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

[Risker]

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 
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  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Oliver Keyes 
> > 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] Atlantic on Wikipedia and PR

[Risker]

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  wrote:

> the function of wikien-l is for eldsters to grumble about kids these days
>
> On 18 August 2015 at 11:48, Anthony  wrote:
> > Fred Bauder and The Cunctator!
> >
> > Are we having a reunion?
> >
> > Hi guys!
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:33 AM, FRED BAUDER 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:21:25 -0400
> >>  The Cunctator  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

[Risker]

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  wrote:

> On 17 August 2015 at 16:04, WereSpielChequers
>  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] Future of this mailing list

[Risker]

I've given this some thought, and pretty much come to the conclusion that
it would be better to make this list "historic" rather than keep it open.
This is a reflection on the fact that almost none of the subscribers seem
to use it, that there are almost no posts to it, that it can easily become
a black hole where a "new" subscriber is unaware that the likelihood
they'll get a response to their email, or one that is accurate or
actionable, is very small.

In an ideal world, this list would be active and lively and chock full of
interesting discussions. That's not happening at all.  It is better to
consider this "legacy communication" and to lock it down (thus relieving
the responsibilities of the probably one or two list admins who are
actually moderating through the one real message out of thousands of spam
messages).  It is obvious that this list is no longer serving the purpose
it once had.  I'm not sure exactly where people are going to communicate
now - there are lots of comments for a lot of blog posts, I understand
facebook gets a fair number of responses, and some of the on-wiki
noticeboard are quite active. But this list is no longer reaching the
target community.

Risker/Anne

On 11 August 2015 at 17:16, Pine W  wrote:

> I don't see much harm in keeping this list alive in a low-activity state.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Carcharoth 
> wrote:
>
> > Time to once again consider the future of this list and maybe also
> > that of Wikipedia-L (as David suggested back in December)?
> >
> > I think I'm right in saying that apart from this list being used for
> > some discussion of block appeals, nothing was posted here for all of
> > June and July?
> >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/
> >
> > Yup. June 2015 and July 2015 join September 2014 as 'dead' months in
> > the archives. :-)
> >
> > On 12/2/14, David Gerard  wrote:
> > > On 2 December 2014 at 10:12, Amir E. Aharoni
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > >> I kinda like the separation between cross-project and cross-language
> > >> issues
> > >> on Wikimedia-L and the discussion about English Wikipedia, but if
> nobody
> > >> is
> > >> interested in the existence of this list, I won't be very sad if it
> shut
> > >> down.
> > >
> > >
> > > Despite the lengthy moderator list, I'm about it for actually
> > > bothering. Not that there's much to do.
> > >
> > > In the world of mailing lists, en:wp discussion tends to happen on
> > > wikimedia-l, if at all.
> > >
> > >
> > >> I'd shut down Wikipedia-L first, however - that one is really dead,
> > except
> > >> occasional people who pop in by mistake every few months.
> > >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > ___
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] research about wikipeida

[Risker]

On 12 March 2015 at 23:14, zy  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

[Risker]

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  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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Tools for repointing reference dead links to archive.org?

[Risker]

On 26 January 2014 19:38, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 27 January 2014 00:17, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
> > Funny you ask... there are not currently any solid ones afaik, but I've
> > been talking with the Internet Archive about building out a bot and
> trying
> > to achieve community consensus on ENWP to autoreplace deadlinks with
> > archive.org ones.  The IA has been crawling all new external links on
> all
> > Wikimedia projects at least once every couple of hours for months, and
> has
> > a strong interest in killing off literally all of our dead links.  Unless
> > something falls through, I should be bringing a more detailed plan up
> > within maybe five or six weeks.
>
>
> Yes, I knew you were cooking up something :-) I was just surprised it
> wasn't the sort of task that people had already automated, or written
> a nice toolserver bot for, or something.
>
> The ones that use {{cite web}} and variants are pretty simple: you
> just whack in archiveurl= and archivedate= (preferably as close as
> possible to any cited accessdate=) ... then double-check by eye, of
> course. It just gets very tedious and error-prone doing it by hand,
> cut'n'pasting URLs into the middle of the computer guacamole we
> lovingly euphemise as "wikitext". VE isn't a much happier method.
>
>
Concur that it's a great ideabut perhaps a WMF Tools labs tool, instead
of toolserver?  Running battle, I know - but so many of the tools I have
greatly valued over the years are now pretty much useless, or at least
unreliable.

