[WikiEN-l] 5 million!

We now have over 5 million articles , congratulations to all concerned! ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:

Re: [WikiEN-l] Licensing IP edits and vanished users under CC0

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

[WikiEN-l] Licensing IP edits and vanished users under CC0

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? In one case the

Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers

started the project before that happened. The consent form is here: http://drexel.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_elzNLEUeTjIphrv Thanks, Andrea On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:00 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: There is an important difference here. The WMF does

Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers

There is an important difference here. The WMF does not publicly log the IP addresses of visitors to the site. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#your-use-of-wm-sites It does however publish the IP addresses of editors who are not logged in. I could understand the elitist claim if the

Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers

of, Unregistered edits are considered to have no named author, would be sufficient. Kyanos On 03/27/2015 06:41 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote: Perhaps we should move to a different licensing model for future IP edits. CC0 for IP edits would be a more sensible license for edits by an IP where

Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers

Perhaps we should move to a different licensing model for future IP edits. CC0 for IP edits would be a more sensible license for edits by an IP where in many cases no-one could attribute the edit to the individual who made it. If people don't want to release their edits as CC0 they can always

Re: [WikiEN-l] research about wikipeida

It may or may not be legit, but I have emailed them with a suggestion that they please clear it by https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment In the meantime I suggest that everyone ignore the survey. Regards Jonathan On 13 March 2015 at 11:29, Kathleen McCook

Re: [WikiEN-l] The Damned Commons Image Deletion Cycle

Suggested Fix 3, this is a problem of deletionism, and the best way to deal with delietionism is to stop deleting things and seek alternate solutions. In this case Commons deletion discussions need a return to source Wiki option as opposed to deletion of files migrated from other wikis. And those

Re: [WikiEN-l] intimidation on wikipedia editing

Dear Luke, One problem with you handling it this way is that we don't know whether the problem was a misunderstanding, a contentious subject or a difference of opinion about referencing. May I suggest that you either ask the editor who reverted you why they did so, or at least tell us the reason

Re: [WikiEN-l] If someone gave you the entirety of Wikipedia from 100 years in the future for only 10 minutes, what would you read?

Putting my 1890 hat on I would say Romanov, as much of the shape of European history is decided by the player with the most options. WSC On 12 February 2013 23:41, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 February 2013 23:05, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: PS. You might

Re: [WikiEN-l] More bad good faith edits than the norm?

Hi Alan, Whilst we are losing a few of our longstanding editors, the picture generally is that because of our deletionism problems we are failing to recruit as many active editors as we used to. So we are a fairly stable or very slowly dwindling band of increasingly experienced people. However

Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment

Re Matthew Jacobs and the periodic reconfirmation idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform#Periodic_reconfirmation There's also the point that some of us don't like the idea of admins becoming a small elite group within the community. OK we are already quite a way from

Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment

Re Fred's comments about giving VIPs VIP treatment. We can't simply assume that everyone we encounter on the Internet is who they claim to be. Doing that would be a recipe for abuse of a lot of VIPs and just as worryingly lots of other people as well. We should treat everyone with courtesy, and

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a rampant porn problem

There are several issues here. One is that we are an open source site, “The idea we discussed was that NetSpark would either donate or heavily discount the cost of the filter for Wikipedia. Surely Sanger knows us well enough to know not to suggest that we ditch open source and work with a software

Re: [WikiEN-l] Editor retention

One of my experiences from the death anomaly project is that different language communities vary quite sharply as to their tolerance of unsourced edits. I suspect that by 2010 the English Wikipedia had already gone through the transition on this, and that those editors we were going to lose by

Re: [WikiEN-l] Stocking personal details

It isn't just a French issue, the whole of the European Union has Data Protection Law based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive And the categories of Sensitive data are similar across the EU. Ethnicity, religion, health and Political opinion being perhaps the most

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as part of a social media strategy for hotels

on speedydeletion, artists, bands, websites, hotels etc, would that be possible? thanks mike On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2012, WereSpielChequers wrote: I'm not inclined to shed a tear for hotel articles, many of which are I suspect being

