Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote:
No one approved it (see headers, there is no Approved-on line). But I
found a legacy entry in the Always accept posts from these
non-members filter for anth...@wikimedia.org... Well, I removed that
line now, as Anthere is not using a @wikimedia.org address anymore.
I realize we shouldn't be white-listing by domain name, but if a
garden variety spam-bot was able to convincingly spoof the return
address, imagine the confusion a real person could have caused.
X-Spam-Score: 7.9 (+++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system
lily.knams.wikimedia.org, has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. If you have any
questions, see the administrator of that system for details.
Content analysis details: (7.9 points, 4.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
3.0 RCVD_IN_XBLRBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL
[201.244.70.114 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server
[201.244.70.114 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
1.5 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: oiwcvjoe.cn]
1.1 SORTED_RECIPS Recipient list is sorted by address
0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.4995]
1.5 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
[URIs: oiwcvjoe.cn]
0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with
no rDNS
I think David Gerard said human postings generally do not score above
2.0 unless their vocabulary suggests a background in SEO, then it's
higher.
—C.W.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a version of the history on their servers or more legally more solid include a sheet of paper with a complete list of authors with the mug. It's hard to know who's being serious here. Indeed, would I be violating the GFDL if I open the box, throw away the paper, but keep the mug... On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: What might /really/ be cool would be http://en.wikipedia.org/authors/Xenu This would still give the wrong data if the page has been moved to [[Xenu (Scientology)]] and the [[Xenu (disambiguation)]] is moved to [[Xenu]], which isn't a totally unreasonable outcome. You'd have to use something like: http://en.wikipedia.org/authors/46634 as an alias for: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46634action=history or have it forward to something like this better yet if it can be tweaked to accept a `page_id` parameter instead of a title (ideally made part of the software proper): http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=enwikifam=.wikipedia.orggrouped=onpage=Xenu or even http://en.wikipedia.org/main_authors/Xenu filtering out minor contribs and IPs... Would this rely on the `rev_minor_edit` field or something more sophisticated? I see too many false positives and negatives to this approach, but I guess that's somebody else's problem? —C.W. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] History splitting (main namespace)
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:50 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps we simply need to establish that a link to a WP article is a GFDL reference, and let it go at that, without the complications. When the rules get into the position of hampering the writing of the encyclopedia ... As I was trying to explain, that wouldn't do any good in cases where the content we are trying to attribute was originally added to a different article. —C.W. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] warning: contains rant
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? One does not know deteriorated discourse unless they've, you know, lived in the projects.[1] On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com wrote: If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems are likely to be unfixable. Interesting article. I just realized my Bacon number is higher than my Dunbar number, thanks Andrew. On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between control and management. It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group. It is my professional business to know such things. Yes, management implies that those subjected to it enjoy some degree of freedom, so that it still seems fun for them. Treading lightly in this regard is crucial. Or in the business world, assuming a supervisory position most often imply a departure from actual work. Even one's de jure duty of supervising can easily be delegated to a lower person: Go supervise these people. ... B-but you're the boss here, not me. ... Yes, I am your boss. Now: go supervise these people. ... So I'm their boss now? ... Yup. Conversations like this usually mark the birth of a workplace Ponzi scheme. I've been in scenarios like this much of my adult life. —C.W. [1] the t is silent. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 80% of our projects are failing
On 12/2/08, Milos Rancic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no article about the ultimate fate of the universe on sr.wp, while there is no article about Grgur Branković on en.wp. Conclusion about usefulness is obvious: for the most of pupils and their parents the article about Grgur Branković may be used (and it is in Serbian), while speculations about the ultimate fate of the universe are comparable with watching Battlestar Galactica or Star Track (and it is in English). Milos I would say your English fluency is good enough to write one, please do. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grgur_Brankovićaction=editredlink=1 The less obvious benefit of supporting failing projects is that most of them will eventually return the favor by identifying topics which are encyclopedic despite being completely unknown to native English speakers. This alone is a good enough reason to keep these projects open. Same with the other article you mentioned, would it be anything like this? :-) http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Конаčни_судбина_Свемираaction=editredlink=1 —C.W. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 80% of our projects are failing
On 12/1/08, Andrew Whitworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To do the second task we would still want to create projects in small languages so we could write learning resources to teach people the big languages. I for one would enjoy learning resources targeted at those wishing to learn the smaller languages. Surely this can work both ways. —C.W. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] stumble upon in wikimedia? citation collection, where researchers want to be included in future?
On 11/28/08, THURNER rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some sites to cite an article about medical visualization [2]. when
looking at it i noticed:
* that it is published in a cc-2.5 licensed journal
* that there is a possibility to enter links from facebook, stumble upon,
...
* that there is no link to do make a reference in wiki*
would it make sense that a wikimedia page allows referencing such an
article? the functions of such a page could be:
* enter it in a (not yet existing) references library (bibtex or whatever)
* add it to a portal talk page selected by the user (like medicine)
* add it to project selected by the user (like wpedia, wversity, ...)
imo the advantages would be that on one hand quality may rise through
better citations, on the other hand having a citation library where
researchers in future want to be and need to be.
It would be easy use javascript to fill out a {{cite news}} template
or whatever based on the url parameters. However the intersection of
sites we want to newcomers to easily link to and sites which take
us seriously enough to provide a url for doing so might be smaller
than we'd hope.
—C.W.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