In any case - it would be great to have a bot that did a fair bit of that,
but it should probably be manually run to ensure proper matching, kind of
like AWB.

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

[WikiEN-l] The most controversial Wikipedia pages?

[Risker]

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

[Risker]

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  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_FDC>makes
>  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,
> 
>
> 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

[Risker]

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_FDC>makes
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,


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*

[Risker]

Forwarding for community information.

Risker

-- Forwarded message --
From: Sue Gardner 
Date: 27 March 2013 18:00
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement *please read*
To: Wikimedia Announce Mailing List 


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-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing

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

[Risker]

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
wrote:

> 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
>>  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-l<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<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] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

[Risker]

On 18 April 2012 12:41, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > 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. Pe

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

[Risker]

On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> 
>
> 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] [Wikimediaindia-l] Pure Fiction: Nichalp and Wifione

[Risker]

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  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:Makrandjoshi&oldid=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  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 

Re: [WikiEN-l] English Wikipedia blackout

[Risker]

On 17 January 2012 19:40, Tyler  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 
> 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

[Risker]

You might want to change the date

Risker

On 4 January 2012 11:33, Oliver Keyes  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

[Risker]

On 8 November 2011 17:08, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> On 8 November 2011 15:32, Carcharoth  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?

[Risker]

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?

[Risker]

On 3 October 2011 16:06, Ken Arromdee  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] NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors

[Risker]

On 31 January 2011 14:38, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker  wrote:
>
> > In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't
> Wikipedia
> > Governance Central.
>
>
> It's the closest en:wp has.
>
>
> > I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L
> mailing
> > list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there,
> > they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects  where
> there
> > are concerns.
>
>
> You're snapping at me, as if I'm causing this problem for you. I'm
> not, I'm telling you about it.
>
> Are you saying you would need them to intervene directly? It may be
> feasible for the arbcom - the closest en:wp has to a governing body -
> to invite WMF to do so. This would likely avoid directly crossing the
> streams (which would be bad) but get an outside force in there if the
> internal one really feels it isn't up to the effort.
>
>
>

David, I'm not snapping at you particularly, although I do think you've
hijacked this thread, which is intended to be about the gender gap. (I'll
resist the urge to insert a sexist comment here. :) )

The only people in the WMF projects I regularly participate in who are
formally recognized as leaders are the WMF trustees.  I would love to see
them being more public in sharing their opinions, their observations and
their experiences; they have the opportunity to see things from a very
different and much broader perspective than those of us at ground level. I
am sure that HaeB would be happy to find a place on Signpost for a monthy
"Discussion with a Trustee" that could then be flipped over to Translatewiki
or wherever to share with multiple other projects.

It is all well and good for (I count three) former arbitrators to say that
Arbcom should be enforcing the civility policy, and to act as the governors
of the project. But we are not the governors; in July 2009 the community
soundly reminded us of that when we tried to set up an advisory council. And
by the time a case gets to us, rude behaviour is often only an offshoot of
the core problems of the case.

Arbcom is hardly in the position to go through and review the actions of all
admins with the hope of rooting out which ones are "uncivil" and which ones
aren't.  Even with the diminished number of active administrators, there are
still 800 of them, and we aren't a human resources department. I believe Rob
also has a good point; most entry-level rudeness and newbie-biting comes
from non-administrators, be they RC patrollers who often revert and leave
templated user messages without really reviewing the edits, or new page
patrollers who are tagging articles for deletion less than 3 minutes after
their creation. (I note that WereSpielChequers makes the same point.)

Fred, yes, if someone files a request for arbitration, it's going to be
taken seriously and reviewed seriously; the point is that people are not
filing requests for arbitration that turn on this issue.

And finally, I'll point out that if you're reading this list, you're a
vested contributor. Please stop using that term as if it's a bad thing.

