[WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S&T blocked English Wikipedia user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified reasons in the Office purview. There was a brief statement here from Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal policy and procedur

Re: [WikiEN-l] The Damned Commons Image Deletion Cycle

Do you want to apply that to all millionish of our local media files, or do you want me to? (ducks) George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:05 PM, geni wrote: > On 5 August 2013 08:36, George Herbert wrote: > >> >> >> These are n

Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] The Damned Commons Image Deletion Cycle

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:54 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 5 August 2013 08:43, Tyler Romeo wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Huib Laurens > wrote: > > >> Suggestion 3: Restore the file on en.wiki if it gets deleted on > Commons... > >> No coding needed at all. > > > This right here. It

Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] The Damned Commons Image Deletion Cycle

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Huib Laurens wrote: > > > Suggestion 3: Restore the file on en.wiki if it gets deleted on > Commons... > > No coding needed at all. > > > > This right here. It should be trivial to just have an admin restore th

[WikiEN-l] The Damned Commons Image Deletion Cycle

I have just had to deal with this - AGAIN - and would like to rail for a moment, hoping to provoke discussion to promote change. I posit that this is big enough to deserve a Foundation-wide venue for initial discussion so am including Wikitech-L. Most of us are probably familiar with the cycle:

Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> How exactly? On OTRS we handle much more sensitive private info :-) >> >> Tom Morton > > Checkuser may be employed in either instance if there is a good reason, > such as an apparent sock puppet or abuse of multiple accounts. > > Fred Right

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:35 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: > If Sanger > really wanted us to introduce an image filter he'd be far more effective if > he lobbied for solutions that are compatible with our ethos and values. Could we get an official statement to the effect that third-party censorsh

Re: [WikiEN-l] trying to bully us?

Even within the community, we still have primary / secondary / tertiary source and verifiability standards confusion. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Luca Motoc wrote: > Yes. > > 2012/9/8 Katie Chan > >> Really? An author wanting us to correct inacc

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On 4/17/12, George Herbert wrote: > > > >> The key problem here - IMHO - is not-sensitive editors interacting >> with sensitive BLP subjects. > > That is not always the case. > > What would *you* do if yo

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Sarah wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert > wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote: >>>> It would be better to have a ru

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote: >> It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the >> subject in consideration about whether we should have an article, >> unless an exception can be made according to other Wik

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2012, at 9:34, Ken Arromdee wrote: > I didn't pull this out of thin air, after all--I was replying to someone > who, with complete seriousness, said that we shouldn't delete a BLP because > Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I did not say that, n

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent developments, however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into barking mad territory. No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:27, Carchar

Re: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] sad news

Very sad, I met him and he seemed to be a very good guy. Seems to be a bad week; a friend of mine from college passed on Sunday morning. Focus on big things and have fun while you're here. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2012, at 19:42, phoebe ayers wrote: > Those of you

Re: [WikiEN-l] English Wikipedia blackout

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> On 17 January 2012 11:29, Andrew Gray wrote: >>> The one omission there other than the mailing list seems to have been >>> the Village Pumps; the first RFC was hosted on VP/Proposal

Re: [WikiEN-l] [[Long Dong Silver]]

alk page indicates that the page was > deleted (and, yes, supporessed) by Fred at 00:41. > > > George Herbert wrote: >> Ok, >> >> A. The assertion that he fails PORNBIO seems rather flat on the face >> of it, based on my moderate familiarity with 70s/80s porn, and &g

Re: [WikiEN-l] [[Long Dong Silver]]

Ok, A. The assertion that he fails PORNBIO seems rather flat on the face of it, based on my moderate familiarity with 70s/80s porn, and B. WTF happened with the article history? It seems to have been hard deleted rather than normal deleted. I can't even go back and check the version diffs to se

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:28 AM, George Herbert > wrote: > >> In this particular, I am vexed and confused.  If the longer article >> makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name are >> tho

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus >> wrote: >> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob wrote: >> > >> >&

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob wrote: > >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus >> wrote: >> > I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my comment >> is >> > false (not to mention that it is a slur).

