Re: [WikiEN-l] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
To be clear, John is not an OTRS agent. I believe he was saying that he had checked with people who are agents (multiple sources) but he's not one himself (though he is subscribed to the unblock-en-l mailing list as a former admin). On 8/30/10, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no record of a request or email from you to either group. So Unless your using even more sockpuppets than your claiming, (or used an unknown email address, failed to state your IP address, user account or blocking admin. Which is very unlikely) You are full of bullshit. Please stop lying, or admit to all your sock puppets, because with the information that you have provided, the logs for both unblock-en-l and OTRS prove that you did not send or get a message from either group. John As a OTRS member, do you really believe the language you just used in that email as appropriate? ___ 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] Webypedia - another doomed alternative to Wikipedia
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:14 PM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As to the natural monopoly question, well, there is this resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly There are some markets where network effects and very high entry costs, such as building infrastructure, make it very difficult for competitors to arise. Regarding Wikipedia, the financial costs may not be prohibitive, but the social capital necessary to create a serious rival may be (just ask Larry Sanger). And the network effect should be fairly plain; Wikipedia is the place to be. (And I do not underestimate Google here.) I don't wish to beat up on Larry Sanger, but I think we've seen from experience that he may not be the best person to start a new project. Social capital is a real issue, but it's a combination of social capital of the person, of the idea, of the way the rules come together, the way the community forms there. I think even the most die-hard Wikipedians all have some longing for Maybe we could be better I think there's a pool of potential capital there to work with. The questions are: 1. Who's trying to do it, and how well are they thought of by a potential editor and reader community? 2. Why are they trying to do it - what is the differentiating factor or factors? How do those attract editors or readers? 3. What policies are proposed, and why? 4. Who ends up showing up in the early days, beyond the core team? -- -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
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia committee member
Carcharoth wrote: Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count. It would have to be a specific request from the subject of the spoiler. You've noted that requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count, and this only accentuates the problem. How would providing special treatment to a representative of an article's subject constitute a neutral approach? You referred to this as a BLP-like exception, but I see nothing analogous. We address legitimate complaints by ensuring that biographies of living persons comply with our normal content standards. We don't honor requests to include special text (such as a warning that the article includes material that its subject dislikes). David Levy ___ 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] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
Please note that I am not an OTRS agent, and never claimed to be. What I stated, was that I had run several checks for this user across multiple mailing lists, (foundation-l, wikien-l, unblock-en-l, and the OTRS system along with several others just to be through) and that this user (with the information that was provided) was never part of any conversation on said mailing lists. With such a comprehensive cross check (through my own work and checking with others that had access to other lists) I confirmed that Seventy Nine was either lying in their original post or had been using other non-disclosed sock puppets. Had I responded to this users questions as part of either unblock-en-l or as part of the OTRS queue I would have done my best to take a look and review the situation. However once they posted to a public mailing list about their said treatment on one of these lists (and being unable to confirm said treatment) a explanation is needed from the user in question about their activities and about why they are making false claims. John ___ 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] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
On 30 August 2010 11:43, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: However once they posted to a public mailing list about their said treatment on one of these lists (and being unable to confirm said treatment) a explanation is needed from the user in question about their activities and about why they are making false claims. I only let it through mod because I was unaware it had been spammed across multiple Wikimedia mailing lists. wikien-l is not the unblock list. - 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] Webypedia - another doomed alternative to Wikipedia
