Re: [WikiEN-l] Thank you, thank you!
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 22:49, Audrey Abeyta audrey.abe...@gmail.com wrote: Your insightful responses are invaluable to my project and I cannot express my gratitude for this community enough, so thank you, thank you, thank you! When my final paper is written in June, I will make it available to the Wikipedia community. Glad to hear you got what you needed. I very much look forward to seeing the results :O) Bodnotbod ___ 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 holiday decreed: Justin Knapp Day
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 00:23, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: A million? Personally, I prefer quality over quantity. He's not that good. I spent ten minutes writing a bristly response to this before I realised you were joking. B ___ 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] Wikimedians to the Games
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 07:54, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Wikimedia Australia is pleased to announce a partnership with the Australian Paralympic Committee to intended to increase the depth and quality of information about disability sport on Wikipedia (English, German, French), Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedians to the Games (W2G) is a an opportunity for two Australian Wikimedians to go to London and cover the 2012 Summer Paralympics... Cool. Is entry limited to disabled Australian Wikimedians? Bodnotbod ___ 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] Ad banners are a bad user interface
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Four *separate* incidents where users mistook the fundraising banner ad for an illustration that is part of the article. As is usual for lousy user interfaces, a lot of us are probably going to blame this on the user being too stupid to read the page properly, Would you like to propose a significant mid-campaign change to the fundraiser to help the 0.000x% of visitors we're causing bafflement? As for lousy user interfaces, advertising banners frequently go at the top of pages. That is how they roll. This tiny, merry band of visitors are saying I know Wikipedia doesn't carry advertising, so I will always conclude that Wikipedia pages contain nothing but the content I'm looking for: yes, even right at the top of the screen in the space other sites put up for sale. We should take their confusion as a compliment. ___ 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] Guidelines on how much we take from a source?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: So you have to pick the right level and get a source that suits the article you are working on. For an article on a major battle, you would need several books on that battle. For an article on a major general, you would need several biographies of that general. And so on. I suppose that depends on what you're intending to do. I intend to improve WWI articles with the resources I can find the time to get through in the next 18 months or so and they will fall rather short of your recommendations, I'm afraid. It is vanishingly unlikely I will purchase three books on a single battle or general unless some burning passion is aroused as I go. More probably I will add sentences and citations, scattered about, from the few resources I get hold of. ___ 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] Guidelines on how much we take from a source?
I decided I hadn't reviewed a featured article candidate for a while and Russell T Davies (writer of the Doctor Who reboot) was there. Figured I'd give it a go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_T_Davies I invite you to look, with reasonable care, at references 1 to 97. Now, not only are they from the same source but it would appear the page numbers are almost all accounted for (although I don't know how long the book is, but I'm willing to guess it's c.219 pages long). And the pages are ref'd in pretty much book order. In short, were I Aldridge Murray I think I would be feeling pretty hard done by at this point. I should say, I don't have the book and that would be key before making a point too vehemently. Nevertheless, I wonder if we have a policy/guideline on appropriate levels of source mining? I have another interest in this. I recently purchased a book on WWI. The centenary is coming up in 2014 and there is a desire to get our WWI articles in good shape before then. I intend to use the book extensively but I am anxious about what is acceptable. Bodnotbod ___ 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] British library online newspaper archive
Hullo, The British Library has put 4 million pages of 19th century newspapers online: http://pressandpolicy.bl.uk/Press-Releases/Murder-mania-and-a-leech-powered-weather-machine-up-to-4-million-pages-of-historical-newspapers-now-searchable-online-at-britishnewspaperarchive-co-uk-54f.aspx http://www1.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/ You can try a search and click view which, in my case, gave me a page of the subscription fees. Two day, one month and one year packages are available. Bodnotbod ___ 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] British library online newspaper archive
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Oh. I had (foolishly) assumed it would be free. That would have been lovely :O) It would have been good just to have a few free searches before tripping the paywall, just to see if you like the product. And if there were a small number of free views per month it would have greatly helped us when using material as a source because it would mean Wikipedia readers could at least see whether, if and when the archive was used as a source, it had been cited correctly. Fees are: Price: £79.95 GBP Valid For: 365 days Credits: Unlimited (subject to a fair usage policy) Price: £29.95 GBP Valid For: 30 days Credits: 3000 (equivalent to 5p a page) Price: £6.95 GBP Valid For: 2 days Credits: 500 (7p per page) I'm not sure how they're calculating the per page figure. 500 * 7p comes out as £35 for me, though maths is definitely not my strong point. I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding what they mean by a credit. The pricing also seems rather strange. The relative cheapness of the year subscription compared to the monthly seems odd: ie, one year is equal to 2.6 months. Bodnotbod Bodnotbod ___ 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] Nobel prizewinning chemist: in my field, Wikipedia is more reliable than textbooks
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: When I look at an article as an ordinary reader looking for information I mostly don't notice if it has been referenced... I fall into the category satirised by XKCD (though I can't find the strip, unfortunately): if a sentence has a little blue number at the end of it I am satisfied that it is definitely true. I really need to change. But I certainly do notice if something is not referenced. Well, it's more nuanced than that. If something has NO references, I tend to read it without much critical judgement. If something is partially referenced I tend to feel dubious about the whole enterprise. And that shouldn't be. ___ 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] Invitation to Participate in Wikipedia Survey
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Bo Xu box...@yahoo.com.cn wrote: We, Prof. Bo Xu at Fudan University in China and Prof. Dahui Li at University of Minnesota Duluth, are interested in why and how people contribute to Wikipedia. You could make an important contribution to this research by completing a questionnaire at http://labovitz.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3h4hthRyOWKxZVa. The survey is completely voluntary. All the data will be kept confidential. Your assistance in answering this questionnaire is highly appreciated. I was about to take it but it looks familiar. Did you invite people to complete this questionnaire before a couple of months or so ago? I don't mind completing it but I assume you don't want people completing it twice. Also, will you be making your results public? Or at least to the Foundation? en.User:Bodnotbod ___ 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] Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ron Ritzman ritz...@gmail.com wrote: Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if, after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so. When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ... this is an *unfortunate* circumstance. Doesn't just happen to newbies. For the first time in years I started a new article quite some time ago. It immediately got a speedy delete tag *even though* I had placed an in use banner at the top (something a newbie would never think of). Now, the rationale given for listing it for deletion was that it was rubbish. And it's true: it was rubbish! But the fact was I was editing it from the very earliest point of noting a phenomenon and trying to document it. I thought the in use banner and the fact that I would have edited it in the moments before the deletion banner popped up would have been enough to say someone is working on this right now, so hold your horses. I now realise I should have started the article in my user space but, again, this is certainly not something a new user would think to do. I recall, during the Strategy process, a user of very long standing saying that a new article he created was similarly stomped on at birth. I can see it from the new page patroller's point of view, mind. It can't be any fun doing a shift on there at all. ___ 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] So ...
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: ... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately? I like this question ;O) For my part I have been considering my actions during time spent on Wikipedia and actually adding content to articles has gone by the wayside! I have mainly been reading articles and making minor edits, generally to little errors such as no space after punctuation or where someone has accidentally repeated words or phrases. I suspect there's a gadget out there that would do this much more quickly than my way. Prior to that I was attending to my watchlist and the bulk of the actions arising from that were reverts, warnings and welcomes. But I must start devoting time to making more substantive contributions. Bodnotbod ___ 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] So ...
