Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?

> On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 wrote: >> The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ >> User:FT2/RfA ]]. >> >> Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? >> >> FT2 >> > > Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?

It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are "right", others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up

Re: [WikiEN-l] Parallel Articles on topics

> On 27 June 2010 17:34, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> And war to control the content of the "NPOV" article is not a >> disastrous >> idea? > > > In practice, it's resulted in a site that seems to work. > > We've done the experiment, as you

Re: [WikiEN-l] Parallel Articles on topics

> the stuff of > peace. > > William Who dictates the peace terms? 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] Parallel Articles on topics

And war to control the content of the "NPOV" article is not a disastrous idea? Fred Bauder > No, it's a disastrous idea; it's inherently antithetic to NPOV. What > you'd be doing is creating articles that are deliberately non NPOV. > > Content FORKS are nev

Re: [WikiEN-l] Parallel Articles on topics

It pretty simple to manage. You just need to link to all articles on a particular subject from the top of the page. Articles would need to be limited to notable points of view. Fred Bauder > You're proposing to overturn the rules against POV forking? Seems like > a bad idea

Re: [WikiEN-l] Parallel Articles on topics

Yes, articles from diverse points of view would be good. Fred Bauder > I have come across topics that are approached differently by different > groups and thought that parallel articles might be appropriate in > those cases. I'd like a wider view on the topic. Here is where I

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo on Commons

> On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth wrote: > >> Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having >> explicit guidelines on such matters? > > > It's a gross NPOV violation. Or to put it another way, many websites have guidelines relating to the following: * Explicit sexual content

Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

> Interesting phenomenon I have noticed here and there: these experts > choosing to work on Wikipedia on an entirely different topic > altogether. That is to say, someone quite qualified and competent to > write articles on Assyrian archaeology in the way we normally mean > when we say "expert", bu

Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

> Many have stories about their contributions being edited, scrutinized, > and > finally deleted by persons who haven't the faintest knowledge of the > subject. When they protest, they are told of the "proper channels" they > are > required to take: circles within circles. > Marc A lot of this s

Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

> But this website's defensive attitude and approach to serious > academics is well known. And that attitude goes back to its roots. > > Marc There was certainly a lot of misunderstanding. You can go back to the early history of the article "reality" a little article I created March 11, 2002: ht

Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

> On 23 April 2010 15:54, Marc Riddell wrote: > >> The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Stick to numbers, >> Charles, >> the human equation clearly eludes you. > > > translation: "I have not even anecdotes to support my position, so > will resort to ad-hominem abuse." > > > - d. It is a

Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

academics are knocking down big bucks and writing books, they don't piddle around on obscure websites. 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

Re: [WikiEN-l] PR consultants: perhaps Wikipedia is not the ideal promotional medium

ikipedia, you cannot control the content and that is what a lot of > people fail to understand. It becomes part of the wiki-editing > process, which at its best produces great stuff, and at its worst > produces some rather bad stuff. > > Carcharoth > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:18 PM,

Re: [WikiEN-l] PR consultants: perhaps Wikipedia is not the ideal promotional medium

That's right. It isn't that we don't want an article and a skilled PR editor ought to be able to write an article the average editor could not tell was written by a PR person. The clue to bad work is lifting stuff from the company's website. And, of course, the complete absence of any negative info

Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?

> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and >> further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the >> article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a

Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?

eful links and references can (and should) go on the talk > page. > > > - d. Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the article. The consensus to routinely rem

Re: [WikiEN-l] Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the yardstick for Wikipedia entries

I guess a Ginsburg is our new standard unit of length. And it has the virtue of potentially evolving. Fred Bauder > http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2010/03/29/9986468.aspx > > -- > Experience is a good school but the fees are high. > -

Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?

That is what they did on Citizendium. Fred > 3. run a mirror of the project, with links added, which is easier & > better than a true fork where the articles diverge. > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Mon, Ma

Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?

I think the point is to use editorial judgment with respect to what external links and further reading are worthwhile. My experience is that very good links regularly get axed. And there is little you can do other than to fork the project if you don't like it. Fred Bauder > On Mon, Mar

Re: [WikiEN-l] Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?