On 30 August 2010 01:25, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 August 2010 01:14, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: I do think alternative wiki projects that seek to fill gaps created by Wikipedia's choice not to include some types of information stand the best chance of success -- going head-to-head with this entrenched incumbent is foolhardy, unless the Wikipedia community falls apart and the site falls into total disrepair -- even then I think there is so much value here already that it's far more likely Wikipedia would be resuscitated, than any rival wiki encyclopedia taking the lead. I said a few years ago that in ten years (so 2015 or so), the only general encyclopedia would be Wikipedia or a fork of it. This was intended with trepidation, not triumphalism. There are various niches for other wikis. * Subject-specific and allowing original research. This is quite a common format. * Subject-specific and allowing opinion. (TV Tropes is a huge winner here.) * Just use MediaWiki as a CMS, not functionally a wiki at all. (Wikileaks.) Having a lax notability policy is a common divergence, but others are possible. * Multiple articles on a topic - Wikinfo, arguably Knol. Gives some writers what they want, not a hit with the public. * Credentials required. Dangerous - CZ tried this and was infested with cranks and pseudoscience. Cranks may not have expertise, but they sure know about pieces of paper. What have I missed? The chinese wikis (Hudong is bigger than the english wikipedia). The possibility of a significant jump in natural language processing making it possible for computers to generate articles on demand. Free translation between english and chinese could also result in hudong and the like moving into the english language. A sustained government backed effort (think BBC of encyclopedias) Potentially a release of journal databases backed by an improvement in search technology could act as significant competition for our more technical articles. -- 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] Wikipedia committee member
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:34 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Carcharoth wrote: Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count. It would have to be a specific request from the subject of the spoiler. You've noted that requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count, and this only accentuates the problem. How would providing special treatment to a representative of an article's subject constitute a neutral approach? You referred to this as a BLP-like exception, but I see nothing analogous. We address legitimate complaints by ensuring that biographies of living persons comply with our normal content standards. We don't honor requests to include special text (such as a warning that the article includes material that its subject dislikes). Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know this is a completely different argument to the one I used before). With other things, I just read the articles anyway, and don't care about knowing the ending in advance (or I avoid them, as I did when the last Harry Potter book came out). But for some reason, here I find myself (as a reader of Wikipedia) wanting to be able to read the other parts of the article and would likely have read the article after reading the newspaper story if I hadn't found out in advance (from the newspaper story) that the article contained a spoiler. Put it this way: my finding out that this article contains a spoiler means I have avoided reading it - how many other people have avoided reading it for the same reasons? If that is a feature and not a bug, fair enough, but I find it strange that what articles I read on Wikipedia is being decided by what a newspaper article has to say about them. 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] Wikipedia committee member
Now that you mention it, I've avoided the article in the exact same way. Without the spoiler talk, I probably would have visited already. Although it's something like an irritable mental gesture... it's not like I have any plans to see the play anytime in the foreseeable future, and I haven't read any Agatha Christie since I was a teenager. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:34 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Carcharoth wrote: Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count. It would have to be a specific request from the subject of the spoiler. You've noted that requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count, and this only accentuates the problem. How would providing special treatment to a representative of an article's subject constitute a neutral approach? You referred to this as a BLP-like exception, but I see nothing analogous. We address legitimate complaints by ensuring that biographies of living persons comply with our normal content standards. We don't honor requests to include special text (such as a warning that the article includes material that its subject dislikes). Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know this is a completely different argument to the one I used before). With other things, I just read the articles anyway, and don't care about knowing the ending in advance (or I avoid them, as I did when the last Harry Potter book came out). But for some reason, here I find myself (as a reader of Wikipedia) wanting to be able to read the other parts of the article and would likely have read the article after reading the newspaper story if I hadn't found out in advance (from the newspaper story) that the article contained a spoiler. Put it this way: my finding out that this article contains a spoiler means I have avoided reading it - how many other people have avoided reading it for the same reasons? If that is a feature and not a bug, fair enough, but I find it strange that what articles I read on Wikipedia is being decided by what a newspaper article has to say about them. 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 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] Wikipedia committee member
Carcharoth wrote: Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know this is a completely different argument to the one I used before). Indeed, that's a different matter altogether. It's reasonable to argue that Wikipedia articles should contain spoiler warnings for the benefit of readers (though the English Wikipedia community has reached consensus to the contrary). This is very different from the idea of providing special editorial control to representatives of articles' subjects. David Levy ___ 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] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no record of a request or email from you to either group. So Unless your using even more sockpuppets than your claiming, (or used an unknown email address, failed to state your IP address, user account or blocking admin. Which is very unlikely) You are full of bullshit. Please stop lying, or admit to all your sock puppets, because with the information that you have provided, the logs for both unblock-en-l and OTRS prove that you did not send or get a message from either group. John As a OTRS member, do you really believe the language you just used in that email as appropriate? Seriously. It is beyond depressing to be continually reminded that this kind of behavior is still condoned and even expected. I'll be singing off this mailing list shortly. Good luck turning things around. - causa sui ___ 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] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