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much what I've been doing of late - just proofreading as I graze. I have set myself the task of reading every article on current sitting UK MPs (whilst also keeping bookmarks of stuff to read after that, such as party articles or those on MPs not now sitting but that are names recognisable to me). 2012 is going to be my year of UK politics, I have decided. There's no harm in doing this and, as I say, a little tidying gets done along the way. But I don't feel I have the balance between doing *real* *work* and keeping things suitably enjoyable and motivating quite right. Perhaps I will do a second and much more arduous pass of the articles and start doing some proper writing. There's quite a few new MPs that got elected for the first time in 2010 and their articles can be quite short, so there's plenty of scope for substantial contributions. Bodnotbod ___ 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] --Wikipedia Manager 2012
Good day Wikipedians, I have of late got into a football management computer game. Don't panic, I will be relating this post to Wikipedia, hang on. I'm really enjoying the game. To such an extent that I've actually started to follow football. I've never particularly liked football. I only started playing the computer game cos there was a free demo. Now I like the computer game so much I'm following football in the real world. After quite a few hours of playing it struck me that all I was really doing most of the time was evaluating numbers: player abilities rated out of 5, 10 or 20 depending on the stat in question. Numbers of goals. Numbered position in league. Tier of football I'm playing in. I don't know why this should be so compelling. Watching numbers change. But the game is incredibly successful (some editions have broken records for fastest selling computer game according to our articles). The numbers are clearly giving us players an emotional response. They engage. Last year, during the Strategy process and before I started playing this game, I proposed that what Wikipedia needed was more rewards for editors. I proposed a few things. In the end we got Wiki-love, which I support and like, but they isn't really like what I proposed at Strategy. To be honest I can barely remember what it was I proposed back then... I still think we could do with more rewards and maybe this damned game has given me an answer. More editor stats. All of us who have been around for some time know that edit counts are not very reliable indicators of effort. Nevertheless we still do keep a public record of editors with high counts. I think there's a reason for that. I think it's because we still, despite protestations, know that an edit count does tell us *something* about a Wikipedian. Even if it's just (s)he edits a lot. I believe I'm right in saying that the Foundation is in the process of setting up something like Toolserver. I suggest we plan to put it to work. I suggest we expand greatly the stats we keep on individual editors and form league tables from them. I believe that aiming for a place in a table will motivate people. I realise that a) this is unproven and b) there will be objections, particularly regarding 'gaming the system and 'unintended consequences' but perhaps we can discuss those and mitigate them (more later). New Stats that could be placed in league tables could include: * Length of service (difference in days between first edit and last) * Number of consecutive days/months/weeks where 5 or more edits have been made (or 50 edits, or a hundred): in short there could be quite a number of these tables that relate to consistency and number of edits all of which, I feel, might spur people on to keep contributing. * Most characters/bytes added (without being removed) * Most blocks for admins * Most welcomes, barn stars awarded * Most reverts / undos * Average reader-rating of articles user has edited at least ten times You could also have these as percentage of number of edits and rank for those too, eg welcomes, blocks or reverts as a percentage of total edits, (with a minimum number of edits to qualify for inclusion on the table). Now, it could be (WILL be!) that someone decides I'm going for the revert league title and starts doing things we wouldn't ideally like (to put it mildly). However their presence at the head of the league, I feel, will actually subject their edits to greater scrutiny. People will look at their contributions and it may well result in needed censure, showing their activity to be undesirable and action could be taken accordingly. Also, you may have people in the top table who aren't even *trying* and their presence at or near the top might cause some examination of their contribs. Perhaps you can think of some league tables that would really push desirable behaviours at minimal risk of negative ones? If you don't like this idea I'd like to hear the concerns, HOWEVER! I would also like you to just entertain the idea and - even if you're against - think of some individual editor stats that could be tracked you think *may* provide useful feedback, even if you ultimately don't think we *should*. So: I propose we greatly increase feedback on user performance to drive people on. Support editor stats today. User:Bodnotbod ___ 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] Edit-warring at [[Bertie Ahern]]
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Two editors are scrapping without going to the talk page to discuss it and it's beginning get out of hand, and it's annoying that I can't do anything about it. Anyone care to step in? I've issued them both with an 'edit war' warning. Bodnotbod ___ 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] Editing anonymously though having an account and other moral dilemmas.
Hi, There's a company operating in the UK that has a large number of controversies attached to it. Because this mail will be publicly viewable/searchable (and for other reasons that may become clearer as you read on) I shan't name them. The article for the company already has a substantive controversy/criticism section. It needs much better referencing. I am able to do this; I have a good source (The Guardian) and I'm sure there are others. I'm good at identifying acceptable and unacceptable sources. The trouble is that this company could have a profound impact on my life and they have shown themselves willing to play hardball with internet critics. One site - which supports a vulnerable section of society - was closed down just today, and it's that which has got me fired up. But frankly, the company scares me. I'm finding it hard to even hint at how they could effect me without giving too much away, so I apologise for being vague. So, my questions are: 1. Is it ever acceptable to purposely edit an article when logged out (ie, as an IP) if one has an account of long standing? 2. If I did this IP editing, would I have [ complete / little / no ] protection from being traced as the source of the (perfectly sourced) information I place in the article? 3. Provided my edits are all perfectly sourced, will the WMF defend my anonymity? (I do know that the WMF has a good track record here). 4. If you would advise against me pursuing this as you feel I cannot adequately mitigate risks to myself, perhaps you could put yourself in an imagined similar situation: imagine you have a powerful sense that a company is acting unjustly but that company has a hold on you. You know that Wikipedia could reflect some of the injustice (all sourced from WP:RELIABLE) but that you are placing yourself under threat. What would you do to get this information into an article? A couple more points: I guess some of you may be thinking well, hang on, you have a Conflict of Interest here, so you should go nowhere near it. It's difficult to argue against that without revealing details that begin to bring my edifice of protection tumbling down. I would liken my situation to someone living on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico who chooses to write about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. [1] I may be personally effected by mistakes/negligence on the part of this company. But I'm not employed by them. My relationship with them is akin to your relationship with the company that provides your water. My relationship with the company is that they provide an infrastructure that I rely on and that they are proving themselves to be increasingly unreliable and opposed to free speech (according to reliable sources). If writing about the oil spill as a Gulf resident would be COI, then mea culpa: I'll take note and back off. I'm interested to hear your views, With high regard for my fellow Wikipedians, Bodnotbod - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill ___ 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] Editing anonymously though having an account and other moral dilemmas.
Thank you Nathan and Geni, Nathan I may take you up on your offer. But using a library computer is another option I had been considering. It's gone midnight here now, so I'll sleep on it. Thank you once again, Bodnotbod. ___ 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] Little edits or big edits in the mainspace?
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:31 PM, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: As the title indicates, when working on articles, do you prefer making a bunch of small edits or one or a couple of big edits? Well, I'm not sure my answer will be interesting to anyone other than your good self but... When I'm starting a *new* article (which I don't do much) I tend to save every 10, 15 or no later than 20 minutes as I go along. It's fear of losing work. I know an answer to that is to edit in some other application but I've never really felt motivated to explore other working methods. When *copy editing* an existing article I tend to do one edit per change (but it could be three or four changes if one short paragraph needs a lot of help). Various reasons; partly because I don't trust myself to remember necessary edits at the start of a section if I carry on and find issues at the end of a section; I like - increasingly - to write long edit summaries (I find writing something pithy about inserting a comma helps my morale, keeps me in good humour). I confess I do still keep score with my edit count, though more for a little personal buzz I get when I get past each thousand mark than to compare myself to others (although I still take the occasional look at the league table to see if I've re-appeared on it: answer no ;o) ___ 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] Little edits or big edits in the mainspace?
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:05 AM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: I'm always a little self-conscious when non-Wikipedians ask how many edits I've tallied. *Non* Wikipedians are asking you about your edit count? I've never encountered nor heard of people outside the community talking about such a thing. I find your experience quite cheering; it seems to speak of Wikipedia seeping into the culture even more than I had presupposed. It's like my grandmother asking me how many beats per minute characterise [[UK hard house]]. ___ 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] Little edits or big edits in the mainspace?
