Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a rampant porn problem
On Monday, 10 September 2012 at 19:51, Steve Summit wrote: Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions, FoxNews.com (http://FoxNews.com) has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain far and away the most popular items on the company's servers. This morning, I turned down an offer for some viagra that was emailed to me. In fact, I was offered the chance to help secure some money in Nigeria and transfer it to the United States to help a member of the Nigerian Royal Family. And I was offered access to some horny chicks that live near me, apparently. I await the Fox News story about how I failed to take up any of these offers. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ 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] Fox News says we have a rampant porn problem
On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:35 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: If Sanger really wanted us to introduce an image filter he'd be far more effective if he lobbied for solutions that are compatible with our ethos and values. Could we get an official statement to the effect that third-party censorship controls such as this are contrary to the clear and explicit wishes of the Wikipedia communities and Foundation that content decisions be an internal and openly decided matter? It is no more appropriate for Wikipedia to be so filtered by those guys than Fox News. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone ___ 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] Fox News says we have a rampant porn problem
On 11 September 2012 09:13, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Could we get an official statement to the effect that third-party censorship controls such as this are contrary to the clear and explicit wishes of the Wikipedia communities and Foundation that content decisions be an internal and openly decided matter? It is no more appropriate for Wikipedia to be so filtered by those guys than Fox News. I think paying any attention to Sanger or Fox News would constitute feeding the troll. - 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] NPR on Roth-Library Link of the Day
The link is to the NPR article and the comment below is worth reviewing. How can this perception typical among the NPR commentators be over-turned? Boe D (Dajoe) wrote: People: If you are knowledgable enough to find a fault in Wikipedia--Go fix it! Boe, are you kidding? it's because of the hubris and tenacity of the ignorant that we cannot fix it. we have only finite energy and time, and the self-appointed editors who elect among themselves the administrators (who wield the real power), will just revert any fix that doesn't fit with their POV. if you take them on, they will run to an admin friend of theirs and you will be blocked. if you stand your ground, they will community ban you indefinitely and then you either get another login ID or you edit anonymously, but in either case you must fly below the radar or be accused of sock-puppetry. you can be a noted expert in your field, but if you are outnumbered by two self-appointed editors that disagree, any time you spend contributing to the project will eventually be wasted. the second pillar of Wikipedia has crumbled to the earth. it does not exist anymore except as rubble. if Jimbo only knew. Links send out this morning to 1000s of librarians. Wikipedia Irks Philip Roth With Reluctance To Edit Entry About His Novelhttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/07/160776104/wikipedia-irks-philip-roth-with-reluctance-to-edit-entry-about-his-novel comments http://www.tk421.net/librarylink/ ___ 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] University Student Requesting Basic Information
Hey there Wikipedia! I'll try to keep this short and simple. As the title states I'm a university student that is looking for some info on Wikipedia. I'm writing a speech on the effects of internet censorship and would love to ask you guys and girls a couple of questions regarding your views on acts like PIPA, SOPA, and ACTA. A brief email interview would be fantastic! Thank you very much, Tyler Stitt PS. It's a persuasive speech on the negative impacts of internet censorship, we're on the same side. ___ 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] NPR on Roth-Library Link of the Day
On 11 September 2012 10:11, Kathleen McCook klmcc...@gmail.com wrote: The link is to the NPR article and the comment below is worth reviewing. How can this perception typical among the NPR commentators be over-turned? Boe D (Dajoe) wrote: People: If you are knowledgable enough to find a fault in Wikipedia--Go fix it! Boe, are you kidding? it's because of the hubris and tenacity of the ignorant that we cannot fix it. we have only finite energy and time, and the self-appointed editors who elect among themselves the administrators (who wield the real power), will just revert any fix that doesn't fit with their POV. That's kind of not the case. An admin who reverts well-referenced edits as a POV pusher is riding for a fall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-10/In_the_media has a sane discussion of what actually did go on in the Roth business. You can get this other kind of explanation any day of the week from the troll boards, naturally. But the agenda there is to make WP unmanageable on any terms. The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its ohmigod you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, yes, you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can potentially be deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing admin power is always a questionable analysis. 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] VIP Treatment