John Doe has been desysopped, or possibly resigned as an administrator. He has not been outcast from the human race. He has minimum responsibilities which he performs in a reasonably competent manner. We are not pure and have no intentions of attempting to become pure. However, as always, John Doe is reminded to be consistently courteous regardless of circumstance. If you feel the rough and tumble of the agora is too much; well, sometimes it is. Fred Bauder On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no record of a request or email from you to either group. So Unless your using even more sockpuppets than your claiming, (or used an unknown email address, failed to state your IP address, user account or blocking admin. Which is very unlikely) You are full of bullshit. Please stop lying, or admit to all your sock puppets, because with the information that you have provided, the logs for both unblock-en-l and OTRS prove that you did not send or get a message from either group. John As a OTRS member, do you really believe the language you just used in that email as appropriate? Seriously. It is beyond depressing to be continually reminded that this kind of behavior is still condoned and even expected. I'll be singing off this mailing list shortly. Good luck turning things around. - causa sui ___ 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] Wikipedia committee member
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called Identity of the murderer... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this. That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called Price wars and other controversies. This allows me to bypass the Synopsis section, including the subsections Plot introduction and Plot summary. Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader. I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the Release date section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s). Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrapoldid=375574290#Identity_of_the_murderer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows *A quick glance did not show this information to be listed in any other section, however I did not read the whole article word for word to double-check. ___ 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] Wikipedia committee member
That is very helpful. I wonder if there is room to suggest this in some guideline somewhere on how editors should set up the titles of sections in articles to aid not just readers reading through the article from beginning to end, but to aid readers looking at the contents and selecting (or omitting) bits they don't want to read. You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to hide sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read. Carcharoth On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Shane Simmons avicenna...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called Identity of the murderer... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this. That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called Price wars and other controversies. This allows me to bypass the Synopsis section, including the subsections Plot introduction and Plot summary. Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader. I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the Release date section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s). Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrapoldid=375574290#Identity_of_the_murderer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows *A quick glance did not show this information to be listed in any other section, however I did not read the whole article word for word to double-check. ___ 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] Wikipedia committee member
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Carcharoth wrote: Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know this is a completely different argument to the one I used before). With other things, I just read the articles anyway, and don't care about knowing the ending in advance (or I avoid them, as I did when the last Harry Potter book came out). But for some reason, here I find myself (as a reader of Wikipedia) wanting to be able to read the other parts of the article and would likely have read the article after reading the newspaper story if I hadn't found out in advance (from the newspaper story) that the article contained a spoiler. Put it this way: my finding out that this article contains a spoiler means I have avoided reading it - how many other people have avoided reading it for the same reasons? If that is a feature and not a bug, fair enough, but I find it strange that what articles I read on Wikipedia is being decided by what a newspaper article has to say about them. To put it bluntly, Wikipedia used to have spoiler warnings but they were removed by a massive abuse of process (and exploiting of loopholes in the process), compounded by silence from the few people able to fix it. I complained at the time, but essentially nobody else did, so it was forced through. ___ 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] Wikipedia committee member