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:57 AM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: I've had the notion to pitch a Complete Idiot's Guide to Wikipedia to someone (actually tried, once; got a friendly note from an agent that it wasn't for [him]). I do think there is one to be written, whether I get to it or someone else does... Have you seen this? Have a look at the PDF: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf And there's plenty more proposed publications that need input for the same series: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_Deliverables_(Bookshelf) Project home page: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project ___ 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] Curriki - shares our values
Don''t know if Curriki.org (Curriculum + Wiki) has been mentioned on this list before? Here's a blog post with a good half hour interview (mp3) with the head. http://blog.curriki.org/2010/08/24/what%E2%80%99s-the-future-of-curriki-an-interview-with-scott-mcnealy/ I'm almost moved to suggest that the WMF could offer them some money, but I feel an opposing sense of vicarious greed. I'll be keeping an eye on the project, perhaps you will too. I've often wondered if there was a way to have more of a virtual classroom experience as if you had lessons in a subject over a year. I've done a little (a very little) research into the UK curriculum. I think that schools differ to an extent that one will never find a model curriculum; there are certain things that *must* be covered but the manner of doing so seems rather open, particularly as the UK government has made the stupid and retrograde step of allowing faith schools. I know we have topic outlines on Wikipedia which you could equate to some degree with a course. And there's Wikibooks. I won't mention Wikiversity as Curriki is for K12 and they don't yet plan to cover further education. Some of our templates, too, give a kind of course vibe. Am I missing anything? ___ 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 Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: A likely edge case would be 'Rosebud' is the name of the childhood sled of Kane. I'd disagree. The whole Rosebud thing is rather a MacGuffin [1]. The mystery of Kane's final word is just a hook that motivates the journalist to review Kane's life story. The revelation at the end is marvellous but if you knew what was coming the journey would arguably not be greatly spoiled. Contrast that with the twist at the end of The Sixth Sense (albeit an inferior film to Kane) where the twist causes you to review everything you have seen before and allows you to view the film again, with the new knowledge of what you're witnessing, in a totally different light. A spoiler for Sixth Sense effectively wipes out one distinct viewing experience. That's not nearly so true with Kane. But perhaps we should not discuss individual spoilers; we'll end up upsetting people inadvertently. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin ___ 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 5:16 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: This is not an invitation to revive the whole spoiler debate, but this situation is slightly different in that those involved in putting the play on and the descendants of the author are speaking out against this. I suppose it is an argument for spoilers if those involved request it. There is something similar going through the courts at the moment regarding the identity of the Stig, the test driver on the BBC program Top Gear. As I understand it, Stig's contract with the BBC states he must not reveal his identity. The Foundation has not entered into any contracts with artists not to reveal their denouements. Personally I mourned the loss of the spoiler tags. However, I now simply avoid articles on books/films that I might digest in future after reading a spoiler once. I learned by getting slapped on the nose and decided I won't do that again. However, I would like our article on Lost to tell me everything. I decided after series one that they probably wouldn't ever resolve all my outstanding questions about early events and I didn't want to sit through the dreadful drama only to end up horribly frustrated when I'd devoted tens of hours in a forlorn search for meaning. So I stopped watching it early in series two. However, I'd still like to know the entire plot, including spoilers, at some stage, just to see if I was wise not to trust them with my heightened sense of curiosity. This doesn't rule out details being hidden behind something clickable, which I take no strong view on. But I do think that we should make the spoiler available somehow, partly because not divulging it strikes me as rather a commercially driven way to approach a work. If we leave the reader hanging it is more likely to drive our reader to the work in question so they can get resolution; that's not what we're here for. Take, for example, someone doing research for a piece on film endings of a certain type (eg ends with fatal car crash or murderer is revealed as a close relative); they should be able to use Wikipedia to research such a piece rather than have us lead them tantalisingly close to something that might be of value to them but ultimately have them navigating sweatily to Amazon.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] What ‘Fact-Checking’ Means Online
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-medium-t.html Interesting. Good to note that incorrect facts printed in old media would infect other publications; something we've caused to happen too, of course, but which is sometimes portrayed as a new and WP created phenomenon. ___ 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] Kicking off the 2010-2011 fundraiser
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'd like to begin a conversation about the 2010-2011 Fundraiser, which isn't slated to launch for a few months, but for which we'd like to get community involvement early and often. Aside from recalling the lesson of the disastrous WIKIPEDIA FOREVER!!! banner to make sure that doesn't happen again, I think some (more?) appeal videos would be good. What about asking our readers to submit I use Wikipedia to... videos; they begin with those words and then carry on talking. Perhaps it would be possible to get a call for such videos mentioned on the YouTube blog: they often run special events calling for people to submit vids on a particular subject. The individual projects sometimes have fancy landing pages with novel interfaces: Examples: Life In A Day - users asked to submit their daily activities on a specific date; some of the resulting submissions will be edited together to make one coherent (?) film: http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/07/life-in-day-thank-you-for-filming_24.html Life In A Day - landing page and interface: http://www.youtube.com/lifeinaday YouTube Play - a call for submissions from artists: http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/07/youtube-play-jury-selected-and-ready-to.html YouTube Play - landing page and interface: http://www.youtube.com/play We already have a relationship with Google. We also have a relationship with Facebook: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=382978412130 ... so perhaps we can get them to advertise our fund drive too? en.User:Bodnotbod Would there be an opportunity to get the word out via an interview on NPR or C-SPAN? I'm in the UK so not overly familiar with public service broadcasting in the US, but I wonder whether they might be good avenues to promote the fund drive. ___ 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] ZOMG Wikipedia is TERRORIST!!1!1!!!!
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: That's great fun! If I had more faith in humanity, I'd assume it was somebody's idea of a joke... (a joke which wastes the court's time, at that). The petition states that the Foundation cannot be traced to a physical address. That can't be right, can it? And then he signs at the bottom which warns that - if he knowingly states a falsehood - he commits perjury; so if he *is* aware that the Foundation has an address he has perjured himself. Googling Wikimedia Foundation gives you as top hit the site you would expect and as soon as you click contact us you are given the Foundation's address. Sigh. ___ 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 sourcing problem
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the character who had the similar name. The Wikipedia article is allowed to mention none of this because it assumes that reliable sources are professionally published and we can't use fanzines and blogs for information... and professionally publishing anything about a joke character whose superpower is that his arm falls off is not too likely. Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals (or what have you). If your desire is to overturn a central plank of Wikipedia policy - verifiability - then it would probably be wise not to present a joke comic character and a fan fiction dispute as plausible grounds to do so. en.User:Bodnotbod ___ 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 sourcing problem
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals We'd then have Wikipedia linking to something that's an unreliable source by Wikipedia standards. See point #4 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EXTERNAL#Links_to_be_considered I would suggest that gives you justification. It's not a fan fiction dispute in the sense that you imply. It's about a published author claiming that there was a fan fiction dispute and being able to have only her side of the story on Wikipedia because the fan fiction author cannot publish her side in a reliable source. I'm not sure if this will fly but... If the fan fiction author has their own website on which to publish their side I don't see why that would not be a reliable source. It would be a reliable source *for* *their* *side* *of* *this* *argument*. Provided the fan fiction author's site is not used as citation for anything other than their role in this story, I feel this would be acceptable. I am far from sure whether others will agree with me, though. It might go more smoothly if the fan fiction author's name is mentioned in the reliable sources in question and the fan fiction author's site is www.name-mentioned-in-the-reliable-source.com. If you really think it's unimportant because it's about fan fiction, then we shouldn't mention it at all. That's no excuse to mention one side. Importance is only an issue because you've suggested that we review our entire commitment to reliable sources over it but I'm *hoping* I may have given you a solution there which makes such a review unnecessary. ___ 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 sourcing problem