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] NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors

[Risker]

On 31 January 2011 13:01, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 31 January 2011 17:49, Risker  wrote:
>
> > I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are
> > proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and
> everyone
> > else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of
> the
> > committee to do so.
>
>
> The problem is that the other two-thirds of Wikimedia are having their
> reputation adversely affected by en:wp's reputation.
>
> e.g. Tim Starling feels there's no point working on technical measures
> to attract newbies until en:wp's terrible newbie-biting is fixed:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-December/050843.html
>
> e.g. on the internal list, when I pushed WYSIWYG, the *first* reaction
> (from a board member) was "that's pointless to think about when people
> are treated so badly on en:wp."
>
> Crossing the streams of project autonomy would be bad, but a good way
> to leave others feeling they need to is to make excuses to avoid
> solving the problem in question. So you may want to not do that.
>
>
> > The so-called "civility issue" is only one thing that turns off female
> > participants. Another is the need to master significant amounts of
> technical
> > information before being able to edit.
>
>
> As noted above, even the paid employees amongst the techies want the
> civility problem fixed before they'll work on that. I believe that
> puts the ball back in your court.
>
>
>
In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't Wikipedia
Governance Central.  I share the same frustration as the WMF staff and
techies, and indeed many new and even experienced users, but you know as
well as I do what the response of the community is when Arbcom tries to
"make policy", let alone starts swooping down from on high on matters that
the community has not brought to it.  Meanwhile, over at RFA, this is the
first time in donkey's years that we have four candidates all doing well, at
least two of whom would have been getting a rough haul only a month ago; we
seem to be going through a "nice" period there because more and more people
are realising that we aren't getting the kind of admins we need for the
project to succeed.  There are still dozens of highly qualified editors who
would make excellent admins, but refuse to participate in the nastiness that
RFA has been for most of the last two years. I can only hope that this
week's new trend continues for long enough to break the pattern of behaviour
that had become endemic, so that other good candidates will be more willing
to take the leap.

I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L mailing
list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there,
they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects  where there
are concerns.  Themselves. Wearing their Board hat, rather than their "I'm
just an editor" hat. They're actually selected to be leaders of the WMF, and
it would make it a darn sight easier to change community practices if the
Trustees would be much more public in their pronouncements and sharing their
experiences and observations.  Internal-L is the last place where that will
be helpful, with its extremely restrictive distribution and chapter-heavy
membership.

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] NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors

[Risker]

On 31 January 2011 11:18, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews
>  wrote:
>
> > I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago.
> > Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far
> > as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people
> > standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it.
>
>
> It's January. ArbCom could start enforcing civility amongst admins
> now, bring it off successfully and have huge success to talk about by
> voting in December.
>
> (I outlined a version of this to FT2 and Chase Me Ladies at the 10th
> Anniversary bash and neither shrieked in horror. A complaints
> procedure would be a crank magnet. Keep it to "going forward", nothing
> past; require asking the admin nicely first; vexatious complainants
> told to go away after. Admin behaviour will rapidly modify as they'll
> do *ANYTHING* to keep the bit. Admins get more crap than they deserve
> from the querulous, but this is hardly an onerous proposal. Anyone
> feel up to pushing it through? Arbcom could start this now based on
> WP:NPA and WP:BITE as policies, but will probably prefer to get at
> least a little explicit buy-in.)
>
>

I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are
proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and everyone
else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of the
committee to do so. Aside from a genuinely urgent situation, or one that is
outside of the community's ability to address (e.g., admin socking), there
has been an unchanging view that Arbcom should not be prosecuting matters
that have not been brought to it by the community; in other words, we aren't
supposed to go hunting for our own cases . And, I disagree with the belief
that David has just expressed; in my own observation the *better* admins
(more civil, more thoughtful) are the first ones to throw in the bit when
their administrative behaviour is challenged. To them, it is a tool, not
something precious that they'll do anything to retain - or regain.

Nonetheless, this thread is supposed to be about the gender gap. For the
first time AFAICT, Arbcom has three sitting members who are women; that's
still only 17% of the committee. It's not possible to get an accurate
breakdown of how many administrators are female; many admins do not reveal
their gender, nor are they expected to. A reasonable estimate of the
percentage of administrators who are *openly* female is around 10-15%.

The so-called "civility issue" is only one thing that turns off female
participants. Another is the need to master significant amounts of technical
information before being able to edit.  An example is the use of templates
all over the place - they are difficult to understand and clutter the
editing window horribly, but failure to use them means dunning notices on
talk pages and reverts because something wasn't "done right".  Entire areas
of the project are very unfriendly to those who do not hold the extreme
libertarian views of openness (I recently saw a comment on AN/I that
suggested we should actively seek out video displays of all sexual acts),
and sexism is blatant in certain topic areas. On the whole, women seek
consensus in a different manner than men do - women tending to be more
compromising and seeking middle ground, whereas men tend to use force of
numbers and who argues the loudest. (Anyone else notice how "consensus" at
RFA and AfD and ANI seems to be increasingly numerically based, instead of
by quality of policy-based argument? Notice how administrators get pummeled
for using common sense or relying on policy instead of the vox populi?)

