- Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Since prods can be undeleted by any admin without any
kerfuffle, I can't see the harm in allowing a second bite at prod. Have
we discussed amending PROD to allow second bites?
I think sometimes people forget that we
- Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/09, Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I took a quick look the other day at the categories of unsourced
articles, which go back to December 2006; to be honest, I don't currently
have the time or will myself to trawl
- Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Andrew Turvey wrote:
However, many editors think that neutral unreferenced articles shouldn't be
PRODed or AFDed unless the proposer has first made an effort to find
sources themselves (see guideline [[WP:BEFORE
Good questions. Here's my personal view:
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
The press story (particularly in Britain) seems to be along the lines of:
Wikipedia, founded on open editing has been forced to restrict editing as
their model has failed
This
- Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Members of the user group Reviewer. All Admins will automatically be
given reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at
[[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed
threshold of number
- Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that?
If true, it's interesting. We'll see if after the trial the idea of all-BLPs is
resurrected - I'm sure there'll
Very useful - thanks
Couple of points:
Only in a small percentage of cases, we would require changes to be patrolled
before becoming the default view for readers. The proposal is to do so
initially in the case of biographies of living people
This is contradictory. BLP articles make up a
Don't know if this has been posted yet (apologies if yes)
Recording available on iplayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight (intro
at the very start and then from 38:50). Not sure if non-UK people can view .
- Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
From: Phil Nash
Thanks for the figure - not bad estimate, considering it was off the top of my
head :)
I would add not all living people are in that category, so this is probably an
underestimate.
I still wouldn't call 13% a small percentage.
- Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
From:
Local english tabloid puts it's slant on the news. Unfortunately we didn't get
any quote in there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208941/Free-edit-Wikipedia-appoints-volunteer-editors-vet-changes-articles-living-people.html
Wikipedia has been forced to abandon its policy of
Just to mention, the whole show also had an introductory piece by newsnight
explaining the changes, which was then followed by the interview which is
linked below.
- Falcorian alex.public.account+enwikimailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Falcorian
Similar story also reported by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm
Before you shout, Mike's already been on to them to correct the subsidiary
wording.
Wikipedia to launch page controls
Jimmy Wales, Getty Images
The call for flagged revisions came from Wikipedia
Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the
New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is
something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement.
The difference is that you have someone in between the source - the
I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other day.
Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the copyright
violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to rely on free photographs,
so they don't use them. Bizarrely they'd rather pay
Are we talking at cross purposes here?
Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that
are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable
pre-date Wikipedia.
Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research.
-
I feel like I've missed half the conversation here:
Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI to
butress an argument with a block.
candidate for what?
- Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
From: Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Really? I can't see any legal justification for doing that. If they lied in
their candidate statement, perhaps, and it would certainly be relevant
information that voters might want to see before making up their mind, but
disqualification?
- wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
From:
- Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
is the volume of reversions
indicative of good gatekeeping (poor edits to popular and well-developed
articles have little chance of sticking), or bad gatekeeping
Non-logged in people cant create new articles.
- Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, 13 August, 2009 17:10:41 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject:
Having these up to date statistics available is fantastic news. Is there
anything we should learn from the 2.5 year interlude?
- David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, 18 July, 2009
Many thanks for that reply - very useful to have the facts out in the open and
I hope it helps to build trust.
When oversight or suppression are used, it's book policy that oversighters
almost never discuss or disclose anything, beyond what can be seen openly
in
the public logs.
In
- Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 13 July, 2009 03:29:06 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Featured churn
R E Broadley rebroad+wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
From: R E Broadley rebroad+wikimedia@gmail.com
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, 12 July, 2009 23:10:30 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: [WikiEN-l] admins blocking but refusing to justify which
Just to re-emphasis the point, in the words of the admin who blocked Desiphral:
at present there's no community consensus to block for commercial editing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news
- Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote
Looking at the blocking notice [2], there seems to be a sensible solution to
this:
You stated [1] that: Some years ago, other people I knew became interested in
my work at Wikipedia and I gladly supported them. The initial idea was that
each one should have a personal account, but in
- Desiphral desiph...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Desiphral desiph...@gmail.com
To: charles r matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com, English
Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 20:49:28 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l]
Put simply, because there was an ongoing issue with a compromised account. A
user was allowing other people to share his account, and had not agreed to stop
doing this. That is an ongoing problem and rightly deserved a block.
Of course if the user later agreed to stop doing this, the rationale
- Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
There is still a problem: He still has friends; there is probably still
only one computer; and his friends may be interested in writing Wikipedia
accounts for hire, a legal activity, as he points out.
I've not involved in editing articles on fiction myself, but I often get
involved in notability-related discussions.
Am I understanding your point right:
At the moment, from my understanding, notability is defined through a single
guideline setting universal principles, supplemental by
- Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first
heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life
approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within
Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying.
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The
community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're
not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
Office actions are taken over content all the
- Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I've contributed to Wikinews and reviewed articles for flagging, but
I've never even submitted a what do you think form,
I have quite a few times. I think it's fair to say it's aimed more at readers
than editors.
Andrew
- wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
From: wjhon...@aol.com
A little silly when the article quotes someone saying that you could find
out a person's religion.