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals We'd then have Wikipedia linking to something that's an unreliable source by Wikipedia standards. See point #4 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EXTERNAL#Links_to_be_considered I would suggest that gives you justification. Although on further investigation there is point #12 here, which rather puts a dampener on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EXTERNAL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Hmmm. I see your problem. I'm tempted to say that the normally might give you wiggle room. And to avoid the problem of the Wikia content changing I assume it's possible to link to a specific page version. Good luck. ___ 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] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Many, if not most, companies, major non-profit organizations and virtually all government agencies have a Human Resources department... Would this be a possibility for the Wikipedia Project? ___ tl;dr version of the below ~ possibly, but perhaps a shower of wikilove is adequate. ___ No doubt *some* form of group could be set up to address such issues, the big question is whether it would be staffed. At Wikimania a chap from .de gave a talk on mentoring schemes. They appear to have quite a successful one. Our adopt a user programme [1] is much less so. Without care and diligence being given to the HR idea it may well lay fallow. What would probably be better is for people to just be more encouraging of each other in general, more supportive and more recognition given to editors (which was another point raised at Wikimania). In this way at least when someone is getting frustrated there's a counter-balancing atmosphere of positivity. I find that I spend hardly any time feeling part of a social atmosphere on Wikipedia. This will be in part because the community is so vast that I don't bump into the same people very often. Joining a Wikiproject would help, but I change my interests all the time and won't commit to a subject area. My editing activities often feel like floating on a vast ocean in a raft without companionship. For me, that's OK, I'm a misanthrope anyway and I get my social buzz from another site. It is easy to make enemies on Wikipedia and far less easy to make friends. It appears to me that most Wikipedia friendships arise in the real world with meet-ups and 'Manias. But I was one of the people writing proposals for the strategy wiki about adding social features [2] which, one would hope, could bond people together a bit more. It is correct to be concerned, however, that people might start spending too much time socialising and not enough time doing work :O) I read something recently about Facebook using our articles as some kind of seeding facility for their groups structure. I can't find any stories about this now (anyone?) [3]. Perhaps if we were to embrace that, and actively collaborate with Facebook, people who have accounts on each could socialise on the Facebook/Wikipedia mash-up leaving WP much as it is; ie work-focused. I'm digressing a little; to return to cases where long-term, valued users reach the end of their tether perhaps something quite simple like a page for people to log that they have left the project and asking them to give their reason would give us an opportunity to get in touch with them and try to persuade them to return (perhaps after a wikibreak). There was a survey done recently though (also covered at Wikimania), sent to users who had left the project and it turned out most of them described themselves as not having left, despite not having edited for 3 months. The idea of a survey of former admins, to establish reasons for leaving the project, appears to have started up in May and looks like it's still in the planning stage [4]. Perhaps we can return to these issues when the results are in? In this specific case I suggest anyone that knows the user to go and show some Wikilove. _ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADOPT [2] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features [3] ??? [4] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Community_Health/Former_administrators_survey _ en.User:Bodnotbod ___ 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] Three cheers for Wikipedia's cancer info (or two and a half)
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: FAs are frequently all but unreadable to the casual reader. How feasible would it be to add intro clear to casual reader? I realise some topics are just never going to be that clear ... particularly with the tendency for FAs to be about specialised topics. I reviewed our article on [[Lemurs]] for FA. I told the main contributor that it would be excellent if he would put an article on Simple Wikipedia and he said he had plans to do so. I intend to carry on reviewing FAs, so I'll bear that in mind for when I give feedback. ___ 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] Three cheers for Wikipedia's cancer info (or two and a half)
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: All that's happened is that the professionally produced material had some specific attention towards making it readable. The Wikipedia AFAIK doesn't have any formal processes to check that, so far as I know. Is it not a criterion used when judging articles C/B/A/GA/FA? User:Bodnotbod ___ 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] Three cheers for Wikipedia's cancer info (or two and a half)
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:22 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: The best articles are the creation of algorithmic and judgement-impaired FA/GA review processes. You get what you measure. How to measure good writing? What do you mean by algorithmic? And what do you feel needs changing in the review processes? User:Bodnotbod ___ 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-l] full-text searching since the Vector switch in en.wikipedia
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure changing the default from Go! to text search is the answer, though - and adding another button would be confusing. Maybe if the Go page had a Not the result you wanted? Click here to search by text prompt at the top? That sounds good to me. User:Bodnotbod ___ 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] Italian privacy laws and Google
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Does this case have implications for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8533695.stm Google employees were convicted by a court for allowing a video of a teenager with Down's Syndrome being bullied to be posted online. It seems most of the internet is up in arms about this, as it shifts the location where liability can be placed, though I doubt anything like this would ever appear in the USA. It does indeed pose a big question to anyone that uploads video showing persons who haven't signed a form giving consent for, I suppose, broadcast. Similarly there's a bill going through the British Parliament at the moment saying that you can't photograph people in public places. So if I wanted to take a picture of a statue and happen to catch someone walking past in the frame I would be liable. One hopes that we British will be shown to be such other legislatory idiots that nobody will take it seriously. Mr Godwin has already said he wouldn't fly over here to defend Wikimedia in a libel case because it would be too risky. We are set to become an utter laughing stock. ___ 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] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b) there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for potentially libelous information to remain accessible. There is a significant difference between the trash-talking one frequently sees (particularly in regard to living persons) such as X is a f***ing a**hole, and a blatant unsourced allegation of wrongdoing by the article`s subject such as X murdered his second wife``; the former would simply be reverted, while the latter qualifies for suppression. Just out of curiosity, a hardy perennial bit of vandalism is putting is gay into the biog of a heterosexual person. Would that be classed as normal vandalism or would that preferably invoke an oversighting? ___ 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] Learned Hand Article
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Congratulations to all who put together the Learned Hand article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand). From the Article through its Talk Pages - an excellent example of true collaboration. A great read! Looking at the references one gets the impression that 'Gunther's' book has had all its content poured onto a wiki. ___ 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote: 2) Delete all unreferenced BLPs - or BLPs referenced only to own website or IMDB etc What's the rationale behind this? ___ 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Those people who have been safely dead for a while, it tends to be easier to establish notability and find sources (they are also less litigious). There's an idea. Some people assert that Elvis is still alive. Why don't we put a whole section in his article saying he was a paedophile. If he doesn't sue we can assume he's properly dead and put an end to the debate. I feel this would be an excellent use of charitable funds. ___ 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
Ah, crap. I may need some advice soon. I created an article some years back on a living person. Not that long after he contacted me and asked if he could use the article as his official IMDB biog. I asked the community (since I was worried about licensing issues - IMDB controls content placed on its site), and was assured that it would be fine. However, it's hardly referenced at all (thinks were different back then). It *could* be, since everything on there I found online... I just can't be bothered right now. It has very recently been tagged as 'unreferenced'. Now, presumably if I use the IMDB biog as a reference I bet I will be done for copyvio, even though our article came *first*. So... what to do? Deletion looms. ___ 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Explain the situation on the talk page. Basically, you wrote the text on IMDB as well. There is nothing wrong with this. As a reference, it's now basically a first-party reference - it's a bio approved by the subject. Not enough for third-party, but good for e.g. resolving innocuous, etc. If it ends up deleted, hey. See if you can recreate from third-party sources with the approved bio as is usable. I've added a comment to the top of the article text (y'know, one of those that doesn't display until you click 'edit') and also a brief explanation in the 'references' section. I'll put something on the talk page. ___ 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] Administrator coup / mass deletions
It would be rather good if a list of the deletions arising out of this cull were listed somewhere so we can see the extent and details of the damage/change/improvement. ___ 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] Image credits on the main page (revisited?)
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: For restorers, I would say that the image page is where they should be named, but the image caption could maybe say: restored by Wikipedia/Wikimedia volunteer - that is the key point, Would I encounter a wave of hostility if I said that a short list of volunteers should be credited for featured articles? User:Bodnotbod ___ 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] Image credits on the main page (revisited?)
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Would I encounter a wave of hostility if I said that a short list of volunteers should be credited for featured articles? Probably. Try it and see! :-) Hee hee. Well, it's something that could potentially arise from stuff I've been doing on the Strategy wiki, though it hasn't been something made explicit. I do think there's room for some kind of volunteer recognition, though. User:Bodnotbod ___ 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] How smart people fail to share
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain the obvious to people it isn't obvious to? With references? Your comment there reminds me of a mini-battle I had on Wikipedia. I started articles on various forms of published 'criticism'. We already had 'music journalism' but I started ones on, for example, 'dance criticism'; you can see the template that arose at the bottom of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_criticism So I just started off several articles stating, as blandly as I could, what criticism of those things meant. But I couldn't provide any references and my stubs were tagged for deletion as being original research. Find *examples* of such writings, sure, not a problem at all. I was merely trying to state the obvious existence of these forms of writing, but because it was so obvious nobody on the web had written *about the writing* itself. There wasn't any meta-level discussion of these things. User:Bodnotbod ___ 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] Random featured article...