Re: [WikiEN-l] Central location for article content queries and requests

Most articles belong to a Wikiproject (or can be given to one with a little tagging), and if a wikiproject is even semiactive it will have people with specialist knowledge. So I'd suggest if you need help on an article, post a query on the relevant WikiProject page. And if there isn't a

Re: [WikiEN-l] Central location for article content queries and requests

that list as there is currently only one task available. WSC On 3 July 2012 14:14, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On 7/3/12, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Most articles belong to a Wikiproject (or can be given to one with a little tagging

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as part of a social media strategy for hotels

? WSC On 3 July 2012 16:05, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I am willing to do the work to prepare them, I think that I could find people to help me. please give me access, I will be responsible. mike On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as part of a social media strategy for hotels

I'm not inclined to shed a tear for hotel articles, many of which are I suspect being created by spammers, but David makes an important point re cultural bias from our lack of sources in certain parts of the world. My view on this is that this is one area where a little bit of money judiciously

Re: [WikiEN-l] Link removal experiment; Re: How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_

There were a number of flaws in this experiment that IMHO reduce its value. Firstly rather than measure vandalism it created vandalism, and vandalism that didn't look like typical vandalism. Aside from the ethical issue involved, this will have skewed the result. In particular the edit summaries

Re: [WikiEN-l] How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_

Hi, unless I read this wrong you are admitting to 100 random vandalisms of Wikipedia? If so please stop your experiment now and revert any vandalisms not yet spotted. WereSpielChequers On 17 May 2012 02:14, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Ian Woollard

Re: [WikiEN-l] How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_

If you spot something is a blatant hoax and delete it after 26 seconds I think you'll find that even the most ardent inclusionists are as intolerant of hoaxes as we are of attack pages. WSC On 16 May 2012 19:38, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Wednesday, 16 May 2012 at 16:49, Gwern

Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability of commercial organisations

A more neutral way to put it would be is there a need to review the notability requirements for commercial organisations. Tighten up rather skews the debate. As for why we should be discussing this, a lobby group for paid editors has published a somewhat flawed report dissing Wikipedia and

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

No it isn't exactly the same for people and companies. Wikipedia has a whole bunch of editors whose hobby includes protecting BLPs, we don't have similar editors who genuinely care about the reputation of companies. Or if we do they aren't in the same numbers. Also if PR people are skewed towards

Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles

The problem's with biographical information range from undue weight to the accumulation of dirt from the tabloids. But some of the solutions offered would fix the wrong problem and possibly make things worse. Generally in my experience the bios of sportspeople rarely get hostile edits, at least

Re: [WikiEN-l] Inclusionists vs deletionists

Inclusionism and deletionism are a spectrum not a binary choice, wherever you are on that spectrum there will be editors who are more deletionist or more inclusionist than yourself. The closer you are to one end of the spectrum the more likely it is that you will think that the other end of the

Re: [WikiEN-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on

, because it's a lot easier to trial there (less stuff going on), and secondly because we'd been led to believe that in the eyes of the community, new pages can be a serious problem. One of the most vocal editors telling us this was an issue was you. On 11 March 2012 03:00, WereSpielChequers

Re: [WikiEN-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on

readers will read and where many of the mistakes will disappear via deletion? WereSpielChequers On 10 March 2012 11:16, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey guys So, as you know, we have issues with how new pages are treated on Wikipedia. A lot of the pages created by new editors simply

Re: [WikiEN-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on

: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:51 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Before we go to such a restrictive closed wiki approach I'd really like to understand why the WMF has made such an abrupt Uturn on openness. I'd also like to see an answer from the great unanswered question

Re: [WikiEN-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study

@Geni. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Omnibus_Survey was my preferred alternative, but it was considered unacceptable by the Research Committee. Are you really determined to stop such research altogether or could you compromise on one annual survey? Cheers WereSpielChequers On 10

Re: [WikiEN-l] Tag removals by readers (was: Newbie recruitment: referencing)

need a template or hidden cat for unsuccessful deorphaning attempts. WereSpielChequers On 3 November 2011 13:00, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 3 November 2011 11:10, Carcharoth carcharot

[WikiEN-l] a formal, structured full-oversight body was Facepalm

that a candidate had a tendency to unfairness would probably tank any candidate for Arbcom. WereSpielchequers On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I agree with you