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, David Levy wrote: Indeed, that's a different matter altogether. It's reasonable to argue that Wikipedia articles should contain spoiler warnings for the benefit of readers (though the English Wikipedia community has reached consensus to the contrary). This is very different from the idea of providing special editorial control to representatives of articles' subjects. Using tools that are bots in all but name even when the tool is not supposed to be used for controversial subjects, is not reaching consensus. ___ 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] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
I wouldn't over-interpret my parting shot. I was on the way out the door anyway. - causa sui On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: John Doe has been desysopped, or possibly resigned as an administrator. He has not been outcast from the human race. He has minimum responsibilities which he performs in a reasonably competent manner. We are not pure and have no intentions of attempting to become pure. However, as always, John Doe is reminded to be consistently courteous regardless of circumstance. If you feel the rough and tumble of the agora is too much; well, sometimes it is. Fred Bauder On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no record of a request or email from you to either group. So Unless your using even more sockpuppets than your claiming, (or used an unknown email address, failed to state your IP address, user account or blocking admin. Which is very unlikely) You are full of bullshit. Please stop lying, or admit to all your sock puppets, because with the information that you have provided, the logs for both unblock-en-l and OTRS prove that you did not send or get a message from either group. John As a OTRS member, do you really believe the language you just used in that email as appropriate? Seriously. It is beyond depressing to be continually reminded that this kind of behavior is still condoned and even expected. I'll be singing off this mailing list shortly. Good luck turning things around. - causa sui ___ 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] Wikipedia committee member
I can't believe this idea is being seriously presented. We are an Encyclopedia. That is one of the Five Pillars ([[WP:5P]]). The job of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to facilitate access to information in an efficient manner. Putting extra barriers in front of that means you aren't looking at it as a comprehensive encyclopedia, which we are, but as TV Guide (or Playbill, in this case) which we are decidedly not. You want a teaser? You want a hook? Go read a preview. You want to read an encyclopedic article about the subject/play/episode/whatever? Congratulations, you've come to the right place. We aren't here to protect you from the big bad world, we're here to present information. If that information is made harder to get, then someone clearly made a mistake. -Brock On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: That is very helpful. I wonder if there is room to suggest this in some guideline somewhere on how editors should set up the titles of sections in articles to aid not just readers reading through the article from beginning to end, but to aid readers looking at the contents and selecting (or omitting) bits they don't want to read. You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to hide sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read. Carcharoth On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Shane Simmons avicenna...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called Identity of the murderer... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this. That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called Price wars and other controversies. This allows me to bypass the Synopsis section, including the subsections Plot introduction and Plot summary. Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader. I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the Release date section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s). Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrapoldid=375574290#Identity_of_the_murderer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows *A quick glance did not show this information to be listed in any other section, however I did not read the whole article word for word to double-check. ___ 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] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
This mailing list is easily googled and and I think words like bullshit just casts a very bad cloud over who we appoint as administrators on the project. Whether or not it was cross posted is not of initial concern, we should be more constructive and direct the user to the appropriate method of responding to a block. It is quite possible that he/she has applied for arbitration through an un-orthadox method. Socks are easy to find and if the sock wants to continue with politically motivated edits then they probably know how to get around the situation. Otherwise, I think we should give the benefit to editors, before describing them as bullshitters. On 30/08/2010, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't over-interpret my parting shot. I was on the way out the door anyway. - causa sui On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: John Doe has been desysopped, or possibly resigned as an administrator. He has not been outcast from the human race. He has minimum responsibilities which he performs in a reasonably competent manner. We are not pure and have no intentions of attempting to become pure. However, as always, John Doe is reminded to be consistently courteous regardless of circumstance. If you feel the rough and tumble of the agora is too much; well, sometimes it is. Fred Bauder On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no record of a request or email from you to either group. So Unless your using even more sockpuppets than your claiming, (or used an unknown email address, failed to state your IP address, user account or blocking admin. Which is very unlikely) You are full of bullshit. Please stop lying, or admit to all your sock puppets, because with the information that you have provided, the logs for both unblock-en-l and OTRS prove that you did not send or get a message from either group. John As a OTRS member, do you really believe the language you just used in that email as appropriate? Seriously. It is beyond depressing to be continually reminded that this kind of behavior is still condoned and even expected. I'll be singing off this mailing list shortly. Good luck turning things around. - causa sui ___ 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 ___ 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] Wikipedia committee member