What's the best namespace or place to make a proposal that en:wp have a random *featured* article button? As anyone who uses the random article link knows it often turns up places of small geographical interest. We now have a pretty damn good library of featured content. I'd really enjoy being able to pop a random featured article, knowing I was about to see some of the best we have to offer. The downside, of course, is that it could further clutter an already fairly busy interface; so perhaps this could be switched on in preferences? Or alternatively perhaps the feature could be made available from a button that only appears when you visit a certain page? User:Bodnotbod ___ 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] Random featured article...
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote: These two links may be of interest to you: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-featured.php http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-good.php As found on [[User:Csörföly D/random featured article]] Yay! Absolutely excellent. I had wanted Good Articles too but didn't want to ask for too much. They're perfect and duly bookmarked. Thanks very much! ___ 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] Annual fundraiser: which banners work
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: I just hope that the banner that recently was captured and displayed on reddit[1] was a edit/joke because if it wasn't it shows how pathetic and needy the community is to include that message. [1]. http://localhostr.com/files/a9e4bc/bXIhj.jpg Lean on me, when a book's too long And I'll be your friend I'll help you study on For it won't be long Til we're gonna need Somebody to lean on. ___ 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] Annual fundraiser: which banners work
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: This has been my largest critique over time. My largest critique over time is that it stubbornly refuses to go backwards. I missed an IRC meeting of Wikipedians the other night. Would time go back *just* *this* *once*? Well, it never told me it wouldn't. But it certainly didn't return my calls. ___ 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] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: So, in essence, many Wikipedia articles are another way that the work of news publications is quickly condensed and reused without compensation. This is more than a little rich considering Wikipedia is the number-one universal backgrounder for working journalists. I do think it's a valid complaint. I feel that Wikinews might be pushing things; it is still essentially a distillation of other people's work. And the *most* newsworthy stuff makes it into Wikipedia. As a reader of Wikipedia I think it's absolutely great. As an editor I'm astonished at what fellow editors accomplish with topics. But if I put myself in the shoes of journalists and newspaper owners I would be thinking there's something unfair going on. ___ 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] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: And the *most* newsworthy stuff makes it into Wikipedia. As a reader of Wikipedia I think it's absolutely great. As an editor I'm astonished at what fellow editors accomplish with topics. But if I put myself in the shoes of journalists and newspaper owners I would be thinking there's something unfair going on. Maurice Jarre was unavailable for comment. I recognise the name but I'm not entirely sure what part of my chain you're yanking. What was that story again? As I say, I love Wikipedia, but putting on media boots I can see us as a problem. ___ 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] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: As I say, I love Wikipedia, but putting on media boots I can see us as a problem. This doesn't mean their opinion has a leg to stand on, however. We do this stuff so people can use it, but it's a bit off to turn around and claim we should be paying them for the privilege. There is a page on Wikipedia giving advice on how to refactor the info we get from elsewhere. I can't recall the page now. In practice I think it's *very* hard not to steal a line. I think we've all had the experience of being set homework at school and looking it up in an encyclopedia and then shifting the words around to make it look different. I would suggest (whilst still being an avid Wikipedian) that our articles will often be a form of finding stuff that could conceivably have monetary value and then spurting it out for free. Again, I love that we do that. But I do have an unsettling feeling. Some moral qualms. ___ 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] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Certain copyright issues are also at the heart of the problem, notably that you can't copyright information. You can copyright expression, but Wikipedians are quite happy to not use the actual wording of news reports. I wonder how true that is, though. I'm sure people on Wikinews do sometimes cut 'n' paste, but I feel there's more to it than that. It actually takes quite a bit of work to read an entire article and process it in your mind then put out a purely self-made version. And, let's take the *most* optimistic view of editors: you're still reporting a report. Some guy went out there, said what he saw, got money for it, funded by advertising. At best, all we can do is say this guy saw what he saw and now I'm repeating it. Don't misunderstand me... I'm still on Wikipedia/Wikinews's side on this. But that's as a reader and editor, not as someone running a business. Surely it must be true to say that Wikinews would be nothing without paid journalists from whom we aggregate content? ___ 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] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: We know that there is enough traffic for the SEO/spammer mob to think it is worth trying to get there links into the reference section of wikipedia. Wikipedia's traffic is also highly targets and actually buys stuff and clicks ads from time to time which makes getting some of it worthwhile. Is there any data to show that people make click-thru purchases from Wikipedia? ___ 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] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: It actually takes quite a bit of work to read an entire article and process it in your mind then put out a purely self-made version. And, let's take the *most* optimistic view of editors: you're still reporting a report. Some guy went out there, said what he saw, got money for it, funded by advertising. Not always, no. Perhaps not even usually. The money often comes from subscriptions, classical example is the BBC. If anything, subscriptions are more reliable; there's less commercial pressure to bend the truth on things. And a lot of the organisations that use advertising pay companies like Reuters for their news, there's only very indirect funding by advertising. I think the BBC comparison is quite a good one. Rupert Murdoch would like to kill the BBC. Yet the BBC does pay journalists to report stories. We only really report reports. Again, as a reader, I found Wikipedia amazing with its article on the flood in New Orleans. I found our article better than any news story. But we are rightly perceived as a threat and I'm not sure we can hold the moral high ground. I'm happy that we compete with Britannica. I'm not sure we should compete with newspapers. ___ 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] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: The fate of newspapers is well beyond our ability to settle. Our interests are that good quality reliable reporting of events across the globe continues to take place. I think most Wikipedians support good journalism. The question is are we harming them? and are we stealing? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We've moved on from that. But should we have done? Did we over-reach? The problem is far worse outside the first world. Other than a few government backed media organisations and commercial companies little first hand reporting goes on outside the first world that reaches us. Heh to use the cliche there is no obvious alternative to the current system that allows us to find out about the issues that most directly impact the child in Africa or say Honduras. If there were a body of wiki-journalists going out, willing to give their work for free then we could have proper wiki-reporting. As things stand, we nick stuff, refactor it, and lay it down. Again, as a reader, Wikimedia projects are my go-to place. But I'm yet to hear that we can justify some of the stuff that goes on. ___ 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] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: (1) The re-synthesis of information that goes into creating Wikipedia articles often reduces/removes the need to read source news articles, without infringing copyright. The kind of neutral analysis and synthesis that Wikipedia does (when its working right) is one of the things people used to go to news outlets for. I agree. When Wikipedia/Wikinews is at its best it's far better than any *one* news story. It's a communal, unrobotic aggregator it's incredibly efficient. Whereas one journalist goes out and inspects a story we're effectively getting 50 journalists out on the ground... but we're not paying anything to anyone. We have articles on physics, biology and so on... but maybe we shouldn't have articles on one flood instance and keep the world updated on that. ___ 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] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: We add background information and context from wider sources than newspapers. Do we? On topical subjects? It's also somewhat questionable how much of a dent we make in traffic for day to day news. Sure we take a decent percentage of the traffic for the really big stories (2008 Mumbai attacks, Michael Jackson's death, the new pope) but not so much for day to day news. So what's Wikinews for? ___ 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] Something on the nature of working for free
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote: Now, the interesting part of the voluntary nature of Wikipedia is that there does illogically persist an ideology of status, and moving up the ladder just like in a professional world. In a paid environment, the motivation is usually power, money, skillsets, and networking. On Wikipedia, you can take out two of those motivating factors, but it's up to you which two you choose. Could change, of course: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_awards_and_rewards ___ 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] Thought for the day…
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: A good way to overthrow a regime is to predict its downfall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy Which regime and which prophecy are you referring to? One assumes the 'prophecy' is the recent articles about a fall in new contributors to en:wp. ___ 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 site for meta-discussion
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Jake Wartenberg j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote: I can. I want to promote a relaxed atmosphere without allowing outing or trolling. It should be a place where editors can chatter idly and brainstorm new ideas. I hope that gives you an idea of what I am going for here. If there's a problem with outing (I don't even know what that means) and trolling they should be dealt with within the community. We already have a list that is moderated. Perhaps this is harsh, but maybe you mean I, personally, am not getting what *I* want from the communities that exist, so I'll set up another one. I occasionally get drunk, or swipe at someone and then get slapped down by a few people. When that happens I generally think yeah, they have a point, I really should be put in my place. I was wrong. Are you just looking to create somewhere where you'll finally be right? ___ 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 site for meta-discussion
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that you misunderstood what he was saying, and then harshly criticized what you mistakenly took him to mean. He was asked Can you describe the editorial policy [of wikien.net]? He replied that it would be a relaxed forum for discussion and chitchat, with 'no trolling or outing' as a caveat to the relaxed moderating. Nowhere did he make a claim about on-wiki (or on-list) problems of trolling or outing (outing is making public personal details on someone who edits psuedonymously). The background, which you evidently missed, is that some non-wiki forums used to discuss Wikipedia expressly allow both trolling and outing. Fair enough, I do appear to have missed part of the conversation. I apologise. Though the intent may be chivalrous, I still think that splintering is bad for any community. It's hard to keep up with everything that's going on. I'm quite new to the mailing lists and I really hanker for things to be reined in. For example, I'd prefer that Foundation type announcements were on... well, I was going to say en:wp... but that would be too hidden from people working on other projects, so maybe on Meta? And then people could leave comments there. I do feel that we should follow the Wiki-way. ___ 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] Ad-free forever?