If we know a VIP or they knows us they do get rather gentle and forgiving treatment. They may email Jimbo and a quiet word may be passed to someone to counsel them regarding how to deal with the community and any problems in their article. The thing is, VIPs generally get VIP treatment, personal and forgiving attention. They may not be prepared, as a practical matter, to work it out with the janitor, so to speak. What could we do to improve our interface with VIPs? After all, as said, famous people we know, or who know us, do get plenty of help. They don't get to veto the content of their article, but careful consideration is given to any issues they may have. As to who, let's just say that one or two have ended up here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board Perhaps they might have some advice? There are limits; we're not going to completely satisfy someone who is thin-skinned and cranky or totally puffed up over themselves, but I'm sure we could do better even with someone like that. Fred ___ 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] NPR on Roth-Library Link of the Day
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its ohmigod you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, yes, you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can potentially be deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing admin power is always a questionable analysis. If someone who could reasonably be seen as speaking for Wikipedia told him that Wikipedia needed secondary sources for his claim, they are wrong, and Wikipedia failed. It completely misses the point to explain how Wikipedia's actual policies are reasonable. The policy that Roth was told about is not reasonable; if it doesn't match Wikipedia's actual policy, he shouldn't be expected to figure that out. It has nothing to do with celebrity power, except that when celebrities run into bad admins, people learn about it. ___ 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] NPR on Roth-Library Link of the Day
That comment sounds like it was written by Peter Damian. Not everyone, even Wikipedians, recognize or keep in mind the fact that there is a subversive principle (or really, many) underlying the Wikipedia model. It intentionally does not offer deference to editors with credentials in the fields they might choose to edit. There are obvious practical reasons for this, but there's also an element of democratizing information and the curation of knowledge. This strikes many self-defined experts as wrongheaded; they expect to be treated as authorities, and are often upset when they are not. While unfortunate, that doesn't turn this feature of Wikipedia into a bug. If anything it suggests we need to do a better job educating potential editors and readers about the principles of the encyclopedia. ___ 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] VIP Treatment
On 11 September 2012 15:00, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: If we know a VIP or they knows us they do get rather gentle and forgiving treatment. They may email Jimbo and a quiet word may be passed to someone to counsel them regarding how to deal with the community and any problems in their article. The thing is, VIPs generally get VIP treatment, personal and forgiving attention. They may not be prepared, as a practical matter, to work it out with the janitor, so to speak. What could we do to improve our interface with VIPs? After all, as said, famous people we know, or who know us, do get plenty of help. They don't get to veto the content of their article, but careful consideration is given to any issues they may have. As to who, let's just say that one or two have ended up here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board Perhaps they might have some advice? There are limits; we're not going to completely satisfy someone who is thin-skinned and cranky or totally puffed up over themselves, but I'm sure we could do better even with someone like that. Fred Fred, it's very difficult to keep track of mailing list threads if you change the subject each time you post - this makes several in the last couple of days on the same topic. Can you keep them all under the same topic please! Tom ___ 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] VIP Treatment
It's a new topic. Addresses the general question rather than rehashing Roth. Fred Fred, it's very difficult to keep track of mailing list threads if you change the subject each time you post - this makes several in the last couple of days on the same topic. Can you keep them all under the same topic please! Tom ___ 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] VIP Treatment
On 11 September 2012 17:05, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It's a new topic. Addresses the general question rather than rehashing Roth. Correct. When the topic changes substantially, the subject line should change. (wikien-l has been very bad for this in the past.) - 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
On 11 September 2012 17:06, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2012 17:05, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It's a new topic. Addresses the general question rather than rehashing Roth. Correct. When the topic changes substantially, the subject line should change. (wikien-l has been very bad for this in the past.) - d. Fair enough. They read like replies/explanations, relate almost explicitly to the Roth situation, and pose no questions (i.e. not likely to lead to a discussion) - so I assumed they were responding to various points in the previous thread. Tom ___ 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] VIP Treatment
It seems I have not posed this as a question. The question is how could we better handle VIP subjects who give us feedback, attempt to edit either themselves or through an agent, or contact OTRS? For example, could we assign some diplomatic people to handle such situations, I've noticed CBS does that. It's a skill. Fred If we know a VIP or they knows us they do get rather gentle and forgiving treatment. They may email Jimbo and a quiet word may be passed to someone to counsel them regarding how to deal with the community and any problems in their article. The thing is, VIPs generally get VIP treatment, personal and forgiving attention. They may not be prepared, as a practical matter, to work it out with the janitor, so to speak. What could we do to improve our interface with VIPs? After all, as said, famous people we know, or who know us, do get plenty of help. They don't get to veto the content of their article, but careful consideration is given to any issues they may have. As to who, let's just say that one or two have ended up here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board Perhaps they might have some advice? There are limits; we're not going to completely satisfy someone who is thin-skinned and cranky or totally puffed up over themselves, but I'm sure we could do better even with someone like that. Fred ___ 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] NPR on Roth-Library Link of the Day