I don't put my religion on my CV and would not want any prospective employer
knowing about it - not because I'm ashamed about it, just
Story has now been updated:
A flood of criticism has prompted a Montana city to drop its request that
government job applicants turn over their user names and passwords to
Internet social networking and Web groups
- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, 18 June, 2009 08:25:35 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Image reuse
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at
-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 18:42:59 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
On 2009-06-08 17:47:10 +0100, Andrew Turvey
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com said:
- Joe Anderson computer
- Joe Anderson computer...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Joe Anderson computer...@gmail.com
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
On 2009-06-07
AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
From: AGK wiki...@googlemail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 15:24:30 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case
To be fair on
website is very much one of the
goals of Wikimedia UK and, I should imagine, the Wikimedia Foundation. Given
that the Daily Mail quoted our Volunteers Director, it's very relevant to this
discussion.
Andrew Turvey
Secretary
Wikimedia UK
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited
- Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com
Well, that's the media. :-) They're used to being able to just say
random things like source: Reuters that make no sense whatsoever.
;-)
Yeah - but the difference there is that they're actually
Can I put the question in another way:
Suppose a media company lawyer came to us and said we've found this photo on
Wikimedia that we would like to use - how can we do this and comply with the
copyright
What would we say in response?
Is it written down anywhere?
- Sam Korn
It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as
this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232
However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of
attribution is (Photo: wikipedia)
If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like
] GDFL compliance
2009/6/4 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as
this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232
However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of
attribution is (Photo: wikipedia
if you could look at a history written 20,000 years
from now, there will be a short section on intellectual developments in
ancient times and two developments will be mentioned, Plato's Academy and
Wikipedia.
Fred
Your list is missing many core developments - the printing press, the
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Something that has often confused me is Wikipedia's 'In the news'
section.
Personally, I'm a big fan of Wikipedia's In The News. It offers something
very different to Wikinews - an analysis and backgrounder on current affairs.
Wikinews doesn't
- Forwarded Message -
From: Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net
Sent: Sunday, 10 May, 2009 17:30:42 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: FYI
Added at 14.13 on 30 March by an anon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Maurice_Jarrediff=nextoldid=280648942
Removed 24
Isn't it easier just to change the tense when the event has happened: it needs
a human eye to reword and update it anyway.
- Original Message -
From: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May, 2009 06:41:25 GMT +00:00 GMT
Automatic suspension of admins who have been inactive after a certain period
sounds like a prudent idea - and also of admins who turn inactive after posting
any kind of resignation message. By all means allow them to be re-activated
on request without going through RFA .
Andrew
-
- Original Message -
From: Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com
No. NPOV is not determined by consensus. Wikipedia's content is
determined by consensus with NPOV being the guiding principle.
Something does not become more neutral because fifteen Wikipedia
editors say it's neutral.
--
Sam
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
Desysopping inactive admins has been discussed and rejected 1000s of
times.
{{citationneeded}}
Please?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
I like the idea - thought provoking even if I don't think it's workable at this
stage.
I'd suggest for now creating a user template notice and a project of volunteers
who could go around looking at editors contributions and putting this template
on their pages if appropriate. Let's see the
Original Message -
From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
a) Markup isn't very popular, everyone prefers WYSIWYG in theory (but
I know how very difficult it is)
Other people - e.g. Wordpress - do a much better job at this than we do. While
I'm at it, facebook and flickr also do
are charitable and are seeking advice on how
to reverse this decision. This is only the first step in the process!
Regards,
Andrew Turvey
Secretary, Wikimedia UK
- Original Message -
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday
Forgive my rather circular logic, I know, but the Wikipedia article on
Notability in Wikipedia can only refer to issues that have been discussed in
reliable secondary sources. It comes back to the whole point about
verifiability: we can't add something even if we know it to be untrue unless we
What do we do about well-sourced information which turns out to be incorrect? I
don't think policies cover this area particularly well, but the commonsense
view is to word it something along the lines of:
A national newspaper in 2007 reported that celebrity x had been arrested for
taking
What do we do with vandalism now?
1) Warned the user
2) Repeat vandalism results in a block for the user / IP
3) Persistent pattern of vandalism is escalated to WP:ABUSE which reports the
matter to the IP owner concerned.
People in the past have been sacked by their employers for abusing
I hope someone's reported him to the police for this criminal offense. Under
the Computer Misuse Act 1990, deliberately making an unauthorized modification
to computer data which impairing the reliability of the data can land you up to
five years in jail (well, theoretically, at least - in
Glad to have an expert on hand!
Personally I think this would be more a section 3 offense (unauthorized
modification) rather than section 1 (unauthorized access). Could there be a
case here?
I think it is arguable that although editors are encouraged to edit - as you
said, the encyclopedia
Spectator-quality material? I presume you're being ironic!
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 00:10:00 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle,
...@blueyonder.co.uk
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 00:18:42 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Glad to have an expert on hand!
Personally I
that because something must be
done means anything is better than the status quo, or that any
movement is a step in the right direction - which does not consider
that one can move, and move in the wrong direction.
Andrew Turvey wrote:
And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across
61 matches
Mail list logo
