Re: [WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty
Ken Arromdee wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, David Goodman wrote: The present rules at Wikipedia are so many and contradictory that it is possible to construct an argument with them to justify almost any decision--even without using IAR. I'm trying to figure out if you're arguing with me. You're right, of course, the rules are completely messed up. But I think it's fair to say that notability rules are only a sufficient condition and it's possible for something to not satisfy the rules and still be notable is a *very* unpopular position, to the point where it may as well not be true. It's the difference between never say never and never say never say never? This is after all what IAR is there for. Failure of the General Notability Guideline to give the right result may indicate that a special guideline might be more helpful. If the work of creating such special guidelines has gone about as far as people want, and if certain classes of information (such as what is happening on the street or in places where the usual media don't document them) are excluded by consensus, and if notability is applied as a generic test to topics that (for example) don't have a WikiProject interested in arguing in other ways, then what you say may represent the simplest broad generalisation. That's a few ifs and buts. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty
Bod Notbod wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Since we have no really universally agreed vision of what the encyclopedia should be, almost any decision is the result of compromise [...] Personally, I think that's the worst way to find a solution. I hope I'm snipping in such a way as to not change your argument there, I have no doubt I'll be told if not. What is the *best* way to find a solution then? Solutions take the form of complicate the flowchart. Add preliminary steps before any deletion, review steps after deletions, and so on. The problem is ... many people active on the site don't have too clear a view of what the current flowchart is - or in other words current best practice isn't always followed, and therefore tweaking it doesn't have as much traction as it should. But I do recommend trying to get the overview of what the processes look like, certainly over reading the fine print in [[WP:N]]. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Italian privacy laws and Google
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Does this case have implications for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8533695.stm Google employees were convicted by a court for allowing a video of a teenager with Down's Syndrome being bullied to be posted online. It seems most of the internet is up in arms about this, as it shifts the location where liability can be placed, though I doubt anything like this would ever appear in the USA. It does indeed pose a big question to anyone that uploads video showing persons who haven't signed a form giving consent for, I suppose, broadcast. Similarly there's a bill going through the British Parliament at the moment saying that you can't photograph people in public places. So if I wanted to take a picture of a statue and happen to catch someone walking past in the frame I would be liable. One hopes that we British will be shown to be such other legislatory idiots that nobody will take it seriously. Mr Godwin has already said he wouldn't fly over here to defend Wikimedia in a libel case because it would be too risky. We are set to become an utter laughing stock. ___ 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] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
Not sure what's going on in the edit history of [[Sam Walton]]. There are a number of grey crossed out links. At first I thought it might be a new way of displaying deleted edits but they still appear after I log out, and deleted edits on other articles still appear in the normal fashion. ___ 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?)
Those edits have been oversighted. More information on oversight can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight 2010/2/24 Rob gamali...@gmail.com Not sure what's going on in the edit history of [[Sam Walton]]. There are a number of grey crossed out links. At first I thought it might be a new way of displaying deleted edits but they still appear after I log out, and deleted edits on other articles still appear in the normal fashion. ___ 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] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon kanon...@gmail.com wrote: Those edits have been oversighted. More information on oversight can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight How odd. As far as I recall, there wasn't anything in those edits except simple vandalism and reverts of said vandalism. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On 24 February 2010 12:54, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon kanon...@gmail.com wrote: Those edits have been oversighted. More information on oversight can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight How odd. As far as I recall, there wasn't anything in those edits except simple vandalism and reverts of said vandalism. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you that, while some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable for public consumption. The suppressions met the criteria for removal from view to everyone, including administrators. Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b) there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for potentially libelous information to remain accessible. There is a significant difference between the trash-talking one frequently sees (particularly in regard to living persons) such as X is a f***ing a**hole, and a blatant unsourced allegation of wrongdoing by the article`s subject such as X murdered his second wife``; the former would simply be reverted, while the latter qualifies for suppression. Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Just out of curiosity, a hardy perennial bit of vandalism is putting is gay into the biog of a heterosexual person. Would that be classed as normal vandalism or would that preferably invoke an oversighting? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: 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. For the record, I don't object to the removal of these edits, either in principle or in this particular practice. I don't recall anything extraordinarily problematic, but without the ability to review said edits, my memory isn't enough to base any sort of objection upon. ___ 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] Italian privacy laws and Google
On 24 February 2010 13:49, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Does this case have implications for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8533695.stm Google employees were convicted by a court for allowing a video of a teenager with Down's Syndrome being bullied to be posted online. It seems most of the internet is up in arms about this, as it shifts the location where liability can be placed, though I doubt anything like this would ever appear in the USA. It does indeed pose a big question to anyone that uploads video showing persons who haven't signed a form giving consent for, I suppose, broadcast. Similarly there's a bill going through the British Parliament at the moment saying that you can't photograph people in public places. So if I wanted to take a picture of a statue and happen to catch someone walking past in the frame I would be liable. Link? One hopes that we British will be shown to be such other legislatory idiots that nobody will take it seriously. Mr Godwin has already said he wouldn't fly over here to defend Wikimedia in a libel case because it would be too risky. We are set to become an utter laughing stock. Unfortunately not. Too many companies have London branches just to laugh and the UK's somewhat insane libel laws. Fixing them however is beyond wikipedia's ability other than as a source of this is what you are missing for the general public. -- geni ___ 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] Another notability casualty