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Strange, I'd interpret it as Wikipedia will be ad-free forever. Now, hand over the cash. That's pretty much how I'd see it too. I would like to see WP ad-free forever but it does seem a little unwise to tie your hands using that banner. The strategy process is still ongoing and there are a number of proposals for adverts. I don't sense they're going to get any traction this time. But if the WMF severely lacked funds in future years I imagine everyone would start considering them. ___ 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] Featured churn
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: As long as history doesn't come to an end, and new people keep getting born and (annoyingly) becoming notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there will always be a need for new articles. Not to mention people's irritating and continuing habit of publishing successful books, making notable films (running the risk of creating notable actors and other staff), creating successful companies with successful products, progressing with scientific enquiry, advancing technology, releasing new software... At this rate we'll never finish the encyclopedia. Once Wikipedia has more cultural power I suggest we wield it to put a halt to all activity until we've caught up. Once that's achieved I suggest that all human endeavours are posted as requests through our OTRS and we can tell the actor/scientist/inventor whether we are willing to allow them to proceed (after we have assessed whether their activity is liable to create something that meet our notability criteria) or whether they must wait until we clear any current backlog. ___ 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 FOREVER
WIKIPEDIA FOREVER! It just sounds like a war cry or triumphal primal scream. I'd rather the words help or support were in there. The cry makes it sound like Wikipedia is not the least fragile. It sounds like it doesn't need support. ___ 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] Sidewiki
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Oops, can't read/can't count at this time in the morning - was launched 23rd September (see [[Google Toolbar]]). Does anyone actually use this in ways relevant to WP? I downloaded the Google toolbar specifically to try out the side-wiki but the icon has remained greyed out whenever I've looked at it. I've heard reports of people giving it a go without such a problem, so not sure what's going on and I haven't really felt moved to investigate. I heard a radio show discussing side-wiki and one issue they raised was that it gave web owners no control over what people said about their site in the wiki (as opposed, say, to on-site comments). ___ 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] Googley comments
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: The introduction of Talk pages was, it should not be forgotten, one of the most brilliant innovations of the early days of Wikipedia. Indeed. A very intelligent friend of mine said he often finds the talk page as interesting as the article itself. He described them as a 'Talmudic commentary'. I keep meaning to make sure that I always read the talk page after scanning an article but I don't seem to have implanted that idea in my head with sufficient rigour yet, I tend to forget. I've sometimes used the talk page to list research resources that I've used that I don't feel would be quite right to put as external links on the article itself. ___ 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] Googley comments
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:47 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: What I would think more likely to succeed? A Help us improve tab, not a comment tab One of the proposals on the strategy wiki has recommended an adjustment to talk pages. I added that perhaps the tab should be called discussion/feedback to encourage people who are primarily readers to let us know what they thought of an article without it necessarily sounding like they had to be knowledgeable. I'm afraid I can't link to the proposal cos I can't remember the name or whether I watchlisted it. But I imagine this kind of proposal is fairly common: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13573 ___ 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] Well-sourced nonsense vs. unsourced competence
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section? People with a view on this may like to contribute to: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Move_references_out_of_the_code ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy...
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:09 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 8/31/2009 11:47:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ft2.w...@gmail.com writes: - WikiTrust might be described as a way to see how long an edit endured and how much trust it seems to have; in most users' hands it'll be its colored red/blue so its right/wrong. - People won't think, they'll assume and rely. --- Interesting to see this by virtue of repetition in our mirrors. And our pseudo-mirrors who *don't* event state that they mirrored us. Then after a phrase has been cut from our version due to lack of source, it's put back in citing a past mirror who hasn't removed it Circular. I found a Wikimania presentation earlier that showed colour coding of text according to trustworthiness and also rated contributors on a similar scale. I can't seem to find it again now though. ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy...