The easiest solution would have been to ask Roth to write a blog post (or something similar) detailing the inspiration for the book -- as far as I know, that inspiration was not publicized until the open letter was published. Another option would have been an interview with basically any website. While I'm sure someone will chime in saying that's against WP:RS!, it's actually not. See WP:SELPPUB: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information *about themselves*, usually in articles about themselves or their activities (emphasis in original) --Ed On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its ohmigod you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, yes, you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can potentially be deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing admin power is always a questionable analysis. If someone who could reasonably be seen as speaking for Wikipedia told him that Wikipedia needed secondary sources for his claim, they are wrong, and Wikipedia failed. It completely misses the point to explain how Wikipedia's actual policies are reasonable. The policy that Roth was told about is not reasonable; if it doesn't match Wikipedia's actual policy, he shouldn't be expected to figure that out. What is our actual policy? What should he have been told, and how? Fred ___ 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] VIP Treatment
On 11 September 2012 17:29, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It seems I have not posed this as a question. The question is how could we better handle VIP subjects who give us feedback, attempt to edit either themselves or through an agent, or contact OTRS? For example, could we assign some diplomatic people to handle such situations, I've noticed CBS does that. It's a skill. We have assigned diplomatic people to handle such situations - they're the OTRS volunteers. The problem is how we make sure people get directed to OTRS. ___ 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] NPR on Roth-Library Link of the Day
If someone would say this is a good idea but against policy x, so we shouldnt do it, and that argument were taken seriously, we have a far larger problem than even the most negative reading of the Roths issue. On Sep 11, 2012 6:32 PM, Ed Erhart the.e...@gmail.com wrote: The easiest solution would have been to ask Roth to write a blog post (or something similar) detailing the inspiration for the book -- as far as I know, that inspiration was not publicized until the open letter was published. Another option would have been an interview with basically any website. While I'm sure someone will chime in saying that's against WP:RS!, it's actually not. See WP:SELPPUB: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information *about themselves*, usually in articles about themselves or their activities (emphasis in original) --Ed On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its ohmigod you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, yes, you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can potentially be deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing admin power is always a questionable analysis. If someone who could reasonably be seen as speaking for Wikipedia told him that Wikipedia needed secondary sources for his claim, they are wrong, and Wikipedia failed. It completely misses the point to explain how Wikipedia's actual policies are reasonable. The policy that Roth was told about is not reasonable; if it doesn't match Wikipedia's actual policy, he shouldn't be expected to figure that out. What is our actual policy? What should he have been told, and how? Fred ___ 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] NPR on Roth-Library Link of the Day
On 11 September 2012 16:14, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its ohmigod you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, yes, you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can potentially be deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing admin power is always a questionable analysis. If someone who could reasonably be seen as speaking for Wikipedia told him that Wikipedia needed secondary sources for his claim, they are wrong, and Wikipedia failed. That is what I have described before as the point of failure, if the inference is correct. There has been plenty of discussion on the premise that there was a failure of courtesy, which I don't see. It completely misses the point to explain how Wikipedia's actual policies are reasonable. The policy that Roth was told about is not reasonable; if it doesn't match Wikipedia's actual policy, he shouldn't be expected to figure that out. It has nothing to do with celebrity power, except that when celebrities run into bad admins, people learn about it. Without the whole mail being made public, I don't see how we can conclude bad. Selective quotation is what we have in the New Yorker letter, together with some over-interpretation. Which is rhetoric. But the bulk of Roth's letter is much more interesting than that rather scanty intro. 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] Fox News says we have a rampant porn problem
Honestly, there really isn't a whole lot of pornographic images. Most of the alleged pornographic images are really just bland images of genitalia. I think people are better off going to 4chan for their fix. -- ~~yutsi Sent from my iPhone. On Sep 10, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote: I can't imagine a site more accessible and better organized than Wikipedia for someone seeking porn. They're quite correct. Bob On 9/10/2012 1:51 PM, Steve Summit wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/ Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions, FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain far and away the most popular items on the company's servers. Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true... ___ 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