Access to information in an efficient manner *includes* providing readers with choice. Writing an encyclopedia also includes consideration of the readers. There is a balance to be struck between editorial discretion and what a reader might want. If you go too far to rigid editorial control, you lose readers. If you go to far to pandering to readers, you lose credibility. It is not one or the other, but a balance between the two (and no, please don't point to Wikipedia's popularity as meaning we've got it right so far - Wikipedia's popularity arose for a mixture of reasons, and in fact the massive popularity serves to obscure some things that readers find wrong with Wikipedia). Carcharoth On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Brock Weller brock.wel...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe this idea is being seriously presented. We are an Encyclopedia. That is one of the Five Pillars ([[WP:5P]]). The job of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to facilitate access to information in an efficient manner. Putting extra barriers in front of that means you aren't looking at it as a comprehensive encyclopedia, which we are, but as TV Guide (or Playbill, in this case) which we are decidedly not. You want a teaser? You want a hook? Go read a preview. You want to read an encyclopedic article about the subject/play/episode/whatever? Congratulations, you've come to the right place. We aren't here to protect you from the big bad world, we're here to present information. If that information is made harder to get, then someone clearly made a mistake. -Brock On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: That is very helpful. I wonder if there is room to suggest this in some guideline somewhere on how editors should set up the titles of sections in articles to aid not just readers reading through the article from beginning to end, but to aid readers looking at the contents and selecting (or omitting) bits they don't want to read. You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to hide sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read. Carcharoth On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Shane Simmons avicenna...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called Identity of the murderer... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this. That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called Price wars and other controversies. This allows me to bypass the Synopsis section, including the subsections Plot introduction and Plot summary. Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader. I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the Release date section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s). Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrapoldid=375574290#Identity_of_the_murderer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows *A quick glance did not show this information to be listed in any other section, however I did not read the whole article word for word to double-check. ___ 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] OED goes print-only
The problem remains that and individual subscription of $295 a year stinks, to say nothing of $995.00 for a printed copy. Basically, only institutions or major publishers would find a subscription worthwhile and those are higher yet. Essentially it is a paradigm that does not deliver the goods. Fred Third edition of OED unlikely to appear in print format Very unsurprising. Publishers confirm that print dictionary market is disappearing so third edition is unlikely Does anybody know the rough statistics on printed encyclopedias (which admittedly constitute a far smaller market than dictionaries)? In any case this movement away from print can only be promising news for our readership statistics. (One therefore wonders the continuing usefulness of edition numbers.) For ease of reference, I guess. In academia, when a vagueism crops up in texts being studied or researched, attempts to pin down the precise meaning intended are often supported by reference to a dictionary; to disguise the fact that nothing more complex than reading the dictionary is being undertaken, full references to the OED will be supplied. There *is* something nice about edition numbers, though. Even online, I suspect you would have edition numbers to identify major updates, with more frequent updates occurring between those save points. Aye, that may well be the compromise they arrive at. AGK ___ 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] OED goes print-only
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The problem remains that and individual subscription of $295 a year stinks, to say nothing of $995.00 for a printed copy. Basically, only institutions or major publishers would find a subscription worthwhile and those are higher yet. Or $400 for the photoreduced version (http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Complete-Reproduced-Micrographically-slipcase/dp/0198612583/), although I seem to recall that when I bought mine it was more like $200. -- gwern ___ 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] Wikipedia committee member