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote: I found a Wikimania presentation earlier that showed colour coding of text according to trustworthiness and also rated contributors on a similar scale. I can't seem to find it again now though. D'oh! My usually gorgeous Gmail broke this thread into pieces and offered me a mere snippet which it served to me before presenting me with the meat of the thread which showed that EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS THIS :o) Gmail, you have made me look a fool! ___ 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] Annoying exonyms (was: hatnotes)
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I will wager $100 that Wikipedia will be gone long before the sun turns into a Red Giant. I hope Wikipedia at least outlives me. I do sometimes get into the mindset of thinking everything I do with Wikipedia might be a waste of time because I envision it collapsing, dying, being fatally attacked or somesuch. That's why I do let out a big cheer (as if my favourite soccer team had scored a goal) every time the WMF gets a grant or large donation: it puts my worries to rest for a little while. ___ 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] Annoying exonyms (was: hatnotes)
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:52 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The content of Wikipedia, like malaria, is here to stay. It's been copied so many times by now, that nothing can eradicate it. Wikipedia itself however probably won't live more than ten more years at the most :) In twenty years, we will live inside the matrix 24-7 with constant streaming implants so there won't be an Internet per se, and computing power will be distributed all-wetware-all-the-time. After all any million step computation can be done one step at a time by a million neurons, you don't even have to be in a waking state. Hey that's gives me an idea! Let's run with it though... you're going with the (I think fairly sound) idea that the digital landscape will be very different 20 years down the line... but why do you think that Wikipedia as a non-profit wouldn't be a part of that? Do you think it would be hopelessly superseded by brain implants that give us access to all knowledge all of the time? Who's to say that that knowledge wouldn't be provided by Wikipedia? ___ 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] Flagged Revisions
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a lot of people would find such practical information very useful. Perhaps so, but it's not in tune with the idea of an encyclopedia, which is what we're all supposed to be striving for. I'd really hate to go to [[curry]] and see recipes. The sorts of spices that are often included yes. But not cooking times. If I look up [[engine]] I want to know how it functions. But I don't want to see a tutorial on how to deal with specific problems. Although I suppose there's a possible claim of hypocrisy here. Many of our medical articles include a section on treatment, which I guess is a form of How To. And I just happened upon [[suicide methods]] which perhaps is the last word, almost literally, on How To do something. ___ 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] I suppose it's not good to make fun of physics cranks
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: So standard physics is a morasse of unprovable assumptions, unobservables, and blatantly incorrect theory. By now it comes as no surprise that wikipedia suppresses all the flaws. It is in the interest of their “moderators” to do so, otherwise sinecures from public funding will be in danger. These are soft jobs based on the intellectual inertia of Governments. Heh, and to think we devote most of our time to expressing concerns that *advertising* would compromise the public's view of Wikipedia's NPOV. Does WMF receive government funding? I thought it merely got tax breaks (which I suppose some would argue amounts to the same thing). Regardless, and has been said throughout the ages, you just can't win. ___ 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 reaches 3 millionth article
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:20 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: Although we still haven't worked out what size people will general accept as a fairly complete general encyclopedia. I think if we had almost every article you would find in a *single volume* encyclopedia up to featured or good status that would be a great foundation. Surely Wikipedia 1.0 has a lot to say on this matter? Are you involved with that? ___ 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] Annoying hatnotes
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Tony Sidawaytonysida...@gmail.com wrote: Far worse than hatnotes, I'd say, are the ever-more-garish templates we now use for matters such as tagging for NPOV, cleanup, and so on. In my opinion we were better off when such templates produced a single line of italics akin to a hatnote. These pastel-colored boxes we've been struggling with for the past four or five years are horrible. I have some sympathy with that. On the other hand, as both an editor and Wikipedia user/reader, I find the garish boxes a spur to action. I feel compelled to resolve the issue so I can get rid of the ugly box and put in the edit summary now resolved or somesuch. I think if the garishness was not there perhaps I wouldn't feel so motivated. ___ 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] Annoying hatnotes
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Now I'm off to dump all this on Vienne (disambiguation) and then I'll go and moan at WikiProject Disambiguation about how one can't be expected go through all the 500+ links pointing at Vienne Do we not have a tool that would make this process faster? I'm a user of Huggle which doesn't have any related functionality. I've heard about Twinkle and I think we also have something called QuickCat that makes categorisation easier. Do we have something with a fast and clean interface that could address disambiguation issues? ___ 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 approaches its limits - Technology Guardian
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard reports of people doing this as sport, just to be annoying, but in my experience, they're often right. But it leaves you in a real quandary, if you can't verify it either way. I normally revert those, unless you can verify it it's just an unreferenced change. You can leave a message on their talk page though asking for a ref. Same goes for logged-ins. I see a lot of these patrolling recent changes in Huggle. I look at the user's other contribs and provided I can find just one in the same day where he's blanked the page and written SUCK MY ASS!!! I'll revert the numeric change and put rv numerical change by bad faith editor but editors may wish to double-check as an edit summary. Another warning sign is a number of numeric changes, without any other sort of edit, in completely unrelated types of articles. I wouldn't necessarily rv on that basis but I probably would if they've had any sort of warning that day. ___ 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] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:59 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: The stable concept of deletionism isn't anything more than the waste management principle: 'any organism needs a waste removal system.' A fairly basic and agreeable idea. After that, inclusionism sort of became a misnomer - few disagree that all subjects need to be 'included' - the disagreements deal with how they are treated. Eventualism and integrationism sort of came along a bit later, and these are the acually operant philosophies today. I've found I've changed over the last 4 or 5 years that I've been on WP. When I first joined a fought against the deletion of an unremarkable street because my thought was isn't it amazing that someone can find their *own* street* on Wikipedia! It will inspire editors because if people can find their own street they'll go WOW! and want to join in and add to this remarkable project. Now, more experienced and more cynical, I view Wikipedia as an increasingly large carpet that multitudes want to urinate on... with no growth in the number of cleaners. ___ 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] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copypasted books from Wikipedia
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Renata Strenataw...@gmail.com wrote: It was raised before on the Village Pump, but I think this is so disturbing that we ought to do something. As others have said, I don't find this disturbing at all. It would be good if a Wikipedian bought one of the books to ensure compliance with our license but even if it doesn't I would still be unmoved. I don't think it requires a concerted effort by Wikipedia to attack the publisher by trying to post a review of all 2,000 books. Purchasers of the books who feel they were conned can post their own reviews if they buy them and are alarmed to discover how they were produced. I wouldn't be against Wikipedia having its own range of print works provided they were profitable and all funds were ploughed back into the Foundation. But I certainly don't think it would be a good idea if it were purely motivated by trying to compete someone out of the market. ___ 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] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their expertise and we want them to advise us. Nothing says we respect your expertise like a short-term block :o) ___ 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] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: There are people who are skilled at facilitating consensus, given the opportunity. Dispute resolution process suggests bringing in a neutral party to mediate, but we don't insist on that process. Instead, we have editors who, when they oppose what another editor is trying to do, go to a noticeboard to request that the other editor be coerced into stopping. And the noticeboards are full of result-oriented editors who are impatient with process. When I mentioned on a project list recently, possibly this one, that I had more time to spare on Wikipedia and asked where I should devote that time, and stated I'm interested in conflict resolution someone replied the last thing we need is another person getting involved in arguments. :o/ ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: http://www.dailylit.com/tags/wikipedia-tours Thank you for that link. I had thought to do something like that myself. I have been saved the time now. ___ 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] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning categories into tags - so that e.g. [[Category:Left-handed dead Jewish lesbian presidents of the United States]] could become a query combining a pile of tags, rather than a ridiculously specific sub-sub-category as we have now. So would tags replace categories or work alongside? ___ 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] 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 newspapers will start charging their customers. It's just this second struck me that this could have dire consequences for Wikipedia. Presumably we have millions of citations that point to online newspaper content. If they decide to put their archives behind a pay wall, what's going to happen to those citations? Are we going to say that we accept that people will have to pay if they now wish to verify a statement? Or are we going to have to a) laboriously re-reference everything and b) lose a great deal of content that we've been unable to find alternative citations for? Arguably I'm jumping the gun here. But it may be worth discussing in advance as I reckon this issue isn't going to go away. Does anyone think I should post this to the 'Foundation' mailing list too? ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:40 AM, michael westmichaw...@gmail.com wrote: We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of print. I don't see the problem. I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's valid but I'll throw it out there. Where a book (possibly out of print) is cited we should be giving details of Title, Author, ISBN and possibly Edition. With newspaper links we should be giving Newspaper, Journalist, Access Date... I'm wondering if, if newspaper content goes behind a pay wall, we would really have to be giving citation information that pertains to the actual printed copy of the article, ie, Newspaper, Print Date and Page Number? Also, though you don't see a problem and are comfortable with how you would handle this development I wonder how you can be sure how editors (particularly anon and policy ignorant editors) will respond to this new turn of events. People will have an entirely reasonable expectation that if they click on a citation link that they will, indeed, be taken to a page that backs up any given assertion (and not a registration screen). If that doesn't happen they may respond by removing the link and the content it was supposed to verify. ___ 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] In development--BLP task force
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative. This is something
we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary
history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to
avoid water than to drown. In modern history, it gets you more
attention from a medical laymen, and so you are more likely to get
attention from a medical expert (via getting means of transportation,
peer pressure, etc.). It increases the ability to survive, but not
write Wikipedia articles.
{{citation needed}}
I could equally argue the opposite. I could argue that many Wikipedia
articles, especially BLPs are written by *fans* or supporters of the
person in question and that this may tend towards hagiography. But I
have no citations for my claim either.
The community also seems to have decided that criticism *sections* are
undesirable and that criticism should be spread throughout an article.