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Carl (CBM) wrote: >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth >> wrote: >>> I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and >>> serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote: >>>[...] >>> You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit.  Not in >>> any >>> real-world sense. >> >> I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a >> p

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote: >[...] > You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit.  Not in any > real-world sense. I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. We can and in my opinion we have and do. This

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. >> >> Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably >> balanced" is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil >> rumor (as long a

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> From: Andreas Kolbe >> >> > From: George Herbert > >> > I don't agree with either statement. >> > >> > The event (Savag

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote: > George, > > Can you please address a couple of points that I believe have been brought > up in this thread. You may want to read the previous emails that more > clearly elucidated the points first, or not. They are as follows: > > 1) This te

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: >> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. > > Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably > balanced" is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil > rumor (as long as it

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Wed, 25/5/11, George Herbert wrote: > >> From: George Herbert > >> Again - you do not have consensus (here or there) that it >> violates the policy. >> >> We know YOU (and Andreas) are of

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> With all due respect, Fred, I believe the article either complied or >> came very close to complying with WP policy when this discussion >> started here. >> >> Your opinion that it did not has been communicated, but you do not >> have consensu

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

With all due respect, Fred, I believe the article either complied or came very close to complying with WP policy when this discussion started here. Your opinion that it did not has been communicated, but you do not have consensus that there is in fact a problem requiring being solved here. On Wed

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware > of it. > > As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: > to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 24/05/2011 18:49, George Herbert wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote: >>>> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. >>> You've got one word ri

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. > > You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this. No, he (and we) are not. Dan Savage is responsible for this. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gm

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> We don't exist to fix the real world - we exist to report on it >> accurately.  Many of the things we report on are unfortunate.  An IMF >> candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid, a tornado that killed 89 >> plus people, a terrorist at

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, George Herbert > wrote: > >> Many of the things we report on are unfortunate.  An IMF >> candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid > > > > Candidate? Last I looked, he was Ma

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote: >> This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff >> that belonged on Encyclopedia Dramatica. >> > I take it Fred means "this article" or "this campaign": if the latter > that

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'm not sure about the history of this article, but it it was recently >> brought to my attention via Facebook. >> >> My take on this article is that it is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability >> guidelines. The article goes out of

Re: [WikiEN-l] How to start a viable competitor to Wikipedia?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > On 04/08/11 5:55 PM, Mike Dupont wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote >>> A fork could >>> easily start with copied material which from that moment would evolve >>> differently. They may choose to abandon NPOV.  Hav

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, George Herbert wrote: >> Someone organizing an off-wiki organized group intended to push >> on-wiki bias one way or the other is an unfair advantage for their >> viewpoint and biases. > > *I

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Will Beback wrote: >> The article doesn't say that a conspiracy within Wikipedia tried to bias >> articles. It says that a prominent industrialist and political contributor >> paid professional writers to alter Wikipedia a

Re: [WikiEN-l] Tsunamis and disaster articles

They don't all come from earthquakes; they can come from underwater volcanic activity or landslides. The landslide may not have a significant felt earthquake associated with it. It's not tectonic per se. On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:23 AM, wrote: > I think that a proposal should be put forward a

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote: >> The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate >> in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is "dangerous" is >> just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are b

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

gt;> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be >>> factually validated? > > on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this >&g

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: >> People agree and support the decision. >> > Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring > that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be > factually validated? It is in the nature of on

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Ian Woollard wrote: > On 02/02/2011, Marc Riddell wrote: >> on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: >>> Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is >>> fraught with danger. > > Yup, that's exactly what people normal

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: > >[...] > And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity) > would approve and implement them? The community, by consensus, for approval. Whoever chose to participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation. Par

Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: >[...] > The problem of abusive, combative, counter-productive behavior between (and > among) persons in the Project is not going to be solved with new rules or > policies - but by example. [...] Agreed, but it's not just that simple. We hav

Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 31 January 2011 19:42, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> Please review >> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility >> If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for >> years, I file a request for arbi

[WikiEN-l] NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors

Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list,

Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 21 December 2010 19:58, Tony Sidaway wrote: > >> http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm > > > Prof Goldman has followed up saying he was wrong, though we still of > course suck, though he still consults Wikipedi

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM, MuZemike wrote: > We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to > comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over > all the other wikis in that is immensely more popular and is received > much more widely than all othe

Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > On 12/23/10 1:31 PM, George Herbert wrote: >> >> The social stuff which is complex is something which is a barrier, but >> one that all western society members who are modern communications >> literate are funda

Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:51 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 23 December 2010 11:48, Tony Sidaway wrote: > >> Not everybody works that way. Most of us don't.  To those people the >> buttons I find annoying may be the only thing they *do* understand, >> they're the most accessible way of using a comp

Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:42 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 22 December 2010 12:29, wiki wrote: > >> 1) WYSIWYG would be fantastic, but I've no idea what that would meet in >> practice. > > > It's been desperately wanted for years and is no closer now than it ever was. I am not 100% convinced of

Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 21 December 2010 23:55, Carcharoth wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:04 PM, wiki wrote: > >>> But. where we are in competition with others is for the time of the >>> undergraduate/graduate who sits down to squander some time on the

Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:04 PM, wiki wrote: > >> But. where we are in competition with others is for the time of the >> undergraduate/graduate who sits down to squander some time on the internet. >> He's got any number of choices - what w

Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:47 PM, FT2 wrote: > Pride matters, arrogance is harmful. What we have achieved is to demonstrate > that legitimate, free, open, collaborative knowledge is to be taken > seriously, and some knowhow about its creation and maintenance. That's not a > reason for arrogance and

Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:36 PM, wiki wrote: >[...] > If I dare to be a seer, I worry about software that looks increasingly 2004 > in a Facebook world. Let me focus that a bit, if you don't mind - Craigslist looks like 1997; other than the occasional image change for the logo, Google's main se

Re: [WikiEN-l] CZ fork: Tendrl

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 12 December 2010 19:19, Daniel R. Tobias wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:49:28 +, Charles Matthews wrote: > >>> Two or three years ago I was much more in the thick of things, and I >>> remember telling a rather bemused American at di

Re: [WikiEN-l] Images loading slowly?

I was fine until now; https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fat_Man has the top image broken now consistently. I have checked on multiple computers, same results. Cc'ed wikitech-l. I'd post to IRC but I'm not able to access it at the moment... -george On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Re: [WikiEN-l] Alleged Liberal Bias

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Guettarda wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert > wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ian Woollard >> wrote: >> > On 13/10/2010, George Herbert wrote: >> >> I am concerned not so muc

Re: [WikiEN-l] Alleged Liberal Bias

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ian Woollard wrote: > On 13/10/2010, George Herbert wrote: >> I am concerned not so much with the specifics they are pointing out, >> but at a general trend that we may include more negatives about >> conservative positions and people than ab

Re: [WikiEN-l] Alleged Liberal Bias

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> So we got Conservapedia and some other conservative website accusing >> Wikipedia of having a liberal bias. What else is new, or what else are >> we to expect? >> >> -MuZemike > > Well, is there anything at all to it, or is it just bull? > > F

Re: [WikiEN-l] Evaporative cooling in online communities

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Ian Woollard wrote: > On 12 October 2010 18:08, MuZemike wrote: > >> Perhaps it's more of a misunderstanding that this is still a wiki above >> anything else - in particular, those understandings that literally >> anyone else you write, and you can edit anything

Re: [WikiEN-l] Webypedia - another doomed alternative to Wikipedia

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:14 PM, William Beutler wrote: > As to the "natural monopoly" question, well, there is this resource: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly > > There are some markets where network effects and very high entry costs, such > as building infrastructure, make it very

Re: [WikiEN-l] ZOMG Wikipedia is TERRORIST!!1!1!!!!