> And > further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of > the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the > topic. > > Carcharoth That is why I despise the war on external links and further reading some editors seem to think is appropr

Re: [WikiEN-l] Google bows to censorship

search results is exactly what Google was doing in China. On the > other hand, it's Encyclopedia Dramatica... > > -- > gwern Oh, they're cool; shine it on... 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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia

> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, David Gerard wrote: >> Indeed. Ken was presumably sent this link by a troll and mistook it >> for something that actually had any chance of ending up published. > > Actually, I routinely browse Firehose and didn't realize that I had > jumped > the gun by sending the link here

Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia

We all know William Connolley is an advocate for taking climate change seriously. However there remains a lack of reliable information which negates his position. If there was such information, those of us who follow this issue would have settled his beeswax fast enough. Fred > Ken Arromdee wrote

Re: [WikiEN-l] The story of an article

Pete, Thanks for introducing us to the Outreach Wiki. I had never heard of it. I think that particular page might be improved to address the dynamics which surround controversial articles such as Global warming, Stalin, Chiropractic, or Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. This treatment should not

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Lesson Plan

> Fred Bauder wrote: >> http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/wikipedia-lesson-plan/ >> >> > Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211 > references, an advance on 0 when that was written. > > I encountered a group of college students editing a s

[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Lesson Plan

http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/wikipedia-lesson-plan/ ___ 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 warning that reliable sources are not always that reliable

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/starsuckers-tabloids-hoax-celebrities > > I haven't yet checked how many of the bogus stories mentioned have found > their way into the subjects' BLP articles. > > -- > Sam Blacketer Yes, "fabricated snippets of gossip"... Gossip is called scuttlebutt

[WikiEN-l] FTC Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials

This may apply from time to time to certain of our editors. Fred http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm For Release: 10/05/2009 FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements The Federal Trade C

Re: [WikiEN-l] Oversized criticism sections and WP:UNDUE (was: Notability and ski resorts)

> David Gerard wrote: >> I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at >> least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory >> capture. >> > Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who > can run. Maybe bar admins from running fo

[WikiEN-l] Conflict of Interest

I wrote a bit about information planted in reliable sources by intelligence agencies a little while ago. Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/world/asia/24military.html Why would we treat this any different from a press release by Wal-Mart? It is rather transparently a message whispe

Re: [WikiEN-l] Oversized criticism sections and WP:UNDUE (was: Notability and ski resorts)

> 2009/9/24 Fred Bauder : >> Typically in a situation like that, unless there are active supporters >> of >> the person, like Stalin, no one is interested in finding and writing >> about their virtues. > > Most historically prominent figures, no matter ho

Re: [WikiEN-l] Oversized criticism sections and WP:UNDUE (was: Notability and ski resorts)

Typically in a situation like that, unless there are active supporters of the person, like Stalin, no one is interested in finding and writing about their virtues. Often the person's main claim to fame is some evil thing they have done, for example John Chivington the perpetrator of the Sand Creek

Re: [WikiEN-l] Examples of pro/paid content at Wikimedia?

> 2009/9/11 FT2 : >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote: > >>> So, on this note, what are some examples of content that was produced >>> for >>> pay at the Wikimedia Foundation? I can think of some archival >>> material, such >>> as the use of some material form the 11th edition

Re: [WikiEN-l] How long does it take to delete an hoax article at en.wp?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KPVK-TV&action=history > > I am amazed about the speed in which an hoax article is kept alive, > even after someone has properly identified this to be a hoax from a > German TV producer. > > Mathias Our policy apparently requires an investigation: http:

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> Fred Bauder wrote: >>> >>> I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make >>> an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press >>> won't >>> sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> And even if "do no harm" really _was_ a universal principle that we all > followed, it's still open to debate whether reporting information like > this actually does cause harm. Such matters are a question of judgment. Information about potential harm needs to be accurate and common sense appli

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> Fred Bauder wrote: >>> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >>>> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. >>> Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential >>> compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> > > I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make > an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't > sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad > from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it ever does so, >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. > > Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential > compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in > exactly the same way. Any responsible journalist will. Fred __

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> Fred Bauder wrote: >>> We are supposed to be community-driven. >>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? >>> Link please. >> >> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no >> harm; any problem with t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> Interesting here is what they say about themselves > " > > Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international > news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis. > > Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding > Iranian and foreign media pro

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> 2009/9/9 : >> Well what were the sources? >> Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what. > > They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance, > seems reliable: Iranian press, sourced in a Taliban regional commander. Since when is that a reliable sour

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> Once it's all over > the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the > article. > - d. Yes, we simply need not reach. At least not in such instances. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> We are supposed to be community-driven. > Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? > Link please. > > Will Johnson > Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no harm; any problem with that? Fred ___ WikiEN-l m

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >>> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : >>>> Would you have us do different? >>> >>> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent >>> editors trying to add true and verifi

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : >> Would you have us do different? > > I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent > editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I > would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

Would you have us do different? Fred > Folks, > From the Huffington Post: > > "Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for > several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media > around > the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the >