I agree with this as an ideal. But I think a criticism section is
quite useful in the earlier stages of an article's development simply
because, when an article is still being built, it is easier to
compartmentalise areas for ease of adding new facts. But, y'know, I
guess that argument's already been had at some stage, so I'm not about
to try and overthrow 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Note the tension between you can edit this page right now, which is part of the credo, and you can verify this fact right now, which isn't... ...unless it's a BLP, right? ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Note the tension between you can edit this page right now, which is part of the credo, and you can verify this fact right now, which isn't... ...unless it's a BLP, right? You say that why? There isn't a different definition of verifiability on BLPs, as far as I know. There is a higher degree of attention to all aspects of policy in relation to BLPs. Seems to fit as difference of degree, not difference of kind. Looks like you're right. You know there's a bit of text that appears when you're in editing mode between the edit window and the 'submit' button? I seemed to remember that it said something different when you edit a BLP than when you edit say 'donkey' or 'saucer'. But it doesn't. Don't know where I got that idea from. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: I don't think that Murdoch's proposal is viable in the long run. Who will be wanting to pay for so much ephemeral material. What would it say of readers who bind themselves to one site because that is all they can afford only one subscription? Although, bearing in mind this is News International, Murdoch owns enough papers that 'one' subscription may allow access to many sites, if he so chose. Latest news I've heard is that Murdoch might test this out, to begin with, on the UK's Sunday Times. Savvy media types have made the point that the payment system will have to be real slick to succeed. It will have to be a one click payment after registration. Sounds feasible to me. I think I'd be OK lobbing in 10p (16c) for certain things. Another commentator said it was weird of Murdoch to announce his strategic intentions ahead of actually doing them. They have suggested this is because he wouldn't want to go alone on this, so is trying to get the debate going and hopes that other news organisations follow. It's an issue. The UK's oldest Sunday newspaper, The Observer, has been described as on the verge of collapse these last few days. ___ 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] In development--BLP task force
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Interesting examples. For both O.J. and Phil I would assume we can create fairly complete biographies using appropriate souces. I am doubtful that we could really make a biography for Gary Glitter without a lot of unacceptable sources being used, or a too full reliance on a single source. Heh. Why can OJ have a biography, Phil Spector have a biography but Gary Glitter would have a... biography. Is it grammatically correct to use scare quotes when talking about paedophiles? :o) ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: Reuters to Murdoch and AP: Go ahead and kill yourselves. Idiots.: http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/08/04/why-i-believe-in-the-link-economy/ Yes, I'm inclined to believe the link economy works with a caveat after the next paragraph. I'm surprised that I get some full stories in my Google RSS Reader: I have little to no reason to visit the site. I wonder why they allow this. OK, if it's a Blogspot thing and the person writing doesn't seek ad revenue, understandable. But some of the posts I see in the reader ARE funded by ads, yet they give me everything I need in order to avoid them. Weird. And this is the after para: I use AdBlock in Firefox. I can't remember the last time I saw an advert on a site. An animated one, at least. Sometimes I feel bad about this. But it makes me feel a lot less bad than trying to read with an animation in my peripheral vision. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The purposes of citations divide roughly into two overlapping needs - 1/ for people who do edit to verify stated content facts, 2/ for readers to find further information and (sometimes) to check content. Nicely done, sir. Yes, as someone who patrols Recent Changes using Huggle [[WP:HUGGLE]] I come across referenced edits that turn out, when you click the attached link, not to tally with the statement at all. For example, a recent one I saw I knew looked funny from the outset in that the statement was quite specific but the citation was to the too general sounding www.f1.com (the front page of the Grand Prix website). I searched to see if I could drill down and confirm and replace the citation but failed. I will be in a world of frustration and hurt if I am confronted with please subscribe for $5 to access this article. I wouldn't *remove* the citation because, as a previous poster indicated, my failure to access is not cause to disregard good faith. Accordingly if news did become pay-only WMF may obtain some kind of subscription to major sources, accessible to a wide but well defined subset of editors (users with 500 edits? users agreed by a community process to be suitable?). That's an interesting idea. Could work. I have a feeling they might ask us to sacrifice Wikinews and stop covering current events as their price, though. I would if I were them. Wikinews is not only direct competition but it does (and don't hate me for this) leech off all their sources. I see no good reason why they should support their potential competition, no matter how tiddly Wikinews is in terms of online news. Wikinews might have to be the sacrificial goat. We may have to say goodbye to great articles like Hurricane Katrina and say that we'll create articles that refer to things 12 months gone. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: That something is not yet available online, shouldn't be a factor in considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of Bora Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for you, provided you have the citation and the repository location (see worldcat.org). I think that's somewhat naive. I found a new article the other day and it was all about this guy who was described as the greatest child genius the world has ever seen. There was a long list of verifications although not enough to cover most of the points made in the article. I smelled a rat and stuck a hoax banner on it. There was (IIRC) one editor. There were pictures. The citations were all to books with no online click-thru. The whole thing just smelled wrong. I wish I could remember the article now... Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs? I guess what I'm saying is: it's quite easy to make up a book. But perhaps I'm wrong in that. You mention worldcat.org... it's not something I'm familiar with: is it your sense that worldcat.org is comprehensive enough to rumble invented books? And even if it is... could I not just choose an obscure book at random and attribute a claim to it? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: As far as when to remove citations to subscription web-sites and when to leave them intact as convenience links, I use the following rule: I'm sorry, you've completely and utterly confused me... so let's look: Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets removed. We should not be requiring or pandering for, commercial activity, we as verifiers should have a choice in the matter. There must always be a free alternative of some sort. But many articles could live exclusively online AND be free (free to WP readers, the advertiser is paying). Part Deux) *If* there is a hard-copy version of the article, and your citation to the online version is verbose enough that a normally intelligent person could locate the item in a library, then it can stay. But the verbosity could be a trick. I'll pretend you didn't say verbosity. I'll pretend you said specified. But I think we hit a very big problem here. It's one thing to patrol Recent Changes. It's quite another to print out referenced edits from the last 5 minutes at Recent Changes and... well, good luck trying to find all the material: and when you *have* there will have been another 30,000 items in Recent Changes. Part Final Bit) *If* your citation to the online article, is so limited in content that no one could find the article except by following your link.. then it gets removed. WHAT!? What's WRONG with finding the material at the link!? Provided it's a Reliable Source? I am vicious and exacting I know. We should be setting the bar for others to follow, not being lazy in citation practice. Weird. I think I'm far from lazy. But I can't understand your methodology at all. I think I must be grossly misunderstanding what you're saying, because I have no doubt that you're - like me - trying to do everything for the best. But I can't follow your logic. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: I found this interesting: http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/ Basically, en:wp cites the BBC and Guardian more than any other UK news outlet. Because they're easy to link to. Paywall for generic news = sink without trace. That's a good find. I confess I tend to cite The Guardian often myself because it's the paper I buy (only on a Saturday, though: and I'm a fan. No wonder the market's going down the toilet). And I am a BBC luvah-man. A complete side-issue: but the BBC and The Guardian are often cited as being somewhat leftie institutions (as am I), so that would give plenty of succour to Conservopedia :o) ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I would submit however, that every print publication over the past 100 years or perhaps even 200, lives in at least one worldcat repository (library) somewhere in the world. OK, thank you. I expect I'll be spending a lot of time on that site: it might give me some ideas of stuff I can find at Gutenburg and Librivox. I think my other problem still stands though: misrepresenting (inventing!) what a book says in pretty good knowledge that I won't be found out. And, hey, if I were an anonymous user, what do I care anyway? I suppose I should say: like my email address, I'm User:Bodnotbod. Nice to meet you. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs? Yes. 05:24, 30 July 2009 David Eppstein (talk | contribs | block) deleted James Cornelius Leach (G3: Vandalism: Blatant hoax with possible G10 aspects) Ah! I could kiss you! I really could. Though that's mainly the cider. Hell, it's Friday night. By the way, you have a very scary picture on your user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bodnotbod Yes. I think that's why I don't get any barnstars :o( I've vaguely thought about becoming an admin. It would put me on the wrong foot, wouldn't it? I think of taking it down. But it's *so* *me*. ___ 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] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I also looked at the deleted version of the article, and it was a copy of this, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis Yes, the intro is. Definitely. Then I think the hoaxer played around with the other bits, probably adding in his own biography (or that of a friend). Then made up all the references too (which were not clickable). How can you see those things then? Is that admin power or are you higher than that? Bodnotbod ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