David - Please don't toss napalm on the fire. Thanks. -george On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:04 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 24 July 2010 00:57, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> On 23 July 2010 13:53, Daniel R. Tobias wrote: > >>> rightly ridiculed by critics such as the WR crowd. > > > See, that's a sent

Re: [WikiEN-l] ZOMG Wikipedia is TERRORIST!!1!1!!!!

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 22 July 2010 16:43, Cary Bass wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 07/21/2010 12:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >>> Indeed. The address of the old office was kept quiet for security >>> reasons, but the address

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

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 wrote: >>> The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ >>> User:FT2/RfA ]]. >>> >>> Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? >>> >>> FT2 >>> >> >

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

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Ian Woollard wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that the main solution to this is to make the wiki >> experience better, not trying to specifically treat people that are >> getting frustrated's experience better. > > I

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

Admin Rodhullandemu just retired after being blocked for blocking Malleus Fautorum to win a dispute For reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review On and off wiki I have mentioned before that we are really bad, as a project, at

Re: [WikiEN-l] Community ready for Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)?

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:13 AM, William Pietri wrote: > Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people > have preferred that we launched later? > > We gave a date as soon as we were reasonably confident that we could hit > a date for the minimum feature set, based on the t

Re: [WikiEN-l] One-sentence explanation of pending changes

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > (Otherwise someone almost certainly would run a but to mass convert > every single semi-protected page) Is that the new slang for unapproved bots? 8-) -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com

Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged Protection update for May 13

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote: > Yes William, > you must remember that "the Wikipedias - SERIOUS BUSINESS!" proof: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_wikipedias_serious.jpg and no sense or > humour or lighthearted banter will be tolerated here. That kind of  behavior > bel

Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: > >>> But this  website's defensive attitude and approach to serious >>> academics is well known. And that attitude goes back to its roots. >>> >>> Marc > > on 4/23/10 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: >> >> There was certai

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

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews >> wrote: >>> Carcharoth wrote: >> That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like that, I don't th

Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:24 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: > The number of admins on the English Wikipedia may possibly have > peaked, and the number of active admins is 20% down on its peak of a > couple of years ago. > > Dec 2009, Jan 2010 and February 2010 had only 19 successful RFAs > between t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Firefox can't find the server at en.wikipedia.org.

It's all over the tech blog and wider net - but to repeat it here, there was a cooling failure at the datacenter the European servers are in, there was a DNS glitch in the recovery procedures for a datacenter outage for routing the traffic back to Florida, and the DNS outage has resolved itself for

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > Perhaps this contains the > germ of an idea: a process "Drafts for mainspace", a review debating > unuserfying. The "Bizarre Records" solution to our problems - "just what > the world Wikipedia needs, another record label > contentio

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Carcharoth wrote: >> Interesting comparison with historical antecedants! This is more the >> sort of level of debate I'd like to see at AfD. I wonder what a >> closing admin would make of it... :-) > > You shouldn't *need*

Re: [WikiEN-l] Images that are PD in their country of origin

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:28 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 8 February 2010 00:16, Ian Woollard wrote: > >> My understanding is that the Wikipedia doesn't really have any risk >> under the law. >> Provided the strictures of the DMCA are followed, any uploaded >> copyrighted material simply has to be

Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was inadequate but I didn't find it looking quickly... -george On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:07 PM, The Cunctator wrote: > Sheesh. I was on a press conference call today with one of the deleted > people as a speaker. > > *Robert Corel

Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ian Woollard wrote: >> a) 'challenging' and removing any references >> b) instantly deleting the article for being unreferenced >> > > In theory, an administrator "could" do this. "Technically". This did ha

Re: [WikiEN-l] Cory Doctorow: Wikipedia is facts-about-facts

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:57 AM, George Herbert > wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Charles Matthews >> wrote: >>> David Gerard wrote: >>>> http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol20/?pg=16 >&