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Well known"

that if someone adapts our style, their writing won't seem eccentric or illiterate. Fred > Have you ever read any of the more disputatious Manual of Style talk > pages? > > Carcharoth > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> I suppose, as in mat

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Well known"

I suppose, as in matters of internet deportment, civility, we must also accept the burden of maintaining the standard for English usage, global English usage. It is a grim and dreary business, but I must admit it is our responsibility. Fred > Fred Bauder wrote: >>> For a change,

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Well known"

> For a change, something on English usage. A trawl through some usage > books tells me nothing much about "most well known", which I'm convinced > is a solecism, and should be "best-known". The hyphenation I think is > standard anyway. Sadly Google believes there are 11,000 instances for > "most w

Re: [WikiEN-l] PR firm accused of whitewashing Wikipedia article on Maldives

Regardless of the truth, reliance on reliable published sources should resolve most of these charges and countercharges. That is what we expect of a public relations firm, both that they identify their purpose in editing and cite appropriate sources. Fred > Minivan News, an independent article

Re: [WikiEN-l] Intellipedia article in Washington Post

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/26/AR2009082603606.html?hpid=sec-tech > > > -- > -george william herbert > george.herb...@gmail.com "While some pages are robust and balanced, he added, "there are other pages that leave a lot to be desired, to put it bluntly."

Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model

> I have access to a newspaper library through my library card, don't > other Wikipedians have a similar access, or at least realise such things > exist? This idea that newspapers will lose utility as a source if they > go behind pay-walls is a non-starter as far as I can make out, because > that

Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ray Saintonge wrote: >> # It does not take long for a pile of old newspapers to reach the >> ceiling. > You've tested this? :-) > > - -- > Cary Bass > Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation I have, and God bless people that save old newspa

Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model

> This is still up in the air but it has been mentioned on UK television > news in various contexts recently: because the business model of free > online newspapers funded by advertising doesn't seem to be brining in > the bucks, there is much discussion in the media as to whether online > newspape

Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking / moderation

Steve, Let's take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution and work it out there. That talk page itself involves certain restrictions, but I think from there we could establish some appropriate forum for regular on-wiki discussion of dispute resolution. Fred > Stevertigo: > >> And o

Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking / moderation

is quite clear what the reason for blocking is -- continuing repeatedly to post on that subject when he was told it was an inappropriate topic for that mailing list. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To u

Re: [WikiEN-l] admins blocking but refusing to justify which policy or guidel...

> In a message dated 7/12/2009 4:39:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > fredb...@fairpoint.net writes: > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&; >> page=User%3ARebroad >> >> there were four previous blocks. A week might have been a bit better, >> but >> a month is not exc

Re: [WikiEN-l] admins blocking but refusing to justify which policy or guidel...

> In a message dated 7/12/2009 3:11:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > rebroad+wikimedia@gmail.com writes: > > >> I have been blocked by >> an admin for 1 month,>> >> >> > > A month seems extraordinary. > Typically in a case like this do not we use something like 24 hours or > even > 48? > > A mont

Re: [WikiEN-l] admins blocking but refusing to justify which policy or guideline applies

> Hi, > > I am writing here pretty much as a last resort. I have been blocked by > an admin for 1 month, but despite repeated requests for an explanation > as to which policy or guideline justifies my block, four admins so far > have declined to answer this. I consider this to be a simple question

Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)

> Andrew Turvey wrote: >> ----- "Fred Bauder" wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> accou

Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)

ently disclosed information about events in the past, done nothing. Fred Bauder > I agreed as I knew about it, I said "they will stay away from it" > (without > knowing about this policy, just for avoiding accusations of association) > and > I changed my password. If it'

[WikiEN-l] Wikifarming, was Re: wexperts.net/

> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> http://www.wexperts.net/ > > Context? Yours? > > -Steven > No, I'm just laconic. However, we may be faced, eventually, with a new industry, let's tentatively call it Wikifarming: after the gold farming

Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)

> 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 ra

Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)

The actual policy, if it is policy, under which Desiphral was banned is a prohibition against role accounts, or group accounts at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account Is this policy? Is it a wise policy? Does it apply in his case? Fred > I was recently indefinitely blocked in connection w

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia expert needed

The screenshot: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2STb5PipKZM/SjXn-aydftI/ACQ/VjBAtYHOzrs/s1600-h/nichalp.JPG Fred > http://www.elance.com/jobs/wikipedia_expert_needed/web_content/15606905 > > > Wikipedia expert needed Limited Project Open Bidding Elance Escrow > Project > Job Description > Cli