Re: [WikiEN-l] Italian Wikipedia - probably best discussed on Foundation

discussion? I'm not trying to squash discussion here, but if people do discuss it here without reading the posts by the Italians, by Sue and many others on Foundation then I suspect a fair amount will be repetition and explanation of what has been said on Foundation. WereSpielChequers On 5 October 2011

Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?

that we keep it and try to resolve the conflicts rather than the symptoms of those conflicts. WereSpielChequers On 3 October 2011 11:07, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: According to our article

Re: [WikiEN-l] --Wikipedia Manager 2012

We have FA for those who want to focus on one article, we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CUP as a somewhat game like process for content contributors. What aspect of content contribution do we not have a game like feature for? WereSpielChequers On 1 October 2011 17:01, Thomas

Re: [WikiEN-l] --Wikipedia Manager 2012

?user=WereSpielChequers I've just come across it in the Stewards elections, so it is both somewhat specialised and at the same time something that editors from many different wikis can appreciate and clearly many are judging each other by. You could argue that it is a function of editcount

Re: [WikiEN-l] --Wikipedia Manager 2012

is in my old hobby horse of Computer Based Training. I'd love to see the scout movement awarding vandalfighter and Wikipedia editor badges to scouts who've done the training and then demonstrated their new skill. WereSpielChequers On 1 October 2011 20:03, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote

Re: [WikiEN-l] finding the most recognizable page names

that don't use American English spelling. Better still would be to get page views from the USA, or at least page views ignoring the 6 hours when the US is most likely to be asleep. WereSpielChequers On 30 September 2011 04:17, Michael Katz michaeladamk...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm making a crossword

Re: [WikiEN-l] finding the most recognizable page names

Yes, but for the purpose of creating a creating a game that may not be an issue. Michael asked how to get a list of recognisable topics to build a game with, not how to list all 3.7 million article names in order of recognisability. WereSpielChequers On 30 September 2011 11:11, Scott MacDonald

Re: [WikiEN-l] --Wikipedia Manager 2012

as many edits to get into the top 8,000 today as it did to get into the top 4,000 in early 2008. I don't know if the other features you wanted exist, but if there is demand they may well do already. WereSpielChequers On 30 September 2011 17:46, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: Good day

Re: [WikiEN-l] clearing backlogs of articles - was Scope of this mailing list

but I'm happy to defend your right to say it. TTFN WereSpielChequers On 22 September 2011 01:31, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Carcharoth wrote: On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: snip [[User:Rodhullandemu]] - still flying the flag

Re: [WikiEN-l] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?

to oppose candidates who don't meet certain thresholds of tenure and editcountitis. WereSpielChequers ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien

Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read

There is also the idea that the lead should be written for a more general audience than the rest of the article. I don't know if our cancer articles follow that style, but I find that in many articles in subjects where I'm an ignoramus I can grasp the lead but get lost if I try to finish the page.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Get payed $150 for writing an article!

That's an interesting bunch of posts. I've pre-emptively salted one where the company name was in the posting. They weren't all trying to commission spam though. Some of them are for using Wikipedia, including a mirror for mobile apps, others for creating Wikipedia like stuff including one chap

Re: [WikiEN-l] Academic study: Wikipedia cancer information accurate but hard to read

Nice to know we are as accurate and more up-to-date than the competition. I'd love to see further work done on the 2% of information where we currently differ from the textbooks, hopefully most of that will just be that the textbooks are out of date. But it would be good to have that confirmed and

Re: [WikiEN-l] Editing anonymously though having an account and other moral dilemmas.

I think one key question is whether you have already edited this article in such a way that this sockpuppetry might verge into abusive sockpuppetry - i.e. two accounts that appear to support each others arguments/edits being secretly controlled by the same person. If not, or if your only edits to

Re: [WikiEN-l] Article Feedback - Ramp up to 10% of Articles

Actually there are a number of other tests we need to run before we know whether Article Rating really is a net positive or a net negative. I hoped they would compare the 100,000 with a control sample to see which gets more edits:

Re: [WikiEN-l] Article Feedback - Ramp up to 10% of Articles

. WSC On 15 July 2011 10:28, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 07/14/11 5:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote: Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing, or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing it? It's difficult to see any logical