[WikiEN-l] Something on the nature of working for free

It's important to keep in mind that volunteers - anyone you're not compensating for the work - do what they want, and won't do that they don't want to. A lot of volunteer organizations implode when people at the core forget that. An excellent example of someone reaching their tolerance level on s

Re: [WikiEN-l] Cory Doctorow: Wikipedia is facts-about-facts

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: > David Gerard wrote: >> http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol20/?pg=16 >> >> > Argument intelligent enough, use of "notable" is off-base though since > for us notability is an attribute of topics. He's describing WP for an external audience

Re: [WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Create an article as a newbie challenge now paused

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/11/16 Ryan Delaney : > >> No argument there. What's important about this case is that (as it has been >> explained to me, anyway) someone was deliberately writing a bad article with >> the express intention of being a pain in the ass. Tha

Re: [WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Create an article as a newbie challenge now paused

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo wrote: >> Sounds like just more strategic deletionist excusism. There is no >> excuse for anyone giving to destruction a higher value than they do to >> creation. >> >> So now that things are wr

Re: [WikiEN-l] FTC Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:03 AM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/10/9 Durova : > >> The report on National Public Radio the other day stated it was unlikely the >> FTC would be very aggressive about this.  Yet the piece's principal focus >> was bloggers.  It'd be an interesting question how they'd handl

[WikiEN-l] Washington Post article on DC Wikipedian

Some more mainstream press coverage on an article focused wikipedian: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204715.html?hpid=topnews -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list Wiki

Re: [WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the create an article as a newbie challenge

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:20 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote: > Last week George Herbert requested that I update this list on the > progress of my test [[User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment]] where > I and other volunteers create new accounts which submit new articles > to Wikipe

Re: [WikiEN-l] Accepting the challenge to create a new article as a newbie and see if it lasts 2 minutes - or 7 days

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Ian Woollard wrote: > Personally, I think there should be a level above deletion and below > being visible in the wikipedia. > > For example if we made the wiki's stubs come up with a blank screen, > with a disclaimer and some kind of clicky that makes the article >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Accepting the challenge to create a new article as a newbie and see if it lasts 2 minutes - or 7 days

This is very good data in the "how friendly are we to newbies" question. Thanks for running the test. Please send another update in a couple of more days at least, I am too busy to follow on-wiki but I want to see more of the results of this. -george On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Gwern Branw

Re: [WikiEN-l] IAR

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:26 AM, stevertigo wrote: > stevertigo wrote: >>> How does IAR help limit Civility violations, personal attacks, and slander? > Tony Sidaway wrote: >> It doesn't.  It is also remarkably ineffective against swine flu. >> Just because a policy does not work miracles, does

Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, George Herbert wrote: >> > "Verifiability, not truth" means that sometimes we'll put in something >> > that's >> > verifiable but isn't true. >> "Ver

Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > "Verifiability, not truth" means that sometimes we'll put in something that's > verifiable but isn't true. That statement gets abused. The prime exception is the "Verifyable, but untrue" case. If it's "Verifyable, but verifyably untrue" it'

Re: [WikiEN-l] Oversized criticism sections and WP:UNDUE

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: > George Herbert wrote: > > >> >> It's not so much that it's impossible to do and make stick, as doing >> it and making it stick requires the right people, timing, attention, >> and focus,

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

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: > (1) There is actually no substantive consensus position that uncivil > editors are a net negative to the site; I would disagree - I think there's no consensus on individual cases where the editor's positive contributions are widely though

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

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote: > David Gerard wrote: >> I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at >> least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory >> capture. >> > Hmmm.  To do that I suppose you would have to create som

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

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:59 PM, stevertigo wrote: > Charles Matthews wrote: > >> Hmm, I thought such "criticism sections" had been deprecated for quite a >> few years now. One thing to do is to add {{criticism section}}, the >> wording of which is what I recall (that criticism is better integrat

Re: [WikiEN-l] Invitation for review

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, stevertigo wrote: > George Herbert wrote: >> This dispute looks either like some combination of original research, >> disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust >> denialists. >> Even without the latter, and A

  1   2   3   >