On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Typo correction and vandalism reversion are certainly both entries to
editing, and it isn't just anti-vandalism where the opportunities have
declined in recent years. Typos are getting harder to find,
Also, vandalism had always been a red herring, kind of like the terrorism
that justifies the TSA security theater and NBA surveillance or the Red
Scare. It's a wrong-headed obsession that weakens community.
On Nov 22, 2013 2:06 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21,
On 19 November 2013 20:44, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Aside @Fae: the tineye crew are curious quite pro-freeculture, I bet they
would be glad to help design a bot that uses their API to check image
copyvios.
This is an area this spins off from my little experiments with better
Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors!
On Nov 20, 2013 2:10 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 November 2013 20:44, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Aside @Fae: the tineye crew are curious quite pro-freeculture, I bet
they
would be glad to help design a bot
On Nov 20, 2013 1:13 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors!
I'm not sure exactly what kind of policy you are getting at here. Could you
elaborate a little?
On Nov 20, 2013 2:10 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19
On 11/20/2013 07:13 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors!
Let's be clear here: contributions that are copyright violations are not
desirable to begin with. If someone is driven away because they cannot
cut and paste from random websites
On 11/20/2013 8:31 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 11/20/2013 07:13 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors!
Let's be clear here: contributions that are copyright violations are not
desirable to begin with. If someone is driven away because
There's also been discussion of automatically deleting content from
contributors contributor from their own writing.
On Nov 20, 2013 8:31 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 11/20/2013 07:13 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors!
On 11/20/2013 11:59 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
An essential part of collaboration is, after all, reviewing each other's
work. From the terseness of the comment, it might be alluding to either
aspect or both.
That's actually an interesting question that has been lurking beneath
all the editing is
Not quite: I would argue that anti-vandalism work is a gateway drug to
the rest of the project. Just a hunch, though.
On Nov 20, 2013 5:21 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 11/20/2013 11:59 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
An essential part of collaboration is, after all, reviewing each
On 11/20/2013 9:20 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
That's actually an interesting question that has been lurking beneath
all the editing is going down nervousness.
How much of that 'editing' was, in fact, busy work made immaterial by
technical advantage (bots, extensions, abusefilter)? The number
On 11/20/2013 01:06 PM, Richard Symonds wrote:
Not quite: I would argue that anti-vandalism work is a gateway drug to
the rest of the project. Just a hunch, though.
I'm pretty sure that typo correction fills pretty much the same niche,
though.
-- Marc
On 11/20/2013 01:13 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
My general point is that opportunities for automation are best
considered with our overall mission in mind, not just the speed or
efficiency of a particular workflow. In certain situations, automation
that creates more work rather than removing it
On 11/20/2013 10:52 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
Perhaps another way of putting it is to ask whether the
encyclopedia-building community is the means or the ends. To my eyes,
having more contributors is not valuable unless it has better
encyclopedia as a direct consequence.
I believe the
It could use abuse-filter tags, just not in an entirely standard way:
* Bot scans edit X
* Script flags it as a problem
* Bot makes edit X+1 to page (perhaps adding copyvio template?) which
triggers an abusefilter rule for (if this bot and does such-and-such
an edit) and tags it.
The offending
Aside @Fae: the tineye crew are curious quite pro-freeculture, I bet they
would be glad to help design a bot that uses their API to check image
copyvios.
On Nov 13, 2013 6:48 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 November 2013 07:40, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Our biggest issue
Samuel Klein, 19/11/2013 21:44:
Aside @Fae: the tineye crew are curious quite pro-freeculture, I bet they
would be glad to help design a bot that uses their API to check image
copyvios.
How to make them include the whole Commons dataset into their own, to
start with?
Nemo
On 11/13/2013 04:57 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Marco Chiesa, 13/11/2013 10:21:
There are bots that go and look whether a newly inserted block of text is
already present somewhere else, [...]
Rectius: there *used* to be a bot (RevertBot, Lusumbot). The program
Matthew Flaschen, 20/11/2013 06:05:
On 11/13/2013 04:57 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Marco Chiesa, 13/11/2013 10:21:
There are bots that go and look whether a newly inserted block of
text is
already present somewhere else, [...]
Rectius: there *used* to be a bot (RevertBot, Lusumbot). The
On 11/16/2013 09:04 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
The problem of false positives from mirrors doesn't exist if we scan edits
as they are made.
Agreed. However, that example is a legal, attributed (at least on the
talk page) copy from a third-party freely licensed text, not a false
positive copy
The problem of false positives from mirrors doesn't exist if we scan edits
as they are made.
Maggie says
herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Emergency_block_of_an_editor_with_which_I_have_been_previously_involvedthat
copyright bots populate
WP:SCV
On 11/13/2013 04:57 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Rectius: there *used* to be a bot (RevertBot, Lusumbot). The program
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Pywikibot/copyright.py has been
stopped when search engines changed their limits and Lusum has been
waiting for the WMF's Yahoo! BOSS
On 11/13/2013 04:41 PM, Tobias wrote:
I think the community has done a very good job in the past 12 years when
it comes to copyright. It is important to see that we are a community
site – nothing is ever going to be perfect, and certainly we are not
free of any copyright violations. But we are
Marc A. Pelletier, 16/11/2013 16:34:
On 11/13/2013 04:57 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Rectius: there *used* to be a bot (RevertBot, Lusumbot). The program
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Pywikibot/copyright.py has been
stopped when search engines changed their limits and Lusum has been
H
Rupert,
The case you mention is unrelated to any copyright infringement (the
book is explicitely published under cc by sa. So there is no copyvio).