It's also not very easy for new editors, male or female, to find places to
ask questions or to receive some guidance. Heaven forbid that they find AN/I
before they find a reference or help desk.

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

[Risker]

"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  wrote:

> Can we have this in the fundraiser please?
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Fayssal F.  wrote:
> > Hahaha... that's funny :) They are not my meatpuppets!
> >
> > Fayssal F.
> >
> > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:09:58 +0530
> >> From: Anirudh Bhati 
> >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] The Ambassadors of Morocco's debut single
> >>'Wikipedia' will be released on 15th November 2010
> >> To: English Wikipedia 
> >> Message-ID:
> >>
> >> 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

[Risker]

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] Problem with the pending changes review screen.

[Risker]

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  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 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell 
> > 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

[Risker]

On 15 June 2010 14:54, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> On 15 June 2010 19:52, Gregory Maxwell  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] Pending Changes: first press

[Risker]

On 15 June 2010 04:54, Michael Peel  wrote:

>
> On 15 Jun 2010, at 00:39, Risker wrote:
>
> > On 14 June 2010 19:22, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_loosen_controls_tonight.php
> >>
> >> Spotted by Nihiltres.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 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] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?

[Risker]

On 15 June 2010 02:38, Cenarium sysop  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
> Protectedpagetext<http://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'

Re: [WikiEN-l] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?

[Risker]

On 15 June 2010 01:12, William Pietri  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)?

[Risker]

ctationsWe really do need
to think about what we would consider to be a useful outcome 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] Pending Changes: first press

[Risker]

On 14 June 2010 19:22, David Gerard  wrote:

>
> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_loosen_controls_tonight.php
>
> Spotted by Nihiltres.
>
>
>

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] One-sentence explanation of pending changes

[Risker]

On 8 June 2010 17:01, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 8 June 2010 21:34, Andrew Gray  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

[Risker]

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

[Risker]

On 15 May 2010 21:40, Gregory Maxwell  wrote:

> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, stevertigo  wrote:
> > Emily Monroe  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] The New Look

[Risker]

On 15 May 2010 02:28, stevertigo  wrote:

> Casey Brown  wrote:
> > Actually, there's now a thread on Commons for logo feedback:
> > <
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/2.0#Logo_revisions_need_input
> >
>
> I have tried my hand at tweaking a few things in SVG:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-alt.svg
>
> Notes are in there too.
>
> -SC
>
> ___
>

Thanks Steve, that's getting closer.  What's missing is texture. The
original looks like a puzzle, and the alternates don't quite get there yet;
when you look at a puzzle, you see shadings as you come close to the lines,
which in a real puzzle are pressed cuts, so there is a more reflective
(whiter) edge at the bottom and right sides and a more absorbent (darker)
edge on the top and left sides of each individual piece.  That, to me, is
what is missing in the "new and improved' versions.

I really do appreciate all the work that has gone into making all of these
versions. A lot of improvements have been made in the lettering, the
placement of letters, the "3-D-ness" of the globe. It's just lost its
"puzzle-ness" along the way, and I'm sure it can be fine-tuned as time goes
on.

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?)

[Risker]

On 24 February 2010 12:54, Rob  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon  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

[Risker]

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  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  wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Keegan Paul  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

[Risker]

2009/10/14 Cary Bass 

> -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 .
>
> 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

[Risker]

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?

[Risker]

2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell 

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman 
> 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
>
> 

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

[Risker]

2009/9/27 Sage Ross

>

> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Steve Bennett 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:56 AM, David Gerard  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] So what does Flagged Revs feel like?

[Risker]

>
> 



> (We need New Page patrollers to make sure
> every new page gets its first review very quickly - they are usually
> good at keeping on top of new pages.)
>
> _
>
Given that New Page Patrol is constantly at a backlog of between 27-30 days
(that is, there are always a significant number of new pages of that age),
while at the same time we have problems with new pages being patrolled *too
quickly* and CSD'd within 2 minutes, I think we will see the same issue with
flagged revisions: that is, some edits being quickly passed without proper
review, allowing sneaky vandalism in, while others take so long to be
reviewed it takes away the wiki flavour.

On the other hand, it might be a very different way of managing edit
warring.