In a wide range of articles we make fairly tight decisions what is relevant to present an encyclopedic article, and what is not strictly needed. Guidelines on plot summaries emphasize they should not be over-detailed. I have no problem at all with the concept that we can have an encyclopedic article on a book or play that states the final scene is a classical denouement for a thriller and contains a twist ending without needing to reveal all, and I have no problem with the idea that to do so is not weak or censorship but a strict consideration of what we need to say, for a neutral informative encyclopedic article, with the rest beyond that shaded by avoidance of harm. There will be many cases where we need to provide details that some would prefer not to read, because they go to the heart of the article or the topic's full description. I don't think this is one of them. FT2 On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: Access to information in an efficient manner *includes* providing readers with choice. Writing an encyclopedia also includes consideration of the readers. There is a balance to be struck between editorial discretion and what a reader might want. If you go too far to rigid editorial control, you lose readers. If you go to far to pandering to readers, you lose credibility. It is not one or the other, but a balance between the two (and no, please don't point to Wikipedia's popularity as meaning we've got it right so far - Wikipedia's popularity arose for a mixture of reasons, and in fact the massive popularity serves to obscure some things that readers find wrong with Wikipedia). Carcharoth On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Brock Weller brock.wel...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe this idea is being seriously presented. We are an Encyclopedia. That is one of the Five Pillars ([[WP:5P]]). The job of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to facilitate access to information in an efficient manner. Putting extra barriers in front of that means you aren't looking at it as a comprehensive encyclopedia, which we are, but as TV Guide (or Playbill, in this case) which we are decidedly not. You want a teaser? You want a hook? Go read a preview. You want to read an encyclopedic article about the subject/play/episode/whatever? Congratulations, you've come to the right place. We aren't here to protect you from the big bad world, we're here to present information. If that information is made harder to get, then someone clearly made a mistake. -Brock On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: That is very helpful. I wonder if there is room to suggest this in some guideline somewhere on how editors should set up the titles of sections in articles to aid not just readers reading through the article from beginning to end, but to aid readers looking at the contents and selecting (or omitting) bits they don't want to read. You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to hide sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read. Carcharoth On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Shane Simmons avicenna...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called Identity of the murderer... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this. That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called Price wars and other controversies. This allows me to bypass the Synopsis section, including the subsections Plot introduction and Plot summary. Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader. I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the Release date section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s).
Re: [WikiEN-l] New tool: Write before you revert
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:39 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Encountering certain problems with DBAD at the [[Human]] article, wondering if it would work to autoblock anyone from reverting a page whom has not actually participated in discussion on the talk page.. You would likely just force insincere discussion. Not that this doesn't happen already (sorry, in a cynical mood tonight). 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] Wikipedia committee member
Wikileaks reveals that Snape killed Dumbledore WILD WEST END, Baker Street, Sunday (NTN) — The online encyclopedia Wikileaks stands accused of revealing the ending of The Mousetrap, recklessly endangering the income of Agatha Christie’s descendants. “My grandmother always got upset if the plots of her books or plays were revealed in reviews,” said Matthew Prichard, who personally put in the years of hard-working effort one would expect it to take to accumulate the stream of income from the play when it was given to him as a ninth birthday present, “and I don’t think that a site whose purpose is supplying encyclopedic information just going and supplying encyclopedic information is any different as far as my money is concerned. They should go and get real jobs, like decent working people. But it’s not a question of money, or anything like that.” The article on The Mousetrap reveals that Vader is Luke’s father, Rosebud was Kane’s sled, Kristin shot J.R. and Snape in turn was killed by Barry Trotter. And something about a war in Afghanistan and shooting journalists. The encyclopedia does, however, include a comprehensive spoiler warning, noting that they use the forward motion of a car to push it down, helping the tyres grip the road better — thus slowing it down, rather than speeding it up. Barryboys across east London pointed out the unreliability of Wikileaks as a source and questioned the veracity of the references. http://newstechnica.com/2010/08/30/wikileaks-reveals-that-snape-killed-dumbledore/ - 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] New tool: Write before you revert
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: You would likely just force insincere discussion. Not that this doesn't happen already (sorry, in a cynical mood tonight). Ha: Insincere discussion - translation 'edit warring is more sincere.' -SC ___ 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] New tool: Write before you revert
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:55 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: You would likely just force insincere discussion. Not that this doesn't happen already (sorry, in a cynical mood tonight). Ha: Insincere discussion - translation 'edit warring is more sincere.' -SC More sincere then posting to get past the edit filter :) James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@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