Its mention here is like hair falling in soup.
Now, I think there is a developing personal feud between you and
Iolenda. It sincerely
Salut florence, i obviously need to improve my English :) Marco suggested
human checking to avoid false positives and some annotation that it
happened. In my eyes the cited case is a verbatim copy of some compatible
license text which could be used as an example to demonstrate what he ment.
I did
There is such a case in http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cameroon,
reference is on the talk page. would you be so kind to mark or refer to it
correctly?
rupert
Am 13.11.2013 12:46 schrieb Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Chris McKenna
FYI, on the last Wikipedia Weekly podcast, we talked with Sage Ross about
the plagiarism issue, and he walked through the study with some very
interesting insights. Video here, and the discussion started at 11 minutes,
30 seconds into the podcast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOgYytn2JRk
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
FYI, on the last Wikipedia Weekly podcast, we talked with Sage Ross about
the plagiarism issue, and he walked through the study with some very
interesting insights. Video here, and the discussion started at 11 minutes,
30
Hoi,
Seriously we should never ever be ruled be panic.What you see is bad, no
doubt but the notion that we should dump everything because of the latest
issue to come along is way overboard.
- by stopping the flow on projects like Visual Editor you break
dependencies for the work of many
On 11/13/2013 02:40 AM, James Heilman wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation needs to wake up and deal with the real tech
elephant in the room. Our primary issue is not a lack of FLOW, a lack of a
visual editor, or a lack of a rapidly expanding education program.
Our biggest issue is copyright
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation needs to wake up and deal with the real tech
elephant in the room. Our primary issue is not a lack of FLOW, a lack of a
visual editor, or a lack of a rapidly expanding education program.
Our
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:40 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Our biggest issue is copyright infringement. We have had the Indian
program, we have had issues with the Education program, and I have today
come across a user who has made nearly 20,000 edits to 1,742 article since
2006
Marco: I agree, we had also issues on the Dutch Wikipedia - these have been
around for ages, the English Wikipedia is just less aware of them. Often,
copypasting in the same language is caught easily - between different
languages is much harder and persistent. There are many people, including
Marco Chiesa, 13/11/2013 10:21:
There are bots that go and look whether a newly inserted block of text is
already present somewhere else, [...]
Rectius: there *used* to be a bot (RevertBot, Lusumbot). The program
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Pywikibot/copyright.py has been
stopped
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Matthew Flaschen
matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu wrote:
A significant problem with TurnItIn is that is proprietary, and can not be
customized by anyone in the movement. The fact that it is proprietary also
means it can never be port of the main infrastructure,
On 11/13/2013 05:16 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Matthew Flaschen
matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu wrote:
A significant problem with TurnItIn is that is proprietary, and can not be
customized by anyone in the movement. The fact that it is proprietary also
means
Hoi
I know several authors who publish and use their original text to publish
on Wikipedia as well.. This is another source of false positives because
they have the copyright to the original source... To recognise this you
have to be even more sophisticated.
The point I want to make is that
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi
I know several authors who publish and use their original text to publish
on Wikipedia as well.. This is another source of false positives because
they have the copyright to the original source... To
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Marco Chiesa wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi
I know several authors who publish and use their original text to publish
on Wikipedia as well.. This is another source of false positives because
they have the
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
The point I want to make is that having a tool that is KNOWN to be
deficient in specific ways can still be a huge advantage over not having a
tool at all. So PLEASE lets not make perfection the enemy of the good.
The problem isn't that we're waiting
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
But an automated tool can not know whether OTRS verification has happened
or not.
We put something like {{OTRS verified}} in the article's talk page,
something saying: Part of the text comes from website X, ticket
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
The problem isn't that we're waiting for perfection. We're waiting for the
proportion of false positives and false negatives to fall to a level where
don't overwhelm the true positives.
To avoid false positives from
On 13 November 2013 07:40, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Our biggest issue is copyright infringement.
...
Thanks for raising this James.
Yes, this is an issue but if you are gunning for elephants this month,
I really don't think the copyright elephant is the biggest one in the
herd.
On 11/13/2013 12:37 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
However,
there may be room for enhancing MadmanBot (e.g. as a GSOC or OPW project).
Any technical project able to identify small tasks and mentors available
are welcome to join Wikimedia's Google Code-in team at
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Marco: I agree, we had also issues on the Dutch Wikipedia - these have been
around for ages, the English Wikipedia is just less aware of them.
Not sure if you meant this how it sounds, but the English Wikipedia
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
...
PS with regard to OTRS verification, we could do with better standards
for verification,
We are not attempting to perform a complete and unassailable verification;
imagining that we can is folly.
The point is, we need someone
On 11/13/2013 10:39 AM, Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Marco: I agree, we had also issues on the Dutch Wikipedia - these have been
around for ages, the English Wikipedia is just less aware of them.
Not sure if you meant this how it
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote:
On 11/13/2013 10:39 AM, Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Marco: I agree, we had also issues on the Dutch Wikipedia - these have
been
around for ages, the
On 11/13/2013 08:40 AM, James Heilman wrote:
Our biggest issue is copyright infringement.
When it comes to copyright infringement, among all community sites on
the Internet, Wikipedia is one of the best to handle it. Many websites
don't even bother with copyright unless they get a DMCA
Unquestionably, there are also many instances where the systems fails and
where lots of copyrighted material gets uploaded. Back in 2005, we had a
case similar to the one you described in German Wikipedia, where various
IPs copied content from old books. It is a big mess to clean up, but it
51 matches
Mail list logo