Re: [WikiEN-l] Article Feedback - Ramp up to 10% of Articles

less than ten ratings even if trialled for a couple of months. Lastly we need to be prepared for sockpuppetry, especially as these are random unsigned votes with no rationale. Can we have assurances that something is being built into the scheme to combat this? Regards WereSpielChequers On 14 July

Re: [WikiEN-l] Article Feedback - Ramp up to 10% of Articles

/2011 7:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote: Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing, or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing it? Remember there is a risk that this could exacerbate the templating trend. Just as we need to value edits

Re: [WikiEN-l] Developer/Wiki relationship (was: Deployments today)

after Monobook :P On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:41 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: This reminds me somewhat of the Vector rollout, I've just today come across another example of why we need to upgrade newbies to Monobook once they start editing. Monobook has a rather

Re: [WikiEN-l] Developer/Wiki relationship (was: Deployments today)

editors - no objections to it being the default for readers if they were the people it was designed for. WereSpielChequers On 3 July 2011 18:24, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/1/2011 2:32 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: Very little discussion ocurrred r.e. rolling this out. For example

Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion

I've just tested two searches in google. Rick Santorum had our article on the person in second place and our article on the neologism in third place. For Santorum we again had the second and third spots, but the order was reversed. In both cases Google gave prime place to a website about the

Re: [WikiEN-l] schema.org - anything here for us?

Thanks for raising this, if the main search engines are collaborating on this together then it will probably work. But it makes me wonder: Are other sites implementing this? Am I correct in thinking that implementing this would further our mission by making relevant parts of our data more likely

Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion

flames are added to the fire, such as it provoking a sea change in Wikipedia policy, it will fade into obscurity. WereSpielChequers On 3 June 2011 01:11, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:    Avoid victimization    When writing

Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion

be surprised if they didn't consider such things as when a webpage was last updated. WSC On 3 June 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote: 8 letters, three syllables doth not a four letter word make, and the term itself is somewhat more

Re: [WikiEN-l] The general population AfD

that deleting fewer articles is the will of the people I'm not sure we get that many mistakes at AFD. I'm more worried about CSD, and to a lesser extent prods and turning articles into redirects. WereSpielChequers On 1 June 2011 20:07, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

close this thread or focus it on the issue of how we prevent this list for being used for forum shopping and canvassing? WereSpielChequers On 25 May 2011 23:56, Richard Farmbrough rich...@farmbrough.co.uk wrote: Presumably we are evaluating the arguments that are not /ad hominem /on their merits

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

disquiet about that editor notified them of this thread? WereSpielChequers On 25 May 2011 19:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just delete articles we don't like. It would simplify the wikilawyering. You see, I

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

a redirect explicitly require that editors are notified about discussions about them. ANI by contrast explicitly requires people to notify the editor who you are making a complaint about. May I suggest that we do the same? WereSpielChequers On 25 May 2011 21:17, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia survey

Hi Michala, 1 I started editing Wikipedia articles because I saw a small improvement I could make. 2 I don't know how many articles I have edited, but it will be a large number. Not as large as the number of edits I've made, you can see that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDITS but

Re: [WikiEN-l] How to start a viable competitor to Wikipedia? Step 1 allow people to edit

. WereSpielChequers On 9 April 2011 00:08, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote: Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites Jimbo runs

Re: [WikiEN-l] The viable competitors to Wikipedia.

. WereSpielChequers ___ 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 viable competitors to Wikipedia. - maintanability of BLPs

. WereSpielChequers On 8 April 2011 11:30, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:09, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Other options would be for a site that ended the inclusionism/deletionism conflict by abandoning notability and concentrating on verifiability

Re: [WikiEN-l] Reg. Research using Wikipedia

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports Hope that helps. WereSpielChequers On 9 March 2011 10:10, ramesh kumar ramesh_ch...@hotmail.com wrote: Dear Members, I am a PhD student in a reputed university. My Research is on blog classification using Wikipedia Categories.As

[WikiEN-l] editing wikipedia by thought

be designed to give contrast that works for various forms of colour blindness, and there are still lots of images in wikipedia that need alt text for people using text readers. WereSpielChequers Message: 1 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:35:18 + From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com Subject

