
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside. Risker 2009/4/11 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman ritz...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: Al Tally wrote: On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritz...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've been practising for years. Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it. AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough? The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed out of articles. Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump? If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything there... -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ 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] AFD has gone to a 7 day cycle
2009/4/11 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk snip The nominal time has been five days or so for quite a long time, but discussions have often been left a day or two longer due to lack of interest, or no-one being around to close it, or what have you. I remember it used to be routine for there to be a day's backlog or more of unclosed discussions. In recent years, it's become more and more common to explicitly extend the discussions for particular articles, because they hadn't received many comments - to pick a random day, April 5th, there were 92 discussions, of which just over 40 had been relisted for a second five-day period, and one which had been relisted *twice*. So that's (roughly) half the articles getting five days, half getting ten. snip The relisting at day 5 is a feature, not a bug. It brings the discussion back to the top of the list two days earlier than it would if waiting 7 days, thus more likely to draw the attention of other editors. The fact that somewhere between a third and a half of AfDs need relisting tells us that the problem isn't the length of time an article is on AfD, it is that there aren't enough eyes on AfD. My greater concern is that the discussion to change the length of time an article is on AfD was held on an obscure page that few watch. It's just a little to inside baseball from my perspective, and several of the participants in the discussion are well acquainted with other locales where it is pretty traditional to advertise discussions that will affect the project as a whole (as opposed to only a particular wikiproject or narrow area). 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