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

[Risker]

2009/9/24 stevertigo 

> Risker  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] Invitation for review

[Risker]

2009/9/24 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com



> The latest device is this notion that
> we can just sort of pick from "reliable" sources. I would prefer
> instead that we 'use sources reliably.'
>
> Well, that is not the same thing at all.

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.

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.

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"

[Risker]

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 

> 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 wrote:
>
>> Is this going to get moderated through, or not?
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

[Risker]

2009/9/6 David Gerard 

> 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

[Risker]

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

[Risker]

2009/8/26 Andrew Gray 

> 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

[Risker]

Brion's blog:
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/weekly-wiki-tech-update-pre-wikimania-edition/

Risker

2009/8/25 Carcharoth 

> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:43 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > 2009/8/25 Michael Peel :
> >
> >> 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...

[Risker]

2009/8/21 

> 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

[Risker]

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

[Risker]

2009/6/30 geni 

> 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard :
> > 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

[Risker]

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 

> 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] News agencies are not RSs

[Risker]

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 

> 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 Arromdee 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

[Risker]

2009/6/29 

> In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com  writes:
>
>
> > It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
> > notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
> > kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
> > value if executed).>>
> >
>
> --
>
> So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other
> information outlet does?  Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would
> report it, if
> they had a reliable source from which to do so.
>
> Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information
> outlet suppressed information of this import because it might "endanger
> someone's
> life".  I'm not talking about outing secret agents here.
>
> Will
>
>
>
> The reporter's kidnapping was well known amongst the Western media, but was
deliberately not reported, often at the request of the New York Times.
Similar situations have happened involving Canadian reporters and members of
NGOs who have been kidnapped; there is usually no report until they are
either released, escaped from captivity, or executed.  In almost every case,
the news media has been well aware of the situation and has a report ready
to run once safety/death is confirmed.

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

[Risker]

2009/6/29 

> 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] Dispute resolution mailing list

[Risker]

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 

> 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

[Risker]

2009/6/27 stevertigo 

> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Fred Bauder 
> 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

[Risker]

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 

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Fred Bauder 
> 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] Dispute resolution mailing list

[Risker]

2009/6/27 stevertigo 

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Fred Bauder 
> 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

[Risker]

2009/6/27 stevertigo 

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton  >wrote:
>
> > 2009/6/27 stevertigo :
> >
>
>
> > > You could start a thread called  "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and
> > there
> > > we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than
> > appliances.
> > > :-)
> >
> > That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of "broke"
> > and "fix".
>
>
> Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
>
> Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every
> edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7
> years ago.
> You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a
> "convention" is not a "system."
>
> -Stevertigo
>

It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended
to solve.

Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss
content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we hear
at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to
content.

Behaviour disputes?  How will a mailing list address these better than
current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to
hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the person(s)
whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to
join the mailing list?

Interpersonal disputes?  Again, how is a mailing list better? and what
happens when only one party joins the mailing list?

Just some thoughts.

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] Internet traffic spikes due to Michael Jackson's death

[Risker]

2009/6/26 Carcharoth 

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:47 PM, geni wrote:
> > 2009/6/26 Andrew Gray :
> >> 2009/6/26 Carcharoth :
> >>>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/News_of_Michael_Jackson%27s_death_overloads_Internet_sites_and_sparks_hoaxes
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything anywhere (apart from the long thread on ANI) about
> >>> the effect on traffic for Wikipedia?
> >>>
> >>> Ah. Here we go:
> >>>
> >>> http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Michael_Jackson
> >>>
> >>> 6.4K hits to to 1.4M.
> >>>
> >>> That's a traffic spike right enough.
> >>
> >> Yeah; for what it's worth, 2300 to  UTC was just short of a
> >> million hits. Today, I wouldn't be surprised to see it north of four.
> >
> > Once you factored in those going to redirect pages it was about 1.1
> million.
>
> Where do the hourly hits stats come from?
>
>
[[Wikipedia:Popular pages]] -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages You can check the
history for prior hours.

Two thirds of the most popular pages in the past hour are related to Michael
Jackson.

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] AFD has gone to a 7 day cycle

[Risker]

2009/4/11 Andrew Gray 

> 



>
> 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.
>
> 

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] AFD has gone to a 7 day cycle

[Risker]

Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated.  Just as an aside.

Risker

2009/4/11 George Herbert 

> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc  wrote:
> > > Al Tally wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman 
> 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