I thing compromise IS the solution. I said that the sort of compromise by deciding the individual cases half one way half the other on a more or less random basis is the worst way to do a compromise. I didn't go into the best way to form a compromise. The way that works in the outside world is that someone in authority forces the people to compromise under threat of deciding the issue themselves. Except for behavior, we have no such authority and I wouldn't want us to have one as a general matter. Perhaps we might resort to binding arbitration with an ad hoc arbitrator in some cases. More generally, we did a better method of forming policy. Polls are susceptible to swamping by one side unless there is a serious attempt in more general participation than say , the current BLP poll. Discussions in the usual way can be deadlocked by a single person persisting in an objection, as is happening right now at WT:FICTION. The only practical hope is for us to attract new people who will come to the discussions without long-set preconceptions about them. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Bod Notbod wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Since we have no really universally agreed vision of what the encyclopedia should be, almost any decision is the result of compromise [...] Personally, I think that's the worst way to find a solution. I hope I'm snipping in such a way as to not change your argument there, I have no doubt I'll be told if not. What is the *best* way to find a solution then? Solutions take the form of complicate the flowchart. Add preliminary steps before any deletion, review steps after deletions, and so on. The problem is ... many people active on the site don't have too clear a view of what the current flowchart is - or in other words current best practice isn't always followed, and therefore tweaking it doesn't have as much traction as it should. But I do recommend trying to get the overview of what the processes look like, certainly over reading the fine print in [[WP:N]]. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ 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] Another notability casualty
This is of course true too. People don't think video game composers deserve to have articles; so they argue for non-notability. Whether this should be the case is another story. I consider this to be an abuse of the rules. That's an example of a fairly common human prejudice against new creative genres. Novels were held in light esteem while Henry Fielding and Jane Austen were writing them--light entertainment for adolescent girls. It wasn't really until Thackeray that the genre became respectable reading for serious adults. When motion pictures were new they were mostly regarded as light entertainment for working class audiences. Partly as a result, nearly 90% of the films from the silent era weren't curated and have been lost forever. Of course 90% of every genre is crap and the Pac-Man theme will probably torment me for the next three hours. But Austen was nearly forgotten for fifty years after her death--I wonder what critics of the next generation will say about the theme music from Morrowind. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.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
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: This is of course true too. People don't think video game composers deserve to have articles; so they argue for non-notability. Whether this should be the case is another story. I consider this to be an abuse of the rules. That's an example of a fairly common human prejudice against new creative genres. Novels were held in light esteem while Henry Fielding and Jane Austen were writing them--light entertainment for adolescent girls. It wasn't really until Thackeray that the genre became respectable reading for serious adults. When motion pictures were new they were mostly regarded as light entertainment for working class audiences. Partly as a result, nearly 90% of the films from the silent era weren't curated and have been lost forever. Of course 90% of every genre is crap and the Pac-Man theme will probably torment me for the next three hours. But Austen was nearly forgotten for fifty years after her death--I wonder what critics of the next generation will say about the theme music from Morrowind. Interesting comparison with historical antecedants! This is more the sort of level of debate I'd like to see at AfD. I wonder what a closing admin would make of it... :-) 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
Incidentally, if the oversighted edits concerned a certain gentleman and his alleged predilection for oral copulation, then that vandal has returned to the article. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On 24 Feb 2010, at 18:15, Risker wrote: 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. I don't see the need for this. Can't we simply delete it as per normal, rather than oversighting? Do we not trust the administrators? Do we really need an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of them for this sort of thing? I can see the need for oversight when there is truly problematic and confidential information that is posted, but this example does not meet my standards for that (unless lawyers were involved). (Disclaimer: I am an admin on en.wp.) User:Mike_Peel ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: I don't see the need for this. Can't we simply delete it as per normal, rather than oversighting? Do we not trust the administrators? Do we really need an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of them for this sort of thing? I can see the need for oversight when there is truly problematic and confidential information that is posted, but this example does not meet my standards for that (unless lawyers were involved). Might be more usefully discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Oversight Some of the other discussions there might interest you as well. 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] Office Hour for Thursday, February 25
Hey everyone! On Thursday, February 25, the Office Hour will once again be hosted by Mike Godwin, Legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, who you can read about at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Mikegodwin Office hours are from 1800 to 1900 UTC (9:00 AM to 10:00 AM PST) so that those of you who had to sleep last week while he was on may be around this time. If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat using a web browser: First is using the Wikizine chat gateway at http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi. Type a nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and #wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join. Also, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/, typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It should be all right. Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other relevant email lists you happen to be on. -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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] Another notability casualty
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Carcharoth wrote: Interesting comparison with historical antecedants! This is more the sort of level of debate I'd like to see at AfD. I wonder what a closing admin would make of it... :-) You shouldn't *need* to go through this level of debate just to keep a page around when the notability rules could be fixed instead. Otherwise we're no longer the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we're the encyclopedia that anyone with an extraordinary level of debate skills can edit. And yet - without the first level filtering offered by these rules, we can't easily seek out and remove a lot of obvious abuse. Even with the most expansive idea of what topics an encyclopedia should include, it's an encyclopedia, not a phone book, or website directory, or place for people to advertise their companies or services. If we fail to enforce ...The Encyclopedia... part of our mission statement, we're failing, too. Notability ends up being shorthand for a lot of things; one of them is, this isn't important enough that I think we can reasonably QA and review this article and ones like it. If we erase notability completely, every person with net access in the world, everyone's band, all the small businesses in the world, etc. will all end up covered. Say 100x more articles? We already have large areas that are not well monitored and not well up to existing quality standards. So - posting the question - are we better off as the encyclopedia that is 99% crap, or as the encyclopedia that anyone can almost edit, but not quite, actually restricted to a somewhat enlightened elite? Neither extreme being actually idea or real, what side of the spectrum do we want to try to aim at, and how do we want to try to move over time? Keep in mind participation level statistics, etc... -- -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