Re: [WikiEN-l] Announcement: Survey study on the categorization of contributors to Wikipedia

by anonymous authors, would it be ethical to disown them now and prevent them from being part of the project? WereSpielChequers On 18 February 2011 08:26, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote: The first survey's fine. :-) I'm merely suggesting you put out a second survey once

Re: [WikiEN-l] Scale of online resources, was Re: Rating the English wikipedia

around. I suspect the ultimate size of the pedia depends at least as much on the way we treat new editors as it does on the availability of easily accessible sources. WereSpielChequers On 17 February 2011 09:38, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 16/02/2011 23:56, Carcharoth

Re: [WikiEN-l] Rating the English wikipedia

of the pedia. But the ratings won't give us that. WereSpielChequers On 14 February 2011 17:04, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/02/2011, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: True, but how well is the distinction understood by people who apply the templates or rate the articles? I'm

Re: [WikiEN-l] Rating the English wikipedia

to bring in a new wave of editors then the model would break and it would be possible to think in terms of how many potential articles qualify. WereSpielChequers On 14 February 2011 21:54, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 February 2011 20:48, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and robots

Just as we have no way of knowing which of our editors are AIs who have passed the Turing test, I doubt if they will be able to tell which of their editors are humans who can pass a reverse Turing test. Incidentally one of my friends who is in that line of work reckoned that there probably isn't

[WikiEN-l] Maintaining and ensuring technical accuracy of articles?

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Living_people_on_EN_wiki_who_are_dead_on_other_wikis We also have the typo team and the BLP noticeboard among many different ways in which Wikipedians can collaborate to improve the pedia. WereSpielChequers On 9 February 2011 18:48, Ian Woollard

Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})

, or anything published on April 1st. But my understanding is that they are somewhat more scrupulous on sports and obits coverage, so has signed for yyy FC or died is probably usable. As for the gossip and trivia, do we really want that anyway? WereSpielChequers. On 4 February 2011 13:25

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them. WereSpielChequers On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 2/1

[WikiEN-l] gendergap RFA reform and the RFA drought

=sysopcreationSort=1 But to get back to the gendergap issue, the good news is that two of our four new admins are female. WereSpielChequers ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https

Re: [WikiEN-l] Pew surveys, 2007 and 2010

37% to 53% in three years sounds pretty good to me. Especially as the other 47% will include some who choose not to consult any sort of reference at all. WSC On 17 January 2011 03:48, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote: Few organizations track Wikipedia usage.  Pew has carried out a

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wired on the Spanish mutiny

at least a secondary motivation of improving their writing skills in the language they are editing in - I might try and get a question on this into one of our user surveys. WereSpielChequers On 23 January 2011 13:39, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 23/01/2011 05:13

[WikiEN-l] IPs creating articles

Actually it happens quite frequently, usually with IPs turning redirects into articles. Though I've also seen articles that started by an IP creating the talkpage. WereSpielChequers On 11 January 2011 01:57, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote: You're right, Gwern. It is not possible

Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia - Liquid threads

it did work this time) there were a fraction of the messages I get on EN wiki. I'd hate to think how slow things would be if it was implemented on EN wiki. WereSpielChequers On 22 December 2010 11:49, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On jargon, I still think Neutral point of view

Re: [WikiEN-l] Strange article title rendering

. WereSpielChequers On 20 December 2010 13:41, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code When I go to the above page, the bit at the top (the title) reads as follows: MediaWiki

Re: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Old Wikipedia backups discovered

Can these edits be imported into wikipedia in time for the tenth anniversary? I'm assuming some will relate to pages that have since been moved or deleted so I appreciate this won't be an easy project. WereSpielChequers On 14 December 2010 16:16, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote

Re: [WikiEN-l] Britannica tries for Indian market

market. Can't say I'd be tempted, but perhaps the Indian market puts less value on the word free? WereSpielChequers On 12 December 2010 16:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/britannica-to-give-wikipediarun-for-its-money/417969/ Bundling

Re: [WikiEN-l] GLAM Wiki UK 2010

Wiki meetings in London. Also we are now collaborating more closely with the UK chapter and they always seem to have someone at London meetups. Carcharoth and anyone else who is in the vicinity, it would be nice to meet you if you can join us at one of these. WereSpielChequers On 8 December 2010

Re: [WikiEN-l] Using Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool

at work, or to edit in your real name. WereSpielChequers On 7 December 2010 16:31, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: http://www.inc.com/managing/articles/201001/wikipedia.html '“Wikipedia is a complex culture, and sometimes it can feel like the free encyclopedia everyone can edit -- except

Re: [WikiEN-l] What proportion of articles are stubs?

more complete than an unreferenced article of three times the length. WereSpielChequers On 4 December 2010 12:05, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote: WereSpielChequers, All, 1 The size of the database in gigabytes has been growing faster than the the number of articles This is a weak

Re: [WikiEN-l] Amazonified Wikipedia

, or parts of it, is Amazon doing anything different? If not have we brought this to their attention? WereSpielChequers On 4 December 2010 10:28, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: The citation for wikipedia according to wikipedia would look like this: James Joyce. (2010, December 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] What proportion of articles are stubs?

it was down to 11.3%. WereSpielChequers On 29 November 2010 19:15, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 29 November 2010 17:33, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Stubs and how to handle them seem to be controversial still (or again), which is rather surprising

Re: [WikiEN-l] Amazonified Wikipedia

When I clicked on the Wikipedia link at the top of the article it took me to the article on Wikipedia. I hope that this brings us some extra editors, I'm sure it will bring us an unknown number of extra viewers. WeeSpielChequers On 3 December 2010 16:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

[WikiEN-l] Number of names in one sentence

the article. I think it is reassuring to have multiple names up front - people will come to an article from various redirects so having multiple possible names in the lede gives our readers reassurance that they are on the right page. WereSpielChequers

Re: [WikiEN-l] “Can you imagine the president of t he American Camellia Society having three stuffed bears in the courthouse?”

by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalie_von_Rauch which has been up since 2006. Plus I've fixed a typo of July 31 and removed an unsourced DOB WereSpielChequers On 18 September 2010 14:50, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/09/2010, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote

Re: [WikiEN-l] “Can you imagine the president of t he American Camellia Society having three stuffed bears in the courthouse?”

I've just tracked down one anomaly to 2005, as the user hasn't edited since 2008 I've just quietly removed that particular redlinked battle from the relevant list. Good news is that April 31 has only 47 anomalies. I think this could be a big project. WereSpielChequers On 18 September 2010 17

Re: [WikiEN-l] Little edits or big edits in the mainspace?

or other places where edit conflicts are likely. The only time when I'd recommend making a really big edit in mainspace is when creating a new article. The risk of incorrect speedy tags is so high that it is worth the risk of not saving for an hour or so. WereSpielChequers On 17 September 2010 22

Re: [WikiEN-l] New tool: Write before you revert

I'm prett suspect that the vast majority of reverts on EN wiki are reversion of vandalism by hugglers and other patrollers at newpage patrol. I don't think it would be a good idea to discourage those who do that accurately. Giving feedback to those with an excessive error rate is useful - but not

[WikiEN-l] Replacing admins with a slower less efficient method for blocking vandals and deleting attack pages

. WereSpielChequers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 21/08/2010, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Is it possible to have the ability to blank an attack page and keep it locked until an admin looks at it and deletes it? The point is not to have admins. You could just have it so

Re: [WikiEN-l] Replacing admins with a slower less efficient method for blocking vandals and deleting attack pages

things on AN/I). My comments were in response to the idea of replacing admins with juries to delete attack pages and block vandals. WereSpielChequers On 24 August 2010 15:41, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: All those concerns are addressed by the idea I proposed where people can

Re: [WikiEN-l] Superusers?

WereSpielChequers. On 20 August 2010 19:37, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: I still don't think that they're required for that. The fact is that most vandalism and attack page detection and fixing is done by non admins, so it's just a question of giving users appropriate powers to deal with those

Re: [WikiEN-l] Superusers?

their account as AutoPatrolled is in itself community building; Two of the editors I marked as Autopatrollers in late 09 or early this year have since become admins. Regards WereSpielChequers On 20 August 2010 09:47, FastLizard4 fastliza...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE

  1   2   >