[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia expert needed

http://www.elance.com/jobs/wikipedia_expert_needed/web_content/15606905 Wikipedia expert needed Limited Project Open Bidding Elance Escrow Project Job Description Client: [subscribers only] (5 projects posted, 1 Awarded) Billing and Payment System confirmed Provider can contact client Mor

[WikiEN-l] wexperts.net/

http://www.wexperts.net/ 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] Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page

> The question being discussed there is: > > "Should a user's own talk page be considered differently? There has > been discussion in past as to whether a post on a user's talk page, > often in reply to a hostile poster, should be treated more leniently > than posting elsewhere on other discussion

Re: [WikiEN-l] Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page

> I had thought we'd formally policyized the "please leave blocked users > alone on their talk page and don't block them if they vent about the > block (short of making threats against people, etc)", but I can't find > anything on-wiki that has it in writing. > > I know I've had discussions with pe

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder : >>> 2009/6/29 Nathan : >>>> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the >>>> people" - >>>> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control >>>> and &g

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" > - > that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and > responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. > > In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

> 2009/6/29 Nathan : >> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the >> people" - >> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and >> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. >> >> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder : >> >> Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed. >> >> Fred > > An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total > war situation. > -- > geni > It's not a big war, but we

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

> 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 o

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

> 2009/6/29 geni : > >> Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical. > > > There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing > so. > > > - d. > Yes, but now we should definitely take another look. Most likely it's a reasonably good source, just not in the Western

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

> Sam Blacketer wrote: >> This case is more about basic common sense... > > Well, no. This case is about whether an editor at (in this case) > The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other > major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain > fact out of the media

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > >> > Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't >> > participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? >> >> Not really, doing the work is hard en

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> > Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't > participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? > > -Stevertigo > Not really, doing the work is hard enough. Additional communication is on top of that. If decisions are made privately, it would have to be

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >> >>> > No >>> >> >>> So what was your point? >>> >> >> Erm, I was answering.. your question. > > No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to > multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >> Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each >> language has >> its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage >> of >> wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by >> default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mai

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> 2009/6/28 Thomas Dalton : >> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : > >>> Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. >>> The >>> dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source. > >> I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR >> list. > > > It used

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > > > >> An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute >> resolution >> mailing list. > > Why not discuss on this list? > > Carcharoth > This list can take only

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> stevertigo wrote: >> Hm. I guess I may have been going all the way back to 2003-5. The days >> when >> Jimbo sorted everything out and blasted everyone with wikilove. >> >> > Right. The old days, where there was some chance of coming up with right > answers by kicking ideas around. Before we actu

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >> Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. >> The >> dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source. > > I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR > list. > It is a general purpose list to discuss any mat

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia slags off Palmerston North

> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, Fred Bauder wrote: >> The arbitration committee has held that the principles of Biographies >> of >> living persons apply to organizations: > > I thought that arbcom doesn't make policy, so its decision only applies > to that > particula

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia slags off Palmerston North

> Also, the way that ongoing enterprises page is written, it doesn't seem > to > be very meaningful for anything other than a company. For instance, an > article about a city might be edited by a resident of the city, who isn't > an > employee or agent (and in general has a weaker conflict of inte

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia slags off Palmerston North

> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > > > >> However Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises failed to reach >> consensus. > > Wouldn't it have been simpler to include a paragraph in BLP (though > that is rather big now)? > >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/6/27 stevertigo : >> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton >>> wrote: >>> >>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo : > Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity. > You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for >>

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia slags off Palmerston North

potentially harmful. Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger#Articles_regarding_ongoing_enterprises However Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises failed to reach consensus. 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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> The Arbcom's definition for "wikilawyering"? Can you show us an Arbcom > case > where "wikilawyering" was a finding? > Sure, and it's a classic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Wikilawyering Fred ___

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion > than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive > process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would > work for that one. > t > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_tal

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> AGK wrote: >> Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in >> the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to). >> > You know, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to label > discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative. > > I hap

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> > In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an > onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly. > > Charles > Precisely the kind of thing we might discuss. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@list

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> 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 coul

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

ribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on >>>> the >>>> list. >>>> >>>> >>> No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute >>> resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> AGK wrote: >>> Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and >>> what happens when only one party joins the mailing list? >>> >> >> >> My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute >> resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution >> (

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> 2009/6/27 Fred Bauder : >> It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would >> not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it. > > That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed. > I don't rea

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> 2009/6/27 Fred Bauder : >> > It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It >> would >> > not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to >> it. >&

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >