Email: 1
[Wikipedia-l] wikipedia traffic
Timothy Shell
tshell at aristotle.bomis.com
Tue Jan 30 08:03:31 UTC 2001
I count 224 unique IPs and 4871 hits to wiki.cgi in today's access log
(after 23 hours).
Anyone's guess how many unique humans 224 IP addresses implies.
I was going to suggest we embed each page with a sophisticated counter
system so we could track hits to various parts of the wikipedia, but I
guess it would be simple enough just to do analysis on the access logs.
Tim
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2
[Wikipedia-l] Copyright problem
Jimmy Wales
jwales at aristotle.bomis.com
Fri Feb 9 02:18:33 UTC 2001
Someone had posted a copyrighted article into the 'wolf' category.
I deleted it, please see the discussion at 'WolF'.
For now, I just deleted it by removing all the text, but of course
the copyrighted material is still on our server in the revision history.
That will go away after 14 days, as I understand it, but I will also
try to figure out how to make it go away sooner.
I'm not too worried about this for the future. Legally, it isn't likely
to be a huge problem. We just need to instill a very strong social norm
on the wikipedia that copyright violations will not be tolerated.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.nupedia.com/ *
* The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 3
[Wikipedia-l] Slashdotted?
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Mar 1 02:18:44 UTC 2001
JimboWales is being interviewed by Slashdot, and the interview may
appear tomorrow (Thursday) morning. He mentioned Wikipedia in the
interview, and we may experience a substantial surge in traffic. Based
on what has happened to other wikis mentioned on slashdot, we might
expect to see some vandalism. If all the active participants could log
in a bit more often tomorrow to keep an eye on things, that would be
great.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 4
[Wikipedia-l] Fw: Nupedia: system up; Wikipedia started; German and Slashdot invasion
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Mar 23 18:55:56 UTC 2001
Expect an influx of traffic.
----- Original Message -----
From: <system at nupedia.com>
To: <lsanger at nupedia.com>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 10:42 AM
Subject: Nupedia: system up; Wikipedia started; German and Slashdot
invasion
>
> March 22, 2000
>
> Dear Nupedians,
>
> It's been quite a long time since our last update (it was last
December!)--that's mainly because we've been so busy. But I'll keep
this update brief and informal.
>
> As most of you already know, the much-heralded new web-based system is
now up and running:
> http://www.nupedia.com/newsystem/member.phtml
> To see it operate in its full splendor, you'll have to be logged in.
I have promised to add more instructions (where text is underlined) but
have always seemed to lack time to finish this task. Meanwhile, the
system is simple enough, with enough instructions already in place, for
many people to have started using it; others, I'm afraid, might feel
they've been left high and dry. My apologies; I'll try to get those
instructions written. In the meantime, of course, help is available
from many different people.
>
> A conversation with a friend in early January about the so-called
"WikiWiki" software led to the creation of Wikipedia, a new encyclopedia
project complementary to Nupedia:
> http://www.wikipedia.com/
> Basically, *anyone* can go to any page of that website and, by simply
pressing the "edit text" link, edit the text of the page. As of this
moment (Thursdy, March 22, 12:57 PM Pacific Time), we have 2,953 (yes,
2,953) pages in Wikipedia. Of these, 1,816 are relatively substantial
articles. We started in January, 2001, so we've made incredible
progress--even we are surprised. Maybe you think that Wikipedia would
end up being a rather low-quality product, since it's open to everyone.
But perhaps it's the fact that it is open to everyone that makes a lot
of these articles in fact not so bad, and ever-improving. We tend to
cater to the highest common denominator--"lower denominators" usually
don't touch articles they know nothing about.
>
> PLEASE note: the editorial processes and policies of Wikipedia and
Nupedia are totally separate; Nupedia editors and peer reviewers do not
necessarily endorse the Wikipedia project, and Wikipedia contributors do
not necessarily endorse the Nupedia project. I personally am working on
both projects, as are a number of Nupedia members. I think that the
projects might eventually develop a very interesting symbiotic
relationship. But nothing along those lines is official, and no changes
are anticipated in the near future. Certainly no changes will be made
without consulting Advisory-L and Nupedia-L.
>
> In January and February, we had an enormous influx of traffic due to
coverage of Nupedia by the German press agency DPA and by the hugely
popular computer programmer website, Slashdot.org (twice!). (This has
led, by the way, to my getting far behind in my e-mail--something for
which I apologize, but it really couldn't be helped.)
>
> As a result, we have set up Deutsch-L, a mailing list, ably led by
Andreas Flack, which has been producing German translations of various
Nupedia pages. See:
> http://www.nupedia.com/de/
> And as a result of *that*, we've accepted translations of the home
page in French, Italian, and Spanish (as well as German of course).
We've set up Interpret-L for general translation issues, and Francais-L,
a nascent French language translation project. We might soon set up
Espanol-L. See this page for more information:
> http://www.nupedia.com/translating.shtml
>
> Another piece of news is that we have found an able Chief Copyeditor
who may be contacted via the following web pages:
> http://www.nupedia.com/copyediting.shtml
> http://www.nupedia.com/newsystem/copyediting.phtml
>
> Those, then, are some news highlights. There has been much other
news; but I did promise to try to keep this short. If you're curious,
you could join Nupedia-L or simply poke around the website to see what
you've been missing.
>
> Kind regards to all,
> Larry
>
> Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D.
> Nupedia editor-in-chief
> lsanger at nupedia.com
>
> ====================================================================
> You've received this mail because you signed up as a Nupedia
> member. To stop these announcements, please just go to
> http://www.nupedia.com/member/editother.phtml where you can easily
> unsubscribe yourself. Log in as "" (your member ID).
> ====================================================================
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 5
[Wikipedia-l] Do we need templates ?
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sun May 6 16:23:05 UTC 2001
From: "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" <kpjas at promail.pl>
> Do we need templates of pages ?
> Groups of pages - rock bands, biographies, film entries share common
> features and therefore want some kind of templates.
> Pages of the same category edited by different people tend to follow
> sometimes incompatible patterns or disagree with each other.
One of the reasons that Wikipedia *works*--why it is developing so quickly
and is so attractive to contributors (compelling, one might say...) is that
anyone can come in and contribute in practically any fashion. Instigating
templates has a number of implications for how we might begin to think of
Wikipedia: it would become a collection of standardized information rather
than a collection of information that people just happen to feel inspired to
input. Who is interested in inputting "standardized information"? Maybe
some people, but surely not nearly as many as those who are interested in
inputting whatever information they know.
Suppose we were to require (somehow) that everyone writing about the
countries of the world input the information in exactly the format of the
CIA Factbook. Who, honestly, would *want* to do that? And on the other
hand, who would want to contribute a lot of generally accurate, useful
information that will eventually add up to weighty, detailed articles, not
necessarily all in the same format?
Academia is sometimes compared to the marketplace of ideas. That's also an
apt description of Wikipedia at present: it's unregulated (except for some
basic ground rules), and anyone can come in and "set up shop" (write an
article), but other "business owners" (contributors) can "compete" (improve
the article) according to their understanding of what the facts are, what
the best way to express them is, etc. Competition improves articles.
Regulation tends to stifle free competition.
Eventually, I suspect, we're going to have huge amounts of information, and
it will be possible for people to go in and render related entries in a
similar format. It's generally better to impose order *after* creation, in
a way that reflects the natural categories of things as information is
given. That's how good researchers work, by the way. They observe the
data, or read the literature, very broadly and in-depth, letting it "speak
for itself" as much as possible, and without trying to impose theories on
the facts before all the available facts are in. In a similar way, in a
constantly-growing, constantly-improving encyclopedia, why not just let
people add whatever information they want, and when it's reached a certain
level of maturity, only then start imposing some uniformity on the way
similar information is presented?
All this being said, there's nothing stopping you from proposing on the wiki
some templates that you would like others to follow (without presenting them
as "The Wikipedia Format for X-type Articles"), and maybe Wikipedia will be
better for it.
That's my way of thinking at present, though my mind could certainly be
changed.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 6
[Wikipedia-l] cut/paste
rose.parks at att.net
rose.parks at att.net
Wed May 16 03:43:53 UTC 2001
Members and Mr. Crocker,
I was responding directly to the post by Mr.
Pobratyn. He said:
I have a bit of a moral dilemma here: some articles on
wikipedia seem to pop-up non-wikified and written
slightly 'too well'. It seems obvious that
it is a copy/paste job from another source. What should
we/I do in such a case? Delete it?
I take plagiarism extremely seriously and many
members of Nupedia, at least, know that. For the same
reason, I take an unsupported claim of plagiarism
extremely seriously and consider it a dangerous move.
Mr. Pobratyn cited as the basis for his suspicions,
articles that appear, I guess, full-blown, unwikified,
and written "too well."
I reacted to this, because I have posted articles
that way, although I usually wikify them, somewhat. As I
said, this is because they are literally copied from my
own work.
On a more general level, these symptoms in an
article or entry are not a basis to delete them. This
requires proof that the entry has been "borrowed" from
a copyrighted source.
If you gentlemen have some particular author/s in
mind, I suggest you put your heads together and try to
find the source. But to delete them out of hand,
implying they are plagiarised, to me. is assuming guilt
until one proves oneself innocent. I think a better
approach, and the one that supposedly prevails in the
U.S.A., is to assume someone is innocent until proven
guilty.
As far as my insulting the original poster, I say
them let him speak for himself. I really prefer not to
get involved in what you, Mr. Crocker, think that the
original poster feels. Only he can say whether he found
my post insulting. C'est ca.
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> The fact that you would consider an honest and concerned post
> personally insulting to you is absurd, and is itself insulting to the
> original poster who was obviously sincere and interested in solving a
> real problem, and didn't mention any names (in fact, I'm almost
> certain I know who he _was_ referring to, and it wasn't you--and I'm
> not going to say more than that).
>
> The problem itself (of discovering and removing copyrighted material)
> is real, serious, and needs to be dealt with. Sure, you and I may
> copy and paste only from our own or public domain material because we
> understand the law, but many people on Wikipedia HAVE copied
> copyrighted material, and that's a problem.
>
> There is no such thing as an "administrator" in Wikipedia in the
> sense of someone responsible for its content, nor should there be.
> Nupedia has those (and should); Wikipedia just has us, and we are
> just as responsible for its content as anyone else. It does have a
> few folks to set policy, but even they have been very respectful of
> the community process of content creation and not tried to subvert it
> by establishing "control" or "ownership". Further, it is obviously
> impractical to have an infintely scalable content-creation method
> with non-scalable editing and expect to keep up. Wikipedia CANNOT
> work unless EVERYONE is an editor and administrator as well as an
> author.
>
> The suggestion of looking for phrases on the web is useful; it does
> often turn up the copyrighted source of a cut-and-paste job. I would
> further suggest that when you find the source of the material,
> document it; i.e., make a talk page or editing comment along the
> lines of "Delete copyrighted material from ...", so that everyone
> else benefits from your research and knows why it was deleted.
>
> But if you can't find the source, I think you do have to give an
> author the benefit of the doubt--especially logged-in authors. If
> the work _is_ copyrighted, removal upon notification by the copyright
> holder is sufficient to avoid legal penalties.
0
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 7
[Wikipedia-l] cut/paste
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed May 16 05:19:31 UTC 2001
From: <rose.parks at att.net>
> I was responding directly to the post by Mr.
> Pobratyn. He said:
>
> I have a bit of a moral dilemma here: some articles on
> wikipedia seem to pop-up non-wikified and written
> slightly 'too well'. It seems obvious that
> it is a copy/paste job from another source. What should
> we/I do in such a case? Delete it?
>
> I take plagiarism extremely seriously and many
> members of Nupedia, at least, know that. For the same
> reason, I take an unsupported claim of plagiarism
> extremely seriously and consider it a dangerous move.
>
> Mr. Pobratyn cited as the basis for his suspicions,
> articles that appear, I guess, full-blown, unwikified,
> and written "too well."
For fear of seeming not to let other people speak for themselves, I won't
presume to interpret anyone else, but just give my own opinions. My own
opinions happen to be very close to the way I'd interpret what Wojcek wrote,
though. Basically, I regard one of my basic "jobs" (never assigned by
anyone except myself, though) on Wikipedia to check for plagiarism/copyright
infringement. How do I do this? Basically, I look at the RecentChanges
page, and if there are any new names or numbers there, I check their work
fairly carefully. Very often, it's obvious that what they wrote wasn't
cribbed from somewhere else ("Why would anyone post to the web what they
have written? It's not too good"). But sometimes, particularly from new
people, I'll see a full-blown article appear, written quite well, and that
makes me instantly suspicious. :-) Why? Just because too often in the
past we've seen new people posting copyrighted articles. **Obviously**,
it's not because I think no one writing for Wikipedia is capable of writing
anything very good.
So what I do when I come across a good article from a new person is just
what Jimbo does--check it on Google by finding a string of words unlikely to
appear in any other article, pasting it into the Google search form
(surrounded by quotes). I do that with two or three different strings of
words, just to be sure. If I find nothing, then I grudgingly admit that the
article was probably not plagiarized from an online source.
Of course, even if an article is (1) good and (2) copied from another
source, that doesn't mean that it is plagiarized. Someone might have copied
it from her own work, for example. Grand! Wonderful! Thanks! None of the
above-described procedure and (quite prudent, I'd say) supporting opinions
controvert the wonderfulness of that practice.
Now, suppose I do find an instance where an article was obviously copied
from an Internet source. Do I immediately scream plagiarism? Almost
always, but not necessarily: I try to make a point of checking to see if the
original was released under some sort of open content license, or was public
domain. Usually, of course, there's no indication that it was, so I do
scream plagiarism.
Who should remove the plagiarism spotted? Whoever spots it first. Might
this not constitute an insult to the person who put the article up on
Wikipedia? What if that person wrote the original? Well, that's
interesting. It could happen. We could, I suppose, make a habit of asking
politely, "Say, did you just happen to plagiarize this article?" But many
plagiarists are too embarrassed by being caught, too clueless, or too just
outright dishonest, so it seems reasonable not to expect an answer to such a
question. So suppose we have a dozen plagiarized articles on Wikipedia with
polite questions, "Say, did you plagiarize this?" appended to them. I'd
rather have a dozen removed articles, with notices saying, "I found this
article at [URL]. I found no evidence that it was free or public domain. I
am assuming that this was an instance of copyright infringement. Please do
not paste copyrighted material into Wikipedia!"
This is something that anyone can and should do. I *totally* agree with
what Lee Crocker said here:
> > There is no such thing as an "administrator" in Wikipedia in the
> > sense of someone responsible for its content, nor should there be.
> > Nupedia has those (and should); Wikipedia just has us, and we are
> > just as responsible for its content as anyone else. It does have a
> > few folks to set policy, but even they have been very respectful of
> > the community process of content creation and not tried to subvert it
> > by establishing "control" or "ownership". Further, it is obviously
> > impractical to have an infintely scalable content-creation method
> > with non-scalable editing and expect to keep up. Wikipedia CANNOT
> > work unless EVERYONE is an editor and administrator as well as an
> > author.
In the last four days, it has been difficult (to say the least) for me to
get on the net. (Actually, it would have been rather easy, if I had known
what to do!) I, and other people responsible for making sure Bomis doesn't
get into legal trouble over copyright violation, was relying on Wikipedia
participants to keep the steady stream of new people honest.
Notice, there is no one claiming to be editor-in-chief or even editor of
Wikipedia. A wiki, by its design, doesn't need one. Wikipedia needs people
to act as "gardeners" (in Jimbo's metaphor). The reason Wikipedia is so
successful at creating content is that there aren't any editors standing in
the way of content creation. This means there's a lot of garbage that needs
cleaning up, and the whole thing is a work-in-progress, but a lot work *is*
done, and we *do* have a lot of very good articles and many that are
improving.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 8
[Wikipedia-l] cut/paste
Jimmy Wales
jwales at aristotle.bomis.com
Wed May 16 19:48:49 UTC 2001
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> There is no such thing as an "administrator" in Wikipedia in the
> sense of someone responsible for its content, nor should there be.
> Nupedia has those (and should); Wikipedia just has us, and we are
> just as responsible for its content as anyone else. It does have a
> few folks to set policy, but even they have been very respectful of
> the community process of content creation and not tried to subvert it
> by establishing "control" or "ownership".
Let me say that I agree with this 100%. The only thing that holds
wikipedia "on course" is "rough consensus and running code".
By my decree, Larry and I have a special position only with respect
to legal issues (i.e. I won't let anyone use Wikipedia as a forum
for trying to "napsterize" content -- not because of my own opinions
about copyright, but because it's not consistent with our central
mission) and that's it.
We'd also be ultimately responsible for making a decision about what
to do if someone comes in who is aggressively abusive to the community
process.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.nupedia.com/ *
* The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 9
[Wikipedia-l] Controversial thoughts
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpjas at promail.pl
Wed Jun 13 09:29:43 UTC 2001
Hello all,
I might sound totally blasphemous so be patient.
Wikipedia and wiki concept is really great but the WWW is a global
Wikipedia without the end-user editing facility.
Aren't we in a cul-de-sac ?
WWW is full of brilliant pages and sites entangled in a sea of rubbish.
I doubt that we can outdo most sites, commercial or personal. Wouldn't it
be better to do a critical review of the whole web with some additions of
our own ?
Another point worth discussing is the role of a wikipedian.
In my opinion he/she is a 21st century counterpart of an 18th encyclopedist.
A knowledgeable, open-minded, rational, impartial person (not a scientist)
whose mission is to gather knowledge. Wikipedia should be a global
knowledge base rather than a collection of personal essays on subject one
can find in a normal encyclopedia.
Editorial board.
Are we for a democracy or freedom/anarchy ?
At some point when Wikipedia reaches a critical mass there should be some
democratic Editorial Board. It could even freeze some pages for some time.
If you say no to the Editorial Board some democratic rules should be set in
stone.
End point.
Can someone please tell me what's the end point/goal of Wikipedia ?
Don't tell there no end-point and this is eternal task ;-)
RDF
Wikipedia - patchy with some articles for students, some for laymen and
some for university professors ?
Or branch out into Kid's Wikipedia, Regular Wikipedia, Highbrow Wikipedia.
I am really enthusiastic about Wikipedia - I contribute regularly and am
determined to to so in future. These are just my thoughts.
Please bear in mind I have _no_ intention to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty,
doubt) about Wikipedia's functioning and goals.
I hope Wikipedia will flourish.
Best regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Wszystko jest w rekach czlowieka. Dlatego
Czestochowa, Poland ... | nalezy je czesto myc. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Wiecej cytatow : http://www.cytaty.phg.pl
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 10
[Wikipedia-l] Controversial thoughts
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Jun 13 18:40:04 UTC 2001
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> Are we for a democracy or freedom/anarchy ?
> At some point when Wikipedia reaches a critical mass there should be some
> democratic Editorial Board. It could even freeze some pages for some time.
> If you say no to the Editorial Board some democratic rules should be set in
> stone.
While I'm a much bigger fan of freedom and anarchy, I'm also in favor of Wikipedia
being run for the benefit of the community of authors, which means that we should
work in a friendly way to reach a consensus about where we want to go and how we
want to control the community in the long run.
Probably _the_ most astounding fact about Wikipedia is that it is so
good without any formal rules or restrictions at all. There are
social customs and social pressures that do a really good job of
keeping things in line.
But someday, we will have to move beyond that. As the site gets more popular,
it will attract vandals, and so we'll need to lock down the front page, or somehow
*gently* raise the barriers to entry... but we'll want to be very cautious to not
upset the "wiki magic".
> End point.
> Can someone please tell me what's the end point/goal of Wikipedia ?
> Don't tell there no end-point and this is eternal task ;-)
One answer -- and maybe not a very satisfactory one -- is that the
goal of Wikipedia is fun for the contributors. If something cool
emerges out of our playing with knowledge, all the better. But if it
isn't fun for the contributors, it will die.
This (along with the free license) that guarantees that I'll continue to
be a "benevolent" monarch to the project. If I decided unilaterally to make
some changes that upset the contributors, that'd pretty much kill the growth
of the project. My goal is to prevent fragmentation or "forking" by working
hard to keep as many people happy as I can.
> RDF
> Wikipedia - patchy with some articles for students, some for laymen and
> some for university professors ?
> Or branch out into Kid's Wikipedia, Regular Wikipedia, Highbrow Wikipedia.
I think these are great ideas.
> I am really enthusiastic about Wikipedia - I contribute regularly and am
> determined to to so in future. These are just my thoughts.
> Please bear in mind I have _no_ intention to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty,
> doubt) about Wikipedia's functioning and goals.
> I hope Wikipedia will flourish.
I like your ideas.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.nupedia.com/ *
* The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 11
[Wikipedia-l] Replies
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Jun 14 09:17:27 UTC 2001
Replying to Krzysztof's posts, which raise some interesting points.
From: "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" <kpjas at promail.pl>
> A form with fields that must be completed and and textarea field with the
> rest of the article.
This is how Nupedia works, by the way.
As long as we chose the fields very, very carefully, I think they might be
useful. Right now, they don't seem absolutely necessary for the system to
work, but there might be advantages to at least some "hard-wired" forms.
Don't forget making the "talk" page automatic (and uncounted!) for all
pages. I think that's a very groovy idea.
> When will we see spell-checking script that would highlight or list
> suspected words ?
Please see [[feature requests]], where this issue was raised.
> I'd like to hear your opinion about some kind of navigation system of
> wikipedia.
> It is also linked with the architecture of Wikipedia.
> Are we making the future 100,000 pages totally flat ?
> One level of subpages is surely not enough but this is a usemod technology
> stumbling block, not so easily overcome.
> What hypertext is all about is linking to other parts of information pool
> but without a navigation system (and search system) we are going round in
> circles.
This (and Jimbo's reply) inspired a column on Wikipedia, which I hope you
will read:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Larry_Sanger/Columns
> WWW is full of brilliant pages and sites entangled in a sea of rubbish.
> I doubt that we can outdo most sites, commercial or personal. Wouldn't it
> be better to do a critical review of the whole web with some additions of
> our own ?
Well, that's not what we're doing...you are simply describing a different
project, not the one we all signed up for.
> At some point when Wikipedia reaches a critical mass there should be some
> democratic Editorial Board. It could even freeze some pages for some time.
> If you say no to the Editorial Board some democratic rules should be set
in
> stone.
I don't know what a Wikipedia editorial board would *do*, exactly, and I
agree with Jimbo that it's important not to upset the wiki "magic."
I'm suspecting that you might be happier devoting your energies to Nupedia,
since Nupedia has implemented some of your suggestions (like this one)--and
it *might* add a wiki article editing system too!
> Can someone please tell me what's the end point/goal of Wikipedia ?
> Don't tell there no end-point and this is eternal task ;-)
To organize, summarize, and eventually fully exposit the sum total of human
knowledge about everything, following roughly the same standards that are
followed in any high-quality encyclopedia. That's the *goal* (as I see it),
but most contributors don't care about the goal, or whatever the goal might
be, I imagine.
Wikipedia is a wiki as well as an encyclopedia. It is precisely what its
contributors make of it. You can't control it--you can try to influence it
(and I unashamedly do), you can argue strenuously, but you can't say, "This
is how it will be," because as soon as you do that, the nature of the
project changes entirely. It seems that a lot of your objections are along
the lines of, "Wikipedia is disorganized. This is alarming! We should
organize it and direct it!" But consider this--perhaps one main reason why
Wikipedia works so well is *that* it is disorganized. People *know* that
they can come in and contribute, and they're welcomed to do so with open
arms. That's a main reason why they do come in and contribute. As soon as
you change that, you propose to change the essence of Wikipedia--and from
the sounds of it, you are trying to push it in the direction of Nupedia. If
that's correct, then, I recommend that you spend more time on Nupedia (I'll
see you there, too!).
> RDF
> Wikipedia - patchy with some articles for students, some for laymen and
> some for university professors ?
> Or branch out into Kid's Wikipedia, Regular Wikipedia, Highbrow Wikipedia.
This isn't a bad idea, actually. The easiest way to make a Children's
Wikipedia would be to adapt fully-mature Wikipedia articles.
Jimbo, one thing we could do is to create http://kids.wikipedia.com , and
display an "Edit the children's version of this page!" link somewhere, which
would simply point from http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Foo to
http://kids.wikipedia.com/Foo .
We could do this right now, and I'll bet it would take all of a half-hour.
Something like this might, or might not, be a good idea for the
international Wikipedias, by the way. I'll explain on a separate page.
> I am really enthusiastic about Wikipedia - I contribute regularly and am
> determined to to so in future. These are just my thoughts.
That's good enough for me!
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 12
[Wikipedia-l] Controversial thoughts
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpjas at promail.pl
Thu Jun 14 19:35:03 UTC 2001
On 13-06-2001, Jimmy Wales wrote thusly :
Thank you for your voice in the discussion, Jim. I think we should talk more
about Wikipedia structure and functioning. I have a funny feeling that we
might be overwhelmed by the project's magnitude some time in the future.
> Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> > Are we for a democracy or freedom/anarchy ?
> > At some point when Wikipedia reaches a critical mass there should be some
> > democratic Editorial Board. It could even freeze some pages for some time.
> > If you say no to the Editorial Board some democratic rules should be set in
> > stone.
> While I'm a much bigger fan of freedom and anarchy, I'm also in favor of Wikipedia
> being run for the benefit of the community of authors, which means that we should
> work in a friendly way to reach a consensus about where we want to go and how we
> want to control the community in the long run.
>
> Probably _the_ most astounding fact about Wikipedia is that it is so
> good without any formal rules or restrictions at all. There are
> social customs and social pressures that do a really good job of
> keeping things in line.
This is a second wonderful thing about Wikipedia, next to "wiki magic".
> But someday, we will have to move beyond that. As the site gets more popular,
> it will attract vandals, and so we'll need to lock down the front page, or somehow
> *gently* raise the barriers to entry... but we'll want to be very cautious to not
> upset the "wiki magic".
For the time being all pitfalls of large collaborative projects have been
bypassed. What do you think about web democracy in the form of online
polls ?
> > End point.
> > Can someone please tell me what's the end point/goal of Wikipedia ?
> > Don't tell there no end-point and this is eternal task ;-)
> One answer -- and maybe not a very satisfactory one -- is that the
> goal of Wikipedia is fun for the contributors. If something cool
> emerges out of our playing with knowledge, all the better. But if it
> isn't fun for the contributors, it will die.
Are you saying Wikipedia is a toy thing and Nupedia the real one ???
>
> This (along with the free license) that guarantees that I'll continue to
> be a "benevolent" monarch to the project. If I decided unilaterally to make
> some changes that upset the contributors, that'd pretty much kill the growth
> of the project. My goal is to prevent fragmentation or "forking" by working
> hard to keep as many people happy as I can.
> > RDF
> > Wikipedia - patchy with some articles for students, some for laymen and
> > some for university professors ?
> > Or branch out into Kid's Wikipedia, Regular Wikipedia, Highbrow Wikipedia.
> I think these are great ideas.
Larry Sanger addressed this in a separate thread and it is beginning to
take shape.
Target audience - should be redirected :
Kid's Wikipedia
Wikipedia - normal people ;)
Nupedia - Highbrow Wikipedia (BTW what kind of relation is there between Nupedia and Wikiepdia ? Is Nupedia going to take over content of Wikiepdia
and put under editorial scrutiny ? )
Regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Rada graniczy z naganą. Aleksander Fredro
Czestochowa, Poland ... |
Więcej cytatów : http://www.cytaty.phg.pl
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 13
[Wikipedia-l] Controversial thoughts
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Jun 14 23:43:09 UTC 2001
>> What do you think about web democracy in the form of online
> polls ?
LDC wrote:
> Ick. And double ick.
I agree completely.
I think that the best thing to do for wikipedia is "rough consensus and running code".
We can add some features (I especially like the idea of templates for certain standard
'types' of pages) when we all pretty much agree that it's a good idea, but we also
shouldn't force anything (much) on anyone.
If and when we have problems with vandals (and I predict that someday, we will), then
we'll have to find solutions that satisfy the people who really matter, that is, we'll
have to find a "rough consensus" among the authors. Some will lean towards anarchy,
others will lean toward control, and we'll try to stumble through some middle path
that attempts to preserve the best of both.
Is that vague? Yes, but I think it will work.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.nupedia.com/ *
* The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 14
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork
kpjas at tau.ceti.pl
kpjas at tau.ceti.pl
Tue Aug 7 11:01:04 UTC 2001
Hello all,
Wikipedia is naturally collaborative. Probably there are very few other software projects that serve collaboration better. However I think we should think about and discuss implementation of teamwork.
Some Wikpedia entries easily gather around themselves several people that in a relatively short time and without much debate produce quite acceptable Wikipedia
articles. But it is always so smooth.<br>
My proposition is to start a new page with a link from the Homepage that would
organize teams for work on some subjects.<br>
I don\'t mean just <b>one</b> article, rather more broad subjects like existentialism,
art nouveau style, or cytology. These issues require some more thought on design and some planning and some cross-sectional discussion.<br>
Some subjects need such collaboration like heart - I might know something about human heart but
vertebrates have differently built hearts. I know that but not the details. So zoologists might help a lot.<br>
Sometimes we need a collaboration across national Wikipedias. Usually national Wikipedias take from the English one but Wikipedians from, for instance, Catalonia can help with entries like
[[Antonio Gaudi]].
regards,
Kpjas
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 15
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Wed Aug 8 18:20:03 UTC 2001
kpjas at tau.ceti.pl writes:
> Hello all,
Wikipedia is naturally collaborative.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Groups seem to organise
themselves '''naturally''', and really don't need formal structures, or at
least not those that they can't figure out for themselves. If you feel that
you can and want to organise a "Tiger Team" for some topic or organise
collabaration between the various international wikis, fantastic, go ahead,
you certainly don't need offical blessing.
I for one can prefer the freewheeling edit-what-I-like-when-I-like wikipedia
as it is. As long as we respect each other opinions, and work toward
NeutralPointOfView, we don't need any more formal layers of bureaucracy beyond
the occasional stern telling off by Larry :)
--
Gareth Owen
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 16
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpjas at ceti.pl
Thu Aug 9 14:48:45 UTC 2001
On 08-08-2001, Gareth Owen wrote thusly :
> Wikipedia is naturally collaborative.
Can it be more collaborative ?
> I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Groups seem to organise
> themselves '''naturally''', and really don't need formal structures, or at
> least not those that they can't figure out for themselves. If you feel that
> you can and want to organise a "Tiger Team" for some topic or organise
> collabaration between the various international wikis, fantastic, go ahead,
> you certainly don't need offical blessing.
> I for one can prefer the freewheeling edit-what-I-like-when-I-like wikipedia
> as it is. As long as we respect each other opinions, and work toward
> NeutralPointOfView, we don't need any more formal layers of bureaucracy beyond
> the occasional stern telling off by Larry :)
Are we missing the guarding angel ? ;-)
That's another point. Maybe I am a little paranoid but I feel that
while wikipedia is doing so great I'm anxious what will it be in the future.
How can we be sure that they won't shut down the server or make it payable.
This is a commercial company after all, not the FSF.
The freewheeling edit-what-I-like-when-I-like attitude is only illusory
anarchic kind of freedom because LS comes in and ...
Best regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Życie jest snem. Pedro Calderon
Czestochowa, Poland ... |
Więcej cytatów : http://www.cytatowo.prv.pl
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 17
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork
Jan Hidders
hidders at win.tue.nl
Mon Aug 13 09:18:49 UTC 2001
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 04:48:45PM +0200, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>
> That's another point. Maybe I am a little paranoid but I feel that while
> wikipedia is doing so great I'm anxious what will it be in the future. How
> can we be sure that they won't shut down the server or make it payable.
> This is a commercial company after all, not the FSF.
Because the GFDL allows you to download everything and start your own
server. With some Perl magic you could request all edit-pages and dowload
the pre-formatted text, you could even use the same Wiki software, and I'm
sure we can trust Bomis enough to warn us in advance.
> The freewheeling edit-what-I-like-when-I-like attitude is only illusory
> anarchic kind of freedom because LS comes in and ...
The success of Wikipedia is due to the cloud of enthusiasts and volunteers
that hangs around it. Larry has worked very hard to create that cloud, and
I'm sure he knows that if he would "come in and ..." the cloud might dissapear
or move to an alternative server.
However, Larry is doing an excellent job and I see no sign that this is
going to change. So setting up an alternative server would not only be a
bit silly, but also higly unthankful, considering the wonderful opportunity
they have given us.
Kind regards,
-- Jan Hidders
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 18
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork
Robert Bihlmeyer
robbe at orcus.priv.at
Tue Aug 14 07:56:47 UTC 2001
Jan Hidders <hidders at win.tue.nl> writes:
> Because the GFDL allows you to download everything and start your own
> server.
Well the GFDL also wants transparent copy to be easily available. I
don't consider spidering wikipedia to be an option open to the "man
from the street".
So someone at wikipedia.com should /really/ implement periodic snapshots
of the wiki database. Technicalities can't be a problem, just add
something like
18 04 * * * tar czf /webspace/wikipedia-`date +%Y%m%d`.tar.gz /wikidir
16 04 * * * find /webspace -maxdepth 1 -name wikipedia-\* -mtime +7 | xargs rm
(2 lines) to an appropriate crontab. Pretty please?
> With some Perl magic you could request all edit-pages and dowload
> the pre-formatted text, [...]
Sure, and perhaps I'll do that some day. But it puts much more
workload on the server than providing a snapshot, so I'd rather avoid
it. And if more people exercise their rights in this manner, it will
only get worse. A snapshot is much lighter on bandwidth and CPU, can
be mirrored via standard software.
> you could even use the same Wiki software, and I'm
> sure we can trust Bomis enough to warn us in advance.
For me its not so much a question about trusting Bomis than of
convenience and "taking your own license seriously".
> However, Larry is doing an excellent job and I see no sign that this is
> going to change. So setting up an alternative server would not only be a
> bit silly, but also higly unthankful, considering the wonderful opportunity
> they have given us.
Setting up a read-only mirror would certainly be useful, and not in
the least unthankful in my mind. Free licenses are about the *freedom*
to route around the original originators/maintainers/creators of a
piece of work. Witness that in the free software scene, such forks are
quite rare. Maintaining something is work, and nobody takes that
likely on themselves (and if they do, they usually give up pretty
quickly).
--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010814/3cc19a2a/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 19
[Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpjas at promail.pl
Thu Aug 16 12:09:51 UTC 2001
Hello all,
The same article was put on a Wikipedia page.
I think that we have grown a Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a
volunteer project that was made possible by Bomis. However, we have
invested in our favourite project a lot of enthusiasm, time and (in
some cases) money. It is quite natural that we want Wikipedia to
prosper.
In my opinion it is a time to stop and discuss. Discuss the future of
Wikipedia.
How does Bomis see it ?
How does Nupedia see it ?
How do we ?
The future might be or might not as bright as our imagination whispers
into our ears.
Wikipedia is a great idea combined with a new, revolutionary software
and it has a lot of brilliant committed authors. Her growth is
explosive. But there are also weaknesses (Wikinesses ?) brought into
light be some of us.
Reliability
The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite
possible lack of reliability.
This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's
credibility and ultimately her success.
This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree
here with [[Larry Sanger]] and his view "self-healing". It is an
example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.
I'd rather agree with [[Piotr Wozniak]]. His ideal of reliability is
EB and he is anxious about the potential lack of it in Wikipedia.
I am very interested in other people views. To start the creative
process of discussion I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea :
Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one public Wikipedia that is almost
frozen (apart from Talk pages, Feature requests pages and the like). And the
working Wikipedia for contributors. Forseeing your criticisms of the proposal
that it would hamper netizen involvement - Edit this page could lead into the
working Wikipedia.
Scalability
There are two ways of Wikipedia growth - global or niche.
If we decide in favour of global growth - being slashdotted only first
symptom of a serious problem.
I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea : :Nowadays distributed software
solutions are the height of fashion. Why not devise a distributed
Wikipedia ? Programmers ?
Multimedia
A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
It is rather trivial.
I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
real encyclopedia.
I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
pages.
Internal data format
This point is connected with Software issue below. Current data format is
otherwise an example of excellent software solution. But understandably the
creator of it did not envision the scale of Wikipedia. It poses numerous
problems like searching through Wikipedia and others. My ([[Kpjas]]) thoughts
wander around [[XML]] data format in connection with a free [[database]] like
[[MySQL]]. And your thoughts ?
Editorial process
Much has been said about it but not much done.
We have an excellent and hard-working editor-in-chief - [[Larry
Sanger]] but I think Wikipedia in current form needs several such
editors and when it reaches 100,000 pages 1000 Larrys.
My idea ([[Kpjas]] is :
Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias
borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the
simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted
to editorial groups like [[Architecture]], [[Philosophy]] and so on.
Software
Like any other open software project the software behind it should be
free and open to all.
The same applies to Wikipedia software. As I said above wikipedia
software (usemod wiki) is a revolutionary and of very good quality but
needs of Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia of unrestrained growth go
beyond that kind of software. See also above Internal data format.
On the Wikipedia mailing list [[BryceHarrington]] proposed making the
Wikipedia software publicly available on [[CVS]] for further
collaboration on its development.
Commercial and organizational issues
I'm no good at it. But to me it seems to be one of the most important
issues, second to wide netizen involvement.
Please, share your feelings and opinions here.
Best wishes to everyone,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Nic w przyrodzie nie ginie, jedynie spełnione
Czestochowa, Poland ... | nadzieje. Stanisław Jerzy Lec
Więcej cytatów : http://www.cytaty.prv.pl
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 20
[Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia
Bryce Harrington
bryce at neptune.net
Thu Aug 16 18:09:45 UTC 2001
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> The same article was put on a Wikipedia page.
I just have a few random, not-worth keeping comments so will reply here
rather than on the wiki site. (Btw, good idea to post it there.)
> I think that we have grown a Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a
> volunteer project that was made possible by Bomis. However, we have
> invested in our favourite project a lot of enthusiasm, time and (in
> some cases) money. It is quite natural that we want Wikipedia to
> prosper.
> In my opinion it is a time to stop and discuss. Discuss the future of
> Wikipedia.
> How does Bomis see it ?
> How does Nupedia see it ?
> How do we ?
Personally, as long as Bomis is providing tarballs and enough to
*potentially* allow for forking, we've zero incentive to do it at all.
Sort of, the more control they're willing to give away, the more control
we can all trust them to have, I guess.
> Reliability
>
> The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite
> possible lack of reliability.
> This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's
> credibility and ultimately her success.
No one in the world expects credibility from Wikipedia. And Wikipedia
requires nothing from the world at large to be successful. Thus to me
it seems like there is only a tenuous connection - at best - between
credibility and success, regarding Wikipedia. If Wikipedia were *only*
intended to be a literal replacement for a traditional encyclopedia,
sure. But it's something a tad less, and something a tad more.
That said, I do not think that the lack of credibility is as clear cut
as would appear at first glance. Yes, logic says one should expect to
see a distinct lack of credibility in Wikipedia. However, the evidence
we're seeing is that many articles actually *are* reliable and credible.
In a small but growing number of cases, the articles are actually
*better* than you'd find in a traditional encyclopedia.
> This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree
> here with [[Larry Sanger]] and his view "self-healing". It is an
> example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.
Well I have disagreed with Larry on many things, but on this particular
one I think he is correct. I've been involved with Wikipedia since the
start, and have watched the evolution of many articles. I think this
"self-healing" is not an expression of an idealistic wish of his but a
characterization of a real thing that we have been observing again and
again.
I don't know that I would go so far as to say that self-healing will
ensure that at some tangible point wikipedia will be 100% correct.
Actually I'm fairly confident that will never happen. But then, does
that matter? No encyclopedia is 100% correct, and probably not even 75%
correct, when you consider how much is unknown or incorrectly known in
the world.
I would like to analogize to science here. Scientists 300 years ago did
not say, "Let's make sure we have everything completely and reliably
figured out as soon as possible, and record it." Instead they came up
with a process that allows for establishing what they believed true,
with processes for testing and validating and adjusting as we go. A
self-correcting approach to accumulating knowledge. With Wikipedia we
are using a similar approach - we record what we believe to be true, and
then it is challenged and tested, and hopefully replaced with something
better.
> Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one public Wikipedia that is almost
> frozen (apart from Talk pages, Feature requests pages and the like). And the
> working Wikipedia for contributors. Forseeing your criticisms of the proposal
> that it would hamper netizen involvement - Edit this page could lead into the
> working Wikipedia.
I agree. However, to me it seems like this describes what Nupedia's
role has become, and I think it already serves this purpose very well.
> Scalability
>
> There are two ways of Wikipedia growth - global or niche.
> If we decide in favour of global growth - being slashdotted only first
> symptom of a serious problem.
> I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea : :Nowadays distributed software
> solutions are the height of fashion. Why not devise a distributed
> Wikipedia ? Programmers ?
The wiki cgi is actually pretty light on resource usage. The format of
the html pages are very simple and so bandwidth is probably not a major
concern. We seem to have weathered the slashdotting extremely well.
So distribution for purposes of resource distribution isn't going to buy
too much, IMHO. Larry and Jason and etc. can let us know if it becomes
a problem and we can seek out a solution then.
A second reason for distribution is to make it harder to "kill" the
service, ala Napster. But as long as tarballs of the site are available
periodically, this is not a major concern.
A third reason would be for caching purposes. If a large site like
google is the source of many frequent accesses of the site, there might
be benefit to establishing read-only caches. Again, though, I think
this is Bomis' domain to worry about. If it ain't a problem for them,
it ain't a problem for us.
> Multimedia
>
> A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
> It is rather trivial.
> I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
> real encyclopedia.
> I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
> AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
> linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
> pages.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. What we need, essentially, is an upload tool
that lets us post images onto the wikipedia site. This opens many
benefits but also some cans of worms, so this is not a trivial request.
I've written file upload systems several times over the years, and I'm
about to need to do yet another one at work. I will *tentatively* offer
to volunteer to provide something that can be plugged into wikipedia to
do file uploads, if Larry and Jason give the go ahead for it. It may be
a few months, if at all, before I can have it ready, though.
> Editorial process
>
> Much has been said about it but not much done.
> We have an excellent and hard-working editor-in-chief - [[Larry
> Sanger]] but I think Wikipedia in current form needs several such
> editors and when it reaches 100,000 pages 1000 Larrys.
> My idea ([[Kpjas]] is :
> Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias
> borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the
> simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted
> to editorial groups like [[Architecture]], [[Philosophy]] and so on.
I think this is a good idea. Many pages require editing attention.
This is a topic I've heard Larry and others discuss many times. The
issue is just finding a way to incentivize folks to do this. I think we
are still searching for the solution here.
> Software
>
> Like any other open software project the software behind it should be
> free and open to all.
> The same applies to Wikipedia software. As I said above wikipedia
> software (usemod wiki) is a revolutionary and of very good quality but
> needs of Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia of unrestrained growth go
> beyond that kind of software. See also above Internal data format.
> On the Wikipedia mailing list [[BryceHarrington]] proposed making the
> Wikipedia software publicly available on [[CVS]] for further
> collaboration on its development.
I think we're ok on this one now.
usemodwiki is available openly and has been for a long time. (In fact,
I'm using usemodwiki on half a dozen other sites right now.)
Also, the recent tarball includes the usemodwiki software, and all of
the associated scripts and such.
Bryce
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 21
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Sep 7 21:44:39 UTC 2001
[I am writing this as a "letter-to-the-editor," if you actually have such
a feature. If not, feel free to ignore this.]
Dear editor,
I'm writing in response to your article about Wikipedia published a few
days ago. I'm Wikipedia's main organizer. I simply wanted to comment on
one remark reported in the article, which was as follows: "Walter Bender,
executive director of MIT's Media Laboratory, believes that what makes
Britannica a valuable resource is the scope and depth of its editing, and
free Web-based encyclopedias such as Wikipedia will probably never be able
to compete with that."
Of course, right now Britannica has a greater scope and depth than
Wikipedia--but that's not surprising, because Wikipedia got its start just
eight months ago. But in the interim we have created over 10,000
articles--the best of which are easily comparable to Britannica's
articles--and are now adding nearly 2,000 articles per month, according to
one resident statistician. These articles are all constantly improving,
as well. Many of our active participants have Ph.D.'s or other advanced
degrees, and are college professors and graduate students or are
highly-trained professionals. Significantly, Wikipedia's *rate* of growth
has been steadily increasing--in terms of article numbers and quality,
traffic to the website, and attracting more highly-qualified contributors.
So it seems very reasonable to think that within a few years the project
will surpass Britannica in both breadth and depth. There's nothing
stopping us.
Best regards,
Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 22
[Wikipedia-l] New York Times article
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Sep 14 18:47:02 UTC 2001
The author of the NYT article told me that it will be coming out next
Thursday, Sept. 20, though this isn't absolutely certain.
You can bet we are going to be *very* busy when that happens. I hope
you'll participate then to help keep the newbies in line. :-)
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 23
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope
Magnus Manske
Magnus.Manske at epost.de
Fri Sep 14 20:06:08 UTC 2001
Hi Mike,
as a chalkboard buddy (I'm currently dumping my chalkboard articles into
wikipedia, they were too much work to remain unseen there :( ) I assure you
the wikipedia as we know it will be untouched by the namespaces. The
namespaces just add locked copies of wikipedia articles. I guess we'll only
have a single page with a link into the secure namespace, although my
current script (still not online yet) displays links to all the copies in
other namespaces at the bottom of the page.
You will see it once the new script goes online.
So far I agree with Larry. One point, however, is the phrase "two or three
relevant area reviewer approvals". Even in my enhanced version, I don't
support specialized area editors, just an "editor class". You are an editor,
or you are not. Editors can edit (and soon, delete?) articles in namespaces.
That's it. Wikipedia is based on trust (to some degree), and I think editors
there should be trusted not to move rubbish to the "stable" namespaces. If
they do anyway, other editors can undo the change, of a sysop can come and
lock the page even for editors.
I'm back to moving articles into wikipedia now...
Magnus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of mikedill at nupedia.com
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:08 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope
>
>
> I dont agree that wikipedia should have frozen pages. My thought is
> that all of the 'approved' articles be copied to Nupedia, where you
> can have a fixed reference.
>
> At Nupedia, they can then undergo peer review, and then published
> as 'qualified' articles. I know that the current review cycle would
> have some problems with the amount of change that wikipedia
> generates, but Nupedia is the place where stable, if not the greatest
> in the world articles should be referenced.
>
> A suggestion: Perhaps it means that nupedia will have to change a bit
> and show 'non-reviewed' articles, but it would let the wiki process
> at wikipedia continue.
>
>
> mike dill0
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 24
[Wikipedia-l] New York Times article--tomorrow!
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Sep 20 01:09:39 UTC 2001
Woo-hoo, OK folks, get ready! ''The New York Times'' article on Wikipedia
''should'' be coming out tomorrow. (We're not absolutely sure of this,
but that's what we were told.) Hopefully, we'll get huge amounts of
traffic and all hell's will break loose--moreover, this is actually pretty
likely. So, please, if you can spare the time, be on hand to help guide
the new folks into the process!
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 25
[Wikipedia-l] LA2
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Mon Oct 15 01:11:16 UTC 2001
Hi, I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Lars Aronsson, I
live in [Sweden], and am a good friend of [LinusTolke], [Pinkunicorn],
[Lisa], and [Mjausson]. In May this year I was active in the English,
German, and Swedish Wikipedia using the signature [LA2]. I wrote
several articles, including [Information Theory], [Book], and
[Germany], but finally got tired of [Larry_Sanger]'s attitude and
pulled out on May 21. My opinion was that different people could
contribute a skeleton of new article headings and hypertext links,
while others could contribute longer texts to each article, but Larry
thought it was important that [Wikipedia is not a dictionary], so I
left. I think Larry agrees with my conclusion that Nupedia grows too
slowly because of an overly strict editorial policy, and that
Wikipedia is a blessing. I think that Larry's criticism of my
contributions to Wikipedia was a leftover from this unnecessary
strictness, and rather than trying to explain this, I went away.
I have to confess I was the one who wrote that [Pittsburgh] is an
"ugly" town and under [Nile] that "denial is a river in Egypt".
I think that Wikipedia (and Wiki technology in general) is one of the
most interesting ideas I have met in the last few years. Rather than
the [Open Directory Project], which only links to existing websites,
Wikipedia tries to document all knowledge, whether already available
on the Internet or not. This is the same idea that [Denis Diderot]
worked on, moved to the [World Wide Web].
In 1991, my friend [LinusTolke] took the idea of [MUD] games (all of
which were in [English language] at the time), and moved it to
[Swedish language]. In 1992, I took the idea of [Project Gutenberg]
and moved it to [Swedish language], calling it [Projekt Runeberg].
When the first NCSA Mosaic web browser came out in 1993, I was one of
the few who had any contents already published.
Both LinusTolke and I are members of [Lysator], an students' computer
club (and alumni organisation of sorts) at [Linkoping University].
In the fall of 2000, I started a free wireless networking mailing list
(http://elektrosmog.nu/) in Sweden, and some of the members asked me
to start a Wiki website for it, just like two U.S. free wireless
projects have, [Personal Telco] and [SeattleWireless]. I thought
about this, and also wanted to use Wiki for [Projekt Runeberg] and
Scandinavian literature.
To get a better idea of how it works, I downloaded my own copy of the
Usemod Wiki software, and started to experiment. I soon realized that
there is true power in modifying the program itself, adding new
features that saves work when writing articles. The program has a
subroutine (a "sub" i Perl) named WikiToHTML that converts the
''special'' characters to HTML. For instance, it translates ISBN:0000
into a link to Amazon and Barnes&Noble, and RFC0000 to a link to
faqs.org. I added a rule that makes a link to the USPTO database
whenever I write uspat: followed by a U.S. Patent number. I modified
the ISBN rule so that Swedish ISBN:91- numbers will link to Swedish
online bookstores. I made a rule so that map: followed by a
geographic latitude and longitude will create an inline image link to
a map from mapblast.com. I could go on and add new rules. This is a
dimension that I haven't seen explored in Wikipedia yet.
I set up my experimental wiki on August 31, and after a month I had a
pretty decent website, all prompts translated to Swedish, and with a
few hundred articles in it. I decided to keep this project, and on
October 1, I gave it a proper Internet domain, http://susning.nu/
The slogan "skaffa dig en susning.nu" roughly translates into "get
yourself a clue, now!"
This website hasn't been indexed by Google yet, and I am writing most
of the articles myself. There are 1700 articles of which 200 are
REDIRECTs, 1100 contain at least one comma, and 600 contain a map from
Mapblast. This places my site slightly ahead of the German Wikipedia
(900 comma articles), and way ahead of the Swedish Wikipedia (90 comma
articles). I have one article for every municipality in Sweden, and
several countries are covered. Very few of my articles are long, and
there is no chance I can compete with the English Wikipedia.
I joined these two mailing lists (wikipedia-l, intlwiki-l) a week ago,
and the discussion on translation links inspired me to implement this.
Whenever I start an article like this:
En katt (engelska: cat) (tyska: Katze) är ett djur.
i.e.
A cat (German: Katze) (Swedish: katt) is an animal.
or
Eine Katze (Englisch: cat) (Schwedisch: katt) ist ein Tier.
the words in parenthesis are made into links to that language's
Wikipedia. This way, if one reader thinks that my website provides a
too simple explanation of what a cat is, and they do understand
English, they can click on "cat" and get the much longer article from
the English Wikipedia. This is great. On the other hand, if they
click on Katze, they will arrive at the blank webpage
http://de.wikipedia.com/wiki/Katze and will have the chance to write
that missing article in German. The best part is that the syntax is
user-friendly and not overly {{{complicated}}} for anybody to
understand. You are welcome to have a look around. Here are some
example articles:
http://susning.nu/Afghanistan
http://susning.nu/Bok
http://susning.nu/Dardanellerna
http://susning.nu/IEEE_802.11
http://susning.nu/Perl
http://susning.nu/Pittsburgh
http://susning.nu/TIFF
http://susning.nu/Tyskland
http://susning.nu/UNIX
http://susning.nu/Upphovsr%e4tt
As a "good fences make for good neighbors" principle, I run my own
website independent of what goes on in the Wikipedia project. I just
link to your articles, and my readers can contribute to and benefit
from your work. I think this "scales" well, and that is very
comforting to a programmer like me. I think that we can learn a lot
from each other, and have a loose form of cooperation or mutual,
peaceful coexistance, even if we are not in the same project. This is
how it has worked between me and Project Gutenberg's Michael Hart over
the last eight years.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 26
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] LA2
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Oct 15 21:06:55 UTC 2001
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> while others could contribute longer texts to each article, but Larry
> thought it was important that [Wikipedia is not a dictionary], so I
> left. I think Larry agrees with my conclusion that Nupedia grows too
> slowly because of an overly strict editorial policy, and that
> Wikipedia is a blessing. I think that Larry's criticism of my
> contributions to Wikipedia was a leftover from this unnecessary
> strictness, and rather than trying to explain this, I went away.
First, Lars, thank you for your support of the Wikipedia project! I'm
glad finally to connect a name (and website) to a Wikipedia nickname
(LA2).
A brief clarification is in order. I have rarely thought of Wikipedia as
the solution to Nupedia's problems (in that case, Wikipedia ought to
*replace* Nupedia, which I don't think is true). I have thought of
Wikipedia, rather, as a *complementary alternative* to Nupedia. The
strictness, per se, of Nupedia's editorial policy doesn't seem to me the
best explanation of why Nupedia hasn't been growing faster; I think it's
better explained by the fact that the system has been hugely overburdened
by bottlenecks. Under the newest proposal developed on Nupedia-L and
developing further on Advisory-L, Nupedia's editorial policy will continue
to be very strict--only the best work will be accepted--but there will be
far fewer bottlenecks. We'll simply be reverting to a typical academic
review system. One shouldn't assume that this means we'll be more open to
substandard work.
As for my criticism of *some* (only some!) of your contributions to
Wikipedia, Lars, I apologize if I was too abrupt and if I seemed rude.
That was merely a function of my wanting to get as much work done on the
project as possible (something that I can only hope other people, who I
have treated in an equally peremptory way, have understood). I am coming
around to a subtler understanding of the virtue of efficiency--efficiency
is great, but not at the expense of the virtues of clear communication and
politeness! For the record (and please don't take it personally that I
say this :-) ), I still do oppose one-liner stub articles for the English
Wikipedia. I think we can reasonably and should expect better than
that--and generally speaking, while we now still do get plenty of stubs,
they have rather more information than that, which is fine as a way to get
started.
By the way, if you find my attitude offensive, why not e-mail me privately
and we can try to resolve the problem amicably? I think it's entirely
possible that there was simply a misunderstanding or several between us.
But if discussion of the relative merits of personal styles is conducted
in a public forum, it becomes a sort of game, a defense of competing egos,
which (I hope you can agree) is tedious for others and stressful for
us--and completely *unnecessary* for everyone. I think this would be a
good rule (in fact, I'm going to add it to [[rules to consider]]--if a
debate starts to get personal, take it to e-mail. This is something that
Jimbo has suggested doing before, and the more I consider it the more I
like it.
> I think that Wikipedia (and Wiki technology in general) is one of the
> most interesting ideas I have met in the last few years. Rather than
> the [Open Directory Project], which only links to existing websites,
> Wikipedia tries to document all knowledge, whether already available
> on the Internet or not. This is the same idea that [Denis Diderot]
> worked on, moved to the [World Wide Web].
Yes! Well said!
> ...online bookstores. I made a rule so that map: followed by a
> geographic latitude and longitude will create an inline image link to
> a map from mapblast.com. I could go on and add new rules. This is a
> dimension that I haven't seen explored in Wikipedia yet.
This is all great and exactly on target.
You might or might not know that Magnus Manske and others have been
working on a new version of the software that will run Wikipedia, in PHP,
found here:
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml
One main reason we are excited about this (aside from the fact that it
will be better software for our purposes, when it's done) is that it will
live and be developed publicly; no longer will we have to wait for
overworked Bomis programmers to make improvements to Wikipedia software.
> I set up my experimental wiki on August 31, and after a month I had a
> pretty decent website, all prompts translated to Swedish, and with a
> few hundred articles in it. I decided to keep this project, and on
> October 1, I gave it a proper Internet domain, http://susning.nu/
> The slogan "skaffa dig en susning.nu" roughly translates into "get
> yourself a clue, now!"
I noticed that the Swedish Wikipedia ( http://sv.wikipedia.com/ ) is one
of the few in which some word strings have been properly translated. You
and others can help out by using the following (very cool) translation
page:
http://www.wikipedia.com/translation.cgi
> This website hasn't been indexed by Google yet, and I am writing most
> of the articles myself. There are 1700 articles of which 200 are
> REDIRECTs, 1100 contain at least one comma, and 600 contain a map from
> Mapblast. This places my site slightly ahead of the German Wikipedia
> (900 comma articles), and way ahead of the Swedish Wikipedia (90 comma
> articles). I have one article for every municipality in Sweden, and
> several countries are covered. Very few of my articles are long, and
> there is no chance I can compete with the English Wikipedia.
Is your work released under the GNU FDL? I'm obviously very sorry that
you felt it necessary to start a project wholly unaffiliated with
Wikipedia (popularly known as "forking" :-) ). We would, of course, like
to be able to use your work on the Swedish Wikipedia and perhaps even in
future Nupedia articles in Swedish.
Perhaps the best question to ask is: what would it take for us to be able
to persuade you to use (a greatly improved version of)
http://sv.wikipedia.com/ ? It's almost certain that we will be able to
accommodate whatever wishes you might have. Of course, it's entirely
possible that *nothing* would persuade you. But at least one good reason
is that there are the resources of many, many people at work on Wikipedia.
Also, your project's association with Wikipedia (and therefore also with
Nupedia) can only be to the benefit of the project in terms of credibility
and general public support and press coverage. We are now, as this
mailing list demonstrates, focusing resources on setting up and supporting
the non-English Wikipedias properly.
> As a "good fences make for good neighbors" principle, I run my own
> website independent of what goes on in the Wikipedia project.
"Good fences make for good neighbors" is true enough in foreign policy,
but I'm not sure the principle works so well when dealing with open source
and open content projects; in that case, it's called "forking"...which is
not always the best policy (but, of course, sometimes it is).
> I just
> link to your articles, and my readers can contribute to and benefit
> from your work. I think this "scales" well, and that is very
> comforting to a programmer like me. I think that we can learn a lot
> from each other, and have a loose form of cooperation or mutual,
> peaceful coexistance, even if we are not in the same project. This is
> how it has worked between me and Project Gutenberg's Michael Hart over
> the last eight years.
There is one problem, namely, that http://sv.wikipedia.com/ already
exists, and the chances of our stopping are virtually zero. Our project
and yours can indeed continue to coexist and to use each other's work
(well, assuming that you use the GNU FDL, that is, or some other
compatible license), but I'm not sure what the point of this would be; I
am skeptical that the overall project of creating a high-quality, dynamic,
open content encyclopedia in the Swedish language would benefit from this
situation.
Anyway, thanks for telling us about your project, and I'm sure we'll all
keep thinking about it.
Larry Sanger
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 27
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Oct 18 17:52:22 UTC 2001
Righty. That unique number could be a cookie-based number. The first
time someone visits, we assign them a cookie. Thereafter, they are
identified by that cookie.
This is by no means a certain defense against an attacker. A
only slightly sophisticated attacker could just turn off cookies in
his or her browser.
But I imagine that the sort of pinhead who goes around writing "fart"
in all the articles is also the sort of pinhead who wouldn't know how
to turn off cookies.
The fallback, in the event that someone doesn't use cookies, could be
the ip number. But we could further "munge" it into a unique
identifier to help enhance privacy.
Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:
>
> > Naturally, I wonder what else 168.143.112.xxx may have edited. It
> > would be nice to be able to click on that as a link and see.
>
> Indeed. And if this is implemented, maybe we could do away with
> showing IP adresses altogether? It seems to me that the only use for
> the addresses is hunting through Recent Changes in cases like the one
> you describe.
>
> No functionality would be lost if the changlog rather showed a unique
> number with no (obvious) meaning, that, when clicked, led you to a
> list of changes coming from the same IP address.
>
> --
> Robbe
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 28
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Tim Chambers
tbchambers at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 18 17:11:25 UTC 2001
I think tracking IP numbers is the way to go. It's unambiguous,
although people going through large ISPs will probably have different
IPs assigned each session. I also like the idea of mapping the address
to a unique identifier.
I'd go so far as to give all logged-in Wikipedias the power to assign
aliases to the identifiers. When we see a particular identifier acting
like "fartboy," we can label it as such so it shows up that way in
RecentChanges.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> But I imagine that the sort of pinhead who goes around writing
> "fart" in all the articles is also the sort of pinhead who
> wouldn't know how to turn off cookies.
Well, maybe Usemod should require cookies be turned on in order to
edit. But I still prefer tracking IP numbers.
<>< [[Tbc]]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 29
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Oct 18 19:22:46 UTC 2001
Let me raise a potentially delicate social issue. :-)
One of the wonderful things about the wiki software, and something
that has served us very well so far, is that it is totally wide open.
I suspect that any significant deviation from that would kill the
magic of the process.
On the other hand, we really are moving into uncharted territory.
Wikipedia is already, as far as I know, the most active and heavily
trafficked wiki to ever exist. It seems a virtual certainty that
the wide open model will start to show some strain (primarily from
vandalism) as we move forward.
(Even now, we see "only" about 5,000 unique visitors a day. Imagine
when that it 50,000 or 150,000. Or more.)
I have this idea that there should be in the software some concept of
"old timer" or "karma points". This would empower some shadowy
mysterious elite group of us to do things that might not be possible
for newbies. Editing the homepage for example. We already had one
instance of very ugly graffiti posted there (a pornographic cartoon).
Some principles that we should use if/when we move in that direction:
1. Cabal membership is available to anyone who puts in time -- there
should be no ability by the part of existing cabal members to
blackball anyone. The reason for this principle is that we don't
want there to be a temptation to ideological blackballing. Anyone
who shows up and sticks around for a couple of weeks can be
trusted enough to give total freedom.
2. Cabal membership should not give anyone any super powers, just a
handful of little things, like locking and unlocking the HomePage,
or placing a temporary block on an IP address or UserID.
3. Newcomers should not have to know or realize that they are
restricted in any way from doing things that some old timers can
do. We should always leave things as open as possible, not
requiring login, registration, etc.
3. Of course, as owner of the physical machine where Wikipedia is
located, I always retain absolute dictatorial power over
everything, if necessary. So if someone gets cabal membership and
uses it to vandalize, I could revoke the status unilaterally.
Basically, I think we always want to make a distinction between true
vandalism and mere un-encyclopedic behavior. We want to develop
little tools and tricks to help us block true vandalism, while keeping
things totally open for people to *work for consensus* on article
content. The "New Age" debate was good and healthy, and never rose to
the level of vandalism.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 30
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Michel Clasquin
clasqm at mweb.co.za
Thu Oct 18 18:36:34 UTC 2001
On Thursday 18 October 2001 21:22, you wrote:
> Let me raise a potentially delicate social issue. :-)
Hey, Jimmy, you don't have to tell us anything. We understand ... <g>
> I have this idea that there should be in the software some concept of
> "old timer" or "karma points". This would empower some shadowy
> mysterious elite group of us to do things that might not be possible
> for newbies. Editing the homepage for example.
I would include in that the "portal" pages coming directly off the home
page. If someone vandalises "the Snakehandling Foursquare Gospel Church of
Upper Appalachia", chances are few people will have seen it before it
gets fixed. But you can do subtle damage in "Religion" that could be much
more long-lasting, not even maliciously, just out of ignorance.
> 1. Cabal membership is available to anyone who puts in time
How does that affect existing wikipedians? I suggest we all start at 0 -
it seems the fairest thing to do. The only problem with that one is that
the "locked" pages will remain static for a week or two.
The alternative would be for you and/or Larry to start a preliminary cabal
with people you know and trust and let it go on automatically from there.
If you decide to go this route, maybe not let the rabble know what their
betters are up to? <g>
Once instituted, will the software automatically assign cabal status or
will you and/or Larry do this manually? If automatic, what prevents a
really persistent vandal from suddenly being blessed with cabal
membership? If manually, how do we stop even the perception that this is
really the Jimmy Wales Admiration Society?
Also, does cabal membership expire when you go on holiday for a few weeks?
If so, how long can the "real world" call you away from the wikiworld
before your cabalicity (cabalaciousness? cabalicality?) expires?
> 2. Cabal membership should not give anyone any super powers, just a
> handful of little things, like locking and unlocking the HomePage,
> or placing a temporary block on an IP address or UserID.
agreed, but see my comment on (1)
Technically speaking, I work from different machines and different
browsers, which is why some of my work is attributed to my IP number.
Would cabal status be recognised in any of these?
> 3. Newcomers should not have to know or realize that they are
> restricted in any way from doing things that some old timers can
> do. We should always leave things as open as possible, not
> requiring login, registration, etc.
Agreed
> 3. Of course, as owner of the physical machine where Wikipedia is
> located, I always retain absolute dictatorial power over
> everything, if necessary. So if someone gets cabal membership and
> uses it to vandalize, I could revoke the status unilaterally.
And of course, as the guy who hacked into that machine last night, I ...
OK just kidding.
> The "New Age" debate was good and healthy, and never rose to
> the level of vandalism.
The "ManningBartlett" affair was a sad day, though
--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC
Help Microsoft stamp out software piracy: give Linux to a friend today..
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 31
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Oct 18 20:42:54 UTC 2001
Michel Clasquin wrote:
> How does that affect existing wikipedians? I suggest we all start at 0 -
> it seems the fairest thing to do. The only problem with that one is that
> the "locked" pages will remain static for a week or two.
Or we could start accumulating "points" first, and impose restrictions
on newcomers later, and only as necessary.
> The alternative would be for you and/or Larry to start a preliminary cabal
> with people you know and trust and let it go on automatically from there.
> If you decide to go this route, maybe not let the rabble know what their
> betters are up to? <g>
Well, I think that transparency is an important goal, but I also think
that don't properly most newcomers won't necessarily have a clue that they
are being restricted. Most good newcomers have enough sense to know
that they shouldn't just edit the homepage, for example. It'd be like
going to someone's house for a party and suddenly changing the music
on the stereo. Most people recognize that it would be a faux pas.
> Once instituted, will the software automatically assign cabal status or
> will you and/or Larry do this manually? If automatic, what prevents a
> really persistent vandal from suddenly being blessed with cabal
> membership? If manually, how do we stop even the perception that this is
> really the Jimmy Wales Admiration Society?
Right! I would say that automatic assignment is best, or anyhow some
kind of "shall issue" rule that says that I won't arbitrarily withhold
membership for those who qualify. (And my thinkinng on this is that
qualification is really very open -- it's basically open to anyone who
isn't a vandal.)
With automatic assignment, there is a chance that a vandal will jump
through the hoops to get cabalhood and then do something mean. I
guess that's fine. If the rules for membership are something like
"must edit at least 25 times, over the course of at least 3 weeks"
then someone must *really* have an axe to grind to get to it. And
they have to pretend to be normal for 3 weeks. And then when they do
something bad, we yank their privileges immediately, and they have to
start all over.
That might happen, but in the meantime, we'd have protection against
what I think is far more likely -- some punk kid with a perl script
goes through and edits every page on the site one night, thus causing
us a big pain in the neck to fix it.
> Also, does cabal membership expire when you go on holiday for a few weeks?
> If so, how long can the "real world" call you away from the wikiworld
> before your cabalicity (cabalaciousness? cabalicality?) expires?
:-) I don't know! Good questions!
My thinking was that all it means to be a member is that you aren't a
jerk. That's probably a lifelong thing, so expiration might not be
necessary. Anyhow, what I envision is that the powers granted are
*very small and narrow*, tailored specifically for site defense
against vandals.
> Technically speaking, I work from different machines and different
> browsers, which is why some of my work is attributed to my IP number.
> Would cabal status be recognised in any of these?
I suppose a person would have to work "logged in" to get credit.
> The "ManningBartlett" affair was a sad day, though
I missed that one. I'll go review it now.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 32
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at HTEC.com
Thu Oct 18 19:20:24 UTC 2001
I generally think this is a good idea. I'm not sure exactly how the system
should work, but I propose something like adding 1 Karma Point (KP) for
signing up with a username, and one more for every day you connect to the
wikipedia after that (with the same username), and 2 KP for each day in
which you've edited an existing article, and 3 Karma points for each day you
add a new article.
Once you get up to 60 KP, you have basic privileges (Editing the home page
and the like).
Once you have or so 100 KP you can block an IP address, user ID#, or user
alias temporarily (24 hours).
Once you have 200+ KP you can mark an article for deletion. The article is
not deleted for 24 hours, and is clearly displayed as MARKED FOR DELETION on
the recent changes log if you have at least 150 KP. Anybody with level 1
privileges can then check a "don't delete this" box on the article, and it
will be unmarked for deletion.
I would recommend that the edit this page link just not appear unless you
have privileges to edit that page.
I don't think that the above is exactly how we should do it, but I wanted to
through out some specifics because the "devil is in the details." The idea
may be fine, but the implementation could easily bring up real problems...
That said, I think Michel Clasquin brings up several interesting points.
If you want to follow Michel Clasquin's suggestion that we also lock down
the pages linked from the main page, I'd recommend that those pages be
locked only for those with 4 or less KP, which means if you're logged in,
and you created an article you can add a link to it from the appropriate
portal page, since you have 1 KP for signing up, and 3 for adding an
article. We can use Magnus's "watch this page" functionality to keep track
of these changes. And if he adds the e-mail update feature, people can just
assign themselves to keeping up on those pages. I would actually recommend
that there be a field in the data base which assigns the level of
restriction on a page, so an administrator (or potentially anybody with a
high enough KP) adjust the threshold for that page. This would be useful if
the there were repeated problems with a specific portal page.
As far as who assigns Cabal status, I think it absolutely has to be
automatically assigned (of course the administrators can manually edit the
assignments if they feel the need). If there are persistent vandals, other
Cabal members can temporarily ban their IP, and/or administrators can
manually bump down their KP.
As far as how to get the thing started, we could automatically generate some
KP numbers for users by mining existing history data (Say you get a KP for
every 5 or 10 page edits you've logged), or we could follow Jimmy Wales's
suggestion that we implement the KP log for long enough for some people to
gain privileges before marking any pages as requiring privileges to edit,
either way should work.
Anyway, more food for thought.
Yours
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales at bomis.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:23 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Let me raise a potentially delicate social issue. :-)
One of the wonderful things about the wiki software, and something
that has served us very well so far, is that it is totally wide open.
I suspect that any significant deviation from that would kill the
magic of the process.
On the other hand, we really are moving into uncharted territory.
Wikipedia is already, as far as I know, the most active and heavily
trafficked wiki to ever exist. It seems a virtual certainty that
the wide open model will start to show some strain (primarily from
vandalism) as we move forward.
(Even now, we see "only" about 5,000 unique visitors a day. Imagine
when that it 50,000 or 150,000. Or more.)
I have this idea that there should be in the software some concept of
"old timer" or "karma points". This would empower some shadowy
mysterious elite group of us to do things that might not be possible
for newbies. Editing the homepage for example. We already had one
instance of very ugly graffiti posted there (a pornographic cartoon).
Some principles that we should use if/when we move in that direction:
1. Cabal membership is available to anyone who puts in time -- there
should be no ability by the part of existing cabal members to
blackball anyone. The reason for this principle is that we don't
want there to be a temptation to ideological blackballing. Anyone
who shows up and sticks around for a couple of weeks can be
trusted enough to give total freedom.
2. Cabal membership should not give anyone any super powers, just a
handful of little things, like locking and unlocking the HomePage,
or placing a temporary block on an IP address or UserID.
3. Newcomers should not have to know or realize that they are
restricted in any way from doing things that some old timers can
do. We should always leave things as open as possible, not
requiring login, registration, etc.
3. Of course, as owner of the physical machine where Wikipedia is
located, I always retain absolute dictatorial power over
everything, if necessary. So if someone gets cabal membership and
uses it to vandalize, I could revoke the status unilaterally.
Basically, I think we always want to make a distinction between true
vandalism and mere un-encyclopedic behavior. We want to develop
little tools and tricks to help us block true vandalism, while keeping
things totally open for people to *work for consensus* on article
content. The "New Age" debate was good and healthy, and never rose to
the level of vandalism.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 33
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Oct 18 21:27:54 UTC 2001
Mark Christensen wrote:
> I don't think that the above is exactly how we should do it, but I wanted to
> through out some specifics because the "devil is in the details." The idea
> may be fine, but the implementation could easily bring up real problems...
Right. It's really an empirical matter. We want most people to be
able to get full privileges pretty quickly by just sticking around.
One nice thing about a points system is that if we find ourselves
under constant attack, we can just raise the limits.
> As far as who assigns Cabal status, I think it absolutely has to be
> automatically assigned (of course the administrators can manually edit the
> assignments if they feel the need). If there are persistent vandals, other
> Cabal members can temporarily ban their IP, and/or administrators can
> manually bump down their KP.
Right, I think that's the best way to do it.
The most important thing is that any hierarchical structure must be
based on nothing other than *real participation*, and that it should
be as loose as we can possibly manage.
I have something in mind here like the "strict scrutiny" test that the
Supreme Court uses in judging potential restrictions on speech. The
restrictions on newbies must be for a compelling community interest
(to prevent vandalism) and must be specifically and narrowly tailored
to achieve that goal.
> As far as how to get the thing started, we could automatically generate some
> KP numbers for users by mining existing history data (Say you get a KP for
> every 5 or 10 page edits you've logged), or we could follow Jimmy Wales's
> suggestion that we implement the KP log for long enough for some people to
> gain privileges before marking any pages as requiring privileges to edit,
> either way should work.
I think it would be fun to see our karma points add up, too, even if
they mean nothing. That would allow us to tweak the scoring for
awhile, too.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 34
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Magnus Manske
Magnus.Manske at epost.de
Thu Oct 18 19:40:52 UTC 2001
As the (main) author of the new software, I'd like to contribute some things
to this debate:
- Watching the actions of a signed-up user will be very simple, even if
he/she logs in from different machines.
- Counting edits/new articles will be as simple.
- After each "karma point" addition, the status could be checked and basic
rights could be given.
- All pages can be locked to give write access only to people with the
necessary user rights.
So, no technical problem with that. But, think about what I originally had
in mind (I mentioned that somewhere already) :
- Have about a dozen "sysops"/administrators. Larry, Jimbo, a few others
(and currently myself, for maintnance;)
- Sysops can do everything: edit other user's rights, delete pages (and I
mean delete, not just remove the contents), mess directly with the database
etc.
- Sysops can create "editors", which have less rights, but of whom there are
many.
- *Everybody* can edit pages in the normal wikipedia namespace
- Good articles can be advanced into an "approved" namespace (by everybody,
or by a special "reviewer" class)
- Editors can advance articles from the "approved" namespace to the "stable"
namespace, or remove it from "approved"
- The "stable" namespace can only be edited by sysops
"Reviewers" and maybe "editors" could also be generated by karma points, or
by LSD ;)
Additionally, central pages could still be protected, and my new variables
will change the date and the number of articles on the HomePage
automatically.
A word to "blocked IPs": Almost everyone who goes online via an ISP gets a
random IP from the ISP every time he/she dials in. Blocking such an IP would
not stop trolls, but it would stop other harmless people who come in through
the same ISP at a later time. We don't want "wikipedia colateral damage",
now do we?
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 35
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Michel Clasquin
clasqm at mweb.co.za
Thu Oct 18 20:03:29 UTC 2001
On Thursday 18 October 2001 21:20, you wrote:
> I generally think this is a good idea. I'm not sure exactly how the
> system should work, but I propose something like adding 1 Karma Point
> (KP) for signing up with a username, and one more for every day you
> connect to the wikipedia after that (with the same username), and 2 KP
> for each day in which you've edited an existing article, and 3 Karma
> points for each day you add a new article.
>
> Once you get up to 60 KP, you have basic privileges (Editing the home
> page and the like).
>
> Once you have or so 100 KP you can block an IP address, user ID#, or
> user alias temporarily (24 hours).
>
> Once you have 200+ KP you can mark an article for deletion. The article
> is not deleted for 24 hours, and is clearly displayed as MARKED FOR
> DELETION on the recent changes log if you have at least 150 KP. Anybody
> with level 1 privileges can then check a "don't delete this" box on the
> article, and it will be unmarked for deletion.
It seems more complicated than what JW had in mind, and we can haggle
about the exact nr of points, i suppose. But I like the idea of gradually
gaining more abilities (lets call it that rather than priviliges)
> I would recommend that the edit this page link just not appear unless
> you have privileges to edit that page.
>
>
> If you want to follow Michel Clasquin's suggestion that we also lock
> down the pages linked from the main page, I'd recommend that those pages
> be locked only for those with 4 or less KP, which means if you're logged
> in, and you created an article you can add a link to it from the
> appropriate portal page, since you have 1 KP for signing up, and 3 for
> adding an article.
Or signed up and done 2 edits
Interesting idea. I've rethought the situation and we may need to
differentiate here between the English and non-english wikipedias. The
portal pages in the non-english wp's are often underdeveloped and may need
less strict rules (for now) like you suggest here. But in the English wp
most of the portals are well-developed and could use a higher level of
protection IMHO.
> I would actually recommend that there be a field in the data base which
> assigns the level of restriction on a page, so an administrator (or
> potentially anybody with a high enough KP) adjust the threshold for that
> page. This would be useful if the there were repeated problems with a
> specific portal page.
Excellent idea Of course, I shouldn't be able to raise it to some
ridiculous amount to make it uneditable by anyone (even myself). Perhaps
up to my KP - 1?
One more thing: I would very much like my KP to be between me and the
software, not publically available. We don't need people to start doing
millions of minor edits and putting up a KP counter on their homepages!
Rather start getting new abilities automagically and almost without
noticing it. In fact, really without noticing it in a lot of cases, I'm
sure.
--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC
Help Microsoft stamp out software piracy: give Linux to a friend today..
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 36
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at HTEC.com
Thu Oct 18 20:20:36 UTC 2001
Magnus brings up an important point, which has to do with how this will
interact with namespaces, and particularly the stable namespace. I think we
need to have some manual control over what goes into the stable namespace,
so that we can be sure that the people approving articles for the stable
namespace actually know what they are talking about. It may be that people
with enough KP should be trusted to only approve articles on subjects where
they have actual experience, but we may still want some kind of manual check
in place for that function.
Another good point Magnus brings up is that blocked IP's will only work
against people with a static IP address, or against one log in session.
Additionally blocking an IP could stop someone else from being able to use
the wikipedia, if they are later assigned that IP. Tis' true, but I still
think people with enough KP should be able to block an IP but only
temporarily, and by this I mean a really short time, like an hour or two.
This will be enough to make your average vandal get board and leave, and
will be highly unlikely to effect someone else who might log on with that IP
wanting to edit a page. (Obviously blocking an IP should only disallow edit
access and not mere read access). Actually we should probably have an
automatic IP blocker, which shuts down an IP address for an hour or two if
someone makes more than 10 edits in 30 seconds, to make programmatic
vandalism harder.
Yours
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Manske [mailto:Magnus.Manske at epost.de]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:41 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
As the (main) author of the new software, I'd like to contribute some things
to this debate:
- Watching the actions of a signed-up user will be very simple, even if
he/she logs in from different machines.
- Counting edits/new articles will be as simple.
- After each "karma point" addition, the status could be checked and basic
rights could be given.
- All pages can be locked to give write access only to people with the
necessary user rights.
So, no technical problem with that. But, think about what I originally had
in mind (I mentioned that somewhere already) :
- Have about a dozen "sysops"/administrators. Larry, Jimbo, a few others
(and currently myself, for maintnance;)
- Sysops can do everything: edit other user's rights, delete pages (and I
mean delete, not just remove the contents), mess directly with the database
etc.
- Sysops can create "editors", which have less rights, but of whom there are
many.
- *Everybody* can edit pages in the normal wikipedia namespace
- Good articles can be advanced into an "approved" namespace (by everybody,
or by a special "reviewer" class)
- Editors can advance articles from the "approved" namespace to the "stable"
namespace, or remove it from "approved"
- The "stable" namespace can only be edited by sysops
"Reviewers" and maybe "editors" could also be generated by karma points, or
by LSD ;)
Additionally, central pages could still be protected, and my new variables
will change the date and the number of articles on the HomePage
automatically.
A word to "blocked IPs": Almost everyone who goes online via an ISP gets a
random IP from the ISP every time he/she dials in. Blocking such an IP would
not stop trolls, but it would stop other harmless people who come in through
the same ISP at a later time. We don't want "wikipedia colateral damage",
now do we?
Magnus
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 37
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Oct 18 22:02:51 UTC 2001
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On the other hand, we really are moving into uncharted territory.
> Wikipedia is already, as far as I know, the most active and heavily
> trafficked wiki to ever exist. It seems a virtual certainty that
> the wide open model will start to show some strain (primarily from
> vandalism) as we move forward.
>
> (Even now, we see "only" about 5,000 unique visitors a day. Imagine
> when that it 50,000 or 150,000. Or more.)
So we have a problem we are not yet faced with on a serious scale (even
though Fartboy is very annoying), but we can very reasonably expect that
it will develop into a more serious problem. OK.
And Jimbo's karma points idea is a solution to *that* problem.
I want to try to place a few constraints on the solution. First, I'd just
like to reiterate that ease of use and openness are what have made
Wikipedia work so well so far, and we should do our best to retain those
features, just as Jimbo said. Second, I think it is important, in view of
the widely-reported experience of Everything2, that we not create an
"elite," or even the public impression of an "elite"--again, as Jimbo has
said. This coheres well with experience on Wikipedia; some people,
reasonably or not, have left Wikipedia on grounds of perceived personal
slights by persons perceived as "leaders." One of the ways to prevent
more such silliness is to downplay, as much as possible, the idea that
there *are* "leaders" on Wikipedia. Even those of us paid to work on
Wikipedia should try, as much as we can anyway :-), to be members, or
soldiers, rather than generals.
I don't think these constraints entail that we reject Jimbo's proposal.
If we simply create an "old timer" category of participant, there will
soon be quite enough of them that it will be unreasonable for newbies to
think that we are being *elitist* (if they even realize that there is a
category of old timers.
I'm not sure if the "karma points" idea can be reconciled with the
constraints I suggest, though. I'd have to hear more about it, I guess.
> 1. Cabal membership is available to anyone who puts in time -- there
> should be no ability by the part of existing cabal members to
> blackball anyone. The reason for this principle is that we don't
> want there to be a temptation to ideological blackballing. Anyone
> who shows up and sticks around for a couple of weeks can be
> trusted enough to give total freedom.
Absolutely. Remember what problem we're trying to solve: we aren't trying
to create an elite group of editors, we're trying to disempower vandals,
and *that's all*.
> 2. Cabal membership should not give anyone any super powers, just a
> handful of little things, like locking and unlocking the HomePage,
> or placing a temporary block on an IP address or UserID.
Right.
> 3. Newcomers should not have to know or realize that they are
> restricted in any way from doing things that some old timers can
> do. We should always leave things as open as possible, not
> requiring login, registration, etc.
If it can be hidden, that isn't a bad idea.
> Basically, I think we always want to make a distinction between true
> vandalism and mere un-encyclopedic behavior. We want to develop
> little tools and tricks to help us block true vandalism, while keeping
> things totally open for people to *work for consensus* on article
> content. The "New Age" debate was good and healthy, and never rose to
> the level of vandalism.
With this I agree 100%. I think it's very important that we bear in mind
that a distinction can be made between bad edits and vandalism. The
purpose of an "old timer" category would not be to discourage bad edits;
for that we have the Recent Changes page and good old mutual editing.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 38
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Oct 18 22:07:29 UTC 2001
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:
> Once instituted, will the software automatically assign cabal status or
> will you and/or Larry do this manually? If automatic, what prevents a
> really persistent vandal from suddenly being blessed with cabal
> membership? If manually, how do we stop even the perception that this is
> really the Jimmy Wales Admiration Society?
I think this should be done automatically. A persistent vandal blessed
with cabal membership would have a banned IP, complaints to sysops, etc.
As for the perception, the club should be inclusive. I've you've been
working on Wikipedia for some minimum amount of time, you should be in.
This means that 80% of the people who work on Wikipedia should be in.
There's no reasonable way to construe that as the JWAS. :-) Besides,
Jimbo's proposal is to keep the very existence of the old timers' rights
semi-secret.
> Also, does cabal membership expire when you go on holiday for a few weeks?
> If so, how long can the "real world" call you away from the wikiworld
> before your cabalicity (cabalaciousness? cabalicality?) expires?
Why let it expire at all?
> Technically speaking, I work from different machines and different
> browsers, which is why some of my work is attributed to my IP number.
> Would cabal status be recognised in any of these?
Magnus' code lets you log in with a username and password.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 39
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Oct 18 22:12:09 UTC 2001
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Mark Christensen wrote:
> I generally think this is a good idea. I'm not sure exactly how the system
> should work, but I propose something like adding 1 Karma Point (KP) for
> signing up with a username, and one more for every day you connect to the
> wikipedia after that (with the same username), and 2 KP for each day in
> which you've edited an existing article, and 3 Karma points for each day you
> add a new article.
I don't much like this sort of "scoring." That will encourage competition
that isn't clearly in the interests of actually creating an encyclopedia.
I like the idea of just being "in" or "out." Remember, the problem we're
trying to solve is simply to disempower vandals. That's it.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 40
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Oct 18 23:49:22 UTC 2001
lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> Besides, Jimbo's proposal is to keep the very existence of the old
> timers' rights semi-secret.
Although it isn't inaccurate, exactly, I don't like spinning it in
this way. Everything should be transparent and explained on the site
in an appropriate place. It's just that if you're a newcomer, you
needn't be burdened with knowing some of the advanced information
before you can participate.
Mostly, people can just edit almost all pages the same as ever. If
they've been around for awhile, it turns out that a link to edit the
homepage magically appears. I suspect many newcomers will never know
when they went from "newbie" to "Jimmy Wales Admiration Society"
members. ;-)
> Why let it expire at all?
Right, I would agree with this. Mostly, if someone isn't a troll,
they'll continue to not be a troll. It's an empirical question. If
someday we find that a bunch of former participants who we haven't
heard from in a long time are coming back and writing "fart" on all
the pages, we can make an adjustment.
> Magnus' code lets you log in with a username and password.
Well worth looking at:
http://php.wikipedia.com is easy to remember, and leads us to:
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 41
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Oct 18 23:53:13 UTC 2001
lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> I don't much like this sort of "scoring." That will encourage competition
> that isn't clearly in the interests of actually creating an encyclopedia.
Not necessarily! The idea is that we need "scoring" to determine who
is "in" or "out". Also, a scoring system can be tweaked over time to
make it conform more closely to our goals.
Someone argued that the scores should be kept between the user and the
software, i.e. non-public. Perhaps the scores should not even be
revealed to the users.
I thought that it might be fun to compare scores.
Like, I imagine an active participant like LDC or Bryce Harrington
would quickly have a score in the thousands. But it only takes, say,
60 points to be maxed out in powers. So the rest is just for fun.
> I like the idea of just being "in" or "out." Remember, the problem we're
> trying to solve is simply to disempower vandals. That's it.
Right, but no matter what we have to have a metric to make that
decision, which pretty much means points or numbers of some kind.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 42
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Magnus Manske
Magnus.Manske at epost.de
Thu Oct 18 22:11:15 UTC 2001
> lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> > I don't much like this sort of "scoring." That will encourage
> competition
> > that isn't clearly in the interests of actually creating an
> encyclopedia.
>
> Not necessarily! The idea is that we need "scoring" to determine who
> is "in" or "out". Also, a scoring system can be tweaked over time to
> make it conform more closely to our goals.
My final thought of the day (actually the next day here;)
Why not say "the upper 5% of users, sorted by points, are IN"?
Would give the hard-working class the privileges the commies always promised
;)
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 43
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Oct 18 22:28:39 UTC 2001
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> One nice thing about a points system is that if we find ourselves
> under constant attack, we can just raise the limits.
Moreover, we can simply raise the limits on "old timerhood" if we find
that helps solve the vandalism problem. But given that most vandalism is
done by people who have done very little editing on Wikipedia, the bar
probably won't have to be set very high.
> The most important thing is that any hierarchical structure must be
> based on nothing other than *real participation*, and that it should
> be as loose as we can possibly manage.
I don't think there should be any hierarchical structure, except to solve
very specific, delimited problems like the vandalism problem, and the
problem of deciding what articles to promote the "stable" area.
Under no circumstances should there be a hierarchical structure designed
to stroke people's egos. :-) Can we agree that egos needing to be
inflated is not a problem this sort of structure should be designed to
solve?
> I have something in mind here like the "strict scrutiny" test that the
> Supreme Court uses in judging potential restrictions on speech. The
> restrictions on newbies must be for a compelling community interest
> (to prevent vandalism) and must be specifically and narrowly tailored
> to achieve that goal.
I agree 100% with that.
> > As far as how to get the thing started, we could automatically generate some
> > KP numbers for users by mining existing history data (Say you get a KP for
> > every 5 or 10 page edits you've logged), or we could follow Jimmy Wales's
> > suggestion that we implement the KP log for long enough for some people to
> > gain privileges before marking any pages as requiring privileges to edit,
> > either way should work.
>
> I think it would be fun to see our karma points add up, too, even if
> they mean nothing. That would allow us to tweak the scoring for
> awhile, too.
I think we shouldn't keep track of karma points...I don't see what the
point would be.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 44
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Anatoly Vorobey
mellon at pobox.com
Thu Oct 18 22:29:39 UTC 2001
You, lsanger at nupedia.com, were spotted writing this on Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 03:12:09PM -0700:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Mark Christensen wrote:
>
> > I generally think this is a good idea. I'm not sure exactly how the system
> > should work, but I propose something like adding 1 Karma Point (KP) for
> > signing up with a username, and one more for every day you connect to the
> > wikipedia after that (with the same username), and 2 KP for each day in
> > which you've edited an existing article, and 3 Karma points for each day you
> > add a new article.
>
> I don't much like this sort of "scoring." That will encourage competition
> that isn't clearly in the interests of actually creating an encyclopedia.
> I like the idea of just being "in" or "out." Remember, the problem we're
> trying to solve is simply to disempower vandals. That's it.
I agree with this. Basically, every place I've seen with a system of points,
or ratings, or karma, or whatever quickly developed a social culture of elitism,
competing for points, comparing them, building hierarchies, and so on and so on.
I would go as far as to claim it's almost inevitable. And that's really not what
Wikipedia's about, is it?
I think that the solution of points is overdoing it. We only need to sufficiently
discourage vandals to make it not worth their time. The following measure will
go a long way towards establishing that:
1) Make some important pages, like the homepage and large categories, editable only
by users who actually registereted with an email address, and got themselves login
and password.
This already discourages the "casual" vandal, which I think is the majority of
vandals. To further discourage a "determined" vandal, try one of the following:
2a) Important pages, when edited, are saved automatically into a different category,
say "queue:original-name". Regulars are encouraged to periodically view the queue
category changes on a separate page, and to approve of changes using a special link;
once a change to an "important" page gets two approvals by other regulars, it goes
"live".
2b) Important pages are only editable by registered users who edited considerable
amount of Wikipedia pages during the last month; say, changed more than 200 lines
altogether; this would be measured automatically by the program. There're no
"karma points", no complex hierarchies, only a group of "privileged" users who are
only privileged because they know what they're doing, having edited a fair amount
on Wikipedia. The "privileged" status is invisible and isn't shown anywhere, except
a non-privileged user doesn't see the edit link on important pages.
What do you think?
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
my journal (in Russian): http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/
mellon at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 45
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Oct 18 23:54:38 UTC 2001
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I think this is really an interesting angle. I was thinking in
> exactly the opposite direction, but I can see your side of this, too.
> I was thinking that it would be a fun form of recognition to see who
> has the most points. But, we don't want to encourage people to be
> "karma whores".
Yes--competition can be a huge motivator, but Wikipedia is a collaborative
project, and it's not clear that competition would, in the long run, do
any more than create a nasty little pecking order of the sort one of my
esteemed colleagues :-) has already mentioned.
Also, I suspect the public display (or even private comparison) of points
would be a turn-off to the many adults, including many academics, who
wouldn't like to play such games.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 46
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 19 00:08:09 UTC 2001
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> 1) Make some important pages, like the homepage and large categories,
> editable only by users who actually registereted with an email
> address, and got themselves login and password.
This could be combined with Jimbo's proposal, and it wouldn't be a bad
idea in any case.
> This already discourages the "casual" vandal, which I think is the
> majority of vandals. To further discourage a "determined" vandal, try
> one of the following:
>
> 2a) Important pages, when edited, are saved automatically into a
> different category, say "queue:original-name". Regulars are encouraged
> to periodically view the queue category changes on a separate page,
> and to approve of changes using a special link; once a change to an
> "important" page gets two approvals by other regulars, it goes "live".
I think a moderating system would be very complicated in the
end--simplicity, for Wikipedia, is key.
> 2b) Important pages are only editable by registered users who edited
> considerable amount of Wikipedia pages during the last month; say,
> changed more than 200 lines altogether; this would be measured
> automatically by the program. There're no "karma points", no complex
> hierarchies, only a group of "privileged" users who are only
> privileged because they know what they're doing, having edited a fair
> amount on Wikipedia. The "privileged" status is invisible and isn't
> shown anywhere, except a non-privileged user doesn't see the edit link
> on important pages.
I agree! Although I think that once one has achieved oldtimerhood it
shouldn't be revokable (except by a sysop).
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 47
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Ato
anders.torlind at iname.com
Fri Oct 19 08:21:01 UTC 2001
I think Anatoly and Larry are on to something here, but let me rephrase
and add some of my opinions:
* A feature that lists "recent changes by user/IP" would speed up damage
recovery immensly. Especially combined with:
* A feature with one button on each page displayed to an "old hand" that
says "Revert to previous version". When pushed, it will do just that.
* No karmapoints should be implemented. This invariably leads to
pointless "who has the longest" comparisons, and will attract people
interested in such competitions.
My suggestion is instead: There should be exactly three discreete states
for a user to be in: "Casual", "Old hand" and "Admin". No difference
should be visible within theese categories, for the above reason.
-"Casual" is simply anyone not in the other categories. "Old hand" is a
tried and tested user who logged on of course.
-"Old hand" status could be given when someone has commited pages for
30% of the days a given 30 day period, thus proving to be a bit more
persistent than casual in editing. The ONE thing an "Old hand" can do
that a "casual" cannot is edit the restricted pages (in essance the home
page).
-"Admin" status is reserved for the people owning the actual hardware
the wiki is on. Nost people can accept that they have _da_powa_, and as
long as they cannot hand it out willy nilly (thus creating an elite) it
should be safe. There are TWO things that an "admin" can do: 1) demote
an "Old hand" to "Casual". 2) Temporarily block an IP.
* No "hide from beginner" tendencies please. That is slightly offensive
to those who actually read up on how to behave on the wiki before
starting. Besides, security by obscurity is bad no matter how one looks
at it :-)
If we proceed in this way (or something like it) we should have easy
recovery of pages that has been vandalized, and also a mechanism of
protecting our home page from defacing. This should empower honest users
and make serious damage very hard to do unless one is prepared to put in
serious work first.
Just my thoughts :-)
/Anders Törlind
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 48
[Wikipedia-l] Philosophy articles on Wikipedia to review (fwd)
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sat Oct 20 00:46:15 UTC 2001
Dear all,
I sent the following to the main North American academic philosophy
mailing list, PHILOSOP.
It would be fantastic if you could take a moment to post something similar
to other academic mailing lists. I think we're definitely to the point
where we can get a lot more academics on board.
Larry
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: lsanger at ross.bomis.com
To: PHILOSOP at louisiana.edu
Subject: Philosophy articles on Wikipedia to review
Hello,
This is an informal call for review of encyclopedia articles about
philosophy. I will try to keep this short.
Begun last January, "Wikipedia" ( http://www.wikipedia.com/ ) is a
"wiki"-based encyclopedia. This is a collaborative, open, community-
edited encyclopedia, led by me (I earned my Ph.D. in philosophy last
year). It has since grown to over 14,000 entries (with over 2,000 more
added each month) and has been the subject of coverage by the New York
Times and MIT's Technology Review. The contents are "open content," which
means roughly the contents will always be freely distributable in any
medium.
Wikipedia is loosely associated with the more straight-laced peer reviewed
project Nupedia ( http://www.nupedia.com/ ). The pair of websites
together constitute the world's first serious open content encyclopedia
project.
So far Wikipedia has managed to attract quite a few active academics (but
none in philosophy, alas--I'm hoping to attract a few here). To be
accurate, however, most of the participants are fairly articulate computer
programmers, students, and professionals from around the world. The
quality of articles is uneven in places, but constantly improving--and,
everything considered, surprisingly good for a project that is as
completely open as it is. We edit each others' work, and the results are
not perfect, but encouraging.
We could use a few philosophers to help vet (and develop) articles written
on philosophical topics. A few articles that I think particularly need
some careful attention from philosophers are these:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Scientific_method
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Atheism
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Postmodernism
There are a lot of other articles, that (unlike these) *I* wrote; I simply
pasted the contents in from old lectures, and these need work. Anyway,
many other philosophical articles have been started; nearly all of them
are works in progress that need your input. The central philosophy
jumping-off page is this:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Philosophy
And if you want to learn more about the project in general, see the
welcome page and the FAQ:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Welcome,_newcomers
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_FAQ
Finally, if you're very skeptical about the very idea of Wikipedia, please
see this page, which I wrote specifically for the skeptics:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia/Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics
Thanks for your attention!
Larry Sanger, Ph.D.
Wikipedia main organizer http://www.wikipedia.com/
Editor-in-chief, Nupedia http://www.nupedia.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 49
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Oct 22 19:55:56 UTC 2001
>I think Anatoly's proposals have merit.
>
>We certainly don't want to allow the changes to impact our culture in
>a negative way. Cautiousness is warranted, because wikipedia works
>well as it is. We're just looking to the future and anticipating how
>to scale as we get more popular.
I'd just like to point out that I dislike "point" systems because
they explicity avoid simple human subjective judgment. They're just
bad AI. The problem we're trying to solve is inherently one of
subjective value: most people's edits are valuable to us, but some
aren't. I don't want to abdicate responsibility for that judgment to
a stupid automaton.
If we want to give "reliable" users privileges that we don't
immediately give to everyone, that's great. But just give them--
don't build a whole system of automating it, just give them to those
who ask, and who have earned them. I would far rather that flag be
set by a real human being exercising judgment than by some
meaningless process.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 50
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Oct 22 23:36:15 UTC 2001
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> If we want to give "reliable" users privileges that we don't
> immediately give to everyone, that's great. But just give them--
> don't build a whole system of automating it, just give them to those
> who ask, and who have earned them. I would far rather that flag be
> set by a real human being exercising judgment than by some
> meaningless process.
I understand what you are saying, but
1. one of the goals here is to create a system which avoids even the
appearance of favoritism or bias. The process of "earning" the
privileges should leave little or no discretion to the owners of
the project...
2. The "privileges" under consideration are really quite small. For
the most part, the concept is to protect the most highly
trafficked pages from sheer malicious vandalism. So to "earn" the
privilege should be quite easy -- you basically just have to be
around for a few days and not be malicious. Even people who we
don't like should be allowed to edit pretty much anything, as long
as they aren't being malicious and are willing to ultimately go
along with community consensus.
-----
The only reason to even bring this up is that there have recently been
some initial incidents of true vandalism. Someone put a pornographic
cartoon on the homepage of the site one night. Another person has
been going through writing "fart" on various pages. I don't think
anyone (even The Cunctator, who has been reluctant to endorse any form
of protection out of fear of a cabal) regards these acts as merely
legitimate differences of opinion.
It is possible -- but unlikely, I think -- that someday we will have a
big huge argument between two or more legitimate participants, an
argument which degenerates into massive delete wars or edit wars.
We've seen something similar between a couple of otherwise legitimate
people lately, although it ended (badly) within the space of an hour.
SOMEDAY, we may have to find a way to deal with a problem like that.
But for now, we're just interested in tightening things up *just the
tiniest amount* on *just the most likely pages for vandalism*.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 51
[Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Oct 23 00:24:14 UTC 2001
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> But we do have a specific goal, don't we? I mean we already do
> hold the one clear bias that we want to produce a useful encyclopedia,
> as opposed to a chat room or news log. We don't want to be too
> biased about people or points of view, but we _are_ explicity biased
> toward our goal, and the folks who have chosen that goal should be
> free to act to achieve it. I want you and Larry and whoever else you
> trust to be able to stand up straight and say "this is what we're
> doing here, this is the way it is" without having to waste your time
> justifying everything. You've taken on a great responsibility here;
> don't throw away your power--use it.
Thanks! And yes, we will. I agree with all of this.
Openness is a means to an end here -- the end is our shared vision for
a free public encyclopedia. If we elevated the openness above the
goal, for instance by refusing to make *any* judgments, we'd be doing
the wrong thing.
On the other hand, I'm of course also willing to see things that I
disagree with make it into the encyclopedia. In a sense, I view my
role (and Larry's) as having two complementary parts: one, as a
participant, I want to make sure that I don't privilege my own views
relative to other participants. Second, as an administrator, I want
to act forcefully to toss out vandals and kooks.
Obviously, there could be tension between these goals at times.
> "Malicious" is another exercise of judgment. A point system can't
> tell that all of the edits done by someone were subtle subversions--
> say putting "not" in interesting places. Or adding links to non-
> existent or irrelevant books (how many of us check those?). I
> suppose it's OK to give random folks the benefit of the doubt and
> grant them a flag as long as they have a login name and have been
> around. But I'd still like to make sure that some human can revoke
> it when necessary.
>
> >But for now, we're just interested in tightening things up *just the
> >tiniest amount* on *just the most likely pages for vandalism*.
>
> I do respect the small-steps argument. Making wholesale changes too
> quicky risks spoiling what does work well.
*nod*
I agree with everything you have said, I suppose.
How about if we sum it up like this: we'd like to have an easy,
automatic, and nearly invisible process whereby anyone who
participates is empowered to edit even the most active pages on the
site, without permission or oversight from anyone. But, we also
reserve the right to toss jerks out on their ears, and to resort to
more extreme "privileges" regimes, if it becomes absolutely necessary.
The main thing I want to do is reassure everyone that in no way do I
think that any security measures should work to turn this into
"Jimbo's Personal Club Of People Who Agree With Jimbo About
Everything". :-)
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 52
[Wikipedia-l] Example of vandalism
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Oct 24 00:43:11 UTC 2001
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=HomePage&revision=802
This is the sort of thing we want to prevent. This is not a
legitimate difference of opinion about the content of the homepage,
this is someone being stupid.
The text here is similar to the text of the propaganda flyers that the
United States military is dropping on the Taliban troops, telling them
that they are doomed if they don't surrender, and giving them a safe
procedure for surrendering.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 53
[Wikipedia-l] Temporary measures
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Oct 24 00:57:12 UTC 2001
I have looked into this a little bit more -- I just realized that the
existing software does give us some tools to combat this kind of
vandalism.
First, I have fixed it so that only editors can edit the HomePage. I think
this is less desirable than our ideal system in which all the regulars
magically and transparently have this power.
If you want to edit the homepage, email me for the administrator
password -- I will give it out more or less willy-nilly to anyone who
I know. If the vandal starts using the password, then we'll know it
is an "inside job" and we'll have to think harder.
Second, I have added some ip numbers to the banned list. I'm prepared
to add more. This is less than 100% ideal, obviously, since innocent
people might be at the same ip numbers.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 54
[Wikipedia-l] Temporary measures
Magnus Manske
Magnus.Manske at epost.de
Wed Oct 24 09:49:32 UTC 2001
Again, I want to calm you down mentioning my upcoming software;) (I do that
a lot, don't I?)
There will be ways to "protect" pages so that
a) only people who are logged in can edit that page
b) only people with a certain "status" can edit that page. The status can be
granted and revoked by "higher authorities", so we won't have to trade a
password and change it the first time it gets abused (just revoke the status
of the person who messed up the page)
Before you start screaming, I know that "higher authorities" is something
most people on this list won't like, but in fact, everybody with root access
to the wikipedia server already has that position. So, I'm not introducing
something new here, I'm just fine-tuning our methods to get rid of the
trolls.
Magnus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 2:57 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Temporary measures
>
>
> I have looked into this a little bit more -- I just realized that the
> existing software does give us some tools to combat this kind of
> vandalism.
>
> First, I have fixed it so that only editors can edit the
> HomePage. I think
> this is less desirable than our ideal system in which all the regulars
> magically and transparently have this power.
>
> If you want to edit the homepage, email me for the administrator
> password -- I will give it out more or less willy-nilly to anyone who
> I know. If the vandal starts using the password, then we'll know it
> is an "inside job" and we'll have to think harder.
>
> Second, I have added some ip numbers to the banned list. I'm prepared
> to add more. This is less than 100% ideal, obviously, since innocent
> people might be at the same ip numbers.
>
>
> --
> *************************************************
> * http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
> * You can edit this page right now! *
> *************************************************
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 55
[Wikipedia-l] PHP script with tarball from www.wikipedia.com
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Oct 31 04:23:04 UTC 2001
> In my opinion, just an opinion as a user, I think you should restrict
> them from doing that. It will be too confusing. Lots of old users
> will drop back by, unaware of software changes, and we should try to
> make everything seamless for them.
> If they try /Talk, they surely just mean talk: in the new system. So
> we can make that transition for them, as transparently as possible?
> Other opinions?
I recommend not building in automatic technological restrictions if
we believe the combination of
a) social pressure and
b) automatic ease of doing the "preferred" thing
In other words, having the Talk namespace is great, I think (though
it does raise some confusing issues about hierarchies etc.) and we should,
if we implement it, automatically convert current /Talk pages to
the new system.
That way new people wouldn't have any motivation to create /Talk pages;
and old people, who will know what's going on, won't have any motivation
to create /Talk pages.
What we don't know, is that in the future, someone might actually have
a good reason for wanting a /Talk page. I can't think of one, but I'm
not arrogant enough to believe that I can think of every possibility.
Someone would need a pretty good justification, because the societal
regulations would prevent him from creating the page without good reason.
So I say this is a case in which its unnecessary to build in restrictions
in code as long as we make the preferred method the standard and easy to
use.
--
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com www.kband.com
www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 56
[Wikipedia-l] template & locking pages
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Oct 31 17:10:17 UTC 2001
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, wojtek pobratyn wrote:
> I noticed today (Oct. 31 that is) that someone has added "You can edit
> this page right now!" to wikipedia's template. This is fine, however,
> the HomePage is locked for editing and IMHO it might mislead new
> visitors.
That would have been Jimbo. We thought it would be a good idea. I also
think we should specify on each page the name "Wikipedia" and the fact
that it's an encyclopedia. We might do this on a new logo.
Jimbo, would there be a way to prevent that statement from appearing on
the homepage? That would solve the falseness problem. :-)
> I don't really agree with locking pages, but that is another issue....
I don't like it either, but I don't know how else, short of hacking
together a system like Jimbo has proposed, we can dissuade fartboy from
doing his thing.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 57
[Wikipedia-l] template & locking pages
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Nov 1 22:29:11 UTC 2001
wojtek pobratyn wrote:
> I don't really agree with locking pages, but that is another issue....
I don't agree with the way we're doing it right now, that's for sure.
If you want the password, you can just email me and I'll give it out
freely. The only requirement is just that I'm aware of you in some
fashion.
I think that getting privileges on the homepage should be automatic,
transparent, and easy. It's just that I don't find it very amusing
when some random kid surfs in and puts a giant spurting penis picture
there.
It remains to be seen what level of protection is really necessary,
but I really hope that only the most minimal protection is needed.
The success of wikipedia so far has been a great joy to me. My faith
in the general goodness of human beings has been extended to a great
extent. I would have thought that with 5,000 unique visitors a day,
we'd be getting at least 50 jerks trying to wreck something per day.
It's a lot less than that!
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 58
[Wikipedia-l] disruptions
Anatoly Vorobey
mellon at pobox.com
Sun Nov 4 02:13:07 UTC 2001
If any of the admins are reading this, it'd make a lot of sense to block
208.60.196.xxx from editing pages as soon as possible. See the Recent Changes
page for the explanation.
(it seems, though I'm not certain, that he's using a script to do the mass-scale
vandalism).
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
my journal (in Russian): http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/
mellon at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 59
[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason
Simon Kissane
sj_kissane at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 4 07:56:59 UTC 2001
Persons have recently taken to deleting pages totally
(i.e. with the admin delete command) without any
justification or even prior discussion as to why they
are doing this. Pages that were deleted include
[[Reasons for deleting page titles]], [[Wikipedia
vandalism]], [[Vandalism/Talk]], TheCunctator's
subpage of [[Wikipedia commentary]] listing pages that
were deleted (unfortuantely I can't remember what its
title was), and I don't know what else.
Unfortunately, when someone uses the admin delete
command no public record is kept of what they deleted,
so I don't know who did it. But I strongly suspect
LMS. He insists he did not delete [[Reasons for
deleting page titles]], and I'll have to give him the
benefit of the doubt on that one. However, he said on
[[Reasons for deleting page titles]] (a statement he
later deleted from that page) that "I have indeed
deleted several other pages though" and that he didn't
know who had deleted that page. Why did he make these
statements and then retract them? Did he mistakenly
think he had deleted several other pages, or is he
just unwilling to admit what he had done? And why did
he delete the statement that he didn't know who did?
Was it that he discovered who did it, but isn't
willing to say so?
I have tried to raise this issue with him on
Wikipedia, but beyond "I did not delete this page", he
has had nothing more to say. I tried to raise the
issue with him on [[Larry Sanger]], but all he did was
delete my comment. When one is accused of deleting
things without justification, deleting the accusation
only lends credence to it.
Simon J Kissane
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 60
[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason
Tim Chambers
tbchambers at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 4 16:07:04 UTC 2001
--- Simon Kissane <sj_kissane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Persons have recently taken to deleting pages totally
> (i.e. with the admin delete command) without any
> justification or even prior discussion as to why they
> are doing this.
Sigh. Seems that all Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal
than others after all.
I'm eager to hear how Larry and Jimbo weigh in on this recent
development. It marks a draconian twist in the evolution of the
'pedia. But as for me, I'll ignore this quasi-fartboy behavior and
will keep my eye on our goal to create an encyclopedia.
This is a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community, but until
the conflict gets resolves, there is a simple response that keeps all
sides of the disagreement engaged -- at least until the anonymous
perpetrator speaks up: the authors of controversial topics
("controversial" defined by the type of pages being deleted) should
keep a copy of the source of their pages on their personal computers.
They could also be mirrored at another site so they can be shared. I
started a list at
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OtherUseModWikis. Pick one.
Jimbo, I'd especially appreciate hearing from you whether Bomis is
willing to host a meta-wiki where page content can diverge from the
Wikipedia objective.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 61
[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sun Nov 4 18:42:24 UTC 2001
Tim,
As you know, on nearly all issues, I am content simply to state my opinion
and then let the cards fall where they may. Things usually work out
reasonably well that way. But, in fact, I do have more authority on this
project than do others. So does Jimbo, of course. On issue of more
importance, when a controversial or important decision must be made, my
role in this project is to make it (or delegate it) and, if necessary, to
defend it (or to justify it in advance). As you also know, in such
situations I usually do my best to get an idea of what the community
consensus is, and my decision is almost always, if not always, to express
that consensus.
Tim, I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post
constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community." I
honestly think most people don't care about the situation. I think they
understand that I was engaged in an "edit war" with The Cunctator and
Simon, who mistakenly think it is *important* (that it will actually
achieve something of importance, other than a bit of "heat and noise") to
test and to call into question the limits of my authority. That's what
they've been doing lately. I think most Wikipedians are of the opinion
that I should be given at least as much authority as I have taken upon
myself, and that stunts by people who are doing their best to question
that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly
interesting.
This situation is of course made all the more absurd because I have
*always* shown myself to be sensitive to the opinions of others--
particularly when they are expressed politely. And nearly everybody knows
this. I know full well, by the way, that this is what makes it so much
fun to press my buttons: I have been responding in earnest. I don't want
to change in that respect, but if I have to, I will have to moderate the
sensitivity of my responses in order to stop wasting my time.
I do reserve the right to permanently delete things--particularly when
they have little merit and when they are posted by people whose main
motive is evidently to undermine my authority and therefore, as far as I'm
concerned, damage the project. Now suppose that, in my experience, if I
make an attempt to justify this or other sorts of decisions, the people in
question will simply co-opt huge amounts of my time and will never simply
say, "Larry, you win; we realize that this decision is up to you, and
we'll have to respect it." Then, in order to preserve my time and sanity,
I have to act like an autocrat. In a way, I am being trained to act like
an autocrat. It's rather clever in a way--if you think college-level
stunts are clever. Frankly, it's hurting the project, guys--so stop it,
already. Just write articles--please!
I confidently predict that in the indefinite future, there will be other
somewhat similar situations, in which people's pages are deleted and the
injured parties will demand justice in a public forum. Then I will, of
course, be accused of acting like an autocrat. In many cases, these
accusations will be raised by teenagers and college students with too much
time on their hands, and by intelligent people with mental problems
whether moderate or serious. These people could indeed co-opt my time and
that of everyone else, if we let them. The situation will only get worse
with time, if we let it. But we shouldn't let this happen.
In such situations, I'm going to have to trust that you will trust that I
am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, and indeed not abusing my
authority.
(Recently some people have written in to give me such support. I do not
regard this as a blank check. I regard it as a serious responsibility.)
Larry
P.S. Those of you who are still paying attention must be tired of me
making these sorts of speeches. I'm very sorry, it's tiresome to me, too,
but it *is* necessary. Hopefully, all such unpleasantness will be behind
us very soon.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 62
[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sun Nov 4 20:13:06 UTC 2001
Below, I discuss some of Larry's post point by point; but I'll make the
one
central point here: I am not motivated by a desire to question LMS's
authority. In fact, I don't question it. If you believe that I am
so motivated, please tell me what I have done to support that belief.
: Tim, I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post
: constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community." I
: honestly think most people don't care about the situation.
The implied argument is that only if most people care about a situation,
can it be be a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community.
LMS has failed to provide evidence to support that argument.
The above is also a case of the slothful induction fallacy, as there
is plenty of evidence that many people do care about ths situation,
as demonstrated by this and related threads, the discussion on various
Talk pages, etc.
A much more plausible argument is that most people don't enjoy the
situation, but that's very different from not caring.
: I think they
: understand that I was engaged in an "edit war" with The Cunctator and
: Simon, who mistakenly think it is *important* (that it will actually
: achieve something of importance, other than a bit of "heat and noise") to
: test and to call into question the limits of my authority.
Unlike LMS, I don't presume to characterize the motivations of others.
I'm not interested in calling into question the limits of Larry's authority,
as he asserts. I've been creating pages I believe should be on
Wikipedia; he's exerted his authority, and taking it personally.
His characterization of this as an "edit war" is wholly misleading;
because he used methods other than editing to press his case; rather,
he
1) asserted authority (which he can justifiably do, but it's not editing)
2) erased pages (again, which he can justifiably do, but it's not editing)
I find it telling that I don't consider it a "war", but he does.
: That's what they've been doing lately.
Provide evidence that my actions are motivated by a desire to
"test and to call into question the limits of my authority."
: I think most Wikipedians are of the opinion
: that I should be given at least as much authority as I have taken upon
: myself, and that stunts by people who are doing their best to question
: that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly
: interesting.
This contains the begging the question fallacy ("I think most people don't
care about the situation...stunts..are not particularly interesting"),
the
bandwagon fallacy ("most Wikipedians are of the opinion"), the complex
question
fallacy (I think most Wikipedians...and that stunts by people...") and
ad
hominem attacks ("stunts by people who are doing their best to question...").
: I confidently predict that in the indefinite future, there will be other
: somewhat similar situations, in which people's pages are deleted and the
: injured parties will demand justice in a public forum. Then I will, of
: course, be accused of acting like an autocrat.
I have never accused LMS of acting like an autocrat, nor have I demanded
justice. The above is irrelevant to any argument made regarding my actions.
: In many cases, these
: accusations will be raised by teenagers and college students with too much
: time on their hands, and by intelligent people with mental problems
: whether moderate or serious.
This is an ugly and inaccurate implied ad hominem. As Sanger has already
presumed to directly characterize my motivations, it is only reasonable
to assume that the above is intended to defame my character by implied
association.
Terms used are at http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Logical_fallacy and
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm.
The Cunctator
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 63
[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason
Tim Chambers
tbchambers at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 4 23:06:39 UTC 2001
LMS wrote:
> ...On issue of more importance, when a controversial or
> important decision must be made, my role in this project is to
> make it (or delegate it) and, if necessary, to defend it (or to
> justify it in advance).
Hmm. The pages Simon mentions don't seem controversial to me, nor
do I believe they're important. But he said they were deleted
with extreme prejudice, and that's what I went on record to
protest. It wasn't my content, so I'm not going to fight for
it. It's gone. But your reply doesn't shed light on the
mystery. I guess I have to go on record, too, to say that I am
not questioning your authority. I greatly appreciate the role you
play.
> I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's
> post constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia
> community." ... stunts by people who are doing their best to
> question that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are
> not particularly interesting.
If you completely reject it, then it seems you are rejecting the
contribution that Simon, TheCunctator, and I bring to the
community. It certainly matters in a personal way to the former
two, and it matters to me on the basis of principle.
Larry, the mystery remains. Who deleted the pages mentioned by
Simon, and why? If it wasn't you (as in one case he says you
already stated that it wasn't), then what's your point here? And
if it was, then why "waste time" talking in generalities? Simon
raised specific issues. True, the generalities are important as a
matter of policy, but I don't think Simon cares about that right
now. I know that I wouldn't if I couldn't figure out who was
trashing ''my'' work.
> ...In such situations, I'm going to have to trust that you will
> trust that I am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, and
> indeed not abusing my authority.
If I knew in precisely which situations you had exerted your
authority, I would have a basis for trust. As it stands, all I
know is this:
1. You will delete pages when you deem it to be in the 'pedia's
best interests. I have no problem with this. I haven't written
anything similar to ''any'' of the deleted content in question.
2. Someone is deleting content, but no one knows why because that
individual hasn't explained his or her motives. The content
doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the goals of
Wikipedia, as held by "consensus" of the community, so only two
Wikipedians seem to be directly affected.
The consequence is this: if I have any doubt whatsoever about
whether content that I create for Wikipedia is relevant to its
goals, I'll be keeping a copy on my personal computer. Not a big
deal. But it is, indeed, a blow to community harmony that I have
to resort to such tactics.
Jimbo wrote:
> > Jimbo, I'd especially appreciate hearing from you whether
> > Bomis is willing to host a meta-wiki where page content can
> > diverge from the Wikipedia objective.
> Absolutely!
Thanks. Looking forward to the announcement of the URL.
Dave McKee wrote:
> I hope these problems can be sorted out in an adult and
> businesslike manner, and that any mistakes or omissions are
> learnt from.
Ditto.
"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only
way to be sure." -- Ellen Ripley, "Aliens"
References:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000700.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000701.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000702.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000704.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000705.html
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 64
[Wikipedia-l] disruptions
Anatoly Vorobey
mellon at pobox.com
Mon Nov 5 00:20:18 UTC 2001
You, Anatoly Vorobey, were spotted writing this on Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 04:13:07AM +0200:
> If any of the admins are reading this, it'd make a lot of sense to block
> 208.60.196.xxx from editing pages as soon as possible. See the Recent Changes
> page for the explanation.
Now the same needs to be done for 208.60.198.xxx
*sigh*.
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
my journal (in Russian): http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/
mellon at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 65
[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason
Magnus Manske
Magnus.Manske at epost.de
Mon Nov 5 10:31:33 UTC 2001
There is a "delete this page" function in the PHP wikipedia, for
"privileged" users only. As I anticipate this to be a problem for some
"normal" users, as demonstrated here, I added an automatic log page to that
function ([[Log:Page Deletions]]). Every permanent page deletion via that
function will be recorder there, with date and user name, and will show on
the "Recent Changes" page.
I demonstrated it at
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=special:RecentChanges
with the old "Feature Requests" page, for those who'd like an example.
The log page cannot be edited by *anyone* via the web interface. Of course,
I cannot prevent the direct edit of the database.
Magnus Manske
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of lsanger at nupedia.com
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:53 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting
> things without reason
>
>
> I'll reply again tomorrow.
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 66
[Wikipedia-l] A culture of co-operation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 5 17:28:58 UTC 2001
I think that in the long run, one of the most important things for us
to do is preserve and extend our culture of co-operation, with all of
us standing as firmly as possible against the culture of conflict
embodied in Usenet.
Don't get me wrong -- I love Usenet. But Wikipedia is not Usenet, and
should not become a forum for debate, especially not debate about
Wikipedia. That's as bad as a Usenet flamewar about Usenet flamewars!
:-)
Of course there will be disagreements and debates about what belongs
on a particular page. But we should all endeavor to keep ourselves
focussed on the _end_, i.e. a well-rounded, complete, and high quality
encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not h2g2 or everything2. The community is
essential to achieving the goal, but the community exists in the
service of the goal.
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 67
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Permament deletions without reason
João Mário Miranda
jmiranda at explicacoes.com
Mon Nov 5 16:19:13 UTC 2001
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Another class of pages for which total deletion makes sense would be
> for legitimate page titles with totally nonsensical content. A total
> deletion is better than a page clearing, because it restores the ?
> link on pages that may mention this page, thus alerting us that it
> needs fixing.
>
> For example, a couple of days ago I noticed that we didn't have a page
> on Colin Powell, while reading a page about the current effort. If
> there had been a blank page there, I would not have noticed it, and we
> wouldn't have that content now.
That can be solved. Software must be changed so that blank pages
have a ? link.
> > 2) Are the deletions tracked (even if not available to the public) in
> > any way? Is there any way that it can be determined which administrator
> > has deleted a file (eg: usernames, IP addresses)? If not, is there any
> > reason why there shouldn't be in the future?
>
> I think it is obvious that pretty much nothing should be done in secret.
>
> > of Wikipedia, which is probably Bomis' biggest asset.
>
> Well, not really. Wikipedia traffic is extraordinarily tiny compared
> to our other properties. Nonetheless, I do think Wikipedia is
> exciting and promising.
I think the idea was that, in this project, the biggest asset of
Bomis is the "Wikipedia reputation". Not the content, but the
reputation. I would say that there are two important assets for
Bomis here:
1 - wikipedia reputation
2 - wikipedia community
That's what Bomis must preserve. Others can use the same content
to build a similar project, but they would not have the same
reputation and the same community.
--
joão
http://www.nonio.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 68
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Permament deletions without reason
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 5 18:58:11 UTC 2001
João Mário Miranda wrote:
> That can be solved. Software must be changed so that blank pages
> have a ? link.
I see what you mean, yes. Alternatively, the delete command could be
changed to leave the history. After all, that's what seems to be the
most upsetting (to me, anyway) about the delete command -- all the
history is obliterated, making it difficult for community oversight to
function properly.
> I think the idea was that, in this project, the biggest asset of
> Bomis is the "Wikipedia reputation". Not the content, but the
> reputation. I would say that there are two important assets for
> Bomis here:
>
> 1 - wikipedia reputation
> 2 - wikipedia community
>
> That's what Bomis must preserve. Others can use the same content
> to build a similar project, but they would not have the same
> reputation and the same community.
Right! That makes perfect sense.
As always, it seems funny to me to discuss "Bomis" in the abstract,
since it's just me and Tim and the gang. :-)
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 69
[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Mon Nov 5 17:32:09 UTC 2001
>
> There is a "delete this page" function in the PHP wikipedia, for
> "privileged" users only. As I anticipate this to be a problem for some
> "normal" users, as demonstrated here, I added an automatic log page to that
> function ([[Log:Page Deletions]]). Every permanent page deletion via that
> function will be recorder there, with date and user name, and will show on
> the "Recent Changes" page.
>
> I demonstrated it at
> http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=special:RecentChanges
> with the old "Feature Requests" page, for those who'd like an example.
>
> The log page cannot be edited by *anyone* via the web interface. Of course,
> I cannot prevent the direct edit of the database.
Now that feature addition is the kind I like!
I still think documentation is crucial, but I hope you can understand
why I don't feel welcome to contribute to anything regarding Wikipedia
any more, at least publicly.
If possible, you might want to set up a bugzilla.
yours,
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 70
[Wikipedia-l] A blanket apology
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Nov 5 19:34:36 UTC 2001
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I think it is not co-operative of you to suggest that he's "unwilling
> to admit". :-) Let's assume that I did it, by sheer accident, and
> let's accept my apology for any pain that I have caused, and let's all
> move on. I will help to restore the pages.
I agree with this analysis of the situation.
I'll compose a (publicly-editable, of course) page about what basic
policies we will follow in deleting pages permanently.
Frankly, the last two weeks have been unusually unpleasant for me, and
this situation must stop. My continuing to add, indeed, detailed replies
does nothing but continue the unpleasantness, so I'm going to issue the
following blanket apology:
I'm *truly* sorry for any unjustified contribution I have made to the
flame-ridden atmosphere of Wikipedia in recent weeks, and I fully
acknowledge that there are a number of issues that I could have handled
more diplomatically, tactfully, and with greater friendliness and good
will.
In the future I will try to do better in all respects; being a fallible
human, however, I can guarantee that I will make mistakes.
Larry Sanger
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 71
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia meta-information organisation
Manning Bartlett
manning at bartlett.net
Tue Nov 6 04:16:17 UTC 2001
All
I'm getting annoyed at the plethora of "Usenet" style discussions happening all over the place. Not so much that they are happening (I think this is unavoidable) but that there is no organisation in place to accommodate it.
To distinguish between the Wikipedia (as an information resource) and the "Community involved in an encyclopaedia project" I would like to propose the creation of five pages (some already exist):
Wikipedia Policy
Wikipedia Commentary
Wikipedia Community
Wikipedia Discussion
Wikipedia Utilities
Each of these can have numerous sub-pages. Many pages which are floating around as distinct entries can be re-classified under these five headings. This will also discourage people from creating "meta-pages" as distinct encyclopaedia headings (eg. my own creation - [[Page titles to be deleted]])
Wikipedia Policy
/Neutral point of view
/To delete or not delete
/Permanent deletion of pages
/Wiki administrators
/(etc)
Wikipedia Commentary
This page should be restored to its original intent - the publishing of editorial articles, free of the constraints of NPOV.
Wikipedia Community
/Wikipedians (and associated existing subpages)
/Wikipediholic
/Wikipedia-L
/other pages related to the community of editors, public notices not relevant to the reader community, etc.
Wikipedia Discussion
/all the pages related to discussing the evolution of Wikipedia...
I know Larry is against this idea in principle, but face it - it will always happen. At least this way it is centralised and we will only shit in a small corner of the nest, as opposed to everywhere now.
Wikipedia Utilities
/page titles to be deleted
/personal subpages to be deleted
/statistics
/friends of Wikipedia
/(etc)
*****************
Manning Bartlett
Senior Business Intelligence Consultant
EMC Global Pty Ltd
Sydney Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011106/faf95c02/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 72
[Wikipedia-l] Corvus13 replied
lsanger at nupedia.com
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Nov 7 19:27:53 UTC 2001
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> I'm not sure we should waste any time on these folks (i.e., those
> Wikipedians who occasionally take offense and leave). Being able to
> see your own ideas from other points of view is a necessary skill
> here, as is having a thick skin.
I generally agree. There's a bit of a tension between going out of our
way to see to it that *no one* leaves the project, and preserving high
standards. Nupedia, by the way, has faced a similar problem. Should
reviewers in their roles as reviewers, we asked ourselves, be expected to
hand-hold writers with poor ability in English or whose mastery of the
material is questionable? On the one hand, we want the project to be open
and to encourage the development of content. On the other hand, we don't
want to alienate some of our most productive members.
> If people are upset by aspects of
> the process we have deemed important, then trying to attract them
> back will have one of three results: (1) We just piss him off again;
> (2) We compromise the process out of misplaced guilt to keep him from
> leaving; or (3) He grows a spine, gets with the program, and stays.
>
> Obviously, we want (3).
In nearly all cases, yes.
> But if the person is capable of that and
> has stuff to say, he'll come back after he cools off regardless of
> what we do, as Manning apparently did.
Actually, a lot of us wrote to Manning asking him to come back, and that
seems to have been one reason he came back. Of course, we all know the
real reason he came back is that he's an addict, just like all of us. :-)
> Anything we do is more likely
> to lead to (1) or (2).
It's hard to tell, though, I suppose. I think your most important point
here, Lee, is that indeed we *could* compromise the process out of
misplaced guilt. I think that's right. I do not think that we should
allow disruptive elements (of *all* sorts!) to be able to sidetrack us
from the good habits we have developed or that we are trying to develop.
On the other hand, I really *don't* want us to act like a "clique." So
far, I think there's been rather little danger of that--my evidence is
that all of us disagree with each other on various issues from time to
time, which is healthy.
> So if people leave, let 'em. If they come
> back, welcome them back. But let's not go out of our way to analyze
> every reason some person leaves and beat ourselves up. If we do
> everything right, some people will still get pissed off and leave.
> That's life.
I agree with the above analysis 100%.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 73
[Wikipedia-l] another copyright issue
Kurt Jansson
jansson at gmx.net
Fri Nov 16 15:36:57 UTC 2001
Hello wikipeople!
How can we ever be sure, that those people who (often anonymously) write
new articles for wikipedia didn't just copy'n'paste it from another
site?
I think we can't.
Take for example
http://de.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Gopher
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/rus/42/internet/gopher.html
and chapter 2.6 here:
http://www.fitug.de/bildung/allgem/inetein2.html
Is it all from the same author? Or is the wikipedia article just a
('stolen') copy? Or the copy of a revised (but 'stolen') copy? Or is the
source under the GNU Free Documentation License?
How can we be sure about that?
I think nobody wants that just authors with prooved identities (who are
responsible for their writing) are allowed to contribute to wikipedia.
But are we on the save side if we just close our eyes and wait for
people to come and force us to delete articles that many people have put
much work in, but that are based on their text?
Sorry for my bad English, I'm German. If you don't understand what I'm
talking about I'll try my best to make it clearer.
Bye,
Kurt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 74
[Wikipedia-l] Re: another copyright issue
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Sat Nov 17 17:57:34 UTC 2001
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> On the English Wikipedia we play by the "better safe than sorry"
> rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove it.
Who are "we"? A non-formal group of core contributors, or Bomis staff?
Is there a similar "we" for the non-English language Wikipediae?
It appears to me that Bomis actively "runs" the English Wikipedia, and
almost don't care about the other languages. I think it would help
greatly to assign the role of a responsible editor to some person for
each language, perhaps Kurt Jansson or Stefan Rybo for the German, and
Linus Tolke for the Swedish Wikipedia. This would make Wikipedia more
like a franchising concept. The national wikipedias could be run on a
separate site (like wiki.rozeta.com.pl) if the responsible editor
("franchising owner") finds that useful. Bomis would own the name
Wikipedia and the concept and terms under which it is franchised.
I guess what I am saying is that the national Wikipedias need a Larry,
and that there are people who can take on that role if they know the
role exists.
(No, I am not a candidate for editor of the Swedish Wikipedia.)
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 75
[Wikipedia-l] Re: another copyright issue
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 19 19:41:20 UTC 2001
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> > On the English Wikipedia we play by the "better safe than sorry"
> > rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove it.
>
> Who are "we"? A non-formal group of core contributors, or Bomis staff?
> Is there a similar "we" for the non-English language Wikipediae?
Speaking (authoritatively, I suppose) for the Bomis staff, I think it
is both. What I mean is, I have a legal liability for copyright
violations, so I have to do something about it. However, as far as I
can tell, the "non-formal group of core contributors" agrees with me
on this.
I should point out that not everyone agrees on the moral status of
copyrights, nor on what the law should be. A few people bristled when
I called it "stealing", and since arguing about _that_ wasn't relevant
to my purposes, I reworded it. The main thing is just that we should
take pride in generating our own content in a non-controversial way.
> It appears to me that Bomis actively "runs" the English Wikipedia, and
> almost don't care about the other languages.
Oh! Not true! I personally care very deeply about the other
languages. The problem is that all my caring in the world doesn't
help me with the fact that I only speak English. :-( (And a little
Japanese, but not even enough to hold a conversation. :-()
I welcome ideas on how we can better support the other wikipedias!
> I think it would help
> greatly to assign the role of a responsible editor to some person for
> each language, perhaps Kurt Jansson or Stefan Rybo for the German, and
> Linus Tolke for the Swedish Wikipedia. This would make Wikipedia more
> like a franchising concept. The national wikipedias could be run on a
> separate site (like wiki.rozeta.com.pl) if the responsible editor
> ("franchising owner") finds that useful. Bomis would own the name
> Wikipedia and the concept and terms under which it is franchised.
At least loosely speaking, I'm all for this.
One thing is certain: the English wikipedia thrives to some extent
because Larry is working on it every day. But I can't afford to hire
someone to work on all the other languages. I'm happy to appoint
someone, but (a) I can't pay them, and (b) I'm not sure, given the
open nature of wikipedia, what that appointment would really mean. I
mean, anyone who wants to take charge of a non-english wikipedia can
do so, without me really having much to say about it. :-)
I do think it isn't a good idea to have separated doman names, because
I'm thinking that inter-linking between the wikipedias will be very
useful. And I think that keeping all the wikipedias on the same
software is a good thing for a variety of reasons.
> I guess what I am saying is that the national Wikipedias need a Larry,
> and that there are people who can take on that role if they know the
> role exists.
>
> (No, I am not a candidate for editor of the Swedish Wikipedia.)
I have no objection to our designating someone as "in charge", but I'm
not sure how much it would really mean. Larry does a lot of work, day
in and day out, because I pay him.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 76
[Wikipedia-l] Personal Pages
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Nov 22 01:51:38 UTC 2001
No one ever answered this, it seems!
I can understand (sympathize with) Jimbo's proposal (expressed in a few
different places) that we just completely get rid of personal pages, but
I think they do a lot more good than harm. As Stephen says, they allow
people to get acquainted, to exchange personal messages, to brag, and to
do other stuff that makes Wikipedia an "online community."
As far as I'm concerned, the personal pages will all be moved from the
main article space to a "user:" or "u:" namespace, which will be a good
thing. It'll make counting articles more accurate and give us a clearer
distinction between the creators and the subjects of the creation. :-)
Also, for recordkeeping, it's nice to have a record of who has written
what (on the [[Recent Changes]] page) and this necessitates fully
integrated user namespace.
It's a separate question whether we'll stick with the present
Metawikipedia or move all that stuff to a "discussion:" (or whatever)
namespace, with its own [[Recent Changes]] page. I wouldn't want to move
it if it didn't have its own [[Recent Changes]] page.
But...we don't have to decide any of this right away. Magnus has to get
through exams ;-), apparently, and we could stand doing some more testing
of his software, before making the switch to the new software.
Larry
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> I'm not sure what the status is on personal Wikipedian pages. I know that
> we're moving personal essays to meta.wikipedia.com, but what about the
> pages themselves? Are we keeping them? If so, where will they be located?
>
> Personally, I would like to see them stay on Wikipedia itself, in the user:
> namespace. However, I think the pages should only be used to provide an
> introduction, to exchange messages, and for encyclopedia writing purposes
> (to do lists, contribution lists, etc). Personal essays and the like should
> go on MetaWikipedia. Anything not related to Wikipedia would go elsewhere,
> like a personal Geocities page.
>
> -- Stephen Gilbert
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 77
[Wikipedia-l] confession of a science believing man
David Merrill
david at lupercalia.net
Sat Nov 24 02:08:29 UTC 2001
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 02:56:51AM +0100, Kurt Jansson wrote:
> Hello everybody!
>
> I think the German Wikipedia is more and more reaching a point, were
> there are enough people to start discussions about controversial topics.
> I'm thinking especialy about articles with an esoteric/mystic/religious
> theme.
Cool!
> Is there some kind of procedure that has been established in the
> international Wikipedia?
> Do you stop working on the article and start a discussion? Or do you
> fight on an article until you come to a consensus (or enough people have
> given up ;-) )?
We just plug right along, writing.
> I think in scientific articles it is not such a big problem to specify
> the different opinions and state which one is more and which is less
> accepted. But I have my problems to declare that ghosts, clairvoyance,
> etc. do exist/work, or do not, and that both opinions have the same
> possibility. But maybe that's a just lack of my democratic, pluralistic
> engagement and an excess of my scientific believing emotions. (BTW: is
> parascience a science?)
>
> Am I too afraid of fanatic esoterics/christs/etc that are flooding
> wikipedia with totally biased articles and not willing to discuss about
> their opinions?
My opinion, and of course take it for what it's worth, is that a
certain amount of argument and controversy is inevitable. At first it
bothered me. I wanted to get along with everyone, even the people I
thought were crackpots.
Now I just write what I think is appropriate. I am very careful to try
to stay npov, and in my experience 9 out of 10 others do the same.
When an individual insists on being npov, I have stopped arguing. I
just walk away and let them "win". My opinion is that in the long run,
they will get tired and the npov view will win out. With only one or
two exceptions, that has shown to be true.
--
Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
When people understand what Microsoft is up to, they're outraged.
--Tim O'Reilly, O'Reilly & Associates
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 78
[Wikipedia-l] Re: another copyright issue
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Tue Nov 27 01:29:58 UTC 2001
From: "Lars Aronsson" <lars at aronsson.se>
> Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> > On the English Wikipedia we play by the "better safe than sorry"
> > rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove
it.
>
> Who are "we"? A non-formal group of core contributors, or Bomis
staff?
> Is there a similar "we" for the non-English language Wikipediae?
"We" in this case has been me as well as a lot of other people who
understand that the presence of copyrighted material in the Wikipedia
database puts the project at some legal risk. We do our best to remove
obvious violations of copyright while, in uncertain cases, giving people
a chance to explain themselves.
> It appears to me that Bomis actively "runs" the English Wikipedia, and
> almost don't care about the other languages.
Well, this is inaccurate. We care very much about the other languages.
But, not knowing other languages that I do know (with the possible
exception of German) well enough to participate in the wikis in those
other languages, we have left them to develop on their own. Recently, I
set up the Intlwiki-L mailing list (cc'd) as a forum where issues shared
by all the Wikipedias could be hashed out.
We've tried (with limited success so far) to accommodate the people
working on a Polish wiki encyclopedia project (they have called
themselves the "Polish Wikipedia"), and they might still move. (The
last I know about that is that I've tried to send them an e-mail, which
bounced. :-( )
> I think it would help
> greatly to assign the role of a responsible editor to some person for
> each language, perhaps Kurt Jansson or Stefan Rybo for the German, and
> Linus Tolke for the Swedish Wikipedia. This would make Wikipedia more
> like a franchising concept. The national wikipedias could be run on a
> separate site (like wiki.rozeta.com.pl) if the responsible editor
> ("franchising owner") finds that useful. Bomis would own the name
> Wikipedia and the concept and terms under which it is franchised.
>
> I guess what I am saying is that the national Wikipedias need a Larry,
> and that there are people who can take on that role if they know the
> role exists.
>
> (No, I am not a candidate for editor of the Swedish Wikipedia.)
This is an interesting proposition, and it sounds like a good idea, but
you know, anybody can, by force of intelligence and character, move a
wiki in a positive direction. I'd agree with what Jimbo had to say
about it: I'm not sure what it would mean to designate someone as
official leader. We'd have to *give* it some meaning. In my opinion,
one reason Wikipedia has worked has been the fact that it is associated,
very loosely, with Nupedia, and people know that I am looking at,
evaluating, and actively guiding the project. Moreover, it's important
that I'm a Ph.D. philosopher who has gained much relevant experience
from organizing Nupedia, as well as other academic projects as a
graduate student. If there were some person who could be identified as
an active ringleader, and for whom it would *matter* to others that they
were considered the ringleader (i.e., someone whose credentials would
command immediate recognition and prima facie respect), that might be a
good idea. But we'd still need to know what sort of rights and
responsibilities they have. It's not even clear what rights and
responsibilities *I* have. :-)
Maybe what we need to do is, on
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.fcgi?action=browse&id=Non-English_Wikipedi
as ,
as well as on intlwiki-l and Nupedia's interpret-l, add something to the
effect that we strongly encourage particularly well-qualified people to
get to work on the non-English wikis and try to speak as a voice of
reason and authority (both, hopefully :-) ) on the wiki. Then, perhaps,
we can identify and have a list of any of the de facto "leadership" of
the Wikipedias, and make it official.
What do you think of that, folks? These are just idle thoughts. I
haven't really thought a lot about it. I'm sure others could elaborate
the issues involved!
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 79
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
Manning Bartlett
manning at bartlett.net
Fri Nov 30 11:06:35 UTC 2001
I am so sick of this ridiculous "Militia" discussion that it makes my skin crawl to even be writing about it, but on some of the pages I've noticed a quote of mine being used wildly out of context, so I feel forced to clarify it.
I coined the phrase "central authority structure" to collectively refer to the "core" groups of 'pedians. ("Core" and "central" are synonymous). I used the phrase in passing to emphasise that there is an organic and completely dynamic core group of people who contribute to the 'pedia on a regular basis, and that this core group is non-exclusive and admits any who wants to join and is willing to put in the time.
Unfortunately, somehow my comment has been twisted to sound as if I think that there is a "dictatorial, militaristic power system" which is complete and utter bullshit. I don't, never have, never will. The Militia is a good idea, borne of experience and it appears most of us support it without any controversy.
I am posting to Wikipedia-L simply to erase a distortion of my comments.
I beg you, please do not bother to reply - we don't need to prolong this asinine and pointless debate any further. Let's just build the 'pedia.
Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011130/17a4aada/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 80
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Fri Nov 30 18:19:40 UTC 2001
lcrocker at nupedia.com writes:
> > Unfortunately, somehow my comment has been twisted...
> > I am posting to Wikipedia-L simply to erase a distortion
> > of my comments.
>
> This would only be a problem if you thought we took anything
> Cunc says seriously. Since we know better, no harm done.
I'm continually baffled by the fact people keep replying to Cunc. There is
nothing in his actions over the last month that distinguishes him in anyway
from a good old fashioned Troll.
+--------------------+
| PLEASE DO NOT FEED |
| THE TROLL. |
| THANK YOU. |
| -- The Management |
+--------------------+
| |
| | O
o | | |
__\|/___=\| |/=_\|/____
--
Gareth Owen
New wikipedia signature wanted!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 81
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism In Progress
wikipedia at epoptic.com
wikipedia at epoptic.com
Sat Dec 1 19:11:30 UTC 2001
The article "United States Constitution/Amendment Fourteen" is under
attack from "Zenferret" and "65.80.128.xxx" -- we've gone through
several vandalism/reversion cycles already. I hereby petition for the
appropriate IP address(es) to be blocked.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 82
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Dec 4 03:23:22 UTC 2001
Gareth Owen wrote:
> I'm continually baffled by the fact people keep replying to Cunc. There is
> nothing in his actions over the last month that distinguishes him in anyway
> from a good old fashioned Troll.
He and I had a very nice private conversation not so long ago in which
we both ended up apologizing sincerely for a quarrel we had about some
things that were said in a debate on Wikipedia itself.
I think that the fundamental characteristic of a troll is that a troll
deliberately tries to generate more heat than light, as an end in
itself. I think that in the case of the Cunc, this isn't quite
accurate. I think he's trying to generate light. He's just
difficult and inflammatory.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 83
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Dec 4 08:06:55 UTC 2001
>
> Gareth Owen wrote:
> > I'm continually baffled by the fact people keep replying to Cunc. There is
> > nothing in his actions over the last month that distinguishes him in anyway
> > from a good old fashioned Troll.
>
> He and I had a very nice private conversation not so long ago in which
> we both ended up apologizing sincerely for a quarrel we had about some
> things that were said in a debate on Wikipedia itself.
>
> I think that the fundamental characteristic of a troll is that a troll
> deliberately tries to generate more heat than light, as an end in
> itself. I think that in the case of the Cunc, this isn't quite
> accurate. I think he's trying to generate light. He's just
> difficult and inflammatory.
>
Boy, that made me feel warm and fuzzy. But I know where you're coming
from, and the criticism may be warranted. (Though I would have written:
I think that in the case of the Cunc, this isn't
accurate. I think he's trying to, and does, generate light. He's
just sometimes difficult and inflammatory.
)
I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into the
habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either have
to
expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and bear it,
or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that. I'm trying to be closer
to WikipediAhimsa now.
I truly think people's expectations of my behavior have been influenced
by the unfairly negative characterizations of it, and such expectations
then influence their perception of my behavior.
But maybe I am really a troll, as GWO and LMS assert.
It's certainly not for me to tell you what to think, and I clearly have
made some mistakes. Enough about me. How was the wedding?
TC
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 84
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
David Merrill
david at lupercalia.net
Wed Dec 5 01:26:21 UTC 2001
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:06:55AM -0500, The Cunctator wrote:
> I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into the
> habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either have
> to
> expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and bear it,
> or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that. I'm trying to be closer
> to WikipediAhimsa now.
Or you could stop being difficult and inflammatory. What a concept.
--
Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
I think the most thoughtful feature in Windows is the blue screen. Such a
nice, soothing color, just when I need soothing the most. Now if only it
could play that mellow newage startup music during hard hangs.
--Unknown
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 85
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 5 22:37:06 UTC 2001
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, The Cunctator wrote:
> I think that in the case of the Cunc, this isn't
> accurate. I think he's trying to, and does, generate light. He's
> just sometimes difficult and inflammatory. )
>
> I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into
> the habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either
> have to expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and
> bear it, or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that.
Er, that's not quite what happened most recently, is it? The above claim
is precisely the sort of misleading claim that irritates me. In fact, you
posted a completely misleading, inflammatory discussion of the "Wikipedia
Militia" page. Many people, myself included, responded strongly to your
unfair rhetoric. It's not as if you're merely the victim of an unprovoked
attack. So do not misrepresent the situation. There were indeed good
reasons to respond to the incredible rudeness of your behavior; don't
expect polite people to tolerate it. Moreover, you cannot expect many
people to give you very much sympathy for the harsh, but *perfectly
appropriate* responses people have made to you.
> I truly think people's expectations of my behavior have been
> influenced by the unfairly negative characterizations of it, and such
> expectations then influence their perception of my behavior.
Give me a break! As if you had not earned your reputation slowly and
painfully over a period of months, and as if we all did not know this!
> But maybe I am really a troll, as GWO and LMS assert.
I'd like to point out that you, Cunctator, are the one who decided (rather
trollishly, I might add) to make public my opinion that you are (were
acting like) a troll. I told you that *in private e-mail*. Moreover, in
private, I know of a few others who have asserted the same thing about
you. Now, if you want people to stop accusing you of being a troll, then
stop acting like one. If you want detailed advice on how to do so, I'm
sure there are many here who would be only too happy to help.
I really do wish we could stop this. Cunctator, if you would cease to
write such inflammatory stuff, we will have no grounds on which to
criticize you. Apart from the inflammatory stuff, you've done some very
good work for the project. I know that you won't like to be told to cease
your ill-prosecuted, self-chosen role as resident passionate gadfly; but
you know, the original gadfly, Socrates, is known as the very model of
reasonableness and politeness. Plato's Socrates let the facts, or logic,
speak for themselves, and did not resort to insulting innuendo and dirty
rhetorical tricks. Even the famed Socratic irony was generally very
gentle, and usually consisted of Socrates praising someone for knowing
something that Socrates knew all too well his "victim" *did not* know.
Larry Sanger
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 86
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Thu Dec 6 00:15:46 UTC 2001
>
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:06:55AM -0500, The Cunctator wrote:
> > I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into the
> > habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either have
> > to
> > expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and bear it,
> > or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that. I'm trying to be closer
> > to WikipediAhimsa now.
>
> Or you could stop being difficult and inflammatory. What a concept.
>
Would I presumptuous to consider your sarcasm ("What a concept")
inflammatory?
Or should I consider it a well-deserved rebuke?
Reading between the lines for both of our comments, it looks like
I'm implying that people's response to me is unfair, while
you're implying that it is.
I think much of people's response is fair, actually. The little that
I consider unfair is when people characterize my intent: whereas
you said "You could stop being difficult and inflammatory", you
didn't say "You are trying to be difficult and inflammatory, and it's
what you enjoy, and it's your reason for living," which is what LMS
has said about me.
I'm writing directly to you because I don't want you to think I'm
trying to showboat. But I'm not trying to keep this private, either,
if you think I'm erring in that direction.
yours,
TC
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 87
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
Manning Bartlett
manning at bartlett.net
Thu Dec 6 03:01:56 UTC 2001
OK
I initiated this thread, solely for the purpose of clearing up a quote of mine being used out of context. I named no names, and laid no blame. I felt misrepresented by the quote, and wanted to clarify my position, not spark a conflict.
However, I was probably in error for writing the original post to Wikipedia-L, for which I apologise.
Now I am saying - can we drop it completely? Wikipedia-L is really not a forum for sorting out personal disputes, or criticising individuals.
If you want to criticise a decision, or an action, or an article, or discuss a policy, count me in. But I find expressing contempt for any individual, for any reason, to be unacceptable in this forum.
I'm not trying to offend anyone by this, and I truly hope no offence is taken.
Let's just build the 'pedia.
Warm regards
Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011206/5d55ed4f/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 88
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
David Merrill
david at lupercalia.net
Thu Dec 6 04:18:54 UTC 2001
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 06:15:46PM -0600, kband at www.llamacom.com wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:06:55AM -0500, The Cunctator wrote:
> > > I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into the
> > > habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either have
> > > to
> > > expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and bear it,
> > > or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that. I'm trying to be closer
> > > to WikipediAhimsa now.
> >
> > Or you could stop being difficult and inflammatory. What a concept.
> >
>
> Would I presumptuous to consider your sarcasm ("What a concept")
> inflammatory?
>
> Or should I consider it a well-deserved rebuke?
I think it was a well-deserved rebuke. The "what a concept" phrase was
intended to mean that my proposed solution was completely obvious.
> Reading between the lines for both of our comments, it looks like
> I'm implying that people's response to me is unfair, while
> you're implying that it is.
I think their reaction is understandable. In fact, I think it was very
restrained and patient. Only after repeated attempts to come to an
understanding through reason.
I don't think your behavior is acceptable. You criticize without
giving constructive criticism, you imply conspiracy theories that don't
exist, and you mischaracterize other people's statements.
> I think much of people's response is fair, actually. The little that
> I consider unfair is when people characterize my intent: whereas
> you said "You could stop being difficult and inflammatory", you
> didn't say "You are trying to be difficult and inflammatory, and it's
> what you enjoy, and it's your reason for living," which is what LMS
> has said about me.
>
> I'm writing directly to you because I don't want you to think I'm
> trying to showboat. But I'm not trying to keep this private, either,
> if you think I'm erring in that direction.
I don't know what your intent is, but I know how it appears from here.
And it appears from here that you understand the problem, and yet you
continue to perpetutate it.
--
Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
No major software project that has been successful in a general
marketplace (as opposed to niches) has ever gone through those nice
lifecycles they tell you about in CompSci classes.
-- Linus Torvalds, lkml
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 89
[Wikipedia-l] "central authority structure"
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Dec 6 20:33:04 UTC 2001
Sorry to drag this out, but I feel I have something important to add.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Manning Bartlett wrote:
> If you want to criticise a decision, or an action, or an article, or
> discuss a policy, count me in. But I find expressing contempt for any
> individual, for any reason, to be unacceptable in this forum.
I wish I could agree, but I can't, not entirely. I agree that the initial
posts about Cunctator being a troll, which started this most recent
dispute, were unnecessary.
My own post, while it did express no small amount of contempt for some of
Cunctator's public statements, was made not out of hostility but out of
self-defense. Cunctator now tries to say that he himself is under
"attack," as if he had not brought the criticism of his behavior upon
himself. Words have consequences. In a dispute that has become personal,
the consequences are consequences for reputation, and some of us (myself
certainly) require at least a decent reputation in order to be able to do
our jobs. If someone makes many misleading public statements
(intentionally, or not!) that tend to undermine my reputation, I think
it's important that I defend it. Repeatedly, if necessary. I won't
apologize for doing so.
Two important qualifications to the above: first, of course, it would have
been better if the dispute never happened in the first place. Then I
would have enjoyed, well, *not* getting defensive. Second, if the
misrepresentations are not credible to anyone, then of course there's no
point in trying to correct them. But if someone has enough good will and
credibility in the Wikipedia community, then, when he says something that
I think is particularly damaging to me, I must consider responding, out of
self-defense.
This is all of course a huge waste of time, in that all of our time would
be far better used in working on the encyclopedia. But--seriously--I
don't see how it can be helped! For instance, I would like to be able to
take the high road and say, "There's no need to respond to this, I'll just
let thinking people come to whatever conclusions they like." I wish it
worked that way, but I really don't think it does. Personal attacks of
all sorts really do have consequences, and if they have even some small
amount of credibility, then if you don't fight back, there are going to be
people who are convinced to some small degree.
Finally, I want to make a distinction--one that is all too easily
blurred, however--between reasonable, constructive criticism on the one
hand, and unfair, misleading attacks. I welcome constructive criticism.
I don't even demand niceness. I do generally want fairness, though.
> I'm not trying to offend anyone by this, and I truly hope no offence
> is taken.
No offense taken here.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 90
[Wikipedia-l] Re Realtime chat
Julie Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 11 00:09:16 UTC 2001
Let me first say I love real-time chat as a rule.
That said, I would love to chat with lots of the folks
on the 'pedia, but would also not like the idea that
someone could immediately interrupt editing with
chats. The up side is that it would really help with
collaboration. The downside is that I think that the
pedia may not be at a point where users would not
first use it for flaming or jumping in to grind axes.
Having a block mode would help, but then those
conspiracy accusations would rear their ugly heads.
<hoping that y'all realize I'm still interested in the
wikipedia and don't think I'm being a hypocrite by
adding my $.02>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 91
[Wikipedia-l] AP article is out!
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Dec 26 18:29:31 UTC 2001
Caution: this is an editorial in which I express personal opinions
beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and most certainly not in NPOV. :-)
---
I feel compelled to point out that I in no way agree with the thesis
of the AP article, and feel that this is a prime example of how biased
journalists pursue their agendas.
You'll notice that there are no quotes from me in the article -- the
reason is that the reporter asked me a series of leading questions,
trying to get me to bash commercialization on the Internet, or to
support public spending on content, and I refused to take the bait.
To detect the bias, notice how he compares Wikipedia's *contributors*
to AOL/Time-Warner's *visitors*. Comparing our *visitors* to their
*visitors* would have been compelling enough -- they're big and we're
small, no shock there. Is there any reason, though, to think that a
single project (an encyclopedia) will have traffic that is similar in
any way to a vast conglomerate? Clearly, the answer is NO, so what's
the point of the comparison?
A better comparison, but not helpful to him in grinding his axe, would
be between traffic to AOL/Time-Warner's "broadcast" pages versus their
"community" pages. What he would find is that AOL/Time-Warner's
traffic is primarily a function of their providing a space for free,
non-commercial community activity... paid for with commercials! This
is only a paradox to people too anti-capitalist to think in anything
other than a complete intellectual fog.
Another good comparison would be between the traffic of Wikipedia and
the traffic of Britannica -- I do not have recent numbers, but a
couple of summers ago, Britannica reported 30 million pageviews in a
month -- whereas Wikipedia is currently at around 1.5 million a month.
I'm sure they are higher than 30 million now, but call it 50 million
or 100 million -- we're still coming on strong, and growing 30% a
month or more.
I disagree entirely with the thesis that there is a lack of
"nonprofit" or "community" activity on the net. I disagree entirely
with the notion that a few big corporations are in a position to
control the content of the net. But I most MOST strongly disagree
with the idea that anyone who is unhappy with the state of the
Internet has the right to use *force* (i.e. money stolen by the
government) to pursue their agenda. There's no more effective way to
ensure the death of true grassroots activity than to set up tax-funded
competition for it.
This guy reminds me of the anti-globalization pinheads who think that
any form of commercialism is necessarily corrupt.
The best thing I can say for this article is that at least he spelled
my name correctly, and I can only most sincerely hope that we are not
inundated with goofballs who agree with him, and who want to turn
wikipedia into some kind of anti-freedom editorial statement.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 92
[Wikipedia-l] another copyright issue
Laura T.
ldb64 at midwest.net
Sun Jan 13 19:02:35 UTC 2002
Hi everyone,
I haven't been doing much more than skimming the list but I do have a
question about copyrights and Wikipedia. What if someone posts their own
article as a Wikipedia topic? I posted one of my articles which I also gave
to a garden site and posted in my own column at BackWash. I'm the only one
who has a copyright to the article. Was that ok to do?
Hope 2002 is working out great for you,
Laura
PS- Are there no other women taking part in this? I feel a bit like I've
snuck into the boys room. ;)
,
"\",
"=\=", http://wz.com/business/ASCIIart.html
"=\=",
"=\=",
"-\-" ,---,
\ _) (_ Now Open...
ldb ` [__INK__] http://www.hercorner.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 93
[Wikipedia-l] Press release tomorrow: Wikipedia Day!
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Tue Jan 15 06:34:09 UTC 2002
Hi all,
If all goes according to plan, the press release should come out tomorrow,
which is "Wikipedia Day" (our first anniversary). This might or might not
bring in lots of traffic. Be ready, Militia members! Get into a
welcoming mood, Welcoming Committee members! :-)
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 94
[Wikipedia-l] Press release is out
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Tue Jan 15 20:40:57 UTC 2002
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020115/latu099_1.html
Here is the text:
Free Encyclopedia Project, Wikipedia, Creates 20,000 Articles in a Year
SAN DIEGO, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The free encyclopedia project
Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.com ) celebrates its first anniversary
today. In its first year, the collaborative project has created over
20,000 articles, organizers say. Wikipedia is a so-called WikiWiki, which
means that anyone with an Internet connection can visit the website and
edit an article without signing up. For such an open project, some may
find it remarkable that many of the articles are reasonably good and that
the project has attracted a large number of well-educated, articulate
contributors.
Wikipedia is not only free to read, it is free to distribute. It is
released under the GNU Free Documentation License, which ensures that
anyone may reuse the entries on the site in any way they wish, including
commercially, as long as they too preserve that right in their own
versions. Many participants are attracted to the notion that they are
contributing to a completely free resource that can be used worldwide.
The founders of Wikipedia are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and
philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales has supplied the financial backing and
other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in
Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project. Sanger and Wales
attribute Wikipedia's success so far to the presence of a strong core
group of contributors who together maintain community standards of quality
and neutrality. "Participants all keep a watchful eye over the 'Recent
Changes' page," Wales said. "They edit each others' work constantly. It
seems surprising that it works very well, but it does."
The project began life quietly in January 2001 as an offshoot of its
more academic sister project, Nupedia ( http://www.nupedia.com ), but has
long since overtaken it in terms of size. Wikipedia announced 10,000
articles last September, and claims to have doubled that number in the
past four months. This growth, and the project dynamics that fuel it, have
recently been the subject of articles in The New York Times, The New York
Times Magazine, and MIT's highly-respected Technology Review, as well as
technology news websites such as Slashdot and Kuro5hin.
At present, nearly 200 people are working on the project daily, from
all around the world; organizers estimate that the project has had well
over a thousand contributors. The success of such an open project,
staffed by such a large and diverse body of writers, is a puzzle: how can
so many people with so many different backgrounds collaborate with such
little oversight? Project organizers say that it is partly because the
participants can edit each others' contributions easily, and partly
because the project has a strong "nonbias" policy; this keeps interaction
relatively polite and productive. Sanger explains: "If contributors took
controversial stands, it would be virtually impossible for people of many
different viewpoints to collaborate. Because of the neutrality policy, we
have partisans working together on the same articles. It's quite
remarkable."
What motivates a scholar to participate in such a wide-open project?
For Axel Boldt, a mathematics professor at Metropolitan State University
in St. Paul, Minnesota, the motivation to contribute dozens of mathematics
articles is "the same that motivates me to work in academia: it's fun to
teach, it's fun to learn, it's fun to interact with intelligent people."
Sanger has been invited to speak about Wikipedia at the Stanford
University Computer Systems Laboratory colloquium on January 16; the
press is invited to attend or to view the talk via the Internet. Please
see http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/ for details.
Wikipedia may be found on the web at http://www.wikipedia.com .
Interview contacts: Larry Sanger, +1-702-631-7301 (except Jan. 16,
and until Jan. 20), lsanger at nupedia.com, or Jimmy Wales, +1-619-296-1732,
jwales at bomis.com, both of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.com ), 3585 Hancock St., Suite A, San
Diego, CA 92110, Tel. 619-296-1732, Fax 619-296-1754.
SOURCE Wikipedia
Web Site: http://www.wikipedia.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 95
[Wikipedia-l] An idea...
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Thu Jan 17 16:18:21 UTC 2002
Just a thought re: vandalism
At some point, some of the vandals are going to spot the "minor edit" button,
and realise it makes their vandalism harder to police. Would it be too unwiki
to limit the option of "minor edit" to those logged in (most non-vandal new
users don't seem use it anyway).
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 96
[Wikipedia-l] I'm moving and will be unavailable for a while!
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Jan 18 08:55:48 UTC 2002
My new bride and are moving to Columbus, Ohio (where I went to grad school
and taught fiddle, among other things). We're actually renting a moving
van and driving it there. It'll take up to four days, and we're leaving
Sunday or Monday, so I'll be out of contact for the most part (and
possibly entirely) from the 20th through the 23rd or so, at least. Then
of course there are the many moving-related tasks to do in Columbus. So,
while I'll try to be in touch, and if necessary I'll try to be on hand as
much as I can, I probably won't be able to devote *nearly* as much time in
the near future as I've been able to in the past many months.
The press release hasn't immediately caught the attention of any
significant press sources, but there's still some chance that we'll see
news articles that could bring a lot of traffic in the next week.
Nupedia's first press release didn't immediately generate a lot of press,
either, so it'd be premature even at this point to conclude Wikipedia's
press release was a dud. I guess what I'm a little afraid of is that I'll
be midway through Arkansas or someplace like that, and you (one or many of
you) are having to call out the Militia. :-) Actually, I don't think my
absence in such a case would be at all a disaster, and it would be pretty
arrogant of me to think that it would be. Still, I'd hate to miss it. I
do definitely trust you all could handle it, anyway, with or without me.
Of course, my e-mail address will not change through this move.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 97
[Wikipedia-l] Search engine misses
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Jan 25 01:01:56 UTC 2002
Ulrich Grassberger wrote:
> I see at least one topic which Wikipedia covers but does not list
> in its search engine, that is [[Conditioning]]. I wrote that
> article long ago, so it should have been spidered.
>
> Frankly, I think that it has been removed from the search engine
> index, a kind of censoring.
Good lord. Will you please take a deep breath and relax?
If anyone wanted to "censor" your article, they could just click on 'Edit
text of this page' and go at it. Such is wiki nature.
Whenever you wonder why some aspect of wikipedia sucks, it's because it
sucks, and that's that. When it sucks, it's probably my fault. But
there's no one out to get you, least of all ME.
I'm having trouble logging in right now -- I suspect the machine is heavily
overloaded for some unknown reason. As soon as I can get in, I'll see if I
can diagnose your problem.
I mean, my problem, with the search engine. Your problems are
probably beyond me.
--Jimbo
p.s. I'm sorry about this message, really I am. But, geez-o-pete.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 98
[Wikipedia-l] Middle Earth controversy
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Thu Jan 31 23:25:38 UTC 2002
At 08:01 PM 1/31/02 +0200, Michel Clasquin wrote:
>On Thursday 31 January 2002 11:51, Gareth Owen wrote:
>
> >The
> > question is not where do you put [[Batman]], but where do you put
> > [[Robin]]. Or [[Alfred]] (do you really want the [[Alfred]] page to be
> > an article about an English king with poor culinary skills and and an
> > article about Bruce Wayne's butler?
>
>I don't got no problem with that. See [[Thor]]
>
>Besides, Batman's Alfred does actually have a surname, Merriweather, I
>think it was. So, between [[Alfred the Great]] and [[Alfred Merriweather]]
>the problem is solved.
The longer we discuss this, the more I wonder whether we actually want to
encourage Wikipedia to be a guide to fictional characters.
Good, solid entries on [[Middle Earth]] and [[Batman]], yes. Separate entries
on every character in either are starting to feel like overkill. And not
just because
there's already an online Encyclopedia of Arda.
I realize that these entries aren't really a "waste of resources," because
someone
who wants to write about Batman isn't necessarily going to say "Oh, well,
no room
for that, and we need an article about Tennesee/English line
dancing/Nero/peas...."
But I do wonder what impression people get when they come to Wikipedia, look at
the lists of recent changes or new pages, and find so much on secondary worlds.
I also have a feeling that, well, if someone doesn't know who Tolkien is,
we can be a
useful resource. If they're looking for details of the life of Elrond,
they're better off looking
at the works of Tolkien.
As such, is it worth going to extra trouble--setting up separate forms or even
namespaces--to make it easier to provide this information? Raise (poker) and
Java (island) and such make sense, but I think that's as far as we should go.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 99
[Wikipedia-l] "Trolls" on the Catalan Wikipedia
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Feb 4 18:43:49 UTC 2002
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Tuxisuau wrote:
> By the way, i truly need help with the catalan wikipedia... see
> meta.wikipedia.com. Now i have trolls too writing stupid jokes instead
> of articles :(.
For this, I think we need to designate a *small* number of trusted
individuals to ban the IP numbers of the vandals, and we need to draw up
some broad *practical* guidelines about what a "bannable offense" is that
people on the non-English Wikipedias can use. (*Please* let's not get
into a debate about the latter right now. I and others who are more
interested in doing *work* for Wikipedia have more important things to do
with our time than get into such a debate--you know, things like getting
the website running. At some point, we will have that debate, though.)
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 100
[Wikipedia-l] New to the Wikipedia with a few questions
Kurt Jansson
jansson at gmx.net
Mon Feb 4 19:15:21 UTC 2002
Hello!
>On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> 3. The major remaining expense is Larry's editorial leadership,
which
>> I believe has been a major factor in the success of the project to
>> date. Fans of random anarchy may disagree, of course. And if they
>> do, I'm happy to provide them (so long as the license is free!) with
>> web space to have a totally unmanaged project. I think they'll get
>> crap, though.
This sounds a bit strange if you read it with the national wikipedias in
mind. At least the German Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial leadership
and is IMHO quite good described by "random anarchy". But it's far away
from crap.
> Anyway, my 10c is that both volunteer editorship, and if that fails,
> random anarchy should be _tried_ before we (I hesitate to say "we"
here,
> as I'm new to the project) try advertisments.
I don't like advertisments, too. They don't annoy me, because I have a
filter program running, but I think they'll lower the reputation (or
does "prestige" fit better?) of the project, especially to newcomers.
But I don't want Larry to loose his job! :-) So affiliate links to
bookstores would be okay for me.
Bye,
Kurt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 101
[Wikipedia-l] Reactions to the list and its discussions
Julie Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 6 22:15:55 UTC 2002
Right. Talk about private clubs. I understand that
the list serves mostly to facilitate improvements on
the site, and therefore runs to programming
conversations. HOWEVER, even though I have worked on
a development team where I had to deal with SQL
developers on a regular basis, I can't follow you guys
at all.
This is all in the way of showing that the geekspeak
is a bit exclusionary. Probably not in and of itself
a problem -- except that you guys are talking about
changes (and in the case of the new site, implementing
changes) that affect all of us other users -- AND YOU
AREN'T COMMUNICATING THEM. The FAQ's haven't really
been updated, lots of people seem unaware that the
/subpage no longer exists.... and even those of us
who would be happy to help document changes and spread
the word can't, because we don't speak programmer well
enough to be sure.
For pity's sake -- can we please clean up the
documentation for rev2 before going to rev2a? I'll
help -- but not unless somebody helps me first!
Thanks for letting me rant -- [[JHK]]
--- wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com wrote:
> Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Modest proposals (Uri Yanover)
> 2. Re: Modest proposals (Tim Chambers)
> 3. Re: Copyrights (Larry Sanger)
> 4. Re: Copyrights (Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen)
> 5. Re: Modest proposals (Uri Yanover)
> 6. Re: Re: Modest proposals (Jan Hidders)
> 7. Re: Modest proposals (Jan Hidders)
> 8. Re: Modest proposals (Uri Yanover)
> 9. Re: Re: Modest proposals (Jan Hidders)
> 10. MySQL dump available (Jan Hidders)
> 11. File upload Copyright notice (Axel Boldt)
> 12. Re: MySQL dump available (Jimmy Wales)
> 13. Summary of pseudo-subpage discussion (Magnus
> Manske)
> 14. RE: MySQL dump available (Magnus Manske)
> 15. Re: Summary of pseudo-subpage discussion
> (Michel Clasquin)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "Uri Yanover" <uriyan_subscribe at yahoo.com>
> To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Modest proposals
> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:00:20 +0200
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> > (4) When we think about policy options, it often
> helps to consider
> > carefully what problem we're trying to solve, and
> to make sure that our
> > solution is the most elegant solution to that
> problem. It is not entirely
> > clear to me what the problem is, in this case.
> Originally, Uri Yanover
> > said:
> >
> > >The problem is in the following: it is extremely
> inconvenient
> > >(as a policy) to write "[[Middle
> Earth/Elrond|Elrond]] was
> > >the lord of [[Middle Earth/Rivendell|Rivendell]]"
> than it is
> > >to write "[[Elrond]] was the lord of
> [[Rivendell]]"
> >
> > This suggests that the problem is *just* one
> involved in typing long page
> > titles in order to create a link, but the solution
> offered by Uri solves a
> > lot more than that, so I'm not sure this is
> exactly the problem he wants
> > to solve.
>
> I used to think so when I'd written that post, but I
> no longer do.
> Having considered the subject for long enough, I
> reached the
> concept of aliases (more details in the mailing
> list). The general
> usefullness of aliases is for disambiguating (that
> is, making [[root]]
> point at [[root (mathematics)]] on pages concerning
> with algebra
> and at [[root (botanics)]] at pages concerning with
> plants).
>
> However, the other useful thing that could be done
> with aliases
> is facilitating the editing of pages like [[Middle
> Earth]], so that
> ineed [[Elrond]] on an a page that uses aliases
> becomes
> [[Elrond (Middle Earth)]]. But this use is
> secondary, and
> confined only to pages that describe a specific
> universe.
> The fact that the vast majority of the other
> articles does not
> use subpaging indicates that probably there won't be
> too much
> abuse of aliasing in this way.
>
> What I don't like about Tim's idea is the fact that
> it converts
> the link automatically basing on parsing of the
> article title.
> But not only that would be inconvenient (making it
> more
> difficult to edit the article afterwards and
> sometimes creating
> links that the author doesn't want), it would also
> be out
> of policy, as it would essentially be a substitute
> for subpages.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Uri Yanover
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: "Tim Chambers" <tbchambers at yahoo.com>
> To: "Wikipedia List" <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Modest proposals
> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:28:33 -0700
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> I haven't seen a need to write again since making my
> proposal, but today Uri
> Yanover <uriyan_subscribe at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >What I don't like about Tim's idea is the fact that
> it converts
> >the link automatically basing on parsing of the
> article title.
>
> My proposal is archived at
>
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-January/001230.html
>
> There it can be seen that in addition to the simple
> solution that does
> convert links based on the article title, I did
> include Uri's idea. To
> summarize:
>
> #base [[Fantasy Fiction]]
>
> [[/elves]]
>
> could be translated into this:
>
> See also: [[Fantasy Fiction]].
>
> [[elves (Fantasy Fiction)|elves]]
>
> The system could remove the #base line completely
> instead of translating it,
> but I think it's useful to reflect by default that
> there's a relationship
> between the content of a given page and some other
> related page. After all,
> if the author doesn't like that behavior, he or she
> can simply type the
> links manually instead of using #base. Or the author
> can edit twice: the
> first is a major edit, and the second is a minor
> edit to remove the See
> also: line.
>
> Uri's original #base idea is archived at
>
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-January/001220.html.
> He
> also proposed an Alias: namespace
>
(http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-January/001218.html),
> but
> the features are very similar.
>
> The key differences between my proposal and his are:
>
> 1. I propose a solution that converts text during
> save, while Uri proposed
> adding to the wikipedia's source syntax.
> 2. I propose the disambiguating syntax -- [[title
> (context)]] -- while Uri
> proposed subpage syntax -- [[context/title]].
>
> However, Uri also said yesterday in
>
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-February/001288.html
> that
> he "didn't mean to use aliaes mainly to categorize,
> but rather to
> _disambiguate_ (e.g. [[root (botanics)]] vs. [[root
> (mathematics)]])." So I
> assume he's flexible on #2.
>
> I take it that there's consensus on the part that
> deals with link
> conversion.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 102
[Wikipedia-l] 100,000 articles...
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Feb 7 05:32:54 UTC 2002
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, David Merrill wrote:
> One interesting phenomenon, though, is that as the content broadens,
> people might tend to work more on existing articles and new article
> creation slow correspondingly. Not that that's a bad thing. It's
> better to have 50,000 excellent articles than 500,000 rambling,
> incoherent, or incorrect ones.
I agree with this, by the way. I have a little theory that, as the easy
and broad topics get pretty much filled in, the project is going to start
looking more interesting to specialists, and I'll see a gradual influx of
Ph.D.'s and researchers filling in the blanks on the frontiers of their
fields.
This is mainly wishful thinking, of course; there's no *real* way of
knowing what's gonna happen. It's possible that we will always suffer
from the stigma (if you want to call it that :-) ) of being completely
open to anyone to contribute, and as a result, there will be a level of
speciality, accessible mainly to specialists who care about exclusivity,
beyond which we just won't be able to go. Of course, there will be
exceptions, as in the case of the engineer who wrote some articles about
some extremely specialized electrical engineering topics...
Idle musings...
Brace yourself for a huge announcement tomorrow. :-)
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 103
[Wikipedia-l] 100,000 articles...
David Merrill
david at lupercalia.net
Thu Feb 7 06:23:16 UTC 2002
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 09:32:54PM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, David Merrill wrote:
>
> > One interesting phenomenon, though, is that as the content broadens,
> > people might tend to work more on existing articles and new article
> > creation slow correspondingly. Not that that's a bad thing. It's
> > better to have 50,000 excellent articles than 500,000 rambling,
> > incoherent, or incorrect ones.
>
> I agree with this, by the way. I have a little theory that, as the easy
> and broad topics get pretty much filled in, the project is going to start
> looking more interesting to specialists, and I'll see a gradual influx of
> Ph.D.'s and researchers filling in the blanks on the frontiers of their
> fields.
I could see that happening.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it's also possible Wikipedia just
can't ever be really "authoritative" in any field. And that is fine
with me. Perhaps the big draw of Wikipedia will be that it contains
much more accessible general information than anything else. I don't
know if that will be the case or not, but I also really don't care.
However, it finally shapes up, it will be (and is) great. :-)
It's not the kind of thing you can force. It will become what
Wikipedians want it to be. As a Wiki, it really can be all things to
all people.
One thing I already notice about Wikipedia is that the content is much
broader than any other encyclopedia. Almost an Encyclopedia Galactica
or H2G2. That's what I like most about it. In fact, once or twice I
have been interested in finding out about something little-known, and
started an article with nothing but a few questions I had. In each
case, the information was forthcoming. What a cool thing that was!
Anyway, enough meta-discussion on content.
> Brace yourself for a huge announcement tomorrow. :-)
Oh? Can't wait. :-)
Later,
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
We came from Caladan -- a paradise world for our form of life. There
existed no need on Caladan to build a physical paradise or a paradise of
the mind -- we could see the actuality all around us. And the price we
paid was the price men have always paid for achieving a paradise in this
life -- we went soft, we lost our edge.
-- from "Must'Dib: Conversations" by the Princess Irulan
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 104
[Wikipedia-l] Page titles to be deleted
Magnus Manske
Magnus.Manske at epost.de
Mon Feb 11 15:57:49 UTC 2002
I thought about having an easy way of expressing "this page is obsolete and
should be deleted". Currently, we have "page titles to be deleted", but it
takes time and effort to go there and edit.
The obvious solution:
* For logged-in users (troll prevention!), have a link in the sidebar "Mark
this page for deletion" (a shorter title might fit better, but I can't think
of any; maybe a shredder logo?;)
* This adds the current page to "log:Pages to be deleted" (or
"wikipedia:Pages to be deleted")
** Alternatively, we mark the article in the database, so the page is "PTBD"
page is generated on-the-fly, ensuring it doesn't list pages that already
*have* been deleted
* Additionally, these pages are sorted by votes (descending, the "most
hated" on top;)
* Optionally, list the users that voted for deletion of that page
Then, a sysop (=Larry) comes along, checks out the list and cleans up behind
us thoughtless page-creators by permanently deleting the pages he deems
obsolete.
Before I implement any of that, any ideas, comments, flames? ;)
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 105
[Wikipedia-l] meta namespace?
Magnus Manske
Magnus.Manske at epost.de
Fri Feb 22 22:51:18 UTC 2002
But:
* There's a good, extensive article in the 'pedia
* Some troll deletes it (leaving the history intact)
* To everyone, it seems that there is no article
* Someone writes a two-line stub, not realizing that there's a much better
article in the history
This would not be good, right?
I was thinking about the "page titles to be deleted" list, and some of the
empty or silly orphans. No need to accumulate that stuff in the database.
Magnus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:48 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] meta namespace?
>
>
> Magnus Manske wrote:
> > - Should we introduce some users with a "trusted" status? So some "old
> > hands" could do some maintnance, like permanently deleting
> obsolete pages,
> > without access to the really crucial functions like direct
> database access.
>
> One idea I had seems very doable and very useful.
>
> One of the main reasons we want to delete some pages is so that
> underlined links go back to being questionmark links, tempting the
> reader to write something. (And also making the link show up on most
> requested, and so on.)
>
> For that purpose, the side-effect of deletion, which is to delete the
> history as well, is just that: a side-effect. We don't really need it.
>
> Since any user can delete all the text anyway, it would not hurt for
> them to be able to delete the page, too.... that is, IF they don't
> also automatically delete the history.
>
> There can be reasons to delete the history, of course! Sometimes the
> history will just be so very wrong that we must delete it. Maybe it
> will be a copyright violation, or maybe it will be just really
> mean-spirited or something.
>
> But in most cases where we want to delete pages, they're just silly,
> and there's not much harm done in leaving the history.
>
> --Jimbo
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 106
[Wikipedia-l] meta namespace?
Magnus Manske
Magnus.Manske at epost.de
Sat Feb 23 08:54:44 UTC 2002
> > But:
> > * There's a good, extensive article in the 'pedia
> > * Some troll deletes it (leaving the history intact)
> > * To everyone, it seems that there is no article
> > * Someone writes a two-line stub, not realizing that there's a
> much better
> > article in the history
> > This would not be good, right?
>
> The only difference between this and the current situation is what,
> *exactly*?
Currently, you see that an article exists, and if it is blank, you will
probably have a look at the history. If the article is deleted, you might
miss the history even though it is still stored.
>
> > I was thinking about the "page titles to be deleted" list, and
> some of the
> > empty or silly orphans. No need to accumulate that stuff in the
> database.
>
> So, yes--retain the ability to permanently delete pages.
Sure we do. But currently, you and Jimbo are the only ones who *can*
permanently delete pages. Jimbo is too busy to do that, and AFAIK, you are
currently as well (job, wife,...;)
That's the reason I suggested the "trusted" status, to get some work off
your shoulders (and actually done, look at the "page titles to be deleted"!)
without compromising security.
I don't think we'll get the "cabal" discussion again about this one, as we
are not reducing user rights, merely expanding them for some. And, we could
still give The Cunctator trusted status - noone could complain about the
cabal THEN! :)
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 107
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism report
James Jones
jamesjones01 at mchsi.com
Sun Feb 24 15:50:28 UTC 2002
209.240.222.32 (later 209.240.222.xxx) has vandalized the OS-9
page, starting at 09:29 on February 23, 2002; I ask that the
vandalized versions be excised.
James Jones
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 108
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism report
Jan Hidders
hidders at uia.ua.ac.be
Sun Feb 24 16:08:02 UTC 2002
From: "James Jones" <jamesjones01 at mchsi.com>
> 209.240.222.32 (later 209.240.222.xxx) has vandalized the OS-9
> page, starting at 09:29 on February 23, 2002; I ask that the
> vandalized versions be excised.
We can't do that, but you can restore a previous version. Go to the history
of the page, choose the version you want to restore, click on edit, and save
it.
-- Jan Hidders
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 109
[Wikipedia-l] meta namespace?
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Sun Feb 24 22:58:27 UTC 2002
> > > I was thinking about the "page titles to be deleted" list, and
> > some of the
> > > empty or silly orphans. No need to accumulate that stuff in the
> > database.
> >
> > So, yes--retain the ability to permanently delete pages.
>
> Sure we do. But currently, you and Jimbo are the only ones who *can*
> permanently delete pages. Jimbo is too busy to do that, and AFAIK, you are
> currently as well (job, wife,...;)
> That's the reason I suggested the "trusted" status, to get some work off
> your shoulders (and actually done, look at the "page titles to be deleted"!)
> without compromising security.
> I don't think we'll get the "cabal" discussion again about this one, as we
> are not reducing user rights, merely expanding them for some. And, we could
> still give The Cunctator trusted status - noone could complain about the
> cabal THEN! :)
>
Magnus, just so you're clear, this is *exactly* what a cabal is.
"Expanding rights for some" users == creating a cabal.
Giving me trusted status would have no bearing on whether such a cabal
exists or the ensuing problems. That you assert it would is a
deliberate misinterpretation of the point.
--TC
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 110
[Wikipedia-l] Uploads being abused
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Mon Feb 25 12:03:26 UTC 2002
Hi all, it is perhaps unfortunate that my first post to the list is
a bit of a rant, but I'm very concerned about the abuse of the file
upload feature and so far I haven't seen any responses to the discussion
on meta from people with the power to do something about it.
It seems to me from following the upload queue that it is
being deliberately abused to store distinctly non-encyclopedia
and copyright-infringing material on a disconcertingly large scale.
I would assume that this would be of direct financial concern
to Bomis, both for the potential of large bandwidth costs and
the potential for being sued, and to the rest of the project
because of the risk of being shut down by a lawsuit.
Are we just going to attempt to keep this under control by
the vigilance of a few dedicated Wikipedians, or might, in this
case, some technical measures to discourage abuse be appropriate?
For instance, it might be feasible to restrict uploads to registered
users, limiting the size and number of files that a user can upload in
a day, perhaps even restricting the types of files that can be uploaded by
checking with the "file" file type checking utility - that would at least
prevent the uploading of executables).
I would be prepared to help implement some of the above. I'm a decent
programmer, though I don't have any experience with PHP so it'd take me
some time to get up to speed.
Obviously, I think technical measures to slow things is
justified in this case, otherwise I suspect too much time will
be wasted weeding out rather noxious material.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 111
[Wikipedia-l] Uploads being abused
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Feb 25 16:34:17 UTC 2002
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
> It seems to me from following the upload queue that it is
> being deliberately abused to store distinctly non-encyclopedia
> and copyright-infringing material on a disconcertingly large scale.
I agree 100% that this is a problem. Last night I deleted several dozen
files that someone had overwritten as being (obviously) inappropriate for
Wikipedia articles. I was a little concerned from the beginning that
having virtually no restrictions on the upload function would have this
effect, so it's not too surprising that this is happening.
> I would assume that this would be of direct financial concern
> to Bomis, both for the potential of large bandwidth costs and
> the potential for being sued, and to the rest of the project
> because of the risk of being shut down by a lawsuit.
Although not a huge financial concern, but I'd agree the risk is there...
> Are we just going to attempt to keep this under control by
> the vigilance of a few dedicated Wikipedians, or might, in this
> case, some technical measures to discourage abuse be appropriate?
>
> For instance, it might be feasible to restrict uploads to registered
> users, limiting the size and number of files that a user can upload in
> a day, perhaps even restricting the types of files that can be uploaded by
> checking with the "file" file type checking utility - that would at least
> prevent the uploading of executables).
I like all of these ideas. Certainly in any case only registered users
should be able to upload files. This seems a reasonable thing to ask,
given the potential for abuse that the file uploader represents. Right
now, I can't even spot a miscreant's IP address by looking at the log.
> I would be prepared to help implement some of the above. I'm a decent
> programmer, though I don't have any experience with PHP so it'd take me
> some time to get up to speed.
>
> Obviously, I think technical measures to slow things is
> justified in this case, otherwise I suspect too much time will
> be wasted weeding out rather noxious material.
I don't think that the technical measures you propose will slow very much
at all down. The only person who might upload beyond a given size limit
would be Magnus. :-) I imagine that there is hardly anyone who (1)
refuses to sign in but who (2) wants to upload a useful file (e.g., a
public domain photo for a biography).
I don't know if the specific proposals you make are the best, but I agree
that something along these lines should be done.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 112
[Wikipedia-l] Uploads being abused
Magnus Manske
Magnus.Manske at epost.de
Mon Feb 25 17:34:02 UTC 2002
I already changed the software so it only accepts uploads from users who are
logged in. I did this two days or so ago. It might help if Jimbo would
actually install the latest version ;)
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 113
[Wikipedia-l] personal subpages / protected homepage
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Mon Feb 25 18:39:17 UTC 2002
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Chuck Smith wrote:
>
> > >From what I remember from Wikipedia-L, I thought we
> > were going to continue to allow subpages on personal
> > pages and ditch them on the regular wikipedia. Are
> > there any plans to put them back in on personal pages?
>
> Don't know.
That would be nice.
>
> > Also, when are you going to give back privileges to
> > edit the Homepage to trusted users? I made it my
> > responsibility to update the new language wikipedias
> > when they came in and now I can't. I think an
> > unprotected homepage is better than a protected
> > homepage that only two people can edit... now that's a
> > cabal!
>
> Well, there was originally a "can-edit-the-homepage" cabal :-) consisting
> of about a dozen people, but they all had sysop privileges as well, which
> was, er, not to "diss" any of the people in question, maybe a little
> dangerous.
Were there ever any actual incidents where this was a problem? If there
were, it should be made public.
>
> Y'know, I think a sensible thing to do would be to make all registered
> users members of a "can-edit-the-homepage" cabal, which makes it no longer
> a cabal. This would prevent almost all homepage vandalism.
That's a good idea.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 114
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Uploader requirements
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Mon Feb 25 19:38:45 UTC 2002
On lun, 2002-02-25 at 11:16, Larry Sanger wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> > >From a general, Wiki-philosophical-social aspect, it is interesting
> > that the upload function gets abused, while general Wiki pages do not.
>
> Actually, there's a good reason for it: the images aren't obviously linked
> to anything in any article. This is an ABSOLUTELY essential piece of
> information to have: what articles *use* the image in question? If no
> article uses an image after 24 hours, perhaps we should delete the image
> (or put it in a queue to be deleted by a human).
At the moment, though, the non-English wikipedias don't have their own
upload capabilities. Images that are used on the other wikis thus tend
to end up uploaded to www.wikipedia.com or meta.wikipedia.com without
necessarily being used where they were uploaded (especially diagrams and
maps with language-specific names, descriptions, etc).
So please, don't delete my Esperantized maps. :)
> So, the point is,
> without a context, unless some image is at face value obviously worthless
> to any Wikipedia article (e.g., porn advertisements), it's difficult for
> us to tell whether an image really is appropriate for the 'pedia. It
> would even make it easier for us to determine whether an image is
> copyrighted.
>
> One way around this would be to attach images to unique articles, so that
> the uploading of an image would be logged in a particular article's
> history. I don't know if I like this suggestion, though, I'm just
> throwing it out there for your consideration.
I'm not quite sure how to go about doing that.
What could be done though that may be useful, is to add a link to a
"pages that link to this file" function next to each name in the
uploaded file list. A start, at least, though it doesn't cover the
multi-wiki problem.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 115
[Wikipedia-l] personal subpages / protected homepage
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Feb 25 23:38:01 UTC 2002
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 kband at www.llamacom.com wrote:
> > It seems we're back at my "trusted" status idea, which was meant to *reduce*
> > the "cabal" by making certain fucntions accessible to many people instead of
> > two. Well, I guess I was ahead of my time again ;)
>
> Increasing the number of people in a cabal doesn't make it less of
> a cabal unless the vast majority of people are in a cabal. Then you've
> instead got a situation of unfortunate hierarchies. I'd rather have
> one or two absolute dictators (so to speak) than an oligarchy.
Well, basically, we should keep the option *open* of having a "trusted"
status, as we did before. It's basically silly, unjustified, to call this
sort of thing a cabal. I think it's also silly to be very concerned that
it might turn into a "cabal," too.
All this being said, I really don't see why we shouldn't just let all
registered users edit the homepage. Seems like the most elegant solution
all-round.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 116
[Wikipedia-l] My resignation
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Mar 1 19:32:18 UTC 2002
Dear friends:
I hereby resign as editor-in-chief of Nupedia and I also hereby give up
any position of authority I had with Wikipedia; assuming particularly that
funding will not be able to be found for the position of Nupedia
editor-in-chief (see below), I don't intend to work on either project any
significant amount within the next few months, and very possibly ever.
Obviously, I owe you an explanation.
First, let me stress that this has *nothing* to do with my lack of faith
in the projects or in the nobility of the mission. It also has absolutely
nothing to do with my relationship with Jimbo or Bomis, which remains
friendly. I really *do* hope the projects go on to great successes, even
without me. It is even still possible even that Bomis, or a future
Nupedia Foundation, will find the money to pay for my job, and I might be
in a position to come back to the old job. But I'm frankly not expecting
this.
As you know, since the beginning of February, I've been working on
Wikipedia and Nupedia as a part-time volunteer. I haven't been able to do
nearly as much as I wish I could do, but job-hunting and money-making
activities necessarily occupy a great deal of my time. Unfortunately, I
do not expect to see, within the foreseeable future, any sort of
compensation for the time and responsibility I've continued to hold in the
projects. Now that I'm unemployed, I can ill afford to spend my free time
this way. This is, I'm afraid, *by far* the most important reason for my
resignation.
Second, a little bit of history will help to explain this as well. I was
more or less offered the job of editing Nupedia when I was, as an ABD
philosophy graduate student, soliciting Jimbo's (and other friends')
advice on a website I was thinking of starting. It was the first I had
heard of Jimbo's idea of an open content encyclopedia, and I was delighted
to take the job. So I want this to be clear: I did not *set out* to be a
leader and crusader and organizer. As a job, this has been the best I've
ever had. But this project is not something I would have chosen as a
hobby, frankly; *with* *my* *spare* *time*, even after having started it
and having grown to care a lot about it, I must admit I'd rather be
spending time with my wife, reading and writing philosophy, and playing
fiddle. (I'm making a little money now teaching fiddle in Columbus and
enjoying that immensely.)
A third important reason is that I feel I simply cannot do a good job
working only part-time. It seems like every time I sit down to do a
little work on Wikipedia or Nupedia, I am now asking myself, "What's the
use? I don't have any time to do anything of importance." If I can't do
the job right, what's the point of doing it at all?
So--I wish Wikipedia all the best and hope that it can find its way
forward without my involvement. Wikipedians, don't take my departure as
an excuse to leave yourself. My departure should not be taken as a
reflection on Wikipedia, or you. It still might succeed brilliantly.
It's very important that you continue to edit each others' work, that you
encourage in each other good habits, that you welcome new contributors,
and that you praise good work when you see it. As for Nupedia, obviously,
the only way it can be revived is if it either finds money to pay an
editor-in-chief or perhaps an emeritus professor who is willing to
volunteer. I am no longer going to pretend*to be able to be
editor-in-chief as a part-time volunteer--even if I had the desire and the
spare time. I'd be interested in helping to organize it--again--as an
employee, but I'm not holding my breath.
I will try to assist in any transitioning, if any needs to be done (e.g.,
listservs I now moderate will probably have to be made unmoderated). I
should continue to be reachable at lsanger at nupedia.com, but not via
mailing lists (I'll be unsubscribing). Otherwise, I feel a clean break is
necessary. I have no hard feelings at all for Jimbo or the others at
Bomis, and I wish to thank and say "best wishes" to--well, a long list of
people in both Wikipedia and Nupedia. You know who you are. If you don't
mind, I'd rather not name names, for fear of leaving anyone out.
By the way, if you've got a serious job lead for me, please let me know.
:-)
All the best,
Larry Sanger, Ph.D.
Ex-editor-in-chief, Nupedia
Ex-chief organizer, Wikipedia
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 117
[Wikipedia-l] Advertisements
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Mar 1 20:44:26 UTC 2002
With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for
funds. Therefore, all plans to put advertising of any kind on the
wikipedia is called off for now.
We will move forward with plans for a nonprofit foundation to own
wikipedia, and possibly to solicit donations and grants to help us
carry out our mission. (Ironically, I think that grant money would
come with many annoying strings attached, which we could not accept,
comparted to advertising money, which is virtually 100% string-free.)
Just as the National Geographic Society is supported in large part by
advertisments in the National Geographic Magazine, I expect this to be
a potentially necessary thing at some point in the future, if we wish
to have an impact beyond our own little corner of the Internet. (And,
I think we all do.)
But for now, there's no pressing need unless and until we find chaos
descending on us from the lack of constant oversight.
The hosting of Wikipedia I can continue to do for no charge for the
foreseeable future. Even if Wikipedia traffic were to grow by a
factor of 10, I would be willing to absorb all the bandwidth and
hardware costs. If it grows beyond a factor of 100 or 1000,
obviously, alternative solutions would have to be found.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 118
[Wikipedia-l] My resignation
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Mar 1 21:17:24 UTC 2002
Oh, how nice and gracious this was. Oh, thank you SO much, Cunctator.
I'm sure glad I won't have to deal with you anymore, Cunctator. You're a
friggin' piece of work.
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 kband at www.llamacom.com wrote:
> >
> > Dear friends:
> >
> > I hereby resign as editor-in-chief of Nupedia and I also hereby give up
> > any position of authority I had with Wikipedia; assuming particularly that
> > funding will not be able to be found for the position of Nupedia
> > editor-in-chief (see below), I don't intend to work on either project any
> > significant amount within the next few months, and very possibly ever.
>
> I know that we've hardly been on the best of terms, but I want you to know
> that I'll always consider you one of the the most important Wikipedians,
> and I hope that you'll always think of yourself as a Wikipedian, even
> if you don't have much time to contribute.
>
> Herding cats ain't easy; you did a good job, all things considered.
>
> --the cunctator
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 119
[Wikipedia-l] Advertisements
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Mar 1 21:33:58 UTC 2002
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 kband at www.llamacom.com wrote:
> >> But for now, there's no pressing need unless and until we find chaos
> > descending on us from the lack of constant oversight.
>
> Which really means that its important for all of us, every contributor,
> to feel vested with responsibility. We are all responsible for oversight.
I agree. I think that the Cunctator is one person you have to watch like
a hawk, however, and he of all people has no moral right to say what he is
saying here.
> > The hosting of Wikipedia I can continue to do for no charge for the
> > foreseeable future. Even if Wikipedia traffic were to grow by a
> > factor of 10, I would be willing to absorb all the bandwidth and
> > hardware costs. If it grows beyond a factor of 100 or 1000,
> > obviously, alternative solutions would have to be found.
>
> Speaking of which, I think it would be great if we started thinking
> about mechanisms for distributing the hosting of Wikipedia. Does
> anyone have any thoughts on how a (to some degre) distributed solution
> could work?
Frankly, this is hardly the time to bring this up. You have a lot more
pressing issues before you.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 120
[Wikipedia-l] Advertising? Mirroring? Distributed hosting? What about an EDITOR?!!
Graham Chapman
grahamc at patia.com
Tue Mar 5 09:33:42 UTC 2002
Why all the discussion about advertising, distributed hosting and mirroring? It all
seems a bit Alice in Wonderland.
You already have a good site easily able to handle the load, which is only moderate,
from what I can see.
You have a well-disposed site manager in the form of Jimmy Wales who has
generously declared himself happy to continue running and paying for it. The marginal
cost of running an extra host to support something the size of Wikipedia is not great,
so you don't need advertising anytime soon. I mean the whole thing will sit on $100 or
less worth of disk, for heavens sake!
But you've just lost your EDITOR-IN-CHIEF! You need an EDITOR first and foremost.
If you can't get an editor, you need to work out how to set up a group to keep the
vision and the standards going, or the lights will start going out. Which would be a
shame.
GrahamEmail: grahamc at patia.com
Web : http://patia.com/grahamc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 121
[Wikipedia-l] Main page access
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Mar 20 21:55:06 UTC 2002
On Talk:Main Page there is a comment about giving modification
rights on the main page to more people, now that Larry's
participation is sporadic (and Jimbo's always was).
It is getting rather out of date, and I'm sure there are a few
other folks we can trust not to screw it up too badly.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 122
[Wikipedia-l] Main page access
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Mar 20 21:34:11 UTC 2002
If there are no objections, I propose that we give it out on the same
basis as we did on the old software -- pretty much anybody who asks
gets access to the admin features, with a promise not to use it for
ill, which means basically don't delete page histories.
--Jimbo
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> On Talk:Main Page there is a comment about giving modification
> rights on the main page to more people, now that Larry's
> participation is sporadic (and Jimbo's always was).
> It is getting rather out of date, and I'm sure there are a few
> other folks we can trust not to screw it up too badly.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 123
[Wikipedia-l] is_sysop
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Mar 26 23:23:33 UTC 2002
I made a bunch of people sysop. I think I got everyone who requested
it. Plus, I got a few more besides.
The only thing I ask of sysops is that you not delete pages unless you
are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there will be no controversy about it.
:-)
If we have fights about deleted pages, then I think the best thing to
do is to implement some form of nondestructive delete.
But, better to just not fight in the first place. :-)
--Jimbo
p.s. Anyone else who wants sysop, just email me.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 124
[Wikipedia-l] is_sysop
Lorraine Lee
n8chz at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 26 10:47:48 UTC 2002
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>
> I made a bunch of people sysop. I think I got everyone who requested
> it. Plus, I got a few more besides.
I didn't even know there was a sysop privilege. Does
wikipedia come with a long laundry list of specific
privileges, like VMS? When was sysop implemented?
What does it consist of? I must confess that when I first
encountered the wikipedia, I was immediately attracted to
it because, unlike arch-rival nupedia, it didn't come with a
few dozen pages explaining why an intellectual lightweight
such as myself with no advanced degrees is unlikely to
have anything of value to offer. Now I find out that even
the wikipedia organization includes the concept of a
"sysop". This, in itself, is not something I find alarming,
but it does lower wikipedia a peg on my opinion scale and
potentially on larger scales such as the mythical "public
relations".
> The only thing I ask of sysops is that you not delete pages unless you
> are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there will be no controversy about it.
> :-)
According to the Reality Cracking school, it's impossible
for anyone to delete anything. So why make it a rule for
people to obey?
> If we have fights about deleted pages, then I think the best thing to
> do is to implement some form of nondestructive delete.
I assumed you already had. Perhaps periodic posts of
compressed content to obscure administrative regions of
usenet? Or if even that is no longer part of the commons,
maybe intellectual commoners like myself could be
recruited as volunteers for the relatively simple tasks
involved in downloading and archiving compressed
wikipedia content.
> But, better to just not fight in the first place. :-)
That would be a good first commandment. Perhaps a
good second commandment would be that all records of
infighting that somehow arises within the wikipedia
organization be destroyed.
:-)
>
> --Jimbo
>
> p.s. Anyone else who wants sysop, just email me.
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 125
[Wikipedia-l] is_sysop
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Wed Mar 27 01:18:14 UTC 2002
On mar, 2002-03-26 at 02:47, Lorraine Lee wrote:
> From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>
>
> > I made a bunch of people sysop. I think I got everyone who requested
> > it. Plus, I got a few more besides.
>
> I didn't even know there was a sysop privilege. Does
> wikipedia come with a long laundry list of specific
> privileges, like VMS?
As far as I know, there's just the one.
> When was sysop implemented?
Since we had the PHP script, at least. Before that, there were similar
priveleges conferred to users who had asked for the administrator
password. (Handed out pretty much willy-nilly to anyone who asked for it
-- not much of a cabal, eh?)
> What does it consist of? I must confess that when I first
> encountered the wikipedia, I was immediately attracted to
> it because, unlike arch-rival nupedia, it didn't come with a
> few dozen pages explaining why an intellectual lightweight
> such as myself with no advanced degrees is unlikely to
> have anything of value to offer. Now I find out that even
> the wikipedia organization includes the concept of a
> "sysop". This, in itself, is not something I find alarming,
> but it does lower wikipedia a peg on my opinion scale and
> potentially on larger scales such as the mythical "public
> relations".
Is_sysop isn't *that* great. Here's what you get:
* Ability to permanently delete pages including their history. (Which
I'm not convinced is entirely wise a function to have at all.)
* Ability to delete uploaded files. (Regular users already can upload a
blank file to overwrite obnoxious material, so this just keeps the
upload directory cleaner.)
* Ability to edit pages that have protection set to "is_sysop"
* Ability to protect/unprotect pages
* Ability to ban an IP address from editing access. (However, this
function is limited and, I think, buggy.)
* Ability to run SQL queries on the database. Not useful unless you
really know what you're doing.
Jimbo:
> > If we have fights about deleted pages, then I think the best thing to
> > do is to implement some form of nondestructive delete.
What I would recommend for a non-destructive delete is to move the
article from the 'cur' to the 'old' table in the database, then remove
it from 'cur'. The article will then still be in the database with its
complete history, but wouldn't show up in regular links, searches, etc.
It ought to be relatively simple to then set up a "restore deleted
pages" function.
Lorraine:
> I assumed you already had. Perhaps periodic posts of
> compressed content to obscure administrative regions of
> usenet? Or if even that is no longer part of the commons,
> maybe intellectual commoners like myself could be
> recruited as volunteers for the relatively simple tasks
> involved in downloading and archiving compressed
> wikipedia content.
Speaking of which; Jimbo, we really need to have a periodically produced
database dump tarball available.
> > But, better to just not fight in the first place. :-)
>
> That would be a good first commandment. Perhaps a
> good second commandment would be that all records of
> infighting that somehow arises within the wikipedia
> organization be destroyed.
Trotsky who? :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 126
[Wikipedia-l] is_sysop
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Mon Apr 1 03:03:51 UTC 2002
On mar, 2002-03-26 at 16:56, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> The issue of deletion is that administrative deletion, unlike deletion
> by an end user who merely blanks the content of the page is (a)
> irreversible, in that the history is deleted as well and
I've checked in the beginnings of the semi-permanent delete code to the
CVS repository; a deleted page will still be kept hidden in the history
(old) table until it is removed by a (not yet implemented) periodic
sweep of unlinked histories or restored by another trusted user using
the (also not yet implemented) page undeletion tool.
Jimbo, I'd feel better about all this if you could install that on the
running machine when you have a chance. I don't expect anyone to abuse
their delete priviledges deliberately, but there may be disagreements
over appropriateness or accidental deletions (I'm sure I'm not the only
one who's hit a "yes, I'm sure" button automatically before noticing
that I'd been asked about something other than what I had intended!).
There's also the possibility of vandals breaking into someone's account
(think of insecure passwords, or leaving the login cookie open on a
public machine...), and I'd prefer that potential damage be minimized.
> (b)
> beneficial, in that it turns the page back into a nonexistent state so
> that links to it will not indicate incorrectly that the page exists.
Of course, it's even better to add actual content yourself. :)
> Administrative deletes should be reserved for mere uncontroversial
> typos that don't serve any useful function, and for really awful
> vandalism that shouldn't exist on the site. It should also exist for
> copyright violations! If someone puts copyrighted material on the
> site, we have to delete it bigtime.
Would it be useful to have a single-version delete? ie, the ability to
drop a single old version of a page from the database, leaving in its
place a notice of removal. That way, gross vandalism (copyrighted or
illegal material) put into an existing article could be cleanly removed
from the database without going so far as to delete the whole article
history.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 127
[Wikipedia-l] Levels of privileges
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Apr 1 19:00:58 UTC 2002
It seems like we should have almost everyone at the same level, and
have that level be available for the asking, and have that level be
mostly nondestructive, i.e. every action is reversible, although some
might be a pain in the neck to reverse. So it might look like this:
1. Newcomers -- can do everything except a small handful of actions,
actions which are "pretty serious" like temporarily blocking an ip or
deleting a page.
2. "sysop" or better terminology might be "community member" -- can
do some extra things like nondestructive delete, temporary ip blocking
(which should affect only newcomers, not other "community members").
The important _wiki_ ideal here is that community members shouldn't be
able to do anything extra "in a content fight" if you see what I mean.
We'll all the same, newcomers and community members, when it comes to
the content -- one "check" here is that anyone can become a community
member just by asking... it shouldn't be all that special, and
certainly not an exclusive "club".
3. "developers" -- the main extra thing that developers should have
access to would be "raw" stuff that's pretty technologically
"dangerous" if you don't know what you're doing. I.E., ability to
enter arbitrary SQL select statements, even ones that might be really
slow. This extra power should only be used for development purposes,
and not "in a content fight".
4. "sysop" -- of which there might only be 1, me, or a very small
number. The sysop can do things that might be legally necessary, like
immediately and totally deleting copyright violations, or things that
might be necessary to fight a serious troll attack, like
semi-permanently banning whole ranges of ip numbers. For most things
of this nature, there's probably no need to worry about it in advance.
Anyhow, "sysop" powers must never be used "in a content fight". This
would be like Superman cheating at poker by looking through the cards.
:-)
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 128
[Wikipedia-l] Levels of privileges
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 1 21:11:43 UTC 2002
My $.02 -- I like Brion's idea of a kind of intermediate deletion.
Also, I have never tried to block an IP because I'm not sure I
understand the ramifications --- how long would that last? How is it
reversed? The only cases where I could actually see myself using it
would be to stop a vandal in progress, or to slow down an overeager
newbie who hasn't bothered to read any of the guidelines and is out
there creating tons of duplicate, 'incorrectly named' pages -- it would
be good to slow them down long enough to be pointed in the right
direction for log-in instructions, sandbox practice, naming
conventions, etc. -- but without discouraging contributions. Any
answers, suggestions? -- Jules
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 129
[Wikipedia-l] Levels of privileges
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Apr 1 22:34:33 UTC 2002
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> Also, I have never tried to block an IP because I'm not sure I
> understand the ramifications --- how long would that last? How is it
> reversed? The only cases where I could actually see myself using it
> would be to stop a vandal in progress, or to slow down an overeager
> newbie who hasn't bothered to read any of the guidelines and is out
> there creating tons of duplicate, 'incorrectly named' pages -- it would
> be good to slow them down long enough to be pointed in the right
> direction for log-in instructions, sandbox practice, naming
> conventions, etc. -- but without discouraging contributions. Any
> answers, suggestions? -- Jules
I'd be interested in hearing more about this, too. Without reading
the code, I don't know how this is implemented currently.
I think Julie has exactly the right approach to IP banning -- it's
only for real vandals in progress, where "vandal" is defined very
uncontroversially. And also for people who, while not necessarily
vandals, are in the process of doing something _big_ ("tons" of
invalid pages) just because they're unaware.`
I think our wikipdia "code of honor" should be: never in anger, never
in a fight over content. Those have to be settled "on a fair playing
field", through reason, not software powers.
Someday, there will probably be someone who we have to permanently
ban. I dread that day, because I don't even know how we will
accomplish it.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 130
[Wikipedia-l] If I queried the catalog, what would be there?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Apr 1 23:32:00 UTC 2002
Lorraine Lee wrote:
> From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>
>
> > 3. "developers" -- the main extra thing that developers should have
> > access to would be "raw" stuff that's pretty technologically
> > "dangerous" if you don't know what you're doing. I.E., ability to
> > enter arbitrary SQL select statements, even ones that might be really
> > slow. This extra power should only be used for development purposes,
> > and not "in a content fight".
>
> I think I'm metadata-aware enough to be trusted with
> read-only SQL access to wikipedia, but I've been wrong
> in the past and can't think of anything immediately useful
> I'd do if I did have select access.
I'm in the same boat. And I think read-only access should be fine for
just about anyone. I mean, unless it proved to be a problem for some
reason.
I personally don't want to be able to delete things directly in the database via
the web. I mean, if I REALLY have to delete something from the database, then for
now, I'm better off going directly into mysql on the command line and in a very paranoid
and cautious fashion typing it in. :-) I've never had to do that, but...
>
> Since it appears to be a fairly strongly copyleft project, I
> assume you have published its SQL data model?
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 131
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 2 04:03:23 UTC 2002
Is there a message that pops up to explain to a person who has his/her IP
blocked that they have their IP blocked? I often wonder if I have offended
anyone when I can't access wikipedia at all for several hours to sometimes
days from home (and then am able to access it from work or school for a
while, then nothing - no other sites seem to be affected). Are these outages
normal? Is there a problem with me being behind a firewall? Or am I in fact
on somebodies sh*t-list? Just wondering.....
BTW since everyone else that contributes regularly seems to have admit status
now, I was wondering if I could also be given that status - for the times
when I catch somebody uploading copyrighted material or when a nasty vandal
is having fun in the wee hours in the morning.
Cheers!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 132
[Wikipedia-l] Levels of privileges
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Apr 2 00:55:08 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> I agree with this, & would like to hear more about how long the
> blocks last, how to unblock IPs, etc.--the links are close together
> on the History pages, and I'd hate to ban someone unintentionally. I
> couldn't agree more that blocking an IP should only be done to
> prevent vandalism, & never in anger. I also like the suggestion that
> we not be able to block anyone logged in--or would vandals simply
> start logging in?
I hope it doesn't sound too corny, but I think that the wiki spirit of
love will prevent this. Anyhow, I think we should try not to respond
to problems before they actually come up.
A long time ago, I had an idea similar to the wiki idea. But I didn't
do anything about it, because I thought of all the problems, all the
ways that it wouldn't work, and imagined a very complex system for
preventing abuse. But it was too much work to program, and had I
programmed it, no one would have participated because it would be too
hard to get started.
Now I realize -- build it in a spirit of trust, and only do something
about problems when they come up, always resisting the temptation to
solve problems that don't exist, or to over-do the solution.
If vandals start logging in, we'll have to do something about it. But
until that happens, maybe our trusting nature will make it less fun to
vandalize us.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 133
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking
wojtek pobratyn
wojtek.pobratyn at gmx.net
Tue Apr 2 18:10:38 UTC 2002
> Is there a message that pops up to explain to a person who has his/her IP
> blocked that they have their IP blocked? I often wonder if I have offended
>
> anyone when I can't access wikipedia at all for several hours to sometimes
>
> days from home (and then am able to access it from work or school for a
> while, then nothing - no other sites seem to be affected). Are these
> outages
> normal? Is there a problem with me being behind a firewall? Or am I in
> fact
> on somebodies sh*t-list? Just wondering.....
I don't think the firewall has anything to do with it. If you can access
other webpages then you should be able to edit the 'pedia... There has been a
ca. 16 hour outage today (erm, that is Tuesday) though.
BTW, I don't think that anyone has used the block IP 'feature' yet as it
seems to be pretty buggy (according to Magnus and/or Brian V.).
> BTW since everyone else that contributes regularly seems to have admit
> status
> now, I was wondering if I could also be given that status - for the times
> when I catch somebody uploading copyrighted material or when a nasty
> vandal
> is having fun in the wee hours in the morning.
e-mail Jimbo with your request and he'll probably be more than glad to do it
for you;-)
regards,
wojpob
--
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 134
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Apr 2 18:08:56 UTC 2002
Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
> Is there a message that pops up to explain to a person who has his/her IP
> blocked that they have their IP blocked? I often wonder if I have offended
> anyone when I can't access wikipedia at all for several hours to sometimes
> days from home (and then am able to access it from work or school for a
> while, then nothing - no other sites seem to be affected). Are these outages
> normal? Is there a problem with me being behind a firewall? Or am I in fact
> on somebodies sh*t-list? Just wondering.....
I hope that IP blocking is very rare and confined to the sort of
character very unlike yourself, i.e. the type of person who just goes
around inserting foul language randomly and the like. You don't do that,
I imagine. If you've merely _offended_ someone, that's no excuse for an ip
block.
Is the history of ip blocks made public somewhere? I should know, but I don't. :-(
> BTW since everyone else that contributes regularly seems to have admit status
> now, I was wondering if I could also be given that status - for the times
> when I catch somebody uploading copyrighted material or when a nasty vandal
> is having fun in the wee hours in the morning.
Yes, what's your wikipedia id? (You can answer me in email and we won't need to bother
the list.)
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 135
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Apr 2 18:59:43 UTC 2002
On lun, 2002-04-01 at 20:03, Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
> Is there a message that pops up to explain to a person who has his/her IP
> blocked that they have their IP blocked?
"Your IP has been blocked! Your edits will not be saved. Please contact
a sysop to have the block removed, or try again later."
> I often wonder if I have offended
> anyone when I can't access wikipedia at all for several hours to sometimes
> days from home (and then am able to access it from work or school for a
> while, then nothing - no other sites seem to be affected). Are these outages
> normal? Is there a problem with me being behind a firewall? Or am I in fact
> on somebodies sh*t-list? Just wondering.....
No, if you were blocked you just couldn't edit pages. You could still
access the site.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 136
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Apr 2 20:42:31 UTC 2002
On mar, 2002-04-02 at 10:08, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Is the history of ip blocks made public somewhere? I should know, but I don't. :-(
[[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]]
However the log's a bit buggy (pretty UNIX timestamps instead of dates!)
The IP ban function needs some interface work as well; there should be a
confirm-and-explain step, and perhaps an obvious way to unblock, should
it ever be necessary.
Incidentally, I've protected said log page, since allowing anyone to
edit it is tantamount to allowing anyone to ban IP addresses, which I'm
not so sure is a good idea. It can be changed back easily enough if
there's a good reason.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 137
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Apr 2 23:20:28 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> Likewise, the "you've been blocked" page should have a lengthy
> explanation that accounts for the accidental case.
I think I agree with you, but I also wonder if it wouldn't be better
to simply make the block silent. The troll can edit, and save, but
the save doesn't "take". The idea is hopefully to let them think that
our site is broken or something, rather than letting them feel the
victory of pulling us into a "fight", a fight which they can win by
escalating ways of getting around our filters, which are of course
always going to be relatively ineffective.
Of course, if you ask me, the whole of wikipedia is impossible. :-)
No one could possibly put up a well-advertised and open site that anyone
can edit without it quickly degenerating into a battleground for trolls
and counter-trolls. It's impossible.
Except, it obviously isn't, since it's working great. :-)
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 138
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking
Axel Boldt
axel at uni-paderborn.de
Wed Apr 3 06:03:42 UTC 2002
In order to unblock an IP number, go to [[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] and
remove the corresponding line. The software does not unblock any
number automatically: as long as the number is listed under Blocked
IPs, it is blocked.
I looked a bit at the oeuvre of that 62.98.* guy. It's quite an
interesting case. I don't think he's malicious. You don't enter
hundreds of (correct!) digits of pi if you want to discredit a
project. He's misguided, for sure. He looks to me like somebody who
has had many idiosyncratic ideas brewing in his head for years, and
now they pour out in a couple of days. Maybe not unlike our Slovenian
Rastafarian prime number lover.
Axel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 139
[Wikipedia-l] Site becoming a bit disquieting
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 4 18:13:54 UTC 2002
Hi all -- just wanted you to know that I might be around more on the
list than the Pedia for a bit (unless something egregious comes up and
needs editing). I'm teaching two new classes this quarter, so time's a
bit short...and frankly, I'm finding 24's rants somewhat disquieting. I
know this probably sounds dumb, but I've come to think of us as a
community of nice people -- or at least people with whom I feel safe in
revealing my name, etc. (more info is no longer on my page). 24's
comments on meta make me wish I hadn't. I don't know if it's in
earnest, or if it's just its unpleasant way of playing games, but
without trying to sound paranoid, do we have any systems in place to
discourage the frighteningly anti-social types? Anyway, maybe it's just
me being paranoid... JHK
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 140
[Wikipedia-l] Dealing with a crank
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Thu Apr 4 22:18:32 UTC 2002
It seems to me that 24.150.61.xxx doesn't really understand
the idea of the NPOV. So far, they have wasted a considerable
amount of my time debating the "Artificial Intelligence" article (an
area in which I do have some actual expertise, having studied extensively
and actually having done a small amount of research in the area),
and it has become increasingly clear that this individual does
not understand the things they are discussing and are pushing
their own idiosyncratic line - to take a simple example of their
lack of comprehension, they speak of proving the Church-Turing thesis,
which is not a theorem and can therefore never be proved.
If it were just me, I wouldn't be so quick to judge, but it seems
like they are annoying Axel and others just as much.
I believe some of the historians (JHK?) faced a similar problem
and tried just revising the article without bothering to debate
the issues. Am I recalling correctly, and did it work?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 141
[Wikipedia-l] Site becoming a bit disquieting
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Apr 4 22:42:25 UTC 2002
I don't think that 24 really understands the NPOV policy. 24 writes:
"It remains to be see if people here wish to find the actual median of
global human opinion." And also: "There are 6100 million potential
readers of the wikipedia, long term, and views shared near-universally
by 100-300 million of them just aren't good enough to qualify as
neutral point of view, if there is serious dispute about them among
the other 5800-6000 million people."
But NPOV is not about finding the 'median' of human opinion, nor about
presenting only views that are "shared near-universally" by only
Western, technologically advanced, American, or whatever other group
he means.
The examples he gives of things that we wouldn't even want to have in
the encyclopedia betray his misunderstanding. Selecting just one of
them, "hate views of ethnic groups" is certainly something that
Wikipedia should have an article on. But the wikipedia should take no
position "for" or "against" those views, but should instead present
those views in such a way that both proponents and detractors can
mutually agree.
Similarly, imagine that 24's hypothetical poll of the entire world
shows that most beleive that "9/11 was caused by US foreign policy" --
what should the wikipedia say about that? Well, nothing less than
that a poll of the entire world showed that a majority of the world
believes that "9/11 was caused by US foreign policy". Hopefully our
reporting on this fact would be enhanced by an NPOV discussion of the
reasons why many people believe that, an NPOV discussion of what
Americans believe, and why, and so on.
His threat to post to indymedia.org to bring an onslaught of
progressives is interesting and revealing, as well. Brion Vibber's
response was correct: please do, go and bring them in. If lots of
them come all at once, there will be a period of chaos while they come
to understand our NPOV policies, but after that, those who can
tolerate NPOV writing will stick around, and that'll be great. It'll
help keep those of us who do not share their viewpoints "in line".
But if his indymedia.org friends want to violate the NPOV, then they
will be just as unwelcome as, say, libertarians who come in and want
to violate the NPOV. Even such "stupid" followers of Ayn Rand, as
your humble host would be held to the fire just as heartily for NPOV
violations.
The interesting thing about the NPOV is that all reasonable people can
understand why we have the policy and adhere to it. I suppose that if
a large group of people descended on us, people who steadfastly reject
the NPOV *itself* for some reason, insisting that instead of working
hard to reach unanimity on articles, wikipedia should be like Usenet,
with endless shouting and reversals back-and-forth and back-and-forth
of articles from one point of view to another until someone gets too
exhausted to continue... if that happened, then we'd have a serious
problem.
But I don't think that such people exist in large numbers. Even
people who I might personally regard as religious fanatics of one
stripe or another generally _can_ agree to a neutral presentation of
the issues.
Having said all of this, I think there is more to say about systemic
bias in wikipedia.
Is there a systemic bias due to the types of people initially
attracted to the project? Quite possibly, but I don't think that this
has been demonstrated convincingly. To be sure, the wikipedia is
_uneven_, as the Amazon rainforest example shows. But unevenness and
incompleteness is not bias, otherwise wikipedia will be "biased" until
every possible sentence in every possible language has been entered.
How is Wikipedia biased? There are many articles that take into
account what large numbers of people believe, even if no one here
believes those things. We have some good articles on Islam, even
though -- to my knowledge, at least -- they were not written by
followers of Islam.
But other articles (or perhaps even the Islam articles!) may
inadvertantly leave out important points of view unknown to the
author. To the extent that this is true, then Wikipedia is _not_
NPOV, even when we think it is, because of our current ignorance. But
this is always true of every publication by every author -- we cannot
write about that which we know too little. At least with Wikipedia,
our _model_ is fertile for change in the right direction.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 142
[Wikipedia-l] Site becoming a bit disquieting
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Thu Apr 4 23:36:20 UTC 2002
At 02:42 PM 4/4/02 -0800, Jimbo wrote:
>I don't think that 24 really understands the NPOV policy. 24 writes:
>"It remains to be see if people here wish to find the actual median of
>global human opinion." And also: "There are 6100 million potential
>readers of the wikipedia, long term, and views shared near-universally
>by 100-300 million of them just aren't good enough to qualify as
>neutral point of view, if there is serious dispute about them among
>the other 5800-6000 million people."
>
>But NPOV is not about finding the 'median' of human opinion, nor about
>presenting only views that are "shared near-universally" by only
>Western, technologically advanced, American, or whatever other group
>he means.
>
>The examples he gives of things that we wouldn't even want to have in
>the encyclopedia betray his misunderstanding. Selecting just one of
>them, "hate views of ethnic groups" is certainly something that
>Wikipedia should have an article on. But the wikipedia should take no
>position "for" or "against" those views, but should instead present
>those views in such a way that both proponents and detractors can
>mutually agree.
>
>Similarly, imagine that 24's hypothetical poll of the entire world
>shows that most beleive that "9/11 was caused by US foreign policy" --
>what should the wikipedia say about that? Well, nothing less than
>that a poll of the entire world showed that a majority of the world
>believes that "9/11 was caused by US foreign policy". Hopefully our
>reporting on this fact would be enhanced by an NPOV discussion of the
>reasons why many people believe that, an NPOV discussion of what
>Americans believe, and why, and so on.
>
>His threat to post to indymedia.org to bring an onslaught of
>progressives is interesting and revealing, as well. Brion Vibber's
>response was correct: please do, go and bring them in. If lots of
>them come all at once, there will be a period of chaos while they come
>to understand our NPOV policies, but after that, those who can
>tolerate NPOV writing will stick around, and that'll be great. It'll
>help keep those of us who do not share their viewpoints "in line".
Seconded. Heartily. By possibly the leftmost person on this mailing
list. NPOV is about spreading and sharing information, and about
distinguishing information from opinion. This is a Good Thing, in my own
not-so-humble opinion: oppressors of any stripe want to control information,
ideas, and knowledge.
>But if his indymedia.org friends want to violate the NPOV, then they
>will be just as unwelcome as, say, libertarians who come in and want
>to violate the NPOV. Even such "stupid" followers of Ayn Rand, as
>your humble host would be held to the fire just as heartily for NPOV
>violations.
Exactly. Which is why this works, why you and I can agree to work on
this project, and improve it and make something valuable. We don't have
to agree on other things--and it's possible that Wikipedia is the only
thing other than the English language that we have in common.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 143
[Wikipedia-l] Site becoming a bit disquieting
Rosa Williams
aprilrosanina at charter.net
Fri Apr 5 02:39:43 UTC 2002
Allow me to heartily third Vicki Rosenzweig and Koyaanis Qatsi, from another
leftie (European view) or pinko commie bastich (US view -- just kidding,
guys ;) . 24 is not so much left or right as just plain odd... the pattern
seems similar to a number of Internet newsgroup kooks I've run into now and
again. ("I have the One True Way, and you should all bow down in awe!")
There are, as LDC says, occasional flashes of useful insight there, though
rather overwhelmed in the polemicism. Perhaps the writer may yet grow out
of it... and if not, the collective corrective forces of Wikipedia ough to
be able to keep the diatribes in check.
-- April
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 144
[Wikipedia-l] Suggestion for policy
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Fri Apr 5 12:03:33 UTC 2002
On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:59:40 lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> Yes, he is very annoying--all the more so because he's
> obviously well-educated and therefore hard to dismiss as
> an ordinary crackpot. He hasn't been too terribly
> destructive. He just cranks out reams and reams of
> subjectivist rants with quality inversely proportionate
> to their quantity. But one or two sentences out of every
> page he writes actually has some interesting insight worth
> keeping, and he does put up with my abuse pretty well, so
> I haven't yet been tempted to suggest any action.
>
He's driving me nuts...
> Besides, his anonymity will always serve to minimize his
> credibility, so he'll lose a lot of arguments on those
> grounds alone. I know I've suggested in the past that
> perhaps only logged-in users should be allowed to edit,
> but I think I'm more inclined to leave things as they are,
> and just have a social norm here that anonymous editors
> should simply suffer the consequences to the credibility
> and lose arguments by default.
I consider it quite rude that whomever it is doesn't do us
the courtesy of registering even a nom de plume and clearly
label his points on the talk pages. It makes having a discussion
with him/her/it a PITA as you can't immediately distinguish
who is saying what.
Is it time to make it wikipedia policy that you should sign
your posts on talk pages?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 145
[Wikipedia-l] Suggestion for policy
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Apr 5 16:05:47 UTC 2002
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
> Is it time to make it wikipedia policy that you should sign
> your posts on talk pages?
Other than a very tiny handful of things, we run more under social
norms than policies, I think. I mean, NPOV is policy, in the sense
that I'm willing to defend it by banning people, if it ever came to
that. (Like, if a large group of ideologically minded people swooped
in on us to put forward their version of the world, at the expense of
NPOV, then I'd be willing to fight it with software, bans, etc.)
But most other things are "merely" social norms. Like: be bold in
updating encyclopedia articles. Like: don't edit other people's
signed comments during an ongoing discussion on a talk page.
The only way to enforce the social norm you're proposing is if most
people "sign on" to it. Larry used to write these things on a page,
and people could "sign on" as agreeing -- a sort of unenforceable but
powerful social commitment. I guess we'd just ignore people who don't
sign posts? Or, we could make it "fair game" to just delete comments
that are unsigned?
I see some drawbacks to either.
Maybe the best thing to do is to "sign" the comments _for them_.
I.E., add an identifier to what people have written, primarily to keep
the comments straight.
Anonymity isn't the problem, right? I mean, anyone can make up any
name and use it. The problem is more one of _continuity_. If I'm
/Talk ing with LDC or AxelBoldt, then I know something of their
history, and they of mine, so we can talk more efficiently.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 146
[Wikipedia-l] Suggestion for policy
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Sat Apr 6 00:05:44 UTC 2002
On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 02:05:47 Jimmy Wales wrote:
<snip>
>
> The only way to enforce the social norm you're proposing is if most
> people "sign on" to it. Larry used to write these things on a page,
> and people could "sign on" as agreeing -- a sort of unenforceable but
> powerful social commitment. I guess we'd just ignore people who don't
> sign posts? Or, we could make it "fair game" to just delete comments
> that are unsigned?
>
> I see some drawbacks to either.
>
Yep, however I'm personally getting to the point where I'm considering the
ignorance option. However, I don't think there's anything like consensus
on that.
> Maybe the best thing to do is to "sign" the comments _for them_.
> I.E., add an identifier to what people have written, primarily to keep
> the comments straight.
>
That sounds like an excellent idea.
> Anonymity isn't the problem, right? I mean, anyone can make up any
> name and use it. The problem is more one of _continuity_. If I'm
> /Talk ing with LDC or AxelBoldt, then I know something of their
> history, and they of mine, so we can talk more efficiently.
Precisely.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 147
[Wikipedia-l] 24 is driving me nuts
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 8 02:01:13 UTC 2002
<rant>
24's (User:24.150.61.63) activities are beginning to become a real nuisance.
He/she continues to create new entries that really appear to be idiosyncratic
nonsense that Google consistently only can find a handfull of examples of.
The terms that 24 comes up up, and then creates articles about seem to be
used by a very small group of like-minded people.
For example: military fiat (his/her term for military control over a monetary
system) = 160 hits, verbal rape = 136 hits, social rape = 99 hits, Earth rape
= 95 hits, eco-rape = 97 hits. Given the fact that Google tracks literally
billions of webpages, such a small number can easily be explained by chance.
24 also created [[wikipedia:Natural Point of View]] as some type of
replacement of NPOV, makes other articles that are improperly capitalized,
such as [[Green Movement]], after he/she is made aware of naming conventions,
he/she also makes improperly pluralized pages such as [[Eco-villages]]
knowing about that policy etc., etc., etc., etc. A partial list of what 24
has been up to is on [[Wikipedia utilities/Pages needing attention]].
Frankly, I am sick of having to be drawn into discussion with this person and
clean of his/her messes. By posting these idiosyncratic articles and ideas on
wikipedia this person is magnifying their exposure and importance beyond what
is warrented by the number (and arguably quality) of people who actually
believe this stuff.
An analogy, would be a news agency that is more concerned with making news
than reporting it. Should wikipedia become a place where crackpots can air
their views and gain unwarranted exposure? Should we be in the business of
legitimizing terms and definitions that Google can only find a small handfull
of examples of? Do we want wikpedia to become a soapbox?
24's activities are similar to what User:QIM has done with his Masculism
article - except 24 is truly prolific in the amount of material that he/she
is submitting (and at least "Masculism" gets about a 1000 hits - mostly
emails and personal pages though). I do believe that 24 is harming the
project - at the very least this person is causing unproductive angst among
longtimes users. The actions of this person is probably also giving visitors
and newbies the wrong idea about the project.
Don't get me wrong, I am not indicating that the merit of a term is not to be
solely based on the number of hits on Google. However, when the content or
title itself is questionable, surprising or really not at all NPOV (that's
neutral point of view, not natural point of view), then Google can be used as
some sort of objective measure of merit.
I think it is time to warn 24 to cease many of the above activities.
</rant>
user:maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 148
[Wikipedia-l] 24 is driving me nuts
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Mon Apr 8 08:26:19 UTC 2002
On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 12:01:13 Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
> 24's activities are similar to what User:QIM has done with his Masculism
> article - except 24 is truly prolific in the amount of material that
> he/she
> is submitting (and at least "Masculism" gets about a 1000 hits - mostly
> emails and personal pages though). I do believe that 24 is harming the
> project - at the very least this person is causing unproductive angst
> among
> longtimes users. The actions of this person is probably also giving
> visitors
> and newbies the wrong idea about the project.
>
He's wasting a lot of people's time.
> Don't get me wrong, I am not indicating that the merit of a term is not
> to be
> solely based on the number of hits on Google. However, when the content
> or
> title itself is questionable, surprising or really not at all NPOV
> (that's
> neutral point of view, not natural point of view), then Google can be
> used as
> some sort of objective measure of merit.
>
> I think it is time to warn 24 to cease many of the above activities.
Yes.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 149
[Wikipedia-l] I'm the editor in chief
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Apr 8 15:51:56 UTC 2002
24 wrote:
"The wikipedia article database seems safe from any concerns, but on
March 1, 2002, the wikipedia lost its chief editor?, [Larry Sanger]?,
and has no clear or obvious way to make certain policy decisions
critical to its future."
I am now fulfilling the role formerly held by Larry. When it comes
down to the wire, I'll be the one making final policy decisions.
Fortunately, though, essentially all policy decisions of major import
have already been made and will not be changing.
NPOV is non-negotiable. And also, perhaps to the chagrin of longtime
contributors, the policy of not banning people unless they are
absolute vandals, is non-negotiable unless we get such a massive
influx of anti-NPOV authors that the project is starting to degenerate
into something other than what it is intended to be.
I don't think 24 or anyone else should get the idea that since Larry
is gone, we can turn Wikipedia into a humor site, or a Libertarian
rant, or a Green advocacy site, or a "Natural point of view" site.
(I am trying to re-read "Natural Point of View", so that I can
understand 24's perspective, but it is mostly incoherent. I was
unsure who wrote what, and so went into this history. Apparently,
even the parts written solely by 24 are incoherent.)
--Jimbo
p.s. I think 24 vastly overestimates the power of indymedia, and also
overestimates the "threat" of bringing them in. 24 may think they are
all a bunch of anti-NPOV biased policial operatives -- I think they
are just regular people with political leanings far different from my
own, but who can fully buy into our NPOV goals. I think I'll submit
an article to them myself.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 150
[Wikipedia-l] Another loony flag: 66.219.221.xxx
Manning Bartlett
manning at bartlett.net
Mon Apr 8 23:47:39 UTC 2002
This 66.219.221.xxx character is another to watch for - I seem to be getting into an edit war with it over its "Orthodox Baha'i Faith" issues. I researched this group a few months back when I was working on the original Baha'i faith article, and my evidence suggested that they are a tiny splinter group (a few hundred members) of a religion with 5 million members.
Anyway, I'd be grateful if you could watch out for this character - I know Brian Vibber has already run into its ideological agenda. I'm leaving for India again in a week or two so I won't be able to watch it closely enough.
Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020409/321cea21/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 151
[Wikipedia-l] Another loony flag: 66.219.221.xxx
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Apr 8 23:55:38 UTC 2002
I've emailed with him, if it's the same guy. I'm not sure that the
characterization of "character" and "it" are really necessary or
useful.
His main concern, when I met him, was that people from the main Baha'i
faith are trying to suppress information about the splinter group.
This is how he interpreted one edit of his articles. I assured him
that this was unlikely -- to my knowledge, no one from the Baha'i
faith is even aware of our existence, much less monitors us looking
for his descriptions of the break.
We will face this problem in a much greater way when the
Scientologists find us.
--Jimbo
Manning Bartlett wrote:
> This 66.219.221.xxx character is another to watch for - I seem to be getting into an edit war with it over its "Orthodox Baha'i Faith" issues. I researched this group a few months back when I was working on the original Baha'i faith article, and my evidence suggested that they are a tiny splinter group (a few hundred members) of a religion with 5 million members.
>
> Anyway, I'd be grateful if you could watch out for this character - I know Brian Vibber has already run into its ideological agenda. I'm leaving for India again in a week or two so I won't be able to watch it closely enough.
>
> Manning
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 152
[Wikipedia-l] Some 24 comments and the cabal
Manning Bartlett
manning at bartlett.net
Tue Apr 9 00:22:06 UTC 2002
I've been following the various commentary about 24 with interest, and maybe I can offer some thoughts for consideration.
We have run into at least one character similar to 24 in the past - Cunctator. (Although 24 seems worse). That is - a person who is clearly quite intelligent, capable of making very worthwhile contributions at times, but frequently unable to distinguish between the encyclopedia agenda and their personal agenda.
The solution to 24 is probably the same as with Cunctator - the silent ignore and passive editing approach. Maveric has tried to reason with 24 repeatedly, but when reason is clearly failing there is nothing else to do but protect the project.
As much as people seem to hate admitting it- there is a "cabal" in operation at the Wikipedia. However, rather than being some secretive and exclusive operation, it is a freely admissive assembly: Live by the rules and you're in.
I know of no occasion where someone who accepted the central editorial guidelines was ever made to feel excluded - one's "respect and authority" is purely a measure of one's level of participation and commitment, not a matter of "who you know" or (especially) "how long you've been here". Jimbo retains ultimate control of the project (by virtue of his paying for the damn thing), but the remainder of us are its true authority structure. The Wikipedia Militia was assembled along these lines - some howled with outrage, but most of us understood its purpose.
So this is a time when the "cabal" or "militia" must rise to the occasion - we must simply edit quietly and remove the detritus to either meta or to oblivion, as is appropriate. 24 is chiefly motivated by his ability to engage us - people such as this live for their ability to command the attention of people, and to eliminate his negative behaviour we must remove this incentive. Two things will result - he/she will either learn to play by the rules, or he/she will go away. Either way, the project is better off.
There is no shame is using our "collective authority" - we do not need any special measures. We edit, delete, and watch each other. If Maveric, Vibber, JHK, Jimbo, KQ or someone similarly respected elects to delete content of 24, I'm probably going to be fairly accepting of their judgment. This is motivated by my trust of them as rational beings who understand the purpose of Wikipedia. This trust is not absolute, but certainly substantial (and I mean no disrespect - absolute trust is not possible as we are all fallible)
If the "Militia" were an exclusive operation, then there would be shame to it, but that has never been the case, nor could it ever be (without some seriously fundamental changes to the structure of Wikipedia, which I suspect would never happen.)
Why do people like 24 appear? Well the 'pedia is growing in stature. Everyone wants to have their voice heard (including us), and when you have an agenda, it is a lot easier to try and usurp the audience of an existing structure rather than build your own. The difference is - we have elected to live within the rules of Wikipedia while getting our voice heard.
So I do not think there is any reason to be afraid to exercise our collective authority. The day will come when entire teams of people will attempt to attack or hijack the project - as Wikipedia grows in stature its prominence will be too enticing to resist for certain "agenda-driven" elements of the cyber-community. There will be marginal areas, where some of us feel the content is appropriate and others don't. But it's always been like that. We've always managed to sort those problems out.
However, entire articles which usurp recognised terms for personal dogma are not controversial at all - they have to go, and that's that. Collectively it is our responsibility to get rid of them.
Warm regards
Manning
Sydney, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020409/f86922e5/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 153
[Wikipedia-l] Another loony flag: 66.219.221.xxx
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Apr 9 00:20:19 UTC 2002
On lun, 2002-04-08 at 16:55, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I've emailed with him, if it's the same guy. I'm not sure that the
> characterization of "character" and "it" are really necessary or
> useful.
>
> His main concern, when I met him, was that people from the main Baha'i
> faith are trying to suppress information about the splinter group.
That explains why he's been quietly removing links to the mainstream
[[Baha'i Faith]] in articles that had linked to both [[Baha'i Faith]]
and [[Orthodox Baha'i Faith]]. *cough* *cough*
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 154
[Wikipedia-l] Some 24 comments and the cabal
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Apr 9 00:15:25 UTC 2002
Manning Bartlett wrote:
> The solution to 24 is probably the same as with Cunctator - the
>silent ignore and passive editing approach. Maveric has tried to
>reason with 24 repeatedly, but when reason is clearly failing there is
>nothing else to do but protect the project.
I think that what "worked" with Cunc was (a) responding to his
legitimate concerns and (b) reasoning with him to be nicer with his
complaints.
But, yeah, trying to focus multiple people's attention on making sure
he doesn't screw anything up in the meantime is probably a good idea.
> However, entire articles which usurp recognised terms for personal
>dogma are not controversial at all - they have to go, and that's
>that. Collectively it is our responsibility to get rid of them.
Yes. Or better, to fix them.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 155
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #350 - 9 msgs
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 9 01:51:09 UTC 2002
> JHK writes
>
> The problem here is that 24 makes assertions that words mean what IT
> says they mean, and often denies that common usage is legitimate. The
> purpose of any encyclopedia should be to let people know what is
> GENERALLY meant and agreed-upon, and then other views or
> interpretations.
Couldn't agree more. This person has some VERY idiosyncratic definitions for
obscure terms I have never seen used. Many of his entries seem leftist/Green
and yet I have many friends that are leftist and/or Green and they are not
aware of most of 24's terms. In addition, almost everything he/she writes is
discoherent and at first glance at least, nonsense.
>....
> JHK:
> I think [Jimbo is] right on one level -- banning is very extreme. However,
> I think we need to consider whether community standards and etiquette
> play any part. There have been lots of situations where peer pressure
> has helped to tone down disagreements between Wikipedians -- but even in
> cases where there was clear animosity, I've never seen it get so bad
> that the disputants wouldn't put common goals first (given encouragement
> ;-) ). With 24, we see a person who denies that there is a community,
> and therefore has no obligation to work within the standards we've set
> for ourselves. Moreover, one of 24's aims is to change the goals of the
> project and tell us what we 'should' (in his twisted world-view) be
> writing about. In my opinion, he IS vandalizing the project by creating
> tons of pages that are really indefensible from a NPOV-encyclopedia
> standpoint. Banning him would certainly result in tirades of "those
> people/that clique doesn't like what I say, so they're oppressing me",
> but this may be the point where we have to make a call on policy. I'm
> all for peer pressure and heavy editing, but I just don't know if it
> will be effective against someone who considers us all less than his
> peers.
>
> JHK
>
Much of my rant was based on the fact that 24 does not follow community
standards and etiquette -- even after being made aware of them. 24 is
willfully defying NPOV, capitalization and pluralization wikipedia standards.
What is worse, is that this person literaly is able to spew out massive
amounts of text in very little time. It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with
him/her -- let alone write about what I want to write about. It wouldn't be
that terrible if this person simply was making new articles and leaving
established ones alone. But 24 is injecting his/her seemingly idiosyncratic
views into many other articles.
I am a very patient person who allways tries to give people the benefit of
the doubt (and have been doing so with 24 up to this point). I have often
chided other wikipedians for calling a newbie a VANDAL just because they were
doing what newbies do best -- make honest mistakes or do something bad like
delete a single article because they do not understand what wikipedia is.
Almost all of these newbies either begin to understand and learn how to work
on the 'pedia, or they drop out. 24 is very different and continues to do
things the way he/she wants to after being introduced to what wikipedia is,
our NPOV policy, how to best contribute to existing articles and how to best
create new ones.
I really hate to say it, but I think it is time to at least consider voting
24 off the island. Maybe give him/her one more chance to reform.
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 156
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Some 24 comments and the cabal
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 9 02:36:59 UTC 2002
Manning Bartlett wrote:
> I've been following the various commentary about 24 with interest, and =
> maybe I can offer some thoughts for consideration.
>
> We have run into at least one character similar to 24 in the past - =
> Cunctator. (Although 24 seems worse). That is - a person who is clearly =
> quite intelligent, capable of making very worthwhile contributions at =
> times, but frequently unable to distinguish between the encyclopedia =
> agenda and their personal agenda.
>
> The solution to 24 is probably the same as with Cunctator - the silent =
> ignore and passive editing approach. Maveric has tried to reason with 24 =
> repeatedly, but when reason is clearly failing there is nothing else to =
> do but protect the project.
I will try this approach -- however, this person contributes at a phenomenal
rate and I'm not sure if I can just sit by and let this person's personal
agenda mare the project.
> As much as people seem to hate admitting it- there is a "cabal" in =
> operation at the Wikipedia. However, rather than being some secretive =
> and exclusive operation, it is a freely admissive assembly: Live by the =
> rules and you're in.=20
Those who contribute often and really care do form a kind of a group -- at
the very least. I never really understood the total aversion against an
administrating body (especially one that is based on meritocracy).
>
> I know of no occasion where someone who accepted the central editorial =
> guidelines was ever made to feel excluded - one's "respect and =
> authority" is purely a measure of one's level of participation and =
> commitment, not a matter of "who you know" or (especially) "how long =
> you've been here". Jimbo retains ultimate control of the project (by =
> virtue of his paying for the damn thing), but the remainder of us are =
> its true authority structure. The Wikipedia Militia was assembled along =
> these lines - some howled with outrage, but most of us understood its =
> purpose.=20
right on.
>
> So this is a time when the "cabal" or "militia" must rise to the =
> occasion - we must simply edit quietly and remove the detritus to either =
> meta or to oblivion, as is appropriate. 24 is chiefly motivated by his =
> ability to engage us - people such as this live for their ability to =
> command the attention of people, and to eliminate his negative behaviour =
> we must remove this incentive. Two things will result - he/she will =
> either learn to play by the rules, or he/she will go away. Either way, =
> the project is better off.
I really don't think this person will learn -- 24 has most certainely been
told about our policies and refusses to abide by them. The only supprissing
thing is that I have yet really to get into an edit-war with him/her --
maybe he/she does not know how to REVERT an article yet. God help us...
>
> There is no shame is using our "collective authority" - we do not need =
> any special measures. We edit, delete, and watch each other. If Maveric, =
> Vibber, JHK, Jimbo, KQ or someone similarly respected elects to delete =
> content of 24, I'm probably going to be fairly accepting of their =
> judgment. This is motivated by my trust of them as rational beings who =
> understand the purpose of Wikipedia. This trust is not absolute, but =
> certainly substantial (and I mean no disrespect - absolute trust is not =
> possible as we are all fallible)=20
I will remove content, but I will not delete an article made by 24 unless it
is missnamed. I am too emotionally involved now and can't trust myself enough
to do that. That doens't mean I wont place articles in [[wikipedia:page
titles to be deleted]] though.
>
> If the "Militia" were an exclusive operation, then there would be shame =
> to it, but that has never been the case, nor could it ever be (without =
> some seriously fundamental changes to the structure of Wikipedia, which =
> I suspect would never happen.)=20
>
There is no shame to reversing the work of crakpots.
>[.......]
> However, entire articles which usurp recognised terms for personal dogma =
> are not controversial at all - they have to go, and that's that. =
> Collectively it is our responsibility to get rid of them.
>
> Warm regards
> Manning
> Sydney, Australia
The 'pedia will be a much nicer place after you return.
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 157
[Wikipedia-l] green wiki
Chuck Smith
msochuck at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 9 12:25:54 UTC 2002
Hmmm...
Any chance we could just give 24 his own wiki to play
on?
Chuck
=====
Come to my homepage! Venu al mia hejmpagxo!
http://amuzulo.babil.komputilo.org/
====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 158
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #350 - 9 msgs
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Apr 9 16:52:12 UTC 2002
Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
>> Moreover, one of 24's aims is to change the goals of the
>> project and tell us what we 'should' (in his twisted world-view) be
>> writing about.
My position on this is that so long as someone keeps their "change the
goals" campaign on meta, that's fine. It's a waste of typing, though,
because the one thing I'm totally dogmatic and inflexible on is NPOV
and the concept of "encyclopedia". If NPOV is wrong, then so be it,
wikipedia will be wrong. I'll gladly give an alternative community
free hosting (until I can't afford it) just to defuse the objection
that we're somehow suppressing alternatives.
If someone wants a non-NPOV encyclopedia, or if someone wants a site
that is something _other than_ an encyclopedia, that's fine. But it
won't be wikipedia.
The thing is, I'm an extremely ideological person. I'm a hardcore
"libertarian" politically. I'm an _Atlas Shrugged_-toting-Objectivist
philosophically. Compared to the average person, I'm "off the scale"
in terms of ideological extremism. Don't ask me about religion or
communism or the 'greens' unless you want to get an earful about
reason, morality, and individual freedom. :-)
So I think I _understand_ the desire to write one-sided articles.
Sometimes I'd love to go into articles on topics that I care about and
write a diatribe. :-) But I don't. Because to do so would be
_polemics_, not _encyclopedics_. If even *I*, an "ideological kook"
if there ever was one, can keep the two straight, then so can people
who are just as extreme in some other direction.
It would be wrong to turn Wikipedia into a platform for my opinions --
or 24s. It's an encyclopedia. It is a catalog of information aiming
for an approximation to universal agreement. We have many simple
techniques for achieving this, the most common and easiest being to
"step out a level" and not _engage_ the controversy, but _describe_
the controversy.
>> In my opinion, he IS vandalizing the project by creating
>> tons of pages that are really indefensible from a NPOV-encyclopedia
>> standpoint. Banning him would certainly result in tirades of "those
>> people/that clique doesn't like what I say, so they're oppressing me",
>> but this may be the point where we have to make a call on policy.
I'd like to hear Cunctator weigh in on this topic. He's probably our
current best "conscience" on such matters, in the sense that he's very
opposed to cabalism, and clearly sees the risk.
To me, the risk is two fold. First, there's the possibility of the
public tirades against our allegedly exclusionary policies, etc. But
second, there's the danger that we go down a slipperly slope and start
banning people for more and more minor infractions.
maveric149 wrote:
> I really hate to say it, but I think it is time to at least consider voting
> 24 off the island. Maybe give him/her one more chance to reform.
I'm trying to see if I can raise him via private email. Perhaps I can talk sense
into him.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 159
[Wikipedia-l] Some 24 comments and the cabal
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Apr 9 16:55:59 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> It's odd that 24 brings up this point frequently--that there is
> no "system of governance" as he puts it. But there is--his name
> is Jimbo. This is a very effective form of governance called
> "monarchy". Jimbo owns the box, and what he says goes. The
> balance to that is the open content license; if a bunch of us
> really hate what he's doing, we can take all of the content to
> another site and do it ourselves--but we're not likely to, because
> Jimbo knows what he's doing. That also makes me inclined to be
> less tolerant of destructive kooks, because in the end, there's
> nothing preventing Mr.24 from forking the project off onto his
> own site and getting all his green buddies to edit it--and the
> marketplace will decide which site is more useful.
There's REALLY nothing preventing it, because if he asks, I'll host it
for free until such time as the traffic to it starts to cost me too
much money.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 160
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking
Lee Daniel Crocker
lee at piclab.com
Tue Apr 2 19:13:34 UTC 2002
> BTW, I don't think that anyone has used the block IP
> 'feature' yet as it seems to be pretty buggy (according to
> Magnus and/or Brian V.).
I blocked the "CARROTS" vandal on Friday. He hasn't
reappeared, but of course I have no way to know whether
that's really because of the block or if he just went away.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 161
[Wikipedia-l] 24 is driving me nuts
Neil Harris
neil.harris at tonal.clara.co.uk
Tue Apr 9 08:45:46 UTC 2002
>
>
>
>Message: 3
>To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24 is driving me nuts
>From: Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
>Date: 08 Apr 2002 17:56:48 +0100
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
>"Julie Hofmann Kemp" <juleskemp at yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Speaking of which, I really do wonder where it lives and if it's loony
>>enough to seek out those of us nearby.
>>
>
>California, it would appear.
>(The IP address is a cable supplier in Burlington, CA)
>
I make it
*whois -h whois.arin.net 24.150.61.63*
Cogeco Cable Systems (NETBLK-CGOC-2BLK) CGOC-2BLK 24.150.0.0 - 24.150.255.255
Cogeco Cable Solutions (NETBLK-CGOC-WERI1-A) CGOC-WERI1-A
24.150.48.0 - 24.150.63.255
To single out one record, look it up with "!xxx", where xxx is the
handle, shown in parenthesis following the name, which comes first.
The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet
Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's.
Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related
Information and whois.nic.mil for NIPRNET Information.
which places the writer in Ontario or Quebec.
See
http://www.cogeco.com/cabletv/local.html
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 162
[Wikipedia-l] green wiki
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Apr 9 17:02:04 UTC 2002
Gladly, I would.
But I have a feeling that this solution will not be desirable to him.
I don't wish to cast his motives in too negative a light, but I think
he's more interested in changing us, than in promoting his viewpoint.
Or, perhaps I should say, he's aware that changing us would promote his
viewpoint more than he could on his own.
Chuck Smith wrote:
> Hmmm...
>
> Any chance we could just give 24 his own wiki to play
> on?
>
> Chuck
>
> =====
> Come to my homepage! Venu al mia hejmpagxo!
> http://amuzulo.babil.komputilo.org/
> ====
> Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
> esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
> Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 163
[Wikipedia-l] The t-word
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Apr 9 17:31:07 UTC 2002
I see that 24 is very upset about the people who are in favor of the
Singularity. (Eliezar Yudkowsky, for example). I think this is very
odd. I mean, it's odd to be _upset_ by a very small group of people who
are basically not having any particular impact on the world. I mean, he's
upset about people who are interested in "downloading" their consciousness
into computers, which is basically a science fiction concept at the moment.
Why be upset about it?
Many of his other comments are very odd, as well.
I think that the word "troll" is very overused. To my way of
thinking, it refers to a person who is "trolling" as a joke or
something. Sincere people with strange ideas are not trolls. Even
sincere people who are hostile, argumentative, uncooperative are not
trolls. A troll is _insincere_, that is, they say things only for the
shock value, only for the purpose of upsetting people.
But consider this statement:
Someone wrote:
>24: "the people" don't need you to speak for them. They're capable of speaking for themselves,
24 responded:
>several classes of people apparently do - Great Apes, those in
>Developing nations without much net access or English vocabulary, and
>even those Anti-globalization movement types who don't participate in
>net or Global Greens top-down games. If they come here and say
>anything, they will soon be driven away by LDC, Axel Boldt, yourself,
>and other white trash.
Great apes (bonobos, gorillas, etc.) are a class of people for whom 24
alleges to speak? "white trash"? To me, these don't sound like
positions sincerely held, but positions chosen simply to generate more
heat than light.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 164
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #350 - 9 msgs
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Tue Apr 9 21:06:58 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
[snip]
> >> In my opinion, he IS vandalizing the project by creating
> >> tons of pages that are really indefensible from a NPOV-encyclopedia
> >> standpoint. Banning him would certainly result in tirades of "those
> >> people/that clique doesn't like what I say, so they're oppressing me",
> >> but this may be the point where we have to make a call on policy.
>
> I'd like to hear Cunctator weigh in on this topic. He's probably our
> current best "conscience" on such matters, in the sense that he's very
> opposed to cabalism, and clearly sees the risk.
>
> To me, the risk is two fold. First, there's the possibility of the
> public tirades against our allegedly exclusionary policies, etc. But
> second, there's the danger that we go down a slipperly slope and start
> banning people for more and more minor infractions.
I have to admit I missed most of the 24 stuff since I was actually
doing stuff other than Wikipedia for a while, so I'm not entirely sure
what people are talking about. I saw the stuff labeled as (24) on
meta, which seems to be intelligently motivated but written in a way
that's guaranteed to antagonize/confuse people.
What did 24 do on wikipedia.com?
I really don't think people need to even consider banning 24. If I
hadn't read all these posts on the mailing list or scanned meta, I
wouldn't even have known such a person existed.
But again, I really have no idea what the scale of 24's actions are.
Though perhaps that should be taken as an indication that the community
response was already sufficient in assimilating 24's contributions.
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 165
[Wikipedia-l] The t-word
Guardian Tor
guardian-tor at operamail.com
Wed Apr 10 00:08:39 UTC 2002
> I think that the word "troll" is very overused. To my way of
> thinking, it refers to a person who is "trolling" as a joke or
> something. Sincere people with strange ideas are not trolls. Even
> sincere people who are hostile, argumentative, uncooperative are not
> trolls. A troll is _insincere_, that is, they say things only for the
> shock value, only for the purpose of upsetting people.
Agreed. I think the word is slung around a little too freely.
1. The Cunctator is not a troll. He sincerely cares about the project and has contributed a lot of valuable material, including our current logo. He is also a shit-disturber (I say that with some affection) and got into a personal feud with Larry Sanger. That doesn't make him a troll.
2. Mirwin is not a troll. He came into Wikipedia and, like many newcommers, brought up what he considered to be major issues, but most people disagreed with his assessments. He has some unusual ideas, has a rather rambling style of expressing himself, and seems to be quite fond of the idea of forking the project, but I haven't seen him do any intentional trolling.
3. I'm not sure whether 24 means to troll or not. He has been downright prolific on the meta, pumping out his ideas on what he sees as the major problems of Wikipedia, and the possible solutions. He seems intelligent, but very narrowly focused, and desires to change the basic nature of Wikipedia. He ignores community standards, and gets upset that we even call ourselves a community. He also has extensive insults for people that don't want to play his game by his rules. Strange? Yes. Troll? Not sure. Ban him? No way. It would set a dangerous precident, and wouldn't be very effective anyway. It's trivial to alter one's apparent IP address over the web.
-- Stephen G.
--
________________________________
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.com
_______________________________________________
Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/
Powered by Outblaze
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 166
[Wikipedia-l] The t-word
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Apr 9 23:58:06 UTC 2002
Guardian Tor wrote:
> 1. The Cunctator is not a troll. He sincerely cares about the
>project and has contributed a lot of valuable material, including our
>current logo. He is also a shit-disturber (I say that with some
>affection) and got into a personal feud with Larry Sanger. That
>doesn't make him a troll.
I agree.
> 2. Mirwin is not a troll. He came into Wikipedia and, like many
>newcommers, brought up what he considered to be major issues, but most
>people disagreed with his assessments. He has some unusual ideas, has
>a rather rambling style of expressing himself, and seems to be quite
>fond of the idea of forking the project, but I haven't seen him do any
>intentional trolling.
I missed all of this, so I know little about him. I emailed him this
morning asking some questions -- he voiced some concern about the NPOV
policy, but I don't know what his concerns are, exactly.
> 3. I'm not sure whether 24 means to troll or not. He has been
>downright prolific on the meta, pumping out his ideas on what he sees
>as the major problems of Wikipedia, and the possible solutions. He
>seems intelligent, but very narrowly focused, and desires to change
>the basic nature of Wikipedia. He ignores community standards, and
>gets upset that we even call ourselves a community. He also has
>extensive insults for people that don't want to play his game by his
>rules. Strange? Yes. Troll? Not sure. Ban him? No way. It would set a
>dangerous precident, and wouldn't be very effective anyway. It's
>trivial to alter one's apparent IP address over the web.
Right, well, there's a problem we will face someday, if not now. What
happens when someone comes in with bad intentions and is relentless
with bad edits? If we don't ban, we just give up which is obviously
not right. The ultimate goal is the NPOV encyclopedia -- the openness
is a tool to that end. But if we do ban, we perhaps only provoke
someone even MORE, someone who would have gotten bored sooner rather
than later.
24 keeps saying that he's not sure if it's worth contributing. Maybe
he'll decide that it isn't. Maybe he'll decide that we're very
insistent on producing something that the 3 billionth reader will not
like, as he's fond of saying. He speaks for the Great Apes, he says,
and they surely will find our project uninteresting.
He revels in his anonymity, but I know who he is. Many people are
ill-mannered on the net who are perfectly nice when contacted by some
other means. Maybe I should call him on the phone.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 167
[Wikipedia-l] The t-word
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Wed Apr 10 00:45:19 UTC 2002
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 03:31:07 Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Great apes (bonobos, gorillas, etc.) are a class of people for whom 24
> alleges to speak? "white trash"? To me, these don't sound like
> positions sincerely held, but positions chosen simply to generate more
> heat than light.
>
AFAICT, 24 sincerely believes (or has at least consistently taken the
position) that Great Apes deserve the rights
of personhood. This came up in an argument I had with him on the
Artificial Intelligence article (which still needs a fair bit of work).
He's not enitrely alone in this:
http://www.greatapeproject.org/gaphome.html
I've no idea how much support they have, though.
I don't think 24 is a troll. I think he's a kook who rejects
the goals of our project and is actively attempting to change
the project to fit his own ideas.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 168
[Wikipedia-l] More on our friend 24
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 10 02:12:36 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 09 April 2002 12:01 pm, Jimbo wrote:
> I'm trying to see if I can raise him via private email. Perhaps I can talk
> sense into him.
On three separate occasions I have either told 24 about the mailing list or
invited him/her to join in --- if for no other reason than to see what we are
up to with policy and other discussions. Each time, I even included a link to
the mailing list wikipedia page for his/her convenience.
FYI here is something 24 has recently wrote in response to a statement I made
about contacting the mailing list about his/her actions
(from [[Talk:Military fiat]]):
"you are quite welcome to have a "party" or "clique" discussion on what your
mailing list clique wishes to do about the Governance of this project. I
will proceed as I am until someone writes a [[m:Status quo]] that identifies
some action of mine as a problem, or until someone else achieves consensus on
a means of [[m:Governance]] on the project now that Larry is gone. -24" (I of
course had to sign 24's comment for him/her -- still doesn't get that
convention either...)
If I read this right, then this person is purposely trying to force us into
joining his "wikipedia governance" project! And if we don't, 24 will continue
doing the same darn things in the same way as he/she is already doing them.
I don't know about ya'all, but I don't like being coerced.
Some more stuff 24 has been up to:
(you might want to check out the meta Jimbo)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 169
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #350 - 9 msgs
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Wed Apr 10 02:18:40 UTC 2002
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:06:58 kband at www.llamacom.com wrote:
> > What did 24 do on wikipedia.com?
>
> For examples see "particle physics", "money", "Artificial Intelligence".
Deleting particle physics was certainly a dumb thing to do (though easy
to deal with).
His contributions to the "money" article, if he did revision 6, seem
to me to be quite good. It looks like he took a very brief article and
usefully expanded the history, from commodity money to fiat money.
Even his "agenda-based" paragraphs are properly put into context,
by stating that it's a "green economist" position.
His edits to "artificial intelligence" didn't help much, but the
article was already a mostly incomprehensible mish-mash, and what he
did is certainly no worse than what just about every editor I know
(including myself) has done at least one point.
Are there other entries? Or is the hooplah mostly about his meta-rants?
I don't see that much evidence that he's trying to violate the mission
of Wikipedia, or even subvert it to his own kooky ends. He seems to
respect the mission, and thinks that people don't have the right
understanding of what NPOV means. I personally think that NPOV concept
has flaws as being the guiding principle for Wikipedia, since it's
such a semantically flexible term.
That said, he's obviously self-centered and self-righteous. Has he
made any edits in the last few days?
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 170
[Wikipedia-l] More on our friend 24
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Wed Apr 10 02:22:26 UTC 2002
maveric wrote:
> "you are quite welcome to have a "party" or "clique" discussion on what your
> mailing list clique wishes to do about the Governance of this project. I
> will proceed as I am until someone writes a [[m:Status quo]] that identifies
> some action of mine as a problem, or until someone else achieves consensus on
> a means of [[m:Governance]] on the project now that Larry is gone. -24" (I of
> course had to sign 24's comment for him/her -- still doesn't get that
> convention either...)
>
> If I read this right, then this person is purposely trying to force us into
> joining his "wikipedia governance" project! And if we don't, 24 will continue > doing the same darn things in the same way as he/she is already doing them.
>
> I don't know about ya'all, but I don't like being coerced.
Aren't you trying to coerce him into joining the mailing list? He doesn't have any power to coerce you, so I don't know what you're worrying about. He's harmless.
> >From [[m:Best cases]]
>
> "The Militia, 20 users granted sysop status by Larry, defend the users
> visions to the near-death (well, maybe a really drunken stupor with a head
> injury or two from falling on the ground in drunken camraderie) and all of
> these best cases are realized, and none of the threats come to pass."
>
> 24 seems to be feeding on our inaction so far.
What do you mean? He's presenting that as a bes
> Also from [[m:Best cases]]
>
> ".....Wiki gradually evolves into the center of discourse on controversial
> topics because of its vaunted fairness, and its commitment to evolving as
> close to a [[m:natural point of view]] as the [[w:Neutral point of view]] of
> the target [[m:three billionth user]] will permit. Other encylopedias
> gradually give up or are bought out by donors who like wiki - and wiki rather
> than a search engine becomes the first stop for most researchers in the
> world. Gradually, universities kind of fade away as centers of research but
> flourish as centers of ethical training, moral example, brainstorming, wild
> and uninhibited art, and true creative vision. Nobel Prize winners thank
> wiki on the stand as they accept their rewards - and historians credit it
> with breaking down barriers between academic, populist, and economic views of
> the world - coming slowly to a consensus... "
>
> Can anyone say CRACKPOT! This person seems to have MAJOR plans for the
> 'pedia. We all better bow down and kiss this person's feet before he/she has
> the "Anti-globalization movement .... flood [wikipedia] with 3000 versions of
> [[m:natural point of view]] all at once." This is dangerous folks, I think we
> have, as Larry recently pointed out on the meta, 'fed the troll' way too much
> already.
>
> 24 has stated before that he/she has no ideology -- I would counter that this
> person is one of the most ideological people that I have come across. Both
> 24 and mirwin want to subvert the project to their own purposes. Mirwin is
> mostly harmless but 24 is most certainly not.
>
> maveric149
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 171
[Wikipedia-l] More on our friend 24
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Wed Apr 10 02:33:26 UTC 2002
Sorry about the last message. I was writing a reply, then thought
better of the tone, but accidentally sent instead of deleting. Thus
the unfinished reply. I hope that didn't throw any fat on the fire.
I trust it'll all work out for the best.
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 172
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #350 - 9 msgs
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Apr 10 03:04:14 UTC 2002
kband at www.llamacom.com wrote:
> Are there other entries? Or is the hooplah mostly about his meta-rants?
I'd like to second the call for lists of entries on the main site that he's
screwed up. It'd help if we were all "on the same page" in terms of knowing
what he's doing.
His meta-rants are annoying and strange, but can easily be ignored if absolutely
necessary.
> I don't see that much evidence that he's trying to violate the mission
> of Wikipedia, or even subvert it to his own kooky ends. He seems to
> respect the mission, and thinks that people don't have the right
> understanding of what NPOV means.
Well, he's so incoherent that it's sort of hard to say...
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 173
[Wikipedia-l] The t-word
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Wed Apr 10 08:34:51 UTC 2002
"Guardian Tor " <guardian-tor at operamail.com> writes:
> He seems intelligent, but very narrowly focused
I disagree. I admit he seems educated.
Obduracy and a refusal to engage or compromise with anyone who disagrees with
him is not only not a sign of intelligence, its a sign of non-intelligence.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 174
[Wikipedia-l] The t-word
wojtek pobratyn
wojtek.pobratyn at gmx.net
Wed Apr 10 08:50:37 UTC 2002
I think the greatest damage that 24 is doing is wasting our resources. By this I mean
_human_ resources. I nearly got a heart attack after seeing my mailbox this morning
and the amount of discussion going on. Some useful points have been made but I'm still
not sure if it is all worth the hassle. Imagine all that time spent on writing articles....
regards,
[[user:WojPob]]
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 175
[Wikipedia-l] FYI, Baha'i
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Apr 10 21:33:41 UTC 2002
Without any actual knowledge, I think it reasonable to suppose that
Manning Bartlett is not a Baha'i of any kind. By "lot more of us than
you", I think he was referring to the Wikipedia community, er,
"regular participants" as 24 would prefer I say.
I will respond to this fellow, and seek your counsel.
I have omitted identifying details of the person who wrote me.
The essential facts, in case you don't feel like reading all of this:
66.219.221.xxx is a member of the "Orthodox" Baha'i religion. This is
a small splinter group from the main Baha'i faith. The exact size is
a matter of some dispute. '66' claims that the larger sect engages in
extreme shunning of the smaller sect, and that they are attempting to
suppress information on the wikipedia. '66' suspects (incorrectly,
I'm pretty sure) that Manning Bartlett is a Baha'i who is trying to
marginalize him.
Someone, 'Rabo', apparently wrote to a Baha'i newsgroup seeking
knowledgeable people to help deal with '66'. '66' feels that this was
yet another attempt to marginalize his group.
This has been long predicted, although I never thought that the Baha'i
faith would be the source of friction. I thought maybe the
Scientologists would find us, or the anti-Scientologists, and their
decades-long Usenet flamewar would spill over here.
Anyhow, please take a look. I guess we don't really care about their
religious argument; we only care to make the article(s) NPOV. But
some of usual techniques (describing the conflict rather than engaging
in the conflict) are perhaps difficult to apply in situations where the
parties are arguing over whether the conflict is important enough to be
described prominently in the main article.
--Jimbo
------------------------- Forwarded message --------------
Hello again,
I wrote you sometime back abnout a problem with a article on wekepedia
and you were kind enough to respond. I was at the time being totaly
erased and raised the possibility that a group of Baha'is from the
larger sect (Ibelong to the smaller one) were possibly doing this as
they try to shun us completely.
I agreed with you that this should be a wait and see thing.
Recently the article on the Orthodox Baha'i Faith has been continually
reedited by several people some of the editing i found to be helpful,
but a lot was for the purpose of marganilizing the article in facor of
the larger group.
I came coincdentally across an article ont he larger Baha'i news group
which urged all baha;is to go there and rewrite the article so as to
put the larger group in the best light. I am enclosing a copy of that
news group article. Also, you will find that the main individual
claiming not to be a bahai who has rededited allot, in teh history of
the editing has put comments in like there are a "lot more of us than
you", whihc I can only take as reference to him and other baha'is.
Below is also a copy of that statemnt in the history section along
with a letter I have sent out to all Orhtodox baha'is on my mailing
list letting them know what is happening to the article on their
beliefs. Over the past few days the Orhtodox Baha'i site has
continually been reedited in an attempt to marganalize the Orhtodox
Faith. At this point on the talk section of wedkepdia Orhtodox Bahai
Faith is my response to someone reediting who claims not to be a
Baha'i the article on soc.religion.bahai which i refer to in my repoly
appeared over the past few days as well.
The real reason is best summarrized from an article written on
soc. religon. bahai where the writer urged baha'is to rerwrite the
article in order to reduce the influence of the Orhtodox group. I
have there fore writtten the people in charge of wikipediea today to
express my concerns that what is being done is really for the purpose
of non-nuetrality on the larger groups part yuour professions of not
being a baha'i notwithstadning. copy of exceprtps from article on the
larger Baha'i Board fololow:
"Hello All
Several month back I posted on this newsgroup requesting contributions
for the Baha'i entry in a encyclopedia project:
http://www.wikipedia.com
Well an article was written, and time went by.
In recent weeks, a contributor who we only know by his/her IP address
of 66.219.221.xxx (Which is myself) has commenced a campaign of
championing the Orthodox Baha'i position.
When I originally researched the Baha'i Faith, I quickly concluded
that apart from the plethora of webpages the OB division was extremely
small (as in barely hundreds of members), (My Comment: as an Orhtodox
Again the figures this writer gives are inaccurate) and therefore
while it was fair to mention it, it was also fair to place it within a
proper perspective.
Hence I am writing to ask if someone can return to the website,
examine the articles and help those of us who are insufficiently
informed to paint a true picture.
The antagonist in the dispute has one extremely valid point however -
the article on the Orthodox Baha'is does cover the Baha'i principles
in great depth, and frankly the Baha'i article tends to focus solely
on history and buildings. We (the editors) feel that the principles of
the Faith should be encapsulated in the main Baha'i article and we
should limit the OB article to the point of distinction (ie. the
dispute about succession of the Guardianship). But none of us feel
suitably qualified to redress this imbalance.
The Wikipedia is a growing resource, it now has nearly 30000 articles
(after only 16 months) and a viewcount extending into the millions per
month. Certainly there are numerous issues about the actual quality of
our articles, but that's why I am writing to a newsgroup where I could
reasonably expect to find "experts".
Regards Rabo
http://www.wikipedia.com
To find related pages - enter Bahai in the search box. "
I also have written a reply put on the other two bahai newsgroups
since as you know censorship rpevails on the group this artricle
appeared in and orhtodox are shunned:
Hello All
An article appeared on alt.soc.bahai which called for the larger Bahai
group to martial its forces to put the Orhtodox Artciles om a
particular website "in its proper persecptive" meaning reduce its size
and influence.
The writer did admit however that::
"The antagonist (that's the Orhtodox Bahai) in the dispute has one
extremely valid point however - the article on the Orthodox Baha'is
does cover the Baha'i principles in great depth, and frankly the
Baha'i article tends to focus solely on history and buildings. We (the
editors) feel that the principles of the Faith should be encapsulated
in the main Baha'i article and we should limit the OB article to the
point of distinction (ie. the dispute about succession of the
Guardianship). But none of us feel suitably qualified to redress this
imbalance. "
Hence the call for others to come in and try by all means to reduce
the Orhtodox article to non influence while admitting the better
article ont he Faith's principles was doen by the Orhtodox!
Needless to say I have sent a copy fo this letter to the heads of the
particular website with the point that what ever the main group does
there is for the obvious purpose of reducing the Orhtodox arrticle and
is intself an obvious attempt at non-neutrality which the particular
site in question requires.
Again so that people will know what our priicples are and wehter they
differ from the alrger group i Have again rededited and will
contiually reedit the Orhtodox article until i hear from the staff of
wekepedia on this.
Additionally the hisoty section which shows when and who edited the section finds these comments:
Tuesday, April 9, 2002
a.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith; 23:05 . . . 66.219.221.xxx [*I have sent a letter of concern to the wakepedia staff on this as the openig paragraph wording is definately not NPOV, per the talk article]
Monday, April 8, 2002
a.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (1); 16:46 . . . Rgamble [-/Talk]
b.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (2); 16:37 . . . Manning Bartlett [NPOV restored, duplicate content removed again: If you want an edit war then fine - but there are more of us than there are of you]
c.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (3); 14:41 . . . 66.219.221.xxx
d.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (4); 13:54 . . . 66.219.221.xxx
Thanks for your prompt attention, as I would liek to avert what is likely to become a contentious issue if allowed to drift,
----- End forwarded message -----
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 176
[Wikipedia-l] FYI, Baha'i
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Wed Apr 10 22:08:11 UTC 2002
See also duplicate of the complaint post and further discussion,
including Manning's response, on the wiki at:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3AOrthodox%20Bahai%20Faith
While I do get the general impression that the mainstream Baha'is don't
seem to like the Orthodox Baha'is very much, I've seen no evidence of
misbehavior in the case of the wikipedia articles except on the part of
66.219.221.xxx him/herself, which he/she has yet to explain.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 177
[Wikipedia-l] The t-word
Guardian Tor
guardian-tor at operamail.com
Wed Apr 10 23:16:03 UTC 2002
> > He seems intelligent, but very narrowly focused
>
> I disagree. I admit he seems educated.
> Obduracy and a refusal to engage or compromise with anyone who disagrees with
> him is not only not a sign of intelligence, its a sign of non-intelligence.
Not necessarily. It can also mean that someone has been totlly convinced to except a extreme position. Such a person would view comromise as a step backward. It's a sign of arrogance.
- Stephen G.
--
________________________________
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.com
_______________________________________________
Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/
Powered by Outblaze
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 178
[Wikipedia-l] The t-word
Guardian Tor
guardian-tor at operamail.com
Wed Apr 10 23:43:40 UTC 2002
> I think the greatest damage that 24 is doing is wasting our resources. By this I mean
> _human_ resources. I nearly got a heart attack after seeing my mailbox this morning
> and the amount of discussion going on. Some useful points have been made but I'm still
> not sure if it is all worth the hassle. Imagine all that time spent on writing articles....
Exactly. I've decided not to reply to his long posts on meta, and now I'll stop chatting about him here.
- Stephen G.
--
________________________________
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.com
_______________________________________________
Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/
Powered by Outblaze
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 179
[Wikipedia-l] 24 response to kband
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 11 02:04:00 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 01:49 am, kband at www.llamacom.com wrote:
> maveric wrote:
> > "you are quite welcome to have a "party" or "clique" discussion on what
> > your mailing list clique wishes to do about the Governance of this
> > project. I will proceed as I am until someone writes a [[m:Status quo]]
> > that identifies some action of mine as a problem, or until someone else
> > achieves consensus on a means of [[m:Governance]] on the project now that
> > Larry is gone. -24" (I of course had to sign 24's comment for him/her --
> > still doesn't get that convention either...)
> >
> > If I read this right, then this person is purposely trying to force us
> > into joining his "wikipedia governance" project! And if we don't, 24 will
> > continue > doing the same darn things in the same way as he/she is
> > already doing them.
> > I don't know about ya'all, but I don't like being coerced.
>
> Aren't you trying to coerce him into joining the mailing list? He doesn't
> have any power to coerce you, so I don't know what you're worrying about.
> He's harmless.
Please read what people have said before you jump in with abrasive comments
directed at another person on the mailing list -- this isn't Slashdot.
With that said....
All I stated was that I mentioned there was a mailing list (on two occasions)
and on one occasion I invited him/her to join the list.
I disagree with your other statement; He does seem to think that he has the
power to coerce us into joining his "governance" project by willfully not
abiding by our standards and policies.
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 180
[Wikipedia-l] tc, disregard the "Slashdot" remark
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 11 02:12:28 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 01:49 am, tc wrote:
> Sorry about the last message. I was writing a reply, then thought
> better of the tone, but accidentally sent instead of deleting. Thus
> the unfinished reply. I hope that didn't throw any fat on the fire.
> I trust it'll all work out for the best.
>
> --tc
Apology accepted. BTW please disregard the "Slashdot" remark -- I too
sometimes write and then delete inflammatory stuff in an email before sending
it. I even on occasion accidently send an email before deleting the negative
remarks.
Cheers!
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 181
[Wikipedia-l] list of 24's "contributions" already on the 'pedia + some reflections....
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 11 02:56:18 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 01:49 am, Jimbo wrote:
> kband at www.llamacom.com wrote:
> > Are there other entries? Or is the hooplah mostly about his meta-rants?
>
> I'd like to second the call for lists of entries on the main site that he's
> screwed up. It'd help if we were all "on the same page" in terms of
> knowing what he's doing.
>
> His meta-rants are annoying and strange, but can easily be ignored if
> absolutely necessary.
>
> > I don't see that much evidence that he's trying to violate the mission
> > of Wikipedia, or even subvert it to his own kooky ends. He seems to
> > respect the mission, and thinks that people don't have the right
> > understanding of what NPOV means.
>
> Well, he's so incoherent that it's sort of hard to say...
>
> --Jimbo
Somebody has something at [[wikipedia utilities/Pages needing attention]] --
you can also check out 24's list of contribs which is accessed through
his/her user page at [[user:24.150.61.63]]. I have no idea why the
contributions link works since Ed Poor created the page -- not 24 by a login.
Also, I don't know if the contribs link is accurate or up to date (does this
work for any IP?).
Most of what he/she contributes is discoherent -- although some is actually
mildly interesting after you cut out the fat. I gave up on trying to keep up
with edits to this person's material because there is just so much of it.
Others seem to jump in quite often though -- God bless them.
Much of the most recent stuff really isn't THAT non-NPOV -- although it
takes an entire article of words for this person to say, maybe, a couple of
sentences of information (much of the leftover stuff is even not as non-NPOV
as what Ed Poor or the Cruncrator contributes....). It is a bear to wade
through this stuff. Apparently this person is beginning to understand that
NPOVing his/her stuff at least a little helps prevent a quick REVERT or
removal of text to a talk page. As I stated before, this person doesn't seem
to engage in edit wars -- which I still think is strange (given all the other
things this person has done).
Perhaps the power of the wiki is beggining to take its effect -- we can only
hope. WojPob is right; this issue is taking up WAY too much of our human
resources --- It's still a good idea for Jimbo to proceed with trying to
contact this person and see what he/she is about. And for all of us to keep a
watchful eye to make sure 24 has been tamed a bit. If this person is on a
similiar non-NPOV level as Ed or Crunc I can live with that. (talking about
level of severity, not ideology)
Although, the current lull in 24's submits may just be causing me to
automatically (once again) give this person the benefit of the doubt when
this person really doesn't deserve it. I guess we will see when he/she
starts to massively submit again.
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 182
[Wikipedia-l] Re: FYI, Baha'i
Manning Bartlett
manning at bartlett.net
Thu Apr 11 03:03:07 UTC 2002
Yeah, Jimbo, I guess we need a staff meeting on this one - JHK said she'll bring the donuts.
OK - I'm not a Baha'i and my reasons for my editorial stance are fairly straightforward:
1 - The Orthodox Baha'is are a TINY fringe group (sub-2000 members) of a religion with 6 Million members. Hence any article should give fair balance to that proportionality.
2 - I have maintained since the beginning that the main Baha'i article should contain the principles of the faith (common to all divisions) and any other pages on divisions should focus on the nature and manner of the distinction.
3 - The main Baha'i article IS weak on outlining the principles. Not feeling adequately informed, I approached the newsgroup to summon other "experts" to enhance the main Baha'i article.. If any 'mainstream" Baha'is were then to attempt to eliminate the OB article, the same rules of NPOV would apply and I would defend the OB page.
4 - By "us" I was making the assumption that the majority of the community would support my editorial stance on this - something I'm still fairly confident of. So far this person has had three 'pedians give them the same story (SJK, BV and myself), although none of us have communicated amongst ourselves AFAIK.
Sorry to have you dragged into this, Jimbo. I hope I'm still allowed to come to the company social.
Cheers
Manning
PS - Rabo Karabekian is a character from Kurt Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions", I've been using is as a handle on NGs for years.
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] FYI, Baha'i
From: "Brion L. VIBBER" <brion at pobox.com>
To: wikipedia-l <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Date: 10 Apr 2002 15:08:11 -0700
Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
See also duplicate of the complaint post and further discussion,
including Manning's response, on the wiki at:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3AOrthodox%20Bahai%20Faith
While I do get the general impression that the mainstream Baha'is don't
seem to like the Orthodox Baha'is very much, I've seen no evidence of
misbehavior in the case of the wikipedia articles except on the part of
66.219.221.xxx him/herself, which he/she has yet to explain.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020411/93d260c5/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 183
[Wikipedia-l] hey, I'm a non-person
Chuck Smith
msochuck at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 11 14:00:53 UTC 2002
Hmmm... I finally agree with Larry that 24 is a troll.
On Meta:TheWikipediaCommunity:
-
your non-reply is good - that suits us both. I don't
consider you a person, since you accept non-persons
and non-interactions in your non-community as an
equal.24
-
I never realized I wasn't a person before. Good thing
24 is here to enlighten me. I say we just reverse all
the changes he makes until he comes to his senses...
Mr. non-person,
Chuck
=====
Come to my homepage! Venu al mia hejmpagxo!
http://amuzulo.babil.komputilo.org/
====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 184
[Wikipedia-l] 24, possums, and is the site really slow lately??
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 11 15:51:50 UTC 2002
Hi all --
Just thought I'd point out that 24 has at least made it to "rules to
consider" , read through, and signed (either for or against. A couple
of the 'against' don't give me warm fuzzies, but at least he/she is
expanding his/her horizons a bit.
On the subject of possums (or, as we call them in my family for reasons
unknown, possels), I think that the article already exists under Opossum
;-)
And is the site really slow lately?? It seems to take forever for pages
to load, and I'm not getting that at other sites....
Have a good day, all!
Jules
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 185
[Wikipedia-l] list of 24's "contributions" already on the 'pedia + some reflections....
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Thu Apr 11 15:55:50 UTC 2002
> you wrote:
[snip]
> Much of the most recent stuff really isn't THAT non-NPOV -- although it
> takes an entire article of words for this person to say, maybe, a couple of
> sentences of information (much of the leftover stuff is even not as non-NPOV
> as what Ed Poor or the Cruncrator contributes....). It is a bear to wade
[snip]
> watchful eye to make sure 24 has been tamed a bit. If this person is on a
> similiar non-NPOV level as Ed or Crunc I can live with that. (talking about
> level of severity, not ideology)
It's "cunctator", not "crunctator".
Do you actually have any awareness of any biased material I have
contributed, or are you just going on hearsay? I'd really like to know
if my conception of my contributions is incorrect, or if you're at
fault.
I just want you to know how what you write makes me feel, which is
rather hurt and insulted, inasmuch as my contributions have been
predominantly to the creation of the most popular entries on the site
(in terms of hits and interlinking) and careful editing of other
entries, and not to the propagation of any particular agenda.
I have been forceful of my opinions about the nature of Wikipedia, but
that's separate from being on a "non-NPOV level" like Ed.
Am I wrong?
yours,
tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 186
[Wikipedia-l] Re: FYI, Baha'i
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Apr 11 16:01:02 UTC 2002
Manning Bartlett wrote:
> 4 - By "us" I was making the assumption that the majority of the
>community would support my editorial stance on this - something I'm
>still fairly confident of. So far this person has had three 'pedians
>give them the same story (SJK, BV and myself), although none of us
>have communicated amongst ourselves AFAIK.
*nod* Me, too, also without communication. This is the beauty of the
NPOV, I think; this is the beauty of the concept of "encyclopedia".
The shared vision makes a lot of these questions pretty easy to
answer.
> Sorry to have you dragged into this, Jimbo. I hope I'm still allowed
> to come to the company social.
But of course!
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 187
[Wikipedia-l] Trolls and other nuisances
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Apr 12 21:51:26 UTC 2002
I'm just now visiting the recent archive of Wikipedia-L:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001879.html
I guess I'll resubscribe at least temporarily in case there are replies to
the following... :-)
I'd like to add my $0.02 on a number of issues that have been raised.
This is important, I think, because we've got to pull together against
elements who are, to put it nicely, wasting our time. To pull together,
though, we've got to get very clear on what "trolls" are or might be, and
develop a robust, *well-thought-out*, *reasonable* idea of what to do when
the trolls attack. (As they will continue to do as long as Wikipedia is
open for business.) Each of us has to come to his or her own conclusions
on the issue; but the greater degree of consensus we can achieve (*for*
neutrality and productivity and *against* bias and kookiness), the more
effective we will be in showing trolls the door. (Without, ideally,
actually kicking them out the door.)
First, I really don't like the idea of putting Meta-Wikipedia comments on
the Recent Changes page. That was the whole point of having the
Meta-Wikipedia, if you'll remember: meta-discussion (partly in the form of
trolling by certain members of the project, along with responses to them),
had become such a serious problem, eating up the resources of the project,
that we wanted to move the wrangling away from the article production.
Please, let's keep it that way.
For historical perspective, see:
http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Moving+commentary+out+of+Wikipedia
Next--I think Manning's post, "Some 24 comments and the cabal," was a
bullseye that said a bunch of stuff that sorely needed to be said:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001807.html
To reiterate in my own words: our resident trolls, bless their twisted
hearts, have harped over and over again about issues of the politics of
Wikipedia, either stating or not-so-subtlely implying that some element of
the leadership of the community is pulling the wool over the eyes of the
community, that someone is usurping power. As Manning says, the main
authority behind the project rests with the community itself, and
particularly with the people who accept the basic defining features of the
community. Insinuations that a cabal, other than a "cabal" in this sense,
is taking control and foisting its views on the rest of us are only so
much guff, very possibly motivated by a dislike for the neutrality policy,
or so it seems to me.
I agree that "troll" is sometimes falsely used to mean little more
specific than "annoying person," which is way too broad. Originally (or
so the etymology and received wisdom has it), I think the term referred to
people who were *merely* trying to get a rise out of newbies, with no
deeper agenda than that. There are relatively few trolls in that sense,
and it's entirely plausible that The Cunctator, 24, and Michael Irwin
aren't trolls in *that* sense.
But I think there *is* a broader and much more useful sense of the term,
that is very often used by perfectly net-savvy people--at least as often
as the original use, and probably more often. This is how "troll" is used
in this page (#1 result for the "Internet troll" Google search):
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
According to this broader sense, trolls *thrive on being the center and
focus of controversy*. It is, seemingly, what they live for, at least
when it comes to Internet forums. Perhaps most importantly, **they do not
respond to reasonable criticism** in the way that most ordinary
intelligent people do; they treat dialectic as *merely* a game. They
don't seem to realize or care that they are speaking to *people* with all
that that entails.
Reasonable discussants are willing to stop and acknowledge that others can
and do have different points of view. Trolls, in this slightly broader
sense, almost always take personal offense that other people disagree with
them, so that when others express their disagreement, the trolls lash out
in hostile, abusive, and often strangely cryptic ways (as if they were
mainly speaking to themselves).
Most reasonable people go out of their way not to give offense to others
(except, perhaps, when it's warranted); trolls go out of their way to
think up clever ways to give offense to people who never did them any
harm.
Reasonable people (indeed, this might a basic criterion of being a
reasonable person) recognize and accept that, in a community, there must
be general standards of protocol, and they make a point of discovering
what those standards are and respecting them. If they criticize basic,
well-accepted community standards, they realize that they are taking what
might be received as a sort of extreme action, and they will word their
criticisms with appropriate delicacy and diplomacy. Trolls, by contrast
(and here again I'm speaking in the slightly broader sense), seem to take
*delight* in not only flouting basic standards of protocol, but
criticizing them openly and rudely as well. Any old hand on Usenet or
mailing lists knows this all too well. When called to task by a moderator
or administrator, the troll often will attack the moderator or
administrator, complain that his feelings are being hurt, and object that
his freedom of speech has been infringed. No reasonable person would
behave this way; he would instead stop and ask himself, "What have I done
wrong?" or instead say, "Oh, I see; these people aren't playing by the
rules I want to play by. I'll find a different group of people to play
with."
I can't really put it any better than what the above-referenced URL has:
"Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise).
You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or
compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel
remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules
of courtesy or social responsibility."
Now, there's a problem in *defining* "troll," even in this broad sense,
for the wiki context. Trolling up till now has been the abuse of Internet
*discussion*. But Wikipedia isn't a discussion; it's a content-creation
project. Of course, part of the trolling we've seen has been on talk page
discussions, but another large part of it (depending on the troll) has
been in article posting, viz., posting biased and kooky stuff in open
defiance of policy. I think this is a perfectly acceptable, robust
application of the concept to a new sort of context, though.
There's also a special problem in *dealing* with trolls on Wikipedia (or
any wiki): whereas on an ordinary discussion forum, one can simply
killfile the miscreant, on Wikipedia, we can't. Remember, we're actually
*doing something*. We're building a resource. The troll's disruptions
(in the form of totally and consciously biased, kooky, and otherwise
worthless repeated postings) can't be "killfiled." Somebody has to go
around after the troll and actually clean up. If nobody does, the biased,
kooky, worthless dross stays put; if it accumulates, Wikipedia's quality
and reputation is under some amount of threat (depending on how prolific
the troll is).
Given this, it might perhaps be better to apply the word "vandal" to
someone who posts really worthless stuff on Wikipedia. But I would
distinguish vandals from trolls as follows.
Vandals are interested in getting mere infantile jollies in seeing people
temporarily shocked by usually toilet humor.
Trolls actually want to build (hostile) relationships with people in order
to abuse them more satisfyingly. For more on the relationship between
trolling and abuse, the following is thought-provoking:
http://www.firelily.com/support/depression/trolls.html
I don't know how accurate the psychologizing is, but it's interesting
nonetheless.
So, as you can see, I do think that trolls exist on Wikipedia, and we
would do well to acknowledge this fact and respond appropriately.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 188
[Wikipedia-l] Where to read up about trolls and trolling
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Apr 12 23:33:57 UTC 2002
Here's a good place to start to read some really fascinating stuff about
trolls and how they operate:
http://www.google.com/search?q=trolls+and+trolling
Frankly, it has been years since I read such stuff.
For me, the obvious question is: why *wouldn't* trolls, in the strict or
looser senses, attack Wikipedia? And it seems to me the answer is equally
obvious: there's no reason they wouldn't, and they already have.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 189
[Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Fri Apr 12 23:37:15 UTC 2002
I know, we've spent too much time on this person: but I want to call
everyone's attention to his comments
in http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3APhilosophy_of_body
Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends
with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 190
[Wikipedia-l] Trolls and other nuisances
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Apr 12 21:45:04 UTC 2002
I'm just now visiting the recent archive of Wikipedia-L:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001879.html
I'd like to add my $0.02 on a number of issues that have been raised.
This is important, I think, because we've got to pull together against
elements who are, to put it nicely, wasting our time. To pull together,
though, we've got to get very clear on what "trolls" are or might be, and
develop a robust, *well-thought-out*, *reasonable* idea of what to do when
the trolls attack. (As they will continue to do as long as Wikipedia is
open for business.) Each of us has to come to his or her own conclusions
on the issue; but the greater degree of consensus we can achieve (*for*
neutrality and productivity and *against* bias and kookiness), the more
effective we will be in showing trolls the door. (Without, ideally,
actually kicking them out the door.)
First, I really don't like the idea of putting Meta-Wikipedia comments on
the Recent Changes page. That was the whole point of having the
Meta-Wikipedia, if you'll remember: meta-discussion (partly in the form of
trolling by certain members of the project, along with responses to them),
had become such a serious problem, eating up the resources of the project,
that we wanted to move the wrangling away from the article production.
Please, let's keep it that way.
For historical perspective, see:
http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Moving+commentary+out+of+Wikipedia
Next--I think Manning's post, "Some 24 comments and the cabal," was a
bullseye that said a bunch of stuff that sorely needed to be said:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001807.html
To reiterate in my own words: our resident trolls, bless their twisted
hearts, have harped over and over again about issues of the politics of
Wikipedia, either stating or not-so-subtlely implying that some element of
the leadership of the community is pulling the wool over the eyes of the
community, that someone is usurping power. As Manning says, the main
authority behind the project rests with the community itself, and
particularly with the people who accept the basic defining features of the
community. Insinuations that a cabal, other than a "cabal" in this sense,
is taking control and foisting its views on the rest of us are only so
much guff, very possibly motivated by a dislike for the neutrality policy,
or so it seems to me.
I agree that "troll" is sometimes falsely used to mean little more
specific than "annoying person," which is way too broad. Originally (or
so the etymology and received wisdom has it), I think the term referred to
people who were *merely* trying to get a rise out of newbies, with no
deeper agenda than that. There are relatively few trolls in that sense,
and it's entirely plausible that The Cunctator, 24, and Michael Irwin
aren't trolls in *that* sense.
But I think there *is* a broader and much more useful sense of the term,
that is very often used by perfectly net-savvy people--at least as often
as the original use, and probably more often. This is how "troll" is used
in this page (#1 result for the "Internet troll" Google search):
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
According to this broader sense, trolls *thrive on being the center and
focus of controversy*. It is, seemingly, what they live for, at least
when it comes to Internet forums. Perhaps most importantly, **they do not
respond to reasonable criticism** in the way that most ordinary
intelligent people do; they treat dialectic as *merely* a game. They
don't seem to realize or care that they are speaking to *people* with all
that that entails.
Reasonable discussants are willing to stop and acknowledge that others can
and do have different points of view. Trolls, in this slightly broader
sense, almost always take personal offense that other people disagree with
them, so that when others express their disagreement, the trolls lash out
in hostile, abusive, and often strangely cryptic ways (as if they were
mainly speaking to themselves).
Most reasonable people go out of their way not to give offense to others
(except, perhaps, when it's warranted); trolls go out of their way to
think up clever ways to give offense to people who never did them any
harm.
Reasonable people (indeed, this might a basic criterion of being a
reasonable person) recognize and accept that, in a community, there must
be general standards of protocol, and they make a point of discovering
what those standards are and respecting them. If they criticize basic,
well-accepted community standards, they realize that they are taking what
might be received as a sort of extreme action, and they will word their
criticisms with appropriate delicacy and diplomacy. Trolls, by contrast
(and here again I'm speaking in the slightly broader sense), seem to take
*delight* in not only flouting basic standards of protocol, but
criticizing them openly and rudely as well. Any old hand on Usenet or
mailing lists knows this all too well. When called to task by a moderator
or administrator, the troll often will attack the moderator or
administrator, complain that his feelings are being hurt, and object that
his freedom of speech has been infringed. No reasonable person would
behave this way; he would instead stop and ask himself, "What have I done
wrong?" or instead say, "Oh, I see; these people aren't playing by the
rules I want to play by. I'll find a different group of people to play
with."
I can't really put it any better than what the above-referenced URL has:
"Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise).
You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or
compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel
remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules
of courtesy or social responsibility."
Now, there's a problem in *defining* "troll," even in this broad sense,
for the wiki context. Trolling up till now has been the abuse of Internet
*discussion*. But Wikipedia isn't a discussion; it's a content-creation
project. Of course, part of the trolling we've seen has been on talk page
discussions, but another large part of it (depending on the troll) has
been in article posting, viz., posting biased and kooky stuff in open
defiance of policy. I think this is a perfectly acceptable, robust
application of the concept to a new sort of context, though.
There's also a special problem in *dealing* with trolls on Wikipedia (or
any wiki): whereas on an ordinary discussion forum, one can simply
killfile the miscreant, on Wikipedia, we can't. Remember, we're actually
*doing something*. We're building a resource. The troll's disruptions
(in the form of totally and consciously biased, kooky, and otherwise
worthless repeated postings) can't be "killfiled." Somebody has to go
around after the troll and actually clean up. If nobody does, the biased,
kooky, worthless dross stays put; if it accumulates, Wikipedia's quality
and reputation is under some amount of threat (depending on how prolific
the troll is).
Given this, it might perhaps be better to apply the word "vandal" to
someone who posts really worthless stuff on Wikipedia. But I would
distinguish vandals from trolls as follows.
Vandals are interested in getting mere infantile jollies in seeing people
temporarily shocked by usually toilet humor.
Trolls actually want to build (hostile) relationships with people in order
to abuse them more satisfyingly. For more on the relationship between
trolling and abuse, the following is thought-provoking:
http://www.firelily.com/support/depression/trolls.html
I don't know how accurate the psychologizing is, but it's interesting
nonetheless.
So, as you can see, I do think that trolls exist on Wikipedia, and we
would do well to acknowledge this fact and respond appropriately.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 191
[Wikipedia-l] Apology to The Cunctator and the list
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 13 00:09:10 UTC 2002
I will make this brief since this type of post is not really appropriate for
such a list as this:
My previous statement indicating that The Cunctator had more bias than the
boiled down stuff the 24 is spewing out was a mischaracterization on my part
based upon numerous posts and material left by Larry Sanger. Larry may have
had very good reasons to characterize The Cunctator this way in the past, but
a random sampling of The Cunctator's current edits does not indicate that
Larry's views are currently valid.
Please do not disregard the rest of the original email in question though. I
apologize to the list and to The Cunctator for my lack of tact in this
regard.
Yours,
-- maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 192
[Wikipedia-l] Apology to The Cunctator and the list
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Sat Apr 13 00:08:14 UTC 2002
I would like to say that I personally "vouch" for The Cunctator, too.
I think he's a valuable contributor. And I think he's a valuable
"touchstone" for decisions that are made administratively, because
he's highly skeptical of authority and he highly values openness.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 193
[Wikipedia-l] peace and brainstorms (rant warning)
Chuck Smith
msochuck at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 13 06:11:21 UTC 2002
Peace is cool. I don't believe The Cunctator, Nirwin
or Larry Sanger are trolls. I remember our page on
The Wikipedia Militia, but that was more about newbies
than trolls if I remember correctly. My first
response to combat trolls was to form lots of software
solutions, but going to war really doesn't do any
good. When we build up things to protect us from
vandals, they just build better software solutions to
vandalize, and we just build... ad nauseum.
24 is different from everyone so far because no one
else has even denied someone their personhood or
refused to login and participate in the community.
Yes, I did take his comment personally about being a
non-person and I'll admit that... so as far as I'm
concerned he caused me bodily harm. heh Of course,
it may eventually come to a point like protecting the
homepage that we have to only allow logged in users to
participate. It will be sad if it reaches that point,
but the day may come. :(
I thought about dropping out of the English Wikipedia
project because it was just getting too emotional, but
decided that would just be letting him win his little
game. Yes, I will call him a him (instead of it)
because he deserves to be treated as a person even if
he's not acting like it.
I think we need to really plan ahead and figure out
how to peacefully defend against this kind of attack
without losing too much of our resources as a result.
Imagine if you will that we have our own world (and in
a way we do, but stick with me here...) and we accept
everybody then what do we do with those who don't
follow the community guidelines?
Sorry for the rambles, but the whole idea of
punishment for crimes seems dreadfully obsolete (and
it wouldn't even work in this case anyway) and I'm
trying to see alternatives, but I can't think of any.
I remember that when I worked for about.com, we had a
conference call at one point and it was really cool,
but I'm not sure if that would really work in this
situation, but it might be worth thinking about.
BTW, this is all complete brainstorm... my uncensored
thoughts, scary, eh? :) Remember, we're making
ground-breaking history here, so we're going to
encounter problems that have never been faced
before... and finally, thanks to everybody for all
I've learned working on this project, remember it is
worth all the hard work! :-)
Chuck
=====
Come to my homepage! Venu al mia hejmpagxo!
http://amuzulo.babil.komputilo.org/
====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 194
[Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Sat Apr 13 06:44:35 UTC 2002
>
> I know, we've spent too much time on this person: but I want to call
> everyone's attention to his comments
> in http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3APhilosophy_of_body
>
> Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends
> with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
I can't say I'm surprised, considering how harshly and snidely he's
been attacked. Everyone in that page seems to be acting like a
petulant child, even though they aren't. I'm reminded of the clinic
Noam Chomsky gave on the radio on how to be annoyingly self-righteous
(actually more than annoying--infuriating might be closer to
actuality) two days ago on the NYC public radio station call-in
show. Yes, 24 is aggravating. Yes, he's silly and stubborn. But then
people call him a troll, and slam him on this mailing list, and say
he's doing a thousand evil things and attacking Wikipedia and sleeping
with sheep and best friends with Osama bin Laden. And then we're
surprised when he falls into the rhetoric of apocalypse?
If you think I'm an arrogant, foolish ass, then it's totally
reasonable to think what I wrote above is arrogant and foolish. But it
seems to me that people are falling over themselves to justify every
unreasonable claim 24 makes.
Yes, Talk:Philosophy of body has heated rhetoric. But that's all it
is. 24 obviously *likes* Wikipedia. If we embraced him, showed him
love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any
contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his
intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.
Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians
think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular
contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking
that he's being ganged up on.
And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs),
Wikipedia is pretty weak.
But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a
while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect
bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.
But then I feel the desire to reconsider all the above words on the
weight of my knowlege of what kind of person Vicki is, and that if she
is troubled, then I should be to.
These are just my thoughts, worth little unless they have value to you.
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 195
[Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 13 21:04:59 UTC 2002
On Saturday 13 April 2002 12:01 pm, tc wrote:
> ........ If we embraced him, showed him
> love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any
> contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his
> intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.
This has been tried to a great extent by myself and several others. 24
doesn't seem to care about our standards and way of doing things and in fact
wants to change the fundamental character of the project. Some of us don't
care for this attitude at all and are now trying to clean up his mess.
With that being said, and since 24's submits are far fewer, I do think if we
tone down our rhetoric, try to politely edit his/her work, and have Jimbo or
maybee yourself continue to try and reach out to this character, maybee, just
maybee he/she will reform. Perhaps this person is a bit aloof and did
overreact after seeing our reaction. But then, I allways tend to give people
more credit than they sometimes deserve after I am able to emotionally detach
myself from this issue a bit.
Cheers!
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 196
[Wikipedia-l] Further replies
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sat Apr 13 21:08:24 UTC 2002
(Sorry, the post from me consisting just of three quoted lines was just a
slip of the fingers!)
Reponses below to Chuck Smith and The Cunctator.
I agree 100% that we should not have to waste our time on issues about
trolls. Unfortunately, we do--it's only by raising consciousness about the
existence of trolls and their methods that we can respond to them
appropriately and effectively.
Just about the only effective thing you can do in response to trolls is to
name and shame them (i.e., unmask them), and then ignore them and encourage
others to ignore them. But unmasking them really is an important thing to
do, for those people who continue to encourage them. Anyway, I'm pretty
much done doing all the unmasking I will be volunteering to do; after this,
I'll shut up and ignore further blathering from the miscreants.
Then, perhaps, we'll have peace, Chuck.
> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Chuck=20Smith?= <msochuck at yahoo.com>
> Peace is cool. I don't believe The Cunctator, Nirwin
> or Larry Sanger are trolls.
Gee thanks, Chuck. :-) I don't think you're a troll either! :-)
> I thought about dropping out of the English Wikipedia
> project because it was just getting too emotional, but
> decided that would just be letting him win his little
> game.
That's precisely the goal of a troll: get the more valuable members of a
forum (or a project, in this case) to drop out and render the project
useless. See this, about the old alt.syntax.tactical group:
http://ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html
There is plenty of evidence that this is precisely what Craig is trying to
do. (24's first name is Craig. Because Craig corresponded with me in the
past and told me that he wrote "natural point of view," and after I did a
Google search, I was able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what his
name, occupation, etc. are. We haven't decided how and whether we want to
unmask him; we were hoping that the threat of unmasking him would make him
go away. Actually, we're hoping that private negotiation will produce some
useful results.) So, anyway, please don't drop out.
> I think we need to really plan ahead and figure out
> how to peacefully defend against this kind of attack
> without losing too much of our resources as a result.
Well, we can start by encouraging in each other the healthy habit of *not
feeding trolls* (after pointing out that they're trolls). But, since this
is a content-generation project, we also have to do damage control. We have
to be bold in undoing the troll's faux submissions. Do not discuss your
changes with the troll; that will only encourage him. That's what trolls
live for!
> Imagine if you will that we have our own world (and in
> a way we do, but stick with me here...) and we accept
> everybody then what do we do with those who don't
> follow the community guidelines?
We hope like hell that the trolls will leave when they are treated like
trolls (i.e., ignored). If they don't, eventually, you'll have to kick them
out on pain of losing the most valuable members of the project. Sorry,
don't shoot the messenger--that's just how trolls and trolling works. It's
been happening for a long time now, and old Internet hands know the drill.
It's just that we on Wikipedia have not been thinking of the possibility
that trolls might attack the project, as they do quite consciously attack
mailing lists and newsgroups, because we haven't gotten used to the idea of
applying the concept of troll to Wikipedia. But it's high time we did.
> Sorry for the rambles, but the whole idea of
> punishment for crimes seems dreadfully obsolete (and
> it wouldn't even work in this case anyway) and I'm
> trying to see alternatives, but I can't think of any.
It's not a punishment for a crime; it's self-preservation against attack.
That's a very important distinction.
> From: kband at www.llamacom.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement
I'd like to reply to this for the sake of those who might find what
Cunctator has to say plausible. Cunctator seems to maintain, puzzlingly (or
not), that 24 is not a troll.
> > Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends
> > with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
>
> I can't say I'm surprised, considering how harshly and snidely he's
> been attacked.
I find it interesting that you and Michael Irwin are the only people to
defend him, Cunctator.
I think he has been treated with far more respect than he deserves.
> Everyone in that page seems to be acting like a
> petulant child,
Well, that's how people become when they are being trolled and don't realize
it. It's what trolls live for. Surely you know that, Cunctator; everybody
with much experience on the Internet does.
> Yes, 24 is aggravating. Yes, he's silly and stubborn. But then
> people call him a troll, and slam him on this mailing list, and say
> he's doing a thousand evil things and attacking Wikipedia and sleeping
> with sheep and best friends with Osama bin Laden. And then we're
> surprised when he falls into the rhetoric of apocalypse?
Actually, I agree with this. This sort of troll will fall into the rhetoric
of apocalypse if people calling him a troll. That's how this sort of troll
operates.
> Yes, Talk:Philosophy of body has heated rhetoric. But that's all it
> is. 24 obviously *likes* Wikipedia.
Strange. It seems obvious to me that he really hates Wikipedia: he hates
the neutral point of view policy that defines it, he hates the fact that
there are a lot of academics on board who can speak authoritatively on
subjects that he can't, he hates the "ontology" behind the selection of
topics, and on and on. That's why, as you would know if you were paying
attention, people keep suggesting that we give him his own wiki. But he
doesn't want his own wiki. He wants to change Wikipedia so radically that
it would be destroyed. Given all this, it is ludicrous to claim that he
"obviously *likes* Wikipedia."
> If we embraced him, showed him
> love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any
> contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his
> intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.
This comment is amazing, and in the game you're playing, Cunctator, a false
move. It reduces your "I am not a troll, just a misunderstood softie"
credibility greatly.
So let's analyze this a bit. Craig's stated his intentions; there's no need
to guess at or interpret them. He wants to get rid of the neutral point of
view, academics, me, and seemingly everyone who disagrees with his "natural
point of view" nonsense. That is tantamount to destroying the project as we
know it. Now explain to me, Cunctator (sure would be nice to know your real
name): how is it that by "embracing him" and "showing him love" we would
accomplish *anything* of use? Since he is a troll (or do you *actually*
need proof of that, Cunctator?), it would only delight him and encourage him
in his trollishness.
Do you perhaps have the notion that, by embracing and showing love to people
who, to most savvy Internet users, appear to be trolls, they will stop
behaving trollishly? Do you think, in Craig's case, that he will become a
non-troll if we love and respect him?
What your comment above seems to imply is that he, in fact, *isn't* a troll,
and perhaps even that there is no such thing as a troll. Let us know,
Cunctator: do you think there are trolls on the Internet? I doubt I'll get
an answer out of you on that one. If I do, it should be very interesting to
read.
No, it's clear enough. Cunctator may be many things, but he isn't an idiot.
He knows very well that trolls exist; he knows very well that 24 is a troll
in one quite ordinary accepted sense of the term; and, as an experienced
Internet user, he knows very well that one cannot deal effectively with
trolls by showing them love and respect. Cunctator might protest that he
does not know all these things. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from
such protestations.
> Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians
> think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular
> contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking
> that he's being ganged up on.
>
> And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs),
> Wikipedia is pretty weak.
Here, you are trying to win sympathy for Craig, it seems, as well as for
yourself. We are "ganging up" on poor "24," just as we ganged up on you.
So you have sympathy for him. Isn't that nice.
> But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a
> while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect
> bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.
I'd certainly like to know if it's not obvious to anyone other than you and
Michael Irwin. You imply, in your usual way (which is not as subtle as you
seem to think it is), that all of the *many* people who think that Craig is
a troll are just being defensive! Indeed they're "intrinsically defensive,"
whatever that means. In short, their concerns are overblown and generally
unreasonable, and are mainly due to defensiveness. What a bizarre and
ridiculous thing to say.
> These are just my thoughts, worth little unless they have value to you.
How good of you, Cunctator. How could anyone who is willing to recognize
publicly that others might regard his thoughts as worth little, who is
willing to laughingly and sheepishly acknowledge that others *might* think
he himself is a troll, fail to be a respectable, valuable, important member
of the project?--Indeed, how?
Cunctator, you have my permission to place this entire reply to you on your
own delightfully trollish hall of fame page, here:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/user:The+Cunctator/Bias+Talk
I know you'll want to. But don't post parts of it. Post the *whole* thing.
I insist. Supply *context*, Cunctator, it helps readers to understand
events fully.
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 197
[Wikipedia-l] Further replies
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Sun Apr 14 08:44:24 UTC 2002
> LMS wrote:
> > The Cunctator wrote:
>
> Do you perhaps have the notion that, by embracing and showing love to people
> who, to most savvy Internet users, appear to be trolls, they will stop
> behaving trollishly? Do you think, in Craig's case, that he will become a
> non-troll if we love and respect him?
Under certain conditions. Yes.
>
> Let us know, Cunctator: do you think there are trolls on the Internet?
Yes.
> No, it's clear enough. Cunctator may be many things, but he isn't an idiot.
> He knows very well that trolls exist; he knows very well that 24 is a troll
> in one quite ordinary accepted sense of the term; and, as an experienced
> Internet user, he knows very well that one cannot deal effectively with
> trolls by showing them love and respect. Cunctator might protest that he
> does not know all these things. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from
> such protestations.
LMS's surmisals about my knowledge are correct in the first two cases,
but wrong in the third. Moreover, 24 isn't acting like a troll, he's
acting like a defensively intelligent and somewhat socially inept but
honest person, which is quite different, I believe, though many of the
symptoms are similar. Just as viral and bacterial infections often
present many of the same symptoms, the treatments need be different.
>
> > Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians
> > think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular
> > contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking
> > that he's being ganged up on.
> >
> > And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs),
> > Wikipedia is pretty weak.
>
> Here, you are trying to win sympathy for Craig, it seems, as well as for
> yourself. We are "ganging up" on poor "24," just as we ganged up on you.
I was trying to say that 24's belief that he's being ganged up on is a
misjudgment of the situation. I wasn't trying to win sympathy for
anyone.
> > But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a
> > while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect
> > bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.
>
> I'd certainly like to know if it's not obvious to anyone other than you and
> Michael Irwin. You imply, in your usual way (which is not as subtle as you
> seem to think it is), that all of the *many* people who think that Craig is
> a troll are just being defensive! Indeed they're "intrinsically defensive,"
> whatever that means. In short, their concerns are overblown and generally
> unreasonable, and are mainly due to defensiveness. What a bizarre and
> ridiculous thing to say.
When I wrote "intrinsically defensive", I was referring to people such
as 24, not to "people who think that Craig is a troll". I apologize if
that was unclear.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 198
[Wikipedia-l] Further replies
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at HTEC.com
Sun Apr 14 16:40:39 UTC 2002
I for one don't appreciate this list being used to make personal attacks.
I don't know what exactly you are trying to do by making accusations about
Cunctator, and frankly I don't care. I just don't want to see this stuff on
the list.
Because I am very impressed with the way you formed a community behind the
objective of the NPOV encyclopedia, I am hesitant to say anything be misused
by those who seem to have something against you. But, since this is not the
first time you've lashed out on this list...
Please, use this list for the discussion of the wikipedia project, including
of course specific problems with specific things people have actually done
on the wikipedia, but not for inuendo and personal attacks.
Obviously it is just my personal desire not to see this list used as a
vehicle for attacking people, and you are free to do what you please. But,
I want to state my public support for something Manning Bartlett said in
regards to your previous interactions with Cunctator on the list:
> If you want to criticise a decision, or an action, or an article, or
> discuss a policy, count me in. But I find expressing contempt for any
> individual, for any reason, to be unacceptable in this forum.
See : http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-December/000980.html
Another expample of the problem can be found at:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-March/001598.html
Yours
Mark Christensen
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 5:08 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Further replies
(Sorry, the post from me consisting just of three quoted lines was just a
slip of the fingers!)
Reponses below to Chuck Smith and The Cunctator.
I agree 100% that we should not have to waste our time on issues about
trolls. Unfortunately, we do--it's only by raising consciousness about the
existence of trolls and their methods that we can respond to them
appropriately and effectively.
Just about the only effective thing you can do in response to trolls is to
name and shame them (i.e., unmask them), and then ignore them and encourage
others to ignore them. But unmasking them really is an important thing to
do, for those people who continue to encourage them. Anyway, I'm pretty
much done doing all the unmasking I will be volunteering to do; after this,
I'll shut up and ignore further blathering from the miscreants.
Then, perhaps, we'll have peace, Chuck.
> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Chuck=20Smith?= <msochuck at yahoo.com>
> Peace is cool. I don't believe The Cunctator, Nirwin
> or Larry Sanger are trolls.
Gee thanks, Chuck. :-) I don't think you're a troll either! :-)
> I thought about dropping out of the English Wikipedia
> project because it was just getting too emotional, but
> decided that would just be letting him win his little
> game.
That's precisely the goal of a troll: get the more valuable members of a
forum (or a project, in this case) to drop out and render the project
useless. See this, about the old alt.syntax.tactical group:
http://ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html
There is plenty of evidence that this is precisely what Craig is trying to
do. (24's first name is Craig. Because Craig corresponded with me in the
past and told me that he wrote "natural point of view," and after I did a
Google search, I was able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what his
name, occupation, etc. are. We haven't decided how and whether we want to
unmask him; we were hoping that the threat of unmasking him would make him
go away. Actually, we're hoping that private negotiation will produce some
useful results.) So, anyway, please don't drop out.
> I think we need to really plan ahead and figure out
> how to peacefully defend against this kind of attack
> without losing too much of our resources as a result.
Well, we can start by encouraging in each other the healthy habit of *not
feeding trolls* (after pointing out that they're trolls). But, since this
is a content-generation project, we also have to do damage control. We have
to be bold in undoing the troll's faux submissions. Do not discuss your
changes with the troll; that will only encourage him. That's what trolls
live for!
> Imagine if you will that we have our own world (and in
> a way we do, but stick with me here...) and we accept
> everybody then what do we do with those who don't
> follow the community guidelines?
We hope like hell that the trolls will leave when they are treated like
trolls (i.e., ignored). If they don't, eventually, you'll have to kick them
out on pain of losing the most valuable members of the project. Sorry,
don't shoot the messenger--that's just how trolls and trolling works. It's
been happening for a long time now, and old Internet hands know the drill.
It's just that we on Wikipedia have not been thinking of the possibility
that trolls might attack the project, as they do quite consciously attack
mailing lists and newsgroups, because we haven't gotten used to the idea of
applying the concept of troll to Wikipedia. But it's high time we did.
> Sorry for the rambles, but the whole idea of
> punishment for crimes seems dreadfully obsolete (and
> it wouldn't even work in this case anyway) and I'm
> trying to see alternatives, but I can't think of any.
It's not a punishment for a crime; it's self-preservation against attack.
That's a very important distinction.
> From: kband at www.llamacom.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement
I'd like to reply to this for the sake of those who might find what
Cunctator has to say plausible. Cunctator seems to maintain, puzzlingly (or
not), that 24 is not a troll.
> > Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends
> > with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
>
> I can't say I'm surprised, considering how harshly and snidely he's
> been attacked.
I find it interesting that you and Michael Irwin are the only people to
defend him, Cunctator.
I think he has been treated with far more respect than he deserves.
> Everyone in that page seems to be acting like a
> petulant child,
Well, that's how people become when they are being trolled and don't realize
it. It's what trolls live for. Surely you know that, Cunctator; everybody
with much experience on the Internet does.
> Yes, 24 is aggravating. Yes, he's silly and stubborn. But then
> people call him a troll, and slam him on this mailing list, and say
> he's doing a thousand evil things and attacking Wikipedia and sleeping
> with sheep and best friends with Osama bin Laden. And then we're
> surprised when he falls into the rhetoric of apocalypse?
Actually, I agree with this. This sort of troll will fall into the rhetoric
of apocalypse if people calling him a troll. That's how this sort of troll
operates.
> Yes, Talk:Philosophy of body has heated rhetoric. But that's all it
> is. 24 obviously *likes* Wikipedia.
Strange. It seems obvious to me that he really hates Wikipedia: he hates
the neutral point of view policy that defines it, he hates the fact that
there are a lot of academics on board who can speak authoritatively on
subjects that he can't, he hates the "ontology" behind the selection of
topics, and on and on. That's why, as you would know if you were paying
attention, people keep suggesting that we give him his own wiki. But he
doesn't want his own wiki. He wants to change Wikipedia so radically that
it would be destroyed. Given all this, it is ludicrous to claim that he
"obviously *likes* Wikipedia."
> If we embraced him, showed him
> love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any
> contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his
> intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.
This comment is amazing, and in the game you're playing, Cunctator, a false
move. It reduces your "I am not a troll, just a misunderstood softie"
credibility greatly.
So let's analyze this a bit. Craig's stated his intentions; there's no need
to guess at or interpret them. He wants to get rid of the neutral point of
view, academics, me, and seemingly everyone who disagrees with his "natural
point of view" nonsense. That is tantamount to destroying the project as we
know it. Now explain to me, Cunctator (sure would be nice to know your real
name): how is it that by "embracing him" and "showing him love" we would
accomplish *anything* of use? Since he is a troll (or do you *actually*
need proof of that, Cunctator?), it would only delight him and encourage him
in his trollishness.
Do you perhaps have the notion that, by embracing and showing love to people
who, to most savvy Internet users, appear to be trolls, they will stop
behaving trollishly? Do you think, in Craig's case, that he will become a
non-troll if we love and respect him?
What your comment above seems to imply is that he, in fact, *isn't* a troll,
and perhaps even that there is no such thing as a troll. Let us know,
Cunctator: do you think there are trolls on the Internet? I doubt I'll get
an answer out of you on that one. If I do, it should be very interesting to
read.
No, it's clear enough. Cunctator may be many things, but he isn't an idiot.
He knows very well that trolls exist; he knows very well that 24 is a troll
in one quite ordinary accepted sense of the term; and, as an experienced
Internet user, he knows very well that one cannot deal effectively with
trolls by showing them love and respect. Cunctator might protest that he
does not know all these things. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from
such protestations.
> Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians
> think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular
> contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking
> that he's being ganged up on.
>
> And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs),
> Wikipedia is pretty weak.
Here, you are trying to win sympathy for Craig, it seems, as well as for
yourself. We are "ganging up" on poor "24," just as we ganged up on you.
So you have sympathy for him. Isn't that nice.
> But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a
> while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect
> bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.
I'd certainly like to know if it's not obvious to anyone other than you and
Michael Irwin. You imply, in your usual way (which is not as subtle as you
seem to think it is), that all of the *many* people who think that Craig is
a troll are just being defensive! Indeed they're "intrinsically defensive,"
whatever that means. In short, their concerns are overblown and generally
unreasonable, and are mainly due to defensiveness. What a bizarre and
ridiculous thing to say.
> These are just my thoughts, worth little unless they have value to you.
How good of you, Cunctator. How could anyone who is willing to recognize
publicly that others might regard his thoughts as worth little, who is
willing to laughingly and sheepishly acknowledge that others *might* think
he himself is a troll, fail to be a respectable, valuable, important member
of the project?--Indeed, how?
Cunctator, you have my permission to place this entire reply to you on your
own delightfully trollish hall of fame page, here:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/user:The+Cunctator/Bias+Talk
I know you'll want to. But don't post parts of it. Post the *whole* thing.
I insist. Supply *context*, Cunctator, it helps readers to understand
events fully.
--Larry
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 199
[Wikipedia-l] I'll leave you alone now :-)
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sun Apr 14 16:44:31 UTC 2002
I just wanted to let you know that I am now officially done writing about
trolls--I've said pretty much what I wanted to say. I sincerely hope that
it has been helpful rather than harmful. I've got to get back to my own
stuff now, so I'm signing off the list.
Also, fair warning--I'm also done helping to maintain Meta-Wikipedia and
Wikipedia in response to this issue.
Good luck!
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 200
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Further replies
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sun Apr 14 17:22:28 UTC 2002
Just as I was about to sign off, I see this from Mark Christensen.
Apologies, but I can't let this go unanswered: I certainly do not want it
to be thought generally that I am willing to abuse the list for irrational
personal reasons.
> From: Mark Christensen <mchristensen at HTEC.com>
> I for one don't appreciate this list being used to make personal attacks.
I disagree that it was properly characterizable as "a personal attack."
*Trolls* would certainly want to call the naming and shaming of trolls
"personal attacks" of course; but that implies that the purpose of the
post would be *merely* to vent spleen, and not naming and shaming. That
is not the case here. I am motivated by a *very* strong desire to see
that trolls be treated properly, viz., as trolls; I know, from long
experience (before Wikipedia was ever thought of), that if given proper
attention and respect, trolls can inflict considerable damage to a
community. The first step is to name and shame the trolls. If you
disagree that a person in question is a troll, that is your prerogative;
but you should not accuse *me* of engaging in mere personal attacks,
because that implies that *we could all agree* there were no more to it
than that. Obviously, we cannot all agree that there is more to it than
that.
> I don't know what exactly you are trying to do by making accusations
> about Cunctator, and frankly I don't care. I just don't want to see
> this stuff on the list.
I respect your right to give your opinion on that subject. Given my
position, I obviously must think you are misled, however.
OK, as I said, I'm done here. Mark, if you want, please have the last
word.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 201
[Wikipedia-l] Banning 24
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Sun Apr 14 17:11:35 UTC 2002
For the following writings, I am considering to ban 24 for 48 hours,
starting Monday afternoon and going until Wednesday afternoon. This
will be a warning, to be followed by our first-ever permanent ban if
he doesn't behave.
Disagreements on meta.wikipedia.com, and about the content of
articles, if restrained to the appropriate /talk page and appropriate
normal struggle over the text of an article, are annoying but part of
the process. Personal attacks, though, have no place in our
community, particularly personal attacks which hint strongly at
*physical* attacks.
>Larry deserves the most profound and abusive forms of maltreatment
>imaginable, and not just here online, where he seems to live, but on
>the street. He is one of those "Stupid White Men" who thinks he can
>ignore the world to death, profiting from its demise.
Also, to Chuck Smith,
>I don't consider you a person,
I base this decision in part on my research which leads me to believe
that 24 is Craig Hubley, whose writings you may see here:
http://poetpiet.tripod.com/2001/CraigHubley2.htm
http://poetpiet.tripod.com/2001/CraigHubley_greenethic_prntvrsn.htm
http://poetpiet.tripod.com/2001/six-styles-of-capital.htm
I am open to alternative points of view, which is why I'm not taking the
banning action right now, but instead waiting until more than 24 hours from
now.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 202
[Wikipedia-l] Banning 24
kband at www.llamacom.com
kband at www.llamacom.com
Sun Apr 14 19:03:53 UTC 2002
> For the following writings, I am considering to ban 24 for 48 hours,
> starting Monday afternoon and going until Wednesday afternoon. This
> will be a warning, to be followed by our first-ever permanent ban if
> he doesn't behave.
>
> Disagreements on meta.wikipedia.com, and about the content of
> articles, if restrained to the appropriate /talk page and appropriate
> normal struggle over the text of an article, are annoying but part of
> the process. Personal attacks, though, have no place in our
> community, particularly personal attacks which hint strongly at
> *physical* attacks.
I agree.
I think that one thing to do that's important, especially if
24 is banned, even temporarily, is that his meta-commentary get
restored to the main page of meta. I can't think of any justification
for moving everything he wrote in meta off the main page.
Is there one? Because it seems like those writings are being singled
out without any clear explication of policy.
The below is preaching to the choir, I suspect, but I think it's
important that this point be reiterated:
The most important thing to do in the application and enforcement of
policy and norms (from edits all the way to IP banning) is that the
reasons for those actions are clearly delineated, so that even if
mistakes are made, it's clear what they were, and if mistakes weren't
made, false claims can be refuted.
--tc
cunctator at kband.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 203
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Banning 24
Axel Boldt
axel at uni-paderborn.de
Mon Apr 15 01:31:00 UTC 2002
While childish threats and attacks affect me personally much less than
substantial criticism, I do recognize that others feel differently. I
think a policy of banning users for threats and abuse is therefore
reasonable. However, seeing that the relevant "Rule to Consider" was
added today on 12:51, and the violations of that rule occurred before
that date, I would prefer to warn 24 via email first and start the ban
after the next violation.
Axel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 204
[Wikipedia-l] Banning 24
Joao Mário Miranda
jmiranda at explicacoes.com
Mon Apr 15 01:48:03 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> For the following writings, I am considering to ban 24 for 48 hours,
> starting Monday afternoon and going until Wednesday afternoon. This
> will be a warning, to be followed by our first-ever permanent ban if
> he doesn't behave.
I suggest the redirection of 24 to an exact wikipedia clone. 24 can have
his own database. His database can be updated with changes from the real
wikipedia and with 24's changes. The real database should ignore 24.
:)
Another interesting solution is to artificially slow down his connection
by introduction of random delays to his IP number in the code.
Joao
http://www.nonio.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 205
[Wikipedia-l] Banning 24
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Mon Apr 15 02:44:18 UTC 2002
On dim, 2002-04-14 at 18:48, Joao Mário Miranda wrote:
> Another interesting solution is to artificially slow down his connection
> by introduction of random delays to his IP number in the code.
Oh, we have that in place already! Unfortunately, we haven't figured out
how to narrow it down to just him, so to be on the safe side it affects
all users. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 206
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Banning 24
Ian
rsvr4cqdon001 at sneakemail.com
Mon Apr 15 03:08:31 UTC 2002
I disagree. Wishing harm on people is not something that needs to be
spelled out as unreasonable beforehand. I think suspension is a good idea.
Ian Monroe
http://ian.webhop.org
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Axel Boldt axel at uni-paderborn.de XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> While childish threats and attacks affect me personally much less than
> substantial criticism, I do recognize that others feel differently. I
> think a policy of banning users for threats and abuse is therefore
> reasonable. However, seeing that the relevant "Rule to Consider" was
> added today on 12:51, and the violations of that rule occurred before
> that date, I would prefer to warn 24 via email first and start the ban
> after the next violation.
>
> Axel
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 207
[Wikipedia-l] Ban on 24
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 15 03:13:34 UTC 2002
On Sunday 14 April 2002 12:01 pm, Jimbo wrote:
> >Larry deserves the most profound and abusive forms of maltreatment
> >imaginable, and not just here online, where he seems to live, but on
> >the street. He is one of those "Stupid White Men" who thinks he can
> >ignore the world to death, profiting from its demise.
>
> Also, to Chuck Smith,
>
> >I don't consider you a person,
Yes, this is not at all acceptable -- in fact I've heard of people getting
sued and slapped with withstraining orders for this type of rhetoric. The
offending material also needs to be permanently removed. I think you are the
only one that can do that if it is on the meta though Jimbo.
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 208
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #362 - 4 msgs
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 15 16:50:08 UTC 2002
Hi all --
Larry, I liked your rule for ad hominem attacks -- and agree with you on
trolls (but also think Lee might be right about outing the trolls). One
thing though...(and I know I should be a grown-up and consider the
source and not be bothered by it...) where do we fit comments like Ed's
-- he agrees with the rule, with the exception that he can continue to
refer to me as his "dear lab rat" ? And yes, I know I probably brought
it on myself for feeding his occasionally troll-like behavior , but
REALLY!!!! <whingeing session over now>
Julie
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 209
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism?
D Fisher
fisherd at btinternet.com
Wed Apr 17 10:41:03 UTC 2002
Dear All
Having been involved with wikipedia for only a few weeks, I have just had my first "personal" experience of vandalism, ie. someone deleted the bulk of an article I had written, leaving an unintelligible stub. Fortunately I have been able to pick up the original text and put it back. I know that there are set procedures for dealing with this, but I would like to ask: How often does this kind of thing happen? And can I assume that this is vandalism rather than a simple error (bearing in mind that the perpetrator doesn't have a proper ID?
Deb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020417/53ffbae7/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 210
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Apr 18 01:02:04 UTC 2002
D Fisher wrote:
> Having been involved with wikipedia for only a few weeks, I have
>just had my first "personal" experience of vandalism, ie. someone
>deleted the bulk of an article I had written, leaving an
>unintelligible stub. Fortunately I have been able to pick up the
>original text and put it back. I know that there are set procedures
>for dealing with this, but I would like to ask: How often does this
>kind of thing happen? And can I assume that this is vandalism rather
>than a simple error (bearing in mind that the perpetrator doesn't have
>a proper ID?
It happens less often than I could have ever guessed -- I mean, it's
pretty insane to have a website up where people can freely edit the
pages, eh?
I think that it *might* be vandalism, or it *might* be an accident.
Or it might be a combination of the two. Maybe someone saw the link
saying they could edit the page, couldn't _believe_ that this was
true, and tried it by deleting the whole page, assuming that there
must be some "trick". Then, to their horror, they found that it
worked, and fled in terror.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 211
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism?
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Thu Apr 18 01:29:27 UTC 2002
On mer, 2002-04-17 at 18:02, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> D Fisher wrote:
> > Having been involved with wikipedia for only a few weeks, I have
> >just had my first "personal" experience of vandalism, ie. someone
> >deleted the bulk of an article I had written, leaving an
> >unintelligible stub. Fortunately I have been able to pick up the
> >original text and put it back. I know that there are set procedures
> >for dealing with this, but I would like to ask: How often does this
> >kind of thing happen? And can I assume that this is vandalism rather
> >than a simple error (bearing in mind that the perpetrator doesn't have
> >a proper ID?
>
> It happens less often than I could have ever guessed -- I mean, it's
> pretty insane to have a website up where people can freely edit the
> pages, eh?
>
> I think that it *might* be vandalism, or it *might* be an accident.
> Or it might be a combination of the two. Maybe someone saw the link
> saying they could edit the page, couldn't _believe_ that this was
> true, and tried it by deleting the whole page, assuming that there
> must be some "trick". Then, to their horror, they found that it
> worked, and fled in terror.
Occasionally on the Esperanto wiki we've had new people visit and,
deciding to add an article, find the "How to edit a page" page (which
describes how easy it is to edit, just by clicking the "Edit this page!"
link). Naturally, they click the "edit this page" link... and replace
"How to edit a page" with their new article.
We have since made the documentation a little more explicit. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 212
[Wikipedia-l] Blocking IPs and related wikiware tweaks proposal
Daniel Lee Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 21 05:16:06 UTC 2002
On Saturday I blocked 212.138.47.12 after this person deleted content from at
least three Islam related articles ([[Qur'an]], [[Dialect]], & [[Muslim
language]]).
It would be nice if I could have stated my reason why as part of the blocking
process and for [[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] to show up in Recent Changes with
my explanation automatically in an edit comment.
I really don't think the current seemingly hush-hush setup will alleviate
fears in some that a secretive cabal has taken over the 'pedia. I know that
this is not the case and not the intention of the current setup, but others
don't.
We should be completely open with everything we do and the software needs to
be tweaked to make this natural and easy. There should also be a notice on
[[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] telling the world just how long an IP is blocked
and there should eventually be the ability for other sysops to undue an IP
ban if a mistake has been made.
On a related front: Is it possible to block the IP of a logged in user? There
is nothing stopping a vandal from logging in and doing harm. Although I am
not aware of any logged in user actually performing a systematic assault on
articles there have been several logged in users uploading copyrighted or
inappropriate material.
BTW it also would be nice to be able to more easily track what these vandals
have done so that the other damage these people have probably done can be
fixed. Otherwise many of the less obvious changes these people have made will
be obscured by someone else editing a vandalized article in order to improve
it -- thus removing their IP/user name from Recent Changes. Could
"contributions of xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" automatically be generated and placed on
[[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] when xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is blocked?
As soon as we decide what to do with these issues in general this discussion
should be switched to the developer mailing list to work out the details.
maveric
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 213
[Wikipedia-l] Blocking IPs and related wikiware tweaks proposal
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Sun Apr 21 05:45:23 UTC 2002
On sab, 2002-04-20 at 22:16, Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
> On Saturday I blocked 212.138.47.12 after this person deleted content from at
> least three Islam related articles ([[Qur'an]], [[Dialect]], & [[Muslim
> language]]).
(See notes in [[Wikipedia talk:Blocked IPs]] for more details.)
> It would be nice if I could have stated my reason why as part of the blocking
> process and for [[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] to show up in Recent Changes with
> my explanation automatically in an edit comment.
Agreed, I was going to add that feature but didn't finish it. I'll get
on that...
> I really don't think the current seemingly hush-hush setup will alleviate
> fears in some that a secretive cabal has taken over the 'pedia. I know that
> this is not the case and not the intention of the current setup, but others
> don't.
>
> We should be completely open with everything we do and the software needs to
> be tweaked to make this natural and easy. There should also be a notice on
> [[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] telling the world just how long an IP is blocked
The time the ban was made appears in the list. Unfortunately, it appears
as the number of seconds since January 1, 1970. :)
That's already fixed in the development version.
> and there should eventually be the ability for other sysops to undue an IP
> ban if a mistake has been made.
All sysops can un-ban people simply by editing [[wikipedia:Banned IPs]]
and removing the address in question from the list. Maybe this should be
stated in a message at the top of the page?
> On a related front: Is it possible to block the IP of a logged in user? There
> is nothing stopping a vandal from logging in and doing harm. Although I am
> not aware of any logged in user actually performing a systematic assault on
> articles there have been several logged in users uploading copyrighted or
> inappropriate material.
No, not at this time. Blocks will (I think) apply to anyone, whether
they *subsequently* log in or not, but if they're logged in while they
do their initial dirty work there's no way to ban them (short of having
Jimbo comb through the server logs to find their IP address) because the
IP won't be recorded in the database, just the username.
> BTW it also would be nice to be able to more easily track what these vandals
> have done so that the other damage these people have probably done can be
> fixed. Otherwise many of the less obvious changes these people have made will
> be obscured by someone else editing a vandalized article in order to improve
> it -- thus removing their IP/user name from Recent Changes. Could
> "contributions of xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" automatically be generated and placed on
> [[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] when xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is blocked?
Yeah, that's easy to do. I'll add it if there's no objection.
> As soon as we decide what to do with these issues in general this discussion
> should be switched to the developer mailing list to work out the details.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 214
[Wikipedia-l] Blocking IPs and related wikiware tweaks proposal
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Sun Apr 21 06:51:02 UTC 2002
On sab, 2002-04-20 at 22:45, I wrote:
> On sab, 2002-04-20 at 22:16, Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
> > It would be nice if I could have stated my reason why as part of the blocking
> > process and for [[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] to show up in Recent Changes with
> > my explanation automatically in an edit comment.
>
> Agreed, I was going to add that feature but didn't finish it. I'll get
> on that...
Done...
> > BTW it also would be nice to be able to more easily track what these vandals
> > have done so that the other damage these people have probably done can be
> > fixed. Otherwise many of the less obvious changes these people have made will
> > be obscured by someone else editing a vandalized article in order to improve
> > it -- thus removing their IP/user name from Recent Changes. Could
> > "contributions of xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" automatically be generated and placed on
> > [[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] when xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is blocked?
>
> Yeah, that's easy to do. I'll add it if there's no objection.
and done (in the development version, that is).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 215
[Wikipedia-l] considering blocking an IP
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Sun Apr 21 16:58:06 UTC 2002
I am very close to blocking 194.117.133.118, who seems to be using the Wiki
for a campaign against ukonline.gov.uk.
Any arguments *against* blocking this person, please?
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 216
[Wikipedia-l] What is the "Edit user settings" feature?
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu May 16 05:28:57 UTC 2002
What is the "Edit user settings" feature? I hadn't heard anything about it
before, but apparently now any sysop can edit the privileges of any other
user -- including other sysops. A privilege formerly only granted to Jimbo.
This could be a useful feature if the sysops knew what each level does and
there was some type of framework for sysops to follow (thinking of checks and
balances here).
Also, what does it mean to be a:
System operator
(I assume this means a sysop since this is checked for the registered sysops
-- does this also mean that any sysop can promote any user to sysop status,
or demote any sysop to a common user? If so, then a feature like this
probably should have been discussed here -- on the policy mailing list --
before it was implemented.)
System developer
(Does this refer to one of the wikiware gods (Like Brion or Magnus)? Probably
should have been discussed before implementation too)
Trusted hand
(What privileges does this grant a user beyond the defaults?)
-- maveric
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 217
[Wikipedia-l] What is the "Edit user settings" feature?
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Thu May 16 06:13:59 UTC 2002
On mer, 2002-05-15 at 22:28, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> What is the "Edit user settings" feature? I hadn't heard anything about it
> before, but apparently now any sysop can edit the privileges of any other
> user -- including other sysops. A privilege formerly only granted to Jimbo.
>
> This could be a useful feature if the sysops knew what each level does and
> there was some type of framework for sysops to follow (thinking of checks and
> balances here).
Bah! Always asking for documentation, you people! :)
> Also, what does it mean to be a:
>
> System operator
> (I assume this means a sysop since this is checked for the registered sysops
Yes.
> -- does this also mean that any sysop can promote any user to sysop status,
> or demote any sysop to a common user? If so, then a feature like this
> probably should have been discussed here -- on the policy mailing list --
> before it was implemented.)
It does seem a potentially controversial point... I think Magnus stuck
it in specifically so he could grant himself developer priviledges and
fix a problem with the database that was causing trouble (see below).
I'm not sure whether this is intended as a permanent feature or if it's
a entirely good idea.
In any case, having a convenient interface page for setting user
priveleges is probably not a bad thing; if it's preferred that only the
guy who owns the server gets to wield it, that's easily fixed.
> System developer
> (Does this refer to one of the wikiware gods (Like Brion or Magnus)? Probably
> should have been discussed before implementation too)
This grants the ability to run SQL queries directly on the database that
could affect the data.
This is occasionally useful to fix something: for instance, Magnus was
recently able to recreate the "unlinked" link table which had been
corrupted and was no longer accessible -- thus breaking 'Most Wanted'
and several other things -- which could then be fully rebuilt by a
script run by Jimmy. But it's easy to, say, delete the entire database
if you don't know what you're doing; hence the restriction to known
developers.
I'm quite sure that was discussed on wikipedia-l a month or so ago...
Yeah, here it is:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001707.html
> Trusted hand
> (What privileges does this grant a user beyond the defaults?)
As far as I know there is nothing in the code that currently checks for
this, and I'm not sure what it's intended to mean. Magnus?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 218
[Wikipedia-l] AW: Re: [Wikipedia-l] What is the "Edit user settings" feature?
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Thu May 16 07:41:40 UTC 2002
>> Trusted hand
>> (What privileges does this grant a user beyond the defaults?)
>
>As far as I know there is nothing in the code that currently checks for
>this, and I'm not sure what it's intended to mean. Magnus?
Originally, this was intended to be something between "normal" user and
sysop, someone who can do things like deleting pages, but without, say,
SQL access.
As this was solved by making eveyone who wants to sysop and restricting
sysop SQL access, it is currently not used at all.
If (one day, in a galaxy far, far away;) we can decide on implementing a
"stable" namespace for keeping good articles as a stable copy, the "trusted"
status might come in handy as the "key" for copying articles to that namespace
(if we let everybody do that, it won't be a stable namespace anymore...).
Magnus
________________________________________
Zeitschriftenabos online bestellen - jetzt neu im Infoboten! http://www.epost.de
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 219
[Wikipedia-l] Re: What is the "Edit user settings" feature?
Axel Boldt
axel at uni-paderborn.de
Thu May 16 14:54:55 UTC 2002
It seems plain to me that Jimbo and Magus should have developer status
and that the "Edit user settings" feature should be restricted to
developers.
Axel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 220
[Wikipedia-l] What is the "Edit user settings" feature?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu May 16 17:16:10 UTC 2002
Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
> It does seem a potentially controversial point... I think Magnus stuck
> it in specifically so he could grant himself developer priviledges and
> fix a problem with the database that was causing trouble (see below).
> I'm not sure whether this is intended as a permanent feature or if it's
> a entirely good idea.
Wikipedia is based on trust. If we can't trust sysops, we're in big
trouble anyway. :-)
I was opposed to the general ability to let people (even sysops)
execute arbitrary SQL commands via the web, not because of trust per
se, but because of the high risk of an accident. It makes me
personally very nervous when I have to type in raw SQL, and so I
imagine it's not a good thing for anyone to be doing, except for
developers and then only for specific and emergency-ish reasons.
Sysop status should be available to just about anyone who asks, and
the privileges of the sysop should be so minimal as to justify this
policy.
The main thing we want to prevent is the notion of an "elite" who
directs the wikipedia and gets to say who participates in driving the
content *through the use of special powers*. The rare exceptions
should be agonized over, and should be restricted to people who just
refuse to even try to get along with us.
I think that all sysops and especially developers should work really really
hard to make sure to NEVER use any special powers in a content argument. It's
just not fair, and not in the spirit of wikipedia consensus.
For example, I'd be pretty pissed at a developer who made a raw SQL command
to delete another user, or to delete an article that was in contention. Yuck.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 221
[Wikipedia-l] Paedophilia on Wikipedia
d.n.mckee
d.n.mckee at durham.ac.uk
Tue May 21 07:03:12 UTC 2002
Um... why is paedophilia in 'current events and breaking news'?
Dragon Dave.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 222
[Wikipedia-l] Paedophilia on Wikipedia
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Tue May 21 13:26:13 UTC 2002
At 08:03 AM 5/21/02 +0100, Dragon Dave wrote:
>Um... why is paedophilia in 'current events and breaking news'?
Probably because of the current scandal in the US about pedophile priests
and the Catholic Church.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 223
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Review mechanism ? Stable pages ?
Brion L. VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue May 21 17:59:22 UTC 2002
On mar, 2002-05-21 at 10:40, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> Have you looked up recently the Wikipedia page
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Karl_Landsteiner as I did yesterday ?
Well, I did just now, and I replaced the garbage with a brief stub after
a 10-second google search turned up several informationful web pages
about the guy. You could have done that yourself!
> With growing number of pages we either need some review and approval
> mechanism or a stable namespace or even a stable version of Wikipedia
> (that would be so open for editing for everyone).
>
> What do you think ?
The system we have is based on two ideas:
a) Changes to articles will be seen and reviewed by other wikipedians
and
b) Wikipedians will improve articles they find to be lacking
A is dependent on the number of wikipedians interested in any particular
topic (or with a mind to check out new articles), and B is dependent on
YOU.
Now, in the case of [[Karl Landsteiner]], the article only has some 47
hits listed at the moment. Most of those are probably spiders; a few
more for the idiot who put together the page, and a couple for you and
me. Maybe nobody else ever bothered to look at the article before, and
it thus survived for a month before being corrected.
If we required that pages be reviewed before they appear to mortal
users, would anyone still have ever looked at it? Would it be sitting in
a queue still, invisible? Maybe that would be good for this particular
article, but would we want that for all the little-seen articles that
*aren't* garbage?
I dunno.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 224
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Manning's beta/stable comments
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat May 25 07:33:48 UTC 2002
On Friday 24 May 2002 12:01 pm, Manning wrote:
> Beta-stable: In the words of Mr Horse (from Ren and Stimpy) "No Sir, I
> don't like it". One of LMS's early ideas was that when an article looked
> good enough it would get moved to Nupedia. Problem with that was that
> no-one ever actually went to Nupedia.
My opinion on the reason why this particular idea of Larry's didn't work was
because there wasn't <i>any</i> practical (or otherwise) integration of
Nupedia with wikipedia <i>and</i> the two projects represented two different
cultures and methodologies -- not because the concept was inherently flawed.
If there is tight integration of this proposed functionality and it is made
very clear to viewers of the static pages that an editable version exists by
"clicking here", I think it just may work. Although to clarify, I think the
most current editable version of articles should be the one displayed by
default -- a user would have to click to view the reviewed version (the
difference between the two versions also needs to be made obvious and
intuitive).
> The same will happen here, if we create a Wikipedia that is static (can't
> be edited) then no-one will go there. Even the people who are truly only
> here to browse will gravitate to the dynamic site, simply because it is
> possible that that site "is more current".
Interesting idea, but I think this only really applies to casual visitors and
not to researchers or students who need reliable data. For example:
If I needed information about a topic I would put far more trust in a static
page that had been reviewed by 10 people with trusted status than I would
place on an "up to date" yet un-reviewed version. How could I trust the
validity of the world-editable version if I were witting a report? What use
would there be in citing and linking to the world-editable version if I can't
have a reasonable amount of confidence that the information I am citing will
be there when someone checking my work follows the link?
It would reflect very negatively on me if I cited something interesting I
found in a beautifully written and informative - yet world editable -
wikipedia article on say the Apollo Moon landings, and then a reviewer of my
work checked the link and instead of seeing what I saw, sees a totally
unrelated and unintelligible diatribe about CARROTS. Or worse, the version of
the article that the reviewer sees was rewritten by a pseudoscience freak who
is highly skeptical of NASA's "claim" that the Moon landings actually took
place. How is that going to make me and my work look to the reviewer?
> To prove this I'd recommend creating a one-off Static version, putting a
> link to it from the dynamic site and then monitoring web-traffic over a
> period of 2- 3 months. Even after the site has been around for a while I'd
> be willing to wager it would still be a very lonely place.
Sounds like a reasonable.proposal -- I too am not totally convinced that any
proposed "review process" can actually work. But my concern is that the size
of our current contributor base is not yet large enough to make this
practical. There doesn't seem to be enough eyes yet to keep reviewed versions
of articles reasonably up-to-date. And there is of course a HUGE backlog of
articles that haven't been touched by any editor for multiple months. But
then, starting this process wouldn't hurt the current "unreliable" status of
wikipedia articles and may in time lead to wikipedia being viewed as being a
more trusted source of information (if only for the handful of reviewed
articles).
> If I am wrong, and the site does get a lot of traffic, well then we should
> spend the time and develop a proper management and quality control system.
> But until we have proved its viability, we would just be wasting effort -
> effort better spent on creating/editing articles.
I agree in part -- if we decide to do this, then we need to give it a lot of
thought and not rush into things (best to do it right than to do it fast).
But because this idea has such great potential, I think it <i>is</i>
something we should investigate and give a chance. This is something that
won't really get a lot of traffic at first - there needs to be a critical
mass of reviewed articles before traffic to them in general increases
significantly (even a hundred reviewed articles would be totally lost in the
current database).
If done correctly this could finally begin to make wikipedia a critically
respected source of human knowledge that people can depend on and come back
to over and over again.
-- maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 225
[Wikipedia-l] Comments on Axel's beta/stable ideas
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat May 25 08:42:13 UTC 2002
On Thursday 23 May 2002 12:01 pm, Axel wrote:
> That said, here's my minimalistic suggestion: everything works exactly
> as it does now, except that every page gets two additional links:
> "View last reviewed version of this article" and "I have reviewed this
> version of the article and I think it is ok". The history of every
> article would record who has reviewed which version of the article and
> when.
>
> The set of all "last reviewed versions" could then be seen as the
> "stable" Wikipedia and could be pressed on CD. This would at least
> guard against vandalism, stupid jokes and blatant propaganda and
> advertising that sometimes gets through.
>
Cool! What a fantastic idea!. I also like the idea of having two versions of
an article; but I would simply call them Reviewed and Development. The
reviewed one would be a static page that could be replaced with the
Development (editable) version of an article whenever a certain number of
reviewers give it the OK. It also would be most excellent to have an even
higher level of review called "Peer Review" that would be performed by
somebody with a related college degree.
This level of review would be roughly analogous to what Nupedia had (has?)
set-up but should done in a better way. But then the devil is in the details
here and we may need to temporarily freeze an article while it is being peer
reviewed so the expert can fix any glitches, submit the article as peer
reviewed and reopen the development version back to the masses (the
reviewer(s) should only have a very limited amount of time to review/fix the
article while the development version is locked). This might be a messy thing
to do in practice though and we should discuss this at length in order to
work out the details if we decide to do this at all.
So potentially we might have three versions of an article; one which is world
editable, one which was voted to be OK by users, and one that was tweaked and
made to conform to higher Nupedia-like standards.
> The only issue is: who is allowed to review articles? The pragmatic
> answer would be: all sysops.
Somewhat disagree: I tend to agree with Chuck's previous comment here in that
I think we should open this up to anybody who has been a user for over 3
months. I would add though that exceptions should be made for anybody who has
edited a reasonable set number of articles and who has the backing of at
least one sysop. We could update the software to give these user's special
<i>additional</i> rights automatically after three months and/or after they
edit more than a set number of articles (thus making them then eligible for
sysop promotion). We could then call these users "trusted hands" (which is
already in the wikiware code -- but a "trusted hand" doesn't have any more
rights than a regular user does in the current set up -- correct me if I am
wrong Brion).
It would also be nice for a sysop to have the ability to "reset the clock" as
Chuck proposed for anybody who doesn't follow established policy after being
warned. The warning process could be started by a posting a message on a
special page by at least one person with "trusted hand" or greater
status. These warnings shouldn't do anything other than inform the user that
"they have been warned" with a reason why (there could be an automatic
temporary suspension of "trusted hand" status by being warned -- but I'm not
sure if I like that idea). These warnings could also automatically expire
after a set amount of time and/or number of edits unless somebody else renews
the warning. In addition, a "trusted hand" or sysop should be able to remove
the warnings if a mistake had been made. If the user doesn't get his or her
act together during the warning period, a sysop could then reset the user's
clock (which should have to be a <i>different</i> person than the one
starting the warning process).
Blatant trolling or VANDALISM could also be logged on these warning pages.
The warner could choose from a checklist of options when warning the warnee.
Such a list might include these options: Introduced bias, Rambling
contributions, Falsification of facts, Nonsensical/inappropriate
contributions, Introduction of propaganda, Sloppiness, Violation of naming
conventions or VANDALISM. If VANDALISM is selected then in addition to the
warning page a VANDALISM in PROGRESS page can also be displayed on
RecentChanges with the "contributions of" the warnee automatically placed on
that page.
There should, however, be some safeguards to help ensure that honest mistakes
by contributors are not used as the basis to warn a person (perhaps have a
silent first warning that only the warner and warnee know of... but then how
would you make that work?) . I'm concerned that such a system might be used
too much and contributors might think twice about hitting the save button. If
misused, such a system could have negative effects on the number and extent
of contributions wikipedia receives. So, if something like this is deemed
necessary, then great care must be taken to minimize possible negative
side-effects. But something similar to this will probably be needed in the
coming years as the number of active contributors becomes larger than anyone
(including users like me who contribute at least 3-4 hours a day on average)
is able to keep track of.
> A code of honor is probably in order,
> saying that no sysop should review an article that they themselves
> substantially contributed to.
In principle this might be a good idea but in practice I don't think this
would work with the size of our current contributor-base (not to mention
sysop-base). As it is right now in many cases the people with the greatest
knowledge and ability to review an article have already significantly
contributed to it.
The "honor system" set-up may work after a few more years when wikipedia has
literally thousands of people contributing daily and has close to 100,000
articles (which is an arbitrary goal BTW -- I doubt we will all stop
submitting new articles when the project is "complete"). Then we could
reasonably expect that there would be enough "trusted hands" with sufficient
knowledge of the subject <i>and</i> who had not already contributed much to
the article to be able to vote it up or down.
Given all that -- I do have reservations that the power to warn and reset the
clocks of users may be abused and this could change the character of
wikipedia and discourage contributions. However, given that IP banning hasn't
<yet> been abused by any sysops I have hope that such a system might just
work.
If we could somehow ensure that we have reasonably competent reviewers then
Wikipedia could then (eventually) become what Nupedia was not able to be: an
extensive, trusted and useful source of human knowledge. We are almost at the
extensive stage -- Should we work on a framework for establishing reasonable
trust and therefore usefullness of our articles? I vote for yes.
Just my 1.5 cents
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 226
[Wikipedia-l] Locking articles in a content war?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Sat May 25 20:42:41 UTC 2002
Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
> As far as I know, the ability to protect pages from edits by non-sysop
> users was added to protect against frequent vandalism of the main page.
> Is it appropriate to be using this ability in a content war, for example
> [[Reciprocal System of Theory]]?
No! That's very unwiki. Very Very un-Wiki.
I just now unprotected it.
I looks like maveric149 protected the page. I'm tempted to remove
your sysop status, mav. But I don't want this to be a big fight or
anything. Let's just not do this.
The only reason we have sysop status is (a) to gently counter some
kinds of vandalism and (b) allow users who 'know the ropes' to do some
technical things that are a bit too dangerous to leave open to
everyone.
Protecting pages over the long haul, like the front page for example,
should be based on the particular high profile of that particular
page, and verified instances of abuse. (Someone was putting penis
pictures on the home page, ha ha, not so funny, so we had to lock it
away from anyone who isn't a known face.)
Protecting pages in a crisis would be fine, like if some jerk is going
through seriously vandalizing the site. Banning would be o.k. at that
time, too.
But the single central principle that we have to adhere to, as sysops,
is that our "sysop jobs" are totally separate from our "participation
jobs". This is the heart and soul of the wiki, the willingness to
meet on a level playing field and try hard, HARD, to find a way to
peacefully present the information in a way that's satisfactory to
everyone.
The biggest temptation will be in cases like this -- belligerent defense by
an unknown person of what appears to be kooky ideas. I haven't actually
read the disputed material in detail yet, but I get the gist of what's going
on.
I'm sympathetic, but we have a code of honor that we need to follow.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 227
[Wikipedia-l] Reciprocal system...
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Sat May 25 20:45:05 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> There's no real conflict; there's one anonymous crackpot with a
> pet theory, and the rest of the reasonable community. The crackpot
> doesn't even /try/ to follow our guidelines here--he simply wants
> to make that article an advertisement for his pseudoscientific
> bullshit, and when we try to make a useful article out of it, he
> just restores his crap. I don't think we should "lock" the article,
> but only because that prevents other reasonable people from editing
> it. I /do/ think we should ban the crackpot if he doesn't give up.
I think that's right. I think that a case could be made -- but we'd
need to get some consensus first -- that locking the article to
prevent him from overwriting it would be justified if we already had
banned him, and if he was evading the ban. Removing the object of his
affection might help in a case like that.
> In general, though, I think we should not make hard-and-fast rules
> about use of sysop features. We should use judgment, and do whatever
> is good for the project. A content war between reasonable people
> who disagree is one thing, and we should treat such a conflict with
> respect. But a crackpot spreading total nonsense is another, and we
> should use whatever tools we have to defend against his damage.
I agree with this, subject to a caveat that we should take the sysop
code of honor seriously, and try hard not to have it come to this.
The banning of 24 was done only after much soul searching. It seems to have
worked.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 228
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Locking articles in a content war?
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat May 25 21:14:17 UTC 2002
On Saturday 25 May 2002 12:01 pm, Brion wrote:
> As far as I know, the ability to protect pages from edits by non-sysop
> users was added to protect against frequent vandalism of the main page.
> Is it appropriate to be using this ability in a content war, for example
> [[Reciprocal System of Theory]]?
As a general rule, most definitely yes. But in this case the eidt war had
degenerated in outright replacement with one totally different version with
another, then back again, then another revert, etc. This amounts to a type
vandalism and is counterproductive for all involved (although since this
"vandalism" is only being wrought onto a single article, it makes FAR more
sense to protect the page than even begining to consider banning an IP).
The article can just as easily be unprotected as soon as things settle down
(the period of protection was never meant to last more than a few days --
just enough time for the partisans to talk about what to do next). If a sysop
ever has to do this, then a reason why it had to be done should always be
placed in the talk for that the page in question. As was done.
If that sysop makes a mistake in judgement, then another syop can just as
easily reverse the protection. BUT the other sysops need to be informed that
such action is being taken. Perhaps it will be better to first bring this to
the mailing list instead of just placing a note on talk page....
Just read the talk and especially the old talk for [[Reciprocal System of
Theory]]: One inherently POV version was being advocated by a single person
named Doug and another NPOV version had been worked and agreed upon by a half
dozen others. After a previous version war in January Doug returns and places
his POV version in the place of the agreed upon NPOV version of January. Then
the version war started up again with one version being replaced by another
in kind.
Some discussion should take place as to when this ability should be used. If
it is only appropriate to use the protection function of the software on the
main page and maybe special and possibly on some wikipedia-specific pages,
then this function should be disabled by default to all but those pages.
Please reverse the protection of [[Reciprocal System of Theory]] if this
action was not appropriate.
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 229
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Reciprocal system...
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun May 26 21:58:09 UTC 2002
On Sunday 26 May 2002 12:01 pm, : lcrocker wrote:
> There's no real conflict; there's one anonymous crackpot with a
> pet theory, and the rest of the reasonable community. The crackpot
> doesn't even /try/ to follow our guidelines here--he simply wants
> to make that article an advertisement for his pseudoscientific
> bullshit, and when we try to make a useful article out of it, he
> just restores his crap. I don't think we should "lock" the article,
> but only because that prevents other reasonable people from editing
> it. I /do/ think we should ban the crackpot if he doesn't give up.
>
Hum, I don't know about banning his IP; that seems to be a drastic measure
given that the "crackpot's" focus is on a single page. However, I think we
should at least try to make his version closer to NPOV by editing it and
placing in appropriate qualifiers. Such as; "Larson says X, however working
scientists in the field say Y." The protection on the page has been lifted
and Doug has already been warned <not> to simply replace the current version
with his own. We should consider a ban <If> and <only> if, he reverts the
article again. Otherwise I think we should at least try to make his version
more NPOV.
> In general, though, I think we should not make hard-and-fast rules
> about use of sysop features. We should use judgment, and do whatever
> is good for the project. A content war between reasonable people
> who disagree is one thing, and we should treat such a conflict with
> respect. But a crackpot spreading total nonsense is another, and we
> should use whatever tools we have to defend against his damage.
Well since I was the one who protected the page, I guess I have to agree with
you Lee. ;) Actually, I totally agree with you - within the context of a
general framework, we should be able to exercise case-by-case judgement as to
when we use our sysop powers to do what we feel is the best <for the good of
the project.>.
With that said, I do think that a slightly different protocol for protecting
pages needs to be devised (otherwise the question would not have been posed
in the first place). Should we bother the list with requests for protecting
particular pages? If so, then it would also make sense to bother the list to
ban IPs since I feel this is even a more drastic measure than <temporarily>
protecting a page. However, a lot of damage can be done during the delay....
This may not be as much of an issue with protecting a single page though
(since it can just be restored later). On the other hand, others may make
valid edits to the POV version inputed by a troll which causes versioning
issues that would have to be worked-out later. My view, is that the sysop
doing the protecting should list the reasons why on the talk for the page and
the lock should be limited in duration (unless it is on the main or one of
the policy pages). It would also be nice to have a comment field on the
protection page and and an easy to find log of 'who has protected what' and
why.
In this particular case, I looked over the edit history of the page, and read
both the talk and old talk. After that, it was my personal <judgement> that
Doug's actions bordered on vandalism since he was replacing an agreed upon
version with his own biased one. But I did not feel that it would at all have
been appropriate to consider banning his IP <because> his actions were only
directed at a single page. This may have been an error in judgement on my
part since this had the effect of not allowing <anybody> but sysops to edit
the page (it would be nice to have the ability to limit certain classes of
contributors from editing a protected page - <only> blocking non-logged-in
users would have worked in this case). All I wanted to do was to force a
truce in order to stop the version war <so that> a compromise could be
reached.
I could have <easily> protected the page and not tell anybody about it.
PS PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE lets limit this discussion so that we can discuss
the FAR more interesting ideas on beta/stable. I fear that this will become a
red herring and trump that discussion...
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 230
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Jimbo's comment
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun May 26 22:24:36 UTC 2002
On Sunday 26 May 2002 12:01 pm, Jimbo wrote:
> I looks like maveric149 protected the page. I'm tempted to remove
> your sysop status, mav.
I have emailed Jimbo directly concerning this statement.
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 231
[Wikipedia-l] Doug's most recent response on [[talk:Reciprocal System of Theory]] --> encouraging start
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon May 27 05:59:25 UTC 2002
Below is a copy of the most recent talk on [[talk:Reciprocal System of
Theory]]:
Responding to some positive posts, maveric149 wrote:
Fantastic! I have been waiting for somebody else to chime in. Now maybe we
can continue the discussion so that the longer version can be tweaked some
more so that the people advocating the shorter version will be satisfied or
at the very least be able to live with a modified longer version. I would
like to hear from them -- especially since they have more complete knowledge
of the subject matter and arguments against it (which will be needed to make
the longer version closer to NPOV). I would like to second 130.94.121.26's
(is that you Jimbo?) statement about not simply replacing the current version
with the longer one until a compromise is reached. Perhaps if those with
knowledge of why this theory is pseudoscience heavily edited the longer
version, then it might be acceptable. I wish I had the appropriate knowledge
to edit the longer version myself -- but I don't. My goal all along with
protecting the page was to put, at least, a temporary stop to the outright
replacement of one version with another (a forced truce, if you will). Maybe
this can now be done. Although we might still decide that an external link to
a more complete treatment is more appropriate (which still tends to be my
vote -- especially if nobody has the time or energy to make the longer
version NPOV). Hopefully the authors of the shorter version can help us
decide what to do. --maveric149
The proponent of the longer version, Doug, responds:
I'm not sure I know quite what to say. I'm pleasantly surprised, certainly
pleased, and even somewhat moved by the show of reason and understanding
evident in these comments. I think what you chose to do maveric was the right
choice. I'm grateful to see the end of the brutal deletes, and the
expressions of a real desire to get to a genuine NPOV are certainly
encouraging. I'm ready to help all I can. I have reread the Wikipedia policy
and articles on etiquette and NPOV writing. I know I need help on writing so
as to restate the various views while not asserting the one I happen to agree
with, I've found that it's not as easy to do as one might suppose.
Doug
- end -
We should probably now continue the specific issue of what to do with this
particular article on that talk page. However, some framework on what to do
<in general> in these cases should be discussed here (again in a limited
fashion so that we can get on with more interesting matters).
-- maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 232
[Wikipedia-l] The whole Max Weismann thing
Guardian Tor
guardian-tor at operamail.com
Fri May 31 04:22:02 UTC 2002
> So, could we perhaps work on being a kinder, gentler, less punitive
> wikipedia?
Amen. Along the same lines, I personally would like to see most of the sysop powers removed (deleting and locking pages, baning IPs, etc) from the general Wikipedia population. I just don't think it's necessary in most cases to take (or threaten) such actions, even in the case of vandalism. We had vandals before everyone had these powers, and they were easily delt with: a dozen Wikipedians undoing every act of vandalism within 30 seconds is hard to get around. Of course, there are some instances when banning an IP is necessary, such a continuous attack over the course of a week. But I am in fabour of leaving these powers in Jimbo's hands and letting himmake the call. It just seems too tempting to use these powers, with good intentions, unnecessarily.
- Stephen Gilbert
--
_______________________________________________
Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/
Powered by Outblaze
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 233
[Wikipedia-l] New codebase status- Now, Editors?
rose.parks at att.net
rose.parks at att.net
Sat Jun 1 22:15:00 UTC 2002
Members,
I have tried to read the endless posts to the Wiki
lists, but perhaps I missed something. On Mr. Crocker's
test site, did we decide to show on the Users page, that
certain members are "editors," and "sysops?" And, if so,
what is a "editor?"
I think all members should be aware of this. I have
seen no consensus on making anyone an editor. Please
explain. Please explain, also, what makes a member an
editor?
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> I think Recent Changes and page history are in something like a final,
> usable, and efficient form. Recent changes shows /all/ changes,
> without collapsing changes to the same page into one line. Each has a
> link to a diff page and the history page.
>
> Each entry on the history page now has a link to a diff with the
> current version, and diff with the immediately previous version. The
> date and time, rather than the page name, is the link to the revision
> (it seemed silly to have a pageful of links with the same name).
>
> The diffs are in side-by-side format with context.
>
> Since the last update, I've also finished a few miscellaneous things
> like Random page, user list, and printable versions (this now works
> for all pages, even special pages and forms).
>
> The running version is still at
> (http://www.piclab.com/newwiki/wiki.phtml)
>
> I've set up the Sourceforge bug database at
> (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=34373&atid=411192)
> to which the public can add bugs.
>
> The feature request tracker is at
> (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?group_id=34373&atid=411195)
>
> REQUEST: A useful thing for some non-techie to do would be to go
> through the old wiki pages of bug reports on the old software, try
> the new software, and add bugs to the tracker. Now is also a good
> time to go ahead and add missing features to the feature request
> tracker so they don't get lost.
>
> Special thanks to Axel and KQ for their diligent QA work.
0
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 234
[Wikipedia-l] New codebase status- Now, Editors?
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sun Jun 2 14:27:27 UTC 2002
On 6/1/02 6:52 PM, "lcrocker at nupedia.com" <lcrocker at nupedia.com> wrote:
>
> We need some status for a generally well-known member of the
> group who we trust to make content choices like editing
> protected pages, temporarily banning vandals, deleting pages,
> and so on. We also need a status for more dangerous things like
> database queries and other maintenance tasks. The current
> software calls these "sysop" and "developer", but I think "editor" and
> "sysop" makes more sense. Developers will probably have logins to the
> server and direct database access, so they don't need any rights the
> software knows about--they exist outside the software.
>
"Editor" is a bad name, because everyone is an editor, and should be
considered as such. I've already expressed my views on the need for sysops
etc.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 235
[Wikipedia-l] New codebase status- Now, Editors?
rose.parks at att.net
rose.parks at att.net
Sun Jun 2 18:50:04 UTC 2002
Members-
I couldn't agree more. The title "editor" implies a
totally different job function to me. Yes, editors deal
with content, but they usually review, alter, and/or
approve content. As was already said, in this sense, all
Wikipedians are editors.
Another issue is whether we want to identify
members' functions, at all, on the user page. There are
many other ways to identify developers and sysops on
Wikipedia and they should be considered too. There could
be a sysops page and a developers page with a list of
such people.
Frankly, I like the site as it is. Developes are
identified by going to Source Forge, usually, and if a
developer has not been included on this site, I think
they can simply ask. Sysops know who they are by the
sidebar on their view of the Wikipedia pages.
Maybe someone in favor of ths system can explain
the advantages to me.
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> On 6/1/02 6:52 PM, "lcrocker at nupedia.com" <lcrocker at nupedia.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > We need some status for a generally well-known member of the
> > group who we trust to make content choices like editing
> > protected pages, temporarily banning vandals, deleting pages,
> > and so on. We also need a status for more dangerous things like
> > database queries and other maintenance tasks. The current
> > software calls these "sysop" and "developer", but I think "editor" and
> > "sysop" makes more sense. Developers will probably have logins to the
> > server and direct database access, so they don't need any rights the
> > software knows about--they exist outside the software.
> >
> "Editor" is a bad name, because everyone is an editor, and should be
> considered as such. I've already expressed my views on the need for sysops
> etc.
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 236
[Wikipedia-l] Caste system? I don't like it.
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 2 23:04:41 UTC 2002
On Sunday 02 June 2002 12:01 pm, Ruth wrote:
> Another issue is whether we want to identify
> members' functions, at all, on the user page. There are
> many other ways to identify developers and sysops on
> Wikipedia and they should be considered too. There could
> be a sysops page and a developers page with a list of
> such people.
> Frankly, I like the site as it is. Developers are
> identified by going to Source Forge, usually, and if a
> developer has not been included on this site, I think
> they can simply ask. Sysops know who they are by the
> sidebar on their view of the Wikipedia pages.
I agree with Ruth here and don't think it is necessary to label anyones
"status" as a matter of policy. If a sysop or developer wants his or her
status known, then they will say so on their user page.
Contributors are already able to get a good idea who is a sysop, developer or
whatever by either digging a little, paying attention to RecentChanges for a
few weeks or by asking.
I kinda like the fact that potential vandals don't know who is a sysop and
who isn't or even if a sysop is online at a particular moment.
Anybody of good intentions can be a sysop if they want to be. I don't think
we should label people as having a particular status and thus imply that this
status is anything particularly special. Having different user's labeled as
having particular status would only enforce a sense that a cabal exists here
-- which it doesn't. It might also lead to confusion when there are valid
disagreements about an article between a non-sysop party and a sysop. The
non-sysop would be able to see that a particular person is a sysop and this
knowledge might imply that the sysop is acting in some type of official
capacity -- which they seldom are in these cases.
I for one don't want that weight constantly on my shoulders.
But, that's just me.
--maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 237
[Wikipedia-l] Caste system? I don't like it.
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Jun 3 02:26:55 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Anybody of good intentions can be a sysop if they want to be. I don't think
> we should label people as having a particular status and thus imply that this
> status is anything particularly special.
I agree.
The ability for any random person to show up and edit any page at any
time, on an equal footing with oldtimers, is the most frightening and
appalling way to run a website that I can imagine. It's the secret of
our success.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 238
[Wikipedia-l] New codebase status- Now, Editors?
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Jun 3 04:53:55 UTC 2002
On 6/2/02 11:01 PM, "lcrocker at nupedia.com" <lcrocker at nupedia.com> wrote:
> Like most features of the software, it will be decided by
> programmer fiat unless we get specific direction. I'm
> quite happy to remove any mention of user rights from the
> user list, I'm happy to call them whatever you like. You
> make good arguments, so I'll take those suggestions unless
> I hear otherwise.
>
Lee, please don't make such changes unless you get a consensus. The idea of
hiding or even obscuring information about who is in power is a profoundly
bad one.
One of the reason representative democracies work even at all is because
it's well known who the representatives are. Whenever it's a secret who's in
the government, who's in power, problems are created.
I think it's reasonable that the sysop/developer etc. status is listed on
pages separate from the user (aka editor) list, but that it's utterly
unreasonable for a sysop or developer to get to choose to announce that
status.
Contributors should never have to work to find out who holds the reins of
power.
maveric wrote:
> Anybody of good intentions can be a sysop if they want to be. I don't think
> we should label people as having a particular status and thus imply that this
> status is anything particularly special.
It is something special. To say otherwise is to be disingenuous.
> It might also lead to confusion when there are valid
> disagreements about an article between a non-sysop party and a sysop. The
> non-sysop would be able to see that a particular person is a sysop and this
> knowledge might imply that the sysop is acting in some type of official
> capacity -- which they seldom are in these cases.
Rather, sysops are NEVER acting in some type of official capacity. End of
discussion. Only Jimbo can act in an official capacity. Everyone else has
equivalent authority. Or, another way of looking at it, is EVERYONE is
ALWAYS acting in some type of official capacity, from non-sysops to sysops.
We are all equivalently vested.
I suspect the easiest proper long-term solutions to this issue are either
1) Get rid of sysops entirely, and figure out other methods of dealing the
stuff they deal with now, or
2) Do something like the Slashdot moderation pool, where some percentage of
active participants are always active moderators, and each individual
participant only gets to moderate for a few actions over a limited period of
time.
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 239
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #407 - 5 msgs
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Jun 3 19:30:59 UTC 2002
</lurk>
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > Anybody of good intentions can be a sysop if they want to be. I don't think
> > we should label people as having a particular status and thus imply that this
> > status is anything particularly special.
>
> I agree.
>
> The ability for any random person to show up and edit any page at any
> time, on an equal footing with oldtimers, is the most frightening and
> appalling way to run a website that I can imagine. It's the secret of
> our success.
I agree totally as well. There's going to continue to be a tendency on
the part of a few people (and, by the way, I certainly wouldn't accuse Lee
of having this tendency) to want to designate a Wikipedia elite and an
underclass. Ultimately, this would undermine the process, and I hope
we'll keep nipping it in the bud whenever we see it.
By *highlighting* differences, we would *create* the impression of a
political elite, when in fact none really exists. This would politicize
Wikipedia--something I hope we can unite in opposing. But Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia project that thrives on freedom and the common understanding
that everyone is on the same footing, as Jimbo says. To remove this
freedom and this common understanding is to undermine the very thing that
has made the project work so well this far.
Larry
<lurk>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 240
[Wikipedia-l] Caste system? I don't like it -- but again, why is this an issue??
Julie Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 3 21:51:11 UTC 2002
So I'm looking at this latest thread, and
wondering...why is this an issue? I seem to remember
that "is sysop" used to appear on the wikipedians
page. Seeing that I had sysop rights made me ask what
they were and guidelines for use, which forced me to
ask via this list. Not a bad thing, and a path that I
think other truly interested new wikipedians might
also follow -- can this be bad? There is enough
information out there that shows that most wikipedians
don't want a cabal. IF this is an issue, than I would
frankly rather see us all lose our sysop rights.
On that subject, I have yet to use mine (except to
delete misspelled pages, and even then, I try to
follow Brion's advice). Despite the fact that I have
very strong feelings on what I consider legitimate
use, etc., and often would love to block IPs, I have
avoided the temptation because I think it's too easy a
privilege to abuse. I'm not sure that everyone else
with those privileges is as able to make the
differentiation. Would it be possible to have a
system where it took two sysops to block a
contributor? This might help to provoide some of the
checks and balances that I think the site will need
more and more as it grows...
Jules
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 241
[Wikipedia-l] "sysop", etc. in new codebase
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Jun 5 23:33:46 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> I am swayed by Rose's suggestion that "editor" is not the best term
> for the "can edit protected pages" user status, so I've changed it
> back to "sysop". The "can make arbitrary SQL queries" status will be
> called "developer". A still open question is who can grant these--my
> take on that is that sysops ought to able to grant and revoke sysop
> status, and developers should be able to grant and revoke developer
> status, and Jimbo resolves any disputes that may occur.
I think that sounds right. As a social custom, it should be that
sysop status should be granted to pretty much anyone who we know, even
if we don't like them, unless they are a total jerk. And developer status
should be restricted to just people who really are developing.
In all cases, we should treat roles as sysops/developers as being completely
separate from our roles as contributors.
> I am also persuaded by Cunc that they should remain on the user list.
> It's clear that we must have the feature--we tried living without it,
> and it didn't work. So all comfy anti-elitism aside, the feature is
> needed, so it stays. Given that, I think secrecy is a far greater
> sin than elitism. If we have the feature, we should not be ashamed
> of it or downplay it. Showing those settings on the user page will
> also encourage newcomers to ask about them, which is a good thing--it
> gets people involved and interacting with the community, even if that
> interaction might initially be a complaint.
It might be neat to have a link "What is this?" beside the note on the
user list. People can click and there we have our anti-elitist
propaganda assuring people that sysop status and developer status is
just a technical thing, very much open to them for the asking.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 242
[Wikipedia-l] Re: "sysop", etc. in new codebase
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 7 03:56:27 UTC 2002
On Thursday 06 June 2002 11:53 am, lcrocker wrote:
> I am also persuaded by Cunc that they should remain on the user list.
> It's clear that we must have the feature--we tried living without it,
> and it didn't work. So all comfy anti-elitism aside, the feature is
> needed, so it stays. Given that, I think secrecy is a far greater
> sin than elitism. If we have the feature, we should not be ashamed
> of it or downplay it. Showing those settings on the user page will
> also encourage newcomers to ask about them, which is a good thing--it
> gets people involved and interacting with the community, even if that
> interaction might initially be a complaint.
Is this currently enacted yet? As it is, at least non-logged in users
(possibly regular users too) can't see who has what status on the user list,
and there is no indication on sysops' user pages that they are sysops (same
for developers).
I guess I could live with this if it is OK with Jimbo and Larry and so long
as any mention of this is a link to a strong statement saying that sysop
status isn't anything really special.
Also, before anybody thinks of the idea, please don't display sysops' user
names differently on RecentChanges -- we don't want vandals to know just when
and when not sysops are working on the wiki.
Cheers!
mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 243
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.org
Fri Jun 7 04:51:59 UTC 2002
Okay, I give up. I thought I would just let the rest of you dedicated
Wikipedals handle the page-deleting chores, but then I stumbled over
[[PootPoot]]. I hereby request sysop status. I've been around a while,
mostly contributing military articles -- I'm known as [[the Epopt]].
--
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 244
[Wikipedia-l] Can I be a sysop pretty please?
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Fri Jun 14 09:34:29 UTC 2002
I promise to use my powers only for good :)
Seriously, Maveric said I should ask because it would make doing
maintenance easier. I've been trying to make a start on unshuffling the
'country' entries from /s to proper titles but it takes forever and a
day!
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
You can take the dragon out of Alfandra, but you can never take Alfandra
out of the dragon (or the Kitty)...
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 245
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Karen AKA Kajikit
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 15 01:38:31 UTC 2002
On Friday 14 June 2002 12:01 pm, Karen wrote:
> I promise to use my powers only for good :)
>
> Seriously, Maveric said I should ask because it would make doing
> maintenance easier. I've been trying to make a start on unshuffling the
> 'country' entries from /s to proper titles but it takes forever and a
> day!
I forgot to tell Karen to also list her user name and/or user id - mea culpa.
I went ahead and editted her status to make her a sysop so she could get to
work. I'm sure Jimbo would have already done so himself if he knew her user
name (which is [[user:Karen Johnson]], BTW).
Hope this doesn't get me in trouble :)
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 246
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Karen AKA Kajikit
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Sat Jun 15 08:11:08 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> On Friday 14 June 2002 12:01 pm, Karen wrote:
> > I promise to use my powers only for good :)
> >
> > Seriously, Maveric said I should ask because it would make doing
> > maintenance easier. I've been trying to make a start on unshuffling the
> > 'country' entries from /s to proper titles but it takes forever and a
> > day!
>
> I forgot to tell Karen to also list her user name and/or user id - mea culpa.
> I went ahead and editted her status to make her a sysop so she could get to
> work. I'm sure Jimbo would have already done so himself if he knew her user
> name (which is [[user:Karen Johnson]], BTW).
>
> Hope this doesn't get me in trouble :)
Thanks... I don't think they'll lynch you for it... will they? I've done
some more shuffling and it's certainly a LOT easier with that 'move'
button! I should have thought of putting my proper name onto the request
but I expect people to be psychic and to just know who I am! lol I
forgot that I use my real name on the pedia but netscape is set to use
my nick.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
You can take the dragon out of Alfandra, but you can never take Alfandra
out of the dragon (or the Kitty)...
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 247
[Wikipedia-l] Junk uploads, bogus user accounts and "trusted hand" status
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 15 22:48:28 UTC 2002
I'm sure many of you have noticed that recently there has been a growing
problem of people creating user accounts for the sole purpose of using
wikipedia's upload utility to place copyrighted and otherwise inappropriate
material on the server.
We might want to discuss further limiting just who can use this utility
because this is beginning to be a maintenance issue for the syops and the
presence of these bogus user accounts is also over-reporting the number of
true (as in contributing) users we have .
I know the "trusted hand" status is in the database already so it might be
easy to limit this ability to "trusted hand" or greater status users. It
would also be nice to have this status granted automatically if say two
conditions are met: 1) a user account is at least one month old and 2) this
user has edited a certain number of articles (I would be liberal and set this
at 30, but I wouldn't mind having it set at up to 100).
And while we are at it we might also want to grant trusted hands the ability
to do things that currently only sysops can do -- like edit certain protected
pages (those set to "is_trusted" perhaps? "is_sysop" would then only be used
to protect established policy pages and for emergencies -- if a "trusted
hand" went on a rampage it would be simple to just change the user's status).
I wonder if a script could be written to change the status of all current
users that have edited a certain number of articles? The sysops could always
do this by hand if need be.
Oh, and if something like this were established we should encourage sysops to
manually promote outstanding new users to "trusted hand" status early (there
are several outstanding examples of new users already: they started off
running and "got it" very early).
Just a thought....
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 248
[Wikipedia-l] Junk uploads, bogus user accounts and "trusted hand" status
Bryan Derksen
bryan.derksen at ualberta.ca
Sun Jun 16 00:08:20 UTC 2002
At 03:48 PM 6/15/02 -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>We might want to discuss further limiting just who can use this utility
>because this is beginning to be a maintenance issue for the syops and the
>presence of these bogus user accounts is also over-reporting the number of
>true (as in contributing) users we have .
In addition to a special "uploads allowed" flag like this, I am really
looking forward to getting some better utilities built into Wikipedia for
housekeeping use. A "what articles link to this image?" link would be an
ideal example, in this particular case; I wouldn't be surprised if more
than half of the stuff in the uploads directory is junk that isn't being
used anywhere.
A way to search for externally-linked images in articles would be nice,
too; I think that in general all images in Wikipedia should be a part of
the database itself, so that the whole encyclopedia can be easily packaged
and distributed.
And, while I'm at it, how about some way to automatically locate "talk"
pages belonging to redirects or are otherwise orphaned (these often get
left behind when articles are moved or deleted), pages which should be
considered orphans because they're only linked to by redirects and/or
"talk" pages, etc.? I like going on cleaning binges when I'm not feeling
creative enough to actually write or edit articles, and a list of stuff
like that would be great to work from.
--
"Let there be light." - Last words of Bomb #20, "Dark Star"
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 249
[Wikipedia-l] Re: meta upload
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 16 00:22:02 UTC 2002
http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=special:Upload
Yikes! I just checked some of the newer meta uploads and came across some
rather humorous, yet totally inappropriate and copyright infringing, toon
porn along with other rubbish. For some reason I can't log-in to the meta so
I don't know if I have sysop powers there (I probably don't). Can somebody
who does have such powers delete this stuff?
It also might be a good idea to grant sysop's the ability to do their thing
over at the meta too -- just to prevent this sort of thing from getting out
of control (there would be little reason to delete or move many, if any,
pages pages there, but being able to delete inappropriate uploads would be
nice).
BTW, is it really necessary to have two upload utilities in the first place?
Both upload pages have instructions in English and do the same thing.
Shouldn't we have one central upload utility for the whole project with maybe
a couple of other ones for each of the most active non-English wikipedias
that have syops of their own?
maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 250
[Wikipedia-l] Delenda Imagines
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Jun 16 04:17:09 UTC 2002
NorthCarolina1.htm - illegible black-on-blue gibberish
eye.htm - "PI CT UR ES"
Anything else by Jokerman9001
dust_1280_final_low.jpg - apparently a scene from a video game
"Artist - WARDI 3.wma" - unknown file format, but includes "Track", "AlbumTitle", probably a sound recording
untitled.bmp - fragmented picture, hard to make sense of
lalo and bro.bmp - picture of two faces - BMPs should not be allowed, since they're uncompressed and don't work in browsers
aNUK - this is actually a JPEG, and shows the words "Nintendo UK", but with no extension it displays as gribble
BTW, is there a way to find the article about a picture?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 251
[Wikipedia-l] Delendae Imagines
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Jun 16 05:39:23 UTC 2002
ik schildpad.jpg - picture of someone with turtle in background
SpiritofFlight.jpg - unless it's a piece of art and there's an article about it
Foto1.JPG - picture of a dog on a futon
murf.jpg - a face view of a dog
Other dog pictures by Angel
pino.jpg - Big Bird and a ball
Cats-35.jpg - picture of a cat with Arabic writing
Atbra-cats.jpg - cat heads
Lady.gif - "WELCOME LADY COLOR" animated image
Anything else by Sappho or Omanash
debbedunning34.jpg - some woman with too much skin showing
Anything else by KingBee
samiajpg.jpg - someone's face
fennek.jpg is NOT a delenda, even though the uploader has no page and put no
comment. Can someone put a comment on the upload, so that we know it's a
fennec and not someone's pet dog?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 252
[Wikipedia-l] Delendae Imagines
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Jun 16 05:49:16 UTC 2002
5000naked_2.jpg - a gathering of people
khart.jpg - some scene at a seashore
Anything else by Manj
nf01511.jpg - "THE GRAMMY AWARDS" and a picture of someone
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 253
[Wikipedia-l] Can someone ban Jokerman?
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Jun 16 14:26:19 UTC 2002
Jokerman9001 has contributed nothing and is continually uploading garbage.
Can he be banned?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 254
[Wikipedia-l] Can someone ban Jokerman?
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Jun 16 18:49:09 UTC 2002
On Sunday 16 June 2002 14:35, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Also: how about a feature to limit the size of files uploaded? That
> would take care of most mp3s, and certainly also *.wma. And Omanash
> at least has a static IP since he just uploaded something over 650 MB.
Not necessarily. He may have a cable modem connection with an IP address that
changes every night.
What's a wma, btw?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 255
[Wikipedia-l] Vandal info
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Wed Jun 19 12:32:25 UTC 2002
195.235.62.254 vandalized a couple of pages, leaving the address
jrariasf at ya.com on Stellar astronomy. Both addresses are in Spain:
inetnum: 195.235.62.0 - 195.235.62.255
netname: ARQUINEX
descr: Arquinex, sociedad de Arquitectura
country: ES
admin-c: JAP2-RIPE
tech-c: JAP2-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: MAINT-AS3352
changed: mfmartin at ttd.ibernet.es 19981116
source: RIPE
route: 195.235.0.0/16
descr: Telefonica Data Espan~a
origin: AS3352
mnt-by: MAINT-AS3352
mnt-routes: MAINT-AS3352
mnt-lower: MAINT-AS3352
changed: administracion.ripe at telefonica-data.com 20010308
changed: administracion.ripe at telefonica-data.com 20020118
changed: administracion.ripe at telefonica-data.com 20020313
source: RIPE
person: Jose Antonio Pastrana
address: Arquinex S.A.
address: Hospederia de San Bernardo 1
address: 45002 Toledo
address: SPAIN
phone: +34 25 21 33 62
fax-no: +34 25 21 66 19
e-mail: Arquitectos at arquinex.es
nic-hdl: JAP2-RIPE
changed: hostmaster at ibernet.es 19960624
source: RIPE
----------------------------
inetnum: 62.151.0.0 - 62.151.127.255
netname: YACOMNET
descr: Ya.com Internet Factory
descr: 28108 Madrid SPAIN
country: ES
admin-c: JAA8-RIPE
admin-c: AP9461-RIPE
admin-c: DMR52-RIPE
tech-c: YO11-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
notify: jarribas at ya.com
notify: apina at ya.com
notify: david.moya at ya.com
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT
changed: hostmaster at ripe.net 20001121
source: RIPE
route: 62.151.0.0/19
descr: YIF Autonomous System Network
descr: Ya.com Internet Factory
origin: AS20838
remarks: SPAM, Net Abuse and Security-Issues: postmaster at ya.com
notify: david.moya at ya.com
notify: jjr at ya.com
mnt-by: YACOM-NET-MNT
changed: jjr at ya.com 20020417
source: RIPE
role: Ya.com Operations
address: Ya.com
address: Avenida de Europa, 19
address: Citibank Center, planta 2
address: Parque Empresarial La Moraleja
address: 28108 Madrid SPAIN
phone: +34 670 520 658
fax-no: +34 91 661 8585
e-mail: plataforma at ya.com
admin-c: JAA8-RIPE
admin-c: DMR52-RIPE
admin-c: JJR2-RIPE
tech-c: JAA8-RIPE
tech-c: DMR52-RIPE
tech-c: JJR2-RIPE
nic-hdl: YO11-RIPE
notify: jarribas at ya.com
notify: david.moya at ya.com
notify: jjr at ya.com
changed: jjr at ya.com 20020417
source: RIPE
person: Jose Antonio Arribas
address: Ya.com
address: Avenida de Europa, 19
address: Citibank Center, planta 2
address: Parque Empresarial La Moraleja
address: 28108 Madrid SPAIN
phone: +34 91 291 7800
phone: +34 610 453 905
fax-no: +34 91 661 8585
e-mail: jarribas at ya.com
nic-hdl: JAA8-RIPE
notify: jarribas at ya.com
notify: apina at ya.com
changed: apina at ya.com 20000907
source: RIPE
person: Arturo Pina
address: Ya.com
address: Avenida de Europa, 19
address: Citibank Center, planta 2
address: Parque Empresarial La Moraleja
address: 28108 Madrid SPAIN
phone: +34 91 291 7800
phone: +34 667 687 135
fax-no: +34 91 661 8585
e-mail: apina at ya.com
nic-hdl: AP9461-RIPE
notify: apina at ya.com
changed: apina at ya.com 20000907
source: RIPE
person: David Moya Rubio
address: Ya.com
address: Avenida de Europa, 19
address: Citibank Center, planta 2
address: Parque Empresarial La Moraleja
address: 28108 Madrid SPAIN
phone: +34 91 291 7800
fax-no: +34 91 661 8585
e-mail: david.moya at ya.com
nic-hdl: DMR52-RIPE
notify: jarribas at ya.com
changed: jarribas at ya.com 20010529
source: RIPE
Should the IP address be blocked, and should the ISPs be informed?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 256
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Karen AKA Kajikit
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Jun 21 15:18:47 UTC 2002
This is good! I did not know that sysops could make other people sysops,
but this is as it should be.
Anything that removes any single person (especially me!) as a bottleneck is
almost certainly a good thing.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> On Friday 14 June 2002 12:01 pm, Karen wrote:
> > I promise to use my powers only for good :)
> >
> > Seriously, Maveric said I should ask because it would make doing
> > maintenance easier. I've been trying to make a start on unshuffling the
> > 'country' entries from /s to proper titles but it takes forever and a
> > day!
>
> I forgot to tell Karen to also list her user name and/or user id - mea culpa.
> I went ahead and editted her status to make her a sysop so she could get to
> work. I'm sure Jimbo would have already done so himself if he knew her user
> name (which is [[user:Karen Johnson]], BTW).
>
> Hope this doesn't get me in trouble :)
>
> maveric149
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 257
[Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Junk uploads, bogus user accounts and "trusted hand" status
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Sat Jun 22 03:53:58 UTC 2002
The trusted hand requirement sounds quite reasonable to me. The fact is
that there are people using the upload facility as storage space for
their own personal junk and there just isn't enough room for it. People
like that do NOT sign up and stick around for a month to load their
stuff up - they see the opportunity and go for it on the spot. Just
delaying it would probably cut the amount of junk in half at least. And
if you add the requirememt for contributing to articles beforehand, well
then that gets rid of even more of them!
When they gave users the ability to link to graphics in their diaries on
the open diary site they made the requirement that you had had a diary
for more than 30 days and/or made more than 30 entries into it, to
prevent people starting new diaries just to upload pr0n pics to shock
people... they took the requirement off again about six months later,
but it had been there long enough that most people realised that they
couldn't do that any more.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
You can take the dragon out of Alfandra, but you can never take Alfandra
out of the dragon (or the Kitty)...
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 258
[Wikipedia-l] Years in review and the need for editorial judgement
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Fri Jun 28 05:04:51 UTC 2002
A relatively new contributor, Ellmist, has been adding articles
about Robert Heinlein's novels. This is a good thing - Heinlein
was an important sci-fi writer, and we should cover his work in
some detail.
However, they have added the publication dates of his books
to the applicable "Year In Review" articles. Is this such a
good idea? Probably not. I doubt that everything Heinlein
wrote was so momentous to warrant such a listing.
This is a more general problem with the year in review listing.
Unlike virtually everything else in the 'Pedia, these articles are
space-limited by their very intention (to provide a concise overview
of what went on in the world in that year). Therefore, if we wish
to retain them in the current form, we're
going to have to exercise editorial judgement as to the things
sufficiently important to list there.
The NPOV isn't a great help here. It says we should resolve disputes
by by characterising the
dispute and letting the differing opinions speak for themselves.
I can't see how that helps. Because we are space-limited, we *can't*
just list every event that somebody (or even a large group of people)
thinks is important, state why those people think it was important,
and let the reader come to their own conclusions.
Lists like this are a special case, and so I would argue that we should
make special rules to handle it. What those special rules should be I'm
not sure. As a "meta-rule" I think we need fairly strict section
guidelines on what can go into each section of the Year in Review
entry.
Let me play Devil's advocate for a minute. The fact that we might need
special rules for Year In Review articles makes me wonder whether
they are, indeed encyclopedia articles or something else entirely.
If not, do they really belong as part of the Wikipedia or are they
a job for another projct with different rules? Probably not, but it's
something to think about.
Opinions?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 259
[Wikipedia-l] junk upload problem
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Sat Jul 6 13:00:04 UTC 2002
As Google is probably not logged in correctly when browsing wikipedia
pages;) why not turn off the upload function unless you're logged in? No
need for yet another user option then. That will also reduce the random
troll from uploading stuff.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Stephen Gilbert
> Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 2:50 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] junk upload problem
>
>
> Bingo! Mr. Q, you are a genius!
>
> -- Stephen Gilbert
>
> --- koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> > Something just occurred to me: what about if, when
> > we migrate to the new software, we have the "upload
> > files" link be an option that is by default off.
> > That way the upload link will fall off the search
> > engine results since robots won't find the link
> > since they won't be logged in. Then by the time new
> > users make enough edits to decide to stay, finding
> > how to upload pics to help illustrate a point will
> > be a minor bonus.
> >
> > We could of course explain on a page how to upload
> > files--log in and turn that link option on--but
> > removing that page from Google etc. may help stem
> > the tide of junk uploads.
> >
> > KQ
> >
> > 0
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 260
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking of wayward users
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 7 21:56:22 UTC 2002
user:Kadandaly just blotted out Koyaanis Qatsi's sunflower picture with a
text file named "sunflower.jpg" because KQ had previously deleted one of
Kadandaly's illegal uploads.
It would be nice if I had the ability to determine this person IP so that I
could block it. PLEASE make this possible in the new software version.
--maveric149
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 261
[Wikipedia-l] IP blocking of wayward users
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Jul 7 22:15:34 UTC 2002
On Sunday 07 July 2002 17:56, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> user:Kadandaly just blotted out Koyaanis Qatsi's sunflower picture with a
> text file named "sunflower.jpg" because KQ had previously deleted one of
> Kadandaly's illegal uploads.
>
> It would be nice if I had the ability to determine this person IP so that I
> could block it. PLEASE make this possible in the new software version.
And block the user too. There is no record of Kadandaly previously uploading
a sunflower, so he's not complaining about his sunflower being overwritten
(unless the record of K uploading a sunflower didn't get recorded; such
happens).
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 262
[Wikipedia-l] Jennifer's dresses
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Tue Jul 16 19:49:32 UTC 2002
Shortly before June 9, Jennifer uploaded pictures of dresses and wrote
articles about dresses. She was asked to stop uploading them if she couldn't
prove that they are public domain, and she apparently has left. The articles
were edited to not use the pictures. Should the pictures be deleted? I
already deleted cobbler.jpg, not realizing that she wrote articles, but it's
still on beta.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 263
[Wikipedia-l] Admin status?
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Mon Jul 22 03:09:38 UTC 2002
Although I'm not very involved in looking after Wikipedia in the large,
preferring to write articles about mathematics most of the time,
I've wanted to copyedit protected pages enough times now
that I'd like to be given the admin status necessary to do so.
The latest stuff on the policy pages seems to indicate
that Jimbo will give this to anybody that emails him
(except that only certain designated people should delete pages).
My problem is that I can't find an email address for Jimmy.
But he reads this list, I gather -- so can I?
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 264
[Wikipedia-l] OK, it's official...
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 22 15:15:48 UTC 2002
I am not a fan of the new software for one simple reason. If there's a
way of seeing the edits other people have made, I can't find it. This
means that it's incredible hard to track vandalism, for one thing. For
another, it makes it infuriating and pointless to have watched pages.
Why watch a page (especially if you know the page is being used to push
an agenda and you are trying to make sure it remains NPOV), if you have
to read through a couple of versions of a longish article to try and
find the changes. Couple this with the fact that the watched list seems
to only show the most recent change (or maybe that was just a bug), and
I'm screwed. Real-world example: Helga (the bane of the historian) is
tweaking Prussia again from various angles to make sure we understand
it's innate German-ness. I go to see what those changes are, and if
they are valid, or if she's tried to de-polanize something -- no diff.
My watch list says this is the only change since I last checked, but the
article history says Helga has made a couple of changes, and so has
Eclecticology, a reasonable contributor. This is not useful.
Oh -- I also miss the link from the talk: page back to the related
article.
Otherwise, it seems very nice ;-)
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020722/abb5e23d/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 265
[Wikipedia-l] Admin status?
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Jul 22 18:09:31 UTC 2002
>I've wanted to copyedit protected pages enough times now
>that I'd like to be given the admin status necessary to do so.
User "Toby Bartels" now has sysop status. He certainly meets
all of my criteria (useful contributior, participates on the
list, has a working email address). If anyone objects
to this, let me know.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 266
[Wikipedia-l] Possible heads-up
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Jul 22 20:30:02 UTC 2002
Just a possible heads-up to the militia: the conversion process did
not carry over the list of blocked IPs from the old site, so we are
in fact running naked at the moment. I imagine those we blocked have
moved on, but I thought I'd give you a heads up so that if you see
what looks like an old familiar vandal, it probably is an old
familiar vandal, and we'll just have to block him again.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 267
[Wikipedia-l] Bad format username
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Jul 25 03:37:33 UTC 2002
Someone created a username 209.105.200.28. I don't think that should be
allowed. Can the username creation code check for usernames that look like IP
addresses?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 268
[Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
wojtek pobratyn
wojtek.pobratyn at gmx.net
Thu Jul 25 09:30:50 UTC 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
| I have mixed feelings about this -- what does everyone else think?
|
I rather tend to be against anonymous users uploading 'stuff'.
Signing up or logging in is not a very big hassle, plus it could
be used as an incentive to persuade new users to do so.
WojPob
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 269
[Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Jul 25 12:17:36 UTC 2002
On Thursday 25 July 2002 04:55, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about this -- what does everyone else think?
Anyone who has no user name must not be allowed to upload an image. Anyone
who has not created an article should not be allowed to upload, but as long
as the English Wiki can't tell that the French Wiki is pointing to an image,
there is no way to do this.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 270
[Wikipedia-l] Bad format username
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Thu Jul 25 12:50:15 UTC 2002
At 11:37 PM 7/24/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Someone created a username 209.105.200.28. I don't think that should be
>allowed.
Personally, I'm just glad I'll be able to leave this person messages now.
My userid happens to be my real name; many people's aren't. We cheerfully
allow koyanisqatsi (sp?) and ansible as usernames, why not the person's
IP address?
>Can the username creation code check for usernames that look like IP
>addresses?
>phma
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 271
[Wikipedia-l] Bad format username
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Jul 25 12:55:54 UTC 2002
On Thursday 25 July 2002 08:50, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> Personally, I'm just glad I'll be able to leave this person messages now.
> My userid happens to be my real name; many people's aren't. We cheerfully
> allow koyanisqatsi (sp?) and ansible as usernames, why not the person's
> IP address?
If you ask for the user's contributions, and the username is someone else's
IP address, do you get the contributions of that user, that IP address, or
both?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 272
[Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
Jan.Hidders
hidders at uia.ua.ac.be
Thu Jul 25 17:38:14 UTC 2002
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:55:30AM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about this -- what does everyone else think?
I have unmixed fellings about this: people who are not logged in should not
be able to upload. People are spending very valuable time on removing
illegitimate uploads so we should be very strict on this. I would even
suggest the rule that unused pictures are fair game. Being able to check
this is not a nice-to-have but a must-have. If we cannot integrate the
different Wikipedias enough to do this easily, then we should decide that
each gets its own upload space. Disk space is cheap, the time of
contributers is certainly not.
-- Jan Hidders
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 273
[Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Jul 25 18:16:28 UTC 2002
> I have unmixed fellings about this: people who are not logged
> in should not be able to upload. People are spending very valuable
> time on removing illegitimate uploads so we should be very strict
> on this. I would even suggest the rule that unused pictures are
> fair game. Being able to check this is not a nice-to-have but a
> must-have. If we cannot integrate the different Wikipedias enough
> to do this easily, then we should decide that each gets its own
> upload space. Disk space is cheap, the time of contributers is
> certainly not.
There's two issues there: as for upload privileges, those in favor
of restricting them to logged in users make a good case, so I'll make
that happen soon.
The second issue is should the Wikis share uploads. I'm of the
opinion that each Wiki should be an island unto itself, both
conceptually and physically. Images are conceptually "inline"
content, even though they are implemented as external links for
technical reasons. Isolating them for each wiki and making all links
internal makes it possible to encapsulate them, say, for a CD, or for
backup. The combination of database + upload directory should be
able to reproduce a Wiki in its entirety. I would even go so far as
to say that eventually, inline-rendered external image links
shouldn't be allowed--they should be treated like all other external
links rather than being rendered.
If that means having to upload flags 20 times, sobeit. There might
be good reasons for some Wiki to want to use different flag images
anyway.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 274
[Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Jul 25 18:30:44 UTC 2002
Jan Wrote:
>> I have unmixed fellings about this: people who are not logged
>> in should not be able to upload. People are spending very valuable
then LDC wrote:
>There's two issues there: as for upload privileges, those in favor
>of restricting them to logged in users make a good case, so I'll make
>that happen soon.
>
>The second issue is should the Wikis share uploads. I'm of the
There is a third issue, which we saw in spades on the Phase II software: once someone is logged in, we will no longer see that person's IP and therefore will have no way to block that person--and there will most certainly be people who log in solely to upload files that should not be uploaded, and who will deserve to be blocked.
This problem could be solved by reinstating the UseModWiki feature of revealing the IP of someone who is logged in simply by hovering the mouse over the username. It worked quite well, even on my dynamic IP--each time I logged out and back in whatever I did on Recent Changes would reflect the IP I had assigned me when I did it. I would love to see the feature returned.
cheers,
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 275
[Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Jul 25 18:37:14 UTC 2002
> There is a third issue, which we saw in spades on the Phase II
> software: once someone is logged in, we will no longer see that
> person's IP and therefore will have no way to block that
> person--and there will most certainly be people who log in
> solely to upload files that should not be uploaded, and who
> will deserve to be blocked.
The new software is capable of blocking by IP or by login name.
There just aren't yet any features in the software to add to the
block list by name, or to discover the IP of a logged in user.
Those will need to be added at some point; I'll add that to the
tracker at high priority.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 276
[Wikipedia-l] Trusted status
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 25 20:58:55 UTC 2002
>then LDC wrote:
>>There's two issues there: as for upload privileges,
those in favor
>>of restricting them to logged in users make a good
case, so I'll make
>>that happen soon.
>>
>>The second issue is should the Wikis share uploads.
I'm of the
>There is a third issue, which we saw in spades on the
Phase II
>software: once someone is logged in, we will no
longer see that person's IP and
>therefore will have no way to block that person--and
there will most
>certainly be people who log in solely to upload files
that should not be
>uploaded, and who will deserve to be blocked.
>
>This problem could be solved by reinstating the
UseModWiki feature of
>revealing the IP of someone who is logged in simply
by hovering the
>mouse over the username. It worked quite well, even
on my dynamic IP--each
>time I logged out and back in whatever I did on
Recent Changes would
>reflect the IP I had assigned me when I did it. I
would love to see the
>feature returned.
>
>cheers,
>
>kq
Better idea; Reinstate a type of ‘trusted hand’ status
and name it something like ‘old hand’. Old hands would
be users that have been around for at least 30 days
and have made at least 30 edits (status would be
automatically granted by the software when those two
requirements are met – there could be more than a 30
edit requirement if that is deemed necessary). Then
have the software only allow old hands, sysops and
developers the ability to use the upload utility. This
would be grandfathered in for current users.
I would further suggest that old hands would also have
the ability to edit protected pages and use the
administrative move feature (I don’t know if we should
restrict the possible ‘vote for’ feature to old hands
though). Then the only special privileges sysops would
have would be pure meta functions; blocking IPs,
manually setting user status, deleting pages and
protecting/unprotecting pages.
Having a 30 day/30 edit requirement ensures that users
are exposed to wikipedia long enough to become
familiar with our naming conventions, policies and
guidelines. Whether they actually do pay attention is
up to them. If needed their status could be reset back
to just ‘user’ by a sysop. Alternatively, sysops
should be encouraged to upgrade the user status of any
user that ‘gets it’ early.
I see no reason why we should prevent long time users
from editing protected pages and moving pages and
their history. I also don’t see any need to /ever/
have to block the IP of a long-time logged-in user.
Why then would this information be displayed, even to
a select few? Furthermore, how is it going to be
possible to associate a user with an IP on the blocked
page? Even though I trust this won’t be abused, the
existence of the possibility of abuse could be
chilling to some.
Allowing sysops the ability to block anyone, anytime
might be viewed by some as strengthening the perceived
quasi-cabal we have now into a real one. I have mixed
feelings on whether to allow the display of IPs of
non-‘old hand’ users though…This might still be a good
idea, but then to see the IP of an ‘old hand’ all a
sysop would have to do is reset the user status of the
‘old hand’ to just ‘user’. To prevent this type of
activity from going unnoticed logs should be made.
Besides, there are only about a dozen active sysops
and the protected pages need to have more maintainers
(It’s tiring to constantly to have to review and take
requests on what to put on or edit on protected pages
by well trusted long-time users – I would prefer to
just edit their edits in the wiki way). Having an ‘old
hand’ status would also help a great deal with the
upload issue – those that want to use wikipedia as
just a server are going to have to ; 1) create an
account, 2) log-in, 3) make 30 valid edits and 4) wait
30 days.
--mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 277
[Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 26 08:52:43 UTC 2002
--- koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> I like it just fine, since we've lost that function
> where I could for instance hover over [[Koyaanis
> Qatsi]] in the Recent Changes page and see what his
> IP was. So if someone has to log in to upload, that
> prevents us from blocking the person if s/he decides
> to start uploading copyrighted, irrelevant, or
> otherwise objectionable stuff.
>
> kq
There are also many good contributers who choose not
to obtain a login for one reason or another. I'd
rather let these people upload files. Besides, if we
block non-logged in uploads, our abuser will just get
a login.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 278
[Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Fri Jul 26 13:05:52 UTC 2002
On Friday 26 July 2002 04:52, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> There are also many good contributers who choose not
> to obtain a login for one reason or another. I'd
> rather let these people upload files. Besides, if we
> block non-logged in uploads, our abuser will just get
> a login.
Google isn't going to get a login, and our upload page is still #2 on Google,
which is how the junk uploaders are finding it. So new abusers won't get
logins - they won't find Wikipedia to begin with.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 279
[Wikipedia-l] Blocking IPs
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Sat Jul 27 02:21:43 UTC 2002
The guy attacking [[User:Rlee0001]] is back with a new IP.
I blocked it (see [[Special:Blockedips]], but I'm new at this sort of thing,
so if there's anything that I should know when I become part of a cabal --
like how to figure out if an IP is dynamic and when to unblock it? --
then somebody should tell me.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 280
[Wikipedia-l] Blocking IPs
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sat Jul 27 02:37:46 UTC 2002
On Friday 26 July 2002 22:21, Toby Bartels wrote:
> The guy attacking [[User:Rlee0001]] is back with a new IP.
> I blocked it (see [[Special:Blockedips]], but I'm new at this sort of
> thing, so if there's anything that I should know when I become part of a
> cabal -- like how to figure out if an IP is dynamic and when to unblock it?
> -- then somebody should tell me.
[phma at neofelis /tmp]$ whois 66.24.193.53 at whois.arin.net
[whois.arin.net]
ROADRUNNER-NYS (NETBLK-ROADRUNNER-NYS)
13241 Woodland Park Road
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Netname: ROADRUNNER-NYS
Netblock: 66.24.0.0 - 66.24.255.255
Maintainer: RRNS
Coordinator:
ServiceCo LLC (ZS30-ARIN) abuse at rr.com
1-703-345-3416
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
DNS1.RR.COM 24.30.200.3
DNS2.RR.COM 24.30.201.3
DNS3.RR.COM 24.30.199.7
DNS4.RR.COM 65.24.0.172
ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
[phma at neofelis /tmp]$ nslookup 66.24.193.53
Name: alb-66-24-193-53.nycap.rr.com
Address: 66.24.193.53
Road Runner addresses are generally dynamic, though people who leave their
computers on all the time get the same address for months. You may want to
complain to abuse at rr.com and ask them to lart the vandal. This one appears to
be in Albany, New York.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 281
[Wikipedia-l] Blocking IPs
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sat Jul 27 02:40:55 UTC 2002
Here's the guy's other address, also in Albany, New York:
[phma at neofelis /tmp]$ whois 216.238.177.114 at whois.arin.net
[whois.arin.net]
BiznessOnline (NETBLK-THEBIZ)
1873 Western Ave.
Albany, NY 12203
US
Netname: THEBIZ
Netblock: 216.238.0.0 - 216.238.255.255
Maintainer: CASO
Coordinator:
BiznessOnline.com (ZB54-ARIN) ipadmin at thebiz.net
518-452-5772
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
NS1.THEBIZ.NET 216.238.0.14
NS2.THEBIZ.NET 216.238.98.50
Record last updated on 17-Jan-2001.
Database last updated on 25-Jul-2002 20:00:35 EDT.
[phma at neofelis /tmp]$ nslookup 216.238.177.114
Name: vpn2.wrgb.com
Address: 216.238.177.114
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 282
[Wikipedia-l] Suspend user of IP (sourceforge feature request that needs policy discussion)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 27 06:53:25 UTC 2002
LDC wrote on sourceforge:
>After having my user: page vandalized repeatedly today,
>I'm convinced that user pages should only be editable by
>the logged on user. Furthor, there should be a submit
>form to submit IP addresses of users who abuse the
>system. Perhaps with a "1 hour suspension" which
>takes effect immediately so that an admin has time to
>investigate and take permanant action.
I'm ambivalent about whether or not user: should only be editable by
logged-in users and would oppose this only if it were difficult to implement
or could break anything (there are /far/ more important things to do). But
really, this is kinda anti-wiki, no? As it is me thinks too many pages are
not editable by too many people. I know, I know, this is done for practical
reasons but I suggest we re-implement something like "trusted user"status on
a 30 day/30 edit (or whatever) basis so that 'old hands' could edit protected
pages, move articles and their histories and do any other non-meta sysop
functions.
I see no need to block users like Zoe or Jheijmans or Enchanter etc. from
editing the Main Page, copyediting and condensing policy pages (which is
/badly/ needed for some of them BTW) or administratively moving articles.
These users and many others have more than enough experience with our
policies, naming conventions and such to be trusted to do semi-sensitive work
like that. Heck, Zoe and Jheijmans already meet the requirements for being
sysops; they are trusted members of the community, and they contribute to
policy discussion (although trusted, I don't remember Enchanter contributing
to this list on a regular basis -- I may be wrong...).
However, we should be careful to not have many scores of sysop accounts --
there simply would be too much potential for random internet thugs coming in
and guessing some ancient, no longer contributing sysop's password and really
doing some harm. BTW, the contributor status of sysops should be checked once
in a while anyway and those that have not contributed in some time (more than
x months) should be non-punitively demoted to user and a note placed on their
page telling them to ask another sysop or better yet the list to re-promote
them after/if they return.
Furthermore, non logged-in users contribute a hell of a lot to the project
and I don't fault them for being anonymous (its their /right/). Why single
them out by allowing /any/ logged-in user the ability to block them for any
period of time (even totally green users that set-up their accounts 5 minutes
before)? I forsee much abuse with that feature. In addition, I constantly
read comments on talk pages of logged-in users chiding non-logged-in users to
"sign-up" in a tone that implies that it is some type of sin not to be
signed-up!
Yes I am probably guilty of this too but only with those that were majorly
annoying me and chatting a lot on talk pages (hopefully this is all in my
past now). BTW, please correct me whenever I am being too harsh on the
'pedia.
I reserve that right here though :->
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 283
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Suspend user of IP --- AIM-like warn feature perhaps?
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 27 07:02:27 UTC 2002
Hum, I just had an idea that may just satisfy everyone --- why not have
something like the warn function of AIM? Then anybody, including sysops,
could be blocked for an hour if they are warned enough by enough users.
I would suggest that warning users should be limited to 'old/trusted hand' or
greater status users (for policy learning curve issues).
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 284
[Wikipedia-l] non-logged in users using upload utility
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Sat Jul 27 09:01:03 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote:
>
> On Friday 26 July 2002 04:52, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> > There are also many good contributers who choose not
> > to obtain a login for one reason or another. I'd
> > rather let these people upload files. Besides, if we
> > block non-logged in uploads, our abuser will just get
> > a login.
>
> Google isn't going to get a login, and our upload page is still #2 on Google,
> which is how the junk uploaders are finding it. So new abusers won't get
> logins - they won't find Wikipedia to begin with.
I've got the feeling that the fact that the Wikipedia Upload Images page
shows up so high on Googles' ranking of image upload pages is a VERY BAD
THING. It encourages people who have never heard of the wikipedia to
think 'oh great, this is a free storage space for my pics of my
cat/dog/canary/naked fiance :)
IMO, it shouldn't hurt people if we demand that they are logged in to
upload images. At least that way they have to have taken the time to
register and to maybe find out what the wikipedia is all about before
they start uploading trash or copyrighted images wilynily.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
You can take the dragon out of Alfandra, but you can never take Alfandra
out of the dragon (or the Kitty)...
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
and now Ample Aussies Mailing List:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 285
[Wikipedia-l] Admin status
Tim Marklew
tmarklew at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 27 21:13:50 UTC 2002
Mav wrote:
>I see no need to block users like Zoe or Jheijmans or Enchanter etc. from
>editing the Main Page, copyediting and condensing policy pages (which is
>/badly/ needed for some of them BTW) or administratively moving articles.
>These users and many others have more than enough experience with our
>policies, naming conventions and such to be trusted to do semi-sensitive
>work
>like that. Heck, Zoe and Jheijmans already meet the requirements for being
>sysops; they are trusted members of the community, and they contribute to
>policy discussion (although trusted, I don't remember Enchanter
>contributing
>to this list on a regular basis -- I may be wrong...).
You are absolutely right that I have never written to the list (though I
have been reading your every word...). So hi to everyone!
Personally I think the current situation where most users are blocked from
editing the policy pages is OK. For important policy pages like, say, NPOV
or naming conventions, I don't think anyone (including administrators)
should be making changes without discussing them first, either here on the
list or the talk page. By having only a limited number of administrators
able to make the change, we make it more likely that policy changes and
other changes will be discussed properly before being implemented.
If a non-administrator has a suggestion for a new or revised section on,
say, a naming convention, they can post their suggestion on the talk page.
When people have had time to make any comments an admin can then make the
change in the subject page. Where more substantial editing is needed, we
could create a page like, say, "Proposed draft of neutral point of view" for
people to work on before making the change to the official page.
It would be nice if the article moving feature were available to all users
though. I don't know much about how it currently works, but in theory it
should be possible to implement it so that there is no danger of it deleting
any articles or history. In that case it would be safe for anyone to use, as
any mistakes could be reversed.
Tim (the Enchanter)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 286
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 28 04:14:13 UTC 2002
I just blocked 3 IPs of a vandal similar to if not the same as the previous
one. Both events involved more than one IP being used by a single individual.
Please see http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
One of the messages this person left was:
"ADMIN, you gunna block every IP im on? ROFL.. don't waste your time ;) <3
proxies ;)"
I know, we could whois the IPs and complain to the ISP but my partner is a
tech support supervisor for Earthlink and he says that Earthlink does not act
on these types of complaints. I don't know if this vandal's ISP will be so
ambivalent. Most ISPs seem to not care what their users do so long as EULAs
are not violated.
I'm not sure what to do -- this person will almost certainly come back again.
Any suggestions?
Jimbo you are an ISP owner, what do you think?
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 287
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sun Jul 28 05:49:53 UTC 2002
On 7/28/02 12:14 AM, "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just blocked 3 IPs of a vandal similar to if not the same as the previous
> one. Both events involved more than one IP being used by a single individual.
>
> Please see http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
>
> One of the messages this person left was:
>
> "ADMIN, you gunna block every IP im on? ROFL.. don't waste your time ;) <3
> proxies ;)"
>
This is the problem with armsraces. SoftSecurity is usually better than
HardSecurity. (Though I don't know anything about this particular case.)
Usually "vandals" are in it for the amusement. And contributing to Wikipedia
can often be a more satisfying feeling, if it can be made to seem worth it.
What are the articles this person has been changing?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 288
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 28 06:08:41 UTC 2002
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just blocked 3 IPs of a vandal similar to if not
> the same as the previous
> one. Both events involved more than one IP being
> used by a single individual.
>
> Please see
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
>
> One of the messages this person left was:
>
> "ADMIN, you gunna block every IP im on? ROFL.. don't
> waste your time ;) <3
> proxies ;)"
>
> I know, we could whois the IPs and complain to the
> ISP but my partner is a
> tech support supervisor for Earthlink and he says
> that Earthlink does not act
> on these types of complaints. I don't know if this
> vandal's ISP will be so
> ambivalent. Most ISPs seem to not care what their
> users do so long as EULAs
> are not violated.
>
> I'm not sure what to do -- this person will almost
> certainly come back again.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Jimbo you are an ISP owner, what do you think?
>
> --mav
Well, we can use the old fashion UseModWiki way of
dealing with vandalism: seven to ten people watching
Recent Changes and undoing things faster than the
vandal can do them. They tend to go away when their
masterpieces don't last 30 seconds.
The problem with IP banning is not only that people
have dynamic IP numbers. It is trival to use a list of
anonymous proxy servers to change your IP after every
edit. There are even programs that will rotate through
your proxy list every thirty seconds. In this case,
banning becomes as much work as simply dogging the
person and reverting the pages.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 289
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Sun Jul 28 09:45:12 UTC 2002
At 09:14 PM 7/27/02 -0700, you wrote:
>I just blocked 3 IPs of a vandal similar to if not the same as the previous
>one. Both events involved more than one IP being used by a single individual.
>
>Please see http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
>
>One of the messages this person left was:
>
>"ADMIN, you gunna block every IP im on? ROFL.. don't waste your time ;) <3
>proxies ;)"
>
>I know, we could whois the IPs and complain to the ISP but my partner is a
>tech support supervisor for Earthlink and he says that Earthlink does not
act
>on these types of complaints. I don't know if this vandal's ISP will be so
>ambivalent. Most ISPs seem to not care what their users do so long as EULAs
>are not violated.
>
>I'm not sure what to do -- this person will almost certainly come back
again.
>
>Any suggestions?
Good chance he's bluffing. Most folks only have a limited number of choices
as to ISPs and when vandalism starts costing money they give up. ISPs may
ignore complaints but we could all complain and maybe that would not be
ignored if this turns out to be a persistant guy.
Fred Bauder
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 290
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Sun Jul 28 10:12:49 UTC 2002
Alternatively, we are now sufficiently established and have enough gravitas
that we could //persuade// the ISP in question that it would be in their
best interests to block malefactors. I leave it to your collective
imaginations what our response could be, but we could certainly do a
full-featured article on uncooperative and problematic ISPs for example....
Or we could block them entirely.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
> At 09:14 PM 7/27/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >I just blocked 3 IPs of a vandal similar to if not the same as the
previous
> >one. Both events involved more than one IP being used by a single
individual.
> >
> >Please see http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
> >
> >One of the messages this person left was:
> >
> >"ADMIN, you gunna block every IP im on? ROFL.. don't waste your time ;)
<3
> >proxies ;)"
> >
> >I know, we could whois the IPs and complain to the ISP but my partner is
a
> >tech support supervisor for Earthlink and he says that Earthlink does not
> act
> >on these types of complaints. I don't know if this vandal's ISP will be
so
> >ambivalent. Most ISPs seem to not care what their users do so long as
EULAs
> >are not violated.
> >
> >I'm not sure what to do -- this person will almost certainly come back
> again.
> >
> >Any suggestions?
>
> Good chance he's bluffing. Most folks only have a limited number of
choices
> as to ISPs and when vandalism starts costing money they give up. ISPs may
> ignore complaints but we could all complain and maybe that would not be
> ignored if this turns out to be a persistant guy.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 291
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
wojtek pobratyn
wojtek.pobratyn at gmx.net
Sun Jul 28 10:46:19 UTC 2002
correct me if I'm worng, but I seem to recall a feature
in the UseMod software where one could revert all changes
done by one user or IP. it would seem quite usefull in this
case.
regards,
WojPob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 6:14 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
| I just blocked 3 IPs of a vandal similar to if not the same as the previous
| one. Both events involved more than one IP being used by a single individual.
|
| Please see http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
|
| One of the messages this person left was:
|
| "ADMIN, you gunna block every IP im on? ROFL.. don't waste your time ;) <3
| proxies ;)"
|
| I know, we could whois the IPs and complain to the ISP but my partner is a
| tech support supervisor for Earthlink and he says that Earthlink does not act
| on these types of complaints. I don't know if this vandal's ISP will be so
| ambivalent. Most ISPs seem to not care what their users do so long as EULAs
| are not violated.
|
| I'm not sure what to do -- this person will almost certainly come back again.
|
| Any suggestions?
|
| Jimbo you are an ISP owner, what do you think?
|
| --mav
|
|
| [Wikipedia-l]
| To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
| http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
|
|
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 292
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 28 10:47:13 UTC 2002
On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 293
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sun Jul 28 12:12:48 UTC 2002
Wow, I don't remember that one. It could have its use, but sometimes even complete nuts make the occasional sensible edit.
kq
You Wrote:
>correct me if I'm worng, but I seem to recall a feature
>in the UseMod software where one could revert all changes
>done by one user or IP. it would seem quite usefull in this
>case.
>
>regards,
>WojPob
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 294
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
Imran Ghory
ImranG at btinternet.com
Sun Jul 28 22:32:57 UTC 2002
On 27 Jul 2002, at 21:14, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> I know, we could whois the IPs and complain to the ISP but my partner
> is a tech support supervisor for Earthlink and he says that Earthlink
> does not act on these types of complaints.
It varies a lot from ISP to ISP, and also the issue involved.
> I don't know if this
> vandal's ISP will be so ambivalent. Most ISPs seem to not care what
> their users do so long as EULAs are not violated.
Most EULAs are so broad that it's hard not to violate them, bring to
the ISP the exact sections of their AUP that has been violated,
include all IPs involved with timestamps of access.
Also follow up with a phone call if neccassary.
If that fails we should set up a mechanism such that anyone
accessing the webpage from that ISP has a note attached to the
top saying "Due to a failure by $ISPName$ to take action against
an attack against wikipedia we are considering removing write
access from user coming from this ISP. Please help us to avoid
doing this by contacting your ISPs abuse department and making
your views on the matter felt to them".
When an ISPs users start complaing most ISPs buck up, I know a
few service sites which have used this technique succesfully.
Imran
--
TheOpenCD Project
Promoting Open Source on Windows
http://www.theopencd.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 295
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Sun Jul 28 23:06:13 UTC 2002
Imran Ghory wrote:
>Most EULAs are so broad that it's hard not to violate them, bring to
>the ISP the exact sections of their AUP that has been violated,
>include all IPs involved with timestamps of access.
>
>Also follow up with a phone call if neccassary.
>
>If that fails we should set up a mechanism such that anyone
>accessing the webpage from that ISP has a note attached to the
>top saying "Due to a failure by $ISPName$ to take action against
>an attack against wikipedia we are considering removing write
>access from user coming from this ISP. Please help us to avoid
>doing this by contacting your ISPs abuse department and making
>your views on the matter felt to them".
>
>When an ISPs users start complaing most ISPs buck up, I know a
>few service sites which have used this technique succesfully.
>
>Imran
>
>
Yes. Reverse DNS lookup could be used, assuming that the ISP has a clue.
Thinks:
It would be interesting to know what fraction of Wikipedia users come
from ISPs with/without valid reverse DNS lookup set up for their IP
addresses. If the fraction from clueless ISPs is small (and it should
be), then we could
* ban customers of crap no-reverse-delegation ISPs from editing by
default (which will capture a lot of "grey" IP addresses, too), and
* offer suitably privileged users the option to issue the appropriate
warning (as above) on a per-ISP basis, based on the reverse lookup domain.
Of course, things should never get this far in the first place, but
having the tools in reserve would be nice.
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 296
[Wikipedia-l] Re: multi-headed VANDALS + PANIC button
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 29 17:05:43 UTC 2002
On Monday 29 July 2002 01:58 am, you wrote:
> Thinks:
> It would be interesting to know what fraction of Wikipedia users come
> from ISPs with/without valid reverse DNS lookup set up for their IP
> addresses. If the fraction from clueless ISPs is small (and it should
> be), then we could
>
> * ban customers of crap no-reverse-delegation ISPs from editing by
> default (which will capture a lot of "grey" IP addresses, too), and
> * offer suitably privileged users the option to issue the appropriate
> warning (as above) on a per-ISP basis, based on the reverse lookup domain.
>
> Of course, things should never get this far in the first place, but
> having the tools in reserve would be nice.
>
> Neil
Whoa! I don't think we are at that point yet, but I will file your email away
for future reference. Our vandal problem is simply not bad enough yet to
warrent such drastic counter-measures. However I see no harm in looking ahead
to that eventuality, doing some research, and preparing the systems needed --
but I don't think there is any urgency yet.
What I do fear is some script kiddy with a couple dozen rotating proxies and
a ship-load of bots flooding the database with junk and overwriting 20
articles a minute. A panic button to lock-down the site would then be nice
(Sorry, I can't protect pages fast enough). Then that would give a sysop the
time needed to block all the IPs of the vandal. But again, I don't think we
are at that point yet.
We should think about different ways to optionally protect wikipedia from
these types of more sophisticated attacks. Although I would be /very/ wary of
categorically excluding ISPs when there have been no vandals from that ISP
(although that may be part of any panic button). ISPs that fail to act on our
complaints of documented vandalism are fair game as far as I am concerned
though.
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 297
[Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 29 17:12:16 UTC 2002
On Monday 29 July 2002 01:58 am, Imran wrote:
> Most EULAs are so broad that it's hard not to violate them, bring to
> the ISP the exact sections of their AUP that has been violated,
> include all IPs involved with timestamps of access.
>
> Also follow up with a phone call if necessary.
>
> If that fails we should set up a mechanism such that anyone
> accessing the webpage from that ISP has a note attached to the
> top saying "Due to a failure by $ISPName$ to take action against
> an attack against wikipedia we are considering removing write
> access from users coming from this ISP. Please help us to avoid
> doing this by contacting your ISPs abuse department and making
> your views on the matter felt to them".
This sounds reasonable to me. I hope we will never have to make good on such
a threat though -- I know I get majorly pissed when I can't send an email to
somebody because my ISP has been blacklisted by my recipient's ISP because
somebody on my ISP is a low-life spammer.
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 298
[Wikipedia-l] Re: multi-headed VANDALS + PANIC button
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Jul 29 17:59:07 UTC 2002
> What I do fear is some script kiddy with a couple dozen rotating
> proxies and a ship-load of bots flooding the database with junk and
> overwriting 20 articles a minute. A panic button to lock-down the
> site would then be nice (Sorry, I can't protect pages fast enough).
> Then that would give a sysop the time needed to block all the IPs
> of the vandal. But again, I don't think we are at that point yet.
I actually do already have a "lock the database" button available
to developers; maybe I should make that available to sysops as well
(as long as "unlock" is as well, of course)?
I also need to start thinking about some back-end stuff like the cron
job for making more frequent backups.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 299
[Wikipedia-l] Re: multi-headed VANDALS + PANIC button
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Mon Jul 29 18:51:21 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>>What I do fear is some script kiddy with a couple dozen rotating
>>proxies and a ship-load of bots flooding the database with junk and
>>overwriting 20 articles a minute. A panic button to lock-down the
>>site would then be nice (Sorry, I can't protect pages fast enough).
>>Then that would give a sysop the time needed to block all the IPs
>>of the vandal. But again, I don't think we are at that point yet.
>>
>>
>
>I actually do already have a "lock the database" button available
>to developers; maybe I should make that available to sysops as well
>(as long as "unlock" is as well, of course)?
>
>I also need to start thinking about some back-end stuff like the cron
>job for making more frequent backups.
>
>
>
Whilst I was filling the database up with crud, I noticed that it still
took days and days to reach 100,000 articles, even running several
submit processes in parallel. Providing that sysops have powerful tools
ready for rolling back changes, they will have plenty of time to react.
I agree that hard security leads to an arms race. But leaving the
Wikipedia as a "soft target" with apparently magical self-healing
properties should make the experience no fun for script kiddies:
* they see that "vandalism" is easy, and no challenge
* they should also see (eventually) that it is futile
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 300
[Wikipedia-l] Re: multi-headed VANDALS + PANIC button
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 29 19:58:05 UTC 2002
On Monday 29 July 2002 12:01 pm, you wrote:
> I actually do already have a "lock the database" button available
> to developers; maybe I should make that available to sysops as well
> (as long as "unlock" is as well, of course)?
>
> I also need to start thinking about some back-end stuff like the cron
> job for making more frequent backups.
Cool. This would of course have to be approved by our benevolent dictator,
er, benefactor Jimbo. Is this feature bug-free enough to trust mere sysops
with?
Hopefully such a panic button will /never/ have to be used. But having a
"protect all pages" button will give me, and I suspect others, some peace of
mind.
However, there will have to be severe limitations on any use of this function
though. If a sysop and the community can reasonably keep up with such an
attack this feature should /not/ be used. But 10 vandalized articles or more
a minute over multiple minutes would begin to be very taxing, esp. if a bunch
of different IPs are being used by the vandal.
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 301
[Wikipedia-l] Interesting bug report
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Jul 30 00:48:26 UTC 2002
Thought you guys might be amused by this bug
report I just received:
From the look of the Wikipedia web site, it seems
that any visitor can edit the content!
That can't be correct!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 302
[Wikipedia-l] Script Kiddies/Panic Button
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Jul 30 13:39:01 UTC 2002
Hi, everybody. I thought it's about time I joined the list.
Instead of just a lockout button, why not also provide admins with the
ability to:
a) Limit edits to logged-in users, or
b) Limit the frequency of edits to "one edit per minute" for any
given user or any given IP
(You could adjust the time value of one minute in option B above.)
--Ed Poor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020730/9d0ed4b5/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 303
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Tue Jul 30 16:35:29 UTC 2002
Hi,
I wanted to apply for sysop status and mailed Jimbo Wales, as mentioned on the page concerning the topic; he referred me to the list, however. Can any of you sysops judge if my "application" is valid? And then also fix the page concerning the topic?
Thanks,
Jeroen Heijmans
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 304
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Tue Jul 30 16:40:49 UTC 2002
I, too, would like to apply for sysop status if I am eligible.
Danny
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 305
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Jul 30 17:37:12 UTC 2002
Before I too jump on the application bandwagon ;) -- what can sysops do
that mortals can't?
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>I, too, would like to apply for sysop status if I am eligible.
>
>Danny
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 306
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Jul 30 17:59:20 UTC 2002
> I wanted to apply for sysop status and mailed Jimbo Wales, as
> mentioned on the page concerning the topic; he referred me to
> the list, however. Can any of you sysops judge if my "application"
> is valid? And then also fix the page concerning the topic?
I need to do some more work to the software to organize this process,
so we don't really have a formal process at the moment. I remember
your name from several bug reports you've filed (thanks), and you
participate on the list and have a valid email address, so if you'll
confirm for me that you are wiki user "Jheijmans", and I'll fix you
up.
P.S. I also looked at your contributions page, and it's over half
Talk pages. While they're certainly a necessary part of what goes on
here, we also have an informal tradition here (it was stated
somewhere once, maybe I need to put it into the policy pages) that if
you do a lot or "meta" stuff you should at least do a bit of work on
real articles to balance it out--edit some random articles, add a
short bio of someone, etc. Sysops ought to set an example here.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 307
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Jul 30 18:50:59 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
> Before I too jump on the application bandwagon ;) -- what can sysops do
> that mortals can't?
As I wrote recently on [[User talk:Sjc]]
« ...if this isn't already documented in a central and accessible place,
please feel free to do so. The "sysop" powers are:
* Block and unblock IPs
o Related to this, ability to see the last octet of IP addresses in
edits by anonymous users, which is normally hidden to discourage random
people haX0ring your IP. (No ability to see the IP address of logged-in
users, as this is not stored in the database -- compare with the old
usemod wiki software, where both anonymous and logged-in users had their
full unfettered hostnames listed to any scmuck who wandered by.)
* Delete pages (there's an etiquette to this, see policy pages; but
people do sometimes take shortcuts, deleting empty pages with no history
more freely)
* Delete uploaded files
o There's also a revert-to-previously-uploaded-version feature, I'm
not sure if this is sysop or everybody.
* Move/rename pages preserving the edit history (planned to be
allowed for all or most users, I prefer all)
* Protect and unprotect pages (locking them against edit by other
users who are not also logged in as sysops). Traditionally this was in
fact used only on the main page, but some of the policy pages are also
locked, which I'm not sure I approve of. Here are all the pages
currently protected:
o Wikipedia:Upload_log
o Wikipedia:Article_deletion_log
o Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
o Main_Page
o Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
o Wikipedia:Copyrights
o Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
o United_States_Constitution/Article_One (I'm a little
confused by this one; I've since unprotected it. It's just a redirect
anyway...)
o Wikipedia:IP_probation_watchlist
o Wikipedia:Most_common_Wikipedia_faux_pas
o Wikipedia:Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
o Wikipedia:Blocked_IPs
o Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
o Wikipedia:Administrators
o Wikipedia:Policy
If I left any "powers" out, it's by accident.
There are also a handful of 'developer' features available only to a few
of the programmers for purposes of finding and fixing bugs: database
queries, showing the PHP configuration variables, and enabling/disabling
a read-only mode to prevent edits to the database in the middle of
certain upgrades. --Brion VIBBER »
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 308
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Jul 30 18:02:58 UTC 2002
> Before I too jump on the application bandwagon ;) -- what can
> sysops do that mortals can't?
Just a few "dangerous" functions that we don't want to give to
the general public: permanently deleting articles and history from
the database; querying the database in SQL; moving articles to
a new name with history (we'll probably make that one more
available after a bit more testing and debugging); blocking the
IP address of vandals.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 309
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Jul 30 18:05:59 UTC 2002
>I, too, would like to apply for sysop status if I am eligible.
>Danny
I'm afraid I don't remember you--what's your Wiki username?
I'll try hard not to hold the AOL address against you :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 310
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Jul 30 18:13:55 UTC 2002
> * Delete uploaded files
> o There's also a revert-to-previously-uploaded-version feature,
> I'm not sure if this is sysop or everybody.
Anybody can revert, and anybody can delete a single old revision;
but only sysops can delete the whole image and its description.
> * Protect and unprotect pages (locking them against edit by other
> users who are not also logged in as sysops).
Forgot about that one.
> Traditionally this was in fact used only on the main page, but
> some of the policy pages are also locked, which I'm not sure I
> approve of. Here are all the pages currently protected:
> o Wikipedia:Upload_log
> o Wikipedia:Deletion_log
These are a special case: the software requires that they be in
a special format so that it can add to them. While it would be OK
to make certain edits (adding text, etc.), some would break things,
so this is just a safety precaution.
> o Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
> o Main_Page
> o Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
> o Wikipedia:Copyrights
> o Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
> o United_States_Constitution/Article_One (I'm a little
> confused by this one; I've since unprotected it. It's just a
> redirect anyway...)
> o Wikipedia:IP_probation_watchlist
> o Wikipedia:Most_common_Wikipedia_faux_pas
> o
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
> o Wikipedia:Blocked_IPs
> o Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
> o Wikipedia:Administrators
> o Wikipedia:Policy
I think some of these may have had a history of vandalism, but I'm
with you that most of them should be unprotected. Anyone else
remember more details here--they seem to have been protected when
my head was buried in software, so I missed a lot of discussion.
> There are also a handful of 'developer' features available only
> to a few of the programmers for purposes of finding and fixing
> bugs: database queries, showing the PHP configuration variables,
> and enabling/disabling a read-only mode to prevent edits to the
> database in the middle of certain upgrades. --Brion VIBBER »
Sysops can do "SELECT" queries on the database. Only developers
can do updates and deletes.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 311
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Jul 30 20:31:09 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>>There are also a handful of 'developer' features available only
>>to a few of the programmers for purposes of finding and fixing
>>bugs: database queries, showing the PHP configuration variables,
>>and enabling/disabling a read-only mode to prevent edits to the
>>database in the middle of certain upgrades. --Brion VIBBER »
>>
>>
>
>Sysops can do "SELECT" queries on the database. Only developers
>can do updates and deletes.
>
There had been some discussion a while ago of changing that and
restricting all direct DB access to developers; I guess I got it mixed
up with the implementation in my memory. As I recall the points of
contention were:
1) Users' passwords were stored in the database in plaintext. (Since
changed; hashes are now stored so they aren't much good if you get them.)
2) The number of 'sysop's is rapidly rising, and the chances of somebody
accidentally (or maliciously) performing a slow, complex query that tied
up the database for a long time would increase.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 312
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Jul 30 20:07:35 UTC 2002
>>Sysops can do "SELECT" queries on the database. Only developers
>>can do updates and deletes.
> There had been some discussion a while ago of changing that and
> restricting all direct DB access to developers; I guess I got it
> mixed up with the implementation in my memory. As I recall the
> points of contention were:
> 1) Users' passwords were stored in the database in plaintext.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 313
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 30 22:55:44 UTC 2002
--- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> >I, too, would like to apply for sysop status if I
> am eligible.
> >Danny
>
> I'm afraid I don't remember you--what's your Wiki
> username?
> I'll try hard not to hold the AOL address against
> you :-)
I'll vouch for Danny. He's been trying to add some
NPOV to some controversial issues as I recall.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 314
[Wikipedia-l] Script Kiddies/Panic Button
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 31 02:18:30 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 10:18 am, you wrote:
> Hi, everybody. I thought it's about time I joined the list.
>
> Instead of just a lockout button, why not also provide admins with the
> ability to:
>
> a) Limit edits to logged-in users, or
>
> b) Limit the frequency of edits to "one edit per minute" for any
> given user or any given IP
>
> (You could adjust the time value of one minute in option B above.)
>
> --Ed Poor
This seems like a reasonable alternative and should be considered -- however
this would probably require more work than allowing mere admins the ability
to use the existing database block feature now only available to developers.
But I digress... There has been several well reasoned posts about /not/
starting an arms race with vandals. Which would mean:
1) This feature would have to be given to admins in a hush-hush mannor and
act as a "secrete weapon" to use only as a last resort (however, any script
kiddy vandal with half a brain will scan all the mailing lists to find out
security details and will quickly find out about such a "weapon" and mount
counter-measures to circumvent it)
2) Or, this feature would be announced and open to act as some type of
deterrence to a script kiddy vandal (which is also would fail due to the
above).
I oftentimes (all-the-time?) overthink things and look too far ahead. So I
leave this debate to saner minds than mine for now. Do what you think is best
for the security of Wikipedia.
Maybe all we need is daily database snapshots sent to a few different secure
locations (perhaps more often if it doesn't become a performance issue).
Heck, send me a script to automate the process and I will download a daily
snapshot -- I have bandwidth to spare.
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 315
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 31 03:08:06 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 10:18 am, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to apply for sysop status and mailed Jimbo Wales, as mentioned on
> the page concerning the topic; he referred me to the list, however. Can any
> of you sysops judge if my "application" is valid? And then also fix the
> page concerning the topic?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeroen Heijmans
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 10:18 am, you wrote:
> I, too, would like to apply for sysop status if I am eligible.
>
> Danny
I say Jeroen and Danny would make a great sysops. However I know Jeroen used
to use the "vote for deletion" feature of phase II Pedia Wiki a lot and at
least several of the entries submitted had to be removed from the deletion
queue as not being valid for administrative removal. But I still trust that
Jeroen will /not/ abuse the delete page sysop feature and when there is /any/
question that a page should be removed that that page be first placed on the
vote for deletion page for a day or two -- which is the general policy anyway.
Unfortunately, LDC never got around to porting the promote/demote feature of
Phase II to Phase III, so Jimbo (possibly a developer) will have to promote
you two. I'm sure nobody will object to your promotion.
Again I would like to restate my proposal to have an 'old hand' status that
would allow users that have been around a while and are generally trusted to
move pages and edit protected pages. Not everyone wants to have to keep up
with the mailing list or have the burden of being seen as some type of cop
just to have the ability to do stuff like moving pages or editing the Front
Page. These things can't really be entrusted to totally green users that
signed-up 5 minutes before and are totally unaware of our editing policies
and naming conventions but I see no reason to deny this to longtime users.
Aside.... Is the name "Pedia Wiki" used anymore? Or does our wikiware have no
name? :-(
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 316
[Wikipedia-l] User Contribution Tracking
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Jul 31 05:23:36 UTC 2002
Hi All,
I have been inactive a while. Can someone tell me whether the user
contribution page is going to return to listing contributions or is it
going to stick with the recent changes format of within last 30 days?
Was this change due to a performance issue or as a result of refactoring
the wiki software?
Personally I found the old format extremely useful in quickly browsing
to subjects that I had previously found interesting and was able to
contribute to. It was also fun/useful to be able to see a list of my
contributions without me having to build and maintain a list manually.
Easier to find skimpy entries or augment articles of interest with
additional information.
It was also useful on the occasion a few months ago when I was labeled
<b>TROLL</b>. In response to my defensive reaction to this offensive
allegation, Rgamble actually looked up a few of my contributions and
affirmed that he/she thought I was contributing more than I was damaging
and that he/she therefore did not consider me a troll.
As things stand right now on the contribution page he/she would have
been unable to respond semi-quantitatively due to an inability to easily
audit a random sampling of past contributions.
mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 317
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Wed Jul 31 05:30:08 UTC 2002
maveric149 wrote in part:
>Again I would like to restate my proposal to have an 'old hand' status that
>would allow users that have been around a while and are generally trusted to
>move pages and edit protected pages.
I don't think that I've done this before,
so I'd like to officially state my agreement on this.
30 days/30 edits, mentioned before, seems reasonable offhand.
Is there agreement that we do want to open up these two functions,
and that the only thing left to discussion is the criteria?
>Aside.... Is the name "Pedia Wiki" used anymore? Or does our wikiware have no
>name? :-(
Sure it has a name: "Phase III Software".
Sounds like a .com startup.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 318
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Jul 31 06:14:02 UTC 2002
> Unfortunately, LDC never got around to porting the promote/demote
> feature of Phase II to Phase III, so Jimbo (possibly a developer)
> will have to promote you two. I'm sure nobody will object to your
> promotion.
I already did. Any of the developers can do it directly to the
database. I do plan to build screens for that, but I've got my head
buried in a new recent changes implementation at the moment that I
really want to get out first.
> Again I would like to restate my proposal to have an 'old hand'
> status that would allow users that have been around a while and
> are generally trusted to move pages and edit protected pages.
> Not everyone wants to have to keep up with the mailing list or
> have the burden of being seen as some type of cop just to have
> the ability to do stuff like moving pages or editing the Front
> Page. These things can't really be entrusted to totally green
> users that signed-up 5 minutes before and are totally unaware of
> our editing policies and naming conventions but I see no reason
> to deny this to longtime users.
If you want to give this out more freely (and I agree it should be),
then it will become a maintenance headache unless it's automated
somehow. Obviously "logged in as a user" is one criterion, and then
something like having edited some number of articles over some period
of time.
> Aside.... Is the name "Pedia Wiki" used anymore? Or does our
> wikiware have no name? :-(
If you think it oughta have a name, give it one!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 319
[Wikipedia-l] Problems with anonymous editing of Middle Eastern conflict-related articles
Uri Yanover
uriyan at hotpop.com
Wed Jul 31 08:18:54 UTC 2002
Dear Wikipedians,
I've wanted to write this letter for a long time, but has delayed it deeming
the upkeep of Wikipedia principles more important than my comfort. But the
principles become broken anyway, and my comfort is as well gone; therefore
I'll tell you what troubles me below.
It is not a secret that Wikipedia is at occasions the scene of massive
content wars between the supporters of various positions. This is natural
and expectable, the resolution coming at the end of each such war being an
improvement to the original article. However, there's one content war that
is unique, in several ways. It concerns the Arab-Israeli, and
Palestinian-Israeli conflicts.
During the recent months, Wikipedia has been the target of almost daily
twiddling, in sum amounting to vandalism, from different supporters of the
Arab position on the internet, most often editing the page anonymously. I do
not oppose them stating their views; however, their style of modifying bits
here and there, copy & pasting copyrighted articles, linking to pages of
explicitly propagandist nature, coupled with the fact that they do not have
a clue of what NPOV and Wikipedia in general is all about, creates a serious
problem.
On the other side of this equation, however, there's me. There aren't too
many people who are aware of the complex history of the region on Wikipedia;
out of them, there are fewer less who are ready to share they knowledge (by
risking to pace on the mine-field of political discussions). Although I do
not claim to be deeply knowledgeable, it is often only up to me to include
the Israeli perspective in these articles.
This is not to say that I don't get any help from you - I often do, and I'm
deeply grateful for it. But unfortunately, I am one man, yet what I face is
a whole horde of anonymous trolls. Just removing random changes and fixing
"omissions" takes all the time I can spare for Wikipedia; considering the
growing popularity of the site, I have to admit that my outlook on further
contribution grows grimmer; needless to say that this disappoints me, as I
have a deep sympathy to the Wikipedia effort, and politics (in forms
relevant to this discussion) are far from being on the list of my favorite
topics.
The basic premise of the Wiki concept is that in an open environment, an
article which can be edited by many participants, enjoys peer cooperation,
and as a result becomes better. I feel that this premise cannot work in this
case, as the troll cut-ins are random, and they certainly are not interested
in improving the article. The situation is too heated-up to allow normal
cooperation.
I should make it clear that in such an environment, my own ability to write
good-quality content (that is belonging to a NPOV, researched,
carefully-worded) is impaired. It is not just my personal comfort that
suffers; trolling does hurt Wikipedia by creating biased content, which
could, if uninterrupted, in the long run jeopardize Wikipedia's reputation
as a source representative and respective of different perspectives, and
showing understanding to various positions, not just one.
My request for you, then, is to block some of the most contested articles
(the list can be discussed elsewhere) from being edited by anonymous
("IP-only") users. Logged-in users will have access; whoever wishes to
include his points, will be able to do it in the traditional Wiki fashion -
by debate and cooperation. It seems to me as the optimal way of promoting
the peaceful conclusion of this content war - by disarmament, and minimal
impairing of Wiki rights.
If you have any other proposals - I'll be glad to know them. I do not know
which course we shall ultimately take, but I am confident that it is in our
power to bring about a proper, comprehensive solution for this situation.
With deepest respect,
Uri Yanover
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 320
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Wed Jul 31 08:39:04 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels wrote:
> maveric149 wrote in part:
>>Aside.... Is the name "Pedia Wiki" used anymore? Or does our wikiware have no
>>name? :-(
>
> Sure it has a name: "Phase III Software".
Phase I: A lot of hot air.
Phase II: A rather liquid state of affairs.
Phase III: The software seems a lot more solid now!
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 321
[Wikipedia-l] Problems with anonymous editing of Middle Eastern conflict-related articles
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Wed Jul 31 11:08:23 UTC 2002
At 10:18 AM 7/31/02 +0200, Uri Yanover wrote:
A long eMail about problems with the [[controverial issue]]s of Palestine
and Israel.
I'm not sure folks should be blocked from making anonymous contributions,
but what I would like you to do, if you have the time and expertise is to
do something about the shape the articles have gotten into.
For example, the Palestine article has become quite long and unwieldy,
impossible really to read or edit. Is there some graceful way it would be
broken up into managable pieces? For example, could some of the history get
moved, perhaps into articles on Canaan, or the Philistines or Judea or
Roman occupation of Judea?
There is no need to feel like the Little Dutch Boy. You are not alone in
your view that the pages should be accurate nor are your opponents.
Fred Bauder
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 322
[Wikipedia-l] Problems with anonymous editing of Middle Eastern conflict-related articles
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Wed Jul 31 14:49:20 UTC 2002
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Uri Yanover wrote:
> It is not a secret that Wikipedia is at occasions the scene of massive
> content wars between the supporters of various positions. This is natural
> and expectable, the resolution coming at the end of each such war being an
> improvement to the original article. However, there's one content war that
> is unique, in several ways. It concerns the Arab-Israeli, and
> Palestinian-Israeli conflicts.
>
> During the recent months, Wikipedia has been the target of almost daily
> twiddling, in sum amounting to vandalism, from different supporters of the
> Arab position on the internet, most often editing the page anonymously. I do
> not oppose them stating their views; however, their style of modifying bits
> here and there, copy & pasting copyrighted articles, linking to pages of
> explicitly propagandist nature, coupled with the fact that they do not have
> a clue of what NPOV and Wikipedia in general is all about, creates a serious
> problem.
>
> On the other side of this equation, however, there's me. There aren't too
> many people who are aware of the complex history of the region on Wikipedia;
> out of them, there are fewer less who are ready to share they knowledge (by
> risking to pace on the mine-field of political discussions). Although I do
> not claim to be deeply knowledgeable, it is often only up to me to include
> the Israeli perspective in these articles.
I hold opinions opposite to your viewpoint in these matters (pro-Palestine),
and from this end the problem looks very different. There are tons of Middle
East articles, and they're far too large, and (IMO) are generally only NPOV on
the surface, the deep bias is Israeli.
When I touched some of these articles, my additions and changes were generally
reverted, and the original (imo) biased viewpoints often strengthened. There
were at least four people doing this, you included, and it made me feel very
powerless and depressed about Wikipedia in its entirety. (This is part of the
reason I've called for an npov-dispute page, to be linked to from articles like
this).
However, it appears the situation has changed. Browsing a few of the articles
lightly today I find they're less biased than they used to be, and from your
comments it appears there are fewer stone-walling people maintaining them.
Any conclusions? I still think most of these pages aren't really npov. Someone
suggested splitting up the articles and shortening them - I think that would be
a very good idea. I also think these articles should be marked much more
clearly as being controversion - so that people won't so easily be provoked by
the content being passed off as encyclopedic facts.
While I'm not up to date as to the current content of these articles, I
consider the earlier (and perhaps current) large scale bias in the article to
be just as big a problem as small but numerous vandalisms.
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 323
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Wed Jul 31 15:15:02 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> I say Jeroen and Danny would make a great sysops. However I know Jeroen used
> to use the "vote for deletion" feature of phase II Pedia Wiki a lot and at
> least several of the entries submitted had to be removed from the deletion
> queue as not being valid for administrative removal. But I still trust that
> Jeroen will /not/ abuse the delete page sysop feature and when there is /any/
> question that a page should be removed that that page be first placed on the
> vote for deletion page for a day or two -- which is the general policy anyway.
Yes, I'm aware of that; it's actually the reason I didn't consider becoming a sysop before.
Also, because much of the deletions that do occur do not comply with the Wikipedia
policy on permanent deletion of pages (especially rule 6), I'm sometimes confused.
The vote feature allowed me to state my opinion without using a Talk-page; if somebody
disagreed (usually Maveric), that was fine with me. Which reminds me: LDC said on
Sourceforge that the voting feature needs to be discussed before it comes back. I agree
with Maveric that it should come back; any objections?
> Unfortunately, LDC never got around to porting the promote/demote feature of
> Phase II to Phase III, so Jimbo (possibly a developer) will have to promote
> you two. I'm sure nobody will object to your promotion.
LDC himself has already contacted me to do the job, so he's working on it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 324
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 31 17:48:28 UTC 2002
>maveric149 wrote in part:
>
>>Again I would like to restate my proposal
>>to have an 'old hand' status that
>>would allow users that have been around
>>a while and are generally trusted to
>>move pages and edit protected pages.
>
>I don't think that I've done this before,
>so I'd like to officially state my
>agreement on this. 30 days/30 edits,
>mentioned before, seems reasonable offhand.
>Is there agreement that we do want to open
>up these two functions, and that the only
>thing left to discussion is the criteria?
>...
>-- Toby Bartels
There seems to be a growing consensus that these two
functions should be available to many more users than
they are now.
The 30 day AND 30 edit automatic promotion idea was
really an off hand suggestion of mine. The 30 day part
seems reasonable enough to me but I am now not sure
about the 30 edit part -- which may be a ridiculously
low number of edits for an entire month. What does
everyone else think? Would changing the criteria to 30
_pages_ edited AND 30 day old account seem more
reasonable?
During my first month I averaged 10 edits a day --
most which were clustered around several different
pages per day. I still easily surpassed 30 pages
edited in a month. Heck, if we wanted to we could even
make it 30 pages edited in the article namespace in
order to promote editing of articles over chatter on
talk or user pages (which I know I am guiltily of --
sorry, I developed a bad habit in my early wiki
days..). At any rate I don’t think any harm will be
done to those that take two or three months to hit the
30 edit/pages edited/articles edited threshold -- we
are in fact giving users /extra/ features and not
holding back current ones.
LDC -- would it be possible/easy to allow an 'old
hand' (or whatever we decide to call this – I never
liked "trusted hand" though) the ability to edit a
protected page /without/ being able to
protect/unprotect the page (which is a meta function
that should be limited to admins me thinks)?
Also, if we do decide to reinstate the "vote for…"
convenience feature, should this also be something
only available to 'old hands' and above (newbies of
course being less familiar with NPOV and our deletion
policy)? There still would be nothing stopping newbies
from bookmarking, linking to or searching for the
various "vote for" pages and editing them manually (as
we all have to do now). This would be an added bonus
for users as they graduate to 'old hand' status.
If we do choose to have a 'old hand' status, then the
only special features admins would have available to
them would be meta functions: page deletion, page
protection/un-protection, blocking IPs and the ability
to promote/demote users to/from ‘old hand’ and admin
status (just as it was in phase two -- although
"trusted hand" was a clone of "user" then). Admins
could also be encouraged to promote newbies who
obviously understand our policies and guidelines
earlier than 30 days to 'old hand' status before they
are automatically promoted.
--mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 325
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Jul 31 19:13:00 UTC 2002
Yes. I'm assuming that is the rule about making things redirects
instead, and keeping old pages in the database to avoid 404 errors
from search engine results. (new junk pages with no useful content
can be deleted safely). MANY deletions violate this rule.
kq
Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
>Also, because much of the deletions that do occur do not comply with
the Wikipedia
>policy on permanent deletion of pages (especially rule 6), I'm
sometimes confused.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 326
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Jul 31 19:19:32 UTC 2002
Official hierarchies of users are still undesirable, whether they're called
an "old hand" or not.
I still strongly believe in
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/The+Cunctator/How+to+build+Wikipedia
(See "Avoid Cabals".)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 327
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Jul 31 20:56:25 UTC 2002
>Yes. I'm assuming that is the rule about making things redirects
>instead, and keeping old pages in the database to avoid 404 errors
>from search engine results. (new junk pages with no useful content
>can be deleted safely). MANY deletions violate this rule.
I'm probably a major offender here, so I'd like to argue that perhaps
the policy needs to be changed or clarified. First, articles that
have no content or history should be deletable with less formality.
What we want to prevent is the loss of content.
Secondly, Wikipedia is dynamic in nature, and I don't think we should
play by the same rules as static websites in terms of keeping old
links alive. Certainly in some cases it's warranted; if someone
moves "James Earl Carter" to "Jimmy Carter", and the old one has been
around for a long time (not just a few days), then it's reasonable to
expect that there may be external links to it and there's no reason
not to leave the redirect. But if it is, say, a misspelling, I'd
rather just delete it. We are under no obligation to keep our
mistakes around forever, and if someone links to it and finds it
broken, we have done him a service by forcing him to correct it.
Likewise, if someone creates a page and I think it needs a different
title, if I catch that error within a day or two and move it, I'll
just delete the old title. There's not point in cluttering the
database with a redirect that's just a mistake, and hasn't been
around long enough to accumulate links.
And finally, anything outside encyclopedia namespace should be more
freely deletable as well. Anyone who links to a talk page deserves
what he gets.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 328
[Wikipedia-l] Page deletion (was: Re: Sysop status)
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Wed Jul 31 21:02:34 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>>Yes. I'm assuming that is the rule about making things redirects
>>instead, and keeping old pages in the database to avoid 404 errors
>>
>>
>>from search engine results. (new junk pages with no useful content
>
>
>>can be deleted safely). MANY deletions violate this rule.
>>
>>
>
>I'm probably a major offender here, so I'd like to argue that perhaps
>the policy needs to be changed or clarified. First, articles that
>have no content or history should be deletable with less formality.
>What we want to prevent is the loss of content.
>
>Secondly, Wikipedia is dynamic in nature, and I don't think we should
>play by the same rules as static websites in terms of keeping old
>links alive.
>
I've posted a suggestion that would help this.
It's also at the foot of this page:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
see the "Suggestion for non-existing pages" section. It's already posted
to SourceForge
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 329
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Jul 31 21:21:44 UTC 2002
good points, all. Should we reconsider/clarify/expand on the policy?
kq
Lee wrote:
>I'm probably a major offender here, so I'd like to argue that perhaps
>the policy needs to be changed or clarified. First, articles that
>have no content or history should be deletable with less formality.
>What we want to prevent is the loss of content.
>
>Secondly, Wikipedia is dynamic in nature, and I don't think we should
>play by the same rules as static websites in terms of keeping old
>links alive. Certainly in some cases it's warranted; if someone
>moves "James Earl Carter" to "Jimmy Carter", and the old one has been
>around for a long time (not just a few days), then it's reasonable to
>expect that there may be external links to it and there's no reason
>not to leave the redirect. But if it is, say, a misspelling, I'd
>rather just delete it. We are under no obligation to keep our
>mistakes around forever, and if someone links to it and finds it
>broken, we have done him a service by forcing him to correct it.
>Likewise, if someone creates a page and I think it needs a different
>title, if I catch that error within a day or two and move it, I'll
>just delete the old title. There's not point in cluttering the
>database with a redirect that's just a mistake, and hasn't been
>around long enough to accumulate links.
>
>And finally, anything outside encyclopedia namespace should be more
>freely deletable as well. Anyone who links to a talk page deserves
>what he gets.
>
>
>
>
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 330
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 1 03:07:08 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 31 July 2002 03:49 pm, you wrote:
> Official hierarchies of users are still undesirable, whether they're called
> an "old hand" or not.
>
> I still strongly believe in
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/The+Cunctator/How+to+build+Wikipedia
>
> (See "Avoid Cabals".)
Who is expanding the influence of a creating a Cabal (like we ever agree on
anything)? How is allowing the majority of active users the ability to edit
the Main Paqe and other protected pages and the ability to administratively
move pages a top heavy approach? Denying the majority of active users the
ability to do these things is rather un-wiki in my book.
I might be wrong, but wouldn't taking powers previously only usable by a
relative few and allowing a great deal more people to have them, tend to
democratize things?
Wikipedia is a large target and admins are needed to protect the site from
constant vandal abuse and unclutter the database as LDC puts it. This allows
most users to concentrate on creating and editing content.
Old hands will be needed to help maintain Wikpedia and the history of its
articles and all users regardless of database status will do what they always
have done; contribute like hell and learn the wiki way by helping create what
someday might very well be the best darn encyclopedia there is.
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 331
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Aug 1 19:51:14 UTC 2002
On 7/31/02 11:07 PM, "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who is expanding the influence of a creating a Cabal (like we ever agree on
> anything)? How is allowing the majority of active users the ability to edit
> the Main Paqe and other protected pages and the ability to administratively
> move pages a top heavy approach? Denying the majority of active users the
> ability to do these things is rather un-wiki in my book.
>
> I might be wrong, but wouldn't taking powers previously only usable by a
> relative few and allowing a great deal more people to have them, tend to
> democratize things?
>
Are you suggesting an automatic way of granting sysop status? If so, I like
it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 332
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 1 20:38:28 UTC 2002
>> I might be wrong, but wouldn't taking powers previously only
>> usable by a relative few and allowing a great deal more people
>> to have them, tend to democratize things?
> Are you suggesting an automatic way of granting sysop status?
> If so, I like it.
No, what he suggested (and with which I agree, though I'm not quite
sure how to implement it yet) is a third status in between J. Random
Anonymous user and sysop, which will be able to edit protected pages
and use the "move" function, and which will be automatically given to
someone who hangs around for a while.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 333
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Aug 1 20:49:40 UTC 2002
What's the purpose of the sysop status, then?
The only reason we had the sysop status originally was that we really
did need to "delete" some pages, and at that time, our delete function
was royally destructive, i.e. it deleted the page and all the history.
So it was too powerful to have people using it indiscriminately. But we
wanted to let a few people use it, because it really was useful.
Now, if the delete is no longer destructive in that way, i.e. if
there's a way to ordinary users to revive a deleted page, then we don't
really need sysop status except for "old hand" type of functions.
As I see it, we should *strive* to have only one level of user, in spirit.
I am comfortable with these levels:
1. Not-logged-in -- you can edit pages, etc., but you're penalized in
some minor respects. The reaso for this is that it's more productive
for people to choose a consistent identity, rather than possibly
having a different ip number every day. And if you remember '24',
it's a pain to have to refer to someone by a number.
2. Logged-in -- you can do anything that's not 'royally destructive',
i.e. anything that's not irreversible, EXCEPT edit some protected
pages. Again, we like to keep the number of protected pages to a low
level to just dissuade some of the more annoying and lame vandalism
attempts, like putting spurting penis pictures on the homepage.
3. Old-hand/sysop -- should be granted in an apolitical manner based
on being essentially "legit" -- sysops should be able to do a tiny
number of destructive (irreversible) things, IF we need to have those
abilities for some reason. (For example, some kinds of deletes do
need to be irreversible for legal reasons.) This status should be granted
more or less automatically, and whatever privileges it give should, by
strong social custom, NEVER be used "in anger", i.e. to "pull rank to win
an argument". There are only technical reasons to even have such a status.
4. Developer -- should be granted the ability to run arbitrary SQL
commands. MAYBE this should not be part of the software, now that
developers can log in to the machine directly using ssh. Access to
this should be highly restricted to people who (a) are techies actually
working on stuff, maybe development but maybe writing and running some
ad hoc log analysis scripts, etc. and (b) who agree that 'developer'
status should NEVER NEVER (DOUBLE NEVER) be used "in anger".
----
The main role that the Cunctator has taken for himself here is very
much appreciated by me... I think that a big part of our success is
openness and non-cabalism. Social pressure works better than the iron
rule of code.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 334
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 1 22:31:33 UTC 2002
> What's the purpose of the sysop status, then?
> The only reason we had the sysop status originally was that we
> really did need to "delete" some pages, and at that time, our
> delete function was royally destructive, i.e. it deleted the page
> and all the history. So it was too powerful to have people using
> it indiscriminately. But we wanted to let a few people use it,
> because it really was useful.
> Now, if the delete is no longer destructive in that way, i.e. if
> there's a way to ordinary users to revive a deleted page, then we
> don't really need sysop status except for "old hand" type of
> functions.
Delete is still every bit as destructive and permanent. The only
history of deleted pages will be in periodic database dumps. (I've
only done two since the new server was in place, and I still don't
have a cron job for it--I need to get some indication of how you plan
to archive them, if you do, before I can do that).
> The main role that the Cunctator has taken for himself here is very
> much appreciated by me... I think that a big part of our success is
> openness and non-cabalism. Social pressure works better than the
> iron rule of code.
I'm all for "openness" in making information available to people, and
letting people add their own. But I utterly reject the idea that one
can deal with malicious, destructive people without some means of
self-defense; and such people do, and will continue to, exist. I
don't think it's too bad an idea for "edit protected pages" and "move
page function" to be open to logged in users, but it does make me a
little nervous. But "delete" should definitely be locked down, and
block/unblock IP.
Here's another suggestion, and one that would be easier to implement:
instead of just "logged in" being the criterion, how about "logged
in, and with an apparently valid e-mail address" (and I'll get
cracking on that "e-mail user" function).
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 335
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Thu Aug 1 22:22:58 UTC 2002
Brion VIBBER wrote:
> tarquin wrote:
>
>> Before I too jump on the application bandwagon ;) -- what can sysops
>> do that mortals can't?
>
Could I have sysop status please?
I'd like to be able to copy wiki text from the policy pages. I might
also need to rename pages on Meta.
...
BTW, didn't someone mention a while ago that the incidents of crossed
wires between the US admins of the 'pedia and the people on the European
versions were due in part to differences in culture -- the Europeans
perceiving the Americans as a little brash and pushy?
I have a funny feeling we've just seen that in action again here: the
above message I sent earlier is, in British English a fairly direct
request ;-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 336
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Fri Aug 2 00:12:53 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>>Now, if the delete is no longer destructive in that way, i.e. if
>>there's a way to ordinary users to revive a deleted page, then we
>>don't really need sysop status except for "old hand" type of
>>functions.
>
> Delete is still every bit as destructive and permanent. The only
> history of deleted pages will be in periodic database dumps. (I've
> only done two since the new server was in place, and I still don't
> have a cron job for it--I need to get some indication of how you plan
> to archive them, if you do, before I can do that).
Under phase II, deleted articles were retained in the table of old
versions, and if necessary could have been restored by a sysop querying
the database. (There never was a pretty interface set up for this.)
I think the issue came up once, but the article in question had been
deleted (accidentally) before that feature was in place, so was long
gone from the database.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 337
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 1 23:56:20 UTC 2002
> Under phase II, deleted articles were retained in the table of old
> versions, and if necessary could have been restored by a sysop
> querying the database. (There never was a pretty interface set up
> for this.)
I didn't realize that. I could make delete less destructive, say, by
moving everything to an "archives" table that gets taped off every
now and then.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 338
[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Aug 2 00:49:13 UTC 2002
It seems to me that we need both -- a destructive delete when something just
has to go, and a nondestructive delete, the primary purpose of which is to turn
article links back into '?' links (i.e. edit links rather than read links), without
a lot of fuss and muss.
And yes, destructive delete should be locked down.
And yes, we need methods of self defense. The challenge is to have
just enough self-defense without providing ourselves with temptations
to cliquism and power games.
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> > Under phase II, deleted articles were retained in the table of old
> > versions, and if necessary could have been restored by a sysop
> > querying the database. (There never was a pretty interface set up
> > for this.)
>
> I didn't realize that. I could make delete less destructive, say, by
> moving everything to an "archives" table that gets taped off every
> now and then.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 339
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Fri Aug 2 07:07:42 UTC 2002
Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
>Also, because much of the deletions that do occur do not comply with the Wikipedia
>policy on permanent deletion of pages (especially rule 6), I'm sometimes confused.
I don't think that it's possible for a deletion not to comply with rule 6;
it's *failures* of deletions that don't comply with that rule.
That's because, unlike other rules, it says *to* delete,
which the other rules say *not* to delete.
That is, it doesn't say to delete *only* pages with names
that will never become the names of encyclopaedia articles;
it says to delete those (leaving open the possibility of others),
except where that conflicts with the other, restraining rules.
(Hence the language about keeping the other rules in mind.)
At least, that's the way that *I* read it.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 340
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Fri Aug 2 07:10:33 UTC 2002
Lee Daniel Crocker (?) wrote:
>Secondly, Wikipedia is dynamic in nature, and I don't think we should
>play by the same rules as static websites in terms of keeping old
>links alive. Certainly in some cases it's warranted; if someone
>moves "James Earl Carter" to "Jimmy Carter", and the old one has been
>around for a long time (not just a few days), then it's reasonable to
>expect that there may be external links to it and there's no reason
>not to leave the redirect. But if it is, say, a misspelling, I'd
>rather just delete it. We are under no obligation to keep our
>mistakes around forever, and if someone links to it and finds it
>broken, we have done him a service by forcing him to correct it.
>Likewise, if someone creates a page and I think it needs a different
>title, if I catch that error within a day or two and move it, I'll
>just delete the old title. There's not point in cluttering the
>database with a redirect that's just a mistake, and hasn't been
>around long enough to accumulate links.
As a member of the Redirect Don't Delete Party,
I've no inherent opposition to deleting pages
that have only been around for a few days.
It's these pages that have been here since February that bother me.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 341
[Wikipedia-l] 'Old Hands' -- spreading the power around
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 2 18:44:23 UTC 2002
Jimbo wrote:
>1. Not-logged-in -- you can edit pages, etc.,
>but you're penalized in some minor respects.
>The reason for this is that it's more productive
>for people to choose a consistent identity,
>rather than possibly having a different ip
>number every day. And if you remember '24',
>it's a pain to have to refer to someone by a number.
>
>2. Logged-in -- you can do anything that's not
>'royally destructive', i.e. anything that's not
>irreversible, EXCEPT edit some protected pages.
>Again, we like to keep the number of protected
>pages to a low level to just dissuade some of
>the more annoying and lame vandalism attempts,
>like putting spurting penis pictures on the homepage.
>
>3. Old-hand/sysop -- should be granted in
>an apolitical manner based on being essentially
>"legit" -- sysops should be able to do a tiny
>number of destructive (irreversible) things,
>IF we need to have those abilities for some
>reason. (For example, some kinds of deletes do
>need to be irreversible for legal reasons.)
>This status should be granted more or less
>automatically, and whatever privileges it give
>should, by strong social custom, NEVER be used
>"in anger", i.e. to "pull rank to win an argument".
>There are only technical reasons to even have
>such a status.
Perhaps I should expose my ulterior motive -- I want
to see an 'old hand' status established so that a
framework will be in place so that we can begin the
process of phasing-out "sysop" status -- maybe
entirely. This would be done by porting function after
function to 'old hands' as these functions become non-
irreversible and coded procedures are established to
handle these functions in the wiki way. Let me
explain:
The move feature used to be buggy, so it was limited
to a select few people for practical reasons. It isn't
buggy now so I would like to see this feature be
usable by anyone with an account older than 30 days
and who has edited more than 30 pages in the article
namespace (LDCs idea of having a valid email address
seems like a good additional requirement). The only
reason to have the 30/30 (or whatever) requirement is
because there is a bit of a learning curve about how
to use Wikipedia and what our policies and guidelines
are with article naming. And if somebody has been
around for more than 30 days and has edited more than
30 articles without running into serious trouble I
think it is reasonable to also allow them to edit the
main page and any policy pages that are protected
(actual policy changes would have to be done through
this list or its successor though).
Blocking IPs could eventually be ported to 'old hand'
too. Here is one possible way to do that: There could
be a warning feature, similar to some instant
messaging programs, where if a person is warned by
several 'old hands' within a certain amount of time
they will be blocked from editing for an amount of
time commensurate with the number and frequency of
warnings (there could be anti-warning function too to
negate unfair warnings -- all this should also be
logged). In this way Wikipedia will be watched 24
hours a day instead of being exposed at certain times
of day when sysops are not around. As it is, one sysop
blocks an IP which is highly personal to the person
being blocked -- thus potentially dangerous if the
blocked person is deranged and motivated. Even though
I don't use my real name in Wikipedia, I use it here.
It would be easy for any deranged maniac to find out
where I work starting with that information. I don't
like this situation.
Deletion, protection and promotion/demotion to from
user/'old hand' status could similarly be eventually
ported as these features become non-irreversible
and/or methods are developed for their collective use.
The above is just a set of initial ideas on how things
/might/ proceed. The details can be worked out for
each sysop feature as it is ported to 'old hands'.
In this way Wikipedia would be self-healing and
self-maintaining without having to have users of rare
and special rank.
I don't like being a cop and I don't like the fact
that we even have a quasi-Cabal -- that's why I want
to phase it out by eventually allowing the majority of
active, logged-in users to collectively perform
sysop-like functions (spreading the power around). But
this should be a slow process so that we can develop
procedures on how to perform sysop functions in a more
open and dare I say democratic manor that will not
hamper our success in the wiki way.
--mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 342
[Wikipedia-l] 'Old Hands' -- spreading the power around
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Fri Aug 2 21:15:42 UTC 2002
On Friday 02 August 2002 14:44, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Perhaps I should expose my ulterior motive -- I want
> to see an 'old hand' status established so that a
> framework will be in place so that we can begin the
> process of phasing-out "sysop" status -- maybe
> entirely. This would be done by porting function after
> function to 'old hands' as these functions become non-
> irreversible and coded procedures are established to
> handle these functions in the wiki way. Let me
> explain:
>
> The move feature used to be buggy, so it was limited
> to a select few people for practical reasons. It isn't
> buggy now so I would like to see this feature be
> usable by anyone with an account older than 30 days
> and who has edited more than 30 pages in the article
> namespace (LDCs idea of having a valid email address
> seems like a good additional requirement). The only
> reason to have the 30/30 (or whatever) requirement is
> because there is a bit of a learning curve about how
> to use Wikipedia and what our policies and guidelines
> are with article naming. And if somebody has been
> around for more than 30 days and has edited more than
> 30 articles without running into serious trouble I
> think it is reasonable to also allow them to edit the
> main page and any policy pages that are protected
> (actual policy changes would have to be done through
> this list or its successor though).
>
> Blocking IPs could eventually be ported to 'old hand'
> too. Here is one possible way to do that: There could
> be a warning feature, similar to some instant
> messaging programs, where if a person is warned by
> several 'old hands' within a certain amount of time
> they will be blocked from editing for an amount of
> time commensurate with the number and frequency of
> warnings (there could be anti-warning function too to
> negate unfair warnings -- all this should also be
> logged). In this way Wikipedia will be watched 24
> hours a day instead of being exposed at certain times
> of day when sysops are not around. As it is, one sysop
> blocks an IP which is highly personal to the person
> being blocked -- thus potentially dangerous if the
> blocked person is deranged and motivated. Even though
> I don't use my real name in Wikipedia, I use it here.
> It would be easy for any deranged maniac to find out
> where I work starting with that information. I don't
> like this situation.
>
> Deletion, protection and promotion/demotion to from
> user/'old hand' status could similarly be eventually
> ported as these features become non-irreversible
> and/or methods are developed for their collective use.
> The above is just a set of initial ideas on how things
> /might/ proceed. The details can be worked out for
> each sysop feature as it is ported to 'old hands'.
I don't think that sysop status should go away. I agree with the warning
idea. Here's what I think the hierarchy should be:
Not logged in: Can edit articles but cannot upload images.
Logged in: Can upload images. (Since not logged in users don't see the upload
page, it won't show up on search engines, and the junk upload problem should
go away.)
Old hand: Three different old hands together can block an IP address or a
user. Maybe three old hands voting to delete the same article, with no
intervening edits of the article, can delete it.
Sysop: Can block an IP or a user by himself. Can delete articles.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 343
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop status
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Fri Aug 2 23:22:43 UTC 2002
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 11:22:58PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
> Brion VIBBER wrote:
>
> >tarquin wrote:
> >
> >>Before I too jump on the application bandwagon ;) -- what can sysops
> >>do that mortals can't?
> >
> Could I have sysop status please?
> I'd like to be able to copy wiki text from the policy pages. I might
> also need to rename pages on Meta.
>
> ...
> BTW, didn't someone mention a while ago that the incidents of crossed
> wires between the US admins of the 'pedia and the people on the European
> versions were due in part to differences in culture -- the Europeans
> perceiving the Americans as a little brash and pushy?
> I have a funny feeling we've just seen that in action again here: the
> above message I sent earlier is, in British English a fairly direct
> request ;-)
This doesn't seem to be an american vs. european problem. As a German, I
wouldn't read it as a request for sysop status, too. Seems like you
just wanting to know what you are missing - to judge whether you
need it, perhaps.
Suddenly the old "can you tell me the time?" - "yes" -joke comes
to my mind ...
regards,
jeluf
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 344
[Wikipedia-l] Old hands, sysops, etc.
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 3 17:00:30 UTC 2002
Hey all -- I just noticed I'd lost ability to block IP's -- not that I'd
used it at all -- just in the last few days, I think, because they were
there after the move -- I can still move and delete pages, etc. Is this
a buggy thing, or part of the changes everybody's been discussing? I'd
certainly like to have the option, if it's still there for us. THx.
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020803/7d4ab9c3/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 345
[Wikipedia-l] 'Old Hands' -- spreading the power around
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Mon Aug 5 06:20:20 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote in part:
>Old hand: Three different old hands together can block an IP address or a
>user. Maybe three old hands voting to delete the same article, with no
>intervening edits of the article, can delete it.
I think that this is too few for blocking IP addresses.
Certainly we shouldn't implement that right away.
I'd like to devolve power slowly as mav suggested.
Whether we need to get rid of sysops entirely (I'd like to too) or not,
we can figure out as the devolution goes along.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 346
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Aug 5 14:51:30 UTC 2002
At 09:54 AM 8/5/02 -0400, Ed Poor wrote:
>Locking a page is only a temporary solution to an edit war. It stops the
current battle, of course, but a better long-term solution is to teach
contributors how to write from the NPOV. I'm not saying that this is an
EASY solution, obviously. I myself have struggled mightily to learn how to
write neutrally, and I still fail occasionally on subjects dear to me (such
as Global Warming, which Axel has reverted in flames a few times :-).
>
>I've stepped in from time to time, as in the Eisenhower controversy,
trying to show how information that veers away from the consensus can be
included: usually by summarizing, creating a new article, or demoting
content to an external link.
>
>What do others think about the prospects for educating contributors to the
controversial pages, on how to write from the?
Prospects are dim in certain instances. Some folks have a lifetime
half-life on certain fixed ideas. A crank usually has a narrow focus so
even they can benefit from tips on technique. In instances where a
government in engaged in war or serious domestic conflict Wikipedia is just
a part of their psychological warfare operations, if they bother with us at
all.
But I continue to think a good [[controverial issue]] page would be helpful.
Fred Bauder
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 347
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Mon Aug 5 15:34:20 UTC 2002
|
|But I continue to think a good [[controverial issue]] page would be
| helpful.
|
I wasn't a debater, and I haven't seen one of these things in awhile,
but intramural debate topics are set in advance and teams are expected to
be able to debate either side of an issue. Each topic comes with a
sort of handbook on the topic, stating the main question, rebuttals,
responses to rebuttals, all in a fairly standard format.
How about a similar setup for these tough issues with strong feelings,
like so:
Y, the article, describing the general situation while
maintaining NPOV
Sidebar: The debate about Y
A-side
B-side
That way, the A's could state their case and in true wikipedia fashion
the B's could dive in on the A-side page and Talk:A-side and debate
what the A's *really* stand for, and the same thing could happen on
the B-side, with various points and rebuttals appropriately
distributed. As a point became clearer and clearer (or time worked
its magic) the point could be promoted to the NPOV main article.
Just saying "This is a controversial issue" is kind of a cop out, but
some topics may never cool off, but the debate could be fairly
presented in a reasonable context.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan-88
PS - Whether Helga is a malign force or deluded patsy (I'd opt for
someone who drank too deeply at the geneaology well), she doesn't have
a clue as to what makes an encyclopedia article. Imagine an
articulate, clever Helga.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 348
[Wikipedia-l] Curly brackets and teaching the unteachable
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 5 22:13:34 UTC 2002
My vote is to leave pipelining as it is -- many newbies (and old hands)
have enough trouble figuring it out without adding more layers.
Re teaching the unteachable -- We'd all love to, but there are some
users, Fr. Jonat being one, who don't want to learn. They want to say
what they want to say, and facts as the rest of us know them don't come
into it. I personally think Helga's a special case -- She really does
care about making this a good site; she really believes her articles are
legitimate; she really believes that there is a conspiracy to hide the
truth; and her own personal losses color all of her political insights
and contributions. It doesn't help that she's also willfully pig
ignorant of how to critically read any historical source, primary or
secondary, IM very fed up with her O; however, she isn't a vandal in the
true sense of the word, and usually is only borderline troll-like. I
certainly can't in good conscience support banning her, but neither do I
believe she will ever change -- there is no rule against crap
contributions -- just tons of irritation. The only sure thing is that
she will eventually ride her hobby horse elsewhere after accusing us of
twisting the TRUTH, and a couple of months from now, quietly return to
make changes until someone notices.
Another such person was ark, who seems to have taken his deMause-ian
theories and gone to play elsewhere.
On the bright side, I've found that almost all newbies respond favorably
to hints and direction to NPOV policy, how to make articles better,
etc., so I don't think it's an issue. Lets keep in mind that, by and
large, the people here actually do want to cooperate and produce good
work -- it's just that lots of that happens without being noticed!!
Done pontificating now...
Jules
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 349
[Wikipedia-l] Curly brackets and teaching the unteachable
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Mon Aug 5 22:23:53 UTC 2002
Yes, and it's always uplifting to see it when the occasional article develops from a stub into something comprehensive and well-written within a day or two. That's almost always the result of cooperation between several people at once.
kq
JHK wrote:
>On the bright side, I've found that almost all newbies respond favorably
>to hints and direction to NPOV policy, how to make articles better,
>etc., so I don't think it's an issue. Lets keep in mind that, by and
>large, the people here actually do want to cooperate and produce good
>work -- it's just that lots of that happens without being noticed!!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 350
[Wikipedia-l] Curly brackets and teaching the unteachable
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Mon Aug 5 22:41:31 UTC 2002
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> secondary, IM very fed up with her O; however, she isn't a vandal in the
> true sense of the word, and usually is only borderline troll-like.
Perhaps you mean Wend? The Vandals were a Germanic tribe that
settled in northern Africa, not northern Poland. The Wends lived in
northern Poland, but they were Slavs, not Germanic.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wends
http://wwww.wikipedia.com/wiki/Vandal
Or perhaps you just didn't mean the "true" sense of the word.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 351
[Wikipedia-l] Curly brackets and teaching the unteachable
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 5 23:24:40 UTC 2002
Lars says:
Perhaps you mean Wend? The Vandals were a Germanic tribe that settled in
northern Africa, not northern Poland. The Wends lived in northern
Poland, but they were Slavs, not Germanic.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wends
http://wwww.wikipedia.com/wiki/Vandal Or perhaps you just didn't mean
the "true" sense of the word.
Jules says:
AARGH!! I meant in the true wiki sense of the word,
oh-even-more-pedantic-than-I one! Besides, I think we all know now that
she is Old Prussian, descended straight from the legendary Widewuto..
:-))
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020805/08223773/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 352
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Tue Aug 6 01:21:27 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>Locking a page is only a temporary solution to an edit war. It stops the
>current battle, of course, but a better long-term solution is to teach
>contributors how to write from the NPOV.
I agree. I am ***VERY*** uncomfortable with locking articles.
My impression (only an impression) is that Helga cannot be taught,
but I would ban her IP long before I locked an article.
(And I'm not suggesting banner her; this is simply a comparison.)
Even if we're just going to lock articles for cooling down periods,
then this needs to be discussed and documented before it happens.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 353
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Aug 6 01:45:32 UTC 2002
Yes, it's not very wiki, and since we agree it's not vandalism (only deeply misguided and ill-informed political evangelism) then there's no reason to ban her either. Though she is frustrating.
kq
>I agree. I am ***VERY*** uncomfortable with locking articles.
>My impression (only an impression) is that Helga cannot be taught,
>but I would ban her IP long before I locked an article.
>(And I'm not suggesting banner her; this is simply a comparison.)
>Even if we're just going to lock articles for cooling down periods,
>then this needs to be discussed and documented before it happens.
>
>
>-- Toby Bartels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 354
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Aug 6 02:12:15 UTC 2002
>Yes, it's not very wiki, and since we agree it's not vandalism (only
deeply misguided and ill-informed political evangelism) then there's
no reason to ban her either. Though she is frustrating.
Vandalism isn't the /only/ possible reason to ban someone. We banned
Mr. "24" because he consistently refused to work with the community,
undermined our goals, and made personal attacks. If Helga continues
to interfere with our job of making good articles, won't participate
in our process, doesn't contribute in other ways, and eats up the
time and energy of others here who /do/ contribute, then maybe
banning is the right thing.
Or perhaps a new feature for non-vandals like them: being restricted
to editing Talk pages only?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 355
[Wikipedia-l] Curly brackets and teaching the unteachable
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Aug 6 00:46:09 UTC 2002
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
>Re teaching the unteachable -- We'd all love to, but there are some
>users, Fr. Jonat being one, who don't want to learn. They want to say
>what they want to say, and facts as the rest of us know them don't come
>into it. I personally think Helga's a special case -- She really does
>care about making this a good site; she really believes her articles are
>legitimate; she really believes that there is a conspiracy to hide the
>truth; and her own personal losses color all of her political insights
>and contributions. It doesn't help that she's also willfully pig
>ignorant of how to critically read any historical source, primary or
>secondary, IM very fed up with her O; however, she isn't a vandal in the
>true sense of the word, and usually is only borderline troll-like. I
>certainly can't in good conscience support banning her, but neither do I
>believe she will ever change -- there is no rule against crap
>contributions -- just tons of irritation. The only sure thing is that
>she will eventually ride her hobby horse elsewhere after accusing us of
>twisting the TRUTH, and a couple of months from now, quietly return to
>make changes until someone notices.
>
>On the bright side, I've found that almost all newbies respond favorably
>to hints and direction to NPOV policy, how to make articles better,
>etc., so I don't think it's an issue. Lets keep in mind that, by and
>large, the people here actually do want to cooperate and produce good
>work -- it's just that lots of that happens without being noticed!!
>
>Jules
>
I must commend the sensitivity that you show toward another
contributor's "pig ignorance" in the face of what is clearly a
frustrating experience. You seem to recognize that misguided ideas
often come as sincerely from the heart. Your students are indeed
fortunate if their essays and term papers receive the level of analysis
that you provided for HJ's Copernicus article.. Too many of our
colleagues are over-hasty with heavy-handed tactics.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 356
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Helga Jonat
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Tue Aug 6 02:01:06 UTC 2002
J Hofmann Kemp wrote:
>Besides, I think we all know now that
>she is Old Prussian, descended straight from the legendary Widewuto..
But aren't the Old Prussians more closely related to Poles than Germans,
if language is any guide? (which it is, I think, albeit imperfectly).
OTOH, now that I think about it, mentioning Balto-Slavic was one of
the alleged errors in US textbooks that somebody put on a junk page,
and I seem to recall that this page was in fact Helga's.
Perhaps she believes in Balto-Germanic?
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 357
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Tue Aug 6 02:15:00 UTC 2002
Koyaanis Qatsi (sp?) wrote about H. Jonat:
>Yes, it's not very wiki, and since we agree it's not vandalism (only deeply
>misguided and ill-informed political evangelism) then there's no reason to ban
>her either. Though she is frustrating.
I at least think that it's appropriate to ban somebody
for consistently posting copyrighted material despite correction.
(I'm not in a position to judge whether this applies to Helga,
so I'm speaking theoretically here.)
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 358
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Helga Jonat
Kurt Jansson
jansson at gmx.net
Tue Aug 6 02:37:19 UTC 2002
Helga has also contributed to the German Wikipedia. Maybe someone who
can speak German and knows about Helgas bias could take a look at the
articles she has listed on her userpage
http://de.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?H._Jonat
Kurt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 359
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Aug 6 13:52:35 UTC 2002
Well, he also said Larry Sanger was not a human and something else--I forgot what exactly--that sound very much like a threat. That was the final straw, as it were: Jimbo banned him, and he's been banned ever since (and for good reason!)
kq
Lee wrote:
>Vandalism isn't the /only/ possible reason to ban someone. We banned
>Mr. "24" because he consistently refused to work with the community,
>undermined our goals, and made personal attacks. If Helga continues
>to interfere with our job of making good articles, won't participate
>in our process, doesn't contribute in other ways, and eats up the
>time and energy of others here who /do/ contribute, then maybe
>banning is the right thing.
>
>Or perhaps a new feature for non-vandals like them: being restricted
>to editing Talk pages only?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 360
[Wikipedia-l] Short notes re: Eclecticology's and Kurt's messages
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 6 16:59:49 UTC 2002
Hi Eclecticology -- thanks so much for the nice note -- it made me feel
ever so appreciated and glad I went back to teaching! By the way, you
have a very cool last name -- is it from one of the Low Countries?
Kurt -- I looked at some of Helga's stuff on the German wikipedia. I'm
not sure what you think, Kurt, but my opinion is that her stuff is much
less controversial. Perhaps she doesn't think the Truth is being hidden
from Germans? She writes more fluidly in German, too - no surprise
there, but it also isn't IMHO ''korrektes Hochdeutsch''. Knowing that
she has problems with grammar and spacing in her native language makes
me somewhat more charitable towards her English.
It would be great if a couple other German speakers -- especially
natives -- could also look.
Jules
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 361
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Move feature
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Aug 6 17:28:53 UTC 2002
>I would be wary of allowing somebody who has been
>logged-in for 5 minutes the ability to move pages
>around so easily. Again we should have an 'old hand'
>status to start porting these types of sysop functions
>to long-time users (with the goal of eventually
>porting all sysop functions as soon as safety
>mechanisms are established for each). There should be
>a minimum expectation that those with these abilities
>have been exposed to our policies and naming
>conventions. There is also the issue that if a newbie
>make a mistake during a move only a sysop can correct
>it because the old page title needs to be deleted
>before the move can be reversed.
>
>I know the automatic promotion idea will take some
>time to implement but creating an interface for sysops
>to do this manually has already been done for phase II
>so should be easy enough for phase III. We should
>begin working toward phasing-out sysop status by at
>least porting the move feature to old hands.
I agree that I do need to implement some auto-promotion
feature, but Sysop status is never "going away" as far as
I'm concerned. It is an unavoidable fact of reality that
some people are trustworthy and others are not, and human
judgment is required to tell the difference. That fact
must continue to be reflected in our process, regardless of
any pretty-sounding egalitarian dogma to the contrary.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 362
[Wikipedia-l] Short notes re: Kurt's message
Kurt Jansson
jansson at gmx.net
Tue Aug 6 22:29:26 UTC 2002
> Kurt -- I looked at some of Helga's stuff on the German wikipedia.
I'm
> not sure what you think, Kurt, but my opinion is that her stuff is
much
> less controversial.
My problem is, that I don't know enough about that part of Polish/German
history to judge Helgas articles. That's why I asked for help.
> Perhaps she doesn't think the Truth is being hidden from Germans?
Maybe. But then she doesn't know my 1968-influenced history teachers :-)
I think revisionistic views are more and more dying out in Germany. My
father also is a displaced person, and he's much more forgiving about
these things than my grandfather was. And I am not even interested into
those questions very much. I know that I trust very much in what I
learned at school, but I also know that arguing about these things is
very difficult without having direct access to historic sources.
> She writes more fluidly in German, too - no surprise
> there, but it also isn't IMHO ''korrektes Hochdeutsch''.
No, she writes a bit complicated sometimes, somehow oldfashioned.
> It would be great if a couple other German speakers -- especially
> natives -- could also look.
That whould be nice.
Kurt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 363
[Wikipedia-l] DICT protocol
mllnzeyclymq at spammotel.com
mllnzeyclymq at spammotel.com
Tue Aug 6 23:25:49 UTC 2002
http://www.dict.org
" Last modified: Fri Jul 16 01:14:24 1999" -- i think this say's it all.
A other project that is very alive to think about is
http://freenetproject.org
It is very beta but it works more or less. It is project for
distributing informaton whitout the posibility of censurship.
Acces to wikipedia can be forbidden but not to a freesite (so far a know)
A Freenet Wikipedia light site would be nice. --- giskart
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 364
[Wikipedia-l] Moves, sysops and old hands
Tim Marklew
tmarklew at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 6 23:28:18 UTC 2002
> >...There is also the issue that if a newbie
> >make a mistake during a move only a sysop can correct
> >it because the old page title needs to be deleted
> >before the move can be reversed.
In my view, the move feature will be sufficiently safe for general release
if the effects are easily _reversible_ - just being non-destructive isn't
enough. That is, if a newbie or anyone else makes a mistake or moves an
article to where they shouldn't, it should be possible for anyone to reverse
the change, just as it is possible to revert an article to a previous
version. At the moment, only sysops can revers a move, because of the need
to delete a page. I think this needs to change before the move function
goes on general release.
I would suggest making possible to move a page without creating a redirect
at the old page title by checking a tickbox. Then, even if a redirect was
getting in the way of moving an article back to where it once was, a user
could then get around this by moving the redirect to a new title to make way
for the article.
LDC wrote:
>I agree that I do need to implement some auto-promotion
>feature, but Sysop status is never "going away" as far as
>I'm concerned....
I wholeheartedly agree with this - there will always be a need for trusted
people to oversee the system. While a democratic system of 'old hands'
sounds appealing, I think preading out the really drastic powers - like IP
blocking - to more users could have the reverse effect to that intended.
The more people who have access to IP blocking (for example, by a 'vote to
block this person' system), the more likely it is to be abused and used in
arguments over controversial content rather than cases of genuine vandalism.
A group of 'old hands' abusing the system, perhaps because of their strong
views on a topic, would be very hard to deal with unless there were
sysop-type users overseeing things.
Tim (the Enchanter)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 365
[Wikipedia-l] DICT protocol
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 00:06:24 UTC 2002
> http://www.dict.org (DICT protocol)
I plan on implementing a stable API of some sort; if this
or some similar protocol catches on, it shouldn't be difficult
to write a gateway server between DICT and WikiAPI. But I
don't see much need for that yet until we have a resource
worth fetching that way, and I think that's still a year or
more away.
> A other project that is very alive to think about is
> http://freenetproject.org
Ah, yes, my previous free time sink (I was involved in that
project early on--I wrote the FAQs and such).
I don't think Freenet as it is will catch on--it's not really
that great a protocol, and some of its fundamental problems
aren't fixable. But I /do/ think that a peer-to-peer distributed
database might be an interesting back end for Wikipedia someday.
But again, I think it needs to develop in a centralized way for
a while before risking that. I may be labelled a heretic for
saying this, but part of what make Wikipedia great is its /lack/
or freedom and universal participation. Everything2 showed us
what that devolves into. We have a central goal here--a narrow
focus, and people to keep the masses pointed in the right direction.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 366
[Wikipedia-l] Moves, sysops and old hands
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 00:09:49 UTC 2002
> That is, if a newbie or anyone else makes a mistake or moves
> an article to where they shouldn't, it should be possible for
> anyone to reverse the change, just as it is possible to revert
> an article to a previous version.
That's a good idea. I could ease the restriction on the target
being empty to allow the move if the target is a redirect to
the source page, with no other content and no history.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 367
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Moves, sysops, and old hands
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 7 00:23:12 UTC 2002
Tim mentioned a wariness about old hands abusing sysop rights, and I
agree this is a possibility. On the other hand, there are currently a
bunch of old hands who DO have sysop rights, and I'm not sure I'd say
anyone has -- although there have been a couple of instances where
people on this list have questioned the actions of others. I think
that's good, and helps keep everybody more objective. Here's my take
(not that you asked, but you all know me ;-) ).
1. An automatic thing to give rights would be great, Lee. As long as
it's limited to people who consistently log in and contribute.
2. if this is put into place, I would also suggest that anyone who
qualifies (consistent contributions WHILE LOGGED IN over x amount of
time) get a pop-up informing them that they can have these rights, and
need only sign onto this list to turn them on. This will keep people
who really don't care to become that involved a way to opt out, and will
ensure that people who do want the rights also take the time become a
bit more involved.
3. I think there should be some guidelines (for people, not the system)
for use of IP blocking, page locking, etc. For example, I suggest
that, in cases of clear and immediate vandalism control, IPs should be
blockable based on one sysop's judgement. In cases of edit wars, or
where the sysop is actually involved, I think that a note should go to
the list asking for review and get two other sysops to agree there's a
problem -- and have one of them do the locking. I know this is more
complicated, but 1) it might help keep abuses from happening in the heat
of debate, and 2) it should help prevent the appearance of an evil
cadre, militia, cabal, etc.
--In response to the obvious question, Cunc (because I know you worry
about this type of thing), my assumption is that it would work this way.
I would be involved in (or witness -- I wouldn't feel comfortable
locking a page without consulting anyway, but that's just me) an
interminable edit war. I would say to myself, "Self, I can see no
contributions here, only angry reversions, I think this should be locked
till tempers cool and people have something constructive to offer." I
would then write a note to the list "Attention sysops: there is a
flame/edit/revert war going on at article x. I think it needs locking
for a bit. What do you think?" Then, I would wait to see responses. I
wouldn't know in advance who would respond. The second person to agree
(unless someone disagrees) would perform the lock.
In the case of disagreement, I would say that the "leave unlocked"
should prevail.
As I said, I know it's a bit complex, but I think it or something like
it would be a good idea.
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020806/c3b2e889/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 368
[Wikipedia-l] Moves, sysops and old hands
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Wed Aug 7 00:11:08 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 06 August 2002 20:09, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> > That is, if a newbie or anyone else makes a mistake or moves
> > an article to where they shouldn't, it should be possible for
> > anyone to reverse the change, just as it is possible to revert
> > an article to a previous version.
>
> That's a good idea. I could ease the restriction on the target
> being empty to allow the move if the target is a redirect to
> the source page, with no other content and no history.
Sometimes redirects have histories (there were two articles on a topic, then
they were merged and one turned into a redirect). In that case, the two
histories should be exchanged. Can you do that?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 369
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Moves, sysops, and old hands
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Aug 7 00:35:13 UTC 2002
On 8/6/02 8:23 PM, "Julie Hofmann Kemp" <juleskemp at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2. if this is put into place, I would also suggest that anyone who qualifies
> (consistent contributions WHILE LOGGED IN over x amount of time) get a pop-up
> informing them that they can have these rights, and need only sign onto this
> list to turn them on. This will keep people who really don't care to become
> that involved a way to opt out, and will ensure that people who do want the
> rights also take the time become a bit more involved.
I don't really think that joining the list should be a requirement. I think
instead some effort should be made to make a web interface to the mailing
list, as in the Yahoo groups. We shouldn't prevent people who don't want
to/can't use mailing lists from getting more Wikipedia rights.
> 3. I think there should be some guidelines (for people, not the system) for
> use of IP blocking, page locking, etc. For example, I suggest that, in
> cases of clear and immediate vandalism control, IPs should be blockable based
> on one sysop's judgement. In cases of edit wars, or where the sysop is
> actually involved, I think that a note should go to the list asking for review
> and get two other sysops to agree there's a problem -- and have one of them do
> the locking. I know this is more complicated, but 1) it might help keep
> abuses from happening in the heat of debate, and 2) it should help prevent the
> appearance of an evil cadre, militia, cabal, etc.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 370
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Moves, sysops, and old hands
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 01:00:39 UTC 2002
Minor technical detail: I hope you don't mean an actual pop-up window. They're evil incarnate ;-) and many people have popup killers because, in their eyes, popup==spam that bothers you while you're /not/ checking email.
kq
JHK wrote:
>2. if this is put into place, I would also suggest that anyone who
>qualifies (consistent contributions WHILE LOGGED IN over x amount of
>time) get a pop-up informing them that they can have these rights, and
>need only sign onto this list to turn them on. This will keep people
>who really don't care to become that involved a way to opt out, and will
>ensure that people who do want the rights also take the time become a
>bit more involved.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 371
[Wikipedia-l] Moves, sysops and old hands
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 01:20:03 UTC 2002
>> That's a good idea. I could ease the restriction on the target
>> being empty to allow the move if the target is a redirect to
>> the source page, with no other content and no history.
>
>Sometimes redirects have histories (there were two articles on a
topic, then
>they were merged and one turned into a redirect). In that case, the two
>histories should be exchanged. Can you do that?
The redirects created by the "move" function will not, because
it will have been non-existent. If there's history on both ends,
then you'll just have to swap content the old fashioned way.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 372
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Aug 7 05:33:13 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> Vandalism isn't the /only/ possible reason to ban someone. We banned
> Mr. "24" because he consistently refused to work with the community,
> undermined our goals, and made personal attacks.
Interesting. I was unaware that 24 was banned. How was this decided?
Was there a decision made to not ban me (mirwin)? I was attacked
for merely stating my personal opinion that I did not consider "24"
a troll.
I was called a nutcase because I concluded that the software engineering
article was biased and erased the heavily biased content to start the
article over. Lee, I, and others eventually reached an acceptable
compromise
on the material but I did not consider it helpful being called a nutcase
to begin the negotiations/discussion on how to properly restructure
the article.
I was ridiculed on various talk pages after attempting to participate
constructively in "24" attempt at meta to establish a process to
develop and define community mores, policies, procedures, etc.
Was the ban on "24" applied to meta as well as wikipedia?
Was there any discussion of banning others who were making personal
attacks in this time frame?
As I recall grade school disciplinary actions they were typically
applied to instigators or all parties. 24 alleged at one point
that others were attacking him and camping on articles he originated
or attempted to modify.
It is not clear to me that others were behaving towards 24 and his/her
material in ways that were consistent with the published guidelines.
If Helga continues
> to interfere with our job of making good articles, won't participate
> in our process, doesn't contribute in other ways, and eats up the
> time and energy of others here who /do/ contribute, then maybe
> banning is the right thing.
>
> Or perhaps a new feature for non-vandals like them: being restricted
> to editing Talk pages only?
This is really moving into revision control. It is fundamental
to the discussion "24" and a few others were attempting to stimulate
at various times at meta. Apparently "24"'s antics also made him/her
unpopular enough that banning or censorship was deemed appropriate
rather than addressing the issue of how legitimate revision authority
is established or derived in this "community".
I think it would be better long term for the wikipedia if this
issue were resolved through a general mechanism that is hard
for individuals, small groups, or cabals to subvert or misuse.
Alternatively, the "community" could be honest up front with new
people regarding who has what authority and simply must be placated
to retain write access.
Perhaps a "draft" or "proposed revision" page could be added
where proposed changes could be seen and revised. When a change
has acquired a defined threshold of approval then it automatically
occurs.
If Helga's (or 24s or mirwin's or some other unpopulist) perspective
cannot attain the threshold then they would automatically remain
on the draft page until rewritten to a form acceptable to
sufficient others.
mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 373
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 06:24:56 UTC 2002
>Perhaps a "draft" or "proposed revision" page could be added
>where proposed changes could be seen and revised. When a change
>has acquired a defined threshold of approval then it automatically
>occurs.
>
>If Helga's (or 24s or mirwin's or some other unpopulist) perspective
>cannot attain the threshold then they would automatically remain
>on the draft page until rewritten to a form acceptable to
>sufficient others.
The last thing we need is layers of goddamned bureaucracy. "24" was
banned, when it comes right down to it, because Jimbo said so, and
I frankly was happy about it because he did nothing but regurgitate
megabytes of incoherent drivel and took up the valuable time of those
who are trying to make something here. That's not a point of view,
that's vandalism of the process, and subversion of the project. I
don't know that there was ever any suggestion of banning you, or Ed
Poor, or anyone else around here just because they're "unpopular".
Give us credit for a little personal integrity. Anyone with any
point of view is welcome here, and always has been, and always will
be--it takes people with different points of view working together
to produce some of the good work we've produced here. It is only
those who actively subvert that process and get in the way of the
work that we would consider taking action against. And when that
happens, it should be done by those whom we have entrusted to make
this process work, and we should stand up and take responsibility
for it. If that makes us a cabal, then dammit we're a cabal, and
should be. If someone doesn't like that, the database dump and the
software are there for downloading--let him start his own, and see
if that democratic nonsense will fly in the real world.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 374
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Aug 7 06:28:57 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> Well, he also said Larry Sanger was not a human and something else--I forgot what exactly--that sound very much like a threat. That was the final straw, as it were: Jimbo banned him, and he's been banned ever since (and for good reason!)
Perhaps you should quote the entire argument or some context.
24 alleged the first thing Larry Sanger said to him was an attack.
The "threat" in context appeared to be rhetorical hyperbole
to me. Further, it was stated in the form that people like
Larry (clearly referring to his attitudes and prejudices that
were being applied to "24", deserved to have bad things happen
to them) It appeared to be an angry response to pretty intense
steady harrassment in the stacks because some regulars did
not like "24"'s material, beliefs, attitude, etc. There appeared
to be some rather abrubt deletion taking place. Several times
material that I was attempting to NPOV ended with abrubt
deletion/erasure of the entire article or content in the middle
of my editing.
This got extremely irritating to me, I am sure it probably
bothered "24". When I erased the biased [software engineering]
article in its entirety it seemed to provoke an astonishingly
intense reaction from "64" (maveric149) and Lee Crocker. Perhaps
they were involved in writing it.
Later, when I reviewed this mailing list archive, several
"regulars" had started wondering out loud whether they should
fear for their personal safety. Quite a leap in my opinion.
It clearly escalated the controversy.
Perhaps the reason for banning appeared to good to you.
To me it looks like "24" was banned because he had interests
similar to my own in participating in establishing or modifying
the community standards and processes. "24" appeared interested
in methods that would support large diverse participation
levels. "24" was apparently interested in green issues and
other political activism.
"24" was interested in establishing community processes that
would be compatible or attractive to people who could help
fill in gaps in those areas.
You say he was banned appropriately in effect, because he would be
not nice when Mr. Wales contacted him privately because the "community"
complained of his behavior and opinions and good riddance.
I say he was banned inappropriately because
when he brought up issues of community governance and content
completeness and attempted to add his own perceptions to the
gesalt he would not quietly roll over when arbitrarily
trumped by "long standing respected community members".
This appeal to authority persisted along with refusal to
engage in any meaningful dialogue regarding how to establish
a participatory process. I do not allege that Mr Wales
actions were inappropriate but that the "community" created
the situation in which the controversy between "24" and others
were not resolved amicably. Rather "24"s material and opinions
were routinely arbitrarily deleted and dismissed out of hand
by long term participants and their cronies. When "24"s
provoked behavior got offensive enough, Mr. Wales was called
in for totalitarian action and apparently "24" resisted his
attempts to exercise a calming influence.
The reasons were poor and, in my opinion, do not bode well for
the unstated goal of Wikipedia to be a high quality NPOV
encyclopedia. The stated goal of 100K articles is quite
achievable by a small closed "community", 35K and counting.
I wonder if, after passing the 100K mark, I will be able to
find anything authoritative, comprehensive, fun, informative,
wonderous, astonishing, etc. regarding the Amazon basin provided
by native English speakers or translated from the Spanish
Wikipedia or if I will have to proceed to the English translation
of the Spanish Fork?
regards,
mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 375
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 07:09:23 UTC 2002
> "24" was interested in establishing community processes that
> would be compatible or attractive to people who could help
> fill in gaps in those areas.
Frankly, I don't care what he was interested in or what his
intentions were. Intentions don't matter--results do. The
result of his presence was that lots of intelligent, hard-working
authors were spending more time cleaning up his nonsense than
writing good articles--and 90% of stuff was genuine, grade A,
nonsense. And worst of all, he /actively opposed/ any attempts
at moderation or working with the community. And lastly, he
simply refused to act like a civilized, adult human being. I
for one don't have time to waste on the likes of him.
I don't remember you like that at all. I reverted your change
to software engineering because you replaced a long, useful
article with a short polemic about a minority point of view--an
educated, experienced one, but a minority one nonetheless. We
then took your suggestions seriously and made changes. To me,
that's an example of the system working exactly as it should.
That's why I made you a sysop.
Another good example is Ed Poor. He is pretty much diametrically
opposed to everything I stand for--he's a Moonie, a creationist,
homophobic, and a few other things I don't care for. We had a few
content wars when he first showed up too. But if he asked me to
make him a sysop, I would with no problem, because he's proved
that he actually cares about the project and he works with other
people to make articles better.
It's not about agendas, it about the project. Either you're an
asset to the project, helping to create an encyclopedia, or you're
a detriment to the project, getting in the way. Some people just
simply get in the way of making an encyclopedia, and we simply
shouldn't let them. It's not that they're bad people, or that
their points of view don't matter--it's just that they have
different goals, and they should be free to pursue those goals
on their own time, with their own resources; they just shouldn't
get it /our/ way.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 376
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 10:56:37 UTC 2002
I posted about this earlier: 24 was banned by Jimbo Wales because he stated that Larry Sanger was not a human, and also made some kind of comment that would be hard to take for anything other than a threat. Forgive me if I don't remember the exact wording. He's been banned since, and I for one think that that is as it should be.
kq
mirwin wrote:
>Interesting. I was unaware that 24 was banned. How was this decided?
>
>Was there a decision made to not ban me (mirwin)? I was attacked
>for merely stating my personal opinion that I did not consider "24"
>a troll.
>
>I was called a nutcase because I concluded that the software engineering
>article was biased and erased the heavily biased content to start the
>article over. Lee, I, and others eventually reached an acceptable
>compromise
>on the material but I did not consider it helpful being called a nutcase
>to begin the negotiations/discussion on how to properly restructure
>the article.
etc.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 377
[Wikipedia-l] Curly brackets and teaching the unteachable
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 7 11:29:20 UTC 2002
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I must commend the sensitivity that you show toward
> another
> contributor's "pig ignorance" in the face of what is
> clearly a
> frustrating experience. You seem to recognize that
> misguided ideas
> often come as sincerely from the heart. Your
> students are indeed
> fortunate if their essays and term papers receive
> the level of analysis
> that you provided for HJ's Copernicus article.. Too
> many of our
> colleagues are over-hasty with heavy-handed tactics.
>
>
> Eclecticology
Indeed. Julie has shown Helga extreme patience and
considersation while cleaning up the messes that H.
Jonat has made over the months. If I had to follow
Helga around, I wouldn't know what to do with her
contributions, as I find them largely
incomprehensible.
Thanks Julie!
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 378
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Helga Jonat
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 7 11:42:48 UTC 2002
--- Kurt Jansson <jansson at gmx.net> wrote:
> Helga has also contributed to the German Wikipedia.
> Maybe someone who
> can speak German and knows about Helgas bias could
> take a look at the
> articles she has listed on her userpage
> http://de.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?H._Jonat
>
>
> Kurt
Julie, you read German, right? Er... wait,
nevermind...
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 379
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 7 11:49:04 UTC 2002
--- koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Well, he also said Larry Sanger was not a human and
> something else--I forgot what exactly--that sound
> very much like a threat. That was the final straw,
> as it were: Jimbo banned him, and he's been banned
> ever since (and for good reason!)
>
> kq
Something to effect of it was everyone's duty to heap
verbal and physical abuse on Larry and people like
him.
All of 24's others actions, while frustrating, weren't
worthy of a ban. Uttering threats against people is
rather different.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 380
[Wikipedia-l] blocked an IP
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 15:07:51 UTC 2002
just wanted to give you all a heads up: if you check out [[Special:Ipblocklist]] you'll see I just blocked somebody:
* 07:42 Aug 7, 2002, Koyaanis Qatsi blocked 213.253.39.188 (contribs) (unblock) (scripting in about 24 Easton's Bible Dictionary entries per minute--wikified, which I appreciate, but otherwise untouched, that is, heavily biased.)
I email this because I'm about to go pick up equipment for a shoot I'm going to in L.A. I'll be out most of today and I'm leaving Friday morning and will be gone until early Sunday a week later. I'm not dodging the debate that will undoubtedly come up.
If you're curious, I consider [[Anger]] a prime example of the bias inherent in the dictionary, and think also that many of them are no longer historically accurate. At the rate of 24 a minute, the cleanup (if left unchecked) would IMO be quite an undertaking. Feel free to unblock if I've acted unfairly or in haste. I probably won't be around to discuss it until much later tonight.
cheers,
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 381
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Wed Aug 7 15:01:20 UTC 2002
this from RC:
213.253.39.188 (block
<http://www.wikipedia.com/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Blockip&ip=213.253.39.188>)
/(from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897))/
whoever this chap is, he's importing pages at a rate of knots.
most of them are biblical obscuria, but once in a while there's
something like [[Anger]], which I'm delighted to find is sinful (for
those not yet used to my sense of humour: that was British sarcasm :-) )
I see no reason to block, (all part of the big tapestry, etc etc), but
we should be on the lookout for general things which suddenly acquire
very POV definitions.
We're still in "A" and they seem to have stopped for now.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 382
[Wikipedia-l] blocked an IP
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Wed Aug 7 15:04:38 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 07 August 2002 11:07, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> just wanted to give you all a heads up: if you check out
> [[Special:Ipblocklist]] you'll see I just blocked somebody:
>
> * 07:42 Aug 7, 2002, Koyaanis Qatsi blocked 213.253.39.188 (contribs)
> (unblock) (scripting in about 24 Easton's Bible Dictionary entries per
> minute--wikified, which I appreciate, but otherwise untouched, that is,
> heavily biased.)
You did well. The SK uploaded [[Anise]], which didn't exist previously, but
any of several other plant or animal articles could easily have been
overwritten.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 383
[Wikipedia-l] blocked an IP
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Wed Aug 7 15:06:59 UTC 2002
At 08:07 AM 8/7/02 -0700, Koyaanis Qatsi wrote:
>just wanted to give you all a heads up: if you check out
>[[Special:Ipblocklist]] you'll see I just blocked somebody:
>
>* 07:42 Aug 7, 2002, Koyaanis Qatsi blocked 213.253.39.188 (contribs)
>(unblock) (scripting in about 24 Easton's Bible Dictionary entries per
>minute--wikified, which I appreciate, but otherwise untouched, that is,
>heavily biased.)
>
>I email this because I'm about to go pick up equipment for a shoot I'm
>going to in L.A. I'll be out most of today and I'm leaving Friday morning
>and will be gone until early Sunday a week later. I'm not dodging the
>debate that will undoubtedly come up.
I'm relieved; I don't mind the entries on things found only in the Bible,
but they're grossly
inappropriate as articles on subjects like [[anise]]. (I did a quick
once-over on that, putting
a quick definition at the beginning, clarifying that the easton is about
the bible, and making
a few links. But it needs lots of work--the original author doesn't even
seem to know which
of two botanical names the article means when it says "dill."
>If you're curious, I consider [[Anger]] a prime example of the bias
>inherent in the dictionary, and think also that many of them are no longer
>historically accurate. At the rate of 24 a minute, the cleanup (if left
>unchecked) would IMO be quite an undertaking. Feel free to unblock if
>I've acted unfairly or in haste. I probably won't be around to discuss it
>until much later tonight.
>
>cheers,
>
>kq
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 384
[Wikipedia-l] blocked an IP
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Wed Aug 7 15:11:33 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 07 August 2002 11:04, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> You did well. The SK uploaded [[Anise]], which didn't exist previously, but
> any of several other plant or animal articles could easily have been
> overwritten.
Checked again. SK did not overwrite [[Amram]].
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 385
[Wikipedia-l] blocked an IP
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Aug 7 14:11:33 UTC 2002
Can we contact this person? I don't mind the automated entry at all,
but possibly some of these concerns can be addressed before the entry
proceeds like this.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 386
[Wikipedia-l] blocked an IP
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Wed Aug 7 15:17:36 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> I'm relieved; I don't mind the entries on things found only in the
> Bible, but they're grossly
> inappropriate as articles on subjects like [[anise]]. (I did a quick
> once-over on that, putting
> a quick definition at the beginning, clarifying that the easton is
> about the bible, and making
> a few links. But it needs lots of work--the original author doesn't
> even seem to know which
> of two botanical names the article means when it says "dill."
>
I fixed [[Ammonite]] & [[Anger]].
Seems I was too lenient (or still toe-dipping my sysop powers...) Good
call kq.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 387
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Wed Aug 7 15:25:34 UTC 2002
To me, a major part of the problem is that the material is so out of date. It
fails to take into account the past hundred years of archeological research,
which is essential. Furthermore, the statistics it gives about places are
hopelessly outdated. For example, Anatoth, currently 'Anata, is a fair sized
town today, not a hamlet with about 100 people. I don't know how they will
deal with places like Dan, Gezer, Megiddo, Hazor, etc. but they have been
major excavation sites this century, so most of what we know about them
(apart from conjecture) could not possibly appear in a nineteenth century
work.
Danny
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 388
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Aug 7 14:28:22 UTC 2002
Oh, good, it's one of us. Let's make sure we unblock the IP.
I was afraid some helpful stranger would feel hurt and run away.
Let's chat about this, and let Neil do this after a consensus is reached.
> There's also no chance of killing existing articles: the script checks
> in advance, and refuses to over-write existing articles.
I think this might have been the main concern.
> a) the bias in many of the articles (in which case I can add a
> disclaimer, saying "This is from an old Bible Dictionary, and it has the
> biases of its author and period -- please use this material as a basis
> for a new article")
Possibly the wording of this might be different, but I personally have no
suggestions.
> b) the rate of the scripted additions
So long as the server doesn't die....
> c) auto-addition of any material, even when filtered for stubs and nonsense?
I think we want to be careful about it.
The only other concern I personally might raise is that sometimes a blank article
will do more to encourage new writing than an old and obsolete article. This is
a tough call.
How many articles is it, total?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 389
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 17:04:28 UTC 2002
> Is your objection
> a) the bias in many of the articles (in which case I can add a
> disclaimer, saying "This is from an old Bible Dictionary, and it
> has the biases of its author and period--please use this material
> as a basis for a new article")
...
> c) auto-addition of any material, even when filtered for stubs
> and nonsense?
I think it is important that all articles in Wikipedia be
individually reviewed by a human editor. "Data dumping" is not
building an encyclopedia--quality is important, and out-of-date
material is not quality.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 390
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary / blocked an IP
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 17:13:04 UTC 2002
I have to wait for my tech professor to show up at 2:00 to help us resolve an audio problem with the camera we checked out. So I'm back, as there's little else to do.
I've unblocked the IP. I'm going to respond to several posts here so there's less crosstalk.
tarquin wrote (in part):
>I see no reason to block, (all part of the
>big tapestry, etc etc), but we should be on
>the lookout for general things which suddenly
>acquire very POV definitions.
The POV of it was an aspect that bothered me a bit, as it would require going through checking things over and NPOVing them. That with the rate of addition was another big concern. One every few minutes would (I think) allow people time to go over them. Also, a list of all articles added might be helpful so we don't miss any, because they /will/ need work. But it can be a valuable resource if used correctly.
Vicki wrote (in part):
>I'm relieved; I don't mind the entries on things
>found only in the Bible, but they're grossly
>inappropriate as articles on subjects like
>[[anise]]. (I did a quick once-over on that,
>putting a quick definition at the beginning,
>clarifying that the easton is about the bible,
>and making a few links. But it needs lots of
>work--the original author doesn't even seem to
>know which of two botanical names the article
>means when it says "dill."
Historical inaccuracy is another big concern. I had this problem with the [[Algeria]] article I tried importing from the 1911 Encyclopedia--it required *hours* of fact-checking, and even then I couldn't verify everything, and only added a few paragraphs. Not, in my mind, worth the trouble--though others may have more patience.
Neil wrote (and Jimbo wrote about the same thing):
>There's also no chance of killing existing
>articles: the script checks in advance, and
>refuses to over-write existing articles.
That was a concern too (one I forgot to mention). I'm glad you thought of it, Neil, and took precaution against it.
Neil wrote:
>Is your objection
>a) the bias in many of the articles (in which
>case I can add a disclaimer, saying "This is
>from an old Bible Dictionary, and it has the
>biases of its author and period -- please use
>this material as a basis for a new article")
>b) the rate of the scripted additions
>c) auto-addition of any material, even when
>filtered for stubs and nonsense?
a) yes. The disclaimer would be helfpul, though maybe not enough? Better, IMO, to have works that are unobjectionable regardless of the religion or lack of religion that people subscribe to. Would that statement imply a sense of endorsement? I don't know. Something to think about, anyway. Would the disclaimer be a stopgap measure, or would we still work to have the article as NPOV as possible?
b) yes, that one too--I was worried others would not have a chance to go over them and update them, as the additions would quickly be lost in a few days of Recent Changes. Would it be hard to keep a list of topics added so we can go over them?
c) no, provided (as Jimmy said) the server can handle it. However, the /rate/ of addition might be slowed a bit. And I do appreciate the filtering you've done already.
Danny wrote (in part):
>To me, a major part of the problem is that
>the material is so out of date. It fails to
>take into account the past hundred years of
>archeological research, which is essential.
>Furthermore, the statistics it gives about
>places are hopelessly outdated. For example,
>Anatoth, currently 'Anata, is a fair sized
>town today, not a hamlet with about 100 people.
Yes. Many of the articles will be out of date--badly out of date--and we'll need to be vigilant in updating them.
Best,
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 391
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
wiki pedista
wikipedista at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 7 17:02:07 UTC 2002
What about making the dump (slowly) to
EBD:article_name,
or somthing like that? In that way, it can be
used as a source for new articles, but it is
left clear that is not part of "our" enciclopedic
information.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 392
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary (resend)
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Wed Aug 7 17:29:16 UTC 2002
This is a trimmed-down version of my earlier over-length post.
I've now added an extra filter, so that entries whose titles occur in a
very large list of common words are rejected.
Thus, the script will now not attempt to transfer the entry for "Wheel"
or "Silk" or other common words, regardless of whether Wikipedia has an
entry for that word. This is in addition to the check for not clobbering
existing articles.
I have also eliminated any articles containing the words "modern" or
"current", which seems to catch a lot of stuff that refers to the
author's contemporary information.
I have also pushed the length filter up to 500 characters.
Doing all of these takes the list down to around 640 filtered articles.
Wiki links to the non-imported topics still remain, inviting Wikipedians
to write new articles about these topics. These remaning articles are
almost entirely about obscure figures and places from the Bible.
I intend to add a header to each imported article, reading something like:
''This is an entry from Easton's Bible Dictionary. The material in it
is written from the viewpoint of the 19th century, and may be
out-of-date or biased. Please review and edit this article to bring it
up to date''
and a trailer:
From [[Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)]]
I intend to drip-feed the finished articles in at a rate of one every 20
minutes, allowing lots of time for human review and assimilation, once I
think that there is a consensus that this is OK.
Can anyone suggest any further improvements, short of proof-reading all
1200 articles?
Neil
--------------------------------
Here are some of the results of the filtering of the original Easton's
topics:
lines with the word TITLE at the start denote articles that passed;
lines with the word BAD represent articles that failed to pass the
filter, with the reason for failure.
BAD A = familiar word
BAD A type Adam = no comma
BAD AEnon = too short
BAD Aaron = familiar word
BAD Aaronites = too short
BAD Abaddon = too short
BAD Abagtha = no comma
BAD Abana = modern
TITLE 1 510 Abarim
BAD Abba = familiar word
BAD Abda = too short
BAD Abdeel = too short
BAD Abdi = no he
BAD Abdiel = familiar word
TITLE 2 745 Abdon
BAD Abednego = too short
BAD Abel = familiar word
BAD Abel-beth-maachah = modern
BAD Abel-cheramim = too short
TITLE 3 551 Abel-meholah
BAD Abel-mizraim = too short
BAD Abel-shittim = too short
BAD Abez = too short
BAD Abi-albon = too short
BAD Abia = too short
BAD Abiasaph = too short
TITLE 4 1872 Abiathar
BAD Abib = too short
BAD Abida = too short
BAD Abidan = too short
BAD Abieezer = too short
BAD Abiel = too short
BAD Abiezrite = too short
BAD Abigail = familiar word
BAD Abihail = too short
TITLE 5 891 Abihu
BAD Abihud = too short
TITLE 6 2766 Abijah
BAD Abijam = too short
BAD Abilene = too short
BAD Abimael = too short
TITLE 7 3025 Abimelech
TITLE 8 817 Abinadab
BAD Abinoam = too short
TITLE 9 574 Abiram
TITLE 10 502 Abishag
TITLE 11 911 Abishai
BAD Abishua = too short
BAD Abishur = too short
BAD Abital = too short
BAD Abitub = too short
BAD Abjects = too short
BAD Ablution = familiar word
BAD Abner = familiar word
BAD Abomination = familiar word
BAD Abomination of Desolation = too short
BAD Abraham = familiar word
BAD Abraham's bosom = too short
BAD Abram = familiar word
BAD Abronah = too short
BAD Absalom = familiar word
BAD Acacia = familiar word
TITLE 12 1943 Accad
TITLE 13 574 Accho
BAD Accuser = familiar word
BAD Aceldama = modern
TITLE 14 767 Achaia
BAD Achaichus = too short
TITLE 15 823 Achan
BAD Achbor = too short
TITLE 16 1026 Achish
BAD Achmetha = familiar word
BAD Achor = familiar word
BAD Achsah = too short
BAD Achshaph = modern
BAD Achzib = modern
BAD Acre = familiar word
TITLE 17 5435 Acts of the Apostles
BAD Adah = too short
BAD Adam = familiar word
BAD Adamah = modern
BAD Adamant = familiar word
BAD Adar = familiar word
BAD Adbeel = too short
BAD Addar = no he
BAD Adder = familiar word
BAD Addi = too short
BAD Addon = too short
BAD Adiel = familiar word
BAD Adin = familiar word
BAD Adina = no he
BAD Adino = too short
BAD Adjuration = familiar word
BAD Admah = too short
BAD Adnah = too short
TITLE 18 1328 Adoni-zedec
BAD Adonibezek = too short
TITLE 19 984 Adonijah
BAD Adonikam = too short
BAD Adoniram = familiar word
BAD Adoption = familiar word
BAD Adoram = no he
BAD Adore = familiar word
BAD Adrammelech = familiar word
BAD Adramyttium = too short
BAD Adria = modern
BAD Adriel = too short
BAD Adullam = familiar word
BAD Adullamite = familiar word
BAD Adultery = familiar word
TITLE 20 571 Adummim
BAD Adversary = familiar word
BAD Advocate = familiar word
BAD Affection = familiar word
BAD Affinity = familiar word
BAD Afflictions = too short
BAD Agabus = too short
BAD Agag = familiar word
BAD Agagite = too short
BAD Agate = familiar word
BAD Age = familiar word
BAD Agee = familiar word
BAD Agony = familiar word
BAD Agriculture = familiar word
TITLE 21 615 Agrippa I
TITLE 22 655 Agrippa II
BAD Ague = familiar word
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 393
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary (resend)
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Aug 7 16:48:46 UTC 2002
Whatever anyone may think about these particular proposals (they sound
great to me), I think Neil has really shown true wiki spirit here.
I'm impressed.
Neil Harris wrote:
> This is a trimmed-down version of my earlier over-length post.
>
> I've now added an extra filter, so that entries whose titles occur in a
> very large list of common words are rejected.
>
> Thus, the script will now not attempt to transfer the entry for "Wheel"
> or "Silk" or other common words, regardless of whether Wikipedia has an
> entry for that word. This is in addition to the check for not clobbering
> existing articles.
>
> I have also eliminated any articles containing the words "modern" or
> "current", which seems to catch a lot of stuff that refers to the
> author's contemporary information.
>
> I have also pushed the length filter up to 500 characters.
>
> Doing all of these takes the list down to around 640 filtered articles.
> Wiki links to the non-imported topics still remain, inviting Wikipedians
> to write new articles about these topics. These remaning articles are
> almost entirely about obscure figures and places from the Bible.
>
> I intend to add a header to each imported article, reading something like:
>
> ''This is an entry from Easton's Bible Dictionary. The material in it
> is written from the viewpoint of the 19th century, and may be
> out-of-date or biased. Please review and edit this article to bring it
> up to date''
>
> and a trailer:
>
> From [[Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)]]
>
> I intend to drip-feed the finished articles in at a rate of one every 20
> minutes, allowing lots of time for human review and assimilation, once I
> think that there is a consensus that this is OK.
>
> Can anyone suggest any further improvements, short of proof-reading all
> 1200 articles?
>
> Neil
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Here are some of the results of the filtering of the original Easton's
> topics:
>
> lines with the word TITLE at the start denote articles that passed;
> lines with the word BAD represent articles that failed to pass the
> filter, with the reason for failure.
>
>
> BAD A = familiar word
> BAD A type Adam = no comma
> BAD AEnon = too short
> BAD Aaron = familiar word
> BAD Aaronites = too short
> BAD Abaddon = too short
> BAD Abagtha = no comma
> BAD Abana = modern
> TITLE 1 510 Abarim
> BAD Abba = familiar word
> BAD Abda = too short
> BAD Abdeel = too short
> BAD Abdi = no he
> BAD Abdiel = familiar word
> TITLE 2 745 Abdon
> BAD Abednego = too short
> BAD Abel = familiar word
> BAD Abel-beth-maachah = modern
> BAD Abel-cheramim = too short
> TITLE 3 551 Abel-meholah
> BAD Abel-mizraim = too short
> BAD Abel-shittim = too short
> BAD Abez = too short
> BAD Abi-albon = too short
> BAD Abia = too short
> BAD Abiasaph = too short
> TITLE 4 1872 Abiathar
> BAD Abib = too short
> BAD Abida = too short
> BAD Abidan = too short
> BAD Abieezer = too short
> BAD Abiel = too short
> BAD Abiezrite = too short
> BAD Abigail = familiar word
> BAD Abihail = too short
> TITLE 5 891 Abihu
> BAD Abihud = too short
> TITLE 6 2766 Abijah
> BAD Abijam = too short
> BAD Abilene = too short
> BAD Abimael = too short
> TITLE 7 3025 Abimelech
> TITLE 8 817 Abinadab
> BAD Abinoam = too short
> TITLE 9 574 Abiram
> TITLE 10 502 Abishag
> TITLE 11 911 Abishai
> BAD Abishua = too short
> BAD Abishur = too short
> BAD Abital = too short
> BAD Abitub = too short
> BAD Abjects = too short
> BAD Ablution = familiar word
> BAD Abner = familiar word
> BAD Abomination = familiar word
> BAD Abomination of Desolation = too short
> BAD Abraham = familiar word
> BAD Abraham's bosom = too short
> BAD Abram = familiar word
> BAD Abronah = too short
> BAD Absalom = familiar word
> BAD Acacia = familiar word
> TITLE 12 1943 Accad
> TITLE 13 574 Accho
> BAD Accuser = familiar word
> BAD Aceldama = modern
> TITLE 14 767 Achaia
> BAD Achaichus = too short
> TITLE 15 823 Achan
> BAD Achbor = too short
> TITLE 16 1026 Achish
> BAD Achmetha = familiar word
> BAD Achor = familiar word
> BAD Achsah = too short
> BAD Achshaph = modern
> BAD Achzib = modern
> BAD Acre = familiar word
> TITLE 17 5435 Acts of the Apostles
> BAD Adah = too short
> BAD Adam = familiar word
> BAD Adamah = modern
> BAD Adamant = familiar word
> BAD Adar = familiar word
> BAD Adbeel = too short
> BAD Addar = no he
> BAD Adder = familiar word
> BAD Addi = too short
> BAD Addon = too short
> BAD Adiel = familiar word
> BAD Adin = familiar word
> BAD Adina = no he
> BAD Adino = too short
> BAD Adjuration = familiar word
> BAD Admah = too short
> BAD Adnah = too short
> TITLE 18 1328 Adoni-zedec
> BAD Adonibezek = too short
> TITLE 19 984 Adonijah
> BAD Adonikam = too short
> BAD Adoniram = familiar word
> BAD Adoption = familiar word
> BAD Adoram = no he
> BAD Adore = familiar word
> BAD Adrammelech = familiar word
> BAD Adramyttium = too short
> BAD Adria = modern
> BAD Adriel = too short
> BAD Adullam = familiar word
> BAD Adullamite = familiar word
> BAD Adultery = familiar word
> TITLE 20 571 Adummim
> BAD Adversary = familiar word
> BAD Advocate = familiar word
> BAD Affection = familiar word
> BAD Affinity = familiar word
> BAD Afflictions = too short
> BAD Agabus = too short
> BAD Agag = familiar word
> BAD Agagite = too short
> BAD Agate = familiar word
> BAD Age = familiar word
> BAD Agee = familiar word
> BAD Agony = familiar word
> BAD Agriculture = familiar word
> TITLE 21 615 Agrippa I
> TITLE 22 655 Agrippa II
> BAD Ague = familiar word
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 394
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 7 18:20:00 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 07 August 2002 10:09 am, LDC wrote:
> I think it is important that all articles in Wikipedia be
> individually reviewed by a human editor. "Data dumping" is not
> building an encyclopedia--quality is important, and out-of-date
> material is not quality.
I strongly agree. A human should read, fix and add to these resources before
porting them to Wikipedia. We should always aim to create something unique
here.
What really is the point of directly porting outdated, pedantic, OCR error
filled material (such as from the 1911 text) into Wikipedia? The material is
already public domain, how is having it mirrored on a GNU FDLd content site
going to serve any greater good (that is; since it has not been changed the
original copyright, or lack thereof, applies)?
This stuff is nearly useless for the science articles and is oftentimes
problematic to use even in the history and mythology articles without
extensive tweaking.
With that said, it probably wouldn't hurt too much to simply take Pierre's
advice and submit one entry every 10 or 20 minutes with a "from an old
dictionary" flag in the edit summary field and at the bottom of the article.
This will give us humans plenty of time to fix the article if need be.
True it would probably take many months to finish but I think the result will
be far better.
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 395
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Aug 7 17:32:49 UTC 2002
Neil Harris wrote:
> That was me, pouring in entries from Easton's Bible Dictionary.
>
> Is your objection
> a) the bias in many of the articles (in which case I can add a
> disclaimer, saying "This is from an old Bible Dictionary, and it has the
> biases of its author and period -- please use this material as a basis
> for a new article")
> b) the rate of the scripted additions
> c) auto-addition of any material, even when filtered for stubs and
> nonsense?
>
> I can also set the threshold higher, or do more filtering.
> There's lots of good encyclopedic material in EBD, as the Bible is a
> major cultural source.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
This incident says more about some of our sysop members than it does
about the person uploading the material. Perhaps Neil should have
logged on just as any regular, but he didn't and there's no rule against
that.
In the past he challenged the technical tree by attempting to shake the
bugs out of it. Now, he may have unwittingly done the same to its human
resources. If he had identified himself in the first place I doubt that
we would ever have had this fuss. Instead some sysops saw this as the
irresponsible actions of a newbie, and went straight into panic mode.
There is nothing wrong with looking at a newbie's contributions more
carefully than you would at those of a known contributor, but the
yardstick that you apply in evaluating those contributions must remain
the same one.
Had these automated entries been been overwriting existing articles
(which they weren't) there would have been a serious problem, but more
in the nature of a system bug than anything that can be attributed to a
newbie.
The presumed newbie did draw attention with the rate of his downloads,
but he did nothing wrong. Much of the material was very much out of
date, but we all have the right to edit out the errors. At the rate
that he was dowloading it would have been impossible for him to enter
into edit wars on all the subjects.
By our continuing participation in Wikipedia it is fit and proper that
we assume some sense of guardianship, and there are times when "pig
ignorance" and charging rhinos will try anybody's patience. Still,
hasty bans, and other drastic action strike me as abusive. Maybe what
we need is a means of reviewing the actions of sysops that will limit
the perception that they are acting as a cabal.
I like the concept of a knowledge commons and the democratization of
knowledge, but I believe that there is a lot of work yet to be done on
that philosophical concept - and some of that may involve re-inventing
the wheel ..... over and over and over again. "Owning knowledge" is a
far broader concept than one that involves merely protecting the
financial benefits that flow from that ownership. That aspect only
stands out because it can be so easily codified in copyright laws..
Institutions are huge repositories of knowledge, but simply opening the
doors of the libraries and inviting the public to view whatever they
want is not likely to accomplish anything. The tools (as opposed to the
prejudices) required to evaluate the material are just not there. Their
erosion began in the first grade, or even earlier in the TV generation.
Of the many on-line communities my view is that the one that has come
closest to building a knowledge commons is the genealogical community.
Enough philosophy ...
Although it may not have come out as you intended, I still say the test
was a job well done. Maybe next time it can be from an "@aol" address.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 396
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Aug 7 19:04:54 UTC 2002
On 8/7/02 1:32 PM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> In the past he challenged the technical tree by attempting to shake the
> bugs out of it. Now, he may have unwittingly done the same to its human
> resources. If he had identified himself in the first place I doubt that
> we would ever have had this fuss. Instead some sysops saw this as the
> irresponsible actions of a newbie, and went straight into panic mode.
> There is nothing wrong with looking at a newbie's contributions more
> carefully than you would at those of a known contributor, but the
> yardstick that you apply in evaluating those contributions must remain
> the same one.
What panic mode? I'm as suspicious as the next, but the only thing that
happened was that the automatic text-adder had its IP blocked, since that
was the only easy way to stop it.
I didn't see much recrimination, just action.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 397
[Wikipedia-l] Mr 24
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 7 19:10:41 UTC 2002
I carried over Jimbo's block on 24's IP to Lee's software right after the
change-over (this was the only IP I transfered because this was the only one
Jimbo blocked himself).
Jimbo, was this block intended to be for life? If not I will remove it based
on your and/or the list's assessment on how long the block should last.
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 398
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Wed Aug 7 19:18:44 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>On 8/7/02 1:32 PM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>In the past he challenged the technical tree by attempting to shake the
>>bugs out of it. Now, he may have unwittingly done the same to its human
>>resources. If he had identified himself in the first place I doubt that
>>we would ever have had this fuss. Instead some sysops saw this as the
>>irresponsible actions of a newbie, and went straight into panic mode.
>>There is nothing wrong with looking at a newbie's contributions more
>>carefully than you would at those of a known contributor, but the
>>yardstick that you apply in evaluating those contributions must remain
>>the same one.
>>
>>
>
>What panic mode? I'm as suspicious as the next, but the only thing that
>happened was that the automatic text-adder had its IP blocked, since that
>was the only easy way to stop it.
>
>I didn't see much recrimination, just action.
>
>
>
Just to clarify things: I was perfectly happy with the temporary ban.
Both the human and software systems worked fine, and I got a message
saying why my bot was IP-banned. I'm not upset at all: things like this
tend to happen when you unleash automated tools, which is why they
should be tested before they are run and monitored as they run: both of
which I did - but no-one was to know that.
My posting script does not do cookies, so I can't easily do it under a
login. IP banning is a good way to stop such a bot, and did so effectively.
Lessons learned:
* The only thing missing, from my perspective of being on the end of an
IP ban, was a way to contact the administrator: perhaps banned IP's
should have a single 'talkback' page that they could be allowed to write
to, or a way of notifying the list via an E-mail gateway.
* Perhaps I should notify the list before running this sort of tool, to
avoid confusion.
* A general "You have mail: click here to read" flag for a user would be
useful: maybe based on an update to their user talk page more recent
than their most recent visit to that page.
Neil
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 399
[Wikipedia-l] Mr 24
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Aug 7 18:31:40 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Jimbo, was this block intended to be for life? If not I will remove it based
> on your and/or the list's assessment on how long the block should last.
I don't care one way or the other. He never emailed me or anyone else
to complain. I think the block just proved to him that he was right
all along, and he'll never be back.
We might as well get rid of it. If he comes back and behaves, that's
fine. But if he comes back and annoys us in the slightest, we know
how to get rid of him.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 400
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 20:34:44 UTC 2002
> There is nothing wrong with looking at a newbie's contributions
> more carefully than you would at those of a known contributor,
> but the yardstick that you apply in evaluating those
> contributions must remain the same one.
I don't see any evidence at all that KQ's action was anything
but a sincere and restrained attempt to protect the project from
an action that appeared to be dangerous, and both he and Neil
worked it out admirably. This episode is, if anything, a
testament to how /well/ the process we have works. I find your
suggestion that KQ's motives were personal in any way offensive,
and I think you owe him an apology.
Sysops are here for good reason: because some people can cause
damage to the project, well-meaning and otherwise, and someone
has to take responsibility for guiding the project toward its
stated goals. So far, everyone has done that in a an honest,
fair, reasonable, and restrained way. The continued harping on
by some about "cliquism" or "cabals" is as tiresome as it is
completely falsified by the evidence of the actual actions here.
The Wikipedia process we have works very well--if you want to
fix it, you'll have to first show me where it's broken, and I
just haven't seen that today.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 401
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 20:37:58 UTC 2002
> Just to clarify things: I was perfectly happy with the temporary
> ban. Both the human and software systems worked fine, and I got a
> message saying why my bot was IP-banned. I'm not upset at all:
> things like this tend to happen when you unleash automated tools,
> which is why they should be tested before they are run and
> monitored as they run: both of which I did - but no-one was to
> know that.
By the way--you can always try things like that on
http://www.piclab.com/newwiki/wiki.phtml
if you like.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 402
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 7 21:20:01 UTC 2002
Those are good suggestions. And thank you for being so gracious about the whole thing. I didn't mean any offense.
kq
Neil wrote (in part):
>* The only thing missing, from my perspective of being on the end of an
>IP ban, was a way to contact the administrator: perhaps banned IP's
>should have a single 'talkback' page that they could be allowed to write
>to, or a way of notifying the list via an E-mail gateway.
>* Perhaps I should notify the list before running this sort of tool, to
>avoid confusion.
>* A general "You have mail: click here to read" flag for a user would be
>useful: maybe based on an update to their user talk page more recent
>than their most recent visit to that page.
>
>Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 403
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary (resend)
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Wed Aug 7 22:02:34 UTC 2002
At 06:29 PM 8/7/02 +0100, Neil Harris wrote:
>This is a trimmed-down version of my earlier over-length post.
All in all, a fine thing; below are a couple of specific suggestions for
further improvement.
>I've now added an extra filter, so that entries whose titles occur in a
>very large list of common words are rejected.
That sounds useful--it'll save us from having to rewrite articles about
spices and such, and provide some useful stuff on less common topics.
>Thus, the script will now not attempt to transfer the entry for "Wheel"
>or "Silk" or other common words, regardless of whether Wikipedia has an
>entry for that word. This is in addition to the check for not clobbering
>existing articles.
>
>I have also eliminated any articles containing the words "modern" or
>"current", which seems to catch a lot of stuff that refers to the
>author's contemporary information.
Again, a good idea: the Easton stuff seems more useful as a source of
information about the Bible as a document than about the contemporary
Middle East.
>I have also pushed the length filter up to 500 characters.
>
>Doing all of these takes the list down to around 640 filtered articles.
>Wiki links to the non-imported topics still remain, inviting Wikipedians
>to write new articles about these topics. These remaning articles are
>almost entirely about obscure figures and places from the Bible.
>
>I intend to add a header to each imported article, reading something like:
>
> ''This is an entry from Easton's Bible Dictionary. The material in it
>is written from the viewpoint of the 19th century, and may be
>out-of-date or biased. Please review and edit this article to bring it
>up to date''
Maybe that could be expanded to note what sort of 19th century viewpoint:
it's clearly Christian, but if it's a particular denomination, that's
relevant (I
can tell immediately that it wasn't put together by a 19th-century Jew,
let alone a Buddhist or atheist).
>and a trailer:
>
> From [[Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)]]
>
>I intend to drip-feed the finished articles in at a rate of one every 20
>minutes, allowing lots of time for human review and assimilation, once
>I think that there is a consensus that this is OK.
>
>Can anyone suggest any further improvements, short of proof-reading all
>1200 articles?
One practical fix: when I was editing the [[Amon]] article this morning, I
found that
it linked to itself in a couple of places. Can you tweak the script to not
create
self-links.
Also, someone's going to have to proofread the articles--and I'd rather it
be someone
with more of an interest in the matter than I have, if only because such a
person is
more likely to catch misspellings of names.
And why not resume at Q or something, instead of back at the beginning of the
alphabet?
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 404
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 8 00:43:50 UTC 2002
>> * The only thing missing, from my perspective of being on the
>> end of an IP ban, was a way to contact the administrator: perhaps
>> banned IP's should have a single 'talkback' page that they could
>> be allowed to write to, or a way of notifying the list via an
>> E-mail gateway.
I've already planned a "mail this user" feature; maybe the "you've
been blocked" page should have a link to mail the specific sysop
who did the block.
It's pretty easy to post to Wikipedia-L though; nothing blocks that.
>> * A general "You have mail: click here to read" flag for a user
>> would be useful: maybe based on an update to their user talk
>> page more recent than their most recent visit to that page.
That's not a bad idea either; I perfer actual email for direct
communication, but user talk pages are there, and are being used
for that There's already a link to your user page at the top of
the page (at least in the standard skin; I don't remember about
CB); perhaps we should have a flag next to it with a link that
only appears when there have been changes to your user talk since
you last visited it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 405
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Aug 8 02:24:15 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> >> * A general "You have mail: click here to read" flag for a user
> >> would be useful: maybe based on an update to their user talk
> >> page more recent than their most recent visit to that page.
>
> That's not a bad idea either; I perfer actual email for direct
> communication, but user talk pages are there, and are being used
> for that There's already a link to your user page at the top of
> the page (at least in the standard skin; I don't remember about
> CB); perhaps we should have a flag next to it with a link that
> only appears when there have been changes to your user talk since
> you last visited it.
I think this would be a neat feature. Particularly for users
preferring the meta for discussions, without reliable email, or
uninterested in Wikipedia-L.
regards, mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 406
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Thu Aug 8 03:11:23 UTC 2002
"Michael R. Irwin" wrote:
>
> lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> >
>
> > >> * A general "You have mail: click here to read" flag for a user
> > >> would be useful: maybe based on an update to their user talk
> > >> page more recent than their most recent visit to that page.
> >
> > That's not a bad idea either; I perfer actual email for direct
> > communication, but user talk pages are there, and are being used
> > for that There's already a link to your user page at the top of
> > the page (at least in the standard skin; I don't remember about
> > CB); perhaps we should have a flag next to it with a link that
> > only appears when there have been changes to your user talk since
> > you last visited it.
>
> I think this would be a neat feature. Particularly for users
> preferring the meta for discussions, without reliable email, or
> uninterested in Wikipedia-L.
That would be a VERY neat feature... I don't pay very close attention to
my user page, and it would be great if a little flag popped up next to
my user name to tell me that somebody had left me a message there... Of
course, Mav's flag would never go away! lol
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature that
will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 407
[Wikipedia-l] How does one block a user?
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Aug 8 04:15:42 UTC 2002
Ss just uploaded a PHP script, which was promptly deleted by Brion Vibber,
and an incomprehensible image, which I deleted. According to Brion, it was a
cracking tool. How can this user be blocked?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 408
[Wikipedia-l] How does one block a user?
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 8 05:19:00 UTC 2002
> Ss just uploaded a PHP script, which was promptly deleted by
> Brion Vibber, and an incomprehensible image, which I deleted.
> According to Brion, it was a cracking tool. How can this user
> be blocked?
There's no interface for it yet, but any of the developers can
do it if we need to. But his stuff has been deleted and he
doesn't seem to be doing any other damage. If he doesn't just
go away on his own I'll do the blocking.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 409
[Wikipedia-l] How does one block a user?
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Thu Aug 8 06:18:47 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote:
> Ss just uploaded a PHP script, which was promptly deleted by Brion Vibber,
> and an incomprehensible image, which I deleted. According to Brion, it was a
> cracking tool.
Well, I don't know if the image was a cracking tool or not, it was just
pointless and incomprehensible. :)
The PHP script (which incidentally was harmless, as scripts in our
uploads directory are _not_ parsed or executed, but passed on just like
text files) was a version of "phpRemoteView", a remote filesystem browser.
> How can this user be blocked?
(See Lee's answer to this question.)
I doubt we'll see anything more from "Ss"; I imagine the account was
created solely to upload a couple files, and with their failure they'll
probably move on somewhere else.
That reminds me, though, of a long-ago feature request for something
like a watchlist for users; it might be nice to be able to keep an eye
on edits by specific users/IPs, either because you really like
somebody's edits, or because you don't trust them. :) The 'user
contributions' link handles this individually, but not en masse.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 410
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 8 08:21:42 UTC 2002
--- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
wrote:
> Interesting. I was unaware that 24 was banned. How
> was this decided?
>
> Was there a decision made to not ban me (mirwin)? I
> was attacked
> for merely stating my personal opinion that I did
> not consider "24"
> a troll.
24 was banned by Jimmy Wales because he issued threats
against another Wikipedian. No one has ever considered
banning you or anyone else, other than persistant
vandals and people who threaten physical violence.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 411
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 8 08:40:54 UTC 2002
Michael,
You're certainly welcome to your opinion. You should
take notice, however, that even though you stood up
for some of 24's ideas, participated in his various
meta pages, argued that he was not a troll (which
prompted Larry to label *you* a troll), offered to
work with him in order to shake up the Wikipedia
status quo, and erased an entire article in order to
start from scratch, no one even *suggested* that you
should be banned. Nor is anyone suggesting it now as
you reiterate your position.
I don't want to fan the flames again. I do want to say
that you're welcome to participate in this project and
hold any view you like. Just aim for the NPOV when
writing articles. And hey, if you're worried about the
Amazon articles, click the link and jump in with both
hands on your keyboard. ;-)
Stephen G.
--- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
wrote:
>
>
> koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> >
> > Well, he also said Larry Sanger was not a human
> and something else--I forgot what exactly--that
> sound very much like a threat. That was the final
> straw, as it were: Jimbo banned him, and he's been
> banned ever since (and for good reason!)
>
> Perhaps you should quote the entire argument or some
> context.
>
> 24 alleged the first thing Larry Sanger said to him
> was an attack.
>
> The "threat" in context appeared to be rhetorical
> hyperbole
> to me. Further, it was stated in the form that
> people like
> Larry (clearly referring to his attitudes and
> prejudices that
> were being applied to "24", deserved to have bad
> things happen
> to them) It appeared to be an angry response to
> pretty intense
> steady harrassment in the stacks because some
> regulars did
> not like "24"'s material, beliefs, attitude, etc.
> There appeared
> to be some rather abrubt deletion taking place.
> Several times
> material that I was attempting to NPOV ended with
> abrubt
> deletion/erasure of the entire article or content in
> the middle
> of my editing.
>
> This got extremely irritating to me, I am sure it
> probably
> bothered "24". When I erased the biased [software
> engineering]
> article in its entirety it seemed to provoke an
> astonishingly
> intense reaction from "64" (maveric149) and Lee
> Crocker. Perhaps
> they were involved in writing it.
>
> Later, when I reviewed this mailing list archive,
> several
> "regulars" had started wondering out loud whether
> they should
> fear for their personal safety. Quite a leap in my
> opinion.
> It clearly escalated the controversy.
>
> Perhaps the reason for banning appeared to good to
> you.
>
> To me it looks like "24" was banned because he had
> interests
> similar to my own in participating in establishing
> or modifying
> the community standards and processes. "24"
> appeared interested
> in methods that would support large diverse
> participation
> levels. "24" was apparently interested in green
> issues and
> other political activism.
>
> "24" was interested in establishing community
> processes that
> would be compatible or attractive to people who
> could help
> fill in gaps in those areas.
>
> You say he was banned appropriately in effect,
> because he would be
> not nice when Mr. Wales contacted him privately
> because the "community"
> complained of his behavior and opinions and good
> riddance.
>
> I say he was banned inappropriately because
> when he brought up issues of community governance
> and content
> completeness and attempted to add his own
> perceptions to the
> gesalt he would not quietly roll over when
> arbitrarily
> trumped by "long standing respected community
> members".
> This appeal to authority persisted along with
> refusal to
> engage in any meaningful dialogue regarding how to
> establish
> a participatory process. I do not allege that Mr
> Wales
> actions were inappropriate but that the "community"
> created
> the situation in which the controversy between "24"
> and others
> were not resolved amicably. Rather "24"s material
> and opinions
> were routinely arbitrarily deleted and dismissed out
> of hand
> by long term participants and their cronies. When
> "24"s
> provoked behavior got offensive enough, Mr. Wales
> was called
> in for totalitarian action and apparently "24"
> resisted his
> attempts to exercise a calming influence.
>
> The reasons were poor and, in my opinion, do not
> bode well for
> the unstated goal of Wikipedia to be a high quality
> NPOV
> encyclopedia. The stated goal of 100K articles is
> quite
> achievable by a small closed "community", 35K and
> counting.
>
> I wonder if, after passing the 100K mark, I will be
> able to
> find anything authoritative, comprehensive, fun,
> informative,
> wonderous, astonishing, etc. regarding the Amazon
> basin provided
> by native English speakers or translated from the
> Spanish
> Wikipedia or if I will have to proceed to the
> English translation
> of the Spanish Fork?
>
> regards,
> mirwin
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 412
[Wikipedia-l] DICT protocol
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 8 10:03:24 UTC 2002
--- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> But again, I think it needs to develop in a
> centralized way for
> a while before risking that. I may be labelled a
> heretic for
> saying this, but part of what make Wikipedia great
> is its /lack/
> or freedom and universal participation. Everything2
> showed us
> what that devolves into. We have a central goal
> here--a narrow
> focus, and people to keep the masses pointed in the
> right direction.
Yeah, I think that's kind of heretical. But you write
good articles *and* software, so I'll engage in some
religious tolerance. :)
Has anyone ever surfed around H2G2.com? Its entries
seem to be of consistantly better quality than most of
Everything2, and they have a peer-review system in
place. I'm going to poke around there a bit and see if
they have any useful techniques that could be adapted
to Wikipedia. Fishing out a few new Wikipedians
wouldn't hurt either.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 413
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Wed Aug 7 20:44:51 UTC 2002
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> To me, a major part of the problem is that the material is so out of date. It
> fails to take into account the past hundred years of archeological research,
> which is essential. Furthermore, the statistics it gives about places are
> hopelessly outdated. For example, Anatoth, currently 'Anata, is a fair sized
I think I have a working solution to this sort of problem:
Old texts should be scanned (in facsimile if possible) and put on a
read-only website which allows deep linking. For example, the article
on the Electric Telegraph from a 19th century Swedish encyclopedia is
available on the URL http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/nfad/0192.html
(have a look, nice pictures, all public domain).
The URL up to ...runeberg/ is the name of the website and "nf" is for
the encyclopedia and "nfad" is the 4th volume of the 1st edition.
Then in the wiki, a rule is added so the shorthand "nf:ad0192" is
automatically recognized and converted into a hypertext link, in a
fashion similar to ISBN numbers. The example is found on the wiki
page http://susning.nu/Telegraf
where the wiki text "nf:ad0192" is converted into (my translation)
See [http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/nfad/0192.html the article]
in the 1st edition of [[Nordisk familjebok]], volume 4, 1881.
and then into HTML.
So, what you need is a stable and deep-linkable read-only website with
the old contents that you want to use, and a shorthand linking scheme
in the wiki software. You do not want old text copied into the wiki.
Easton's Bible Dictionary is available in a deep-linkable, stable,
read-only website, the Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
starting on http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/
For example, the article on Anatoth is available on the URL
http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0000200.html#T0000233
apparently with 100 articles per HTML page, and this is article 233.
If this is a work that you often want to refer to, add the following
pattern rule to the wikipedia source code for the English Wikipedia,
ebd:([0-9]+) e.g. ebd:233
translated into
'See [http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/' +
sprintf("T%05d00.html#T%07d", $1/100, $1) +
' the article] in [[Easton's Bible Dictionary]] (1897)
Adding this "ebd:" rule to the wikipedia software doesn't hurt
anybody, since 99.99% of all articles will not contain the ebd:
pattern. But as soon as anybody, who knows EBD and this rule, starts
to use it, it saves a lot of time and effort in creating links instead
of copying useless text into the wiki.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 414
[Wikipedia-l] How does one block a user?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Aug 8 11:24:26 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> There's no interface for it yet, but any of the developers can
> do it if we need to. But his stuff has been deleted and he
> doesn't seem to be doing any other damage. If he doesn't just
> go away on his own I'll do the blocking.
At Disney World, they have very little problem with graffiti. The
reason is that they have a system whereby all the restrooms are
checked frequently, and when graffiti is discovered, it is painted
immediately. There are two beneficial effects to this -- first, the
vandal is deprived of an audience, so that there's little point to
doing in the first place, and second, it seems that when there is
*some* grafitti on a wall, other people think it's "o.k." and so
further grafitti appears at a faster rate.
The fact that we've got a decent crowd more or less around the clock
means that 'grafitti' gets 'painted over' quickly.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 415
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Aug 8 11:33:10 UTC 2002
Just as a historical footnote -- I banned '24' for, as I recall,
either 24 or 48 hours, as a warning. I intended to unban him after
that. I think the archives will reflect that this is what I said
about it at the time.
However, the peace and quiet which ensued was so soothing that I
forgot to unban him. He never wrote to me to complain, and we never
heard from him again.
To ban him at all was a difficult decision which I agonized over for
several days. But it seems to have worked out fine.
And I don't agree with Michael Irwin that banning 24 in any way sets a
precedent of diminishment of diversity of participation. 24 made some
noise about this sort of thing being his goal, but let's speak
frankly: he was WAY "out there" in terms of an ability to communicate
a coherent thought.
We should strongly welcome progressives, greens, libertarians,
anarchists, Christians, Muslims, etc., SO LONG AS they aren't trying
to turn wikipedia into a "progressive encyclopedia" or a "libertarian
encyclopedia" or a "Christian encyclopedia", etc. Of course there will
be arguments and struggles to find an NPOV, including, at times, hurt
feelings and incorrect assumptions that the other person is trying to
push an ideology.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 416
[Wikipedia-l] Automated Article Submission
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Aug 8 17:22:49 UTC 2002
Regarding the drip-feed idea:
>I intend to drip-feed the finished articles in at a rate of one every 20
>minutes, allowing lots of time for human review and assimilation, once
>I think that there is a consensus that this is OK.
Is there a way to label automatic submissions? If you could somehow fill in the summary field, we could see "(automated upload)" or something similar on the Recent Changes page. Then those of us interested in such articles could see them easily.
Or how about logging in as "Easton Bible Robot" so we could look at its "contributions" page?
We have all sorts of tools for making and viewing an audit trail. Let's use them.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 417
[Wikipedia-l] Graffiti painted over
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Aug 8 18:55:25 UTC 2002
Jimbo wrote:
>>At Disney World, they have very little problem with graffiti. The
reason is that they have a system whereby all the restrooms are
checked frequently, and when graffiti is discovered, it is painted
immediately.
Jimbo's got a great idea there. It's the mainstay of the wiki concept.
See the Wikipedia article on "Broken Windows".
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 418
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Aug 8 21:20:47 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>
> --- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Interesting. I was unaware that 24 was banned. How
> > was this decided?
> >
> > Was there a decision made to not ban me (mirwin)? I
> > was attacked
> > for merely stating my personal opinion that I did
> > not consider "24"
> > a troll.
>
> 24 was banned by Jimmy Wales because he issued threats
> against another Wikipedian. No one has ever considered
> banning you or anyone else, other than persistant
> vandals and people who threaten physical violence.
I never saw any direct threats from 24 as in:
I (24) am going to physically hurt you (someone).
The opinion stated (that I saw) was of the form: [Big X is a terrible
person and bad things (some vivid gory wishlist imagery here) should
happen to terrible people.]
Similar to the form {opinion, wish} or {why I wish, wish}
which Big X also used extensively during the heated rhetorical
episodes which preceeded 24's banning:
[Mirwin is a troll and should be ignored.]
[24 is a troll and should be ignored.]
<Spam insert begins here>
It is not currently possible to ignore trolls and vandals and
guarantee delivery of high quality content.
I reason thusly: Positive action is required to delete errors,
nonsense, and inappropriate material from the current pages served
to the public.
</Spam insert ends here>
<Inuendo insert begins here>
Perhaps Big X meant that I should be physically eliminated
by his unknown associates or himself next time he is in town?
Now I am not sure I want my email address, personal data,
or physical address findable by miscellaneous Wikipedia
users/editors.
</Inuendo insert ends here>
I did see some statements from 24 worded as threats that 24 might
invite indymedia.org participants to participate at Wikipedia.
It was implied that our feeble consensus building processes
would be quickly overwhelmed with dire consequences for the
viability of the Wikipedia. Unfortunately when someone
double dog dared 24 to issue the recruiting pitch he/she
either spitefully refused, is ineffectual at writing invitations,
is a procrastinator, the indymedia masses looked us over and found
us so wanting as to not currently be worth the effort, or some
other manifestation of the universe has occurred which I
have failed to articulate and/or perceive.
I hardly think inviting virtual visitors to participate
at Wikipedia to serve nefarious purposes can be construed
as a "physical threat".
In the course of the dispute I saw a specific threat to "out" 24
despite Wikipedia's explicit and implicit policy of allowing anonymous
participation. In my opinion this would have been highly unethical.
Not to mention a potential personal problem should my fearful
fantasies regarding Big X have any merit or congruence with reality.
To summarize:
Wishes are not fishes or apparently I would be not be
involved with Wikipedia, simply ignored.
regards, mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 419
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Aug 8 21:31:05 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> You're certainly welcome to your opinion. You should
> take notice, however, that even though you stood up
> for some of 24's ideas, participated in his various
> meta pages, argued that he was not a troll (which
> prompted Larry to label *you* a troll), offered to
> work with him in order to shake up the Wikipedia
> status quo, and erased an entire article in order to
> start from scratch, no one even *suggested* that you
> should be banned. Nor is anyone suggesting it now as
> you reiterate your position.
Thank you. I understand.
>
> I don't want to fan the flames again. I do want to say
> that you're welcome to participate in this project and
> hold any view you like. Just aim for the NPOV when
> writing articles. And hey, if you're worried about the
> Amazon articles, click the link and jump in with both
> hands on your keyboard. ;-)
8) You apparently forget my lack of expertise on the
Amazon Basin and related political activism issues,
means, and methods. I was hoping to leverage of off
others knowledge in this area, not even contemplating
years of fun researching it personally. Merely some idle
browsing occasionally and the ability to brag about the
completeness of our knowledge base to potential users,
editors and fellow Wikipedians alike. 8)
regards,
mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 420
[Wikipedia-l] Trigger Words
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 9 08:29:17 UTC 2002
I've been periodically searching for profanity in
order to catch vandalism that may have slipped under
the Recent Changes radar.
Whatever the page is called, it should be in the
Wikipedia: namespace. Direct URLs would be most
useful. Is there an existing page that could be used
for this purpose?
Stephen G.
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it occurred to me that certain words may well be
> used as search patterns to
> find low quality and non-NPOV articles. For example,
> there is hardly any
> valid encyclopedic use for the word "ironically" --
> I have tried to go through
> the articles that contain it and fix them one by
> one, but there are too many of
> them. Other emotional words such as "bizarre", and
> vulgar ones, such as
> "stupid" and "crap", may also be useful for finding
> articles that need to be
> edited.
>
> How about a page that lists such "trigger words" for
> others to search for
> them and fix the articles that contain them? Where
> should such a page be put?
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
> --
> GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
> http://www.gmx.net
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 421
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Fri Aug 9 13:49:44 UTC 2002
Several thoughts on the issues involved:
== Blocking IPs ==
I think that KQ did what needed to be done, or might have been needed.
I'm going to post another letter about 24 soon,
where I express disapproval of blocking IPs without clear policy guidelines.
But this case was different; from the reports here,
it seems that there were downloads coming every few seconds.
Regardless of the inappropriateness or POV bias of some of the downloads,
it was reasonable of KQ to place a temporary ban to avoid what
was a possible attack that humans haven't the speed to cope with.
As it turned out, Neil's intentions were the best,
and KQ didn't really have to react so quickly.
But there was no way to know this at the time.
That said, we're lucky that Neil understood so readily,
and all of his suggestions about how to improve IP blocking
seem to be good ideas. He's probably the only person on this list
ever to have their IP blocked at Wikipedia, so we should listen to him.
== Copying old public domain works ==
This is a bad idea, whether 1897 Bible dictionaries or 1911 encyclopaedias.
A human needs to go over all of these *before* they appear in our articles,
or it lowers our average quality while falsely making it appear
as if articles already exist and don't need to be written now.
(I have the same opinion about most cases of stubs, too,
and would rather delete nonsense pages than replace them with stubs.)
It's unreasonable for people to copy in these old texts,
include a warning that the material may be biased or out of date,
and then expect somebody watching Recentchanges to fix them.
If I create or edit an entry, then *I* am responsible
for checking that the material is netural and accurate.
This isn't asking for perfection, a standard that I don't meet anyway,
but for a reasonable human judgement that the material is good.
Mass copying, whether by a script or not, whether filtered or not,
doesn't provide this.
This means that I'm coming out against Neil's plan entirely.
As I mentioned under the last heading, his intentions were good,
but the plan itself, not just the execution, was IMO flawed.
If we want to use the EBD to write Biblically themed articles,
then that's great, and I don't expect Neil to do it all himself,
but we should set up a Bible article writing group to do it,
with human editing for each entry before it appears (in the [[:]] namespace).
== Automatic downloads ==
Both of the above comments combine to show that
automatic downloads are bad and should be deprecated.
They inspire the reasonable suspicion of an attack,
however false that may be, and prevent human intervention.
Fast downloads coming every few seconds are worst,
because humans have no chance of keeping up with them,
but any automatic system is bad. Articles meant to be read by humans
must be written by humans, and at a human speed.
At best we can automatically download what has been written offline,
but even this should be done slowly.
== Easton's Bible Dictionary itself ==
As for this particular reference work, I only saw one entry,
[[Spritual Gifts]] (now [[Spiritual gift]]), which was voted for deletion.
That vote was wrong IMO, and I moved and edited the article.
I did notice that it had a strong bias, and one that might be hard to spot,
which was against Pentecostalism. Pentecostalists believe that
the gifts of the Spirit are still given to Christians today,
while this dictionary made a point of denying that possibility.
There was no mention of dissent; judging by our [[Pentecostalism]] article,
it was written 6 years before Pentecostalism began anyway.
I myself only noticed this because my roommates are Pentecostals.
So if we use this resource (and we probably should),
then we should watch out not only for Christian and 19th century biases,
but for biases *within* Christianity as well.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 422
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Fri Aug 9 13:58:16 UTC 2002
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
> This means that I'm coming out against Neil's plan entirely.
> As I mentioned under the last heading, his intentions were good,
> but the plan itself, not just the execution, was IMO flawed.
> If we want to use the EBD to write Biblically themed articles,
> then that's great, and I don't expect Neil to do it all himself,
> but we should set up a Bible article writing group to do it,
> with human editing for each entry before it appears (in the [[:]] namespace).
I agree. The automatic committing of articles from out dated works should stop.
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 423
[Wikipedia-l] Edit Wars
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Fri Aug 9 14:10:29 UTC 2002
Although I just expressed support for KQ's banning the Bible bot,
in general I have a strong revulsion to banning individuals
for individual reasons. If threats get people banned,
then we should have a specific policy that says so,
and ban people on the grounds of that policy.
I wasn't around for 24, but I've read some his stuff
on talk pages and meta, and I must say that he disgusts me.
I take much of what he writes as a personal insult,
because he claims political alliance with ideas that I support
(such as distributive democracy, for example),
although his actions show these claims to be complete lies.
(For example, ordinary users' editing his remarks is democracy,
while setting up revolutionary commissars to reeducate people --
something that he suggested a few places although not in those words --
is not.)
Nevertheless, I think that he should be unbanned ''now''.
That's the default action without a reason not to,
and the fact that it's more pleasant without him is no such reason.
We can, of course, have a policy to ban people that make threats
(although I don't think that this is a good idea in general)
or people that a community consenus agrees are consistently biased
and refuse to work with others (very difficult to implement).
If he runs afoul of policy, then we can treat him like a vandal.
But we shouldn't ban him for personal reasons.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 424
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Jan Hidders
hidders at uia.ua.ac.be
Fri Aug 9 14:19:11 UTC 2002
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 03:58:16PM +0200, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
>
> > This means that I'm coming out against Neil's plan entirely.
> > As I mentioned under the last heading, his intentions were good,
> > but the plan itself, not just the execution, was IMO flawed.
> > If we want to use the EBD to write Biblically themed articles,
> > then that's great, and I don't expect Neil to do it all himself,
> > but we should set up a Bible article writing group to do it,
> > with human editing for each entry before it appears (in the [[:]] namespace).
>
> I agree. The automatic committing of articles from out dated works should stop.
I agree with Daniel and Toby here. Wikipedia is not in a big rush and
quality should go before quantity. It is great that there are such resources
out there that we can copy from, but automatically pumping them into
Wikipedia means that the natural responsibility that writers take for
correctness, NPOV-ness, et cetera, is no longer there. Even if I would copy
stuff from such resources I would still verify such things because I am putting it
in Wikipedia under my name.
-- Jan Hidders
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 425
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Fri Aug 9 14:37:01 UTC 2002
> I agree with Daniel and Toby here. Wikipedia is not in a big rush and
> quality should go before quantity. It is great that there are such resources
> out there that we can copy from, but automatically pumping them into
> Wikipedia means that the natural responsibility that writers take for
> correctness, NPOV-ness, et cetera, is no longer there. Even if I would copy
> stuff from such resources I would still verify such things because I am putting it
> in Wikipedia under my name.
My opinion is that automatic uploading of such texts is a bad thing, but for
slightly different reasons. My problem is that automatic uploading brings 'the
good, the bad and the ugly'. Some EBD articles form a good basis for a
Wikipedia article, others are of little use (I don't think we want the EBD
entry on Egypt, nor do we want an article from a 1911 encyclopedia on
Ljubljana, stating that it is a city in the Austria-Hungarian empire). Someone
who wants to upload material from a source like the EBD should him/herself
make the selection as to which entries are interesting for Wikipedia, not
brush that responsibility onto the community after the fact or upload
everything just because it is there.
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 426
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Fri Aug 9 15:06:06 UTC 2002
Andre Engels wrote:
>My opinion is that automatic uploading of such texts is a bad thing, but for
>slightly different reasons. My problem is that automatic uploading brings 'the
>good, the bad and the ugly'. Some EBD articles form a good basis for a
>Wikipedia article, others are of little use (I don't think we want the EBD
>entry on Egypt, nor do we want an article from a 1911 encyclopedia on
>Ljubljana, stating that it is a city in the Austria-Hungarian empire). Someone
>who wants to upload material from a source like the EBD should him/herself
>make the selection as to which entries are interesting for Wikipedia, not
>brush that responsibility onto the community after the fact or upload
>everything just because it is there.
>
>Andre Engels
>
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
Ok, there seems to be a consensus in the most recent comments that this
is a now a bad thing, so I've stopped uploading the articles. I think
there are some interesting lessons to be learned.
* auto-uploading is a mixed blessing
* some of the articles were rather interesting
* some were dross
* automatic content filtering was only partially successful
* uploading rapidly is bad: Wikipedia's NPOV processes can only
assimilate a certain rate of addition of added content
* it seems to have stimulated a fair bit of editing of non-uploaded
articles: creating a sort of "theme day" for Wikipedia
* auto-Wikification is more difficult than it at first seems
This was a pilot for possible larger projects. Given the response, I
think I need to take a different approach: I didn't anticipate the load
on the community's goodwill.
The PD NIH disease factsheets are the ideal target for this sort of
work: Easton's was a sort of dry run for the idea.
How about, as was suggested before by someone else, a new namespace:
something like "PDresource:" that can be used by auto-uploaders to get
PD info into a Wikified format without polluting the main namespace, but
can then be used as source material for the 'pedia by human contributors.
That way, the effort can be split: the natural thing to do with
auto-uploading _is_ massive data-dumps at a time, and this would benefit
the human contributors by getting a lot of text into a suitable format,
ready for human selection.
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 427
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Fri Aug 9 17:18:44 UTC 2002
|From: "Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" <daniel at copyleft.no>
|Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:58:16 +0200 (CEST)
|
|On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
|
|> This means that I'm coming out against Neil's plan entirely.
|> As I mentioned under the last heading, his intentions were good,
|> but the plan itself, not just the execution, was IMO flawed.
|> If we want to use the EBD to write Biblically themed articles,
|> then that's great, and I don't expect Neil to do it all himself,
|> but we should set up a Bible article writing group to do it,
|> with human editing for each entry before it appears (in the [[:]] namespace).
|
|I agree. The automatic committing of articles from out dated works should stop.
|
|-- Daniel
|
No batch procedure for content can be relied on to produce good
articles.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 428
[Wikipedia-l] Re: EBD and bots
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 9 17:43:55 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels wrote:
>It's unreasonable for people to copy in
>these old texts, include a warning that
>the material may be biased or out of date,
>and then expect somebody watching
>Recentchanges to fix them. If I create
>or edit an entry, then *I* am responsible
>for checking that the material is neutral
>and accurate. This isn't asking for
>perfection, a standard that I don't meet
>anyway, but for a reasonable human judgement
>that the material is good. Mass copying,
>whether by a script or not, whether filtered
>or not, doesn't provide this.
I agree completely. We already have over 35,000
articles and we have done this in year an a half - if
anything we should be concentrating on quality not
quantity at this point. One thing we have is a lot of
is articles. Another thing we have is a lot of are
stubs that need to be fixed. Yet another thing we have
gobs of is unimproved 1911 and other public domain
text that also needs to be fixed. Need we pile on a
lot more at this point with automatic uploads? This
made perfect sense a year ago when there were many
major chunks of human knowledge missing from the
'pedia but is no longer the case (at least in terms of
what is being uploaded -- we already have lots of that
type of stuff).
>If we want to use the EBD to write Biblically
>themed articles, then that's great, and I don't
>expect Neil to do it all himself, but we should
>set up a Bible article writing group to do it,
>with human editing for each entry before it
>appears (in the [[:]] namespace).
It sounds like the EBD would be an excellent resource
for a themed WikiProject -- participants would
rewrite, NPOVize, improve and expand the EBD text.
Remember part of what we are doing here is community
building -- bots don't make for very good community
members. Humans should be the ones that review, fix
and expand content before uploading it.
But then I'm not sure how we could prevent bots from
doing what they do without also preventing humans who
happen to use text browsers to edit the pedia (banning
bots in general would be nice in the vandal prevention
dept. though). Perhaps all we could do is have a
stated policy on this.
--mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 429
[Wikipedia-l] Revision Control H2G2.com
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Fri Aug 9 22:46:13 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>
> --- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> > But again, I think it needs to develop in a
> > centralized way for
> > a while before risking that. I may be labelled a
> > heretic for
> > saying this, but part of what make Wikipedia great
> > is its /lack/
> > or freedom and universal participation. Everything2
> > showed us
> > what that devolves into. We have a central goal
> > here--a narrow
> > focus, and people to keep the masses pointed in the
> > right direction.
>
> Yeah, I think that's kind of heretical. But you write
> good articles *and* software, so I'll engage in some
> religious tolerance. :)
>
> Has anyone ever surfed around H2G2.com? Its entries
> seem to be of consistantly better quality than most of
> Everything2, and they have a peer-review system in
> place. I'm going to poke around there a bit and see if
> they have any useful techniques that could be adapted
> to Wikipedia. Fishing out a few new Wikipedians
> wouldn't hurt either.
I browsed around H2G2 a bit. I agree, the "peer" reviewed
writing quality seemed good given the starting focus of Life,
the Universe, and Everthing from "The Hitchhiker's Guide
to the Galaxy".
The "peer" review scheme appears to be a top down controlled
hiearchy. Essentially they are using site volunteers to reduce
staff writing/editing workload while retaining all authority
at the top (inhouse paid staff). Draft or proposed material
is available in special collaboration or viewing rooms for site
goers who wish to view it. The proposed material works it way
upward as it is noticed and approved by the hiearchy. The focus
is on entertaining material well written in a consistent site style.
In addition to promoting the material, some reviewers can bounce
the material down the pyramid to a level matching their
perception of its state of readiness. There is a garbage collection
room named the "Flea Market" where abandoned draft work is
accumulated either automatically or manually for adoption.
I did not see anything that looked easily adaptable to Wikipedia
or wikis in general but I have not created an account and used
their editing and collaboration tools yet.
regards, mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 430
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Fri Aug 9 23:15:54 UTC 2002
"Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
>
> > This means that I'm coming out against Neil's plan entirely.
> > As I mentioned under the last heading, his intentions were good,
> > but the plan itself, not just the execution, was IMO flawed.
> > If we want to use the EBD to write Biblically themed articles,
> > then that's great, and I don't expect Neil to do it all himself,
> > but we should set up a Bible article writing group to do it,
> > with human editing for each entry before it appears (in the [[:]] namespace).
>
> I agree. The automatic committing of articles from out dated works should stop.
>
I also found Toby's reasoning persuasive in the context of our
current approach to content management. I would have no problem with
material automatically loading into a draft area for random users
or Wikipedians to review and edit at their leisure.
regards, mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 431
[Wikipedia-l] Re: EBD and bots
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Fri Aug 9 23:44:31 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> Remember part of what we are doing here is community
> building -- bots don't make for very good community
> members. Humans should be the ones that review, fix
> and expand content before uploading it.
I disagree. Properly utilized, bots could be very useful
in the exact fashion that Neil is prototyping. There is
a lot of old information lying around that belongs online
and in an encyclopedia.
The advantage of uploading the bot collected and screened
draft material is that it becomes available to all users
via the simple and known Wikipedia interface for editing.
I agree that humans should review it prior to posting
to the main namespace.
regards, mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 432
[Wikipedia-l] Trolling
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sat Aug 10 01:12:04 UTC 2002
Tonight I received this message:
> Return-Path:
> <lsanger at nupedia.com>
> Delivered-To:
> mri_icboise at surfbest.net
> Received:
> from ross.bomis.com (unknown [130.94.122.195]) by server10.safepages.com
> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DAC3C5E4 for <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>; Fri, 9
> Aug 2002 18:08:11 +0000 (GMT)
> Received:
> from localhost (lsanger at localhost) by ross.bomis.com (8.11.5/8.11.5) with
> ESMTP id g79IJSJ02302 for <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>; Fri, 9 Aug 2002
> 11:19:28 -0700
> Date:
> Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
> From:
> Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com>
> X-Sender:
> <lsanger at ross.bomis.com>
> To:
> <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
> Message-ID:
> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208091117060.19852-100000 at ross.bomis.com>
> MIME-Version:
> 1.0
> Content-Type:
> TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> X-Mozilla-Status:
> 8003
> X-Mozilla-Status2:
> 00000000
> X-UIDL:
> 1028916500.56225_3.server10.safepages.com
>
>
>
>
> I'd just like to point out cheerfully that indeed nearly everyone seems to
> be successfully ignoring your latest attempt at trolling, despite lie
> after lie after lie so tempting to refute. :-)
>
>
to which I responded:
> X-Mozilla-Status:
> 0001
> X-Mozilla-Status2:
> 00000000
> Message-ID:
> <3D5458B3.CB3E13D9 at surfbest.net>
> Date:
> Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:05:07 -0700
> From:
> "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
> Organization:
> Irwin Consulting
> X-Mailer:
> Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language:
> en,pdf
> MIME-Version:
> 1.0
> To:
> Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com>
> Subject:
> Re:
> References:
> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208091117060.19852-100000 at ross.bomis.com>
> Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding:
> 7bit
>
>
>
>
>
> Larry Sanger wrote:
> >
> > I'd just like to point out cheerfully that indeed nearly everyone seems to
> > be successfully ignoring your latest attempt at trolling, despite lie
> > after lie after lie so tempting to refute. :-)
>
> On the contrary, there seems to be a natural ongoing dialogue
> that naturally fades out when no one has anything substantial to
> add and resumes with new talking points.
>
> Toby has pointed out that retroactive application of newly
> formulated policy may not among be our best options in
> self governance. This may protect you should influential
> people get tired of people shouting troll or other
> unsubstantiated allegations.
>
> A simple public apology for an unwarranted public attack might
> go a long ways towards reestablishing your credibility as one
> of the project's founders.
>
> Have you thought about whether it is truly a fallacy to attack
> the arguer rather than the argument?
>
> Would you care to publicly quote the "lies" as a basis for discussion?
>
> regards, mirwin
I find it bit disturbing to be receiving emails self
alleged to be associated with Nupedia.com and Bomis which are
obviously intended to be inflammatory.
If we are to remain a successful anarchy ruled only occasionally
by an owner informed by public opinion then I think it is
important that public opinion be at least somewhat informed
to encourage good government.
Is this an unknown "troll" attempting to fan the flames of
local controversy or is this actually Mr. Sanger (perhaps unwisely)
using an old account at Bomis?
Hopefully, the reference information included will be useful
in clarifying the matter for any internet wizards among us.
I still have copies of the original files if those would be
more useful.
I can be reached, as indicated above, at this address:
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
I would prefer public dialogue via this list as I
feel this pertains to "public" policy.
regards, mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 433
[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Sat Aug 10 08:02:33 UTC 2002
On 09-08-2002, Michael R. Irwin wrote thusly :
> "Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
> > > This means that I'm coming out against Neil's plan entirely.
> > > As I mentioned under the last heading, his intentions were good,
> > > but the plan itself, not just the execution, was IMO flawed.
> > > If we want to use the EBD to write Biblically themed articles,
> > > then that's great, and I don't expect Neil to do it all himself,
> > > but we should set up a Bible article writing group to do it,
> > > with human editing for each entry before it appears (in the [[:]] namespace).
> > I agree. The automatic committing of articles from out dated works should stop.
> I also found Toby's reasoning persuasive in the context of our
> current approach to content management. I would have no problem with
> material automatically loading into a draft area for random users
> or Wikipedians to review and edit at their leisure.
yes, bots and scripts might prove useful. They are not a bad thing per se.
Just the way we use them might be inappropriate.
For example I have some data in the form :
John Doe 1900-1977 American celebrity, inventor of anonimity
the file could be turned by a script into
[[John Doe]] 1900-1977 American celebrity, inventor of anonimity
and put into temporary namespace so then it would be open for review,
changes and removal of unnecessary chunks.
After a time we could decide in the mailing list when this particular page
is to be "ingested" be a bot.
Regards,
kpj.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 434
[Wikipedia-l] Trolling
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Sat Aug 10 10:11:30 UTC 2002
mirwin wrote in part:
>Is this an unknown "troll" attempting to fan the flames of
>local controversy or is this actually Mr. Sanger (perhaps unwisely)
>using an old account at Bomis?
I always thought that it was silly when people put disclaimers in their sig:
"The views expressed are mine alone and not those of my ISP.".
I mean, who would ever think that an entity was supporting a view
just because it appeared after the @ in an address or in a Received: header?
But perhaps these disclaimers are necessary after all.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are mine alone
and are not those of the University of California,
the mathematics community at large, my parents,
or the guy sitting next to me at the next computer.
They are, however, the views of most residents of Kinshasa,
although that's just one of those freaky coincidences.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 435
[Wikipedia-l] Trolling
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Sat Aug 10 13:42:23 UTC 2002
At 03:11 AM 8/10/02 -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
>mirwin wrote in part:
>
> >Is this an unknown "troll" attempting to fan the flames of
> >local controversy or is this actually Mr. Sanger (perhaps unwisely)
> >using an old account at Bomis?
>
>I always thought that it was silly when people put disclaimers in their sig:
>"The views expressed are mine alone and not those of my ISP.".
>I mean, who would ever think that an entity was supporting a view
>just because it appeared after the @ in an address or in a Received: header?
>But perhaps these disclaimers are necessary after all.
Context is everything. I worked for the ACM for 15 years; for most of that
time, I had an email account @acm.org. The standard sig on that was
"Vicki Rosenzweig, Associate Editor, ACM Computing Reviews." I used
a disclaimer exactly *once*: when I was commenting on something in
comp.risks, which is (loosely) an ACM project, and wanted to make clear
that I was commenting as Vicki, not as an ACM employee.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 436
[Wikipedia-l] Request for Sysop access
Tim Marklew
tmarklew at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 10 17:16:12 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales, Wikipedians,
I would like to request Sysop access to Wikipedia. I have been contributing
for about 6 months now as user:Enchanter.
Many thanks,
Tim
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 437
[Wikipedia-l] Trolling
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sat Aug 10 19:15:49 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels wrote:
>
> mirwin wrote in part:
>
> >Is this an unknown "troll" attempting to fan the flames of
> >local controversy or is this actually Mr. Sanger (perhaps unwisely)
> >using an old account at Bomis?
>
> I always thought that it was silly when people put disclaimers in their sig:
> "The views expressed are mine alone and not those of my ISP.".
> I mean, who would ever think that an entity was supporting a view
> just because it appeared after the @ in an address or in a Received: header?
> But perhaps these disclaimers are necessary after all.
>
A lot of people use mail accounts for both business and
personal purposes. Sometimes clarification of the specific
role in which they are acting or who they are representing
is useful. Sometimes it is customary and a matter of courtesy.
Sometimes it is mandatory.
Mr. Sanger used to be employed fulltime by Bomis and played
a lead role in the early establishment of Wikipedia as a
"founder" and as an "editor-in-chief". I have the impression from
various email reviewed and events witnessed upon Wikipedia
and meta.wikipedia that he also got drawn occasionally into
the role of a community "enforcer".
Mr. Wales has now stepped into an "enforcer" role by default
as the owner since Mr. Sanger left fulltime employment with Bomis.
This is documented in various places on meta.wikipedia, wikipedia,
and the archives of this mailing list.
It would be useful to me to know what role the person using
Mr. Sanger's Nupedia account to send private inflammatory
emails thinks they are acting in and that person's actual identity.
If it is Mr. Sanger then his credibility and reputation is
diminished with me and perhaps with the community, now that I have
chosen to publish it to the mailing list. If it is not Mr. Sanger,
then there may be an issue of security or integrity failure
within the Bomis workforce or the within the community which has access
to the Bomis network beyond sending email through the list servers.
Have other people participating at Wikipedia, and still here
obviously, encountered this type of behavior from Mr. Sanger's
email account? Was the behavior encouraged by other members
of the community to drive off unpopular people or unpopular
viewpoints?
To summarize some of the issues:
Does Mr. Sanger think he has the widespread
support of the Wikipedia community in attempting to incite me
or is this merely personal recreation?
Is this actually Mr. Sanger or is it someone attempting to
discredit him and/or the Wikipedia community?
Is this a misguided attempt to drive off an unpopular viewpoint
or questions rather than address them via the community discussion
forums?
If a security breach is in progress (someone unknown has logged
into Mr. Sanger's account and used it without regard (or with malicious
intent) for Bomis, Nupedia, Wikipedia and Mr. Sanger's reputation and
credibility) has it been initiated by someone within the community or
an external agent?
regards,
mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 438
[Wikipedia-l] Request for Sysop access
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 10 21:30:31 UTC 2002
On Saturday 10 August 2002 12:01 pm, Tim wrote:
> Jimmy Wales, Wikipedians,
>
> I would like to request Sysop access to Wikipedia. I have been
> contributing for about 6 months now as user:Enchanter.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Tim
I would do it myself but there isn't yet an interface for this. Hopefully LDC
or Jimbo saw your note and have already promoted you.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 439
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 10 21:42:23 UTC 2002
On Saturday 10 August 2002 10:15 am, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
> When someone makes a GUI frontend to
> Wikipedia, those features will become more
> sophisticated (wysiwyg).
Blasphemy! GUI? WYSIWYG? Now that would be unwiki.
Seriously; one of the reasons why we are successful is because there is a bit
of a learning curve to being a contributor (small, but it is there). I hate
to say it, but this small learning curve acts as a kind of filter against
those that have nothing but incoherent and random nonsense to "contribute".
If the basic concept ain't broke, why fix it? Wiki is dead easy to learn
anyway. But it does require some cognitive faculty and mental discipline to
get the hang of.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 440
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sat Aug 10 21:54:02 UTC 2002
On 8/10/02 5:42 PM, "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Seriously; one of the reasons why we are successful is because there is a bit
> of a learning curve to being a contributor (small, but it is there). I hate
> to say it, but this small learning curve acts as a kind of filter against
> those that have nothing but incoherent and random nonsense to "contribute".
I doubt that, frankly. The learning curve is minimal, and deliberately so.
The filter is a byproduct of the everyone-can-edit-every-page.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 441
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Sat Aug 10 22:15:13 UTC 2002
>> When someone makes a GUI frontend to
>> Wikipedia, those features will become more
>> sophisticated (wysiwyg).
>
> Blasphemy! GUI? WYSIWYG? Now that would be unwiki.
>
> Seriously; one of the reasons why we are successful is because
> there is a bit of a learning curve to being a contributor (small,
> but it is there). I hate to say it, but this small learning curve
> acts as a kind of filter against those that have nothing but
> incoherent and random nonsense to "contribute".
>
> If the basic concept ain't broke, why fix it? Wiki is dead easy
> to learn anyway. But it does require some cognitive faculty and
> mental discipline to get the hang of.
While I'm receptive to the "pons asinorum" argument, I rather like
the idea of a GUI wiki interface someday. That's why I want to get
the markup language adequately specified and unambiguous, and why
I entered a feature request for myself to design a stable API for
fetching and editing pages. We'll just make sure that setting up
the GUI application requires them to enter a URL or something. :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 442
[Wikipedia-l] Benevelent dictators
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 10 22:00:01 UTC 2002
On Saturday 10 August 2002 12:01 pm, The Cunctator wrote:
> On 8/10/02 2:13 PM, "Brion VIBBER" <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps you can prove it incorrect; don't do anything, and see whether
> > things go the way you want them to. ;)
>
> Or maybe we can have guidance come from consensus, not fiat.
Apples and oranges here. Wiki and free software development work differently
-- in free software development you /need/ benevolent dictators or what you
get is the type of performance and other software problems we had in Phase
II. Correct me if I am wrong, but under Phase II each developer could on a
whim add or take away things. Now everything major has to be reviewed by a
single highly competent and hard working person -- Lee.
And the result is a very functional website that makes it possible for
thousands of people to do things in the Wiki Way.
Just because we do things the Wiki Way with editing and other non-software
items /does not/ mean that we should extent this to the underlying software
(except where policy is concerned). If the software doesn't work then
Wikipedia is useless. Simple as that.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 443
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Benevolent dictators
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Sat Aug 10 23:00:14 UTC 2002
> ...in free software development you /need/ benevolent dictators
> or what you get is the type of performance and other software
> problems we had in Phase II. Correct me if I am wrong, but under
> Phase II each developer could on a whim add or take away things.
> Now everything major has to be reviewed by a single highly
> competent and hard working person -- Lee.
Well, that's not really the way it is--but it's kind of become
that way accidentally. There's no real difference in process other
than the bug tracker. Other developers can and have checked in
their own code (Brion and Magnus, specifically). It's just that
99% of the work is being done by me at the moment. But there's no
technical reason you or anyone else couldn't. A complete stranger
sent me a patch file for a bug fix a few days ago.
Of course, just as in the wiki, I can back out changes made by
others if I think they're unstable or otherwise ill-advised. And
Brion could back out mine if he wanted, and he has access to the
server to install stuff just like I do as well. So far we haven't
had the equivalent of an "edit war" with the code, but we might if
one of us makes a real drastic change.
And of course, even with a benevolent dictator model, anyone is
free to question their benevolence...
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 444
[Wikipedia-l] Request for Sysop access
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Sun Aug 11 02:01:54 UTC 2002
> I would do it myself but there isn't yet an interface for this.
> Hopefully LDC or Jimbo saw your note and have already promoted you.
Done, and hint taken :-)
I seem to recall someone else asked this week as well, but it wasn't
someone I knew, so I was waiting for someone else to say "Yeah, he's
a reasonable guy" or something, and I forgot.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 445
[Wikipedia-l] Trolling
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 11 02:27:33 UTC 2002
Mirwin, it's not that complicated.
It's Larry using his Nupedia email account. Larry is
no longer employed by Bomis. He thinks you're a troll.
He is informing you of his personal opinion. That's
all.
If you're feeling out-gunned by Larry's mail account,
you can get mirwin at nupedia.com if you register at
nupedia.com. Then you can reply to Larry with the
authority of nupedia.com backing you! What fun!
Stephen G.
-- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
wrote:
>
>
> Toby Bartels wrote:
> >
> > mirwin wrote in part:
> >
> > >Is this an unknown "troll" attempting to fan the
> flames of
> > >local controversy or is this actually Mr. Sanger
> (perhaps unwisely)
> > >using an old account at Bomis?
> >
> > I always thought that it was silly when people put
> disclaimers in their sig:
> > "The views expressed are mine alone and not those
> of my ISP.".
> > I mean, who would ever think that an entity was
> supporting a view
> > just because it appeared after the @ in an address
> or in a Received: header?
> > But perhaps these disclaimers are necessary after
> all.
> >
>
> A lot of people use mail accounts for both business
> and
> personal purposes. Sometimes clarification of the
> specific
> role in which they are acting or who they are
> representing
> is useful. Sometimes it is customary and a matter
> of courtesy.
> Sometimes it is mandatory.
>
> Mr. Sanger used to be employed fulltime by Bomis and
> played
> a lead role in the early establishment of Wikipedia
> as a
> "founder" and as an "editor-in-chief". I have the
> impression from
> various email reviewed and events witnessed upon
> Wikipedia
> and meta.wikipedia that he also got drawn
> occasionally into
> the role of a community "enforcer".
>
> Mr. Wales has now stepped into an "enforcer" role by
> default
> as the owner since Mr. Sanger left fulltime
> employment with Bomis.
> This is documented in various places on
> meta.wikipedia, wikipedia,
> and the archives of this mailing list.
>
> It would be useful to me to know what role the
> person using
> Mr. Sanger's Nupedia account to send private
> inflammatory
> emails thinks they are acting in and that person's
> actual identity.
> If it is Mr. Sanger then his credibility and
> reputation is
> diminished with me and perhaps with the community,
> now that I have
> chosen to publish it to the mailing list. If it is
> not Mr. Sanger,
> then there may be an issue of security or integrity
> failure
> within the Bomis workforce or the within the
> community which has access
> to the Bomis network beyond sending email through
> the list servers.
>
> Have other people participating at Wikipedia, and
> still here
> obviously, encountered this type of behavior from
> Mr. Sanger's
> email account? Was the behavior encouraged by
> other members
> of the community to drive off unpopular people or
> unpopular
> viewpoints?
>
> To summarize some of the issues:
>
> Does Mr. Sanger think he has the widespread
> support of the Wikipedia community in attempting to
> incite me
> or is this merely personal recreation?
>
> Is this actually Mr. Sanger or is it someone
> attempting to
> discredit him and/or the Wikipedia community?
>
> Is this a misguided attempt to drive off an
> unpopular viewpoint
> or questions rather than address them via the
> community discussion
> forums?
>
> If a security breach is in progress (someone unknown
> has logged
> into Mr. Sanger's account and used it without regard
> (or with malicious
> intent) for Bomis, Nupedia, Wikipedia and Mr.
> Sanger's reputation and
> credibility) has it been initiated by someone within
> the community or
> an external agent?
>
> regards,
> mirwin
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 446
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 11 02:46:58 UTC 2002
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 10 August 2002 10:15 am, Hr. Daniel
> Mikkelsen wrote:
> > When someone makes a GUI frontend to
> > Wikipedia, those features will become more
> > sophisticated (wysiwyg).
>
> Blasphemy! GUI? WYSIWYG? Now that would be unwiki.
>
> Seriously; one of the reasons why we are successful
> is because there is a bit
> of a learning curve to being a contributor (small,
> but it is there). I hate
> to say it, but this small learning curve acts as a
> kind of filter against
> those that have nothing but incoherent and random
> nonsense to "contribute".
Ward Cunningham, the founder of Wiki, says on
WhyWikiWorks (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks)
"Wiki is not WYSIWYG (WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouGet). It's an
intelligence test of sorts to be able to edit a wiki
page. It's not rocket science, but it doesn't appeal
to the VideoAddicts. If it doesn't appeal, they don't
participate, which leaves those of us who read and
write to get on with rational discourse."
I think he's probably right. We should remember that
one of the reasons why Wikipedia has been successful
while other encyclopedia projects have not is the wiki
way of contributing.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 447
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Aug 11 06:29:49 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>
> --- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 August 2002 10:15 am, Hr. Daniel
> > Mikkelsen wrote:
> > > When someone makes a GUI frontend to
> > > Wikipedia, those features will become more
> > > sophisticated (wysiwyg).
> >
> > Blasphemy! GUI? WYSIWYG? Now that would be unwiki.
> >
> > Seriously; one of the reasons why we are successful
> > is because there is a bit
> > of a learning curve to being a contributor (small,
> > but it is there). I hate
> > to say it, but this small learning curve acts as a
> > kind of filter against
> > those that have nothing but incoherent and random
> > nonsense to "contribute".
>
> Ward Cunningham, the founder of Wiki, says on
> WhyWikiWorks (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks)
> "Wiki is not WYSIWYG (WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouGet). It's an
> intelligence test of sorts to be able to edit a wiki
> page. It's not rocket science, but it doesn't appeal
> to the VideoAddicts. If it doesn't appeal, they don't
> participate, which leaves those of us who read and
> write to get on with rational discourse."
>
> I think he's probably right. We should remember that
> one of the reasons why Wikipedia has been successful
> while other encyclopedia projects have not is the wiki
> way of contributing.
I think he is dead wrong. Graphics has been at the
fore front of computer development because it is so
critical to effective presentation and assimilation
of information.
The sections on engineering and technology are not
going to improve very fast until we have some type of
easy graphics markup for at least diagrams.
Alternatively, I guess we can write some excellent
procedures up coaching random drop in technologists who are
not computer wizards (there are many in various engineering
fields) in how to create png files from diagrams.
A problem with this approach is that we lose the wiki
way of contributing that you refer too. Each graphic
is a unique work of art and a complete production task
in and of itself.
SVG may be a partial or complete solution for this, I
have not checked on it for a while.
I am unfamiliar with LaTex, does it do diagrams as
part of its typesetting?
I think a lot of people will put up with text wiki currently
because of the obvious value of collaboration on the
internet. Collaborate with a distributed team of
self selected interesting and interested people once
and publish it to the entire internet. This is a
powerful draw that outweighs the definate drawback
of returning to primitive text editors.
If we want to attract specialists to help us improve
our content quality and depth we can probably do so by
improving our graphics collaboration tools.
Axel, Jan and some others have been after LaTex. Why?
Because it greatly improves their efficiency and
capability of presentation.
Engineers need diagrams, sketches and drawings.
Organic Chemists need molecular diagrams.
MDs need anatomical graphics, overlays,
Generals need maps.
Animation is useful at times .... no I do not
know how to allow casual dropins to tweak an animation clip.
Maybe as we expand we will have sub communities evolve
around special skillsets and use of appropriate tools.
Encarta was multimedia a decade ago.
It is my prediction that the first simple to start using
WYSIWYG (WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouGet) Wiki will leave all
others in the dust.
My opinion is based upon memories of the transitions:
Wordstar to WordPerfect (preview what you get before printing)
WordPerfect to Word (WYSIWYG)
I know of no word processor user who ever looked
back after the ability to see before printing and
then see onscreen as you work arrived.
As H2G2.com would recommend ... Don't Panic!
We do not need all these whiz bang tools right away to
get started but it is worth keeping in mind that we
will/may need them eventually to remain competitive or viable.
regards,
mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 448
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: GUI? WYSIWYG?
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 11 08:35:27 UTC 2002
On Saturday 10 August 2002 11:35 pm, you wrote:
> Ward Cunningham, the founder of Wiki, says on
> WhyWikiWorks (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks)
> "Wiki is not WYSIWYG (WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouGet). It's an
> intelligence test of sorts to be able to edit a wiki
> page. It's not rocket science, but it doesn't appeal
> to the VideoAddicts. If it doesn't appeal, they don't
> participate, which leaves those of us who read and
> write to get on with rational discourse."
>
> I think he's probably right. We should remember that
> one of the reasons why Wikipedia has been successful
> while other encyclopedia projects have not is the wiki
> way of contributing.
>
> Stephen G.
Well said Stephen. I'm glad you dug-up that original quote.
However Mirwin does have a point about the need for specialist-type
functionality. But I am unconvinced that the only way to do this is to
abandon text-based Wiki; why not simply extend the capabilities of Wiki
markup and hide much of this in special namespaces if needed?
I know I spend a large percentage of my time on a Word document simply
playing with the formating (this tendency is also supported by a good deal of
research on worker productivity). In Wikipedia there are few obvious
formating choices which leads to more concentration on content than
presentation. Somebody has already said that Wikipedia is not PowerPoint. I
tend to agree.
Given our rate of growth I don't think anything is fundamentally wrong with
the way we are currently doing things and introducing a GUI might lead to
loads of mediocre material as the VideoAddicts invade. If somebody else
develops a Wiki GUI and we begin to loose contributors because of it, then we
can incorporate that into our code (most Wiki software is GPLd, no?).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 449
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Sun Aug 11 08:58:38 UTC 2002
On 10-08-2002, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote thusly :
> >> When someone makes a GUI frontend to
> >> Wikipedia, those features will become more
> >> sophisticated (wysiwyg).
> > Blasphemy! GUI? WYSIWYG? Now that would be unwiki.
> > Seriously; one of the reasons why we are successful is because
> > there is a bit of a learning curve to being a contributor (small,
> > but it is there). I hate to say it, but this small learning curve
> > acts as a kind of filter against those that have nothing but
> > incoherent and random nonsense to "contribute".
> > If the basic concept ain't broke, why fix it? Wiki is dead easy
> > to learn anyway. But it does require some cognitive faculty and
> > mental discipline to get the hang of.
> While I'm receptive to the "pons asinorum" argument, I rather like
> the idea of a GUI wiki interface someday. That's why I want to get
> the markup language adequately specified and unambiguous, and why
> I entered a feature request for myself to design a stable API for
> fetching and editing pages. We'll just make sure that setting up
> the GUI application requires them to enter a URL or something. :-)
Whatever has happened to the Abiword's Wikipedia plugin ?
I have no opportunity to check it up right now ?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 450
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Jan Hidders
hidders at uia.ua.ac.be
Sun Aug 11 09:38:52 UTC 2002
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 11:29:49PM -0700, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>
> The sections on engineering and technology are not
> going to improve very fast until we have some type of
> easy graphics markup for at least diagrams.
You want editable graphcs? Good news. There is an open W3C standard for
that, it's called SVG (scalable vector graphics), and it's in XML. We could
probably integrate that by considering it as just another image format. You
could even give it an edit screen if one wanted to edit it by hand, but the
simplest would be to have people download it and edit it with an SVG editor
and then re-upload it. As far as representing it goes, Mozilla is beginning
to support it, there is a free Acrobat view/plug-in, but for other browsers
we would have to convert it to PNG, and yes, svg2png exists. :-)
There's even a Wiki about this:
http://www.protocol7.com/svg-wiki/default.asp
Why didn't we think of this before?
-- Jan Hidders
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 451
[Wikipedia-l] Request for Sysop access
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Sun Aug 11 11:04:34 UTC 2002
> > I would do it myself but there isn't yet an interface for this.
> > Hopefully LDC or Jimbo saw your note and have already promoted you.
>
> Done, and hint taken :-)
>
> I seem to recall someone else asked this week as well, but it wasn't
> someone I knew, so I was waiting for someone else to say "Yeah, he's
> a reasonable guy" or something, and I forgot.
That someone else was me. On Wikipedia as user:Andre_Engels
Andre Engels, engels at uni-koblenz.de (formerly engels at win.tue.nl)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 452
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Sun Aug 11 11:15:33 UTC 2002
On 11-08-2002, Jan Hidders wrote thusly :
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 11:29:49PM -0700, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > The sections on engineering and technology are not
> > going to improve very fast until we have some type of
> > easy graphics markup for at least diagrams.
> You want editable graphcs? Good news. There is an open W3C standard for
> that, it's called SVG (scalable vector graphics), and it's in XML. We could
> probably integrate that by considering it as just another image format. You
> could even give it an edit screen if one wanted to edit it by hand, but the
> simplest would be to have people download it and edit it with an SVG editor
> and then re-upload it. As far as representing it goes, Mozilla is beginning
> to support it, there is a free Acrobat view/plug-in, but for other browsers
> we would have to convert it to PNG, and yes, svg2png exists. :-)
> There's even a Wiki about this:
> http://www.protocol7.com/svg-wiki/default.asp
> Why didn't we think of this before?
Yes, I like the idea. Is this the way to go for Wikipedia ? The developers team, please let us know.
Regards,
kpjas
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 453
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: GUI? WYSIWYG?
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Aug 11 19:22:11 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> On Saturday 10 August 2002 11:35 pm, you wrote:
> > Ward Cunningham, the founder of Wiki, says on
> > WhyWikiWorks (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks)
> > "Wiki is not WYSIWYG (WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouGet). It's an
> > intelligence test of sorts to be able to edit a wiki
> > page. It's not rocket science, but it doesn't appeal
> > to the VideoAddicts. If it doesn't appeal, they don't
> > participate, which leaves those of us who read and
> > write to get on with rational discourse."
> >
> > I think he's probably right. We should remember that
> > one of the reasons why Wikipedia has been successful
> > while other encyclopedia projects have not is the wiki
> > way of contributing.
> >
> > Stephen G.
>
> Well said Stephen. I'm glad you dug-up that original quote.
>
> However Mirwin does have a point about the need for specialist-type
> functionality. But I am unconvinced that the only way to do this is to
> abandon text-based Wiki; why not simply extend the capabilities of Wiki
> markup and hide much of this in special namespaces if needed?
>
> I know I spend a large percentage of my time on a Word document simply
> playing with the formating (this tendency is also supported by a good deal of
> research on worker productivity). In Wikipedia there are few obvious
> formating choices which leads to more concentration on content than
> presentation. Somebody has already said that Wikipedia is not PowerPoint. I
> tend to agree.
You miss part of the point. I have not seen anyone proposing
to eliminate text, only augment it. It would be better if
people were saying Powerpoint is not Wikipedia. Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Warcraft, Starcraft, etc. are not Wikipedia.
Having developed and given a few PowerPoint presentations I tend
to agree that Wikipedia is not PowerPoint. I would not stake the future
of my projects and career on Wikipedia's current presentation
capabilities
if PowerPoint were available to present or summarize key information to
decision makers.
The question we wish potential readers to be asking is:
"Why waste time on video games when Wikipedia has 3D presentation
tools and examples which I can read about and manipulate to see how the
real
world works according to leading scientists and educators?" It is fun
to catch apparent mistakes made by busy smart people and propose ways to
fix them.
There are theories that play is a mammal's way of preparing
for the future. Flight simulator's are getting popular as games.
Why? Apparently it is fun, for some, to prepare for flying jumbo jets,
military jets, or Piper Cubs .... via an accurate graphics simulation
or presentation in response to the user's inputs.
Why do people spend time on formatting?
Engineers carry around stacks of drawings in the field. Why?
The information is presented in a form more compact and easier to
follow than equivalent but more voluminous stacks of text. It is
easier to trace mistakes, figure out corrections, and then redline
the drawing to record the changes.
Regarding this community obsession with forcing contributors to
concentrate on text content and completing high quality articles.
It is counterproductive in a volunteer project. If the volunteers are
enjoying themselves in the stacks then the
work will get done because we will soon have sufficient volunteers.
Hopefully, some of the work that gets done will be graphics and
formatting.
Our goal is not to revolutionize publishing by rolling the presses
back to the days of text only documents. The stated goal is to
produce a free online Encyclopedia of high quality which readers
will enjoy comprehending and editors will enjoy improving.
>
> Given our rate of growth I don't think anything is fundamentally wrong with
> the way we are currently doing things and introducing a GUI might lead to
> loads of mediocre material as the VideoAddicts invade.
Mediocre diagrams are much better for some purposes than even
outstanding text. Pick up an old trigonometry text published
before graphics capabilities got cheap. Compare it to a modern
trigonometry or statics text. The lack of diagrams and heavy
dependence on text based theorems is not old fashioned quality.
It reflects the economics of publishing a hundred years ago when
graphics were produced via hand carved lanolin blocks suitable
for typesetting.
Most introductory statics course spend weeks training engineering
students to always draw and analyze free body diagrams prior to writing
down the equations to calculate forces, stresses, etc. Why?
Comprehension of all the forces involved is required to reliably
avoid mistakes that are easy to introduce in the equations. The
pictures of vectors in 3 dimensions are much easier to comprehend
and track mentally than the balancing terms in the equations.
If somebody else
> develops a Wiki GUI and we begin to loose contributors because of it, then we
> can incorporate that into our code (most Wiki software is GPLd, no?).
Perhaps. Reaction and copy catting is a poor strategy in the
open source free mind share game.
Consider the difference of a few months or a year in the Wikipedia
and "The Fact Factory". Now consider "The Fact Factory" plus effective
GUI editing tools or procedures. How many "video addicts" are
necessary
for "The Fact Factory" to overtake Wikipedia in volume and quality of
content in graphics intensive subjects such as ..... human knowledge.
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to convey information
from the team that compiled it to the readers. This is even
more important for Wikipedia than Britannica because Wikipedia's
project model is built around the assumption that some of its
readers also become future editors.
Perhaps an alternative to overly complicating the existing wiki text
interface is too establish some procedures and policies for
tracking submitted graphics and source files. Having a set
of community recommended free tools for preparing graphics and
encouraging
the source files to be GPL'd or FDL'd and loaded into user accessible
locations (for download) when the graphic is inserted would assure that
the graphic can be tweaked. Not as easily as from a greatly desired
Super GUI with all bells and whistles simple enough for a "video
addict" to start using; but still wikifiable rather than starting
from scratch.
regards,
mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 454
[Wikipedia-l] Request for Sysop access
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 11 22:19:12 UTC 2002
--- Andre Engels <engels at uni-koblenz.de> wrote:
> > > I would do it myself but there isn't yet an
> interface for this.
> > > Hopefully LDC or Jimbo saw your note and have
> already promoted you.
> >
> > Done, and hint taken :-)
> >
> > I seem to recall someone else asked this week as
> well, but it wasn't
> > someone I knew, so I was waiting for someone else
> to say "Yeah, he's
> > a reasonable guy" or something, and I forgot.
>
> That someone else was me. On Wikipedia as
> user:Andre_Engels
>
> Andre Engels, engels at uni-koblenz.de (formerly
> engels at win.tue.nl)
Yeah, he's a reasonable guy. Or something. ;-)
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 455
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Sun Aug 11 21:38:13 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> Ward Cunningham, the founder of Wiki, says on
> WhyWikiWorks (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks)
> "Wiki is not WYSIWYG (WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouGet). It's an
> intelligence test of sorts to be able to edit a wiki
> [...]
> I think he's probably right. We should remember that
I think the Portland Pattern Repository (on the topic of
object-oriented programming) and Wikipedia (a general purpose
encyclopeida) are enough different in scope and target audience to
have different rules. Besides, Wikipedia is now far bigger than
the PPR, and no longer a follower but a leader.
I also think a GUI is unwiki only as much as it is unhuman for man to
go to the moon. Nobody had done it before 1969. Some thought it was
impossible. It might not be really useful, but there could be value
in proving that it is possible and learning from the experience.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 456
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Aug 12 02:34:55 UTC 2002
At 06:18 PM 8/11/02 -0700, mirwin wrote:
>
>
>"Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" wrote:
>
>> Whatever has happened to the Abiword's Wikipedia plugin ?
>>
>> I have no opportunity to check it up right now ?
>
>Apparently it is still viable. Links to it (and Wikipedia)
>are available at: http://www.abisource.com/download/plugins.phtml
>
>From there:
>> Wikipedia Plugin
>> This plugin will give you integrated access to Wikipedia, an incredible,
free encyclopedia.
>> Downloads: Linux Intel RPM. Please select a mirror:
>> USA1 - USA2 - EU
>
>The mirror links show the version as xxxx1.0.2.1.i386.rpm so apparently
>it is only available on linux.
>
>Excellent PR! :)
Well the windows wikipedia plugin is in the utilities bundle at the top of
that page but when you select in in abiword (under tools) it connects to this:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?search=>
Which is no good.
(I'm not at all sure how it should work but that's what happens now)
Fred Bauder
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 457
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Mon Aug 12 02:32:45 UTC 2002
Jan Hidders wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 11:29:49PM -0700, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> >
> > The sections on engineering and technology are not
> > going to improve very fast until we have some type of
> > easy graphics markup for at least diagrams.
>
> You want editable graphcs? Good news. There is an open W3C standard for
> that, it's called SVG (scalable vector graphics), and it's in XML. We could
> probably integrate that by considering it as just another image format. You
> could even give it an edit screen if one wanted to edit it by hand, but the
> simplest would be to have people download it and edit it with an SVG editor
> and then re-upload it. As far as representing it goes, Mozilla is beginning
> to support it, there is a free Acrobat view/plug-in, but for other browsers
> we would have to convert it to PNG, and yes, svg2png exists. :-)
>
> There's even a Wiki about this:
>
> http://www.protocol7.com/svg-wiki/default.asp
>
> Why didn't we think of this before?
>
Sorry Jan, I did not mean to imply that graphics editing
had not been considered. I was attempting to weigh in
on the point that graphics is an important presention tool
for our stated project goals.
I agree we must press on with what we have but it makes
me nervous to hear people claiming the text only wiki
interface is an advantage that should be preserved.
I do not know enough about the software we are currently
using to know if this is feasible or worth looking into but
there seems to be a full suite of open/free source tools coming
available to assist distributed teams in building and managing
web sites and content with version controlled collaboration
based on W3C open standards.
The links I list below state goals and objectives that
sound much like Wikipedia's current functional infrastructure
to me.
Perhaps we could plan on completing the current round of
development for our current simple text based wiki.
The next round of development, or a separate parallel branch
starting soon, (or perhaps already started?) could aim for a
complete markup environment as per W3C standards, specifications
that allows users to use the next generation of markup WYSIWYG
tools of their choice, i.e. the ones that get out of
vaporware stage.
Obviously a key point in any feasibility study would be
defining the interface or porting route between our
current target system and the next generation infrastructure
so the database would port with few errors and relatively intact.
I doubt we want to hand edit a couple of hundred
thousand articles.
These links look applicable to any such feasibility study:
http://www.w3.org/Jigsaw/
http://www.webdav.org/
> What is WebDAV?
> Briefly: WebDAV stands for "Web-based Distributed Authoring and Versioning". It is a set of extensions to the HTTP
> protocol which allows users to collaboratively edit and manage files on remote web servers.
http://www.webdav.org/other/faq.html
http://www.webdav.org/mod_dav/
http://www.midgard-project.org/midgard/
Midguard looked particularly interesting as it claims
to integrate well with PHP.
Once again, please accept my apologies. I realize that
much of the discussion going over my head on the list is
in regard to these standards. If there is currently a
project plan or milestone schedule file somewhere laying
these things out as a loose set of current intentions
a link to it would be appreciated. If detailed discussion
is available in the list archive the approximate time
frame would also be useful and appreciated.
regards,
mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 458
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 12 07:44:37 UTC 2002
--- Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> > Ward Cunningham, the founder of Wiki, says on
> > WhyWikiWorks (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks)
> > "Wiki is not WYSIWYG (WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouGet).
> It's an
> > intelligence test of sorts to be able to edit a
> wiki
> > [...]
> > I think he's probably right. We should remember
> that
>
> I think the Portland Pattern Repository (on the
> topic of
> object-oriented programming) and Wikipedia (a
> general purpose
> encyclopeida) are enough different in scope and
> target audience to
> have different rules.
I'm not suggesting a rule, but simply making an
observation. I'm also not against GUIs and multimedia,
as long as we don't lose focus, trying to make
everything flashy and clickable. If someone wants to
make a GUI client for Wikipedia, great. Let's just not
make it mandatory for contributing.
> I also think a GUI is unwiki only as much as it is
> unhuman for man to
> go to the moon. Nobody had done it before 1969.
> Some thought it was
> impossible. It might not be really useful, but
> there could be value
> in proving that it is possible and learning from the
> experience.
Sure, as long as it doesn't get in the way of creating
a truly useful, copylefted encyclopedia. I don't think
there's some doctrinal WikiWay that cannot be bent or
reshaped. The very nature of Wikipedia itself is quite
different from any other wiki.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 459
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 12 07:53:14 UTC 2002
--- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
wrote:
<snip>
> I agree we must press on with what we have but it
> makes
> me nervous to hear people claiming the text only
> wiki
> interface is an advantage that should be preserved.
I don't think anyone is claiming that. For my part, I
think that the text interface is very important; that
doesn't mean that a GUI is out of the question. I just
want to be able to do everything with my keyboard. If
others think a GUI would be better for them, I have no
objection, so long as the GUI doesn't render the text
interface obsolete.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 460
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Mon Aug 12 07:52:15 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote in part:
>I am unfamiliar with LaTex, does it do diagrams as
>part of its typesetting?
Not as such, although it can handle some in limited capacities
using its table making abilities. This is mostly used
only for perfectly rectangular commutative diagrams.
But with sufficient programming and funky fonts,
these capabilities can be extended a great deal,
and there is a TeX/LaTeX package, Xy-pic,
that can handle diagrams of all sorts.
For an example of its work, see [[Image:Separation axioms]].
(After several conversions, this is lower quality than it could be.)
This would be a possible but advanced exercise in LaTeX,
but it's a pretty trivial application of Xy-pic.
That said, I'm not at all sure that Xy-pic lends itself to a GUI.
LaTeX, OTOH, does. So while we might not use it for diagrams,
a GUI front end for LaTeX and a GUI front end for tables
might solve the problems that we're having with each of these.
>Axel, Jan and some others have been after LaTex. Why?
>Because it greatly improves their efficiency and
>capability of presentation.
Although I've been dragging my feet on this,
it's essentially the user interface that's bothering me.
I too would like to have LaTeX if we can make it user friendly.
A GUI may well be just the way to go about that.
I've seen people here at UC Riverside use Scientific Workplace,
which is among other things, a GUI front end to LaTeX.
Or so it claims; its implementation of LaTeX is rather horrid IMO.
But it shows the possibilities of a WYSIWIG interface for TeX,
and that's an idea that that we might want to look into.
(We can't use Scientific Workplace as such, which is just as well,
but there are other WYSIWIG front ends to LaTeX, such as LyX.
I really don't know anything about these, however.)
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 461
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Jan Hidders
hidders at uia.ua.ac.be
Mon Aug 12 08:11:22 UTC 2002
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 07:32:45PM -0700, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>
> Sorry Jan, I did not mean to imply that graphics editing
> had not been considered. I was attempting to weigh in
> on the point that graphics is an important presention tool
> for our stated project goals.
No aplogies needed. I agreed that having editable graphics is important and
I just wanted to share that the technology is already there. In fact, it is
I who has to apologize to the developers because they had already considerd
it. They are are discussing it again at the moment.
> I agree we must press on with what we have but it makes
> me nervous to hear people claiming the text only wiki
> interface is an advantage that should be preserved.
It has to be preserved because we want Wikipedia to be as accessible as
possible and not just to people with WebDAV-enabled browsers or something.
It's quite possible to provide an extra WebDAV interface, but what problem
would that solve? That doesn't mean we cannot also have next to the
text-only interface more user-friendly (more graphical, more WYSIWYG,
whatever) interfaces. In fact, that will probably happen anyway because
there are developers who think it is worth their time. But Wikipedia will
always have to stay simple enough to be usable with a text-only interface.
-- Jan Hiders
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 462
[Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Jan Hidders
hidders at uia.ua.ac.be
Mon Aug 12 08:43:50 UTC 2002
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 12:52:15AM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Michael R. Irwin wrote in part:
>
> >I am unfamiliar with LaTex, does it do diagrams as
> >part of its typesetting?
>
> Not as such, although it can handle some in limited capacities
> using its table making abilities. This is mostly used
> only for perfectly rectangular commutative diagrams.
Actually you can get pretty far with the picture environment. A friend of
mine wrote a PhD thesis on Petri nets, and he did all his pictures in that.
However, I still think that for graphics SVG is a better format.
-- Jan Hidders
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 463
Is Wikipedia a WEB Encyklopedia was Re: [Wikipedia-l] GUI? WYSIWYG?
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Mon Aug 12 09:49:36 UTC 2002
On 12-08-2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote thusly :
> --- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I agree we must press on with what we have but it
> > makes
> > me nervous to hear people claiming the text only
> > wiki
> > interface is an advantage that should be preserved.
> I don't think anyone is claiming that. For my part, I
> think that the text interface is very important; that
> doesn't mean that a GUI is out of the question. I just
> want to be able to do everything with my keyboard. If
> others think a GUI would be better for them, I have no
> objection, so long as the GUI doesn't render the text
> interface obsolete.
Another thing worth discussing :
is and if so how much is Wikipedia a Web Encyklopedia ?
Web presentation of text (or content) is not like
in traditional publications.
It is generally realized that web perception of information
is quite different. Layout and use of multimedia resources
can contribute greatly to qualities of Web pages.
If used wisely, that is.
On the other hand the "content is the king" motto is another point
of view that has its merits, I can't deny.
One should strike a balance.
It is not a top priority obviously but perhaps a subject for an "editorial"
discussion.
Regards,
kpjas
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 464
[Wikipedia-l] Moving vs. redirecting (sysop application)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Aug 12 20:41:39 UTC 2002
It has come to my attention that the preferred way to change the name of an article (when such a change is in fact warranted) is to MOVE the article rather than use the clunky old REDIRECT feature.
May I please become a sysop, so I can use the MOVE feature?
I pledge not to impose my POV on articles, and not to abuse this power to "win" edit wars. I promise not to "stealthily" edit such controversial articles as evolution, global warming, etc. Okay?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 465
[Wikipedia-l] Moving vs. redirecting (sysop application)
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Mon Aug 12 20:46:28 UTC 2002
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> It has come to my attention that the preferred way to change the name of an
> article (when such a change is in fact warranted) is to MOVE the article
> rather than use the clunky old REDIRECT feature.
> May I please become a sysop, so I can use the MOVE feature?
Any logged in user can move articles. Or has this changed?
> I pledge not to impose my POV on articles, and not to abuse this power to
> "win" edit wars. I promise not to "stealthily" edit such controversial
> articles as evolution, global warming, etc. Okay?
Not even such controversial issues as attacks on third world countries?
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 466
[Wikipedia-l] Moving vs. redirecting (sysop application)
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Mon Aug 12 22:18:22 UTC 2002
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>>It has come to my attention that the preferred way to change the name of an
>>article (when such a change is in fact warranted) is to MOVE the article
>>rather than use the clunky old REDIRECT feature.
>>May I please become a sysop, so I can use the MOVE feature?
>
>
> Any logged in user can move articles. Or has this changed?
It only recently changed *to* allowing any logged-in user to move
articles. (It has not changed back.)
But, if the title you want to move _to_ already exists (as a redirect to
the current title, or as a clunkily-made paste-in), you have to delete
it first, and _that_ requires being a sysop.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 467
[Wikipedia-l] Moving vs. redirecting (sysop application)
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Aug 12 21:50:48 UTC 2002
> It has come to my attention that the preferred way to change the
> name of an article (when such a change is in fact warranted) is to
> MOVE the article rather than use the clunky old REDIRECT feature.
>
> May I please become a sysop, so I can use the MOVE feature?
Actually I just made that feature available to non-sysops as well,
but I also have no problem making you a sysop to you can head off
vandals and such.
And "move" is not an alternative to redirects--in fact it makes one.
It just also moves the article history to the new title instead of
leaving it under the redirect.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 468
[Wikipedia-l] Moving vs. redirecting (sysop application)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Aug 12 22:10:24 UTC 2002
On 8/12/02 5:50 PM, "lcrocker at nupedia.com" <lcrocker at nupedia.com> wrote:
>> It has come to my attention that the preferred way to change the
>> name of an article (when such a change is in fact warranted) is to
>> MOVE the article rather than use the clunky old REDIRECT feature.
>>
>> May I please become a sysop, so I can use the MOVE feature?
>
> Actually I just made that feature available to non-sysops as well,
> but I also have no problem making you a sysop to you can head off
> vandals and such.
>
> And "move" is not an alternative to redirects--in fact it makes one.
> It just also moves the article history to the new title instead of
> leaving it under the redirect.
>
I think we should go back to having the move function move the Talk page
with the subject page (or at least have that as a checkbox option on the
move interface).
I don't see a compelling reason why the Talk page shouldn't move as the
default.
Thoughts?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 469
[Wikipedia-l] Moving vs. redirecting (sysop application)
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Aug 12 22:58:14 UTC 2002
> I think we should go back to having the move function move the
> Talk page with the subject page (or at least have that as a
> checkbox option on the move interface).
>
> I don't see a compelling reason why the Talk page shouldn't move
> as the default.
Nor do I; having it be a checkbox option checked by default
sounds good to me. I'm working in that part of the code right
now anyway to help settle Mav's nerves a bit, so I'll do that
while I'm there.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 470
[Wikipedia-l] Moving vs. redirecting (sysop application)
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Tue Aug 13 00:41:26 UTC 2002
|User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1331
|From: The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com>
|Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
|X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4
|Precedence: bulk
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|List-Help: <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=help>
|List-Post: <mailto:wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
|List-Subscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=subscribe>
|List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia <wikipedia-l.nupedia.com>
|List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|List-Archive: <http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/>
|Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:10:24 -0400
|
|On 8/12/02 5:50 PM, "lcrocker at nupedia.com" <lcrocker at nupedia.com> wrote:
|
|>> It has come to my attention that the preferred way to change the
|>> name of an article (when such a change is in fact warranted) is to
|>> MOVE the article rather than use the clunky old REDIRECT feature.
|>>
|>> May I please become a sysop, so I can use the MOVE feature?
|>
|> Actually I just made that feature available to non-sysops as well,
|> but I also have no problem making you a sysop to you can head off
|> vandals and such.
|>
|> And "move" is not an alternative to redirects--in fact it makes one.
|> It just also moves the article history to the new title instead of
|> leaving it under the redirect.
|>
|I think we should go back to having the move function move the Talk page
|with the subject page (or at least have that as a checkbox option on the
|move interface).
|
|I don't see a compelling reason why the Talk page shouldn't move as the
|default.
|
|Thoughts?
|
I entered a bug on this, number now lost to me, but I commented that
any kind of softeware merge of talk pages was sure to be chaotic and
that a link on the new talk page to the old talk page was a better
solution, leaving the merges to the usual resources, people who think
they should be merged and are willing to do the work.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 471
[Wikipedia-l] marxists.org
wojtek pobratyn
wojtek.pobratyn at gmx.net
Tue Aug 13 05:43:26 UTC 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Marklew" <tmarklew at hotmail.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 4:30 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] marxists.org
| I've just had a look at the marxists.org site, and was quite impressed -
| there is a lot of good quality free content on the site which could be
| useful to us.
|
| We will of course have to be careful that marxist views are attributed to
| marxists, and not presented as fact, in accordance with the neutral point of
| view policy. On many of the pages I looked at the majority of the content
| was factual and already suitable for Wikipedia. I don't think importing
| this material will present too many problems, provided that we all take it
| slowly so that the new material is properly integrated with the existing
| articles.
|
| I would encourage other Wikipedians to take a look and think about using
| some of the material into our articles.
|
| Tim (the Enchanter)
I agree that some of their material might be quite usefull. Although it would be good
if they gave us a brief hello on the list so that we know who they are. We should also kindly
ask them to register (another bunch of anonymous IP contributors is the last thing we need, IMHO).
regards,
WojPob
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 472
[Wikipedia-l] Ark
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Tue Aug 13 06:03:21 UTC 2002
I see Ark is back with a vengeance. While I do not support banning him (yet),
is there some way to get him to tone down his rhetoric and attacks. His
comments to JHK at Talk:Infanticide were, frankly, insulting and disgusting.
Danny
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 473
[Wikipedia-l] Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Aug 13 19:04:47 UTC 2002
I looked some of Ark's comments on Talk:Infanticide, and he sure seems upset about something. I'm going to see if I can engage him in dialogue, and see if I can figure out why he feels he must use language like the following snippets:
* my lazy opponents ... you lazy bums ...
* I don't accept the judgement of idiots. ... I am dealing with morons ... living in denial
* I'll say what conclusions can be supported from the evidence (which I don't feel the least need to spell out ...)
Perhaps he (she?) doesn't realize how hurtful such words can be, to other contributors.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 474
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ark
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 13 22:52:39 UTC 2002
Thanks, Danny -- I find him irritating and offensive, but mostly because
he is writing about really serious subjects and doing them a great
disservice, IMHO. By taking a hard-line he cannot support, he's going
to be edited and edited, wasting everyone's time, when everyone really
just wants a good article.
Regards,
Julie Hofmann Kemp
253-638-1944
206-310-3461
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020813/b566b397/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 475
[Wikipedia-l] Karl's question on the German wiki
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 14 03:27:14 UTC 2002
After Helga's latest nonsense on Copernicus (for my flaming response to
which I now apologize), I looked again at her entry in the German
wikipedia. It's pretty much everything she tried to put on the English
wiki, but since no one ever mentioned the Poland thing, it just looks
like a weak article. What she says on the talk page, however, is
pretty ugly. She pretty much says that we (face it, I'm pretty sure she
means me, although perhaps I am sensitive) have tried to suppress the
truth, and asks a series of questions about our motives that would make
any conspiracy theorist proud. I left an answer in my awful written
German saying that it was a misrepresentation and inviting English
speakers to read the article for themselves and give an opinion. At
least, I hope that's what I said -- I read German much better than I
speak it these days. I have as yet refrained from saying what I think
about her on either site, but am currently so annoyed, I will do it
here. Apologies in advance, but I will now vent. Sie ist eine bloede,
dumme KUH.
Regards,
Julie Hofmann Kemp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020813/c2fb348e/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 476
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 14 07:05:46 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:24 pm, Ed wrote:
> I looked some of Ark's comments on Talk:Infanticide, and he sure seems
> upset about something. I'm going to see if I can engage him in dialogue,
> and see if I can figure out why he feels he must use language like the
> following snippets:
>
> * my lazy opponents ... you lazy bums ...
> * I don't accept the judgement of idiots. ... I am dealing with morons ...
> living in denial * I'll say what conclusions can be supported from the
> evidence (which I don't feel the least need to spell out ...)
>
> Perhaps he (she?) doesn't realize how hurtful such words can be, to other
> contributors.
>
> Ed Poor
Ed please try, but be advised that I have already spent /many/ hours trying
to do the exact same thing (although you do seem better at this type of thing
than me).
I have asked nice; that didn't work
I have pleaded; that didn't work
I have suggested that his rhetoric is harming the project; that didn't work
I have stated that his rhetoric is a violation of our etiquette policy; that
didn't work either
I have even stated that if he did not play nice and continued to sap the
energy of other contributors that his actions will have to be reviewed by the
mailing list and he may be blocked from editing;
That warning obviously hasn't been headed.
I personally give up and say we should issue one final warning and then test
the block user function if that warning is also ignored. This person is not
at all worth loosing any valued and long time contributor over. Wasn't the
fact that we tolerate stuff like this (the amature and persistant POV stuff
Ark does, not the rhetoric) the reason why Michael Tinkler left the project?
If it means loosing somebody like Ark to keep somebody like Michael, then I
say we should have some, but limited tolerance for the Ark's of the world.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 477
[Wikipedia-l] Ark (an Old Testament concept)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Aug 14 16:07:24 UTC 2002
I admit to being prejudiced in favor of user:Ark because his name sounds so cool. I'll try not to let that sway me, though, because I believe "plays well with others" also just as important as having a cool name. Maveric is pretty cool, too. Makes me think of detective shows or Westerns...
I've pretty much said all I have to say on the subjects I know about. I was surprised and dismayed to find out how quickly the fountain of my inexhaustible knowledge was drained dry. Being unable to write, I now edit (grin).
I do seem to have a knack for making peace. I'd better, since the Unification Church changed its name to the "Family Federation for World Peace" a few years ago. How to reconicile warring parties is high on the agenda. It starts with reconciling brothers.
Pray for me.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 478
[Wikipedia-l] German wikipedia articles by HJ
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 14 18:31:08 UTC 2002
Small addition to my last. In the Copernicus article in German, Helga
has gone to some effort to point out that there were more Germans in
Krakow and at the university there than there were Poles. I don't know
if this is true, and I don't really care. As I (and others) have said
many times, Helga's understanding of what makes up nationality is purely
post- von Herder. Her understanding of what people thought in the 15th
century is weak at best. That said, no, she doesn't write neutrally
there either. From my POV, that kind of bizarre detail just doesn't
belong, because it isn't really relevant -- or if it is, there's nothing
that explains why it is. Moreover, it's like Ark's more outrageous
statements (or the ones that Tom is so nicely handling in that odd
Germanic isn't Indo-European article) -- it just makes intelligent
people want to ask "where did you get that"?
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020814/97a5c265/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 479
[Wikipedia-l] Request to block user:Andre Engels
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Aug 14 20:30:26 UTC 2002
Someone, please block Andre Engels. He is deleting pages right and left. Mav and I both tried to talk with him, but he won't answer. I suggest a 16-hour block.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 480
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Wed Aug 14 20:34:41 UTC 2002
My apologies to maveric and you all. Like everywhere, I seem to break more
than I heal. Please remove my moderator access, and block my site for 7 days
while I think about whether it has any use that I am helping you.
I'm an idiot, and you don't need idiots. Sorry again.
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 481
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 14 20:53:34 UTC 2002
> My apologies to maveric and you all. Like everywhere, I seem
> to break more than I heal. Please remove my moderator access,
> and block my site for 7 days while I think about whether it
> has any use that I am helping you.
I see no reason to do either; you're a useful contributor, and
I don't see any real damage done. You just gave us a scare.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 482
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Wed Aug 14 20:47:00 UTC 2002
I don't know which Bible articles Andre deleted and can't be recovered, but I
would be more than happy to work on reconstructing them with him and perhaps
even giving them a more contemporary perspective. What do you say, Andre?
Danny
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 483
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Wed Aug 14 20:47:53 UTC 2002
Please disregard my last message. I was overreacting and doing things I
already regret. My deletions were an error, and I ask you to forgive me
and try to understand that I did what I thought was best. I am still too
tensed at the moment, but I will be back tomorrow or in a few days, doing
normal things with Wikipedia.
I still think that the majority of the deletions were a good thing, but I
also think that I was wrong in doing them without checking whether they
were supported. Apparently the common opinion on this point is different,
and I not only should bow to that, I want to do it.
My apologies for any inconvenience caused,
Hoping that I have been able to write coherently in my current state,
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 484
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Wed Aug 14 21:00:33 UTC 2002
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> I don't know which Bible articles Andre deleted and can't be recovered, but I
> would be more than happy to work on reconstructing them with him and perhaps
> even giving them a more contemporary perspective. What do you say, Andre?
Doesn't the wikipedia server have backups? Big IDE drives are extremely cheap
these days. An 80Gb disk can keep at least 6 generations of compressed
wikipedia databases.
Rotate the use of the generations in a sawtoothed sawtoothed sawtooth pattern,
and you will always have today's version, yesterday's one that is about a week
old, one that is about a month old.
Or something.
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 485
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Aug 14 20:05:48 UTC 2002
Andre Engels wrote:
> I'm an idiot, and you don't need idiots. Sorry again.
Hey, I'm an idiot too, so I hope we need idiots or I'll get tossed
away with last night's beer cans. :-)
I didn't see what happened, but Andre's o.k. with me.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 486
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Wed Aug 14 21:25:16 UTC 2002
> Andre Engels wrote:
> > I'm an idiot, and you don't need idiots. Sorry again.
>
> Hey, I'm an idiot too, so I hope we need idiots or I'll get tossed
> away with last night's beer cans. :-)
>
> I didn't see what happened, but Andre's o.k. with me.
What happened was that I deleted a whole lot of pages, giving as the reason
that they were at the same time:
1. orphans
2. stubs or dictionary-style entries
I will not apologize, not because I'm not sorry, but because I already did.
Regarding the offer to help undoing things: Although my deletions may have
been better not made, they also as someone said "did not do much damage".
Undoing them will undoubtedly be more trouble than it's worth. Writing some
good, or even mediocre, Wikipedia article on random subjects will probably
do more good to Wikipedia with less work.
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 487
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Aug 14 23:06:11 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:24 pm, Ed wrote:
> > I looked some of Ark's comments on Talk:Infanticide, and he sure seems
> > upset about something. I'm going to see if I can engage him in dialogue,
> > and see if I can figure out why he feels he must use language like the
> > following snippets:
> >
> > * my lazy opponents ... you lazy bums ...
> > * I don't accept the judgement of idiots. ... I am dealing with morons ...
> > living in denial * I'll say what conclusions can be supported from the
> > evidence (which I don't feel the least need to spell out ...)
> >
> > Perhaps he (she?) doesn't realize how hurtful such words can be, to other
> > contributors.
Perhaps. I think it is morely likely Ark has experienced how hurtful
such attitudes can be and feels turnabout is fair play. How can we,
the Wikipedia community, ask he/she to forgive and forget past
transgressions
and focus on the friendly assertive dialogue so necessary to building a
correct
consensus view regarding article content and phrasing; if we are
incapable of ignoring current trangressions or heated hurtful rhetoric?
> >
> > Ed Poor
>
> Ed please try, but be advised that I have already spent /many/ hours trying
> to do the exact same thing (although you do seem better at this type of thing
> than me).
>
> I have asked nice; that didn't work
In an anarchy he/she is as sovereign as we are.
>
> I have pleaded; that didn't work
See above.
>
> I have suggested that his rhetoric is harming the project; that didn't work
Perhaps his/her personal assessement is different.
>
> I have stated that his rhetoric is a violation of our etiquette policy; that
> didn't work either
This is incorrect.
We have suggested guidelines, not enforceable policies.
The single exception to date (that I am aware of) is the posting of
material
perceived by others as physical threats. If Ark has read the guidelines
then your statement merely diminishes your credibility or the Wikipedia
community's. Either you do not know what you are talking about or the
community has failed to accurately articulate the governing guidelines.
Hmmm ... that sounds a bit like 24's early wild allegations, before
moving on to productive personal attacks, flame wars, and ultimately
temporary banning .... erroneously mutating into a long term ban.
The guidelines explicitly state do as you please, serene in the prospect
of others editing your work to suit themselves and eventually the
community at large.
The sole remedy laid out by the existing guidelines to poor material
is editing. Banning is not mentioned for the heinous crime of being in
flagrant disagreement with others.
>
> I have even stated that if he did not play nice and continued to sap the
> energy of other contributors that his actions will have to be reviewed by the
> mailing list and he may be blocked from editing;
Exlicitly threatening he/she with the nonexistent cabal.
>
> That warning obviously hasn't been headed.
Implying that you have authority to issue such a warning.
>
> I personally give up and say we should issue one final warning and then test
> the block user function if that warning is also ignored. This person is not
> at all worth loosing any valued and long time contributor over. Wasn't the
> fact that we tolerate stuff like this (the amature and persistant POV stuff
> Ark does, not the rhetoric) the reason why Michael Tinkler left the project?
Retaining long time contributors is a poor reason to block other
contributors.
This approach guarantees built in bias and makes a mockery of the NPOV
guidelines we currently embrace. How can we present all views,
appropriately
tagged and merged into an overall NPOV presentation, if only material
from
the current majority view is available?
>
> If it means loosing somebody like Ark to keep somebody like Michael, then I
> say we should have some, but limited tolerance for the Ark's of the world.
If it means losing newcomers to keep long time contributors, then I say
we
should tolerate some stodgy appeal to long time authority and seniority,
but
stop far short of a closed union shop. After all, we already have some
contributions from the long time regulars. Better to get some fresh
thought
and blood into the project occasionally.
Best of all would be to improve our methods such that strange esoteric
(to long time regulars) views or incorrect materials are not so
threatening
to the perceived quality of the Wikipedia and the reputation of
Wikipedians
associated with the project.
regards,
Mike Irwin
aka mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 488
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Aug 14 23:11:38 UTC 2002
> In an anarchy he/she is as sovereign as we are.
Wikipedia isn't, never was, and never will be an anarchy.
>> I have stated that his rhetoric is a violation of our etiquette
>> policy; that didn't work either
> This is incorrect.
> We have suggested guidelines, not enforceable policies.
We have very few, but they are real and enforcible: no copyright
violations, no outright vandalism, NPOV (yes, that is an enforced
policy, not a guideline--in fact, when we get around to non-profit
status it will be legally enforced because you can't qualify as a
non-profit if you advocate any political point of view), and a
basic minimum of civilized behavior.
All that being said, I'm personally in favor of being quite lax
on violations of mere etiquette. People have strong feelings, and
are sometimes rude; that's just a fact of life. If they are rude
and write well, I say we learn to live with it and just go about
our business of writing an encyclopedia. It's only when their
actions escalate to real damage to the encyclopedia, or to the
user community as a whole, that we should consider action.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 489
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Thu Aug 15 00:10:13 UTC 2002
Andre Engels wrote:
> What happened was that I deleted a whole lot of pages, giving as the reason
> that they were at the same time:
> 1. orphans
> 2. stubs or dictionary-style entries
>
> I will not apologize, not because I'm not sorry, but because I already did.
>
> Regarding the offer to help undoing things: Although my deletions may have
> been better not made, they also as someone said "did not do much damage".
> Undoing them will undoubtedly be more trouble than it's worth. Writing some
> good, or even mediocre, Wikipedia article on random subjects will probably
> do more good to Wikipedia with less work.
Andre,
I seem to delete more pages than just about anyone else... and a whole
bunch of them are ones that you recommended for removal previously.
Anyway, a couple of people got annoyed with me not because I was
deleting too much stuff but because I wasn't attributing them thorougly
enough for their liking. I don't know what you've been removing because
it was the middle of the night here and I was asleep, but if they were
only orphan stubs then I really don't see what the fuss is all about...
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature that
will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 490
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Thu Aug 15 00:45:31 UTC 2002
further to that... looking at the deletion log I don't see anything
'wrong' with anything you deleted. I think people were just alarmed at
the sudden large volume of removals.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature that
will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 491
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
Bryan Derksen
bryan.derksen at ualberta.ca
Thu Aug 15 02:25:56 UTC 2002
At 01:53 PM 14/08/02 -0700, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> > My apologies to maveric and you all. Like everywhere, I seem
> > to break more than I heal. Please remove my moderator access,
> > and block my site for 7 days while I think about whether it
> > has any use that I am helping you.
>
>I see no reason to do either; you're a useful contributor, and
>I don't see any real damage done. You just gave us a scare.
I recall once suggesting as a feature some sort of "trash bin" where
deleted articles could go, residing there for a while before becoming
_really_ deleted. That way, even an administrative delete can be reverted
if it's noticed in a timely manner, in case some admin has an accident or
goes bonkers.
And I would certainly feel more comfortable bearing the responsibility of
the delete key with something like this in place, too. :)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 492
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 15 02:26:06 UTC 2002
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I personally give up and say we should issue one
> final warning and then test
> the block user function if that warning is also
> ignored.
I strongly object. Using stupid rhetoric on talk pages
is not grounds for locking someone out. Ark has made a
lot of good contributions relating to computer
security, and it's unfortunate that he doesn't play
nice with others. He also has an agenda to push. But
let's not get too ban-happy. Read on for my
alternative solution.
> This person is not
> at all worth loosing any valued and long time
> contributor over. Wasn't the
> fact that we tolerate stuff like this (the amature
> and persistant POV stuff
> Ark does, not the rhetoric) the reason why Michael
> Tinkler left the project?
Rather than banning the person in question, a better
option would be for many different Wikipedians to
ruthlessly edit the problem articles. There's not need
to engage the person in empty and insulting rhetoric;
simply make the changes that are necessary and
document why on the talk page. Ignore any
name-calling.
> If it means loosing somebody like Ark to keep
> somebody like Michael, then I
> say we should have some, but limited tolerance for
> the Ark's of the world.
I agree. However, the ban should be an absolute last
resort. Banning people simply adds more fuel to
certain fires, namely the idea that the Wikipedia
project engages in censorship when people piss off the
almighty sysops.
It seems that Julie is the only person right now who
is trying to balance the Infanticide article. Let's
all do a little research and give her a hand. That
way, one knowledgable person isn't left to twist in
the wind by herself, and the article can't be hijacked
to push a single point of view.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 493
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 15 02:42:10 UTC 2002
Andre, it sounds like you made an honest mistake. So,
take a few deep breaths and relax. No one is out to
lynch you.
Besides, this is just more evidence for the case that
the absolute delete function does more harm than good.
:)
Stephen G.
--- Andre Engels <engels at uni-koblenz.de> wrote:
> Please disregard my last message. I was overreacting
> and doing things I
> already regret. My deletions were an error, and I
> ask you to forgive me
> and try to understand that I did what I thought was
> best. I am still too
> tensed at the moment, but I will be back tomorrow or
> in a few days, doing
> normal things with Wikipedia.
>
> I still think that the majority of the deletions
> were a good thing, but I
> also think that I was wrong in doing them without
> checking whether they
> were supported. Apparently the common opinion on
> this point is different,
> and I not only should bow to that, I want to do it.
>
> My apologies for any inconvenience caused,
>
> Hoping that I have been able to write coherently in
> my current state,
>
> Andre Engels
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 494
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 15 02:46:01 UTC 2002
--- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
wrote:
> Perhaps. I think it is morely likely Ark has
> experienced how hurtful
> such attitudes can be and feels turnabout is fair
> play. How can we,
> the Wikipedia community, ask he/she to forgive and
> forget past
> transgressions
> and focus on the friendly assertive dialogue so
> necessary to building a
> correct
> consensus view regarding article content and
> phrasing; if we are
> incapable of ignoring current trangressions or
> heated hurtful rhetoric?
I'm afraid you'll have to give some examples of where
the person in question has been provoked and/or
verbally abused before anyone takes those suggestions
seriously.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 495
[Wikipedia-l] My apologies
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 15 03:06:34 UTC 2002
> I recall once suggesting as a feature some sort of "trash bin"
> where deleted articles could go, residing there for a while
> before becoming _really_ deleted...
...and I recall implementing exactly that. There's no interface
to it, but deletions are indeed saved. And even before that, there
were database backups.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 496
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Aug 15 04:14:46 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>
> --- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps. I think it is morely likely Ark has
> > experienced how hurtful
> > such attitudes can be and feels turnabout is fair
> > play. How can we,
> > the Wikipedia community, ask he/she to forgive and
> > forget past
> > transgressions
> > and focus on the friendly assertive dialogue so
> > necessary to building a
> > correct
> > consensus view regarding article content and
> > phrasing; if we are
> > incapable of ignoring current trangressions or
> > heated hurtful rhetoric?
>
> I'm afraid you'll have to give some examples of where
> the person in question has been provoked and/or
> verbally abused before anyone takes those suggestions
> seriously.
>
> Stephen G.
How unfortunate. I do not intend to scour an
everchanging medium for examples of past transgressions.
Particularly since people often perceive things differently
and I might not recognize something that appeared provocative
or abusive to Ark anyway. If I did find something that
appeared so to me, it is very possible that it would be
merely dismissed as vaporous by the original provocateur
anyway. I have participated in professional seminars where
pychologists and communications specialists demonstrated to
the class through lab exercises that most people perceive
themselves differently than others do.
I have been impressed by the quality of overall participation
here at Wikipedia and doubt that most Wikipedians would
intentionally give offense over trivia. Of course, most
regulars do not consider editing content trivial. We also have
many random dropins from newcomers who are not always easily
distinguishable from regulars. Also, mistakes will happen
occasionally even with the best of intentions and feathers
will get ruffled.
I suggest we be careful in implementing your suggestion
of mercilessly gang editing Ark's material in question,
lest Ark see hordes from the mailing list descending upon
his/her work as "provocation" to further uncivil behavior.
Some participants here on the mailing list have noted that
Ark has contributed productively, if a bit abrasively, in the
past. They might take it a bit personally should Ark use
the opportunity provided to get banned.
It might also lead them to suspect our processes can be
improved a bit. 24's banning certainly raised my
suspicions in that direction quite a bit.
I volunteer to try to help Ark find some substantiating data,
opinion, suspicions, etc. for the controversial material
while also attempting to discredit Ms. Hoffman's and others
sources and materials .... not note, Ms. Hoffman.
Fun stuff! It is not often one acquires an opportunity
to attack academia's material in one last desperate attempt
to help truth triumph over the weight of historical
neglect, outright revision or wishful thinking.
regards,
Mike Irwin, aka mirwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 497
[Wikipedia-l] Deletion training.
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu
Thu Aug 15 08:53:11 UTC 2002
A new sysop (not Andre) has been deleting redirect pages
simply because nothing links to them anymore.
For example, [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]].
(The correct spelling is "Latter-day".)
This violates a deletion guideline that I think is a good idea.
I'll take this up on the deleters [[User talk:]] page.
But for the mailing list, do old sysops need to give
new sysops pointers on how to delete pages and what to delete?
It seems that new sysops always make the same mistakes,
even though admittedly nobody shocked as as much as Andre.
(Or alternatively, are the deletion guidelines wrong,
and these aren't mistakes?)
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l at math.ucr.edu>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 498
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Aug 15 13:32:47 UTC 2002
Maveric and Stephen wrote:
|> I personally give up and say we should issue one
|> final warning and then test
|> the block user function if that warning is also
|> ignored.
|
|I strongly object. Using stupid rhetoric on talk pages
|is not grounds for locking someone out. Ark has made a
|lot of good contributions relating to computer
|security, and it's unfortunate that he doesn't play
|nice with others. He also has an agenda to push. But
|let's not get too ban-happy.
|. . . a better option would be for many different
|Wikipedians to ruthlessly edit the problem articles.
I wrote the following to Ark on a talk page:
=>Hi, Ark. Welcome back. Your contribution to this
=>subject has the potential to be very valuable. Also,
=>bear in mind that how you present yourself in the
=>talk pages makes a strong impression on others. We
=>are impressed with solid scholarship, but we also
=>enjoy a cordial atmosphere.
=>
=>You may not be aware that phrases like "you can't
=>accept" or "you can't dismiss" are taken personally.
=>Now, if you and I were talking on the phone (or
=>better, in person), it would be easy for me to
=>perceive the gentle spirit behind the words. But,
=>alas, we get only the bare text here.
=>
=>I myself am very much against infanticide and child
=>abuse, so anything you can do to expose these crimes
=>in the article pages would be welcome to me. Let's
=>discuss what we can each do to help each other make
=>excellent articles on such worthy topics. Ed Poor
=>12:01 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)
He neither replied nor made further contributions since then. Perhaps he is thinking over what I wrote.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 499
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory language (Ark)
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 15 15:46:10 UTC 2002
Mirwin writes:
I volunteer to try to help Ark find some substantiating data, opinion,
suspicions, etc. for the controversial material while also attempting to
discredit Ms. Hoffman's and others sources and materials .... not note,
Ms. Hoffman.
Fun stuff! It is not often one acquires an opportunity
to attack academia's material in one last desperate attempt
to help truth triumph over the weight of historical
neglect, outright revision or wishful thinking
Jules (whose middle name, not last name is Hofmann with one F, two Ns)
says:
First, Steven Gilbert's suggestion is the tried and true one for dealing
with rabid, one-sided, and inflammatory editors. At the moment, Ark is
just acting irrationally and unpleasantly. Frankly, I think he's enough
of an ass that he bothers me personally very little.
Second, and more importantly, Mirwin suggests "discrediting" sources and
materials. Since when did this become a place to put primary research?
Attacking the mainstream is definitely POV, Mirwin -- and in no way
acceptable. Perhaps you meant you wanted to help Ark find sources that
supported the outrageous claims he's been posting as truth. This is
something we'd ALL like to see, I'm sure, since then we could have an
article that said something along the lines of "Case X has long been
accepted as the norm for this subject; however, many researchers now
believe Case Y, based on sources 1,2,3." That type of article which
resolves controversy not by taking sides, but by explaining the
arguments and leaving the judgement to the reader, is what we've pretty
much always done.
Jules
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 500
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory language (Ark)
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Aug 15 17:09:16 UTC 2002
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
>
> Mirwin writes:
>
> I volunteer to try to help Ark find some substantiating data, opinion,
> suspicions, etc. for the controversial material while also attempting to
> discredit Ms. Hoffman's and others sources and materials .... not note,
> Ms. Hoffman.
>
> Fun stuff! It is not often one acquires an opportunity
> to attack academia's material in one last desperate attempt
> to help truth triumph over the weight of historical
> neglect, outright revision or wishful thinking
>
> Jules (whose middle name, not last name is Hofmann with one F, two Ns)
> says:
Sorry about that. I spotted the errors after it was posted.
>
> First, Steven Gilbert's suggestion is the tried and true one for dealing
> with rabid, one-sided, and inflammatory editors.
Tried and true for running them off perhaps. We will get
much less bad press with potential readers and contributors if:
1. We document what our actual guidelines actually are
so people who wish to comply with them upfront can do
so easily and people who honestly do not accept them can move on
without a flame/edit war.
2. Modify our procedures such that only approved materials
are accepted for the front page, if that is what we are enforcing
via mailing list mob deletion of unacceptable material.
<snip>
> Second, and more importantly, Mirwin suggests "discrediting" sources and
> materials. Since when did this become a place to put primary research?
What primary research? I found Demause online. His stuff seems
to draw from a wide variety of contemporary, presumably reputable,
sources. You informed Ark, Demause's scholarship is poor and
cannot be used to substantiate strong claims made in material in
the current page article.
I recall encountering infanticide in middle school studies of
Mythology so this hardly seems radical new material. It follows
naturally that if strong claims of infanticide are supportable
from reputable sources then sources claiming it cannot be proven
are guilty of poor scholarship and their arguments are susceptible
to debunking, impeachment, or whatever the proper term is for
proving to an audiences their sources are poor and therefore
arguments based upon them weak.
How else do you propose that we establish which claims are more
creditable between Ark's that infanticide was common and prevalent
or yours that insufficient evidence exists to make strong claims?
Are we merely to edit according to your opinion rather than Ark's
and Demause's?
> Attacking the mainstream is definitely POV, Mirwin -- and in no way
> acceptable.
It is certainly acceptable as an identified minority view. There
is very little absolute certainty in Science, history, or any other
field of human endeaver.
Perhaps you meant you wanted to help Ark find sources that
> supported the outrageous claims he's been posting as truth.
Sure. This as well. Clearly it is also well within the bounds of
scholastic rigor to attempt to debunk the mainstream view sources
just as you have dismissed Demause.
This is
> something we'd ALL like to see, I'm sure, since then we could have an
> article that said something along the lines of "Case X has long been
> accepted as the norm for this subject; however, many researchers now
> believe Case Y, based on sources 1,2,3." That type of article which
> resolves controversy not by taking sides, but by explaining the
> arguments and leaving the judgement to the reader, is what we've pretty
> much always done.
>
> Jules
Excellent. I have not yet worked through the history versions in
detail but there seems to be a lot of material that has been
merely deleted rather than explaining the arguments for and against
the POV for the reader to decide.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 501
[Wikipedia-l] wikipedia.org
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Aug 15 20:24:25 UTC 2002
I'm 100% in favor of a switch.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 502
[Wikipedia-l] More on marxists.org
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Fri Aug 16 22:14:27 UTC 2002
>On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>
>> > I have done a good deal more reading on their site, and I find that
>> > virtually none of their material even comes close to NPOV. It's
>> > filled throughout with standard Marxist jargon -- which is very out of
>> > the mainstream and treated (properly!) by most economists in the same
>> > way that astrology is treated by psychiatrists.
>>
>> Jimbo, you beg the question by ignoring that most economists
>> treat each others views and models (properly in my view) the
>> way most scientists treat astrology. Why should Marxist
>> economics dogma be held to a higher standard than Keynesian
>> derived models and predictions that do not work well, if at
>> all, prior to NPOV'ing for inclusion in Wikipedia? 8)
>
>I agree. Economics is much less a hard science than astrophysics or astronomy.
>There are quite a number of serious marxist inclined economists out there.
>Include the ones in China, where doctrine is probably fairly strict
>(whereas in
>the west, each one is free to have his own pet theory), and marxist economists
>might come out in the marjority! :)
>
>Wikipedia right now is heavily balanced towards christian conservative,
>capitalist american views. Bringing in a load of marxist crap would be
>refreshing.
The opinion of someone who stands to get shot if they say the wrong thing
is not worth much.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 503
[Wikipedia-l] Any suggestions for stopping Helga's latest onslaught...
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 22 20:21:43 UTC 2002
Short of blocking her? She's now claiming to have found all kinds of
interesting "proof" of things like "the Soviets fabricated evidence for
the Nuremberg trials" and other "suppressed history." Getting a little
weird out here in the trenches. She also seems to think that people who
were fired or left office during the Truman administration because of
supposed (or real) communist ties points to a vast Communist conspiracy.
I wonder if she's heard of a certain senator from Wisconsin...
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020822/a4e90a1c/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 504
[Wikipedia-l] Any suggestions for stopping Helga's latest onslaught...
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Thu Aug 22 20:29:47 UTC 2002
On 22-08-2002, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote thusly :
> Short of blocking her? She's now claiming to have found all kinds of
> interesting "proof" of things like "the Soviets fabricated evidence for
> the Nuremberg trials" and other "suppressed history." Getting a little
> weird out here in the trenches. She also seems to think that people who
> were fired or left office during the Truman administration because of
> supposed (or real) communist ties points to a vast Communist conspiracy.
> I wonder if she's heard of a certain senator from Wisconsin...
I am all for NPOVing articles on Polish-German history.
I am sure there is a lot of Communist propaganda in the history fed into
our minds during the old regime.
The history needs a thorough research, fact, references, common sense
and tact.
Helga Jonat's contributions are counter-productive in this respect.
This way we can start Polish-Lithuanian Polish-Ukrainian history
debates leading to nowhere. L'viv and Vilnius was Polish
back in the history. But we must look forward and try to discuss
conflicting views. Without all the propaganda.
The history of Europe is convoluted and especially Central Europe,
as one of German contributors said most German are good-willed and want to
reconcile rather than always look back into difficult histories of
our nations.
You can see that dialogue with her is rather difficult and I now am
awaiting your comments - what to do with the current situation.
Regards,
kpjas.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 505
[Wikipedia-l] Any suggestions for stopping Helga's latest onslaught...
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Thu Aug 22 20:28:16 UTC 2002
At 01:21 PM 8/22/02 -0700, you wrote:
> """""" I wonder if she's heard of a certain senator from
>Wisconsin... Jules
Interesting, when you write in green like that it doesn't come up for the
reply. Anyway, she's probably right about the Soviets fabricating evidence,
if indeed they had anything to do with the Nuremberg trials and rewriting
history was definitely one of their things. But it hardly matters; how much
more guilty could the Nazis be? And she's exaggerating about communinist
influence in the Truman administration, but not completely wrong. Problem
with her is she probably knows about squat about anything American (or
Soviet, for that matter). She's just repeating something she got from
propaganda.
So she paints with a broad brush in more or less a right direction, but is
clueless about the actual details.
I found another one of her things in the genocide article. She claims (or
someone very like her) that millions of Germans died after the war during
the resettlement from the eastern territories. I left it partly because I
know it was a rough time and perhaps a few people did die, but it all seems
pretty farfetched.
My only suggestion is an inquiry about where she's getting this stuff and
the details. But that is almost sure to fail since she won't be able to
provide them and expecting someone else to dig around and find em is pretty
hopeless, people who could aren't interested.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 506
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Any suggestions for stopping Helga's latest onslaught...
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Aug 23 15:47:51 UTC 2002
People respond to tragedy in different ways. Somehow it has been rather easy for me to remain dispassionate about the atrocities in Central and East Europe; maybe I'm just numb to it, after a lifetime of reading about the Holocaust and the various Communist purges. The statistics are staggering: 100 million to 200 million civilians murdered by their own (totalitarian) governments. It mostly just makes me sad and tired.
Other people may become enraged, and anger can lessen one's reasoning capacity (hot-headed vs. cool-headed). Perhaps Helga fits into this category.
We of the Neutralist Cabal can either (A) ban the hotheads altogether or (B) clean up after them. I vote for Plan B, even though it's harder.
Look at what I'm doing this month with Q, Jacob and Uri in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Uri is starting to move text to talk pages and explain why, rather than merely reverting with a nasty comment. I see this as progress towards ending the edit wars. We might even reach a point of stability in the Middle East, at least at Wikipedia :-)
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 507
[Wikipedia-l] note to the militia
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 23 18:22:37 UTC 2002
I'm working 40 hours a week now /and/ going to school
full time. I will therefore no longer have time to
seek out new vandalism and copyright violations from
Recent Changes (a process that previously took me 2 to
3 hours a day). I will also not have time to seek out
and greet all new users either. I will have more time
to do this as soon as winter break arrives.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 508
[Wikipedia-l] Meet and greet
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Aug 23 19:32:26 UTC 2002
I'm sure we're all sorry (er, um, glad!) to hear about Mav's new job.
I've been greeting new users occasionally, and as of today I've started copying Mav's meet-and-greet template. I can't promise 3 hours a day of anti-vandalism patrol, but I do browse Recent Changes frequently.
I enjoy encouraging newbies with praise and guidance, and I don't mind cleaning up after the uninitiated. But if they refuse to listen, I won't hesitate to make 'em stand in the corner (see [[child time-out]]).
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 509
[Wikipedia-l] Any suggestions for stopping Helga's latest onslaught...
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 23 23:49:52 UTC 2002
Ed,
I am glad your approach seems to be working. I have to disagree in the
case of Helga, however. Whatever she has suffered (and I believe it was
not Helga, but her husband, who actually experienced all this) certainly
affects her writing, which is understandable. It also makes her loopy
in an unacceptable way. This isn't the place to play "bigger victim."
it's an encyclopedia. It's supposed to provide information. In my
opinion, her most recent comments and refusal to apologize to Vicki
merely demonstrate that she is emotionally unfit to work with the group.
It's incredibly sad, but she needs a time out. If she can't back way
the hell off, I say we ban her for two weeks and let her know why. I
also think that Vicki should have the final say here -- it is, after
all, just my opinion.
If we lose her, that will be both sad and a relief. As I said, she has
good information to contribute, but frankly, she also is a huge drain on
the energies of other wikipedians. More likely, she'll just spend the
time looking up more "proof" of some of her wackier theories.
Jules
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 510
[Wikipedia-l] Any suggestions for stopping Helga's latest onslaught...
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Aug 23 22:36:20 UTC 2002
Helga has thus far not responded to my email requests for a dialogue
about these possibilities. If she won't talk to me, it's hard for me
to help.
She should be STRONGLY encouraged to join wikipedia-l and talk to us
about the situation. It's the only way to straighten this out, I think.
When I banned '24', it was only after he had refused entreaties to
talk in email. I'd be hard pressed to ban anyone who would pay me the
common courtesy of a discussion about the problem.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 511
[Wikipedia-l] Helga joining the list
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 24 00:00:41 UTC 2002
Jimmy, maybe you could put a note on her user page suggesting that? She
may not check the e-mail address on her website. Actually, since she
has a user page, maybe you have a better e-mail address for her? Good
luck.
Julie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020823/b3653342/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 512
[Wikipedia-l] note to the militia
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Sat Aug 24 00:46:36 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> I'm working 40 hours a week now /and/ going to school
> full time. I will therefore no longer have time to
> seek out new vandalism and copyright violations from
> Recent Changes (a process that previously took me 2 to
> 3 hours a day). I will also not have time to seek out
> and greet all new users either. I will have more time
> to do this as soon as winter break arrives.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Ah, so you do spend time in the real world after all Mav :) Good luck
with all the new obligations!
Something I wondered - how do you know who the new users to greet them?
Do you just look for user names you haven't seen before or is there some
way to identify them? I'd be happy to do the meet-and-greet but I don't
know how to do it.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature that
will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 513
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: note to the militia
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 24 09:45:04 UTC 2001
On Saturday 24 August 2002 12:01 pm, Karen wrote:
> Something I wondered - how do you know who the new users to greet them?
> Do you just look for user names you haven't seen before or is there some
> way to identify them? I'd be happy to do the meet-and-greet but I don't
> know how to do it.
Well - I guess I do it the hard way and scan each edit in all Recent Changes
for a 24 hour period looking for edit link user names (a dead give-a-away)
and for user names I don't remember seeing before. This works for me since I
pretty good reading comprehension and memory.
What would be most useful is a listing of new users that can be accessed from
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers. That way this job would be
much easier.
BTW we really /do not/ have 3498 real users -- a good many of these "users"
logged in only to abuse our upload utility or for other nefarious or
non-contributing reasons (I don't greet any user who hasn't contributed at
all). Is there a way to get rid of many of these no-longer used user accounts
Lee (just the ones that have been inactive for months and whose user pages
are still edit links)?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 514
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Meet and greet
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 24 10:16:50 UTC 2001
On Saturday 24 August 2002 12:01 pm, Ed wrote:
> I'm sure we're all sorry (er, um, glad!) to hear about Mav's new job.
Thanks for the sentiment but I'm still at the same job :-) -- except now I
have 4 days a week of night class in addition to my full time job.
> I've been greeting new users occasionally,
> and as of today I've started
> copying Mav's meet-and-greet template.
Great! Although if you can try to spice the greeting up a bit -- I'm overly
logical and it shows in my greeting.
>I can't promise 3 hours a day of
>anti-vandalism patrol, but I do
>browse Recent Changes frequently.
Yeah, 3 hours is a bit too long -- it would be nice to have a feature whereby
an asterisk (or whatever) is by any edit in recent changes that has not been
viewed by a logged-in user (or better yet a sysop). This would majorly cut
down on duplication of vandalism and copyright infringement patrol effort by
militia members.
Also for me at least it would be a /major/ speed-up improvement to have the
option of having Recent Changes in table format again -- it takes me
/forever/ to scan user names and IPs the way it is now.
> I enjoy encouraging newbies with praise and guidance, and I don't mind
> cleaning up after the uninitiated. But if they refuse to listen, I won't
> hesitate to make 'em stand in the corner (see [[child time-out]]).
>
> Ed Poor
In spite of our differences of opinion in social and political matters I
think you are a great people person and well suited to help with the job or
greeting and guiding.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 515
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: note to the militia
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 25 01:21:04 UTC 2002
Hum, just a comment...bug report...
The last 2 mails Maverick sent, had date set on the
24th of august 2001. Not 2002.
I checked on the mailing list, and there they were, in
2001.
Is it related to Mav or to Wikipédia ?
-----
While I am at it, I tried a few days ago to remove
some articles from my watch list. And it aint working
properly.
When I select an article page (in bold), the fact I
watch for it is recognised, and I can stop watching it
When I select a talk page, it is indicated I don't
watch for it. hence I can't remove it for talk pages.
The articles stay in the watch list whatever I do.
This is true whatever the date of the last update (feb
2002, before july and after july)
Did anybody noticed that ? Is there something I missed
?
anthere
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 24 August 2002 12:01 pm, Karen wrote:
> > Something I wondered - how do you know who the new
> users to greet them?
> > Do you just look for user names you haven't seen
> before or is there some
> > way to identify them? I'd be happy to do the
> meet-and-greet but I don't
> > know how to do it.
>
> Well - I guess I do it the hard way and scan each
> edit in all Recent Changes
> for a 24 hour period looking for edit link user
> names (a dead give-a-away)
> and for user names I don't remember seeing before.
> This works for me since I
> pretty good reading comprehension and memory.
>
> What would be most useful is a listing of new users
> that can be accessed from
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers.
> That way this job would be
> much easier.
>
> BTW we really /do not/ have 3498 real users -- a
> good many of these "users"
> logged in only to abuse our upload utility or for
> other nefarious or
> non-contributing reasons (I don't greet any user who
> hasn't contributed at
> all). Is there a way to get rid of many of these
> no-longer used user accounts
> Lee (just the ones that have been inactive for
> months and whose user pages
> are still edit links)?
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 516
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: note to the militia
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Sun Aug 25 03:12:51 UTC 2002
Anthere wrote:
> Hum, just a comment...bug report...
>
> The last 2 mails Maverick sent, had date set on the
> 24th of august 2001. Not 2002.
>
> I checked on the mailing list, and there they were, in
> 2001.
>
> Is it related to Mav or to Wikipédia ?
I suspect Mav is living in the past... :)
> While I am at it, I tried a few days ago to remove
> some articles from my watch list. And it aint working
> properly.
>
> When I select an article page (in bold), the fact I
> watch for it is recognised, and I can stop watching it
> When I select a talk page, it is indicated I don't
> watch for it. hence I can't remove it for talk pages.
> The articles stay in the watch list whatever I do.
> This is true whatever the date of the last update (feb
> 2002, before july and after july)
If you're watching a page, its talk page will automatically show up in
your watchlist (you'll notice it's not in bold, unless you've explicitly
selected to watch it as well).
This is a feature! If you're interested in what happens to an article,
the talk page is something you'll want to keep tabs on as well.
I'm going to have to improve the message that pops up when you add
something to the watch list so it's actually useful and explanitory.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 517
[Wikipedia-l] Real logged in users
Tim Marklew
tmarklew at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 25 16:36:48 UTC 2002
mav wrote:
>BTW we really /do not/ have 3498 real users -- a good many of these "users"
>logged in only to abuse our upload utility or for other nefarious or
>non-contributing reasons (I don't greet any user who hasn't contributed at
>all). Is there a way to get rid of many of these no-longer used user
>accounts
>Lee (just the ones that have been inactive for months and whose user pages
>are still edit links)?
The vast majority (over three quarters) of people who have logged in have
never made any edits whatsoever, quite apart from not having a user page. I
suspect that the majority are just passers by who click on log in out of
curiosity. It might be a good idea do a clearout of all of these that are
older than a couple of months and have never made any contributions, to free
up the user names.
Out of interest, I produced some stats for the users we have and the number
of contributions since February. These show that about 800 logged in users
have made at least one contribution, and about 400 have made at least 10
contributions. 95% of edits (again counting logged in users only) have been
made by only around 200 Wikipedians. The Wikipedia community is still quite
a small corner of the Internet!
Tim (Enchanter)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 518
[Wikipedia-l] Real logged in users
Karl Juhnke
yangfuli at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 25 20:08:49 UTC 2002
--- Tim Marklew <tmarklew at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 95% of edits (again counting logged in users only) have been
> made by only around 200 Wikipedians. The Wikipedia community is
> still quite a small corner of the Internet!
What a hoot! That puts a different spin on the stat "3509 registered
users, 37 of whom are administrators". Here I thought 37/3509 = about
one percent of us were administrators, when in fact 37/200 = about one
fifth of us are.
My mother once told me the story of a certain undergraduate educational
institution which surveyed the incoming freshmen, and asked each, among
other things, whether s/he was "more of a leader" or "more of a
follower". The results were compiled: the class consisted of exactly
one follower and the rest leaders!
Following dilligently,
-Karl
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 519
[Wikipedia-l] Junk upload alert
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Aug 25 21:18:23 UTC 2002
Jokerman9001 is repeatedly uploading a file called "Profile1.txt" which is in
HTML format and contains an unrecognized protocol string and an invitation to
send him messages. Please block this user.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 520
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Sun Aug 25 21:30:02 UTC 2002
Helga Jonat just wrote the following on [[Berlin]]:
After the Jews of the world in a March 1933 newspaper
''Daily Express'' stated, '''Judica declares War on Germany'''
the Jews were persecuted from the beginning of the Nazi regime.
German Jews opposed the Judica of the world in a letter. But
that did not keep them from receiving the wrath of the
dictator as well.
This is a typical revisionist argument: The jews started the war, Hitler
was only defending himself against them.
Apart from this being utter nonsense (see e.g. http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar11.html
for a discussion of these arguments), this most probably violates
German Law (Paragraph 130(3) of our penal code, denial of genocide
performed by the nazis).
It's time to stop her.
JeLuF
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 521
[Wikipedia-l] Real logged in users
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Sun Aug 25 21:33:41 UTC 2002
|From: Karl Juhnke <yangfuli at yahoo.com>
|Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
|
|--- Tim Marklew <tmarklew at hotmail.com> wrote:
|> 95% of edits (again counting logged in users only) have been
|> made by only around 200 Wikipedians. The Wikipedia community is
|> still quite a small corner of the Internet!
|
|What a hoot! That puts a different spin on the stat "3509 registered
|users, 37 of whom are administrators". Here I thought 37/3509 = about
|one percent of us were administrators, when in fact 37/200 = about one
|fifth of us are.
|
|My mother once told me the story of a certain undergraduate educational
|institution which surveyed the incoming freshmen, and asked each, among
|other things, whether s/he was "more of a leader" or "more of a
|follower". The results were compiled: the class consisted of exactly
|one follower and the rest leaders!
|
|Following dilligently,
|-Karl
|
I *knew* I didn't want admin privileges. Better to keep my street
cred.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 522
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Sun Aug 25 21:50:22 UTC 2002
|From: Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de>
|Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|Content-Disposition: inline
|User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
|X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4
|Precedence: bulk
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|List-Help: <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=help>
|List-Post: <mailto:wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
|List-Subscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=subscribe>
|List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia <wikipedia-l.nupedia.com>
|List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|List-Archive: <http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/>
|Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:30:02 +0200
|
|Helga Jonat just wrote the following on [[Berlin]]:
|
| After the Jews of the world in a March 1933 newspaper
| ''Daily Express'' stated, '''Judica declares War on Germany'''
| the Jews were persecuted from the beginning of the Nazi regime.
| German Jews opposed the Judica of the world in a letter. But
| that did not keep them from receiving the wrath of the
| dictator as well.
|
|This is a typical revisionist argument: The jews started the war, Hitler
|was only defending himself against them.
|
|Apart from this being utter nonsense (see e.g. http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar11.html
|for a discussion of these arguments), this most probably violates
|German Law (Paragraph 130(3) of our penal code, denial of genocide
|performed by the nazis).
|
|It's time to stop her.
|
|
|JeLuF
I've stopped fooling with her stuff since she posted material from a
web site that also had a "satire" on death camps with the premise that
the biggest problem was lack of toilet paper. Let her go somewhere
else and tell everyone how we oppose and oppress anyone with the
courage to speak the truth.
She is also a waste of time as none of her articles are any good and
everyone is so polite and diligent in opposing her. She may not be
bright enough to be a holocaust denier, but she might as well be.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
PS -- I don't think much of that German law and I imagine many
Americans (others too) would probably agree that while holocaust
denial presents a serious problem for the Wikipedia, enforcing that
law would not be the way we'd want to go about getting rid of her.
Let's just leave it at this, "She's had her chance and she's more
trouble than she's worth."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 523
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Sun Aug 25 22:07:12 UTC 2002
> Tom Parmenter (Ortolan88) wrote:
>
> PS -- I don't think much of that German law and I imagine many
> Americans (others too) would probably agree that while holocaust
> denial presents a serious problem for the Wikipedia, enforcing that
> law would not be the way we'd want to go about getting rid of her.
> Let's just leave it at this, "She's had her chance and she's more
> trouble than she's worth."
>
Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want
Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...
Regards,
JeLuF
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 524
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Aug 26 02:27:51 UTC 2002
Jens Frank wrote:
> Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want
> Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...
*grin* That's a very very good thing.
I'm talking via email with Helga. It is not going very well. I feel
that I will not be able to change her mind directly. I have told her
not to post anything further about WWII, Poland, Germany, Judaism, or
related topics until we get this straightened out.
I am not inclined, as everyone knows, towards bans. But if someone has
an agenda and is completely uncooperative, well, I'm just not sure how
much we can stand.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 525
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 25 19:19:17 UTC 2002
On Sunday 25 August 2002 05:33 pm, you wrote:
> Apart from this being utter nonsense (see e.g.
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar11.html for a discussion of these
> arguments), this most probably violates
> German Law (Paragraph 130(3) of our penal code, denial of genocide
> performed by the nazis).
>
> It's time to stop her.
>
>
> JeLuF
As a red blooded American I think that law is well intentioned but just ranks
with anti-free speech totalitarian newspeak and probably does more to
encourage Neo-Nazis and their ilk than to discourage them (punishing people
just because they have certain views tends to make other people with similar
views get the "us vs. them" mentality; which just strengthens their resolve
and encourages ideas about "conspiracies" to "get them" that "must be
stopped" = the law inadvertently creates a class of people actively opposed
to the government when there were only various unrelated people with similar
ideas before). We should therefore /not/ even begin to consider banning
anyone just because they are breaking such a law.
However, we are trying to build a fact-based and neutral encyclopedia, so if
we do /temporarily/ block Helga then the /only/ reason why is because she is
a major drain on contributor resources and she is therefore harming the goals
and progress of the project.
BTW, people should be able to say whatever they want in everyday life or
their personal websites but if any of that is to be in a neutral and
fact-based encyclopedia then it must be backed-up with evidence or highly
qualified ("such and such says this, but others say that and yet others say
the first two are wrong because...").
> Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want
> Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...
>
> Regards,
>
> JeLuF
Well intentioned reasoning -- the last thing we need is Jimbo behind bars ;).
Is this at all a possibility in German law? In the US Jimbo is protected by
the fact that he is technically the ISP of wikipedia and therefore has
limited liability on what users of his ISP do (not to mention 1st Amendment
protections that protect both him and users of his ISP). There is also the
German Wikipedia to consider -- I somehow get the feeling that the German
Wikipedia is just filled with her nonsense propaganda (smaller project =
fewer contributors who can successfully confront and debunk her "work" =
Helga has much more power to get her way).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 526
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Junk upload alert
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 25 19:37:51 UTC 2002
On Sunday 25 August 2002 05:33 pm, you wrote:
> Jokerman9001 is repeatedly uploading a file called "Profile1.txt" which is
> in HTML format and contains an unrecognized protocol string and an
> invitation to send him messages. Please block this user.
>
> phma
What is the progress on the ":block user" function developers? I like KQ's
idea of mouse over exposure of IP addresses (only available to sysop's of
course).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 527
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Aug 26 07:02:00 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> We should therefore /not/ even begin to consider banning anyone just
> because they are breaking such a law.
I agree completely. Since the servers are in the U.S. and since I am
in the U.S. and it's impossible to come up with ideas that are illegal
to express here, I see no particular reason to even think about such
things. Individual contributors living in countries with restrictions
on political speech may have their own concerns, of course.
I actually hope people will write things in the encyclopedia that are
illegal in some parts of the world. As long as it's NPOV, that's
great. I'm sure that there are some simple NPOV facts that are
illegal to express in China, and I hope that they can be expressed in
a Mandarin Wikipedia.
> Well intentioned reasoning -- the last thing we need is Jimbo behind
> bars ;).
:-) Well, I'd love to visit Germany someday, but I don't think they'll
throw me in jail for anything that Helga does.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 528
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Mon Aug 26 09:20:49 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> Jens Frank wrote:
> > Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want
> > Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...
>
> *grin* That's a very very good thing.
>
> I'm talking via email with Helga. It is not going very well. I feel
> that I will not be able to change her mind directly. I have told her
> not to post anything further about WWII, Poland, Germany, Judaism, or
> related topics until we get this straightened out.
>
> I am not inclined, as everyone knows, towards bans. But if someone has
> an agenda and is completely uncooperative, well, I'm just not sure how
> much we can stand.
I haven't tried to 'fix' her articles because I know bugger all about
German history, but I'd say that everyone has had their patience tried
long enough. She is not a useful contributor - she's a kook who wants to
use the wikipedia to push her private bandwagon, which just so happens
to have no relationship to the facts. I'm the first to admit to having
my own little wagon that I'm pushing on the wikipedia, but most of us
pay SOME attention to the NPOV philosophy and make sure that what we are
contributing is based on fact, not some loonytunes supposition.
I would vote to ban her just for the sake of everyone else's sanity.
When you've tried reasoning and you've tried persuading and you've tried
asking nicely it's time for a little old-fashioned force.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature that
will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 529
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
wojtek pobratyn
wojtek.pobratyn at gmx.net
Mon Aug 26 10:17:14 UTC 2002
<snip>
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote thusly:
| I haven't tried to 'fix' her articles because I know bugger all about
| German history, but I'd say that everyone has had their patience tried
| long enough. She is not a useful contributor - she's a kook who wants to
| use the wikipedia to push her private bandwagon, which just so happens
| to have no relationship to the facts. I'm the first to admit to having
| my own little wagon that I'm pushing on the wikipedia, but most of us
| pay SOME attention to the NPOV philosophy and make sure that what we are
| contributing is based on fact, not some loonytunes supposition.
|
| I would vote to ban her just for the sake of everyone else's sanity.
| When you've tried reasoning and you've tried persuading and you've tried
| asking nicely it's time for a little old-fashioned force.
|
| --
|
| Karen AKA Kajikit
|
<snip>
I totally agree with Karen - HJ's contributions are far from useful and
even further from being NPOV. Her failling to join this list and argue
her POV makes this sort of discussion plus editing her artciles
a waste of everybody's resources. I'm all for a temporary ban.
regards,
WojPob
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 530
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Mon Aug 26 11:39:57 UTC 2002
On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 12:19:17PM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> On Sunday 25 August 2002 05:33 pm, you wrote:
> > Apart from this being utter nonsense (see e.g.
> > http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar11.html for a discussion of these
> > arguments), this most probably violates
> > German Law (Paragraph 130(3) of our penal code, denial of genocide
> > performed by the nazis).
> >
> > It's time to stop her.
> >
> >
> > JeLuF
>
> As a red blooded American I think that law is well intentioned but just ranks
> with anti-free speech totalitarian newspeak and probably does more to
> encourage Neo-Nazis and their ilk than to discourage them (punishing people
> just because they have certain views tends to make other people with similar
> views get the "us vs. them" mentality; which just strengthens their resolve
> and encourages ideas about "conspiracies" to "get them" that "must be
> stopped" = the law inadvertently creates a class of people actively opposed
> to the government when there were only various unrelated people with similar
> ideas before). We should therefore /not/ even begin to consider banning
> anyone just because they are breaking such a law.
The law considers denying of the holocaust as an insultation of the dead.
Insulting someone is not protected by the right of free speech, AFAIK that's
the same in the US.
> However, we are trying to build a fact-based and neutral encyclopedia, so if
> we do /temporarily/ block Helga then the /only/ reason why is because she is
> a major drain on contributor resources and she is therefore harming the goals
> and progress of the project.
Agreed.
> BTW, people should be able to say whatever they want in everyday life or
> their personal websites but if any of that is to be in a neutral and
DMCA. Your political system decided that telling someone the way how to
remove copyright protection is against the law and not free speech. My
political system decided that sowing hatred between people is against
the law. Hatred is much more dangerous than someone hearing songs of
Britney Spears without paying for them, in my opinion.
> > Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want
> > Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...
> >
> > ????????Regards,
> >
> > ????????????????JeLuF
>
> Well intentioned reasoning -- the last thing we need is Jimbo behind bars ;).
> Is this at all a possibility in German law? In the US Jimbo is protected by
> the fact that he is technically the ISP of wikipedia and therefore has
> limited liability on what users of his ISP do (not to mention 1st Amendment
> protections that protect both him and users of his ISP).
It's a little bit unclear. He is probably not responsible for the things Helga
writes as long as he is not knowing about it. Knowing about her denial of the
holocaust and not doing anything against it might void the protection he has
as technical provider.
> There is also the
> German Wikipedia to consider -- I somehow get the feeling that the German
> Wikipedia is just filled with her nonsense propaganda (smaller project =
> fewer contributors who can successfully confront and debunk her "work" =
> Helga has much more power to get her way).
She is not that active on the German wiki as far as I can tell, but I don't
know how to check for "User contributions" like it's possible in the English
wiki. At least, there are no articles on "Gdansk/Danzig" yet in the German
wiki. This might change as soon as Helga is banned, of course.
Best regards,
JeLuF
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 531
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Kurt Jansson
jansson at gmx.net
Mon Aug 26 12:49:00 UTC 2002
> > There is also the
> > German Wikipedia to consider -- I somehow get the feeling that the
German
> > Wikipedia is just filled with her nonsense propaganda (smaller
project =
> > fewer contributors who can successfully confront and debunk her
"work" =
> > Helga has much more power to get her way).
>
> She is not that active on the German wiki as far as I can tell, but I
don't
> know how to check for "User contributions" like it's possible in the
English
> wiki.
You can take a look at the testsite:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2BC21C91
Unfortunately many old revisions have been deleted by the software, so
there will be missing some (or many?) of her edits. But it's true that
she's not very active on the German WP.
I'm more worried about someone who's been writing articles about Silvio
Gesell's theories about "Freiwirtschaft", "Freigeld", etc. (I don't know
the English expressions). It seems we don't have anybody with enough
experience in economic theories on board, so in my opinion there has
been too little critical dispute about it.
> At least, there are no articles on "Gdansk/Danzig" yet in the German
> wiki. This might change as soon as Helga is banned, of course.
:-(
Kurt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 532
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Mon Aug 26 13:02:24 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> Jens Frank wrote:
> > Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want
> > Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...
>
> *grin* That's a very very good thing.
Is it possible for the German government to arrest a U.S.
citizen for supporting free speech on a server located
in the USA? It would seem out of their jurisdiction.
>
> I'm talking via email with Helga. It is not going very well. I feel
> that I will not be able to change her mind directly. I have told her
> not to post anything further about WWII, Poland, Germany, Judaism, or
> related topics until we get this straightened out.
>
> I am not inclined, as everyone knows, towards bans. But if someone has
> an agenda and is completely uncooperative, well, I'm just not sure how
> much we can stand.
Clearly there are limits. The following essay is intended to
be a general discussion of a pattern of problems. If things
with Helga are beyond repair, or become so, then I feel that
is unfortunate. The following is not intended as a statement
regarding any specific action(s) taken in the past or to be
taken in the future but rather as a discussion of the ramifications,
consequences, and potential benefits of reducing future problems via
pattern or process modification by the "community" if possible
and desirable.
It seems we have a recurring pattern of minorities (actually
individuals, they typically seem to get run off before additional
"party" members show up and become factions) with agendas
and/or material that we are not integrating well into our
"neutral" culture and resulting NPOV Wikipedia presentation.
I wonder if we are failing to branch the draft material effectively
such that minority views can be developed effectively and fairly and
then linked to appropriately from more mainstream overview articles.
Granted that if individuals/factions with an agenda, poor evidence,
low credibility, etc. want/insist on mainstream billing as fact or
"the truth" then this not easily reconcilable. Is it possible that
we are not branching quickly enough to represent minority views
or weaker cases in arguments that are inherently fuzzy?
For example: There is, in my perception, currently an undercurrent
circulating in the U.S. that U.S. oil related policies are in
large part responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade
Center. Add to this the fact that Israeli airlines have had locks
on the cockpit doors for decades to help prevent highjacking.
The rush to obliterate the Taliban and Al Queda starts to look
suspiciously like a diversion of public attention from domestic
culpability, negligence, and stupidity.
I think a substantial minority view could be written up that the
U.S. would be better off fixing stupid U.S. policies leading to this
type of attack rather than invading and attempting to control portions
of the Middle East via puppet or "friendly" governments after the
inevitable (policies have consequences or else they are ineffectual
and insignificant to real world events) attacks occur.
No doubt if I firmly believed this and insisted on front page
billing it as "the truth", right thinking "patriotic" Americans
would quickly get irritated. Clearly this could escalate to
the point I was no longer welcome at Wikipedia, at least for
the duration of the war efforts, or I got grumpy and disappeared.
Good riddance! Less wasted time all around among the mainstream
adherents. Who then is going to write the minority position?
A paragraph sop to the minority position written by a majority
view adherent which includes a couple of links to incoherent or
poor material available elsewhere on the web hardly seems like a
rigorous NPOV approach to summarizing the available knowledge
deeply, broadly, and reliably for future reader's use.
Obviously this case could be put in its own article appropriately
NPOV'd at the top with some context. In my view, the case could
then be made from its own viewpoint. Preferably by someone
sympathetic, enthusiastic, or attached to this viewpoint and
critiqued appropriately by others. External links could also
provide some context prior to linking to the minority view or
"propaganda" or revisionism. Would this be more acceptable to
radical or angry minorities than an enforced brief paragraph
"weighted" according to its perception of importance by the
mainstream?
Could controversy be diluted and managed more effectively by
branching multiple views early in a maze of interconnected
articles reached primarily from an NPOV summary?
IOW would we, the Wikipedia community, tend to lose less angry,
grumpy, rude individuals perceiving their views as arbitrarily
discounted without full presentation? Censored by a tyrannical
majority view. Very unpalatable. Is an opportunity to develop
a complete view by adherents of that view contextualized to NPOV
via a paragraph at the top including back links to the prevailing
majority views more palatable to at least some of the minority
factions or radicals that we are currently running off?
The current prevailing majority view in the U.S. is clearly that we
were justified in attacking the de facto government of Afghanistan.
In my opinion, other views should be articulated and preserved as well.
Notice how the justification for citizens of Japanese descent
internment in World War II is now viewed at the same time we are
imprisoning hundreds of Arabs without releasing their names and
providing no recourse to courts.
The public's views of Vietnam has also shifted treacherously
from the mandated or publicised views of the involved U.S.
Administrations
to the point that MacNamara now claims he knew his Vietnam policies
were ineffectual and idiotic. Why then has he not been prosecuted
for treason or dereliction of duty? The fifth? Statute of limitations?
There was a lot of rude discussion on both sides of this issue during
the 60s, 70s, and 80s. It did not invalidate their data or opinions
but it did make it difficult to reach an agreement regarding reality.
Another more local example:
"Art" has not returned to "Infanticide" since Ed and I invited
him to collaborate with us in finding more evidence and improving
the article. He seemed to be relying exclusively on one "scholar"
who skirted with making some very strong claims and stated strong
opinions without providing sufficient evidence or analysis to
back them up conclusively.
Clearly the main article has to be clear that insufficient evidence
exists to make strong claims that infanticide was a widespread
and frequent practice. The evidence supports that it occurred
widely in all ancient civilizations but provides no real proof
of quantitative frequency. That it occurred at least occasionally
in most/all ancient civilizations is clear and acknowledged by the
mainstream view.
Would "Art" have stuck around (remained calmer and integrated into the
contributing "community" better) if encouraged to help write up a
separate
draft article making the best case possible for his clear, firm belief
(that infanticide was very common in the past) which could be linked to
from
the main article with the context that insufficient evidence existed to
state this conclusively as fact; in the view of most scholars? Art,
I (and possibly Ed) could make the best case possible for Art's beliefs
or views citing and quoting DeMause and other supporting sources, while
the current talk page analysis of DeMause could be refactored as
discussion
of why the evidence is too weak to support the strong view. All of this
would be off the mainstream summary page of infanticide which seems
to have stablized for the moment, primarily because Art is apparently
gone, not because of any acknowledged consensus that all the material
and pertinent views had been presented fairly for future readers
assessment.
I understand that Helga's views are considered incorrect,
offensive, and even worse, revisionist propaganda, by some
or many of us.
It seems to me that if they are common to a substantial number
of former Soviet citizens, or German Nazis, that they belong
somewhere in an NPOV Wikipedia. Likewise Nazi views of what
they thought they were doing with the death camps. Was the
genocide truly viewed as beneficial to the anticipated German
empire? Was this an opportunistic ploy by cynical politicians,
or merely a personal crusade by Hitler sanctioned by his underlings
despite the large impact on the war effort. Similar genocides
are documented in the Bible and in accounts of the American West.
Accounts and justifications vary widely between the involved factions.
The tribes obliterated by Jewish refugees from Egypt are not well
documented in history other than by biblical reference. Did
they really exist? Did they agree that they were evil and
that the tribes of Israel could make more appropriate use of
their land because Jewish prophets were in contact with the
almighty? Should their misery be ignored in the English Wikipedia
because much of the English speaking world is dominated by Christians
and it is politically incorrect this decade to dislike Jews or large
U.S. subsidies for Israel's defense courtesy of the lobbying of the
Jewish
Defense League? Should their fate be ignored for lack of evidence
while the bible is cited as a reputable source elsewhere?
How many views of the Crusades will crop up? Were they justified?
Is there any disagreement about which factions were slaughtering
or converting Arabs, Jews, natives, natural resources, land, etc.
Is there any agreement regarding beliefs, motives, methods, routes,
numbers, etc. How should the conflicting evidence be developed
and presented.
Did Drake beat the Spanish Armada through sheer genius or did
their deficiencies in logistics doom a very large rag tag fleet
from the start? I have seen it presented both ways in documentaries.
McCarthy was firmly discredited for his methods in his communist
hunt but decades later Soviet records claim some of his victims
were truly agents. KGB propaganda? Coincidence that of thousands
of victims persectuted some of the famous ones were actually guilty?
How should future Americans understand the paranoid cold war era
without exposure to his faction's views that there were communists
under every rock in Hollywood? Some of the opposing factions seemed
to view McCarthy merely as a self serving politician, not a patriot.
Would not multiple views and presentation of the evidence for and
against belong in a deep, broad, reliable resource discussing the
Cold War? Anything less is merely presenting the writer's opinion
instead of providing material for the reader to form their own
assessment and conclusions.
Perhaps our methodology can be improved by branching the draft
material early and often. Controversial material can thus
be relegated away from the "mainstream" or core articles and
linked to with proper caveats. Caucuses of ideologues could
focus on developing their various views while the calmest and
politest members negotiate the wording of the context for the
mainstream summaries that point to the minority views. People
willing to discuss controversial issues at length and detail
could assist with augmenting and improving the controversial
view sub articles while others with less patience, time,
or interest could watch the NPOV top level summaries.
If this occurred before heated edit wars got started, or shortly
thereafter as routine development of various views, it might
be beneficial in expanding our diversity by retaining some
of our grumpier, ruder, radicals. Perhaps they might even
calm down and get a little more polite or effective in presenting
their evidence instead of their opinions.
I take strong exception to the seemingly prevailing
view that "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum." I do not
believe it is possible to achieve a deep, broad, reliable
Wikipedia presentation of available human knowledge without
extensive (hopefully polite) discussion regarding the source
material and how to best present it. Controversy is inevitable
and we need to learn how to better deal with it to preserve
our diversity. Certainly people who wish to stick to known
"provable" facts, cite the source of evidence and move on should
be able to. People who wish to present, critique, discuss
in more detail at length should also be empowered.
I agree that it is not a forum for attempting to convert others
to a particular view. I think it should also not be a forum to
censor or run off other views. If this is agreed in principle
then some effort is appropriate for the community to learn how
to communicate effectively with angry minorities that polite
interaction is appropriate. Assurance that their views will not
be arbitrarily dismissed (or worse, distorted and unsubstantiated
in a small paragraph) without due process would be a good start.
Many have taken the implicit stance that it is each
individual's responsibility to be polite and civil and learn how
to get along with the "community". We, the existing "community",
do not need people who cannot learn quickly how to get along with
us. I think this ignores the diverse background and previous
internet environments that new contributors bring with them.
Concluding that newcomer's who disagree with a regular and then
get defensive, impolite, and rhetorically ineffective when
reinforcements show up (after threats and warnings) to help delete
or edit "inappropriate" content are better rejected
(or ultimately banned) rather than shown effectively how the local
processes can work well begs several questions:
1. How are we going to get their unpopular views and alleged
information contributed if they do not provide it?
2. Who is going to do all this remaining work? It is not
a small undertaking to write a deep, broad, reliable summary
of human knowledge. 37 sys ops, 200 regular contributors,
1000 repeat contributors, and 4,000 registered accounts
is an excellent start but there is a long ways to go. The
more complete it gets and the more used, the more maintenance
effort it will require.
3. When regulars disagree and fail to agree to disagree
politely, how shall we decide which faction to run off?
4. When factions run off or fork why are we interested
in inviting them to return to the main project?
Learning how to better orientate and accustom newcomers
to our "culture" may take a substantial investment of time.
It could have a large payoff from improved diversity in interests,
viewpoints, sources of draft content; reduced maintenance effort;
and increased available volunteer effort. The trick, in my view,
is in getting processes set up such that the investment in time
can be made by appropriately interested people rather than on a
crisis demand basis by exasperated adversaries as each new radical
is discovered or made angry in the stacks.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 533
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Mon Aug 26 13:04:45 UTC 2002
On 26-08-2002, wojtek pobratyn wrote thusly :
> Karen AKA Kajikit wrote thusly:
> | I haven't tried to 'fix' her articles because I know bugger all about
> | German history, but I'd say that everyone has had their patience tried
> | long enough. She is not a useful contributor - she's a kook who wants to
> | use the wikipedia to push her private bandwagon, which just so happens
> | to have no relationship to the facts. I'm the first to admit to having
> | my own little wagon that I'm pushing on the wikipedia, but most of us
> | pay SOME attention to the NPOV philosophy and make sure that what we are
> | contributing is based on fact, not some loonytunes supposition.
> | I would vote to ban her just for the sake of everyone else's sanity.
> | When you've tried reasoning and you've tried persuading and you've tried
> | asking nicely it's time for a little old-fashioned force.
Wojtek :
> I totally agree with Karen - HJ's contributions are far from useful and
> even further from being NPOV. Her failling to join this list and argue
> her POV makes this sort of discussion plus editing her artciles
> a waste of everybody's resources. I'm all for a temporary ban.
I think we should give her the last warning. If it fails there's no other
way that to ban her for some time.
I think that I know her motives but because she is in fact a
hindrance to the Wikipedia's progress and her writing undermines
the basic rules of Wikipedia banning her seems to be the sad
necessity.
Regards,
kpjas.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 534
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Aug 26 13:18:07 UTC 2002
At 06:02 AM 8/26/02 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>> Jens Frank wrote:
>> > Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want
>> > Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...
>>
>> *grin* That's a very very good thing.
>
>Is it possible for the German government to arrest a U.S.
>citizen for supporting free speech on a server located
>in the USA? It would seem out of their jurisdiction.
Ok, the effort in Germany to suppress Nazi organizing is not about getting
people like Jimmy Wales. But active Nazi supporters in the United States
have been arrested upon arriving in Germany. It this necessary? The German
government thinks so and I happen to agree with them, but the threat of a
resurgence of Nazism is at least a remote possibility there. In the US we
have our own homegrown nonsense.
Our article on Nazism would probably be objectionable to the German
government giving rather complete voice to Nazi theories. I've edited on
that article but haven't really attacked the matter and remain unsure just
how to edit it. I don't think we have any obligation to provide a forum for
a full sympathetic rendition of this theory, but not setting such a thing
forth is doing a disservice to our readers.
As to Helga, I find her pathetic and embarassing, although my family is
long gone from Germany. I'm prepared to extend some sympathy, but my
experience with such folks offers little hope that she will do anything but
continue her pattern of disruptive behavior. I haven't really tangled with
her since I probably know more about [[Casper, Wyoming]] than about
[[Prussia]]. Casper is BTW my latest pathetic stub.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 535
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Mon Aug 26 15:03:26 UTC 2002
<removed Mike Irwin's interesting essay on unpopular points of view
and wikipedia, which I urge everyone to read>
The fact is, everyone has bent over backwards with Helga and given her
every opportunity to collaborate, explain, discuss, proffer evidence.
People have given her questions to answer, opportunities to give
sources, suggestions on NPOV, ideas about how to enter controversial
points of view, and none of it has worked. All has been met with what
I would call truculent ignorance. She is more interested in "proving"
that Copernicus was "German" and that this fine "German" reformed the
coinage of some long-lost province of the Holy Roman Empire than she
is in whether the sun revolves around the earth or the other way
around. She translated dubious material from German and cannot
understand that translation doesn't remove the copyright. She thinks
one speech in 1946 by James Eastland trumps the entire history of the
20th century. That one anti-Hitler article in a Jewish newspaper in
1934 (!) justifies the Holocaust.
The history seems similar to the notorious "24", whom I missed by
coming in late on all this. It is not the controversial point of view
that makes these people wrong for Wikipedia, it is the refusal to
engage in any dialogue to improve their contributions, a refusal that
amounts to trolling in my view. Poor old 24 was bound and determined
to prove that there was censorship in the wikipedia and he finally
managed it at the cost of never getting anything he wanted heard into
the work in any form. I'd say Helga is on the same path. The Ark guy
too.
In contrast, Mike Irwin (and Ed Poor and several others, maybe even
me, not to single anyone out) are willing to soldier along, bringing
up sticky points, discusssing them, defending themselves, attacking
other views, apologizing on occasion, giving in from time to time,
sticking to their guns on other occasions, enlivening the talk pages,
and generally engaging in synthesis that assures that most of what
they (we) want to say makes it into the Encyclopedia, however cloaked
in NPOV it may turn out to be in the end.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 536
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Aug 26 16:41:25 UTC 2002
> The law considers denying of the holocaust as an insultation
> of the dead. Insulting someone is not protected by the right
> of free speech, AFAIK that's the same in the US.
No, it's not. Insults are speech too, and often hig art.
We protect them too, and rightly so. As our supreme court
said said, "If freedom means anything at all, it means
freedom for the thought we hate."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 537
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Aug 26 17:07:58 UTC 2002
>> The law considers denying of the holocaust as an insultation
>> of the dead. Insulting someone is not protected by the right
>> of free speech, AFAIK that's the same in the US.
>
>No, it's not. Insults are speech too, and often hig art.
>We protect them too, and rightly so. As our supreme court
>said said, "If freedom means anything at all, it means
>freedom for the thought we hate."
That's why it's a "high art." Avoiding libel and slander is not easly. Most
of our public victims in the US are public figures, covered by an
exception. In Colorado speaking ill is the dead is in the criminal code as
the crime of slander. Never enforced, perhaps unconstitutional, but there.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 538
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 26 17:18:07 UTC 2002
Regarding Mirwin's essay --
I generally agree with what you've said, mike. Just thought you should
know that this has been going on for close to a year now. Wikipedians
have left partially because they were too fed up with their time being
wasted by Helga. In almost every case, one of us (often me) has broken
down her work, explained where the problems are, and asked for sources
and/or clarification of very specific points. We've also offered to
help turn what she comes up with into effective English. Sometimes,
we've put together essays on sources and use of documents that have made
it into different articles. Other times, we've gone out and looked at
her sources ourselves (they are often from highly biased minority
opinion sites or books that are hard to find because they are incredibly
outdated local histories in German), and found that either there was a
fair body of criticism or that she'd quoted out of context.
You are absolutely right about minority opinions -- as long as they are
valid ones. Helga's views on the Heimatvertriebene are generally quite
valid and need to be expressed (I would say it's analogous to the fight
by Roma and gay activists have placed on their inclusion as victims of
the Holocaust -- its only recently that any real research has been done
on the topic, but as it comes to light, it is included in the
mainstream). HOWEVER, she does nothing to help create a collegial
atmosphere where we can add PROVABLE claims in a neutral POV. IMO, her
irredentist views are pretty much insupportable -- not because they are
not accepted by the mainstream, but because she is just wrong. Taken to
an extreme, Helga's arguments could be used to prove that Iberia belongs
to the Irish (choose a group of Celts) -- although she'd probably stop
at the Visigoths, since they're Germans.
Plus, she's accused other wikipedians of drinking too much (Michael
Tinkler) and insulted me on many occasions, to which my fovourtite
response is still from the much-missed Paul Drye "Pot. Kettle. Black."
Jules
Regards,
Julie Hofmann Kemp
253-638-1944
206-310-3461
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020826/b988d423/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 539
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: note to the militia
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Aug 26 17:58:10 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>What would be most useful is a listing of new users that can be accessed from
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers. That way this job would be
>much easier.
>
At one time thes were in order of joining (which can be useless in its
own way). Can some kind of a sort function be applied.
>BTW we really /do not/ have 3498 real users -- a good many of these "users"
>logged in only to abuse our upload utility or for other nefarious or
>non-contributing reasons (I don't greet any user who hasn't contributed at
>all). Is there a way to get rid of many of these no-longer used user accounts
>Lee (just the ones that have been inactive for months and whose user pages
>are still edit links)?
>
Can there be a "Wikepedia reserve army" list where anybody that hasn't
been seen in 90 days is listed. To get back on the main list, one
simple log-in would do the trick. I would not object to seeing a lot of
"accidental" registrations cancelled completely; many of these people
have probably even forgotten that Wikipedia exists. They can always
re-register if they want.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 540
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: note to the militia
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Mon Aug 26 19:43:14 UTC 2002
> Can there be a "Wikepedia reserve army" list where anybody that hasn't
> been seen in 90 days is listed. To get back on the main list, one
> simple log-in would do the trick. I would not object to seeing a lot of
> "accidental" registrations cancelled completely; many of these people
> have probably even forgotten that Wikipedia exists. They can always
> re-register if they want.
There might also be cases of people who come to Wikipedia, register, forget
about it, then return a few months later, and completely forgot their
password, maybe even their registration name, and re-register under another
name.
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 541
[Wikipedia-l] Helga
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Aug 26 19:59:59 UTC 2002
We should not "stop" her; rather, we should neutralize her writings. Write things like:
Some advocates blame the Daily Express article for starting the war, although most historians agree that...
I'm not sure what goes in the ellipsis, but my point is, there is nothing wrong with Helga's views that attribution can't fix.
Look what I've done with the Arab-Israeli Conflict articles: Palestine, Palestinian, Palestinian homeland, etc. There hasn't been an outbreak of edit war in nearly 2 weeks, which is epochal in terms of internet time.
I bet if I start following Helga around, I can neutralize anything she says faster than she can say it; I can type 80 words a minute, and my English is superb. I am offering up to 5 hours per week to this end.
All I need is the ability to track "all articles written by a single IP", so that when she forgets to log in I can still see her contributions. Or maybe Jimbo can give her a parole condition: if she agrees to contribute only while logged in, we won't ban her.
I didn't realize people were so upset with Helga. I may have made a mistake in encouraging "H. Jonat" to stay in the first place. But she hasn't threatened anyone with physical violence, and she is answering Jimbo's e-mails. I say, teach her the norms of the community rather than exile her.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 542
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Aug 26 18:46:13 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>Apart from this being utter nonsense (see e.g.
>>http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar11.html for a discussion of these
>>arguments), this most probably violates
>>German Law (Paragraph 130(3) of our penal code, denial of genocide
>>performed by the nazis).
>>
>>JeLuF
>>
>As a red blooded American I think that law is well intentioned but just ranks
>with anti-free speech totalitarian newspeak and probably does more to
>encourage Neo-Nazis and their ilk than to discourage them (punishing people
>just because they have certain views tends to make other people with similar
>views get the "us vs. them" mentality; which just strengthens their resolve
>and encourages ideas about "conspiracies" to "get them" that "must be
>stopped" = the law inadvertently creates a class of people actively opposed
>to the government when there were only various unrelated people with similar
>ideas before). We should therefore /not/ even begin to consider banning
>anyone just because they are breaking such a law.
>
>BTW, people should be able to say whatever they want in everyday life or
>their personal websites but if any of that is to be in a neutral and
>fact-based encyclopedia then it must be backed-up with evidence or highly
>qualified ("such and such says this, but others say that and yet others say
>the first two are wrong because...").
>
>>Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want
>>Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...
>>
That German law is just plain silly. The Holocaust as an event is a
question of fact not of law, and no amount of legislation is going to
change the truth (or untruth) of its events. People should be entitled
to their illusions and delusions. When the massive power of the state
is applied against these folk, they are granted a credibility greater
than they could ever have imagined. Germany's law in this regard is
probably mild compared to those countries that would ban any kind of
outside influences available through the Internet. Obviously, if Helga
lives in Germany, she proceeds at her own risk. No ISP should need to
worry about a bewildering array of foreign laws; it's quite enough for
him to be mindful of the laws of his own country.
The United States is perhaps the worst offender when it comes to the
extraterritorial application of its laws, and refusing to conform with
international conventions. Witness the situation of the Russian who had
developed a device to crack copy protection. He did none of his work in
the US but was still arrested when he visited.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 543
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Aug 26 19:12:37 UTC 2002
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
>I haven't tried to 'fix' her articles because I know bugger all about
>German history,
>
That hasn't stopped Helga from buggering it up
>She is not a useful contributor - she's a kook.
>
Kooks thrive on the attention.
.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 544
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Mon Aug 26 20:36:32 UTC 2002
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:41:25AM -0700, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> > The law considers denying of the holocaust as an insultation
> > of the dead. Insulting someone is not protected by the right
> > of free speech, AFAIK that's the same in the US.
>
> No, it's not. Insults are speech too, and often hig art.
> We protect them too, and rightly so. As our supreme court
> said said, "If freedom means anything at all, it means
> freedom for the thought we hate."
>
So I might say "You are an asshole" and you couldn't sue
me for it in the US? Than our legal system has quite other
priorities than yours. The German constitution begins
with the words:
Die Wuerde des Menschen ist unantastbar.
Meaning something like:
The dignity of man is inviolable.
( from http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html )
Freedom of Speech has to subordinate to this
principle. It's guaranteed in article 5 of the
Basic Law. N.B. 5(2):
(2) These rights are limited by the provisions of the general
laws, the provisions of law for the protection of youth and
by the right to inviolability of personal honor.
There was a very interesting process
some years ago between a soldier and a pacifist
who has said "Soldiers are murderers". The
decision of the court was: If you say it as a
general statement targeting more to "war" than
to a specific man, it's protected by the right
of free speech. If you say it to the face of
an soldier, meaning him personally, than it's
an insultation and violating the soldiers
dignity. The pacifist won the case since it
was a sticker on his car and therefor not
intended to a specific soldier.
(I think we're becomming off topic, but it's
an interesting difference between the US and
Germany I wasn't aware of)
Best regards,
JeLuF
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 545
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Aug 26 19:55:03 UTC 2002
Tom Parmenter wrote:
> The history seems similar to the notorious "24", whom I missed by
> coming in late on all this. It is not the controversial point of view
> that makes these people wrong for Wikipedia, it is the refusal to
> engage in any dialogue to improve their contributions, a refusal that
> amounts to trolling in my view.
I would agree that this _is_ the essential problem.
> In contrast, Mike Irwin (and Ed Poor and several others, maybe even
> me, not to single anyone out) are willing to soldier along, bringing
> up sticky points, discusssing them, defending themselves, attacking
> other views, apologizing on occasion, giving in from time to time,
> sticking to their guns on other occasions, enlivening the talk pages,
> and generally engaging in synthesis that assures that most of what
> they (we) want to say makes it into the Encyclopedia, however cloaked
> in NPOV it may turn out to be in the end.
Yes!
Extremely diverse intellectual perspectives are no obstacle to
cooperation through the mechanism of NPOV, within a very broad range.
But I suspect that there are limits. Some views are so minority,
so at odds with the mainstream, that it will be difficult to integrate
them with the whole. I'm not talking about "major" points of view
like Marxism or Libertarianism or Christianity or Bhuddism. I'm
talking about very small and quirky points of view shared by almost
no one.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 546
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Aug 26 19:59:44 UTC 2002
Jens Frank wrote:
> So I might say "You are an asshole" and you couldn't sue
> me for it in the US?
That's right.
> Than our legal system has quite other
> priorities than yours. The German constitution begins
> with the words:
>
> Die Wuerde des Menschen ist unantastbar.
>
> Meaning something like:
>
> The dignity of man is inviolable.
The American view would be that restrictions on insulting speech, or
hateful speech, are a violation of human dignity.
> There was a very interesting process
> some years ago between a soldier and a pacifist
> who has said "Soldiers are murderers". The
> decision of the court was: If you say it as a
> general statement targeting more to "war" than
> to a specific man, it's protected by the right
> of free speech. If you say it to the face of
> an soldier, meaning him personally, than it's
> an insultation and violating the soldiers
> dignity. The pacifist won the case since it
> was a sticker on his car and therefor not
> intended to a specific soldier.
>
> (I think we're becomming off topic, but it's
> an interesting difference between the US and
> Germany I wasn't aware of)
Yes, this is off topic. And it is interesting.
I had no idea that a person could be sued anywhere in the world for
calling someone an asshole. Americans are litigious enough already,
god forbid if we could sue people for _that_! :-)
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 547
[Wikipedia-l] Helga
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Mon Aug 26 21:05:49 UTC 2002
At 03:59 PM 8/26/02 -0400, you wrote:
>We should not "stop" her; rather, we should neutralize her writings. Write
>things like:
>
> Some advocates blame the Daily Express article for starting the
> war, although most historians agree that...
It still gives it too much credence: "some people" believe that the earth
is flat, but that
doesn't mean we give them equal time in the article on Magellan.
>I'm not sure what goes in the ellipsis, but my point is, there is nothing
>wrong with Helga's views that attribution can't fix.
>
>Look what I've done with the Arab-Israeli Conflict articles: Palestine,
>Palestinian, Palestinian homeland, etc. There hasn't been an outbreak of
>edit war in nearly 2 weeks, which is epochal in terms of internet time.
>
>I bet if I start following Helga around, I can neutralize anything she
>says faster than she can say it; I can type 80 words a minute, and my
>English is superb. I am offering up to 5 hours per week to this end.
>
>All I need is the ability to track "all articles written by a single IP",
>so that when she forgets to log in I can still see her contributions. Or
>maybe Jimbo can give her a parole condition: if she agrees to contribute
>only while logged in, we won't ban her.
>
>I didn't realize people were so upset with Helga. I may have made a
>mistake in encouraging "H. Jonat" to stay in the first place. But she
>hasn't threatened anyone with physical violence, and she is answering
>Jimbo's e-mails. I say, teach her the norms of the community rather than
>exile her.
We've been trying to teach her the norms of the community for a very long
time. She
isn't interested in learning them.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 548
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Aug 26 21:29:53 UTC 2002
>> No, it's not. Insults are speech too, and often high art.
>> We protect them too, and rightly so. As our supreme court
>> has said, "If freedom means anything at all, it means
>> freedom for the thought we hate."
>
>So I might say "You are an asshole" and you couldn't sue
>me for it in the US? Than our legal system has quite other
>priorities than yours. The German constitution begins
>with the words:
>
> Die Wuerde des Menschen ist unantastbar.
>Meaning something like:
> The dignity of man is inviolable.
>...
>There was a very interesting process
>some years ago between a soldier and a pacifist
>who has said "Soldiers are murderers". The
>decision of the court was: If you say it as a
>general statement targeting more to "war" than
>to a specific man, it's protected by the right
>of free speech. If you say it to the face of
>an soldier, meaning him personally, than it's
>an insultation and violating the soldiers
>dignity. The pacifist won the case since it
>was a sticker on his car and therefor not
>intended to a specific soldier.
That's definitely a difference in US and German views
of things. "Slander" in the US has to meet a /very/
difficult burden of proof: the speech has to be (1)
false, (2) deliberately maclicious, (3) cause actual
harm, and (4) credible, and presented as fact. Case 1
means that truth is an absolute defense (i.e., you can't
be sued for slander for saying someone is cheating on
his wife if he is, in fact, cheating on his wife).
Condition 2 is often the hardest to meet: you have to
prove that the person making the slanderous statements
did so intentionally to cause harm, i.e., with "malice
aforethought". Thirdly, you have to be able to demonstate
that you were actually harmed in some way. Merely being
insulted does not harm you--the "dignity of man" should
be able to take a punch without crumbling. But if the
speech really did cause harm, such as costing you business,
or losing friends, etc., then you must demonstrate that.
Finally, the speech must be in a form that appears to be
statements of fact, credibly expressed. Opinion, humor,
parody, and such are categorically immune. "I think Bill
is an asshole" is an immune opinion. But "I saw Bill hire
a hooker", reported as fact, might be slanderous if it
causes Bill's wife to leave him or something.
For a good flavor of the American point of view, I recommend
watching the movie "People vs. Larry Flynt". Mr. Flynt
published a magazine with a parody that included Jerry Falwell
describing a sexual encounter with his mother. "Slander" wasn't
even an issue--since it was humor, it was immune, so no court
would even hear that. But Falwell sued under a different cause
of action, "Intentional infliction of emotional distress".
That too was eventually thrown out. Public figures simply have
to expect people to make fun of them and learn to deal with it.
As I've expressed it before, tolerance is more an obligation
of listeners than it is of speakers.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 549
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Aug 26 21:56:18 UTC 2002
"Slander" in the US has to meet a /very/
>difficult burden of proof: the speech has to be (1)
>false, (2) deliberately maclicious, (3) cause actual
>harm, and (4) credible, and presented as fact.
Not quite. There is libel and slander. Different rules for each. There is
criminal slander as in the Colorado law. And civil slander. Truth is not
always a defense.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 550
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Aug 26 20:32:13 UTC 2002
Fred Bauder wrote:
>>>The law considers denying of the holocaust as an insultation
>>>of the dead. Insulting someone is not protected by the right
>>>of free speech, AFAIK that's the same in the US.
>>>
>>No, it's not. Insults are speech too, and often hig art.
>>We protect them too, and rightly so. As our supreme court
>>said said, "If freedom means anything at all, it means
>>freedom for the thought we hate."
>>
>
>That's why it's a "high art." Avoiding libel and slander is not easly. Most
>of our public victims in the US are public figures, covered by an
>exception. In Colorado speaking ill is the dead is in the criminal code as
>the crime of slander. Never enforced, perhaps unconstitutional, but there.
>
The art of innuendo!
Some of the state legislatures have passed some weird things. Often it
was one legislator pushing something through as a test to see if his
colleages were awake. They weren't. I believe that it was the
"Saturday Evening Post" that used to have a regular column about some of
these strange laws. Things could get really strange when somebody took
them seriously and tried to enforce them.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 551
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Helga
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 26 09:51:38 UTC 2002
On Monday 26 August 2002 02:30 pm, you wrote:
> I didn't realize people were so upset with Helga. I may have made a mistake
> in encouraging "H. Jonat" to stay in the first place. But she hasn't
> threatened anyone with physical violence, and she is answering Jimbo's
> e-mails. I say, teach her the norms of the community rather than exile her.
>
> Ed Poor
We've been doing exactly what you suggest for about a year now and the only
result has been major user fatigue (not to mention that our tolerance of
Helga is one of the reasons why Michael Tinkler left -- maybe others as
well). But if you wish you can try this yourself (but please don't leave the
project in frustration over this as others have).
Here is a link to her "contributions" (I can't remember the last time she
logged in):
http://www.wikipedia.com/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.47.62.78&days=30&limit=1000
NOTE: the above is set to bring back the last thousand edits by IP
66.47.62.78 in the last 30 days. You can edit the above URL to track any IP
with any day or edit number values by the way.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 552
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Aug 26 22:16:38 UTC 2002
>"Slander" in the US has to meet a /very/
>>difficult burden of proof: the speech has to be (1)
>>false, (2) deliberately maclicious, (3) cause actual
>>harm, and (4) credible, and presented as fact.
>
> Not quite. There is libel and slander. Different rules for each.
> There is criminal slander as in the Colorado law. And civil
> slander. Truth is not always a defense.
Yes, yes, I'm simplifying for the benefit of a foreign audience
to give the gist of the subject. There's also different rules
for different media (newspapers can get away with more than
magazines, for instance). But the general rules are as I outlined.
"Truth" /is/ always a defense to both slander and libel, but it
is an "affirmative" defense (meaning the burden of proof is on
the defendant), and it may not be a defense to those other torts
like intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it may not
be an "absolute" defense (i.e., the judge may rule that all the
other factors combined outweigh it)--but that's a /very/ rare thing,
and very likely to be overturned on appeal.
Like everything in the US, state law also complicates the matter,
but in general, state laws more restrictive than outlined above
are routinely overturned. Texas's "veggie libel" law, for example.
I'm sure the Colorado law you mentioned would suffer a similar
fate if it ever got as far as a US district court.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 553
[Wikipedia-l] Tracking articles by anonymous contributors
Tim Marklew
tmarklew at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 26 23:07:03 UTC 2002
>All I need is the ability to track "all articles written by a single
> >IP"....
For those not already aware, we can already do that. You'll need to type
(or copy) a URL like this directly into the address line in your browser:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.47.62.78
The IP used there (66.47.62.78) is for Helga Jonat; you can substitute any
other as required. This is very useful for tracking anonymous vandals, so
I'm keen that everyone should know about it.
Tim (Enchanter)
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 554
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Aug 26 20:41:59 UTC 2002
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote
> Taken to an extreme, Helga's arguments could be used to prove that
> Iberia belongs to the Irish (choose a group of Celts) -- although
> she'd probably stop at the Visigoths, since they're Germans.
>
Now there's an idea!! I believe that the Galicians were originaly a
Celtic people. But there are also Galicians in Poland, so maybe Iberia
should be Polish. ... That or Ireland should be Polish. :-D
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 555
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Mon Aug 26 23:37:31 UTC 2002
|From: lcrocker at nupedia.com
|Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:29:53 -0700
|
|>> No, it's not. Insults are speech too, and often high art.
|>> We protect them too, and rightly so. As our supreme court
|>> has said, "If freedom means anything at all, it means
|>> freedom for the thought we hate."
|>
|>So I might say "You are an asshole" and you couldn't sue
|>me for it in the US? Than our legal system has quite other
|>priorities than yours. The German constitution begins
|>with the words:
|>
|> Die Wuerde des Menschen ist unantastbar.
|>Meaning something like:
|> The dignity of man is inviolable.
|>...
|>There was a very interesting process
|>some years ago between a soldier and a pacifist
|>who has said "Soldiers are murderers". The
|>decision of the court was: If you say it as a
|>general statement targeting more to "war" than
|>to a specific man, it's protected by the right
|>of free speech. If you say it to the face of
|>an soldier, meaning him personally, than it's
|>an insultation and violating the soldiers
|>dignity. The pacifist won the case since it
|>was a sticker on his car and therefor not
|>intended to a specific soldier.
|
|That's definitely a difference in US and German views
|of things. "Slander" in the US has to meet a /very/
|difficult burden of proof: the speech has to be (1)
|false, (2) deliberately maclicious, (3) cause actual
|harm, and (4) credible, and presented as fact. Case 1
|means that truth is an absolute defense (i.e., you can't
|be sued for slander for saying someone is cheating on
|his wife if he is, in fact, cheating on his wife).
|Condition 2 is often the hardest to meet: you have to
|prove that the person making the slanderous statements
|did so intentionally to cause harm, i.e., with "malice
|aforethought". Thirdly, you have to be able to demonstate
|that you were actually harmed in some way. Merely being
|insulted does not harm you--the "dignity of man" should
|be able to take a punch without crumbling. But if the
|speech really did cause harm, such as costing you business,
|or losing friends, etc., then you must demonstrate that.
|Finally, the speech must be in a form that appears to be
|statements of fact, credibly expressed. Opinion, humor,
|parody, and such are categorically immune. "I think Bill
|is an asshole" is an immune opinion. But "I saw Bill hire
|a hooker", reported as fact, might be slanderous if it
|causes Bill's wife to leave him or something.
|
|For a good flavor of the American point of view, I recommend
|watching the movie "People vs. Larry Flynt". Mr. Flynt
|published a magazine with a parody that included Jerry Falwell
|describing a sexual encounter with his mother. "Slander" wasn't
|even an issue--since it was humor, it was immune, so no court
|would even hear that. But Falwell sued under a different cause
|of action, "Intentional infliction of emotional distress".
|That too was eventually thrown out. Public figures simply have
|to expect people to make fun of them and learn to deal with it.
|
|As I've expressed it before, tolerance is more an obligation
|of listeners than it is of speakers.
|
Just for the record, "People vs. Larry Flynt" was a misnomer. That's
the name that would go on a criminal prosecution, which this was not,
it was Falwell vs. Flynt in a civil case. Criminal prosecutions for
speech are very rare, and very hard for the government to win, as the
free naked dancers and flag-burners of America can attest.
See this book:
Rodney A. Smolla, Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt: The First
Amendment on Trial (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press,
1988).
Quite wonderful. It will raise your opinion of both Jerry Falwell and
Larry Flynt and your opinion of the First Amendment and the courts as
well.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 556
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
wojtek pobratyn
wojtek.pobratyn at gmx.net
Tue Aug 27 06:14:53 UTC 2002
> Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote
>
> > Taken to an extreme, Helga's arguments could be used to prove that
> > Iberia belongs to the Irish (choose a group of Celts) -- although
> > she'd probably stop at the Visigoths, since they're Germans.
> >
> Now there's an idea!! I believe that the Galicians were originaly a
> Celtic people. But there are also Galicians in Poland, so maybe Iberia
> should be Polish. ... That or Ireland should be Polish. :-D
> Eclecticology
Forget it. We want Hawaii!
(for the weather of course:-)
WojPob
--
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 557
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Tue Aug 27 07:54:18 UTC 2002
I'll settle for home rule for [[Cornwall]]. Start small, think big.
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "wojtek pobratyn" <wojtek.pobratyn at gmx.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
> > Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote
> >
> > > Taken to an extreme, Helga's arguments could be used to prove that
> > > Iberia belongs to the Irish (choose a group of Celts) -- although
> > > she'd probably stop at the Visigoths, since they're Germans.
> > >
> > Now there's an idea!! I believe that the Galicians were originaly a
> > Celtic people. But there are also Galicians in Poland, so maybe Iberia
> > should be Polish. ... That or Ireland should be Polish. :-D
> > Eclecticology
>
> Forget it. We want Hawaii!
> (for the weather of course:-)
> WojPob
>
> --
> GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
> http://www.gmx.net
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 558
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Tue Aug 27 10:23:05 UTC 2002
> I'll settle for home rule for [[Cornwall]]. Start small, think big.
Self rule? Forget it. You should be returned to the Carthaginian trading
empire!
Andre
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 559
[Wikipedia-l] IP Tracking
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Aug 27 14:27:33 UTC 2002
Thanks, Tim Enchanter and Daniel Maveric, for the IP-tracking URL. I can probably even adapt it to track newbies to vet their contributions for vandalism or just mere cluelessness.
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.47.62.78
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 560
[Wikipedia-l] Real owner of each country
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Aug 27 14:35:37 UTC 2002
!> Taken to an extreme, Helga's arguments could be used to prove that
!> Iberia belongs to the Irish (choose a group of Celts) -- although
!> she'd probably stop at the Visigoths, since they're Germans.
!>
!Now there's an idea!! I believe that the Galicians were originaly a
!Celtic people. But there are also Galicians in Poland, so maybe Iberia
!should be Polish. ... That or Ireland should be Polish. :-D
!Eclecticology
I think the real owner of the earth is God (as defined by the Unification Church), so any country not giving fealty to Him is "occupying" that territory unrighteously. Perhaps this POV is what enables me to view the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Helga controversy with equanimity: it doesn't matter who says what, because they're all thieves anyway!
Who is the real, rightful owner of the West Bank, or Ireland, or Prussia? From my POV it's God, but none of the other contributors has the sense to realize it!! :-)
Anyway, I hope this explains why I find it easy to avoid getting emotionally involved and sucked in to edit wars on this sort of thing.
I just stick to the bedrock principle of NPOV: A said B about C...
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 561
[Wikipedia-l] Cool things Helga could find if she weren't wasting our time
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 27 15:12:07 UTC 2002
Like this!
http://events.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Home-X!ArticleDetail
-68782,00.html
It's actually pretty neat -- if I were near the Getty (she says, having
lived 50 miles from it for years and never having made the trip), I'd go
see this!
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020827/219073bb/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 562
[Wikipedia-l] The world according to Helga
John Cate
jsc1973 at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 27 17:33:13 UTC 2002
!> Taken to an extreme, Helga's arguments could be used to prove that
!> Iberia belongs to the Irish (choose a group of Celts) -- although
!> she'd probably stop at the Visigoths, since they're Germans.
Since Helga hasn't taken the time to fully explain all of this, I decided to
do it for her. Here's a complete list of all the nations that belong to the
Germans, and why:
Germany: for obvious reasons.
Austria: Ditto.
Italy: It once belonged to the Ostrogoths, who were victims of naked
aggression on the part of the Eastern Roman Empire under that brigand
Belisarius.
France: The Franks were Germans; Charlemagne's real name was Karl der
Grosse.
Poland: Half the country was unjustly taken from the Germans in 1945. The
other half was wrongfully taken from Prussia and Austria in 1806.
Czech Republic: The Sudetenland is rightfully German, and the rest of the
nation was built up under Austrian rule, or so Helga would tell you.
Slovakia: Wasn't Bratislava once known as "Pressburg"? Sounds pretty German
to me!
Switzerland: Largely speaks German today, historically belonged to the
Burgundians and Alamanni, who were Germans.
Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Libya: Belonged to the Vandals between 429 and
534. Lost through more naked aggression on the part of the Romans; many
Vandals cruelly expelled from their homes.
Spain: Modern Spainiards still claim descent from the Visigoths. Nation was
arguably founded by Pelayo the Visigoth in 718.
Netherlands, Belgium and Lux.: All part of the medieval Frankish Empire.
Romania: At one time, tens of thousands of Germans lived in Transylvania.
Was also ruled by the House of Hohenzollern for many years, and was ruled by
the Visigoths from 271 to 377.
Ukraine: L'viv was once known as Lemberg. Also belonged to the Ostrogoths
until 376.
Russia: Illegally possesses half of East Prussia and oppresses the Volga
Germans.
Lithuania: Illegally possesses the German city of Memel, wrongfully stolen
in 1919 and again in 1945.
Estonia: Capital of Talinn was once known as Reval and heavily populated by
Germans.
Latvia: City of Dvinsk's real name is Dunaburg.
Denmark: Illegally possesses northern Schleswig, wrongfully stolen from
Germans at Versailles in 1919.
Slovenia: Entire nation was part of Austria until 1918. Capital of
Ljubijana's real name is Laibach.
Portugal: Once belonged to the Suevi, Vandals and Visigoths.
England: Belonged to the Saxons until they fell victim to Norman French
aggression in 1066.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 563
[Wikipedia-l] The world according to Helga
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Aug 27 17:36:22 UTC 2002
"John Cate" <jsc1973 at hotmail.com> writes:
> Since Helga hasn't taken the time to fully explain all of this, I decided to
> do it for her. Here's a complete list of all the nations that belong to the
> Germans, and why:
>
> Germany: for obvious reasons.
You missed:
Wales : Lost by King Edward VII to Kaiser Wilhelm in drunken card game
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 564
[Wikipedia-l] Helga
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Aug 27 16:46:55 UTC 2002
I'm insisting that Helga come here to discuss NPOV.
I find her perplexing.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 565
[Wikipedia-l] More cool, NPOV (mostly) things Helga could have brought up
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 27 18:27:04 UTC 2002
Just read an interesting article dated 13 August 2002 in the New York
Times. Seems that, now that the USSR is no more, inhabitants of
Kaliningrad are (with financial support from 'Der Spiegel' ) excavating
and possibly going to restore parts of old Koenigsberg. As we all know,
Koenigsberg was annexed to the USSR after Potsdam, and the German
inhabitants were expelled. One of the first acts was to destroy the old
castle and many traces of a German heritage. Now, apparently, the
inhabitants of the city are raising the question of the city's cultural
roots -- Russian or German? Of course, the article was in the NYT, and
a German magazine is helping fund the work, but at least this is an
article Helga could have found, from a reputable journal rather than a
crackpot website, that supports some of the things she says.
This is why I despair of Helga. There is stuff out there that might
actually bolster her cause, but she only goes for the sources so bad and
biased that no one with sense can accept them, and we all end up
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Cheers!
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020827/2ed56e02/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 566
[Wikipedia-l] Tracking articles by anonymous contributors
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Aug 27 20:50:12 UTC 2002
Tim Marklew wrote:
>> All I need is the ability to track "all articles written by a single
>> >IP"....
>
> For those not already aware, we can already do that. You'll need to
> type (or copy) a URL like this directly into the address line in your
> browser:
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.47.62.78
>
>
> The IP used there (66.47.62.78) is for Helga Jonat; you can substitute
> any other as required. This is very useful for tracking anonymous
> vandals, so I'm keen that everyone should know about it.
Would there be any objection to making the IP addresses as listed in
Recentchanges and History be direct links to the contributions list?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 567
[Wikipedia-l] May I temporarily block...
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 27 20:54:19 UTC 2002
A new 24? Not doing anything wrong, but probably needs to have a read
before creating more really stubby pointless pages..
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020827/2941b5c5/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 568
[Wikipedia-l] Contributions by IP
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Aug 27 21:08:39 UTC 2002
!> For those not already aware, we can already do that. You'll need to
!> type (or copy) a URL like this directly into the address line in your
!> browser:
!>
!> http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.47.62.78
!>
!>
!> The IP used there (66.47.62.78) is for Helga Jonat; you can substitute
!> any other as required. This is very useful for tracking anonymous
!> vandals, so I'm keen that everyone should know about it.
!
!Would there be any objection to making the IP addresses as listed in
!Recentchanges and History be direct links to the contributions list?
!
!-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Actually, that's what I wanted all along. Thanks for suggesting it, Brion.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 569
[Wikipedia-l] Helga Jonat on [[Berlin]]
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Aug 27 20:37:36 UTC 2002
Steve Callaway wrote:
>I'll settle for home rule for [[Cornwall]]. Start small, think big.
>
There goes my idea that it should be vassal state of Lundy!
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 570
[Wikipedia-l] The world according to Helga
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Aug 27 21:40:15 UTC 2002
John Cate wrote:
>!> Taken to an extreme, Helga's arguments could be used to prove that
>!> Iberia belongs to the Irish (choose a group of Celts) -- although
>!> she'd probably stop at the Visigoths, since they're Germans.
>
>Since Helga hasn't taken the time to fully explain all of this, I decided to
>do it for her. Here's a complete list of all the nations that belong to the
>Germans, and why:
> (long list)
>
Based on its absence from the list I'm glad to see that Germany will
continue to recognize the independace of Liechtenstein.
Ec.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 571
[Wikipedia-l] The world according to Helga
Kurt Jansson
jansson at gmx.net
Tue Aug 27 23:56:26 UTC 2002
> Based on its absence from the list I'm glad to see that Germany will
> continue to recognize the independace of Liechtenstein.
Hmm, Liechtenstein sounds quite German to me ...
I'd like to see a list which explains why Germany shouldn't be a country
of it's own, but belong to this and that country. And please don't
forget to cc it to Helga.
But this is getting quite off topic now - but nobody cares.
So I don't, too :-)
Kurt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 572
[Wikipedia-l] The world according to Helga
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Wed Aug 28 01:12:27 UTC 2002
Let's not forget Tanganyika, Togo, Namibia, and Nauru. Seized by the Allies
in WW1
Danny
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 573
[Wikipedia-l] Tracking articles by anonymous contributors
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 27 13:51:52 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 02:02 pm, you wrote:
> Would there be any objection to making the IP addresses as listed in
> Recentchanges and History be direct links to the contributions list?
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
No objection from me (this will help track vandals). Although I would like to
hear what others say first.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 574
[Wikipedia-l] Tracking articles by anonymous contributors
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Aug 28 00:52:56 UTC 2002
>
>
>>Would there be any objection to making the IP addresses as listed in
>>Recentchanges and History be direct links to the contributions list?
>>
>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>
I presume that you are referring to the addresses for unregistered
contributors. That's fine. But for registered users I'm just as happy
to be able to go to the user page which links to "user contributions" anyway
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 575
[Wikipedia-l] Helga
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 28 02:23:55 UTC 2002
Generally, I agree with you Ed. But in this case,
Helga has been around far longer than you, and people
have been following her around the database all that
time, doing exactly what you suggest.
Stephen G.
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> We should not "stop" her; rather, we should
> neutralize her writings. Write things like:
>
> Some advocates blame the Daily Express article for
> starting the war, although most historians agree
> that...
>
> I'm not sure what goes in the ellipsis, but my point
> is, there is nothing wrong with Helga's views that
> attribution can't fix.
>
> Look what I've done with the Arab-Israeli Conflict
> articles: Palestine, Palestinian, Palestinian
> homeland, etc. There hasn't been an outbreak of edit
> war in nearly 2 weeks, which is epochal in terms of
> internet time.
>
> I bet if I start following Helga around, I can
> neutralize anything she says faster than she can say
> it; I can type 80 words a minute, and my English is
> superb. I am offering up to 5 hours per week to this
> end.
>
> All I need is the ability to track "all articles
> written by a single IP", so that when she forgets to
> log in I can still see her contributions. Or maybe
> Jimbo can give her a parole condition: if she agrees
> to contribute only while logged in, we won't ban
> her.
>
> I didn't realize people were so upset with Helga. I
> may have made a mistake in encouraging "H. Jonat" to
> stay in the first place. But she hasn't threatened
> anyone with physical violence, and she is answering
> Jimbo's e-mails. I say, teach her the norms of the
> community rather than exile her.
>
> Ed Poor
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 576
[Wikipedia-l] German anti-free speech law and Helga
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 28 02:27:10 UTC 2002
--- Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de> wrote:
> (I think we're becomming off topic, but it's
> an interesting difference between the US and
> Germany I wasn't aware of)
It is interesting, but (and I say this with much
respect) take to to the meta-wikipedia. :)
I didn't check my for the past two days, and I have
over 100 emails to deal with. Remind me to get off
Yahoo! mail and get a POP3 account...
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 577
[Wikipedia-l] The world according to Helga
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Aug 28 04:28:51 UTC 2002
John Cate wrote:
>Since Helga hasn't taken the time to fully explain all of this, I decided to
>do it for her. Here's a complete list of all the nations that belong to the
>Germans, and why:
This is all very fun, but if Helga comes here as Jimbo has "insisted",
then I hope that it's over before she starts reading.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 578
[Wikipedia-l] The world according to Helga
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Aug 28 05:16:09 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels wrote:
>John Cate wrote:
>
>>Since Helga hasn't taken the time to fully explain all of this, I decided to
>>do it for her. Here's a complete list of all the nations that belong to the
>>Germans, and why:
>>
>This is all very fun, but if Helga comes here as Jimbo has "insisted",
>then I hope that it's over before she starts reading.
>
Agreed! Some of us, myself included, have been unkindly having fun at
her expense. I sometimes find it hard to resist sarcastic comments. In
reality the articles where I have done work have not co-incided with the
ones that have kept her busy, so I don't personally have any basis for
complaint. That being said, I am putting this on record as an apology
to her for my own participation in the mockery..
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 579
[Wikipedia-l] May I temporarily block...
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Aug 28 13:25:12 UTC 2002
I'd say use your judgment, expect a firestorm of criticism, but do the right
thing. Try not to block people, but don't hesitate when necessary. :-)
How's that for a useless bunch of slogans masquerading as advice? *smile*
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> A new 24? Not doing anything wrong, but probably needs to have a read
> before creating more really stubby pointless pages..
>
> Jules
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 580
[Wikipedia-l] Tracking use by a user with a changing IP
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 28 23:01:38 UTC 2002
Hey all -- is there any way of tracking contributions by the first three
IP number sets (triplets or triads or whatever they're called)? One of
the people who makes really interesting, generally very good
contributions seems to be working off a dynamic IP (or maybe just
different terminals on a static network). I'd like to be able to check
the contributions, but the last three numbers change regularly. Any
ideas?
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020828/25a90db1/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 581
[Wikipedia-l] Why external images should not be allowed
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Thu Aug 29 04:04:54 UTC 2002
Some moron thought that it would be 'funny' to link a really revolting
pornographic photograph into a random article, and unfortunately before
I could remove it I had to LOOK at it.
Anyway, if the image had had to be uploaded it would have been caught in
the net, but the jerkwad could just put http://etc and the picture
showed up on the page all by itself.
I know that 24.70.159.4 is probably a random passerby with a perverted
sense of humour, but it was gross and disgusting and made me physically
ill. Oh... looking at recent changes the same person has been hitting a
myriad of articles in the last fifteen minutes. I just blocked him, and
I see I was the third person to do it.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature that
will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 582
[Wikipedia-l] Why external images should not be allowed
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Aug 29 04:32:50 UTC 2002
Now that we have the upload function, I'd agree that we don't need to
render external images.
It's odd that the guy did that, since we already have such a good entry
on [[goatse.cx]].
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 583
[Wikipedia-l] Why external images should not be allowed
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 29 04:49:52 UTC 2002
> Now that we have the upload function, I'd agree that we don't
> need to render external images.
I'm absolutely in favor of eliminating inline-rendered external
images. Totally apart from goatse.cx, it's also a minor security
issue, since such images can carry cookies and track usage.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 584
[Wikipedia-l] Should Wikipedia:Help be protected?
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Aug 29 05:29:31 UTC 2002
One of the pages hit by the latest vandal from Shaw Cable is Wikipedia:Help.
Should that be protected?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 585
[Wikipedia-l] Why external images should not be allowed
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Aug 29 05:50:09 UTC 2002
On Thursday 29 August 2002 00:04, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
> I know that 24.70.159.4 is probably a random passerby with a perverted
> sense of humour, but it was gross and disgusting and made me physically
> ill. Oh... looking at recent changes the same person has been hitting a
> myriad of articles in the last fifteen minutes. I just blocked him, and
> I see I was the third person to do it.
No, you're the fourth. Any IP address beginning 24 is a cable modem, and
probably a dynamic IP, so the ISP should be alerted before he restarts dhcpcd
and splatters more goats across the Wiki. Here's the whois and nslookup info:
OrgName: Shaw Fiberlink
OrgID: FBCA
NetRange: 24.64.0.0 - 24.71.255.255
CIDR: 24.64.0.0/13
NetName: FIBERLINK-CABLE
NetHandle: NET-24-64-0-0-1
Parent: NET-24-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS2SO.CG.SHAWCABLE.NET
NameServer: NS1SO.CG.SHAWCABLE.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 1996-06-03
Updated: 2002-08-12
TechHandle: ZS178-ARIN
TechName: Shaw High-Speed Internet
TechPhone: +1-403-750-7428
TechEmail: ipadmin at sjrb.ca
Name: h24-70-159-4.su.shawcable.net
Address: 24.70.159.4
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 586
[Wikipedia-l] Why external images should not be allowed
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Aug 29 06:02:00 UTC 2002
On Thursday 29 August 2002 01:50, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> No, you're the fourth. Any IP address beginning 24 is a cable modem, and
> probably a dynamic IP, so the ISP should be alerted before he restarts
> dhcpcd and splatters more goats across the Wiki. Here's the whois and
> nslookup info:
Oops - sorry - the previous address was 24.70.158.248. But that just proves
my point - it's probably the same vandal at a different IP address.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 587
[Wikipedia-l] Why external images should not be allowed
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 29 06:58:31 UTC 2002
I can only guess it was that damned goatse site. I'm confused as to why linking to it isn't yet punishable by death.
I wish I could forget it too. :-/
kq
You Wrote:
>Some moron thought that it would be 'funny' to link a really revolting
>pornographic photograph into a random article, and unfortunately before
>I could remove it I had to LOOK at it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 588
[Wikipedia-l] Why external images should not be allowed
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 29 07:00:35 UTC 2002
After all the countries are de-subpaged, I plan to go through and move over all the images. I have proxomitron, which kills offsite images, and it's killing a lot of those too (I guess they've been uploaded to meta?)
kq
>I'm absolutely in favor of eliminating inline-rendered external
>images. Totally apart from goatse.cx, it's also a minor security
>issue, since such images can carry cookies and track usage.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 589
[Wikipedia-l] http://goatse.cx/hello.jpg
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 28 19:14:51 UTC 2002
Some vandal with rotating IPs is repeatedly placing links to the oh-so-famous
goatse.cx image to many articles.
CAN WE PLEASE NOT ALLOW EXTERNAL IMAGES TO BE DISPLAYED IN PAGES.
Sorry for the shouting, but this has been asked for before and I think it is
only reasonable (if this image is ever uploaded, deleting it will be a simple
matter and the histories of repaired articles with a link to that image will
just show a broken link).
If you don't know what this image is, just visit
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom and view
revision 11:13 Aug 26, 2002.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 590
[Wikipedia-l] May I temporarily block...
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Aug 29 09:54:58 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> I'd say use your judgment, expect a firestorm of criticism, but do the right
> thing. Try not to block people, but don't hesitate when necessary. :-)
>
> How's that for a useless bunch of slogans masquerading as advice? *smile*
>
> Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
>
> > A new 24? Not doing anything wrong, but probably needs to have a read
> > before creating more really stubby pointless pages..
Why not wait for something really wrong
before resorting to blocking?
Assuming problems a priori may simply
create them.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 591
[Wikipedia-l] Recruiting more contributors
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Aug 29 15:10:41 UTC 2002
Let's focus on strategies to increase the number of qualified contributors.
1. Everyone personally recruit three more contributors. (Okay, at least one!)
2. Advertise for writers.
3. Create a profile of the "ideal contributor".
4. Divide up the work into roles, such as Vandalism Cop, Spellcheck Clerk, Neutrality Umpire, Cheerleading Squad, Hospitalty Crew (add more here!!).
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 592
[Wikipedia-l] Purging vandalism
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 29 18:41:52 UTC 2002
I got a request via email to purge the history records of our latest
goatse.cx vandal, lest some poor unsuspecting wikipedian later come
across them by accident. While there may be arguments for keeping
such a historical record, I think in this case they are outweighed by
the benefits of just deleting them. I did a database backup, just in
case we get subpoenaed to produce them or something, and then I
removed them. The banned IP list clearly shows what happened, when,
and why, so we aren't losing that information, just 54 edit records
that were all reverted (interstingly, he also seems to have made
exactly one legitimate edit, which is still here).
I thought the list should know when things like that are done in case
there's some serious objection to it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 593
[Wikipedia-l] Recruiting more contributors
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 29 18:45:38 UTC 2002
Ed, I like the first three of your ideas but really don't care for the
4th. I'll be all of those or none of those as I see fit; I think that's
part of the beauty of wikipedia: contribute where you think you're
needed; your help is welcome.
kq
Ed Wrote:
>Let's focus on strategies to increase the number of qualified
contributors.
>
>1. Everyone personally recruit three more contributors. (Okay, at
least one!)
>
>2. Advertise for writers.
>
>3. Create a profile of the "ideal contributor".
>
>4. Divide up the work into roles, such as Vandalism Cop,
Spellcheck Clerk, Neutrality Umpire, Cheerleading Squad,
Hospitalty Crew (add more here!!).
>
>Ed Poor
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 594
[Wikipedia-l] Purging vandalism
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Thu Aug 29 18:45:19 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com writes:
> interstingly, he also seems to have made exactly one legitimate edit, which
> is still here
Just out of interest, what was it?
> I thought the list should know when things like that are done in case
> there's some serious objection to it.
Cunc?
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 595
[Wikipedia-l] Purging vandalism
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Aug 29 18:58:14 UTC 2002
On Thursday 29 August 2002 14:41, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> I got a request via email to purge the history records of our latest
> goatse.cx vandal, lest some poor unsuspecting wikipedian later come
> across them by accident. While there may be arguments for keeping
> such a historical record, I think in this case they are outweighed by
> the benefits of just deleting them. I did a database backup, just in
> case we get subpoenaed to produce them or something, and then I
> removed them. The banned IP list clearly shows what happened, when,
> and why, so we aren't losing that information, just 54 edit records
> that were all reverted (interstingly, he also seems to have made
> exactly one legitimate edit, which is still here).
That means that if Shaw hasn't looked into my complaint, which gave the list
of contributions page, yet, they won't see that anything happened.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 596
[Wikipedia-l] Purging vandalism
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Thu Aug 29 19:34:53 UTC 2002
>lcrocker at nupedia.com writes:
>> interstingly, he also seems to have made exactly one legitimate
>> edit, which is still here
> Just out of interest, what was it?
A spelling fix on "Enigma".
Pierre's point is a good one--if someone complained to his ISP,
their investigation would not see the purged history (though as
I said, I can produce them from backups if needed). I don't know
of any AUPs up-to-date enough to cover wiki vandalism. Maybe a
general "posting obscene content" or something might cover it.
If someone did complain to Shaw cable, and they respond to you
asking for evidence, I'll be happy to provide it. In fact, I'll
bet they would generally expect such material to have been
removed, and would request information from logs and backups.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 597
[Wikipedia-l] Ready to slit my damned wrists -- there is a French Helga
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 29 19:04:11 UTC 2002
It used to be I was trying to deny German history in favor of the Slavs
-- now I'm accused of trying to deny Frence history in favor of the
Germans. Is this an encyclopedia or a resting-place for irredentism?
Sheesh!
To be fair, DW writes some really good stuff, but doesn't seem to care
that scholarship has moved on in the past 30-50 years if it affects la
Gloire de la France. I'm beginning to think there's no room here for
experts.
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020829/fb9a060c/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 598
[Wikipedia-l] Ready to slit my damned wrists -- there is a French Helga
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Thu Aug 29 20:29:01 UTC 2002
At 12:04 PM 8/29/02 -0700, Jules wrote:
>It used to be I was trying to deny German history in favor of the Slavs --
>now I'm accused of trying to deny Frence history in favor of the
>Germans. Is this an encyclopedia or a resting-place for irredentism? Sheesh!
I've spoken up on your behalf, for whatever good it will do. Nationalism
gets weird.
>To be fair, DW writes some really good stuff, but doesn't seem to care
>that scholarship has moved on in the past 30-50 years if it affects la
>Gloire de la France. I'm beginning to think there's no room here for experts.
There is. There'd better be--I can't write or research all this stuff, and
I'm not an expert, so
I need some who are.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 599
[Wikipedia-l] Ready to slit my damned wrists -- there is a French Helga
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Thu Aug 29 20:30:48 UTC 2002
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:04:11PM -0700, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> It used to be I was trying to deny German history in favor of the Slavs
> -- now I'm accused of trying to deny Frence history in favor of the
> Germans. Is this an encyclopedia or a resting-place for irredentism?
> Sheesh!
>
> To be fair, DW writes some really good stuff, but doesn't seem to care
> that scholarship has moved on in the past 30-50 years if it affects la
> Gloire de la France. I'm beginning to think there's no room here for
> experts.
I'm a little concerned about the images DW's uploading. I've got the
impression that those are not in the public domain. The image uploaded
for [[Chenonceaux]] seems to be by a photograph who's selling posters:
http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=939101&item=1641
Regards,
JeLuF
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 600
[Wikipedia-l] Recruiting more contributors
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Aug 29 20:02:58 UTC 2002
Well, one thing I like about his idea is that he's given friendly and
fun names for different roles. People who might not feel that they
want to contribute by writing whole articles from scratch should
understand that there's lots of different ways to contribute, all
respected and worthwhile.
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Ed, I like the first three of your ideas but really don't care for the
> 4th. I'll be all of those or none of those as I see fit; I think that's
> part of the beauty of wikipedia: contribute where you think you're
> needed; your help is welcome.
>
> kq
>
> Ed Wrote:
> >Let's focus on strategies to increase the number of qualified
> contributors.
> >
> >1. Everyone personally recruit three more contributors. (Okay, at
> least one!)
> >
> >2. Advertise for writers.
> >
> >3. Create a profile of the "ideal contributor".
> >
> >4. Divide up the work into roles, such as Vandalism Cop,
> Spellcheck Clerk, Neutrality Umpire, Cheerleading Squad,
> Hospitalty Crew (add more here!!).
> >
> >Ed Poor
> >[Wikipedia-l]
> >To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> >http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 601
[Wikipedia-l] Purging vandalism
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Aug 29 20:14:20 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> I thought the list should know when things like that are done in case
> there's some serious objection to it.
Anyone who objects is required to open up http://www.goatse.cx and contemplate it
for 10 minutes before complaining. :-)
When I first saw it, about a year ago I guess, I thought "O.k., that's
it, we're done. Turn off the Internet, because there's nothing left
to see."
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 602
[Wikipedia-l] Ready to slit my damned wrists -- there is a French Helga
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Thu Aug 29 21:42:49 UTC 2002
|From: "Julie Hofmann Kemp" <juleskemp at yahoo.com>
|Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
| boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C24F54.3007CD20"
|X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
|X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
|Importance: Normal
|X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
|X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4
|Precedence: bulk
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|List-Help: <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=help>
|List-Post: <mailto:wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
|List-Subscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=subscribe>
|List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia <wikipedia-l.nupedia.com>
|List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|List-Archive: <http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/>
|Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:04:11 -0700
|
|This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
|
|------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C24F54.3007CD20
|Content-Type: text/plain;
| charset="us-ascii"
|Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
|It used to be I was trying to deny German history in favor of the Slavs
|-- now I'm accused of trying to deny Frence history in favor of the
|Germans. Is this an encyclopedia or a resting-place for irredentism?
|Sheesh!
|
|To be fair, DW writes some really good stuff, but doesn't seem to care
|that scholarship has moved on in the past 30-50 years if it affects la
|Gloire de la France. I'm beginning to think there's no room here for
|experts.
|
|Jules
|
Julie,
How about beefing up the [[Irredentism]] and [[Revanchism]] articles
and adding a link to them on every page where this stuff comes up? If
those articles mentioned disputes about the proper nationality of
Transcarpathian Ruthenia, and all the others, then the cross-reference
would alert readers whenever there was any such in the referring
article.
I personally suspect you represent the Julian family of emperors and
are planning to retake the whole Roman Empire back from usurpers.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 603
[Wikipedia-l] Recruiting more contributors
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Aug 29 22:55:12 UTC 2002
On Thursday 29 August 2002 11:10, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Let's focus on strategies to increase the number of qualified contributors.
>
> 1. Everyone personally recruit three more contributors. (Okay, at least
> one!)
>
> 2. Advertise for writers.
>
> 3. Create a profile of the "ideal contributor".
>
> 4. Divide up the work into roles, such as Vandalism Cop, Spellcheck Clerk,
> Neutrality Umpire, Cheerleading Squad, Hospitalty Crew (add more here!!).
Don't forget Wikipediatrician! :) They work at the hospital with the
hospitalty crew.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 604
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Thu Aug 29 23:11:17 UTC 2002
I see that Helga is back, again not signing in, and again messing with stuff on
the Polish-German border: see
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Silesia&oldid=181988
Jimbo, were you aware of this? What's the status of your discussions with her?
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 605
[Wikipedia-l] Purging vandalism
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Fri Aug 30 06:50:19 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> If someone did complain to Shaw cable, and they respond to you
> asking for evidence, I'll be happy to provide it. In fact, I'll
> bet they would generally expect such material to have been
> removed, and would request information from logs and backups.
Would not hurt to cc them a copy of
the emails explaining the inappropriate material has
been removed but is available to investigators
via backup.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 606
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Aug 30 16:46:59 UTC 2002
Vicki,
Gareth and I revised the offending passage. Thanks for pointing it out.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 607
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Aug 30 16:19:23 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> Jimbo, were you aware of this? What's the status of your discussions with her?
I have told her that she needs to sign onto this mailing list and talk
with us or risk being banned.
My intention is to temporarily ban her - to get her attention -
tomorrow, if she doesn't respond to me with either a refusal to join
the list, with a reason, or by joining the list and posting something.
If she refuses to talk about her actions, and refuses to join the list
to work out the problems she's causing for other contributors, I think
it is unfair to others to allow her to continue.
I'm not happy about the content of her writing -- but I'm
significantly *less* happy with her attitudes and behaviors towards
others.
I don't want to pick on Ed Poor, because I'm sure there are other
examples I could use. But I think Ed Poor believes a lot of false
things. I'm sure he thinks that I believe a lot of false things.
Maybe I think he's a nut. Maybe he thinks I'm a nut.
Fair enough, but he and I are both polite and reasonable, and I find
it hard to envision a situation where we couldn't agree on what an
encyclopedia article should say.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 608
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] HELP !
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 30 19:09:07 UTC 2002
--- Brion VIBBER <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> > Bonjour,
> > I'm a little bit disappointed we don't receive any
> clue to our vandalism
> > problem !?
> > Someone can help ?
>
> Sorry, but I at least have no idea how the usemod
> banning system works. :(
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intlwiki-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe and otherwise manage your list
> subscription, please go to
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/intlwiki-l
> Intlwiki-l at nupedia.com
Thank you for answering at least Brion. It is very
nice of you. I was planning to leave u a message on
the en.wiki. So I guess, it will be of no use. Neither
public, nor private call for help seems to trigger any
interest.
Honestly, today, I have the feeling the international
wikipedias are of absolutely no interest to the
english one. Maybe are we there just here for the
galery...
In case anybody remembers how he used to ban people
before february (?) (such a loooong time ago, it's
amazing everybody forgot), please do it for us. You
are leaving us helpless.
Peace
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 609
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Aug 30 19:16:14 UTC 2002
>I don't want to pick on Ed Poor, because I'm sure there are other
>examples I could use. But I think Ed Poor believes a lot of false
>things. I'm sure he thinks that I believe a lot of false things.
>Maybe I think he's a nut. Maybe he thinks I'm a nut.
>
>Fair enough, but he and I are both polite and reasonable, and I find
>it hard to envision a situation where we couldn't agree on what an
>encyclopedia article should say.
What higher praise could one get? "Polite, reasonable nut". I like that :-)
But seriously, isn't there any way to configure the software so that Helga could contribute only when logged in? That is, ban her IP address, but not her user ID (if you know what I mean)?
Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a thorn in the project's side for a year. But I think the way you've responded has been inflammatory. No offense meant.
Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with phrases like "she's at it again" and "removed NPOV text" -- why not take a more low-key approach? It's working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles:
"Removed to talk" -- concise, unemotional: clearly the text hasn't disappeared but will be found on the talk page in a moment.
"According to ..."
"Some advocates claim ..."
"Although most scholars believe X ..."
The above 3 phrases deftly inserted into the article text work wonders. *sigh* if only Larry were still here.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 610
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] HELP !
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Fri Aug 30 20:39:31 UTC 2002
Anthere wrote:
> Thank you for answering at least Brion. It is very
> nice of you. I was planning to leave u a message on
> the en.wiki. So I guess, it will be of no use. Neither
> public, nor private call for help seems to trigger any
> interest.
Anthere; prior to about April or so, the *only* people who were allowed
to ban IPs on the English wiki were Larry Sanger (who is no longer with
the project), and perhaps Jimmy Wales (who is quite busy and doesn't
answer as much e-mail as sometimes we like).
As a result, it's likely that very few (if any) of us have ever used the
Usemod banning function and know how to help in this case, and we've all
just been waiting for someone else to reply usefully.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 611
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] HELP !
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Aug 30 20:21:59 UTC 2002
To my knowledge, no one except maybe Jimbo and Larry Sanger /could/ ban anyone before February. Thanks for being generous in your assumptions. :-) (I for one would certainly help, if I knew how).
kq
Anthere wrote:
>In case anybody remembers how he used to ban people
>before february (?) (such a loooong time ago, it's
>amazing everybody forgot), please do it for us. You
>are leaving us helpless.
>
>Peace
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 612
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] HELP !
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Aug 30 20:43:09 UTC 2002
I've put the question to Tarquin, whom a google search reveals is an admin at another wiki which uses UseModWiki. See http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Tarquin&redirect=no . I hope we can help soon. (I never banned anyone under UseModWiki; IIRC Larry did all that). Cheers, kq
Anthere wrote:
>Thank you for answering at least Brion. It is very
>nice of you. I was planning to leave u a message on
>the en.wiki. So I guess, it will be of no use. Neither
>public, nor private call for help seems to trigger any
>interest.
>
>Honestly, today, I have the feeling the international
>wikipedias are of absolutely no interest to the
>english one. Maybe are we there just here for the
>galery...
>
>In case anybody remembers how he used to ban people
>before february (?) (such a loooong time ago, it's
>amazing everybody forgot), please do it for us. You
>are leaving us helpless.
>
>Peace
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 613
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Fri Aug 30 20:47:40 UTC 2002
At 03:16 PM 8/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >I don't want to pick on Ed Poor, because I'm sure there are other
> >examples I could use. But I think Ed Poor believes a lot of false
> >things. I'm sure he thinks that I believe a lot of false things.
> >Maybe I think he's a nut. Maybe he thinks I'm a nut.
> >
> >Fair enough, but he and I are both polite and reasonable, and I find
> >it hard to envision a situation where we couldn't agree on what an
> >encyclopedia article should say.
>
>What higher praise could one get? "Polite, reasonable nut". I like that :-)
>
>But seriously, isn't there any way to configure the software so that Helga
>could contribute only when logged in? That is, ban her IP address, but not
>her user ID (if you know what I mean)?
>
>Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a thorn in the project's
>side for a year. But I think the way you've responded has been
>inflammatory. No offense meant.
>
>Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with phrases like "she's at
>it again" and "removed NPOV text" -- why not take a more low-key approach?
>It's working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles:
We tried that. It didn't work.
>"Removed to talk" -- concise, unemotional: clearly the text hasn't
>disappeared but will be found on the talk page in a moment.
>
>"According to ..."
>"Some advocates claim ..."
>"Although most scholars believe X ..."
And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 614
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Aug 30 19:54:36 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> But seriously, isn't there any way to configure the software so that
>Helga could contribute only when logged in? That is, ban her IP
>address, but not her user ID (if you know what I mean)?
I guess we could do that -- what would the purpose be, though? To force her to
log in? I'm not sure how that helps anything.
> Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a thorn in the
>project's side for a year. But I think the way you've responded has
>been inflammatory. No offense meant.
Well, if that's true, all I ask is that she come here and talk about
it.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 615
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Aug 30 19:56:21 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
> Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
> which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
And you're absolutely right about that.
I think we could say: "Tensions between Jews and non-Jews in Germany
had been growing for several years, as evidenced by thus and such
actual facts that actually happened."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 616
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 31 00:57:59 UTC 2002
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a
> thorn in the project's side for a year. But I think
> the way you've responded has been inflammatory. No
> offense meant.
>
> Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with
> phrases like "she's at it again" and "removed NPOV
> text" -- why not take a more low-key approach? It's
> working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict
> articles:
Ed, people have spent many, many hours trying your
"low key" approach. It hasn't worked. Some Wikipedians
have spent most of their Wikipedia time following
Helga around, trying to work with her, fix up her
contributions and explain why in non-confrontational
ways. People have left the project in frustration
because of her.
It's a little frustrating to hear people implying that
everyone has treated Helga harshly and unfairly.
> *sigh* if only Larry were still
> here.
Larry's not a magic bullet. I respect Larry, and I
think he deserves a lot of the credit for getting this
project off the ground. He has, however, been less
than diplomatic in certain past situations.
Come now, Ed. There's no need to wish for a knight in
shining armour whenever we have a problem. ;-)
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 617
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Sat Aug 31 01:48:51 UTC 2002
Ed, take a look at [[Eisenhower and German POWs]] and its talk page
for a fair sample of dealing with Helga. She got her article into the
Wikipedia, but many people had to fight like hell to keep it from
being pure anti-semitism from one single, dubious source, and after
all that it still consists mainly of unproven asservations. Or follow
some [[Copernicus]] links and look at the associated talk pages. On
all those talk pages you will see people bending over backwards to be
polite, following up her suggested references, suggesting wording to
get controversial points of view past NPOV, and generally giving her
every chance to make a positive contribution while she grinds her axe,
but all she wants to do is grind her axe.
She is dogged, impervious to suggestion, and absolutely clueless as to
what makes an encyclopedia article or a worthwhile historical proof.
She wants back those German lands that were "stolen" (by the Germans
losing wars that they started), she want Copernicus to be a German,
and, one suspects, she has other minority German enthusiasms as well.
As I said before, "She's had her chance, but she's more trouble than
she's worth."
As far as I know, her most positive contribution was getting Senator
Capehart into the Wikipedia, where he now receives credit as the
marketing genius behind the 20th century popularity of the jukebox.
She put him in originally because he once made an obscure speech that
Helga thought proved some point of hers, which some of us turned into
an article about the Senator himself.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
|From: Stephen Gilbert <canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com>
|Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
|--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
|> Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a
|> thorn in the project's side for a year. But I think
|> the way you've responded has been inflammatory. No
|> offense meant.
|>
|> Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with
|> phrases like "she's at it again" and "removed NPOV
|> text" -- why not take a more low-key approach? It's
|> working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict
|> articles:
|
|Ed, people have spent many, many hours trying your
|"low key" approach. It hasn't worked. Some Wikipedians
|have spent most of their Wikipedia time following
|Helga around, trying to work with her, fix up her
|contributions and explain why in non-confrontational
|ways. People have left the project in frustration
|because of her.
|
|It's a little frustrating to hear people implying that
|everyone has treated Helga harshly and unfairly.
|
|> *sigh* if only Larry were still
|> here.
|
|Larry's not a magic bullet. I respect Larry, and I
|think he deserves a lot of the credit for getting this
|project off the ground. He has, however, been less
|than diplomatic in certain past situations.
|
|Come now, Ed. There's no need to wish for a knight in
|shining armour whenever we have a problem. ;-)
|
|Stephen G.
|
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 618
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Helga again
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 31 02:17:37 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales said:
I think we could say: "Tensions between Jews and non-Jews in Germany had
been growing for several years, as evidenced by thus and such actual
facts that actually happened."
-- Jimmy, even that kind of implies a some kind of mutual antagonism --
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 619
[Wikipedia-l] Purging vandalism
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sat Aug 31 04:23:59 UTC 2002
LDC wrote:
>I got a request via email to purge the history records of our latest
>goatse.cx vandal, lest some poor unsuspecting wikipedian later come
>across them by accident. While there may be arguments for keeping
>such a historical record, I think in this case they are outweighed by
>the benefits of just deleting them. I did a database backup, just in
>case we get subpoenaed to produce them or something, and then I
>removed them. The banned IP list clearly shows what happened, when,
>and why, so we aren't losing that information, just 54 edit records
>that were all reverted (interstingly, he also seems to have made
>exactly one legitimate edit, which is still here).
Someday we will have a regular policy on
removing copyright violations from the history,
and it'll be a shame if this says "or pornographic"
(or if the history is incomplete in unadvertised ways).
So you can put me down as wanting these returned.
However, I can certainly see my way to accepting
that they stay off until external images no longer work.
We *are* going to stop those from working, right?
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 620
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sat Aug 31 05:37:16 UTC 2002
Ortolan88 wrote:
>Ed, take a look at [[Eisenhower and German POWs]] and its talk page
>for a fair sample of dealing with Helga.
Actually, Ed was involved with that case, according to the history.
I must say that Ed's continued optimism about Helga is wondrous to behold.
^_^
>She got her article into the
>Wikipedia, but many people had to fight like hell to keep it from
>being pure anti-semitism from one single, dubious source,
What are you talking about? Helga never mentioned Jews, or the Shoah.
She linked to a revisionist web site, but not to an anti-Jewish page,
and she probably found the page with Google,
neither knowing nor caring about the site that it was on.
There are a lot of problems with Helga, but hatred of Jews
isn't one that I've ever noticed. No, I haven't read all of Helga
and perhaps she really is a Jew-hater (perhaps you can point me
to evidence of this on Wikipedia). But [[Dwight Eisenhower]]
and [[Eisenhower and German POWs]] don't contain this,
and you sound as if you're the one with a chip on your shoulder
(when I know, from reading her stuff, that Helga has one of these)
when you say such things.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 621
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sat Aug 31 08:43:06 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> At 03:16 PM 8/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
> > >I don't want to pick on Ed Poor, because I'm sure there are other
> > >examples I could use. But I think Ed Poor believes a lot of false
> > >things. I'm sure he thinks that I believe a lot of false things.
> > >Maybe I think he's a nut. Maybe he thinks I'm a nut.
> > >
> > >Fair enough, but he and I are both polite and reasonable, and I find
> > >it hard to envision a situation where we couldn't agree on what an
> > >encyclopedia article should say.
> >
> >What higher praise could one get? "Polite, reasonable nut". I like that :-)
> >
> >But seriously, isn't there any way to configure the software so that Helga
> >could contribute only when logged in? That is, ban her IP address, but not
> >her user ID (if you know what I mean)?
> >
> >Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a thorn in the project's
> >side for a year. But I think the way you've responded has been
> >inflammatory. No offense meant.
> >
> >Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with phrases like "she's at
> >it again" and "removed NPOV text" -- why not take a more low-key approach?
> >It's working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles:
>
> We tried that. It didn't work.
>
> >"Removed to talk" -- concise, unemotional: clearly the text hasn't
> >disappeared but will be found on the talk page in a moment.
> >
> >"According to ..."
> >"Some advocates claim ..."
> >"Although most scholars believe X ..."
>
> And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
> Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
> which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
So let someone else write it.
Do you contend that there are not people in the world who
have made, and continue to make, these kind of allegations?
I personally have seen/heard this kind of stuff from people
in North America in person and on the internet.
Would you care to hazard a guess regarding how much of
Helga's current attitudes result from restricted access to
information during her early education or indoctrination?
I think all views and evidence someone chooses to present
belong somewhere in the Wikipedia. Links can be provided
to articles on propaganda and epistemology for readers who
choose to learn how to critically assess what they are
reading. The NPOV overviews should provide context prior
to linking to marginal or controversial materials.
As the Wikipedia expands in depth and breadth it should
be hard to use as a propaganda tool. A few lazy readers
might be lead astray but most should be able to reach
close to mainstream conclusions based upon the evidence and
analysis presented by the Wikipedia community at large.
I have no problem with NPOV overviews/articles as general
policy but this (the "NPOV god ontology" as "24" might
say) should not be used to gloss out (censor)
the detail, all of which (IMO) should be available to
interested readers.
I am not familar with Helga's efforts but they might make
a good test case to see if pushing extreme views to appropriate
leaf articles and providing appropriate access and backlinks
via NPOV overviews is a useful approach. Likewise a
trial run of the formalized debate approach that someone
proposed. Perhaps a means to protect NPOV overviews and
opposing views from extremists would be necessary for this
approach to be effective.
I am not necessarily opposed to banning non-collaborative
extremists; if an effective means of including undiluted
content originating with them can be identified, then perhaps
the project is better off without their assistance. I suspect
that developing effective revision control that gives them
an incentive to collaborate will be more productive in the
long run than merely deleting their material and attempting
to run them off.
Incidentally, "24" predicted that some type of editorial
policy would become necessary/desirable as participation grew.
He/she seemed to take the initial stance that it would be unethical
or immoral to assist the propagation of certain attitudes or
behavior. Personally I feel censorship in any form is a
slippery slope towards totalitarianism and attempted mind
control which is best avoided entirely, if possible.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 622
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Karl Juhnke
yangfuli at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 31 13:46:35 UTC 2002
--- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net> wrote:
> Personally I feel censorship in any form is a
> slippery slope towards totalitarianism and attempted mind
> control which is best avoided entirely, if possible.
Mike,
Your concluding sentence about the "slippery slope towards
totalinarianism" clarifies for me why you comment at length on a
situation about which you admit to not knowing the particulars. The
details appear to be less relevant in your view of things than the
abstract principle at stake.
I am prone to this sort of thinking myself, i.e. I think very
abstractly and in terms of principle. For example, I don't drink a
drop of alcohol myself, because even a glass of wine with dinner at
home among the family is in principle connected to impaired brain
function, drunk driving, alcoholism, wrecked kidneys, wrecked
relationships, etc., etc. I must make a concerted effort to understand
that moderation is possible, and that not every situation in life is a
slippery slope.
There are practical, incremental differences between modes of
contribution to Wikipedia. It is apparently difficult to know exactly
when to draw a line and say that someone is behving unacceptably. But
I would hope that we can clearly distinguish banning an individual from
totalitarianism, to the same extent that we can distinguish
incorporating opposing views from anarchy and descent into
meaninglessness.
Without saying anything particular about Helga, I would encourage you
to construct your arguments somewhat differently. Rather than
identifying a single principle in a situation and imagining that
principle at its extremes, try to identify *as many principles as
possible* and imagine how each governs and regulates the others. You
may find that your thinking becomes less clear and less easy to
express, but in my humble experience, reality itself is not necessarily
clear and easy to express.
Peace,
-Karl
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 623
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 31 18:59:15 UTC 2002
For the record, I don't think that Helga is particularly anti-Semitic --
although she often comes off that way. My take is that she pretty much
discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her
assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII. For
her the Holocaust is minor -- as are the Stalinist purges that ran into
the tens of millions -- except those directed towards the
Heimatvertriebene. This also keeps her from seeing that there may have
been long-standing resentments caused by German actions over a long
period of time and began well before Hitler -- not that this is a reason
for genocide or any other wartime or post-war atrocity. She just seems
incapable of seeing any of this in context because she's got her own
agenda that borders on obsession.
It's because she can't see context that the rest of us have to judge and
weigh what she says in terms of the big picture, and then make sure that
it gets appropriate mention -- but sometimes not at all is appropriate.
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020831/1fad6a1e/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 624
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sun Sep 1 00:29:20 UTC 2002
Dear all,
I've been away from active involvement with Wikipedia for many months now,
though I occasionally still lurk on Wikipedia-L and make a casual edit on
the website when I feel so moved.
My distance from the project, and some recent reading about Linux and open
source software, has made something clear to me in the past few days:
there is a profound disanalogy between the development of our free
encyclopedias and the development of free operating systems and software.
In particular, the Wikipedia project has been defined in such a way that
we have few official standards and no virtually requirements for quality
of the rigorous sort that Linux had when it set out to rewrite Unix from
scratch (and later remain compliant with stringent technical standards
like the POSIX standard). Linus Torvalds' task had well-defined
parameters that absolutely required a lot of genuine expertise. Our task,
by contrast, is to write a very large, unbiased encyclopedia. What this
task entails is far more nebulous (though I and others have worked very
hard to settle on and explain what it does involve), and many reasonable
people reasonably think that this doesn't strictly speaking require
genuine expertise.
But it does. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fantasy world.
The fact that there is no organization like the IEEE staffed by
world-class experts defining a standard that we must follow doesn't mean
that our work doesn't require expertise to finish credibly. I think
writing *and finishing* a credible draft of an encyclopedia requires more
and a wider range of expertise than the free software movement has. If
our encyclopedia project doesn't get an infusion of that expertise, the
quality of the result will suffer accordingly, which is a lot.
The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
people aren't drawn to Wikipedia. It's not surprising why not: I would
like to suggest that this is similar to asking veteran programmers working
on Linux and its applications to work with, supervise, and put up with
rank beginners and script kiddies. If they had had to do that, I doubt
very much that the free software movement would have come a fraction of
the distance it has.
Please don't misunderstand. My concern with expertise and knowledgeable
participants does not reflect an overvaluation of formal qualifications,
or academic elitism, by the way. (If you think I have enormous respect
for someone just on the basis of their academic credentials, you *really*
don't know me.) If someone without a degree (I can think of a few) can
write and think well and convey what they know in a way that reflects
expert knowledge on the subject, that's great. May their kind be fruitful
and multiply (among our ranks). There's no reason for me to suggest
otherwise, just as there's no reason to ask free software developers to
have degrees in computer science before they get their hands dirty working
on open source software.
Consider this. Eric Raymond might be correct that free software
development is represented as a bazaar. What is perhaps less often
acknowledged is that it is a bazaar full of extremely highly-qualified,
knowledgeable people. In this bazaar, the bar to *productive* and
*original* development is set very high. (Conveniently, it's not people
that set the bar high but instead the facts of reality about how hard it
is to develop software.) It is also less often acknowledged that there
are necessarily elite groups--elites based on merit, but elites
nonetheless--who are in charge of releasing new versions of important
packages. That's as it should be.
Wikipedia is quite different. The bar to contribution is very low, and if
there is any elite in charge, then with all due respect to everyone (and
that's a lot--there are a lot of *extremely* smart and knowledgeable
people here), our elite would seem rather less than impressive compared to
the leading members of the intelligentsia that contribute to the likes of
Britannica.
Along these lines I suggest there's another disanalogy between the free
software movement and our free encyclopedia movement. The free software
movement is organized and led by world-class computer scientists
associated with industry and academia. The free encyclopedia movement is
much newer, but (forgive me) it doesn't seem to be travelling in the
direction of being led by world-class thinkers, scholars, and scientists,
as a close analogy would seem to require. To be quite honest, it was good
to lay me off when economic necessity required; now do the right thing and
ask Jacques Barzun (before he dies), or some other distinguished
intellectual, to head up the project properly.
If we really want to make the best encyclopedia in the world (the original
stated goal of Nupedia, by the way), we must discuss a pressing question
that I suspect very few people on this list are disposed to take very
seriously: how can we arrange for our free encyclopedia movement to be led
by representatives of the creme de la creme among the world's scholars and
scientists?
Now, I would not dream of suggesting that *Wikipedia* change its policies
of openness. Basically, I don't think Wikipedia should change. It is
what it is and it has produced a huge number of *great* articles. It's
amazing that it works as well as it does, and I continue to expect that it
will result in a useful, interesting, huge body of work if we continue on
in the same way we have been.
That said, all of my previous predictions of huge success for the free
encyclopedia movement were based on the assumption that a Nupedia, or some
other quality control mechanism, would eventually mature into something to
inspire confidence among the leaders of different fields, so that
contributions and editing would be of the highest quality. But if no such
mechanism materializes, I would be much less apt to predict success, in
terms of quality of articles, for Wikipedia. Wikipedia by itself will
continue to go on to useful things, interesting things--but not great
things.
So I don't propose we touch Wikipedia--but we have Nupedia. What I hope
is that Nupedia can be changed and rearranged, somehow, to create an elite
board of bona fide experts that is ultimately in charge of "releases" of
free encyclopedia content.
Whatever the specific Nupedia article creation and/or vetting process
might turn out to be--see the Nupedia-L archives for discussion ad
nauseum--one thing is increasingly clear to me. Namely, unless there is a
dramatic change in how the free encyclopedia movement is organized,
Wikipedia will be stuck with, on balance, mediocrity.
Lest you think yourself insulted, let me offer an example of mediocrity:
my many philosophy articles. They are full of content, they are basically
correct, many of them (those that have been re-edited from lecture form)
are reasonably well-written--but they are woefully inadequate and
basically mediocre. I would be ashamed to bill them as anything other
than what they are--very rough first drafts based on lectures to OSU
undergrads, which sit there waiting for some experts to, probably,
completely rework them, or even replace them.
But no expert will want to do that until the whole project is led by
similar experts and therefore, to their mind, there is some guarantee that
the project will not wind up being an enormous waste of time. Without
that sort of leadership, I fear that my articles, and the many other
fair-to-middling (but basically correct and perfectly contentful)
Wikipedia articles, will never receive the vetting from qualified people
that they really need.
(I acknowledge that an appropriate response to this is: "I agree, but what
are you bothering Wikipedia-L about it for? Go post to Nupedia-L."
Basically, Wikipedia is the only game left in town as far as the free
encyclopedia movement is concerned. If enough of you get behind this,
something might happen. To my mind, Wikipedia shouldn't change but
Nupedia can and should, and Wikipedia might benefit directly.)
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 625
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Sep 1 05:57:26 UTC 2002
Karl Juhnke wrote:
>
> --- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net> wrote:
> > Personally I feel censorship in any form is a
> > slippery slope towards totalitarianism and attempted mind
> > control which is best avoided entirely, if possible.
>
> Mike,
>
> Your concluding sentence about the "slippery slope towards
> totalinarianism" clarifies for me why you comment at length on a
> situation about which you admit to not knowing the particulars. The
> details appear to be less relevant in your view of things than the
> abstract principle at stake.
Abstract principles can be important and useful.
Governing principles are often stated well in the
abstract and then ignored in practice. This often
causes problems that could be avoided.
Our recent pattern is interesting. From the outside they look
a great deal like previous incidents. A couple of which I
personally witnessed. Others only fragmentary clues remained.
If one uncooperative person is banned then clearly the project
can survive and prosper. If the only method for dealing with
controversy is banning, then it may be inappropriate for me to expend
further time here. Fear not! I am quite capable of disappearing
when I decide too, nobody need yell "Good riddance!" to expedite
the decision. Likewise I will simply take a break when I feel the
need, and likely be back quickly. Some have put it on record that
the project is at risk of losing good people if "problems" cannot be
eliminated (by banning) after reasonable time. I merely wish
to place it on record that similar risks are available from
excessive banning. It has already been publicly alleged in
several online forums (the spanish fork {hearsay, I do not
speak spanish}, geocities, advogato, kurohin5, this mailing
list, and meta) that censorship is a risk or problem here at
Wikipedia. This is not a good reputation to cultivate. It
discourages participation.
The current policy of edit boldly serene in the knowledge
that others will do the same effectively forms a feedback
loop that should converge on a product output of high quality
mainstream views (NPOV'ed material substantiated in detail) if
sufficient participation is available.
Moving from edit wars to routine banning risks breaking
the fundamental assumptions implicit in the above.
>
> I am prone to this sort of thinking myself, i.e. I think very
> abstractly and in terms of principle. For example, I don't drink a
> drop of alcohol myself, because even a glass of wine with dinner at
> home among the family is in principle connected to impaired brain
> function, drunk driving, alcoholism, wrecked kidneys, wrecked
> relationships, etc., etc. I must make a concerted effort to understand
> that moderation is possible, and that not every situation in life is a
> slippery slope.
This one seems to be one though. The frequency of incidents
seems to be growing and the chosen response seems to be
settling into a routine. Not necessarily a problem if the
goal is to exceed the quality of a 1911 public domain encyclopedia
or present a slightly more neutral world view (acceptable
to "Western" scholastic authorities) than Brittanica.
IMO Broad, deep, reliable requires more than merely regurgitating
material already published for profit in western academia.
>
> There are practical, incremental differences between modes of
> contribution to Wikipedia. It is apparently difficult to know exactly
> when to draw a line and say that someone is behving unacceptably.
Perhaps. Perhaps it merely has not been written down precisely.
Perhaps, we aggressively advertise one thing on the front and
orientation pages to encourage participation and then selectively
enforce something else.
If community approval and trust is required to remain an
editor then this should be emphasized up front so that
newcomer's know to fan out and develop contacts with like
minded people.
Eventually a trust metric similar to that used by advogato.com
could be used by the community to establish peer ratings, if
these are required to remain active in the community.
But
> I would hope that we can clearly distinguish banning an individual from
> totalitarianism, to the same extent that we can distinguish
> incorporating opposing views from anarchy and descent into
> meaninglessness.
My hopes are similar. Personally I favor setting up some robust
procedures that work well without resort to the current "owner"
or enforcer. Mr. Wales has done an excellent job so far, but I hope
and fear his available time for managing controversy and enacting
bans will not scale up as rapidly as the contributing community.
It is also interesting to note that his diplomatic skills are not
typcially currently brought into play until the current alleged
problem is highly irate and defensive. This leads me to suspect
that we may not be getting maximum benefit from his efforts. Of
course this conclusion is derived from my contention that there
is plenty of work to go around and we need access to as many
viewpoints as possible. Others may feel a more homogenous
cooperative group is perfectly capable of writing a broad, deep,
reliable Wikipedia.
>
> Without saying anything particular about Helga, I would encourage you
> to construct your arguments somewhat differently. Rather than
> identifying a single principle in a situation and imagining that
> principle at its extremes, try to identify *as many principles as
> possible* and imagine how each governs and regulates the others. You
> may find that your thinking becomes less clear and less easy to
> express, but in my humble experience, reality itself is not necessarily
> clear and easy to express.
LOL I may someday call on you as a character witness should
others once again locally become tired of my efforts at fuzzy
integrated reasoning.
I am well aware that tradeoffs are often required in real
world projects. The trick is to avoid trading away the
project's chances of success while being "practical". Nothing
practical about iron with insufficient inpurities to achieve
specified alloy properties. Typically, it will collapse far
short of design goals.
IMO The current problem is not the diverse viewpoints that we
are running off but that highly valued "regulars" with
proven contribution records get tired of deleting or modifying
front page material to keep the material's reliability up.
I contend that reducing our project team or community's
diversity is not an appropriate method of revision control.
Elsewhere I have proposed implementing a "code walkthough"
where approval by two or three logged in accounts is required
to place changes on the current page.
This should easily reduce the poor material currently residing
on the current articles by at least an order of magnitude,
Without running off diverse viewpoints. Helga, Art, "24",
myself, the previous incarnation of the Cuncator, and a few others
no longer with us could learn to modify their writings to attract
approval required to move from the draft to current page without
much of the heated controversy and repetitive wasted efforts that
currently results from the inverted process: Place your material
on the current page and see if anyone deletes, modifies, or yells
about it.
This method would allow Mr. Sanger (and the rest of us) to follow
his widely published advice and ignore perceived trolls, at
least until the material is reviewed/modified/approved by two
others ..... possibly mistakenly. The "troll" may also be less
defensive or even quiet while other faction members with better
social skills help defend or modify the material. Factions could
not be ignored, but this is no loss as they cannot currently be
ignored. Also, it is a well known characteristic of negotiations
that they proceed best with multiple items or views in play, this
gives the parties face saving manuevering room.
On the downside:
1. Some people feel the immediate wiki gratification of "edit
any page" will be lost from modification to: "go to the draft
version in progress and propose any change for a random editor
to approve".
2. Certain obvious problems such as people creating multiple
accounts can be reduced somewhat via appropriate software.
Diplomacy efforts will still be required. The above is certainly
not a cure all. The minute sufficient approval is gathered but
the material is unacceptable to another faction then we have
another controversy. It should be easier to mediate between
two teams of 3 people than with one out numbered person placed on
the defensive by the mailing list's current "run em off" tactics.
Others have proposed other solutions to help manage controversy
or improve reliability and quality via other forms of
revision control.
Well, I fuzzied up this email slightly in response to your
request for less rigid adherence to extreme reasoning regarding
singular issues. I hope it is still somewhat coherent. Perhaps
I should emulate the star in "Mission to Mars", in all future
lengthy fuzzy posts I may prepend:
"It wasn't me!" or "It was his idea!"
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 626
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 31 19:40:23 UTC 2002
On Saturday 31 August 2002 10:54 pm, Larry wrote:
> The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
> people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
I don't know about everyone else but I think that statement was a bit
insulting.
> So I don't propose we touch Wikipedia--but we have Nupedia. What I hope
> is that Nupedia can be changed and rearranged, somehow, to create an elite
> board of bona fide experts that is ultimately in charge of "releases" of
> free encyclopedia content.
Or we can simply revisit the idea of Beta/Stable; whereby some type of
process validates an article. Having another level of validation through
Nupedia would also be a good thing. In that way Nupedia would be a
distribution of Wikipedia in the same way as Red Hat is a distribution of
Linus' Linux and the GNU tools.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 627
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Sun Sep 1 08:49:54 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>In particular, the Wikipedia project has been defined in such a way that
>we have few official standards and no virtually requirements for quality
>of the rigorous sort that Linux had when it set out to rewrite Unix from
>scratch (and later remain compliant with stringent technical standards
>like the POSIX standard). Linus Torvalds' task had well-defined
>parameters that absolutely required a lot of genuine expertise. Our task,
>by contrast, is to write a very large, unbiased encyclopedia. What this
>task entails is far more nebulous (though I and others have worked very
>hard to settle on and explain what it does involve), and many reasonable
>people reasonably think that this doesn't strictly speaking require
>genuine expertise.
>
>But it does. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fantasy world.
>The fact that there is no organization like the IEEE staffed by
>world-class experts defining a standard that we must follow doesn't mean
>that our work doesn't require expertise to finish credibly. I think
>writing *and finishing* a credible draft of an encyclopedia requires more
>and a wider range of expertise than the free software movement has. If
>our encyclopedia project doesn't get an infusion of that expertise, the
>quality of the result will suffer accordingly, which is a lot.
>
So maybe I am living in a fantasy world, but my opinion is different.
First, I think many of the contributors to Wikipedia already have
genuine expertise. They have good knowledge about a number of topics (be
it because it's their hobby, work, study or interest) and - very
important - gain a lot of experience about how to write encyclopedia
articles from reading a lot of them, correcting them, talking about
them. And if there are more people needed for an article: they're there.
Next, "normal" encyclopedias are not written by the most highly regarded
experts either. There may be some, but in general these are not really
better qualified than many Wikipedians, in some cases there are
Wikipedians with better qualifications. In fact, the real experts will
not even bother to write encyclopedias, they'll work on topics in their
own field. Also, normal encyclopedias are usually written by a number of
people, where each person has his expertise. While his articles are
probably read by others, they're usually only written by one person.
So, while I think it would be great to draw some great minds to
Wikipedia, I do not think we have a problem just because we don't have
any (if that would be true). If these highly regarded experts think our
encyclopedia is bogus because they've read a lot of articles that are
bad, they are right and we can only hope these articles will be
rewritten (hopefully by these experts themselves). But if they judge it
to be a bad encyclopedia because there are no experts contributing
(which there are), it is these experts that are wrong, and not the
encyclopedia. Moreover, most people use an encyclopedia because they are
NOT a highly regarded expert. I find it much more important if they
think Wikipedia is useful. It is same as with the free software. If the
program is crap, nobody will download/use it, not even if it were made
by, say, Linus Torvalds or some other famous guy. However, if my
completely programming-ignorant neighbour would create a great program,
it will be used. Most people judge by quality of the product, not of the
producer. True, Torvalds may draw more people to download his crappy
program at first than my neighbour, but when word gets out of the
quality, that changes.
So my opinion is that attracting expert contributors because they're
experts is wrong; we should attract any contributor because he's
contributions are of (high) quality, no matter if he's a high school
drop-out or a guy with seven master titles and three Ph.D's.
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 628
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the freesoftware movement
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Sep 1 11:08:47 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've been away from active involvement with Wikipedia for many months now,
> though I occasionally still lurk on Wikipedia-L and make a casual edit on
> the website when I feel so moved.
>
> My distance from the project, and some recent reading about Linux and open
> source software, has made something clear to me in the past few days:
> there is a profound disanalogy between the development of our free
> encyclopedias and the development of free operating systems and software.
Organized information is organized information; however, we have a
profound
advantage in that our "compilers" have human judgement and initiative.
>
> In particular, the Wikipedia project has been defined in such a way that
> we have few official standards and no virtually requirements for quality
> of the rigorous sort that Linux had when it set out to rewrite Unix from
> scratch (and later remain compliant with stringent technical standards
> like the POSIX standard). Linus Torvalds' task had well-defined
> parameters that absolutely required a lot of genuine expertise. Our task,
> by contrast, is to write a very large, unbiased encyclopedia. What this
> task entails is far more nebulous (though I and others have worked very
> hard to settle on and explain what it does involve), and many reasonable
> people reasonably think that this doesn't strictly speaking require
> genuine expertise.
There are a lot of implicit assumptions above that, in my
view, are incorrect.
The only rigorous standards that were applicable to Linux, other than
what the developers themselves applied, was the goal of being compatible
with unix interfaces and a c-compiler. Posix compatibility was a
goal, not a rigid requirement. It is also likely that the kernel
developers
occasionally tweaked the compiler to get rid of irritating anomalies.
It is my understanding that Linus was an undergrad C.S. major when he
launched his kernel effort. The originators of the GNU components and
development environment may have had a higher mean of starting
qualifications.
Clearly some expertise was developed in the course of the project
by the contributing team members.
One might easily conclude from the "No original work" non policy
here that sheer scholarship is perceived as sufficient to both start
and finish the Wikipedia project. The required research seems to be
slowly
expanding my horizons, I suspect this is true in general. Personally,
I do not think life experience should be discounted. Local assessment
of world events often seems a bit different than the material broadcast.
Old books are where you find them. Humanity keeps a lot of knowledge
stashed in various places. Non academic personnel know a lot of
astonishing detail about various stuff they have experienced.
>
> But it does. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fantasy world.
> The fact that there is no organization like the IEEE staffed by
> world-class experts defining a standard that we must follow doesn't mean
> that our work doesn't require expertise to finish credibly.
What kind of expertise? All kinds? P'hds?
Do you think millwrights or truck drivers have anything to add
regarding the forest products industry or various technologies?
Avionics techs or reactor operators anything applicable to
the technology articles?
Housewives and parents to articles on babysitting, food
preparation technology, or infanticide?
Reckon Michael Jordan knows anything about professional
basketball that P'hds do not?
Concrete finishing.
Was Medicine Man an accurate portrayal of arcane knowledge
ocasionally not yet seen in western academic settings or
merely an urban legend or Hollywood fantasy?
When you say credibly you mean to academics? This is
a target market issue ... "24" attempted to facilitate
a discussion about this at meta but nobody seemed interested.
I am pretty certain I am not participating here for the
benefit of academics. Most of them in the U.S. have
access to pretty damn good libraries.
One of my payoffs was free interent distribution to
any reader that desired access. Where I went to grade
school some of the kids did not have an Encyclopedia at
home as I did. It made it difficult for some of them to
complete their homework. I understand that there are 3rd
world nations where libraries and books can be difficult
to access. My thoughts on this are that the price of
portables is still coming down and eventually the world
will mobilize to provide net access. IMHO It will be cheaper
and more effective for U.S. citizens to provide tools, information
and market access to allow people to develop their own economies
and world wide markets than to pay taxes for the U.S.
military to protect wealthy unscrupulous U.S. citizens
interested in exploiting trapped and desperate labor sources.
Other perceptions may vary. Too bad we deferred that
discussion but we can always start it up again.
I think
> writing *and finishing* a credible draft of an encyclopedia requires more
> and a wider range of expertise than the free software movement has. If
> our encyclopedia project doesn't get an infusion of that expertise, the
> quality of the result will suffer accordingly, which is a lot.
So how many free software developers do we have? 3? 5?
We seem to have a substantial infusion of non software developers
if the discussion on this mailing list is a reliable indicator.
Certainly the experience briefs provided by various Wikipedians
on their home pages seem to vary broadly outside the software arena.
I was under the impression that additional free software
assistance would be welcome, not superfluous.
>
> The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
> people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
Disputable. Extremely. See Karl's? strategy for long term recruiting
with his father, the specialized historian, retired. I have not run a
detailed survey but I suspect that the community is actually over
represented by percentage of educational credentials compared to the
available populations with internet access.
If you mean multiple P'hd's doing original research ... duh!
We keep telling people no original work. No discussion.
No speculuation, get back to work! 38K and counting.
The GPL would likely deter publishing of papers that peer
journals wish to be copyrighted for profit but ... we could
establish forums or a policy that personal original papers
contributors wish to publish under the GPL could be linked
to their personal pages and protected. Or we could encourage
them or a copy of them at an appropriate place in the stack,
serene in the knowledge that eventually another expert will
wander by with an edit boldly or NPOV or citation needed
gleam in their eye. Not every essay a professional writes
is suitable for top scale peer publication, nor is it necessarily
worthless. Might be just the draft to initiate a firestorm
of collaboration at a weak spot in the stacks.
I once saw a thesis on calculating the probability of life
elsewhere in the universe linked to for comment from
sci.space.policy and a couple of other usenet groups.
If the original paper and resulting
300 message technical debate had taken place under an FDL
on a Wikipedia type medium, much NPOV'd content could have
been extracted for a variety of articles.
Not a debate forum. Back to productive stub editing
and augmentation. 39K and counting.
If I made a further comment here someone might wish
to indict me for contempt of non policy.
Perhaps our desired credentialed are debating
on usenet? Think of all that I.Q. discourse recorded
in lengthy linear fashion in google archives but not
available for synthesis in the Wikipedia.
Not a debate forum.
One of the most reliable and widely used forms
of learning in the wild, in the military, in the
home, in schools, and various other places is
emulation.
I am not saying that all of our antisocial ban
candidates could or would learn from watching passionate
intellectuals go at it and occasionally commit the odd
fallacy of attempting discreditation of the opponent or
his credentials rather than his argument only to recover
composure gracefully and resume intelligable arguments
for discerning readers. I make the far weaker claim
that it might positively affect some of them who were
previously unfamiliar with civilized discourse.
Yes! Yes! I know! Not an ideological forum
or tutoring facility.
Still, if we cannot attract credentialed contributors,
we might need to roll our own. From H.S. to college
degree ... 4 or 5 years. From B.S. to M.S. or P'hd
another 3 to 5 years. In field stature ... priceless
5 to 30 years. We could have home grown credentialed
in anywhere from 3 to 50 years depending on the initial
starting point of the candidate.
It's not surprising why not: I would
> like to suggest that this is similar to asking veteran programmers working
> on Linux and its applications to work with, supervise, and put up with
> rank beginners and script kiddies.
It happens. A rapid learning gradient and sometimes a certain
amount of hero worship is required. At the other extreme, only
patches of significant contribution or quality are accepted.
Some maintainers will put substantial effort into debugging and
integrating a significant patch, others (wisely IMHO) eventually
tire of cleaning up sloppy work and simply discard it until the
submitted patch quality improves. (This is all hearsay, I am
not personally yet a free software developer. Wikipedia is kind
of a personal first project for me since the software looks like
an interesting prototytpe potentially useful to some other open
or free projects I have been considering.)
If they had had to do that, I doubt
> very much that the free software movement would have come a fraction of
> the distance it has.
I think you provide an incorrect impression here. Some free developers
will go out of their way to coach newbies while others avoid them. The
project environment varies with each project team's attitudes and
requirements. The attitude or time available varies widely from
developer to developer. The attitude also varies with the effort
needed and available for specific projects. For verification,
substantial original source material is available from newbies and
experienced developers at advogato in the front page articles as
well as the personal diaries of account holders.
It is my impression that the free software movement has been somewhat
overwhelmed by its current success and publicity. The ratio of newbies
to experienced has shot up so fast that veterans must allocate their
time between coaching and software development. This will be self
stabilizing. Either the free software community will develop means
and methods of orienting newcomers effectively, or they will get
discouraged
and move on. There are many sites and approaches being experimented
with to help out newcomers. Sourceforge and savannah provide free use
of free tools; advogato, and other sites are experimenting with
community
trust metrics, many experienced developers are posting tutorials, tips,
procedures, etc. online for newbies benefit. Several large projects
such as gnome and debian have established non-profits and sites to
help address issues in integrating large projects via coordination of
large teams experiencing substantial interest from neophytes. Finally,
most projects have a dedicated mailing list or forum where advice and
assistance is available to varying degrees. ... and of course the first
thing to do is to read the code.
It is pretty clear that if the free software movement was not pretty
friendly towards new developers it would not have grown or been
successful. The economic benefits of free software development are
huge to society but currently scarce/long term for developers. Although
the expertise developed is valuable in the long term, the community
grows because people interested in software development enjoy working
within the various teams and with the individuals who comprise the
overall community. There are other places to gain the expertise if
that were the sole goal.
>
> Please don't misunderstand. My concern with expertise and knowledgeable
> participants does not reflect an overvaluation of formal qualifications,
> or academic elitism, by the way. (If you think I have enormous respect
> for someone just on the basis of their academic credentials, you *really*
> don't know me.) If someone without a degree (I can think of a few) can
> write and think well and convey what they know in a way that reflects
> expert knowledge on the subject, that's great. May their kind be fruitful
> and multiply (among our ranks). There's no reason for me to suggest
> otherwise, just as there's no reason to ask free software developers to
> have degrees in computer science before they get their hands dirty working
> on open source software.
Interesting. Credentials are unnecessary but desirable?
>
> Consider this. Eric Raymond might be correct that free software
> development is represented as a bazaar. What is perhaps less often
> acknowledged is that it is a bazaar full of extremely highly-qualified,
> knowledgeable people. In this bazaar, the bar to *productive* and
> *original* development is set very high. (Conveniently, it's not people
> that set the bar high but instead the facts of reality about how hard it
> is to develop software.)
lol Most free software is crap until it gets good enough to
attract experienced developers who use it themselves or support
it for their customers. What original development? The majority
of killer free apps are clone knockoffs. What Microsoft has done
to the planet, disgruntled free developers are free to do to Microsoft
(and everyone else) until sufficient bribes reach U.S. Congress Critters
to outlaw it. Further bribes to the Supreme Court, or strategic
bench stacking, to find speech is free unless speaking code.
Certainly there are highly qualified and experienced people
and they have produced high quality libraries, tools, etc.
This does not imply that all work of value coming out of the
free software movement is performed by these people.
The primary bar that I have observed is the software must
interact correctly via open published standards. Thus it
works immediately with most existing working software available
from the community online and can be replaced later by a better
module if desired. Occasionally a killer free app will create
a popular standard. I think Gimp helped put png on the map.
Ogg Vorbis has had a harder time, probably due to the wide
free (as in beer) availability of mp3 tools and sound tracks.
It is also less often acknowledged that there
> are necessarily elite groups--elites based on merit, but elites
> nonetheless--who are in charge of releasing new versions of important
> packages. That's as it should be.
Often the merit consists initially of volunteering. Debian seems
to be training newcomers to maintain packages as fast as they
can attract them. Gnome and KDE also seem extremely interested
in help from newcomers, particularly with debugging.
The many eyeballs makes bugs shallow approach seems to
require many eyeballs.
I will grant you that important packages end up being
maintained competently. Otherwise they get forked when
people relying on them get tired of impacts from incompetence.
Although tutoring seems an often preferred option, after all if
one forks then one must do all the work oneself. If the
incompetent is willing and able to learn tutoring can be
a highly leveraging experience in this situation.
>
> Wikipedia is quite different. The bar to contribution is very low, and if
> there is any elite in charge, then with all due respect to everyone (and
> that's a lot--there are a lot of *extremely* smart and knowledgeable
> people here), our elite would seem rather less than impressive compared to
> the leading members of the intelligentsia that contribute to the likes of
> Britannica.
Less impressive to who? Personally I find our volunteers (and the
few professionals getting paid for time expended here) fairly
impressive. I personally anticipate that as the internet divide
moves economically disadvantaged peoples everywhere will be very
impressed with our free product even though and especially because
it is provided to them free of charge. Spend a days pay on a used
National Geographic or have the kids practice reading on U.N.
provided solar powered satellite linked portables at the schoolhouse?
Tough choice for a subsistence level farmer or budding internet
entrepreneur.
We have some crude feedback loops in place that are
working to improve both the content and the collaboration
abilities of most of the contributors.
It would seem to me that the proof is in the pudding,
not projected from the first draft of the cookbook.
>
> Along these lines I suggest there's another disanalogy between the free
> software movement and our free encyclopedia movement. The free software
> movement is organized and led by world-class computer scientists
> associated with industry and academia.
Well perceptions vary but to me it appears not "organized" beyond
agreeing widely that open standards are important, source code should
be freely available and freely redistributable, interoperability
and interconnectivity are king, and killer apps cannot be ignored.
In fact, I would have no problem calling it chaos or anarchy.
Everybody does as they please and occasionally brownian motion
defeats entropy and a team is loosely bonded. This team in turn
acts with greater attraction to randomly moving developers and
especially neophytes. Entropy continues to lose ground as
affinities between productively contributing developers grows.
This leads to faster team formation next time and random
anarchistic collaboration between teams and individuals.
Led? The "leaders" seem to write software and occasionally
express a public opinion or post an essay. Often about guns,
license ideologies, or other pet peeves. Many neophyte developers
seem to start out by posting their own efforts. Eventually somebody
joins somebody else at a project or idea. Communication and learning is
established. Eventually sufficient skills are established that
a patch is accepted to some crummy project installed on 3 machines
and projected to be viewed in the history of the world by a grand
total of 100 eyeballs ... mostly rolling and yelling Yuck! Yuck!
Nevertheless, feedback loops continue to operate, and the neophytes
start doing something useful to somebody: web site design, mailing
list management, debugging, eventually some code. Occasionally
lightning
strikes and a neophyte with sufficient skills and social graces to
lead a major project establishes a project that looks widely useful.
This attracts highly experienced (sometimes even credentialed)
developers
and grows into a major app. I have seen it alleged that the
Linux kernel was exactly such a lightning strike assisted by the
fact that the entire rest of the GNU components and tools were
complete and ready to use.
The free encyclopedia movement is
> much newer, but (forgive me) it doesn't seem to be travelling in the
> direction of being led by world-class thinkers, scholars, and scientists,
> as a close analogy would seem to require.
A contrived strawman. There seem to be a number of distinguished
panelists listed as participating at Nupedia. By your theory of
leadership it would seem that Nupedia should be farther along than
Wikipedia.
To be quite honest, it was good
> to lay me off when economic necessity required; now do the right thing and
> ask Jacques Barzun (before he dies), or some other distinguished
> intellectual, to head up the project properly.
We need a "distinguished intellectual" to lead Wikipedia? How do
you account for the success to date? All indicators seem to imply
that the community is growing, the content is growing, browsing
randomly seems to find more content and even more quality content
than 6 months ago.
Anyway, why not send Jacques Barzun (whoever he is) an engraved
invitation yourself. AFAIK there are no limitations on participation
beyond a willingness to collaborate and occasionally shout back.
Shouting is optional, many adoit and sensitive people simply prefer
an inconspicious fade away. Personally I have put any recruiting
drives on hold until some procedural stability and community
guidelines emerge that seem viable for the longterm to me. I do
not think we need lots of highly credentialed people to "lead" us,
what is lacking is massive participation by thousands of diverse
contributors and the means to manage the inevitable conflict that
will arise between them. Still if the credentialed elite choose
to participate then I, for one, welcome their assistance in this
worthy endeaver.
>
> If we really want to make the best encyclopedia in the world (the original
> stated goal of Nupedia, by the way), we must discuss a pressing question
> that I suspect very few people on this list are disposed to take very
> seriously: how can we arrange for our free encyclopedia movement to be led
> by representatives of the creme de la creme among the world's scholars and
> scientists?
Simple. Invite/Let them volunteer to come do some work. If they
propose
better procedures and develop a community consensus after establishing
some credibility here then we will be lead by the "creme de la creme".
If our current procedures are perceived as flawless then they can
contribute until community omens are more auspicious towards change or
they can recruit a quorum to out vote the previous cabal of regulars.
Until the new volunteers show up and dazzle us with their performance
I propose we muddle on, improving on what we have so far.
>
> Now, I would not dream of suggesting that *Wikipedia* change its policies
> of openness. Basically, I don't think Wikipedia should change. It is
> what it is and it has produced a huge number of *great* articles. It's
> amazing that it works as well as it does, and I continue to expect that it
> will result in a useful, interesting, huge body of work if we continue on
> in the same way we have been.
It works and success is anticipated. What is amazing about it?
It is well documented in the TQM literature, differential equations,
engineering science, economics, and history that small improvements
add up. Higher order effects such as improving or adding personnel
tend to accumulate more slowly initially as new personnel are
assimilated
and then the impact accelerates as improvements are applied to a larger
base.
As I recall I was highly excited and energized to begin contributing
immediately upon encountering it, 2 - 3 weeks later I was highly irate
because it appeared that I had been suckered into contributing to
commercial endeaver interested in making the database difficult to fork.
At no time was the viability of the project technology or approach
in question in my mind. Only whether it would become/remain a free
project.
So far, it has become a free project and seems well on its way to
success.
I see no reason to suspect that all future discerning contributors will
be
less discerning than you, I and the other repeat contributers. Surely
it must be getting more obvious all the time with improved software,
community, and content.
>
> That said, all of my previous predictions of huge success for the free
> encyclopedia movement were based on the assumption that a Nupedia, or some
> other quality control mechanism, would eventually mature into something to
> inspire confidence among the leaders of different fields, so that
> contributions and editing would be of the highest quality.
Highest quality or highest credentials?
Writing e=mc^2 seems a bit different from deriving it.
Indeed, now that Albert has derived and published it; I
would contend that I can type it as well as he could, were
he still alive.
Are you retracting your predictions?
I am willing to predict that even with no changes to current
procedures the Wikipedia project has and will inspire clones
and derivative projects using derivative technology. Further,
the content will be used widely, tailored and improved for
a variety of purposes. Even further, academia and peer journals
will be highly irritated and even threatened by our open rapid
revision and delivery of high quality content.
At some point some of the credentialed "experts" or authorities
will decide to join us to explore the technology and it effective
uses in communicating with students, colleagues and others
worldwide at no cost other than participation or donation. If
they are polite about it and learn our local customs we probably
will not ban or ridicule them.
If we need them, we can whip up some further wild eyed
predictions and attempt to substantiate them adequately for
[[Replies to our critics]]. I have not checked this lately
perhaps it has gotten out of date.
But if no such
> mechanism materializes, I would be much less apt to predict success, in
> terms of quality of articles, for Wikipedia. Wikipedia by itself will
> continue to go on to useful things, interesting things--but not great
> things.
Great things are available only to credentials? I think you
are lagging the internet a bit here. Linus has been acknowledged
an expert in operating systems after the success of Linux, not
the other way around. In fact you may wish to review the
"Tannenbaum" incident on usenet wherein a credentialed expert (with
a financial interest in the competing minix) attempted to educate
Linus out of his "obsolete" approach to writing a kernel.
Indeed, I think one of Wikipedia's greatest assets is its
diversity. The material here is not carefully crafted by
some professional writer working under an editorial policy
dictated by the magazine owner. It is hashed out by all
who choose to participate and, as a result, likely closer to
a summary of the mainstream view of objective reality than
has been seen since ..... ever. Welcome to the Internet
and the future of communications. Point to point direct
without the intermediary special interest groups or choke
points.
If Harvard, Yale, or Mit people decline to participate then
the brilliant prose will merely be from the rest of the
participating planet. Oh yeah! I am worried about our
future now!
>
> So I don't propose we touch Wikipedia--but we have Nupedia. What I hope
> is that Nupedia can be changed and rearranged, somehow, to create an elite
> board of bona fide experts that is ultimately in charge of "releases" of
> free encyclopedia content.
>
> Whatever the specific Nupedia article creation and/or vetting process
> might turn out to be--see the Nupedia-L archives for discussion ad
> nauseum--one thing is increasingly clear to me. Namely, unless there is a
> dramatic change in how the free encyclopedia movement is organized,
> Wikipedia will be stuck with, on balance, mediocrity.
You beg the question here. I have 15 years experience recruiting,
organizing, funding, and managing project teams. It is amazing how
fast
mediocrity is left in the dust with even a tiny well functioning team.
In fact, it has been my experience that prima donna genius is best
allowed to sit on the sideline if it cannot work effectively
with others within the team's procedures and constraints. It does
not mean genius is ignored, merely that integration proceeds
with a minimum of ego catering and in accordance with the routine
work procedures of the "mediocre".
Are you implying that we need front men? That the brilliant prose
to date has been written exclusively by distinguished credentials
slumming here with the commoners? If brilliant prose occasionally
results
from the commoners, then our procedure of keeping the best and
deleting the rest will eventually result in more brilliant prose
being posted. Even with the diploma mills available in the U.S.
there are a lot more commoners than P'hds around.
This sort of reminds me of perfect games and bowling. Are the
most perfect games bowled by professionals or amateur bowlers?
>
> Lest you think yourself insulted, let me offer an example of mediocrity:
> my many philosophy articles. They are full of content, they are basically
> correct, many of them (those that have been re-edited from lecture form)
> are reasonably well-written--but they are woefully inadequate and
> basically mediocre. I would be ashamed to bill them as anything other
> than what they are--very rough first drafts based on lectures to OSU
> undergrads, which sit there waiting for some experts to, probably,
> completely rework them, or even replace them.
>
> But no expert will want to do that until the whole project is led by
> similar experts and therefore, to their mind, there is some guarantee that
> the project will not wind up being an enormous waste of time. Without
> that sort of leadership, I fear that my articles, and the many other
> fair-to-middling (but basically correct and perfectly contentful)
> Wikipedia articles, will never receive the vetting from qualified people
> that they really need.
I think you are confuse confusing the term leadership with
effective participation. As the
Wikipedia content improves in breadth, depth, and reliability;
it will attract greater attention from both eggs and chickens.
The guarantee is in the FDL and GPL. My time here is not wasted
even if this community collapses or fails to grow. The simple addition
of SVG will make the software suitable as a starting point for
engineering
projects. Indeed, a fellow at advogato mentioned that he took
my advice and setup a wiki for engineering specification development.
His engineering team is happy with the results.
Several credentialed specialists here have started work on a
science textbook or tutorial project. Lead by April, there
seem to be heavy contributions from Rgamble and Magnus. Perhaps
others have participated as well.
As the project technology matures and the content and community
grow in quantity and quality any experts with credentials (with
any I.Q. or reasoning ability at all) will be able to see the merit.
Until then I propose we struggle along with the precursors, our
current participants that have spotted the potential and wish to
help develop it.
There is no "leadership" without participation. Perhaps
Nupedia has too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. With
participation leadership shows up eventually. This is called
a band wagon. Leaders must find these band wagons and stay
in front of them or merely be participators.
>
> (I acknowledge that an appropriate response to this is: "I agree, but what
> are you bothering Wikipedia-L about it for? Go post to Nupedia-L."
> Basically, Wikipedia is the only game left in town as far as the free
> encyclopedia movement is concerned. If enough of you get behind this,
> something might happen. To my mind, Wikipedia shouldn't change but
> Nupedia can and should, and Wikipedia might benefit directly.)
How do you figure only game in town? Nupedia has credentialed
editors and participators listed. The Spanish fork has contributors.
The Fact Factory appears to have problems but perhaps they are
working on that. It is clear evidence somebody is attempting to
use the technology and database. Wikipedia's volunteer community and
content seem to be continously growing although we are having some
growing
pains. Much of it seems to revolve around how to mediate conflict,
reach
agreement that banning thresholds have been exceeded, what are the
operational
factors governing the community, revenue for the non profit, etc. Any
of
that sound familar? Perhaps less time shouting "troll" or "liar" and
more time discussing issues apparently of interest to at least some of
the community members (or former members) would be a wise investment.
How are "trolls" and banning handled at Nupedia?
Get behind Nupedia how? We seem to have plenty of effort required
in resolving Wikipedia's current issues. In fact, most of our
contributors seem to prefer peaceful editing to discussion of
percieved or alleged "ontological" or procedural issues.
You seem to be arguing that we (Wikipedia) need additional leadership
from "distinguished credentials" to attract participation from
"distinguished credentials". Since Nupedia has plenty of credentials,
from my initial brief overview of the site it seemed on average much
more credentialed than Wikipedia; what is it you want or need from
Wikipedians that you cannot attract from academia via the existing
credentialed participants at Nupedia?
If you need grunt work (participation) the FDL license guarantees
that Wikipedia's content can be displaced to Nupedia and improved
by the resident credentials.
I find your argument contradictory and confusing.
I also fail to understand what you think the bar to
participation at Wikipedia is for credentialed
volunteers. Surely they will not be ostracised by
peer journals or peers for occasionally editing or helping
out here? There is also the "anonymous" option unless
somebody threatens to "out" them.
Indeed, the peer review experience they bring with
them will be quite valuable. Perhaps we can setup
a tutorial, some guidelines, or procedures to assist
them in conveying this expertise to our neophytes.
This does not seem to go over well ganging up on them
in the stacks, they merely get defensive and eventually
leave one way or another. Occasionally some of us neophytes
have problems with engaging in dialogue, discussion, or
comment pertinent to the argument rather than the arguer.
Michael R. Irwin
B.S. Engineering Physics, OSU, 1984. GPA 3.22
Valedictorian, Coquille H.S., 1979, GPA 3.98 (B in freshmen P.E.)
alleged troll and liar
proud remnant of the green space faction
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 629
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Sun Sep 1 11:02:15 UTC 2002
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Larry Sanger wrote:
> The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
> people aren't drawn to Wikipedia. It's not surprising why not: I would
> like to suggest that this is similar to asking veteran programmers working
> on Linux and its applications to work with, supervise, and put up with
> rank beginners and script kiddies. If they had had to do that, I doubt
> very much that the free software movement would have come a fraction of
> the distance it has.
> [ We're stuck with mediocracy. ]
Hi.
Every 16 months or so, some disappointed Linux fan will herald the doom of
Linux and perhaps even free software. This is generally because his
expectations, perhaps sober to begin with, have been tickled by dot com alike
impatience, and consequently left reality behind. I feel it is often combined
with a sense of powerlessness stemming from a failed sub project, a snubbing,
or perhaps general burnout.
"Linux will be left behind."
"The free software model is flawed."
"There is no room for Linux on the desktop."
They point to relevant stats, pointing out tendencies and flat curves. There is
a lot of discussion, particularly at Slashdot, with CmdrNacho throwing in one
or two "Gotsta givit to him, he might on to smt...!!!1"
Depending on the issue, a year or a couple of years will pass, and the naysayer
will not only have been forgotten, but proven wrong. The people who work
instead of talk contiunue to churn out code. The inevitable rise of free
software has taken no notice:
* The driver problem is almost solved - many if not most devices are
now supported in Linux.
* The desktop is complete - we have KDE, GNOME, word processors, spreadsheets,
Wine.
* Mozilla made it.
* Countries are getting involved directly in free software, for all the right
reasons.
* And so on.
So.
I think your comments are warranted. I showed Wikipedia to a litterature
undergrad the other day, and he was not impressed with the content. (The reason
he hadn't followed up the URL when I gave it to him, months ago, wasn't the
content however, it was his skepticism about about the openness - and this only
took 5 minutes to alleviate. Once he understood some of the mechanisms, and
that Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be absolutely neutral even thought it aspires
to be, he caught on.)
Do I agree that content today is often medicre? Yes.
Do I agree that with current mechanisms, this is our fate? No.
Wikipedia is hardly one years old (particularly if you subtract the lost time
when Phase II made it impossible to edit stuff). Linux after one year was
pathetic - nobody believed it would ever be anything than a toy kernel on a
386. GNU after one year was nothing at all (except source code on RMS'
computer). And I expect if they started from scratch, with sufficient
resources, the Britannica wouldn't have come very far in one year either.
I think we need a reality check. The article count may have made us dizzy.
We're not going to build the greatest encyclopedia in the world in three years.
Be prepared for 7 to 15 years. Free projects take a long time to mature, but
when they do, they're the best, and they're there forever.
Is it possible/wise to make course adjustments so early on? Sure.
But I also think it is dangerous to tell people here that what they're doing is
futile, because you're having a bad day (or week, or whatever) yourself.
Although I expect it to have little impact (much like the slashdotted "Linux
crises") - people will continue to work for their own reasons, and proving you
wrong as a side effect.
As for your specific complaint, sure we lack experts. But we _do_ have some. My
argument is that in any given field today, there are so many experts that it is
only a question of time until Wikipedia reaches that one of then who will
respond to our vision. The problem, then, is that not enough people know about
Wikipedia, and many of those who do haven't really understood it. The first is
solved by continuing to work hard like we do today, and our growth will
inevitably draw in the world. The second problem is not adressed today, and I
think we could certainly do better.
As for getting experts in right now, my response to that is: Use your
friendship, family bond, whatever clout you have with the experts you know, and
have them write one good and serious article for submission to Wikipedia. It
will not be Britannica material, but it will be better than most of what we
have today. This does not cost the expert very much, and being an intelligent
person, she will also appreciate the feeling of contributing to something that
will last forever, and be useful to so many people. In addition to some good
articles, we might even hook a new Wikipedia addict or two, as they keep watch
on their article for changes, contributions or praise.
I have five or six phd/professor level experts in my sights, and I expect I
could find more if I thought about it.
My conclusion: Things are going well. Let's not be carried away by the article
count. Continue working hard. Try to draw in the experts you know, by having
them write one good article (most will probably not become wikipedians, so use
this approach instead).
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 630
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Sun Sep 1 10:55:32 UTC 2002
At 05:29 PM 8/31/02 -0700, Larry Sanger wrote:
>In particular, the Wikipedia project has been defined in such a way that
>we have few official standards and no virtually requirements for
quality... many reasonable people reasonably think that this doesn't
strictly speaking require
>genuine expertise.
>
>But it does. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fantasy world.
>If our encyclopedia project doesn't get an infusion of that expertise, the
>quality of the result will suffer accordingly, which is a lot.
>
>The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
>people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
>
>The bar to contribution is very low, and if
>there is any elite in charge, then with all due respect to everyone (and
>that's a lot--there are a lot of *extremely* smart and knowledgeable
>people here), our elite would seem rather less than impressive compared to
>the leading members of the intelligentsia that contribute to the likes of
>Britannica.
>
The free encyclopedia movement is doesn't seem to be travelling in the
>direction of being led by world-class thinkers, scholars, and scientists,
>as a close analogy would seem to require. [T]he right thing [to do is to]
>ask Jacques Barzun (before he dies), or some other distinguished
>intellectual, to head up the project properly...how can we arrange for our
free encyclopedia movement to be led by representatives of the creme de la
creme among the world's scholars and scientists?
>
>But no expert will want to [contribute] until the whole project is led by
>similar experts and therefore, to their mind, there is some guarantee that
>the project will not wind up being an enormous waste of time. Without
>that sort of leadership, I fear that my articles, and the many other
>fair-to-middling (but basically correct and perfectly contentful)
>Wikipedia articles, will never receive the vetting from qualified people
>that they really need.
Yes, is there traction where the rubber meets the road? The community I
live in has a number of retired and semi-retired people living in it and
from time to time I talk up Wikipedia to them. I wonder what they think
when they log on. I spoke to a man who edits books that are published by
university presses yesterday. He had been following a cricket match on the
internet back in his home town in England. I suggested he might write an
article on cricket. (He brought cricket up since the word wikipedia made
him think it had something to do with cricket).
I doubt he will contribute, might not even log on. The question I had as I
talked to him and later was how would wikipedia fit into his life, perhaps
as an occasional pastime, perhaps as an avocation. As a professional
editor, he would be a fine catch, but to him that's work and work that he's
paid for. But he is just one of millions of highly qualified people who
might potentially contribute.
One key is respect. We don't know when a former editor of the New York
Times logs on and edits a bit on an article, but if he comes back and his
contribution is trashed and he has to argue about nonsense, it's doubtful
he'll return.
It's true that bad software won't run, sometimes won't even boot, but an
encyclopedia also has it everyday threshold of success and failure: is it
useful to its range of users, providing accurate basic information and
leading the user on to useful external and hardcopy resources? If it is, it
will be used and relied on. Range of users, that's a good topic.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 631
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Sep 1 11:42:00 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> On Saturday 31 August 2002 10:54 pm, Larry wrote:
> > The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
> > people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
>
> I don't know about everyone else but I think that statement was a bit
> insulting.
I commented at length elsewhere.
>
> > So I don't propose we touch Wikipedia--but we have Nupedia. What I hope
> > is that Nupedia can be changed and rearranged, somehow, to create an elite
> > board of bona fide experts that is ultimately in charge of "releases" of
> > free encyclopedia content.
>
> Or we can simply revisit the idea of Beta/Stable; whereby some type of
> process validates an article. Having another level of validation through
> Nupedia would also be a good thing. In that way Nupedia would be a
> distribution of Wikipedia in the same way as Red Hat is a distribution of
> Linus' Linux and the GNU tools.
A one way pass up seems reasonable. Commercial distribution
seems cool too, even if Wikipedia is not ready, Nupedia may be
able to add, delete, massage appropriately.
I am leary of any "editorial boards" or "validated" material
coming back from Nupedia to Wikipedia automatically. It would seem
appropriate to me for all inputs to Wikipedia to be conducted manually
by community members or anonymous guests in accordance with community
policies if it is merging into or overwriting existing material.
I would dislike intensely any implication that Wikipedia
material was/is routinely trumped and replaced by credentialism
rather than normal editing and consensus building or discussion.
I think it would be very detrimental to the potential quality of the
content as a direct result of the reduced diversity of participation.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 632
[Wikipedia-l] proposal of quality controll system for wikipedia
Giskart
giskart at linux.be
Sun Sep 1 13:29:00 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>Or we can simply revisit the idea of Beta/Stable; whereby some type of
>process validates an article. Having another level of validation through
>Nupedia would also be a good thing. In that way Nupedia would be a
>distribution of Wikipedia in the same way as Red Hat is a distribution of
>Linus' Linux and the GNU tools.
>
>
What do you think of this:
You give to the articels a classification. You can hide or exclude
articels whit a specific classification in your preferences.
1. "draft" : a new articel starts whit the draft-status. After 2 months
and modification by at least 3 different members the articel gets the
"articel"-status automatic. This way you exclude nonsense.
2. "articel-status": a normal wikipedia articel. Free to edit by everbody.
3. "stable-status": For a articel to get the "stable-status" there must
be a "vote-for-this-page". After the first vote for a articel the
software create a copy of the articel whit the status
"candidate-stable". This gets listed on a special page. There the
"candidate-stable" articel must get a certain amount of votes in a
certain time. ( 8 votes / 4 weeks ?) If it gets sufficient votes the
status of that copy changes from "candidate-stable" to "stable". This
stable version can not be edit. There are now 2 versions of a articel:
a "stable"-status articel (static) and the articel whit the
"articel-status" that you can edit. To change somting on the "stable"
articel a new round of votes is nesseary.
4. "Expert Approved"-status: to go from "articel-status" to
"stable-status" you only need the votes of anybody. For a articel to get
the "Expert approved-status" the articel must be given approvel by a
group of experts like on Nupedia. Only those mebers can change the
content of the "expert-approved" articel. But besides the
"expert-approved" articel ypu have still (and always will) the
"articel-status" version free for everbody to edit. And possebly a
"stable" version.
At the end you have almost no articels that are compleet nonsens
("draft-status")
From articels whit the "stable-status" you now is has been read by
different people and is probably right.
From the articels whit the "Expert-approved" you now it has been under
serious attension of people that know that subject very good.
I think this way you have the best of Wikipedia and Nupedia together.
Every articel is still free to modify but you have also a layer of more
static articels that are more trustworthy.
Giskart
"draft": a new articel gets the status of draft
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 633
[Wikipedia-l] proposal of quality controll system for wikipedia
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Sun Sep 1 13:32:56 UTC 2002
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Giskart wrote:
> group of experts like on Nupedia. Only those mebers can change the
> content of the "expert-approved" articel. But besides the
Hi. If we want to do stuff like this, we need to have branching, with an
approved "1.0" tracking an open-for-edit beta version. There can be no talk of
closing off articles for editing (except for vandalism protection, such as the
Main Page).
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 634
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 1 14:07:24 UTC 2002
Hi Larry.
> In particular, the Wikipedia project has been
> defined in such a way that
> we have few official standards and no virtually
> requirements for quality
> of the rigorous sort that Linux had when it set out
> to rewrite Unix from
> scratch (and later remain compliant with stringent
> technical standards
> like the POSIX standard).
Nupedia had high standards and many policies in place
from the beginning but collapsed under its own weight.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, encourages natural and
organic growth. We develop principles naturally.
As for Linus Torvalds, he didn't "set out to rewrite
Unix from scratch". He was using Minix and wanted to
try his hand at writing something better. He wrote the
Linux kernal for fun, in his spare time, while still
an
undergraduate. His "quality control" consisted of
doing what he felt like doing. He then shared it with
people in the hopes that others would find it
interesting. Was He a good programmer? Sure. But he
was not (and is not) a computer scientist.
Take a look at this old Usenet thread from 1992:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=12595%40star.cs.vu.nl&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlinux%2Bminix%2Bobsolete%2Bgroup:comp.os.minix%2Bauthor:Andy%2Bauthor:Tanenbaum%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_en%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D29%26as_minm%3D1%26as_miny%3D1992%26as_maxd%3D30%26as_maxm%3D1%26as_maxy%3D1992%26selm%3D12595%2540star.cs.vu.nl%26rnum%3D1
Andy Tanenbaum, a well respected academic computer
scientist, puts forth his opinion that the Linux
kernel is (and was from the beginning) obsolete,
because it is a monolithic design, unlike his own
educational OS, Minix. If Torvalds the
student had listened to the expert, there would be no
Linux.
> Our task,
> by contrast, is to write a very large, unbiased
> encyclopedia. What this
> task entails is far more nebulous (though I and
> others have worked very
> hard to settle on and explain what it does involve),
> and many reasonable
> people reasonably think that this doesn't strictly
> speaking require
> genuine expertise.
I don't think anyone would argue that the
contributions
of highly qualified specialists are particularlly
valuable. But whether or not we *need* specialists in
all fields to write a quality general reference work
is debatable.
> But it does. If you think otherwise, you're living
> in a fantasy world.
Well, I'm in good company, I guess.
<snipped a bit about lack of exact standards for
encyclopedias>
> The problem is that, with several notable
> exceptions, highly-educated
> people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
That's a little insulting. I consider myself a highly
educated person even though I haven't started any
graduate work yet. Perhaps you mean specialists? If
so, I agree.
> It's not
> surprising why not: I would
> like to suggest that this is similar to asking
> veteran programmers working
> on Linux and its applications to work with,
> supervise, and put up with
> rank beginners and script kiddies. If they had had
> to do that, I doubt
> very much that the free software movement would have
> come a fraction of
> the distance it has.
I don't think the comparison is sound. Writing
software is a far more specific skill than researching
a topic and writing prose. For example, Julie Kemp and
I have worked on articles together, even though she is
an historian while I'm just another one of those
garden-variety generalists.
> Please don't misunderstand. My concern with
> expertise and knowledgeable
> participants does not reflect an overvaluation of
> formal qualifications,
> or academic elitism, by the way. (If you think I
> have enormous respect
> for someone just on the basis of their academic
> credentials, you *really*
> don't know me.)
>
> If someone without a degree (I can
> think of a few) can
> write and think well and convey what they know in a
> way that reflects
> expert knowledge on the subject, that's great. May
> their kind be fruitful
> and multiply (among our ranks). There's no reason
> for me to suggest
> otherwise, just as there's no reason to ask free
> software developers to
> have degrees in computer science before they get
> their hands dirty working
> on open source software.
That's good to hear, especially in light of the
relative lack of Ph.Ds in folk dancing, truck driving
and science fiction movies. :)
<snipped section on the difficulty of developing good
software naturally setting a high bar, which I agree
with>
> It is also less often
> acknowledged that there
> are necessarily elite groups--elites based on merit,
> but elites
> nonetheless--who are in charge of releasing new
> versions of important
> packages. That's as it should be.
Yes, for software. As you said, it takes specific
expertise to program.
> Wikipedia is quite different. The bar to
> contribution is very low, and if
> there is any elite in charge, then with all due
> respect to everyone (and
> that's a lot--there are a lot of *extremely* smart
> and knowledgeable
> people here), our elite would seem rather less than
> impressive compared to
> the leading members of the intelligentsia that
> contribute to the likes of
> Britannica.
The comparison between Wikipedia's and Britannica's
elite contributors is irrelevant; it's the comparison
of articles that interests me. At the moment, we lose.
Writing encyclopedia articles is far different from
writing software. In most cases, a person writing on a
given topic does not need to be an expert. What *is*
required is the ability to research the topic,
synthesize the information and write it in clear,
understandable prose. An encyclopedia article is not
written for experts; it is for people looking for
general information on the topic. Physicists and
sociologists generally don't turn to Britannica for
information in their fields.
That doesn't mean that experts shouldn't write
detailed and specific Wikipedia articles; quite the
contrary. But if our primary goal is to produce a
general reference, generally educated people can do
the job very well.
> Along these lines I suggest there's another
> disanalogy between the free
> software movement and our free encyclopedia
> movement. The free software
> movement is organized and led by world-class
> computer scientists
> associated with industry and academia.
Not from what I've seen. Many of the major free
software projects have been the products of students
and software engineers.
> The free
> encyclopedia movement is
> much newer, but (forgive me) it doesn't seem to be
> travelling in the
> direction of being led by world-class thinkers,
> scholars, and scientists,
> as a close analogy would seem to require. To be
> quite honest, it was good
> to lay me off when economic necessity required; now
> do the right thing and
> ask Jacques Barzun (before he dies), or some other
> distinguished
> intellectual, to head up the project properly.
Most of us doing the grunt work of writing and
organizing articles feel that Wikipedia is doing quite
well without an official leader. In saying this, I in
no way wish to imply that your leadership was not
important to the project. All I'm saying is that you
got Wikipedia to the point of being a self-sustaining
community working toward our common goal, and now we
don't need anyone filling that role.
Now, if Mr. Barzun wanted to lead a second try at the
Nupedia project, that would be different.
<snip ideas about Nupedia acting as an article-vetting
body>
> Whatever the specific Nupedia article creation
and/or > vetting process
> might turn out to be--see the Nupedia-L archives for
> discussion ad
> nauseum--one thing is increasingly clear to me.
> Namely, unless there
> is a
> dramatic change in how the free encyclopedia
movement > is organized,
> Wikipedia will be stuck with, on balance,
mediocrity.
You're not the only one who thinks so. Many other
projects have been criticized in the same manner, only
to become great in spite of the naysayers. Of course,
many more have failed miserably. I find myself on the
side that thinks Wikipedia will become great without
the traditional panel of experts calling the shots.
Time will tell.
That said, I hope Nupedia is not dead yet. I would
love to see specialists of all kinds reviewing and
approving Wikipedia articles. I simply disagree with
the absolute necessity of it.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 635
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Axel Boldt
axel at uni-paderborn.de
Sun Sep 1 17:02:41 UTC 2002
I agree with the assessment that the average level of expertise among
Wikipedia contributors is lower than that among Linux contributors or
Encyclopedia Britannica contributors.
However, I also think that an intelligent person with good writing
skills and no specific expertise can write an average quality (call it
"mediocre" if you want) encyclopedia article about pretty much
anything. So by following the current path, we have a good chance of
producing an average quality encyclopedia.
(In a certain sense, that "mediocre" encyclopedia will already be
"great", since it will be the only one you can burn on CD for free and
mail to a highschool in Tanzania.)
Now, producing the greatest encyclopedia in the world is a different
story. Maybe experts will show up in greater numbers as the project
approaches "mediocrity". Or maybe many of them will be put off by
constantly having to defend their writings against incoming idiots,
and we will need some sort of quality assurance process. Maybe we will
need a charismatic expert leader, or one will emerge.
But I think those are questions for the distant future. Right now, we
should focus on moving Wikipedia from crappyness to mediocrity.
AXel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 636
[Wikipedia-l] Re: proposal of quality controll system for wikipedia
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 1 05:02:14 UTC 2002
On Sunday 01 September 2002 07:10 am, you wrote:
> I think this way you have the best of Wikipedia and Nupedia together.
> Every articel is still free to modify but you have also a layer of more
> static articels that are more trustworthy.
>
> Giskart
Draft, article, stable, and expert approved is almost exactly what I proposed
months ago when we had the great Beta/Stable debate on the list.
Please file your email away for future reference.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 637
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Karl Juhnke
yangfuli at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 1 17:05:02 UTC 2002
Larry,
Thanks for your great commentary. It is refreshing to get an infusion
of perspective from someone who understands what is going on here, but
also has some distance.
> If our encyclopedia project doesn't get an infusion of that
> expertise, the quality of the result will suffer accordingly,
> which is a lot.
I think you are right on target. To write a world-class encyclopedia
requires expertise, period.
> The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
> people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
Again I think you are dead on. The people who are drawn to Wikipedia
at the moment are excited more by the concept rathet than by the
content. If you take a bunch of people like me who believe in "free as
in freedom", there will be some experts in some fields just by random
chance, but the odds of our tiny band containing someone with the
expertise to write a top-notch article on, say, existentialism are
small.
> If we really want to make the best encyclopedia in the world (the
> original stated goal of Nupedia, by the way), we must discuss a
> pressing question that I suspect very few people on this list are
> disposed to take very seriously: how can we arrange for our free
> encyclopedia movement to be led by representatives of the creme de
> la creme among the world's scholars and scientists?
I can't speak for the rest of the list, but I am disposed to take this
question very seriously. Wikipedia won't become world-class until it
is led by the best of the best. We need to consider very carefully how
to get experts on board, or else suffer perpetually from mediocrity.
I also agree totally with the sentiment of you subject line, namely
that the free encyclopeida movement needs to be like the free software
movement. By all means let us learn from success. But your
suggestions on how Wikipedia might be moderated by experts would make
it LESS like the free software movement. The free software movement
doesn't have anything analogous to what you suggest. For example, look
at the way the Linux kernel is moderated. If I understand correctly,
they did not say this:
"We need a first rate expert in asynchronous I/O to moderate all
patches that are being submitted, decide which to include and exclude,
and to do whatever extra coding is required to bring this area up to
snuff. Let's sit down and think how we are going to get one. What
incentives can we provide to draw Expert X into the project?"
On the contrary (again if I understand correctly) what happened was
more like this:
"Among the ranks of our current contributors, we have some guys who are
actively working to address this issue. All other contributors in this
area, except for the most active and most expert, are contributing only
by tweaking and debugging the major contributions. For clarity, let's
just give a semi-official status to what has naturally occurred, and
say that so-and-so is in charge of moderating submissions in this
area."
In short, the expertise was already there, and the moderation was
already occurring naturally. I submit that the same thing will happen
with Wikipedia. That is to say, in answer to the pressing question of
what we need to do to attract experts, I would say we need to do
exactly what we are already doing. The current trajectory is
fantastic. No course corrections are called for.
Why would free software naturally attract more expertise than a free
encyclopdia? Obviously there is the maturity of the project to
consider. The fact that Linux is an outstanding OS has much to do with
attracting outstanding contributors. But what about contributions in
the infancy of a project? Is there something that makes software
design inherently more of an expert activity than writing informational
articles?
I contend there isn't. Having worked as a programmer for several
years, I can vouch for the fact that ninety percent of programmers
stink at programming. It is decidely NOT an activity which, if you can
do it at all, you can do it well. It boggles my mind that so many
crappy IT professionals are pulling down large paychecks, but I
consider it a temporary phenomenon of the transition to a society-wide
computer infrastructure. The efficiences of automation are so great,
and expertise so scarce relative to society's needs, that idiot
programmers can still do well financially.
The question is why contributors to open source software projects are
overwhelmingly from the top ten percent of programmers that do know
what they are doing. Is there something about software that makes
quality easily recognizable? Is it an "objective discipline" and
therefore not analogous to writing encyclopdia articles?
My own opinion on this matter has shifted. In the past I was curious
about the possible success of open-source-like tactics in non-objective
fields, but I couldn't quite persuade myself that they would work out.
Contributing to Wikipedia has taught me otherwise. I can't explain to
you why Wikipedia is working, but I can directly observe article after
article getting better. Objectively better! Wherever people turn
their attention, good things happen.
Nor have I seen any asymptotic leveling out. Yes, individual articles
temporarily plateau when the primary contributor runs out of steam.
Yes, there may be a pause when the driver of an article realizes that
that is about as far as a schmoe such as himself can take it. But
those articles are routinely and naturally picked up later by new
people joining the project.
If you personally are distressed about your philosophy articles having
hit a brick wall, reflect that they are stalled only because you did a
reasonable job on them. Had you done a shoddy job, you would have
likely seen more activity, but since your work was basically OK it goes
untouched for now. This situation is only temporary. As Wikipedia
snowballs, the rising tide will lift all boats.
Semi-decent articles are only immune to editing until someone with just
slightly more expertise comes along. I say slightly more, because
contributors with vastly more expertise may well consider an article
not worth saving. The person who is attracted is not the absolute
expert, but the relative expert who thinks, "Hmm, solid start, but X
needs to be added and Y needs to be fixed and the whole thing
refactored." This contributor then makes the article as good as s/he
can, setting the stage for a slightly more expert person to be
attracted. Eventually Wikipedia will rise to the level at a few of the
foremost experts in the world are duking it out in their respective
arenas.
My only counsel is patience. The quality (not just the size) of
Wikipedia is improving as we speak. Better quality attracts people
with more expertise. It is a virtuous cycle. I say that it will work
in the long run, not based on some wild hypothesis, but because IT IS
ALREADY WORKING in the short run.
Peace,
-Karl
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 638
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 1 05:15:42 UTC 2002
On Sunday 01 September 2002 07:10 am, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> But if our primary goal is to produce a
> general reference, generally educated
> people can do the job very well.
This has got to be one of the major reasons why Wikipedia is thriving and
Nupedia is moribund.
Just because I don't have a degree specifically in Chemistry does not stop me
from researching and putting a great deal of work into the elements and other
chemistry articles.
If we begin to give the impression that such expertise is preferred, then
Wikipedia will begin to share the fate of Nupedia.
WIth that said, I think that a Nupedia distribution of Wikipedia articles
would be great.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 639
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Sun Sep 1 17:21:10 UTC 2002
>> The problem is that, with several notable exceptions,
>> highly-educated people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
> I don't know about everyone else but I think that statement
> was a bit insulting.
If you think so, then you don't know Larry very well. I also
think he's entirely correct, and I can't imagine how anyone
can disagree. We don't attract very many highly educated
people; I can think of maybe one or two dozen that would qualify.
What bothers me even more is that we don't even seem to be
attracting non-academic experts either. Take a non-academic
subject like Poker, for example. There is no formal field of
study in it, and almost no academic research (a little bit at
U of Alberta, but that's about it). But there are certainly
dozens, if not hundreds, of professional and semi-professional
players who would qualify as experts at a level more or less
equivalent to a Ph.D. in some academic field. We happen to have
one of them--me--and so we have at least the beginnings of some
good poker articles. But where's our Bridge expert? Where's our
cat breeder? Where's our expert woodworker? Our chef? Our
basketball player? Hell, we don't even have expert coverage of
most computer programming languages despite the number of serious
geeks around here.
But unlike Larry, I don't think there's any systemic reason for
our dearth of experts; I think it's just that the project is
still young and small compared to what it needs to be to achieve
our goals. Yes, we need an approval/review mechanism, and that's
one of my goals for software development, but that in itself won't
attract the experts. I think the only thing that will attract
them is a proven record of success. And that will come with time,
and with the work of the experts we do have. When the software
gets closer to completion, and I can finish adding all of my poker
stuff, and Magnus can add his wonderful biology stuff, and Axel
his great Math stuff, etc., then we'll have some things to point
to to say "look, this is what we've accomplished, and you can
help us do more". That will draw the experts.
We may already be the largest Wiki in the world, but we simply
aren't big enough yet to do what needs to be done. We need 5000
regular contributors, not 200. And we need to make sure the system
can support them all, and do the things they need done to make
good articles. For example, I really like the idea of having
"staff" specialists in things like image processing, copyediting,
and other tasks that we shouldn't necessarily expect subject
experts to be good at. And we need to make it easy for authors
to contact and work with those other people (that's why I wanted
the e-mail and user talk page features, for example--I think
they're critical to the collaborative process). If we build it,
they will come.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 640
[Wikipedia-l] proposal of quality controll system for wikipedia
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Sun Sep 1 18:56:45 UTC 2002
On 01-09-2002, Giskart wrote thusly :
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> >Or we can simply revisit the idea of Beta/Stable; whereby some type of
> >process validates an article. Having another level of validation through
> >Nupedia would also be a good thing. In that way Nupedia would be a
> >distribution of Wikipedia in the same way as Red Hat is a distribution of
> >Linus' Linux and the GNU tools.
> What do you think of this:
> You give to the articels a classification. You can hide or exclude
> articels whit a specific classification in your preferences.
[classification snip]
> Giskart
Some thoughts.
1. there's a potentially dangerous situation that :
a) we will never have enough experts
b) experts will go into lengthy disputes that will cause their number
to become 0
2. there should/could be another phase - a "scientifically valid" article
- properly _referenced_ and reflecting state-of-the-art in a given field
3. High brow and low brow - there's a huge gap between what is
scientifically valid and what is comprehensible to lay public
All in all, I have doubts that this plan will work. I think Wikipedia would
be better off with enthusiasts than with experts. Have we learnt anything from the Nupedia vs Wikipedia lesson ?
Regards,
kpjas
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 641
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Sun Sep 1 21:48:46 UTC 2002
LDC wrote;
>>>The problem is that, with several notable exceptions,
>>>highly-educated people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
>>>
>>I don't know about everyone else but I think that statement
>>was a bit insulting.
>>
>
>If you think so, then you don't know Larry very well. I also
>think he's entirely correct, and I can't imagine how anyone
>can disagree. We don't attract very many highly educated
>people; I can think of maybe one or two dozen that would qualify.
>
Well, I don't know Larry either - and that shouldn't matter - but I
think agree with Stephen Gilbert that the statement was slightly
insulting. If I look at many Wikipedians' user pages, I see a lot of
students, people with degrees, Ph.D's. If they're not highly educated,
who are? Only professors?
>What bothers me even more is that we don't even seem to be
>attracting non-academic experts either. Take a non-academic
>
I think everybody is an expert. Everybody lives in a country, a city
worth writing about. Everybody likes some kind of music, movies (or
films, whatever). Most people practise a sport or have other hobbies.
OK, I may not be able to write about the social-economic effects of the
Reformation in the Netherlands, but I sure can tell you something about
the country that is required for encyclopedia. I know the main policital
parties, know what's going on. As an apparently not high-educated
person, I have had lessons at school about history, geography of my
country. Apart from that, there are some areas where I consider my self
to be an expert, or at least pretty close to it. And this holds for
most, if not all people that regularly contribute here. We surely don't
have experts yet on *all* areas - maybe we never will - but they can
still come.
>But unlike Larry, I don't think there's any systemic reason for
>our dearth of experts; I think it's just that the project is
>still young and small compared to what it needs to be to achieve
>our goals. Yes, we need an approval/review mechanism, and that's
>one of my goals for software development, but that in itself won't
>attract the experts. I think the only thing that will attract
>them is a proven record of success. And that will come with time,
>
Yes, success is the only thing that will help us grow. And as I said,
success is based on quality, which is not dependent on the number of
people with a Ph. D. hanging round as a Wikipedian.
>We may already be the largest Wiki in the world, but we simply
>aren't big enough yet to do what needs to be done. We need 5000
>regular contributors, not 200. And we need to make sure the system
>can support them all, and do the things they need done to make
>good articles. For example, I really like the idea of having
>"staff" specialists in things like image processing, copyediting,
>and other tasks that we shouldn't necessarily expect subject
>experts to be good at. And we need to make it easy for authors
>to contact and work with those other people (that's why I wanted
>the e-mail and user talk page features, for example--I think
>they're critical to the collaborative process). If we build it,
>they will come.
>
Yes, if we really want 5000 contributors, we need more infrastructure.
The current one is already insufficient for our 200 editors. I also see
that we may need SIGs or expert groups, who can take care of a specific
subject or groups of subjects. Such groups already informally exist, be
it small. If we could improve the infrastructure for such groups (making
communication and decision making easier, for example), it would be
easier to lift a certain subject to a high level.
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 642
[Wikipedia-l] proposal of quality controll system for wikipedia
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Sun Sep 1 22:00:45 UTC 2002
Giskart wrote:
> 1. "draft" : a new articel starts whit the draft-status. After 2
> months and modification by at least 3 different members the articel
> gets the "articel"-status automatic. This way you exclude nonsense.
>
> 2. "articel-status": a normal wikipedia articel. Free to edit by
> everbody.
>
> 3. "stable-status": For a articel to get the "stable-status" there
> must be a "vote-for-this-page". After the first vote for a articel
> the software create a copy of the articel whit the status
> "candidate-stable". This gets listed on a special page. . This stable
> version can not be edit.
>
> 4. "Expert Approved"-status: approvel by a group of experts like on
> Nupedia. Only those members can change the content of the
> "expert-approved" articel.
That does not have my vote. There is some sense to the first two
levels, if only to bring to everybody's attention that an article is
new. Beyond that, multiple versions with different edit right seems
more chaotic than what we have now. And what is the general public to
make of this, when they only visit to read about a subject but find
multiple versions on the subject?
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 643
[Wikipedia-l] Tracking articles by anonymous contributors
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Mon Sep 2 01:14:53 UTC 2002
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> Would there be any objection to making the IP addresses as listed in
>>> Recentchanges and History be direct links to the contributions list?
>>>
>>> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>>
> I presume that you are referring to the addresses for unregistered
> contributors. That's fine. But for registered users I'm just as happy
> to be able to go to the user page which links to "user contributions"
> anyway
Done. Where there is a link to the user page for logged-in users,
anonymous IP addresses now show a direct link to "user contributions".
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 644
[Wikipedia-l] Tracking articles by anonymous contributors
Karl Juhnke
yangfuli at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 2 00:20:10 UTC 2002
--- Brion VIBBER <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Done. Where there is a link to the user page for logged-in users,
> anonymous IP addresses now show a direct link to "user
> contributions".
This feature rocks my world. Thanks! --Karl
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 645
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Mon Sep 2 00:49:17 UTC 2002
Karl Juhnke wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
<snip excellent discussion>
> Semi-decent articles are only immune to editing until someone with just
> slightly more expertise comes along. I say slightly more, because
> contributors with vastly more expertise may well consider an article
> not worth saving. The person who is attracted is not the absolute
> expert, but the relative expert who thinks, "Hmm, solid start, but X
> needs to be added and Y needs to be fixed and the whole thing
> refactored." This contributor then makes the article as good as s/he
> can, setting the stage for a slightly more expert person to be
> attracted. Eventually Wikipedia will rise to the level at a few of the
> foremost experts in the world are duking it out in their respective
> arenas.
Perhaps multiple arenas differentiated on multiple axis will also
occur which form a weighted uncertainty zones around the solid/stable
mainstream view. Thus revisionists and ideologues can be engaged
in flame war without disturbing the grade school kiddies researching
their "What I did last summer" papers or scholars are at the leading
edge
trying to figure out how to prove empiricially which self consistent
hypothesis matches reality closest to always skeptical generalists
at large.
In this extreme, Wikipedia becomes a somewhat continuous body of
knowledge which the browser can move through to review at their own
level as they are ready to absorb what is solidly "known", critically
assess or question details, or add previously undocumented draft
tidbits. One can look for what is reliably known and widely
accepted or for the chinks or messy remaining details or for the
better discussion addressing remaining questions and best judgment
of leading scholars regarding specific information.
>
> My only counsel is patience. The quality (not just the size) of
> Wikipedia is improving as we speak. Better quality attracts people
> with more expertise. It is a virtuous cycle. I say that it will work
> in the long run, not based on some wild hypothesis, but because IT IS
> ALREADY WORKING in the short run.
The positive feedback cycle driving growth (higher content quality and
quantity attracting contributers, more contributors create incrementally
higher local quality and more content) will stabilize at some point
from our system or community dynamics or environment.
Revision Control - This issue is already substracting some growth
not only in new contributors but, even more dramatically, eroding
long standing contributors. This means we are losing project
expertise developed locally from long time effective participation.
The question is can Edit War be replaced by a better mechanism?
If so, what is a better mechanism to try out? At the other extreme
Nupedia's formal controls have apparently not worked out well. I
suggest small increments of modification to the current wiki way.
Behavior Standards - What are the minimum standards of behavior
and how are they enforced? This is more corrosive than many
believe because people inherently expect "fair" behavior. Observing
community violation of personal expectations of fairness will
have impacts on the individuals observing or participating as well
as the victims. As discomfort levels reach personal thresholds
and people leave what has become a stressful environment, the
community growth curve will negatively influenced. It is the
expectations, not any specific absolute standard which must be
successfully articulated and met for the long term benefit of
the community.
Casual contempt of others efforts. Our process of continuous
improvement of the material fundamentally relies on several
assumptions:
1. Most people share the same goal priorities: Highest overall
content quality possible is a higher priority than satisfaction of
personal agendas or ego.
2. Poor material will be replaced on an opportunistic basis
in small and large chunks at the whim of random contributors
and fixated specialists alike.
3. Brilliant, accurate, factual (or at least NPOV) information is
sticky. It will tend to remain in the content as experienced
editors leave alone what they cannot improve. Errors in judgement
will be reverted by subsequent editors.
4. People are natively capable of applying sound editorial judgement
and this judgement will improve, relative to community standards
(articulated and implicit), with ongoing community interaction.
In summary: In the aggregate, participation in good faith
results in steady improvement of the current and future value of
contributors efforts and in the accumulated value of the content.
Contempt for others' efforts breaks all of the above assumptions.
Mailing list volume. As changes are accepted by the mailing
list, people who dislike them but do not choose to participate
in the mailing will either adjust, gripe, leave, be diverted to
meta, or join the mailing list. Changes are thus a net negative
influence in the short term growth of content contribution. Small
gradual change will have less short term impact. Research exists
that show mailing lists to be a small group phenomenon which tend
to stabilize and mature in predictable life cycle patterns. As
the mailing list is currently our primary community governing
process it may be a limiting factor in the size of the community;
if we assume a fixed percentage of contributors like to participate
in self government.
If we assume that people like to ignore governing
issues unless controversy arises, at which time they like to
be heard, then the community may undergo a pattern of cyclic
growth. Each consensus leading to a lull on the mailing list
with corresponding growth in contribution until the community
grows sufficiently that newcomers with new attitudes or size
magnifies the effect of previously negligable problems such
that the mailing list becomes overly active once again.
The above assumes the mailing list is primarily for consenus
building and discussion of meta issues. If it also serves a
primary coordination role in community affairs then the steady
state volume may begin to scale exponentially with increased
group size.
Shifting leadership to an external panel of authorities potentially
eliminates the mailing list limitation and replaces it with another.
How many volunteers wish to work for nothing under the direction
or leadership of busy authorities with credentials they cannot
(at whim) compete with or influence? At the moment all who choose
to contribute but not participate in the mailing list can, at
whim, join the pubic mailing list and attempt to influence
policy and/or custom. Busy authorities in charge break this current
community consensus building model just as a governing or operational
distinction is forming: If you will not collaborate nicely
(you have irritated several influential regulars by repeatedly violating
local customs and in their perception wasted their time because you will
not learn better fast enough) and will not come talk to the mailing
list to help build a better consensus (set of customs, implicit and
articulated) then you may be banned for the benefit of the project.
Meta. This was an interesting experiment in diversion and
ignoring contentious issues and people. Perhaps it will
eventually grow into a discussion forum. It may or may
not scale better with large groups. I have not run across
any scholarly review of wiki group dynamics online yet.
One problem it seems to have is that the articles there are
viewed as personal positions not to be edited rather than
as a starting point for consensus building or collaboration.
This may be because topics there are known to be controversial
and people wish to avoid ideological edit war or perhaps feel
that the original positions need to be preserved for newcomers
in the future. Whatever the reason, participation at meta
has been fairly slow and much of it seems abandoned.
regards
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 646
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 2 01:36:19 UTC 2002
Thanks, everyone, for the replies!
Let me try to clarify several points--I now see that I should have written
a number of paragraphs completely differently. I'm sorry about that,
really.
(1) Some people seem to have thought they were defending my view (or
expanding it) and others, that were attacking my view. But (if you'll
read what I said) no part of my view is that we should change *Wikipedia*
at all.
In particular, my central suggestion (and sorry if I wasn't clear about
this) was *not* that we now try hard to design a Wikipedia-controlled
article approval system. The idea is interesting, and it's something
we've discussed a lot (especially last fall, I think). Presently, I am
pretty much neutral on the idea; in fact, I'm leaning a bit against the
notion. Nor was my suggestion that we find a new individual leader for
*Wikipedia*. (I said not long ago that I didn't think we needed one.)
In my post, I used the terms "free encyclopedia movement" several times,
to cover Wikipedia, Nupedia, and other similar projects extant and yet to
come. Wikipedia is not coextensive with the free encyclopedia movement.
(2) In saying that most people weren't highly educated, I really *didn't*
mean to insult anyone, and moreover, what I meant (but didn't express
well) wasn't anything that anyone should feel insulted by. (Some people
love to feel insulted, however. I'm one of 'em, so I understand.) What I
meant to say was something strictly factual and uncontroversial. I should
have said: "There aren't many bona fide experts, leaders in their fields,
involved in Wikipedia right now." For example, I am not a bona fide
expert about much of anything or leader in any of my "fields."
(3) My contention is that, for Wikipedia to succeed, we need experts
*guiding* the *free encyclopedia movement* (notice the key words). This
must happen sooner or later, but I think it's very plausible to think it
must happen sometime if we're to succeed. Now, in saying this, I am *not*
saying, or meaning to imply, that only experts can write credible
articles. So it misses the point to insist strenuously that nonexperts
can write and make great progress on encyclopedia articles: obviously,
they can, and I'm sure I've said (and done!) so many times.
What I *am* saying is that, in the long run, unless a lot of experts are
involved and unless there is a process that holds *some* portion of the
free encyclopedia movement (not Wikipedia) up to extremely high standards,
the overall project won't succeed in producing a credible encyclopedia.
In some cases this might be because no one but an expert would be able to
write (or rewrite) an article on a topic properly. In many more cases, it
will be because no one but an expert will be able to edit, supervise, and
otherwise whip into shape articles on subjects that many nonexperts think,
but mistakenly, they can write adequately about. There are many such
subjects, at least if we want to compare ourselves to actual reliable
encyclopedias.
(4) I should have known better than not to spend at least a couple more
paragraphs explaining that I do not have a fetish for formal
qualifications. I agree absolutely completely 100% that it is totally
possible for people who lack any sort of formal qualifications to write
(and edit and code) wonderful creative works of all sorts. I also agree
that this is at the heart of the success of the open source movement.
But that mere possibility doesn't mean that we don't need a lot of experts
*guiding* a quality control process that Wikipedia benefits from. Part of
the irony in my title was precisely this point: the open source movement
is full of all sorts of people with relatively few formal qualifications,
and no one cares. But, IN FACT, the movement in general is guided by
people who are a lot more expert in coding than the average Wikipedian is
about what he or she writes about (and that couldn't be otherwise, given
its success). There's nothing paradoxical about this--and it doesn't make
the free software movement into a cathedral rather than a bazaar. It's a
bazaar *guided* by expert coders. Kind of (but not entirely) like the
stock market, a more or less free market, being guided by Wall Street
gurus.
(5) I am not heralding the doom of Wikipedia, Daniel M., nor did I say (or
mean to imply) that what Wikipedia does is futile, and I'm sorry if I
wasn't clear about that. In fact, I think that, eventually, Wikipedia
*will* get the loose direction (by example) it needs, by becoming an
independent part of an open encyclopedia movement that includes an (also
independent) expert-staffed review board. Part of the purpose of my post
was to help move the movement in that direction.
(6) It is possible, as a few people seem to think, that by attracting many
experts *to Wikipedia* (and continuing to forget that Nupedia ever
happened) will result in the sort of excellent quality I hope we'll
achieve. If that were to happen, I'd be delighted. (I don't expect it to
happen; see (9) below. But it wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was for
Wikipedians to get behind a new or newly revitalized project (such as
Nupedia), officially independent of Wikipedia, that would be managed by
experts.
Roll out the red carpet. Create a structure that will make the elite feel
welcome to be involved in a *leadership* role. Get universities involved,
and major research institutions, and even businesses--just as is the case
with the open source movement.
(This, by the way, doesn't mean that they would set the standards for
*Wikipedia*. I would strongly oppose that; Wikipedia should be
self-managing as it always has been. But Wikipedia articles are open
content. They might manage a different project that uses Wikipedia
content, as is their right. Wikipedia would hugely benefit if this
happened.)
(7) Fred Bauder was right to point out that a lot of the people who could
help *Wikipedia* most just won't put up with arguing with people who they
think should be sitting down and taking notes. A college professor who
has spent his life studying X would, at least in many cases, find it
absurd and ludicrous that he should have to argue with someone about X who
has maybe had a college course on the subject and read a few books.
There are exceptions, but they are *really* exceptions, and be grateful
for them. You might hate this attitude, but it's a fact of life. The
free stuff movement (how's that for a name) might be fantastic and
wonderful, but that doesn't mean it'll magically change this fact.
The free encyclopedia project--not Wikipedia, necessarily--needs these
people. It's frankly a little silly to expect them to help us as long as
we continue to be wide open to everyone (except "24" and Helga,
perhaps...) and to follow the editing policies and practices that we all
know and love. It's much *less* silly to expect a number of them to join
a free encyclopedia project advisory board of some sort, made up of
leaders in all fields, that would set standards and procedures for the
selection of *some free articles* (not to lead Wikipedia). It's also
quite possible many of them will want to get on board as active parts of
the writing and vetting process--but on their own terms, not on Wikipedia.
We've already seen some potential for this with Nupedia. But I think we
can do better, by getting behind the notion of a project led by, well,
*real* experts. Not me, but Jacques Barzun, or someone of his stature.
Someone, or a group of people, that the best minds of the world can look
to and say, "This is fantastic. They want to do this? I want to be part
of it."
That's how academics and scientists think, hate it or not. But it *is*
how they think. Hard-headed problem-solvers will devise ways to work with
it, as a constraint.
(8) A few people think I misunderstand the source of open source's
success.
Stephen G., did I say that Linux Torvalds set out with exactly the goals
the free software movement has come to have? If so, I apologize. I'm
sure that most people got involved in the movement because it was fun
(challenging, inspirational, etc.). I'm sure that freedom from
requirements of academic and other formal qualifications (and employer-
and client-defined standards) is an important element of what makes free
software attractive for many of its developers. Moreover, I agree with
you that there are important analogies here to the present and future
success of Wikipedia. But this doesn't contradict what I did say, which I
will refrain from reiterating.
Similarly, Karl J., I am sure the final decisions about what to officially
release are made as you say they are (by whatever experts are at hand, not
by the world's greatest expert about the thing). It so happens, though,
that as the movement has growed in stature, those people who make the
decisions really *are* software experts. If I'm wrong, please supply me
with an example. How could the leaders of kernel releases, GNOME, etc.,
fail to be experts in what they do? The success of their projects is
sufficient evidence. This doesn't contradict anything I said, moreover.
The disanalogy between software and encyclopedia article writing is simply
that software has to work. It has to do what it is supposed to do. As
software grows in sophistication, this requires huge amounts of expertise.
But encyclopedia articles do not work or fail to work; still, very many of
them *do* require the attention, at *some* point, of an expert, in order
for anyone to be able to trust them reasonably.
(9) Now to address a point that at least three people made. If Wikipedia
develops by itself, without any association with any sort of expert-
controlled approval mechanism, to the point where it is used regularly by
librarians and referred to as a good research source by college
professors, I would take that as prima facie proof that a *lot* of experts
are involved in Wikipedia. But this is precisely what I predict will not
happen. Wikipedians, in too many cases unduly confident (it seems to me)
of their project's modest successes, *need* a Nupedia.
Compare:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121
I know exactly what you guys are saying. I used to think Wikipedia
*might* succeed on its own (but the involvement of Nupedia has always
seemed important to me); I now fear otherwise. "Dreamworld" is hyperbole
--I have *never before* been given to hyperbole, though. :-)
Axel and Lee both opined that Wikipedia might be able attract experts to
lead it (hopefully not in an official capacity but due to proper respect
to their expertise in their areas of expertise) all on its own, due to the
(eventual) strength of its material. Bootstrapping, as many people have
observed.
I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong; I don't have a crystal ball.
But, looking at Wikipedia's contents now and comparing it to what I recall
from times past, I do have to say that I'm worried. I don't think that in
terms of quality, overall, it's getting that much better. But I also
admit the project is still very young and no trends can be reliably
predicted. That doesn't stop me from being worried, and I think you
should be too. There's nothing utterly magical about the Wikipedia
formula that *necessitates* that articles *on the whole* will not reach a
level of mediocrity they never excel *on the whole*.
Moreover, there's a reason to think far too many experts won't ever give
Wikipedia the attention it needs: it's just not a "form of life" that
they're interested in and used to. It's important that we properly come
to grips with this fact.
My experience with Nupedia makes me strongly suspect that the ablest
possible contributors to the open encyclopedia project need their own
project with their own rules, and that it's unwise to expect most
academics and professionals anyway (I dealt with many dozens on Nupedia)
to be interested in joining a wiki and contributing in that fashion.
If Wikipedia gets behind the notion, it'll happen!
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 647
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 1 14:31:26 UTC 2002
On Sunday 01 September 2002 12:01 pm, Lee wrote:
> If you think so, then you don't know Larry very well. I also
> think he's entirely correct, and I can't imagine how anyone
> can disagree. We don't attract very many highly educated
> people; I can think of maybe one or two dozen that would qualify.
Well if Larry meant "one or two dozen" by saying "several notable exceptions"
then I owe Larry an apology. I definitely agree with the "one or two dozen"
statement but not the "several" statement.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 648
[Wikipedia-l] Potential forking of Wikipedia
Karl Juhnke
yangfuli at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 2 03:38:46 UTC 2002
Larry,
Thanks for clarifying your original posts and rebutting some responses.
I didn't realize at first that you were talking about forking
Wikipedia. That would be, as you say, a horse of a different color
from changing the way in which Wikipedia currently runs.
First let me reiterate what I think you are saying, so if I am again
missing the point, at least you will know what I am responding to. You
want to have some articles taken out of the domain of the collectively
editable, and put into a space (say ExpertWikipedia) where they are
maintained exclusively by some expert or experts. This would break
synchronization with Wikipedia, i.e. there would be no automatic
transferral of information in either direction. If a Wikipedia article
evolved in a way the expert disapproved of, s/he wouldn't incorporate
the changes. Similarly, if the expert article didn't satisfy members
of the Wikipedia community, they would modify it and evolve it into
something different. In brief, the project would be forked.
Pursuing the free software analogy futher, there used to be much talk
about inevitable forking, and the potential of forks to kill off the
movement. In practice, however, forks have been very rare. The only
serious infrastructure fork was over libc/glibc, and that remerged
before long. It turns out that two versions of the same program can
hardly ever survive. Either one draws all the developers and comes to
dominate the field, or all the good ideas from one are merged into the
other, which obviates the necessity of having two.
My question for you, Larry, is why the same immense pressure against
forking wouldn't also apply in the free encyclopedia movement. If
there is a Wikipedia/ExpertWikipedia split, why wouldn't whichever is
dominant gain all the momentum and all the contributions?
Suppose that ExpertWikipedia becomes the site that everyone uses as a
reference work. Suppose that my contributions to Wikipedia are not
being incorporated into ExpertWikipedia. In that case, I will become
frustrated and quit. If I contribute further the free encyclopedia
movement, it will take the form of trying to influence the expert in
charge of the "official" version of the article. I will submmit my
patches (edits) to her/him at ExpertWikipedia instead of wasting my
time at Wikipedia.
Conversely, suppose that Wikipedia becomes the site that everyone uses
as a reference work. Why would experts want their work to languish in
obscurity on ExpertWikipedia? They will either quit and go back to
writing scholarly books and articles, or they will wade into Wikipedia
and try to get there stuff to stick there.
You talk about experts in this way:
> Someone, or a group of people, that the best minds of the world can
> look to and say, "This is fantastic. They want to do this? I want
to
> be part of it."
There's the rub. How can ordinary people be a part of the expert
project? I think you need to spell out in more detail how you evision
a back-and-forth flow of information between the forked projects. What
would make it different from the Wikipedia/Nupedia distinction that
exists today? If an expert-led free encyclopedia is such a great idea,
why isn't Nupedia taking off by itself?
> (7) Fred Bauder was right to point out that a lot of the people who
> could help *Wikipedia* most just won't put up with arguing with
people
> who they think should be sitting down and taking notes.
Very true. And many expert programmers do not suffer fools gladly, and
do not enjoy the frequent heated discussions which open source software
projects generate. Those experts work for Microsoft, found their own
startup companies, or work in academic research where they can do their
own thing.
On the other hand, many academic experts *want* commentary and
contributions to whatever they write. Participation in conversation is
as big a rush to established scholars as it is to schmoes like me. Of
course nobody has much time for unsubstantiated fringe opinions and
idiotic assertions, but I'm talking about perceptive questions and
critiques. I can imagine many situations where a pool of informed,
cooperative amateurs would not be a hassle for a leading expert, but
rather a positive draw. And one thing I, an informed amateur, can do
to make an expert's life pleasant at Wikipedia, is to spare her/him
from the hassles of reverting vandalism, answering easy questions, etc.
> It so happens, though, that as the movement has grown in stature,
> those people who make the decisions really *are* software experts.
> [...]
> This doesn't contradict anything I said, moreover.
Quite so, the leaders of the big free software projects really are
experts. But it does contradict the spirit of what you said, because
almost none of the free software projects are "experts only", and an
insignificant few projects have experts-only forks. (e.g. Netscape is
a fork of Mozilla, but Mozilla is carrying the flag and drawing all the
volunteer participation. Netscape is technologically insignificant; it
matters only as marketing.) In almost all cases literally everyone can
submit incremental changes (i.e. patches) to every project. If there
is a mechanism for ordinary schmoes to submit incremental changes to
the ExpertWikipedia in your proposal, I missed it.
The robustness of open source projects is vastly enhanced by the fact
that anyone can contribute to any extent they like. Some of the expert
leaders have worked their way up through the ranks by submitting
numerous small patches, then maintaining a subsystem, then taking over
entirely when a leader steps down. All this happen with no recruiting
and no official designation of who is expert. It is allowed to happen
because there is no distinction such as you are proposing.
I can imagine Wikipedia evolving to the point that we semi-officially
designate subsystem experts (e.g. Axel Boldt as math czar), and maybe
give them power to protect a small number of pages. But somehow
ordinary folks have to be able to get their oar in or the project will
suffer. Even the main page, which we decided we had to protect, has a
talk page for making suggestions which our 39 administrators respond
to.
> The disanalogy between software and encyclopedia article writing is
> simply that software has to work. It has to do what it is supposed
to
> do. As software grows in sophistication, this requires huge amounts
> of expertise. But encyclopedia articles do not work or fail to work;
I agree that there is some disanalogy there. But how significant is
it? Please note that open source projects often exclude submissions
that work perfectly well. The grounds of exclusion can be that code is
unmaintainable and/or difficult for peers to review. "How well does it
work?" is in fact sometimes less significant than "How beautiful is the
code?", as witnessed by incomplete patches with rough edges but
beautiful underlying structure trumping crufty code that gets the job
done with no errors. Deciding which code is worthy is far from black
and white.
Anyway, the disanalogy only matters if the quality of encyclopedia
articles is not generally recognizable. It will only harm Wikipedia if
people routinely fail to recognize the scholarship of experts who know
more and write better than they do. So far I see some of this failure
to comprehend on Wikipedia, but not as much as I suspected, and not
enough to put a systematic brake on the success of the project. In
fact, I think it would be very instructive to visit the discussions of
some open source projects, and see whether various proposed patches
generate more or less disagreement than edits on Wikipedia. I suspect
you would find as much heat in the open source movement as in the
typical edit war on Wikipedia.
Peace,
-Karl
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 649
[Wikipedia-l] Potential forking of Wikipedia
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 2 03:54:19 UTC 2002
--- Karl Juhnke <yangfuli at yahoo.com> wrote:
> First let me reiterate what I think you are saying,
> so if I am again
> missing the point, at least you will know what I am
> responding to. You
> want to have some articles taken out of the domain
> of the collectively
> editable, and put into a space (say ExpertWikipedia)
> where they are
> maintained exclusively by some expert or experts.
No, not quite. He said that Wikipedia should remain
*unchanged*. The articles would be copied, not moved.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 650
[Wikipedia-l] Potential forking of Wikipedia
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 2 04:04:51 UTC 2002
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>
> --- Karl Juhnke <yangfuli at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > First let me reiterate what I think you are saying,
> > so if I am again
> > missing the point, at least you will know what I am
> > responding to. You
> > want to have some articles taken out of the domain
> > of the collectively
> > editable, and put into a space (say ExpertWikipedia)
> > where they are
> > maintained exclusively by some expert or experts.
>
> No, not quite. He said that Wikipedia should remain
> *unchanged*. The articles would be copied, not moved.
And, moreover, I'm bewildered at the suggestion that what I was proposing
was a "fork." If anything, Wikipedia is a fork of Nupedia. We started in
February 2000 with Nupedia. It grew moribund for a variety of reasons,
not least of which was that my time in 2001 was increasingly spent on
Wikipedia instead of Nupedia. You could say that I propose reviving a
version of Nupedia.
I recommend having a look at http://www.nupedia.com/ . A lot of the
information is outdated (because the project is currently "on hold" at
best).
I'll have to observe what transpires on the list and reply to the rest
later!
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 651
[Wikipedia-l] Potential forking of Wikipedia
Karl Juhnke
yangfuli at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 2 06:25:46 UTC 2002
--- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> > --- Karl Juhnke <yangfuli at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > First let me reiterate what I think you are saying,
> > > so if I am again
> > > missing the point, at least you will know what I am
> > > responding to. You
> > > want to have some articles taken out of the domain
> > > of the collectively
> > > editable, and put into a space (say ExpertWikipedia)
> > > where they are
> > > maintained exclusively by some expert or experts.
> >
> > No, not quite. He said that Wikipedia should remain
> > *unchanged*. The articles would be copied, not moved.
>
> And, moreover, I'm bewildered at the suggestion that what I was
> proposing was a "fork."
OK, now it is my turn to be bewildered. I went back and re-read both
of your previous long e-mails, and I still don't understand what you
are suggesting. Sorry for being so dense.
You speak of "a free encyclopedia project advisory board of some sort,
made up of leaders in all fields, that would set standards and
procedures for the selection of *some free articles* (not to lead
Wikipedia)." So your proposal is to have a one-way flow of
information? That is to say, some subset of Wikipedia articles would
be deemed of acceptable quality, and copied exactly as they are to some
place where they would be safe from further editing? (By the way, what
happens to all the broken links if only a subset of articles is copied
over?)
If this is what you are suggesting, then you are counting on Wikipedia
as it is now, prior to any contributions and revisions of your panel of
experts, to produce the quality articles, among which the experts
merely pick and choose the best.
But then you also say "In many more cases, [...] no one but an expert
will be able to edit, supervise, and otherwise whip into shape articles
on subjects that many nonexperts think, but mistakenly, they can write
adequately about." So you obviously don't envision the experts merely
selecting articles, right? They will be expected to actively edit
articles too.
Where do you envision the experts doing their editorial work? Will
they contribute to Wikipedia for a while, and then when an article
becomes good enough, copy it over to a safe haven? Yet you contend
that most experts could not be induced to be active on Wikipedia
itself. If that is true, then they must be doing their editing
someplace else. If they are doing their editing someplace else, how
does the information get back to Wikipedia? Whatever appears in the
safe haven will have all the benefits of expert attention, but the
Wikipedia article won't have those benefits. If the information starts
at Wikipedia, is modified and improved, and those improvements don't
get back to Wikipedia, then the project has forked. That's how I came
to the shocking conclusion that you wanted to fork Wikipedia.
Finally, I did visit http://www.nupeida.com/, and as near as I can tell
the content there is not static, and thus not a safe haven as I have
been using the term. Even if something were copied over to Nupedia
exactly as it is on Wikipedia, it might then evolve and be improved in
its Nupedia incarnation. Again, that's a fork. Yes, historically
Wikipedia was a fork of Nupedia, but whichever way a fork goes, the
free software movement gives us strong reason to believe only one
branch will survive.
Forgive me for not comprehending your proposal, and please believe that
I am not being intentionally obtuse. I simply don't understand the
mechanism of what your panel of experts would do and how. I, too,
would like to "create a structure that will make the elite feel welcome
to be involved in a *leadership* role", but I don't see what you think
that entails.
Apologetically yours,
-Karl
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 652
[Wikipedia-l] Potential forking of Wikipedia
Karl Juhnke
yangfuli at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 2 06:36:40 UTC 2002
--- Stephen Gilbert <canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Karl Juhnke <yangfuli at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > First let me reiterate what I think you are saying,
> > so if I am again
> > missing the point, at least you will know what I am
> > responding to. You
> > want to have some articles taken out of the domain
> > of the collectively
> > editable, and put into a space (say ExpertWikipedia)
> > where they are
> > maintained exclusively by some expert or experts.
>
> No, not quite. He said that Wikipedia should remain
> *unchanged*. The articles would be copied, not moved.
Ah, sorry I expressed myself badly. I did in fact understand that
nothing would be *removed* from Wikipedia. My concern was not that
Wikipedia would lose anything by Larry's proposal. He is happy to let
Wikipedia go as far as it can under its current structure, but doesn't
expect success beyond a certain level. Similarly I am happy to let a
panel of experts skim the cream from Wikipedia and copy it to someplace
else, but I think it would be unlikely to help the free encyclopedia
movement. That's all.
Peace,
-Karl
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 653
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Mon Sep 2 07:47:37 UTC 2002
On 01-09-2002, Axel Boldt wrote thusly :
> I agree with the assessment that the average level of expertise among
> Wikipedia contributors is lower than that among Linux contributors or
> Encyclopedia Britannica contributors.
> However, I also think that an intelligent person with good writing
> skills and no specific expertise can write an average quality (call it
> "mediocre" if you want) encyclopedia article about pretty much
> anything. So by following the current path, we have a good chance of
> producing an average quality encyclopedia.
> (In a certain sense, that "mediocre" encyclopedia will already be
> "great", since it will be the only one you can burn on CD for free and
> mail to a highschool in Tanzania.)
> Now, producing the greatest encyclopedia in the world is a different
> story. Maybe experts will show up in greater numbers as the project
> approaches "mediocrity". Or maybe many of them will be put off by
> constantly having to defend their writings against incoming idiots,
> and we will need some sort of quality assurance process. Maybe we will
> need a charismatic expert leader, or one will emerge.
> But I think those are questions for the distant future. Right now, we
> should focus on moving Wikipedia from crappyness to mediocrity.
Hi all,
I think that we need open-minded, willing to learn people with some
background. Getting involved in Wikipedia means doing some additional
research, rethinking some ideas, reading, surfing the net for information
or references, discussing.
We have some experts in the making here on Wikipedia.
Let's invite 100 outstanding experts to join Wikipedia. How many will
respond ?
I believe in Wikipedia. I think it needs a great deal of improvements,
but more in software and infrastructure than policies.
Individual people and the community are the most important treasures
we have. Don't lose them !
Regards,
kpjas.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 654
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like thefree software movement
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Mon Sep 2 07:54:41 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>
"There aren't many bona fide experts, leaders in their fields,
> involved in Wikipedia right now." For example, I am not a bona fide
> expert about much of anything or leader in any of my "fields."
What precise criteria would you assert demonstrates a bona fide expert?
>
> (3) My contention is that, for Wikipedia to succeed, we need experts
> *guiding* the *free encyclopedia movement* (notice the key words).
I notice *guiding*. It has been my experience that bona fide experts
are best employed in what they excel at. Are you proposing we find
some expert project managers, executives, project team leaders,
negotiaters, technical writers, etc.? If so, then they could apparently
apply some expertise proposing *guidance* for the community's
ratification.
> What I *am* saying is that, in the long run, unless a lot of experts are
> involved and unless there is a process that holds *some* portion of the
> free encyclopedia movement (not Wikipedia) up to extremely high standards,
The existing standards are as high as any individual chooses to apply.
I found the standards at infanticide extremely rigorous. In fact, I
have not yet found an independent credible source to support strong
claims that some of us wish to make there.
> the overall project won't succeed in producing a credible encyclopedia.
Credible to who? Specific criteria can be useful in discussion.
> In some cases this might be because no one but an expert would be able to
> write (or rewrite) an article on a topic properly. In many more cases, it
> will be because no one but an expert will be able to edit, supervise, and
> otherwise whip into shape articles on subjects that many nonexperts think,
> but mistakenly, they can write adequately about. There are many such
> subjects, at least if we want to compare ourselves to actual reliable
> encyclopedias.
O.K. Name a few subjects that defy writings by anyone except
the leading world authority on the subject.
I contend that by the time someone is acknowledged a leading world
authority on anything specific; there is sufficient written material
available for the subject to be understood by most who choose to
study it.
Some of the leading authorities is even more certain. Multiple
authorities acknowledged implies more writings and communications
and more people exposed to them in order to certify more people
as leading experts.
It is insufficient to assert the Einstein (or the equivalent) is the
best physicist of his generation and that only he can guide an
effort to write about general relativity. By the time he has convinced
enough other physicists that his theories are correct there are quite
a few people around who have reviewed and written about them in various
forums. These "mediocre" people are presumably good enough to
contribute to quality articles at Wikipedia if they can get published
in Scientific American, National Geographic, etc. or reproduce
empirical results confirming the theory, or recalibrate clocks in
orbital spacecraft, or read any of the above and understand it.
>
> (4) I should have known better than not to spend at least a couple more
> paragraphs explaining that I do not have a fetish for formal
> qualifications. I agree absolutely completely 100% that it is totally
> possible for people who lack any sort of formal qualifications to write
> (and edit and code) wonderful creative works of all sorts. I also agree
> that this is at the heart of the success of the open source movement.
Apparently I was confused. I thought you said that the secret of
their success was the prevalence of highly qualified and credentialed
people *guiding* their important successful projects.
> But that mere possibility doesn't mean that we don't need a lot of experts
> *guiding* a quality control process that Wikipedia benefits from.
Likewise, the mere possibility that leading authorities can be
invited to come be in charge does not mean that we need *guidance*
to achieve a high quality product.
What specific benefits to Wikipedia from a *guided* quality
control process at Nupedia do you project as possibilities?
The current Wikipedia community process appears to me to implement
a process that could be modeled by control theory and shown to be
tending to converge towards excellence ... apparently without any
pre-emptive guidance by acknowledged experts. The process seems
well evolved to accept participatory input as it is available at
whatever level whenever it is provided.
If the above is sustained, then as long as some experts show up
interested in contributing to specific topics, and the pool of
contributors continues to diversify (or rotate) then the local
article quality will continue to rise as will the aggregate. Indeed,
one could argue that with the evolutionary approach that has evolved
the process can be *unguided* as long as the community does not
fall below regenerative thresholds. It must be able to collaborate
with (train) newcomers, accomplish maintenance exceeding damage
accrued by casual contributors and vandals, interact a bit within
the long standing ranks, and do a little original fact checking
or editing. There may exist size thresholds where the overall
quality of Wikipedia would drop until the reliable community of
contributors grew back to previous levels and where the community
would collapse rather than regenerate.
Part of
> the irony in my title was precisely this point: the open source movement
> is full of all sorts of people with relatively few formal qualifications,
> and no one cares. But, IN FACT, the movement in general is guided by
> people who are a lot more expert in coding than the average Wikipedian is
> about what he or she writes about (and that couldn't be otherwise, given
> its success). There's nothing paradoxical about this--and it doesn't make
> the free software movement into a cathedral rather than a bazaar. It's a
> bazaar *guided* by expert coders. Kind of (but not entirely) like the
> stock market, a more or less free market, being guided by Wall Street
> gurus.
The free software movement is shaped by evolutionary pressures, not
*guided*. Successful Wall Street gurus do not manipulate or guide the
market as a whole (this activity is extremely localized in space time,
successful "experts" get out before getting caught) they stay out of its
way.
The local community has managed to develop a culture that embraces
some rules and procedures which tend to evolve better material
from good faith participation in the community commons, the Wikipedia.
Additional participation, not *leadership* or *guidance*, will emulate
and enhance past success.
Are you aware that many free/open projects start as a means of
studying a language or computer science concept of interest to
the initiator? Much of the expertise is developed on an as
needed basis. I find it hard to believe, given this fact, that on
average the expertise at project initiation that is applicable
to the problem at hand is higher that the expertise available at
twikification for a typical contributor at Wikipedia. Contributors
at Wikipedia can apply their entire applicable expertise to
small twikification opportunities and the content is immediately
and visibly improved. A similar level of effort in a complex
software component is likely to introduce bugs or break it
entirely. Several iterations may be required before actual
visible improvement occurs. Combine this with the fact that
Wikipedia contributors can simply pass when uncertainty occurs
regarding the potential improvement, the article does not require
"fixing" before it can be compiled and evaluated by the next
potential contributor. Clearly Wikipedia's articles should
improve faster with fewer iterations than free software components.
>
> (5) I am not heralding the doom of Wikipedia, Daniel M., nor did I say (or
> mean to imply) that what Wikipedia does is futile, and I'm sorry if I
> wasn't clear about that. In fact, I think that, eventually, Wikipedia
> *will* get the loose direction (by example) it needs, by becoming an
> independent part of an open encyclopedia movement that includes an (also
> independent) expert-staffed review board. Part of the purpose of my post
> was to help move the movement in that direction.
We need to establish groundwork so that academia or Nupedia can take
full credit for Wikipedia's success?
You have not established to my satisfaction that your proposed
leaders are intended to provide guidance in how to improve our
existing successful processes. Currently anyone can (and does) read
or review any article. There is substantial expertise being applied
to constructive criticism on talk pages and in editing improvements.
This is improving both content and editorial collaborative skills.
It appears to me that you are saying we absolutely must have old
style endorsement by those at the top of the academic pyramid.
This makes the material magically acceptable to readers too lazy
to critically assess and establish for themselves the credibility
of the material presented.
Wikipedia is being assembled by a process that deletes mistakes
as it finds them. Readers are encouraged to learn scholastic
research, review, and critiquing methods suitable for civilized
interaction with other contributing editors and readers. One of
the Wikipedia products is already critical readers. Do I believe
this? Is the reliability adequate for my purpose
or should I check on it? Is is consistent
with my prior beliefs or sources? If it is not verifiable or
consistent with other sources how much do I trust it?
There are two major methods of quality management and control
used in the modern industrialized world:
1. One hundred percent inspection. Defects are corrected
or thrown away. This method is preferred when dealing with
potentially expensive endeavers. Nuclear reactors, space
shuttles, ballistic missiles, traffic lights, etc.
2. Improve the production process and use statistic sampling
to drive process improvements. This is used where productivity
and quantity manufactured makes it cost prohibitive to use
100% inspection. ICs, machine bolts, automobiles, etc.
3. The two are effectively combined by the economy on an ad
hoc basis to suit local economic requirements.
i.e. Land Rovers or Snow Cats are extensively overhauled and
inspected before setting out in redundant convoys across the
Sahara or the Antarctic. Individual high quality components
and initial integration were probably manufactured subject to
method 2 above.
Apparently rather than challenging the reader to think critically
and assess the material for themselves (as Wikipedia currently
does) you propose an easy immediate jump in credibility
(percieved reliability?) by being able to cite leading
authorities directing or guiding the assembly of the material,
rather than self improving contributing readers.
You contend that only the advertised guidance of these
authorities will lend the process or the product any
credibility with specialists and leading experts.
You propose that we need an "expert-staffed review board".
Yet it is clear that we already have this, the review board
consists of the entire community of reading contributors and
the experts we have already attracted to the project.
Authorizing a "the review board says" or "As a representative
of the review board I say, therefore the issue is settled"
is a substantial deviation of the current project procedures
which are: "If you cannot work productively without extended
edit wars with the other contributors then you should come to
the mailing list and discuss it or stay away from these subjects
or face banning."
The latter shuts down persistent problems damaging to the
community. The former shuts down effective participation.
Wikipedia is clear evidence that participation can drive
a successful project. Nupedia (and possibly others) apparently
has yet to demonstrate that authority or *guidance* or
*leadership* can deliver a quality project without the funds to
pay for participation.
>
> (6) It is possible, as a few people seem to think, that by attracting many
> experts *to Wikipedia* (and continuing to forget that Nupedia ever
> happened) will result in the sort of excellent quality I hope we'll
> achieve. If that were to happen, I'd be delighted. (I don't expect it to
> happen; see (9) below.
Perhaps we should formulate some quantitative criteria for
success and begin measuring our processes. This has been
done to a certain extent, but if it is perceived as important
to the community for effective self management, there is a bit
more that could be done fairly easily.
But it wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was for
> Wikipedians to get behind a new or newly revitalized project (such as
> Nupedia), officially independent of Wikipedia, that would be managed by
> experts.
Managed by expert managers or leading authorities in a variety
of arcane specialties? I have worked with many specialists,
since they have been extremely focused on specific topics many
of them lack management skills typically developed via on the job
experience which professional managers accumulate.
Why expect a leading metallurgist, acknowledged top in his field,
to be good at assembling a presentation of metallurgy suitable for
kindergartners through P'hds as a comprehensible, reliable reference
source? Why expect him/her to be good at recruiting, motivating,
training, and/or managing the diverse team of specialists in education,
presentation, tech writing, web design, etc. needed to tackle such
a demanding multi-media multi medium project?
>
> Roll out the red carpet. Create a structure that will make the elite feel
> welcome to be involved in a *leadership* role. Get universities involved,
> and major research institutions, and even businesses--just as is the case
> with the open source movement.
The elite in the open/free source movement earn their recognition
by coding and giving away useful software products and source code.
We have created a structure here where the elite participators are
recognized and welcome. Now if we can identify ways to avoid
overloading
the elite, while the rest of us improve a bit, and newcomer's are
assimilated without undue aggravation, then we shall really
have something.
Universities are involved. Unless I am mistaken some of our
better credentialed contributing regulars worked for universities.
Bomis is involved by at least Mr. Wales philanthropy and unless
I am miskaken there are still some paid Bomis employees actively
contributing, whether on their own time or paid by Bomis or both
I am uncertain.
I do not know if any influence is present yet from research
institutions. I used to work at Edwards AFB, which did some
leading edge telemetry processing and flight test in support
of experimental aircraft from time to time. Indeed, much of
what I learned there regarding TQM and project management is
available to the community.
>
> (This, by the way, doesn't mean that they would set the standards for
> *Wikipedia*. I would strongly oppose that; Wikipedia should be
> self-managing as it always has been. But Wikipedia articles are open
> content. They might manage a different project that uses Wikipedia
> content, as is their right. Wikipedia would hugely benefit if this
> happened.)
I am not certain I would quantify the benefit as huge. Certainly
the credit for the work would be good PR. It would seem about the
equivalent of a fork in terms of drawing off productive contributors.
Of course, if the effort drawn was concentrated with people valuing
credentials over actual content and sources for the "target" audience
to read, evaluate, and contribute back to; then it might be very
beneficial in reducing the scorn to which newcomer's are
occasionally subjected.
>
> (7) Fred Bauder was right to point out that a lot of the people who could
> help *Wikipedia* most just won't put up with arguing with people who they
> think should be sitting down and taking notes. A college professor who
> has spent his life studying X would, at least in many cases, find it
> absurd and ludicrous that he should have to argue with someone about X who
> has maybe had a college course on the subject and read a few books.
> There are exceptions, but they are *really* exceptions, and be grateful
> for them. You might hate this attitude, but it's a fact of life. The
> free stuff movement (how's that for a name) might be fantastic and
> wonderful, but that doesn't mean it'll magically change this fact.
Progress! We are really delineating some of the fundamental issues
involved in this revolutionary and innovative community project now.
I agree. Modern academics are completely out of touch with the old
style log, student and instructor approach to self educational
opportunities that produced ancient scholars and prodigies. A doctrine
of indoctrination has permeated U.S. institutions to the extent that
many professionally compensated scholars, educators, and specialists
feel comfortable with this resort to authority. The problem, of
course, is that many people find it difficult to recover a more active
role in study, research, work, innovation, etc. after spending 20
or 30 years keeping quiet and being indoctrinated.
Wikipedia breaks this mold and proposes to develop contributing
readers and reading contributors who verify the facts or the
reasoning for themselves. Unfortunately this potentially places
a large strain on busy, knowledgeable people; some of our best and
brightest. We need better processes to alleviate this, not a
return to gullibility or religious embrace of opinions backed by
worshipped credentials. Newton gets a lot of credit for revolutionary
scientific work. There are also some allegations that he single
handedly slowed down science in the British empire by routinely
blocking any idea that he did not agree with or for which he
could not take personal credit. Good old Not Invented Here
Syndrome.
I think we should encourage our best and brightest (such as Jules)
to pace themselves a bit and develop better processes for keeping
inaccurate, unreliable material off the current pages served to
casual readers than overworking our dedicated and best collaborative
scholars. 6 Billion - 37 - 200 - 2000 - 4000 leaves aproximately
6 billion people to expose to this return to the old ways.
A student, a scholar, and a log ... Actually billions of students,
millions (billions, assuming that no universal scholars exist)
of emulation worthy examples, and an internet connection on demand
between any two self chosen people, or people and forum,
addressing the subject of choice.
Perhaps MIT's announcement a year or two ago to commit to open
courseware freely available online should be reevaluated in the
context of our conversation to see if it provides any insight.
They do not propose to argue with the readers, merely to present
their easily convertible course materials online for easy, free,
access to any who wish to read them. They do not invite the
internet accessible public to become critical thinkers and
contributors, merely a reader. Last time I checked they were
still largely vaporware, but some course materials are available
online.
Personally, I think Wikipedia is on to something bigger. The original
goal still specificially articulated is to develop a deep, broad,
reliable encyclopedia. The chosen method embraced a new technology,
wiki, that was in itself a revolutionary idea. What is the simplest
computer technology possible to implement to allow distributed
large scale collaboration via the internet? The answer turned out
to be some scripts, a server, a database engine, and a simple text
user interface, Wiki. The convolution of two goals threatens to provide
a miniature World Wide Web which is easily modifiable peer to peer.
Adding SVG to the capabilities really has possibilities. Since
engineers are indoctrinated by society to love getting paid for
building things, instead of loving to design and build things.
It should be possible to continue to attract sporadic participation
here even if immediate forks spring up from the green space faction's
desire to save representative fragments of the Amazon rain forests
via distributed R&D on technologies applciable to space settlements.
Most engineers will not rush to participate until success is
obvious and assured.
What will 6 billion people decide to do next when they get
affluent enough to ignore their leaders' *guidance* when
freely developing and sharing knowledge bases via installed
sunk capital infrastructure?
>
> The free encyclopedia project--not Wikipedia, necessarily--needs these
> people.
Substantiating evidence?
logical proof?
Needs which ones that we do not already have?
It's frankly a little silly to expect them to help us as long as
> we continue to be wide open to everyone (except "24" and Helga,
> perhaps...) and to follow the editing policies and practices that we all
> know and love.
Actually I do not find partime participation a silly expectation.
I expect they will pace themselves and contribute effectively as
they choose, when they choose, and in ways they choose.
For example: Jules/April have twice in the last month notified the
mailing list that a couple contributors were refusing substantiate
their material in credible ways. This resulted in some augmented
efforts by multiple people in verifying or deleting inaccurate
information. Also resulted in some further modification and
articulation of community policy.
It's much *less* silly to expect a number of them to join
> a free encyclopedia project advisory board of some sort, made up of
> leaders in all fields, that would set standards and procedures for the
> selection of *some free articles* (not to lead Wikipedia). It's also
> quite possible many of them will want to get on board as active parts of
> the writing and vetting process--but on their own terms, not on Wikipedia.
> We've already seen some potential for this with Nupedia. But I think we
> can do better, by getting behind the notion of a project led by, well,
> *real* experts. Not me, but Jacques Barzun, or someone of his stature.
> Someone, or a group of people, that the best minds of the world can look
> to and say, "This is fantastic. They want to do this? I want to be part
> of it."
Perhaps. I remain unconvinced because I have not identified
any clear arguments beyond *this is the status quo*. The people
you wish to attract have it pretty good with the current status quo.
Why should there be wide attraction to revolutionary concepts within
their ranks?
I also fail to understand what weight you feel the consensus of the
Wikipedia community will carry with these people when you feel our
product, processes, and credentials are inferior to what they will
allegedly require for participation.
Again, the existing participation here at Wikipedia seems to contradict
this assertion. 24/200 is over ten percent. 24/2000 is over 1
percent.
What percent of the general internet population have credentials
documenting the expertise you desire?
Wikipedia is already sorting the "creme". Regular repeat
contributors are learning to collaborate respectfully and
effectively. Methods and means of reducing workload and
harassment of our best contributers also seem to be evolving.
>
> That's how academics and scientists think, hate it or not. But it *is*
> how they think. Hard-headed problem-solvers will devise ways to work with
> it, as a constraint.
Innovative problem solvers will modify the constraints.
I think this has already occurred. I have been proposing
perceived incremental improvements, not contending that the
existing process is broke.
>
> (8) A few people think I misunderstand the source of open source's
> success.
>
> Similarly, Karl J., I am sure the final decisions about what to officially
> release are made as you say they are (by whatever experts are at hand, not
> by the world's greatest expert about the thing). It so happens, though,
> that as the movement has growed in stature, those people who make the
> decisions really *are* software experts. If I'm wrong, please supply me
> with an example.
Browse sourceforge. The free software movements source of
success is its evolutionary approach. Release early and often.
Reuse, innovate, whatever. If you cannot get along, fork.
The best fork wins. There are a lot of losers at sourceforge.
So what? It is the stuff that gets kept and used that matters.
You are attempting to argue that we must start with experts.
I am arguing that if Wikipedia is alive in ten or twenty
years it will have helped develop many of its own experts.
How could the leaders of kernel releases, GNOME, etc.,
> fail to be experts in what they do? The success of their projects is
> sufficient evidence. This doesn't contradict anything I said, moreover.
>
This circular argument provides no support for your assertion
that we simply must start with experts to attract expertise.
Many or most of the experts you cite developed much of their
expertise within their projects as they successfully evolved them.
> The disanalogy between software and encyclopedia article writing is simply
> that software has to work. It has to do what it is supposed to do. As
> software grows in sophistication, this requires huge amounts of expertise.
> But encyclopedia articles do not work or fail to work; still, very many of
> them *do* require the attention, at *some* point, of an expert, in order
> for anyone to be able to trust them reasonably.
The free software creedo is release early and often. This means
that it arguably does not work! The users help fix it.
Demonstration is easy. Go to sourceforge and search any
category of interest. Download it and attempt to get it
to work. Much of it will not even compile. Much of it is
extremely buggy. There is a pretty clear correlation that
the better it works at doing something useful the more developers
and users the project tends to have. This begins a positive
feedback loop until its quality delivered is good enough to
satisfy most of its users, at which point participation
stabilizes or falls off.
Encyclopedia articles clearly do fail or not fail. Each failure
is an invitation to an existing contributor or a new reader to
make a minor adjustment. The human brain is the best computer
design on our planet (by our standards) and each of our readers
in the near term has one applied to assessment of our material.
Perhaps we should test an advertising campaign on the front
page similar to the "Edit any page, boldly" focus earlier in
the project. "Please make a comment on a talk page, your feedback
is appreciated and critical for continued content improvement."
>
> (9) Now to address a point that at least three people made. If Wikipedia
> develops by itself, without any association with any sort of expert-
> controlled approval mechanism, to the point where it is used regularly by
> librarians and referred to as a good research source by college
> professors, I would take that as prima facie proof that a *lot* of experts
> are involved in Wikipedia.
A tautology. If experts are reading or referring then clearly
they are involved with the project, even if they are not the
intended target market.
But this is precisely what I predict will not
> happen.
However, the only evidence that I have detected so far
is based upon Academia's irrational dependence on certification
and credentials rather than evaluation (and improvement or
constructive comment if possible) of the actual content.
The argument seems to be:
P1 The status quo is that credentials
are respected, confer respect and attract respected colleagues.
P2 Wikipedia can not be expected to change this by itself.
P3 Many experts (but not all) have credentials and are respected.
Conclusion: The Wikipedia community should take immediate
and dramatic action to recruit credentialed and respected
experts to *guide* *the free encyclopedia movement*.
Personally I do not see how this follows. Particularly
given the fact that we have some local experts in some
subjects and participation seems to be on the rise.
<snip>
> Axel and Lee both opined that Wikipedia might be able attract experts to
> lead it (hopefully not in an official capacity but due to proper respect
> to their expertise in their areas of expertise)
Hopefully their expertise will allow them to demonstrate the
correctness of their position to open minded skeptics. This
should indeed build local respect for their abilities.
This would seem to imply first participation, then emergent
leadership.
Your argument seems to be that without a priori respect no
expertise can be attracted. The existing community would
seem to be adequate proof that this is not the case locally.
all on its own, due to the
> (eventual) strength of its material. Bootstrapping, as many people have
> observed.
>
> I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong; I don't have a crystal ball.
> But, looking at Wikipedia's contents now and comparing it to what I recall
> from times past, I do have to say that I'm worried. I don't think that in
> terms of quality, overall, it's getting that much better.
Any quantitative or objective evidence?
But I also
> admit the project is still very young and no trends can be reliably
> predicted.
I disagree. Sufficient data is available or could be collected
to reliably project some trends. What reliability do you
require? Within ten percent over the next 6 months? Confident
of the sign of linear or exponential growth terms? Identification
of gain or loss factors?
Notice that I do not claim I could collect the data or
create the projections in isolation. Merely that the
community could reliably predict some trends if it wished.
That doesn't stop me from being worried, and I think you
> should be too. There's nothing utterly magical about the Wikipedia
> formula that *necessitates* that articles *on the whole* will not reach a
> level of mediocrity they never excel *on the whole*.
Control engineering is a fairly developed reliable
field. Fundamental approaches have been shown to work
well both analytically and empirically with predictable
results and reliable design methods.
Human systems are much more chaotic than industrial
processes. With that caveat noted I would say that we
seem to have effective community processes, procedures,
and culture that tend to establish two critical
feedback processes in a massively random parallel
fashion.
1. Friendly dialogue between contributors tends to
improve the future contributions.
2. Random, purposeful, and chaotic editing seems
predominantly to incrementally improve the local edited
content.
Further, with rare exceptions, when and where diminishing
returns set in, people seem to branch out or find additional
interests or other people to collaborate with to the limit
of their willingness to participate.
Your statement above seems to rely on the assumption that
new random contributors do not learn to apply editorial
judgement and that therefore future improvements beyond
the *mediocre* *must* come from recruiting from a different
pool of contributors with a higher credential level.
Currently new contributors are self selected, presumably
because they see some potential in the project. Surely
these self selected enthusiasts are more likely to apply
the effort to learn new methods required by the new medium,
than stodgy established authorities unwilling to interact
on a peer to peer basis with the other community members?
>
> Moreover, there's a reason to think far too many experts won't ever give
> Wikipedia the attention it needs: it's just not a "form of life" that
> they're interested in and used to. It's important that we properly come
> to grips with this fact.
Evolution does not have to be harsh. We do not need to
assassinate or convert inattentive experts, merely ignore them.
As the Wikipedia improves it is likely to attract sufficient
attention to keep improving. As it improves it will eventually
attract the notice of even well isolated academic giants.
It is important that we do not modify a working process,
project, or community into something which does not work.
That way lies "The Fact Factory" or oblivion.
>
> My experience with Nupedia makes me strongly suspect that the ablest
> possible contributors to the open encyclopedia project need their own
> project with their own rules, and that it's unwise to expect most
> academics and professionals anyway (I dealt with many dozens on Nupedia)
> to be interested in joining a wiki and contributing in that fashion.
So the few we expect to attract should be placed in
authority or leadership positions?
Axel, Jules, April, Daniel, and others locally seem to be
successfully influencing the community due to their track
record of effective participation. Interestingly enough
even "24" seems to have exercised some influence, despite
anonymity and an abrasive tendency when on the defensive.
>
> If Wikipedia gets behind the notion, it'll happen!
>
What exactly are you proposing that the Wikipedia community
or mailing list do to "get behind the notion"?
Let me take another stab at expressing my current mis-understanding.
Nupedia has a paid professional staff that has atttempted to
setup procedures and policy, develop software, and recruit leading
academics to the vision of creating the best encyclopedia ever.
Presumably ideas from the participating academics/experts regarding
how to organize the project, create the material, review it, modify
it, publish, etc. have been discussed (ad nauseum?) and some
overall consensus or decision implemented, at least partially.
Meanwhile, sometime during this process an idea occurred
(between you and an acquaintenance) and Mr. Wales {perhaps
advised by other professional staff} agreed to fund the
experiment with an open wiki, Wikipedia ... the afterthought.
Now the randomly attracted community of volunteers (seeded
by some experts and paid professional effort from Bomis) has
managed to self organize, is successfully creating content,
and appears to be growing and/or improving slightly.
Multiple views and success criteria exist but everybody still
contributing seems to agree that progress of some sort is
occurring.
You contend that to achieve maximum success, Wikipedia needs
*guidance* or *leadership* from the same pool of potential
participants from which Nupedia's initial recruiting efforts
were aimed at. Otherwise we (the entire free encyclopedia
effort) are doomed to mediocrity.
I think this is a premature conclusion.
More specifically, there has been little formal analysis,
specification, or agreement regarding actual Wikipedia processes
to date. The ensemble is clearly working but it is made of many
different approaches and peoples preferences. It is not
precisely clear what percentage of the community is using
which policies or customs. It is not precisely clear even
what rough percentage of the newcomer's, passive readers,
or infrequent tweakers even bother to read the orientation
material prior to browsing the site. It is clear that google
is delivering hits and that some newcomer's will occasionally
become contributors. The community and product utility for
initial audiences appears to be growing.
To state conclusively that the existing process is infeasible
(or has specific limits to specific quality or success criteria
which are attainable) would seem to require a decent understanding
of the existing system characteristics.
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 655
[Wikipedia-l] Potential forking of Wikipedia
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Mon Sep 2 07:50:08 UTC 2002
Let me try to summarize:
1. Articles are written by experts, or are copied from "free
encyclopedia sources"
2. They get checked and maybe expanded by experts
3. They are stored in a "safe" place where every change, if any, is
controlled
4. These modified articles are a "free encyclopedia source" again
5. As a result, these articles (or parts of them) can be integrated into
the "free encyclopedia sources" from #1
So, Wikipedia could be the basis for Nupedia (which is no problem in
itself; I could open up "Magnuspedia" today, based on Wikipedia, and
declare it expert-edits only, and noone could stop me). But, whatever
the experts at Nupedia will come up with, it will probably be better
than the corresponding Wikipedia article it is based on. Wikipedia can
only profit from such edits, as they can be used in turn.
There's one thing Wikipedia will always beat Nupedia in: Growth. At the
moment, that is growth in the number of articles. Bu, at some point, it
will be growth of individual articles. Many articles I originally
submitted to Nupedia have been growing enormously on the fertile soil of
Wikipedia. Articles can grow on Wikipedia, be proof-read in Nupedia, and
gan then grow further on Wikipedia again.
What I'm trying to say is Wikipedia and Nupedia won't be a fork, because
they're not really competition; they could both benefit from a symbiosis.
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 656
[Wikipedia-l] Potential forking of Wikipedia
Hannes Hirzel
hirzel at spw.unizh.ch
Mon Sep 2 07:59:58 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Let me try to summarize:
> 1. Articles are written by experts, or are copied from "free
> encyclopedia sources"
> 2. They get checked and maybe expanded by experts
> 3. They are stored in a "safe" place where every change, if any, is
> controlled
> 4. These modified articles are a "free encyclopedia source" again
> 5. As a result, these articles (or parts of them) can be integrated into
> the "free encyclopedia sources" from #1
>
> So, Wikipedia could be the basis for Nupedia (which is no problem in
> itself; I could open up "Magnuspedia" today, based on Wikipedia, and
> declare it expert-edits only, and noone could stop me). But, whatever
> the experts at Nupedia will come up with, it will probably be better
> than the corresponding Wikipedia article it is based on. Wikipedia can
> only profit from such edits, as they can be used in turn.
> There's one thing Wikipedia will always beat Nupedia in: Growth. At the
> moment, that is growth in the number of articles. Bu, at some point, it
> will be growth of individual articles. Many articles I originally
> submitted to Nupedia have been growing enormously on the fertile soil of
> Wikipedia. Articles can grow on Wikipedia, be proof-read in Nupedia, and
> gan then grow further on Wikipedia again.
> What I'm trying to say is Wikipedia and Nupedia won't be a fork, because
> they're not really competition; they could both benefit from a symbiosis
Magnus
I consider this to be a very good proposition. So the Nupedia articles
will acutally be edited snapshots of wikipedia articles done by experts in
the field from time to time. I think this is a good thing to save results
of successful wikipedia articles. It would be something like a quality
label and would perhaps attract one or the other expert.
At the moment nupeida is actually a dead project, perhpas this might lead
to its ressurection.
Another idea would be that universities just do edited snapshotsf of
certain wp articles with link back to wp, edit them an put them on their
website.
Hannes
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 657
[Wikipedia-l] Expert quality
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Mon Sep 2 08:53:43 UTC 2002
an aside on the subject of expert quality:
There are certain topic areas where amateurs *know* they are out of
their depth,and only the likes of Mr "relativity is wrong" Jones dare to
tread.
In other areas, *everybody* thinks they know something. Take Music: I
have found most of the articles on music theory to be of sloppy quality;
they appeared to be written by people who half-remembered stuff from
chilhood piano lessons. I and several others (Camembert, JFQuackenbush)
have lately been rewriting them. Stuff like Note Pitch, the various
scales, etc -- all much improved, but still, I hope, comprehensible to
the lay person.
contrast with Nupedia: there's just an article on "atonality", which is
largely incomprehensible.
The problem with "experts" is that they don't want to write about the
basics. I doubt I would have wanted to bother with writing about "major
scale", or "key signature" but finding the page in such a state
compelled me to do something about it.
Another point on stubs: my 1100 page Oxford Companion to Music has about
12 lines on the Glockenspiel -- about the same as Wikipedia. Some
subjects will probably always be stubs.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 658
[Wikipedia-l] Potential forking of Wikipedia
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Mon Sep 2 08:53:50 UTC 2002
If some articles are moved to a "safe haven" -- whether that be
"ExpertWikipedia", "Nupedia" or just some [[protected: namepsace of
wikipedia -- they should not be editable there.
That's only going to lead to two concurrent versions of an article,
which someone is going to have to muck around merging in the future.
The multi-tiered system with voting sounds horribly complicated.
The basic idea, as I see it, is for one particular revision of a page to
be protected & marked out as being "good", in the event that vandalism
or general rubbish occurs.
It wouldn't be hard for a page to have a "view last approved revision"
link on it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 659
[Wikipedia-l] Potential forking of Wikipedia
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 2 14:12:39 UTC 2002
If that's the proposal, I'm all for it. I've had
similiar thought myself.
Stephen G.
--- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at epost.de> wrote:
> Let me try to summarize:
> 1. Articles are written by experts, or are copied
> from "free
> encyclopedia sources"
> 2. They get checked and maybe expanded by experts
> 3. They are stored in a "safe" place where every
> change, if any, is
> controlled
> 4. These modified articles are a "free encyclopedia
> source" again
> 5. As a result, these articles (or parts of them)
> can be integrated into
> the "free encyclopedia sources" from #1
>
> So, Wikipedia could be the basis for Nupedia (which
> is no problem in
> itself; I could open up "Magnuspedia" today, based
> on Wikipedia, and
> declare it expert-edits only, and noone could stop
> me). But, whatever
> the experts at Nupedia will come up with, it will
> probably be better
> than the corresponding Wikipedia article it is based
> on. Wikipedia can
> only profit from such edits, as they can be used in
> turn.
> There's one thing Wikipedia will always beat Nupedia
> in: Growth. At the
> moment, that is growth in the number of articles.
> Bu, at some point, it
> will be growth of individual articles. Many articles
> I originally
> submitted to Nupedia have been growing enormously on
> the fertile soil of
> Wikipedia. Articles can grow on Wikipedia, be
> proof-read in Nupedia, and
> gan then grow further on Wikipedia again.
> What I'm trying to say is Wikipedia and Nupedia
> won't be a fork, because
> they're not really competition; they could both
> benefit from a symbiosis.
>
> Magnus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 660
[Wikipedia-l] peer review
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 2 14:50:21 UTC 2002
Even though I understand the need to find a way to "prove" some readers the reliability of the article, I feel very much troubled by the notion of peer review.
First because I fail to see how we would decide who is a peer and who is not in some fields, such as games, cooking, opera or cars. What criteria would be used ?
Second, more specifically in science (where peers indeed hold a very important role) because I also failed to see how would somebody "earn" the right to be considered more an expert than all of us together. Most science fields have controversial issues somehow.
We should expect, in science articles for example, a lot of factual information and proofs ('till they are proved false :-)). But we should also expect a whole lot of theories, hypothesis and interpretations of facts. Whatever science subject, one may find two types of information sources, the "school book" type (carefully trying to avoid any in-debt content on questionnable issues) and the "biaised-source" (trying to push its author agenda).
For fact checking, there's no need of a highly considered old professor, just need of a dedicated knowledgeable person.
For non-factual information, I can't see why a knowledgeable old professor (well-known for writing good biaised books or articles ?) would do any better than us together. I don't think any of us can alone achieve neutrality (ie to express all view points on a subject), for however hard we try to get it, we are necessary biaised by our history, culture, origin (and we can't know everything). What makes a good article is not only reliable info, it's also the making up of several people with different inputs.
In my field I know of very very few experts that I would trust for knowing and having an open mind on all the issues, and even less that would resist twisting the article a little bit, to suit their own beliefs/needs. If only because they would also be judged by their own collegues, and probably made fun of for having accepted to let a very crazy and little accepted hypothesis in the way. That would mean for a given field, we would need quite a bunch of experts, not only a bunch of experts from overlapping fields, but also several experts from the very same field, with different angles of views (not only academics but also professionals). That would be quite a lot of people in the end! Well, if these people could be there, for regular work on regular articles, that would not be bad already !
And again, on which criteria would these people be chosen? One criteria I would see, would be that they both reveal themselves known and recognised by their own professional/academic, AND by wikipedians. Meaning they are wikipedians themselves. I see not why our work would have to be stamped "correct and acceptable" by an outsider who would take part of the credentials deserved by a dozen of writers. In my language, we would call that "être un nègre" (no offense meant for black people among you, you don't know, maybe I'm black ;-)).
(Very unfortunately, only choosing reviewers from academics will also weaken principle of value of self education)
For wikipedia reviewing would NOT be similar to a scientific peer work, where people looking at your article do not get their name on the paper, (just participate in the reputation of accuracy and quality of a publication revue:-)). In this case, it's not only fact/accuracy checking, it's also advertising, saying high to the world "this *very famous* guy said Wikipedia made good work here". Yup, isnot that the way Asimov did ? Putting his name in big letters on a book written by others whose names where in small letters ?
Maybe necessary.
But why not publishing some of the best articles on portals or sites recognised for the very high quality of their content rather ? It would have impact. It would remain community work. It wouldnot get a name attached to it. It would be as a limb going away to live a good life on its own, teaching others. It would not be a bunch of dusty pages we would put away, under a glass for protection, with a nice golden ribbon with the stamp on it. Or alternatively, it would not be a bunch of pages only experts could edit, as if any further work from us could sullied it. Yes, *that* is insulting.
BTW, when looking around in wikipedia, I see so many articles that are good ones, but that obviously reflect a very northern view point (not to say north american/british view point :-)). Some definitly lack other cultures perspective to be "honest", such as african and north-african people for exemple. My guess is that to make it a 3 billion users encyclopedia, it is not only for english-mother language people, but for any english-reading potential user. Obviously, it is not easy to involve international-english people to edit articles, otherwise participants will die under loads of articles that would need heavy copy-editing. But...at least...if wikipedia is to be widely used, there are quite a lot of articles that will require review from people from all-over the world to be *certain* they reflect the world diversity of opinions.
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020902/44e7ccb8/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 661
[Wikipedia-l] Proposals
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 2 15:49:35 UTC 2002
I didn't make any specific proposal other than that we (or someone
associated with Wikipedia and Nupedia) get back into the business of
making the process of creating an free encyclopedia palatable to "the
experts." The exact form of the proposal is best left to the concerned
parties, I guess. The one Magnus makes is rather old (as I'm sure he
knows) and I vaguely recall making it myself once or twice on Nupedia-L.
I do think we could go farther, though. I think we need to be creative
thinking up ways we can attract, say, a major university to become
involved in managing Nupedia (or perhaps some new organization). But,
again, I don't want to make any *specific* proposals, just because I'd
rather leave that up to concerned parties.
Who's that? Jimbo, those of you on Wikipedia who are interested in
breathing life into Wikipedia, and those on Nupedia who still care.
Larry
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> If that's the proposal, I'm all for it. I've had
> similiar thought myself.
>
> Stephen G.
>
> --- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at epost.de> wrote:
> > Let me try to summarize:
> > 1. Articles are written by experts, or are copied
> > from "free
> > encyclopedia sources"
> > 2. They get checked and maybe expanded by experts
> > 3. They are stored in a "safe" place where every
> > change, if any, is
> > controlled
> > 4. These modified articles are a "free encyclopedia
> > source" again
> > 5. As a result, these articles (or parts of them)
> > can be integrated into
> > the "free encyclopedia sources" from #1
[...]
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 662
[Wikipedia-l] Proposals
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Mon Sep 2 16:01:50 UTC 2002
An expert-only fork will lose something very valuable, I fear.
For example, I know very little about the English Civil War, or the
Battle of Trafalgar (I had "trendy" history teachers at school who
steadfastly refused to teach us dates...)
Yet today I've been looking around these pages and those that link,
fixing links, correcting typos, and occasionally rewriting for clarity.
The risk of having only experts write a set of articles is that only the
experts will want to (or be able) to read them. Outsiders to a subject
give the layperson's perspective.
I'm all for a "safe haven" for good articles, something that will
attract experts to Wikipedia. We DO need more people who are
knowledgeable, in many subject areas, but not at the expense of shutting
out the hoi polloi.
I suggest that such a safe haven be non-editable: a presentation of the
best of Wikipedia, not a forking. It can attract experts, who will
marvel at the quality -- but to make a contribution, they have to go
into the fray of the main Wikipedia.
-- tarquin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 663
[Wikipedia-l] A Failure of Nerve
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Sep 2 16:37:32 UTC 2002
My thought is we need to be patient, let see what things look like with,
500 active contributors, with 1000, with 10,000. I don't think Wikipedia
has actually reached its takeoff point yet.
Experts will come, retired folks, occassional passersby, students. Frankly,
I don't want to see any expert (in some field) playing any important role
unless they are also expert in the give and take of wikipedia article
writing and editing.
It is in that give and take that peer review happens.
If you quit now or greatly modify the system you'll never know how what we
do now would have developed.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 664
[Wikipedia-l] Proposals
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 2 17:45:46 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, tarquin wrote:
> The risk of having only experts write a set of articles is that only the
> experts will want to (or be able) to read them.
Who has suggested that having only experts write them?
> Outsiders to a subject
> give the layperson's perspective.
No part of anyone's proposal militates against this.
> I'm all for a "safe haven" for good articles, something that will
> attract experts to Wikipedia. We DO need more people who are
> knowledgeable, in many subject areas, but not at the expense of shutting
> out the hoi polloi.
Little danger of shutting out hoi polloi (literally, "the many") on
Wikipedia. My whole point is that you're shutting out the *experts* right
now!
> I suggest that such a safe haven be non-editable: a presentation of the
> best of Wikipedia, not a forking.
It is disingenuous to call the proposal of expert guidance of a revived
Nupedia a "fork." But, if due to your hostility to the idea you want to
call it one, that's your prerogative.
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 665
[Wikipedia-l] A Failure of Nerve
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 2 17:51:35 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Experts will come, retired folks, occassional passersby, students.
> Frankly, I don't want to see any expert (in some field) playing any
> important role unless they are also expert in the give and take of
> wikipedia article writing and editing.
But since I'm not proposing that experts play any important role (other
than one that they can already play right now) in *Wikipedia*.
> If you quit now or greatly modify the system you'll never know how what we
> do now would have developed.
"Quit now"? Who is proposing that anyone quit anything? Besides, the
systems running the free encyclopedia project been constantly modified
from its very beginning. Why stop doing that? Do you really think that
Wikipedia has found the magic formula? I don't think so, and (if you'll
forgive me) I played a larger part than anyone in developing the formula.
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 666
[Wikipedia-l] Back to work...
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 2 17:59:00 UTC 2002
Sorry, all, I've said my piece, but I've got unsubscribe and to get back
to work. I'll have to hope that I've clarified my position adequately,
although I suspect from recent posts I still haven't--people continue to
make objections based on incorrect interpretations of my views. Oh well.
As I have always said, I still expect Wikipedia to go on to be a hugely
interesting and useful reference, or at least, I expect that *I* will find
it to be such.
Good luck, all the best in whatever you decide to do and support!
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 667
[Wikipedia-l] Proposals
Karl Juhnke
yangfuli at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 2 18:58:24 UTC 2002
It's too bad Larry ran out of time and had to go back to work. I hope
he didn't leave the debate prematurely because of numbskulls like me
who couldn't understand his ideas. I am sorry, too, that I apparently
offended him by using the word fork. I was gearing up to write this
letter, eschewing the word fork as a sign of respect. If Larry has
unsubscribed before this gets posted, that's too bad, but I want to
write this way anyway as a discipline.
> > --- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at epost.de> wrote:
> > > Let me try to summarize:
> > > 1. Articles are written by experts, or are copied
> > > from "free encyclopedia sources"
> > > 2. They get checked and maybe expanded by experts
> > > 3. They are stored in a "safe" place where every
> > > change, if any, is controlled
> > > 4. These modified articles are a "free encyclopedia
> > > source" again
> > > 5. As a result, these articles (or parts of them)
> > > can be integrated into
> > > the "free encyclopedia sources" from #1
--- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> The [proposal] Magnus makes is rather old (as I'm sure he
> knows) and I vaguely recall making it myself once or twice on
> Nupedia-L.
OK, I think I finally get it. Two free encyclopedias coexisting side
by side. Each has its own version of each article, and each has its
own process for adding and improving. Each is free to take content
from the other. Because each generates prose that is useful to the
other, they support each other symbiotically.
The beauty of the system is that we attract more total contributors.
Nupedia attracts experts. Wikipedia attracts everyone. We get quality
AND quantity instead of having to choose between them.
It sounds great. It won't work. The devil is in the details. Once
two articles have diverged to any significant extent, re-merging them
is an enormous hassle. You have to remember which differences exist
for a legitimate reason, and which differences are changes that you
would like to incorporate across the boundary. If a Wikipedia article
has been refactored in its Nupedia incarnation, tweaks to the
un-refactored Wikipedia article may be non-trivial to incorporate on
Nupedia. Or, moving in the other direction, the refactored Nupedia
article would break all the Wiki links and have to be re-Wikified to be
re-imported to Wikipedia.
> I didn't make any specific proposal other than that we (or someone
> associated with Wikipedia and Nupedia) get back into the business of
> making the process of creating an free encyclopedia palatable to "the
> experts." The exact form of the proposal is best left to the
> concerned parties, I guess.
>
> I do think we could go farther, though. I think we need to be
> creative thinking up ways we can attract, say, a major university to
> become involved in managing Nupedia (or perhaps some new
> organization). But, again, I don't want to make any *specific*
> proposals, just because I'd rather leave that up to concerned
> parties.
I always hate it when people tell me "That sounds good in theory, but
it won't work in practice." I think the burden of proof should be on
the person doing the debunking to say why such a good-sounding theory
won't actually work. What is it about practice that the theory doesn't
account for?
Sadly, I want to tell Larry that having a free encyclopedia separate
from Wikipedia and structed so as to attract experts "sounds good in
theory but won't work in practice". Moreover, the debunking task that
falls to me *requires* that I know the specific details that he doesn't
feel it is his place to give. I'm in the awkward position of making a
pragmatic argument in vague, theoretical terms. But I'll take one more
stab at it.
One of the lessons of free software is that not many similar projects
survive in the same space. One or two projects usually come to
dominate mind share, and the dominant project then draws all the
participation and use. It has already happened with the OS, where
Linux has come to dominate the various flavors of BSD. It has happened
with the browser, where Mozilla rules, and with graphic design where
the GIMP dominates.
To say nothing of forking, projects that start and evolve independently
in the same space are culled by a brutal natural selection: some
utility will be most used, or have the most developers, or have the
best developers. If those three don't coincide at first, they
eventually come to coincide, as developers are drawn to the best and
most active and most widely used project, which improves the project,
which draws more use, etc., etc.
Where there are two projects, in the same space, for example with the
KDE and GNOME desktops, there is substantial pressure to make them
merge or interoperate. Witness, for example, Red Hat's latest
distribution where they try to make it so that a user can be ignorant
of whether they are using GNOME or KDE at any given moment, and switch
transparently between them. Or in the case of OpenOffice, AbiWord, and
the KOffice suite, there are calls to make the OpenOffice file format
standard so that all the free word processors can interchange documents
seamlessly. (Whether it is OpenOffice's format that rules or not,
there *will* be a merged standard.)
The reason why every project except one tends to die off or merge
should be familiar to Larry. People simply don't have time to
contribute to two projects. It isn't fun to reinvent the wheel here
and then there. Therefore almost all people pick one project to
contribute to, and stick with that. Porting changes back and forth
between two projects is immensely inefficient. Indeed, it is often
more efficient to make the same change twice as opposed to copying
anything.
Yes, there would be a benefit from attracting more people, specifically
more experts, to the open encyclopedia project. But that benefit would
be dwarfed by the ineffeciency of having two divergent information
repositories, i.e. by having to do every edit twice.
Peace,
-Karl
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 668
[Wikipedia-l] Proposals
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Mon Sep 2 19:09:50 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, tarquin wrote:
>
>
>
>>I suggest that such a safe haven be non-editable: a presentation of the
>>best of Wikipedia, not a forking.
>>
>>
>
>It is disingenuous to call the proposal of expert guidance of a revived
>Nupedia a "fork." But, if due to your hostility to the idea you want to
>call it one, that's your prerogative.
>
>
Having two versions of one article, both editable, is a fork by
definition -- just as Karl Juhnge says.
Will this whole "Cream of Wikipedia" idea actually attract the experts
we feel we need?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 669
[Wikipedia-l] Mutualistic symbiosis vs simple symbiosis (Nupedia/Wikipedia relationship)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 2 07:52:32 UTC 2002
On Monday 02 September 2002 07:30 am, Magnus wrote:
> 5. As a result, these articles (or parts of them) can be integrated into
> the "free encyclopedia sources" from #1
How would this integration occur? Would it be automatic and thus overwrite
any modifications made the the Wikipedia version that have occurred since the
text was copied to start the Nupedia one? Or would this have to be done
manually for each article? I don't like either scenario. Under the first
scenario potentially valid edits to the Wikipedia version are lost and under
the second scenario somebody has to perform version control (I HATE version
control).
Who really would want to continue editing Wikipedia articles if their
perfectly valid edits are overwritten by a computer without notice or if they
have to perform version control after each release of Nupedia?
> What I'm trying to say is Wikipedia and Nupedia won't be a fork, because...
If version control isn't done by those taking the material to begin with
there is little chance this reintegration work will be done for most
articles Nupedia uses. Thus we have a fork -- pure and simple. The Nupedia
experts will work on their version and Wikipedia editors will work on their
own version (I do hate duplication of effort).
> they're not really competition; they could both benefit from a symbiosis.
>
> Magnus
But it is also true that the roundworm Trichuris trichiura is not in
competition with its human host -- it is in symbiosis (albeit a special case
of symbiosis called parasitism). So through an initial case of parasitism by
Nupedia the two projects would be competition in cases where reintegration
doesn't occur (for whatever reasons) and two different article versions are
being worked on at the same.
What I would like to see is some mutualistic symbiosis whereby edits to the
Wikipedia article are in effect suspended by placing a simple note at the top
of the article saying something to the effect that "This article is being
checked and possibly expanded for inclusion in the next version of Nupedia.
When that process is complete that version will replace this one. To see the
current progress of this process please visit {URL of where the Nupedia
version under development is}."
And at that location there would be some type of explanation on how the
Nupedia process works (probably by proposing suggestions to the expert
validation editor).
When Nupedia has done its thing with the article then that version would
replace the Wikipedia one by someone/computer from Nupedia (the entire
process should be short though -- no more than a week or so for any
particular article).
This is already being done to a large extent with the /Temp fad I helped
start (whereby an article that is being completely redone is copied to a
/Temp page title and worked on there). Although the /Temp page is being
replaced here by a Nupedia page where a different development methodology
prevails.
In this way Nupedia benefits from getting raw material and Wikipedia benefits
from periodically getting many of its articles reviewed, edited and expanded
by experts. I say that is a win-win scenario.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 670
[Wikipedia-l] Mutualistic symbiosis vs simple symbiosis (Nupedia/Wikipedia relationship)
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Mon Sep 2 20:06:46 UTC 2002
Hooray!
Mav and I actually AGREE on something for once!
calloo, callay, O frabjous day and all such things!
BTW, Mav, did you know you are time-travelling?
Your emails arrive AFTER I receive what other people have replied to
them. This one says 08:52 and has arrived at 21:05. very strange....
-- tarquin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 671
[Wikipedia-l] A Failure of Nerve
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Mon Sep 2 22:44:46 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > Experts will come, retired folks, occassional passersby, students.
> > Frankly, I don't want to see any expert (in some field) playing any
> > important role unless they are also expert in the give and take of
> > wikipedia article writing and editing.
>
> But since I'm not proposing that experts play any important role (other
> than one that they can already play right now) in *Wikipedia*.
What precisely was the new proposal?
Nupedia already has panels and the FDL allows easy use of
the Wikipedia articles. They can be frozen or modified at
whim as long as the attribution requirements of the license
are met.
>
> > If you quit now or greatly modify the system you'll never know how what we
> > do now would have developed.
>
> "Quit now"? Who is proposing that anyone quit anything? Besides, the
> systems running the free encyclopedia project been constantly modified
> from its very beginning.
The procedures and the community have been incremented only
slowly due to the consensus driven process. The substrate
is necessary but not sufficient. It is much easier to change
a technical feature back after a mistake than regrow a community
or repair a community member's reputation or attitude.
Even today; as we argue about whether we are: successful,
on the verge of success, on track for huge success, or
something else suitably vague; the policies and guidelines
are voluntary and not uniformly applied by members.
The ensemble currently works. Is it improving or
degrading? Can you prove it? Can you measure the
change when a contributor endorses, comments or takes
exception to one of the policy guidelines? Is any
persuasive yet inconclusive evidence available for
presentation to the next contributor judgement?
> Why stop doing that?
Nobody has proposed to freeze the community or project.
What you proposed sounded like some potentially large
changes and you were very vague about the proposal.
It appeared you were seeking approval and support before
articulating the proposal. A blank check.
> Do you really think that
> Wikipedia has found the magic formula?
Yes! Until it can be articulated; quantified; modified
by design (instead of prayer); incremental damage detected
and incorrect changes backed out swiftly and reliably;
AND explained to the satisfaction of the newest readers or
contributors via self reference such that they embrace its
working culture, customs, or "community"; it
is "magic" ... not science or engineering design. The
mana could fade tomorrow and be difficult to reproduce.
I don't think so, and (if you'll
> forgive me) I played a larger part than anyone in developing the formula.
An interesting perspective. If you will forgive me, you
were compensated for your efforts.
I only arrived in Feb 02 but
from review of the list archives, policies, participation
in the community, etc. I have reached the tentative conclusion
that the chaotic collaboration of the volunteer community was
the critical element in the emergent success that would be
required to fork or establish a derivative project.
The inability to dictate terms to stubborn volunteers seemed
to play a very large part in the evolution of mostly working
customs and procedures that currently define a robust community
which jots or essays much material and iteratively keeps the
best and modifies (sometimes deletes) the rest.
The volunteers donate spare time or contribute portions of
their professional work which is compatible with the project
goals at no impact to their employers. A crude estimate I
ran last Feb resulted in the relative stakes of Bomis vs
volunteer effort being roughly the same at 500K value each
using conservative guesses. With increasing volunteer
participation the balance can only shift towards the volunteer
community.
The paid professionals were necessary investment to get the
systems infrastructure established, the software working well
enough to attract adequate free developer participation, and
the community collaboration started but insufficient to
guarantee success. The near instant large participation from
the existing Nupedia community or dedicated enthusiasts and
professional was probably also critical in launching an experimental
project with experimental technology in a short reasonable
period of time. Now that the prototyping has been completed
successfully to demonstrate the large potential in the approach,
subsequent projects should have less trouble convincing random
internet volunteers that a project is feasible. The question
becomes is it desirable to adequate volunteers?
A derivative project could be launched on the cheap with a
server and a high speed domestic internet link or a detailed
plan could be assembled and grant funding sought or a combined
approach could team wiki a project. Any approach is more
viable now that a successful community (philanthropist, paid
professionals, and volunteer philanthropists) has d3eveloped
and published several critical components and concepts under
the GDL and FDL.
To summarize: If you cannot articulate the details and
valid reasons in some valid form that I and our peers can
recognize, then I am unlikely to be swayed by appeals to
past glory.
Sorry, but my life is valuable and I only have so many
hours to invest in humanity's future glory. I too require
food, shelter, consumers goods, and respect from my peers
must be bought or earned the old fashioned way: Recent
cash or accomplishment.
Hmmm! Not bad. Modified, that might do for some proposed
non-policy on the oft alleged impending green space derivative
open engineering site ... I could be a founder any day now.
With warm slightly trollish yet highly respectful
regard for past service to humanity,
Sincerely,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 672
[Wikipedia-l] What Larry (and everybody else) said
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 3 01:39:20 UTC 2002
Just to put my oar in the water:
1) Why Nupedia isn't as "successful" as Wikipedia:
I can only tell you what I think (since I'm in arrears on a Nupedia
article). First, I think Nupedia is in some ways the ideal -- partially
because my understanding is that expertise can be demonstrated in ways
other than credentials. Second, because there's peer review that means
something -- review by other people who might know something about the
subject. Finally, there's a copyediting standard. Why isn't it more
successful? For me, it's two things -- the process is a bit unwieldy
(I'd actually have to draft a complete article to submit it, which takes
time -- probably a lot less than I spend here, but wikipedia nickels and
dimes your time to death) and second.actually, it's really just what I
said -- the process is a bit unwieldy -- it's not set up for people who
have a few minutes here and there to do a quick edit or addition. Oh --
and frankly, online resources of any kind aren't really accepted yet by
moat of academia (at least not the people in charge of hiring and
granting tenure).
2) Re: Attracting experts: The estimable Mr. Gilbert said, "if you
build it." I agree, but add (a la Mr F. Bauder) they will also leave
when they get tired of the aggro. I think expert retention is more the
problem -- there has been attrition, though, since I've been here. Let
me first say that yes, ego is involved. Credentials do usually
represent a huge amount of work and emotional investment, as does
teaching a subject. So too with interested amateurs who have their own
areas of expertise -- meaning they've done a lot of work and really
learned their subjects. It doesn't mean we can't be wrong (Lord knows,
I have my moments!), but it generally means we are, well, experts. That
means that we do get irritated when we get into edit wars with people
who know less and often express it even less well.
3) Retaining good people in general. I think it's part of getting
bigger and having no staff -- it's like working in a successful start-up
-- the initial employees are really tight and get so used to working
together that they cooperate and play to each other's strengths without
thinking. As the start-up grows, it starts to get a hierarchy, New
people don't have the luxury of knowing who among their fellows is the
go-to person for what, and there is sometimes friction. The difference
here for me is, I don't think newbies have any excuse for not learning a
bit about the old hands -- and I think they also have some
responsibility to help make themselves known. I try to encourage
people to tell us something about themselves when I say hi, but it might
be nice to have a template for user pages with a space for "expertise"
and "interests."
3 continued ) It might also be good to have links to Wikipedia
etiquette on the user page -- or as part of the login process. DW, the
person with shades of French Helganess, is contributing huge amounts,
but refuses to respond to queries on whether his/her pictures and
sources are PD, or to acknowledge my requests to look at how we've been
formatting historical stuff. This is after accusing me of pushing
everybody else around (not that I don't make cases for how I think
things should be, but I generally have good reasons, and when I
haven't, I hope I've given in gracefully.
Still -- the two things that have driven me off on "breaks" in the past
(and most likely the future) are the lack of respect for my hard-earned
knowledge and a general lack of communal cooperation from a very few
(but for some reason, interested in history) people who make me thing
"My time is too valuable for this -- I spend way more time fighting to
make other people's articles *passable* than writing new stuff."
Anyway, that's my take. It would be really nice to have a few people
with some official *moderator* position, but I can see how that could be
a problem unless there are volunteers. In the meantime, I just thank
goodness for the Vickis and Aprils and Mavs and Stephen Gilberts (etc --
I'm not leaving people out on purpose.) there are lots of good reasons
to hang around!
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020902/5a5203bc/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 673
[Wikipedia-l] What Larry (and everybody else) said
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Sep 3 03:17:41 UTC 2002
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> 1) Why Nupedia isn't as "successful" as Wikipedia:
>
> I can only tell you what I think (since I'm in arrears on a Nupedia
> article). First, I think Nupedia is in some ways the ideal -- partially
> because my understanding is that expertise can be demonstrated in ways
> other than credentials.
Nupedia may well be wonderful, but I have zero interest in it. I first
heard of it a few months before I got involved in Wikipedia; I went to
the site, browsed through the FAQs, and got the distinct impression that
I wasn't welcome unless I had a PhD.
Perhaps that's an exagerration; after all, this excerpt explains
carefully that you don't _need_ a PhD:
If a man who had received a Master's degree in French
literature focusing exclusively on Victor Hugo had written five
peer-reviewed articles about Hugo, the fact that he lacks a Ph.D.
should not stop us from assigning him topics related directly to Hugo.
;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 674
[Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again
Helga Hecht
helgah at email.com
Tue Sep 3 06:13:33 UTC 2002
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:59:15 -0700
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C250E5.D464E4B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
1. For the record, I don't think that Helga is particularly anti-Semitic
--
although she often comes off that way.
2. My take is that she pretty
much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII.
3. For her the Holocaust is minor -- as are the Stalinist purges that ran
into the tens of millions -- except those directed towards the Heimatvertriebene.
4. This also keeps her from seeing that there may
have been long-standing resentments caused by German actions over a long period of time and began well before Hitler -- not that this is a reason
for genocide or any other wartime or post-war atrocity.
5. She just seems incapable of seeing any of this in context because she's got her own
agenda that borders on obsession.
6. It's because she can't see context that the rest of us have to judge and weigh what she says in terms of the big picture, and then make sure that
it gets appropriate mention -- but sometimes not at all is appropriate.
Jules
--------------------
I just started the subscription and the first thing I read is this message, which seems to be in answer to some other message, which I do not know.
J Hoffmann Kemp probably means well.
However
1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at all".
2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty
much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her
assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII."
I have never said anything like this.
3a. Have never said anything like that either.
4a. I see and know a lot more about things that she could ever read in her school books. Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full truth.
For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933: Judea declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
However I believe I see the complete picture more clearly than she does.
6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.
Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.
I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any other commercial enterprize, that
only tells you, what the general public wants to hear
or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?
H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 675
[Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 3 07:24:08 UTC 2002
Hello Helga, and thank you for joining the mailing
list.
--- Helga Hecht <helgah at email.com> wrote:
> I just started the subscription and the first thing
> I read is this message, which seems to be in answer
> to some other message, which I do not know.
You can find the Wikipedia mailing list archives for
August at this URL:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-August/thread.html
Just look for the word "Helga" and I think you'll find
all of the threads concerning you.
> 1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not
> particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at
> all".
Good. I'm glad that's on the record.
> 2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty
> much discounts anything that distracts from or in
> any way disproves her
> assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest
> victims of WWII."
>
> I have never said anything like this.
Perhaps you haven't said anything like this, but your
actions speak otherwise.
> I see and know a lot more about things that she
> could ever read in her school books. Her books tell
> onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full
> truth.
Given that Julie is a historian and can read German, I
suspect she has access to a broad range of sources
beyond simple "school books".
> For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper
> declaration March 1933: Judea declares War on
> Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997
> been verified by other religious Jewish groups
> http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and
> http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article:
> Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
>
> One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
It's not "hidden" that such a headline was printed.
What is being disputed is your claim that this was a
cause of WWII.
> If wanting to get answers and find out the truth
> is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could
> call it that.
>
> However I believe I see the complete picture more
> clearly than she does.
Your actions contradict your words. When I read your
contributions, all I see is a one-sided perspective
that is hostile to the views of others.
> Editing or correcting etc is fine.
>
> Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not
> mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It
> becomes a lie.
Absolutely.
> I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia
> want to be like any other commercial enterprize,
> that
> only tells you, what the general public wants to
> hear
> or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?
There is a strong commitment to be truthful. The
problem, Helga, is that you ignore the many, many
sources that contradict your positions... or you claim
they were fabricated because of some sort of
conspiracy. In addition, you have:
- consistantly ignored simple Wikipedia conventions
(such as using English names), even after having them
pointed out to you.
- added long lists of rulers and geneologies to
unrelated articles.
- ignored the arguments made against some of the
questionable sources you use.
Helga, you have a specific agenda to push, and you
seem unable to step back and look at the wider
picture, or work with other people who point out
problems with your contributions and sources.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 676
[Wikipedia-l] Edit war
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Tue Sep 3 07:46:42 UTC 2002
An edit war seems to have broken out on the 'East Timor' page earlier
today. 209.226.107.51 has twice added a line about the US selling weapons
to Indonesia during the conflict in East Timor, which Zoe has deleted
twice. Maybe someone could look into this case before it leads to a real
edit war or someone is leaving the project in disgust.
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 677
[Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Tue Sep 3 12:48:04 UTC 2002
At 02:13 PM 9/3/02 +0800, H. Jonat
wrote in response to J Hoffmann Kemp's post,
Helga again
Most of which I have deleted
>
>For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933:
Judea declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997
been verified by other religious Jewish groups
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia
article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
>
>One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
>
>5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth is bordering on
obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
>
>However I believe I see the complete picture more clearly than she does.
>
>6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.
>
>Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all,
leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.
>
>I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any
other commercial enterprize, that
>only tells you, what the general public wants to hear
>or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?
>
>H. Jonat
First, let me welcome you to the list. You appear rather under a cloud, but
no reason that should continue. The vast majority of what happens here is
about Wikipedia in general not about you or any particular issue. I hope
you begin to participate and help us solve our more general problems.
My information is that Hitler, for whatever reason, and it is very hard to
figure out why, since he was raised in a part of Austria with almost no
Jews, was obsessed with them and ascribed to them all sorts of qualities
which to a person acquainted with Jews seem fantastic. The following is
taken and partly quoted from recent biography of Hitler, the first volume,
Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris, by Ian Kershaw, W.W. Norton, ISBN: 0-393-04671-0.
(The one CBS is basing its planned miniseries on). In a letter of September
16, 1919 when asked by one of the participants in the courses of political
education he conducted for the German Army in Munich for clarification of
the 'Jewish Question,' he replied that antisemitism should be based not on
emotion but on 'facts,' the first of which was that Jewry was a race, not a
religion. Emotive antisemitism would produce progroms, he continued;
antisemitism based on 'reason' must, on the other hand, lead to the
systemic removal of the rights of Jews. 'Its final aim,' he concluded,
'must unshakably be the removal of the Jews altogether' Ian K cites as
sources: Deuerlein, 'Hitler's Eintritt', 199; Joachimsthaler, 247; and
Eberhard Jackel and Axel Kuhn (eds.), Hitler. Samtliche Aufzeichnungen
1905-1924, Stuttgart, 1980.
It may be that a small Jewish group as it contemplated the distruction of
Jewry, "declared war" on Hitler's government in 1933 when he was taking
power. But you say:
"This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious
Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and
http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of
WW II."
The actual situation is quite different. England had pretty much stood by
as Hitler expanded the territory of Germany to include Austia and
Czechoslovokia and built up his army. It was his invasion of Poland that
triggered the war. It has always been England's policy to prevent any
continental power from growing too strong, the balance of power policy, so
no idealistic motives need to be ascribed to England, but this has nothing
to do with Jews, who had they been given the chance, probably would have
supported the national government as they did during World War I.
So it isn't the little footnote to history, that a small Jewish extremist
group delcared war on Germany, that is objectionable, if it occured; but
the broad stroke you make maintaining that this act somehow caused World
War II by some 'butterfly effect'.
Anyway, welcome aboard,
Fred Bauder
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 678
[Wikipedia-l] Edit war
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Tue Sep 3 13:54:37 UTC 2002
At 09:46 AM 9/3/02 +0200, you wrote:
>An edit war seems to have broken out on the 'East Timor' page earlier
>today. 209.226.107.51 has twice added a line about the US selling weapons
>to Indonesia during the conflict in East Timor, which Zoe has deleted
>twice. Maybe someone could look into this case before it leads to a real
>edit war or someone is leaving the project in disgust.
>
>Andre Engels
Zoe is correct. Hard to prove a negative, but the addition is a violation
of neutral point of view as relating to the US as it implies that the US is
somehow responsible for what happened in East Timor just by selling weapons
to Indonesia. The information, if true needs to be in some article on arms
sales or something else not in the East Timor article. It is that which
needs to be explained to 209.....
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 679
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 3 14:11:20 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> Ed Poor wrote:
> > *sigh* if only Larry were still
> > here.
>
> Larry's not a magic bullet. I respect Larry, and I
> think he deserves a lot of the credit for getting this
> project off the ground. He has, however, been less
> than diplomatic in certain past situations.
Yeah, actually Larry was less "appreciative" of bullshit than I am.
He'd have called Helga a troll and banned her a long time ago.
So, maybe we *should* wish Larry was still here, but only because
he was Schwartzkopf to my Powell.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 680
[Wikipedia-l] [helgah at email.com: Re: Subscribe to wikipedia-l]
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 3 14:13:44 UTC 2002
Helga is here now.
----- Forwarded message from Helga Hecht <helgah at email.com> -----
From: "Helga Hecht" <helgah at email.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 01:03:43 +0800
To: jwales at bomis.com
Subject: Re: Subscribe to wikipedia-l
Hi Jimbo,
I subscribed to the wikipedia-l.
I also want to make you aware of what Rabbi Schwarz wrote:
http://globalfire.tv/nj/nyt.htm (posted on the same google results).
Have a good holiday weekend
HelgaH at email.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 681
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 3 14:27:22 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
> > Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
> > which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
>
> So let someone else write it.
>
> Do you contend that there are not people in the world who
> have made, and continue to make, these kind of allegations?
> I personally have seen/heard this kind of stuff from people
> in North America in person and on the internet.
I think this cuts straight to the heart of how difficult NPOV can be
at times.
In _many_ cases, it is easy to get to NPOV by simply "going meta". If
something is entirely uncontroversial, we can say 'X'. If it is
somewhat controversial, we can say "most scholars say X". But when
there is opposition to X but only by lunatics and frauds, it is NOT
NPOV to simply "go meta".
I don't think, Michael, that you closely read what Vicki says that she
refuses to write. The _reason_ she refuses to write it is that it is
not NPOV.
Getting to NPOV in this case does not involve giving credence to
suggestions that Hitler didn't _really_ hate Jews, nor does it involve
giving credence to suggestions that Jews started the war with Nazi
Germany.
What needs to be written about the situation in Germany leading up to
World War II is a frank discussion of tensions between Jews and
non-Jews, with attention given to the sources of those tensions. This
part of the discussion must not be framed in such a way as to suggest
that the Holocaust was deserved, etc. But it also need not shy away
from a discussion of the reasons that even previously normal people in
Germany were swept up in the anti-Jewish venom of the day.
It would be very hard to get to where we want to be starting with
Helga's nonsense.
> Would you care to hazard a guess regarding how much of
> Helga's current attitudes result from restricted access to
> information during her early education or indoctrination?
But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to rescue Helga from her poor
education. We need not _morally_ condemn her in order to ask her to
stop writing nonsense. We can have all the compassion (and
well-meaning condescension) in the world for her plight, and still
refuse to put up with it.
> I think all views and evidence someone chooses to present
> belong somewhere in the Wikipedia.
This is NOT our policy, nor has it ever been. NPOV is more subtle and
difficult than this. Wikipedia is not the place for factions to
present competing "views". We can _report on_ those views, in an
appropriate context, but we must not allow them to distract from our
fundamentally _encyclopedic_ mission, which necessarily involves
summary and selection.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 682
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Helga again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 3 14:33:21 UTC 2002
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> I think we could say: "Tensions between Jews and non-Jews in Germany had
> been growing for several years, as evidenced by thus and such actual
> facts that actually happened."
>
> -- Jimmy, even that kind of implies a some kind of mutual antagonism --
> >From everything I've read, the tensions were almost entirely created by
> non-Jews towards Jews, with a great many of them directly caused by
> NSDAP propaganda (and the whole Jews killed Jesus thing quite common in
> both the Catholic and Lutheran churches of the time). I'm all for
> NPOV, but isn't part of the NPOV credo that minority views that confound
> reality don't get included?
Yes, I don't disagree with any of this, and perhaps my sentence needs
to be edited. :-) My only point was that a fair treatment of the time
before WWII need not treat either side as sub-human.
> In the case of the Holocaust, there is a fairly large minority
> world-wide of people who deny the Holocaust. I am on an educator
> listserve where a teacher SE Asia asked how to deal with the fact that
> most of her high school students really thought the Nazi flag was cool
> and whose general impression of Hitler was that he'd been a good leader
> for the German people. Most had not heard of the Holocaust, and those
> who did thought reports were exaggerated. Clearly, westerners are more
> focused on the European Theater in WWII and the holocaust because it
> directly affected our own history more dramatically. Still I would hate
> to think that, in the cause of NPOV, we put out articles that were
> misleading.
>
> I'll stop preaching for the moment.
No, I agree with you completely here.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 683
[Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 3 14:40:25 UTC 2002
This is an unmoderated list, and I'm not about to moderate it to enforce
these ground rules. So these are unenforceable rules, but in the wiki spirit,
I think that if people see the rationale for them, they will be followed.
1. We aren't here to debate German history, the Holocaust, Poland,
etc. So let's not do that, except if ABSOLUTELY necessary.
2. We are here to discuss with Helga the problems people are having
with her biased writing.
3. We are not here (at this time!) to debate the NPOV policy. That
is, this particular discussion will not end with me saying "Oh, I
don't care, everyone just go nuts and write whatever you want." Or
anything similar.
4. While integrating Helga into our community would be nice, I don't
consider it a primary goal here. My current view is that Helga needs
to straighten up or go away, enforced by a ban if necessary.
5. A part of this needs to involve a solid commitment by all of us
that we DO NOT SEEK to cover up any valid information that Helga may
have and want to see treated in the wikipedia. If she wants to have
an article about the Daily Express thing, we should find a way to
accomodate her.
6. Helga should NOT accuse people of trying to cover anything up.
That's a personal insult. At the same time, of course, we should not
insult Helga in any way. She's been kind enough to come before a very
hostile court of opinion here, so we should be kind enough to listen.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 684
[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 3 15:18:04 UTC 2002
I agree with only parts of Larry's post.
Larry Sanger wrote:
> The free software movement is organized and led by world-class
> computer scientists associated with industry and academia.
This is not really true. Linus Torvald's was an unknown nobody when
he started. Current major projects like KDE and Gnome are led by
young upstarts. Most of the leading lights in free software are
leading lights because of talent and willingness to work -- most are
_not_ "world-class computer scientists".
The "world-class computer scientists" work at Microsoft -- and turn
out a mixed-quality product. Or they work in Universities, doing
valuable and original research. But they don't devote a lot of time
to writing and releasing free software -- and nobody misses them.
I think this is very important to understand: credentialism is a
killer for volunteer projects. A hostility to credentials is possibly
worse, but we are in no danger of that. But a hostility to
enthusiastic amateurs (in the postive traditional sense of that term)
is death to a volunteer project. If that keeps the credentialed away,
then so be it.
Would it be nice if real experts came to a free encyclopedia project
in droves? Yes, of course. It is likely? No more likely than it is
in the case of Linux and the free software movement, which is to say:
not likely at all.
The wikipedia model *is* significantly different from the model of
most free software projects, for a lot of the reasons that Larry
mentions. And it is possible that a less "open" model will be useful
soon, using Wikipedia articles as a base.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 685
[Wikipedia-l] Helga's website suggestion
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 3 16:32:50 UTC 2002
I checked this out, and it's appalling. I looked at other articles, as
well as the one you suggested. Helga, if you want people to support
you, please take my advice and direct them to sites that are not
revisionist. I know that the site claims that it doesn't deny the
Holocaust, and that's somewhat truthful. What is DOES do is blame the
Jews for the Holocaust, which is almost as bad. Basically, it's
inflammatory and chooses to publish (or link to, because it's trying to
avoid prosecution under German law) the most obscure and not necessarily
factual articles. There is often a kernel of truth, but it is so hidden
in warped opinion that we can't trust it. AS I have said again and
again -- Consider your sources and ask if they are credible. This
source isn't -- unless we write an article on propaganda and hate groups
and how effective they are at convincing people.
One of the things about history is that our picture is always expanding.
You are correct that many people are only now learning about the
Heimatvertriebene -- just as 30 years ago, people (especially
non-scholars) in English-speaking countries were really beginning to
learn about Stalin's purges -- mostly through reading "The Gulag
Archipelago", which topped the NY Times bestseller list. Documents are
hidden. Governments cover things up. Historians constantly rewrite
history to include more knowledge -- and sometimes that revises the big
picture.
What I'm trying to impress upon you is that most of the postwar picture
you want included is real -- that is, ethnic Germans, counted perhaps
into the millions, were either exterminated or expelled from their homes
in areas that fell under Communist control. But we don't play
comparative victims here, and we also have to include facts that
unfortunately don't fit your picture. I think I can speak for everybody
when I say we want the truth -- but we want it to be told responsibly,
and not by revising history in ways that at present seem entirely
unwarranted.
Julie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020903/c7ca74cd/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 686
[Wikipedia-l] What Larry (and everybody else) said
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 3 15:49:42 UTC 2002
Brion VIBBER wrote:
> Nupedia may well be wonderful, but I have zero interest in it. I first
> heard of it a few months before I got involved in Wikipedia; I went to
> the site, browsed through the FAQs, and got the distinct impression that
> I wasn't welcome unless I had a PhD.
Let me tell you my story. :-)
I completed all the coursework, but no dissertation, in two different
PhD programs in finance. (What happened was, I finished one program's
coursework and then got accepted to a much more prestigious program
and so left the first one with a master's degree.)
I specialized in option pricing theory, and published an academic
paper in a real journal. This was not an important contribution to
the literature, mind you, but it was a respectable enough publication
for a grad student.
Then I worked for a few years as a futures and options trader in
Chicago.
So at Nupedia, I volunteered to write a short biography of Robert
Merton, a founder of option pricing theory and a winner of the Nobel
prize. This is a simple sort of article, anyone could write it, even
a complete nonexpert. For someone with my level of knowledge, it
would be nothing at all.
When I sat down to write the article, though, I was seized with
horrible writer's block. That's astounding, for a guy who does hardly
anything but write 8 hours a day 5 days a week. If my collected email
output were collected and published in book format, I hate to think of
what it must weigh.
The fact is, I was intimidated by the sheer snobbery and credentialism
of Nupedia.
And *I* had an inside track. The editor-in-chief worked for me.
Everyone on the project knew who I was. I could expect to be given
softball reviews and easy acceptance. Even so, I found the process
just intimidating enough to find excuses not to write that simple
article.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 687
[Wikipedia-l] Edit war
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Sep 3 16:01:04 UTC 2002
Andre Engels wrote:
>An edit war seems to have broken out on the 'East Timor' page earlier
>today. 209.226.107.51 has twice added a line about the US selling weapons
>to Indonesia during the conflict in East Timor, which Zoe has deleted
>twice. Maybe someone could look into this case before it leads to a real
>edit war or someone is leaving the project in disgust.
>
>Andre Engels
>
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making comments about the effects
of the arms trade on the history of this crisis. Zoe's deletion was
nothing more than that without even an explanation on the talk page.
Her summary comments did mention a lack of substantiation, so I've
added a few references on the talk page, as well as a revised paragraph
on the subject in the article.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 688
[Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Sep 3 16:23:09 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>This is an unmoderated list, and I'm not about to moderate it to enforce
>these ground rules.
>
Moderating such a list could be a hell of a lot of work. I'm sure there
are more interesting things to do with your time.
>
>5. A part of this needs to involve a solid commitment by all of us
>that we DO NOT SEEK to cover up any valid information that Helga may
>have and want to see treated in the wikipedia. If she wants to have
>an article about the Daily Express thing, we should find a way to
>accomodate her.
>
This may be a key issue. Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point
of view should still leave room for alternative points of view, even
when the majority considers them quite goofy. It is still perfectly
acceptable to state that these alternate or eccentric points of view are
somewhat removed from the beaten track.
>6. Helga should NOT accuse people of trying to cover anything up.
>That's a personal insult. At the same time, of course, we should not
>insult Helga in any way. She's been kind enough to come before a very
>hostile court of opinion here, so we should be kind enough to listen.
>
Although I've had little to do with the specific issues discussed in her
articles I too would like to extend my welcome to her.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 689
[Wikipedia-l] What Larry (and everybody else) said
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Sep 3 17:44:06 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>When I sat down to write the article, though, I was seized with
>horrible writer's block. That's astounding, for a guy who does hardly
>anything but write 8 hours a day 5 days a week. If my collected email
>output were collected and published in book format, I hate to think of
>what it must weigh.
>
I know what you mean.
What I like about Wikipedia is that I can quickly slap down the bones of
an article, without feeling that I have to get it *right*.
I can then leave it to simmer, and return to it a few weeks later,
admire what others have added to it and mercilessly rewrite my earlier work.
Run an article through a few cycles like that and you start to get good
stuff. :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 690
[Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Sep 3 17:52:34 UTC 2002
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
> Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still leave
> room for alternative points of view, even when the majority considers them
> quite goofy
I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish conspiracy
is not "goofy". It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.
I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint. To do so would not be
neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human responsibility
to record and report accurately on those events.
--
Gareth Owen
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 691
[Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 3 17:18:38 UTC 2002
I agree with Gareth. However, and I'm sure he'll agree with me in
return, this does not mean that we should suppress information. There
should be articles _about_ the alternative points of view, _as_
alternative points of view. And I think that's all that Ray meant as
well.
Gareth Owen wrote:
> Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>
> > Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still leave
> > room for alternative points of view, even when the majority considers them
> > quite goofy
>
> I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish conspiracy
> is not "goofy". It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
> Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.
>
> I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
> explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint. To do so would not be
> neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human responsibility
> to record and report accurately on those events.
> --
> Gareth Owen
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 692
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 3 18:48:51 UTC 2002
It occurs to me that Larry's concerns (and mine) with Wikipedia
might be a manifestation of what journalist Frederic Schwarz calls
the "Casio Effect": often a new technology comes along to replace
a large amount of human effort, but that technology produces, say,
90% of the original quality with 5% of the effort. What often
happens, then, is that the people formerly responsible for that
effort don't bother making up for the remaining 10% of the quality,
but merely settle for what the technology produces. So instead of
hiring an expensive human drummer, we use a drum machine; but we
end up with a sound that's somewhat inorganic and lacks the little
touches of creativity that a human might produce. Instead of hiring
a secretary, the exec uses a word processor, and sends out letters
that haven't been vetted through the eyes of someone who knows how
to smooth out his rough language.
Wikipedia is such a technology. It is probably capable of
producing 90% of the quality of a Britannica with 5% of the effort.
But we have two problems: first, we aren't even putting in 5% of
the effort yet--Britannica has hundreds of full-time staffers and
an impressive list of experts. Secondly, we have a lofty goal to
produce something even better than Britannica.
Our task, then, is to precisely identify what that missing 10% is,
and work on systems to create precisely that, and let Wikipedia do
the remaining 90% it does well. At first blush, it appears to me
that the basic creation of content is something Wikipeida does well.
Creating almanac-like content is does well. And it even seems to
be good at ironing out some controversies. And finally, it's good
at polishing prose.
But what it doesn't do well is grunt scholarship: meticulous
checking of facts and references, proper listing of all the best
sources in the field, expert summary of the state of a field and
its history, etc.
Nupedia tried to do everything--generate content, expertly review
it, publicly review it, finish it for publication, etc. I think
that's too much to ask. Perhaps Nupedia could be pared down to a
simpler function, and one that would be easier for experts to
participate in: instead of creating articles, or even editing them,
why not simply let the experts /write reviews/ of articles submitted
to them, which then get attached to the articles? Wikipedia authors
could, whenever they feel an article is ready for it, ask for it to
be submitted to expert review. The expert then just writes what he
thinks about the article (you've omitted this, you got that wrong,
etc.) and sends it back. The Wikipedia process can then go to work
on the article again, with the expert commentary available.
That way, the experts never have the problem of having their names
associated with the mediocre work itself--only with the review,
which is entirely their own creation and therefore ego-satisfying.
And those of us who enjoy the work of writing and polishing have
the expert's input to work with. The experts will be providing
only the last 10% of quality that Wikipedia can't, and no more.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 693
[Wikipedia-l] What Larry (and everybody else) said
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Tue Sep 3 19:20:39 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-03 18:44 +0100, tarquin wrote:
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>>When I sat down to write the article, though, I was seized with
>>horrible writer's block. That's astounding, for a guy who does hardly
>>anything but write 8 hours a day 5 days a week. If my collected email
>>output were collected and published in book format, I hate to think of
>>what it must weigh.
>I know what you mean.
>What I like about Wikipedia is that I can quickly slap down the bones of an article, without feeling that I have to get it *right*.
>I can then leave it to simmer, and return to it a few weeks later, admire what others have added to it and mercilessly rewrite my earlier work.
>Run an article through a few cycles like that and you start to get good stuff. :-)
Yes, and that's the real strength of Wikipedia!
I added a paragraph to the article about surrealism
(because I wrote something about it elsewhere where
it could go to waste) but it wasn't in the tone of
the article. From that I drifted into movies and
noticed that genre and style weren't seperated.
I tried to seperate that and explain it on the talk
page. Someone reacted saying that what I wrote
on the talk page should be put on the page itself.
My hope would then be that someone with more
editorial skills then me and who would be less
distracted by the moods of geniouses would work
it into the article.
I think that this is the strength of Wikipedia
whatever oldbies say.
(And by the way, I'm probably older than that
premature-young-oldbie.)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 694
[Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Tue Sep 3 19:47:23 UTC 2002
At 06:52 PM 9/3/02 +0100, Gareth Owen wrote:
>Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>
> > Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still leave
> > room for alternative points of view, even when the majority considers them
> > quite goofy
>
>I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish conspiracy
>is not "goofy". It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
>Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.
Indeed.
"Goofy" would be an assertion that Hitler's hatred was caused by flying
saucer aliens,
who beamed those sick ideas into his head because they wanted to see how
quickly
they could get humans to use atomic weapons.
>I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
>explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint. To do so would not be
>neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human responsibility
>to record and report accurately on those events.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 695
[Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Tue Sep 3 21:06:45 UTC 2002
I have to say that Gareth and I have had our differences in the past but I
am with him 100% on this; historical revisionism in any shape or form is not
to be countenanced. Ever.
rgds
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gareth Owen" <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
> Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>
> > Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still
leave
> > room for alternative points of view, even when the majority considers
them
> > quite goofy
>
> I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish
conspiracy
> is not "goofy". It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
> Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.
>
> I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
> explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint. To do so would not be
> neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human
responsibility
> to record and report accurately on those events.
> --
> Gareth Owen
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 696
[Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 3 21:21:42 UTC 2002
> I have to say that Gareth and I have had our differences
> in the past but I am with him 100% on this; historical
> revisionism in any shape or form is not to be countenanced.
> Ever.
Reportage is not approval. If some group of folks makes
enough noise to get attention, and has published a book with
silly ideas, it is every bit as much of a moral obligation
for us to honestly report that fact as it is for us to to
express disapproval (or to report that most people disapprove).
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 697
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 3 21:37:12 UTC 2002
--- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
Perhaps Nupedia could be
> pared down to a
> simpler function, and one that would be easier for
> experts to
> participate in: instead of creating articles, or
> even editing them,
> why not simply let the experts /write reviews/ of
> articles submitted
> to them, which then get attached to the articles?
> Wikipedia authors
> could, whenever they feel an article is ready for
> it, ask for it to
> be submitted to expert review. The expert then just
> writes what he
> thinks about the article (you've omitted this, you
> got that wrong,
> etc.) and sends it back. The Wikipedia process can
> then go to work
> on the article again, with the expert commentary
> available.
>
> That way, the experts never have the problem of
> having their names
> associated with the mediocre work itself--only with
> the review,
> which is entirely their own creation and therefore
> ego-satisfying.
> And those of us who enjoy the work of writing and
> polishing have
> the expert's input to work with. The experts will
> be providing
> only the last 10% of quality that Wikipedia can't,
> and no more.
That's an interesting proposition.
Also, why wouldnot near-expert wikipedians
(considering the real experts are on Nupedia :-)) do a
rather similar work of "reviewing" articles in which
they have not been involved themselves but are
interested and knowledgable. Maybe it could help make
another 2%.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 698
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 3 21:51:36 UTC 2002
>> [Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
> That's an interesting proposition.
> Also, why would not near-expert wikipedians
> (considering the real experts are on Nupedia :-)) do a
> rather similar work of "reviewing" articles in which
> they have not been involved themselves but are
> interested and knowledgable. Maybe it could help make
> another 2%.
They certainly could, but only in their capacity as vetted,
recognized, and fully identified experts. Nupedia's function,
then, is precisely the selection of appropriate experts to review
articles in certain areas. This could be by reviewing academic
credentials in some areas, professional credentials in others, or
by whatever means are felt appropriate for things like games and
hobbies. Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
subject article itself would remain fully editable.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 699
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Sep 3 22:13:45 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
>>>
>>>
>
>Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
>editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
>subject article itself would remain fully editable.
>
Two good points about this idea strike me immediately:
* there's no forking of articles -- no concurrent versions
* there's a good chance that experts will dive in and make improvements
to the Wikipedia articles they have reviews :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 700
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 3 22:34:04 UTC 2002
>>>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
>>Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
>>editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
>>subject article itself would remain fully editable.
>Two good points about this idea strike me immediately:
>
>* there's no forking of articles -- no concurrent versions
>* there's a good chance that experts will dive in and make
> improvements to the Wikipedia articles they have reviewed :-)
...but they aren't _required_ to do so, so there's no bottleneck,
and the rest of us can edit /them/ (in the main articles, not
their reviews) if they get out of line. And those whose egos get
bent out of shape by amateurs editing their work can leave in a
huff, and we've still got their complete review, dated and signed,
with their views. The thick-skinned ones will remain, and those
are the ones we want anyway.
But the main thing I like about this idea is that it is /simple/.
It doesn't require a lot of software, a lot bureaucracy, three or
four levels of article approval, voting systems, or any of that
nonsense. It's just a simple, clean, obvious way for an expert to
say "here's what I think" in a way that can improve articles
without interfering too much with the existing process.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 701
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 3 22:02:09 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
> >>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
> >
> >Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
> >editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
> >subject article itself would remain fully editable.
The main concern I have about this is that if it is widely used by
foot soldiers like we all are now, then these uneditable reviews might
take the place of /Talk pages, with the difference that refactoring
them becomes impossible (rather than merely a social risk).
Uneditable anything is a major step away from the wiki "mutually
assured destruction" that keeps things occassionally civil around
here. :-) So we should be careful about that.
I'm strongly inclined to say that we should just embrace the Casio
effect for another year or so -- our progress has not stalled (right?)
and in another few years, we'll be to a point where "most everything
important" will have an article about it. At that time, either we can
start working on new inventions, possibly mirroring new social
customs, to attract "expert" help.
OR, and this is a distinct possibility, we will be the provider of raw
"90% good" content for competing major "distributions". Larry, or
someone like him with an interest in getting University sponsorship
and grant money, can gather our content and devise a way (possibly
involving payments!) to attract these polishers.
There's no current crisis in the wikipedia world, so changes _later_
are probably better than changes _sooner_. I think I'm echoing
several other people in saying this.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 702
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 3 23:30:22 UTC 2002
> I'm strongly inclined to say that we should just embrace the
> Casio effect for another year or so -- our progress has not
> stalled (right?) and in another few years, we'll be to a point
> where "most everything important" will have an article about it.
> At that time, either we can start working on new inventions,
> possibly mirroring new social customs, to attract "expert" help.
I don't think there's any immediate need for change either.
I should also point out that "attaching an uneditable review" is
doable right now--all one has to do is put an external link on the
talk page. Many talk pages have external links to "meta" pages,
for example.
I do share Larry's concern for the "big picture" of the free
encyclopedia movement as a whole, though. So I'm basically
proposing that we make it easier for experts to do that, and
for some community to identify which of these are real experts
worth listening to, and that we create a social norm of taking
them seriously.
But perhaps that too can be done entirely outside the auspices of
Wikipedia itself. For example, the review board could select
reviewers, select articles for review, publish the reviews on its
own site, and only then put external links to them on the talk
page of the article, with a strong suggestion that our editors
here take heed.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 703
[Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Sep 3 22:10:31 UTC 2002
Gareth Owen wrote:
>Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>
>> Expressing and supporting a majoritarian point of view should still
>> leave room for alternative points of view, even when the majority
>> considers them quite goofy. It is still perfectly acceptable to
>> state that these alternate or eccentric points of view are somewhat
>> removed from the beaten track.
>
>I'm sorry, but suggesting that World War II was started by a Jewish conspiracy
>is not "goofy". It is deeply offensive to the memories of the victims of
>Naziism, and entirely at odds with the facts.
>
It was certainly not my intention to enter into the semantics of the
word "goofy". Anything entirely at odds with the facts can be
encompased by this term, as can anything inspired by little green men
aboard flying saucer, as can anything that has been a fit subject for
Generoso Pope's most famous periodical. Gareth's denial that the
mentioned Jewish conspiracy is "goofy" seems to put him at odds with
himself.
The simple fact is that some people do sincerely believe such things.
Their serious delusions are not an adequate basis for imputing motives
of hatred. When Gareth quoted me he left off the second sentence. Even
there I said nothing about World War II or Jewish conspiracies. Why
should he find it so offensive that I should even suggest that they are
goofy?
>I, for one, will have nothing to do with any project that, implicitly or
>explicitly, grants credibility to such a viewpoint. To do so would not be
>neutrality, but an abrogation of moral, intellectual and human responsibility
>to record and report accurately on those events.
>
Gareth's intolerant approach to these stories is what gives them
credibility, and fuels their perpetuation. When someone raises these
theories, I'm content to have them gently manoeuvred into some backwash
section of the article saying, "That's what some people believe; go
figure." I too view the Nazi era as an aberation, but this would not
justify my adopting their tactics to suppress dissenting opinion and
free speech.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 704
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Sep 3 22:45:21 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
>>>
>>That's an interesting proposition.
>>Also, why would not near-expert wikipedians
>>(considering the real experts are on Nupedia :-)) do a
>>rather similar work of "reviewing" articles in which
>>they have not been involved themselves but are
>>interested and knowledgable. Maybe it could help make
>>another 2%.
>>
>They certainly could, but only in their capacity as vetted,
>recognized, and fully identified experts. Nupedia's function,
>then, is precisely the selection of appropriate experts to review
>articles in certain areas. This could be by reviewing academic
>credentials in some areas, professional credentials in others, or
>by whatever means are felt appropriate for things like games and
>hobbies. Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
>editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
>subject article itself would remain fully editable.
>
For the most part I see Wikepedia working very well, despite the fact
that on an individual level, experiences can sometimes be highly
frustrating. Wikipedia has confronted some major contemporary issues,
and come out remarkably well.
Nupedia, on the other hand, is moribund. It would would be a fantastic
playpen for the experts, but they continue to stay away. I believe it
was Julie who criticized Nupedia for its overly complicated process. If
it's so complicated why aren't the experts on that forum busy finding
more suitable processes. If the plebeians at Wikipedia can manage that,
it should be a simple matter for Nupedia's patricians.
Many of these expert complaints about Wikipedia seem like just so much
expert foot-dragging. The only valid reason that such an expert can
have for not participating at Nupedia is that he is too busy
accomplishing things at Wikipedia.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 705
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect" (something to chew on)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 3 12:11:47 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 03 September 2002 04:34 pm, LDC wrote:
> They certainly could, but only in their capacity as vetted,
> recognized, and fully identified experts. Nupedia's function,
> then, is precisely the selection of appropriate experts to review
> articles in certain areas. This could be by reviewing academic
> credentials in some areas, professional credentials in others, or
> by whatever means are felt appropriate for things like games and
> hobbies. Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
> editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
> subject article itself would remain fully editable.
I like this idea - it just may work. What would be needed of course would be
a good deal of integration between Wikipedia and Nupedia. A link in in the
non-editable part of a Wikipedia page in the article namespace might say;
"View the last review of this article". Clicking on that link will bring you
to Nupedia's review of the Wikipedia article with maybe the exact text of the
version of the Wikipedia article reviewed on the left and the review on the
right (with maybe reviewer made highlights, numbering, underlining and other
markup in the copied Wikipedia article).
Another important thing to have would be the exact revision number, date and
time of the Wikipedia article along with a cur link (that way somebody could
easily see what, if any, edits have been made to the Wikipedia article since
it was reviewed).
Just some thoughts - take them or leave them (remember I really only care
about results not any particular process -- please do think of something even
better).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 706
[Wikipedia-l] The groundrules for a discussion with Helga
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 4 00:26:13 UTC 2002
Of course. However, pointing out that certain groups
resort to historical revisionism despite the
overwhelming weight of reality is both appropriate and
useful.
Stephen Gilbert
--- Steve Callaway <sjc at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> I have to say that Gareth and I have had our
> differences in the past but I
> am with him 100% on this; historical revisionism in
> any shape or form is not
> to be countenanced. Ever.
>
> rgds
>
> Steve Callaway
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 707
[Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Sep 4 02:10:51 UTC 2002
Welcome to the mailing list Helga.
Helga Hecht wrote:
>
<snip some of Dr. Kemp's summary>
> 6. It's because she can't see context that the rest of us have to judge and weigh what she says in terms of the big picture, and then make sure that
> it gets appropriate mention -- but sometimes not at all is appropriate.
>
> Jules
> --------------------
Helga, I think you should be aware that this is part of a larger issue
that
the mailing list has been attempting to address. How do we
appropriately
include all views, summarize concisely and accurately for casual
readers,
yet still provide comprehensive detail for the interested readers to
form their own conclusions?
Many of us find it useful to examine specific cases for insight or
inspiration on how to attempt to improve our approach. I hope you
will keep this in mind as you review the archived material. The
discussion is not intended as an attack or indictment of you or your
knowledge and contributions although some of it could be interpreted
that way; if one were not aware of the larger issues being addressed
via illustration with specific situations.
If you search the archives regarding "troll", "24", "mirwin", "Michael
Irwin", "Ark" or "infanticide" you will find further discussions
involving
similar issues. How do we include minority views or strong claims for
which there is little detailed acceptance or evidence viewed as credible
while building a world wide reputation for accuracy, reliability, and
truthfulness that our readers can depend upon?
I have learned a lot regarding scholastic research, academic
credibility, evidentiary standards, etc. from Dr. Kemp over the
last few months. I would urge you to consider her criticism of
some of your contributions as a constructive effort to maintain
Wikipedia's reputation for being able to substantiate claims
presented as factual truth or "history".
As one of our few professional scholars Dr. Kemp has perhaps
shouldered an unduly heavy burden in fact and source checking
and attempting to discuss our desire for accuracy and credibility
with the general community of new contributers. To me it appears
that appeals for assistance occasionally trigger a "lynch" mentality
which should not be attributed to Dr. Kemp. This has been under
extensive discussion as we attempt to learn better ways to develop
a project consensus and propagate improvements through out the
participating community and the Wikipedia.
We have similar controversy underway regarding some scientific
theories. Some people would like to present their understanding
of the natural processes governing our universe as "truth" or
"fact" or dismiss more widely accepted theories. Obviously we
have a responsibility to present the best available scientific
consensus appropriately.
I agree with you that all information potentially belongs somewhere
in the Wikipedia but I also agree with many others here that believe
it should not all be given equal weight or front page billing with more
widely accepted theories or scientific "fact".
>
> I just started the subscription and the first thing I read is this message, which seems to be in answer to some other message, which I do not know.
>
> J Hoffmann Kemp probably means well.
>
> However
>
> 1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at all".
Excellent! I am not certain that I could meet the "not at all"
criteria myself but I also attempt to be fair and open minded
with individual people and regarding politically sensitive issues.
>
> 2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty
> much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her
> assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII."
>
> I have never said anything like this.
I believe Dr. Kemp was defending you here against
impressions that might have been given by other people
such as myself. Please accept my apologies. I am
glad you have confirmed her defense of your character.
>
> 3a. Have never said anything like that either.
>
> 4a. I see and know a lot more about things that she could ever read in her school books. Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full truth.
>
> For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933: Judea declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
Surely not the only or primary cause of WWII?
The history I learned in U.S. schools spoke of many factors
and causes all the way back to WWI and before which involved
entire economies, continents, and governments.
While I can see how you might classify my education in
the U.S. similar to: "Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda,
but not the full truth.", I harbor similar suspicions regarding your
own educational access. Dr. Kemp, however, is a scholar with much
deeper, broader, access to source materials than anything I have ever
studied. Further, part of her professional responsibilities include
estimating or making judgements regarding the relative reliability of
often contradictory historical sources. Her long term success and
reputation as a scholar will depend upon her skills in successfully
determining and presenting the possibilities and probabilities that
we call "history" from primary and secondary sources.
How shall you and I come to some mutual agreement on how to
present our (I would accept Fred Bauder's summary as a better
summary of my understanding than I can currently write.) opposing
views of history; if we cannot usefully rely on Dr. Kemp and
other professionals attempts or methods to evaluate the relative
weights of various evidence?
How shall we include all views such that as additional evidence
or new contributor's views and sources arrive we can tweak the
Wikipedia to keep the presentation of all views, summaries, and
cited substantiating evidence accurate and useful to most, or
better, all readers?
>
> One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
Some have expressed the view that as an encyclopedia attempting
to summarize all human knowledge and point to further detailed
information (act as a general reference and starting point) we
cannot give everything equal weight. Somehow we must treat the
most important or general knowledge as most useful and important
to the general reader and point to further more detailed subject
material for those who wish further information.
Others, including myself, have taken the stance that there is no
near term limit on the breadth, or depth as long it does not effect
our perceived reliability for the general reader. I think most people
in my faction have or will acknowledge that packaging considerations
will limit the depth and detail to the media available such as: cd,
dvd, or online access. Whether the available convenient one piece
packaging will continue to grow in density and size as fast or faster
than the full online Wikipedia is probably determined more by how
fast and large the available community of contributors can grow
in effectiveness.
This is why many of us feel it is important to learn how to
work together as effectively as possible and continue to
improve our individual ability to contribute productively.
>
> 5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
>
> However I believe I see the complete picture more clearly than she does.
This is quite a strong claim. May I inquire as to the basis for this
belief?
Are you a professional scholar in a related field?
As an educated layman in the U.S., my exposure to WWII is
quite limited: routine high school studies, television documentaries,
random
magazine and books read on casual interest or whim, the occasional
usenet
debate etc. Still, to me the preponderance of evidence available
leaves
me with the impression that the powers involved in this world wide
conflict
would not take an isolated statement from a specialized media outlet
seriously.
Just as President Bush, or Saddam Hussein, would probably dismiss a
declaration
of War from the New York Times or an Iraqi newspaper. If an additional
U.S.-Iraqi occurs it will not be because a few influential hot heads
publish a statement demanding it. The underlying or root causes are
numerous and widely understood and talked about. It would be misleading
in fifty years for Wikipedia to publish that the initial cause of the
possibly impending U.S.-Iraqi war was a newspaper story demanding that
the Iraqi or Saudi people attack the U.S., even if this could be shown
to have been influential in recruiting individual 9/11 terrorists.
This would imply a single writer and publisher triggered a war that
various tensions, economic, and political interests have been building
towards for decades. Very misleading, partial, presentation even if
factually correct. If selectively so, by design, then the very essence
of propaganda.
>
> 6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.
>
> Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.
I would agree with this to some extent. I would also like to see
participation preserved even if it appears to "unbalance" our quantity
of material available in the depth of details. Other people have
raised
the excellent point that we do not want to allow partisans of any kind
to present a misimpression of the relative importance through sheer
weight of participation.
A question I have brought up previously, for which I feel we do not yet
have an adequate policy answer is: How do we preserve as much accurate
detail as contributors wish to provide while providing a balance Neutral
Point of View (NPOV) summary or presentation for casual readers?
>
> I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any other commercial enterprize, that
> only tells you, what the general public wants to hear
> or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?
It is my impression that there is a firm committment to remaining
a non traditional activity which is not unduly influenced by
commercial enterprise. We expect and hope that our valuable product
will be utilized by commercial enterprises so that it is widely used
and disseminated. The creation process, however, is not currently
dominated by commercial or academic organizations.
Since we have a committment to truthful presentation of all relevant
knowledge, information, sources, etc. we have been grappling with
how to best reach a consenus on how to present the multitude of various
versions of "truth" that people create, allege, discover, etc.
I look forward to your continuing participation in helping
us resolve some of these detailed and general issues in ways
that are beneficial to our project, contributors, and readers.
Sincerely,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 708
[Wikipedia-l] Measuring progress
Axel Boldt
axel at uni-paderborn.de
Wed Sep 4 03:01:15 UTC 2002
> our progress has not stalled (right?)
If you measure progress based on article numbers, active contributors,
edits per day, software quality etc., it certainly hasn't.
I would argue however that the most relevant measure is average
article quality. And Larry seems to think that on this front, we're
not doing too well:
> But, looking at Wikipedia's contents now and comparing it to what I
> recall from times past, I do have to say that I'm worried. I don't
> think that in terms of quality, overall, it's getting that much
> better.
While it is clear that pretty much every individual article improves
over time, it is still very possible that the average article quality
is stagnating, or even declining.
If I had an afternoon to burn, I'd hit the "Random link" button a
hundred times and would rate the articles on a scale of 0 - 10. Then I
would rate 100 article versions from three months ago (skip if the
article didn't exist then). Then compare the averages. Ideally, this
would be done in a "blind" manner, so that I didn't know whether an
article version is current or old.
Axel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 709
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Sep 4 03:28:28 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > > And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
> > > Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
> > > which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
> >
> > So let someone else write it.
> >
> > Do you contend that there are not people in the world who
> > have made, and continue to make, these kind of allegations?
> > I personally have seen/heard this kind of stuff from people
> > in North America in person and on the internet.
>
> I think this cuts straight to the heart of how difficult NPOV can be
> at times.
>
> In _many_ cases, it is easy to get to NPOV by simply "going meta". If
> something is entirely uncontroversial, we can say 'X'. If it is
> somewhat controversial, we can say "most scholars say X". But when
> there is opposition to X but only by lunatics and frauds, it is NOT
> NPOV to simply "go meta".
>
> I don't think, Michael, that you closely read what Vicki says that she
> refuses to write. The _reason_ she refuses to write it is that it is
> not NPOV.
This is not my perception. Nor, apparently, whoever proposed the
initial wording.
>
> Getting to NPOV in this case does not involve giving credence to
> suggestions that Hitler didn't _really_ hate Jews, nor does it involve
> giving credence to suggestions that Jews started the war with Nazi
> Germany.
I would agree with this assertion. Credence should not be given
to any views, it should be earned in the thought processes of
the readers.
>
> What needs to be written about the situation in Germany leading up to
> World War II is a frank discussion of tensions between Jews and
> non-Jews, with attention given to the sources of those tensions. This
> part of the discussion must not be framed in such a way as to suggest
> that the Holocaust was deserved, etc. But it also need not shy away
> from a discussion of the reasons that even previously normal people in
> Germany were swept up in the anti-Jewish venom of the day.
This is distinctly non "NPOV". The Nazi party existed. It had
the popular support of one of the most populated and heavily
industrialized Democracy of its day. The totality of the material
presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that
the Holocaust was undeserved.
Similarly, there were legitimate security concerns that lead to
U.S. Japanese internment camps. We should present the concerns,
the evidence, the surrounding context, the allegations which revolve
around the failure to isolate/intern the large U.S. population of
German descent, etc. and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
I would even support summaries providing the mainstream conclusion
for the mentally lazy reader as long as not all contradictory
evidence is excluded. Just as it is insufficient or inappropriate
to present only the mainstream credible summaries and then the
contradictory evidence it is insuffucient and inappropriate to
"summarize" minority views as "crackpots" or "crank" view without
presenting any supporting evidence which may exist to substantiate
them slightly.
If this approach prevails then the statement: "Once upon a time the
Earth was considered flat." would never have mutated from the
prevailing consenus of westen authorities and society that "God
separated the Earth and Waters from the sky." Notice the second
statement is still arguably true although many Scientists contend
it was gravity and natural processes, not God, which separated them.
You and I may disagree with the conclusions of the Nazi party
that Eugenics and Genocide were appropriate but that does not
erase the fact that either millions of Germans believed it or
else thousands of German leaders and influential people embraced
it supported by a substantial minority or majority of the population.
If this NPOV fact provides an impression contradictory to the NPOV
summary someone chooses to present then it should be pushed to an
appropriate article and linked appropriately as per the consensus
of the community in how to best achieve "NPOV, current revision."
"NPOV" will present facts regarding both viewpoints neutrally and
allow the reader to decide. Otherwise, an implicit editorial
policy has emerged just as "24" alleged it should/would. If
this is the case then we need a methodology to establsh editorial
policy and criteria.
Mr. Sanger has proposed that we ask a
panel of highly respected intellectuals to provide us with
*guidance*. Perhaps this *guidance* would also involve
editorial policy. If we refuse to abdicate this power then
the responsibility for editorial policy remains with
either the community consenus or the "owner".
>
> It would be very hard to get to where we want to be starting with
> Helga's nonsense.
Then our procedures and methodologies need improvement.
Our project model, as I understand it, assumes that we can
converge on where we want to be, high quality neutral presentation,
from chaotic random starts and edits from less than perfect
all knowing contributors.
>
> > Would you care to hazard a guess regarding how much of
> > Helga's current attitudes result from restricted access to
> > information during her early education or indoctrination?
>
> But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to rescue Helga from her poor
> education. We need not _morally_ condemn her in order to ask her to
> stop writing nonsense. We can have all the compassion (and
> well-meaning condescension) in the world for her plight, and still
> refuse to put up with it.
Education varies worldwide. Broad, deep, reliable will not
be achieved unless our process is robust enough to help our
spontaneous contributors overcome limitations in their skills
and source materials.
I have little compassion or condescension for "her plight".
My concern is with rounding out an effective process to
evolve the best material ever available from an online encyclopedia
that remains an ever improving best available resource.
This necessarily requires input from more than a restricted,
filtered, or "biased" pool of indoctrinated academics or people
within the existing western industrial power and economic structures.
>
> > I think all views and evidence someone chooses to present
> > belong somewhere in the Wikipedia.
>
> This is NOT our policy, nor has it ever been.
Perhaps it is time for our policy to be updated. As Mr.
Sanger is fond of pointing out he was responsible in large
part for its formulation. Clearly it has served its purpose
in helping initiate the project.
Whether it is of such quality at the current time that it
can no longer be improved is a proposition that I assert
the community should assess occasionally. Otherwise newcomer's
are not involved as peers in our community and have no reason
to embrace and assist with extension or completion of our project.
>NPOV is more subtle and
> difficult than this. Wikipedia is not the place for factions to
> present competing "views". We can _report on_ those views, in an
> appropriate context, but we must not allow them to distract from our
> fundamentally _encyclopedic_ mission, which necessarily involves
> summary and selection.
Selection, censorship or propaganda? If Nazi views can be
summarily dismissed as inappropriate or incorrect then there
are few modern minorities influential enough to justify NPOV
presentation.
If competing views cannot be presented, only reported from the
view of the currently dominant faction with claims of being
"NPOV" in style of presentation then Wikipedia should drop
its pretense of broad and deep. Reliability may also be
compromised.
What are your criteria for "appropriate context"? How should
these critera be modified or influenced by newcomers to improve
their neutrality or suitability for the Wikipedia in the
consensus view of the current community? If the answer is
agree with the current predefined project standards or go
elsewhere then we clearly have:
1. A possibly builtin bias based upon the initial group
who arrived and consented to policy prior to the freeze.
2. An inability to improve or broaden our community of
participators beyond the initial pool well represented
(accidentally) by the current policy and guidelines.
3. No way to correct errors present at the project
initialization. We will not be ever converging on the
best definition of perfection or neutrality we can
devise with the assistance and consensus of the instantaneous
community of active contributors; but rather on the best
interpretation of the initial policy the community can agree
to put up with.
Elsewhere I have suggested that top level NPOV summaries
should be contextualized from the mainstream views, as neutrally
as practical, with links to additional material or detail for the
reader who desires it. Some of which may be presented from an
identified viewpoint.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 710
[Wikipedia-l] Re: The "Casio Effect"
Axel Boldt
axel at uni-paderborn.de
Wed Sep 4 03:22:13 UTC 2002
>I should also point out that "attaching an uneditable review" is
>doable right now--all one has to do is put an external link on the
>talk page.
I like the uneditable review idea; it's simple enough so that it could
actually work. I wouldn't put the links on talk though: nobody reads
old talk pages, and the reviews wouldn't be firmly associated with
individual versions of an article.
A review of an article version should show up as a link on the History
page, next to the reviewed version. That link could point either to a
wiki page only editable by the reviewer, or to an external web page,
whatever the reviewer prefers. It would also have a link to the
reviewer's user page, where they could convince us of their
brilliance, and where one would hopefully also find an automatic "this
person's reviews" link. Reviewer status should probably be by
invitation only.
With a bit of luck, some of these reviewers might end up as
Wikipedians in this evil scheme.
Axel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 711
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Sep 4 04:05:05 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> >>>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
> >>Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
> >>editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
> >>subject article itself would remain fully editable.
>
> >Two good points about this idea strike me immediately:
> >
> >* there's no forking of articles -- no concurrent versions
> >* there's a good chance that experts will dive in and make
> > improvements to the Wikipedia articles they have reviewed :-)
>
> ...but they aren't _required_ to do so, so there's no bottleneck,
> and the rest of us can edit /them/ (in the main articles, not
> their reviews) if they get out of line. And those whose egos get
> bent out of shape by amateurs editing their work can leave in a
> huff, and we've still got their complete review, dated and signed,
> with their views. The thick-skinned ones will remain, and those
> are the ones we want anyway.
>
> But the main thing I like about this idea is that it is /simple/.
> It doesn't require a lot of software, a lot bureaucracy, three or
> four levels of article approval, voting systems, or any of that
> nonsense. It's just a simple, clean, obvious way for an expert to
> say "here's what I think" in a way that can improve articles
> without interfering too much with the existing process.
I am wary of this approach. It holds the "experts" up
on a pedastal. Their material or comments are untouchable
and essentially unrebuttable.
We could easily double or triple our growth in experts reviewing
with no further participation while decimating or worse our
active community participation or stunting our participation
growth of less credentialed participation.
If this approach is chosen to experiment with, I would propose
that we add the review pages or a page of links to reviews and
allow any account holder to publish the critiques. The critiquer
can place what ever background information or credentials they
feel appropriate on their personal page. The personal pages
could be protected and administratively overridden if fraud is
alleged and substantiated.
It might also be a way of allowing the presentation of obscure
or non NPOV material without compromising the core articles.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 712
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Sep 4 04:33:48 UTC 2002
> I am wary of this approach. It holds the "experts" up
> on a pedastal. Their material or comments are untouchable
> and essentially unrebuttable.
Of course! Their material SHOULD be uneditable and unrebuttable,
just like mine, and yours, and every other CREDITED article on
the net and every other publication. That's the whole point of
an author credit--to attach responsibility. What's editable is
the Wikipedia text that they're reviewing. I'm talking about
letting Roger Ebert write a movie review--you're certainly able
to disagree, but you can't change what /he/ said, because it's
supposed to be his ideas, his views, his opinions.
> We could easily double or triple our growth in experts reviewing
> with no further participation while decimating or worse our
> active community participation or stunting our participation
> growth of less credentialed participation.
How is adding reviews any less "participation" than writing
articles? Is not evaluation of ideas valuable information?
>If this approach is chosen to experiment with, I would propose
>that we add the review pages or a page of links to reviews and
>allow any account holder to publish the critiques. The critiquer
>can place what ever background information or credentials they
>feel appropriate on their personal page. The personal pages
>could be protected and administratively overridden if fraud is
>alleged and substantiated.
I'd be willing to relax the criteria for reviewers, but not
eliminate them entirely. The whole point of having reviewers
is to show expert opinion. I have as much disdain for formal
credentials as anyone--I write a lot of good articles here, and
a lot of good software, and I'm a college dropout. So I hope
the review board is set up to recognize real accomplishments as
well as formal training. As a non-reviewing writer, I think I'm
more than qualified to read an expert's review, and edit the
article based on it--and even to disagree with the expert if I
think his arguments are weak. But I wouldn't for a moment think
one should consider me a recognized expert on anything but my
one or two narrow fields of expertise that I've been studying
for over 20 years--microcomputer software and poker. And if I
can't convince an editorial board that I'm qualified to post
reviews on those two subjects, then I shouldn't be writing
reviews (of course in that case I'd think the review board has
problems, but I'm certainly free to express that opinion too).
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 713
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Sep 4 04:52:55 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
<snip background>
> But what it doesn't do well is grunt scholarship: meticulous
> checking of facts and references, proper listing of all the best
> sources in the field, expert summary of the state of a field and
> its history, etc.
Perhaps a verified facts page and/or a bibliography page would
help encourage the first two.
Facts could be stated, citations, sources etc. could be
listed in an acceptable standard format and "signed" by the
provider. This would then be tracked as "contribution" and could
easily be updated or changed as improvements or errors are noted.
Someone detecting an error can either notify the originator
(forming a feedback loop for incremental improvement), fix it
themselves and change the signature, or some other compromise.
Thus some credit would be given for improving the reliability
of our article material (and the community) rather than merely
the original text. Volunteers love recognition, it is often
their only immediate compensation. Particularly in risky endeavers
that may collapse at any time without the long term
anticipated payoffs. This credit might be left off the
"contributions" page but still presented in the form of a
tally. Thus it would be incremented at the edit time and
not be a continuing burden on the server. It could be in
a YTD format that includes an account aggregate or not as
the community feels most appropriate. One might come to
know not to attempt to shine on a scholar with ten thousand
citatations and sources identified to date. That person will
look up a fact on you in a heartbeat!
Likewise, a new policy or guideline that summarizes what is
desired (if this is not already available) and some links to
exemplary samples. These could also be placed prominently
and simply at the front of the suggested ways to contribute
rather than the current attempt at humor (my assumption, perhaps
someone is attempting to encourage brilliant prose?) requesting
brilliant complete articles.
I would tend to expect an expert summary of the state of a
field and its history to emerge from a consensus of even
mediocre or amateur contributors. If an expert or two is
an active participant then it should converge quicker, but
not necessarily to a greater ultimate level of completion.
>
> Nupedia tried to do everything--generate content, expertly review
> it, publicly review it, finish it for publication, etc. I think
> that's too much to ask. Perhaps Nupedia could be pared down to a
> simpler function, and one that would be easier for experts to
> participate in: instead of creating articles, or even editing them,
> why not simply let the experts /write reviews/ of articles submitted
> to them, which then get attached to the articles? Wikipedia authors
> could, whenever they feel an article is ready for it, ask for it to
> be submitted to expert review. The expert then just writes what he
> thinks about the article (you've omitted this, you got that wrong,
> etc.) and sends it back. The Wikipedia process can then go to work
> on the article again, with the expert commentary available.
>
> That way, the experts never have the problem of having their names
> associated with the mediocre work itself--only with the review,
> which is entirely their own creation and therefore ego-satisfying.
> And those of us who enjoy the work of writing and polishing have
> the expert's input to work with. The experts will be providing
> only the last 10% of quality that Wikipedia can't, and no more.
I think perhaps you are making the implicit assumption that the
expertise is available as input only in person.
The previously proposed (by others) model, of non-experts
keeping quiet and taking notes when an expert speaks, is already
widely and easily available. I have a fairly extensive library
of professional books written by experts and published for profit
that are easily consulted for fact checking or verifying a concept
only vaguely remembered or understood from the previous readings.
Other books are widely available to anyone with sufficient
interest and cash ranging from 10 to under a thousand dollars.
I would suspect an average price for professional books in the
U.S. at around 100 dollars.
I suspect that most or at least many Wikipedia contributors
have access to similar books or libraries where they can be
accessed or borrowed briefly.
Therefore, while I see the rationale for complicating the
existing process to attract a special class of contributors
that we can already effectively access, I am unconvinced
of its benefit to the project. I think we should move
slowly and incrementally on this, if possible, and evaluate
the results carefully before full scale implementation.
If current estimates of 1% of very active contributors are
truly credentialed experts then further growth in participation
should bring in plenty of experts in the life cycle
remaining to the project.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 714
[Wikipedia-l] Measuring progress
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Sep 4 05:24:00 UTC 2002
Axel Boldt wrote:
>
> > our progress has not stalled (right?)
>
> If you measure progress based on article numbers, active contributors,
> edits per day, software quality etc., it certainly hasn't.
>
> I would argue however that the most relevant measure is average
> article quality. And Larry seems to think that on this front, we're
> not doing too well:
>
> > But, looking at Wikipedia's contents now and comparing it to what I
> > recall from times past, I do have to say that I'm worried. I don't
> > think that in terms of quality, overall, it's getting that much
> > better.
>
> While it is clear that pretty much every individual article improves
> over time, it is still very possible that the average article quality
> is stagnating, or even declining.
>
> If I had an afternoon to burn, I'd hit the "Random link" button a
> hundred times and would rate the articles on a scale of 0 - 10. Then I
> would rate 100 article versions from three months ago (skip if the
> article didn't exist then). Then compare the averages. Ideally, this
> would be done in a "blind" manner, so that I didn't know whether an
> article version is current or old.
How would you (and the mailing list) rate the following
in terms of potential usefulness:
A quality inspection page which would take the following
data: Number of articles to inspect, comparison period or
dates, logged in account, other?
present the number of articles specified (using random dates
or revisions if the dates and period are not specified) sequentially
for qualitative assessment on a standard predetermined scale,
add the response into an aggregate data set for plotting
or other evaulation.
Would something similar to the above allow a rough
community consensus on our quality trends to emerge?
I suppose one could also keep results of the individual
data runs to personally calibrate your personal assessment
against the results of the community.
If this were compiled properly it might also show us some
trends in community perception of quality related to educational
background, sex, etc. if any of that is perceived as useful.
Personally I suspect we currently have a moving target
in terms of perception of quality. Perhaps we would
need a data field in the above for length of participation,
number of edits in some period, number of contributions
recorded, etc. to properly guage reactions of newcomers
or occasional readers compared to regular contributors.
Would we need to calibrate the data against specific
articles or categories? We may need an experienced
statitician to weigh in here if we get serious about
anything like this.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 715
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Wed Sep 4 07:45:53 UTC 2002
On 03-09-2002, Anthere wrote thusly :
> --- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> Perhaps Nupedia could be
> > pared down to a
> > simpler function, and one that would be easier for
> > experts to
> > participate in: instead of creating articles, or
> > even editing them,
> > why not simply let the experts /write reviews/ of
> > articles submitted
> > to them, which then get attached to the articles?
> > Wikipedia authors
> > could, whenever they feel an article is ready for
> > it, ask for it to
> > be submitted to expert review. The expert then just
> > writes what he
> > thinks about the article (you've omitted this, you
> > got that wrong,
> > etc.) and sends it back. The Wikipedia process can
> > then go to work
> > on the article again, with the expert commentary
> > available.
> > That way, the experts never have the problem of
> > having their names
> > associated with the mediocre work itself--only with
> > the review,
> > which is entirely their own creation and therefore
> > ego-satisfying.
> > And those of us who enjoy the work of writing and
> > polishing have
> > the expert's input to work with. The experts will
> > be providing
> > only the last 10% of quality that Wikipedia can't,
> > and no more.
> That's an interesting proposition.
> Also, why wouldnot near-expert wikipedians
> (considering the real experts are on Nupedia :-)) do a
> rather similar work of "reviewing" articles in which
> they have not been involved themselves but are
> interested and knowledgable. Maybe it could help make
> another 2%.
There was a notion of teaming up groups of Wikipedians
around some areas of Wikipedia content - operating
systems, unix, punk rock or the Roman Empire.
They should have some infrastructure (namespace ? mailing list ?)
to rely on in order
to coordinate, review and discuss. Not to mention
do some planning and quality assurance.
Regards,
kpjas.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 716
[Wikipedia-l] Uneditable reviews
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Wed Sep 4 09:03:07 UTC 2002
Forgive me for spoiling the hopeful mood, but I'm not so sure the
uneditable review idea would work.
The obvious reason is that in order to write a review about a wikipedia
article, you'd have to be interested in wikipedia in the first place.
So if I'm an academic interested in moving wikipedia along, why should I
bother with a review? It would be less work to make the changes myself.
My name would automatically be associated with the edit on the article's
history page. And even if I write such a review, people would read it
and fix the mistakes and missing issues I found (talking about
duplicated effort here!). So, soon after my review is out, it won't fit
the article anymore, because the article changed. So, all people would
soon find is my outdated (=incorrect) review, with my name below it. No
thanks!
As a to-be-academic, I'd rather have a stable article that says
"...based on [[this article]] at wikipedia, edited by ..." (or "reviewed
by" or "streamlined by";) where there's a backlink to the wikipedia
article, maybe like "For a more current, but unreviewed version, see [[]]".
I might be wrong, and this is the "magic formula", but I don't see many
academics interested in that review function, certainly less than in the
original Nupedia (and even that didn't work...)
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 717
[Wikipedia-l] Uneditable reviews
Jan Hidders
hidders at uia.ua.ac.be
Wed Sep 4 09:57:52 UTC 2002
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:03:07AM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Forgive me for spoiling the hopeful mood, but I'm not so sure the
> uneditable review idea would work.
Neither do I. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it won't work for the reasons
that Magnus already gave. As the academic that I believe myself to be, my
motivation to write such a review would be zero.
-- Jan Hidders
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 718
[Wikipedia-l] Helga and other Internet kooks
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Wed Sep 4 10:33:50 UTC 2002
Last year on September 11, a group of radical Muslims declared war on the
United States. It hijacked four planes and rammed three of them in the WTC
and the Pentagon. About 3,000 people died. This would then justify the
American government declaring a boycott of all Arab-American businesses and
even attempting to exterminate all Muslims in America.
Ridiculous? Of course. Offensive? Certainly. Yet this is exactly the position
that Helga is expressing here and in the Talk section of the Neturei Karta
article.
In 1933 a small group of Jews declared war on Germany (in response to the
government's official policies of anti-Semitism). Germany responded with an
official boycott of all Jewish shops and eventually launched an all-out
campaign to murder all the Jews of Europe.
Her position is ridiculous and offensive. It certainly is not acceptable by
any standards. Yet here we are bending over backwards to find ways to include
her inane views in our articles. We have some lovely prolix on the importance
of including all POVs, no matter how minor, no matter how illogical or
unacceptable, in order to attain the ellusive NPOV.
The Internet is full of kooks. Do they all deserve equal time? Do they all
deserve legitimacy?
Danny
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 719
[Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Wed Sep 4 11:43:04 UTC 2002
>or is there some commitment to be truthful?
>
>H. Jonat
Yes, there is. I think where you need to start is with a serious study of
historical revisionism. I feel you have been victimized and misled in this
area. Once you understand you cannot rely on the approaches taken then you
can turn to more reliable sources. A part of the misinformation involved in
historical revisionism is misdirection as to what relevant issues are and
misplaced and distorted emphasis. I know it is hard to sort things out once
you fall into the grip of skilled propagandists, but I think that's your path.
Wikipedia can legitimately set forth truths, what it will not do because of
the editing process is allow gross distortions of the significance of a
fact to distort a greater truth. So it's fine to point out that not all
Jews support Zionism, just don't forget to mention that the vast majority
do. A misplaced emphasis on things is hardly going to go unnoticed and
unchallenged. A thesis that zionism somehow caused the war and the
holocaust (even if advanced by a Jewish group) is simply not in accord with
the facts. One of the historical revisionist websites makes much of fact
that judicial notice was taken of the holocaust at the Nuremberg Trials
saying that no actual proof was presented. Judicial notice is taken only of
facts about which no reasonable person would disagree.
Fred Bauder
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 720
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Sep 4 11:29:41 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> The totality of the material
> presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that
> the Holocaust was undeserved.
But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
"The Earth goes around the Sun".
> Similarly, there were legitimate security concerns that lead to
> U.S. Japanese internment camps. We should present the concerns,
> the evidence, the surrounding context, the allegations which revolve
> around the failure to isolate/intern the large U.S. population of
> German descent, etc. and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Without turning this into an argument about history, I would say that
although *I* think that the U.S. Japanese internment camps were
morally unjustified, that there are _legitimate arguments_ about
security concerns, etc., that make the situation less clear. The
United States did not exterminate the Japanese in gas ovens.
> Selection, censorship or propaganda? If Nazi views can be
> summarily dismissed as inappropriate or incorrect then there
> are few modern minorities influential enough to justify NPOV
> presentation.
This is a misrepresentation of what I have said. Clearly, the
encyclopedia must report on Nazi views. The ideas of the Nazis are an
important part of history, and the encyclopedia must cover just what
those views are.
Let me see if I can explain this with an example.
Here's an evil idea, held by at least some Nazis: "Jews are vermin."
Now, the fact that those people held that idea is an important
historical fact. We should report on it.
We are not required, however, to say, in an article on Jews, "Jews are
widely considered great people. Maybe not, though, since some people
think they are vermin." This is no longer _reporting on a point of
view_, it is _giving credence to this point of view as a legitimate
minority opinion_.
Similarly, in an article on holocaust deniers, we must report on the
Daily Express article, as an example of the types of things that the
deniers say. We must _not_, though, suggest in an article on the
holocaust that "maybe" the holocaust was deserved.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 721
[Wikipedia-l] Helga and other Internet kooks
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Sep 4 11:36:46 UTC 2002
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> The Internet is full of kooks. Do they all deserve equal time? Do they all
> deserve legitimacy?
I would say: clearly, no, they do not. NPOV does not require the
inclusion of inanities or evil ideas. (Though it may require the
_reporting on_ inanities and evil ideas.)
I don't think what we are doing here is bending over backwards to find
a way to include these views. I think we're engaged in a process of
feeling out the parameters, which is for our benefit, not for the
benefit of the kooks.
Tangentially, we are trying to find out if Helga is willing to change
her posting policies so that I don't permanently ban her.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 722
[Wikipedia-l] Uneditable reviews
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Wed Sep 4 15:04:23 UTC 2002
|From: Jan Hidders <hidders at uia.ua.ac.be>
|Mail-Followup-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|Content-Disposition: inline
|User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
|X-Spam-Flag: NO
|X-Spam-Status: Not checked, trusted sender
|X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.9
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
|X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4
|Precedence: bulk
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|List-Help: <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=help>
|List-Post: <mailto:wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
|List-Subscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=subscribe>
|List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia <wikipedia-l.nupedia.com>
|List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|List-Archive: <http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/>
|Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:57:52 +0200
|
|On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:03:07AM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
|> Forgive me for spoiling the hopeful mood, but I'm not so sure the
|> uneditable review idea would work.
|
|Neither do I. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it won't work for the reasons
|that Magnus already gave. As the academic that I believe myself to be, my
|motivation to write such a review would be zero.
|
|-- Jan Hidders
|
If we could get one of these lofty personages to write a review, why
would we not be able to get them to write an article? Fear of the
hurly-burly? If they fear the hurly-burly, why would we want the
review anyway?
I think some folks have an artificially elevated notion of who it is
exactly writing all those encyclopedia articles in those other
encyclopedias. For the most part they are written by ordinary smart,
well-educated folk who swot up on a subject, write it up, and then go
on to the next subject. Just like the ideal Wikipedia article, except
they get paid.
The most productive effort, it seems to me, would be recruiting people
to write for Wikipedia, and the best process improvement would be some
sort of probationary status, or cooling-off (warming-up?) period for
contributions before they become fully party of the encyclopedia.
And, rather than clicking on Random Page to judge articles, why not
click on Random Page to improve them?
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 723
[Wikipedia-l] My approval mechanism ideas
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Wed Sep 4 15:33:09 UTC 2002
Reading the postings on setting up an article approval system for
Wikipedia, I had the following ideas (most elements of it have already
been mentioned by others).
Even though experts are no guarantee for quality, the credibility of
Wikipedia will grow as articles have been approved by field experts.
Therefore, there should be a mechanism to nominate an article for
approval by an expert (or more, if these are available); this should in
a way similar to the old voting system, and should IMO only be possible
by logged in users.
Experts are defined in two ways: field and nationality. This has the
benefit that an article on, say, a German mathematician is not only
verified by a mathematical expert, but also by somebody with knowledge
of Germany, being able to check the spelling of names, cities and check
local information (the mathematician's influence in Germany may be much
bigger than in the rest of the world). While experts will know a great
deal about their fields (mathematics, biology, philosophy), they
probably have some smaller areas in which they're particularly
knowledgable (logic, evolution theory, Nietzsche). When an article is
submitted for approval, the submitted should indicate which general
field the article is in, potentially specify the sub-field, and a
country (if applicable). For example, the article on the German
mathematician will be have : mathematics, sub-field trigonometry (f.e.),
country Germany. This will cause the page to show up on the approval
lists of the experts that have subscribed to one of these areas. An
expert can than indicate if he wishes to review the article or not. If
there are multiple experts willing to review, they can decide what
approach to take (the country expert may f.e. let the math-man do most
work and only check for names or so). After review, the experts may put
the document back without approving it. In that case, they should
indicate which elements are still missing in their opinion, and point
out other deficiencies (probably in the talk page). Alternatively, the
expert can decide to fix the current deficiencies and put the article
back as approved, or may simply give the article approval without change.
After approval, the article should NOT be locked for editing, but the
page should indicate that "this article is approved by an expert" or "a
previous version of this article was approved by an expert", in case the
article was edited since the last approval.
As for the admittance of experts, I think expert status should not just
be given to people with lot of titles or the like. Actually, I think
most of the current frequent editors, or at least the sysops, would
already qualify as an expert in my view. Having finished a higher-level
education on a specific subject, or even still studying is already some
qualification. A proven record of quality edits to Wikipedia articles on
the subject should be enough to get expert-status.
These are my ideas. They're still a bit of loose sand, and several
problems are still not addressed (such as the issue of how we actually
give people expert status), but I'd still like hear your reactions.
Jeroen Heijmans
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 724
[Wikipedia-l] My approval mechanism ideas
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Sep 4 15:11:04 UTC 2002
Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
> Even though experts are no guarantee for quality, the credibility of
> Wikipedia will grow as articles have been approved by field experts.
> As for the admittance of experts, I think expert status should not
> just be given to people with lot of titles or the like. Actually, I
> think most of the current frequent editors, or at least the sysops,
> would already qualify as an expert in my view. Having finished a
> higher-level education on a specific subject, or even still studying
> is already some qualification. A proven record of quality edits to
> Wikipedia articles on the subject should be enough to get expert-status.
The issue of identifying experts remains at the root of the issue. You
are right in recognizing that the ones who have contributed have proven
their worth, and should be granted every credit that that implies.
What that all means is that we have absolutely no need to bow and scrape
and compromise just for the sake of trying to attract experts. Doing
that seems to demean the contributions that have already been made.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 725
[Wikipedia-l] Militia Call-out request -- also on my talk page
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 4 17:14:34 UTC 2002
Could some of you perhaps try to reason with DW (who may also be
209.202.xxx.xxx) As far as I can tell (unless it's a major coincidence),
he's brought in his friends Olivier and Suzanne to help ram through a
bunch of French articles. Mast are pretty good, but both Zoe and I have
asked that they try to stick to the format we've used for historical
biography, with no response. I think a couple of others have also put
comments for him and also have been ignored. There have also been
questions about sources and images -- no response. It wouldn't matter if
the articles were all neutral, but DW tends to put in phrases like "he
had the morals of a tomcat" -- it's bad writing and without some kind of
citation, it isn't appropriate (and I'd still re-write it).
I've tried to talk to this person, but he refuses to talk to me because
he thinks I'm a German revisionist -- his last shot to me was to demand
my credentials after implying that I had made them up. I provided them
and asked for his -- no response.
I'll stop whining here, but I thought we were a community -- this guy
seems to be a loose cannon with no respect for anybody else.
A tired Jules, who knows it's not her job to oversee all of history, but
is apparently addicted.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020904/5c46b8f2/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 726
[Wikipedia-l] Helga and other Internet kooks
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Sep 4 15:37:51 UTC 2002
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>In 1933 a small group of Jews declared war on Germany (in response to the
>government's official policies of anti-Semitism). Germany responded with an
>official boycott of all Jewish shops and eventually launched an all-out
>campaign to murder all the Jews of Europe.
>
The sort of event where a small extremist group purporting to represent
a larger community performs irrational acts is not unknown to history.
Equally common is the tendency of governments and the public press to
fan the flames of discontent by taking these groups at their word in
their claims of being representative. Often, as was the case in 1930s
Germany, the extremists fit hand in glove with preconceived notions.
I find the overreaction of governments far more frightening than the
original acts of the extremists. Of a sudden, in response to a single
extremist event the freedoms and liberties of everyone in a society are
revoked. It then takes many years (and incidentally big profits by many
lawyers) to sort out the damages, even in a society that makes a big
deal of proclaiming the freeedom it offers.
As important as it may be to keep a watchful eye on the extremists
(which is not done by surpressing reports of their activities), it is
also important to apply the same dilligence to the activities of
governments.
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 727
[Wikipedia-l] Militia Call-out request -- also on my talk page
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Wed Sep 4 17:16:57 UTC 2002
>
>
>Could some of you perhaps try to reason with DW (who may also be
>209.202.xxx.xxx) As far as I can tell (unless it's a major coincidence),
>he's brought in his friends Olivier and Suzanne to help ram through a
>bunch of French articles. Mast are pretty good, but both Zoe and I have
>asked that they try to stick to the format we've used for historical
>biography, with no response. I think a couple of others have also put
>comments for him and also have been ignored. There have also been
>questions about sources and images -- no response. It wouldn't matter if
>the articles were all neutral, but DW tends to put in phrases like "he had
>the morals of a tomcat" -- it's bad writing and without some kind of
>citation, it isn't appropriate (and I'd still re-write it).
>
>
>I've tried to talk to this person, but he refuses to talk to me because he
>thinks I'm a German revisionist -- his last shot to me was to demand my
>credentials after implying that I had made them up. I provided them and
>asked for his -- no response.
>
>
>I'll stop whining here, but I thought we were a community -- this guy
>seems to be a loose cannon with no respect for anybody else.
>
>
>A tired Jules, who knows it's not her job to oversee all of history, but
>is apparently addicted.
>
A google search for "artistic temperament of a Renaissance prince
and the morals of a tomcat" gets no hits, so if it copied might not be from
the internet.
Good phrase to remember for the Mick Jagger article...
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 728
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Helga and other Internet kooks
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 5 17:38:50 UTC 2001
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 04:57 am, you wrote:
> The Internet is full of kooks. Do they all deserve equal time? Do they all
> deserve legitimacy?
>
> Danny
Of course not -- both you and I have deleted or moved to the meta much of
this type of hopelessly POV or idiosyncratic material (and have edited the
hell out of less POV or idiosyncratic material).
The question here is if one particular kook is reformable or is irrevocably
stuck in her own POV world and therefore will be a continued drain on user
resources. I still haven't seen any evidence other than her joining the list
that she can reform. But joining the list is a major first step.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 729
[Wikipedia-l] Uneditable reviews
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Sep 4 18:44:03 UTC 2002
>> Forgive me for spoiling the hopeful mood, but I'm not so sure
>> the uneditable review idea would work.
> Neither do I. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it won't work for
> the reasons that Magnus already gave. As the academic that I
> believe myself to be, my motivation to write such a review would
> be zero.
You may be right; I have no plans to act on the idea yet, I
just threw it out for comment. Magnus's alternative is more
in line with what Larry was suggesting, and that may be what
we have to do. But I see the problem there is this: if the
expert is charged with writing the article itself, what incentive
does he have to pay any attention whatsoever to the Wikipedia
content? Wouldn't he just write a whole new article that he
can claim authorship of, totally ignoring the /development/
process that went into the wiki content?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 730
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Wed Sep 4 20:08:23 UTC 2002
At 04:29 AM 9/4/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > The totality of the material
> > presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that
> > the Holocaust was undeserved.
>
>But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
>"The Earth goes around the Sun".
Exactly. Otherwise we'd need to carefully avoid suggesting--on each of the
September 11 pages--that the victims were innocent. Either is absurd and
offensive.
> > Similarly, there were legitimate security concerns that lead to
> > U.S. Japanese internment camps. We should present the concerns,
> > the evidence, the surrounding context, the allegations which revolve
> > around the failure to isolate/intern the large U.S. population of
> > German descent, etc. and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
>
>Without turning this into an argument about history, I would say that
>although *I* think that the U.S. Japanese internment camps were
>morally unjustified, that there are _legitimate arguments_ about
>security concerns, etc., that make the situation less clear. The
>United States did not exterminate the Japanese in gas ovens.
>
> > Selection, censorship or propaganda? If Nazi views can be
> > summarily dismissed as inappropriate or incorrect then there
> > are few modern minorities influential enough to justify NPOV
> > presentation.
>
>This is a misrepresentation of what I have said. Clearly, the
>encyclopedia must report on Nazi views. The ideas of the Nazis are an
>important part of history, and the encyclopedia must cover just what
>those views are.
>
>Let me see if I can explain this with an example.
>
>Here's an evil idea, held by at least some Nazis: "Jews are vermin."
>Now, the fact that those people held that idea is an important
>historical fact. We should report on it.
>
>We are not required, however, to say, in an article on Jews, "Jews are
>widely considered great people. Maybe not, though, since some people
>think they are vermin." This is no longer _reporting on a point of
>view_, it is _giving credence to this point of view as a legitimate
>minority opinion_.
>
>Similarly, in an article on holocaust deniers, we must report on the
>Daily Express article, as an example of the types of things that the
>deniers say. We must _not_, though, suggest in an article on the
>holocaust that "maybe" the holocaust was deserved.
Thank you for putting this clearly and calmly.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 731
[Wikipedia-l] Militia Call-out request -- also on my talk page
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 4 20:42:47 UTC 2002
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Could some of you perhaps try to reason with DW
> (who may also be
> >209.202.xxx.xxx) As far as I can tell (unless it's
> a major coincidence),
> >he's brought in his friends Olivier and Suzanne to
> help ram through a
> >bunch of French articles. Mast are pretty good, but
> both Zoe and I have
> >asked that they try to stick to the format we've
> used for historical
> >biography, with no response. I think a couple of
> others have also put
> >comments for him and also have been ignored. There
> have also been
> >questions about sources and images -- no response.
> It wouldn't matter if
> >the articles were all neutral, but DW tends to put
> in phrases like "he had
> >the morals of a tomcat" -- it's bad writing and
> without some kind of
> >citation, it isn't appropriate (and I'd still
> re-write it).
> >
> >
> >I've tried to talk to this person, but he refuses
> to talk to me because he
> >thinks I'm a German revisionist -- his last shot to
> me was to demand my
> >credentials after implying that I had made them up.
> I provided them and
> >asked for his -- no response.
> >
> >
> >I'll stop whining here, but I thought we were a
> community -- this guy
> >seems to be a loose cannon with no respect for
> anybody else.
> >
> >
> >A tired Jules, who knows it's not her job to
> oversee all of history, but
> >is apparently addicted.
> >
> A google search for "artistic temperament of a
> Renaissance prince
> and the morals of a tomcat" gets no hits, so if it
> copied might not be from
> the internet.
>
> Good phrase to remember for the Mick Jagger
> article...
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Dear tired Julie (you know do you, that Jules is
masculine in french ?)
I will relieve you a tiny little bit
http://www.beloit.edu/~arthist/historyofart/gothic/reimscath.htm
You'll notice both images are there. Poor job, he
didnot even try to "steal" it from a non-english
speaking site. Didnot show on french google, but was
fourth hit on english yahoo.
Ain't that a very pretty cathedral?
I saw it several times, during field trips, looking
for champagne...
Cheers
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 732
[Wikipedia-l] Uneditable reviews
Jan Hidders
hidders at uia.ua.ac.be
Wed Sep 4 20:55:45 UTC 2002
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:44:03AM -0700, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> [...] But I see the problem there is this: if the expert is charged with
> writing the article itself, what incentive does he have to pay any
> attention whatsoever to the Wikipedia content? Wouldn't he just write a
> whole new article that he can claim authorship of, totally ignoring the
> /development/ process that went into the wiki content?
Exactly! But, as Magnus already pointed out, if the expert is prepared to
take that into account then he or she is probably going to write directly in
Wikipedia anyway. We have to keep in mind that what we have here is a
bootstrapping problem. Once we have enough good experts that are interested
in writing in Wikipedia, we don't need voting systems, reviews, expert
status, or whatever else has been suggested.
I may sound a bit negative here, but actually I think I'm a bit more
optimistic than Larry. It's very rare that articles go back in quality, so
Wikipedia is only getting bigger and better. One of Larry's complaints was
that his initially imported writings on philosophy hadn't improved much. I'm
still wondering if that is not simply what usually happens to large imported
chuncks: they remain "undigested". There's probably also something about the
style and structure of an article that was "home grown" on our own soil that
makes it attract more new edits.
Finally, let's also not forget that Wikipedia has made a big jump since the
new script. It might be interesting to look at the number of edits and the
number of articles in the course of time. Even uncorrected for stubs et
cetera they would tell us something about the trend of the growth.
So my suggestion: let's just wait a little more until we hit 50.000 (2
months?) and then start making some noise.
-- Jan Hidders
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 733
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Militia Call-out request -- also on my talk page
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 4 21:40:22 UTC 2002
Thanks for checking out the pix, Anthere. I was aware that Jules in
French is masculine -- when I speak French (somewhat execrably), I'm
Julie. With fellow wikipedians, I pretty much answer to anything. I'm
going to attempt to go into lurk mode so I can get some work done --
although we all know that I'm not so good at that.
Still, at the moment, I think we have a clear case of why so-called
experts might drop off the site. It's physically and emotionally
exhausting trying to defend a reputation rather than to make one -- or
to make the wrong kind. Once your name is on an article, you feel a
bit of responsibility to make sure the article remains good --
especially in case your colleges see your name attached.
One of the things I love about this place is the people and the
community (the one ark denied existed). I've found it very supportive
for the most part, and I've learned something from almost everyone I've
worked with, mostly because the people who write good articles are
experts at learning enough about something to write good articles. I
think that that is the kind of expertise that a good education brings,
no matter the level of (or lack of) degree.
Jules (Fr. Julie)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 734
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Sep 4 22:31:34 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> At 04:29 AM 9/4/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > > The totality of the material
> > > presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that
> > > the Holocaust was undeserved.
> >
> >But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
> >"The Earth goes around the Sun".
>
> Exactly. Otherwise we'd need to carefully avoid suggesting--on each of the
> September 11 pages--that the victims were innocent. Either is absurd and
> offensive.
Absurd and offensive to who? The prevailing mainstream
Arab view seem pretty supportive of the attacks.
The Afghanistan government (unrecognized by the U.S. but
effectively in charge anyway) did not choose to recognize
it as a criminal act and hand over the leaders of Al Quada.
Hence, they were invaded and replaced. Is this also
the obviously correct thing to do?
Might makes right and the mighty write history
which is "obviously" correct anytime a new faction
is in charge?
Are Irael's current pogroms or attacks in Palestinian
neighorhoods or camps in response to "terrorist" attacks
"obviously" incorrect?
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 735
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Militia Call-out request -- also on my talk page
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 5 07:44:40 UTC 2002
> Still, at the moment, I think we have a clear case
> of why so-called
> experts might drop off the site. It's physically
> and emotionally
> exhausting trying to defend a reputation rather than
> to make one -- or
> to make the wrong kind. Once your name is on an
> article, you feel a
> bit of responsibility to make sure the article
> remains good --
> especially in case your colleges see your name
> attached.
>
> One of the things I love about this place is the
> people and the
> community (the one ark denied existed). I've found
> it very supportive
> for the most part, and I've learned something from
> almost everyone I've
> worked with, mostly because the people who write
> good articles are
> experts at learning enough about something to write
> good articles. I
> think that that is the kind of expertise that a good
> education brings,
> no matter the level of (or lack of) degree.
>
> Jules (Fr. Julie)
Yes, I agree, right now I don't think being an expert
is the point. The only point is "reputation". Because
you care for your reputation, you feel the need to
preserve it. You have two reputations to protect, the
"virtual" one, here on Wikipedia, and the "real"
professional one. I'm not so much around, but I had
the feeling your "virtual" reputation was pretty good
(ever wrote an article on bonding to break it ? jk).
It seems people here trust you and your expertise.
I understand your deep inner desire for information to
be precise and reliable, but it appears to be also
(mostly ?) a fear that an article you take care of, is
flawed, causing your professional reputation to
suffer.
If so is your fear, why did you give your name and
references ? Why leaving that information everywhere
on the net ? Why not give that information privately,
only to those who need to know ? Why not earn
credentials later, while being one of wikipedia
validating "expert" ? What you will lose in (potential
better professional) reputation, you might earn in peace.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 736
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Thu Sep 5 09:04:56 UTC 2002
"Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net> writes:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> > But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
> > "The Earth goes around the Sun".
>
> Only if one considers a major World War beneath notice. To me that seems a
> bit controversial if one is presenting an NPOV as a neutral reporter.
Excuse me, but perhaps you could enlighten me as to in what way the holocaust
was deserved?
--
Gareth Owen
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 737
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Thu Sep 5 09:35:16 UTC 2002
> The Afghanistan government (unrecognized by the U.S. but
> effectively in charge anyway) did not choose to recognize
> it as a criminal act and hand over the leaders of Al Quada.
The reason was not that they did not see it as a criminal act, but that
they were not convinced that Al-Qaida was responsible for it - the US
basically told when asked for proof: "We have proof, and that should be
enough for you." This asking for proof might well have been a tactic to
give some formal international political reason for a decision that was
taken on fully other grounds, but the Taliban have never said (publically)
that they did not regard the attacks a crime. In fact, like Khadafi, but
unlike Saddam Hussein, they reacted to the attacks with a message of
sympathy for the victims.
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 738
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Sep 5 10:55:48 UTC 2002
Gareth Owen wrote:
>
> "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net> writes:
>
> > Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > >
> > > But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
> > > "The Earth goes around the Sun".
> >
> > Only if one considers a major World War beneath notice. To me that seems a
> > bit controversial if one is presenting an NPOV as a neutral reporter.
>
> Excuse me, but perhaps you could enlighten me as to in what way the holocaust
> was deserved?
I do not think that I have asserted that it was deserved, merely
that many people were involved in helping create it. Presumably
they believed it was deserved. It has been my experience that
few people consider themselves the villians or perpetrators of
injustice. It is usually the view of one faction that it is
the other side's fault and vice versa.
Thus it has been my assertion that at least some of the Germans
responsible for it (the Holocaust) probably felt it was deserved
and this (and reasons they provide regarding why they felt it
was deserved) could be reliably reported within the confines of
an "NPOV" presentation of the facts surrounding the holocaust.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 739
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Sep 5 11:01:59 UTC 2002
Andre Engels wrote:
>
> > The Afghanistan government (unrecognized by the U.S. but
> > effectively in charge anyway) did not choose to recognize
> > it as a criminal act and hand over the leaders of Al Quada.
>
> The reason was not that they did not see it as a criminal act, but that
> they were not convinced that Al-Qaida was responsible for it - the US
> basically told when asked for proof: "We have proof, and that should be
> enough for you." This asking for proof might well have been a tactic to
> give some formal international political reason for a decision that was
> taken on fully other grounds, but the Taliban have never said (publically)
> that they did not regard the attacks a crime. In fact, like Khadafi, but
> unlike Saddam Hussein, they reacted to the attacks with a message of
> sympathy for the victims.
Excellent clarification! Thank you!
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 740
[Wikipedia-l] Historical Revisionist Crap
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Thu Sep 5 11:27:13 UTC 2002
At 03:55 AM 9/5/02 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>Gareth Owen wrote:
>>
>> "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net> writes:
>>
>> > Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
>> > > "The Earth goes around the Sun".
>> >
>> > Only if one considers a major World War beneath notice. To me that
seems a
>> > bit controversial if one is presenting an NPOV as a neutral reporter.
>>
>> Excuse me, but perhaps you could enlighten me as to in what way the
holocaust
>> was deserved?
>
>I do not think that I have asserted that it was deserved, merely
>that many people were involved in helping create it. Presumably
>they believed it was deserved. It has been my experience that
>few people consider themselves the villians or perpetrators of
>injustice. It is usually the view of one faction that it is
>the other side's fault and vice versa.
>
>Thus it has been my assertion that at least some of the Germans
>responsible for it (the Holocaust) probably felt it was deserved
>and this (and reasons they provide regarding why they felt it
>was deserved) could be reliably reported within the confines of
>an "NPOV" presentation of the facts surrounding the holocaust.
We have done that. The reasoning is set forth (probably more fully than
necessary) in the article on [[Nazism]].
What the discussion is about is nonsense about Zionism "causing" the
holocaust and other historical revisionist, neo-nazi crap.
Likewise maybe we will have an article on Stalin that sets forth his
reasons, but neutral point of view isn't going to require an article on
Trotskyite Wreckers and how wide spread sabotage lead to necessary
elimination of the perpetrators.
I have changed the name of the article because this is not Helga talking,
her issue or her position, as far as I know.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 741
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Sep 5 11:25:09 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
> > "The Earth goes around the Sun".
>
> Only if one considers a major World War beneath notice.
The only way we can say that it is uncontroversial that the Holocaust
was undeserved is if we think that WWII is unworthy of notice? To put
it another way, are you saying that if we think WWII is an important
event, we have to regard it _controversial_ to claim that the
Holocaust was wrong?
That's what you said; I'm sure it isn't what you intended. But I
think this illustrates the lack of clarity in your thoughts on these
matters.
> OTOH It is not "offensive" to report the facts on the
> Holocaust without mentioning in every other paragraph that the
> Nazi's were obviously to all right thinking people sick and evil.
This is a straw man fallacy. Absolutely no one here is claiming that
we have to inject moral condemnation of the Nazis into "every other
paragraph". Pretending that we are merely muddles the discussion to
no good purpose. Please don't do that.
Here's a false alternative: (a) pretend that 'maybe' the Nazis were
right or (b) engage in random moralizing on every controversial topic
in wikipedia. When I say that we must avoid (a), I am not advocating
(b).
You may think that the NPOV is muddled and self-contradictory. I
think that you aren't thinking clearly, as shown by your fallacies and
non sequiturs.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 742
[Wikipedia-l] Ban warning to GrahamN
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Sep 5 16:08:54 UTC 2002
I placed the following notice on GrahamN's user page:
----
Please refrain from giving your opinion in the Talk pages. Personal opinions of contributors are welcome in the MetaWikipedia (where, by the way, April is hosting a debate) -- as well as on your own User page.
Article talk pages are for discussion of how to improve the article. If there is a point of view (POV) that you happen to agree with, which you think ought to be represented in the article, then please focus on how to describe that POV. Avoid arguing for or against any POV. Instead, help your co-contributors to learn which proponents advocate the POV, and what reasons those advocates give.
For example, Joe Camel might say, "I hate Jews because they smell like lox." We need not debate how often an odor of lox is detectable in the vicinity of Jews (my Mom, who is Jewish, made me an excellent lox sandwich over Labor Day, by the way). We need not debate whether smelling like lox is a "good" reason to hate someone. All that matters is whether or not to mention Joe Camel's POV in some Wikipedia article. And if some contributor decides to describe that POV, we might debate the best choice of words to describe it.
This is a warning: any more personal or provocative remarks, and I will will ban you for a day. --Ed Poor, sysop
----
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 743
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Sep 5 15:55:30 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>An accurate presentation of facts involved in history
>is going to require the presentation of various peoples
>views, when they are known, can be determined or possibly
>estimated with any reliability. Stating they are "offensive"
>and refusing to explore the details of the event merely
>allows similar incidents in the future via ignorance as
>well as design.
>
Victors uniformly believe that their own side was incapable of war
crimes. History often needs to wait until the participants have died of
old age before truths can be discovered. By that time any determination
of guilt for war crimes is moot.
>Such as the current internment of non U.S. Arabs
>(and U.S. Citizens of Arabic descent? I have not been
>following this closely) picked up for questioning in
>the U.S. Personally I can see no justification for this
>in U.S. law yet they have been repeatedly denied any
>relief by the U.S. courts.
>
These events are far more alarming than the original terrorist acts.
Hysteria is the only required justification.
>Such as holding "terrorists" as POWs to claim that
>no trial is appropriate or required while claiming
>the Geneva Conventions do not apply because the U.S.
>does not recognize the government it attacked.
>The U.S. has never accepted other countries allegations
>that our soldiers are terrorists or war criminals.
>Very convenient that Al Quada troops captured in
>Afghanistan turn out to be "terrorists" with no
>rights requiring no trial as long as they are not
>detained on U.S. soil. Very convenient that Quantico
>is not U.S. soil (as Cuba as been alleging for decades)
>but is merely controlled by the U.S. military.
>
Quantico is in the USA. Guantanamo is the base in Cuba. If suddenly
the Americans are recognizing Guantanamo as being on Cuban soil, then
these jailed "terrorists' should have the full protection of Cuban law.
That could be an interesting prospect. It would be an interesting
reversal of the incident a few years back when Castro emptied his jails
of common criminals and shipped them all to the United States.
>It seems to me that in history, conflicts, etc.
>that the losers (victims) typically feel this
>was undeserved while the victors seem to have ways
>to feel it was justified or they (losers) deserved it.
>
Victors win the right to invent the history.
>I think that we should
>simply state what happened and who believed what (or
>state what they claim to have believed or what they wrote
>down as their beliefs and supporting and conflicting
>evidence, etc. etc.) and let the future readers decide
>for themselves what is "obvious" and "offensive".
>
We can't honestly do much more.
>If the fact that I do not view Jewish lives
>as inherently more valuable than other human
>lives (or discussion of events surrounding their
>death inherently "offensive") "offends" you or
>others then I feel that this is unfortunate.
>
I don't even consider American lives more valuable than others.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 744
[Wikipedia-l] Ban warning to GrahamN
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Thu Sep 5 17:54:19 UTC 2002
Ed,
For this to be useful, I would need to know what talk pages you are
refering to. Also, although I should know and presumably GrahamN should
too, it wouldn't hurt to tell us how to link to MetaWikipedia (maybe it's
just a page in Wikipedia, for all I know). Also POV is a term of art; it
might help if you spelled it out.
I also, without knowing what he did, find your message rather ambiguous and
difficult to understand; perhaps he understands it better since he knows
the context.
Fred
>I placed the following notice on GrahamN's user page:
>----
>Please refrain from giving your opinion in the Talk pages. Personal
>opinions of contributors are welcome in the MetaWikipedia (where, by the
>way, April is hosting a debate) -- as well as on your own User page.
>
>Article talk pages are for discussion of how to improve the article. If
>there is a point of view (POV) that you happen to agree with, which you
>think ought to be represented in the article, then please focus on how to
>describe that POV. Avoid arguing for or against any POV. Instead, help
>your co-contributors to learn which proponents advocate the POV, and what
>reasons those advocates give.
>
>For example, Joe Camel might say, "I hate Jews because they smell like
>lox." We need not debate how often an odor of lox is detectable in the
>vicinity of Jews (my Mom, who is Jewish, made me an excellent lox sandwich
>over Labor Day, by the way). We need not debate whether smelling like lox
>is a "good" reason to hate someone. All that matters is whether or not to
>mention Joe Camel's POV in some Wikipedia article. And if some contributor
>decides to describe that POV, we might debate the best choice of words to
>describe it.
>
>This is a warning: any more personal or provocative remarks, and I will
>will ban you for a day. --Ed Poor, sysop
>----
>
>Ed Poor
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 745
[Wikipedia-l] Ban warning to GrahamN
Axel Boldt
axel at uni-paderborn.de
Thu Sep 5 18:27:20 UTC 2002
>This is a warning: any more personal or provocative remarks, and I
>will will ban you for a day. --Ed Poor, sysop
...and the ban will be undone immediately of course. Ed, please
refrain from using your sysop status as if it were a position of
power.
Axel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 746
[Wikipedia-l] Server logs
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Sep 5 17:29:20 UTC 2002
I'm not really in favor of this for two reasons:
1. Blanking the last three digits isn't really enough to protect privacy
when there's a trail of information here. Perhaps you see me editing some
respectable topic several times, and then you see me visiting a bunch of
pages. You'll be able to know what I viewed.
Since there's nothing scandalous about anything on Wikipedia, we don't
need to be paranoid to great extremes about this sort of thing, but we
don't need to publish web server logs to the general public, either.
(perhaps this could be solved by removing the ip numbers completely,
but this precludes some kinds of analysis, as does
last-three-blanking)
2. These things are big, and getting bigger all the time. I wouldn't
really like to have people downloading them on a cron job or anything,
since I do pay the bandwidth bills around here. :-)
-------
What I'd prefer is that people who want to write programs to study the
logs do so by getting developer access. You could then download
sample logs to study on your home machine, but then we could also all
work together on custom log analysis scripts to be run on a cron, with
reports generated for the general public. (We have to watch the CPU
usage, though.)
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 747
[Wikipedia-l] Ban warning to GrahamN
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Sep 5 17:31:04 UTC 2002
Not having reviewed the incident in question, I would tend to agree
with Axel here. Banning ips is supposed to be for vandalism of the
most obvious sort, like inserting random 'farts' in pages, or
uploading inappropriate pictures, etc.
What did the guy say, anyway?
Axel Boldt wrote:
> >This is a warning: any more personal or provocative remarks, and I
> >will will ban you for a day. --Ed Poor, sysop
>
> ...and the ban will be undone immediately of course. Ed, please
> refrain from using your sysop status as if it were a position of
> power.
>
> Axel
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 748
[Wikipedia-l] ban attempt
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Sep 5 19:10:20 UTC 2002
Okay, the "ban" is lifted. Gimme a break, okay?
I just wanted to re-focus the talk constructively, but then Lee is like, let the kids bicker and pull hair, as long as they don't damage the furniture.
Ed
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 749
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Tim Marklew
tmarklew at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 5 20:43:02 UTC 2002
Jimbo Wrote:
>Not having reviewed the incident in question, I would tend to agree
>with Axel here. Banning ips is supposed to be for vandalism of the
>most obvious sort, like inserting random 'farts' in pages, or
>uploading inappropriate pictures, etc.
>
>What did the guy say, anyway?
For those who haven't been following this - GrahamN had posted a bad
tempered message on Anti-Semitism/Talk in which he referred to the
'Zionist's desire to dominate all other ethnic groups in [Israel]' and
similar. It was originally in response to a change to the page by
SLRubenstein. I understand that Graham and SLR have since come to a
civilised mutual understanding.
There then followed a very lengthly, bad mannered and inappropriate
exchange, mainly between GrahamN and another user, RK. Each was accusing
Zionists or Non-Zionists of racism and bigotry in broadly equal measure
(with RK liberally making allegations of anti-semitism, directed at April
among others).
Ed, I appreciate your attempts to stop this inappropriate argument on the
talk page. However, using your sysop status to threaten banning people just
isn't appropriate. In a situation like this it could be perceived that you
were taking sides in an argument on behalf of Wikipedia, which is not what
sysop status is for.
In this case we were dealing with two known Wikipedia contributors, both of
whom have made good contributions in the past. Reasoning with them is the
approach to use here and a ban, or threat of one, totally inappropriate.
I would also ask that sysops should not generally sign contributions as
sysops (i.e. writing "Ed Poor - Sysop"). It could be give the misleading
impression that sysops are acting officially on behalf of Wikipedia, rather
than acting as an individual contributor.
Tim (Enchanter)
>Axel Boldt wrote:
>
> > >This is a warning: any more personal or provocative remarks, and I
> > >will will ban you for a day. --Ed Poor, sysop
> >
> > ...and the ban will be undone immediately of course. Ed, please
> > refrain from using your sysop status as if it were a position of
> > power.
> >
> > Axel
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 750
[Wikipedia-l] Message 10 Wed 4 Sep 2002 06:30 by Dany..and other Internet kooks
Helga Hecht
helgah at email.com
Thu Sep 5 21:14:10 UTC 2002
When you get bach to that message by daniwo59 at aol.com
you will find , that [[Dany]] titled his message:
Helga and other Internet kooks.
I am glag to see that no one has answered him on that (yet).
I, for one, object to Dany's namecalling. It is inappropriate and namecalling should not be a wikipedia function.
I will post the /talk, that took place here:
Aloha? had posted 50.000, Danny changed it to 5.000 . What is the number?
The next part was also taken out, which should be shown, especially in light of todays goings on and the previous talk, which seems to try to make them into a hate group, which they specifically reject.
Though they number just some 50000, their vociferous attacks against Zionism and Israel as a secular state have earned them considerable attention. They instead argue that the true Israel can only be reestablished with the coming of the Messiah. The Neturei Karta website shows Israeli police clobbering the Torah-True Neturei Karta. They stand for the rights of the Palestinians and have good relations with the PLO and other Palestinian and Muslim organizations. Nowhere on their website does it state, that they hate Jews or anyone else. They state that they are against the (militant) Zionists violence, against them supressing Palestinians and against the Zionists wars including the 1933 war-declaration then and the possibility of all-out war now.
Their website seems to say something to the effect of 100.000 followers?
H. Jonat
Helga, as the person who wrote the first draft of this article I do know a little about the subject. In fact, I did not look at the website when writing the article--I based it on my own independent research on the phenomenon of Neturei Karta, my close personal interactions with members of the community, and my readings and interpretations of their own texts and the texts of sociologists and anthropologists who studied them.
To clarify some of the points you bring up: a website is hardly an informative account of a group. Anybody can put up a website and say whatever they want about anything, including themselves. It is an interesting source of information, no doubt, but the Internet per se is not always a reliable source. As regards Neturei Karta, I have a lot of problems with the website. For one, it is based in America, when the overwhelming majority of genuine Neturei Karta members live in Jerusalem. Then, of course, the vast majority of members of Neturei Karta would not own a computer, since this would bring them into contact with the outside world, and that is something they shun. The numbers are based on statistics from the Municipality of Jerusalem to which I have had formal access over the past few years. There are other groups which identify with Neturei Karta, but they are not Neturei Karta (Karta is an Aramaic term for "the city", meaning Jerusalem). Other anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox groups such as Satmar are not Neturei Karta.
I removed the section beginning with "The Neturei Karta website shows ... " Yes it does. Do you know why they were "clobbered"? Because they were throwing rocks and bottles at cars driving on a highway in Jerusalem on the Sabbath. They wanted the highway to be closed for the Sabbath. An ambulance carrying a heart attack victim was hit with one of their rocks. How do I know this? I was there. Despite what the website implies, they were not "clobbered" because they are anti-Zionist. For the most part, the Israeli government leaves them alone. They barely even collect taxes from them. As for hating Jews, if you will look in the record of this discussion, I actually rejected the notion that they were anti-Semitic. I wrote this article to offer a fair presentation of their views, even though personally I may not share them.
As for the "Zionist declaration of war," I have spoken with many Neturei Karta about many issues, including their attitudes toward Zionists, the Holocaust, and Nazism. Not one Neturei Karta member will tell you that the Jews or the Zionists initiated or sparked World War II. They do not even say that on their website. They do claim that Zionist actions made things worse for the Jews, and they do claim that the Holocaust was Divine retribution for the secular lifestyles of the Zionists. I will not get into a debate here about the way God works (if at all). I would like to examine their claim, which you seem to support. Looking at their website, which you cite, they give examples of how the Zionists made things worse. Hitler wanted to deport all the Jews from Europe to Mauritius (sounds like ethnic cleansing to me). The Zionists opposed it and they should have said yes, because in Neturei Karta's philosophy, Jews should be subservient to Gentiles until the coming of the Messiah. Now lets plug the statement into your assertion here and in the mailing list that the Holocaust was largely caused because some Jews (the Zionists) refused to be ethnically cleansed. Sorry, but that is anti-Semitic, and I do not use that term lightly. If I were to say that the German residents of Prussia were justly killed after World War II because they did not want to be expelled from Prussia, you could rightfully call me racist. How is the case of Jews in Europe any different.
An interesting anecdote is that Ruth Blau, the widow of the late leader of Neturei Karta, Rabbi Amram Blau, is a French Catholic convert to Judaism. She met her husband when she part of the French underground, helping to smuggle Jews out of Europe during the Nazi reign of terror. She would never tell you that the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust, even if she would say that the Holocaust was God's retribution for the sins of some Jews, including the Zionists.
Finally, Helga, like everyone has already said: Examine your sources, examine your citations. Not every website is historically accurate. Not every historical claim has basis. I've avoided getting into this debate until now, but Helga, please realize that there are other people out there whose professional and academic fields do encompass your own interests. We also know our stuff, so if you don't want to get into vociferous arguments, please make sure your facts and interpretations are valid. Danny
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny I appreciate all your information. Believe me, I did/do not want to get into this either. I do know that there are a lot more Jewish people opposed to the radical violence perpetuated by the current situation. I do know that a Lady Ambassador (name?) came from Israel was on an emergency trip and on Ted Koppel's Night Line. She warned about the militant brutal force and worse put upon by a rivaling faction against other Jews. There are ladies or grandmothers in grey (or black),opposing , with Israeli soldiers attending. There is a lot more going on, than what the official version wants you to believe. I do not wish harm on any one or any one group. Therefore I have this feeling, that getting previous happenings out in the open, can somehow make a difference. Now everyone wants to make this 1933 Declaration of War out to be a 'minor little none-issue', not worse mentioning. But when you read the wiki or any other article that says, "the Nazi's forbade Germans to buy from Jewish stores", then it makes a lot more sense to say 'why', and the 'why' is the Decleration of War. Another factor not readily mentioned, is the Deal between Germany and Jewish people (Zionists), who since before 1900 already moved to Palestine and who continued to do so under the Nazi dictatorship. They took a lot of money out of Germany and started building the Jewish State, (some program named Havala? or something like this). I would not argue about any of the loud arguments, because I do not know enough details on this. Therefore I ask questions. Which brings me to the question on the numbers again. I guess until we know, we should just leave the numbers off alltogether? H. Jonat
Helga, your ramblings here show that you have know idea what you are talking about, and I am being very polite in saying that. Personally, I find it insulting that you insinuate that I am a victim of some "official version" and not "the truth." Unlike you, I actually do know something about the topics mentioned here. For your information, we were talking about Neturei Karta, a reactionary group of a few thousand followers that opposes the state of Israel on principle, believing that Jews should be subservient to Gentiles until the Messiah comes. That is not some interpretation. That is what they say in their internal texts. I have read those texts. Women in Black is a grassroots organization of Israeli women opposed to the occupation of the West Bank. Yes, many Israelis are disturbed by the violence in Israeli society. I am also deeply concerned about the violence in Israeli society. This has little to do with Neturei Karta. It has to do with the Occupation. Period. Hitler and the Nazis did not forbid Germans to buy from Jews because of the so-called "Declaration of War." That is asinine. Are you ignoring Mein Kampf? Are you ignoring the Nazi campaign platform prior to Hitler coming to power? Are you ignoring Hitler's speeches and writings. We have records of all of them. We even have the records of Hitler's first public appearance at the German Worker's Party. (I have a copy in my office, if you'd like.) It was an anti-Semitic diatribe, plain and simple. It was also before any Nazi was elected to the Reichstag. Jews did not have any deal with the German government to move to Palestine. They fled Germany because of rampant anti-Semitism. As for your dates, political Zionism was founded in 1896. Herzl, the founder of the movement, negotiated unsuccessfully with the Kaiser to get a German protectorate in the region so that Jews could settle there. Until the 1930s, Jewish immigrants to Palestine came from Russia, not Germany. As for taking money out of Germany, they were fleeing for their lives. Some managed to take money out. Most did not. Most could not. It was illegal. Many spent all their money paying bribes to officials to get their children to England. It was called the Kindertransport. I am glad you admit you don't know much about this topic. It so happens that I do. As for the number of Neturei Karta members, at least you admit that you do not know it. Once again, I have studied this issue. I do have reasons for the numbers I give, and not just some stupid website. If you don't know the subject matter, don't writre about it. Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it beyond a doubt. A very irate Danny
------------------
To this [[Neturei Karta]]/Talk beteen Dany and myself I want to add, that 1. The number is still not substanciated.
2. Not only the Neturei Karta, but also the http://www.jewsnotzionist.org/ and the Woman in Black (or Women for Peace) http://adot.com/green/wib.html are demonstrating against Israeli violence etc. Contrary to Dany's denial of the there are people , who claim to have information, that in fact the Havaara undertaking was handled by later Israeli prime ministers incl Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharret(or Shertok), Golda Meir, Levi Eshkol http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionmythgar.2.html
google.com : Havaara , or Google.com Women in Balck, gives a number of websites.
I am only bringing all this up, because of Dany's bad choice of a website title: Helga and other Internet cooks. I also want to substanciate my talk to Dany, that there are a lot more facts , that the general public is not aware of. I also stated that I do not want to get anyone hurt and that I have a great concern for people wanting to make war, war war... It was also before I found out that Dany works in the Holocaust memorial, which some writers
including Jewish writers, might call the Holocaust industry.
This is all I want to say about this.
H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 751
[Wikipedia-l] Message 10 Wed 4 Sep 2002 06:30 by Dany..and other Internet kooks
Helga Hecht
helgah at email.com
Thu Sep 5 22:14:46 UTC 2002
In my previous message objecting to Danny's message: Helga and other internet kooks , I submitted three websites.
Two of the websites have mistakes
They should be: http://www.newsnotzionists.org/
and http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionmythgar2.html
The 3rd one: http://adot.com/green/wib.html
is correct
H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 752
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Sep 5 22:49:36 UTC 2002
Tim wrote:
>I would also ask that sysops should not generally sign contributions as
>sysops (i.e. writing "Ed Poor - Sysop"). It could be give the misleading
>impression that sysops are acting officially on behalf of Wikipedia, rather
>than acting as an individual contributor.
>
>Tim (Enchanter)
That's right. It's completely inappropriate--an attempt at intimidation and nothing more--completely un-wiki.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 753
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Thu Sep 5 22:48:43 UTC 2002
At 03:31 PM 9/4/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> >
> > At 04:29 AM 9/4/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > >Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > > > The totality of the material
> > > > presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that
> > > > the Holocaust was undeserved.
> > >
> > >But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
> > >"The Earth goes around the Sun".
> >
> > Exactly. Otherwise we'd need to carefully avoid suggesting--on each of the
> > September 11 pages--that the victims were innocent. Either is absurd and
> > offensive.
>
>Absurd and offensive to who? The prevailing mainstream
>Arab view seem pretty supportive of the attacks.
As far as I know, nobody--even the mainstream Arab press--is saying that the
individuals killed in the September 11 attacks were personally guilty of
anything:
the argument by defenders of the attack is that this was an act of war, not
that
people who happened to work at Windows on the World or Cantor Fitzgerald or
the NY Fire Department specifically deserved to die.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 754
[Wikipedia-l] ban attempt
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Thu Sep 5 22:54:33 UTC 2002
At 03:10 PM 9/5/02 -0400, Ed Poor wrote:
>Okay, the "ban" is lifted. Gimme a break, okay?
>
>I just wanted to re-focus the talk constructively, but then Lee is like,
>let the kids bicker and pull hair, as long as they don't damage the furniture.
Threatening to ban people, unilaterally, is a poor way to refocus talk
constructively.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 755
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Sep 5 23:34:12 UTC 2002
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>
> >If the fact that I do not view Jewish lives
> >as inherently more valuable than other human
> >lives (or discussion of events surrounding their
> >death inherently "offensive") "offends" you or
> >others then I feel that this is unfortunate.
> >
> I don't even consider American lives more valuable than others.
As a former military brat with 3 siblings who
served in the U.S. Armed Forces, and a
brother-in-law still serving, I am probably
somewhat biased. At least when it comes to
giving the other armed people a "fair" chance once
the dreck hits the fan.
Still I can acknowledge it is an ideal to
strive towards in an imperfect world.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 756
[Wikipedia-l] Message 10 Wed 4 Sep 2002 06:30 by Dany..and other Interne...
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Thu Sep 5 23:27:02 UTC 2002
In a message dated 9/5/2002 4:15:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
helgah at email.com writes:
> I am only bringing all this up, because of Dany's bad choice of a website
> title: Helga and other Internet cooks. I also want to substanciate my talk
> to Dany, that there are a lot more facts , that the general public is not
> aware of. I also stated that I do not want to get anyone hurt and that I
> have a great concern for people wanting to make war, war war... It was also
> before I found out that Dany works in the Holocaust memorial, which some
> writers
> including Jewish writers, might call the Holocaust industry.
She wrote a lot else, but I think I answered for myself adequately on the
relevant Talk page (Neturei Karta), which she quoted extensively.
Helga, yes I do work in the Museum of Jewish Heritage. However, any statement
I make here represents me and me alone.
I find your snub about the Holocaust industry offensive, however, I have come
to expect that of you. I am the first to admit that I have attitudes and
opinions regarding the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, and Zionism, all
controversial subjects here. On the other hand, you will also find that the
vast majority of my contributions to Wikipedia have not focused on these
issues, not because I do not know the subject matter well, but because I do
know it well and I wanted to avoid involving myself in debates and
discussions where I may be tempted to violate the principles of NPOV. My one
Holocaust contribution was on Mordechai Anielewicz, and that was made before
I began working at the museum (which was rather recently). I did write about
a variety of other topics reflecting my other interests, as my personal page
shows. How Billie Holiday relates to the Holocaust is beyond me. How the
tables I created for each president relate to the Holocaust is beyond me too.
How the Banawa of Brazil or the Chaco War or the film "Chang" relate to the
Holocaust is anybody's guess. My one great debate on Jewish matters was
actually with RK, who focuses on Jewish subjects. Though it got heated at
times, the result (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism) is, I think, a good article.
What are you suggesting regarding the Neturei Karta? Is it that the fact that
I have read about them, written about them, studied them, lived among them,
and worked on a documentary film about them somehow grounds for excluding me
from writing about them here? Or is it that your single source, two
interrelated websites, trumps any serious research? If anything, I wrote the
article as a defense of them. You want to turn it into an attack on others.
You also keep quoting these elusive "facts" that you happen to be aware of,
even if no one else is. The Internet is full of conspiracy theories. There
are books written about them too. That does not make them facts. It is
unfortunate that you do not know how to distinguish fact from theory from
flight of fancy. Perhaps if you did, your articles would be more acceptable.
Finally, I just want to note that you still do not know what my attitudes and
opinions regarding the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, and Zionism are.
Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020905/504e383e/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 757
[Wikipedia-l] ban attempt
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Fri Sep 6 00:26:45 UTC 2002
|From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
|Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:10:20 -0400
|
|
|Okay, the "ban" is lifted. Gimme a break, okay?
|
|I just wanted to re-focus the talk constructively, but then Lee is like, let the kids bicker and pull hair, as long as they don't damage the furniture.
|
|Ed
How about, instead of stopping *people*, we froze *articles*, including
talk pages, for a day, week, or month, until everyone calmed down?
That is, when it starts getting thick and hot, rather than coming down
on someone, we simply shut off access to the opportunity to snipe,
edit-war, insult, and so forth.
There is *plenty* of time to get an article organized, whether on
anti-semitism, or Copernicus's little-appreciated contribution to the
Prussian coinage, or even the law, but if people are firing back and
forth in the article and on the talk page with only minutes between
salvos, we may never get the articles we need. We can wait even a
month or longer, but people in heat can't stay in heat a month, no
matter how much they might want to.
In the worst cases, an admin or other responsible individual could
look over the entire subject, refactor or rewrite the article, and
then open the floodgates again after the fuss had had a chance to die
down.
As it is, after months of good contributions by Julie, we lose her in
two weeks to some hit-and-run artists who might actually have
something to contribute if they weren't so keen on scoring points.
Remove the opportunity for scoring points, remove the dread of logging
in to Wikipedia when this kind of thing is happening, and take a crack
at making an encyclopedia.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
PS - I speak from personal experience at firing off half cocked.
Tom
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 758
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Fri Sep 6 00:41:05 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > > But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
> > > "The Earth goes around the Sun".
> >
> > Only if one considers a major World War beneath notice.
>
> The only way we can say that it is uncontroversial that the Holocaust
> was undeserved is if we think that WWII is unworthy of notice?
No, there is another way. We can deny or censor that the Nazi's
or anyone else ever existed who thought the Holocaust was deserved.
Then it would be "uncontroversial".
We can deny that human cultures which embrace killing outsiders
either individually or collectively for their own purposes have
ever existed. Alternatively, we can contend that they "obviously"
knew they were wrong when we judge their behavior by our standards.
Either approach will reduce our workload substantially. The
result may be in conflict with our presently stated project goals.
>To put
> it another way, are you saying that if we think WWII is an important
> event, we have to regard it _controversial_ to claim that the
> Holocaust was wrong?
Yes. It provides clear evidence that a significant fraction
of the human beings alive at the time of the Holocaust supported
the leadership or power structure that performed it. Clearly
they did not think it was wrong. Hence we have some potential
controversy or disparate views to report.
Controversy is where you find it.
I can claim it is "obvious" that the claim "Murder is criminal
behavior." is "uncontroversial".
I can also reduce the potential controversy by
categorising some perceived forms of homicide as "collateral damage",
"terrorism", "just war", etc.
If multiple parties show up to contend that abortion, infanticide,
war, chemical dumping, market manipulation, justifiable
homicide, willful endangerment resulting in death, etc. is or
is not murder (when it leads to death of human beings);
then controversy exists and the subject is not "obviously"
"uncontroversial", by definition.
My working definition of "controversy" is: Disagreement
exists regarding a specific subject.
What is your working definition of "uncontroversial"?
>
> That's what you said; I'm sure it isn't what you intended. But I
> think this illustrates the lack of clarity in your thoughts on these
> matters.
Perhaps it demonstrates lack of clarity of common context or
use of words and phrases.
Obviously it would be my contention that my thinking is as clear
as anyone elses. Mistakes in thoughts or presentation are possible
but should be proven, not merely alleged or assumed.
>
> > OTOH It is not "offensive" to report the facts on the
> > Holocaust without mentioning in every other paragraph that the
> > Nazi's were obviously to all right thinking people sick and evil.
>
> This is a straw man fallacy. Absolutely no one here is claiming that
> we have to inject moral condemnation of the Nazis into "every other
> paragraph". Pretending that we are merely muddles the discussion to
> no good purpose. Please don't do that.
Interjecting personal standards such as "obvious" and "offensive"
to shutdown discussion of how to present the unpleasant material
is much more damaging. If every other paragraph is deleted because
it is "offensive" and not worth "NPOV"ing or leaving in an acceptable
workspace for others to "NPOV" at their leisure, then other methods
will be needed: such as injecting moral condemnation adequate to
allow the material to sit around waiting for appropriate editing.
Please consider the possibility that I have a legitimate point
that I am attempting to make when I bother to type a message.
Pretending that I do not make a good faith effort is bordering on
"insulting" as I have seen the term used previously here locally.
Errors and fallacies are possible. In my perception, it is the
purpose of discussion to detect them, not present them.
>
> Here's a false alternative: (a) pretend that 'maybe' the Nazis were
> right or (b) engage in random moralizing on every controversial topic
> in wikipedia. When I say that we must avoid (a), I am not advocating
> (b).
>
I never proposed a. My opinion of the Nazi's behavior has no
impact on history or an NPOV presentation of the facts.
I proposed to present what the Nazis thought they were doing
(along with the rest of the material presented) from their own
POV presented in an NPOV context for readers interested in
the Holocaust.
Regarding b. I am more interested in discussing our processes and
how they can be scaled effectively to massive participation.
Unfortunately there seems little interest in discussing this in
the abstract. I am left with participation in the available
controversies to attempt to understand the mechanisms working
(or not working) within the process forming the community fabric.
> You may think that the NPOV is muddled and self-contradictory. I
> think that you aren't thinking clearly, as shown by your fallacies and
> non sequiturs.
I am confident that when next we (the community at large) discuss
the NPOV in any detail or length, some flaws can be detected.
Given the intellectual resources currently at our collective
command, perhaps the presentation or implementation can be improved.
Is it your assertion or conclusion at the moment that the
statement or presentation of the "NPOV" policy cannot be
improved?
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 759
[Wikipedia-l] Message 10 Wed 4 Sep 2002 06:30 by Dany..and other Internet kooks
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Fri Sep 6 00:36:34 UTC 2002
>------------------
>To this [[Neturei Karta]]/Talk beteen Dany and myself I want to add, that
1. The number is still not substanciated.
Ok, but how will you substantiate a number? (and why?) Why the focus on this?
>2. Not only the Neturei Karta, but also the http://www.jewsnotzionist.org/
and the Woman in Black (or Women for Peace) http://adot.com/green/wib.html
are demonstrating against Israeli violence etc.
To be sure, and especially about west bank settlement, check out
http://www.tikkun.org and true some article in Wikipedia could cover the
Israeli Peace Movement, but if you check out Tikkun you'll see a very
different attitude from notions that Zionism aggravated Nazi oppression.
>Contrary to Danny's denial of the there are people , who claim to have
information, >that in fact the Havaara undertaking was handled by later
Israeli prime ministers incl >Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharret(or Shertok), Golda
Meir, Levi Eshkol >http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionmythgar.2.html
>google.com : Havaara , or Google.com Women in Balck, gives a number of
websites.
But can you trust the information on those sites, I don't; why do you?
>I am only bringing all this up, because of Danny's bad choice of a title
[for his posting]: "Helga and other Internet kooks."
Fair enough, but you're going to have to step out here and show you are not
going to rely on historical revisionist (made-up as far as I'm concerned)
material when you write articles.
I also want to substantiate my talk to Danny, that there are a lot more
facts , that the general public is not aware of.
To be sure, but you are choosing to contradict people who do know most of
what can be learned about the holocaust and its causes and relying on
historical revisionist sources with no credibity.
I also stated that I do not want to get anyone hurt and that I have a
great concern for people wanting to make war, war war...
Yes, and accurate information may help.
It was also before I found out that Danny works in the Holocaust memorial,
which some writers including Jewish writers, might call the Holocaust
industry.
So an informed critic is somehow illegitimate?
>
>This is all I want to say about this.
>
>H. Jonat
>
I was hoping for a lot more.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 760
[Wikipedia-l] Hi there!
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Fri Sep 6 00:42:26 UTC 2002
Well, since I seem to have spent most of the last few days posting
wikipedia stuff, thought i'd pop my head up and say hi to the mailing
list. I was wondering where i'd find the tedious, long and
counter-productive arguments, and it looks like I hit paydirt! :). (No
offence intended to anyone - just an observation that long, tedious and
counter-productive arguments are entirely inevitably in any internet
system of a given complexity...) Have already redirected anything
involving the words "Helga", "jewish" or "holocaust" directly to trash.
;). Anyway, not much to say, except Hi!, and I hope the stuff i've
contributed has been useful and appreciated. Wikipedia seems like a
great project, and I hope it succeeds even more than it is at present.
Thanks everyone, bye!
(I'm user AdamWill. Just in case that's not close enough for my name for
everyone to twig. =>)
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 761
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 6 01:44:56 UTC 2002
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Here's a false alternative: (a) pretend that 'maybe'
> the Nazis were
> right or (b) engage in random moralizing on every
> controversial topic
> in wikipedia. When I say that we must avoid (a), I
> am not advocating
> (b).
Exactly. In Larry's Big Reply on the NPOV, he said,
"Your assumption appears to be that, if we do not
explicitly declare something to be true, then the
reader can draw certain inferences about us--such as
that we wish to placate creationists, or that we think
creationism might be scientifically respectable, or
that we might be creationists ourselves, etc., etc.
Well, no. Reasonable people do not draw such
inferences when presented with unbiased texts. You
[...] would not typically draw such inferences--you
know better, of course. Suppose that a history text
adopted a policy of failing to identify Nazi scum as
the murdering bastards they were--but simply reported
the facts about what they did. Would it be reasonable
to assume that the text's author(s) might just be
willing to admit the possibility that the Nazis were
upstanding citizens doing a service to Europe?"
Of course not. No one is going to read a NPOV article
on the Holocaust think it was ok... except Nazis.
People don't need an encyclopedia to say "Look now,
those Nazis were bad." The facts speak for themselves.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 762
[Wikipedia-l] Ban warning to GrahamN
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 6 01:52:41 UTC 2002
Whoa there, Ed. I don't recall anyone being banned for
giving opinions on the Talk pages. This "warning"
sounds like a threat.
Stephen Gilbert
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I placed the following notice on GrahamN's user
> page:
> ----
> Please refrain from giving your opinion in the Talk
> pages. Personal opinions of contributors are welcome
> in the MetaWikipedia (where, by the way, April is
> hosting a debate) -- as well as on your own User
> page.
>
> Article talk pages are for discussion of how to
> improve the article. If there is a point of view
> (POV) that you happen to agree with, which you think
> ought to be represented in the article, then please
> focus on how to describe that POV. Avoid arguing for
> or against any POV. Instead, help your
> co-contributors to learn which proponents advocate
> the POV, and what reasons those advocates give.
>
> For example, Joe Camel might say, "I hate Jews
> because they smell like lox." We need not debate how
> often an odor of lox is detectable in the vicinity
> of Jews (my Mom, who is Jewish, made me an excellent
> lox sandwich over Labor Day, by the way). We need
> not debate whether smelling like lox is a "good"
> reason to hate someone. All that matters is whether
> or not to mention Joe Camel's POV in some Wikipedia
> article. And if some contributor decides to describe
> that POV, we might debate the best choice of words
> to describe it.
>
> This is a warning: any more personal or provocative
> remarks, and I will will ban you for a day. --Ed
> Poor, sysop
> ----
>
> Ed Poor
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 763
[Wikipedia-l] ban attempt
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 6 02:01:22 UTC 2002
Banning is always a last resort, and having sysop
status does not give anyone any special authority to
resolve disputes.
I know you meant well, but threats like that will make
people leave the project in droves.
Stephen Gilbert
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, the "ban" is lifted. Gimme a break, okay?
>
> I just wanted to re-focus the talk constructively,
> but then Lee is like, let the kids bicker and pull
> hair, as long as they don't damage the furniture.
>
> Ed
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 764
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia article on : Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Helga Hecht
helgah at email.com
Fri Sep 6 06:04:09 UTC 2002
I know several of us worked for a while on an article
about B. Carroll Reece. I do not find it in wikipedia now. I know I just read a mention of him in one the list messages. Can anyone who worked on it give me an idea as to what happened to the article ? Thanks a lot.
H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 765
[Wikipedia-l] Misc. messages
Helga Hecht
helgah at email.com
Fri Sep 6 06:37:01 UTC 2002
I am looking at all the messages and there are too many for me to all answer individually. Therefore I am sending a short condensed note:
Michael R. Irwin, I agree with your approach on including information. It is a very good way of handling difficult situations and I hope that your recomendations will be followed.
Ed Poor, you are really handling the 'budding heads' situations very well, by stepping in as a mediator.
I agree with Vicki Rosenzweig..to let someone else write it.
Mav, I like the filter idea, thanks.
Fred Bauder (?), I never believe just one site or one source and I always try to check as many sources as possible.
Jimbo Wales, the 'How to list' is fine, except one point says something to the effect, that I supposedly accused someone of trying to hide things.
I wrote something in general, not specifically wikipedians. But then again, why are there articles disappearing in wikipedia ?
To all of you, who wrote a welcome note, after my first message, thanks again to all of you.
H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 766
[Wikipedia-l] Helga again
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Fri Sep 6 07:02:47 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> At 03:31 PM 9/4/02 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > >
> > > At 04:29 AM 9/4/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > > >Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > > > > The totality of the material
> > > > > presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that
> > > > > the Holocaust was undeserved.
> > > >
> > > >But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as
> > > >"The Earth goes around the Sun".
> > >
> > > Exactly. Otherwise we'd need to carefully avoid suggesting--on each of the
> > > September 11 pages--that the victims were innocent. Either is absurd and
> > > offensive.
> >
> >Absurd and offensive to who? The prevailing mainstream
> >Arab view seem pretty supportive of the attacks.
>
> As far as I know, nobody--even the mainstream Arab press--is saying that the
> individuals killed in the September 11 attacks were personally guilty of
> anything:
> the argument by defenders of the attack is that this was an act of war, not
> that
> people who happened to work at Windows on the World or Cantor Fitzgerald or
> the NY Fire Department specifically deserved to die.
Some of the rhetoric reported (in U.S. papers and
magazines, I do not speak Arabic) over the last year has
seemed to imply that Americans in general deserve some
negative consequences, in the view of many Arabs.
Most of the people working in the World Trade Center
were presumably Americans as were the responding
emergency workers.
I can only judge the mainstream Arab press reports
(I assume the "mainstream" is written in Arabic for
primarily domestic consumption.) from what I see reported
in various U.S. sources and media.
There are plenty of U.S. Military targets in the U.S.
and World Wide. I can only assume that Al Quaeda
felt they were targeting an appropriate target.
Cheering in the streets and funding from Arab
governments would seem fairly supportive. Foot
dragging on use of military bases in the area for
invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (who we seem to
think also involved and a future threat) presumably
indicates some opposition to U.S. interests from
somewhere. Either from factions within the general
population or in the governments.
Still, reviewing my original statement, your argument,
and my reactions to your argument. It seems
clear to me that my original statement:
"The prevailing mainstream Arab view seem pretty
supportive of the attacks."
Could be better stated to more accurately reflect
my own views as something like:
"Significant numbers of Arabs hostile to the
U.S. seem pretty supportive of the attacks."
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 767
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia article on : Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Fri Sep 6 07:24:06 UTC 2002
Helga Hecht wrote:
>
> I know several of us worked for a while on an article
> about B. Carroll Reece. I do not find it in wikipedia now. I know I just read a mention of him in one the list messages. Can anyone who worked on it give me an idea as to what happened to the article ? Thanks a lot.
> H. Jonat
Helga, I did not work on the article but a search
turned up these articles:
Article text matches
1.German expulsion after World War II (2280 bytes)
2.List of poets (15391 bytes)
Perhaps it was merged into one of these.
There has also been some extensive discussion on
the list recently about deleting small or poor
stubs to improve our readers initial impressions
of our content quality.
The emerging consensus on the list seemed split
about fifty/fifty so it is possible that a random
editor has deleted this as being too small and
stubby.
I hope this was helpful.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 768
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia article on : Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Fri Sep 6 07:27:45 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>
>Helga Hecht wrote:
>
>>I know several of us worked for a while on an article
>>about B. Carroll Reece. I do not find it in wikipedia now. I know I just read a mention of him in one the list messages. Can anyone who worked on it give me an idea as to what happened to the article ? Thanks a lot.
>>H. Jonat
>>
>
>Helga, I did not work on the article but a search
>turned up these articles:
>
>Article text matches
>
>1.German expulsion after World War II (2280 bytes)
>2.List of poets (15391 bytes)
>
The poet in question is Byron H. Reece -- not relevant
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 769
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Sep 6 09:53:52 UTC 2002
Tim Marklew wrote:
> I would also ask that sysops should not generally sign contributions as
> sysops (i.e. writing "Ed Poor - Sysop"). It could be give the misleading
> impression that sysops are acting officially on behalf of Wikipedia, rather
> than acting as an individual contributor.
Yes, I think that should be socially unacceptable. Anyone can be a
sysop just by asking, so it's really nothing. We only reluctantly
have sysop status in the first place, to deal with some specific
technical problems.
In essence -- there are some commands (delete, remove) that have some
ramifications that people need to understand before using them, so
we'd prefer that people have been here for a little bit before using
those powers. And there are true vandals, people who post random
crapola just to be funny or whatever. We want sysops to be able to
ban those people, but we don't want people to get into ban wars, etc.,
so we restrict that ban power to sysops.
And then there are the problem cases, people like '24' and possibly
Helga -- these people aren't simple vandals, but neither are they
getting with the program in a constructive way. I reserve the right
of final banning on those cases to myself, although of course I'm
probably too patient in seeking general consensus first.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 770
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia article on : Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Fri Sep 6 13:00:17 UTC 2002
At 02:04 PM 9/6/02 +0800, you wrote:
>I know several of us worked for a while on an article
>about B. Carroll Reece. I do not find it in wikipedia now. I know I just
read a mention of him in one the list messages. Can anyone who worked on it
give me an idea as to what happened to the article ? Thanks a lot.
>H. Jonat
It appears to have been deleted; although no one is coming forth to say
exactly why. The only thing of significance he appears to have done is to
characterize ethnic cleansing of Germans in Poland as genocide in 1957.
That is included in the wikipedia article on German removal after World War
II.
As far as it being removed as a stub, it seems have been a rightous stub in
that although he had a life, and was a member of congress and has a museum
in eastern Tennessee named after him, a reasonable article is going to be
pretty short.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 771
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia article on : Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Sep 6 12:33:21 UTC 2002
I have added a stub at [[B Carroll Reece]].
Fred Bauder wrote:
> At 02:04 PM 9/6/02 +0800, you wrote:
> >I know several of us worked for a while on an article
> >about B. Carroll Reece. I do not find it in wikipedia now. I know I just
> read a mention of him in one the list messages. Can anyone who worked on it
> give me an idea as to what happened to the article ? Thanks a lot.
> >H. Jonat
>
> It appears to have been deleted; although no one is coming forth to say
> exactly why. The only thing of significance he appears to have done is to
> characterize ethnic cleansing of Germans in Poland as genocide in 1957.
> That is included in the wikipedia article on German removal after World War
> II.
>
> As far as it being removed as a stub, it seems have been a rightous stub in
> that although he had a life, and was a member of congress and has a museum
> in eastern Tennessee named after him, a reasonable article is going to be
> pretty short.
>
> Fred
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 772
[Wikipedia-l] Apology
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Sep 6 13:51:35 UTC 2002
I am sorry I over-reached my bounds with my unilateral threat to ban GrahamN. I will not do such a thing again.
Thanks to Tim Enchanter, Vicki, KQ, LDC and others who pointed out my error.
Contritely,
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 773
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Sep 6 20:08:39 UTC 2002
I've been thinking about this all day, and now I fear that I may have caused more trouble than I bargained for. The cure is worse than the disease.
My "threat to ban" seems to have resulted in near-unanimous disapproval from Axel, Jimbo and every other contributor I admire and respect.
All that remains is a ghostly, eerie silence on the Arab-Israeli article pages.
Not only was I wrong, but I got the wrong result. (I'm not sure which is worse.)
Free speech (as LDC might say) and no vandalism -- that's all we hope for, but by monkeying around with the "Ed Poor, sysop" thing I've thrown a monkey-wrench in the works.
It may be some weeks before I live this down. :-(
More contritely than ever,
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 774
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Fri Sep 6 20:48:04 UTC 2002
> I've been thinking about this all day, and now I fear
> that I may have caused more trouble than I bargained for.
> The cure is worse than the disease.
I don't think that's related to your actions specifically,
just to the fact that you brought the issue to the attention
of more people, and more of us told the hotheads to cool off
for a while. I don't think that's a bad result at all.
The article pages on which they were fighting (e.g., "Anti-
semitism") are actually pretty good articles at the moment,
so there's no immediate need for revision. And I've noticed
Graham at least making useful edits to non-controversial
pages in the last day or two. I think that's a fine result.
I'm also sympathetic to the possibility that maybe one way to
attract and keep more experts is to be less tolerant of nonsense
and more liberal with blocks and other "official" sanctions.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 775
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Sep 6 21:26:02 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 16:48, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> I'm also sympathetic to the possibility that maybe one way to
> attract and keep more experts is to be less tolerant of nonsense
> and more liberal with blocks and other "official" sanctions.
And I'm entirely unsympathetic to that.
In fact, I think we should ban LDC for making that kind of comment.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 776
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Bryan Derksen
bryan.derksen at ualberta.ca
Fri Sep 6 21:35:56 UTC 2002
At 01:48 PM 06/09/02 -0700, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>I'm also sympathetic to the possibility that maybe one way to
>attract and keep more experts is to be less tolerant of nonsense
>and more liberal with blocks and other "official" sanctions.
I've been thinking along these lines myself, but didn't want to be the
first to say it. :)
Putting up with disruptive participants is noble and useful up to a point,
especially if these participants are also providing some positive input
along with the nonsense. But past that point it starts to drive away lots
of other participants who don't want to put up with them any more, and one
has to decide whether it's worth it.
Banning someone for being disruptive is not necessarily the top of a
"slippery slope" towards censorship, as long as we're careful about doing
it and keep a watchful eye on ourselves. On the other hand, letting
disruptive yahoos get away with everything will eventually mean that only
the disruptive yahoos stick around.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 777
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Sep 6 21:42:40 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 17:35, Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Banning someone for being disruptive is not necessarily the top of a
> "slippery slope" towards censorship, as long as we're careful about doing
> it and keep a watchful eye on ourselves. On the other hand, letting
> disruptive yahoos get away with everything will eventually mean that only
> the disruptive yahoos stick around.
This would be a valid argument if the only way to prevent
"disruptive yahoos" from "get[ting] away with everything" is to ban
them.
But it isn't. Rather, merciless editing and ignoring personality has
worked every time so far.
We already have sufficient policies in place for banning people. The
harm in expanding them would outweigh the benefits.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 778
[Wikipedia-l] Experts, software, and community
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Fri Sep 6 23:22:07 UTC 2002
I've given some thought to what Larry, Lee, Jimbo, Karl, and others have
said about the need for experts in the free encyclopedia movement, and
I'd like to try to synthesize some of that info, and throw in a couple
of thoughts of my own.
It seems to me that there is some disagreement about a number of issues.
First, the need for experts. IT seems to me that Larry's statement that
we need more expert input in the "free encyclopedia movement" elicited
three responses.
1) The kind of expertise needed to write good encyclopedia articles on
the subject of economics is different than the kind of expertise needed
to get a PhD in economics.
2) Motivated and reasonably well educated armatures can become "experts"
at writing encyclopedia articles.
3) It would be easy to drive away motivated armatures by courting
"experts" in the wrong way.
I don't know whether or not Larry agrees with these three caveats. But
I suppose it doesn't matter as he's left the decision making process in
our hands. I certainly think the above three points are all true, and
it seems like we have some consensus on this. That said, I also agree
with Larry that we should work hard to gather subject matter experts
into the "free encyclopedia movement," as long as we take the above the
above caveats into consideration.
To that end I think we really should consider some ways to help make the
free encyclopedia movement expert friendly. Larry's suggestion that we
work hard at reviving an Nupedia like project, which would be open to
experts only, so the experts can be protected from the trials and
tribulations of the wikipedia process -- is only one proposal and I
think we should explore a wider variety of options.
Basically, what I'm saying here is that if Larry's basic thesis is, "We
need to DO SOMETHING to attract experts," we're stuck debating side
issues. The real question (and I do think it is an open question) is:
"Do we need to do something to attract experts?" As I said earlier, I
tend to think the answer is: "Yes, but we need to be careful not to do
the wrong thing."
I'd suggest that we start out with some very basic things: inviting
experts to get involved, intentionally looking for experts who do get
involved and working hard to make their entrance into the wikipedia
community enjoyable, cultivating an atmosphere of congeniality and
respect for experts and motivated amateurs alike.
Perhaps just doing that regularly for a couple of years will be enough,
but perhaps not...
-- Mark Christensen
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 779
[Wikipedia-l] Kooks and trolls: Rant about losing great contributors
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 6 23:39:17 UTC 2002
>And then there are the problem cases,
>people like '24' and possibly Helga --
>these people aren't simple vandals, but
>neither are they getting with the program
>in a constructive way. I reserve the right
of final banning on those cases to myself,
>although of course I'm probably too patient
>in seeking general consensus first.
>
>--Jimbo
I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but some of this
patience you and others (including me) have had could
very well have resulted in JHK's, Michael Tinkler's
and unknown other's leaving the project in disgust.
Our current lax enforcement of our etiquette policies
along with our tolerance of kooks and trolls seem
hostile to experts and many others -- no wonder we
keep driving them away.
I say we should be a bit more diligent in enforcing
our Wikipetiquette policy and in informing those who
would be kooks and trolls that their kooking (is that
a word?) and trolling is not welcome here. See
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette
I'm sick and tired of loosing good, no great,
contributors because of our lax attitude in these
matters.
This is just my opinion - take it or leave it. I'm
/not/ speaking as a sysop; I'm speaking as a greatly
annoyed Wikipedian who already misses working with
Jules (and who also worries about our history articles
being over-run by kooks now that JHK is gone).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 780
[Wikipedia-l] Apology
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sat Sep 7 00:01:41 UTC 2002
"Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
>
> I am sorry I over-reached my bounds with my unilateral threat to ban GrahamN. I will not do such a thing again.
>
> Thanks to Tim Enchanter, Vicki, KQ, LDC and others who pointed out my error.
>
> Contritely,
>
> Ed Poor
Thanks for acknowledging the error and committing
to improvement for the future.
Respectfully,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 781
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Helga Hecht
helgah at email.com
Sat Sep 7 00:14:12 UTC 2002
Michael Irwin, Ray Saintonge and Fred Bauder, thank you for checking this out. I came across the missing article, when I added him to the article on German expulsion after World War II. It was not only a stub, but a far size article, at least when I last saw it. This was quite a while ago.
Thank you ,Jimmmy Wales, for writing a new article.
While I looked Reece up on google, I came across information about the committee he worked on and text of an article 'Tax Exempt Subversion'
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/reeceart.htm
This mentions the problems with the Communists infiltrating America and I would like to have someone read this and tell me, if any of this should be mentioned in wiki.
The coincidence is such, that not only the B. Carroll Reece article disappeared without a trace (?) , but my stubs or articles in progress about Communists in America also seem to be gone.
Does wiki have a file for deleated topics, or is it just gone, once it is deleated?
H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 782
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Sat Sep 7 00:21:11 UTC 2002
On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 07:42:40 The Cunctator wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 17:35, Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
> > Banning someone for being disruptive is not necessarily the top of a
> > "slippery slope" towards censorship, as long as we're careful about
> doing
> > it and keep a watchful eye on ourselves. On the other hand, letting
> > disruptive yahoos get away with everything will eventually mean that
> only
> > the disruptive yahoos stick around.
>
> This would be a valid argument if the only way to prevent
> "disruptive yahoos" from "get[ting] away with everything" is to ban
> them.
>
> But it isn't. Rather, merciless editing and ignoring personality has
> worked every time so far.
>
> We already have sufficient policies in place for banning people. The
> harm in expanding them would outweigh the benefits.
>
That policy has worked, after a fashion, but it bears substantial costs -
like creating an environment that some people just can't cope with,
where we constantly have to argue with kooks, nutters, and other
assorted people who just don't understand when they're either a)
totally wrong, or b) that they're going to have to accept that
there are other opinions besides theirs which, often, are far more
widely held, and c) don't know how to have a civilized discussion
about it without ad hominem attacks, and d) can't be taught.
If people can't debate issues sensibly for whatever reason
(and that includes not
resorting to accusations of "this person is an anti-foobar or
a burglephobe and thus should be banned" at the drop of a hat)
then they need to be told to behave. If they can't do that, they
are getting in the road of the goal and should be dealt with
so the rest of us can get back to work.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Node FLY on Melbourne Wireless : http://www.wireless.org.au
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 783
[Wikipedia-l] Kooks and trolls: Rant about losing great contributors
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Sat Sep 7 00:24:15 UTC 2002
On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 09:39:17 Daniel Mayer wrote:
> >And then there are the problem cases,
> >people like '24' and possibly Helga --
> >these people aren't simple vandals, but
> >neither are they getting with the program
> >in a constructive way. I reserve the right
> of final banning on those cases to myself,
> >although of course I'm probably too patient
> >in seeking general consensus first.
> >
> >--Jimbo
>
> I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but some of this
> patience you and others (including me) have had could
> very well have resulted in JHK's, Michael Tinkler's
> and unknown other's leaving the project in disgust.
>
> Our current lax enforcement of our etiquette policies
> along with our tolerance of kooks and trolls seem
> hostile to experts and many others -- no wonder we
> keep driving them away.
>
> I say we should be a bit more diligent in enforcing
> our Wikipetiquette policy and in informing those who
> would be kooks and trolls that their kooking (is that
> a word?) and trolling is not welcome here. See
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette
>
> I'm sick and tired of loosing good, no great,
> contributors because of our lax attitude in these
> matters.
>
> This is just my opinion - take it or leave it. I'm
> /not/ speaking as a sysop; I'm speaking as a greatly
> annoyed Wikipedian who already misses working with
> Jules (and who also worries about our history articles
> being over-run by kooks now that JHK is gone).
>
I tend to agree. See my related mail.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Node FLY on Melbourne Wireless : http://www.wireless.org.au
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 784
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Sat Sep 7 01:44:43 UTC 2002
Helga Hecht wrote:
> The coincidence is such, that not only the B. Carroll Reece article disappeared
> without a trace (?) , but my stubs or articles in progress about
Communists in
> America also seem to be gone.
Maveric moved your [[American Communists]] stub to the meta wiki, you
can find it here:
http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=American_Communists
> Does wiki have a file for deleated topics, or is it just gone, once it is deleated?
Depends on when it was deleted; the current version of the database has
periodic backups back to July 30 (the Reece article doesn't appear in
any of them), and for relatively recent deletions there's also an
archive table in the database which stores deleted articles (but doesn't
contain the Reece article).
Oddly enough, Reece also doesn't appear in the phase II deletion log[1]
(February 28 through July 19) or the phase III deletion logs[2].
So, who _did_ delete it, and when?
[1] http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Old_deletion_log
[2] http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_log
(see history for prior to August 15)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 785
[Wikipedia-l] Experts, software, and community
Robert Graham Merkel
rgmerk at mira.net
Sat Sep 7 00:45:30 UTC 2002
On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 09:22:07 Mark Christensen wrote:
> I'd suggest that we start out with some very basic things: inviting
> experts to get involved, intentionally looking for experts who do get
> involved and working hard to make their entrance into the wikipedia
> community enjoyable, cultivating an atmosphere of congeniality and
> respect for experts and motivated amateurs alike.
>
This poses the question: how do we invite experts to get involved?
I've often thought of approaching, say, Barry Jones (former Australian
politician, quiz champion, author of several reference works, and
general smarty-pants) to contribute, but how to pose the invitation
in such a way as to make it sufficiently inviting?
My current thoughts are thus:
1) Make sure we have completed short articles on all the
Australian Prime Ministers, for example.
2) Write him a note (and send it to him by snail-mail, because a)
it's probably easier to find a snail-mail address than email, and b)
the effort expended might demonstrate that we're serious,
inviting him to review those articles
and comment - and point out that if he wishes, he can simply
edit them online.
3) Watch and see what happens.
The key points are:
a) That there is something already there I can point him
to, so he can see that contributing would be useful.
b) Get the idea that he can contribute directly, with no
extra effort, in sideways.
Barry Jones I've picked on as a likely case because he was
writing books about a free public network as an information
repository back in 1980, but I'm sure there are plenty of others.
What do you think?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk at mira.net
Node FLY on Melbourne Wireless : http://www.wireless.org.au
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 786
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Sat Sep 7 01:12:16 UTC 2002
On Sat, 2002-09-07 at 01:14, Helga Hecht wrote:
> While I looked Reece up on google, I came across information about the committee he worked on and text of an article 'Tax Exempt Subversion'
> http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/reeceart.htm
>
> This mentions the problems with the Communists infiltrating America and I would like to have someone read this and tell me, if any of this should be mentioned in wiki.
As a student of modern American history, i'd say this is an *extremely*
biased and unreliable source so far as American communism goes. Note
that the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee was one of the principal
organs of government responsible for the policy trend known as
"McCarthyism". The information on this page should not be considered
reliable and impartial in terms of writing about communism in America.
It would be somewhat valuable in terms of an article about Reece
himself, however.
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 787
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Sat Sep 7 02:04:51 UTC 2002
|From: lcrocker at nupedia.com
|Cc:
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
|X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4
|Precedence: bulk
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|List-Help: <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=help>
|List-Post: <mailto:wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
|List-Subscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=subscribe>
|List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia <wikipedia-l.nupedia.com>
|List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|List-Archive: <http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/>
|Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:48:04 -0700
|
|> I've been thinking about this all day, and now I fear
|> that I may have caused more trouble than I bargained for.
|> The cure is worse than the disease.
|
|I don't think that's related to your actions specifically,
|just to the fact that you brought the issue to the attention
|of more people, and more of us told the hotheads to cool off
|for a while. I don't think that's a bad result at all.
|The article pages on which they were fighting (e.g., "Anti-
|semitism") are actually pretty good articles at the moment,
|so there's no immediate need for revision. And I've noticed
|Graham at least making useful edits to non-controversial
|pages in the last day or two. I think that's a fine result.
|
|I'm also sympathetic to the possibility that maybe one way to
|attract and keep more experts is to be less tolerant of nonsense
|and more liberal with blocks and other "official" sanctions.
|
I have moderated two mailing lists and it is very common for quiet to
descend following even the mildest reproofs from the moderator. Both
my lists were kind of sensitive, one was for addicts and alcoholics,
of which I was not either, and the other was for my company where I
had to let free speech reign without letting the list get too
offensive. That is, in both cases I had to censor, but with the
lightest possible hand. I usually let things run their course until
actual insults, cussing, accusations appeared, but whenever I finally
stepped in to a dispute or flying insults it worked and no one ever
accused me of being a fascist. And it was always quiet for a couple
of weeks.
It's easy to tell when pages are getting out of hand from watching
recent changes, so if no one likes my idea of freezing pages (I guess
not, no response anyway), then some of you folks with authority ought
to be prepared to do what Ed did (with a slightly lighter hand) and
sort of jump in quietly and tell everyone to cool it a bit.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 788
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Bryan Derksen
bryan.derksen at ualberta.ca
Sat Sep 7 02:12:25 UTC 2002
At 05:42 PM 06/09/02 -0400, The Cunctator wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 17:35, Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
> > Banning someone for being disruptive is not necessarily the top of a
> > "slippery slope" towards censorship, as long as we're careful about doing
> > it and keep a watchful eye on ourselves. On the other hand, letting
> > disruptive yahoos get away with everything will eventually mean that only
> > the disruptive yahoos stick around.
>
>This would be a valid argument if the only way to prevent
>"disruptive yahoos" from "get[ting] away with everything" is to ban
>them.
Odd bit of logic there, not sure if I can untangle it. Of course banning
people isn't the _only_ way to stop disruptive people from disrupting,
there are other gentler strategies to try beforehand. But what I'm
objecting to is a reluctance to use banning _after_ those other strategies
have failed, which means that disruptive people who are immune to those
other strategies (the merciless editing and ignoring you mention below)
_do_ "get away with everything" because there's nothing else we can do to
stop them.
>But it isn't. Rather, merciless editing and ignoring personality has
>worked every time so far.
It's also resulted in the loss of a number of excellent contributors. I
believe that relying on merciless editing and ignoring doesn't work _well_,
and that being more willing to ban disruptive people will result in a
higher quality of Wikipedia overall.
Maybe we should try it and see.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 789
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Sat Sep 7 02:30:11 UTC 2002
|X-Sender: bderksen at pop.srv.ualberta.ca
|From: Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at ualberta.ca>
|Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
|X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4
|Precedence: bulk
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|List-Help: <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=help>
|List-Post: <mailto:wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
|List-Subscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=subscribe>
|List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia <wikipedia-l.nupedia.com>
|List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
| <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|List-Archive: <http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/>
|Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 20:12:25 -0600
|
|At 05:42 PM 06/09/02 -0400, The Cunctator wrote:
|>On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 17:35, Bryan Derksen wrote:
|>
|> > Banning someone for being disruptive is not necessarily the top of a
|> > "slippery slope" towards censorship, as long as we're careful about doing
|> > it and keep a watchful eye on ourselves. On the other hand, letting
|> > disruptive yahoos get away with everything will eventually mean that only
|> > the disruptive yahoos stick around.
|>
|>This would be a valid argument if the only way to prevent
|>"disruptive yahoos" from "get[ting] away with everything" is to ban
|>them.
|
|Odd bit of logic there, not sure if I can untangle it. Of course banning
|people isn't the _only_ way to stop disruptive people from disrupting,
|there are other gentler strategies to try beforehand. But what I'm
|objecting to is a reluctance to use banning _after_ those other strategies
|have failed, which means that disruptive people who are immune to those
|other strategies (the merciless editing and ignoring you mention below)
|_do_ "get away with everything" because there's nothing else we can do to
|stop them.
|
|>But it isn't. Rather, merciless editing and ignoring personality has
|>worked every time so far.
|
|It's also resulted in the loss of a number of excellent contributors. I
|believe that relying on merciless editing and ignoring doesn't work _well_,
|and that being more willing to ban disruptive people will result in a
|higher quality of Wikipedia overall.
|
|Maybe we should try it and see.
|
Why isn't freezing the topic and the talk page worth discussing?
Banning is personal. Freezing the discussion for a day, week, or
month is impersonal.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan 88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 790
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Sat Sep 7 02:37:52 UTC 2002
At 08:14 AM 9/7/02 +0800, you wrote:
>
>While I looked Reece up on google, I came across information about the
committee he worked on and text of an article 'Tax Exempt Subversion'
>http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/reeceart.htm
>
>This mentions the problems with the Communists infiltrating America and I
would like to have someone read this and tell me, if any of this should be
mentioned in wiki.
>
>[M}y stubs or articles in progress about Communists in America also seem
to be gone.
>
>H. Jonat
Deleted too. A little different dynamic operating here though. The source
you mention comes from the McCarthy era and seemingly, so does your level
of understanding. The communist movement did infiltrate labor unions,
churches, the boy scouts, and probably foundations, and created front
organizations. However, it does not do to simply buy into McCarthyite
charges and hysteria and incorporate them into a wiki article.
Information on this topic requires genuine expertise or using information
from reliable sources. And there are many. Many people became disillusioned
with the Communist party and many of them wrote memoirs and there is now
information from the archives of the KGB available. You are going to have
to get a whole lot better at using this information before you are going to
be able to work in this area here without causing more heat than light.
What I saw of your work was not well done, (something about communists
infiltrating the Truman administration). My thought at the time is that you
know very little about America and are very poorly qualified to try to deal
with a subtle and difficult area of American history such as this.
Just your phrasing of the topic, "Communists infiltrating America", betrays
that. American Communism is pretty much a home grown product.
Fred Bauder
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 791
[Wikipedia-l] Experts, software, and community
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Sat Sep 7 02:47:11 UTC 2002
At 10:45 AM 9/7/02 +1000, you wrote:
>
>On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 09:22:07 Mark Christensen wrote:
>> I'd suggest that we start out with some very basic things: inviting
>> experts to get involved, intentionally looking for experts who do get
>> involved and working hard to make their entrance into the wikipedia
>> community enjoyable, cultivating an atmosphere of congeniality and
>> respect for experts and motivated amateurs alike.
>>
>
>This poses the question: how do we invite experts to get involved?
>I've often thought of approaching, say, Barry Jones (former Australian
>politician, quiz champion, author of several reference works, and
>general smarty-pants) to contribute, but how to pose the invitation
>in such a way as to make it sufficiently inviting?
>
>My current thoughts are thus:
>
>1) Make sure we have completed short articles on all the
>Australian Prime Ministers, for example.
>2) Write him a note (and send it to him by snail-mail, because a)
>it's probably easier to find a snail-mail address than email, and b)
>the effort expended might demonstrate that we're serious,
>inviting him to review those articles
>and comment - and point out that if he wishes, he can simply
>edit them online.
>3) Watch and see what happens.
>
>The key points are:
>a) That there is something already there I can point him
>to, so he can see that contributing would be useful.
>b) Get the idea that he can contribute directly, with no
>extra effort, in sideways.
>
>Barry Jones I've picked on as a likely case because he was
>writing books about a free public network as an information
>repository back in 1980, but I'm sure there are plenty of others.
>
>What do you think?
I think it's a good idea. After I wrote the page on Jeffrey Moussaieff
Masson I was looking at his web page and dropped him a note about Wikipedia.
No answer, and I don't suppose he even logged on, but never hurts to try.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 792
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sat Sep 7 03:06:19 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 22:30, Tom Parmenter wrote:
>
> Why isn't freezing the topic and the talk page worth discussing?
> Banning is personal. Freezing the discussion for a day, week, or
> month is impersonal.
Freezing discussion shouldn't really be necessary...freezing articles
is a reasonable concept.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 793
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sat Sep 7 03:26:43 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 22:12, Bryan Derksen wrote:
> It's also resulted in the loss of a number of excellent contributors. I
> believe that relying on merciless editing and ignoring doesn't work _well_,
> and that being more willing to ban disruptive people will result in a
> higher quality of Wikipedia overall.
Which excellent contributors? What's the particular story?
You have to understand, I'm by nature skeptical of arguments that call
for increased levels of hard security. There's usually a better way. I'm
also skeptical of arguments that would be used against me.
On a side note, it may not be healthy for people to be contributors
(espcially in a manage-the-Wikipedia way) ad infinitum; just as
representative political systems work best with a constant flux of
members, I suspect Wikipedia will too.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 794
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 7 03:35:36 UTC 2002
On Friday 06 September 2002 06:16 pm, The Cunctator wrote:
> But it isn't. Rather, merciless editing and ignoring personality has
> worked every time so far.
If you consider the fact that Michael Tinkler and JHK leaving the project due
to kook fatigue as "working" then I would have to agree with you.
> We already have sufficient policies in place for banning people. The
> harm in expanding them would outweigh the benefits.
I don't think anybody is talking about expanding any current polices. What is
needed is some enforcement of policies that we already have.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 795
[Wikipedia-l] Kooks and trolls: Rant about losing great contributors
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Sat Sep 7 03:45:58 UTC 2002
I agree!
The aim of the wikipedia project is NOT to let every total lunatic have
their say freely... it's to write an encyclopedia with useful,
comprehensive, intersting articles. It's not meant to be a soapbox, but
some people just don't seem to understand that. Since I joined, only one
active contributor has been banned, and even that was seen as
'over-reacting' by most people even though it was totally deserved. ANY
community has rules and they have to be enforced or there'll be total
chaos.
Also, as a subpoint, we want the wikipedia to be reputable, and there's
discusion about how to get 'experts' involved... letting Little Johnny
stand up and state repeatedly that black is really white and there's an
official conspiracy that's conned the entire rest of the world into
believing it is NOT the way to do either.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature
that will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 796
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Sat Sep 7 04:44:40 UTC 2002
Tom Parmenter wrote:
> Why isn't freezing the topic and the talk page worth discussing?
> Banning is personal. Freezing the discussion for a day, week, or
> month is impersonal.
Freezing articles is the very height of anti-wiki -- not only can't the
warring parties contribute, *no one* can contribute to the article in
question except the sysop "cabal". (And what if one party to the dispute
*is* a sysop, as seems to happen not infrequently?)
The only reason the main page is frozen is to discourage petty vandalism
on our front door. (And the main page, I will point out, is not an
encyclopedia article.)
Which reminds me... here's my periodic sweep of all the articles
currently frozen:
[[Main_Page]]
See above.
[[Seneca]]
There's no justification for this in its very light edit history. No
talk page. I assume some sysop hit the "protect" link by mistake...?
I've unprotected it.
[[Titulus_Regius]]
Isis protected it, giving as justification in the talk page that it
contains a source text. I've unprotected it, as it is ultimately an
_article_, large citation or no large citation. There are better ways to
create and reference an uneditable document if you want to, and none of
them include blocking out edit access to encyclopedia articles.
[[Wikipedia:Upload_log]]
[[Wikipedia:Deletion_log]]
[[Wikipedia:Blocked_IPs]]
Auto-maintained log pages that should not be manually edited.
[[Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License]]
We need to have a copy of the license in the work, and that
definitely shouldn't be editable! Note that this is *not* an
encyclopedia article, unlike [[Titulus Regius]]. The article *about* the
GFDL is freely editable.
[[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not]]
[[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]]
[[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]
[[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines]]
[[Wikipedia:IP_probation_watchlist]]
[[Wikipedia:Most_common_Wikipedia_faux_pas]]
[[Wikipedia:Policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages]]
[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions]]
[[Wikipedia:Administrators]]
[[Wikipedia:Policy]]
[[Wikipedia:Database_queries]]
Various policy and help pages. I'm a lot more leery of these being
protected, but again they're not encyclopedia articles so it's not
_completely_ anti-the-whole-point-of-the-exercise.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 797
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 7 03:49:58 UTC 2002
On Friday 06 September 2002 06:16 pm, you wrote:
> It may be some weeks before I live this down. :-(
>
> More contritely than ever,
>
> Ed Poor
If it makes you feel any better I almost lost my sysophood by stopping an
edit war by protecting an article and trying to reach some consensus on what
should go into the article. I'm still a little bitter about this but I've
moved on. You will too.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS I'm sorry if the time on this post is a year off -- I've been having BIOS
issues.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 798
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sat Sep 7 04:46:30 UTC 2002
Brion Wrote:
>Tom Parmenter wrote:
>> Why isn't freezing the topic and the talk page worth discussing?
>> Banning is personal. Freezing the discussion for a day, week, or
>> month is impersonal.
>
>Freezing articles is the very height of anti-wiki -- not only can't the
>warring parties contribute, *no one* can contribute to the article in
>question except the sysop "cabal". (And what if one party to the dispute
>*is* a sysop, as seems to happen not infrequently?)
Bigger problems than that--we'd need a new class of protection on articles, because sysops can still protect "protected" articles. So the result would be to let sysops edit the article and not anyone else. Wikipedia would face a firestorm of criticism, and for good reason. (Some clueless sysop who looks a lot like me would probably go in and clean up typos or something, completely ignorant of the surrounding controversy.)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 799
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sat Sep 7 04:59:01 UTC 2002
So I write this below and send it to myself instead of wikipedia-l. Maybe I should be unsysop'd merely by virtue of my comical absent-mindedness.
You Wrote:
>I wrote:
>>Bigger problems than that--we'd need a new class of protection on articles, because sysops can still protect "protected" articles.
>
>I mean, /edit/ protected articles....
>
>kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 800
[Wikipedia-l] Kooks and trolls: Rant about losing great contributors
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Sat Sep 7 04:59:38 UTC 2002
I am a consulting project manager for a number of UK blue chip companies and
I have dispassionately asked myself the following simple question:
Which would I rather have working on a project to ensure its accurate and
timely execution: Julie Kemp or Helga Hechts?
The answer I think is patently apparent. The amount of rework that Helga
causes seems more than sufficient justification for me to advocate her
permanent removal. If we are not careful and persistent "Helgas" are not
either a) educated into the program or b) politely but requested to desist,
the damage to the project will be considerable. The amount of patience we
have demonstrated so far is disproportionate to the amount of damage and
disruption she has caused. It is time for her to go.
I would dread to think the amount of work which has been damaged and wasted
as a consequence of the intransigent behaviour of this alleged contributor
and I strongly feel that we either as a community wise up to her inherently
destructive behaviour or we do something about it. If it's a straight swap
and we can persuade Julie to come back by removing HH sine die, then that
would be a total win-win situation from my perspective (and no doubt those
others who contribute in the history areas). I would take that decision
unilaterally if I could, but this is a community thing. If we let Helga
stay, we lose Julie (maybe have already lost Julie for good). How many more
contributors of this calibre can we afford to alienate?
I am deeply upset about Julie's decision to pack it in but I can understand
her reasons and truth to tell I can't say I blame her. It is about time we
as a community show some backbone by showing Helga (very firmly) the door.
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Cc: "Julie Hofmann Kemp" <juleskemp at yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 12:39 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Kooks and trolls: Rant about losing great
contributors
> >And then there are the problem cases,
> >people like '24' and possibly Helga --
> >these people aren't simple vandals, but
> >neither are they getting with the program
> >in a constructive way. I reserve the right
> of final banning on those cases to myself,
> >although of course I'm probably too patient
> >in seeking general consensus first.
> >
> >--Jimbo
>
> I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but some of this
> patience you and others (including me) have had could
> very well have resulted in JHK's, Michael Tinkler's
> and unknown other's leaving the project in disgust.
>
> Our current lax enforcement of our etiquette policies
> along with our tolerance of kooks and trolls seem
> hostile to experts and many others -- no wonder we
> keep driving them away.
>
> I say we should be a bit more diligent in enforcing
> our Wikipetiquette policy and in informing those who
> would be kooks and trolls that their kooking (is that
> a word?) and trolling is not welcome here. See
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette
>
> I'm sick and tired of loosing good, no great,
> contributors because of our lax attitude in these
> matters.
>
> This is just my opinion - take it or leave it. I'm
> /not/ speaking as a sysop; I'm speaking as a greatly
> annoyed Wikipedian who already misses working with
> Jules (and who also worries about our history articles
> being over-run by kooks now that JHK is gone).
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 801
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 7 06:18:51 UTC 2002
On Friday 06 September 2002 10:01 pm, you wrote:
> Why isn't freezing the topic and the talk page worth discussing?
> Banning is personal. Freezing the discussion for a day, week, or
> month is impersonal.
>
> Tom Parmenter
> Ortolan 88
Good question - I tried just that I almost lost my sysop status.
--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 802
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 7 06:36:02 UTC 2002
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 22:12, Bryan Derksen wrote:
> > It's also resulted in the loss of a number of
> excellent contributors. I
> > believe that relying on merciless editing and
> ignoring doesn't work _well_,
> > and that being more willing to ban disruptive
> people will result in a
> > higher quality of Wikipedia overall.
>
> Which excellent contributors? What's the particular
> story?
Michael Tinkler and Julie Hoffman Kemp are two off the
top of my head. Note that they are both historians,
and many of our less than cooperative contributors
operate on history articles.
> You have to understand, I'm by nature skeptical of
> arguments that call
> for increased levels of hard security. There's
> usually a better way. I'm
> also skeptical of arguments that would be used
> against me.
I am as well. I believe that soft security is often
the best way to go. But not always.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 803
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 7 06:39:45 UTC 2002
On Friday 06 September 2002 10:01 pm, Brion VIBBER wrote:
> Freezing articles is the very height of anti-wiki -- not only can't the
> warring parties contribute, *no one* can contribute to the article in
> question except the sysop "cabal".
The whole point is to stop edit wars by forcing a truce. Edit wars in my
opinion /are/ a form of highly directed vandalism and need to be stopped
(they sap user resources in a similar way as bold-faced systemic vandalism).
The only other 'meta' function we have is to block an individual (usually a
kook who is fighting with several sane-minded Wikipedians) -- which in my
world is /a lot/ more morally repugnant than temporarily protecting a page
(we are also talking about ways to lower kook fatigue aren't we?).
Nobody is proposing that the articles be protected forever - just temporarily
so that the parties can cool down (and hopefully the kook go away -- they
often feed on attention and controversy in the same way trolls do).
I've said enough about this already (and with the new wording on the Main
Page we would be lying if any /articles/ were actually protected --- without
another caveat, of course).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 804
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Sat Sep 7 06:42:17 UTC 2002
>> Why isn't freezing the topic and the talk page worth discussing?
>> Banning is personal. Freezing the discussion for a day, week, or
>> month is impersonal.
>>
>> Tom Parmenter
>> Ortolan 88
>Good question - I tried just that I almost lost my sysop status.
For what it's worth, I'm with Tom and Mav that freezing an
article really isn't that drastic an action, and might be a
good thing now and then. After all, it's trivially reversible,
and it allows the affected parties to still engage in discussion
on talk pages. Yes, uneditable pages are very anti-wiki, but
as long as it's understood that a particular lock is a temporary
"cooling off" measure, I think it may serve the cause. And we
should periodically review the locked pages and unlock many of
them if there's no specific reason not to.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 805
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 7 06:41:09 UTC 2002
--- Brion VIBBER <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not]]
> [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]]
> [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]
> [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines]]
> [[Wikipedia:IP_probation_watchlist]]
> [[Wikipedia:Most_common_Wikipedia_faux_pas]]
> [[Wikipedia:Policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages]]
> [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions]]
> [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]
> [[Wikipedia:Policy]]
> [[Wikipedia:Database_queries]]
> Various policy and help pages. I'm a lot more
> leery of these being
> protected, but again they're not encyclopedia
> articles so it's not
> _completely_ anti-the-whole-point-of-the-exercise.
I didn't know that certain policy pages were frozen.
What was the reasoning behind it?
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 806
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Sat Sep 7 06:05:10 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>On Friday 06 September 2002 10:01 pm, you wrote:
>
>>Why isn't freezing the topic and the talk page worth discussing?
>>Banning is personal. Freezing the discussion for a day, week, or
>>month is impersonal.
>>
>>Tom Parmenter
>>Ortolan 88
>>
>
>Good question - I tried just that I almost lost my sysop status.
>
I consider myself to be more on the laissez faire end of the the
spectrum when it comes to these issues. I have already complained when
I have considered someone to be acting heavy-handedly. Nevertheless I
think that some discussion on Tom's proposal is warranted.
I agree that freezing is a far less drastic step than banning, but some
guidelines would need to be worked out first, among which: it should
not be used by an active participant in an edit war. It should be for a
definite period, with that fact being clearly shown on the face of the
article. Freezing the subject page does not mean the related talk page
is frozen.
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 807
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Sat Sep 7 06:25:37 UTC 2002
Fred Bauder wrote:
>A little different dynamic operating here though. The source
>you mention comes from the McCarthy era and seemingly, so does your level
>of understanding. The communist movement did infiltrate labor unions,
>churches, the boy scouts, and probably foundations, and created front
>organizations. However, it does not do to simply buy into McCarthyite
>charges and hysteria and incorporate them into a wiki article.
>
>Information on this topic requires genuine expertise or using information
>from reliable sources. And there are many. Many people became disillusioned
>with the Communist party and many of them wrote memoirs and there is now
>information from the archives of the KGB available. You are going to have
>to get a whole lot better at using this information before you are going to
>be able to work in this area here without causing more heat than light.
>
>What I saw of your work was not well done, (something about communists
>infiltrating the Truman administration). My thought at the time is that you
>know very little about America and are very poorly qualified to try to deal
>with a subtle and difficult area of American history such as this.
>
>Just your phrasing of the topic, "Communists infiltrating America", betrays
>that. American Communism is pretty much a home grown product.
>
>Fred Bauder
>
Some of your comments to Helga may be a little over the top, even if
they all turn out to be true. In the last couple days I have seen her
come on these pages and make an effort to communicate. That's certainly
progress from where we were on this two weeks ago, and that merits praise.
I agree that the story of American anti-communism is a complex one that
wont depend on kooky stories about infiltrating boy scouts, or in KGB
files. The story of communism in America goes back at least to the post
civil war reconstruction era.
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 808
[Wikipedia-l] Freezing articles
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Sat Sep 7 09:06:26 UTC 2002
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:06:19PM -0400, The Cunctator wrote:
> Freezing discussion shouldn't really be necessary...freezing articles
> is a reasonable concept.
The trouble with freezing articles in an edit war is that the frozen
article will be in one state or the other - that is, someone will have
'won' the editing war.
So far, sysops have not been reluctant to intervene in arguments in
which they have been involved themselves.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 809
[Wikipedia-l] Imposing rules.
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Sat Sep 7 09:36:15 UTC 2002
Hi.
I just want to add one point to this debate. Wikipedia has escaped massive and
targeted vandalism because it has avoided making any real enemies. In my
opinion (and experience) _manually_ imposing policy on a self-policed community
will result in bitter souls abusing the inherent _systematic_ freedom (that is,
that anyone can edit any article).
But haven't we already dealt with such people?
* We've only had to deal with very few of them, so we haven't hit anyone with
the skills necessary to damage Wikipedia.
* We've let the ones we've dealt with have their say for a long time first,
probably making them spend their frustration, and become mostly bored.
* The IP banning is more a signal than an actual enforcement, and we've been
lucky that these people seem to have accepted that signal.
Believe me, IP bans will only last so long. The "wiki miracle" could easily
collapse - just looke at some of the IRC networks.
I can't make up my mind either way in the discussion in general here, but I
think this is an important point that should not be missed.
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 810
[Wikipedia-l] Imposing rules.
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Sat Sep 7 11:13:33 UTC 2002
On Sat, 2002-09-07 at 10:36, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
> * The IP banning is more a signal than an actual enforcement, and we've been
> lucky that these people seem to have accepted that signal.
>
> Believe me, IP bans will only last so long. The "wiki miracle" could easily
> collapse - just looke at some of the IRC networks.
This is an important point that needs to be addressed. There *is no
effective way* to ban someone from wikipedia, given the way it currently
runs. Changing your IP address is trivial, happens all the time to most
users, and can be done manually even for those on a fixed link (just use
any of the hundreds of available web proxies). The only way to have a
remotely effective ban system would be with a much stricter login
system, and even that is dubious because of authentication (the standard
way to deal with login systems is to tie login to email address, but
then it's hardly difficult to obtain as many email addresses as you
like). So unless we sign up for Micro$oft Passport or something of the
sort (*watches ball of dust fly across deserted marketplace*), we
*can't* ban any sufficiently determined troll / vandal / kook from
Wikipedia. And trying to do so when it's not effective could just make
the problem worse.
A simple question to those who demand Helga should be banned...how? What
do we ban? Her username? She posts without one. Her IP address? It
changes the next time her internet connection drops, almost certainly.
Her entire domain? This catches a bunch of innocent potential Wikipedia
contributors, and she can merely relay a connection through a proxy, by
which time she's really annoyed with the continual attempts to ban (my
guess is that "ban" in the minds of some bannees would become "censor")
her and ever more determined to post her opinions. This issue needs to
be thought out more...
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 811
[Wikipedia-l] Imposing rules.
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Sat Sep 7 12:08:42 UTC 2002
On 7 Sep 2002, Adam Williamson wrote:
> A simple question to those who demand Helga should be banned...how? What
> do we ban? Her username? She posts without one. Her IP address? It
> changes the next time her internet connection drops, almost certainly.
> Her entire domain? This catches a bunch of innocent potential Wikipedia
> contributors, and she can merely relay a connection through a proxy, by
> which time she's really annoyed with the continual attempts to ban (my
> guess is that "ban" in the minds of some bannees would become "censor")
> her and ever more determined to post her opinions. This issue needs to
> be thought out more...
I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. If we ban her, we ban her,
and that means both the IP and probalby immediate retraction of stuff she posts
from other IPs, if it's obviously her work.
I'm sure Helga will understand the message and console herself with Wikipedia
continuing to be (in her opinion) a hopelessly biased project that does not
deserve her attention.
The problem is not figuring out how to effectively ban someone - that just
can't be done. The problem is finguring ot how let someone know they're not
wanted on Wikipedia anymore without turning them into enemies. The problem is
also that this might very well not be possible - which might in turn settle the
entire debate as to whether kooks or "good contributers" are wanted. We might
have no choice.
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 812
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Sat Sep 7 13:00:50 UTC 2002
I tried posting this to the list yesterday and it was sent to the moderation black hole because I replied from an e-mail not subscribed to the list.
> This would be a valid argument if the only
> way to prevent "disruptive yahoos" from
> "get[ting] away with everything" is to ban them.
>
> But it isn't. Rather, merciless
> editing and ignoring personality has
> worked every time so far.
First, from where I stand, the above statment is just not true. 24 did not quit causing problems because we ignored him, he left because we banned him.
And even if it were true it -- by itself -- is not a valid argument against a slightly more liberal banning policy, since it is very easy for one disruptive person to take up a few dozen hours of several people's time.
If our goal is to create an encyclopedia, then we ought consider Lee's suggestion seriously.
I doubt that you agree, but I think that is because you see the experiment in online community as just as important as the goal of creating a free encyclopedia. However, I would argue that our stated goal has always been to create a free encyclopedia, and the members of our community joined primarily because they thought that was a mission worthy of their efforts. That's why I'm convinced that unless building a quality free encyclopedia remains our central mission our community will loose its center and slowly dissolve.
As far as I'm concerned it is still an open question of how much a ban would help us to attract experts. Nor am I certain that such a policy would really make our current core of contributors that much more productive. However, I am certain that these pragmatic concerns ought not be trumped by a prior commitment to an particular philosophical opposition to rules in general. In other words, I'm open to arguments that Lee's proposal would be counterproductive, but not particularly receptive to an assertion that his suggestion is "just plain wrong on the face of it." Or to put it yet another way, I think we've set about performing a noble task, and there's nothing wrong with excluding a few people with different agendas from working on our project, if that's what is required to get the job done.
At the same time, I agree with you that we need to be cautious: in order to protect what we've built so far, and because productive communities like ours are both valuable and fragile. So, I say let's take a good look at the practical details of Lee's suggestion, and its possible consequences, before we decide for or against changing our policies.
-- Mark Christensen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5478 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020907/9a76a6ea/attachment.bin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 813
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Sat Sep 7 13:21:50 UTC 2002
|From: The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com>
|Date: 06 Sep 2002 23:06:19 -0400
|
|On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 22:30, Tom Parmenter wrote:
|
|>
|> Why isn't freezing the topic and the talk page worth discussing?
|> Banning is personal. Freezing the discussion for a day, week, or
|> month is impersonal.
|
|Freezing discussion shouldn't really be necessary...freezing articles
|is a reasonable concept.
|
The edit wars take place on the article pages, but the pain is dealt
out on the talk pages. Freeze both.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 814
[Wikipedia-l] Imposing rules.
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Sat Sep 7 14:50:37 UTC 2002
On Sat, 2002-09-07 at 13:08, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
> > A simple question to those who demand Helga should be banned...how? What
> > do we ban? Her username? She posts without one. Her IP address? It
> > changes the next time her internet connection drops, almost certainly.
> > Her entire domain? This catches a bunch of innocent potential Wikipedia
> > contributors, and she can merely relay a connection through a proxy, by
> > which time she's really annoyed with the continual attempts to ban (my
> > guess is that "ban" in the minds of some bannees would become "censor")
> > her and ever more determined to post her opinions. This issue needs to
> > be thought out more...
>
> I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. If we ban her, we ban her,
> and that means both the IP and probalby immediate retraction of stuff she posts
> from other IPs, if it's obviously her work.
>
> I'm sure Helga will understand the message and console herself with Wikipedia
> continuing to be (in her opinion) a hopelessly biased project that does not
> deserve her attention.
>
> The problem is not figuring out how to effectively ban someone - that just
> can't be done. The problem is finguring ot how let someone know they're not
> wanted on Wikipedia anymore without turning them into enemies. The problem is
> also that this might very well not be possible - which might in turn settle the
> entire debate as to whether kooks or "good contributers" are wanted. We might
> have no choice.
That's actually more or less what I meant :). Since a ban can't actually
really be a ban, it's more a measure of censure. Which means it should
be compared to other measures of censure open to us in terms of
effectiveness and likely negative consequences. It just seemed lots of
people were posting things like "Helga has to go", which implies that
they really think this is a state of affairs that's possible...
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 815
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Sat Sep 7 17:45:58 UTC 2002
The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:
> But it isn't. Rather, merciless editing and ignoring personality has
> worked every time so far.
No, it hasn't. The load of merciless editing has already driven away the
valued and reasonable Julie Hoffman Kemp, and yet many of the German and
French history pages she looked to save are still full of petty nationalists.
Kooks 1, Wikipedia 0.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 816
[Wikipedia-l] Kooks and trolls: Rant about losing great contributors
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Sat Sep 7 17:48:24 UTC 2002
"Steve Callaway" <sjc at easynet.co.uk> writes:
> Which would I rather have working on a project to ensure its accurate and
> timely execution: Julie Kemp or Helga Hechts?
>
> The answer I think is patently apparent. The amount of rework that Helga
> causes seems more than sufficient justification for me to advocate her
> permanent removal. If we are not careful and persistent "Helgas" are not
> either a) educated into the program or b) politely but requested to desist,
> the damage to the project will be considerable.
Hear, hear. I couldn't agree more.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 817
[Wikipedia-l] Stephen Gilbert message of Sep 3
Helga Hecht
helgah at email.com
Sat Sep 7 18:12:30 UTC 2002
Hello Stephen,
I am just now reading through your message in answer to my previous message and want to thank you for your detailed answers.
I would like to clear up a point with you on the text taken from the talk page of Neturei Karta
> For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper
> declaration March 1933: Judea declares War on
> Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997
> been verified by other religious Jewish groups
> http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and
> http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia
article:
> Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.
>
> One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?
"It's not "hidden" that such a headline was printed.
What is being disputed is your claim that this was a
cause of WWII." (That was your answer)
This is not my claim,that this was a cause of WWII, the Neturei Karta stated that.
What I claim, which was taken out from [[Berlin]],
that after the March Declaration of War on Germany by worldwide Judea, Hitler forbade, called a boycott not to buy in Jewish stores. Jews in Germany wrote a letter against the Jews of the World Judea Declaration of War on Germany. This however did not save them from the wrath of the dictator. (I am writing from memory, not looking up the exact wording, but I re-entered the text taken out by someone on Berlin/talk).
You say , it was not "hidden", that such a headline was printed.
My quote of it was taken out of the Berlin wiki subject page along with the Leonard Bernstein Concert. A reference to the war declaration was taken out of the Neturei Karta subject page.
Please let me know some reputable books, that show this newspaper article at the same time when they show the events leading up to WW II.
None of the books in America have showed me this. I did not find out about it until I saw it on internet.
Thank you for sharing your information.
H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 818
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sat Sep 7 19:12:43 UTC 2002
Gareth wrote:
>
>No, it hasn't. The load of merciless editing has already driven away the
>valued and reasonable Julie Hoffman Kemp, and yet many of the German and
>French history pages she looked to save are still full of petty nationalists.
>Kooks 1, Wikipedia 0.
And Michael Tinkler. Kooks 2, Wikipedia 0.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 819
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
Rosa Williams
aprilrosanina at charter.net
Sat Sep 7 20:32:02 UTC 2002
What with the recent discussion of banning "problem" users, I thought I'd
bring this up for discussion/re-discussion.
Our policy on banning people for vandalism is (as I interpret what I've
read) that we restrict it to "repeated and sustained" non-useful alterations
of articles.
However, it's September, the high school and college students are back with
their free school accounts, and inevitably the amount of drive-by vandalism
seems to be on the increase. Several of us constantly check new edits by
unknown contributors, and even then, we're missing vandalism that only turns
up later when paging through via "Random Page" or otherwise coming across an
article. As the number of articles goes up, the chance of locating such
vandalism goes down.
I've tried a few approaches to ameliorating this. I regularly check "this
user's contributions" for vandals, and even sometimes for unfamiliar IP's
(*thank* you folks for adding that code feature!) I do keyword searches for
common obscenities, et cetera. (No, Cunctator, I don't remove them if
they're obviously part of the article.) And, of course, I haunt the "Recent
Changes" page. But I think it's getting harder to keep up.
I would like to suggest we add "obviously malicious vandalism" to reasons
for an immediate (if temporary) IP ban: a single "Ths page is stupid"
should be, in my opinion, enough to ban the address. This saves us from
having to spend time on the next five instances of vandalism from that
contributor, which could be better spent searching for other graffiti or
*gasp* actually adding content.
Sure, one person's vandalism is another person's newbie goof. I would agree
that if there's any reasonable possibility that a change was just a newbie
goof or something similar, we should err on the side of caution and not ban.
But in the really obvious cases - "PHREAK WUZ HERE!!" "Louis IV was a
dirty frog" "f*ck you all", and similar - I honestly think we should go
ahead and administer a slapdown in the form of a temporary IP ban. If they'
re just drive-by vandals, they'll lose interest that much faster; if it is a
serious vandal, they'll at least have to go to the trouble of getting a new
IP# for each new instance of vandalism.
Yes, there's the possibility that someone may be too quick on the gun and
ban someone who might, in the fullness of time, have become a useful
contributor. But me, I think... do we really *want* a contributor who is
starting off on the level of adding "This is so gay" to a page? The time
just bringing them up to speed hardly seems worth it. If they're really
*serious* about becoming a real contributor, they'll just have to wait for
the ban to expire or appeal to the list.
My two cents (approx. $0.03 Canadian).
-- April
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 820
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
Giskart
giskart at linux.be
Sat Sep 7 21:29:50 UTC 2002
Rosa Williams wrote:
>[cut]
>
>I've tried a few approaches to ameliorating this. I regularly check "this
>user's contributions" for vandals, and even sometimes for unfamiliar IP's
>(*thank* you folks for adding that code feature!) I do keyword searches for
>common obscenities, et cetera. (No, Cunctator, I don't remove them if
>they're obviously part of the article.) And, of course, I haunt the "Recent
>Changes" page. But I think it's getting harder to keep up.
>[cut]
>
For easy spotting of vandalism a special page whit suspicious changes
can mayby be of some use. A rule system that gives points to actions
and if it gets a certain value its gets listed. Somthing like
spamassassin (http://spamassassin.org ) Offcource to suggest somthing
or to make it work is somthing else. -- giskart
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 821
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Sep 8 01:10:06 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> On Friday 06 September 2002 06:16 pm, The Cunctator wrote:
> > But it isn't. Rather, merciless editing and ignoring personality has
> > worked every time so far.
>
> If you consider the fact that Michael Tinkler and JHK leaving the project due
> to kook fatigue as "working" then I would have to agree with you.
>
> > We already have sufficient policies in place for banning people. The
> > harm in expanding them would outweigh the benefits.
>
> I don't think anybody is talking about expanding any current polices. What is
> needed is some enforcement of policies that we already have.
Prior to commencing enforcement, if that is decided somehow, the
policies and introductory material should be edited to reflect
the proposed new regime. The ratification process to be used
to select community preferences should be published prominently
on the main page and perhaps peoples talk pages.
An orderly process that is widely perceived as fair could avoid
a lot of damage in the transition.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 822
[Wikipedia-l] Kooks and trolls: Rant about losing great contributors
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 8 01:36:38 UTC 2002
Even if everyone agreed that someone should be
permanently removed, we have no way of doing. It has
already been pointed out that the IP ban serves only
as a temporary roadblock and a social blackmark.
Stephen Gilbert
--- Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> "Steve Callaway" <sjc at easynet.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Which would I rather have working on a project to
> ensure its accurate and
> > timely execution: Julie Kemp or Helga Hechts?
> >
> > The answer I think is patently apparent. The
> amount of rework that Helga
> > causes seems more than sufficient justification
> for me to advocate her
> > permanent removal. If we are not careful and
> persistent "Helgas" are not
> > either a) educated into the program or b) politely
> but requested to desist,
> > the damage to the project will be considerable.
>
> Hear, hear. I couldn't agree more.
> --
> Gareth Owen
> "Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the
> "brilliant prose" page, there
> are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12
> Jan 2001)
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 823
[Wikipedia-l] Stephen Gilbert message of Sep 3
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 8 01:55:04 UTC 2002
--- Helga Hecht <helgah at email.com> wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
>
> What I claim, which was taken out from [[Berlin]],
> that after the March Declaration of War on Germany
> by worldwide Judea...
The point is that this one newspaper with this one
headline:
a) cannot declare war on anyone,
b) cannot speak for all the Jews of the world, and
c) was call was for a boycott of German goods by Jews
because of perscution that was already happening, not
armed resistance
> You say , it was not "hidden", that such a headline
> was printed.
>
> My quote of it was taken out of the Berlin wiki
> subject page along with the Leonard Bernstein
> Concert. A reference to the war declaration was
> taken out of the Neturei Karta subject page.
>
> Please let me know some reputable books, that show
> this newspaper article at the same time when they
> show the events leading up to WW II.
I doubt you'll find it in any reputable source, since
a newspaper headline would could hardly be considered
a major event leading up to World War II. Like you, I
am not an expert historian, so I can't tell you for
certain. Sadly, all of our professional historians
have left the project in frustration.
> None of the books in America have showed me this. I
> did not find out about it until I saw it on
> internet.
I've known about it for many years before coming to
the Wikipedia project, so it can't be too much of a
secret. However, I repeat: it's not a major event. It
is a newspaper headline, printed by one newspaper.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 824
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Sep 8 02:04:07 UTC 2002
Rosa Williams wrote:
>
> What with the recent discussion of banning "problem" users, I thought I'd
> bring this up for discussion/re-discussion.
>
> Our policy on banning people for vandalism is (as I interpret what I've
> read) that we restrict it to "repeated and sustained" non-useful alterations
> of articles.
>
> However, it's September, the high school and college students are back with
> their free school accounts, and inevitably the amount of drive-by vandalism
> seems to be on the increase. Several of us constantly check new edits by
> unknown contributors, and even then, we're missing vandalism that only turns
> up later when paging through via "Random Page" or otherwise coming across an
> article. As the number of articles goes up, the chance of locating such
> vandalism goes down.
>
> I've tried a few approaches to ameliorating this. I regularly check "this
> user's contributions" for vandals, and even sometimes for unfamiliar IP's
> (*thank* you folks for adding that code feature!) I do keyword searches for
> common obscenities, et cetera. (No, Cunctator, I don't remove them if
> they're obviously part of the article.) And, of course, I haunt the "Recent
> Changes" page. But I think it's getting harder to keep up.
>
> I would like to suggest we add "obviously malicious vandalism" to reasons
> for an immediate (if temporary) IP ban: a single "Ths page is stupid"
> should be, in my opinion, enough to ban the address. This saves us from
> having to spend time on the next five instances of vandalism from that
> contributor, which could be better spent searching for other graffiti or
> *gasp* actually adding content.
My understanding of how ip banning and common use of reassignment
of IP numbers leads me to this concern:
If too many casual or hit and run type vandals are banned that we
are likely banning the next users, not the vandal. This could be
counterproductive if it occurs in conjunction with recruiting efforts
or methods under discussion in other threads.
For high school or college users to begin relying on the Wikipedia
as a resource timely access is required due to homework deadlines,
typically on the order of days or hours, not weeks. Encountering
frequent blocks due to local vandals on the same pool of IP addresses
is likely to encourage the view that Wikipedia is unreliable, not
that inappropriate local use is causing the problem. If the user
becomes aware that he/she is being punished for another's misdeeds
this could form an even worse impression.
>
> Sure, one person's vandalism is another person's newbie goof. I would agree
> that if there's any reasonable possibility that a change was just a newbie
> goof or something similar, we should err on the side of caution and not ban.
> But in the really obvious cases - "PHREAK WUZ HERE!!" "Louis IV was a
> dirty frog" "f*ck you all", and similar - I honestly think we should go
> ahead and administer a slapdown in the form of a temporary IP ban. If they'
> re just drive-by vandals, they'll lose interest that much faster; if it is a
> serious vandal, they'll at least have to go to the trouble of getting a new
> IP# for each new instance of vandalism.
What period of time for routine banning would you (anyone) suggest
as an estimate of the initial proper tradeoff between potential
denial of service to legitimate users and the attention span of
casual or hit and run type vandalism?
Are you aware that denial of service is often the goal of
low level crackers or "script kiddies"?
This type of banning could actually become an incentive
or invitation to certain types of vandal mentalities if
structured and managed carefully.
>
> Yes, there's the possibility that someone may be too quick on the gun and
> ban someone who might, in the fullness of time, have become a useful
> contributor. But me, I think... do we really *want* a contributor who is
> starting off on the level of adding "This is so gay" to a page?
Yes. If they (some threshold percentage to be determined later
with empirical data) become productive contributers we should
eventually show a profit.
I agree it is a long term investment. I agree it is possible to
be losing more initially than we are gaining until more effective
methods are found.
If the decision (for now) is to stick with quick, known, short
term returns then I propose we plan to periodically reassess the
policy. We should document the periodic review process so that
interested members of the community know when, where, how to
appropriately express their current views.
>The time
> just bringing them up to speed hardly seems worth it.
It seems worth it to me. If there is sufficient interest in
mutual self education then this can be left to those who choose
to volunteer for it. If we decide that we have no time for
this in the stacks then perhaps an alternate medium for
"remedial" students and volunteer contributors can be established.
Directing newcomer's to an NPOV editing tutorial for practice
if interested may be more effective that directing them to the
current draft of the policy which is only lightly endorsed by
members of the community and is at least subtle for many people
if not actually "obviously" confusing.
Elsewhere I have proposed an ECP (engineering change proposal)
or code walkthrough type of approach that would require three
"vandals" to agree with each other that the "vandalism" is
an appropriate change. This should slow down and break up
vandalism, without potential denial of service, in several ways.
1. More effort is required to create the fake accounts and
engage in the vandalism. It may be easier to delete 3 accounts
and revert the damage than it is for the creator of the vandalism.
Perhaps a delay on account creation with an appropriate explanation
would slow down vandals while not discouraging new dropings unduly.
2. Any "vandals" editing in good faith are likley to encounter
resistance from cohorts. They can spend some time bickering
among themselves on the talk page or elsewhere determining
what is or is not appropriate. Any defectors to our published
guidelines should be welcomed.
Perhaps an appropriate modification of my proposed approached
could be combined with the page freezing proposed elsewhere
for occasional testing. When a freeze is invoked, changes
could only proceed once the requirements of the ECP process
are met. The parties to the controversy now have an incentive
to agree or move on, not all Wiki authority has been stripped
away for excessive controversiality. Only unilateral editing
of the controversial subject page undergoing excessive flip
flop editing or "edit war".
>If they're really
> *serious* about becoming a real contributor, they'll just have to wait for
> the ban to expire or appeal to the list.
It is my impression that we get more casual contributors that
become serious with increasing contribution and recognition
of the long term value, than that people who show up intending
initially to be seriously committed long term contributors.
In other words, we have a buy in process that works if
people do not face too high a bar to begin contributing or do
not suffer burn out attempting to do too much work themselves.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 825
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 8 01:57:26 UTC 2002
To be fair, merciless editing has driven away numerous
kooks, most of whom were anonymous. Wikipedia's score
should be quite a bit higher.
Stephen Gilbert
--- koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Gareth wrote:
> >
> >No, it hasn't. The load of merciless editing has
> already driven away the
> >valued and reasonable Julie Hoffman Kemp, and yet
> many of the German and
> >French history pages she looked to save are still
> full of petty nationalists.
> >Kooks 1, Wikipedia 0.
>
> And Michael Tinkler. Kooks 2, Wikipedia 0.
>
> kq
>
>
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 826
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 8 02:02:52 UTC 2002
--- Rosa Williams <aprilrosanina at charter.net> wrote:
> Yes, there's the possibility that someone may be too
> quick on the gun and
> ban someone who might, in the fullness of time, have
> become a useful
> contributor. But me, I think... do we really *want*
> a contributor who is
> starting off on the level of adding "This is so gay"
> to a page? The time
> just bringing them up to speed hardly seems worth
> it. If they're really
> *serious* about becoming a real contributor, they'll
> just have to wait for
> the ban to expire or appeal to the list.
I should point out the case of Jzcool, who started off
making "This is gay" edits, and then made many useful
contributions. Was it worth it to put up with some
nonsense while a few Wikipedians showed him how to be
constructive? I say yes.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 827
[Wikipedia-l] Kooks and trolls: Rant about losing great contributors
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Sep 8 02:54:53 UTC 2002
Gareth Owen wrote:
>
> "Steve Callaway" <sjc at easynet.co.uk> writes:
>
>If we are not careful and persistent "Helgas" are not
> > either a) educated into the program or b) politely but requested to desist,
> > the damage to the project will be considerable.
I have been on the other end of this stick a couple
of times.
Regarding a.) The educational materials available have
improved recently due to April's rewrite efforts.
Regarding b.) In my view, the politeness could use
some work. Not that I am blameless, but I found the
many initial interactions often needlessly rude. Nor did
even partial attempts to comply with abrubt demands in
ways that seemed consistent with stated policies seem
to appease some "regulars".
A further fact, in my view, that there are no hard policy
guidelines articulated consistently and ratified by any
community process beyond discussion and periodic lynching.
Dr. Kemp refered to running off uncooperative contributors
as the only that has been successful to date. Yet it was
not successful enough to guarantee her continued continuous
participation. Some feel this indicates that insufficent
banning is occuring too late, this does not account for
the past perceived success in running off people percieved
to be causing problems.
Several on the list have now indicated that they are
tired of discussing some issues. Some have announced
that they will filter certain topics. Others seem to
think that discussion should proceed at a pace appropriate
to allow them to personally keep up with all topics.
Mob rule or civilized consensus building may suffice
for a fairly large project. Clearly it has sufficed
for much progress on the Wikipedia to date.
An appropriate question is whether it will suffice
for massive participation and how soon we would like
to be ready for effective massive participation.
I think someone else on the list proposed 5,000
regular contributors as massive and useful in completing
the Wikipedia in a reasonable period of time. We currently
estimate that we have 200. If the current volume
of this mailing is too controversial in discussing
meta issues, picture it with 25 times the current volume.
If we are to have a massive project team then even
valued contributors must learn to pace themselves or
work within the current limitations of our processes
effectively to avoid "burn out".
I am leery of a trolls or us type of process for
several reasons:
1. I have already been attacked as a troll, so
this policy clearly threatens me.
2. What happens when the controversy is between
several valued contributors? If this is our ultimate
controversy resolution then we inevitably lose someone
valued in this scenario.
3. As much of the local controversy seems to arise
from the meta issue of how to go about resolving
controversy as from the original controversy itself.
4. It seems a common community viewpoint that the
contributing regulars views must take precedence
over newcomers. This is inherently defective.
I shall attempt to support this conclusion as follows:
When or after how much contribution do I become
a "regular"? If the answer is a support network
of fellow contributors, so shut up and take notes,
then we are merely trading present meta discussions
within small groups for larger meta discussions with
larger groups in the future.
In my view, prototyping is best done early and
often as possible. This is a bias from engineering
training. Nevertheless, if it is the community
consensus to wait, then I am quite capable of that.
I will seriously entertain any public requests to limit
my posts to the list to a specific quantitative rate.
I will voluntarily comply for a specified test period
with guideline specified if the current community at large
will commit (by consensus) to the same limiting rate for
all individuals.
This gives a seniority bias to those went before
and helped articulate the current customs such that
they are in accordance with their personal worldviews
and moral frameworks but I am willing to wait and build
seniority, if that is an equitably distributed requirement
from here on.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 828
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue -- IP probation
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 8 04:55:57 UTC 2002
On Saturday 07 September 2002 07:51 pm, April wrote:
> I would like to suggest we add "obviously malicious vandalism" to reasons
> for an immediate (if temporary) IP ban: a single "Ths page is stupid"
> should be, in my opinion, enough to ban the address. This saves us from
> having to spend time on the next five instances of vandalism from that
> contributor, which could be better spent searching for other graffiti or
> *gasp* actually adding content.
Hum, you just made me realize that the closest thing I'm aware of that is a
policy on when to lable something as vandalism is at:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/VANDALISM_IN_PROGRESS
Which states in part: "However, please do not lable isolated instances of
text deletions, replacements or odd additions as VANDALISM unless they are
overtly lewd or offensive." and continues; "More often than not, this is just
a visitor to the site experimenting with how to use it -- labeling them as a
VANDAL is a sure way of ensuring they will not become contributors."
I would say that abusive cursing or displaying the oh so clever image at
www.goatse.cx would be an objective case of "overtly lewd or offensive" but
the gray area starts with things like; "This is so gay", or "this is stupid"
added to or replacing articles. I generally don't consider these non-overtly
lewd statements worthy of a ban (block is a better word) unless there is a
systematic posting of these idiotic statements on several pages.
As the previous most active vandal stalker, it is my experience that IPs who
are responsible for these single "gray area" acts do their thing and just
leave never to return. In fact for a few months I was tracking these types of
isolated "gray area" additions/replacements and found the majority of them to
/remain/ isolated -- the IPs didn't return in the majority of cases (and some
that did return actually contributed positively to articles). However, most
of the idiots that did return came back with slightly different IPs -- thus a
block would have been useless anyway.
Instead of blocking I would much prefer an IP watchlist -- whereby a warned
IP is watched for a specified period (perhaps by bolding their IP address in
Recent Changes and having a log of IPs on probation). This is in the spirit
of the page I created at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_probation_watchlist
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 829
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sun Sep 8 05:05:18 UTC 2002
On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 00:58, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> On Saturday 07 September 2002 06:05 am, you wrote:
> > I didn't know that certain policy pages were frozen.
> > What was the reasoning behind it?
> >
> > Stephen Gilbert
>
> Because policy cannot be changed without some kind of consensus first.
Or to put it cynically, so that the policy cannot be changed (in the
WikiWay).
A fuller explanation of the reasoning has to do with the history of the
creation of the Meta site, and the development of contentious policy
pages such as those on entry deletion and the definition of Wikipedia
vandalism, during LMS's reign.
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 830
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
Giskart
giskart at linux.be
Sun Sep 8 08:35:16 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>[cut]
>
>My understanding of how ip banning and common use of reassignment
>of IP numbers leads me to this concern:
>
>If too many casual or hit and run type vandals are banned that we
>are likely banning the next users, not the vandal. This could be
>counterproductive if it occurs in conjunction with recruiting efforts
>or methods under discussion in other threads.
>
>For high school or college users to begin relying on the Wikipedia
>as a resource timely access is required due to homework deadlines,
>typically on the order of days or hours, not weeks. Encountering
>frequent blocks due to local vandals on the same pool of IP addresses
>is likely to encourage the view that Wikipedia is unreliable, not
>that inappropriate local use is causing the problem. If the user
>becomes aware that he/she is being punished for another's misdeeds
>this could form an even worse impression.
>
>
[cut]
I have not (yet) been banned so i do not realy know but the language
configurationfile says "
"blockiptext" => "Use the form below to block write access from a
specific IP address. This should be done only only to prevent
valndalism, and in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Policy|Wikipedia
policy]]. Fill in a specific reason below (for example, citing
particular pages that were vandalized)."
So your not realy blocking a user from accesing Wikipedia. He can still
read all the articels. He can only not change them. For making has
homework he does not need to change content. -- giskart
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 831
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 8 08:45:38 UTC 2002
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 07 September 2002 06:05 am, you wrote:
> > I didn't know that certain policy pages were
> frozen.
> > What was the reasoning behind it?
> >
> > Stephen Gilbert
>
> Because policy cannot be changed without some kind
> of consensus first.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Yes, but that doesn't explain why a sysop has to be
the person who makes any agreed upon changes. Also,
freezing these pages bars people from copyediting and
linking.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 832
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 8 08:47:32 UTC 2002
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> A fuller explanation of the reasoning has to do with
> the history of the
> creation of the Meta site, and the development of
> contentious policy
> pages such as those on entry deletion and the
> definition of Wikipedia
> vandalism, during LMS's reign.
Yes, I'm aware of the history; I simply don't recall
any discussion on freezing those pages. Obviously I
missed it. For the record, I think it's a bad idea.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 833
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Sun Sep 8 09:26:06 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>
> --- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday 07 September 2002 06:05 am, you wrote:
> > > I didn't know that certain policy pages were
> > frozen.
> > > What was the reasoning behind it?
> > >
> > > Stephen Gilbert
> >
> > Because policy cannot be changed without some kind
> > of consensus first.
> >
> > -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
> Yes, but that doesn't explain why a sysop has to be
> the person who makes any agreed upon changes. Also,
> freezing these pages bars people from copyediting and
> linking.
The OBVIOUS reason behind it is that these are basic help-type pages
that a newbie has no reason to need or want to change. If they have
something to say they can do it on the related talk page. It just
simplifies things a bit to have them protected... and it's not like
there are any shortage of sysops around to make any necessary changes,
especially since anyone who REALLY wants to be one just has to ask and
they can be a sysop too.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature
that will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 834
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
Tesla Coil
tescoil at ilbbs.com
Sun Sep 8 11:34:00 UTC 2002
On 4 Sep 2002, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> There was a notion of teaming up groups of Wikipedians around
> some areas of Wikipedia content - operating systems, unix, punk
> rock or the Roman Empire.
>
> They should have some infrastructure (namespace ? mailing list ?)
> to rely on in order to coordinate, review and discuss. Not to
> mention do some planning and quality assurance.
What happened to this idea? Against this suggestion, so much
talk of "experts" appears a wish that collective intelligence
will arrive as embodied by individuals and spare the problem
of acheiving better organization of it in social form.
I believe, however, that it would be more practical for SIGs
to be formed around wider topic areas than those cited above,
for example, "History" rather than "the Roman Empire."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 835
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Sun Sep 8 12:10:05 UTC 2002
At 04:32 PM 9/7/02 -0400, you wrote:
>...a single "Ths page is stupid"
>should be, in my opinion, enough to ban the address.
>-- April
No, We cannot ban Larry.
Fred
Banning the sites of vandals (especially high school students with free
accounts) presents some problems. Such sites are are natural customers.
Since a person will probably come through from different computers with
different IPs the individual cannot be banned, only the site.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 836
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sun Sep 8 15:35:12 UTC 2002
I don't remember coming to an agreement they should be protected, either (though I've recently had a blow to the head). ;-) I've seen them vandalized a few times, then reverted. One issue I have with their protection is that it seems to imply that the policies are etched in stone, when in fact one of the "rules" of wikipedia is to ignore all rules if rules make you uncomfortable.
Yet the policy pages are protected. I think they call that [[cognitive dissonance]]. I'm tempted to ignore an unwritten rule now.
kq
Stephen wrote:
>I don't recall ever having a problem with people
>changing policies unilaterally, so I guess I don't see
>any good reason to have these pages frozen. I do,
>however, see some problems with it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 837
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Sun Sep 8 19:46:52 UTC 2002
Tesla Coil wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2002, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>>There was a notion of teaming up groups of Wikipedians around
>>some areas of Wikipedia content - operating systems, unix, punk
>>rock or the Roman Empire.
>>
>>They should have some infrastructure (namespace ? mailing list ?)
>>to rely on in order to coordinate, review and discuss. Not to
>>mention do some planning and quality assurance.
>
> What happened to this idea? Against this suggestion, so much
> talk of "experts" appears a wish that collective intelligence
> will arrive as embodied by individuals and spare the problem
> of acheiving better organization of it in social form.
This sounds like a natural extension of the WikiProjects that are
already floating around.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 838
[Wikipedia-l] Call for Boycott, Judea Declares War on Germany
Helga Hecht
helgah at email.com
Sun Sep 8 19:54:41 UTC 2002
On wiki [[Berlin]] page I added "text". Vicki, you objected.
Around 1933, some 160,000 Jews were living in Berlin, a third of all German Jews. They constituted four percent of the population. A third of them were poor immigrants from Eastern Europe, who lived mainly in Scheunenviertel near Alexanderplatz?. The Jews were persecuted from the beginning of the Nazi regime. In March all Jewish doctors had to leave the Charité hospital. "As apparent counter-measure a worldwide Jewish boycott was called on March 24, 1933 with a Daily Express, London newspaper article stating: Judea Declares War On Germany (complete text:[[2]]). The many economic boycott actions were answered in the first week of April, when Nazi officials ordered the German population not to buy at Jewish shops."
--
[[2]] = Shofar Nizcor website.
--
Vicki, would you object if I changed the last sentence to read:
"In the first week of April, Nazi officials ordered the German population not to buy at Jewish shops".
instead of:
"The many economic boycott actions were answered in the first week of April, when Nazi officials ordered the German population not to buy at Jewish shops".
Please let me know here.
Thank you
H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 839
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 8 20:05:43 UTC 2002
On Sunday 08 September 2002 12:01 pm, you wrote:
> I don't recall ever having a problem with people
> changing policies unilaterally, so I guess I don't see
> any good reason to have these pages frozen. I do,
> however, see some problems with it.
>
> Stephen Gilbert
Yes there has been a problem with this in the past (albeit relatively minor -
but that was back when we had 1/3 the edit volume). Off the top of my head;
an anonymous IP tried to add a new naming convention unilaterally without
discussion;
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions&diff=68608&oldid=59909
24's additions to rules to consider (admittedly not a policy page but very
similar);
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Rules_to_consider&diff=52895&oldid=52894
And there are probably others that could be found by digging a bit more.
Then there is
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
which for legal reasons can't be edited by anybody and also
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
As Karen said anybody who has been around for a while can be a sysop and we
can't have just any anonymous IP changing policy pages.
If you have noticed when I refactored the naming conventions page I spun-off
the majority of the text in sub-articles which /are not/ protected - just
watched by little old me. I think something similar should be done with NPOV
which has become a monster. That way the amount of protected text is at a
bare minimum and anybody can copyedit the majority of the text yet the short
policy statements on the protected page are not changed.
In fact all of our policy pages should be as short as possible with separate
but linked unprotected pages which go into in-depth discussion and
explanation. See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
We might want to have some type of boilerplate block at the top of each
policy page stating something to the effect;
"[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wikipedia policy]] has evolved over time
and continues to evolve as the project matures. Policy changes must be agreed
to by consensus however. If you want to help us refine our policies please
add to this page's talk, join the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia-L|mailing list]]
and/or ask to become a [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Wikipedia administrator]]
(which is granted to any logged-in user who is generally known and trusted by
the community)."
It has been stated before that we can't trust any anonymous yahoo with meta
functions (and changing policy is one of these functions).
PS I've heard several people chim in that "Ignore all rules" is a policy.
That's plain wrong; it is just a rule to consider. See:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 840
[Wikipedia-l] Un-blocking some old blocks
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 8 20:36:17 UTC 2002
Unless somebody objects, I would like to unblock some old blocks I made some
time back (the first 6 at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
).
These IPs probably are not being used by the vandal anymore (a probation
tracking system would be nice in these cases though - as I stated in a
previous post).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 841
[Wikipedia-l] Call for Boycott, Judea Declares War on Germany
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Sun Sep 8 20:38:01 UTC 2002
At 03:54 AM 9/9/02 +0800, Hekga wrote:
>On wiki [[Berlin]] page I added "text". Vicki, you objected.
>
>Around 1933, some 160,000 Jews were living in Berlin, a third of all
>German Jews. They constituted four percent of the population. A third of
>them were poor immigrants from Eastern Europe, who lived mainly in
>Scheunenviertel near Alexanderplatz?. The Jews were persecuted from the
>beginning of the Nazi regime. In March all Jewish doctors had to leave the
>Charité hospital. "As apparent counter-measure a worldwide Jewish boycott
>was called on March 24, 1933 with a Daily Express, London newspaper
>article stating: Judea Declares War On Germany (complete text:[[2]]). The
>many economic boycott actions were answered in the first week of April,
>when Nazi officials ordered the German population not to buy at Jewish shops."
>--
>[[2]] = Shofar Nizcor website.
>--
>Vicki, would you object if I changed the last sentence to read:
>
>"In the first week of April, Nazi officials ordered the German population
>not to buy at Jewish shops".
>
>instead of:
>
>"The many economic boycott actions were answered in the first week of
>April, when Nazi officials ordered the German population not to buy at
>Jewish shops".
Yes, I would. It puts far too much emphasis on a newspaper article that (a)
almost certainly
had no effect on future events, (b) was not published in Berlin, and (c)
was not about Berlin.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 842
[Wikipedia-l] Protected pages
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Sep 8 21:59:19 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>
> --- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> > A fuller explanation of the reasoning has to do with
> > the history of the
> > creation of the Meta site, and the development of
> > contentious policy
> > pages such as those on entry deletion and the
> > definition of Wikipedia
> > vandalism, during LMS's reign.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the history; I simply don't recall
> any discussion on freezing those pages. Obviously I
> missed it. For the record, I think it's a bad idea.
>
> Stephen Gilbert
Several new approaches, some sweeping and some
more incremental, have been proposed to help
slow down or cool off controversy that appears
to have gotten too heated.
Perhaps new approaches could be tested on these
few policy pages to see if they are helpful in
allowing the community at large (occasional contributors
as well as mailing list regulars) to reach a broad
consensus on incremental policy or presentation changes.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 843
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Sep 8 22:22:26 UTC 2002
Giskart wrote:
>
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>
> >[cut]
> >
> >My understanding of how ip banning and common use of reassignment
> >of IP numbers leads me to this concern:
> >
> >If too many casual or hit and run type vandals are banned that we
> >are likely banning the next users, not the vandal. This could be
> >counterproductive if it occurs in conjunction with recruiting efforts
> >or methods under discussion in other threads.
> >
> >For high school or college users to begin relying on the Wikipedia
> >as a resource timely access is required due to homework deadlines,
> >typically on the order of days or hours, not weeks. Encountering
> >frequent blocks due to local vandals on the same pool of IP addresses
> >is likely to encourage the view that Wikipedia is unreliable, not
> >that inappropriate local use is causing the problem. If the user
> >becomes aware that he/she is being punished for another's misdeeds
> >this could form an even worse impression.
> >
> >
> [cut]
>
> I have not (yet) been banned so i do not realy know but the language
> configurationfile says "
>
> "blockiptext" => "Use the form below to block write access from a
> specific IP address. This should be done only only to prevent
> valndalism, and in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Policy|Wikipedia
> policy]]. Fill in a specific reason below (for example, citing
> particular pages that were vandalized)."
>
> So your not realy blocking a user from accesing Wikipedia. He can still
> read all the articels. He can only not change them. For making has
> homework he does not need to change content. -- giskart
I believe you are correct. Others have corrected this
type of poor wording/thinking for me before. This obviously
relieves the primary focus of my concern above.
A related smaller concern. I find that much of my contribution
is in the form of making small updates when researching or doing
some background reading in support of personal projects.
I think getting the students used to contributing tidbits,
questions (on associated talk pages) or routine corrections in
the course of their routine work as appropriate will be quite
useful. This may ultimately be the major form of contribution
by most people, as our material gets more detailed and broad.
Occasional write block interference or aliasing would disrupt
this form of contribution. If persisent from certain sites
it be highly disruptive in attracting contributors from that
site.
To me this appears to be a smaller short term impact than the
scenario I devised above around faulty assumptions. Longer term
is harder to estimate. If we wish to encourage a participatory
trend this may be a negative. If the trend to begin contributing
as (it is feasible and convenient) turns out to be quite strong
among casual users, then I think it is probably negligable.
If vandals find denial of Wikipedia write access to
local populations sharing a common IP address pool
amusing, it may increase our attractiveness as a target.
Thanks for correcting my error.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 844
[Wikipedia-l] Call for Boycott, Judea Declares War onGermany
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sun Sep 8 23:11:24 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> At 03:54 AM 9/9/02 +0800, Hekga wrote:
> >On wiki [[Berlin]] page I added "text". Vicki, you objected.
> >
> >Around 1933, some 160,000 Jews were living in Berlin, a third of all
> >German Jews. They constituted four percent of the population. A third of
> >them were poor immigrants from Eastern Europe, who lived mainly in
> >Scheunenviertel near Alexanderplatz?. The Jews were persecuted from the
> >beginning of the Nazi regime. In March all Jewish doctors had to leave the
> >Charité hospital. "As apparent counter-measure a worldwide Jewish boycott
> >was called on March 24, 1933 with a Daily Express, London newspaper
> >article stating: Judea Declares War On Germany (complete text:[[2]]). The
> >many economic boycott actions were answered in the first week of April,
> >when Nazi officials ordered the German population not to buy at Jewish shops."
> >--
> >[[2]] = Shofar Nizcor website.
> >--
> >Vicki, would you object if I changed the last sentence to read:
> >
> >"In the first week of April, Nazi officials ordered the German population
> >not to buy at Jewish shops".
> >
> >instead of:
> >
> >"The many economic boycott actions were answered in the first week of
> >April, when Nazi officials ordered the German population not to buy at
> >Jewish shops".
>
> Yes, I would. It puts far too much emphasis on a newspaper article that (a)
> almost certainly
> had no effect on future events, (b) was not published in Berlin, and (c)
> was not about Berlin.
>
> --
> Vicki Rosenzweig
> vr at redbird.org
> http://www.redbird.org
Ms. Rosenzweig has captured some of my initial concern when
I read the proposed change as well.
The proposed sentence appears to me such that it would be an
excellent NPOV compliant factual summary of a paragraph, phase
or article regarding the rising tensions in the period if a list
of typical boycott actions or announcements (perhaps including
the specific article headline in question) were to precede it.
Particularly useful, in my view, would be whether other parties
were pursuing these economic actions as well. Did the German
government eventually respond to most or everyone or only
selectively: first to some of the Jewish activity, later to
other opposing interests as targets of opportunity.
Divide and conquer is an old strategy that the German
government seemed (to me) to abandon later in the War.
Were they employing it initially in the economic arena of
the pre War era?
Were others (besides some Jewish interests) likewise engaged
against German interests? Perhaps we can usefully expand
"The many economic boycott actions" in the article above
the proposed new sentence. This might help provide the reader
with sufficient information to ask themselves useful questions
for further reading or research.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 845
[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"
Imran Ghory
ImranG at btinternet.com
Sun Sep 8 23:59:58 UTC 2002
On 4 Sep 2002, at 9:45, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> There was a notion of teaming up groups of Wikipedians
> around some areas of Wikipedia content - operating
> systems, unix, punk rock or the Roman Empire.
>
> They should have some infrastructure (namespace ? mailing list ?) to
> rely on in order to coordinate, review and discuss. Not to mention do
> some planning and quality assurance.
Another useful side-effect of having such a system could be that
these groups could combine together a collection of articles on that
topic, put an introduction in and release it as an ebook.
So we could get a series of "The Wikipedia guide to XXXX" ebooks,
which we could distribute around to the various ebook sites as well
as sites which deal with related topics, that way the wikipedia
articles would get a much wider audience and attract people to the
wikipedia project.
Imran
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 846
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Helga Hecht
helgah at email.com
Mon Sep 9 04:41:35 UTC 2002
To Adam Williamson,
Thank you for your answer. The Communist influence went pretty deep and is indeed a complicated story. The short wiki page on American Communists was changed to Communist Party of the United States, where I added a link to : Should Communists teach in American Colleges? and a link to Hoover Institute 1999 Guilty as charged.
H. Jonat
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 847
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Sep 9 06:37:13 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 00:41, Helga Hecht wrote:
> To Adam Williamson,
>
> Thank you for your answer....
> H. Jonat
> --
Please keep article-related discussions off the list. Or, to put it
another way, please keep article-related discussions on Wikipedia.
This list is only for issues about Wikipedia, not issues of content.
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 848
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 9 07:21:38 UTC 2002
>> H. Jonat
>Please keep article-related discussions off the list. Or, to put it
>another way, please keep article-related discussions on Wikipedia.
>
>This list is only for issues about Wikipedia, not issues of content.
Helga's initial post was "Wasn't there an article about...at
one time? I don't see it now." or something to that effect.
That sounds pretty meta to me; she wasn't asking about content,
but about something that might have happened to the database or
a possibly unjusitified user action.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 849
[Wikipedia-l] Policies and guidelines
Tim Marklew
tmarklew at hotmail.com
Mon Sep 9 08:23:09 UTC 2002
>There are only two iron-clad, unbreakable Wikipedia
>laws: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should be
>written following the principle of the neutral point
>of view.
I would add to those two:
*Don't infringe copyrights
*No personal attacks, which Jimbo indicated could be grounds for a ban.
I agree that all other rules, such as naming conventions etc, shouldn't be
regarded as unbreakable. I would suggest calling the above 4 rules
'policies' and the rest 'guidelines' to make the difference clearer.
Tim (Enchanter)
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 850
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Sep 9 07:03:36 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 00:41, Helga Hecht wrote:
>
>>To Adam Williamson,
>>
>>Thank you for your answer....
>>H. Jonat
>>--
>>
>Please keep article-related discussions off the list. Or, to put it
>another way, please keep article-related discussions on Wikipedia.
>
>This list is only for issues about Wikipedia, not issues of content.
>
For some time there was a concerted effort to get Helga on the list.
This sounds too much like slamming the door in a visitor's face as
she's coming in. A wide latitude would be more appropriate.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 851
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Mon Sep 9 10:12:04 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 05:41, Helga Hecht wrote:
> To Adam Williamson,
>
> Thank you for your answer. The Communist influence went pretty deep and is indeed a complicated story.
This is an academically debated point. Not to say you're wrong, it's
just not agreed upon. I'll expand this page at some point, but I can
only really cover the McCarthy era - does anyone have DETAILED knowledge
of pre-1945 and post-1960 or thereabouts?
> The short wiki page on American Communists was changed to Communist Party of the United States,
> where I added a link to : Should Communists teach in American Colleges? and a link to Hoover
> Institute 1999 Guilty as charged.
> H. Jonat
Everyone else - is there a Wikipedia policy on balance in external
links?
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 852
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Sep 9 10:33:38 UTC 2002
I was away from the computer all weekend, and now I'm reading this
thoughtful discussion carefully.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> But what I'm objecting to is a reluctance to use banning _after_
> those other strategies have failed, which means that disruptive
> people who are immune to those other strategies (the merciless
> editing and ignoring you mention below) _do_ "get away with
> everything" because there's nothing else we can do to stop them.
I think this argument has merit.
I am opposed, politically speaking, to the death penalty. My reasons
don't have much to do with the morality of doing away with some people
-- I think it's perfectly moral in some cases. My reasons have to do
more with the rather alarming rate of erroneous convictions.
But I do support the death penalty in a handful of unique sorts of
cases. If someone is already in prison for life, then there's not
much in the way of possible deterrent unless the death penalty is an
option. And the odds of error are very low in such a case.
I say this only by way of loose analogy and support for the idea that
banning _is_ a serious penalty, to be entered into only after much
effort is put into other means. But it cannot be ruled out entirely,
or there is ultimately no "stick" behind other things.
Someday we will meet someone with perl skills and no interest at all
in working with the group. This person will set a cron job to insert
their nonsense into some subject pages, on a regular basis. We
_could_, of course, always just revert their changes every time. And
they can just increase the frequency of the cron job from weekly to
daily to hourly to every 5 minutes.
We don't have to put up with that. Banning, pagelocks, etc., are
valuable tools for dealing with a situation like that.
The instant case is relevant, too. We have a contributor (Helga) who
has been unable, so far, to improve her contributions. So far, in
discussions here, she has been purely defensive and repeats her
allegations (while simultaneously denying them!) that people are
trying to censor.
At some point, the cost in terms of loss of diversity is much much
lower than the cost in terms of lost time on the part of others.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 853
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Sep 9 10:48:35 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> If too many casual or hit and run type vandals are banned that we
> are likely banning the next users, not the vandal.
That's true, but I think it just shows that we should clear the
banlist from time to time.
> For high school or college users to begin relying on the Wikipedia
> as a resource timely access is required due to homework deadlines,
> typically on the order of days or hours, not weeks.
Banning only affects editing, not reading.
> What period of time for routine banning would you (anyone) suggest
> as an estimate of the initial proper tradeoff between potential
> denial of service to legitimate users and the attention span of
> casual or hit and run type vandalism?
It probably depends on the context, the time of year, etc.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 854
[Wikipedia-l] Imposing rules.
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Sep 9 10:55:23 UTC 2002
Adam Williamson wrote:
> A simple question to those who demand Helga should be banned...how? What
> do we ban? Her username? She posts without one. Her IP address? It
> changes the next time her internet connection drops, almost certainly.
Actually, she appears to post from a fixed IP.
You are right, of course, that as a technical matter, an anonymous
open system like wiki is always vulnerable to attack from someone
sufficiently determined. The question is: is it possible to raise the
threshold cost for the attacker sufficiently high to deter them,
without also raising the threshold cost by enough to deter other,
legitimate contributors.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 855
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Sep 9 02:37:06 UTC 2002
>
>> The short wiki page on American Communists was changed to Communist
>>Party of the United States,
>> where I added a link to : Should Communists teach in American Colleges?
>>and a link to Hoover
>> Institute 1999 Guilty as charged.
>> H. Jonat
>
>Everyone else - is there a Wikipedia policy on balance in external
>links?
>--
>adamw
Neutral Point of View covers that. On their face the two links look ok.
Back on list of political parties there is a link to what purports to be
the Communist Party website, that could be included in the article
I am by the way, the one who deleted Helga's material on infiltration of
the Truman administration. It is not apparent because after deletion I
redirected the article to [[Communist Party]], then someone else deleted
the page Helga had made. Now apparently you (adamw) have created a page
with the correct contemporay title. I believe removal of the specific
material I removed was justified, although I am open to inclusion of all
well researched material on activities of the Communist Party.
I have no plans to work extensively on articles about the Communist Party,
but as it is a minor interest of mine I could, and certainly will if my
imput looks needed. I would encourage anyone, "qualified" or not to jump
in; it's an interesting subject, and any serious error can be corrected
eventually.
Fred Bauder
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 856
[Wikipedia-l] Leornard Bernstein, for Helga
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Sep 9 14:34:15 UTC 2002
The [[Leonard Bernstein]] article says,
"Especially unforgettable is Leonard Bernstein's last production with Unitel. On Christmas Day, December 25, 1989 Bernstein featured Beethoven's Symphony No. 9? at the Berlin Celebration Concert in order to celebrate with Berlin and the world the Fall of the Wall. Over 100 million people shared this unique experience by watching Leonard Bernstein's Berlin Concert performance, broadcast by live Television in more than 20 countries. For this occasion Bernstein had reworded Friedrich Schiller's text of Ode to Joy, substituting the word "freedom" (Freiheit) for "joy" (Freude). "I'm sure that Beethoven would have given us his blessing", said Bernstein."
And I added the following to the [[Berlin Wall]] article:
"On Christmas Day, December 25, 1989 Leonard Bernstein did a concert in Berlin celebrating the the Fall of the Wall."
Why? Although I am Jewish, I do not hate Germans. I love German and Austrian composers.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 857
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Mon Sep 9 16:04:12 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 03:37, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Neutral Point of View covers that. On their face the two links look ok.
I don't agree. There's nothing exactly wrong with including those links,
but they're just odd as the first and only links on the page.
Unfortunately I don't know of better places to link to...
> Back on list of political parties there is a link to what purports to be
> the Communist Party website, that could be included in the article
Is it OK to have links to external pages in the main text of articles? I
was under the impression they had to be contained in a separate External
Links section, as is done on this page.
> I am by the way, the one who deleted Helga's material on infiltration of
> the Truman administration. It is not apparent because after deletion I
> redirected the article to [[Communist Party]], then someone else deleted
> the page Helga had made. Now apparently you (adamw) have created a page
> with the correct contemporay title.
? I've not created or edited any pages on this topic, all i've done is
have a look at some of Helga's stuff and sent some comments here.
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 858
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Sep 9 16:47:37 UTC 2002
>Is it OK to have links to external pages in the main text of articles? I
>was under the impression they had to be contained in a separate External
>Links section, as is done on this page.
>adamw
In that context where an attempt was made to find a link to the official
page of each political party, it seems appropriate.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 859
[Wikipedia-l] Policies and guidelines
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 9 16:57:19 UTC 2002
--- Tim Marklew <tmarklew at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >There are only two iron-clad, unbreakable Wikipedia
> >laws: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should
> be
> >written following the principle of the neutral
> point
> >of view.
>
> I would add to those two:
> *Don't infringe copyrights
Agreed.
> *No personal attacks, which Jimbo indicated could be
> grounds for a ban.
I think it's more accurate to say personal threats, as
opposed to personal insults.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 860
[Wikipedia-l] Policies and guidelines
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 9 17:42:32 UTC 2002
Yeah, because personal attacks (or at least unfounded ones from relative
strangers) don't do any harm to the project. NOT!
-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
[mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Gilbert
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 9:57 AM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Policies and guidelines
--- Tim Marklew <tmarklew at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >There are only two iron-clad, unbreakable Wikipedia
> >laws: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should
> be
> >written following the principle of the neutral
> point
> >of view.
>
> I would add to those two:
> *Don't infringe copyrights
Agreed.
> *No personal attacks, which Jimbo indicated could be
> grounds for a ban.
I think it's more accurate to say personal threats, as
opposed to personal insults.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 861
[Wikipedia-l] Policies and guidelines
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Sep 9 16:30:05 UTC 2002
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> Yeah, because personal attacks (or at least unfounded ones from relative
> strangers) don't do any harm to the project. NOT!
Right. I say "no personal attacks" is a baseline rule for any
rational endeavor. There are often (too often, in email!) borderline
cases and so forth, but even so, personal attacks are just not ever
the right thing to do on Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 862
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 9 17:37:41 UTC 2002
> Everyone else - is there a Wikipedia policy on balance
> in external links?
I don't think there's one written; my own perference would
be that on a page covering a general subject, external links
should either point to reasonably balanced articles, or else
have a balanced number of links to articles from different
points of view. On articles specifically about a certain
point of view, one would expect links to biased articles to
be the norm, though a rebuttal article or two wouldn't be out
of place either.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 863
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 9 17:45:24 UTC 2002
>> If too many casual or hit and run type vandals are banned that
>> we are likely banning the next users, not the vandal.
> That's true, but I think it just shows that we should clear
> the banlist from time to time.
I'd like to point out an anecdote you might not have known
about: a few days ago, a logged-in user started vandalizing
several pages relating to Australia. I got his IP from the
logs and blocked it, and repaired the damage. A few days
later, I got personal e-mail from that domain saying that the
IP address was a student terminal, the user in question had
been disciplined, and requested that I unblock the IP (which
I did, of course).
So I'd just like to say that even blocked users/IP do have
recourse. We're all very reachable here.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 864
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Tesla Coil
tescoil at ilbbs.com
Mon Sep 9 17:49:58 UTC 2002
On 9 Sept 2002, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> Everyone else - is there a Wikipedia policy on balance in external
>>> links?
>>
>> Neutral Point of View covers that. On their face the two links look ok.
>
> I don't agree. There's nothing exactly wrong with including those
> links, but they're just odd as the first and only links on the page.
What's really "just odd" is that amid calls for Helga to be banned,
she offers a link to an article that with minor editing would join
the argument on behalf doing so:
"Out of this long and painstaking examination I have come reluctantly
to the conclusion that nazi-sympathizer internet kooks should not be
allowed to write Wikipedia articles. I am now convinced that a nazi-
sympathizer internet kook is not a free person. Freedom, I believe
is the most essential ingredient of Wikipedia and democracy."
I propose the "Communists Should Not Teach in American Colleges"
link be moved to [[Censorship]] under the heading "Philosophical
arguments for censorship," as its contribution to the topic of
the [[Communist Party of the United States of America]] appears
relatively inessential.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 865
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Sep 9 17:19:10 UTC 2002
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
period of 3 months.
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although
the vast majority will be. Such is the nature of consensus. I can't
wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent, which is why I have
waited so long to take action in this case. Banning should always be
a "last resort". After more than a year of trying to work with Helga,
and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of
her, we are now at a last resort stage.
To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views
on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to
resolve differences. Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited
her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about
her posting style in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and
to repeat her strange historical claims.
In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly
avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more
than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this
decision.
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this, but
there is really no appeal possible at this point. The ban is not
permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in
3 months time.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 866
[Wikipedia-l] Murder, hatred and banning
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Sep 9 18:34:43 UTC 2002
There is conflict in the world, and therefore in Wikipedia (including this mailing list). For selfish reasons, people murder other people: a fight with a stranger in a bar, a family quarrel, clans fighting (Hatfield vs. McCoy), ethnic/national/religious groups fighting over land, people or ideology. There is no rule or procedure that will end conflict. When there is no love, fighting is inevitable.
Ironically, the 2 biggest areas of conflict on the Wikipedia are the articles about murder and hatred. The history of warfare and conquest in Europe is what Helga and Dr. Kemp were contending over. The aspirations of the Jewish people for a homeland (i.e., Zionism) and the largely Arab aspiration for a "Palestinian homeland", in the Middle East, is a cauldron ever bubbling over and scalding us all. Debates over what is or is not "anti-Semitism" or "racism" consume us with their flames.
I think what Jimbo and Larry were hoping is that co-operating contributors could collaborate on creating neutral articles: i.e., articles which did not champion any side but rather described the various points of view.
We keep getting away from the neutral stance -- all of us, me included -- and lapse into championing the "right" point of view. All right-thinking people agree that XYZ is bad and PQR is good. Yeah, sure, all except that significant minority who insists on something else, and the cauldron boils over again.
Experts will continue to stay away in droves, as long as we bicker amongst ourselves. To increase from 200 talented amateurs to 300, 400 or 500 people with even the sparsest sprinkling of subject matter experts, we must do something to make Wikipedia a more congenial environment.
I'm not sure how to do this. I'm only sure that we must.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 867
[Wikipedia-l] Murder, hatred and banning
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Mon Sep 9 19:10:38 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 19:34, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Experts will continue to stay away in droves, as long as we bicker amongst ourselves.
> To increase from 200 talented amateurs to 300, 400 or 500 people with even the sparsest
> sprinkling of subject matter experts, we must do something to make Wikipedia a more
> congenial environment.
>
> I'm not sure how to do this. I'm only sure that we must.
I'm not exactly sure of this. So-called "experts" like a good bicker as
much as the rest of us. Have you ever read the letters page of an
academic journal? The insults fly between the ivory towers as viciously
as in the grimy bars, you know :). So don't expect so-called "experts"
to be necessarily put off by argument, and also don't expect them not to
indulge in it should they ever turn up :)
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 868
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at kki.net.pl
Mon Sep 9 19:26:45 UTC 2002
On 09-09-2002, Jimmy Wales wrote thusly :
> After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
> arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
> to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
> period of 3 months.
> After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
> I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although
> the vast majority will be. Such is the nature of consensus. I can't
> wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
> I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent, which is why I have
> waited so long to take action in this case. Banning should always be
> a "last resort". After more than a year of trying to work with Helga,
> and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of
> her, we are now at a last resort stage.
> To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views
> on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to
> resolve differences. Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited
> her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about
> her posting style in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and
> to repeat her strange historical claims.
> In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly
> avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more
> than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this
> decision.
> Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this, but
> there is really no appeal possible at this point. The ban is not
> permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in
> 3 months time.
Decision hard to take and uneasy one but the right one IMO.
Is she also banned from the German Wikipedia ?
Regards,
kpjas.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 869
[Wikipedia-l] Murder, hatred and banning
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 9 19:29:23 UTC 2002
>> Experts will continue to stay away in droves, as long as we
>> bicker amongst ourselves. To increase from 200 talented
>> amateurs to 300, 400 or 500 people with even the sparsest
>> sprinkling of subject matter experts, we must do something to
>> make Wikipedia a more congenial environment.
>> I'm not sure how to do this. I'm only sure that we must.
> I'm not exactly sure of this. So-called "experts" like a good
> bicker as much as the rest of us. Have you ever read the
> letters page of an academic journal? The insults fly between
> the ivory towers as viciously as in the grimy bars, you know :).
> So don't expect so-called "experts" to be necessarily put off
> by argument, and also don't expect them not to indulge in it
> should they ever turn up :)
I agree; lively, vigorous argument is a good thing in itself,
and won't drive away anyone who's worth keeping. We're not a
social club here, we're producing a product, and if a little
shouting helps that project, that's fine. What drives people
away is when they feel they aren't contributing. If they spend
more time arguing than writing, and the arguments don't actually
serve to improve the articles, then they feel their time is being
wasted.
So arguments here should be judged not on their belligerance,
but on their productivity. Is the argument truly seeking to
make a better article, or is it just arguing for the sake of
argument, or to push an agenda?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 870
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Sep 9 18:28:24 UTC 2002
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> Decision hard to take and uneasy one but the right one IMO.
>
> Is she also banned from the German Wikipedia ?
Not physically, but in principle, yes. If someone with sysop status there
wants to do that for me, I'll be glad of it. If no one there cares enough to
do it, then there's no need. :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 871
[Wikipedia-l] Honr. B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Sep 9 20:26:17 UTC 2002
>On 9 Sept 2002, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>>> Everyone else - is there a Wikipedia policy on balance in external
>>>> links?
>>>
>>> Neutral Point of View covers that. On their face the two links look ok.
>>
>> I don't agree. There's nothing exactly wrong with including those
>> links, but they're just odd as the first and only links on the page.
>
>What's really "just odd" is that amid calls for Helga to be banned,
>she offers a link to an article that with minor editing would join
>the argument on behalf doing so:
>
>"Out of this long and painstaking examination I have come reluctantly
> to the conclusion that nazi-sympathizer internet kooks should not be
> allowed to write Wikipedia articles. I am now convinced that a nazi-
> sympathizer internet kook is not a free person. Freedom, I believe
> is the most essential ingredient of Wikipedia and democracy."
>
>I propose the "Communists Should Not Teach in American Colleges"
>link be moved to [[Censorship]] under the heading "Philosophical
>arguments for censorship," as its contribution to the topic of
>the [[Communist Party of the United States of America]] appears
>relatively inessential.
It could go there too, and possibly in an article about McCarthyism, but I
think it belongs as one link among others which have a more friendly view.
That sort of policy was eventually overturned by decisions of the Supreme
Court, but it illustrates how a portion of the American public felt about
Communists.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 872
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Mon Sep 9 20:19:12 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-09 10:19 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
>arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
>to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
>period of 3 months.
Banned from what? This list? The English Wikipedia. All Wikipedia?
3 months is too long to ban people anyway. Try 2 days first, then
a week, then twice that.
As an European this reminds me of communism and nazisme.
Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury of
here peers?
How can new Wikipedia-aspirant writers expect to be treated
fairly whenever they will try to introduce a new aspect in
say 20 years when you are all over 40?
Anyway I think that legal matters like this should be handled
more carefully.
What I object most to, it that the subject itself may have
been disallowed to right to rebuttle.
>After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
Sure, and some sex on the side.
>I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although
>the vast majority will be.
Not me.
>Such is the nature of consensus.
The nature of consensus is that you achieve it first.
>I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
Is there some voting mechanism or did you just ask your
friends?
>I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent,
So don't do it.
>which is why I have
>waited so long to take action in this case.
Ok, so because you waited so long, it makes it
right? And from which did you ban here exactly?
And why?
>Banning should always be a "last resort".
Yes. Like the death penalty.
And we don't like that in Europe.
>After more than a year of trying to work with Helga,
>and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of
>her,
So we lost one contributor, who may have had other
things to do (like me), and Helga is to blame!
Conflicts like this with Helga motivate
me to stay. Like my heroes Caesar, Machiavelli
etc. I like conflict.
>we are now at a last resort stage.
No, don't over dramatize matters. Buy I good 3D-video-card
and play games like 'Gore', Unreal etc. to relax.
>To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views
>on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to
>resolve differences.
Strangeligy enough you seem to reverse the classical
pattern of man versus woman.
>Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited
>her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about
>her posting style
Huh, you expect someone obviously new to the mailing
list fenomenon to immediately reflect on her own behaviour?
How un-in-touch-with reality are you?
>in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and
>to repeat her strange historical claims.
You should distinguish between asocial behaviour and
between having the 'wrong ideas'.
>In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly
>avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more
>than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this
>decision.
And since this was done in public, I do this in public.
>Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
>but there is really no appeal possible at this point.
Why not? Ban me too!
Freedom of speech is not for the easy cases, but for the
cases that you'd like to censor.
>The ban is not
>permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in
>3 months time.
Three months is like a life sentence for freedom of speech.
Bah,
Jaap
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 873
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Mon Sep 9 20:22:32 UTC 2002
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury of
> here peers?
>
> Anyway I think that legal matters like this should be handled
> more carefully.
>
> What I object most to, it that the subject itself may have
> been disallowed to right to rebuttle.
You have obviously not been following the discussion on this matter at all.
This is just not what happened at all. You're welcome to check the archives for
this mailing list if you're in doubt.
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 874
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Sep 9 20:40:18 UTC 2002
>At 2002-09-09 10:19 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
>>arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
>>to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
>>period of 3 months.
>Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury of
>here peers?
I would say her peers.
>Sure, and some sex on the side.
What crap!
>
>Bah,
>Jaap
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 875
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Mon Sep 9 20:51:20 UTC 2002
I can only concur. It is a pity that we did not grasp this particular nettle
sooner.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" <kpj at kki.net.pl>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
> On 09-09-2002, Jimmy Wales wrote thusly :
> > After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
> > arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
> > to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
> > period of 3 months.
> > After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
> > I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although
> > the vast majority will be. Such is the nature of consensus. I can't
> > wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
> > I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent, which is why I have
> > waited so long to take action in this case. Banning should always be
> > a "last resort". After more than a year of trying to work with Helga,
> > and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of
> > her, we are now at a last resort stage.
> > To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views
> > on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to
> > resolve differences. Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited
> > her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about
> > her posting style in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and
> > to repeat her strange historical claims.
> > In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly
> > avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more
> > than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this
> > decision.
> > Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this, but
> > there is really no appeal possible at this point. The ban is not
> > permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in
> > 3 months time.
>
> Decision hard to take and uneasy one but the right one IMO.
>
> Is she also banned from the German Wikipedia ?
>
> Regards,
> kpjas.
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 876
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 9 21:47:58 UTC 2002
>> Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury
>> of her peers?
Yes, on both counts. We all bent over backwards to try
to help her become a useful contributor and gave her every
opportunity to state her side of the case. But in the end,
her peers concluded that she was more a hindrance to the
project than a help, and our judge did what was necessary
to get our work done.
And I disagree that short bans of 2 days or so are of any
use; this isn't a punishment, really. We're not just issuing
a slap on the wrist and saying "don't do that"--we've already
done that ad nauseam for a long time now. She's already
gotten any message there was for her to get. The ban is a
practical measure to allow the rest of us to simply edit
articles without having to waste any more time cleaning up
her messes. That's not useful unless it's for a reasonable
period of time.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 877
[Wikipedia-l] Note to the militia: Reciprocal System of Theory
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 9 22:39:49 UTC 2002
Speaking of kooks, it looks like Doug Bundy is back in
force editing the development version of Reciprocal
System of Theory article (he's logged-in now). I've
already placed a criticism section at the end of that
version but physics and mathematics are not my strong
points so I fear my counter-arguments are at best weak
(much of the last "paragraph" is a set of unfinished
notes, so it may read strange). Could somebody
knowledgeable in either physics or mathematics take a
look at that article?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_System_of_Theory/Temp
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 878
[Wikipedia-l] Note to the militia: Reciprocal System of Theory
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Sep 9 22:45:07 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>Speaking of kooks, it looks like Doug Bundy is back in
>force editing the development version of Reciprocal
>System of Theory article (he's logged-in now). I've
>already placed a criticism section at the end of that
>version but physics and mathematics are not my strong
>points so I fear my counter-arguments are at best weak
>(much of the last "paragraph" is a set of unfinished
>notes, so it may read strange). Could somebody
>knowledgeable in either physics or mathematics take a
>look at that article?
>
I really don't think that articles of this sort can be adequately
refuted by directly attacking all of its details. If the premises that
underlay such a system are questionable, then everything that follows
from those premises is questionable. The entire debate beyond those
premises is GIGO.
The burden of proof for a new theory rests with its proponents.
Labelling it with the pejorative "pseudoscience" does not advance the
discussion at all; it just shifts some of the burden to the opponents
who now introduce a new claim in the form of a pejorative that also
needs proving.
The originator of theretical framework such as this one is the sole real
authority about what he has said or meant, but that doesn't do him much
good. For most of us they remain unintelligible. As long as articles
of this sort don't spread out to infect other articles I would mostly
let them be. Adding a paragraph or two explaining the fallacies in the
premises for the sake of NPOV is a good idea, but I would stop there.
Such articles are Wikipedia's benign tumours; why prod them into
malignancy?
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 879
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Tue Sep 10 10:21:24 UTC 2002
> What with the recent discussion of banning "problem" users, I thought I'd
> bring this up for discussion/re-discussion.
>
> Our policy on banning people for vandalism is (as I interpret what I've
> read) that we restrict it to "repeated and sustained" non-useful alterations
> of articles.
>
> However, it's September, the high school and college students are back with
> their free school accounts, and inevitably the amount of drive-by vandalism
> seems to be on the increase. Several of us constantly check new edits by
> unknown contributors, and even then, we're missing vandalism that only turns
> up later when paging through via "Random Page" or otherwise coming across an
> article. As the number of articles goes up, the chance of locating such
> vandalism goes down.
>
> I've tried a few approaches to ameliorating this. I regularly check "this
> user's contributions" for vandals, and even sometimes for unfamiliar IP's
> (*thank* you folks for adding that code feature!) I do keyword searches for
> common obscenities, et cetera. (No, Cunctator, I don't remove them if
> they're obviously part of the article.) And, of course, I haunt the "Recent
> Changes" page. But I think it's getting harder to keep up.
>
> I would like to suggest we add "obviously malicious vandalism" to reasons
> for an immediate (if temporary) IP ban: a single "Ths page is stupid"
> should be, in my opinion, enough to ban the address. This saves us from
> having to spend time on the next five instances of vandalism from that
> contributor, which could be better spent searching for other graffiti or
> *gasp* actually adding content.
I would be against this. In the first place, you mention fresh students - what
if student #1 does something funny, leaves, student #2 takes the computer and
just happens to want to contribute to Wikipedia? It might be too rare an
occasion to take care of, but it's not impossible.
Secondly, I think it might well cost more work for us than it saves. MOST
acts of vandalism are single occurences. Most that are not are caught only
after already more than one has been made. Thus, blocking after one act of
vandalism will result in many blockings to avoid one act of vandalism. And
to block someone means that you will have to do a blocking, and later someone
has to do an unblocking. I think that that might actually cost more time than
it saves to have to clean up the second to fifth act of the same vandal also
when you could have blocked him directly.
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 880
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 10 10:35:10 UTC 2002
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> >After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
>
> Sure, and some sex on the side.
[...]
> >Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
>
> Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
Boy, my dream of empowering people to build a great free encyclopedia
for the benefit of all humankind sure does introduce me to a variety
of people.
*laugh*
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 881
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Sep 10 15:48:40 UTC 2002
Has anyone yet suggested a "Watch this user" function?
This would be a link on an IP user page, which then highlights that
user's edits on Recent Changes.
It might be useful for users who don't actually vandalize, but who make
what appear to be mistakes, or just pop in to post a few links to their
crackpot pseudoscience site.
(someone recently added a paragraph on omelettes to an completely
unrelated article... bizarre!)
That way we can keep an eye on their activities in RC, catch up with
well-meaning beginners & clean up behind non-damaging but undesirable edits.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 882
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Sep 10 14:51:00 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
> It might be useful for users who don't actually vandalize, but who make
> what appear to be mistakes, or just pop in to post a few links to their
> crackpot pseudoscience site.
Or, who write really interesting and high quality stuff on topics
that I'm interested in....
Sounds useful to me, but I fear feature creep.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 883
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 10 16:18:58 UTC 2002
>> It might be useful for users who don't actually vandalize,
>> but who make what appear to be mistakes, or just pop in to
>> post a few links to their crackpot pseudoscience site.
> Or, who write really interesting and high quality stuff on
> topics that I'm interested in....
> Sounds useful to me, but I fear feature creep.
Don't worry, there's a very powerful force limiting feature
creep: the laziness of the main programmer.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 884
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Sep 10 15:18:48 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>
>>>After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
>>>
>>Sure, and some sex on the side.
>>
>[...]
>
>>>Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
>>>
>>Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
>>
>
>Boy, my dream of empowering people to build a great free encyclopedia
>for the benefit of all humankind sure does introduce me to a variety
>of people.
>
>*laugh*
>
Jaap has made an assumption that Helga is a blond and blue-eyed Teutonic
goddess that would attract such a conquest. Others of us might imagine
her as a dried and shrivelled crone, entirely unsuitable for such
purposes,.and who may even have Carroll Reece personally.
It's funny how we imagine people to look like base on a few net postings.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 885
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Bryan Derksen
bryan.derksen at ualberta.ca
Tue Sep 10 17:01:31 UTC 2002
At 03:35 AM 10/09/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> > >After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
> >
> > Sure, and some sex on the side.
>[...]
> > >Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
> >
> > Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
>
>Boy, my dream of empowering people to build a great free encyclopedia
>for the benefit of all humankind sure does introduce me to a variety
>of people.
I had no idea that this was one of the perks of running Wikipedia. I
thought you were just in this for the noble ideal of expanding human
knowledge and freedom and such.
Hm... does it work for people who run mirrors too? I think I can get some
web space...
:)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 886
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 10 17:01:32 UTC 2002
I think that's a fantastic idea. And then there are also those users who simply make consistently good edits, and I like to watch them too. :-)
kq
tarquin Wrote:
>Has anyone yet suggested a "Watch this user" function?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 887
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Tue Sep 10 17:46:11 UTC 2002
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>>Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>>
>>>>After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
>>>>
>>>Sure, and some sex on the side.
>>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
>>>>
>>>Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
>>>
>>
>>Boy, my dream of empowering people to build a great free encyclopedia
>>for the benefit of all humankind sure does introduce me to a variety
>>of people.
>>
>>*laugh*
>>
>Jaap has made an assumption that Helga is a blond and blue-eyed Teutonic
>goddess that would attract such a conquest. Others of us might imagine
>her as a dried and shrivelled crone, entirely unsuitable for such
>purposes,.and who may even have Carroll Reece personally.
>
>It's funny how we imagine people to look like base on a few net postings.
Keep in mind that the real Helga is still here, reading what you post.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 888
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
daniel at copyleft.no
Tue Sep 10 19:04:31 UTC 2002
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> I think that's a fantastic idea. And then there are also those users who
> simply make consistently good edits, and I like to watch them too. :-)
But people should be able to tell who is watching them. :)
-- Daniel
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 889
[Wikipedia-l] A related ban issue -- auto unblocking
Giskart
giskart at linux.be
Tue Sep 10 19:20:02 UTC 2002
Andre Engels wrote:
>[cut]
>Secondly, I think it might well cost more work for us than it saves. MOST
>acts of vandalism are single occurences. Most that are not are caught only
>after already more than one has been made. Thus, blocking after one act of
>vandalism will result in many blockings to avoid one act of vandalism. And
>to block someone means that you will have to do a blocking, and later someone
>has to do an unblocking. I think that that might actually cost more time than
>
>
[cut]
For blocking abuse form schools mayby a auto unblock-function can be
usefull. When you block a ip you can select a option to unblock that ip
automatic after a time period. Say 60 minutes. -- giskart
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 890
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Watch this user
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 10 19:24:34 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 10:00 am, you wrote:
> Has anyone yet suggested a "Watch this user" function?
>
> This would be a link on an IP user page, which then highlights that
> user's edits on Recent Changes.
> It might be useful for users who don't actually vandalize, but who make
> what appear to be mistakes, or just pop in to post a few links to their
> crackpot pseudoscience site.
> (someone recently added a paragraph on omelettes to an completely
> unrelated article... bizarre!)
>
> That way we can keep an eye on their activities in RC, catch up with
> well-meaning beginners & clean up behind non-damaging but undesirable
> edits.
I have already suggested exactly the same thing -- silence was the result.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 891
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 10 19:32:55 UTC 2002
>But people should be able to tell who is watching them. :)
>
>-- Daniel (Mikkelsen)
That's easy. If you're in the U.S., on any given day it's the FBI,
CIA, DEA, ATF, FTC, FCC, NSA, RIAA, MPAA, local police, surveillance
cameras at any store or bank, and possibly John Ashcroft himself. Oh,
and also your neighbor, who believes all the stuff on TV about how
unsafe it is to walk outside.
In most of those cases, I care. As far as who's watching what I edit,
I don't really. I suppose that's because I try to avoid writing about
controversial subjects (you can see why). ;-) What do others think?
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 892
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 10 20:02:31 UTC 2002
>> I think that's a fantastic idea. And then there are also
>> those users who simply make consistently good edits, and I
>> like to watch them too. :-)
Why not just put a link to that user's contributions page
on your user page?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 893
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Watch this user
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 10 20:09:04 UTC 2002
> I have already suggested exactly the same thing -- silence was
> the result.
I'm not showing any open feature request for that. It wouldn't
be a high priority for me because I'm working on other things,
but I guarantee it will never be considered unless it's logged
in Sourceforge and multiple people comment on it there. And of
course nothing's stopping anyone else from implementing it.
But I still think it's supurfluous since one can make a link
to the user contribution page on one's user page to accomplish
the same thing without further complicating the software.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 894
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Watch this user
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Sep 10 20:18:08 UTC 2002
Fair enough.
Lee wrote:
>But I still think it's supurfluous since one can make a link
>to the user contribution page on one's user page to accomplish
>the same thing without further complicating the software.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 895
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Sep 10 19:37:54 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>>But people should be able to tell who is watching them. :)
>>
>>-- Daniel (Mikkelsen)
>>
>That's easy. If you're in the U.S., on any given day it's the FBI,
>CIA, DEA, ATF, FTC, FCC, NSA, RIAA, MPAA, local police, surveillance
>cameras at any store or bank, and possibly John Ashcroft himself. Oh,
>and also your neighbor, who believes all the stuff on TV about how
>unsafe it is to walk outside.
>
>In most of those cases, I care. As far as who's watching what I edit,
>I don't really. I suppose that's because I try to avoid writing about
>controversial subjects (you can see why). ;-) What do others think?
>
You forgot the IRS.
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 896
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Tue Sep 10 21:23:58 UTC 2002
Ray Saintonge wrote:
<snip>
> Jaap has made an assumption that Helga is a blond and blue-eyed Teutonic
> goddess that would attract such a conquest. Others of us might imagine
> her as a dried and shrivelled crone, entirely unsuitable for such
> purposes,.and who may even have Carroll Reece personally.
>
> It's funny how we imagine people to look like base on a few net postings.
>
> Eclecticology
I agree with Jaap.
Replace "sex" with "impose personal/community moral views upon"
and he expresses my view of what is occurring adequately.
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 897
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Tue Sep 10 21:38:31 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> >But people should be able to tell who is watching them. :)
> >
> >-- Daniel (Mikkelsen)
>
> That's easy. If you're in the U.S., on any given day it's the FBI,
> CIA, DEA, ATF, FTC, FCC, NSA, RIAA, MPAA, local police, surveillance
> cameras at any store or bank, and possibly John Ashcroft himself. Oh,
> and also your neighbor, who believes all the stuff on TV about how
> unsafe it is to walk outside.
>
> In most of those cases, I care. As far as who's watching what I edit,
> I don't really. I suppose that's because I try to avoid writing about
> controversial subjects (you can see why). ;-) What do others think?
I think watching and harassment should have some
symmetrical characteristics.
At a minimum any "watch this user" function should
be available to all users so it is easy for them
to watch back on the sysops and other active watchers.
At another extreme, the watch function could be
activated only in symmetrical pairing. When you
click to watch somebody you are also activating their
watch function on you. This would allow sysops and
other regulars to set a good example for erring users.
This would also discourage peeping toms, people who
like to watch but not be watched.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 898
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Tue Sep 10 21:49:44 UTC 2002
> I agree with Jaap.
> Replace "sex" with "impose personal/community moral views upon" and he
expresses my view of what is occurring adequately.
Look, Nobody is forcing any moral views on anybody.
What morall judgement is implied by a ban? I think there is none at
all, a ban is simply that, and all it means is that we'd rather go about
working on our encyclopedia project without the kind of "help" Helga is
currently equipped to give.
Is it Helga's natural right to be included in the team which develops a
free encyclopedia? I don't think so. We are doing something worth
doing, and if Helga is making it harder to do that we don't need to feel
bad about not including her in the wikipedia team.
Do you expect that the red cross is forcing their views on others when
they fail to accept any volinteers who only want to handle blood, and
who are infected with a life-threatening disease. Or to make the
example less extreeme, the Red Cross is unlikely to an clumsy person to
cary around expencive containers of medication. My point is that the
Red Cross, and like most volenteer groups, isn't under the impression
that they are required to let a volenteer do anything she wants, even if
the labor of that volenteer is counterproductive. So can you explain to
me why a free encyclopedia project should be be any different?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 899
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Tue Sep 10 21:55:51 UTC 2002
> This would also discourage peeping toms, people who
> like to watch but not be watched.
I'm all for having everybody be able to watch everybody else, since I
think the wikipedia community should be as transparent as is reasonably
practical.
However, I think you allusion to peeping toms is totally overblown and
slightly absurd. By the nature of the act itself, posting on the
wikipedia is a public act, with public consequences, and therefore it
cannot reasonably be considered private. While we allow a certain
degree of anonymity, the wiki is by nature a public space, and so nobody
is invading the private sphere just by tracking which articles someone
edits.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 900
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Sep 10 22:30:53 UTC 2002
On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 18:01, Bryan Derksen wrote:
> I had no idea that this was one of the perks of running Wikipedia. I
> thought you were just in this for the noble ideal of expanding human
> knowledge and freedom and such.
>
> Hm... does it work for people who run mirrors too? I think I can get some
> web space...
I just assumed it was some fiendishly clever world domination plot, and
I could get cut in at the end and get, I dunno, maybe a fiefdom of
Hawaii or something. Please don't tell me i'm wrong!
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 901
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Sep 10 22:34:32 UTC 2002
On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 20:32, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> That's easy. If you're in the U.S., on any given day it's the FBI,
> CIA, DEA, ATF, FTC, FCC, NSA, RIAA, MPAA, local police, surveillance
> cameras at any store or bank, and possibly John Ashcroft himself. Oh,
> and also your neighbor, who believes all the stuff on TV about how
> unsafe it is to walk outside.
And if you're in the UK it's all of the above plus MI5, HM Customs,
Inland Revenue, your local fire brigade and the Food Standards
Agency...=)
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 902
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 10 23:54:17 UTC 2002
I'm sorry -- I must have gotten stupid all of a sudden, because I could
swear that, with a minimum of effort, any user could watch any other
user. One simply bookmarks the user's contribution list -- this can be
done with IP addresses. There's a watch page function -- that's another
way to keep an eye on what's going on. Why is the suggestion of a
"watch user" function getting people's knickers in a twist? The only
people I think have a right to get uptight about this are the
programmers, because it's extra work for functionality that's already
there.
As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this
particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS -- if Jim wants to make
a rule and enforce it, that's his prerogative. The fact that he waited
so long to take such an action is admirable, although I think a serious
threat at an earlier date might have helped to define the actions worthy
of a ban. Moreover, the fact that Jim is willing to allow the people
who use the playground to help define the rules of participation is
generous and encourages wikipedians to feel part of a larger good.
Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some
rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has
any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the
obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
That said, I think that, if bans are to be used, there should be a clear
statement of the kinds of things that warrant a ban, as well as a posted
escalation process (like a formal warning that the person is being
considered for a ban, request to join the list, etc.).
Jules, who has only looked at recent changes once (so far) today.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020910/8dc959e3/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 903
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 00:11:48 UTC 2002
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> Has anyone yet suggested a "Watch this user"
> function?
If I want to watch anyone in particular, I just
bookmark their "Contributions" page.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 904
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Wed Sep 11 00:26:45 UTC 2002
Some clarifications...
I got two personal reactions and I read all the comments.
At 2002-09-09 22:19 +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>At 2002-09-09 10:19 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
>>arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
>>to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
>>period of 3 months.
>
>Banned from what? This list? The English Wikipedia. All Wikipedia?
Jimmy Wales explained to me that she was banned from all
Wikipedia and therefore not from this list.
>What I object most to, it that the subject itself may have
>been disallowed to right to rebuttle.
Perhaps I overreacted a bit, but I was thinking about
cases where people were removed from mailing lists in
days when the mailing list was the medium and the meta
medium or a case of a political debating mailing list
where people objected to a mailing list becoming linked
to a public and archieved newsgroup and someone changing
that after only a very short period in which the people
who were against it didn't have enough time to discuss
it and after the list was made public they didn't want
to/couldn't discuss it in public anymore. There was even
a vote, but it turned out to be handled very badly.
>>After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
>
>Sure, and some sex on the side.
Of course I didn't mean sex literally her, as at least
one other person understood. Most of you Americans are
so tight-assed about sex.
>>I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although
>>the vast majority will be.
>
>Not me.
By the way, I'm not against banning Helga if she
causes the trouble that she seems to do. I just
object to aspects of Jimmy's email about it and I
have doubts about the procedure and about the
period of banning. Personally I saw that fact that
Helga joined this mailing list as a very good sign.
And over time I'm sure she will learn how to quote
correctly... ;-)
And she responded very reasonably to various remarks
by others.
I have also looked at some of here articles among one
in German and didn't find much bias in it.
She seems indeed to be in denial of the holocaust
as most Germans and German media were during several
decades after the war (and perhaps still), at least
they didn't report about what actually happened
during the war. We can receive German television here
in the Netherlands and it's amazing how 'closed' the
German media still are in some regards.
By the way, the first time I encountered 'revisionism'
around 1996, I was also puzzled for a while. Was it really
a big lie that our elders had tought us about the war?
As a scientifically trained professional I didn't
immediately believe the new 'evidence' of course,
but what struck me most was that I had never seen
foto's or film's about actual gas chambers. After
focussing on this some more I did find foto's etc.
the fact that there is relatively little material
available is probably due to the fact that most
of the extermination camps were located to the east
of Germany and they were liberated by the Soviets
who didn't have much camera's and film to spare at
that time.
As regards an international jewish organization
declaring war on Germany: The first time I heard
about this was from revisionist sites. I never
heard about this from all the stories told by
older family members, but of course it may have
been true and for the time being I assume it's
true, but it doesn't allow a government to take
the measures against jews as the German government
took.
Of course a government has to be careful. The USA
put all Japanese inhabitants in camps in world war 2
and rightfully so. You don't want to be backstabbed
when trying to win a war. After the terror attack
of september 11'th last year a lot of muslims were
arrested in the USA without proper legal reasons,
but these things are justified by the unclear situation
I think.
>>Such is the nature of consensus.
>
>The nature of consensus is that you achieve it first.
The problem with consensus which isn't properly
measured is that the person 'measuring' the consensus
may have a bias and may interpret what people say
in his own subjective way.
I propose that some sort of voting mechanism is
installed. Just give all people on this list an
opportunity to vote.
One should write a message saying: I propose to
ban person X because .... Person X can then explain
him/herself and votes will be counted durign a week
or so.
>>I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
>
>Is there some voting mechanism or did you just ask your
>friends?
This is the hand-on way I tried to express the above
notion of 'subjective'.
>>Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited
>>her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about
>>her posting style
>
>Huh, you expect someone obviously new to the mailing
>list fenomenon to immediately reflect on her own behaviour?
I noticed that Helga didn't quote 'very efficiently'
and that is often a sign that one is new to mailing
lists.
I manage several mailing lists and have also followed
the personal progress of people new to mailing and
noticed that most of them catch-on very quickly, just
by copying what they see others do.
>>In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly
>>avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more
>>than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this
>>decision.
>
>And since this was done in public, I do this in public.
The problem with taking discussions like these to the
personal level (and I have years of experience) is that
one forgets what one has said in private and what in
public. The same goes for crossposting to several
mailing lists by the way.
>>Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
>
>Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
Again, I meant that I dislike the notion that she
would have to discuss these things with you personally.
You shouldn't take this as that I suggest that you
were trying to extort sexual favors from Helga.
And no, I don't imagine Helga to be a blonde teutonic
goddess as someone suggested. ;-) If I remember
correctly Helga is already quite old.
Greetings,
Jaap
PS. Would it be possible that people use their real name
on this mailing list and in personal email? Please use
something like I do in my 'from address'. I don't think
it's civil to presend oneself as a movie with Philip Glass
music in it, however good the music is. I have the CD...
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 905
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 00:31:14 UTC 2002
--- Julie Hofmann Kemp <juleskemp at yahoo.com> wrote:
> That said, I think that, if bans are to be used,
> there should be a clear
> statement of the kinds of things that warrant a ban,
> as well as a posted
> escalation process (like a formal warning that the
> person is being
> considered for a ban, request to join the list,
> etc.).
Yes, that seems to be prudent. If we write up a formal
statement, banning someone will look less shadowy and
subjective.
> Jules, who has only looked at recent changes once
> (so far) today.
I'm sure you'll be able to simply watch RC and not
make any edits...
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 906
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Wed Sep 11 01:08:14 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-10 16:54 -0700, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
>As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS
No it doesn't: Jimmy and Bomis may host it, but they don't
own it. Or they should have made it more clearly when I
joined it. I am the author of a site about chips and it's
hosted by about 30 mirror sites. They own not one iota
of the contents of what they mirror. My 'original site'
is hosted on the server of a Dutch internet provider and
it doesn't own any of the copyrights of my site.
If Jimmy thinks he has certain rights I'd really like
to hear about that.
> -- if Jim wants to make a rule and enforce it, that's his prerogative.
No it's not. He may decide no longer to host the site.
Of course he is also welcome to help run the organization,
but he's not the dictator in a small tropical mini-state.
If he thinks otherwise, I'm interested to hear about ir.
>The fact that he waited so long to take such an action is admirable,
Yes. He has been very tolerant. Perhaps too tolerant. ;-)
>although I think a serious threat at an earlier date might have helped to define the actions worthy of a ban.
Indeed.
>Moreover, the fact that Jim is willing to allow the people who use the playground to help define the rules of participation is generous and encourages wikipedians to feel part of a larger good.
Ah so you believe in this benevolent dictator stuff?
>Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
Is your real name perhaps: Eva Perron? Or Eva Braun?
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions
with women anyway. They are not genetically
equiped for it.
>That said, I think that, if bans are to be used, there should be a clear statement of the kinds of things that warrant a ban, as well as a posted escalation process (like a formal warning that the person is being considered for a ban, request to join the list, etc.).
On this matter I completely agree with you and wished that I had expressed it so NPOV-like...
But well, uhm, we guys, we like fighting, testing each other out,
we will have to go hunt the next day to get the meat
and we need to be able to rely on each other 100%.
You women only have to dig up roots etc.
Greetings,
Jaap
PS. Try not to write in HTML please...
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 907
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Sep 11 01:09:50 UTC 2002
Jaap wrote:
>PS. Would it be possible that people use their real name
>on this mailing list and in personal email? Please use
>something like I do in my 'from address'. I don't think
>it's civil to presend oneself as a movie with Philip Glass
>music in it, however good the music is. I have the CD...
Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe that koyaanis qatsi is my real name, however it is as convenient a handle as my real name, which is possibly less believable.
If the pseudonym is distasteful to you, perhaps you can suggest one you like better. Louis Friend is one you may recognize, or if not, perhaps "Mark Twain." I'm the same person I've been for the last 27 years, at any rate, 1 1/2 of them on wikipedia, and I believe a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
kq, or lf, or mt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 908
[Wikipedia-l] Watch this user
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 01:29:11 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 05:28 pm, LDC wrote:
> Why not just put a link to that user's contributions page
> on your user page?
Devil's advocate (that is, don't take me too seriously):
Then why do we have watch lists? We can simply put links to the articles we
want to watch on our user page. I'm currently watching a couple hundred pages
so in order to see what has been happening with those articles when I was
away from Wikipedia I would have to spend at least a couple of hours opening
each page and looking at its history each day (either that or look through
thousands of edits on Recent Changes). End Devil's advocate.
The whole point of my original idea was to quickly move many IPs off the IP
blocked list. In order to do this with a minimum amount of risk, some type of
"watch IP" functionality would be needed. Therefore if I temporarily block an
IP for posting vulgarities on several pages I would like to know when this IP
makes another edit after the block is lifted. This would be a type of
probation (liftable any time by any sysop).
My original idea was to have a separate Recent Changes of edits made my all
IPs on probation but simply having their IP bolded in the regular Recent
Changes would be a good idea too.
The reason I have not posted this to SorceForge is because this is a
policy-level feature request and needs to be discussed before it is even
considered for implementation.
The idea of having a general "watch user" function was not part of my
original idea (but should be easy to implement if the IP probation idea is
implemented). I don't know how useful general "watch user" function would be,
however. If the two functions lived side-by-side then it might be confusing
to differentiate between those IPs on probation and those users you simply
are interested in tracking. Different colors would work I guess; bolded red
(or other warning color) for IPs on probation (this would be viewable to at
least every logged-in user) and simply bold for those on your personal 'watch
user' list (which is unique to your own settings).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 909
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Wed Sep 11 01:28:14 UTC 2002
At 03:08 AM 9/11/02 +0200, Jaap wrote:
>At 2002-09-10 16:54 -0700, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> >As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this
> particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS
>
>
> >Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some
> rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has
> any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the
> obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
>
>Is your real name perhaps: Eva Perron? Or Eva Braun?
I believe we have an article on [[Godwin's Law]]. Please read it.
>It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
>those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
>should not be dicussed with women.
>
>One should never engage in serious discussions
>with women anyway. They are not genetically
>equiped for it.
If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be,
justifiably, up in arms.
If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on
this, or
any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the
insult. No,
it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of
anything
except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 910
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Wed Sep 11 02:48:55 UTC 2002
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
> those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
> should not be dicussed with women.
>
> One should never engage in serious discussions
> with women anyway. They are not genetically
> equiped for it.
Is this what passes for humor in the Netherlands or are you just an
asshole? I can never tell.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 911
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Wed Sep 11 02:09:00 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>Jaap wrote:
>>PS. Would it be possible that people use their real name
>>on this mailing list and in personal email? Please use
>>something like I do in my 'from address'. I don't think
>>it's civil to presend oneself as a movie with Philip Glass
>>music in it, however good the music is. I have the CD...
>
>Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
>I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
That's not the issue.
>however it is as convenient a handle as my real name, which is possibly less believable.
That's no argument.
>If the pseudonym is distasteful to you, perhaps you can suggest one you like better. Louis Friend is one you may recognize, or if not, perhaps "Mark Twain." I'm the same person I've been for the last 27 years, at any rate, 1 1/2 of them on wikipedia, and I believe a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Yes, but I try to use the same name since my birth.
Names aren't unique, but it gives others at least a slight
handle on other's person's being. In trade it's quite
essential to know from which person money is due.
And:
Honost people have nothing to hide.
>kq, or lf, or mt
Grow up.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 912
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Sep 11 02:19:11 UTC 2002
You Wrote:
>At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>>Jaap wrote:
>>Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
>
>This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
It does. You don't agree with it.
>>I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
>
>That's not the issue.
You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name, or a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 913
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Sep 11 02:36:21 UTC 2002
>>> PS. Would it be possible that people use their real name
>>> on this mailing list and in personal email? ...
>> Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be
>> practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part
>> of your message to...
Jaap, there is a long tradition on the net that accepts
pseudomyms routinely for several reasons: first, there's
no way to tell if a "real" sounding name is real anyway,
and many people like to express opinions their employers
or family might object to, and others (my employer is
clueless and my family has long since given up on trying
to understand me, so I'm free to use my real name :-).
You are of course free to judge how seriously to take
someone based on their choice of pseudonym (or even the
choice to use one at all). I do just that--I generally
take someone less seriously if they use a pseudonym until
they've proven otherwise. KQ has certainly proven
otherwise, and he is deservedly well-respected here.
And considering you're the one who wrote:
> One should never engage in serious discussions
> with women anyway. They are not genetically
> equiped for it.
I now know I no longer have to take you seriously,
unless of course you're just /really/ bad at sarcasm.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 914
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Sep 11 02:58:29 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> At 03:08 AM 9/11/02 +0200, Jaap wrote:
> >At 2002-09-10 16:54 -0700, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> > >As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this
> > particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS
> >
> >
> > >Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some
> > rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has
> > any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the
> > obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
> >
> >Is your real name perhaps: Eva Perron? Or Eva Braun?
>
> I believe we have an article on [[Godwin's Law]]. Please read it.
>
> >It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
> >those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
> >should not be dicussed with women.
> >
> >One should never engage in serious discussions
> >with women anyway. They are not genetically
> >equiped for it.
>
> If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be,
> justifiably, up in arms.
>
> If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on
> this, or
> any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the
> insult. No,
> it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of
> anything
> except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
Actually, I got quite a laugh out of it.
Relieved a lot of recent built up tension. Might be an
American blue collar trait which shares characteristics
of the Netherland's history of commercial imperialism.
OTOH I worked in a plywood plant in Oregon to finance my
education, so I might just be a redneck.
I apologize for finding something humerous
which you do not.
If that offends you, I truly think it is
unfortunate that you find me offensive.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
P.S. See the newcomer orientation pages history.
I removed a few sexist remarks (admittedly not originated
by you) there aimed at men but, did not request an apology.
Nor did I pick up arms. Perhaps people vary in how
they approach gender biases and humor.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 915
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Wed Sep 11 02:57:50 UTC 2002
At 07:58 PM 9/10/02 -0700, Michael Irwin wrote:
>Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> >
> > At 03:08 AM 9/11/02 +0200, Jaap wrote:
> > > >As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this
> > > particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS
> > >
> > >
> > >One should never engage in serious discussions
> > >with women anyway. They are not genetically
> > >equiped for it.
> >
> > If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people
> would be,
> > justifiably, up in arms.
> >
> > If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on
> > this, or
> > any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the
> > insult. No,
> > it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of
> > anything
> > except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
>
>Actually, I got quite a laugh out of it.
You aren't the one being insulted.
>Relieved a lot of recent built up tension. Might be an
>American blue collar trait which shares characteristics
>of the Netherland's history of commercial imperialism.
>OTOH I worked in a plywood plant in Oregon to finance my
>education, so I might just be a redneck.
Not a blue-collar/other distinction, I think, so much as that it's much easier
to find insults funny when you aren't the one being insulted.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 916
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 03:23:27 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:10 pm, Jaap wrote:
> >It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
> >those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
> >should not be dicussed with women.
> >
> >One should never engage in serious discussions
> >with women anyway. They are not genetically
> >equiped for it.
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:10 pm, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> If this is really your attitude, you are not mature
> enough to be working on this, or any, project with
> adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the
> insult. No, it isn't funny. And saying you were only
> joking will not convince anyone of anything except
> that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
I agree. That is the second provocatively stupid thing I've hear Jaap say in
the last few days - if for no other reason that it detracts from policy
discussion and leads to unproductive posts (like the one I am making now
simply to back up Vicki's point -- which wouldn't have been needed if the
stupid comment wasn't made to begin with).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 917
[Wikipedia-l] pseudonyms
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 03:54:39 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:10 pm, Jaap wrote:
> Yes, but I try to use the same name since my birth.
> Names aren't unique, but it gives others at least a slight
> handle on other's person's being. In trade it's quite
> essential to know from which person money is due.
>
> And:
> Honost people have nothing to hide.
>
> >kq, or lf, or mt
>
> Grow up.
Jaap why the hell is this an issue? If KQ wants to be only known as KQ both
on Wikipedia itself and the list then that is KQ's choice.
Who knows KQ may be Rupert Murdock or some other high profile person that
just wants to contribute without having to carry the baggage of famoushood.
Or KQ just may be a person who wants to have a clean separation between an
online persona and a real world one.
There is nothing at all wrong with that. Freedoom to be anonymous if you want
to is one of the /primary/ reasons why Wikipedia is so successful.
Given names are often stupid and arbitrary; I've always hated my own name
because it doesn't at all fit my personality. So I created a online pseudonym
7 years ago (maveric149) which is explained on my user page. I also often go
by the less obvious pseudonym Sean Avery which I much prefer over my real
name.
I still would be using by pseudonym if I hadn't forgot to reset my email
client to display Sean Avery instead of my real name. But alas.
Again - something you have said has caused yet another string of unproductive
posts. Can we get back to policy please and stop making provocative comments?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 918
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Sep 11 03:41:22 UTC 2002
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>Yes, but I try to use the same name since my birth.
>Names aren't unique, but it gives others at least a slight
>handle on other's person's being. In trade it's quite
>essential to know from which person money is due.
>
>And:
>Honost people have nothing to hide.
>
Having a handle on somebody's being because of their birth name sounds a
lot like an invitation to racial profiling to me.
There is a well known stereotype of Dutchmen as being overly obstinate.
Are you out to prove the stereotype?
Perception is everything, many of the muslims who have been targeted in
the last year have been honest people with nothing to hide.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 919
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Sep 11 04:20:51 UTC 2002
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>No it doesn't: Jimmy and Bomis may host it, but they don't
>own it. Or they should have made it more clearly when I
>joined it. I am the author of a site about chips and it's
>hosted by about 30 mirror sites. They own not one iota
>of the contents of what they mirror. My 'original site'
>is hosted on the server of a Dutch internet provider and
>it doesn't own any of the copyrights of my site.
>
>If Jimmy thinks he has certain rights I'd really like
>to hear about that.
>
Owning the site and owning the contents are two different things. If he
really got pissed off he could always pull the server's power cord out
of the wall, and nobody could legally force him to put it back in. If
it comes to that, and nobody has kept the data independently backed up
at a physically separate site, then that's the end of it.
Jimmy's royal prerogatives are not about dictatorship or being a control
freak, they're about finance. Until a critical mass of Wikipedians have
shown the capacity to deal with the project's fiscal administration,
it's simply a reality whether we like it or not. Such a state of
affairs obviously includes possible dangers to the project, but so do
other financing models .
>>Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
>>
>Is your real name perhaps: Eva Perron? Or Eva Braun?
>
>It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
>those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
>should not be dicussed with women.
>
>One should never engage in serious discussions
>with women anyway. They are not genetically
>equiped for it.
>
Eva Peron was loved by her people. Eva Braun is historically
insignificant. It's unjust to put the blame for her husband's misdeeds
on her.
Comparing Julie to Eva Peron might even be a compliment.
Julie is a Wikipediholic, and we would love the opportunity to drink
with her without Genral Booth's Dutch minions banging bass drums in out
ears.
>But well, uhm, we guys, we like fighting, testing each other out,
>we will have to go hunt the next day to get the meat
>and we need to be able to rely on each other 100%.
>You women only have to dig up roots etc.
>
I thought that Holland was such a flat country that people didn't live
in caves anymore.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 920
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Sep 11 05:51:57 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:10 pm, Jaap wrote:
> > >It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
> > >those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
> > >should not be dicussed with women.
> > >
> > >One should never engage in serious discussions
> > >with women anyway. They are not genetically
> > >equiped for it.
>
> On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:10 pm, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > If this is really your attitude, you are not mature
> > enough to be working on this, or any, project with
> > adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the
> > insult. No, it isn't funny. And saying you were only
> > joking will not convince anyone of anything except
> > that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
>
> I agree. That is the second provocatively stupid thing I've hear Jaap say in
> the last few days - if for no other reason that it detracts from policy
> discussion and leads to unproductive posts (like the one I am making now
> simply to back up Vicki's point -- which wouldn't have been needed if the
> stupid comment wasn't made to begin with).
You are certainly one to critique Jaap.
I have not seen him attempt to initiate lynching
efforts by titling threads such as:
internet kook, etc.
You really think that is helpful when approaching
someone on behalf of the mailing list to ask that
they comply with predefined community customs,
rules, policies, etc.?
If provocatively stupid things are appropriate
then they are appropriate for all, if not
appropriate then they are not appropriate for
all. Tis the American myth.
"With justice and liberty for all."
or
"With insults and intolerance for all."
Free advice follows, clearly worth nothing
because I am not a popular fellow at the
moment.
Pick your customs carefully. You may
find yourself subject to them.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 921
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Wed Sep 11 07:18:24 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> At 03:08 AM 9/11/02 +0200, Jaap wrote:
>
>> It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
>> those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
>> should not be dicussed with women.
>>
>> One should never engage in serious discussions
>> with women anyway. They are not genetically
>> equiped for it.
>
>
> If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people
> would be,
> justifiably, up in arms.
>
> If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be
> working on this, or
> any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology
> for the insult. No,
> it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince
> anyone of anything
> except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
I agree. Category-based insults such as this are unwarranted and grossly
offensive. An apology would be appropriate.
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 922
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Sep 11 08:02:35 UTC 2002
> If he really got pissed off he could always pull the server's
> power cord out of the wall, and nobody could legally force him
> to put it back in. If it comes to that, and nobody has kept
> the data independently backed up at a physically separate site,
> then that's the end of it.
I keep a backups (though not always up-to-date) at my server in
San Antonio, and my home machine in Sacramento.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 923
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Wed Sep 11 09:10:16 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>>If he really got pissed off he could always pull the server's
>>power cord out of the wall, and nobody could legally force him
>>to put it back in. If it comes to that, and nobody has kept
>>the data independently backed up at a physically separate site,
>>then that's the end of it.
>
> I keep a backups (though not always up-to-date) at my server in
> San Antonio, and my home machine in Sacramento.
I also keep (irregularly) periodic backups on my home machine here in
L.A., both of the English and most of the active non-English wikis.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 924
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Sep 11 11:17:48 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 03:09, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> >Jaap wrote:
> >>PS. Would it be possible that people use their real name
> >>on this mailing list and in personal email? Please use
> >>something like I do in my 'from address'. I don't think
> >>it's civil to presend oneself as a movie with Philip Glass
> >>music in it, however good the music is. I have the CD...
> >
> >Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
>
> This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
It doesn't have to. Koyaanis has a perfect right to keep his identity
secret. He doesn't need to support this right by argument. He's simply -
as a courtesy to YOU, since you have no way of making him relinquish it
- stated that he intends to continue exercising it and that he has good
reasons for doing so. You have no right to demand more.
> >If the pseudonym is distasteful to you, perhaps you can suggest one you like better. Louis Friend is one you may recognize, or if not, perhaps "Mark Twain." I'm the same person I've been for the last 27 years, at any rate, 1 1/2 of them on wikipedia, and I believe a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
>
> Yes, but I try to use the same name since my birth.
> Names aren't unique, but it gives others at least a slight
> handle on other's person's being. In trade it's quite
> essential to know from which person money is due.
So what? You are not trading with Koyaanis. You are not involved in any
kind of transaction in which knowing his identity would be necessary.
You're simply on the same mailing list. This gives you no leverage and
thus no ability to demand he relinquish his privacy.
> And:
> Honost people have nothing to hide.
This has been proved wrong so many times it's not even worth
considering. Is the person accessing Google from China honest? Is the
person playing Yahoo! chess in Greece honest?
> >kq, or lf, or mt
>
> Grow up.
Shut up. You've now voiced two detestable and ignorant opinions in one
day, are you going for some kind of record?
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 925
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Sep 11 11:26:25 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 06:51, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> You really think that is helpful when approaching
> someone on behalf of the mailing list to ask that
> they comply with predefined community customs,
> rules, policies, etc.?
>
> If provocatively stupid things are appropriate
> then they are appropriate for all, if not
> appropriate then they are not appropriate for
> all. Tis the American myth.
>
> "With justice and liberty for all."
>
> or
>
> "With insults and intolerance for all."
>
> Free advice follows, clearly worth nothing
> because I am not a popular fellow at the
> moment.
>
> Pick your customs carefully. You may
> find yourself subject to them.
Think before you post, Mike.
Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right to
freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an
opinion, or said he should be stopped from expressing it. The freedom to
speak does not include freedom from criticism for that speech.
Now compare to what Jaap said. The implication of his post is that men
should decide "important" issues alone and women should be barred from
any consideration in deciding them. Now that truly IS a restriction of
liberty, wouldn't you say?
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 926
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 11:42:25 UTC 2002
> One should never engage in serious discussions
> with women anyway. They are not genetically
> equiped for it.
Wellllll, that leaves plenty of other fields to
discuss about anyway.
Sex, education, music, history, litterature, games,
sports, cooking, religion
Just these can fill a lifetime of discussions
> But well, uhm, we guys, we like fighting, testing
> each other out,
> we will have to go hunt the next day to get the meat
> and we need to be able to rely on each other 100%.
> You women only have to dig up roots etc.
yeah, and fortunately we, women, also educate the kids
:-)
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 927
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Kurt Jansson
jansson at gmx.net
Wed Sep 11 13:02:49 UTC 2002
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> She seems indeed to be in denial of the holocaust
> as most Germans and German media were during several
> decades after the war (and perhaps still), at least
> they didn't report about what actually happened
> during the war. We can receive German television here
> in the Netherlands and it's amazing how 'closed' the
> German media still are in some regards.
What are you talking about?
Yesterday I started translating [[Internet troll]] into German, and
today I see myself replying to this provocative, undifferentiated
nonsense. I'll open Abiword now and copy'n'paste a hundred times: "Don't
feed ..."
Kurt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 928
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Sep 11 13:44:46 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 07:17, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Shut up. You've now voiced two detestable and ignorant opinions in one
> day, are you going for some kind of record?
Hey now. This isn't Usenet.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 929
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Sep 11 13:57:13 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 14:44, The Cunctator wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 07:17, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Shut up. You've now voiced two detestable and ignorant opinions in one
> > day, are you going for some kind of record?
>
> Hey now. This isn't Usenet.
Please post with context, i.e., also quote the section of the original
post to which this was a reply.
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 930
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Wed Sep 11 14:19:31 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>I have not seen him attempt to initiate lynching
>efforts by titling threads such as:
>
>internet kook, etc.
>
(speaking of Mav, I think -- it gets hard to follow so many indents in
followups)
I've referred to certain newcomers as "crackpots", not "kooks", based
solely on what they have written in articles, talk pages & meta. Perhaps
it's offensive that I've judged them and labelled them as such, but it's
based on their actions and that alone. If their behaviour changes, so
will my opinion of them.
Saying "X is a kook" or "X cannot properly engage in serious discussion"
may be considered harsh and offensive. We should perhaps tone that sort
of thing down -- however, in the case I'm thinking of, myself and others
wasted a lot of time wrangling with BDJones about relativity. We treated
him fairly, responded intelligently, tried to see his way of seeing
things, and after a time it became clear that he is either a) completely
impervious to reason or b) running circles round us on purpose.
I propose the words "kook" and "crackpot" be used as a shorthand for the
above scenario, "crackpot" implying a scientific or pseudoscientific
slant. Fair enough?
That's all a very, very long way from saying "all people of type X are
kooks".
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right
to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such
an opinion
I do, damn it.
-- tarquin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 931
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Sep 11 14:38:23 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 15:19, tarquin wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right
> to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such
> an opinion
>
> I do, damn it.
Hmm? Really? You're against freedom of thought? That's a dangerous
position to choose, you know...
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 932
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
elian
elian at gmx.li
Wed Sep 11 14:45:44 UTC 2002
Adam Williamson <aw280 at cam.ac.uk> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 15:19, tarquin wrote:
>
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right
> > to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such
> > an opinion
> >
> > I do, damn it.
>
> Hmm? Really? You're against freedom of thought? That's a dangerous
> position to choose, you know...
Freedom of thought doesn't give someone the right to insult other people
like Jaap did with his remark about women.
greetings,
elian
--
========= Open Content statt Copyright ==========
http://de.wikipedia.org - Die freie Enzyklopaedie
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 933
[Wikipedia-l] My dear Wikipedians...
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 15:09:53 UTC 2002
... please, do not feed the trolls.
This has been a public service announcement by Stephen Gilbert
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 934
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Sep 11 15:40:35 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 15:45, elian wrote:
> Adam Williamson <aw280 at cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 15:19, tarquin wrote:
> >
> > > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right
> > > to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such
> > > an opinion
> > >
> > > I do, damn it.
> >
> > Hmm? Really? You're against freedom of thought? That's a dangerous
> > position to choose, you know...
>
> Freedom of thought doesn't give someone the right to insult other people
> like Jaap did with his remark about women.
Ah, but you see that's a different point. That's to do with freedom of
*expression*. Tarquin said he opposed Jaap's right to have the opinion
in the first place, not his right to express it.
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 935
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Wed Sep 11 15:47:28 UTC 2002
Adam Williamson wrote:
>Ah, but you see that's a different point. That's to do with freedom of
>*expression*. Tarquin said he opposed Jaap's right to have the opinion
>in the first place, not his right to express it.
>
>
Yes, but I have to right to the *opinion* that Jaap doesn't have the
right to to his opinion...
etc etc etc
Jaap's comment was offensive, he appears to have left the building
without explaining is he really meant it or was just kidding in bad taste.
meanwhile, we're wrapping ourselves in knots.
Can we say case closed? we're wasting good editing time!
tarquin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 936
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Sep 11 15:57:40 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 16:47, tarquin wrote:
> Can we say case closed? we're wasting good editing time!
Nah, i've always strictly separated "pointless email time" and
"productive time". Compartmentalisation, or something like that anyway.
:)
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 937
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Sep 11 14:42:34 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
> I've referred to certain newcomers as "crackpots", not "kooks", based
> solely on what they have written in articles, talk pages & meta.
> Perhaps it's offensive that I've judged them and labelled them as
> such, but it's based on their actions and that alone. If their
> behaviour changes, so will my opinion of them.
>
> Saying "X is a kook" or "X cannot properly engage in serious
> discussion" may be considered harsh and offensive. We should perhaps
> tone that sort of thing down -- however, in the case I'm thinking of,
> myself and others wasted a lot of time wrangling with BDJones about
> relativity. We treated him fairly, responded intelligently, tried to
> see his way of seeing things, and after a time it became clear that he
> is either a) completely impervious to reason or b) running circles
> round us on purpose.
> I propose the words "kook" and "crackpot" be used as a shorthand for
> the above scenario, "crackpot" implying a scientific or
> pseudoscientific slant. Fair enough?
>
> That's all a very, very long way from saying "all people of type X are
> kooks".
I wouldn't even say that these comments are harsh, Just offensive.
These terms don't advance any discussion of whatever is the topic.
Applying them to the person rather than the ideas means that you're
using ad hominem arguments, and that's offensive.
In discussing science what advantage is there to calling other views
pseudoscientific just because they don't agree with yours or the
majority opinion. It only shows that scientists are just as petty as
anybody else. Offhanded dismissiveness does more to promote
pseudoscience than to stop it.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 938
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Wed Sep 11 16:08:31 UTC 2002
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> internet kook, etc.
One small but very useful rule in critique is to criticize *actions*,
not *persons*.
The assumption behind the critique must be that the person can change,
regret his or her earlier actions, maybe even apologize, and improve.
After that we will have to continue to deal with that person. So we
better start now to act *as if* we were already talking to the new
and improved person, using past tense for the previous wrongdoings.
When Helga was invited to this list, I didn't see anybody holding that
door to the future open. I got the impression that she drowned in a
flood of messages talking about her (not to her) as being an idiot.
A person who lacks knowledge or insight can learn, but what can an
idiot do?
The questions now is not what Helga did (she's banned, case closed),
but instead: What can *we* learn from this?
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 939
[Wikipedia-l] Pseudonyms, etc.
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 17:35:55 UTC 2002
Seeing as how I'm a woman (or am I? I could have been lying, I
suppose), you all may want to discount this entirely, but here goes --
Jaap (who may have taken on the name because he wants to be like a
certain ex-Man Utd. Central defender) --
Here's a funny thing. You seem to want people to use their own names on
the site, and resent KQ's using a pseudonym, while I, who have never
used a pseudonym here and even, when asked, provided my credentials,
have been: 1) accused of perhaps not being who I say I am and perhaps
even of falsely stating my credentials, and; 2) told that, if I am upset
that my name is connected with articles I don't find reflect my
professional standards, I should perhaps use a pseudonym.
It's a funny ol'world, ain't it?
As for the rest, I'm not that interested in defending myself against
silly statements. Make all you want: it only helps to add to the
compendium of knowledge that helps us all consider our sources more
wisely.
Jules (a nickname reflecting my true given name of Julie)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020911/2486c9c7/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 940
[Wikipedia-l] Pseudonyms, etc.
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 19:06:12 UTC 2002
2) told
> that, if I am upset
> that my name is connected with articles I don't find
> reflect my professional standards, I should perhaps
use a
> pseudonym.
>
> It's a funny ol'world, ain't it?
>
> As for the rest, I'm not that interested in
defending myself > against silly statements.
I'm sorry if you considered my comment a silly advice.
It was not meant to shock you in any sense. It was
just a thought I had when you said you were in fear
you would be mis-considered if it turned out an
article you participated in was inaccurate. I did not
mean anything else, and I apologize if what I said
troubled you. Using a pseudo can be useful in many
many ways. And essential sometimes.
Yeah, it's a funny ol'world where people keep
misunderstanding the others.
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 941
[Wikipedia-l] Jaap
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Wed Sep 11 19:11:57 UTC 2002
With respect to the endless reactions regarding Jaap's mails, I'd like
to quote from meta.wikipedia.com's frontpage:
"please <http://www.firelily.com/support/depression/trolls.html> -- do
<http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm> -- not
<http://members.tripod.com/%7Ethewebtvguru/trolls/> -- respond
<http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Internet_troll> -- to
<http://www.topfloor.com/pr/communities/ch3.htm> -- trolls
<http://www.lisaviolet.com/cathouse/troll.html> : Links to essays about
trolls, which appear on Wikipedia (and Meta-Wikipedia) from time to time
just as on other open forums on the Internet. The standard advice
applies: ignore them. They thrive on attention. Just undo their
changes, if necessary."
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 942
[Wikipedia-l] Pseudonyms, etc.
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 11 20:55:59 UTC 2002
I had said:
> As for the rest, I'm not that interested in
defending myself > against silly statements.
Anthere responded:
I'm sorry if you considered my comment a silly advice.
It was not meant to shock you in any sense. It was
just a thought I had when you said you were in fear
you would be mis-considered if it turned out an
article you participated in was inaccurate. I did not
mean anything else, and I apologize if what I said
troubled you. Using a pseudo can be useful in many
many ways. And essential sometimes.
Yeah, it's a funny ol'world where people keep
misunderstanding the others.
I now say:
Anthere, I did not think your advice was one of the silly statements --
that comment was in regards to Jaaps' ill-considered comparisons to the
Evas. I'm sorry if you took it as a slam against you. And you are
correct that pseudonyms can be useful. What bothered me was the idea
that we as wikipedians would consider it ok to allow articles of such
low quality that they *could* be an embarrassment. One of the things I
think the wikipedia proves on a day to day basis is that very solid
articles can be turned out in a collaborative process by people who are
usually not specialists. The downside is that there are also a lot of
contributors who aren't with the program and also don't know what makes
a solid article. When those people don't actually want to take the time
to get to know other wikipedians and perhaps read through some of their
contributions ( for an example that has nothing to do with me, check out
the recent discussions at talk:Law and the village pump between netesq
and others -- perhaps some of the argument would have been more civil
had netesq bothered to find out that one of the other people was an
international lawyer), it does a disservice to the project and to those
fellow wikipedians, IM not so humble O.
Jules
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 943
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Sep 12 04:16:49 UTC 2002
Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 06:51, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>
> > You really think that is helpful when approaching
> > someone on behalf of the mailing list to ask that
> > they comply with predefined community customs,
> > rules, policies, etc.?
> >
> > If provocatively stupid things are appropriate
> > then they are appropriate for all, if not
> > appropriate then they are not appropriate for
> > all. Tis the American myth.
> >
> > "With justice and liberty for all."
> >
> > or
> >
> > "With insults and intolerance for all."
> >
> > Free advice follows, clearly worth nothing
> > because I am not a popular fellow at the
> > moment.
> >
> > Pick your customs carefully. You may
> > find yourself subject to them.
>
> Think before you post, Mike.
>
> Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right to
> freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an
> opinion, or said he should be stopped from expressing it. The freedom to
> speak does not include freedom from criticism for that speech.
>
> Now compare to what Jaap said. The implication of his post is that men
> should decide "important" issues alone and women should be barred from
> any consideration in deciding them. Now that truly IS a restriction of
> liberty, wouldn't you say?
> --
> adamw
What I would say is not necessarily relevant
in all cases.
When some sects of Muslims show up to provide
information shall we tell them they are obviously
offensive and not welcome?
Broad except for some (extreme in our framework
or view, religiously correct in their own) Muslims.
Deep except for grisly (offensive but accurate) details.
What should we tell more liberal Moslem
(or Indian, etc.) women candidate contributors
who show up and provide a view that is
"incontroversially" incorrect according to our
more "modern" participants?
Finally, if you reread my post you will find
it is not necessarily a criticism of Daniel's
criticism, it could be read as a criticism of his own
past "offensive" behavior on the mailing list.
Paradoxical no doubt, perhaps I am getting the
hang of local paradox theory or double standards.
I might be a "regular" any day now.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 944
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Thu Sep 12 04:17:35 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
> arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
> to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
> period of 3 months.
Good, and it was about time, and now can we PLEASE all get back to more
useful topics...
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature
that will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 945
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Sep 12 04:28:13 UTC 2002
Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > internet kook, etc.
>
> One small but very useful rule in critique is to criticize *actions*,
> not *persons*.
>
> The assumption behind the critique must be that the person can change,
> regret his or her earlier actions, maybe even apologize, and improve.
> After that we will have to continue to deal with that person. So we
> better start now to act *as if* we were already talking to the new
> and improved person, using past tense for the previous wrongdoings.
>
> When Helga was invited to this list, I didn't see anybody holding that
> door to the future open. I got the impression that she drowned in a
> flood of messages talking about her (not to her) as being an idiot.
> A person who lacks knowledge or insight can learn, but what can an
> idiot do?
>
> The questions now is not what Helga did (she's banned, case closed),
> but instead: What can *we* learn from this?
I think that I have learned that many of our mailing list
suscribers do not embrace many of the etiquette, policies,
rules, orientation materials, etc.
Yet we (some of us) are demanding that erring individuals who
are brought to the list's attention near instantly come into
near perfect compliance or be banned.
I think we should begin a consensus building process or
modification and ratification process to bring the stated
rules and the actual enforcement procedures into some clear
congruence with the majority behavior and actions of
the community.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 946
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Sep 12 15:44:35 UTC 2002
Mirwin asked:
>When some sects of Muslims show up to provide
>information shall we tell them they are obviously
>offensive and not welcome?
I would welcome any Muslim who wants to provide information on Islam or any other subject. We should not exclude people on the basis of their having a religious belief, any more than we should exclude people who deny all religious beliefs.
However, someone who writes _from the Islamic point of view_ will find their contributions mercilessly copy-edited into neutrality, exactly as someone who writes from an atheistic or Democratic or Marxist Republican or Unificationist POV.
"People invented God" => "The concept of God predates recorded history."
"The entire hill is a mosque" => "Muslims regard the entire hill as a mosque."
"Clinton was impeached for sex" => "Democrats believe that the impeachment was more about sex than about perjury or obstruction of justice."
"Capitalists steal profit from the workers" => "Marxists regard capitalists as thieves, contributing nothing while stealing the fruits of labor from honest working-class people."
"Rev. Moon is the Messiah" => "Members of the Unification Church consider Rev. Moon to be the Messiah."
(I do not assert that any of the translations above is _perfectly_ neutral and accurate; rather, that any information provided _can_ be presented from the NPOV.)
If there is some group claiming that Jews "started" WWII; or "invented" the Holocaust or "are a bunch of greedy hypocrites who should be driven into the Sea" or (insert favorite anti-Semitic idea here) -- then we simply write that Group A _believes_ this.
Okay, some novelist did some superficial research, and now he claims that Eisenhower killed 6 million Germans. So what? Just say "Novelist XYZ claims in Book B that blah, blah, blah."
On the other hand, if an article has too much information from one side, contributors may want to balance it with other information.
* "Most scholars regard the article as having no significant effect on Hitler's plans."
* "All but a handful of historians dismiss Holocaust Denial as utterly absurd."
* "Jewish groups generally oppose Group A's plan to drive them into the Sea." (hm, this last one may be too mild)
* "Reviewer C charges that XYZ's scholarship as shoddy."
Sorry if this is too long, but what I'm leading up to is this: any information is welcome, every person is welcome. We need only _phrase_ contributions neutrally and (if needed) _balance_ articles.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 947
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Thu Sep 12 16:24:30 UTC 2002
>any information provided _can_ be presented from the NPOV.)
>
>If there is some group claiming that Jews "started" WWII;
>or "invented" the Holocaust or
>"are a bunch of greedy hypocrites who should be driven into the Sea" or
>(insert favorite anti-Semitic idea here) --
>then we simply write that Group A _believes_ this.
I don't think so.
>Okay, some novelist did some superficial research, and now he claims that
>Eisenhower killed 6 million Germans. So what? Just say "Novelist XYZ
>claims in Book B that blah, blah, blah."
Why? What is the point of including outrageous, obvious false material?
>On the other hand, if an article has too much information from one side,
>contributors may want to balance it with other information.
>
>* "Most scholars regard the article as having no significant effect on
>Hitler's plans."
>* "All but a handful of historians dismiss Holocaust Denial as utterly
>absurd."
A false statement in itself, I know of no historian who accepts holocaust
denial.
>any information is welcome, every person is welcome. We need only _phrase_
>>contributions neutrally and (if needed) _balance_ articles.
I don't think false information is welcome or people who persist in either
putting false information into articles or creating a false impression by
selective presentation of facts. How it is to be decided when this is
happening may be difficult but I think it's good policy.
Fred replying to:
>
>Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 948
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Sep 12 14:58:40 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>However, someone who writes _from the Islamic point of view_ will find their contributions mercilessly copy-edited into neutrality, exactly as someone who writes from an atheistic or Democratic or Marxist Republican or Unificationist POV.
>
Persons writing from the Christian or Jewish POV should receive the same
"merciless" treatment
>On the other hand, if an article has too much information from one side, contributors may want to balance it with other information.
>
Adding material to support your POV is far superior to removing material
that supports the opposing POV.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 949
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Sep 12 15:25:11 UTC 2002
Fred Bauder wrote:
> >Okay, some novelist did some superficial research, and now he claims that
> >Eisenhower killed 6 million Germans. So what? Just say "Novelist XYZ
> >claims in Book B that blah, blah, blah."
>
> Why? What is the point of including outrageous, obvious false material?
Well, if the novelist is famous, or if his ideas are having impact,
then the fact that he says these things raises them to the level
of encyclopedic interest.
For example, a Frenchman wrote a book, very popular in France, I hear,
claiming that the Sept. 11 attacks were faked, that no plane crashed
into the Pentagon, and so on. This is outrageous nonsense, of course,
but since the author is famous and the book was popular, it's of
interest.
Difficulty arises when we have to determine whether some person or
group is noteworthy enough, even as a fringe person or group, for us
to take notice. There are plenty of cranks in the world, some with
voluminous websites, and we needn't treat them all as equivalent to
each other.
> >* "All but a handful of historians dismiss Holocaust Denial as utterly
> >absurd."
>
> A false statement in itself, I know of no historian who accepts holocaust
> denial.
Right, well, Ed acknowledged that his statements could stand some
editing. His point, though, was that statements can be rendered NPOV.
Some people are holocaust deniers. They have, in some subcultures,
had some influence. All of this is worthy of reporting in the
encyclopedia, but none of this justifies treating their ideas as
equally respectable to the broad (unanimous) consensus of real
historians.
> I don't think false information is welcome or people who persist in either
> putting false information into articles or creating a false impression by
> selective presentation of facts. How it is to be decided when this is
> happening may be difficult but I think it's good policy.
Now here, we agree, and I think Ed agrees too.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 950
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Jason Williams
jason at jasonandali.org.uk
Thu Sep 12 16:37:37 UTC 2002
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:24:30AM -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
> >If there is some group claiming that Jews "started" WWII;
> >or "invented" the Holocaust or
> >"are a bunch of greedy hypocrites who should be driven into the Sea" or
> >(insert favorite anti-Semitic idea here) --
> >then we simply write that Group A _believes_ this.
>
> I don't think so.
Why not? The fact that those beliefs are held is useful information; this
is a project to collect useful information. There need be no implication
that the belief is true or valid - otherwise there should be no article
on any Religion, for instance, since there is no evidence to support *those*
claims either.
--
jason at jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 951
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Sep 12 15:42:44 UTC 2002
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Persons writing from the Christian or Jewish POV should receive the same
> "merciless" treatment
Or anti-religious POV, too.
Remember, Ed is a member of the Unification Church (popularly known as
"Moonies"), so he's well aware of the challenges of working in
wikipedia while coming from a point of view that is not only a
minority, but widely regarded as "cultist".
> Adding material to support your POV is far superior to removing material
> that supports the opposing POV.
I think that's right, although even in the infinity of cyberspace,
individual articles do have some space constraints for the sake of
readability. Sometimes, some of the inquiry into and presentation of
minority POVs will be best handled in sidebar articles.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 952
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Jim McKeeth
jim at mckeeth.org
Thu Sep 12 17:01:32 UTC 2002
I agree with Jason but I would add it depends on the scope of the
article. For example in an article about the Holocaust you would not get
into the details of the denial, but you might mention that some deny it and
then link to articles about those groups. This would hold true for any
false (or generally accepted false) belief or statement believed or made by
a group.
But I think the reverse should be held true for religion. I have seen a
number of articles in regards to religion and other "unpopular" topics that
have the opposition within the article. I believe that the article should
solely talk about the subject and only mention the opposition (counter
arguement) and then link to an article that focuses on it.
For example when talking about the Pascal programming language one third of
the article is devoted to criticism by Brian Kernighan, co-creator of the C
programming language. This may be better suited in the article about Brian
Kernighan and in the Pascal article just mention that Pascal is not Brian
Kernighan favorite programming language with a link to his article.
If we censor or argue against what we believe to be false or just a belief
(and not real) then we are not writing / editing with NPOV.
That is just my $0.02 worth. BTW, I am new here, my name is Jim and I look
forward to eventually making meaningful contributions to WikiPedia as time
permits while retaining my day job and my family. ;-)
-Jim McKeeth
At 05:37 PM 09/12/2002 +0100, Jason Williams wrote:
> > >then we simply write that Group A _believes_ this.
> >
> > I don't think so.
>
>Why not? The fact that those beliefs are held is useful information; this
>is a project to collect useful information. There need be no implication
>that the belief is true or valid - otherwise there should be no article
>on any Religion, for instance, since there is no evidence to support *those*
>claims either.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 953
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Sep 12 16:55:07 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>Persons writing from the Christian or Jewish POV should receive the same
>>"merciless" treatment
>>
>Or anti-religious POV, too.
>
>Remember, Ed is a member of the Unification Church (popularly known as
>"Moonies"), so he's well aware of the challenges of working in
>wikipedia while coming from a point of view that is not only a
>minority, but widely regarded as "cultist".
>
Ed, to his credit did mention atheists and the Unification Church. The
point was more that holding a popular or majoritarian view would never
imply immunity from criticism.
>>Adding material to support your POV is far superior to removing material
>>that supports the opposing POV.
>>
>I think that's right, although even in the infinity of cyberspace,
>individual articles do have some space constraints for the sake of
>readability. Sometimes, some of the inquiry into and presentation of
>minority POVs will be best handled in sidebar articles.
>
We can't go on agreeing like this all the time!
Your point may be more a function of language and style than of specific
content. The problem can as easily arise in non-controversial article
where people have simply never learned to get to the point.
One other frequent contributor to this list, Mirwin, often makes some
valuable points (judged by the fact that I often agree with him :-) ).
This doesn't stop me from criticizing his contributions as prolix and a
challenge to the attention span.. An interesting exercise can be to
take an opposing POV and reduce it in size without diminishing the
impact of the author's arguments.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 954
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Thu Sep 12 19:53:48 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-10 21:28 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>>It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
>>those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
>>should not be dicussed with women.
>>
>>One should never engage in serious discussions
>>with women anyway. They are not genetically
>>equiped for it.
>
>If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be,
>justifiably, up in arms.
Not if what you were saying was correct.
I could compose quite a big list with 'bad'
habits of men.
Okay, the first sentence is a bit overdone. There
are women who do quite well in politics. ;-)
The sentence that one shouldn't start serious
discussions with women is from my own experience.
Woman tend to take arguments personally, will
think that you're a 'bad person' when you're not
thinking what the rest of the community thinks
etc.
As regards the genetics. Men were selected
for being good co-operators during the hunt.
They would discuss hunting tactics around the
fire but the next day they would have to hunt
again together and be able to trust each other
even if they disagreed the last evening. Men
were selected not to have a problem with that.
For them discussions are a game, which they
like, but don't take overly serious. We like
the men best that are the toughest in the
discussion, becasuse they come up with the
best arguments. In ancient days that could
mean the difference between having food or
not and therefore between survival and not.
Women used to tend to the children and gather
roots and fruit etc. It was not necessary to
cooperate with other women and it would even
be bad for her family to share the findings
or knowledge about where to find things.
When one of the men would kill a large beast
however, he would need the help of the others
to transport it back to the base and it would
be foolish not to share it, because it would
spoil very soon or be eaten by bugs in the
African climate and usually the hunting process
was a combined effort anyway.
Another matter is the woman's IQ. Prof. Dr.
H. J. Eysenck has interesting theories about
this. He poses that men have a bigger diversity
in all kinds of properties, due to the fact
that they are missing one 'leg' in their
Y-chromosoom. This means that for a lot
of properties their fenotype is based on
only one gene and that can be a recessive
gene. (A woman would need two of those genes
to have the same fenotype.) The major example
is colorblindness: This affliction is much
more common under men than under women.
Probably a factor of four. Eysenck argues
that since the IQ is very complex some
of it's genes will probably also reside on
the Y-chromosome and therefore IQ will
also vary more widely in men. Even assuming
that men and women have the same average IQ
(which is not unlikely) it would account for
the fact that there is a lack of intelligent
women. It's about 1 in 30. On the other hand
it also explains why there is also an excess
of dumb men on the other end of the scale.
He noticed for example that in the lower
social classes the woman is usually smarter
and handles practical things like filling
in tax forms.
>If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on this, or
>any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the insult. No,
>it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of anything
>except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
QED
>Vicki Rosenzweig
By the way, when you're jewish as your name suggests,
you can add about 15 points to your average IQ. Perhaps
that explains why you're one of the few women here?
If anybody is interested in these matters, I suggest
reading books like:
- Eysenck, H.J.
- Intelligence: The battle for the mind.
- 1981
On the development of mankind:
- Desmond Morris
- The naked ape
- 1967
In Dutch:
- Marcel Roele
- De Mietjesmaatschappij
- (this is a book with a lot more about modern 'politically
correct' fallacies, including an article about average
IQ's that really differ from race to race)
- 2000
Ah, and before I forget: I may try to avoid discussions
with women, but I talk with them and emancipation comes
up from time to time and there is also a downside to the
current tendency to assume that women should have careers
too. Some women don't want a career but just want to
have children and take care of them, but in our current
folly that women are the same as men we are doing that
kind of women injustice by giving them a guild complex,
about not working. And we are maybe depriving the
children of a happy childhood with their mommy.
And to avoid that some of you, especially you Americans
(and French), may think I'm not that bad after all:
I think that all drugs should be legalized.
Greetings,
Jaap
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 955
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Thu Sep 12 20:17:52 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-10 21:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>
>>No it doesn't: Jimmy and Bomis may host it, but they don't
>>own it. Or they should have made it more clearly when I
>>joined it. I am the author of a site about chips and it's
>>hosted by about 30 mirror sites. They own not one iota
>>of the contents of what they mirror. My 'original site'
>>is hosted on the server of a Dutch internet provider and
>>it doesn't own any of the copyrights of my site.
>>
>>If Jimmy thinks he has certain rights I'd really like
>>to hear about that.
>Owning the site and owning the contents are two different things. If he really got pissed off he could always pull the server's power cord out of the wall, and nobody could legally force him to put it back in. If it comes to that, and nobody has kept the data independently backed up at a physically separate site, then that's the end of it.
>
>Jimmy's royal prerogatives are not about dictatorship or being a control freak, they're about finance. Until a critical mass of Wikipedians have shown the capacity to deal with the project's fiscal administration, it's simply a reality whether we like it or not. Such a state of affairs obviously includes possible dangers to the project, but so do other financing models .
Of course I appriciate what Jimmy is doing, because I think
that Wikipedia is at least an interesting project. I'm
sure that Jimmy has been tested more severally than through
what I did. And when not: What doesn't kill you makes you
stronger.
However I think that financing a site which works on
the principle of GPL shouldn't give the owner of the
hardware special privileges, like being a benign
dictator as regards to banning people.
Anyone noticed the strange dualisme between me defending
Helga's case and in the mean time insulting 2.5 billion
women which Vicki in turn sees as a personal insult?
>Julie is a Wikipediholic, and we would love the opportunity to drink with her without Genral Booth's Dutch minions banging bass drums in out ears.
And I like women that hang-out-with the boys (and I mean
this in a positive sense) very much. Julie seems to be
the Queen of Wikipedia. And you probably know that our
country is run by a real queen that 95% of us admire.
>>But well, uhm, we guys, we like fighting, testing each other out,
>>we will have to go hunt the next day to get the meat
>>and we need to be able to rely on each other 100%.
>>You women only have to dig up roots etc.
>I thought that Holland was such a flat country that people didn't live in caves anymore.
Well, we managed to build a metro in Rotterdam under the
clay and sand...
;-)
Greetings,
Jaap
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 956
[Wikipedia-l] Pseudonyms, etc.
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Thu Sep 12 20:32:09 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-11 10:35 -0700, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
>Seeing as how I'm a woman (or am I? I could have been lying, I suppose), you all may want to discount this entirely, but here goes --
>
>Jaap (who may have taken on the name because he wants to be like a certain ex-Man Utd. Central defender) --
>
>Here's a funny thing. You seem to want people to use their own names on the site, and resent KQ's using a pseudonym, while I, who have never used a pseudonym here and even, when asked, provided my credentials, have been: 1) accused of perhaps not being who I say I am and perhaps even of falsely stating my credentials, and; 2) told that, if I am upset that my name is connected with articles I don't find reflect my professional standards, I should perhaps use a pseudonym.
>
>It's a funny ol'world, ain't it?
>
>As for the rest, I'm not that interested in defending myself against silly statements. Make all you want: it only helps to add to the compendium of knowledge that helps us all consider our sources more wisely.
>
>Jules (a nickname reflecting my true given name of Julie)
Hi Julie,
It's very clear that you're a woman. Men would feel very uncomfortable
displaying so much insecurity. As regards what happened on Wikipedia:
You can't blame me for that, because I didn't do it. You could try to
blame men in general and I'm giggling in advance. (I don't mind
showing male weakness...) Anyway, if I were a tyrant running Wikipedia
and you would have asked me to intervene in your problem I would
probably have solved the question without anyone being able to
complain afterwards...
But luckily Wikipedia is not run by a tyrant...
Greetings,
Jaap
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 957
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Thu Sep 12 20:06:17 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-10 18:48 -0800, Brion VIBBER wrote:
>Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>>It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
>>those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
>>should not be dicussed with women.
>>One should never engage in serious discussions
>>with women anyway. They are not genetically
>>equiped for it.
>
>Is this what passes for humor in the Netherlands or are you just an asshole? I can never tell.
I'm 43 now and together with a lot of brain cells
I lost my sense of humor.
It's said. :-(
Greetings,
Jaap
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 958
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Thu Sep 12 20:02:46 UTC 2002
Hi 'title of a movie',
At 2002-09-10 19:19 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>You Wrote:
>>At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>>>Jaap wrote:
>>>Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
>>
>>This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
>
>It does. You don't agree with it.
>
>>>I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
>>
>>That's not the issue.
>
>You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name, or a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
>
>kq
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious
movement, nay institute even, it's essential that
people adhere more to netiquette.
I don't care which babysteps are made by whomever
but that things are improved in general. That's
why I'd like to point out some issues that can
be improved. If you have considered my arguments
and decide that you still have a legitimate
reason to use a pseudonym, so be it. You will
not be taken as seriously at face value, so
you'll have to try harder to be respected, but
if you choose that road, you have my blessing.
Jaap
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 959
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Thu Sep 12 21:24:36 UTC 2002
At 10:02 PM 9/12/02 +0200, someone calling himself Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>Hi 'title of a movie',
>
>At 2002-09-10 19:19 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> >You Wrote:
> >>At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> >>>Jaap wrote:
> >>>Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at
> least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I
> have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll
> discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
> >>
> >>This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
> >
> >It does. You don't agree with it.
> >
> >>>I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe
> that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
> >>
> >>That's not the issue.
> >
> >You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name, or
> a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
> >
> >kq
>
>I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious
>movement, nay institute even, it's essential that
>people adhere more to netiquette.
Netiquette doesn't demand real names, in part because it's very hard to tell
which names are real. At one point over on Usenet, someone angrily demanded
that another poster use his "real name". The person of whom the demand was
made was, in fact, using his full legal name. Conversely, I have no way of
knowing, online, whether you're really named Jaap van Ganswijk.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 960
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jim McKeeth
jim at mckeeth.org
Thu Sep 12 21:41:44 UTC 2002
Netiquette, at least as far as I have seen, does not say that everyone has
to use their real names in on-line communities. In fact it supports the
opposite, that we should respect individuals requests for privacy and treat
them with respect that every individual disserves. I have been in the
on-line community for many years (before the web and most people knew what
the Internet was I ran in BBS circles) and handles (pseudonyms) have always
been respected where appropriate. A community like this is a perfect
example of such an appropriate use of handles.
Granted some people do not like to use handles, but that is their
CHOICE. If they choose a handle or not should not effect our opinion in a
community. You raise the point of financial transactions, but we are all
volunteers here. No one is paying anyone money.
In a community setting like this absolute identity is not necessary. In
fact, in some ways I prefer dealing with people who use an obvious handle /
pseudonym because then I don't wonder if that is really their name or if
they are trying to deceive me.
I have only been here a short time, but most of your posts seem more aimed
at making waves then building an encyclopedia. But that is just my opinion.
At 10:02 PM 09/12/2002 +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious
>movement, nay institute even, it's essential that
>people adhere more to netiquette.
>
>I don't care which babysteps are made by whomever
>but that things are improved in general. That's
>why I'd like to point out some issues that can
>be improved. If you have considered my arguments
>and decide that you still have a legitimate
>reason to use a pseudonym, so be it. You will
>not be taken as seriously at face value, so
>you'll have to try harder to be respected, but
>if you choose that road, you have my blessing.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 961
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Thu Sep 12 22:00:10 UTC 2002
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 21:02, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious
> movement, nay institute even, it's essential that
> people adhere more to netiquette.
Huh? I've been using the internet for nearly 10 years now and i've never
seen *ANY* interpretation of 'netiquette' which obliged people to post
under their real-life identity. Where do you dig such an idea up from?
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 962
[Wikipedia-l] User watch
Adam Williamson
aw280 at cam.ac.uk
Thu Sep 12 21:57:14 UTC 2002
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 20:53, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> At 2002-09-10 21:28 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> >>It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
> >>those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
> >>should not be dicussed with women.
> >>
> >>One should never engage in serious discussions
> >>with women anyway. They are not genetically
> >>equiped for it.
> >
> >If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be,
> >justifiably, up in arms.
>
> Not if what you were saying was correct.
> I could compose quite a big list with 'bad'
> habits of men.
The only thing i'd say in response to this amazing heap of garbage is
that it's clear Jaap has never been involved in any form of hunting, or
any form of child-rearing...
--
adamw
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 963
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Thu Sep 12 21:48:35 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-12 17:24 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>At 10:02 PM 9/12/02 +0200, someone calling himself Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>>Hi 'title of a movie',
>>
>>At 2002-09-10 19:19 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>>>You Wrote:
>>>>At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>>>>>Jaap wrote:
>>>>>Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
>>>
>>>It does. You don't agree with it.
>>>
>>>>>I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
>>>>
>>>>That's not the issue.
>>>
>>>You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name, or a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
>>>
>>>kq
>>
>>I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious
>>movement, nay institute even, it's essential that
>>people adhere more to netiquette.
>
>Netiquette doesn't demand real names, in part because it's very hard to tell
>which names are real. At one point over on Usenet, someone angrily demanded
>that another poster use his "real name". The person of whom the demand was
>made was, in fact, using his full legal name. Conversely, I have no way of
>knowing, online, whether you're really named Jaap van Ganswijk.
Would you really like to know?
I have been checked out by several secrets services, so
i'm quite sure i know what I am.
Have you been checked out by as much secret services?
Greetz,
Jaap
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 964
[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Sep 12 21:53:55 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> (This is a personal e-mail not sent to the list, but
> feel free to reproduce it anywhere you like--I am not
> trying to hide, I'm only trying not to waste the time
> of other list members with irrelevant nonsense.
>
> > I think that I have learned that many of our mailing list
> > suscribers do not embrace many of the etiquette, policies,
> > rules, orientation materials, etc.
>
> Mike, you are a lying bastard and a troll. Larry was right;
> it is now quite clear to me that I should not take anything
> you say seriously anymore, and I will no longer waste any
> effort trying to understand or reply to your complete nonsense.
> You are of course free to continue using and contributing to
> Wikipedia if you are so inclined, and free to continue wasting
> the time of other list members, but as far as I'm concerned,
> you now no longer exist, and I will use my time and brain cells
> to more fruitful ends.
Perhaps you should read the Wikiettiquette, policies
and guidelines files again. Even though you edited
much of it, you do not appear to apply it consistently.
I have cc'd this to the mailing list as I do not
think discussing these community meta issues is
a waste of time.
Have a nice life.
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 965
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Sep 12 22:16:08 UTC 2002
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>Hi 'title of a movie',
>
>I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious
>movement, nay institute even, it's essential that
>people adhere more to netiquette.
>
>I don't care which babysteps are made by whomever
>but that things are improved in general. That's
>why I'd like to point out some issues that can
>be improved. If you have considered my arguments
>and decide that you still have a legitimate
>reason to use a pseudonym, so be it. You will
>not be taken as seriously at face value, so
>you'll have to try harder to be respected, but
>if you choose that road, you have my blessing.
>
Our KQ has already proved himself.
Too bad he's already go the name though, the Hopi language term might
have suited Jaap better.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 966
[Wikipedia-l] Pseudonyms, etc.
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Sep 12 22:51:01 UTC 2002
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> But luckily Wikipedia is not run by a tyrant...
Oh, but the temptation...
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 967
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 13 01:15:20 UTC 2002
Welcome, Jim!
--- Jim McKeeth <jim at mckeeth.org> wrote:
> I agree with Jason but I would add it depends on the
> scope of the
> article. For example in an article about the
> Holocaust you would not get
> into the details of the denial, but you might
> mention that some deny it and
> then link to articles about those groups. This
> would hold true for any
> false (or generally accepted false) belief or
> statement believed or made by
> a group.
Exactly. It is a fact that there are Holocaust
deniers. We should not exclude this information from
the encyclopedia; on the contrary, by including it
along with the overwhelming weight of history, we do a
service to our readers by allowing them to see the
nonsense for what it really is.
Your idea about briefly mentioning it and then linking
to the [[Holocaust denial]] article is exactly what we
should be doing.
> But I think the reverse should be held true for
> religion. I have seen a
> number of articles in regards to religion and other
> "unpopular" topics that
> have the opposition within the article. I believe
> that the article should
> solely talk about the subject and only mention the
> opposition (counter
> arguement) and then link to an article that focuses
> on it.
Yes. For example, when talking about Christianity,
there's no need to go into great deal about the
historical Jesus. Instead, mention and link to an
article that deals with the question.
<snipped another good example about Pascal>
> That is just my $0.02 worth. BTW, I am new here, my
> name is Jim and I look
> forward to eventually making meaningful
> contributions to WikiPedia as time
> permits while retaining my day job and my family.
> ;-)
I have a job, a wife and a young child, and I;ve
managed to hold things together. Good luck. :)
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 968
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 13 01:28:59 UTC 2002
--- Jim McKeeth <jim at mckeeth.org> wrote:
> I have only been here a short time, but most of your
> posts seem more aimed
> at making waves then building an encyclopedia. But
> that is just my opinion.
The technical term is "trolling". ;-)
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 969
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Fri Sep 13 02:37:17 UTC 2002
At 11:48 PM 9/12/02 +0200, someone who has yet to contribute to Wikipedia
wrote:
>At 2002-09-12 17:24 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> >At 10:02 PM 9/12/02 +0200, someone calling himself Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> >>Hi 'title of a movie',
> >>
> >>At 2002-09-10 19:19 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> >>>You Wrote:
> >>>>At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> >>>>>Jaap wrote:
> >>>>>Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at
> least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I
> have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll
> discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
> >>>>
> >>>>This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
> >>>
> >>>It does. You don't agree with it.
> >>>
> >>>>>I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe
> that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
> >>>>
> >>>>That's not the issue.
> >>>
> >>>You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name,
> or a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
> >>>
> >>>kq
> >>
> >>I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious
> >>movement, nay institute even, it's essential that
> >>people adhere more to netiquette.
> >
> >Netiquette doesn't demand real names, in part because it's very hard to tell
> >which names are real. At one point over on Usenet, someone angrily demanded
> >that another poster use his "real name". The person of whom the demand was
> >made was, in fact, using his full legal name. Conversely, I have no way of
> >knowing, online, whether you're really named Jaap van Ganswijk.
>
>Would you really like to know?
Since it appears that either you are using a handle for the Wikipedia--in
which case
you have no credibility in this discussion--or have never bothered to sign
in, I don't think
it matters. I have an encyclopedia to write and edit.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 970
[Wikipedia-l] Who is welcome?
Jim McKeeth
jim at mckeeth.org
Fri Sep 13 03:00:34 UTC 2002
At 06:15 PM 09/12/2002 -0700, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>I have a job, a wife and a young child, and I;ve
>managed to hold things together. Good luck. :)
You'll have to let me in on your secret. I have two small children and one
on the way. I think if I can come up with a way to use my laptop while
driving my commute I will gain some valuable ground!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 971
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jason Khendon Williams
jason at jasonandali.org.uk
Fri Sep 13 08:13:43 UTC 2002
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:02:46PM +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious
> movement, nay institute even, it's essential that
> people adhere more to netiquette.
Can somebody explain *exactly* what the problem with pseudonyms is? I
use a pseudonym on wikipedia, but my full name is available on my
User: page. It's just a convenient identifier, rather than an
attempt to obscure my identity. If anything, I'm *more* identifiable
by "Khendon" than I am by "Jason Williams", since it's far easier
to find out about by me using the former name than the latter.
So... is the objection one of transparent identity, or of aesthetics,
or some other issue?
--
Jason "Khendon" Williams
jason at jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 972
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Fri Sep 13 12:22:21 UTC 2002
Jason Khendon Williams wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:02:46PM +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> > I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious
> > movement, nay institute even, it's essential that
> > people adhere more to netiquette.
>
> Can somebody explain *exactly* what the problem with pseudonyms is? I
> use a pseudonym on wikipedia, but my full name is available on my
> User: page. It's just a convenient identifier, rather than an
> attempt to obscure my identity. If anything, I'm *more* identifiable
> by "Khendon" than I am by "Jason Williams", since it's far easier
> to find out about by me using the former name than the latter.
>
> So... is the objection one of transparent identity, or of aesthetics,
> or some other issue?
Don't worry about it Jason... there IS no issue! I agree with you too -
if you do a google search for 'Karen Johnson' you'll come up with a
million hits, almost none of which are actually ME. A search for Kajikit
however, will give you a lot more info than my full name. In fact,
you'll find out a heck of a lot more about me than I realised!
I just did a search for Kajikit and at the top of the list is my website
Kajikit's Corner, followed by my Yahoo profile, a couple of
bulletinboards I'm registered on, my writing in other people's websites
and a bunch of my usenet posts! I didn't know that so many people had
websites that tracked newsgroups... you can find out everything except
my mother's maiden name with these hits, so I hope nobody decides to use
it against me! Searching for Karen Johnson, on the other hand, brings up
a good million hits but the only ones that are me are #11, #50, #52 and
#89. The other million are just there to confuse the issue :)
I choose to use my full name on the wikipedia because I feel it is a
project that I am proud of, and I WANT to be associated with it in
public. In general internet use, the use of a full name is extremely
unusual, so I use my normal web ID, which is the one in my sig. They're
both me...
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
And on the seventh day, God said 'What my world needs is a creature
that will truly appreciate it in all its facets' -
and so He made the kitten.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 973
Using pseudonyms, was: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 13 16:45:08 UTC 2002
--- Jason Khendon Williams <jason at jasonandali.org.uk>
wrote:
> Can somebody explain *exactly* what the problem with
> pseudonyms is?
There is absolutely no problem with using pseudonyms
on Wikipedia. Many good contributors choose to use
them for a number of reasons, and you should feel free
to do so as well.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 974
[Wikipedia-l] Using pseudonyms
Jim McKeeth
jim at mckeeth.org
Fri Sep 13 16:51:52 UTC 2002
Karen,
Your Google search comment got me thinking so I did a search for me.
My handle "Cybermancer" returns 314, most all of which are not me (I see 2
out of the first 50)
My name "Jim McKeeth" returns 67, and all of them are me. There used to be
more, but I had some technical difficulties and lost my personal page.
Looking at this list of hits is interesting. It is amazing to see which
pages get indexed by the search engines and which do not.
I guess it pays to have a less common last name. Interestingly I created
that handle over 12 years ago and thought it would be unique. Guess I was
wrong.
-Jim
At 10:22 PM 09/13/2002 +1000, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
>Don't worry about it Jason... there IS no issue! I agree with you too -
>if you do a google search for 'Karen Johnson' you'll come up with a
>million hits, almost none of which are actually ME. A search for Kajikit
>however, will give you a lot more info than my full name. In fact,
>you'll find out a heck of a lot more about me than I realised!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 975
[Wikipedia-l] Tucci528
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Fri Sep 13 18:40:33 UTC 2002
could someone with more tact and diplomacy than me point out nicely to
user Tucci528 that in many of his recent articles he has spelt
"received" as "recieved"?
I hesitated to do this myself yesterday when I corrected some of them --
if I mention it to him he'll probably think I'm biting his head off.
It looks like he may become a regular, I don't want to scare him away!
(I hope he's not on the list yet!)
thanks
tarquin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 976
[Wikipedia-l] Tucci528
wojtek pobratyn
wojtek.pobratyn at gmx.net
Fri Sep 13 19:04:24 UTC 2002
At 20:40 13.09.2002, tarquin argued thusly:
>It looks like he may become a regular, I don't want to scare him away!
I hope he will become a regular - the sheer amount of knowledge
he has on different characters of [[Greek mythology]] amazes me.
His/her user page seems empty though, are there any replies
on the user talk page?
regards,
[[WojPob]]
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 977
[Wikipedia-l] Tucci528
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 13 19:29:46 UTC 2002
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> could someone with more tact and diplomacy than me
> point out nicely to
> user Tucci528 that in many of his recent articles he
> has spelt
> "received" as "recieved"?
> I hesitated to do this myself yesterday when I
> corrected some of them --
> if I mention it to him he'll probably think I'm
> biting his head off.
> It looks like he may become a regular, I don't want
> to scare him away!
> (I hope he's not on the list yet!)
> thanks
>
> tarquin
:-)))
Please Tarquin, when I spell refered instead of
referred and developped instead of developed, please
tell me or add it in the comment box. I will never
myself eat your head off.
Amicalement,
Anthère
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 978
[Wikipedia-l] Tucci528
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Fri Sep 13 18:38:28 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
> could someone with more tact and diplomacy than me point out nicely to
> user Tucci528 that in many of his recent articles he has spelt
> "received" as "recieved"?
> I hesitated to do this myself yesterday when I corrected some of them
> -- if I mention it to him he'll probably think I'm biting his head off.
> It looks like he may become a regular, I don't want to scare him away!
> (I hope he's not on the list yet!)
> thanks
>
> tarquin
The name "Tucci" sounds Italian to me, so English may not be his first
language. If it bothers you that much it's perfectly OK to tell him
politely. I would normally just make that correction and go on with life.
BTW By using the search function I found three articles with "recieve"
in them, just in case you were looking for something to do.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 979
[Wikipedia-l] Pseudonyms, etc.
Jaap van Ganswijk
ganswijk at xs4all.nl
Sat Sep 14 01:11:39 UTC 2002
At 2002-09-12 15:51 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>> But luckily Wikipedia is not run by a tyrant...
>
>Oh, but the temptation...
I was just (indirectly) testing your emotional
limits. Men do that, as I explained elsewhere.
Don't worry about it. If we should ever meet
'in the flesh' we'll be best friends and drink
beer together.
Greetings,
Jaap
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 980
[Wikipedia-l] Pseudonyms, etc.
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Sat Sep 14 08:09:11 UTC 2002
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>At 2002-09-12 15:51 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>
>>Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But luckily Wikipedia is not run by a tyrant...
>>>
>>>
>>Oh, but the temptation...
>>
>>
>
>I was just (indirectly) testing your emotional
>limits. Men do that, as I explained elsewhere.
>
>
>
I don't think you know very much about women.
(but then again, neither did TS Eliot)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 981
[Wikipedia-l] "tap on the shoulder" to newbs
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Sat Sep 14 18:28:15 UTC 2002
I've been noticing a number of IP users making mistakes on their early
edits, such as plural names.
Not all of them are RecentChangesJunkies like us, and some may not even
be familiar with RC, so they may not notice notes we leave them in the
RC log.
I gather that when we ban a user, they get a message when they try to
next edit, explaining why.
However, in many cases, users are not causing malicious damage, they are
just making minor blunders, which old hands have to clean up after them.
Would it be helpful if we could give new IPs a "tap" if we spot a mistake?
By that, I mean a *friendly*, *welcoming* message that would appear at
the top of their next edit box. Hopefully, that may reduce the numberof
things we have to clean up.
Something like this:
Hello, IP {IP NUMBER} Thank you for your recent contribution to the
Wikipedia.
Another user has noticed your edit, on the {ARTICLE} article, and wishes
to alert you to the following point:
{INSERT MESSAGE}
You can respond on the {TALK PAGE} for that article.
You might also want to read up on {naming conventions, etc}
We hope you will {REGISTER} a user name and join the other active
wikipedians.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 982
[Wikipedia-l] "tap on the shoulder" to newbs
Tim Marklew
tmarklew at hotmail.com
Sat Sep 14 19:27:09 UTC 2002
Tarquin wrote:
>I've been noticing a number of IP users making mistakes on their early
>edits, such as plural names.
...
>Would it be helpful if we could give new IPs a "tap" if we spot a>
> >mistake?
>By that, I mean a *friendly*, *welcoming* message that would appear at the
>top of their next edit box. Hopefully, that may reduce the >numberof things
>we have to clean up.
>Something like this:
>Hello, IP {IP NUMBER} Thank you for your recent contribution to the
>Wikipedia.
>Another user has noticed your edit, on the {ARTICLE} article, and >wishes
>to alert you to the following point:
>{INSERT MESSAGE}
>You can respond on the {TALK PAGE} for that article.
>You might also want to read up on {naming conventions, etc}
>We hope you will {REGISTER} a user name and join the other active
>wikipedians.
In general, I don't think things like a misnamed page, or spelling error,
should warrant even trying to communicate with the user. Just fix it - they
will usually get the message quickly. Bear in mind:
* We do not want to make new users feel like they should have to digest a
big set of rules before they can contribute. That would conflict with our
general openness to contributions.
* The misnamed page may not be 'their' mistake at all - they may have
clicked on an existing link to a badly named page and started typing. They
might get justifiably confused and annoyed if you then criticise them for
misnaming the page, however polite you are.
The idea for a means to communicate with non logged in users might come in
handy for someone who is causing real problems, for example uploading
material we think is copyrighted. Remember though that IP addresses do not
uniquely identify users. I have seen a number of edits made by someone else
using the same IP as me (through a dial-up ISP), and computers are often
shared at schools etc.
Allowing people to make edits without logging in is on balance a good thing
- low barriers to participation are one of the things that makes Wikipedia a
success. We have to accept that this openness comes with problems, one of
which is that it is never going to be easy to communicate with users that
aren't logged in.
Tim (Enchanter)
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 983
[Wikipedia-l] Most active contributors
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Wed Sep 18 11:09:10 UTC 2002
I wanted to see who is the most active contributor at the moment. To do so,
I counted (or rather, had the database count) the numbers of edits per
registered user.
The outcome can be found at [[Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians]].
1 Maveric149 12995
2 Andre Engels 6287
3 Bryan Derksen 5978
4 AxelBoldt 5802
5 Koyaanis Qatsi 5002
6 Ed Poor 4849
7 Tucci528 4620
8 Jheijmans 4477
9 Brion VIBBER 4069
10 Zoe 3853
11 Eclecticology 3667
12 The Anome 3581
13 Tarquin 3577
14 Vicki Rosenzweig 3273
15 -- April 3155
16 Ellmist 2798
17 PierreAbbat 2654
18 Lee Daniel Crocker 2652
19 Isis 2651
20 The Epopt 2586
Note that in total we are slightly above 130000 edits, so Maveric did almost
10% of all edits.
Of course this is only a very rough measure of how much someone is working
on the project - correcting a typo is an edit just as much as, say, extending
a stub to a three-page article. Still, it seems that Wikipedia should hope and
pray that maveric is not getting a life any time soon...
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 984
[Wikipedia-l] Edit wars
khendon
jason at jasonandali.org.uk
Thu Sep 19 13:32:58 UTC 2002
I'm new here, so this is probably a silly idea; but...
I wonder if a page called something like [[wikipedia:Current edit wars]]
might be a good idea. When somebody spots that they or others are
becoming involved in an edit war, they could put a link on that
page.
That way, "outsiders" with less of a stake in that particular
war might be able to contribute some neutrality.
Just, y'know, a random passing thought.
--
khendon at khendon.org.uk
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 985
[Wikipedia-l] Edit wars
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Thu Sep 19 13:35:41 UTC 2002
At 02:32 PM 9/19/02 +0100, you wrote:
>I'm new here, so this is probably a silly idea; but...
>
>I wonder if a page called something like [[wikipedia:Current edit wars]]
>might be a good idea. When somebody spots that they or others are
>becoming involved in an edit war, they could put a link on that
>page.
>
>That way, "outsiders" with less of a stake in that particular
>war might be able to contribute some neutrality.
>
>Just, y'know, a random passing thought.
>
>khendon at khendon.org.uk
Sounds good, but, you know, dragging in a sysop or someone else with
"authority" is just another tactic. And often they just get caught up in
the same dynamic without knowing the background of the dispute.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 986
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Article def for {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 19 17:25:18 UTC 2002
>mav wrote:
>>Having the default behavior of "Random pages" to be
>>"Random article" would be nice to (that is, only
>>pages that are automatically detected as articles
>>would be displayed).
>
>Not if an article must be 500 bytes--then how do we
>find stubs? Frequently I'll find a stub and add a
>sentence or so to it--that e.g. Tony Hawk has a
>popular series of skateboarding video games on
>various platforms, etc.1
>
>I would always like stubs to turn up through "random
>page."
>
>kq
That's why I said "default behavior". It of course
would be nice for a logged-in user to have the ability
to turn that filter off.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 987
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Article def for {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Sep 19 18:56:50 UTC 2002
mav wrote:
>KQ wrote:
>>I would always like stubs to turn up through "random
>>page."
>>
>>kq
>
>That's why I said "default behavior". It of course
>would be nice for a logged-in user to have the ability
>to turn that filter off.
interesting idea, but I wonder if that wouldn't give a false
impression of the state of wikipedia. Or would that matter?
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 988
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Article def for {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Sep 19 19:02:34 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>mav wrote:
>
>>KQ wrote:
>>
>>>I would always like stubs to turn up through "random
>>>page."
>>>
>>>kq
>>>
>>That's why I said "default behavior". It of course
>>would be nice for a logged-in user to have the ability
>>to turn that filter off.
>>
>interesting idea, but I wonder if that wouldn't give a false
>impression of the state of wikipedia. Or would that matter?
>
Sometimes it seems that people get a little too concerned about public
image. If good things are happening on Wikipedia, the public will catch
on in its own good time.
Let's just accept that some stubs are opportunities waiting for newbies
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 989
[WikiEN-l] TMC account renamed
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Fri Sep 20 20:41:33 UTC 2002
As per Jimbo's request, the user account "Throbbing Monster Cock" on the
English wikipedia has been renamed to "TMC". TMC, you may need to
re-login under the new name.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list
Email: 990
[Wikipedia-l] Block repeated copyright violator?
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sat Sep 21 14:53:17 UTC 2002
I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website
about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 991
[Wikipedia-l] TMC account renamed
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Fri Sep 20 20:41:33 UTC 2002
As per Jimbo's request, the user account "Throbbing Monster Cock" on the
English wikipedia has been renamed to "TMC". TMC, you may need to
re-login under the new name.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 992
[Wikipedia-l] usenet and wikipedia
Giskart
giskart at linux.be
Sat Sep 21 15:11:13 UTC 2002
Some posibel interesting numbers;
Usenet postings that contain the word "wikipedia"
before 01/2001 = 0
01/2001 = 0
02/2001 = 4
03/2001 = 0
04/2001 = 19
05/2001 = 19
06/2001 = 54
07/2001 = 27
08/2001 = 84
09/2001 = 152
10/2001 = 87
11/2001 = 133
12/2001 = 105
01/2002 = 161
02/2002 = 102
03/2002 = 112
04/2002 = 141
05/2002 = 149
06/2002 = 208
07/2002 = 305
08/2002 = 389
(source google)
Giskart
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 993
[Wikipedia-l] Block repeated copyright violator?
Rosa Williams
aprilrosanina at charter.net
Sat Sep 21 16:02:05 UTC 2002
----- Original Message -----
> I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website
> about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
>
> phma
In my opinion? Absolutely they should be blocked. This is not like my
too-quick-on-the-draw proposal of earlier which was - I now think rightly -
thoroughly criticized by the list participants. This situation conforms to
the standard for calling something "vandalism": *repeated* efforts to
insert non-useful (and in this case actively harmful) text.
I mean, we have the blurb about not inserting copyright text in boldface on
each edit page. They had every opportunity to post something on a talk page
if they thought the material was legitimately usable; instead they (I
presume) just chose to repeat it rather than discuss it. I think your action
completly appropriate.
-- April
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 994
[Wikipedia-l] Block repeated copyright violator?
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sat Sep 21 16:00:48 UTC 2002
On 9/21/02 12:02 PM, "Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina at charter.net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website
>> about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
>>
>> phma
>
> In my opinion? Absolutely they should be blocked. This is not like my
> too-quick-on-the-draw proposal of earlier which was - I now think rightly -
> thoroughly criticized by the list participants. This situation conforms to
> the standard for calling something "vandalism": *repeated* efforts to
> insert non-useful (and in this case actively harmful) text.
>
> I mean, we have the blurb about not inserting copyright text in boldface on
> each edit page. They had every opportunity to post something on a talk page
> if they thought the material was legitimately usable; instead they (I
> presume) just chose to repeat it rather than discuss it. I think your action
> completly appropriate.
>
Of course, it's somewhat situational. It depends on what the actual
background of "repeatedly" is. If someone inserts copyrighted material which
is then removed, with notification why (perhaps a mention in Talk), and the
person puts it back, then that's cause for concern.
Blocking is a last-ditch mechanism. Efforts should be made to find other
solutions. If there aren't other solutions, then temporary blocking is
appropriate.
It's important to remember that IP blocking is an imperfect tool. It's not
just the social implications that merit concern when considering whether to
use it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 995
[Wikipedia-l] Block repeated copyright violator?
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sat Sep 21 16:30:24 UTC 2002
On Saturday 21 September 2002 12:00, The Cunctator wrote:
> On 9/21/02 12:02 PM, "Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina at charter.net> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >> I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted
> >> website about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for
> >> that?
> >>
> >> phma
> >
> > In my opinion? Absolutely they should be blocked. This is not like my
> > too-quick-on-the-draw proposal of earlier which was - I now think rightly
> > - thoroughly criticized by the list participants. This situation conforms
> > to the standard for calling something "vandalism": *repeated* efforts to
> > insert non-useful (and in this case actively harmful) text.
> >
> > I mean, we have the blurb about not inserting copyright text in boldface
> > on each edit page. They had every opportunity to post something on a
> > talk page if they thought the material was legitimately usable; instead
> > they (I presume) just chose to repeat it rather than discuss it. I think
> > your action completly appropriate.
>
> Of course, it's somewhat situational. It depends on what the actual
> background of "repeatedly" is. If someone inserts copyrighted material
> which is then removed, with notification why (perhaps a mention in Talk),
> and the person puts it back, then that's cause for concern.
>
> Blocking is a last-ditch mechanism. Efforts should be made to find other
> solutions. If there aren't other solutions, then temporary blocking is
> appropriate.
>
> It's important to remember that IP blocking is an imperfect tool. It's not
> just the social implications that merit concern when considering whether to
> use it.
He put nine articles on [[Workbench]] various versions in five minutes,
preceded by three other articles about Amiga. I replaced several of them with
violation notices, noticed that someone else was erasing the violations, and
blocked the address before putting notices on the rest of them.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 996
[Wikipedia-l] Block repeated copyright violator?
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 21 16:42:31 UTC 2002
I would say yes, given the offence is repeated and the
person has been warned and requested not to insert
material under copyright.
Stephen G.
--- Pierre Abbat <phma at webjockey.net> wrote:
> I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from
> a copyrighted website
> about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be
> blocked for that?
>
> phma
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 997
[Wikipedia-l] Block repeated copyright violator?
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 21 19:03:44 UTC 2002
On Saturday 21 September 2002 08:57 am, you wrote:
> > I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted
> > website about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for
> > that?
> >
> > phma
>
> In my opinion? Absolutely they should be blocked. This is not like my
> too-quick-on-the-draw proposal of earlier which was - I now think rightly -
> thoroughly criticized by the list participants. This situation conforms to
> the standard for calling something "vandalism": *repeated* efforts to
> insert non-useful (and in this case actively harmful) text.
>
> I mean, we have the blurb about not inserting copyright text in boldface on
> each edit page. They had every opportunity to post something on a talk
> page if they thought the material was legitimately usable; instead they (I
> presume) just chose to repeat it rather than discuss it. I think your
> action completly appropriate.
>
> -- April
I agree and have done the very same thing several times in the past. In my
opinion, persistent copyright violations are the /worst/ form of vandalism
since their presence threatens the legitimacy of the entire project and if we
have a lax attitude about it then the project itself may be legally liable.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 998
[Wikipedia-l] Block repeated copyright violator?
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sat Sep 21 21:43:24 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote:
>I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website
>about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
Conceivably.
I think that more tolerance should be given to such people
than to vandals that clearly have no intention of being helpful.
Such a person is more likely to be trying to do good.
And as The Cunctator said, banning is a serious measure.
IMO, it should be done when we've given up hope on somebody.
In this particular case, you seem to have acted well, AFAICT.
Each case needs to be looked at individually, after all.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 999
[Wikipedia-l] Block repeated copyright violator?
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sat Sep 21 22:37:15 UTC 2002
On Saturday 21 September 2002 17:43, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Conceivably.
>
> I think that more tolerance should be given to such people
> than to vandals that clearly have no intention of being helpful.
> Such a person is more likely to be trying to do good.
> And as The Cunctator said, banning is a serious measure.
> IMO, it should be done when we've given up hope on somebody.
>
> In this particular case, you seem to have acted well, AFAICT.
> Each case needs to be looked at individually, after all.
I just checked the IP address. It belongs to ttd.es aka telefonica.es, and
looks up to 213-97-47-62.uc.nombres.ttd.es. Is that a DHCP or static address?
Anyone in Spain who can check?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1000
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 23 04:17:05 UTC 2002
Sorry if this is already in the hopper or (!) has already been done, but
it seems long overdue:
We need a way to compile, based on lists of links (I guess), "Recent
Changes" lists for all articles about a general topic. I think this is
actually a very pressing need that should have been taken care of long
ago. (For the record, I asked for it probably a year ago or more.) The
idea is that we'd be able to maintain lists of all articles on a given
general subject, such as philosophy, and any changes made to any articles
on the subject would show up on the recent changes page for that subject.
Why do we need this? At least one reason is it might help attract experts
to the project. Just speaking for myself, I'm sure I'd spend more time on
Wikipedia if there were a philosophy recent changes page. More
importantly, the recent changes page has *always* been huge. It's now
more cumbersome than ever and makes it hard for people to focus their
attention, which would be a nice option. Lack of the feature also makes
it hard to *monitor* goings-on in a general subject area.
With the relatively new mysql-driven software, this shouldn't be as
difficult as it might have been before. One could compile personal lists
using the "watch this page" feature; what I suggest is that we have
publicly-editable and publicly-viewable lists of the same nature.
(Minor point: in a list of recent changes pages, I think there should be
automatically listed the number of topics that are listed under a given
subject. That'd give us an idea of how much more work there is to be done
in adding to the list.)
I am not committed to any particular version of the feature, by the way.
I'd just like to see it done. I don't want to have to wade through 5000
edits just to see all the recent philosophy edits.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1001
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Feature request
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 23 04:17:49 UTC 2002
P.S. I subscribed just so I could post that. :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1002
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Mon Sep 23 05:49:03 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
> We need a way to compile, based on lists of links (I guess), "Recent
> Changes" lists for all articles about a general topic. I think this is
> actually a very pressing need that should have been taken care of long
> ago. (For the record, I asked for it probably a year ago or more.) The
> idea is that we'd be able to maintain lists of all articles on a given
> general subject, such as philosophy, and any changes made to any articles
> on the subject would show up on the recent changes page for that subject.
We already have a way to do exactly this: make a page that lists the
pages that you have decided are in the topic, and click "Watch links".
You get the interface of Recentchanges, showing only pages that are
linked to from the list.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1003
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 23 05:55:22 UTC 2002
> Sorry if this is already in the hopper or (!) has already been
> done, but it seems long overdue:
> We need a way to compile, based on lists of links (I guess),
> "Recent Changes" lists for all articles about a general topic.
This has been doable since Magnus's software, and still is; the
hard work is just compiling the list of links. Once you have a
page of links, say, "Wikipedia:Major philosophy articles", then
you can just use the "watch links" feature of the sidebar to get
a list of recent changes to all pages linked from it.
Perhaps that feature could be added to, or tweaked to add
filters, etc.; but there's no point in wasting the effort to
do that until it has actual data to work with, and that will
take people creating those link pages.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1004
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Mon Sep 23 08:53:01 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>Sorry if this is already in the hopper or (!) has already been done, but
>it seems long overdue:
>
>We need a way to compile, based on lists of links (I guess), "Recent
>Changes" lists for all articles about a general topic. I think this is
>actually a very pressing need that should have been taken care of long
>ago. (For the record, I asked for it probably a year ago or more.) The
>idea is that we'd be able to maintain lists of all articles on a given
>general subject, such as philosophy, and any changes made to any articles
>on the subject would show up on the recent changes page for that subject.
>
>Why do we need this? At least one reason is it might help attract experts
>to the project. Just speaking for myself, I'm sure I'd spend more time on
>Wikipedia if there were a philosophy recent changes page. More
>importantly, the recent changes page has *always* been huge. It's now
>more cumbersome than ever and makes it hard for people to focus their
>attention, which would be a nice option. Lack of the feature also makes
>it hard to *monitor* goings-on in a general subject area.
>
>With the relatively new mysql-driven software, this shouldn't be as
>difficult as it might have been before. One could compile personal lists
>using the "watch this page" feature; what I suggest is that we have
>publicly-editable and publicly-viewable lists of the same nature.
>
>(Minor point: in a list of recent changes pages, I think there should be
>automatically listed the number of topics that are listed under a given
>subject. That'd give us an idea of how much more work there is to be done
>in adding to the list.)
>
>I am not committed to any particular version of the feature, by the way.
>I'd just like to see it done. I don't want to have to wade through 5000
>edits just to see all the recent philosophy edits.
>
>Larry
>
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>
>
I have some ideas on this:
The problem of finding subject groups is closely related to the problem
of indexing.
The problem with the current link structure is that it is much too
dense: you can get between articles very easily, as Wikipedia is a very
"small world" network. This tends to defeat any attempts at automated
indexing. What is needed is a way of making some pages and links more
visible than others to automatic indexing systems.
We define a new "category" namespace. An article can contain any number
of "category" links, which do not appear in the main body of the
article, but instead in a separate area, like the inter-language links.
There, they link to a placeholder "category" page which can be used to
define and describe the category. (And its "category talk" page can be
used to discuss the category).
Now, all pages that link to a category page "belong" to that category.
Categories are just sets: there can be any number of them, and they can
belong to multiple competing schemes. And categories can belong to
categories, too, allowing for hierarchies and networks of categories to
be created. The presence of categories will make machine indexing much
easier.
Some very basic categories that might be useful for a start:
*[[category:animal]] eg wolf, cat, bird, dinosaur
*[[category:vegetable]] eg potato, cactus
*[[category:person]] eg Isaac Newton, Sherlock Holmes (but see below)
*[[category:time period]] eg 20th century, Feburary, 200 BC, Cenozoic
*[[category:event]] eg Wars of the Roses, 1997 Academy Awards
*[[category:place]] eg Dubrovnik, Alaska, Indian Ocean, Atlantis (but
see below)
*[[category:field of study]] eg Biology, Chemistry, Philosophy, Law,
Accountancy, Civil engineering
** not sure of the best name(s) for this: field of endeavour, subject of
inquiry?
*[[category:fictional]] eg Sherlock Holmes, Atlantis
*[[category:abstraction]] eg Soul, Mind, Sophie Germain prime,
Mathematical set
I'd like to get these very simple categories in place first, as a sort
of "page coloring" experiment. Notice that they are neither complete,
nor framed in the form of a hierarchy: this is not a taxonomy. For
example, "prion" belongs to none of these categories. Perhaps someone
will create a [[category:other lifeform]] page for the Archaea, prions
and viruses.
How to bootstrap the process? My first idea is this:
* assign categories to about 1000 articles by hand
* train a naive Bayesian classifier to recognise each category
* adjust thresholds to make sure that classifications are reasonably
accurate
* machine-classify the entire Wikipedia!
Now, this process will be less than perfect. Some articles will be
mis-classified, others will be missed because the threshold
probabilities were set too high: ie both type I and type II errors.
Mis-classification will not damage any actual articles, it will only
result in errors in machine-generated indexes. But at this point, manual
editing will take over.
New articles can be machine-classified once they reach say 250
characters, using a Bayesian classifier that is trained on the corpus as
a whole: and again, once they have been machine-classified once, they
are then left alone thereafter.
Now, at this point, we may not need to create a "philosophy" or
"chemistry" category. Instead, we can just note that these are
[[category:field of study|fields of study]] and hence that pages that
link to them, or are linked from them, "belong" to them in some sense.
Similar treatment can be done for time periods.
I'm not 100% sure how this would work, but I think that a workable
mechanism could be evolved, given the initial category coloring.
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1005
[Wikipedia-l] Block repeated copyright violator?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Sep 23 10:31:47 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels wrote:
> >I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website
> >about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
>
> Conceivably.
>
> I think that more tolerance should be given to such people
> than to vandals that clearly have no intention of being helpful.
> Such a person is more likely to be trying to do good.
> And as The Cunctator said, banning is a serious measure.
> IMO, it should be done when we've given up hope on somebody.
I think Toby is striking the right balance here. Sometimes people will
just not understand copyright law, or they will make a mistake. They are
probably benevolent, trying to help, and we want to encourage them. But
if they won't listen, well, let's not waste too much time on them.
> In this particular case, you seem to have acted well, AFAICT.
> Each case needs to be looked at individually, after all.
Absolutely.
The type of person who inserts "fart" randomly in pages is not the type of
person we need to try very hard to "win over". But someone who posts a
copyrighted article might just not understand the problem with it.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1006
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Mon Sep 23 12:57:56 UTC 2002
This is what I suggested a few weeks ago, almost to the letter, but the
discussion vanished slowly into the Internet ether...
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1007
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Axel Boldt
axelboldt at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 23 15:39:54 UTC 2002
--- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> > Sorry if this is already in the hopper or (!) has
> already been
> > done, but it seems long overdue:
> > We need a way to compile, based on lists of links
> (I guess),
> > "Recent Changes" lists for all articles about a
> general topic.
>
> This has been doable since Magnus's software, and
> still is; the
> hard work is just compiling the list of links.
Right. Here's the problem. I could easily spend the
next weekend compiling an [[Alphabetical list of
mathematics articles]]. This will allow me to cut down
on my time by simply doing a "Watch links" on that
page every morning. Cool. I update the list by
monitoring special:Newpages occasionally. Nice. Except
we need the same for all other major fields. Unless
you have somebody really active, these lists will
become obsolete and thus useless really soon. See
[[Biographical Listing]] for example. Once the list is
out of date, somebody needs to spend another weekend.
And you never know whether the list is out of date or
not, unless you have just spent a weekend on it.
I still believe that all of this can and should be
done automatically, by tracing link paths from the
main page.
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1008
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Mon Sep 23 16:06:09 UTC 2002
I think the thing to do is to test out the current capabilities as best
we can. To that effect, I'm setting up the "List of Philosophical
Topics" as a test case. The list is by no means complete, and some of
the links aren't disambiguated properly, but it is 1) a long list
(useful for testing performance issues) and 2) it already exists, and
helps Larry out directly with his current request.
Even if this shows that the current software solution doesn't provide
exactly what we need, it should at least help us to be more clear about
what features a better solution would possess.
Mark Christensen
-----Original Message-----
From: Axel Boldt [mailto:axelboldt at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:40 AM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Feature request
--- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> > Sorry if this is already in the hopper or (!) has
> already been
> > done, but it seems long overdue:
> > We need a way to compile, based on lists of links
> (I guess),
> > "Recent Changes" lists for all articles about a
> general topic.
>
> This has been doable since Magnus's software, and
> still is; the
> hard work is just compiling the list of links.
Right. Here's the problem. I could easily spend the
next weekend compiling an [[Alphabetical list of
mathematics articles]]. This will allow me to cut down
on my time by simply doing a "Watch links" on that
page every morning. Cool. I update the list by
monitoring special:Newpages occasionally. Nice. Except
we need the same for all other major fields. Unless
you have somebody really active, these lists will
become obsolete and thus useless really soon. See [[Biographical
Listing]] for example. Once the list is out of date, somebody needs to
spend another weekend. And you never know whether the list is out of
date or not, unless you have just spent a weekend on it.
I still believe that all of this can and should be
done automatically, by tracing link paths from the
main page.
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1009
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Sep 23 17:45:49 UTC 2002
On 9/23/02 11:39 AM, "Axel Boldt" <axelboldt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I still believe that all of this can and should be
> done automatically, by tracing link paths from the
> main page.
All that needs to be done is to automatically convert the links on the main
page to the special Watch Links equivalents.
I hacked up an example at [[User:The Cunctator/ByTopic]]. It's pretty
useful. Though from review the Watch Links page needs to have the recent
changes of the page itself as well as what links to it, I think.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1010
[Wikipedia-l] Me a vandal? Than't rich
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 23 18:42:11 UTC 2002
This is idiotic. All this wasted effort over a damn 35
byte useless microstub. And Fred's comment that what I
and others have done is somehow vandalism is way over
the top: On the day in question I spent 2 and a half
freaken hours going through the new pages list fixing
dozens of stubs, half of which were on inane cartoon
characters, and wikified, NPOVed and added content to
many more short and full-blown articles. I also found
several copyright violations and added those to the
deletion queue. I do this type of thing every several
days. I'm sure they must have, but I don't recall the
last time Fred or Cunc did this.
And yes, I also deleted about a dozen micro-stubs
which /did not/ in my opinion meet the policy
definition of "at least a decent definition". The
article Cunc is battering about was the best of the
bunch -- that's why I included the entire text in the
deletion summary (that way if somebody disagreed then
they could recreate it). There is furthermore no
requirement that all pages that are to be deleted must
be on the votes for deletion page before they are
deleted -- the policy only states that if there is
some question, then post.
Vandal indeed. I'm sick of this whole episode. And
Cunc don't be surprised if I begin to ignore your
posts to my talk page in the same why you ignore my
post to your talk page (thinking of the tribute
article comments here).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS I get the list on a digest, so if there was an
apology by Fred or if Fred misspoke then I apologize
for reacting in this manor.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1011
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 23 20:18:24 UTC 2002
Great minds thinking alike, apparently. Sorry, Magnus, I didn't know you
had suggested it or I would have added "me too."
Lee and Brion said that we already have a way of doing this. I see what
you guys mean, but it would be nice if these lists were linked to from a
central location, preferably the main Recent Changes page. Maybe they
could even be in a separate namespace or something, as Neil Harris
suggests.
Again, I'm not suggesting any particular details; I just think it's
something we need to think about more. I might start putting together
a list of philosophy links (or rather adapt the old one(s)), but I don't
want to feel like I'm wasting my time.
--Larry
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Magnus Manske wrote:
> This is what I suggested a few weeks ago, almost to the letter, but the
> discussion vanished slowly into the Internet ether...
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1012
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Sep 23 21:39:04 UTC 2002
(Wikitech-l: this is more on automatic subject classification, which Axel
brought up recently on Wikipedia-l.)
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Axel Boldt wrote:
[snip excellent comments that I agree with]
> I still believe that all of this can and should be
> done automatically, by tracing link paths from the
> main page.
I'm going to repeat some of what you've said earlier, adding my own
perspective. I really hope some programmers pursue this--they needn't ask
anyone's permission. The proof's in the pudding.
If automatic categorization could be done, and it sounds very plausible to
me, it would be *far* superior to a hand-maintained list of subject area
links. And incredibly useful, too.
OK, the following will reiterate some of the earlier discussion.
Presumably, nearly every page on Wikipedia can be reached from nearly
every other page. (There are orphans; and there are pages that do not
link to any other pages, though other pages link to them.)
This suggests that we can basically assign a number--using *some*
algorithm (not necessarily any one in particular: here is where
programmers can be creative)--giving the "closeness" of a page to all the
listed subjects. (This is very much like the Kevin Bacon game, of course,
and the "six degrees of separation" phenomenon.)
The question whether a *useful* algorithm can be stated is interesting
from a theoretical point of view. As I understand it, the suggestion is
that there is a simple and reliable (but how reliable?) algorithm, such
that, given simply a list of all the links in Wikipedia (viz., the source
page and destination page), and a list of subject categories, we can
reliably sort all pages into their proper categories.
It will not do to say, "There are obvious counterexamples, so let's not
even try." We can live with some slop. This is Wikipedia! We could even
fix errors by hand (ad hoc corrections are possible; why not?). As far as
I'm concerned, the real question is, once we try *various* algorithms,
what's the highest reliability we can actually generate? I'll bet it'll
be reasonably high, certainly high enough to be quite useful.
Here's an attempt at expressing an algorithm:
For a given page P (e.g., [[Plato's allegory of the cave]]), if the
average number of clicks (not backtracking to any page already reached--
otherwise you deal with infinite regresses) needed to reach P from the
subject page S (e.g., [[Philosophy]]) through all possible links between P
and S (or, perhaps, all possible links below a certain benchmark number?)
is lower than the average number of clicks need to reach P from any other
subject page, then P is "about" S.
The algorithm could be augmented in useful ways. In case of ties, or near
ties, a page could be listed as under multiple subjects. I have no idea
if this algorithm is correct, but that doesn't matter--it's just an
example. If you think harder and longer, I'm sure you'll think of a
better one.
This would be fascinating, I'm sure, for the programmers. Can't we just
take the question about how long processing will require as a constraint
on the algorithm rather than as a knock-down argument that it's not
feasible? The *exercise* is to find (and implement!) an algorithm that
*is* feasible. We don't even have to do this using Wikipedia's server, if
it would be too great of a load; anyone could download the tarball and
process it. You could do a cron job once a day, compile the 40-odd
"subject numbers" for each article in Wikipedia, and sort articles into
subject groups (in some cases, multiple subject groups for a given
article--why not?). From there we could use scripts already written to
create the many "recent changes" pages.
I really, really, really want to see [[Philosophy Recent Changes]]. We
desperately need pages like that, and this is one of the best possible
ways we have of getting them. It's worth actually exploring.
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1013
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Mon Sep 23 21:37:40 UTC 2002
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 09:53:01AM +0100, Neil Harris wrote:
> >
> I have some ideas on this:
>
> The problem of finding subject groups is closely related to the problem
> of indexing.
>
> The problem with the current link structure is that it is much too
> dense: you can get between articles very easily, as Wikipedia is a very
> "small world" network. This tends to defeat any attempts at automated
> indexing. What is needed is a way of making some pages and links more
> visible than others to automatic indexing systems.
Agreed so far. But instead of having automatic assignments of categories
I would suggest to have a small number of perhaps 20 major categories:
- Philosophy
- Geography
- Biography
- Mathematics
- History
- Physics
- Biology
- Theology
- Mythology
- ....
and to have those as checkboxes on the edit-page of the article.
An author can easily categorize his article. Non-categorized
articles can be spotted by a Special:uncategorized page.
An article can have multiple categories checked, an article on
Beethoven would appear in Music as well as in Biography.
Recent Changes might be extended to provide a filter so Larry
can look for his Philosophy articles.
Regards,
JeLuF
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1014
[Wikipedia-l] Me a vandal? Than't rich
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Mon Sep 23 22:07:09 UTC 2002
>This is idiotic. All this wasted effort over a damn 35
>byte useless microstub. And Fred's comment that what I
>and others have done is somehow vandalism is way over
>the top:
>-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
>PS I get the list on a digest, so if there was an
>apology by Fred or if Fred misspoke then I apologize
>for reacting in this manor.
No misunderstanding and no apology. But I do think putting deleted material
in history should solve the problem. As to evalating exactly what you have
done, that is your responsibility, Life is just too short to follow someone
around.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1015
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Sep 24 09:45:15 UTC 2002
Jens Frank wrote:
> Agreed so far. But instead of having automatic assignments of categories
> I would suggest to have a small number of perhaps 20 major categories:
That's _wayyy_ too limited. I want to be able to have, say, a category
of California-related articles so I can keep track of the pedia effort
on my home state; such as this manually tossed-together list:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Topic_index_California
> Recent Changes might be extended to provide a filter so Larry
> can look for his Philosophy articles.
Automatic or semi-automatic maintenance of lists for using the existing
"Watch links" function is the main thing needed, as well as a
centralized location for them. (Wikipedia:Categories?) Having a magic
namespace, ie putting pseudo-links like [[Category:Philosophy]] or
[[Category:California]] into articles, is one possible way of sourcing
the lists, though I'm not sure it's the ideal way.
It might also be interesting to "combine filters"; ie, show everything
linked to from the California list _and_ everything from the Philosophy
list (or only those linked to from both...)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1016
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is not Usenet (was Re: Re: Policy)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 28 21:20:20 UTC 2002
On Saturday 28 September 2002 05:33 am, The Cunctato wrote:
> This is where you're wrong. In general, policy is decided by
editing the
> policy pages. If there's contention, then it moves to the talk pages.
> Only in the rare case where this is somehow "dangerous" (because the
> policy has sweeping and immediate consequence) or the process breaks
> down horribly does it need to go to the mailing list.
Where is this written? Policy has to be decided first before being changed.
Period. I think you are pretty much alone in your assertion that policy
can be changed unilaterally and then must be challenged if somebody
disagrees. This may seem logical to you because you are so accustomed to
confrontation (being an old Usenet guy) but for others that just want to work
in harmony under a consistent (yet evolving) set of guidelines, this is not
the way to do things.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1017
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is not Usenet (was Re: Re: Policy)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Sep 30 15:33:30 UTC 2002
On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 17:20, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> On Saturday 28 September 2002 05:33 am, The Cunctato wrote:
> > This is where you're wrong. In general, policy is decided by
> editing the
> > policy pages. If there's contention, then it moves to the talk pages.
> > Only in the rare case where this is somehow "dangerous" (because the
> > policy has sweeping and immediate consequence) or the process breaks
> > down horribly does it need to go to the mailing list.
>
> Where is this written? Policy has to be decided first before being changed.
> Period. I think you are pretty much alone in your assertion that policy
> can be changed unilaterally and then must be challenged if somebody
> disagrees. This may seem logical to you because you are so accustomed to
> confrontation (being an old Usenet guy) but for others that just want to work
> in harmony under a consistent (yet evolving) set of guidelines, this is not
> the way to do things.
Ignoring the explicit policy (or creatively interpreting it) is
equivalent to making unilateral policy decisions. This isn't about
confrontation. The mailing list is a lot more like Usenet than Wiki
pages are.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1018
[Wikipedia-l] the OsmosisTwo pest
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Oct 1 00:45:46 UTC 2002
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=128.193.88.12
this guy keeps making stupid comments on the OsmosisTwo page (which, as
far as Mav & I can tell was created in error in the first place)
i've checked his edits: his most contentious seems to be on [[gun
politics]] , butI'm not entirely sure about, being a Brit.
it's close to 2 in the morning here so i'm not entirely sure if he's
harmlessly pratting about, or winding us up on purpose, or practising
for some real hardcore vandalism.
i'm tempted to ban this person, but I could be prejudiced by the silly
little edit war on OsmosisTwo.
this is one to keep a watch on, at least
tarquin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1019
[Wikipedia-l] View and restore deleted pages
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Oct 1 06:55:14 UTC 2002
On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 02:02, Brion VIBBER wrote:
> I've added a (presently for sysops only) Special:Undelete, which should
> appear as "View and restore deleted pages" in the special pages list. It
> lists the archived deleted pages (the majority of which are pure drivel
> and should be flushed at some point), and you can view the archived
> pages and their histories and optionally restore them to life.
Thanks. This is pretty amazing. Honestly. A few suggestions:
a) Pages with slashes seem to defeat the software.
b) Sorting power! Sort by date of deletion, sort by # of revisions, sort
by article length. Yay!
c) hide the leading ":".
By the way, what happens if you try to restore a page that has been
recreated?
Again, really great.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1020
[Wikipedia-l] the OsmosisTwo pest
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Tue Oct 1 08:11:26 UTC 2002
> http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=128.193.88.12
>
> this guy keeps making stupid comments on the OsmosisTwo page (which, as
> far as Mav & I can tell was created in error in the first place)
> i've checked his edits: his most contentious seems to be on [[gun
> politics]] , butI'm not entirely sure about, being a Brit.
Checking his changes, I find that there are indeed some very doubtful ones -
getting into an edit war on [[gun politics]], putting in POV under the claim
of NPOV in [[Bicycling]], and vandalizing other people's comments on
[[Talk:History of the Soviet Union]].
> it's close to 2 in the morning here so i'm not entirely sure if he's
> harmlessly pratting about, or winding us up on purpose, or practising
> for some real hardcore vandalism.
I do get the impression that it's meant quite serious - I think that it's
someone who actually wants to help Wikipedia, but just needs to be taught
the way NPOV is practised around here. That if there is something one does
not agree with, one does not replace it with one's own opinion, but tries
to find a middle road.
> i'm tempted to ban this person, but I could be prejudiced by the silly
> little edit war on OsmosisTwo.
> this is one to keep a watch on, at least
That's for sure. However, banning does not help - the IP is dynamic. The
same person also appears as 128.193.88.28 and 128.193.88.60. Would it be
possible to change the search function for user contributions so that
it is possible to get all user contributions from 128.193.88.anything?
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1021
[Wikipedia-l] the OsmosisTwo pest
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Tue Oct 1 12:51:37 UTC 2002
>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=128.19
>3.88.12
>
>this guy keeps making stupid comments on the OsmosisTwo page (which, as
>far as Mav & I can tell was created in error in the first place)
>i've checked his edits: his most contentious seems to be on [[gun
>politics]] , butI'm not entirely sure about, being a Brit.
>
>it's close to 2 in the morning here so i'm not entirely sure if he's
>harmlessly pratting about, or winding us up on purpose, or practising
>for some real hardcore vandalism.
>
>i'm tempted to ban this person, but I could be prejudiced by the silly
>little edit war on OsmosisTwo.
>this is one to keep a watch on, at least
>
>tarquin
It seems personal to you, starting with [[gun politics]]. He was apparently
there trying to create a simpler restatement of the issues that read a bit
easier, at the cost of leaving out some information. A worthy goal, but
rather annoying. Your response, to leave both the wordy list and his new
elegant list in, and the remark, "are you happy now?", seem a bit snappy as
applied to someone who had never edited an article before. I would say this
contributor got off on the wrong foot and things have progressed downhill
from there. Perhaps not focusing on him would do more good than "watching"
him.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1022
[Wikipedia-l] the OsmosisTwo pest
Khendon
jason at jasonandali.org.uk
Tue Oct 1 12:04:31 UTC 2002
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 05:51:37AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote:
> >http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=128.19
> >3.88.12
> >
> It seems personal to you, starting with [[gun politics]]. He was apparently
> there trying to create a simpler restatement of the issues that read a bit
> easier, at the cost of leaving out some information. A worthy goal, but
> rather annoying. Your response, to leave both the wordy list and his new
> elegant list in, and the remark, "are you happy now?", seem a bit snappy as
> applied to someone who had never edited an article before. I would say this
> contributor got off on the wrong foot and things have progressed downhill
> from there. Perhaps not focusing on him would do more good than "watching"
> him.
Contributions like:
It is duplicitious to claim neutrality on this issue, for to even
consider competing viewpoints is to grant them a credibility that
they do not deserve.
don't constitute "worthy but misguided" to my mind...
--
Khendon (Jason Williams)
khendon at khendon.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1023
[Wikipedia-l] the OsmosisTwo pest
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Oct 1 13:34:22 UTC 2002
Fred Bauder wrote:
>>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=128.19
>>3.88.12
>>
>>this guy keeps making stupid comments on the OsmosisTwo page (which, as
>>far as Mav & I can tell was created in error in the first place)
>>i've checked his edits: his most contentious seems to be on [[gun
>>politics]] , butI'm not entirely sure about, being a Brit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>It seems personal to you, starting with [[gun politics]]. He was apparently
>there trying to create a simpler restatement of the issues that read a bit
>easier, at the cost of leaving out some information. A worthy goal, but
>rather annoying. Your response, to leave both the wordy list and his new
>elegant list in, and the remark, "are you happy now?", seem a bit snappy as
>applied to someone who had never edited an article before. I would say this
>contributor got off on the wrong foot and things have progressed downhill
>from there. Perhaps not focusing on him would do more good than "watching"
>him.
>
I'm inclined to agree in the light of day.
You should have seen his comments on OsmosisTwo, he kept editing that
page to say "tarquin is part of the cabal and wants to delete OsmosisTwo".
Annoying.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1024
[Wikipedia-l] the OsmosisTwo pest
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Tue Oct 1 15:00:10 UTC 2002
>Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=128.
>>>19
>>>3.88.12
>>>
>>>this guy keeps making stupid comments on the OsmosisTwo page (which, as
>>>far as Mav & I can tell was created in error in the first place)
>>>i've checked his edits: his most contentious seems to be on [[gun
>>>politics]] , butI'm not entirely sure about, being a Brit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It seems personal to you, starting with [[gun politics]]. He was apparently
>>there trying to create a simpler restatement of the issues that read a bit
>>easier, at the cost of leaving out some information. A worthy goal, but
>>rather annoying. Your response, to leave both the wordy list and his new
>>elegant list in, and the remark, "are you happy now?", seem a bit snappy as
>>applied to someone who had never edited an article before. I would say this
>>contributor got off on the wrong foot and things have progressed downhill
>>from there. Perhaps not focusing on him would do more good than "watching"
>>him.
>>
>I'm inclined to agree in the light of day.
>You should have seen his comments on OsmosisTwo, he kept editing that
>page to say "tarquin is part of the cabal and wants to delete OsmosisTwo".
>Annoying.
And wrong-headed besides...
It's probably not good to characterize him as vermin, however (pest).
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1025
[Wikipedia-l] the OsmosisTwo pest
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Oct 1 15:28:15 UTC 2002
Fred Bauder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm inclined to agree in the light of day.
>>You should have seen his comments on OsmosisTwo, he kept editing that
>>page to say "tarquin is part of the cabal and wants to delete OsmosisTwo".
>>Annoying.
>>
>>
>
>And wrong-headed besides...
>
>It's probably not good to characterize him as vermin, however (pest).
>
>Fred
>
That could be a language difference. over here, calling someone a "pest"
is not very strong. It implies someone who is mildly irritating, not
damaging or harmful.
His repeated edits of OsmosisTwo, despite my invitation to discuss the
matter on the talk page qualifies him / her.
in the end I left a subject messgae on the subject page itself,
explaining that I didn't find his actions funny, but that s/he would be
welcome as a contributor, providing s/he kept in mind that the 'pedia is
a serious project. :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1026
[Wikipedia-l] Propects for future growth
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Oct 1 17:14:50 UTC 2002
Can a few hundred Wikipedians make a world-class encyclopedia? Will all of human knowledge fit on Jimbo's server farm? Is there a way to keep such a massive collection free of vandalism yet freely changeable?
We'd like to attract and keep bona fide experts (as opposed to slap-happy amateur enthusiasts such as me). Yet historians and scientists with positions in academia and respectable records in publishing still seem to be staying away in droves. One expert on European history even left the project, because we could not maintain a congenial environment. (I fault myself as well.)
Surely the best writers are not concerned only with money. There might be some way to get an expert to "donate" some of their work, if they hold the copyright themselves or can got their university or publisher to agree. Such donations would be excellent starting points for freely-edited articles. And of course, if the original work is superb a link or mention of it would naturally remain embedded in the wiki article.
Much as I admire the spirit of pure voluntarism, I must say that Larry is right about the need for paid staff. We already have a sponsor for the server and bandwidth, and although the physical expenses might be dropping I haven't heard anyone volunteering to take that burden off of Jimbo's shoulders.
Suppose each of us kicks in, say $10 a month -- or even $50 a month -- towards staff salaries. (It must be clearly settled beforehand what extra privileges subscribers would get: my vote would be for NONE WHATSOEVER.) For example, if twenty of us give $50 a month and fifty of us give $20 a month, and maybe a hundred more give $10 a month, that would be around $3,000 a month. If Jimbo could match that (not that he should, he's already done and is doing plenty) -- we would have $48,000 a year for staff.
What do we need paid staff to do? Primarily, reach out to the academic and professional community and seek their help. With a modest budget for travel to conferences, or for payments to copyright holders, such a leader could bring in some very high quality material.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1027
[Wikipedia-l] Spanish Wikipedia; Negotiation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Oct 2 11:15:32 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> 6) State that we have no intention of ever removing es.wikipedia.com but we
> could point that URL to the Seville server is they wish to stay on that
> server.
I don't think this is acceptable. Without sever unity, there is no
way for us to enforce openness. If they start to ban people for
political reasons, forming a 'cabal', we would be powerless to stop
them.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1028
[Wikipedia-l] Spanish Wikipedia; Negotiation
Axel Boldt
axelboldt at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 2 15:34:24 UTC 2002
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > 6) State that we have no intention of ever removing
es.wikipedia.com > > but we could point that URL to the Seville server
is they wish to
> > stay on that server.
>
> I don't think this is acceptable. Without sever unity, there is no
> way for us to enforce openness. If they start to ban people for
> political reasons, forming a 'cabal', we would be powerless to stop
> them.
In other words: we want them back on our US server, so that we, and not
they, are in control. We know who should be banned, but we don't trust
them with such decisions. Maybe we should say that clearly at the
beginning; it will shorten the discussion considerably.
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1029
[Wikipedia-l] AntiWikipedic -- was "the OsmosisTwo pest"
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Wed Oct 2 21:15:48 UTC 2002
The person who has been repeatedly creating the pages "wikipedic" &
"antiwikipedic" is this same OsmosisTwo person.
Take a look at the deletion log: he keeps creating it again & again.
According to the Vandalism in Progress page, LDC has banned him, but
he's back with another IP.
come back 24, all is forgiven!!!
tarquin wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm inclined to agree in the light of day.
>>> You should have seen his comments on OsmosisTwo, he kept editing that
>>> page to say "tarquin is part of the cabal and wants to delete
>>> OsmosisTwo".
>>> Annoying.
>>>
>>
>>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1030
[Wikipedia-l] AntiWikipedic -- was "the OsmosisTwo pest"
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Oct 2 21:57:54 UTC 2002
>The person who has been repeatedly creating the pages "wikipedic" &
>"antiwikipedic" is this same OsmosisTwo person.
>Take a look at the deletion log: he keeps creating it again & again.
>According to the Vandalism in Progress page, LDC has banned him, but
>he's back with another IP.
Brion, I, April, and possibly other sysops have all blocked
him at one dynamic IP or another, but he seems more persistent
than the usual kid. If he doesn't give up soon we may have to
escalate, but I still hold out some small hope of reform.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1031
[Wikipedia-l] trolling
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 3 07:43:06 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 02 October 2002 11:12 pm, James Zitzmann wrote:
> wiki pedista is gay.
If you don't have anything productive to say, then don't say anything at all.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1032
[Wikipedia-l] trolling
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Oct 3 10:45:44 UTC 2002
I asked him what he was doing, and I will take him off the mailing
list if he does this again.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 October 2002 11:12 pm, James Zitzmann wrote:
> > wiki pedista is gay.
>
> If you don't have anything productive to say, then don't say anything at all.
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> From root at monica.bomis.com (Cron Daemon) Wed Oct 2 23:51:37 2002
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1033
[Wikipedia-l] trolling
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Oct 3 15:06:55 UTC 2002
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 October 2002 11:12 pm, James Zitzmann wrote:
> > wiki pedista is gay.
>
> If you don't have anything productive to say, then don't say anything
> at all.
Actually, I think that goes for quite a few messages I've seen lately.
Hoping that this, on the other hand, is productive,
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1034
[Wikipedia-l] Spanish Wikipedia; Negotiation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Oct 4 10:02:00 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels wrote:
> When we get a nonprofit set up, will you maintain ultimate control?
The nonprofit will maintain ultimate control, which means that the
board of directors will maintain ultimate control. I will be on the
board of directors, of course. And I will pack the board of directors
with people who agree with me about NPOV, etc.
My goal is that the things I regard as of fundamental importance are
preserved. It would be a great tragedy to me to have spent all this
money to jump start my vision, only to see it corrupted by poor
choices about a nonprofit organization.
Suppose I turn everything over to the nonprofit and I'm immediately
outvoted and new policies are insitituted to create a hierarchical
system with a controlling cabal with a particular political agenda.
That would be tragic to me.
So, for obvious reasons, I will carefully set up the organization so
that my control of these fundamentals is continued, at least by proxy.
(I.E., I won't be inviting '24' or Helga onto the board of directors!)
> Or will the nonprofit raise funds and pay you for server usage?
There will be no need to pay me for server usage for the foreseeable
future. Probably I will not be buying any more $3000 servers.
Probably.
> If you won't maintain ultimate control anymore, then that would be
> the time to approach EL.
That's probably right. But they will have to understand that the
nonprofit would exercise ultimate control, which indirectly means me.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1035
[Wikipedia-l] DW
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Sat Oct 12 21:46:46 UTC 2002
As some of you may have seen from the Recent Changes page, I've been
involved in an edit war with user DW (also appearing as various IPs
starting with 209) over [[List of famous Canadians]]. DW, who did most
of the initial work on the page wants to keep off Canadians that in his
eyes are not famous. Most of the other editors (among others Camembert,
GWO, and later I) argued that famous is a very subjective adjective, and
that there is no reason not to add anybody that also has an article on
Wikipedia (just having a bunch of empty links is less useful, except
maybe for some very famous persons that lack such an entry).
DW then started to vow he would keep reverting any changes regarding a
Canadian music group (Be Good Tanyas). This evolved into name calling
(especially directed at me), eventually in calling me fascist, etc. etc
(see the talk page and edit history for some samples). I'm getting tired
of dealing with DW, but I don't want to resort to banning or blocking of
the page - not only would that make me a "fascist" (well, at least in
DW's eyes), but he has made really valuable contributions in the past,
and I don't want to scare away good editors.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1036
[Wikipedia-l] Re: DW
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 13 00:12:48 UTC 2002
On Saturday 12 October 2002 04:00 pm, wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com wrote:
> As some of you may have seen from the Recent Changes page, I've been
> involved in an edit war with user DW (also appearing as various IPs
> starting with 209) over [[List of famous Canadians]]. DW, who did most
> of the initial work on the page wants to keep off Canadians that in his
> eyes are not famous. Most of the other editors (among others Camembert,
> GWO, and later I) argued that famous is a very subjective adjective, and
> that there is no reason not to add anybody that also has an article on
> Wikipedia (just having a bunch of empty links is less useful, except
> maybe for some very famous persons that lack such an entry).
>
> DW then started to vow he would keep reverting any changes regarding a
> Canadian music group (Be Good Tanyas). This evolved into name calling
> (especially directed at me), eventually in calling me fascist, etc. etc
> (see the talk page and edit history for some samples). I'm getting tired
> of dealing with DW, but I don't want to resort to banning or blocking of
> the page - not only would that make me a "fascist" (well, at least in
> DW's eyes), but he has made really valuable contributions in the past,
> and I don't want to scare away good editors.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeronimo
Others have complained about DW/209 before and his abusive language and
complete failure to offer supporing evidence for his accusations is not
acceptable IMO. He has already been told about our etiquette policy so I say
if he doesn't stop then there should be a temporary block after a warning. I
have seen no evidence to support the accusations that Jeronimo is "racist",
"fascist", a "moron" or even "anti-American". Also refering to Jeronimo or as
"hesheit" or the "fake Jeronimo" is over the top. We needn't encourage this
type of abuse by allowing it to continue indefinitely (the occassion outburst
is fine but DW/209 is showing a pattern of behavior).
BTW, this is the same DW who spewed similar abuse at JHK and demanded that she
present her credentials. It is my understanding that this was one of the
reasons why she left.
See;
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:J_Hofmann_Kemp&oldid=200626
Look for "Credentials" and also "Call to the Militia"
I removed the credentials by JHK's request.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1037
[Wikipedia-l] DW
Derek Ross
derekross at fisheracre.freeserve.co.uk
Sun Oct 13 00:39:35 UTC 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeroen Heijmans" <j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] DW
> As some of you may have seen from the Recent Changes page, I've been
> involved in an edit war with user DW (also appearing as various IPs
> starting with 209) over [[List of famous Canadians]]. DW, who did most
> of the initial work on the page wants to keep off Canadians that in his
> eyes are not famous. Most of the other editors (among others Camembert,
> GWO, and later I) argued that famous is a very subjective adjective, and
> that there is no reason not to add anybody that also has an article on
> Wikipedia (just having a bunch of empty links is less useful, except
> maybe for some very famous persons that lack such an entry).
>
> DW then started to vow he would keep reverting any changes regarding a
> Canadian music group (Be Good Tanyas). This evolved into name calling
> (especially directed at me), eventually in calling me fascist, etc. etc
> (see the talk page and edit history for some samples). I'm getting tired
> of dealing with DW, but I don't want to resort to banning or blocking of
> the page - not only would that make me a "fascist" (well, at least in
> DW's eyes), but he has made really valuable contributions in the past,
> and I don't want to scare away good editors.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
How about this.
Create a page called List of notable Canadians
Copy the contents of List of famous Canadians to it
Find all links to List of famous Canadians
Change them to point to List of notable Canadians
Then let DW do what he likes with the list of famous Canadians. It sounds
like he's got a bad case of "ownership" for that particular page title. If
he's abusive and starts making ad hominen attacks, you should either point
out that they are simple insults in an NPOV fashion or ignore him completely
as if he were a troll.
Cheers
Derek
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1038
[Wikipedia-l] DW
Matt M.
matt_mcl at sympatico.ca
Sun Oct 13 01:13:52 UTC 2002
I'm getting tired
> of dealing with DW, but I don't want to resort to banning or blocking of
> the page - not only would that make me a "fascist" (well, at least in
> DW's eyes), but he has made really valuable contributions in the past,
> and I don't want to scare away good editors.
I know what you're talking about - see the debacle in [[Talk:Quebec]]. IMHO, the person has no concept of NPOV and is very staunchly convinced of his own righteousness and omniscience. He is continually making snotty comments about virtually anything and seems obsessed with my sexual orientation and that of others. I'm just a little bit tired of him but unfortunately I'm not sure what to do about it. (Mercifully, he seems to have lost interest in [[Quebec]].)
Best,
Matt M. (Montrealais)
Montreal, Quebec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1039
[Wikipedia-l] Re: DW
Lee Pilich
pilich at btopenworld.com
Sun Oct 13 01:57:24 UTC 2002
[just tried to send this from the wrong email address, apologies if it ends
up on the list twice]
At 16:00 12/10/2002 -0700, Jeronimo wrote:
>As some of you may have seen from the Recent Changes page, I've been
>involved in an edit war with user DW (also appearing as various IPs
>starting with 209) over [[List of famous Canadians]]. DW, who did most
>of the initial work on the page wants to keep off Canadians that in his
>eyes are not famous.
<snip>
DW is not the most affable chap in the world. To me, he comes across as
arrogant and self-important, and is wasting a lot of time at the Canadians
article. His comments suggesting that he is one of the few people
contributing useful content and that everyone else is out to sabotage his
wonderful prose do not sit well with me. And he has a history - he
questioned naming conventions in his usual charming way at
[[Talk:Henry_I_of_France]] and seems to have upset J Hofmann Kemp quite
seriously (see her archived talk at
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:J_Hofmann_Kemp&oldid=200626
if interested). Whether that had some effect on her deciding to leave, I
don't know, but it seems very possible.
As you say, he's also contributed a decent amount of good material,
although I don't have the historical knowledge to say whether his
historical articles are NPOV (JHK seemed to think some of them were not).
There also seems to be a copyright question over his article on [[Mavis
Gallant]]. But, all that said, I'm sure most of his contributions are fine,
and he does seem to have made quite a lot of them in the short time he's
been here.
My personal feeling is this: he's antagonistic, rude and disrespectful, and
he doesn't seem able to entertain the possibility that he might be wrong
about anything. But this is not enough for a ban. At the moment, at least,
he seems only to be causing trouble at the Canadians page, which is
something to be grateful for, anyway.
Probably he will become frustrated that nobody else wants to do things his
way, and he'll leave. Indeed, as I write this, he's threatening to leave
the project at the Canadians talk page. I don't like to see anybody leave
the project if they've added good content, and I'd much rather he settled
down and at least *tried* to get on with people, but if he went it would be
blessed relief.
This is my first post to the list; I'd've liked it to be about something a
bit more cheery, but there it is. I'm on the digest, so I've not seen any
other responses to Jeronimo's post - apologies if I'm duplicating stuff.
LP (camembert)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1040
[Wikipedia-l] DW again
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Mon Oct 14 22:15:27 UTC 2002
Today, DW returned to the discussion at [[List of famous Canadians]].
Even though several others have jumped in to calm him down and also
several supporters of his view (with respect to the contents of the
list, that is) have contributed to the discussion, he keeps on insulting
me, and a number of others, at least including AxelBoldt, GWO and
Eclecticology. Furthermore, he fails to discuss any solutions to the
problem at hand except for him being the "owner" of the page, which is
of course not acceptable in Wikipedia.
Given the fact this is not the first time he ignores rules and insults
others (the examples of JHK and Montréalais were posted earlier), I
_strongly_ feel that he should be banned for 24 hours, or at least be
summoned to discuss things at the mailinglist here. As I said before, he
made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it
allright to ignore all rules and insult other, good-willing, Wikipedians.
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1041
[Wikipedia-l] Re: DW again
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 15 04:46:14 UTC 2002
On Monday 14 October 2002 06:16 pm, wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com wrote:
> Given the fact this is not the first time he ignores rules and insults
> others (the examples of JHK and Montréalais were posted earlier), I
> _strongly_ feel that he should be banned for 24 hours, or at least be
> summoned to discuss things at the mailinglist here. As I said before, he
> made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it
> allright to ignore all rules and insult other, good-willing, Wikipedians.
>
> Jeronimo
I say a 24 hour block would be a good place to start. Jimbo doesn't seem to be
monitoring the list right now so he is probably the bottleneck. So I don't
know if he would support even a temporary block at this point.
If this were a voting situation then I vote for the 24 hour block. But I'm not
sure if this is such a situation. We did form a new policy to more strictly
enforce our etiquette policy, no? Does this mean an individual Admin can
decide, needs to have confirmation by one other, two others, the whole list,
Jimbo, what?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1042
[Wikipedia-l] DW again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Oct 15 11:56:38 UTC 2002
Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
> Today, DW returned to the discussion at [[List of famous Canadians]].
> Even though several others have jumped in to calm him down and also
> several supporters of his view (with respect to the contents of the
> list, that is) have contributed to the discussion, he keeps on insulting
> me, and a number of others, at least including AxelBoldt, GWO and
> Eclecticology. Furthermore, he fails to discuss any solutions to the
> problem at hand except for him being the "owner" of the page, which is
> of course not acceptable in Wikipedia.
Can you invite him to the list? Can you point him to a policy page that
explains that there is no such thing as "ownership" of a page? He could
make such a page in his user space, I suppose.
> Given the fact this is not the first time he ignores rules and insults
> others (the examples of JHK and Montréalais were posted earlier), I
> _strongly_ feel that he should be banned for 24 hours, or at least be
> summoned to discuss things at the mailinglist here.
I think "summon" is too strong of a word. But, he should be invited.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1043
[Wikipedia-l] Re: DW again
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Oct 15 12:07:33 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> I say a 24 hour block would be a good place to start. Jimbo doesn't seem to be
> monitoring the list right now so he is probably the bottleneck. So I don't
> know if he would support even a temporary block at this point.
I was out for the weekend, but I'm back now. Also, I was hiding from
the DW issue, hoping that it would sort itself out without me. :-)
> If this were a voting situation then I vote for the 24 hour block. But I'm not
> sure if this is such a situation. We did form a new policy to more strictly
> enforce our etiquette policy, no? Does this mean an individual Admin can
> decide, needs to have confirmation by one other, two others, the whole list,
> Jimbo, what?
I don't think any policies have changed, actually. And in terms of
blocking ips, we're only supposed to block outright vandalism, unless
after a long and agonizing process, I issue an edict otherwise.
Someday we might loosen this, or institutionalize it rather than keep
it with me, or even abolish it (doubtful, because it does seem to be
necessary in some rare instances).
What I really very strongly want to avoid is the use of banning in
content fights. This doesn't sound like that kind of case -- the
problem here is insults, not the content fight. But banning people
for mere insults is a bad idea. (Banning them for repeated, longterm,
extraordinary failure to co-operate, including failure through a
pattern of insults, is not such a bad idea.)
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1044
[Wikipedia-l] DW again
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Oct 15 15:29:51 UTC 2002
I think LDC has reached peace with DW. I created a WikiProject page (needs renaming).
But the big problem is Opera Browser's 128 KB textbox limitation. Can someone revert talk:list of famous Canadians for me?
Please? I have to go to a meeting now and can't wait for the slow server response.
THANSK!!
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1045
[Wikipedia-l] Not a vandal, but...
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Tue Oct 15 21:11:23 UTC 2002
...someone who didn't fully grasp the concept of wikipedia yet. Please
watch "12.39.92.87" (last one might change). Seems to edit film-related
articles (only 3 so far), deleting things and adding non-encyclopedic
content, but some info as well.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1046
[Wikipedia-l] Not a vandal, but...
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Oct 16 01:06:05 UTC 2002
Magnus Wrote:
>...someone who didn't fully grasp the concept of wikipedia yet. Please
>watch "12.39.92.87" (last one might change). Seems to edit film-related
>articles (only 3 so far), deleting things and adding non-encyclopedic
>content, but some info as well.
Thanks for the heads up.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1047
[Wikipedia-l] User check idea
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Wed Oct 16 11:25:15 UTC 2002
Could it be made possible to look at the User changes using just the first
part of the user's IP number rather than a complete one? Yhat way, people
who have a dynamical IP can be checked for all their changes rather than
just those of their last login. Especially useful for those who are not
really vandals, but do leave cleaning up to do after them.
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1048
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #764 - 16 msgs
Matt M.
matt_mcl at sympatico.ca
Fri Oct 18 14:51:18 UTC 2002
Would anyone care to express any opinions as to what 209.105.200.69, aka DW, is doing with [[Politics of Canada]]?
Matt (Montrealais)
Montreal, Quebec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1049
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #764 - 16 msgs
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 18 15:09:54 UTC 2002
You Wrote:
>Would anyone care to express any opinions as to what 209.105.200.69, aka DW, is doing with [[Politics of Canada]]?
>
>Matt (Montrealais)
>Montreal, Quebec
It has the trappings of NPOV, attributing everything, but favors independence for Quebec and looks very POV, e.g. non-encyclopedic, in its emphasis on Quebec's efforts towards independence and its virtual neglect of the other point of view.
I for one am suspicious about DW's changes, though I don't know enough about the situation to challenge them intelligently.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1050
[Wikipedia-l] DW and Canada (Quebec separatism)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Oct 18 15:13:18 UTC 2002
Perhaps the solution is simply to write an article on Quebec Separatism or The Separatism Issue in Quebec.
Such an article could then could have headings on Supporters of Separatism and Opponents of Separatism. It would be just as balanced as the George Bush article.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1051
[Wikipedia-l] DW and Canada (Quebec separatism)
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 18 16:14:03 UTC 2002
Sounds good. Now let's take it to the Talk page.
That's what it's there for. ;-)
Stephen G.
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the solution is simply to write an article
> on Quebec Separatism or The Separatism Issue in
> Quebec.
>
> Such an article could then could have headings on
> Supporters of Separatism and Opponents of
> Separatism. It would be just as balanced as the
> George Bush article.
>
> Ed Poor
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1052
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #764 - 16 msgs
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Fri Oct 18 16:55:19 UTC 2002
Matt M. wrote:
>Would anyone care to express any opinions as to what 209.105.200.69, aka DW, is doing with [[Politics of Canada]]?
>
Groan! Him again!? He does have the habit of turning disagreements into
personal attacks and irrelevant name calling, but I guess I can go there
and join the battle.
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1053
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sat Oct 19 18:34:56 UTC 2002
What is your feeling about the following sort of problem? This sort
problem is what drove Julie Kemp away, not to mention a number of other
very valuable participants.
As a philosopher, I've studied metaphysics and topics in metaphysics in a
number of graduate courses and I continue to maintain an interest in the
topic of existence ("Is existence a property?") and metaphysics generally.
By no means am I an *expert* on the topic of reality, but I guess I'm the
closest thing we current have to one.
Last June or July I noticed that our [[Reality]] page was a complete joke.
At the time I felt I didn't have the time or patience to try to correct
it. Unfortunately, the people working on the page kept at it for the next
few months and now, if anything, it has gotten worse: philosophically
illiterate, poorly written, completely biased, and fundamentally confused
about what an article about "reality" should be about.
So on the talk page I took some time out and went through the article,
line by line, and explained what was wrong with it. When finished, I had
convinced myself that virtually no part of it was salvageable, so I wrote
about five paragraphs of a new article, and just completely deleted the
old one.
This upset Fred Bauder, who it seems was responsible for most of the old
article. Without going into details (see the Talk: page if you want),
Fred maintained that the original article was superior to the new one.
After an exchange, I decided to give up; I wrote, "I'm not going to try to
improve this article any more. Go ahead and revert it to the old crappy
version. I'm not going to work on this article as long as you're working
on it."
So Fred did revert it, making my article into a subheading of his article,
called "A Philosophical Discussion" (as if I had been talking about a
different topic from the one he was addressing). To his credit he
actually edited his old article and removed a few of the problems with it
that I had pointed out, but it still remains pretty much a confused piece
of garbage, in my opinion.
Then I realized that I had been driven away from working on something I
actually cared about and knew something about--just as Julie had been. So
I decided to resist the desire to give up; I reverted my own article and
put Fred's below it.
I am extremely dissatisfied with this situation, however. As in the case
with the [[racism]] article, there is now more than one article on the
page. Having multiple articles is just a way to avoid controversy among
editors; it doesn't serve readers very well, for one thing. I'm mighty
tempted to delete Fred's version again, but I honestly don't really know
what to do at this point. (Thus, I'm writing to you folks.)
There's a general issue that this situation illustrates. This isn't the
first time the issue has come up, obviously. The issue is: when we've got
someone who is clearly more of an expert on a topic locking horns with a
stubborn dilettante who fails to see how little he or she actually knows,
what do we do? Nothing?
Let me tell you, I can *really* understand why Michael Tinkler and Julie
Kemp left. It's the same reason that a lot of other able minds never join
in the first place.
Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our policies of openness,
to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the
face of the above problem?
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1054
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sat Oct 19 19:04:17 UTC 2002
Larry wrote:
<snip>
>Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our policies of openness,
>to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the
>face of the above problem?
Well for one thing, in policy of openness (to experts and dilletantes alike), we might avoid stating whether other edits are "crappy," though they may well be. :-)
Aside from that, I don't have any exceptionally good ideas. We're all occasionally vexed when someone who knows less than they think they do starts editing an article clumsily. Typically people recognize when they're out of their field. When they don't, I suppose a gentle reminder that there are experts on certain topics would be in order, as well as preferred approaches to topics. e.g. I would be very surprised to arrive at an article on [[capitalism]] and see that it's been written from an anarchist point of view--though I may agree with much of what the anarchists say.
I for one, reading the [[reality]] article, recognize that I'm out of my field. It's not user friendly, especially to non-philosophers (even patient ones). Currently it needs to be explained more thoroughly--yes, even to the point of defining "real" and "tautology", and explaining the context in which "domain" is being used.
Fred Bauder's part, which you've so conveniently labeled, has the same problems: not defining "sui generis", as well as leaving the definitions unintegrated. Having said that, I think Fred's part is clearly less informed, as well as approaching from a technojunkie's point of view.
Both parts assume we know more than we do. If I didn't know what reality was before reading the article, I wouldn't know what it was after reading it.
Have you tried talking to Fred about it, without mentioning whether you think his edits are crappy? Perhaps he senses a certain antagonism and/or condescension.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1055
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sat Oct 19 19:38:42 UTC 2002
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> <snip>
> >Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our policies of openness,
> >to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the
> >face of the above problem?
>
> Well for one thing, in policy of openness (to experts and dilletantes
> alike), we might avoid stating whether other edits are "crappy,"
> though they may well be. :-)
...
[snip some good suggestions]
...
> Have you tried talking to Fred about it, without mentioning whether
> you think his edits are crappy? Perhaps he senses a certain
> antagonism and/or condescension.
Point very well taken, KQ. I know that your approach almost always works
wonders. Diplomacy is usually a good thing, and I see that I haven't been
at all diplomatic in this case.
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1056
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sat Oct 19 19:40:36 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>What is your feeling about the following sort of problem? This sort
>problem is what drove Julie Kemp away, not to mention a number of other
>very valuable participants.
...
>Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our policies of openness,
>to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the
>face of the above problem?
Get Ed Poor to mediate ^_^.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1057
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sat Oct 19 20:01:18 UTC 2002
>> Larry wrote:
>Point very well taken, KQ. I know that your approach almost always works
>wonders. Diplomacy is usually a good thing, and I see that I haven't been
>at all diplomatic in this case.
We've all had our lapses. I've especially had a few I'm not proud of. Things aren't how they were even a year and a half ago--there were only about 20 of us around as late as March 2001; we knew each other; it was obvious we all were trying to help; it was easier to reach decisions. IIRC, and maybe I don't, people were more generous.
With so many people around now, it's not hard to imagine wikipedia fracturing off into subgroups who favor certain topics--just because it's easier to deal with things. You can see some of this around certain wikiprojects. There are enough changes each day now that it's neither practical nor especially desirable to follow each change.
I think diplomacy is going to become increasingly important as we go on--we've developed from a one-horse town to a small city, and eventually we'll be a metropolis.
Best,
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1058
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Zoe Comnena
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 20 02:43:32 UTC 2002
User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim, and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone deal with him?
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021019/ba6a7632/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1059
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sun Oct 20 03:45:09 UTC 2002
>User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim, and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone deal with him?
>
>Zoe
s/he may settle down eventually; I had much the same attitude when I started & wanted to write everything I 'knew' to be true about cannabis, completely without citations or opposing points of view. :-/
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1060
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.org
Sun Oct 20 03:42:18 UTC 2002
Does anyone have a strong objection to banning Lir for an hour or so, to
let him cool off?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
[mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com] On Behalf Of Zoe Comnena
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 19:44
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
>
> User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave
trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim,
and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone
deal with him?
>
> Zoe
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1061
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Zoe Comnena
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 20 03:45:15 UTC 2002
(Sorry for the top edit -- Yahoo makes you do it.)
Yeah, but you should see how he reacted when people changed his NPOV comments on Iowa State University. The guy's a psycho. -- Zoe
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:>User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim, and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone deal with him?
>
>Zoe
s/he may settle down eventually; I had much the same attitude when I started & wanted to write everything I 'knew' to be true about cannabis, completely without citations or opposing points of view. :-/
kq
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021019/3832fe9c/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1062
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 20 03:48:03 UTC 2002
I sure don't. :-) Zoe
Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:Does anyone have a strong objection to banning Lir for an hour or so, to
let him cool off?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
[mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com] On Behalf Of Zoe Comnena
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 19:44
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
>
> User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave
trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim,
and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone
deal with him?
>
> Zoe
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021019/7b5d00cf/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1063
[Wikipedia-l] on banning Lir
Ryan Tuccinardi
tucci528 at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 20 05:13:56 UTC 2002
Either Lir et al has agreed to my compromise, everyone
involved has gone to bed or someone already banned
her. The edit war seems to have calmed down so a ban
no longer appears to be necessary.
Tokerboy
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1064
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 20 14:55:42 UTC 2002
--- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
<snip to the end...>
> Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our
> policies of openness,
> to make the project more attractive to the
> best-qualified people, in the
> face of the above problem?
>
> --Larry
I agree with KQ's suggestion. I think it's a matter of
trying to work together. As an expert, your natural
inclination is to replace an article that you don't
think very much of with your own writing. Fred's
natural reaction to this is to feel dismissed. The
problem escalates from there.
This isn't the same situation as, say, "working" on an
article with Helga Jonat. Fred (Hi Fred! Are you tuned
in to this thread?) is a good contributor to the
project, and isn't out to push a specific agenda all
through Wikipedia. On the other side of the coin,
you're obviously not intending to dismiss Fred as
unimportant, nor are you trying to insult his
intelligence.
Remember that you both have the same goal: to produce
a good article on "reality". It seems that there's a
clash of approaches here. "Reality" is an enormous
topic, and a truly good article is not going to take
shape in only a few weeks.
We're starting to see the growth of Wikipedia
straining the sense of community. Take a look at the
Wiki Life Cycle
(http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle).
It's a remarkably accurate guide to the rise and fall
of wiki communities. We are entering stage 17:
"Decline Of Civility -- there are more strangers than
friends, and assum[ing] good faith fails as reputation
is fleeting." As more and more Wikipedians contribute,
we have to be careful; it's getting easier to get into
heated arguments, and these fights will de-stabilize a
project that bases itself on openness.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1065
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sun Oct 20 15:04:54 UTC 2002
I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just slightly disturbed that
we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing, on this list, to use
the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars. I've noticed this in
the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were the only ones who had
the authority to ban people, we never used it for this purpose, or at
least, I can't remember a single case. This is the first time I recall
anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so that the person could
"cool off." This is the first I've heard of "cooling people off" as a
reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
If I could see immediately that Lir were simply a *vandal*, I could
understand. But I do not see that Lir is simply a vandal, whatever
his/her merits.
Like everybody, I totally understand :-) the frustration involved in
working with people I regard as unreasonable, difficult, and even
trollish. But banning them isn't the way that, up until just the last
month or two, we have dealt with them.
Let me be clear here (it's so easy to be misunderstood): on the one hand,
I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with outright banning an IP
number (if it's stable) or perhaps, temporarily, a block of IP numbers, if
it's perfectly clear that the person being banned is just a vandal. On
the other hand, I do not think we should ban people who appear to be
making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we have gone through a
long public process and ensured that the bar is set very high.
In particular, we do not ban people for merely failing to follow the
"rules," even rules like [[netiquette]]. At least part of the point of
making the first rule "ignore all rules," I thought, is the notion that we
all understand that we aren't going to *enforce* these rules except in the
most egregious cases, which Lir and DW aren't, as far as I can tell. For
non-vandals, the bar has to be set really, really high, I think.
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1066
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sun Oct 20 15:05:03 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>This isn't the same situation as, say, "working" on an
>article with Helga Jonat. Fred (Hi Fred! Are you tuned
>in to this thread?) is a good contributor to the
>project, and isn't out to push a specific agenda all
>through Wikipedia. On the other side of the coin,
>you're obviously not intending to dismiss Fred as
>unimportant, nor are you trying to insult his
>intelligence.
I agree with this. :-)
>We're starting to see the growth of Wikipedia
>straining the sense of community. Take a look at the
>Wiki Life Cycle
>(http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle).
>It's a remarkably accurate guide to the rise and fall
>of wiki communities. We are entering stage 17:
>"Decline Of Civility -- there are more strangers than
>friends, and assum[ing] good faith fails as reputation
>is fleeting." As more and more Wikipedians contribute,
>we have to be careful; it's getting easier to get into
>heated arguments, and these fights will de-stabilize a
>project that bases itself on openness.
Thanks for the link. I knew I couldn't have been the first person to think about the growth of online communities.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1067
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sun Oct 20 15:22:56 UTC 2002
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> --- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
>
> <snip to the end...>
>
> > Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our
> > policies of openness,
> > to make the project more attractive to the
> > best-qualified people, in the
> > face of the above problem?
> >
> > --Larry
>
> I agree with KQ's suggestion. I think it's a matter of
> trying to work together. As an expert, your natural
> inclination is to replace an article that you don't
> think very much of with your own writing. Fred's
> natural reaction to this is to feel dismissed. The
> problem escalates from there.
Here's the problem, though. Again, I think KQ has the right approach, but
it doesn't solve every problem along these lines. With all due respect,
in my opinion, Fred really doesn't know what he's talking about on this
topic, and it requires a great deal of patience to go through an article
from someone who does not understand the subject (but thinks he does).
Reasonable people do not react in the way that Fred has reacted, I think.
Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little
about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say.
Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said,
"Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff
right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd
like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person
took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article,
I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
> This isn't the same situation as, say, "working" on an
> article with Helga Jonat. Fred (Hi Fred! Are you tuned
> in to this thread?) is a good contributor to the
> project, and isn't out to push a specific agenda all
> through Wikipedia.
I'm not talking about the whole project. In this article, he certainly
has been trying to push a specific agenda, though it's possible he doesn't
quite realize that.
> On the other side of the coin,
> you're obviously not intending to dismiss Fred as
> unimportant, nor are you trying to insult his
> intelligence.
Well, that certainly wasn't my point!
> Remember that you both have the same goal: to produce
> a good article on "reality". It seems that there's a
> clash of approaches here. "Reality" is an enormous
> topic, and a truly good article is not going to take
> shape in only a few weeks.
I appreciate the attention you're giving this, Stephen, but this doesn't
help. The problem decidedly *isn't* that we haven't spent enough time on
it (the original, awful article was up there for many months).
Wikipedia should not *have to be* about *everyone* who wants to
collaborate on an article gets an equal seat at the table on every
article, with all of their views expressed. Sometimes, people can be
wrong; and they don't know that they're wrong, because they just don't
know enough about the topic. That's my point.
> We're starting to see the growth of Wikipedia
> straining the sense of community. Take a look at the
> Wiki Life Cycle
> (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle).
> It's a remarkably accurate guide to the rise and fall
> of wiki communities. We are entering stage 17:
> "Decline Of Civility -- there are more strangers than
> friends, and assum[ing] good faith fails as reputation
> is fleeting." As more and more Wikipedians contribute,
> we have to be careful; it's getting easier to get into
> heated arguments, and these fights will de-stabilize a
> project that bases itself on openness.
Again, while I agree that it's important to be civil and I agree with the
above sentiments, but I am skeptical that it's a new or growing problem.
I mean, we've *always* had trouble of this sort. You'd think I'd know how
to deal with it by now...
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1068
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.org
Sun Oct 20 15:55:50 UTC 2002
Larry, weigh in directly against me; I'm the first who wondered aloud
whether a one-hour ban might help. I will only point out that it is the
first time I have ever proposed a ban, and I don't think a single
occurance should be called a "habit."
Did you follow the battle with Lir through all the various talk pages?
On the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page, Lir accused Zoe of "defacing the
Columbus page, probably due to some form of inherent racism against
Africans and Amerindians." Lir has no comprehension of NPOV, utterly
refuses to compromise, rejects even proposals that I consider absurdly
accomodating, and insists on entirely unsubstantiated historical
revisionism.
--
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
[mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Larry Sanger
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 08:05
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just slightly disturbed
that
we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing, on this list, to
use
the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars. I've noticed this in
the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were the only ones who had
the authority to ban people, we never used it for this purpose, or at
least, I can't remember a single case. This is the first time I recall
anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so that the person could
"cool off." This is the first I've heard of "cooling people off" as a
reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
If I could see immediately that Lir were simply a *vandal*, I could
understand. But I do not see that Lir is simply a vandal, whatever
his/her merits.
Like everybody, I totally understand :-) the frustration involved in
working with people I regard as unreasonable, difficult, and even
trollish. But banning them isn't the way that, up until just the last
month or two, we have dealt with them.
Let me be clear here (it's so easy to be misunderstood): on the one
hand,
I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with outright banning an IP
number (if it's stable) or perhaps, temporarily, a block of IP numbers,
if
it's perfectly clear that the person being banned is just a vandal. On
the other hand, I do not think we should ban people who appear to be
making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we have gone through a
long public process and ensured that the bar is set very high.
In particular, we do not ban people for merely failing to follow the
"rules," even rules like [[netiquette]]. At least part of the point of
making the first rule "ignore all rules," I thought, is the notion that
we
all understand that we aren't going to *enforce* these rules except in
the
most egregious cases, which Lir and DW aren't, as far as I can tell.
For
non-vandals, the bar has to be set really, really high, I think.
--Larry
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1069
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sun Oct 20 16:11:29 UTC 2002
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Sean Barrett wrote:
> Larry, weigh in directly against me; I'm the first who wondered aloud
> whether a one-hour ban might help. I will only point out that it is the
> first time I have ever proposed a ban, and I don't think a single
> occurance should be called a "habit."
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that one-hour bans were a habit; but proposing
to ban people over content disputes has become a regular habit, it seems
to me.
> Did you follow the battle with Lir through all the various talk pages?
> On the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page, Lir accused Zoe of "defacing the
> Columbus page, probably due to some form of inherent racism against
> Africans and Amerindians." Lir has no comprehension of NPOV, utterly
> refuses to compromise, rejects even proposals that I consider absurdly
> accomodating, and insists on entirely unsubstantiated historical
> revisionism.
I'd agree that's all pretty bad, and Lir is certainly an abrasive
character who doesn't understand what's generally accepted to be Wikipedia
policy. I just looked at the talk page and histories of two of the
mentioned pages, and didn't find anything so completely outrageous as to
require an outright ban.
For all I know, you're absolutely in the right. I just want to try to
slow us down, that's all.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1070
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Edgar Enyedy
enyedy at ya.com
Sun Oct 20 16:34:22 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>On the other hand, I do not think we should ban people who appear to be
>making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we have gone through a
>long public process and ensured that the bar is set very high.
Agreed. Lir isn't a vandal, that's a commonsensical issue.
I may support Lir's POV, nevertheless I public and widely recognize the fact
that Lir's statements are not ruled by the NPOV. I'd strongly encourage Lir
to set apart alternative theories just because misinformation within the
'pedias pages are harmful to the project itself.
We've set up an "Essays Chapter" in EL. Authors are usually smart enough to
tell apart when they are biased on a topic and link the NPOV article to the
Essay, and usually both of them, the article and the Essay are written by
the same contributor.
And I've found that contributors that are biased on a topic, are usually the
ones who own the best knowledge on that topic.
Cheers
Edgar Enyedy
Enciclopedia Libre (Sevilla - España)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1071
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Sun Oct 20 16:21:00 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little
>about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say.
>Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said,
>"Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff
>right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd
>like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person
>took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article,
>I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
>
This is an interesting example. In the main it expresses a logical
approach to a situation, but it gets off the track in two respects. The
phrase "totally garbage" is unnecesary to the expert's critical comments
even if he finds little of value in your contributions; there are many
people whose sensitivities are such that they would see none of the
posting after that phrase. The second problem would lie in your feeling
that you need to be "abjectly apologetic". When you wrote about digital
cameras in the first place, you, in good faith, produced the best
article that you could under the circumstances; there's no cause for
apology in that.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1072
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Sun Oct 20 21:44:55 UTC 2002
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Larry Sanger wrote:
>
>> Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little
>> about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras,
>> say.
>> Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said,
>> "Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the
>> stuff
>> right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed,
>> I'd
>> like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person
>> took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my
>> article,
>> I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
>>
> This is an interesting example. In the main it expresses a logical
> approach to a situation, but it gets off the track in two respects.
> The phrase "totally garbage" is unnecesary to the expert's critical
> comments even if he finds little of value in your contributions; there
> are many people whose sensitivities are such that they would see none
> of the posting after that phrase. The second problem would lie in
> your feeling that you need to be "abjectly apologetic". When you
> wrote about digital cameras in the first place, you, in good faith,
> produced the best article that you could under the circumstances;
> there's no cause for apology in that.
Larry does have a point.
As a classically-trained musician, I know a lot about music theory. But
Camembert knows more than me. In the past week I've made a couple of
suggestions which s/he has disagreed with, and I've (graciously, I hope)
given way.
Rational, intelligent wikipedians ought to be expected to recognize when
someone has more expertise in a given field than they do.
The problem with the "reality" article is somewhat the same as I found
on something like "key signature" a long time ago.
It's quite a complex subject, everyone thinks they understand it, and
most are mistaken. (in the case of "key sig", because they were shoved
in front of the piano at the tender age of 6 and barked at by wizened
spinster piano teachers... but I digress)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1073
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 21 03:03:36 UTC 2002
Thank you Larry. That sums up my feelings on bans
nicely.
Stephen G.
--- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just
> slightly disturbed that
> we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing,
> on this list, to use
> the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars.
> I've noticed this in
> the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were
> the only ones who had
> the authority to ban people, we never used it for
> this purpose, or at
> least, I can't remember a single case. This is the
> first time I recall
> anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so
> that the person could
> "cool off." This is the first I've heard of
> "cooling people off" as a
> reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
>
> If I could see immediately that Lir were simply a
> *vandal*, I could
> understand. But I do not see that Lir is simply a
> vandal, whatever
> his/her merits.
>
> Like everybody, I totally understand :-) the
> frustration involved in
> working with people I regard as unreasonable,
> difficult, and even
> trollish. But banning them isn't the way that, up
> until just the last
> month or two, we have dealt with them.
>
> Let me be clear here (it's so easy to be
> misunderstood): on the one hand,
> I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with
> outright banning an IP
> number (if it's stable) or perhaps, temporarily, a
> block of IP numbers, if
> it's perfectly clear that the person being banned is
> just a vandal. On
> the other hand, I do not think we should ban people
> who appear to be
> making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we
> have gone through a
> long public process and ensured that the bar is set
> very high.
>
> In particular, we do not ban people for merely
> failing to follow the
> "rules," even rules like [[netiquette]]. At least
> part of the point of
> making the first rule "ignore all rules," I thought,
> is the notion that we
> all understand that we aren't going to *enforce*
> these rules except in the
> most egregious cases, which Lir and DW aren't, as
> far as I can tell. For
> non-vandals, the bar has to be set really, really
> high, I think.
>
> --Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1074
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 21 03:04:57 UTC 2002
--- koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Thanks for the link. I knew I couldn't have been
> the first person to think about the growth of online
> communities.
>
> kq
MeatballWiki is an interesting place. Online
communities is its speciality.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1075
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Mon Oct 21 04:10:07 UTC 2002
Larry Wrote:
>I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just slightly disturbed
that
>we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing, on this list, to use
>the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars. I've noticed this in
>the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were the only ones who had
>the authority to ban people, we never used it for this purpose, or at
>least, I can't remember a single case. This is the first time I recall
>anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so that the person could
>"cool off." This is the first I've heard of "cooling people off" as a
>reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
Yes, people are becoming a bit quick on the trigger, I'd say.
I disagreed with some of Lir's edits, and doubt she'll win any
congeniality contests, but I think some of the sysops also could use a
cooling down.... Not that they deserve banning, either.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1076
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Mon Oct 21 04:50:21 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
> As a classically-trained musician, I know a lot about music theory.
> [...]
> Rational, intelligent wikipedians ought to be expected to recognize when
> someone has more expertise in a given field than they do.
The problem here is that we know a lot about a topic, but we don't
necessarily know how to explain or teach the topic to those who know
less, in such a way that makes them realize that they know less.
There is much literature on how to teach in an effective and efficient
way, and how to write useful texts. But all normal teaching assumes
that the student knows he is the student and doesn't falsely believe
that he is the teacher. Here we first have to establish who is the
teacher and who is the student. We cannot simply tell them "you know
less about this, so you are the student, and I am the teacher". That
won't work. They will (perhaps correctly) believe that we are pompous
and stupid. The blurring of the teacher-student relationship occurs
only at the postgraduate level in our traditional education system.
We cannot expect all Wikipedians to be on that level (age 25 or above
in full academic careers).
> It's quite a complex subject, everyone thinks they understand it, and
> most are mistaken.
So each article needs not only to establish a context, but also to
establish how complex the topic is.
My favorite history book starts by asserting that the "ice age" was
discovered in the late 19th century, i.e. it starts by telling the
history of the history topic (the ice age is more recent than the
telephone!). Most traditional history books would start (as does
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age) by telling when the glaciation
happened (as if that had always been known).
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1077
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Oct 21 06:44:34 UTC 2002
Sean Barrett wrote:
>Does anyone have a strong objection to banning Lir for an hour or so, to
>let him cool off?
Yes, of course! That's not what the banning function is for.
At least not yet.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1078
[Wikipedia-l] Back (at last)
Fred Bauder
fred_bauder at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 21 11:22:05 UTC 2002
I've not been able to post messages to this list for a few days for some
unknown reason. Just created this account, solely for the purpose of trying
another route.
I have been receiving posts from the list, and have been thinking hard about
reality.
I'm trying as hard as I can to work with Larry and hopping eventually an
article can be written that a person consulting it would find useful.
Fred
_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1079
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
elian
elian at gmx.li
Mon Oct 21 12:30:23 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:
> Here's the problem, though. Again, I think KQ has the right approach, but
> it doesn't solve every problem along these lines. With all due respect,
> in my opinion, Fred really doesn't know what he's talking about on this
> topic, and it requires a great deal of patience to go through an article
> from someone who does not understand the subject (but thinks he does).
I doubt if anyone can say for himself that he really understood the
concept of reality. My attitude towards topics like this is always a sort
of humility - many great people have thought about it but didn't arrive at
one generally agreed definition, so why should I? and that would be the
first rule for editing in such a field: if you think you've understood it
wholly you are probably wrong. Maybe you have understood Kant or Plato's
conception - but reality as a whole?
> Reasonable people do not react in the way that Fred has reacted, I think.
> Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little
> about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say.
> Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said,
> "Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff
> right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd
> like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person
> took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article,
> I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
This depends. If I wrote an article and some expert came around, reverting
all I did and writing a new, I can imagine two possible reactions: either
he suceeded to say what I wanted to say but failed. Then I sit back,
admire his work and say: fine :-). or he says something completely
different which goes against my concepts of the topic. He did better in
his approach than I but I feel there is more to say which he left out and which
was - even inadequately expressed - in my old part he deleted. I think
Fred and you are in situation 2 at the moment.
> I'm not talking about the whole project. In this article, he certainly
> has been trying to push a specific agenda, though it's possible he doesn't
> quite realize that.
The impression I got was that Fred tried a broader approach to the topic
while you tried to limit the article on philosophical concepts. Both
approaches are IMHO legitim.
Second: while you tried to give an account of the discussions about reality,
Fred tried to give definitions - which in the way he did will IMHO
inevitably fail. Maybe you should seperately discuss these two points:
what should be the content and how should be the form.
greetings,
elian
--
Wenn Gott gewollt haette, dass die Menschen nackt
herumlaufen, wuerden sie nackt zur Welt kommen.
- oscar wilde
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1080
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Oct 21 13:59:49 UTC 2002
When I ban an anonymous user's IP, my bannings are upheld. I cannot, however, ban a signed-in contributor.
Only Jimbo or a developer has the physical power to ban a signed-in contributor. They have to change some setting on the server that ordinary sysops can't get to.
The only time I ever threatened to ban someone, all other sysops told me I was wrong to make such a threat. Banning, they reminded me, is for (A) vandals who delete entire articles or litter words like cool "kewl" or "Mike loves Mary" into the text; or (B) contributors who obstinately and perpetually work against the ideals of the project by violating NPOV.
Some better ways to deal with a person who is "too hot to handle" may include:
* I'll just work on something else for an hour (like the spellchecking project)
* I'll take a day or two off from Wikipedia
* I'll try to figure out what's making the person so "hot under the collar"
Some ways to keep working on an topic during an edit war.
* Think hard about ways to phrase an addition to an article that no other contributor will want to revert it (like "Some other advocates, like A and B, said X about Y")
* Create a new article. (Like "Unification Church and anti-Semitism")
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1081
[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Oct 21 14:22:11 UTC 2002
Well, Larry, let me reply from the philosophical perspective of Unification Thought.
The usual rule is that "the lesser shall serve the greater", and you as a man of greater understanding quite correctly claim the right to assume the master's position in the "Reality" article dispute. If not given the authority to assume this position, you will quite naturally leave. Thus, the weakness of using only one rule.
The neglected rule is that the Subject Partner should also love the Object Partner and take care of the Object Partner. In plain English, this means that you as the superior authority must assume a responsible stance towards Fred and incorporate all his ideas into your version of the article.
This means that in several places thoughout your version, you must digress and say something like, "Some people think X because of Y. Mainstream thought, however disagrees with X because of Z."
Although this is a burden and a perhaps distasteful chore, it's a crucial test of your dedication to the project and to the community. If you can pass this test, you will pave the way for Julie Kemp and Michael Tinkler to return.
Ed Poor
Self-appointed Umpire of Neutrality and Mediator of Disputes
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:35 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?
What is your feeling about the following sort of problem? This sort
problem is what drove Julie Kemp away, not to mention a number of other
very valuable participants.
[snip]
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1082
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Mon Oct 21 17:25:51 UTC 2002
> I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just
> slightly disturbed that we are getting into the habit
> of publicly proposing, on this list, to use the banning
> power to settle acrimonious edit wars. I've noticed
> this in the case of Lir and of DW.
I think it should be made clear, though, that these bans
are being proposed not because of the /content/ these
folks produce, but because of their /abuse of the process/.
It is their actions that cause problems, not their words.
Think of it like the court system: even if you're on the
right side of an argument, if don't file the pleadings
correctly, don't make your court dates, disrupt the courtroom
with out-of-order rants, or otherwise refuse to work within
the process, the court can and should rule against you by
default. That's the only way to keep the process working.
The content of any article will change many times, so it's
not that important what any one person adds, removes, or
changes. What's important is the process, and Lir and DW
are showing flagrant disrespect for the process.
In the early days of Wikipedia before we had specific
processes and guidelines, it was right and good that we
were a free-for-all; we were in the process of discovering
what works and what doesn't. But we're in a new phase now.
We have a process, and we know it can work, and we know
what doesn't work. We should take advantage of that knowledge
and /enforce/ the process we know works.
I do agree that a short-duration "cooling off" ban is silly.
People should either be banned or not, and if they have been
banned, they should have to appeal to a sysop for reinstatement,
showing that they understand and will abide by our standards.
A simple test to think about is this: if the person in question
took exactly the same actions, but was on the other side of the
argument, would his actions be just as disruptive? I think Lir
and DW pass that test. If they can't learn to contribute to the
process of Wikipedia as a whole, I think the fact that they may
contribute a useful sentence or two to other articles, or the
fact that they are sincere, are irrelevant to the bigger picture
that they are disruptive of the process, and we would lose nothing
by getting rid of them.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1083
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Mon Oct 21 19:20:25 UTC 2002
I'll suggest this again. Banning a contributor forces some authority
figure to decide who is right and wrong. Why not freeze the topic
instead? There is no hurry to complete any topic, but edit wars are
fueled by adrenalin and adrenalin doesn't last. I'd suggest that
[[reality]] could be frozen for a day, week, month, or even year
without any harm to the ultimate wikipedia and in the meantime all
participants could cool off, write articles distinguishing the various
Three Stooges, defect to slashdot, die, or whatever. There could be
degrees of this, we could freeze the page only, or freeze the talk
page if things got too hot. .
And, if totally freezing a topic doesn't float your boat, how about,
for the few hot topics, that exist at any time, appointing a "master
in chancery" to oversee the contributions and control the flow
until things calm down?
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1084
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 21 20:02:57 UTC 2002
I don't care if Lir is banned or not, I just wish that she would be civil. I have NEVER said that I would refuse to accept "slave trader" as Columbus's occupation, I only said that I would accept it if Lir would give us some proof, something which she refuses to do.
Zoe
Stephen Gilbert <canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com> wrote:Thank you Larry. That sums up my feelings on bans
nicely.
Stephen G.
--- Larry Sanger wrote:
> I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just
> slightly disturbed that
> we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing,
> on this list, to use
> the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars.
> I've noticed this in
> the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were
> the only ones who had
> the authority to ban people, we never used it for
> this purpose, or at
> least, I can't remember a single case. This is the
> first time I recall
> anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so
> that the person could
> "cool off." This is the first I've heard of
> "cooling people off" as a
> reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
>
> If I could see immediately that Lir were simply a
> *vandal*, I could
> understand. But I do not see that Lir is simply a
> vandal, whatever
> his/her merits.
>
> Like everybody, I totally understand :-) the
> frustration involved in
> working with people I regard as unreasonable,
> difficult, and even
> trollish. But banning them isn't the way that, up
> until just the last
> month or two, we have dealt with them.
>
> Let me be clear here (it's so easy to be
> misunderstood): on the one hand,
> I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with
> outright banning an IP
> number (if it's stable) or perhaps, temporarily, a
> block of IP numbers, if
> it's perfectly clear that the person being banned is
> just a vandal. On
> the other hand, I do not think we should ban people
> who appear to be
> making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we
> have gone through a
> long public process and ensured that the bar is set
> very high.
>
> In particular, we do not ban people for merely
> failing to follow the
> "rules," even rules like [[netiquette]]. At least
> part of the point of
> making the first rule "ignore all rules," I thought,
> is the notion that we
> all understand that we aren't going to *enforce*
> these rules except in the
> most egregious cases, which Lir and DW aren't, as
> far as I can tell. For
> non-vandals, the bar has to be set really, really
> high, I think.
>
> --Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021021/2a42627c/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1085
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Lir and Christopher Columbus
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 21 22:46:03 UTC 2002
On Monday 21 October 2002 03:17 pm, Ortolan88 wrote:
> I'll suggest this again. Banning a contributor forces some authority
> figure to decide who is right and wrong. Why not freeze the topic
> instead?
But then which version gets frozen? Choosing one over the other is taking
sides so that shouldn't be a reason why a page gets frozen. Page freezing
should only be done when somebody is trying to hijack a page and therefore
starts an edit war - which IMO is a form of highly-directed vandalism that
saps user recourses. But this should only be uses as a last resort.
>There is no hurry to complete any topic, but edit wars are
> fueled by adrenaline and adrenaline doesn't last.
I agree. We would have to change some wording on the Main Page that would make
us look not as open though....
> ....
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1086
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 22 02:13:55 UTC 2002
--- Tom Parmenter <tompar at world.std.com> wrote:
> And, if totally freezing a topic doesn't float your
> boat, how about,
> for the few hot topics, that exist at any time,
> appointing a "master
> in chancery" to oversee the contributions and
> control the flow
> until things calm down?
>
> Tom Parmenter
> Ortolan88
That sounds suspiciously like the beginnings of a
police force. Are you sure that would help things?
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1087
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Oct 22 02:30:22 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 13:25, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> In the early days of Wikipedia before we had specific
> processes and guidelines, it was right and good that we
> were a free-for-all; we were in the process of discovering
> what works and what doesn't. But we're in a new phase now.
> We have a process, and we know it can work, and we know
> what doesn't work. We should take advantage of that knowledge
> and /enforce/ the process we know works.
I don't really buy the "we need less freedom because we're wiser"
argument. At least that what this argument seems to be saying.
I'm also really not convinced that "we have a process, and we know it
can work, and we know what doesn't work". Rather, I'd say we're quite
far from a stable process of developing articles. (e.g., right now
there's a big mish-mash of very long subheaded entries on some subjects
and collections of small entries on other subjects--a discrepancy that
needs to be resolved.)
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1088
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.org
Tue Oct 22 03:24:39 UTC 2002
Lir is now at work on the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page, deleting any
references to herself, while accusing all other editors of the
Christopher Columbus page of being vandals.
But far be it from me to suggest that anything be done about it! I've
learned my lesson.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1089
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Oct 22 04:28:38 UTC 2002
>Lir is now at work on the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page, deleting any
>references to herself, while accusing all other editors of the
>Christopher Columbus page of being vandals.
>
>But far be it from me to suggest that anything be done about it! I've
>learned my lesson.
That's enough for me. Anyone who consistently refuses any
rational discussion of his or her actions, disrupts the good
work we're doing here, and personally abuses those who are
doing it despite all efforts at compromise is simply more
trouble than he or she is worth. Being "well-meaning" is no
excuse (and I'm sure of that anyway). The /result/ of her
actions is no different from an ordinary vandal: more work
for those of us who actually want this project to succeed.
I have blocked both her IP and her user name. If Jimbo thinks
I am too rash in this, he is of course welcome to unblock them.
It's his project, and I'll respect that. But in my opinion the
project is simply better of without Lir, and I see no reason to
keep making excuses for reprehensible behavior.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1090
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Oct 22 05:29:17 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> That's enough for me. Anyone who consistently refuses any
> rational discussion of his or her actions, disrupts the good
> work we're doing here, and personally abuses those who are
> doing it despite all efforts at compromise is simply more
> trouble than he or she is worth. Being "well-meaning" is no
> excuse (and I'm sure of that anyway). The /result/ of her
> actions is no different from an ordinary vandal: more work
> for those of us who actually want this project to succeed.
>
> I have blocked both her IP and her user name. If Jimbo thinks
> I am too rash in this, he is of course welcome to unblock them.
> It's his project, and I'll respect that. But in my opinion the
> project is simply better of without Lir, and I see no reason to
> keep making excuses for reprehensible behavior.
I agree 100% and fully support banning this idiot. This is a project
which aims to be productive, and Lir has been overwhelmingly destructive.
That said, a banned user who's still logged in can still move pages!
Oops. I'll fix that.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1091
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Oct 22 05:33:34 UTC 2002
Brion VIBBER wrote:
> That said, a banned user who's still logged in can still move pages!
> Oops. I'll fix that.
(fixed)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1092
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Tue Oct 22 13:26:30 UTC 2002
>> In the early days of Wikipedia before we had specific processes and
>> guidelines, it was right and good that we were a free-for-all; we
were
>> in the process of discovering what works and what doesn't. But we're
>> in a new phase now. We have a process, and we know it can work, and
we
>> know what doesn't work. We should take advantage of that knowledge
>> and /enforce/ the process we know works.
>
> I don't really buy the "we need less freedom because we're wiser"
> argument. At least that what this argument seems to be saying.
Cunc, the problem I see is that smaller groups can enforce community
standards through informal means, but larger groups can not.
As long as your group consists of less than 30-50 people -- the size of
a small hunter gatherer tribe -- you can maintain relationships with
everybody and that makes creating and enforcing social standards easier.
But large groups just don't work that way. You can imagine a small
village with no traffic laws, and it would work because people can
fairly easily be aware of where they need to be careful, and the
community will subtly enforce that behavior. But I can't possibly
imagine a city the size of Detroit working without traffic laws, and
people dedicated to making sure that those laws are followed.
I will agree with you, however, that this could easily be taken too far,
and what we need to do is find an appropriate balance.
--Mark Christensen
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1093
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Lir and Christopher Columbus
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Tue Oct 22 13:50:50 UTC 2002
|From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:46:03 -0700
|
|On Monday 21 October 2002 03:17 pm, Ortolan88 wrote:
|> I'll suggest this again. Banning a contributor forces some authority
|> figure to decide who is right and wrong. Why not freeze the topic
|> instead?
|
|But then which version gets frozen? Choosing one over the other is taking
|sides so that shouldn't be a reason why a page gets frozen. Page freezing
|should only be done when somebody is trying to hijack a page and therefore
|starts an edit war - which IMO is a form of highly-directed vandalism that
|saps user recourses. But this should only be uses as a last resort.
|
I would freeze the last version before the edit wars started and
include a clear statement that the topic was frozen but could be
discussed on the talk page (or, if the talk page was also frozen, on
the Metawiki). In the worst cases, some neutral party could draft a
standin article while the storm raged elsewhere.
There are never more than a half dozen of these hot topics at one
time, maybe no more than two or three, and it could only help to
provide a way to mediate these discussions without driving people
away. (See next mail from me.)
Tom P.
O88
|>There is no hurry to complete any topic, but edit wars are
|> fueled by adrenaline and adrenaline doesn't last.
|
|I agree. We would have to change some wording on the Main Page that would make
|us look not as open though....
|
|> ....
|
|-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
|
|[Wikipedia-l]
|To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
|http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
|
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1094
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Oct 22 13:53:10 UTC 2002
Sean Barrett wrote:
> Lir is now at work on the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page, deleting any
> references to herself, while accusing all other editors of the
> Christopher Columbus page of being vandals.
>
> But far be it from me to suggest that anything be done about it! I've
> learned my lesson.
Lir is not a "vandal" -- but a contributor who disagrees with other contributors. I just spent an hour yesterday trying to fix up the Columbus article myself -- trying to minimize any addition of my own POV and focusing mostly on grammar, sequence and neutrality. I haven't even taken a look at this morning's version yet, though.
I read all Lir's talk page comments. Nothing anti-Wikipedia there. She says Columbus was a slave-trader, and she won't shut up about it; well, as I suppose LDC would agree, we have free speech on the talk pages. Also, I did a little googling and found 2 online sources that say Columbus transported slaves from the New World to Europe. Unless he "donated" the slaves to a museum or something, he probably got paid -- and slave transport + got paid = slave trader.
I had never heard about this in grade school or even high school. I always thought Columbus was a pure, noble adventurous hero -- who well deserves an annual holiday. But if he kidnapped people into slavery, I gotta downgrade his heroism at least one notch (on my own personal list of historical figures).
And the article should say that "some sources" indicate that Columbus initiated the [[Transatlantic slave trade]].
I'll see if I can straighten this out.
Ed Poor
Amateur and Utterly Unofficial Self-appointed Neutrality Umpire
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1095
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Oct 22 15:02:21 UTC 2002
Sean Barrett wrote:
> Does anyone have a strong objection to banning Lir for an hour or so, to
> let him cool off?
I'm a little late to weigh in on this, but my personal mode of conduct
is that instead of banning someone to let them cool off, I should let
them have their way for an hour to let them cool off. Just come back
to the article tomorrow or the next day and fix it. Probably he won't
feel as emotional about it then -- and neither will I.
Banning, even for an hour, should be reserved for pure vandalism.
Disagreements about content seldom rise to that level.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1096
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Oct 22 15:08:08 UTC 2002
Tom Parmenter wrote:
> I'll suggest this again. Banning a contributor forces some authority
> figure to decide who is right and wrong. Why not freeze the topic
> instead? There is no hurry to complete any topic, but edit wars are
> fueled by adrenalin and adrenalin doesn't last. I'd suggest that
> [[reality]] could be frozen for a day, week, month, or even year
> without any harm to the ultimate wikipedia and in the meantime all
> participants could cool off, write articles distinguishing the various
> Three Stooges, defect to slashdot, die, or whatever. There could be
> degrees of this, we could freeze the page only, or freeze the talk
> page if things got too hot. .
Or, we could just relax and let the article be wrong for awhile. In a
day, maybe everyone will feel better.
If some particularly vicious argument goes on for weeks at a time,
then we can start thinking about alternative solutions. But, usually,
people get tired of it.
Was Columbus a slave trader before coming to the New World? Maybe, I
don't actually know. But I do know that it's the sort of claim that
needs some documentation. Maybe the guy who wants to say that can
provide documentation, OR someone who doesn't want to say that can
provide counter-documentation.
In the meantime, edit wars just make us all unhappy.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1097
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Oct 22 15:11:02 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> A simple test to think about is this: if the person in question
> took exactly the same actions, but was on the other side of the
> argument, would his actions be just as disruptive? I think Lir
> and DW pass that test.
Without agreeing necessarily with everything Lee wrote, I do think
this is a valuable test. It's important to distinguish between
people's _content_ and their _attitude_. Both of these two have been
very quick to insult other people in disagreements, and that's not
good.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1098
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Lir and Christopher Columbus
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Oct 22 15:14:31 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> But then which version gets frozen? Choosing one over the other is taking
> sides so that shouldn't be a reason why a page gets frozen.
I think that letting the other guy win for today serves the same
benefit (ending the fight for now, allowing time for everyone to cool
off), without introducing coercive mechanisms.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1099
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Oct 22 15:16:25 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> I have blocked both her IP and her user name. If Jimbo thinks
> I am too rash in this, he is of course welcome to unblock them.
> It's his project, and I'll respect that.
Well, I recommend against it. But since I wasn't here yesterday, and
didn't unblock it, I'll leave it to others to decide for now.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1100
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Oct 22 16:03:49 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>My personal mode of conduct
>is that instead of banning someone to let them cool off, I should let
>them have their way for an hour to let them cool off. Just come back
>to the article tomorrow or the next day and fix it. Probably he won't
>feel as emotional about it then -- and neither will I.
>Banning, even for an hour, should be reserved for pure vandalism.
>Disagreements about content seldom rise to that level.
I think that Jimbo has the right idea here.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1101
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
dograt at earthlink.net
dograt at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 22 16:18:29 UTC 2002
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 8:47 AM, wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com
<mailto:wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com> wrote:
>Message: 11
>Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:08:08 -0700
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
>To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>Or, we could just relax and let the article be wrong for awhile. In a
>day, maybe everyone will feel better.
>
>If some particularly vicious argument goes on for weeks at a time,
>then we can start thinking about alternative solutions. But, usually,
>people get tired of it.
Lir has been at it for about 3 weeks since the day she joined. Her hallmark
is to edit artcles either using unsubstantiated, outlandish claims, all-
caps exclamations and/or political rants at the top of entries, childish
entries (see Iowa State history, for example: "common pastimes (at Iowa
State) are smoking, tripping, complaining..."), changing other user's and
her own comments in talk pages, removing references to herself that seem
unflattering or challenge her and accusing other users of being racist if
they don't abide by her ridiculous edits.
>
>Was Columbus a slave trader before coming to the New World? Maybe, I
>don't actually know. But I do know that it's the sort of claim that
>needs some documentation. Maybe the guy who wants to say that can
>provide documentation, OR someone who doesn't want to say that can
>provide counter-documentation.
Maybe, but is the onus on us to provide counter- documentation to
speculative claims? More importantly, would it matter to lir? She quoted a
dean at Iowa state with an outlandish quote. I emailed the dean and he
flatly denied making such a quote. I posted that to the talk page and was
immediately attacked by lir and she promptly ignored my evidence and
reverted her quote.
>
>In the meantime, edit wars just make us all unhappy.
>
>--Jimbo
A lot of people seem very concerned about lir's feelings and her possible
positive contributions down the road. That's kind of wierd considering that
she has already wasted a considerable amount of other user's time and
energy with her combative, irrational tirades; time that could have been
spent making wikipedia better. I, for one, have severly curtailed my
contributions out of disgust and weariness. So, if you think that maybe we
should"just relax and let the article be wrong for awhile", you'll probably
get your wish. People like lir have worn me down and her edits certainly
won't be disturbed by me anymore.
dave
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1102
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Oct 22 16:41:57 UTC 2002
> I read all Lir's talk page comments. Nothing anti-Wikipedia
> there. She says Columbus was a slave-trader, and she won't
> shut up about it; well, as I suppose LDC would agree, we have
> free speech on the talk pages...
Absolutely. If Lir's actions took place /only/ on talk pages
there'd be no problem, even with the rudeness--talk is just
talk, and doesn't hurt anything. The problem is that she
insists on editing the real encyclopedia pages /her/ way or
no way, and utterly refuses to listen to anything anyone else
has to say on the matter. She's /right/ dammit, and simply
won't countenance any disagreement.
No one argues that Columbus traded slaves--that's well known,
and it was already covered in the article from day one. But
that's not good enough for Lir--she insists that calling him an
explorer in the first paragraph is /wrong/, and refuses to hear
all the arguments for that. She also seems to think that stating
her opinion on the naming issue 20 times makes a consensus even
though it's already been decided long ago.
As Far as Lir is concerned, all of the other Wikipedians don't
exist; they are all inferior minds not worth listening to,
because she and only she has the received wisdom, and silly
little things like PhDs don't matter. The attitude is not a
problem--arrogance can be quite constructive sometimes. But
hte fact that she continues to /act/ on that attitude in the
encyclopedia pages is a problem.
I am gratified that she's now on the list, but even here you
can see that she simply refuses to admit being wrong about
anything.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1103
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Oct 22 17:23:32 UTC 2002
>>Banning, even for an hour, should be reserved for pure vandalism.
>>Disagreements about content seldom rise to that level.
>
>I think that Jimbo has the right idea here.
Yes. Where's the fire, anyway? It's not like the final version of any article is due tomorrow.
Maybe I'm emphatically naive, but I think Lir can still be a valuable contributor. I believe that so much that I've unblocked Lir--or tried to, anyway. There are two entries about Lir at http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=success&ip=129.186.80.133, and only one of them disappeared. Anyway, I'd rather be wrong about something generous than right about something cynical.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1104
[Wikipedia-l] banning in general
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Oct 22 17:39:27 UTC 2002
Let's talk about this--if not here, then somewhere, because it's an issue now and will only become more of an issue if bannings are being applie arbitrarily or unfairly.
1) When is it appropriate to ban someone from wikipedia?
2) Who should be able to ban?
3) When should people hesitate or refuse to ban people?
4) How long should people be banned for?
I'm not saying we need another policy or "rule to consider"--God knows everyone seems to stop at "rules", forgetting "to consider." But honestly, I think the issue needs some thought.
Personally, my feelings are that 1) when defacing articles or when adding profanities or ridiculous statements (In 1496, Columbus flew to Pluto with his friend from K-Pax) and doing that not just once but several times.
2) Fewer people should be able to ban than are able to now. It was a burden for Larry, and he was criticized severely for it, but one person is not a cabal; and several people making debatable decisions quickly turns into de facto policy.
3) We should not ban a contributor when involved with the situation personally or emotionally.
4) People should not be banned for long at all. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Several people on wikipedia, and on this list, started out dubbed "trolls" or something else; and we could just as easily argue that Lir was simply a highly accomplished troll, and that trolling therefore is vandalism. Is it? No, I don't think so.
How long do we intend to keep people banned? There are people on the list from August.
Anyway, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I'm putting on my asbestos suit now.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1105
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Oct 22 17:52:08 UTC 2002
> Maybe I'm emphatically naive, but I think Lir can still be a
> valuable contributor. I believe that so much that I've
> unblocked Lir--or tried to, anyway. There are two entries
> about Lir [in the block list], and only one of them disappeared.
> Anyway, I'd rather be wrong about something generous than right
> about something cynical.
The other was the block by user name; there's no interface for
doing that yet, so only developers can do it. But since you
chose to unblock the IP, I've unblocked the user name on your
behalf.
I happen to agree that Lir might be a valuable contributor when
she grows up. I just don't think we need to waste /our/ time
being her nanny.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1106
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Oct 22 16:33:22 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>>Does anyone have a strong objection to banning Lir for an hour or so, to
>>let him cool off?
>>
>I'm a little late to weigh in on this, but my personal mode of conduct
>is that instead of banning someone to let them cool off, I should let
>them have their way for an hour to let them cool off. Just come back
>to the article tomorrow or the next day and fix it. Probably he won't
>feel as emotional about it then -- and neither will I.
>
>Banning, even for an hour, should be reserved for pure vandalism.
>Disagreements about content seldom rise to that level.
>
In some respects one-hour bans are useless. If by pure chance the
offender had just finished his evening's efforts and gone to bed hoping
to take the matter up again in the morning, he might not even notice
that he has been banned.
Ec
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1107
[Wikipedia-l] banning in general
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Tue Oct 22 18:15:17 UTC 2002
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:39:27AM -0700, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Let's talk about this--if not here, then somewhere, because it's an
> issue now and will only become more of an issue if bannings are being
> applie arbitrarily or unfairly.
>
> 1) When is it appropriate to ban someone from wikipedia?
> 2) Who should be able to ban?
> 3) When should people hesitate or refuse to ban people?
> 4) How long should people be banned for?
> I'm not saying we need another policy or "rule to consider"--God
> knows everyone seems to stop at "rules", forgetting "to consider."
> But honestly, I think the issue needs some thought.
I agree.
The traditional wiki way to handle people making a mess is to clear it
up, rather than ban. There are two points worth making:
- if you're keeping an eye on recent changes, it's easy to feel you're
the only one cleaning up, or one of only a few. From here it's easy to
believe that you _have_ to do this work or else the wiki will go to the
dogs. In fact, it's likely that others will pick up the slack.
- reverting changes is relatively quick; it's explaining and arguing
that really takes up time. So one option short of banning is to decide
that everything has been explained to a particular individual already,
and come to a consensus that any problematic changes they make should
be silently reverted, unless a genuinely new issue comes up.
> Personally, my feelings are that 1) when defacing articles or when
> adding profanities or ridiculous statements (In 1496, Columbus flew
> to Pluto with his friend from K-Pax) and doing that not just once but
> several times.
>
> 2) Fewer people should be able to ban than are able to now. It was
> a burden for Larry, and he was criticized severely for it, but one
> person is not a cabal; and several people making debatable decisions
> quickly turns into de facto policy.
>
> 3) We should not ban a contributor when involved with the situation
> personally or emotionally.
>
> 4) People should not be banned for long at all. Give people the
> benefit of the doubt. Several people on wikipedia, and on this list,
> started out dubbed "trolls" or something else; and we could just as
> easily argue that Lir was simply a highly accomplished troll, and
> that trolling therefore is vandalism. Is it? No, I don't think so.
I agree with kq here.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1108
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 22 19:34:48 UTC 2002
The question was never whether Columbus took slaves from the New World to Europe or elsewhere. Lir claimed that he was a slave trader before 1492. She never supplied any proof of it, and objected when people asked her to prove it.
Zoe
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:Sean Barrett wrote:
> Lir is now at work on the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page, deleting any
> references to herself, while accusing all other editors of the
> Christopher Columbus page of being vandals.
>
> But far be it from me to suggest that anything be done about it! I've
> learned my lesson.
Lir is not a "vandal" -- but a contributor who disagrees with other contributors. I just spent an hour yesterday trying to fix up the Columbus article myself -- trying to minimize any addition of my own POV and focusing mostly on grammar, sequence and neutrality. I haven't even taken a look at this morning's version yet, though.
I read all Lir's talk page comments. Nothing anti-Wikipedia there. She says Columbus was a slave-trader, and she won't shut up about it; well, as I suppose LDC would agree, we have free speech on the talk pages. Also, I did a little googling and found 2 online sources that say Columbus transported slaves from the New World to Europe. Unless he "donated" the slaves to a museum or something, he probably got paid -- and slave transport + got paid = slave trader.
I had never heard about this in grade school or even high school. I always thought Columbus was a pure, noble adventurous hero -- who well deserves an annual holiday. But if he kidnapped people into slavery, I gotta downgrade his heroism at least one notch (on my own personal list of historical figures).
And the article should say that "some sources" indicate that Columbus initiated the [[Transatlantic slave trade]].
I'll see if I can straighten this out.
Ed Poor
Amateur and Utterly Unofficial Self-appointed Neutrality Umpire
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021022/69a6c88a/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1109
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 22 19:59:02 UTC 2002
Well, if she comes back and continues to cause trouble, I may have to walk away from Wikipedia.
Zoe
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:>>Banning, even for an hour, should be reserved for pure vandalism.
>>Disagreements about content seldom rise to that level.
>
>I think that Jimbo has the right idea here.
Yes. Where's the fire, anyway? It's not like the final version of any article is due tomorrow.
Maybe I'm emphatically naive, but I think Lir can still be a valuable contributor. I believe that so much that I've unblocked Lir--or tried to, anyway. There are two entries about Lir at http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=success&ip=129.186.80.133, and only one of them disappeared. Anyway, I'd rather be wrong about something generous than right about something cynical.
kq
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021022/e2e9f2fe/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1110
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Oct 22 21:36:24 UTC 2002
We want to keep good people like Zoe, dave (dograt), et al. BUT we don't want to overdo this banning thing.
Maybe we should revive the idea of a partial ban:
* Contributor blocked from editing articles -- stops the edit war
* But can still edit talk pages -- which keeps dialogue open
To maintain impartiality, I propose that parties to the conflict get at least one other contributor, who is not involved in the conflict, to agree. In other words, if I'm fighting with Jacob about "Palestinian Territories", I should not block him -- but Lee (if he agreed Jacob was being anti-Wikipedian) could step in and block him.
What do people think about a Selective Block? How would things have been different if we had done this with any of the following?
* 24
* Helga (H. Jonat)
* DW
* Lir
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Zoe [mailto:zoecomnena at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 3:59 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
Well, if she comes back and continues to cause trouble, I may have to walk away from Wikipedia.
Zoe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021022/179c1c73/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1111
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Tue Oct 22 22:06:41 UTC 2002
> Maybe we should revive the idea of a partial ban:
>* Contributor blocked from editing articles -- stops the edit war
>* But can still edit talk pages -- which keeps dialogue open
I proposed exactly that once, but the idea got little support.
I'm all for it, though I don't think even a complete block
really shuts down dialog. After all, Bridget did show up here
on the list, and she's quite free to e-mail anyone (the "you're
blocked" page shows the user who blocked you, and the "e-mail
this user" function is not blocked).
But the real issue is acceptable criteria for imposing such a
block. While we all agree that outright vandalism and obscenity
are legitimate reasons and that "point of view" and "emotional
involvement" are really bad reasons, I hold that "demonstrated
unwillingness to work with others" is a perfectly legitimate one
as well, so long as one judges this on genuine content-neutral
grounds. Others may disagree.
Here's another thought experiment. Suppose you are organizing
a conference to dicuss some topic, and preparing for it by hosting
a mailing list discussion. A troublemaker appears on the list
and disrupts things. It is discovered that the troublemaker is
in fact a bright 9-year-old. Is there any question in anyone's
mind that it would be a perfectly legitimate exercise of control
to simply drop the kid from the list and the conference, because
it's clear that a child that young doesn't yet have the maturity
or experience to effectively work with the group or understand
the deeper issues? "Free speech" and other freedoms are marvellous
things, but such rights only apply to adults whom we can hold
responsible for their actions.
On Wikipedia, we can't see whether the troublemakers are adults
or not, so we give them the benefit of the doubt. But some of them
probably are, in fact, children. It wouldn't surprize me a bit to
discover that Lir is a very bright 14-year old. Why should we
bend over backwards to give such a person presumed rights here that
even the most liberal of us wouldn't grant in real life?
And since we can't know the physical age of someone here, it is
perfectly reasonable for us to evaluate the /actual actions/ of
of contributors, and to judge whether or not they have the maturity
to work within this system. If someone acts like a 10-year-old,
they should be treated like one. A block isn't saying "you're an
awful person" or anything--it's just saying "go to your room for
a while, the grown-ups are talking".
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1112
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Tue Oct 22 22:15:58 UTC 2002
|content-class: urn:content-classes:message
|X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
|X-MS-Has-Attach:
|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
|Thread-Topic: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
|Thread-Index: AcJ6CXDAg7Yp0ILET6iftbmJzR5anAACBr1A
|From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
|X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2002 21:36:24.0399 (UTC) FILETIME=[11F45DF0:01C27A13]
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:36:24 -0400
|
|This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
|
|------_=_NextPart_001_01C27A13.11D3D4AA
|Content-Type: text/plain;
| charset="iso-8859-1"
|Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
|
|We want to keep good people like Zoe, dave (dograt), et al. BUT we don't =
|want to overdo this banning thing.
|=20
|Maybe we should revive the idea of a partial ban:=20
|* Contributor blocked from editing articles -- stops the edit war
|* But can still edit talk pages -- which keeps dialogue open
|=20
|To maintain impartiality, I propose that parties to the conflict get at =
|least one other contributor, who is not involved in the conflict, to =
|agree. In other words, if I'm fighting with Jacob about "Palestinian =
|Territories", I should not block him -- but Lee (if he agreed Jacob was =
|being anti-Wikipedian) could step in and block him.
|=20
|What do people think about a Selective Block? How would things have been =
|different if we had done this with any of the following?
|* 24
|* Helga (H. Jonat)
|* DW
|* Lir
|=20
|Ed Poor
I missed 24, but in every other case there was a single article or an
easily identifiable set of articles that were the locus of the
trouble. Freezing those articles for a day, week, month, quarter,
might have solved the problem.
Helga- Copernicus
DW - Canadian noteworthies
Lir - Columbus
Did we so much need an article this quarter on these three topics that
we could tolerate the kind of abuse (let's don't mince words) that
these people dealt out?
As for the "one other contributor" this is what I had in mind with my
"master in chancery" proposal, not "police", just someone to filter
the conflict before it got into an article.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1113
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Less than an outright ban
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Tue Oct 22 22:38:23 UTC 2002
>
>
>What do people think about a Selective Block? How would things have been =
>different if we had done this with any of the following?
>
>
>* Helga (H. Jonat)
>
I don't think a partial ban would have helped here. As far as I've
followed it, there were many articles where she kept on "violating"
certain agreements/rules. Freezing an article (for Helga alone) might
have stopped a problem at one article, but it wouldn't have kept her
from doing the same with other articles.
>* DW
>
Same point. The Canadian thing wasn't the first time DW "violated"
wikipediquette. Also: these were mainly on the talk page, which wouldn't
have helped. The Canadian thing seems to go quite well now, we all seem
to be satisfied with a new approach on which we're working at a
temporary page.
Anyway, maybe it is better to have something like this: If a user
repeatedly violates some rule, convention, whatever and has ignored
pleas from others to follow that rule, we could raise some flag in the
database and show the user a page with "Other Wikipedians have not you
have repeatedly violated X. Please read this documentation over X. If
you disagree with X, please go to Talk:X or Wikipedia-L. If you continue
to disrespect X, other measures may follow...".
In this way, the use "gets reminded" all the time, and can't deny
knowing about the rule. Next measures be a ban from editing specific
articles, all articles (or talks if appropriate), etc.
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1114
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
Derek Ross
derekross at fisheracre.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Oct 22 22:39:47 UTC 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Parmenter" <tompar at world.std.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Cc: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
> I missed 24, but in every other case there was a single article or an
> easily identifiable set of articles that were the locus of the
> trouble. Freezing those articles for a day, week, month, quarter,
> might have solved the problem.
>
> Helga- Copernicus
> DW - Canadian noteworthies
> Lir - Columbus
>
> Did we so much need an article this quarter on these three topics that
> we could tolerate the kind of abuse (let's don't mince words) that
> these people dealt out?
>
> As for the "one other contributor" this is what I had in mind with my
> "master in chancery" proposal, not "police", just someone to filter
> the conflict before it got into an article.
>
Helga wasn't just Copernicus. She edited and wrote articles on many Central
European historical issues from an anti-Polish, pro-Germanic POV, quasi
historical point of view. Copernicus was just the last of many edit wars
which she was involved in.
DW also caused trouble over French historical articles when others
questioned his "One True Way" in much the same way as he did with the
Canadian stuff. Trivial changes and a mite less arrogance on his part would
have avoided the problems.
Freezing articles would not have changed the attitudes of these
contributors, since despite the fact that trouble flares up over particular
articles, it wasn't really a particular article that was the problem. The
problem was Helga's Point of View and it is DW's and LIr's egos in my
opinion.
Cheers
Derek
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1115
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #777 - 11 msgs
d3p1k at yahoo.com
d3p1k at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 22 22:52:55 UTC 2002
On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 03:27 PM, wikipedia-l-
request at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:06:41 -0700
> To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
> From: lcrocker at nupedia.com
> Cc:
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
>
>> Maybe we should revive the idea of a partial ban:
>> * Contributor blocked from editing articles -- stops the edit war
>> * But can still edit talk pages -- which keeps dialogue open
>
> On Wikipedia, we can't see whether the troublemakers are adults
> or not, so we give them the benefit of the doubt. But some of them
> probably are, in fact, children. It wouldn't surprize me a bit to
> discover that Lir is a very bright 14-year old. Why should we
> bend over backwards to give such a person presumed rights here that
> even the most liberal of us wouldn't grant in real life?
>
> And since we can't know the physical age of someone here, it is
> perfectly reasonable for us to evaluate the /actual actions/ of
> of contributors, and to judge whether or not they have the maturity
> to work within this system. If someone acts like a 10-year-old,
> they should be treated like one. A block isn't saying "you're an
> awful person" or anything--it's just saying "go to your room for
> a while, the grown-ups are talking".
>
That's a good point and a good analogy. I never considered that Lir
might, in fact, be a kid. It was hard to imagine someone so belligerent
would survive very well in university (I assumed she was student based
on her thankfully now - forgotten Iowa State jag), but then again, I've
been out of school for a while. Maybe things have changed.
Dave De Paoli
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1116
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Less than an outright ban
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Oct 23 00:47:35 UTC 2002
Jeronimo proposed:
>Anyway, maybe it is better to have something like this: If a user
>repeatedly violates some rule, convention, whatever and has ignored
>pleas from others to follow that rule, we could raise some flag in the
>database and show the user a page with "Other Wikipedians have not you
>have repeatedly violated X. Please read this documentation over X. If
>you disagree with X, please go to Talk:X or Wikipedia-L. If you continue
>to disrespect X, other measures may follow...".
This I don't like because it puts undue emphasis on rules to consider. Except for NPOV and respect of copyrights, all "rules" here are simply "to consider".
Lee pointed out that the underlying issue is working with others. Perhaps on some prominent page (even the main page?) we could make it explicit that in order to keep this thing going (and we've got a good thing going), playing nice with others is a must. Not so much as a rule or something draconian and non-negotiable, but just a reminder--"hey, look what you're doing. Let's try to work together, and make contributions pleasant and respectful."
Maybe this is too flower-powery an idea to work, but really so is wikipedia itself. :-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1117
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Less than an outright ban
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 23 02:58:32 UTC 2002
>Ed wrote:
> > Maybe we should revive the idea of a partial ban:
> >* Contributor blocked from editing articles -- stops the edit war
> >* But can still edit talk pages -- which keeps dialogue open
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 03:27 pm lcrocker wrote:
> I proposed exactly that once, but the idea got little support.
> I'm all for it, though I don't think even a complete block
> really shuts down dialog. After all, Bridget did show up here
> on the list, and she's quite free to e-mail anyone (the "you're
> blocked" page shows the user who blocked you, and the "e-mail
> this user" function is not blocked).
I vote for this too - this would give a person who is trying to "hijack" a
page time to focus on crafting their arguments on why the page should be
changed. Most contributors want us to have the best encyclopedia there is so
we will listen and consider the arguments. But I would probably freeze the
page as Ortolan suggests before I would block a user. I would also only
resort to blocking the "hijacker" from editing anything in the 'article
namespace' if they did something to subvert the process like copying their
version under a different page name and then proceded to orphan the frozen
page by pointing all links to it to their version at the new page title.
> But the real issue is acceptable criteria for imposing such a
> block. While we all agree that outright vandalism and obscenity
> are legitimate reasons and that "point of view" and "emotional
> involvement" are really bad reasons, I hold that "demonstrated
> unwillingness to work with others" is a perfectly legitimate one
> as well, so long as one judges this on genuine content-neutral
> grounds. Others may disagree.
Not me - I find it odd that we tend to bend over backwards to try and
accommodate people who exhibit anti-social behavior when this very behavior
/has/ resulted in the loss of great contributors in the past (and is
threatening to do so for at least two others now - and those are just the
ones we have heard from). Do we really want to encourage this type of
behavior and thus decrease the average quality of our contributor base? I
hope not.
>....
> And since we can't know the physical age of someone here, it is
> perfectly reasonable for us to evaluate the /actual actions/ of
> of contributors, and to judge whether or not they have the maturity
> to work within this system. If someone acts like a 10-year-old,
> they should be treated like one. A block isn't saying "you're an
> awful person" or anything--it's just saying "go to your room for
> a while, the grown-ups are talking".
That's right. We are a community of contributors and if somebody can't work
with the community then they are working against it. Nobody gets paid to
contribute to Wikipedia and the only reason people do contribute is because
they derive some enjoyment from it.
The question before is this; What type of "enjoyment" do we want to encourage?
I for one enjoy working with very intelligent people from all around the
world while writing a unique, neutral, free and useful encyclopedia. Other
people enjoy being anti-social and/or starting fights while pushing their own
POV agendas.
Which type of contributor should be bend over backwards to keep?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1118
[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Oct 23 04:47:45 UTC 2002
>>koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>>Maybe I'm emphatically naive, but I think Lir can still be a valuable contributor.
Zoe Wrote:
>Well, if she comes back and continues to cause trouble, I may have to walk away from Wikipedia.
Well, I wish you wouldn't. She's intelligent, but I don't think anyone believed her accusations of racism etc. She's a bit flammable, but (again, maybe I'm wrong) she may calm down. And, who knows, maybe we'll all decide that I'm taking the wrong approach and we should ban people more often, and sooner. :-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1119
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Less than an outright ban
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Oct 23 03:31:05 UTC 2002
Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
> Same point. The Canadian thing wasn't the first time DW "violated"
> wikipediquette. Also: these were mainly on the talk page, which
> wouldn't have helped. The Canadian thing seems to go quite well now,
> we all seem to be satisfied with a new approach on which we're working
> at a temporary page.
Even DW has been co-operating there now.
> Anyway, maybe it is better to have something like this: If a user
> repeatedly violates some rule, convention, whatever and has ignored
> pleas from others to follow that rule, we could raise some flag in the
> database and show the user a page with "Other Wikipedians have not you
> have repeatedly violated X. Please read this documentation over X. If
> you disagree with X, please go to Talk:X or Wikipedia-L. If you
> continue to disrespect X, other measures may follow...".
>
> In this way, the use "gets reminded" all the time, and can't deny
> knowing about the rule. Next measures be a ban from editing specific
> articles, all articles (or talks if appropriate), etc.
This is an interesting approach. When the offender tries to post he
would be redirected to such a page that would explain his offense
followed by "Do you understand and agree to the above?" He would then
have yes and no buttons. A yes would bring him back on track; if he
presses no he would ban or suspend himself. This all assumes that this
is technically feasible.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1120
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Less than an outright ban
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Oct 23 05:00:39 UTC 2002
On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 20:47, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Jeronimo proposed:
> >Anyway, maybe it is better to have something like this: If a user
> >repeatedly violates some rule, convention, whatever and has ignored
> >pleas from others to follow that rule, we could raise some flag in the
> >database and show the user a page with "Other Wikipedians have not you
> >have repeatedly violated X. Please read this documentation over X. If
> >you disagree with X, please go to Talk:X or Wikipedia-L. If you continue
> >to disrespect X, other measures may follow...".
>
> This I don't like because it puts undue emphasis on rules to consider. Except for NPOV and respect of copyrights, all "rules" here are simply "to consider".
>
> Lee pointed out that the underlying issue is working with others. Perhaps on some prominent page (even the main page?) we could make it explicit that in order to keep this thing going (and we've got a good thing going), playing nice with others is a must. Not so much as a rule or something draconian and non-negotiable, but just a reminder--"hey, look what you're doing. Let's try to work together, and make contributions pleasant and respectful."
>
People are all missing a reasonable course of action.
Ignore the bad edits for a while.
Noone will die if the Christopher Columbus article is imperfect for 10
minutes, or 24 hours, or even a week.
People are encouraged by feedback, both positive and negative. A
complete lack of feedback will generally lead to boredom. Especially if
you let "radical idiots" (my term) expend lots of energy, then silently,
without making a big deal, revert 90% of their effort (90% because even
absurd edits usually have some level of validity).
An implacable and slow reaction to extreme behavior is one of the best
courses to take.
No need to ban people.
Remember: we're in this for the long haul.
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1121
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Oct 23 05:01:40 UTC 2002
LDC wrote in large part:
>Here's another thought experiment. Suppose you are organizing
>a conference to dicuss some topic, and preparing for it by hosting
>a mailing list discussion. A troublemaker appears on the list
>and disrupts things. It is discovered that the troublemaker is
>in fact a bright 9-year-old. Is there any question in anyone's
>mind that it would be a perfectly legitimate exercise of control
>to simply drop the kid from the list and the conference, because
>it's clear that a child that young doesn't yet have the maturity
>or experience to effectively work with the group or understand
>the deeper issues? "Free speech" and other freedoms are marvellous
>things, but such rights only apply to adults whom we can hold
>responsible for their actions.
Rights only for adults? What contemptible, unprincipled garbage!
>On Wikipedia, we can't see whether the troublemakers are adults
>or not, so we give them the benefit of the doubt. But some of them
>probably are, in fact, children. It wouldn't surprize me a bit to
>discover that Lir is a very bright 14-year old. Why should we
>bend over backwards to give such a person presumed rights here that
>even the most liberal of us wouldn't grant in real life?
You may count me as insulted at the suggestion
that I would care for one moment about the person's age.
>And since we can't know the physical age of someone here, it is
>perfectly reasonable for us to evaluate the /actual actions/ of
>of contributors, and to judge whether or not they have the maturity
>to work within this system. If someone acts like a 10-year-old,
>they should be treated like one. A block isn't saying "you're an
>awful person" or anything--it's just saying "go to your room for
>a while, the grown-ups are talking".
Your argument seems to be that, if you knew the person to be an adult,
then you would grant them certain rights of free speech
that you wouldn't grant to children. But since you don't know this,
you have to give them the detriment of the doubt.
Well, nothing surprising -- this is the usual result of prejudice.
Having thus criticised Lee, I'd like to point out
that I'm not actually commenting on his main point,
which is that people should be blockable for antisocial behaviour.
You could remove all the age-linked bullshit from his post
and still have something reasonable left over,
based on an assumption that even adults
don't have unrestricted free speech rights.
But I can't let these unconscionable slurs against 9-year-olds stand.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1122
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
Mirko Thiessen
mt at mirko-thiessen.de
Wed Oct 23 07:54:12 UTC 2002
>
>But the real issue is acceptable criteria for imposing such a
>block. While we all agree that outright vandalism and obscenity
>are legitimate reasons and that "point of view" and "emotional
>involvement" are really bad reasons, I hold that "demonstrated
>unwillingness to work with others" is a perfectly legitimate one
>as well, so long as one judges this on genuine content-neutral
>grounds. Others may disagree.
>
I completely agree with you. Lir is not aware at all of the basic netiquette. Insulting other
users and changing their quotes is in my opinion equivalent to vandalism. How could
someone be called a useful contributor, if he calls other users "racists" or "idiots", and this
more than once. We should not make so many efforts to protect persons behaving this
way.
Mirko (Cordyph)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1123
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Oct 23 11:31:34 UTC 2002
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> But the real issue is acceptable criteria for imposing such a
> block. While we all agree that outright vandalism and obscenity
> are legitimate reasons and that "point of view" and "emotional
> involvement" are really bad reasons, I hold that "demonstrated
> unwillingness to work with others" is a perfectly legitimate one
> as well, so long as one judges this on genuine content-neutral
> grounds. Others may disagree.
Well, I agree with you, except that I think that the risks of "point
of view" and "emotional involvement" posing as "demonstrated
unwillingness to work with others" is very high.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1124
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Less than an outright ban
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Oct 23 11:43:05 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Not me - I find it odd that we tend to bend over backwards to try and
> accommodate people who exhibit anti-social behavior when this very behavior
> /has/ resulted in the loss of great contributors in the past (and is
> threatening to do so for at least two others now - and those are just the
> ones we have heard from). Do we really want to encourage this type of
> behavior and thus decrease the average quality of our contributor base? I
> hope not.
We certainly don't want to encourage this type of behavior, nor do we
want to lose good contributors because we are coddling jerks.
At the same time, though, we want to be very careful to preserve what
has proven to work, i.e. openness. I mean, we could "close the club"
and only allow new people to edit after they have applied to a review
board, but I think we would all agree that this would be a disaster
for our overall goals.
Openness is important here. Tolerance is important. The encyclopedia
is improved, from an NPOV perspective, by having a diversity of
contributors.
At the same time, progress towards NPOV goes very quickly when the
people with diverse opinions approach an article in a collaborative,
rather than competitive, spirit. Mean people who just want to argue
and fight do delay the process.
Here's the key: finding ways to not encourage anti-social behavior,
and finding ways to retain good contributors, but WITHOUT resorting to
heavy-handed tactics that risk doing more harm than good. (I'm not
saying that any particular strategies that have been proposed are
heavy-handed or not-heavy-handed, I'm just saying that we should be
careful about that. Very careful.)
One of the reasons that I'm not generally supportive of locking
articles is that "it takes two to tango" in an article edit war. If
we want an edit war to stop, we have the power to stop it -- by
stopping ourselves. This may not always suit a sense of cosmic
justice -- letting the bad guy win for awhile, until we can sort out
some agreement in the Talk pages. But I think it will be as effective
at stopping edit wars, and demonstrates a certain level of goodwill.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1125
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Less than an outright ban
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Oct 23 12:00:07 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
> People are all missing a reasonable course of action.
>
> Ignore the bad edits for a while.
>
> Noone will die if the Christopher Columbus article is imperfect for 10
> minutes, or 24 hours, or even a week.
>
> People are encouraged by feedback, both positive and negative. A
> complete lack of feedback will generally lead to boredom. Especially if
> you let "radical idiots" (my term) expend lots of energy, then silently,
> without making a big deal, revert 90% of their effort (90% because even
> absurd edits usually have some level of validity).
>
> An implacable and slow reaction to extreme behavior is one of the best
> courses to take.
>
> No need to ban people.
>
> Remember: we're in this for the long haul.
I think this is all basically correct and well said.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1126
[Wikipedia-l] Admin privileges
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Wed Oct 23 12:27:55 UTC 2002
Hi,
I just found this on my talk page:
> Thanks for doing the grunt work seeking out copyright violations
> and marking them for deletion. This is something I used to do
> a lot of but lately I haven't \ had much time to do this. I've
> also noticed that you don't appear to be an Admin. You might
> want to consider posting a note on the Wikipedia mailing list
> asking to be one -- I'll make sure it happens. Then instead of
> having to post pages like Cervidae on the votes for deletion
> page you can just delete the page yourself (these are recoverable
> by other Admins if you make a mistake). Thanks again for doing
> Wikipedia weeding. --mav
So I think I will have to do so. I always resisted becoming an
admin since admin privileges are always combined with admin duties,
but since maveric is not the first to complain that I always list
even the most stupid pages on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]
instead of deleting them myself, I think I should take this burden.
I promise not to delete any page that has similarities with an
article without prior discussion on the above page.
Best regards,
JeLuF
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021023/fb5ff09b/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1127
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
erik_moeller at gmx.de
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Oct 23 13:17:00 UTC 2002
(Sorry if this arrives badly formatted, trying out a new MUA here ..)
>> On Wikipedia, we can't see whether the troublemakers are adults
>> or not, so we give them the benefit of the doubt. But some of them
>> probably are, in fact, children. It wouldn't surprize me a bit to
>> discover that Lir is a very bright 14-year old. Why should we
>> bend over backwards to give such a person presumed rights here that
>> even the most liberal of us wouldn't grant in real life?
> You may count me as insulted at the suggestion
> that I would care for one moment about the person's age.
I have to agree with Toby here. I have known and communicated with many
people who have accomplished great things at an early age, such as Aaron
Swartz, who joined the W3C's RDF working group at age 15, IIRC, or Tom St.
Denis, who has written an encrypted messaging client at a similar age.
These people often have social skills that most adults lack.
Social skills are hardly a function of age, and much more a function of
upbringing. See http://www.violence.de - children who are raised with
affection and love will grow up to become peaceful and socially skilled
individuals. Much if not most of the impulsiveness of many juveniles is
the result of the way they are treated: bullied in school, abused at home,
often prevented from engaging in loving relationships with each other. To
repeat the myth that juveniles are naturally socio-emotionally inferior to
adults only perpetuates the mistreatment that these people receive, and
thus makes their "lack of social skills" a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course society draws lines when granting privileges. Even though many
young kids may be bright enough to drive a car, it is certainly easiest to
work with a fixed age limit. But free speech is not a privilege, it is a
fundamental right. That being said, editing Wikipedia *is* a privilege,
but Wikipedia should try to endorse openness and condemn prejudice.
As regards the topic at hand, I tend to agree that banning anti-socials
from certain editorial functions may be necessary. I am concerned,
however, in whose hands we place such powers. I think the more we expand
the powers of the Wikipedia admins, the more we need to formulate a
democratic process within which these powers are exercised.
It could work like this (note that I haven't really looked at the admin
interface yet, so sorry if this already exists in some form):
In the top Wikipedia bar, all admins see a "Admin Polls: 3/5", where the
"3", in a red font, would indicate the polls which are new, and the 5 the
total number of polls that exist.
When an admin bans a user, he gets this interface:
Ban user:
[ ] immediately
[x] if majority agrees
[x] from edits
[ ] completely
Describe reason:
....
If the option "if majority agrees" is chosen, a new admin poll is
generated. This poll then allows all admins to participate within the
voting period (24 hours or so), and after that period, an automatic
decision is made on whether or not to ban the user. Optionally, the poll
could have a Talk page linked to it, so that the ban can be discussed
during the voting period. It doesn't matter how many people participate in
the poll, the automatic decision mechanism simply works with the number of
votes it gets.
This way, we can hopefully prevent unfair bans and other abuses of
administration power. The poll system could be extended to include other
admin decisions later. (Side note: If we create something like this, it
would be nice to reuse the poll code to add poll functionality to wiki
pages as well.)
Why not make the polls totally open? Generating fake accounts is just too
easy, and recognizing forged results would put an additional burden on the
administration. However, the permission to vote in polls should be
separate from other administrator permissions, so that we can grant this
right to virtually every identifiable person who asks for it.
I am proposing this because I have seen how other systems become very
user-hostile because of arbitrary editorial decisions. This includes
Everything2. Much of the power behind wikis arises from their democratic
nature, and we should do everything we can to prevent the rise of an
oligarchy.
All best,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1128
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Less than an outright ban
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Wed Oct 23 13:20:28 UTC 2002
KQ wrote:
>This I don't like because it puts undue emphasis on rules to consider. Except for NPOV and respect of copyrights, all "rules" here are simply "to consider".
>
I think etiquette is another important one. Being nice to others, and
being constructive, as you also wrote in the remainder of your e-mail.
And people calling names aren't nice, and people repeatedly ignoring
rules and refusing to accept or discuss them are not constructive.
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1129
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Less than an outright ban
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Oct 23 14:43:06 UTC 2002
I like:
* what Jeronimo said about etiquette
* what Jimbo said about giving others some slack
* what Lee said about requiring rational participation
* what Maveric said about not bending over backwards to retain anti-social people
* what Toby said about a voting mechanism
Because:
* when I was new, people were courteous to me and gave me some slack
* when I was new, people insisted I be rational instead of anti-social
* I like holding elections! :-)
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1130
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Oct 23 15:38:38 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 09:17, erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:
> As regards the topic at hand, I tend to agree that banning anti-socials
> from certain editorial functions may be necessary. I am concerned,
> however, in whose hands we place such powers. I think the more we expand
> the powers of the Wikipedia admins, the more we need to formulate a
> democratic process within which these powers are exercised.
Voting is basically a bad idea. Jury-style voting, where everyone must
vote, and everyone must agree, is not a terrible idea.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1131
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 23 16:10:55 UTC 2002
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 09:17, erik_moeller at gmx.de
> wrote:
>
> > As regards the topic at hand, I tend to agree that
> banning anti-socials
> > from certain editorial functions may be necessary.
> I am concerned,
> > however, in whose hands we place such powers. I
> think the more we expand
> > the powers of the Wikipedia admins, the more we
> need to formulate a
> > democratic process within which these powers are
> exercised.
>
> Voting is basically a bad idea. Jury-style voting,
> where everyone must
> vote, and everyone must agree, is not a terrible
> idea.
Probably worse than voting, is voting in a hurry.
Which could happen in case somebody is threatening the
peace of the board. Without taking time to discuss it
first.
A voté !
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1132
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Wed Oct 23 19:20:28 UTC 2002
> You may count me as insulted at the suggestion that
> I would care for one moment about the person's age.
> ...
> I can't let these unconscionable slurs against 9-year-olds
> stand.
Heavens! I said that children were immature and irresponsible.
Next thing you know I'll be saying that Africans have dark
skin or that women have breasts. Shame on me for making such
sweeping generalizations.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1133
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Admin privileges
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 23 19:33:02 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 12:01 pm, wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com wrote:
> So I think I will have to do so. I always resisted becoming an
> admin since admin privileges are always combined with admin duties,
> but since maveric is not the first to complain that I always list
> even the most stupid pages on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]
> instead of deleting them myself, I think I should take this burden.
>
> I promise not to delete any page that has similarities with an=20
> article without prior discussion on the above page.
>
> Best regards,
>
> JeLuF
Speaking of which, what is the status of making a user rights promotion
interface available to Admins again? I remember somebody else asking for
Admin privileges before and I don't think anybody followed-up on it.
Wikipedia is growing so fast that we need more people like JeLuF to be Admins
and there currently is a bottleneck at the developer/Jimbo level.
IMO somebody should be able to simply ask the list for Admin privileges and
then if a current Admin agrees then that Admin should be able to go ahead and
do the promotion so long as nobody else disagrees.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1134
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Admin privileges
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Wed Oct 23 20:09:41 UTC 2002
Sysop he is ;-)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>On Wednesday 23 October 2002 12:01 pm, wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com wrote:
>
>
>>So I think I will have to do so. I always resisted becoming an
>>admin since admin privileges are always combined with admin duties,
>>but since maveric is not the first to complain that I always list
>>even the most stupid pages on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]
>>instead of deleting them myself, I think I should take this burden.
>>
>>I promise not to delete any page that has similarities with an=20
>>article without prior discussion on the above page.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>JeLuF
>>
>>
>
>Speaking of which, what is the status of making a user rights promotion
>interface available to Admins again? I remember somebody else asking for
>Admin privileges before and I don't think anybody followed-up on it.
>Wikipedia is growing so fast that we need more people like JeLuF to be Admins
>and there currently is a bottleneck at the developer/Jimbo level.
>
>IMO somebody should be able to simply ask the list for Admin privileges and
>then if a current Admin agrees then that Admin should be able to go ahead and
>do the promotion so long as nobody else disagrees.
>
>-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1135
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Thu Oct 24 03:46:32 UTC 2002
LDC wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>You may count me as insulted at the suggestion that
>>I would care for one moment about the person's age.
>>...
>>I can't let these unconscionable slurs against 9-year-olds
>>stand.
>Heavens! I said that children were immature and irresponsible.
>Next thing you know I'll be saying that Africans have dark
>skin or that women have breasts. Shame on me for making such
>sweeping generalizations.
You also said that free speech rights are reserved only for adults
(I suppose because valid speech requires maturity and responsibility).
You might as well argue that agricultural labour rights
are reserved to Europeans and people of European descent
(because only they have the delicate white skin
that needs protection from hard work under the hot sun)
or that travel rights are reserved only for men
(because only they are not tied down by nature to
feeding and otherwise taking care of the children).
These arguments have been made, from time to time,
and they are of the same nature.
There is also the issue of simple factuality.
Just as not all women have larger breasts than all men
and not all Africans have darker skin than all Europeans,
so also not all children are less mature and responsible than all adults.
Presumably you knew all of these facts already,
but they're just more reason why rights shouldn't be restricted,
at least not on this sort of demographic basis.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1136
[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Thu Oct 24 03:52:55 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>I like:
>* what Jeronimo said about etiquette
>* what Jimbo said about giving others some slack
>* what Lee said about requiring rational participation
>* what Maveric said about not bending over backwards to retain anti-social people
>* what Toby said about a voting mechanism
I didn't mention the voting;
that was somebody else (a fairly new person whose name I've forgotten)
that was replying to a post of mine.
I actually don't like all these suggestions for voting mechanisms
(this and the others that come up from time to time).
When a final decision must be made in the absence of consensus,
then it's certainly best to put it to a democratic vote.
But it's better to avoid making final decisions at all when possible.
But now that I'm commenting:
I think that Jimmy is saying the wisest things here
(not that nobody else is saying anything wise either).
>Because:
>* when I was new, people were courteous to me and gave me some slack
>* when I was new, people insisted I be rational instead of anti-social
>* I like holding elections! :-)
I'm afraid that Wikipedia will someday evolve into the sort of place
where Ed would have gotten banned shortly upon arrival.
We're nowhere near that point yet, thank goodness,
but I see a trend in that direction.
But maybe I'm just paranoid, we'll see.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1137
[Wikipedia-l] Ban 24.166.83.194
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Thu Oct 24 16:50:41 UTC 2002
24.166.83.194 keeps vandalizing articles, also edits the VANDALISM IN
PROGRESS page to cover his tracks and creates fake editlog entries. Should be
banned immediately.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1138
[Wikipedia-l] user:hello.jpg
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Oct 24 17:31:29 UTC 2002
beware the new "user" "hello.jpg", who just uploaded the notorious
goatse.cx image.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1139
[Wikipedia-l] Law and Reality
Fred Bauder
fred_bauder at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 24 17:34:35 UTC 2002
I notice that on topic Law (in which I am trained) that I want Law to be
about the law I was trained in and practice. I definitely don't want Law to
be about principles of science or law as the ordering principle of life.
Reality, on the other hand, having no training in philosophy, I want to be a
far reaching and broad article, with philosophical considerations, being
just a part, an important part, but leaving plenty of room for everyday
socially constructed reality and reality as seen from a scientific
perspective.
So, the point. We all like to shape articles so we can contribute to them
and so that they fit into our world view.
Fred
_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1140
[Wikipedia-l] user:hello.jpg
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Thu Oct 24 18:32:27 UTC 2002
Koyaanisqatsi wrote:
>beware the new "user" "hello.jpg", who just uploaded the notorious
>goatse.cx image.
An uploaded image can at least be deleted.
But what happened to the idea of forbidding links to external images?
I still think this is a good idea,
especially since an external image might be changed
without our noticing it.
Changes to articles should show up in Recentchanges,
but changes to external images don't.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1141
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 24 19:53:43 UTC 2002
I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another great
en.wiki contributor that for at least the next several
days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own future
involvement in en.wiki.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1142
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Thu Oct 24 21:25:18 UTC 2002
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 12:53:43PM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
> tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
> anti-social behavior.
I am proud that we are a wiki, and I hope we remain one.
> Andre has left the project due to fatigue with having to deal with
> these miscreants
Then he was under a misconception. He did not have to deal with them.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1143
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Oct 24 21:33:22 UTC 2002
> I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
> tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
> anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
> to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
> and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another great
> en.wiki contributor that for at least the next several
> days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
> Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own future
> involvement in en.wiki.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Now, hold on for just one cotton-pickin' minute here!
By golly, I'm not going to take this sittin' down. I try very hard to _reform_ and _raise_ people who haven't quite got the hang of things here. But I'm usually one of the first to say: if they won't play by the rules, show them the door!
I have repeatedly requested that we come up with some guidelines for -- well, behavior for want of a better word.
I have:
* made specific guideline suggestions of my own
* supported the ideas of others
* pointed out users who IMHO needed a temporary ban
* banned several graffiti artists and page deleters
The response has always been the same:
* people get up and leave (Like: Andre Engels -- goodbye)
* people tell me not to warn offenders with the word "sysop" after my name
What am I doing wrong, Mav? I trust you. You maintain NPOV, even when you and I are 180 degrees apart.
What am I doing wrong, Jimbo? Can't we have just a tad more authority to keep order? Must you and the developers be the only ones who can enforce the rules?
What am I doing wrong, Lee? We don't let kids break up a good poker game. But a lot of contributors will tell you: if that kid peeks at my cards/spills a drink on the chips/bets out of turn/etc. one more time I'm leaving the game. Right?
We must have clear guidelines and the power to enforce them.
If the rules are not clear, we have to rely on Jimbo or Lee or Brion to make a decision, inform us and then we have to spend a week or two discussing it.
When I taught Sunday School, I just gave trouble-makers a time-out for:
* hitting another pupil
* grabbing something (a book, a chair) from another pupil
* teasing another pupil
Within a half-dozen classes, I had perfect order -- and, to top it off, my class doubled in size! Kids started calling me Uncle Ed, and everyone wanted to be in my class? Why? Because they liked getting time-outs?
No, because they knew that no one would (1) hit them, (2) grab their things, or (3) tease them.
Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give admins the power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail the ability of contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
Ed Poor
I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another great
en.wiki contributor that for at least the next several
days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own future
involvement in en.wiki.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1144
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Oct 24 22:13:05 UTC 2002
On 10/24/02 5:33 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give admins the
> power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail the ability of
> contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
You're looking at this in not quite the right way. Rather than thinking
about creating a police force (which is what giving one percent of the users
power to enforce rules is) we need to be thinking about SoftSecurity.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1145
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Thu Oct 24 22:18:43 UTC 2002
I think a police force is can be considered SoftSecurity, so if you
don't consider it so, could you please explain what you mean by term?
People enforcing social norms by quickly reverting the work of vandals
and antisocial jerks is SoftSecurity, if those people are organized and
empowered with social authority that makes no difference, except now it
may seem reasonable to some folks to call that group a "police force" --
which BTW is not Ed's term, but yours.
-----Original Message-----
From: The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator at kband.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 6:13 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep
drivingaway good contributors
On 10/24/02 5:33 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give
> admins the power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail the
> ability of contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
You're looking at this in not quite the right way. Rather than thinking
about creating a police force (which is what giving one percent of the
users power to enforce rules is) we need to be thinking about
SoftSecurity.
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1146
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Oct 24 22:23:16 UTC 2002
But, my dear Cunctator, we have already given one percent of the users power: Jimbo and the developers can ban anyone, even a signed-in user. Ordinary sysops, such as myself, can ban only an IP.
There are 40 sysops, out of about 200 to 300 regular contributors. So our Dear Leader and Dictator For Life -- Jimbo -- and his royal bodyguards -- are that one percent. Sysops are about 20%. It's a two-tier power hierarchy.
Don't get my wrong, I have no quarrel with the benevolence of Mr. Wales. It is by his munificence that this project got started at all. Richard Stallman couldn't do it. FSF didn't hire a genius philosophy professor like Larry Sanger.
But we can't keep limping along by trusting the judgment of the top 1%. The authority needs to be delegated, lest the burden be too big. Recall the account of Moses and the 70 elders in Genesis.
Is SoftSecurity better than written guidelines? If so, clue me in.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1147
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Oct 24 22:27:59 UTC 2002
Mark,
Are you saying that rather than (A) banning jerks, we should rather (B) simply revert their "work" and drive on without them?
If so, this sort of combines what Jimbo had said before about just letting them have their way for a day -- with the anarchists ideal of "not exercising power".
But do you think edit wars won't mushroom out of control? Should I go back, say, 15 edits ago (to yesterday's "clean" version) and edit that? I can't figure out whether that's bending over to accommodate anti-social behavior -- or that's anti-social in itself.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1148
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Oct 24 22:31:32 UTC 2002
On 10/24/02 6:18 PM, "Mark Christensen" <mchristensen at humantech.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator at kband.com] wrote:
> On 10/24/02 5:33 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>>> Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give
>>> admins the power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail the
>>> ability of contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
>
>> You're looking at this in not quite the right way. Rather than thinking
>> about creating a police force (which is what giving one percent of the
>> users power to enforce rules is) we need to be thinking about
>> SoftSecurity.
> I think a police force is can be considered SoftSecurity, so if you
> don't consider it so, could you please explain what you mean by term?
See http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?HardSecurity . Note the first link.
> People enforcing social norms by quickly reverting the work of vandals
> and antisocial jerks is SoftSecurity, if those people are organized and
> empowered with social authority that makes no difference, except now it
> may seem reasonable to some folks to call that group a "police force" --
> which BTW is not Ed's term, but yours.
I hardly implied it wasn't. It is the case organization and empowerment with
social authority make only a limited difference from self-organization.
However, that is not what Ed said. He was discussing granting special powers
to a group of people differentiated not by social authority but by the law
of the code (admins).
I just want to make clear that I too very much want to find solutions to the
problems we have with recalcitrants. Our best approach is to figure out ways
to make the problems disappear, not ways to fight them.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1149
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Oct 24 22:34:39 UTC 2002
On 10/24/02 6:27 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Are you saying that rather than (A) banning jerks, we should rather (B) simply
> revert their "work" and drive on without them?
>
> If so, this sort of combines what Jimbo had said before about just letting
> them have their way for a day -- with the anarchists ideal of "not exercising
> power".
>
> But do you think edit wars won't mushroom out of control? Should I go back,
> say, 15 edits ago (to yesterday's "clean" version) and edit that? I can't
> figure out whether that's bending over to accommodate anti-social behavior --
> or that's anti-social in itself.
>
One approach is go back to the "clean" version and then incorporate edits
from the later versions that have value into that. It's an effective method,
and not anti-social.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1150
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Oct 24 22:41:32 UTC 2002
> > People enforcing social norms by quickly reverting the work of vandals
> > and antisocial jerks is SoftSecurity, if those people are organized and
> > empowered with social authority that makes no difference, except now it
> > may seem reasonable to some folks to call that group a "police force" --
> > which BTW is not Ed's term, but yours.
>
> I hardly implied it wasn't. It is the case organization and empowerment with
> social authority make only a limited difference from self-organization.
> However, that is not what Ed said. He was discussing granting special powers
> to a group of people differentiated not by social authority but by the law
> of the code (admins).
>
> I just want to make clear that I too very much want to find solutions to the
> problems we have with recalcitrants. Our best approach is to figure out ways
> to make the problems disappear, not ways to fight them.
Yes, I am talking about special powers -- but not simply an arbitrary _degree_ of power, which is what we have now. Developers can ban anyone, anytime, and are answerable only to Jimbo. Sysops can ban an IP, and any other sysop can unban that IP.
But it's all arbitrary, unless there is a consensus on what rules these bannings are intended to enforce.
Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
I'm not hitting a single note. I'm not saying, just give me power. I'm not saying make everything a matter of dry, rigid rules.
But sheer anarchy tempered by three dudes with shotguns isn't my cup of tea either.
Help me out, here, man.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1151
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Thu Oct 24 22:39:19 UTC 2002
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:27:59PM -0400, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>Are you saying that rather than (A) banning jerks, we should rather (B) simply revert their "work" and drive on without them?
>
>If so, this sort of combines what Jimbo had said before about just letting them have their way for a day -- with the anarchists ideal of "not exercising power".
>
>But do you think edit wars won't mushroom out of control? Should I go back, say, 15 edits ago (to yesterday's "clean" version) and edit that? I can't figure out whether that's bending over to accommodate anti-social behavior -- or that's anti-social in itself.
I see no problem with going back 1 day to get a clean edit, as long as
you incorporate any of the new material that was actually valid/good.
I don't know exactly what you had in mind for increased sysop power Ed,
but I do worry. Where there is a controversial topic, what is to stop
the older users with thousands and thousands of edits to their name (the
"prolific" Wikipedians, quantity over quality) from throwing up their
hands and shouting "VANDALISM!" when a comparitive newbie comes along
and starts making edits that they disagree with?
I wish there was a way of asserting that one has domain specific
knowledge, and this should protect one from the drive-by
edit-everything-under-the-sun Wikipidians who have opinions, and are
good at writing down "what everyone believes", but lack the detailed
knowledge to proper evaluate a new-comers submissions.
I hope you will provide more detail as to what you specifically had in
mind, Ed.
Cheers!
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021024/9e0aed2d/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1152
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Oct 24 23:21:05 UTC 2002
Ed begged: :-)
>Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
>
...
>
>Help me out, here, man.
Well--what's so bad about setting up a page outlining an expected code of conduct? Really that's what we've banned people based on--violation of an expected code of conduct--so let's at least outline what we expect. It's just not fair to ban people based on rules that aren't explicitly and undeniably clear.
I propose e.g. 1) no name-calling; save it for Jerry Springer. 2) don't change other peoples' comments. 3) don't question whether other people are actually people.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1153
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 00:28:06 UTC 2002
On 10/24/02 6:23 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> But, my dear Cunctator, we have already given one percent of the users power:
> Jimbo and the developers can ban anyone, even a signed-in user. Ordinary
> sysops, such as myself, can ban only an IP.
>
> There are 40 sysops, out of about 200 to 300 regular contributors. So our Dear
> Leader and Dictator For Life -- Jimbo -- and his royal bodyguards -- are that
> one percent. Sysops are about 20%. It's a two-tier power hierarchy.
Just to clarify, there are 40 sysops, about 400 regular contributors, 4000
registered contributors, and many thousands more readers. I was considering
the 4000 registered contributors the userbase, not the 400 regular
contributors. In that calculation, the sysops are 1% and Jimbo .025%. I
don't consider the developers as having the power to ban anyone, since they
really really shouldn't.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1154
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 00:35:12 UTC 2002
On 10/24/02 6:41 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>>> People enforcing social norms by quickly reverting the work of vandals
>>> and antisocial jerks is SoftSecurity, if those people are organized and
>>> empowered with social authority that makes no difference, except now it
>>> may seem reasonable to some folks to call that group a "police force" --
>>> which BTW is not Ed's term, but yours.
>>
>> I hardly implied it wasn't. It is the case organization and empowerment with
>> social authority make only a limited difference from self-organization.
>> However, that is not what Ed said. He was discussing granting special powers
>> to a group of people differentiated not by social authority but by the law
>> of the code (admins).
>>
>> I just want to make clear that I too very much want to find solutions to the
>> problems we have with recalcitrants. Our best approach is to figure out ways
>> to make the problems disappear, not ways to fight them.
>
> Yes, I am talking about special powers -- but not simply an arbitrary _degree_
> of power, which is what we have now. Developers can ban anyone, anytime, and
> are answerable only to Jimbo. Sysops can ban an IP, and any other sysop can
> unban that IP.
And those developers should never do so.
> But it's all arbitrary, unless there is a consensus on what rules these
> bannings are intended to enforce.
>
> Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100
> times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will
> we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an
> elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes
> out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
>
> I'm not hitting a single note. I'm not saying, just give me power. I'm not
> saying make everything a matter of dry, rigid rules.
>
> But sheer anarchy tempered by three dudes with shotguns isn't my cup of tea
> either.
I agree with you. You want answers? Here's what should be done. One thing to
consider is whether we can figure out a way to make IP banning 99.999
percent unnecessary. If we can do that, then we can reserve that power for
Jimbo, our GodKing (see MeatballWiki).
In the meantime, here are things to consider, in some kind of descending
hierarchical order:
* make IP bans automatically time-limited. (definitely)
* make sysop status automatically granted. (should happen)
* state policy that if you make a bad IP ban, your sysop status will be
revoked (until it gets automatically granted again)
* allow sysops to enforce the above policy (that is, allow sysops to
un-sysop other sysops)
* make un-sysoping two-way; that is, you temporarily sacrifice your sysop
power to temporarily remove another's sysop power
* get rid of the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page or at least rename it to
something less violently alarmist
There are many other interesting things that could be done. But I think the
best thing would be for us to avoid paranoia and take a concrete measure of
what the worst anyone can or has done.
One article being irrationally skewed can be a big pain in the ass,
especially if you care about the subject and know it well, but it's not that
important overall. It's only important if it becomes a problem
statistically--many articles for an extended period of time. That is what
must be avoided.
Another good place to start is to notice what causes difficulties for you as
an editor for undoing problematic edits. Consider what interface tools would
make it easier to "fix" "problems".
(I put those quotes because we also need to make sure that "unfixing" is
just as easy.)
I hope this makes some sense.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1155
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 00:56:47 UTC 2002
> Just to clarify, there are 40 sysops, about 400 regular
> contributors, 4000 registered contributors, and many
> thousands more readers. I was considering the 4000
> registered contributors the userbase, not the 400 regular
> contributors. In that calculation, the sysops are 1% and
> Jimbo .025%. I don't consider the developers as having the
> power to ban anyone, since they really really shouldn't.
The "registered" list is pretty meaningless; it never gets
cleaned up (another item on my ever growing agenda), so it
has lots of folk who will never been seen again.
Also, the developers clearly have the "power" to block
anyone or anything just as we have the power to make every
page green and purple: having your hands on the code is
about as much power as one can get. But we serve as checks
to each other; if I did something stupid like that, Jimbo
or Brion or Magnus would undo it, and vice versa. We should
work to create explicit cultural norms and guidelines for us
too, so that we have some idea what we really shouldn't do.
I think perhaps what Ed is arguing for, and what I support
as well, is the idea that we should perhaps take the idea of
freedom of action and the act-first-argue-later system that
seems to make Wikipedia work pretty well most of the time and
apply it at the meta-level as well; that is, let the sysops and
developers do what they think is necessary, so long as it can
be undone by others, and not freak out about it. That includes
the drastic things like deleting articles and blocking users.
In other words, let's agree to see them as less drastic because
they're reversible, and accept that mistakes will be made now
and then, but nonetheless give people power--and the cultural
authority--to do them.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1156
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Fri Oct 25 01:00:54 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
> tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
> anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
> to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
> and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another great
> en.wiki contributor that for at least the next several
> days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
> Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own future
> involvement in en.wiki.
And that's a shame... I think everyone gets 'battle fatigue'
occasionally. I stepped back for 3 weeks because I was getting
steamingly mad over the way we argue things round and round in circles
to the detriment of doing the real work. Hopefully Andre will decide to
return once he's recharged his batteries for awhile.
The thing is, like it or not, the sysops ARE a defacto police force. It
doesn't matter that we have the ability to make these changes because we
asked for it. We care about the pedia enough to take action when
necessary. And yes, I think that should include the temporary banning of
people who repeatedly violate the code of conduct for the wikipedia. I
agree with KQ about this - atm the code of conduct is unwritten, but
when you sign up for virtually any other website you have to agree to
follow one. We should do the same - when you create a login you need to
agree to follow the basic rules - no name-calling, no vandalism, and no
uploading of copyrighted materials. Being caught doing any of those
things should be AUTOMATIC cause for unquestioned suspension for a
period of time. No arguments and no questions asked.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1157
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 01:03:42 UTC 2002
On 10/24/02 8:56 PM, "lcrocker at nupedia.com" <lcrocker at nupedia.com> wrote:
> I think perhaps what Ed is arguing for, and what I support
> as well, is the idea that we should perhaps take the idea of
> freedom of action and the act-first-argue-later system that
> seems to make Wikipedia work pretty well most of the time and
> apply it at the meta-level as well; that is, let the sysops and
> developers do what they think is necessary, so long as it can
> be undone by others, and not freak out about it. That includes
> the drastic things like deleting articles and blocking users.
> In other words, let's agree to see them as less drastic because
> they're reversible, and accept that mistakes will be made now
> and then, but nonetheless give people power--and the cultural
> authority--to do them.
I generally agree with that philosophy, especially if it's really followed.
Blocking users is sticky, because people are quite different from entries.
I'd feel better if there was a way for blocked users to reverse their
blocking (without having to make a request to the person who blocked it),
and since that's hard to even conceive, at a minimum automatic unblocking.
I guess I also don't see blocking users as that obviously necessary,
especially if we say built a tool that could automatically roll back one
user's edits. (Though that could be even worse--imagine edit wars on such a
scale. Probably not a good idea. But interesting to think of.)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1158
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 01:08:55 UTC 2002
On 10/24/02 9:00 PM, "Karen AKA Kajikit" <kaji at labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
> The thing is, like it or not, the sysops ARE a defacto police force.
I don't like it.
> It
> doesn't matter that we have the ability to make these changes because we
> asked for it. We care about the pedia enough to take action when
> necessary. And yes, I think that should include the temporary banning of
> people who repeatedly violate the code of conduct for the wikipedia. I
> agree with KQ about this - atm the code of conduct is unwritten, but
> when you sign up for virtually any other website you have to agree to
> follow one. We should do the same - when you create a login you need to
> agree to follow the basic rules - no name-calling, no vandalism, and no
> uploading of copyrighted materials. Being caught doing any of those
> things should be AUTOMATIC cause for unquestioned suspension for a
> period of time. No arguments and no questions asked.
I strongly and vociferously disagree with that attitude. SoftSecurity is so
much better than such a policy of HardSecurity.
Especially "no name-calling". What's name-calling? How about just extreme
sarcasm? And what is vandalism?
And even copyrighted materials are not that big a deal.
And one of the great things about wikis and Wikipedia is that you don't even
have to login to edit.
The only thing we must (legally) have editors agree to is the GFDL.
Everything else can be dealt with through SoftSecurity.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1159
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 02:20:27 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>Especially "no name-calling". What's name-calling? How about just extreme
>sarcasm? And what is vandalism?
Eh, well, vandalism seems self-explanatory: deleting articles (not non-articles, but *articles*) entirely, replacing them with profanity, splattering the goatse picture about....
"No name-calling" just seemed to me a basic to productive discussion. e.g. don't call people fascist or racist, regardless of whether you think it's true, because it's really not going to help prove a point one way or another and certainly won't convince the other person that s/he is wrong. Anyway, that was the idea. Possibly not the right idea, but that's what I was thinking of. And I don't think we should argue that free speech shouldn't be limited at wikipedia--at least not with a straight face--because 24 was banned for suggesting that LMS was not a person and would deserve anything anyone wanted to do to him.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1160
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Oct 25 02:32:44 UTC 2002
Mark Christensen wrote:
>The Cunctator wrote:
>>Ed Poor wrote:
>>>Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give
>>>admins the power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail the
>>>ability of contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
I do agree that we should think about guidelines for
banning people for reasons other than outright vandalism.
I'm not convinced that this is necessary (at least not now),
but it's still a good idea to think about it.
What I primarily don't want to see is banning without guidelines.
Currently, Jimbo has banned only 2 people extraordinarily,
and each case was after long discussion, which is fairly safe.
Every other banning has been for outright vandalism (which is policy)
or has been objected to and reverted shortly thereafter.
Do we need to ban people for deliberately uncooperative behaviour?
If so, then we should set up guidelines for that before we start.
(And I think that most people here would agree with that.)
In particular, hard security measures reserved to "official" people (admins)
should be spelled out in some "official" document (a policy page).
>>You're looking at this in not quite the right way. Rather than thinking
>>about creating a police force (which is what giving one percent of the
>>users power to enforce rules is) we need to be thinking about
>>SoftSecurity.
I think that part of the problem is that, ironically,
people are sometimes too hesitant to implement soft security measures.
I think that it's reasonable for a group of contributors
to decide (through discussion on the relevant talk pages, most likely)
that a certain other "contributor" has repeatedly demonstrated
that they're unable or unwilling to work cooperatively,
and that therefore the miscreant's efforts can reverted without comment.
We are not obligated to continue to try to work with them
if they refuse to try to work with us. So revert them.
(And there is also the good point, stressed by Jimbo among others,
that you'll sometimes want to wait an hour or so before reverting it
in order to give them a chance to go away in the meantime.
This is to prevent edit wars in the short term,
while edit wars over the long term are prevented by force of numbers.)
Will this always work? Maybe not, certainly not forever.
Thus we should think about other security measures (soft or hard).
But the point is that there is an alternative between
attempting to work with somebody (which we all agree should be done first)
and banning them with extraordinary power (being discussed now).
This is Cunc's "SoftSecurity".
>I think a police force is can be considered SoftSecurity, so if you
>don't consider it so, could you please explain what you mean by term?
It can be, depending on what it does, but banning people is hard security.
I assume that Cunc is using the term "police force", then,
to mean a small group with extraordinary hard security powers
(such as admins that ban people).
>People enforcing social norms by quickly reverting the work of vandals
>and antisocial jerks is SoftSecurity, if those people are organized and
>empowered with social authority that makes no difference, except now it
>may seem reasonable to some folks to call that group a "police force" --
>which BTW is not Ed's term, but yours.
Yes, this is soft security, and it's what I think we should primarily do
(except for the fact that doing so *quickly* is sometimes counterproductive).
I would prefer to call such a group a "militia" rather than a "police force",
especially since doing this doesn't require any extraordinary powers.
But the language is not important. It's the hard security (banning)
that Cunc is objecting to, and that I want to be cautious about.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1161
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 03:03:09 UTC 2002
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Within a half-dozen classes, I had perfect order --
> and, to top it off, my class doubled in size! Kids
> started calling me Uncle Ed, and everyone wanted to
> be in my class? Why? Because they liked getting
> time-outs?
>
> No, because they knew that no one would (1) hit
> them, (2) grab their things, or (3) tease them.
Well, this isn't a Sunday School. The admins are not
adults in charge of squabbling children.
> Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure
> out how to give admins the power to enforce them --
> in a way that does not curtail the ability of
> contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
In other words, let's make a police force. Stage 18 of
the Wiki Life Cycled.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1162
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 03:16:49 UTC 2002
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/02 9:00 PM, "Karen AKA Kajikit"
> > It
> > doesn't matter that we have the ability to make
> these changes because we
> > asked for it. We care about the pedia enough to
> take action when
> > necessary. And yes, I think that should include
> the temporary banning of
> > people who repeatedly violate the code of conduct
> for the wikipedia. I
> > agree with KQ about this - atm the code of conduct
> is unwritten, but
> > when you sign up for virtually any other website
> you have to agree to
> > follow one. We should do the same - when you
> create a login you need to
> > agree to follow the basic rules - no name-calling,
> no vandalism, and no
> > uploading of copyrighted materials. Being caught
> doing any of those
> > things should be AUTOMATIC cause for unquestioned
> suspension for a
> > period of time. No arguments and no questions
> asked.
>
> I strongly and vociferously disagree with that
> attitude. SoftSecurity is so
> much better than such a policy of HardSecurity.
>
> Especially "no name-calling". What's name-calling?
> How about just extreme
> sarcasm? And what is vandalism?
Zero-tolerance policies are always disasters waiting
to happen.
For example, if I say on a talk page that the
Cunctator did something stupid, and responds that
calling his reasonable and prudent action "stupid"
could be considered vandalism, do we both get banned?
I will never support any kind of policy that entails
automatic, unquestionable punishment.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1163
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Oct 25 03:27:26 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote in part to another poster:
>Should I go back,
>say, 15 edits ago (to yesterday's "clean" version) and edit that? I can't
>figure out whether that's bending over to accommodate anti-social behavior
>-- or that's anti-social in itself.
I don't know about Mark, but I think that you should do just that.
It's safer than banning people and easier for the ordinary user
(that is, a regular contributor that has not undertaken admin duties)
to revert in the case that you've made a mistake.
Is it antisocial? To an extent, but it's less antisocial than banning
(even for just a short time) or locking a page (even for just a short time).
You need to make sure that you're certain (and that others agree)
that the antisocial "contributor" deserves this kind of treatment --
just as you'd have to make sure before banning them or locking the page.
A soft security programme of reverting the edits of the antisocial writer --
but after waiting a little while for them to wander off
(as Jimbo has suggested) in order to avoid immediate edit wars --
has all the functionality of the advanced (and as yet unprogrammed)
hard security measures that have been proposed:
* There's a cooling off period (because you wait a bit before reverting);
* The talk pages are still available (because you don't revert those);
* The contributor can continue to do good work on the other articles
(because you're only reverting certain pages where their work is bad).
And if this is not the desired behaviour
(for example, you *should* revert their edits to talk pages
if they're forging other people's comments there),
then it's easy to adjust; there is no special mechanism to go through.
Also, different users can react in different ways,
depending on their own estimation of the situation,
rather than following the decision of the first admin to respond.
This is the power of devolution.
Ed, you're famous for trying to (and often succeeding at!)
working with recalcitrant newbies and turning them into good Wikipedians.
I too would be quick to give up on somebody that you couldn't help.
And it's no surprise that other people (like Julie Kemp)
burn themselves out by trying to work with some of these people.
I certainly agree that there are people that simply
aren't willing or able to work with the rest of us in good faith.
But I think that, in almost every situation
(not counting vandals and copyright infringers,
which admins regularly ban under current policy),
we can deal with them without resorting to hard security measures.
Once we have decided that they are impossible to work with
(which is a precondition for a hard security measure like banning),
then we should save our sanity and stop *trying* to work with them.
But this doesn't require asking an admin (or using our own admin power)
to lock a page or ban the user; ordinary users can do it on their own.
And if we're wrong, if the person *can* be worked with by superhuman effort,
then there is still an opportunity for SuperEd to come along and find a way.
In the meantime, we just get on with our work.
Mav spoke (sarcastically) about pride in "bending over backward"
to work with antisocial people, with the result that good people quit.
Trying to work with people is good, but that's not the source of my pride
when it comes to Wikipedia. I'm proud of our devolved power structure,
our openness to newbies, and our ability to deal with whatever they give us.
I don't think that the last of these requires us to sacrifice the others.
Soft security is powerful, and way cool ^_^.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1164
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 03:29:22 UTC 2002
I fight to keep things open, not to tolerate
anti-social behaviour, but to keep Wikipedia from
becoming the online equivalent of a police state. I
believe that soft security is the best way to run a
wiki community, and that too much hard security will
eventaully kill us.
If we lock down Wikipedia too tighly, we'll lose
*most* of our great contributors.
Stephen G.
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
> tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
> anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
> to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
> and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another
> great
> en.wiki contributor that for at least the next
> several
> days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
> Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own
> future
> involvement in en.wiki.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
h
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1165
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 04:28:21 UTC 2002
You Wrote:
>I fight to keep things open, not to tolerate
>anti-social behaviour, but to keep Wikipedia from
>becoming the online equivalent of a police state. I
>believe that soft security is the best way to run a
>wiki community, and that too much hard security will
>eventaully kill us.
>
>If we lock down Wikipedia too tighly, we'll lose
>*most* of our great contributors.
>
>Stephen G.
I agree with this. Just for the record, I don't intend to ban people for name-calling or even being stubborn--I had that opportunity in the case of 24, and thought it was not something that should be done. I just would like to codify our expectations of what users should do: simply try to treat each other with respect. Give each other the benefit of the doubt. Avoid personal attacks.
I do think this is very important. Not everyone has been on the net long; and it's quite easy when first starting online to miss the fact that there are people at a monitor somewhere reading what you just wrote. Online newbies flame a lot without thinking; wikipedia newbies do it a lot too. Let's just make it explicit and encourage people not to.
Let's face it: if we had always been as quick to ban as we are right now, then Larry, The Cunctator, Ed Poor, LDC, and I would all have been banned at one time or another, possibly permanently. (24 is still banned, isn't he? That was meant to be temporary). We've all been trollish, disrespectful, and/or stubborn at one time or another for various reasons. But look: Larry has contributed some fine philosophy articles and was crucial in codifying NPOV; The Cunctator has contributed fine articles on the Sept. 11 attacks and is this list's consciensce; Ed is now a diplomat extraordinaire; Lee is an excellent coder and a workhorse who's also written some first-rate articles on poker.
What I would like is a page to encourage people to be how we want them to be, instead of punishing when they're not. Something simple & direct, e.g. [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot]]. I don't want to ban everyone who uploads goatse.cx or is adamant about a point of view, but I also don't want people insulting each other and leaving out of frustration. We are a community; we all have the same goals; we all have something to contribute. Let's keep the process open, and let's be as generous with others as others were with us. :-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1166
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Fri Oct 25 05:56:05 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> (24 is still banned, isn't he? That was meant to be temporary).
24.150.61.63 has been off the ban list for quite some time. (Certainly
since the July upgrade wiped the slate, I'm not sure about before.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1167
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 05:04:04 UTC 2002
>24.150.61.63 has been off the ban list for quite some time. (Certainly
>since the July upgrade wiped the slate, I'm not sure about before.)
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Hm, if I weren't attending classes full time & working 30 hrs a week, I would have known that. Still, though, I bet mav knew it. ;-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1168
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 05:53:01 UTC 2002
On 10/24/02 10:32 PM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Mark Christensen wrote:
<snip>
>> I think a police force is can be considered SoftSecurity, so if you
>> don't consider it so, could you please explain what you mean by term?
>
> It can be, depending on what it does, but banning people is hard security.
> I assume that Cunc is using the term "police force", then,
> to mean a small group with extraordinary hard security powers
> (such as admins that ban people).
That's basically right. I'm using the term in the explicit sense as
described here:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?PoliceForce .
>
>> People enforcing social norms by quickly reverting the work of vandals
>> and antisocial jerks is SoftSecurity, if those people are organized and
>> empowered with social authority that makes no difference, except now it
>> may seem reasonable to some folks to call that group a "police force" --
>> which BTW is not Ed's term, but yours.
>
> Yes, this is soft security, and it's what I think we should primarily do
> (except for the fact that doing so *quickly* is sometimes counterproductive).
> I would prefer to call such a group a "militia" rather than a "police force",
> especially since doing this doesn't require any extraordinary powers.
> But the language is not important. It's the hard security (banning)
> that Cunc is objecting to, and that I want to be cautious about.
>
Hard security also includes militias and police forces (and explicit trust
metrics). Essentially, anything you'd notice as active security is hard
security.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1169
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Fri Oct 25 06:28:42 UTC 2002
> Are you saying that rather than (A) banning jerks,
> we should rather (B) simply revert their "work"
> and drive on without them?
I think this is better than banning them, yes.
Beyond that I'd like to point out that this "hard/soft" security debate, is just part of a larger set of issues. As I see it there are two different kinds of movements bounded set, and center set. A center set movement is defined by its mission or purpose, and have very little interest in determining who's in and who's out of the group. Bounded set movements are very much interested in determining the boundary conditions for group membership. You're in if you do A, B, or C, and out if you do X, Y, or Z. As a center set movement (like the wikipedia community) age, they tend to acquire more and more of the characteristics of bounded set movements.
This can be seen in Larry's proposal to involve more specialists by creating a bounded set movement for them, so they don't have to deal with the "fringe" types, as well as in most of the recent talk about how to better deal with the "fringe" elements.
My overall view is that we ought not to become a bounded set movement. This is my primary concern, and I think the distinction between hard and soft security is of secondary importance. If we were to become more concerned about membership in our club than our mission to build a free encyclopedia, I'm fairly confident that our movement will slowly fall apart.
Yours
Mark Christensen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5190 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/a7fcba23/attachment.bin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1170
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Fri Oct 25 07:49:50 UTC 2002
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 02:28:42AM -0400, Mark Christensen wrote:
>My overall view is that we ought not to become a bounded set movement.
>This is my primary concern, and I think the distinction between hard and
>soft security is of secondary importance. If we were to become more
>concerned about membership in our club than our mission to build a free
>encyclopedia, I'm fairly confident that our movement will slowly fall
>apart.
My experience in similar online communities says that what will happen is
that the fresh new blood will dry up, and, after a couple years of seeming
health, the community will be anemic, exclusive, parochial, snobbish, and
go in for a lot of navel-gazing instead of working on it's grand project.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting, QA Testing,
Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation, General
Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205 Email: djw at reactor-core.org Webpage:
http://reactor-core.org Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/79fab38c/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1171
[Wikipedia-l] Re: I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Jeroen Heijmans
J.Heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Fri Oct 25 09:01:22 UTC 2002
After being called a racist/fascist several times in the Famous Canadians discussion, I too have
seriously considered leaving Wikipedia, losing fun in contributing and being unable to do anything
against that without marking myself as a "mad blocker" or anything. If I encounter something like
that again, I will probably decide to leave - even though I'd rather stay. So I'd be in favor of a
system which could help dealing with contributors when they behave badly, as the current system is
apparently not suitable for that.
As has been mentioned before, most bad behaviour focuses around a few rules, which also happen to be
the few real rules we have around here (IMO):
* NPOV
* Copyright
* Wikipetiquette
* Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
* Treat the "rules to consider" respectfully (this one is arguably part of wikipetiquette, but not
mentioned, IIRC)
If pointed to these rules by another contributor, most newbies - or other contributors - will read
the pages on these rules and either comply with them, or leave, as most people are reasonable people
and they see what the use is of such rules, or see that they can't live with such rules and leave.
Some may also want to discuss these rules, as they think they are (partially) incorrect.
However, if people are being unreasonable (even for a short while) and don't follow the rules after
being pointed to them (or even don't read them, which we can't be sure of), there's nothing I, or
other Wikipedians can do. You can block the ID, but that will be called bad behaviour as well; you
can block the page from editing, but that will be called bad behaviour as well, and there are enough
other pages to continue. You can send a mail to the list, but that does not result in anything
quickly, it only serves as a notification to the other readers of the list.
Therefore, in my opinion, there needs to be a way that we can "force" the badly behaving editors to
at least read the rule(s) he/she is violating. After that the person can either a) comply with that
rule b) disagree with the rule but decide to discuss it (even though most of the rules are likely
not to be changed) c) disagree and continue with his behaviour d) disagree and leave. a), b) and d)
are all good situations (of course, we prefer d) not to happen), and would be the reactions of
reasonable people (yes, most people are still reasonable even if they've been unreasonable before,
and realize they have been when they are told to be unreasonable). Of course, c) is not a good
situation as, at that point, the contributor is _willingly_ ignoring rules that are held essential
to Wikipedia. In that case, I think there's ground for "hard measures", such as banning, banning
from editing, banning from editing anything but talk pages, etc, depending on the case.
I'm not sure whether the right to "invoke" such a "reminder of rules" should be available to all
logged in users, or only to sysops - in the any case, it seems to keep a log of issued reminders and
also let the invoker specify why it was done. Also, there needs to be some measures if the same
contributor is reminded more than once of the same rule.
However, all in all, I think this is a good way to deal with bad behaviour. The "offenders" are
first reminded of the rule(s) in question nicely, in talk, or on their user page/talk. If they
continue to ignore those rules, we can remind them of the rules in a more forceful way. If then they
still fail to behave reasonably, there's are reasonably objective "proof" that the person is being
unreasonable, and that we can be "unreasonable" as well, by banning the person in some way. This
also means it is not necessary to involve a whole bunch of sysops.
As for a way to "force" somebody to read rules, I return to the proposal I made earlier this week -
let the first page the contributor sees after getting a "reminder" be a page with the rule(s) in
question displayed. I can't think of any other ways, but there probably are some.
The "rules to consider" are a different question, of course, even though there are a few which are
very close to being actual rules (I consider the use of English names and language to be one of
them, for example). If a contributor is "violating" such a rule, we should encourage him/her to read
that policy and the related talk, and then formulate his objections in talk there so the discussion
there can be re-opened, if necessary. However, most debates "gone wrong" on rules to consider
usually evolve to violation of some of the actual rules, so I think there's no need for anything new
mechanisms for "rules to consider".
Be it with some similar to my proposal, or something completely different, I really believe
something needs to change to deal with bad behaviour. Otherwise, the trend will continue, and more
and more people will get sick of bending over backwards, and leave.
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1172
[Wikipedia-l] how to deal with uncooperative users
elian
elian at gmx.li
Fri Oct 25 09:48:33 UTC 2002
Hello,
I followed the ongoing debate about how to deal with uncooperative users
with some astonishment. Some people seem to forget the first rule of
online-communities: Don't feed the trolls!
Precisely, it depends largely on each one's personal attitude how to deal
with jerks.
First, try to discuss only once. If your adversary does not answer in a
way you regard as serious, is insulting or refuses to substantiate claims
with arguments, immediately stop discussion - forever or until you see
somewhere else that he has changed his attitude. Don't try to educate
people except you specially like to do this. Don't feel responsible for
a jerk's metal health!
Second, take your time. Let him have his way, put the article on your
watchlist and silently revert the changes two weeks later without further
discussion. Time is on the side of the regulars, not the jerks.
Third, just an idea: to feel not so alone, you could put up a page
[[Wikipedia:Annoying users]] where you could state your feelings. If
enough votes come up on one person, this person could _ eventually_ be
banned.
Just my experiences from the German wikipedia where we had almost no edit
wars at all up to now. We have questionable contributions, some are
silently moved to talk pages, some are rewritten. Discussion is tried
once, after this fails the person is simply ignored.
just my two cents,
elian
--
Computers are like Airconditioners - they stop working properly when
you open windows
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1173
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Fri Oct 25 11:38:49 UTC 2002
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
> I think everyone gets 'battle fatigue'
>occasionally. I stepped back for 3 weeks because I was getting
>steamingly mad over the way we argue things round and round in circles
>to the detriment of doing the real work.
>
Same here. The inability of the list to come to consensus is more
wearying than edit wars.
>The thing is, like it or not, the sysops ARE a defacto police force. It
>doesn't matter that we have the ability to make these changes because we
>asked for it. We care about the pedia enough to take action when
>necessary. And yes, I think that should include the temporary banning of
>people who repeatedly violate the code of conduct for the wikipedia. I
>agree with KQ about this - atm the code of conduct is unwritten,
>
well, no, it's not.
we have plenty of pages about the nature of the project, the etiquette &
so forth. Granted, many need a spring clean. We've cleaned up the FAQ
pages, so maybe these will come next.
We shouldn't worry too much about Meatball's Life cycle page --
Wikipedia is unlike any other wiki. It is much larger, has much more
traffic, and has different goals.
I like the idea of pointing offenders to policy pages. -- I suggested a
"shoulder-tap" a while back, which would give the "offender" (loaded
terminology, sorry) a clear message above *every edit box they saw*
until they responded in some way. This wouldn't prevent them from
editing, but one would hope that a *rational* and *intelligent* user
would investigate, read up, and change their behaviour.
I am all for giving people benefit of the doubt, and assuming good
faith. But if, after attempts at communication, people still persist in
their behaviour, we should be quick to ban.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1174
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Andre Engels
engels at uni-koblenz.de
Fri Oct 25 12:17:33 UTC 2002
> I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
> tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
> anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
> to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
> and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another great
> en.wiki contributor that for at least the next several
> days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
> Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own future
> involvement in en.wiki.
Just for good order: It wasn't just these miscreants, although it's a large
part of it. I am also getting sick of the fights between ourselves, and of
getting hateful remarks from some of you. Furthermore, I have to spend less
time on the Internet anyway, as my work is suffering under it.
I don't think I will be gone forever, but for the time being I'm going to do
very little. Probably just a few new pages and major edits, those are what
still gives me fun.
Someone says that I do not have to deal with them. And that's true. But once
I have created a page or made a major addition to it, I get a bit attached to
it. And when they get changed, I want to look. Most of the time it's something
inconsequential. Often it is an improvement, and I smile. But sometimes it
gets worse, and that upsets me. And then I try to work on it. That's one way
to get drawn in. Unfortunately, there are others as well.
It's hard to say what, if anything, should have been done differently to keep
me. Because it's certainly partly my own fault, being too thin-skinned, taking
criticism too much personally, feeling personally insulted when there is
really just a difference in opinion. Maybe my involvement in Wikipedia was
just a case of having the right man at the wrong place - or a lot of wrong
places even.
Like mav, I am withdrawing, to WikipediaNL in my case. I'll probably be back
in some weeks or some months, and see what you have done with the project in
the meantime. I wish you luck.
Andre Engels
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1175
[Wikipedia-l] Re: how to deal with uncooperative users
Fred Bauder
fred_bauder at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 25 12:55:54 UTC 2002
Many times folks simply don't understand something and can eventually be
brought along. Trying several times would seem to be better than just once.
Some of the other suggestions like revert after two weeks are very good and
energy conserving.
It's a good rule in personal relations to assume people do not change, but
perhaps a better practice to have faith that they can provided not too much
is risked on the effort.
Fred
Message: 9
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Date: 25 Oct 2002 11:48:33 +0200
From: elian <elian at gmx.li>
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] how to deal with uncooperative users
Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Hello,
I followed the ongoing debate about how to deal with uncooperative users
with some astonishment. Some people seem to forget the first rule of
online-communities: Don't feed the trolls!
Precisely, it depends largely on each one's personal attitude how to deal
with jerks.
First, try to discuss only once. If your adversary does not answer in a
way you regard as serious, is insulting or refuses to substantiate claims
with arguments, immediately stop discussion - forever or until you see
somewhere else that he has changed his attitude. Don't try to educate
people except you specially like to do this. Don't feel responsible for
a jerk's metal health!
Second, take your time. Let him have his way, put the article on your
watchlist and silently revert the changes two weeks later without further
discussion. Time is on the side of the regulars, not the jerks.
Third, just an idea: to feel not so alone, you could put up a page
[[Wikipedia:Annoying users]] where you could state your feelings. If
enough votes come up on one person, this person could _ eventually_ be
banned.
Just my experiences from the German wikipedia where we had almost no edit
wars at all up to now. We have questionable contributions, some are
silently moved to talk pages, some are rewritten. Discussion is tried
once, after this fails the person is simply ignored.
just my two cents,
elian
--
Computers are like Airconditioners - they stop working properly when
you open windows
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1176
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 15:02:46 UTC 2002
I see a lot of good points being made here, and I frankly don't know what
to think about some of the issues raised. But I'd like to offer this
perspective.
On wasting time on recalcitrants: I (obviously) totally sympathize with
those who say they don't want to waste their time dealing with
recalcitrant users.
Wikipedia contributors can be difficult in a variety of ways. Not all of
them require banning, and the most common types can't:
* cussedness. I plead guilty, as must nearly everyone at some
time or other. People can be rude, dogmatic, uncooperative, etc., on talk
pages. This isn't a reason for banning, though--at least, we haven't yet
met someone who is so completely rude and antisocial that *that alone*
suffices for us to ban 'em. I doubt we ever will...
* vandalism (writing pointless profanity, deleting articles, and
other such activity). We have been banning people for vandalism since the
beginning, and this is a good thing. In particular, the fact that there
is no precising definition of "vandalism" that eliminates all borderline
cases is *not* a reason to stop doing it.
* ignoring rules to consider (e.g., titling articles with all
caps, writing small amounts of bias, using first person, and infractions
of that moderate level of seriousness). We have never banned people for
these things, and we never should. As far as I know, no one is suggesting
that we should, and that is one thing I'm happy about. :-)
* brazen bias. I think this deserves a separate category: people
who repeatedly write really badly biased stuff, even after being told
repeatedly that there's a strictly-enforced policy against it. This was
Helga's problem; to a lesser extent it has been a chronic problem with
some other people. I reluctantly have to agree with a slight change
of policy on this point: people who leave no doubt, over a number
of days or weeks (not hours), that they simply don't care about the
nonbias policy, who keep shovelling screeds into Wikipedia and editing
articles *only* to represent their own points of view, should be banned.
But this should only be in really egregious cases. Very many people,
including people who have been posting on the list lately ;-), write
subtly or slightly biased stuff all the time, apparently daring other
people to catch their subtle bias. I don't think we should ban people for
that, we should just thunk 'em on the head (virtually, of course).
* kookiness. Yep, I think kookiness should be and arguably has
been a reason for banning people. If they just won't go away, and they
continue to shovel their kookiness into Wikipedia, we should ban them.
This was an ancillary but important reason for banning both 24 and Helga,
both of whom wrote all sorts of kooky stuff. We're still undoing the
damage that 24 did, in fact. The defining characteristic of the kook is
(1) saying stuff that's totally false or totally biased, while (2) not
knowing, or admitting, that it's totally false or totally biased, and
(3) passing their stuff off as legitimate knowledge developed the way
other scientific and academic knowledge is developed (when it ain't).
* other kinds of difficulty. People will invent all sorts of ways
of being difficult. E.g., not that anyone has done this yet, but if
someone were to write perfectly usable but atrociously spelled entries
over and over again, I can imagine that that would be a source of much
frustration for those who would have to follow the person around
correcting the spelling. While people can be difficult in many ways, I
doubt there are many more grounds for banning.
* uncooperativeness, i.e., claiming ownership of articles. Now,
this is a new category among the alleged "grounds for banning"--and we
ought absolutely to demand that we get clear about this before we move
forward with any such ban. Being an egotistical jerk is not by itself
grounds for banning. Being insolent and insulting is not by itself
grounds for banning. Those are both ways of being "uncooperative," but
people shouldn't be banned for those things. On the other hand, basically
claiming an article for yourself, constantly reverting other people's
edits for no good reason, etc., can sometimes (*modulo* the usual concerns
about clemency, clear evidence, a demonstrated pattern, and egregious
offenses) be grounds for banning, I think.
But this is hard to interpret. I think DW came close to bannability on
this grounds. On the other hand, I can easily imagine someone who is a
bona fide expert on some topic about which there are some things that
nearly all experts would want to say--and *not* say. I can imagine that
various people might try to edit the article written by the expert, and
the expert might (reluctantly) wind up reverting all the changes, because
all the other editors, not being experts, simply were mistaken. This is
not very likely, not very common, but I think something like this does
happen. Here's where it's unfortunate that we do not have more
participation of more educated people, so that we can have several experts
acting as checks and balances on each other. But anyway, the point is
that the expert who is defending an article against bad edits might appear
to want to "own" the article, and thus to be highly uncooperative. I
don't think that experts should have to "cooperate" with people who don't
know what they're talking about. Just because Wikipedia is open, that
doesn't mean that nonexperts shouldn't defer to experts on matters of
fact. Matters of bias are another can of worms--sometimes, an expert will
give a partisan presentation of an issue, and then defend it because he's
the expert, when other nonexperts can spot the bias. In such cases, I
think we should remove the bias but defer to the expert on everything
else.
====
This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ
said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ
was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1177
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 15:10:49 UTC 2002
On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> I see a lot of good points being made here, and I frankly don't know what
> to think about some of the issues raised. But I'd like to offer this
> perspective.
>
> On wasting time on recalcitrants: I (obviously) totally sympathize with
> those who say they don't want to waste their time dealing with
> recalcitrant users.
>
> Wikipedia contributors can be difficult in a variety of ways. Not all of
> them require banning, and the most common types can't:
<snip laundry list of "difficult" contributors>
It is a detrimental approach to come up with categories of problem
contributors. Every contributor is individual, emotional, biased, and a bit
kooky. Noone is perfectly normal--that's just the average. Rather, we should
try to avoid CommunityExile (see MeatballWiki) if possible.
> This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ
> said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ
> was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
> rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
> as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
> a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
> special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
> one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
> by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
> and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
> have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1178
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
Imran Ghory
imran at bits.bris.ac.uk
Fri Oct 25 16:01:23 UTC 2002
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Ed begged: :-)
> >Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
> >
> ...
> >
> >Help me out, here, man.
>
> Well--what's so bad about setting up a page outlining an expected code of conduct? Really that's what we've banned people based on--violation of an expected code of conduct--so let's at least outline what we expect. It's just not fair to ban people based on rules that aren't explicitly and undeniably clear.
>
> I propose e.g. 1) no name-calling; save it for Jerry Springer. 2) don't change other peoples' comments. 3) don't question whether other people are actually people.
A more formalish proposal:
Banning should mean the suspension of all write access to the wikipedia
with the exception of the users own "User:" space page.
A first time ban for any purpose should be lifted if the user apologises
(either on their own "User:" page, on the mailing list, or on the
"Talk:" page of the relevant article) and agrees not to repeat the
offence.
-----------------------------------
===Vandalism===
Repeated vandalism is a 6-month bannable offence.
Vandalism defined as:
> Deleting significant parts of an article without reasonable cause
> Inserting unnecessary profanity into an article.
> Inserting nonsensical text into an article.
> Purposefully changing an article in order to mislead readers.
> Modifying the comments of other users in Talk: or Wikipedia: namespace.
A single purposeful vandalism from an anonymous user is a 1-week ban.
A single vandalism from a logged in user results in a 24-hour ban, not to
be enforced until at least 1 hour after the change to allow the user to
apologises or removes their vandalism.
A minor vandalism of an otherwise empty page should only result at most in
a 24-hour ban.
===Copyright===
Repeated copyright violation is a 6-month bannable offence.
A single copyright violation by an anonymous user should result in a
48-hour banning.
A single copyright violation from a logged in user should result in a 48
hour ban, not to be enforced until at least 24 hours after the users talk
page has been updated to inform the user about the copyright violation, to
allow the user to apologises or remove the copyright material.
===Libellous material===
Any libellous material (including accusing someone of being racist,
fascist, or similar without evidence) should result in an immediate ban
until the user either provides evidence or retracts the statement and
apologises.
===Non-NPOV or factual dubious material===
If after non-NPOV or factually dubious material have been removed the
original user repeatedly reinstates it without explanation it should
results in a two week ban from the main wikipedia namespace, but not the
talk space.
If a user repeatedly adds substantially biased text into a number of
different articles after being warned then the user should again be banned
from the wikipedia namespace but not that of talk.
-----------------------------------
Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1179
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 16:37:20 UTC 2002
On 10/25/02 12:01 PM, "Imran Ghory" <imran at bits.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> A more formalish proposal:
>
> Banning should mean the suspension of all write access to the wikipedia
> with the exception of the users own "User:" space page.
>
> A first time ban for any purpose should be lifted if the user apologises
> (either on their own "User:" page, on the mailing list, or on the
> "Talk:" page of the relevant article) and agrees not to repeat the
> offence.
>
<snip proposal>
Imran's proposal, while clearly well-intentioned, would hurt the project.
As STG wrote,
"I fight to keep things open, not to tolerate
anti-social behaviour, but to keep Wikipedia from
becoming the online equivalent of a police state. I
believe that soft security is the best way to run a
wiki community, and that too much hard security will
eventaully kill us.
If we lock down Wikipedia too tighly, we'll lose
*most* of our great contributors."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1180
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Fri Oct 25 16:47:07 UTC 2002
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
> On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
>
> > I see a lot of good points being made here, and I frankly don't know what
> > to think about some of the issues raised. But I'd like to offer this
> > perspective.
> >
> > On wasting time on recalcitrants: I (obviously) totally sympathize with
> > those who say they don't want to waste their time dealing with
> > recalcitrant users.
> >
> > Wikipedia contributors can be difficult in a variety of ways. Not all of
> > them require banning, and the most common types can't:
>
> <snip laundry list of "difficult" contributors>
>
> It is a detrimental approach to come up with categories of problem
> contributors. Every contributor is individual, emotional, biased, and a bit
> kooky. Noone is perfectly normal--that's just the average. Rather, we should
> try to avoid CommunityExile (see MeatballWiki) if possible.
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a
list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban
some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
those behaviors.
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's
what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we
should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
we should ban 24.
> > This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ
> > said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ
> > was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
> > rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
> > as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
> > a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
> > special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
> > one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
> > by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
> > and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
> > have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
>
> I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Done with Wikipedia for today,
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1181
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 16:54:24 UTC 2002
On 10/25/02 12:47 PM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
<snip
> (1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a
> list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban
> some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
> those behaviors.
Basically, we shouldn't.
> (2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
> values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's
> what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we
> should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
> we should ban 24.
If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point
in trying to explain. But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think
that ideally we should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should
ban 24. I didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a
push, given the circumstances.
>
>>> This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ
>>> said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ
>>> was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
>>> rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
>>> as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
>>> a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
>>> special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
>>> one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
>>> by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
>>> and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
>>> have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
>>
>> I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
>
> I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
> be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty".
That's certainly praise, if faint.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1182
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 17:04:22 UTC 2002
--- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> (2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they
> define Wikipedia's
> values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I
> don't know if that's
> what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't
> care.
No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values of a
community. It is, however, a group of people who
analyze, discuss and build online communities. Many of
them are experts in this area. Learning from what
others have done (and not done) is not the same as
looking to others to define Wikipedia.
There's a rich history from older wiki communities and
projects that we can, and should, draw upon, just as
we draw upon existing sources for encyclopedia
articles.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1183
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Fri Oct 25 17:12:41 UTC 2002
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
> >> On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> <snip
> > (1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a
> > list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban
> > some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
> > those behaviors.
>
> Basically, we shouldn't.
OK, that's news. Virtually everyone else on Wikipedia disagrees with you.
But it's nice that you agree with me that it was a list of difficult
behaviors, and that you were mistaken about that.
> > (2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
> > values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's
> > what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we
> > should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
> > we should ban 24.
>
> If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point
> in trying to explain.
Could you please avoid twisting my words around? It's an awful habit. I
*said*: I don't read MeatballWiki, etc. This doesn't mean that I don't
want to understand your view. I just think it's unreasonable for you to
ask us to go to MeatballWiki to learn what you mean. :-) You disagree?
We *should* all go there, because you start using words defined there?
> But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think that ideally we
> should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I
> didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push,
> given the circumstances.
No, Cunc, that's not what I remember. You said we should ban 24. You
were in favor of banning him. Please don't make us go find the original
posts...
And you still haven't given any good reasons, on this list, for a total
ban on banning.
> >>> This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ
> >>> said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ
> >>> was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
> >>> rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
> >>> as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
> >>> a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
> >>> special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
> >>> one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
> >>> by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
> >>> and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
> >>> have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
> >>
> >> I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
> >
> > I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
> > be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
>
> Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty".
> That's certainly praise, if faint.
Just to raise your awareness: ;-) You mean you think I meant it with no
sarcasm or facetiousness at all?
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1184
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Fri Oct 25 17:14:48 UTC 2002
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>
> --- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> > (2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they
> > define Wikipedia's
> > values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I
> > don't know if that's
> > what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't
> > care.
>
> No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values of a
> community. It is, however, a group of people who
> analyze, discuss and build online communities. Many of
> them are experts in this area.
"Experts"? There are no experts in this area. Or, if there are, all of
us are.
> Learning from what others have done (and not done) is not the same as
> looking to others to define Wikipedia.
I agree with that, but asking us to go to MeatballWiki to learn the terms
of the debate is a bit much. I have limited time for Wikipedia. If you
want to introduce a new term from MeatballWiki, together with all the
values that it implies, then by all means do so--but do so *here*, on this
list.
> There's a rich history from older wiki communities and projects that
> we can, and should, draw upon, just as we draw upon existing sources
> for encyclopedia articles.
Maybe. I'm not actually sure that that's true; Wikipedia is a completely
new thing. It's a wiki, but it's a lot more than a wiki.
OK, now I really *am* done for today.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1185
[Wikipedia-l] Re: I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 17:26:12 UTC 2002
>>24.150.61.63 has been off the ban list for quite
>>some time. (Certainly since the July upgrade wiped
>>the slate, I'm not sure about before.)
>>
>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>Hm, if I weren't attending classes full time &
>working 30 hrs a week, I would have known that.
>Still, though, I bet mav knew it. ;-)
>
>kq
Actually I carried over this and only this ban to the
new banned list when the software was upgraded and
then I asked Jimbo about it. He never intended the ban
to be permanent so I lifted it myself.
I see there is a lot of constructive talk related to
my unfortunate emotional outburst... I will have to go
over the dozens of posts Saturday morning UTC.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS. Only 30 hours a week with full time school. What,
are you some type of slacker kq? ;-)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1186
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 17:37:18 UTC 2002
--- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> > No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values
> of a
> > community. It is, however, a group of people who
> > analyze, discuss and build online communities.
> Many of
> > them are experts in this area.
>
> "Experts"? There are no experts in this area. Or,
> if there are, all of
> us are.
That's an odd statement. There's no Ph.Ds, for
certain. But there are people who have years of
experience building, and failing to build, online
communities. I humbly submit that they have far more
expertise then you or I in this area (unless, of
course, you have more experience at this than I'm
aware of).
> > Learning from what others have done (and not done)
> is not the same as
> > looking to others to define Wikipedia.
>
> I agree with that, but asking us to go to
> MeatballWiki to learn the terms
> of the debate is a bit much. I have limited time
> for Wikipedia. If you
> want to introduce a new term from MeatballWiki,
> together with all the
> values that it implies, then by all means do so--but
> do so *here*, on this
> list.
Absolutely.
> > There's a rich history from older wiki communities
> and projects that
> > we can, and should, draw upon, just as we draw
> upon existing sources
> > for encyclopedia articles.
>
> Maybe. I'm not actually sure that that's true;
> Wikipedia is a completely
> new thing. It's a wiki, but it's a lot more than a
> wiki.
Perhaps, but we're still building on a foundation
that's largely wiki, and many of our problems have
also been faced by other wikis.
There are lots of other sources to learn from too:
older encyclopedia projects (why did they fail?),
commercial encyclopedias (is there anything we can
leverage from them in our project?) and the rise(s)
and fall(s) of other great Internet experiments
(Usenet, Slashdot).
Ok, I'll stop before I veer too far off inanother
direction. It's just I sometimes feel that we don't
use these sources knowledge available to us. Of
course, we're all busy, and there's only so much we
can do at once. Talking about the project should never
replace working on it.
> OK, now I really *am* done for today.
> Larry
I know the feeling. It's 2:00 am in my part of the
world. Goodnight...
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1187
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 17:38:46 UTC 2002
On 10/25/02 1:12 PM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
>
>>>> On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
>> <snip
>>> (1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a
>>> list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban
>>> some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
>>> those behaviors.
>>
>> Basically, we shouldn't.
>
> OK, that's news. Virtually everyone else on Wikipedia disagrees with you.
I think that most people would agree that in an ideal situation, banning
would be unnecessary. I think that some people
> But it's nice that you agree with me that it was a list of difficult
> behaviors, and that you were mistaken about that.
?
>
>>> (2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
>>> values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's
>>> what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we
>>> should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
>>> we should ban 24.
>>
>> If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point
>> in trying to explain.
>
> Could you please avoid twisting my words around? It's an awful habit.
Couldn't agree more.
> I
> *said*: I don't read MeatballWiki, etc. This doesn't mean that I don't
> want to understand your view. I just think it's unreasonable for you to
> ask us to go to MeatballWiki to learn what you mean. :-) You disagree?
> We *should* all go there, because you start using words defined there?
You said "I don't know if that's what 'avoiding CommunityExile' means, and I
don't care." which is equivalent to "I don't care that I don't know what
[what you're saying] means", which I interpreted as "I don't want to
understand what you're saying".
Hardly twisting words around.
I appreciate that you're specifically saying that you don't want to
understand what I'm saying, if to understand you need to visit MeatballWiki.
I do think that's unreasonable.
>
>> But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think that ideally we
>> should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I
>> didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push,
>> given the circumstances.
>
> No, Cunc, that's not what I remember. You said we should ban 24. You
> were in favor of banning him. Please don't make us go find the original
> posts...
Let me.
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001892.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001899.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001905.html
> And you still haven't given any good reasons, on this list, for a total
> ban on banning.
See WikipediAhimsa.
<snip>
>>>> I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
>>> I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
>>> be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
>> Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty".
>> That's certainly praise, if faint.
> Just to raise your awareness: ;-) You mean you think I meant it with no
> sarcasm or facetiousness at all?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, yes.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1188
[Wikipedia-l] Long-term risks to Wikipedia
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Oct 25 17:45:25 UTC 2002
Cunctator wrote, in good conscience:
> I think that ideally we should never have to ban anyone. I
> didn't think we should ban 24. I didn't strongly think we
> should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push, given the
> circumstances.
Ward's Wiki is justly proud of having had only a couple of vandalism episodes - ever.
But they are much smaller and much less well known than the pedia. Besides, it's mostly about boring computer programming stuff, precisely the kind of hard-to-learn knowledge that today's Bart Simpson clones can't even understand, let alone have a position on. Their ability to SoftPolice (or whatever you call it when a vigilante posse toses out an anti-social pest) is a thousand times as great as ours.
You can't apply c2.com's rules at wikipedia.org, because community ethics doesn't scale. We're not a tiny village; we're a town becoming a city.
I see Jimmy, Lee, Brion & Magnus as a vigilante group. Nothing wrong with frontier justice, though, and nothing against these men personally or anything they've done. They deserve medals for their dedicated service. Thanks, Jimbo, for pouring so much money into Nupedia, Wikipedia and Larry's salary.
But as we grow ten-fold and a hundred-fold, we will encounter several risks:
* deterioration into an elitist cabal -- many other have pointed this out
* conquest by barbarian hordes (vandals win)
* experts continue to stay away
We have to deal with competing values. We can't codify a set of rules until we do. We also can't continue as we have much longer without a set of rules.
Values:
* easy to contribute (Wiki software)
* vandalism minimized (IP ban, History)
* experts encouraged to contribute (?)
* valuable contributors stick around (?)
In my woefully inadequate short list of values, I find that only two are supported by mechanisms. The Wiki software makes it easy to contribute, and IP bans and History pages make it easy to thwart vandalism.
We have not, however, found a way to attract more than two or three subject matter experts: (Axelboldt in math, Larry in philosophy, Julie in history)
We have also not found a way to get valuable contributors to stick around.
I do understand the dangers of creating a police force. I have read the MeatBall links Cunctator suggested. I do hear what Stephen Gilbert is saying. Too much power in the wrong hands will certainly destroy this project.
The problem is that the converse is also true.
Without a police force, without an "armed citizenry", we suffer from having too little power in the right hands. Did you ever live in a bad neighborhood? Do you know what it's like to be at the mercy of roving gangs of boys/young men? Okay, I confess that I've never lived in such a neighborhood. I'm "middle class", and with my good looks and fine education I can get a great job anywhere and pay the rent, etc.
I don't know if we have already reached the point at which SoftSecurity is insufficient. I have enough patience to outlast anyone. I don't lose sleep if one of the article I "own" (i.e., it's on my Watchlist) is being "attacked" by my "opponents". Some topics are simply works in progress: genocide, global warming, et al. I don't have to have the last word.
But a lot of fine people can't take it. It's really quite a pain to have one's "baby" splattered with mud. Sure, you can give her a bath, but after the 20th or 1000th time you just want to move to a quieter neighborhood.
Imran Ghory's detailed list of laws is good. But laws require a constitution, and a constitution is created to support values.
What are Wikipedia's core values? Is my 4-point list the core?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1189
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Oct 25 17:58:12 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote in part:
>Stephen Gilbert wrote:
>>No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values of a
>>community. It is, however, a group of people who
>>analyze, discuss and build online communities. Many of
>>them are experts in this area.
>"Experts"? There are no experts in this area. Or, if there are, all of
>us are.
Most people would say the same about the subject of reality,
and many other philosophical subjects.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1190
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 18:34:03 UTC 2002
LMS wrote:
>This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ
>said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ
>was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
>rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the
project
>as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
>a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
>special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
>one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all
this
>by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
>and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
>have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
eh, well, no I didn't mean all that, though I guess it was all implied
by my sloppy writing. :-) All I meant was that Cunc, of all of us,
seems most concerned with abuses of authority. I wouldn't like to
appoint anyone an 'authority' on anything, and certainly I like to
think of people as generally principled.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1191
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 18:37:41 UTC 2002
Imran Wrote:
>Vandalism defined as:
>
>> Deleting significant parts of an article without reasonable cause
>> Inserting unnecessary profanity into an article.
>> Inserting nonsensical text into an article.
>> Purposefully changing an article in order to mislead readers.
>> Modifying the comments of other users in Talk: or Wikipedia: namespace.
>
>A single purposeful vandalism from an anonymous user is a 1-week ban.
>
>A single vandalism from a logged in user results in a 24-hour ban, not to
etc.
Ick. I suppose the tendency in groups is to bureaucratize as they
grow, but, uh, geez. Next come the jaywalking tickets.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1192
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Fri Oct 25 18:33:05 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com writes:
> All I meant was that Cunc, of all of us,
> seems most concerned with abuses of authority.
We're all concerned with abuses of authority.
Cunc merely has a different definition to everyone else.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1193
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 18:52:47 UTC 2002
> There's a rich history from older wiki communities
> and projects that we can, and should, draw upon, just
> as we draw upon existing sources for encyclopedia articles.
>> Maybe. I'm not actually sure that that's true; Wikipedia
>> is a completely new thing. It's a wiki, but it's a lot
>> more than a wiki.
> Perhaps, but we're still building on a foundation
> that's largely wiki, and many of our problems have
> also been faced by other wikis.
> There are lots of other sources to learn from too:
> older encyclopedia projects (why did they fail?),
> commercial encyclopedias (is there anything we can
> leverage from them in our project?) and the rise(s)
> and fall(s) of other great Internet experiments
> (Usenet, Slashdot).
I think it's important to realize that we are on the
bleeding edge here, and that the experience of others in
other online communities, even wiki, doesn't necessarily
apply. First, the idea that there is a "rich history"
of wikis in particular is laughable, unless there's some
definition of "rich history" that includes things created
in 1995, none of which has ever produced a product even
vaguely resembling what we're trying to produce. I might
apply the term "rich history" to things like mailing lists,
Usenet, IRC, and MUDs; everything else is new ground.
We also differ greatly from a lot of those earlier communities
in that we have a goal: building an encyclopedia. We are not
here /for the purpose/ of building a community; the community
is just a /means/ to the end of building an encyclopedia. If
those other communities teach us something about building
communities, that may or may not apply here, because if the
community gets in the way of the goal, the goal comes first.
I think Wikipedia has more in common with things like open
source software projects, in that the community itself is just
a secondary concern to producing a product. In other words,
we should take our lessons not from MUDs or Everything2, but
from Linux kernel development, the Apache project, Mozilla,
etc. I think it's worth noting that in all of those projects,
there are security and control mechanisms.
So don't tell me what other Wikis have done--it doesn't matter.
Tell me what other /successful productive projects/ have done.
Don't tell me how to build a community; tell me how to make
the community build an encyclopedia.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1194
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop available
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Fri Oct 25 19:00:12 UTC 2002
Is there a sysop who can ban 193.251.9.132 *right now*
Coninually posting the goatsex image...
Cheers
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1195
[Wikipedia-l] Sysop available
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Oct 25 19:19:35 UTC 2002
Done by sjc. --Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Gareth Owen [mailto:wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:00 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sysop available
Is there a sysop who can ban 193.251.9.132 *right now*
Coninually posting the goatsex image...
Cheers
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1196
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 19:44:26 UTC 2002
So we just let the obnoxious ones run roughshod over all of the work and ignore their ridiculous changes?
Zoe
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:Then he was under a misconception. He did not have to deal with them.
-M-
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/a2a397c3/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1197
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 19:46:16 UTC 2002
What is SoftSecurity?
Zoe
The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:On 10/24/02 5:33 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
> Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give admins the
> power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail the ability of
> contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
You're looking at this in not quite the right way. Rather than thinking
about creating a police force (which is what giving one percent of the users
power to enforce rules is) we need to be thinking about SoftSecurity.
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/7ce18055/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1198
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Fri Oct 25 19:49:16 UTC 2002
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:44:26PM -0700, Zoe wrote:
> mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>Then he was under a misconception. He did not have to deal with them.
> So we just let the obnoxious ones run roughshod over all of the work
> and ignore their ridiculous changes?
No. We fix them when we have the energy to do so. When we get tired, we
trust that others will pick up the slack, rather than assuming that the
only solution is to ban.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1199
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Oct 25 19:51:00 UTC 2002
Well, that's what Jimbo and Cunctator are saying.
I don't like that, but it's Jimmy's living room and if I want to enjoy free drinks at his party I have to follow his rules.
It's just that this month's party has so many guests that I think Jimmy should deputize a few bouncers -- with written guidelines as to what's okay and what's not. I don't want to have to keep running to some fat old bald guy everytime someone on the guest list starts knocking drinks out of the other guests' hands.
A bit heavy on the metaphor, but I think that about sums it up.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Zoe [mailto:zoecomnena at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:44 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
So we just let the obnoxious ones run roughshod over all of the work and ignore their ridiculous changes?
Zoe
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Then he was under a misconception. He did not have to deal with them.
-M-
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_____
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting <http://webhosting.yahoo.com/> - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/96de8955/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1200
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 19:51:57 UTC 2002
Because that's not what the prolific Wikipedians who live by the rules do. We can work with people who make changes we disagree with as long as all of us can be civil, but it's the tiny minority who refuses to compromise (either direction) that cause the problems.
Zoe
Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:I don't know exactly what you had in mind for increased sysop power Ed,
but I do worry. Where there is a controversial topic, what is to stop
the older users with thousands and thousands of edits to their name (the
"prolific" Wikipedians, quantity over quality) from throwing up their
hands and shouting "VANDALISM!" when a comparitive newbie comes along
and starts making edits that they disagree with?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/bea537cb/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1201
[Wikipedia-l] how to deal with uncooperative users
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Fri Oct 25 19:53:11 UTC 2002
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:48:33AM +0200, elian wrote:
> Just my experiences from the German wikipedia where we had almost no edit
> wars at all up to now. We have questionable contributions, some are
> silently moved to talk pages, some are rewritten. Discussion is tried
> once, after this fails the person is simply ignored.
This seems a much better idea than getting ban-happy. I worry that
forming an active cabal will put off more good people than
uncooperative users will.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1202
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 19:54:28 UTC 2002
What about people who are deleting other people's comments on their Talk pages?
Zoe
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:Ed begged: :-)
>Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
>
...
>
>Help me out, here, man.
Well--what's so bad about setting up a page outlining an expected code of conduct? Really that's what we've banned people based on--violation of an expected code of conduct--so let's at least outline what we expect. It's just not fair to ban people based on rules that aren't explicitly and undeniably clear.
I propose e.g. 1) no name-calling; save it for Jerry Springer. 2) don't change other peoples' comments. 3) don't question whether other people are actually people.
kq
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/9bbf6da5/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1203
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 20:04:11 UTC 2002
So what do you do when you've gone back 15 edits, reverted to a clean version, incorporated all of the "good" changes that have happened since then, and the original perpetrator then comes along and adds his/her "bad" changes again? How long are you supposed to keep doing that?
Zoe
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:Ed Poor wrote in part to another poster:
>Should I go back,
>say, 15 edits ago (to yesterday's "clean" version) and edit that? I can't
>figure out whether that's bending over to accommodate anti-social behavior
>-- or that's anti-social in itself.
I don't know about Mark, but I think that you should do just that.
It's safer than banning people and easier for the ordinary user
(that is, a regular contributor that has not undertaken admin duties)
to revert in the case that you've made a mistake.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/9ef39ec7/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1204
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Oct 25 20:05:29 UTC 2002
Are you referring to Larry Sanger wiping Fred Bauder's comments from talk:Larry Sanger?
If so, the custom apparently is: my user page and my talk:user page are mine. Yours are yours. Kind of like you can delete old messages from your answering machine.
But still the problem is: we are getting so big that we don't all know each other (as in a tiny village). The values must be made explicit, and rules to protect these values must be codified. I think that's what this week's debate was about.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Zoe [mailto:zoecomnena at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:54 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
What about people who are deleting other people's comments on their Talk pages?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/040f67c1/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1205
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 25 20:05:44 UTC 2002
Well, I can't say I put myself in the "great contributors" category, but I'm ready to walk Real Soon Now. How long can you put up with the anti-social behavior which drives away those who are tired of being called names and having their work ruined by the anti-socials?
Zoe
Stephen Gilbert <canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com> wrote:I fight to keep things open, not to tolerate
anti-social behaviour, but to keep Wikipedia from
becoming the online equivalent of a police state. I
believe that soft security is the best way to run a
wiki community, and that too much hard security will
eventaully kill us.
If we lock down Wikipedia too tighly, we'll lose
*most* of our great contributors.
Stephen G.
--- Daniel Mayer wrote:
> I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
> tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
> anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
> to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
> and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another
> great
> en.wiki contributor that for at least the next
> several
> days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
> Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own
> future
> involvement in en.wiki.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
h
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/6d049a3c/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1206
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 20:13:57 UTC 2002
You Wrote:
>What about people who are deleting other people's comments on their Talk pages?
>Zoe
On their *own* talk pages? Well, it's their own page. Isn't that what the general feeling was when the idea of putting ads on user pages came up?
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1207
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 20:15:38 UTC 2002
You Wrote:
>So what do you do when you've gone back 15 edits, reverted to a clean version, incorporated all of the "good" changes that have happened since then, and the original perpetrator then comes along and adds his/her "bad" changes again? How long are you supposed to keep doing that?
Well, until you get tired of it, I guess. You're not obligated to do everything, Zoe. :-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1208
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Oct 25 20:17:39 UTC 2002
Ed Wrote to Zoe:
>Are you referring to Larry Sanger wiping Fred Bauder's comments from =
>talk:Larry Sanger?
Or Lir wiping Zoe's comments from Lir's talk page. I think it's apparent who's acting reasonable and who's not; I don't see why Zoe's worried aobut it. :-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1209
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #790 - 12 msgs
Matt M.
matt_mcl at sympatico.ca
Fri Oct 25 20:40:50 UTC 2002
>We can work with people who make changes we disagree with as long as all of
us can be civil, but it's the tiny
>minority who refuses to compromise (either direction) that cause the
problems.
The converse problem is, of course, Billy and Bobby who are fighting over
the cake. "I want the whole thing!" says Billy. "No, I want half!" says
Bobby. "Children, children!" says the mother. "You should compromise. Billy
gets 3/4 and Bobby gets 1/4."
Some people should not be compromised with, and there should be a mechanism
for dealing with this eventuality.
Matt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1210
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Fri Oct 25 21:04:05 UTC 2002
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> We fix them when we have the energy to do so. When we get tired, we
> trust that others will pick up the slack, rather than assuming that the
> only solution is to ban.
Zoe wrote:
> And when they show no signs of getting tired?
If it turns out that there aren't enough people who are happy to fix
breakage, _then_ we should start thinking of banning people. But we
shouldn't assume that there aren't before we try.
Here's my personal guess: if it comes to the point that the only way to
keep Wikipedia healthy is to have a policy under which we frequently
ban people, Wikipedia will not be viable in any case. Nonetheless, if
we do reach that point, I would support trying such a policy. I am sure
we have not reached that point yet.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1211
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 21:10:51 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 14:33, Gareth Owen wrote:
> koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com writes:
>
> > All I meant was that Cunc, of all of us,
> > seems most concerned with abuses of authority.
>
> We're all concerned with abuses of authority.
> Cunc merely has a different definition to everyone else.
Oh, really. How does my definition seem to differ from everyone else's?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1212
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 21:17:57 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 13:52, Gareth Owen wrote:
> The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:
>
> > I think that most people would agree that in an ideal situation, banning
> > would be unnecessary
>
> I think everyone would agree.
> However, since our situation is less than ideal, I don't see the relevance.
It's just the same with NPOV. NPOV is the ideal situation.
Our situation is less than ideal. That doesn't mean NPOV is not
relevant.
These things are relevant since we have near-complete power to define
the rules of the society--and the environment in which the society
exist. Wikipedia is almost a purely closed system, having a relationship
with the "real world" only (just about) at the intersections of law
(limited to copyright issues, mostly) and physical constraints (which
are very limited; as Jimbo has said, we can assume infinite disk space).
The other primary limiting factors are human behavior and software
capability. Both of these factors are highly malleable, given time and
the right approach.
In short, with effort, we should be able to approximate the ideal as
close as necessary.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1213
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Oct 25 22:07:28 UTC 2002
mattheww wrote:
>Zoe wrote:
>>mattheww wrote:
>>>Then he was under a misconception. He did not have to deal with them.
>>So we just let the obnoxious ones run roughshod over all of the work
>>and ignore their ridiculous changes?
>No. We fix them when we have the energy to do so. When we get tired, we
>trust that others will pick up the slack, rather than assuming that the
>only solution is to ban.
We also come back when our energy returns and fix the last obnoxious edit.
By this time, according to Jimbo's theory (which I find reasonable),
the obnoxious person is likely to have gone home.
If we are unable to keep with them (even after this wait), however,
then we can ask for help from the militia, say on the mailing list.
Initially, of course, we should try to talk to the obnoxious person
and convince them to become good Wikipedians like the rest of us.
But the above is about what to do after we've given up on that;
there is still the ability to "ignore and revert" before banning is needed.
I do think that mattheww put it a bit glibly
as "He did not have to deal with them.".
He did not have to attempt to work things out with them
once they had clearly demonstrated that they wouldn't act in good faith.
He still had to revert their edits, but that is quick.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1214
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Oct 25 22:27:30 UTC 2002
Zoe wrote:
>Toby wrote:
>>Ed Poor wrote:
>>>Should I go back,
>>>say, 15 edits ago (to yesterday's "clean" version) and edit that? I can't
>>>figure out whether that's bending over to accommodate anti-social behavior
>>>-- or that's anti-social in itself.
>>[Yes.]
>So what do you do when you've gone back 15 edits, reverted to a clean version,
>incorporated all of the "good" changes that have happened since then, and the
>original perpetrator then comes along and adds his/her "bad" changes again?
>How long are you supposed to keep doing that?
So that I can understand better where you're coming from,
is there an article whose history I should look at
where you've had bad experience with uncooperative editors?
BTW, I don't think that you should feel obligated,
when dealing with a demonstrably recalicitrant person,
to seek out the good edits and keep them in your reversion.
You should only need to do that, IMO,
when dealing with somebody that (so far at least)
appears to be acting in good faith,
but has nevertheless made some bad edits that require reversion.
Of course, if I disagree with you about whether the person is recalcitrant,
then *I* can seek out the good edits. But I wouldn't insist that you must,
so long as you are acting in good faith (which you, Zoe, do).
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1215
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Fri Oct 25 22:52:22 UTC 2002
The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:
> Oh, really. How does my definition seem to differ from everyone else's?
You've been the sole voice of objection on so many issues upon which literally
everyone else on the list agrees, that I'm amazed you even have the gall to ask
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1216
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Fri Oct 25 23:05:51 UTC 2002
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:51:57PM -0700, Zoe wrote:
> Because that's not what the prolific Wikipedians who live by the rules
> do.
I am reluctant to name names, but there are at least a couple in the top
200 most prolific Wikipedians who have been doing exactly what I just
described. One is even in the top 50. The thought of them getting any
more power than they have right now scares me.
> We can work with people who make changes we disagree with as long as
> all of us can be civil, but it's the tiny minority who refuses to
> compromise (either direction) that cause the problems.
It's not just the failure to compromise; it's the fighting dirty
trying to get your way by running around and smearing the other party
with cries of "vandal", "pro-X propagandist", &c.
What *I* would like to see is some sort of sanctions (24 hours for a
user, 1 week for an IP) for those that go around crying "wolf".
>> Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:
>> I don't know exactly what you had in mind for increased sysop power Ed,
>> but I do worry. Where there is a controversial topic, what is to stop
>> the older users with thousands and thousands of edits to their name (the
>> "prolific" Wikipedians, quantity over quality) from throwing up their
>> hands and shouting "VANDALISM!" when a comparitive newbie comes along
>> and starts making edits that they disagree with?
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/1c9cdf19/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1217
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Oct 25 23:37:41 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 18:52, Gareth Owen wrote:
> The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:
>
> > Oh, really. How does my definition seem to differ from everyone else's?
>
> You've been the sole voice of objection on so many issues upon which literally
> everyone else on the list agrees, that I'm amazed you even have the gall to ask
Name the issue on which I have been the sole voice of objection, rather
than the most vociferous.
You might want to try toning down the heightened rhetoric.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1218
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors
lcrocker at nupedia.com
lcrocker at nupedia.com
Sat Oct 26 01:52:14 UTC 2002
> It's just that this month's party has so many guests that
> I think Jimmy should deputize a few bouncers--with written
> guidelines as to what's okay and what's not. I don't want
> to have to keep running to some fat old bald guy everytime
> someone on the guest list starts knocking drinks out of the
> other guests' hands.
Hey, I resemble that remark...
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1219
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Stephen Gilbert
canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 26 02:22:09 UTC 2002
--- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> > There's a rich history from older wiki communities
> > and projects that we can, and should, draw upon,
> just
> > as we draw upon existing sources for encyclopedia
> articles.
>
> >> Maybe. I'm not actually sure that that's true;
> Wikipedia
> >> is a completely new thing. It's a wiki, but it's
> a lot
> >> more than a wiki.
>
> > Perhaps, but we're still building on a foundation
> > that's largely wiki, and many of our problems have
> > also been faced by other wikis.
> > There are lots of other sources to learn from too:
> > older encyclopedia projects (why did they fail?),
> > commercial encyclopedias (is there anything we can
> > leverage from them in our project?) and the
> rise(s)
> > and fall(s) of other great Internet experiments
> > (Usenet, Slashdot).
>
> I think it's important to realize that we are on the
> bleeding edge here, and that the experience of
> others in
> other online communities, even wiki, doesn't
> necessarily
> apply.
Yes, but it doesn't necessarily *not* apply, which is
what I'm getting at.
> First, the idea that there is a "rich
> history"
> of wikis in particular is laughable, unless there's
> some
> definition of "rich history" that includes things
> created
> in 1995, none of which has ever produced a product
> even
> vaguely resembling what we're trying to produce. I
> might
> apply the term "rich history" to things like mailing
> lists,
> Usenet, IRC, and MUDs; everything else is new
> ground.
"Rich" doesn't necessarily equate with "long". There
are examples of many different people trying to do
different things, and that qualifies as "rich".
> We also differ greatly from a lot of those earlier
> communities
> in that we have a goal: building an encyclopedia.
> We are not
> here /for the purpose/ of building a community; the
> community
> is just a /means/ to the end of building an
> encyclopedia.
Only MeatBallWiki exists solely for the purpose of
community-building and discussion. Ward's Wiki, for
example, was originally a repository for programming
patterns, shifted into extreme programming, and it's
now pretty much a free-for-all. If we want to avoid
that, we can look to avoid and/or counter the factors
that pushed Wiki in that direction
> If
> those other communities teach us something about
> building
> communities, that may or may not apply here, because
> if the
> community gets in the way of the goal, the goal
> comes first.
This is a false dichotomy. If the community falls
apart, so does the project. But I'm glad you recognize
that lessons from other communities may apply here,
just as I recognize that they may not.
> I think Wikipedia has more in common with things
> like open
> source software projects, in that the community
> itself is just
> a secondary concern to producing a product. In
> other words,
> we should take our lessons not from MUDs or
> Everything2, but
> from Linux kernel development, the Apache project,
> Mozilla,
> etc. I think it's worth noting that in all of those
> projects,
> there are security and control mechanisms.
If Wikipedia is different from previous wiki projects,
it's certainly different from open source software
projects.
I think it's a combination of both, with differences
thrown into the mix. Why can't we take our lessons
from all comers?
Everything2 is a great example. It started out as an
encyclopedia project, just like us. Now it's... not.
It had (and has) many "security and control
mechanisms": police forces, banning, permanent
deletion of nodes, experience points, granting of
privileges by the privileged. If we, out of ignorance,
do the same things that Everything2 has done, we could
end up the same way.
> So don't tell me what other Wikis have done--it
> doesn't matter.
> Tell me what other /successful productive projects/
> have done.
What other *unsuccessful* projects have done is just
as important. In fact, I say it's more so. Trying to
copy other's successes is more difficult than avoid
other's mistakes.
> Don't tell me how to build a community; tell me how
> to make
> the community build an encyclopedia.
Ok, here's one way. Don't treat "the community" and
"the project" as separate entities; they are tightly
entwined. To focus on building a community and losing
sight of the goal is extremely harmful, but so is
forgetting that it's the community that works together
toward the goal.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1220
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 26 20:48:33 UTC 2002
Check out all of Lir's edits in Christopher Columbus and her comments in Talk:Christopher Columbus.
Zoe
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:Zoe wrote:
>Toby wrote:
>>Ed Poor wrote:
>>>Should I go back,
>>>say, 15 edits ago (to yesterday's "clean" version) and edit that? I can't
>>>figure out whether that's bending over to accommodate anti-social behavior
>>>-- or that's anti-social in itself.
>>[Yes.]
>So what do you do when you've gone back 15 edits, reverted to a clean version,
>incorporated all of the "good" changes that have happened since then, and the
>original perpetrator then comes along and adds his/her "bad" changes again?
>How long are you supposed to keep doing that?
So that I can understand better where you're coming from,
is there an article whose history I should look at
where you've had bad experience with uncooperative editors?
BTW, I don't think that you should feel obligated,
when dealing with a demonstrably recalicitrant person,
to seek out the good edits and keep them in your reversion.
You should only need to do that, IMO,
when dealing with somebody that (so far at least)
appears to be acting in good faith,
but has nevertheless made some bad edits that require reversion.
Of course, if I disagree with you about whether the person is recalcitrant,
then *I* can seek out the good edits. But I wouldn't insist that you must,
so long as you are acting in good faith (which you, Zoe, do).
-- Toby
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021026/e213c57f/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1221
[Wikipedia-l] 194.117.133.196
Rob Brewer
rob at rbrwr.org
Sat Oct 26 22:27:43 UTC 2002
194.117.133.196 (cache-haw.cableinet.co.uk) which has been blocked in the
last hour or so is a transparent proxy cache for users of the Blueyonder
cable modem service in Bristol, England. The IP block is affecting me even
though I'm logged in.
Any ideas?
Rob Brewer
[[User:Rbrwr]]
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1222
[Wikipedia-l] 194.117.133.196
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Sat Oct 26 22:34:51 UTC 2002
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:27:43PM +0100, Rob Brewer wrote:
> Envelope-to: mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
> X-SAUCE-Warning: (chiark.greenend.org.uk) reverse DNS: 130.94.122.197: Error during DNS PTR lookup for 197.122.94.130.in-addr.arpa: No such domain
> X-Sender: ab007d0224_2 at pop3.blueyonder.co.uk
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> From: Rob Brewer <rob at rbrwr.org>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] 194.117.133.196
> Errors-To: wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
> X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> List-Help: <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org?subject=help>
> List-Post: <mailto:wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
> List-Subscribe: <http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
> <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
> List-Id: <wikipedia-l.wikipedia.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>,
> <mailto:wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/>
> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:27:43 +0100
>
>
> 194.117.133.196 (cache-haw.cableinet.co.uk) which has been blocked in the
> last hour or so is a transparent proxy cache for users of the Blueyonder
> cable modem service in Bristol, England. The IP block is affecting me even
> though I'm logged in.
>
> Any ideas?
As a temporary workaround, you could try setting an explicit proxy in
your browser (eg cache-gat.cableinet.co.uk , which has a different IP
address).
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1223
[Wikipedia-l] 194.117.133.196
Rob Brewer
rob at rbrwr.org
Sat Oct 26 22:38:02 UTC 2002
At 23:27 26/10/02 +0100, Rob Brewer wrote:
>194.117.133.196 (cache-haw.cableinet.co.uk) which has been blocked in the
>last hour or so is a transparent proxy cache for users of the Blueyonder
>cable modem service in Bristol, England. The IP block is affecting me even
>though I'm logged in.
>
>Any ideas?
To answer my own question, I've managed to force my HTTP traffic through a
different cache for the moment. So I'm back on line and the vandal is
still blocked. Other useful contributors (the person who wrote [[South
Gloucestershire]] for example) may still be blocked, too.
Rob
[[User:Rbrwr]]
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1224
[Wikipedia-l] 194.117.133.196
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sat Oct 26 22:41:01 UTC 2002
On 10/26/02 6:38 PM, "Rob Brewer" <rob at rbrwr.org> wrote:
> At 23:27 26/10/02 +0100, Rob Brewer wrote:
>
>> 194.117.133.196 (cache-haw.cableinet.co.uk) which has been blocked in the
>> last hour or so is a transparent proxy cache for users of the Blueyonder
>> cable modem service in Bristol, England. The IP block is affecting me even
>> though I'm logged in.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> To answer my own question, I've managed to force my HTTP traffic through a
> different cache for the moment. So I'm back on line and the vandal is
> still blocked. Other useful contributors (the person who wrote [[South
> Gloucestershire]] for example) may still be blocked, too.
>
Actually, I unblocked the IP. We can revert vandalism from that IP. It's
better than losing contributors.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1225
[Wikipedia-l] 194.117.133.196
Rob Brewer
rob at rbrwr.org
Sat Oct 26 22:45:47 UTC 2002
At 23:34 26/10/02 +0100, mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>As a temporary workaround, you could try setting an explicit proxy in
>your browser (eg cache-gat.cableinet.co.uk , which has a different IP
>address).
Thanks. As you can see I found my own way there (or somewhere similar) ;-)
Rob
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1226
[Wikipedia-l] The Cunctator (Was: I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway)
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sun Oct 27 03:25:31 UTC 2002
Gareth Owen wrote:
>The Cunctator wrote:
>>Oh, really. How does my definition [of abuse of authority]
>>seem to differ from everyone else's?
>You've been the sole voice of objection on so many issues upon which literally
>everyone else on the list agrees, that I'm amazed you even have the gall to ask
I don't know that he defines it differently from everybody else.
I would say that he's more *sensitive* to abuse of authority.
This is not necessarily praise; you would argue that he's *overly* sensitive.
But I think that it's a fair characterisation of the difference.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1227
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sun Oct 27 04:21:14 UTC 2002
Zoe wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Zoe wrote:
>>>So what do you do when you've gone back 15 edits, reverted to a clean version,
>>>incorporated all of the "good" changes that have happened since then, and the
>>>original perpetrator then comes along and adds his/her "bad" changes again?
>>>How long are you supposed to keep doing that?
>>So that I can understand better where you're coming from,
>>is there an article whose history I should look at
>>where you've had bad experience with uncooperative editors?
>Check out all of Lir's edits in Christopher Columbus and her comments in
>Talk:Christopher Columbus.
I see that there was a nasty edit war early Sunday morning (UTC),
as well as some further controversy on other dates.
I also see that there was discussion on the talk page during this edit war.
In this discussion, Lir refused to provide any evidence
for her assertion that Colombo was primarily a slave trader
(and related matters). Once it was clear that she had nothing
to back up her claim, then nobody should have to explain themselves
when reverting Lir's actions any longer.
However, I don't see what purpose that edit war served.
It last for 4 hours, which is not very long in the scheme of Wikipedia.
It ended when Tokerboy put up a compromise version,
essentially the version that survives today.
For the vast majority of time, Lir's version
was not the version that would be presented to a newcomer.
Without banning Lir and the people like her,
it's inevitable that bad material will appear some of the time.
Actually, even with banning, that much is inevitable on a wiki.
But I don't see this as a problem, since these times will be rare.
Let's suppose that, instead of a 4 hour edit war,
there had been only the 4 hours of discussion on the talk page,
ending with Tokerboy's compromise as in real life.
Then Lir would have had 4 hours of slander on a page,
followed by the current week of a page improved by her involvement.
Of course you were frustrated at being involved in that edit war,
especially when Lir was simultaneously being such an @$$hole on talk.
But next time, don't put yourself through the edit war;
the talk page is enough (and enough to see Lir's true nature too).
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1228
[Wikipedia-l] Image:Soldierwithwings thumb.htm
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Sun Oct 27 14:28:04 UTC 2002
This appears to be vandalism. Surely .htm should not be allowed as a
file suffix for images?
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1229
[Wikipedia-l] Image:Soldierwithwings thumb.htm
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Oct 27 15:28:02 UTC 2002
On Sunday 27 October 2002 09:28, Neil Harris wrote:
> This appears to be vandalism. Surely .htm should not be allowed as a
> file suffix for images?
The image namespace is used for sounds as well as images. There are also a
few .ai, .ps, or .dia files which are the source code of images. But if the
.htm file is not an illustration of some HTML feature that can't be coded in
wikicode, and it isn't the source code of some illustration (e.g. Indian
numerals, IIRR), then delete it.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1230
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Sun Oct 27 14:22:36 UTC 2002
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> --- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> > "Experts"? There are no experts in this area. Or,
>
> That's an odd statement. There's no Ph.Ds, for
> certain.
Is anybody here interested in "going academic" on this topic?
We could set up a page on the meta wiki with pointers to published
papers, research groups, etc. Or did anybody do this already?
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1231
[Wikipedia-l] Image:Soldierwithwings thumb.htm
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sun Oct 27 17:04:02 UTC 2002
Pierre wrote:
>The image namespace is used for sounds as well as images. There are also a
>few .ai, .ps, or .dia files which are the source code of images. But if the
>.htm file is not an illustration of some HTML feature that can't be coded in
>wikicode, and it isn't the source code of some illustration (e.g. Indian
>numerals, IIRR), then delete it.
I know this is separate from what you're talking about, but I also make it a point to delete any uploaded file which claims an extension it's not. e.g. Jokerman9000 does that frequently, and also has a penchange for uploading .phtmls for whatever reason (frequently containing javascript and some scrawlings about hax0rs).
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1232
[Wikipedia-l] What Jokerman might be doing
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Oct 27 23:23:07 UTC 2002
Jokerman9001 has been persistently uploading junk to Wikipedia for several
months. Normally, after someone uploads a few junks and finds that they are
quickly deleted, he goes away. Could he be using Wikipedia as a dead drop for
transferring illicit files? Can someone check the web logs to see if anyone
other than Jokerman downloads files that Jokerman uploaded, but never
accesses Wikipedia at other times?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1233
[Wikipedia-l] Please list the IP address when deleting
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Wed Oct 30 01:13:18 UTC 2002
Brion earlier today deleted several junk entries whose content related to
sexual perversion. Looking at the deletion log, I can't tell whether they are
the same IP address (in which case it's a vandal and should be blocked) or
different ones. If different people delete junks by the same person, no one
knows that he should be blocked. Please, therefore, when deleting junk
entries, list the IP address (or user name, if any) of whoever wrote the junk.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1234
[Wikipedia-l] Please list the IP address when deleting
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Oct 30 01:26:28 UTC 2002
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 20:13, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> Brion earlier today deleted several junk entries whose content related to
> sexual perversion. Looking at the deletion log, I can't tell whether they are
> the same IP address (in which case it's a vandal and should be blocked) or
> different ones. If different people delete junks by the same person, no one
> knows that he should be blocked. Please, therefore, when deleting junk
> entries, list the IP address (or user name, if any) of whoever wrote the junk.
>
Why bother blocking? The entries are gone.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1235
[Wikipedia-l] Please list the IP address when deleting
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Wed Oct 30 01:42:53 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 20:26, The Cunctator wrote:
> Why bother blocking? The entries are gone.
Huh? Blocking doesn't delete entries already made, it prevents future
entries. The guy could be a vandal in the middle of pasting junk. Blocking
the IP prevents him from pasting any more junk.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1236
[Wikipedia-l] Please list the IP address when deleting
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Wed Oct 30 02:45:39 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote:
> Brion earlier today deleted several junk entries whose content related to
> sexual perversion. Looking at the deletion log, I can't tell whether they are
> the same IP address (in which case it's a vandal and should be blocked) or
> different ones. If different people delete junks by the same person, no one
> knows that he should be blocked. Please, therefore, when deleting junk
> entries, list the IP address (or user name, if any) of whoever wrote the junk.
If you're referring to the junk edits to Sukarno, Suharto, Adolf Hitler,
etc; those came from various IPs, mostly from what looks like a school
or library in Ohio (probably public machines or a cache/proxy); banning
wouldn't help much.
Suharto - 156.63.200.159
Sukarno - 156.63.200.159, 156.63.205.5
Image talk:Hitler.jpg - 156.63.205.5
Talk:Hafez al-Assad - 198.234.102.59
Hitler: The Last Ten Days - 156.63.205.5
156.63.205.5 and 198.234.102.59 also each vandalised Adolf Hitler once;
both were quickly reverted.
You'll notice that after cleaning the first batch, I added the IP in the
deletion notice for "Hitler: The Last Ten Days". You'll also notice no
further activity from these IPs, though no ban is in place.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1237
[Wikipedia-l] Please list the IP address when deleting
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Oct 30 03:42:06 UTC 2002
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 20:42, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 October 2002 20:26, The Cunctator wrote:
> > Why bother blocking? The entries are gone.
>
> Huh? Blocking doesn't delete entries already made, it prevents future
> entries. The guy could be a vandal in the middle of pasting junk. Blocking
> the IP prevents him from pasting any more junk.
>
Why bother? The IP could belong to more people, now or in the future.
The guy could decide to make valid contributions. Or most like, the guy
will stop adding detritus now that it's evident it'll just be erased.
Path of least harm.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1238
[Wikipedia-l] Please list the IP address when deleting
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Oct 30 09:17:24 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote:
>On Tuesday 29 October 2002 20:26, The Cunctator wrote:
>
>>Why bother blocking? The entries are gone.
>>
>Huh? Blocking doesn't delete entries already made, it prevents future
>entries. The guy could be a vandal in the middle of pasting junk. Blocking
>the IP prevents him from pasting any more junk.
>
Blocking some of these guys strikes me as a useless effort. Many of
these guys have a short attention span, and they soon become bored by
their own work.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1239
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Oct 30 18:47:32 UTC 2002
[Note: The post that I'm replying to didn't appear on <wikipedia-l>.
Thus I copy it all, except for the technical aspects.]
Erik Moeller wrote:
>One key problem with a wiki encyclopaedia is that there's no quality
>control whatsoever. An article may have been vandalized 5 seconds ago,
>or be grossly non-NPOV etc. As we get more and more articles, this
>problem becomes more urgent.
>Fortunately, the solution is rather simple. Articles can be certified by
>contributors to be high quality. But who is allowed to certify articles?
>The system works by allowing groups of people to form certification
>teams. Anyone can submit a new team to be created, and anyone can apply
>to join an existing team and certify articles in its name. Users can
>then decide to view only article revisions certified by members of
>selected teams.
>So I could decide in my user preferences:
> Certification: Approved Teams
> Team Nupedia
> Team Wiki-Fiction
> Team Wiki-Maths
>Then there would have to be a way to display certified article
>revisions. This could be accomplished by having a "Certified Mode",
>showing *only* articles that have received certs, with the most recently
>certified revision shown. Somewhat weaker, where an article has been
>certified, a link "There is a version of this article certified by Team
>X" could be placed above the article, showing the certified revision
>when clicked (or a text "This article has been certified by .." if the
>current revision is the certified one). This could be the default view,
>making users aware of the cert system.
>Each team could have its own quality standards, policies, and subject
>preferences. I suggest that the creation of new teams would have to be
>approved by the Wikipedia cabal to avoid "Team Trolls". New team members
>would either be voted on or approved by team members that have a certain
>status flag ("can_approve_newcomers"). Teams could get their own
>namespace as well.
You seem to be using the word "cabal" here in a sense that
is neither derogatory nor ironic. I find that highly disturbing.
>A decision would have to be made as to which teams to include in the
>default view, i.e. the one that anonymous and newly registered users
>get. In the short term such decisions may be made by the cabal, in the
>long term I would prefer voting.
If newcomers see only what is approved by a list of certification teams,
then Wikipedia will no longer be a wiki. There will be a wiki underneath,
which you can get to by registering and then setting your preferences,
but that wiki would be dead without an influx of newcomers.
[technical aspects cut]
>Results:
>--------
>If this works as intended, it should solve the quality problem and allow
>users to browse Wikipedia as a high quality content only encyclopaedia.
>The more teams you would admit to your personal filter, the more content
>you would see, but quality standards of individual teams might not be up
>to par. By distributing the job of quality approval on several team
>leaders, we can get competition of quality standards and social methods,
>which is probably a good thing and reduces social problems.
>Potential problems:
>-------------------
>If too many people use highly customized views, caching will get harder.
>I don't see this as too big a problem as a) most people typically don't
>customize views, b) article retrieval is already very fast with or
>without caching.
>Too many teams may have undesired effects, such as teams deliberately
>inserting POV articles to certify them. This is not a problem with the
>team principle per se but with the way teams are approved and moderated.
>Generally, teams should have a clear NPOV commitment and respect
>Wikipedia policy, otherwise they should be deleted.
>Comments on this would be appreciated. This is something I probably
>won't have time to implement fully, but I will gladly help with any/all
>efforts. I consider it very necessary for Wikipedia in the long term.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1240
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request (was: RE: Please list the IP address when deleting)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 30 18:55:34 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 04:00 am, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org
wrote:
> If you're referring to the junk edits to Sukarno, Suharto, Adolf Hitler,
> etc; those came from various IPs, mostly from what looks like a school
> or library in Ohio (probably public machines or a cache/proxy); banning
> wouldn't help much.
>
> Suharto - 156.63.200.159
> Sukarno - 156.63.200.159, 156.63.205.5
> Image talk:Hitler.jpg - 156.63.205.5
> Talk:Hafez al-Assad - 198.234.102.59
> Hitler: The Last Ten Days - 156.63.205.5
>
> 156.63.205.5 and 198.234.102.59 also each vandalised Adolf Hitler once;
> both were quickly reverted.
>
> You'll notice that after cleaning the first batch, I added the IP in the
> deletion notice for "Hitler: The Last Ten Days". You'll also notice no
> further activity from these IPs, though no ban is in place.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Speaking of which, would it be possible to have the software run a traceroute
to find out this type of information and have it available via a single click
on the blocked IP page? I'm sure there are several blocked public computers
on the list that should have only been blocked for a couple of days at most.
We should make it easy for Admins to review this stuff instead of relying on
them to each periodically run traceroutes on their own. I for one am lazy and
rarely bother. I would, however click on a link to computer generated
traceroute report and read it.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1241
[Wikipedia-l] Feature request (was: RE: Please list the IP address when deleting)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Oct 30 19:09:36 UTC 2002
This is why I always unblock anyone whose IP I've blocked, after a few days.
I think I've done a total of about 10 blocks, but if you check the list you won't see my name by anyone.
--Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Mayer [mailto:maveric149 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:56 PM
I'm sure there are several blocked public computers
on the list that should have only been blocked for a couple of days at most.
We shoul
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1242
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
erik_moeller at gmx.de
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Oct 30 21:33:00 UTC 2002
> You seem to be using the word "cabal" here in a sense that
> is neither derogatory nor ironic. I find that highly disturbing.
You may find it disturbing, but the truth is that there are people like
Jimbo who can make high level decisions, and there are sysops that have
more power than ordinary users. Many of these decisions already happen in
places that most people don't know about (e.g. the mailing list). Glossing
over the truth doesn't make it go away: there is a Wikipedia cabal.
I have already suggested a voting scheme that would democratize the
decision processes by the inevitable administration. Aside from extreme
opinions like "voting doesn't work", I see few arguments against that. We
need to talk openly about this kind of stuff, or what you find disturbing
will turn into a nightmare eventually.
>> A decision would have to be made as to which teams to include in the
>> default view, i.e. the one that anonymous and newly registered users
>> get. In the short term such decisions may be made by the cabal, in the
>> long term I would prefer voting.
> If newcomers see only what is approved by a list of certification teams,
> then Wikipedia will no longer be a wiki. There will be a wiki underneath,
> which you can get to by registering and then setting your preferences,
> but that wiki would be dead without an influx of newcomers.
You misunderstand me. I am absolutely in favor of creating and keeping a
site that is immediately accessible to the newcomer, where the newbie
quickly notices that WP is editable and joins the process. I love wikis!
My idea centers around the facts that
- there will always be many people who just read and who will never be
contributors,
- even for contributors, it is sometimes desirable to quickly find
trustworthy information,
- some contributors would like there to be some distinction between the
work they have invested much time in and the vandalism of a bored Internet
hooligan.
So what I am suggesting is an alternative viewing mode that would *never*
be the default but optional. It would allow me to browse a Wikipedia where
the article about Mozart *can* not just have been replaced by an image
from goatse.cx. Instead, I would view the last certified version of that
article, which hopefully would be brilliant prose.
Instead of just telling people to use Britannica if they want trustworthy
information, we should substitute this part of Britannica -- quality
control -- as well. That doesn't mean we have to give up any part of the
massively collaborative project that WP is becoming. As a matter of fact,
it would hopefully attract all those skeptics that are afraid that
something like the above happens to their sacro-sanct articles -- it could
still happen, but they could find peace of mind in the fact that the
vandalized version would never be certified.
Last but not least, we should not forget that WP is intended to be a
useful tool, not just for those who like to write, but for those who like
to read, too. Be it interested adults or curious children, rich or poor,
we want Wikipedia to be accessible. We may want to distribute it on CD-
ROMs and on paper. Then how on Earth are the schoolchildren in India going
to wade through megabytes of Middle Earth mythology and stubs, if not if
we supply them with at least the option to filter articles according to
criteria developed collaboratively by various teams, working together to
find the sparkling gems among the ocean we are creating?
"Being a wiki" doesn't mean that we shouldn't extend the original wiki
functionality. Had we stayed with that, Wikipedia would have never become
that big. We would still be using CamelCase.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1243
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Oct 30 23:25:18 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>You seem to be using the word "cabal" here in a sense that
>>is neither derogatory nor ironic. I find that highly disturbing.
>You may find it disturbing, but the truth is that there are people like
>Jimbo who can make high level decisions, and there are sysops that have
>more power than ordinary users. Many of these decisions already happen in
>places that most people don't know about (e.g. the mailing list). Glossing
>over the truth doesn't make it go away: there is a Wikipedia cabal.
If you're going to take this realist position towards the cabal,
then you should use the word in a derogatory way
(assuming that you don't want to disturb me, that is,
I presume that in reality you don't care if you disturb me).
For example: Jimbo can make high level decisions,
so in order to avoid a cabal we should create a nonprofit foundation
with an elected board of directors that Jimbo could sit on.
Or: Sysops have more power than ordinary users,
so to avoid a cabal we should turn ordinary users into sysops
automatically after they've made several edits over several months.
In this case: To avoid a cabal, we should allow anybody
to create a certification team; you just shouldn't expect me
to pay any attention to the certifications of Team Troll,
only to Team Cabal (an ironically named team ^_^).
>I have already suggested a voting scheme that would democratize the
>decision processes by the inevitable administration. Aside from extreme
>opinions like "voting doesn't work", I see few arguments against that. We
>need to talk openly about this kind of stuff, or what you find disturbing
>will turn into a nightmare eventually.
"voting doesn't work" is hardly an extreme position;
it's been the opinion of the vast majority of humankind
throughout the vast majority of human history.
That's really not much of an argument one way or another.
(You also seem to be conflating voting with democracy, which is wrong.)
My own position on democratic decision making matters is
that we rarely need to make any official decision,
but that we should vote when decisions *must* be made
(if there isn't a clear consensus that obviates that need).
For example: We shouldn't need to officially certify certification teams.
OTOH: We will have to vote (if we can't come to a consensus)
on the issue of whether to have certification teams in the first place,
since your proposal asks for software changes that recognise them,
and the software must be decided on.
>>>A decision would have to be made as to which teams to include in the
>>>default view, i.e. the one that anonymous and newly registered users
>>>get.
>>If newcomers see only what is approved by a list of certification teams,
>>then Wikipedia will no longer be a wiki.
>You misunderstand me.
[...]
>So what I am suggesting is an alternative viewing mode that would *never*
>be the default but optional.
Then I did misunderstand you. In the paragraph that I was responding to,
you seemed to be saying that the default view might be restricted
to certified articles. *That* would ruin the wiki nature.
If the default view is to always show the most recent edit,
then I have no objection to this matter; it's still a wiki.
In summary, I don't see why you think this is *necessary*,
but it'd be nice to be able to refer to certified versions
if I want to get a specific trusted group's opinion on something.
I can't imagine every surfing Wikipedia with a restricted view,
but I can certainly imagine checking out the certified versions.
I just hope that participating in this is always *optional*,
never *default* (at the main Wikipedia site).
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1244
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Imran Ghory
imran at bits.bris.ac.uk
Wed Oct 30 23:43:09 UTC 2002
On 30 Oct 2002 erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:
> > You seem to be using the word "cabal" here in a sense that
> > is neither derogatory nor ironic. I find that highly disturbing.
>
> You may find it disturbing, but the truth is that there are people like
> Jimbo who can make high level decisions, and there are sysops that have
> more power than ordinary users. Many of these decisions already happen in
> places that most people don't know about (e.g. the mailing list). Glossing
> over the truth doesn't make it go away: there is a Wikipedia cabal.
TINC.
Cabal implies secrecy, what we have here is a benevolent dictatorship.
Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1245
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
elian
elian at gmx.li
Wed Oct 30 23:45:33 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> writes:
> In summary, I don't see why you think this is *necessary*,
> but it'd be nice to be able to refer to certified versions
> if I want to get a specific trusted group's opinion on something.
> I can't imagine every surfing Wikipedia with a restricted view,
> but I can certainly imagine checking out the certified versions.
> I just hope that participating in this is always *optional*,
> never *default* (at the main Wikipedia site).
I was also thinking about ways of establishing a sort of quality
control for the future. Random article, an overfull recentchanges, pages
needing attention and search for short articles may not ever suffice for
quality control.
Why not put a little rating system (which could be turned on or off in
user settings) below each article?
four checkboxes:
- major improvements needed (pure stub or really bad article...)
- minor improvents needed (some information missing, bad spelling or style...)
- fine article
- excellent article
People looking for articles to work on could consult a function which
lists articles with bad ratings
People looking for excellent articles could call a opposite function.
This would serve as a future, easier to handle equivalent of "pages
needing attention" and "excellent articles" (without necessarily
giving these pages up)
If we do rating, let's do it the wiki way ;-)
greetings,
elian
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1246
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Oct 31 01:13:21 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 16:33, erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:
> > You seem to be using the word "cabal" here in a sense that
> > is neither derogatory nor ironic. I find that highly disturbing.
>
> You may find it disturbing, but the truth is that there are people like
> Jimbo who can make high level decisions, and there are sysops that have
> more power than ordinary users. Many of these decisions already happen in
> places that most people don't know about (e.g. the mailing list). Glossing
> over the truth doesn't make it go away: there is a Wikipedia cabal.
*clunk clunk clunk* [1]
-tc
[1] (sound of head banging against wall; do I really need to unearth
"How to Destroy Wikipedia"?)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1247
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Thu Oct 31 07:46:17 UTC 2002
I wrote in last part:
>In summary, I don't see why you think this is *necessary*,
>but it'd be nice to be able to refer to certified versions
>if I want to get a specific trusted group's opinion on something.
>I can't imagine every surfing Wikipedia with a restricted view,
>but I can certainly imagine checking out the certified versions.
>I just hope that participating in this is always *optional*,
>never *default* (at the main Wikipedia site).
The middle line should begin "I can't imagine ever surfing Wikipedia".
That's "ever", not "every".
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1248
[Wikipedia-l] Webserver stats
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 31 10:37:56 UTC 2002
> 13 9118 0.09% 436328 0.34%
> /wiki/Famous_French_People
>
> Seems a bizarre article to be the most popular
> "real" article :-)
Prince_Albert_piercing also gets a good rating
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1249
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Oct 31 14:34:01 UTC 2002
What I want, when I request an article to be transmitted from the PediaWiki database to my computer screen, is an article created, last-edited, or certified by my choice of:
* a user with sysop or above authority (41 sysops, 3 developers, 1 owner = 45 people, i.e., the "cabal")
* a signed-in user who is on my "trusted" list
I would also like the option of being informed of the existence of contributions from any of:
* anonymous users (i.e., not signed-in)
* signed-in users whom I have not yet placed on my "trusted" list
So if I had browsed to [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] any time in the last two months, I would have seen versions made by Andre, Magnus or Brion, since each sysop or developer rights. I would not have seen Ben-Zin's foreign-language links or 217.168.172.202's "Queen of the Night" tweak -- until Sept. 16th, when Andre added a foreign-language link.
What would I have missed? Nothing I really care about. The article was just as good, for my modest purposes, with or without .202's minor copy-edit. The only improvement I really appreciate is the image Magnus uploaded. So for the Mozart article, Erik's "alternative viewing mode" idea works perfectly for me.
We can hammer out the details, if we choose to make Erik's idea into a full-fledged feature request. Here are my own suggestions:
* show a flag (possibly optional) indicating the existence of a later, "uncertified" change
* set the default for editing to "edit the latest version"
* provide an option to "edit the version currently displayed"
As a reader, I may be curious to see what some anonymous or "not yet trusted" contributor has added, so it's to my advantage to be able to access later, "uncertified" versions. I might discover that someone like Clutch or Lir has decided to get with the program and start writing NPOVishly. Or I might find that some new and wonderful user like Zoe has appeared, rising like Venus out of the foam, and is offering excellent contributions from day one.
As an editor, I will often want to compare the "certified" version of an article with what some political hothead or vandal has done to trash it. Please understand the context in which I'm saying this. For me, "certified" would be "users on my trusted list". For you, "certified" means users on YOUR trusted list. This would be an improvement over just using my watchlist, because that only shows the latest change, however minor. With Erik's idea, I would also get a "certified/non-certified" flag (maybe even a color, like green for "goofy" or blue for "be careful").
Well, that's all I have time for right now -- and this letter is getting too long anyway. If there's any interest along these lines, I will create a [[Wikipedia:Certification]] page where we can refine the details. Much as we did with Jeronimo's country project.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1250
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Thu Oct 31 18:10:10 UTC 2002
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:34:01AM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> What I want, when I request an article to be transmitted from the PediaWiki database to my computer screen, is an article created, last-edited, or certified by my choice of:
> * a user with sysop or above authority (41 sysops, 3 developers, 1 owner = 45 people, i.e., the "cabal")
> * a signed-in user who is on my "trusted" list
[...]
> * show a flag (possibly optional) indicating the existence of a later, "uncertified" change
> * set the default for editing to "edit the latest version"
> * provide an option to "edit the version currently displayed"
If you allow significant changes to be hidden from you, you will have
to get used to pages changing wildly when you press the 'edit the
latest version' button -- often so wildly that the change you intended
to make no longer makes sense. Or if you use the 'edit the version
currently displayed' button, other people will have to get used to
their changes being randomly reverted without explanation.
I think this adds up to a fundamentally way of creating an
encyclopedia. If you want to try it, I think it would be more polite to
set up your own server and make a proper fork.
I don't think the rest of us should have to cope with the damage that
this would cause.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1251
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Oct 31 19:09:15 UTC 2002
Dear M,
Neither of the scenarios you suggest is likely to occur with me, or with any of the dozens of others whose work I've come to repect.
If I see the "hidden changes exist" flag, then of course I will either:
* read the current version, or
* use the "History" and "Diff" links
to see what you call the wild changes, before editing.
But if a shortcut to 'edit the version currently displayed' would cause more harm than good, I have no objection to its being omitted. When I need to revert vandalism, I can just use the "History" link as always.
Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about the way of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1252
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Thu Oct 31 19:23:51 UTC 2002
I really like elian's idea of user-added star ratings to articles. I
don't have it handy, but it was like
* pathetic stub
***** Britannica grade
Then you could set your wikiviewer to show any rating, one-star if you
were looking for work, five-star if you were looking for information,
etc. No bureacracy, no cabal, no weird standards for hiding
information. Much more, as elian said, the wiki way.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
|From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
|Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:09:15 -0500
|
|Dear M,
|
|Neither of the scenarios you suggest is likely to occur with me, or with any of the dozens of others whose work I've come to repect.
|
|If I see the "hidden changes exist" flag, then of course I will either:
|* read the current version, or
|* use the "History" and "Diff" links
|to see what you call the wild changes, before editing.
|
|But if a shortcut to 'edit the version currently displayed' would cause more harm than good, I have no objection to its being omitted. When I need to revert vandalism, I can just use the "History" link as always.
|
|Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about the way of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing?
|
|Ed Poor
|_______________________________________________
|Wikipedia-l mailing list
|Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
|
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1253
[Wikipedia-l] Ezra Wax, ultra-Orthodox
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Oct 31 19:26:06 UTC 2002
I've gotten some frantic "Talk" from RK claiming Ezra Wax is "vandalizing" the Wikipedia Judaism articls "faster than we can correct" them. He wants me to "ban" him.
I don't think I can do that. Isn't it true that as a sysop I have neither the power nor the authority to ban a signed-in user?
Anyway, I don't see the urgency. The contributor in question isn't malicious; he's just annoying the hell out of RK and Slrubenstein with his POV. It's not like he's using a bot.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1254
[Wikipedia-l] Ezra Wax, ultra-Orthodox
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Thu Oct 31 19:24:56 UTC 2002
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:26:06PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I've gotten some frantic "Talk" from RK claiming Ezra Wax is "vandalizing" the Wikipedia Judaism articls "faster than we can correct" them. He wants me to "ban" him.
>
>I don't think I can do that. Isn't it true that as a sysop I have neither the power nor the authority to ban a signed-in user?
>
>Anyway, I don't see the urgency. The contributor in question isn't malicious; he's just annoying the hell out of RK and Slrubenstein with his POV. It's not like he's using a bot.
RK is very quick in his accusations of "vandalism", and in calling
people "anti-Semitic". His aggressive use of emotional loaded language
doesn't make it easy for people to behave in a reasonable manner and
come to a peaceful resolution.
If anything, I'd like to see RK sanctioned for a week or two, so he can
cool off, and understand how offensive many find his current behavior.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021031/04c84382/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1255
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Thu Oct 31 19:43:11 UTC 2002
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:09:15PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Neither of the scenarios you suggest is likely to occur with me, or
> with any of the dozens of others whose work I've come to repect.
> If I see the "hidden changes exist" flag, then of course I will either:
> * read the current version, or
> * use the "History" and "Diff" links
> to see what you call the wild changes, before editing.
'Before editing' just that article? What about edits to talk pages? The
potential for confusion during discussion is immense, if different
participants are seeing different views of the Wikipedia.
What about edits to related articles? You would be in danger of
duplicating information which had been placed on other pages, but which
you had hidden from yourself. Or worse, erroneously omitting
information because you believed it to be covered elsewhere.
> Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about
> the way of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing?
Not bad per se, just not appropriate to Wikipedia. I still recommend
you fork if you wish to try this experiment.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1256
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Oct 31 20:19:52 UTC 2002
On 10/31/02 1:10 PM, "mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk"
<mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:34:01AM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>> What I want, when I request an article to be transmitted from the PediaWiki
>> database to my computer screen, is an article created, last-edited, or
>> certified by my choice of:
>> * a user with sysop or above authority (41 sysops, 3 developers, 1 owner = 45
>> people, i.e., the "cabal")
>> * a signed-in user who is on my "trusted" list
> [...]
>
>> * show a flag (possibly optional) indicating the existence of a later,
>> "uncertified" change
>> * set the default for editing to "edit the latest version"
>> * provide an option to "edit the version currently displayed"
>
> If you allow significant changes to be hidden from you, you will have
> to get used to pages changing wildly when you press the 'edit the
> latest version' button -- often so wildly that the change you intended
> to make no longer makes sense. Or if you use the 'edit the version
> currently displayed' button, other people will have to get used to
> their changes being randomly reverted without explanation.
>
> I think this adds up to a fundamentally way of creating an
> encyclopedia. If you want to try it, I think it would be more polite to
> set up your own server and make a proper fork.
>
> I don't think the rest of us should have to cope with the damage that
> this would cause.
These were my sentiments. I'd be interested in seeing variants of Wikipedia
such as this, but they should be independent projects.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1257
Please sanction RK (reasons) (Was: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Ezra Wax, ultra-Orthodox)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Thu Oct 31 20:26:24 UTC 2002
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:26:06PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I've gotten some frantic "Talk" from RK claiming Ezra Wax is "vandalizing" the Wikipedia Judaism articls "faster than we can correct" them. He wants me to "ban" him.
>
>I don't think I can do that. Isn't it true that as a sysop I have neither the power nor the authority to ban a signed-in user?
>
>Anyway, I don't see the urgency. The contributor in question isn't malicious; he's just annoying the hell out of RK and Slrubenstein with his POV. It's not like he's using a bot.
In fact, I have just now read through the Ezra Wax changes, and RK's
response to him. I feel that it is RK's over-blown rhetoric and
accusations of "he's making up lies! he's proseletizing! he's making
pro-X propaganda!" and proclamations that "We won't let you won't get
away with this!" that has caused the fellow to increase his rate of
editorship. He is trying to get what he sees as some balance into the
Wiki articles on Judaism. RK dubs this sort of activity as "whitewashing",
"lies", "propaganda", "polemics", and the like.
I really like the approach Ed Poor has been taking. Most people WANT to
help make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia ever. With some gentle
nudging, most people learn how to phrase what they say so that other
people will consider it a real contribution.
RK's approach, on the other hand, is alienating people. But before it
alienates them to the point of going away entirely, it sometimes causes
huge edit wars, and in the heat of emotion, the new contributors aren't
as careful about maintaining NPOV, since they know that RK will come
along and delete their hard work anyway, instead of doing the proper
thing, which is to incorporate the new material when revision for NPOV.
I wish you all well, and hope that we can all together encourage RK to
modify his behavior to something more socially acceptable, that doesn't
alienate everyone who doesn't share his unique views on religion.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021031/b9f4ea28/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1258
RK and Lir (Was: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Ezra Wax, ultra-Orthodox)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Thu Oct 31 20:28:56 UTC 2002
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:26:06PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I've gotten some frantic "Talk" from RK claiming Ezra Wax is "vandalizing" the Wikipedia Judaism articls "faster than we can correct" them. He wants me to "ban" him.
As someone who has tried to help Lir with calm suggestions, only to be
met with extreme suspicion and hostility, I can't help but wonder: how
much of that is due to her early mistreatment at the hands of RK and a
few editors like him?
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021031/280aaa58/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1259
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Derek Ross
derekross at fisheracre.freeserve.co.uk
Thu Oct 31 20:37:52 UTC 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Parmenter" <tompar at world.std.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Cc: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
>
> I really like elian's idea of user-added star ratings to articles. I
> don't have it handy, but it was like
>
> * pathetic stub
> ***** Britannica grade
>
> Then you could set your wikiviewer to show any rating, one-star if you
> were looking for work, five-star if you were looking for information,
> etc. No bureacracy, no cabal, no weird standards for hiding
> information. Much more, as elian said, the wiki way.
>
Yes, this has been the best suggestion so far.
Cheers
Derek
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1260
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Thu Oct 31 20:41:14 UTC 2002
As I've made clear already, I'm all for trying to find a way vouchsafe the
reliability of those of our articles that actually are reliable. We've
just got to make sure we don't shoot ourselves in the foot doing it!
I'd like to ask this: what is the purpose of this present certification
proposal?
*If* you're trying to improve the credibility of Wikipedia among people
who *really need* accurate information about the reliability of
articles--people like students, teachers (at all levels), librarians, and
anyone doing serious research--then I don't see how this proposal can
work. Why should any of these sorts of people believe that an article
*actually is* reliable, just because a dozen participants have pressed a
button saying it's good--if it's possible that not a single actual expert
has looked at it? We've all seen instances of articles that looked OK to
nonexperts but that turned out to be, in the opinion of an expert that
happens by, decidedly inadequate. It doesn't take an epistemologist to
see that accuracy cannot be vouchsafed by a vote--10, or 100, or 1000
approving Wikipedians certainly *can* be wrong!
But that isn't the most important issue here. The most important issue is
this: I suspect that, if I understand it correctly, implementing the
proposal would actually *undermine* Wikipedia's credibility. Here is what
all sorts of sober thinkers, not on the project, will think about it when
they learn about how articles are certified: "The same people who *write*
these articles, of uneven quality and obviously questionable credibility,
are the ones who presume to certify that they're accurate? Well, if the
people in charge of the project think *that's* how to guarantee the
reliability of an article, that's reason to think the articles *aren't*
reliable, and that the project shouldn't be taken seriously."
By contrast, the proposal I made not long ago (I know, I haven't followed
up--I suddenly got very busy), of having a completely separate website,
managed by actual subject area experts, containing a subset of Wikipedia
articles, achieves the purpose (improving the credibility of some
Wikipedia articles among librarians et al.) much more handily.
By no means am I saying that credentialled people, or "experts," are
(because they're experts) *necessarily* reliable. Plenty of people with
lots of credentials can't give us a trustworthy opinion as to the
reliability of an article. But we can't do better, and it's the opinion
of these people--the duly anointed "knowers" (the tongue's in cheek
here)--that students, teachers, and others look up to for their benchmark
as to what is currently known. That's a fact. It's not a WikiWiki fact
or attitude, but it *is* a fact, and we can't change it. The more
"elitist" proposal might not be "WikiWiki," but there IS no WikiWiki way
to satisfy teachers, librarians, and serious researchers about the
reliability of a WikiWiki.
Now, if satisfying the librarians et al. is not your aim with the
proposal, I think that's too bad; but then I really do have to wonder what
the point of this certification proposal is. Is it a way for Wikipedians
to win kudos from each other? If so, can we please not do that?
Wikipedia is *not*, I think, about building a community and winning kudos
and stroking egos. It's first and foremost about building an
*encyclopedia*.
Larry
Adding a new sig!
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1261
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Peter Lofting
lofting at apple.com
Thu Oct 31 21:40:22 UTC 2002
At 12:41 PM -0800 10/31/02, Larry Sanger wrote:
>...It doesn't take an epistemologist to
>see that accuracy cannot be vouchsafed by a vote--10, or 100, or 1000
>approving Wikipedians certainly *can* be wrong!
Sure its not fireproof, but it gives a measure of the degree of
consensus behind the article, which has some interpretable value:
- Firstly it indicates that the article hasn't been vandalized and is
not contentious - at least as far as the generalist editorial
midwives are concerned.
- Secondly it shows that it has passed at least first levels of
evolution - perhaps only of structure and linking. Interrelationships
to other info is itself valuable even if the body of the article
isn't top notch.
To suggest that a votes flag would highlight collective wikipedian
ignorance on a subject implys the fearful belief that members are
obliged to know everything. Isn't this belief opposite to the whole
idea of a Wikipedia?
It sounds like the project is overshadowed by the old social
expectation of the high standards expected of an encyclopedia
publisher. The project is bound to lose credibiity if it fails to
unload this expectation from immature pages. Clear labelling would
dispell this and reflect that pages are a living, evolving work, as
well as invite improved contributions.
All that would be necessary to gain credibility with students and
librarians and experts is to accurately label the status of an
article. Votes is only part of it. Another label could helpfully be
added indicating whether the article has been reviewed by subject
area experts or not.
An endorsement list would be the ultimate way to go, showing
names/URLs of individuals or bodies who have accepted the page as
OK/useful, along with a rating value. Amazon.com book ratings could
be a first model - open to all with a star rating. Note that such a
list could also reflect variation in evaluation and people could then
follow links to those endorsers who diverged in their rating to find
out why.
Another benefit if this is it could divert the energies of those with
strongly diverging POVs from "vandalizing" the page. They could
instead channel their energies into expressing their difference via
the rating and creating a linked counter-page...always room for one
more page.
Just 2 cents from an interested lurker
Peter.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1262
RK and Lir (Was: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Ezra Wax, ultra-Orthodox)
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 31 21:57:34 UTC 2002
None at all. Her first posting was at Iowa State University, where she insisted on including a quote from a dean that was fabricated. Someone actually emailed the dean in question and replied back to the pedia that the dean denied having ever said what Lir claimed he had said, and when she was called on it, she replied that it was obvious that the dean was lying and insisted on keeping her quote on the page.
Zoe
Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:26:06PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I've gotten some frantic "Talk" from RK claiming Ezra Wax is "vandalizing" the Wikipedia Judaism articls "faster than we can correct" them. He wants me to "ban" him.
As someone who has tried to help Lir with calm suggestions, only to be
met with extreme suspicion and hostility, I can't help but wonder: how
much of that is due to her early mistreatment at the hands of RK and a
few editors like him?
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021031/39613b39/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1263
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Kurt Jansson
jansson at gmx.net
Thu Oct 31 22:30:00 UTC 2002
Hi Larry, hi list!
> As I've made clear already, I'm all for trying to find a way vouchsafe
the
> reliability of those of our articles that actually are reliable.
We've
> just got to make sure we don't shoot ourselves in the foot doing it!
Yes! As you and many other have already said, it's better do this in a
separate project.
There's another reason that hasn't been mentioned (I think): Every sort
of certification procedure makes Wikipedia more complicated. Even if
it's (another) option in the preferences for logged in users, the
results of the procedure would be shown to the passing by surfer (with a
"flag" or whatever). Otherwise it would be useless. And it's not just a
word, it's a whole new concept that you introduce this way.
But Wikipedia is already far too complicated! Please don't compare
Wikipedia to Photoshop, Emacs, or your favorite complicated computer
application, but to the good old UseMod software. I love all the new
features we gained through the new software, but as a compromise between
the editors and the only-readers (but could become editors) we're at the
point where for every new feature on the screen an old one must go away.
IMO, of course.
Or better two. How about making the special pages drop down box a user
option?
Kurt
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1264
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
erik_moeller at gmx.de
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Thu Oct 31 22:50:00 UTC 2002
Larry et al.
(I'm responding to several concerns in a single mail here),
I understand your point, and I agree with it to some extent: People who
write articles aren't typically the best judges of their own work. But I
think you're making a mistake by assuming that someone who would take part
in a certification project that is a subset of Wikipedia would necessarily
also be a) a contributor to the specific article/subject he certified, or
even b) a contributor to Wikipedia at all. The experts you want could well
use the system, see below.
Elian suggested a scheme where we would simply get aggregated ratings from
everyone. I am familiar with such schemes (Kuro5hin uses it), and I have
considered that option and decided to submit a different proposal, the
team system. The idea here is that teams can make their own rules, and by
selecting a team to trust, I select a whole ruleset according to which I
want to view articles.
With aggregated ratings, on the other hand, I either have to trust the
aggregation (which includes trolls and people I may not find trustworthy)
or select individuals to trust, which is cumbersome (Slashdot uses such a
system, it's very very much work to build a useful list of friends/foes).
With teams, I just have to trust the team maintainers to keep a consistent
policy and kick out people who violate the rules. [As an aside, automatic
account creation is a serious problem even in communities with a more
complex account creation process. Once you can get greater power by
creating more accounts, people will do so. Our system should not allow
such abuses.]
For example, I could decide to trust Team Nupedia. Team Nupedia might have
a policy, defined on its team page in the [[Team:]] namespace, that
members of the team must a) be experts in the subjects they certify, b)
not be direct contributors to the articles they certify. They could also
set a high certification thresholds, e.g. 5 members of the team must rate
an article for it to be certified. This is just an example, you could make
up the rules you want. Then if Team Nupedia gets enough members, it might
provide many useful high quality evaluations of selected articles.
I think the modus operandi here would not necessarily be different from
what you envision for a separate project, but have the advantage to be
directly and visibly integrated into WP, thereby attracting more people
(even if you want an expert-centric team, you will probably get more
experts by addressing a larger sample of users).
Other teams might adopt more liberal approaches, trying to separate
obvious low quality articles from possibly high quality articles (i.e.
detecting egregious NPOV violations, spam, bad writing etc.). These teams
might produce more output and be valuable to do basic filtering (which
might go both ways -- I think it might be valuable to have negative
certification, too, to detect bad articles; I believe it was Ed who
suggested something similar). This is useful, but a separate goal from
creating a truly trustworthy encyclopaedia -- in the team system, it can
be accomplished within the same framework.
I think that such competing but yet cooperating teams with different rules
are better than either forking the whole project or forking selected
articles. I agree that one aspect of my proposal, namely that teams be
approved by the "cabal", was not very well thought out, but I do think
some selection process needs to take place, because if we tolerate troll
teams, those might create bad articles just for the purpose of certifying
them, regardless of them being replaced later; after all, it would always
be possible to view the certified version.
So much for now. To Ed: Feel free to create the page you mentioned, but
perhaps it is better to keep this discussion on the list until concerns
are addressed. Also, let's not move too fast. Wikipedia has survived well
without such a scheme for almost two years, and we should be careful with
any changes that could alienate contributors or make Wikipedia in any way
less valuable. Believe me, though, that I'm just as much in favor of
openness and massive collaboration as everyone else here -- if I had the
slightest belief that certification would undermine this in any way, I
wouldn't suggest it.
Peace,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1265
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
erik_moeller at gmx.de
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Thu Oct 31 23:09:00 UTC 2002
Matthew,
> If you allow significant changes to be hidden from you, you will have
> to get used to pages changing wildly when you press the 'edit the
> latest version' button
in general I would not suggest using the certified mode if you plan to do
edits (*if* we want to have it as a mode at all, and not just optional
information displayed on the page linking to the last certified revision).
That is also the reason I think it should never be the default. A cert
mode is good primarily for two purposes:
* Using Wikipedia as a reader only : not everyone is a contributor, some
people never will be, and Wikipedia hopefully will be also distributed in
non-interactive form (paper, CD-ROM etc). Even contributors sometimes are
just looking for good, trustworthy information. While being friendly to
writers, we should also be friendly to readers. The certified mode, while
optional, seems like a good way to showcase our hardest and best work.
* Using the cert system to find current low quality revisions that need
work. This is something I had not originally intended, but which seems to
make sense -- random page is only so helpful, *especially* if most of our
articles are actually of high quality at some point in the future.
I understand concerns about the certified mode, it is not a core part of
my proposal, but I would really like to send my Mom a link to a Wikipedia
article knowing that she won't accidentally she the notorious goat-man.
Still, the proposal would function without it, and we could decide to only
do actual Wikipedia-wide filtering in Wikipedia offsprings (other media,
other sites etc.).
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1266
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Oct 31 23:30:27 UTC 2002
Like Erik, I don't feel I can send some people a link to Wikipedia. The "notorious goat-man" can strike at any time. This means that no matter how bright my little girls get, I don't dare tell them about Wikipedia.
So far, my family has not needed to use NetNanny, SafeSurf or anything like that. I gave my girls a start page, and they click links from it. www.pbs.org/kids is a safe starting point, and I've collected Strawberry Shortcake and My Little Pony links (no Powerpuff Girls) for them.
But until the 'pedia creates a filtering mechanism, it remains (in my mind) an experiment: we are several dozen or maybe a few hundred people TRYING to build an open, free encyclopedia. We are SEEING IF it can be done.
I don't know how to filter out vandalism and maintain openness.
I don't know how to certify quality and maintain openness.
But I think we should keep trying to figure it out. Larry, Elian, and Erik have come up with good ideas. And Cunctator has come up with some good objections :-) But it ain't over yet.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1267
[Wikipedia-l] Web spiders vs Wikipedia
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Fri Nov 1 00:24:03 UTC 2002
I noticed this afternoon that something at IP 144.167.21.15 was
spidering the site, loading up thousands of page diffs, user
contributions pages, and other slow things at a rate of several per
second -- apparently as fast as it could get them in. I blocked its IP
from access to the /w/ directory (so it can only access regular pages
and default-view special pages via the / and /wiki/Foo paths; I put a
general prohibition into robots.txt as well), and the server load has
gone *dramatically* down.
It appears to be someone running 'WebStripper' trying to copy the whole
site; either it doesn't have sane throttling controls or they've
disabled it.
The IP is an unnamed host belonging to University of Arkansas at Little
Rock; probably some college kid enjoying the wonders of uni network
bandwidth.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1268
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Nov 1 00:34:27 UTC 2002
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 18:30, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
<snip>
> But until the 'pedia creates a filtering mechanism, it remains
> (in my mind) an experiment: we are several dozen or maybe a few
> hundred people TRYING to build an open, free encyclopedia. We are
> SEEING IF it can be done.
My philosophy is that everything that is alive is an experiment. If
Wikipedia had filter/certification/locking/freezing mechanisms, it would
be that much more dead.
It is the changeability of Wikipedia that captures the best of life.
As individuals and as a society, we die, fail, kill, and suffer.
But I'd rather live and suffer than not live at all.
And I'd rather build a society that changes and grows, and sometimes
makes missteps, than one safely locked in stasis.
And I hope that Wikipedia will remain mutable and organic, instead of
frozen and deadened.
> I don't know how to filter out vandalism and maintain openness.
What do you mean? We do it now. If you want 100% safety/cleanness, you
have to seriously compromise openness. If you're satisfied with 99.9%
safety and cleanliness, you don't. (We're probably at 95-99% now as a
time-space average, and with proper non-restrictive tools, that
percentage can be raised).
> I don't know how to certify quality and maintain openness.
You throw away the obsolete mechanisms of certification. How do we know
gravity works? Not because Einstein told us so, but because it pervades
our experience, in time and space.
As Wikipedia grows, it will continue to become ever more part of the
underlying structure of the noosphere.
Another way of looking at this is the quality of Wikipedia is a
statistical phenomenon, not a result of particular decisions.
> But I think we should keep trying to figure it out. Larry, Elian, and
> Erik have come up with good ideas. And Cunctator has come up with some
> good objections :-) But it ain't over yet.
Also Toby Bartels. You want ideas? See
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Sourceberg
(aka SourceLink). I was discussing this a year ago.
That's the right way to deal with this issue, as a complementary
project. (If I may say so myself. STG was on a better track
implementationwise than I.)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1269
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Nov 1 07:59:39 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about the way
>of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing?
*Fundamentally* *bad*? No -- even if *I* might not do it.
But I'm starting to think that this would be an idea for
some other site that sits on top of Wikipedia,
taking Wikipedia as a source of some of its input,
but not outputing directly onto Wikipedia
(although it could direct potential editors to Wikipedia).
Of course, there's no reason that this new web site
couldn't be supported by Bomis, Inc., or a Wikipedia Foundation.
Larry has already suggested that Nupedia might act like this;
well, we could have a site that covers Team Nupedia
and a bunch of other certification teams too,
if there's interest.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1270
[Wikipedia-l] Ezra Wax, ultra-Orthodox
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Nov 1 13:43:57 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I don't think I can do that. Isn't it true that as a sysop I have
>neither the power nor the authority to ban a signed-in user?
That's right.
> Anyway, I don't see the urgency. The contributor in question isn't
>malicious; he's just annoying the hell out of RK and Slrubenstein with
>his POV. It's not like he's using a bot.
RK and Slrubenstein are great contributors.
If the guy is not using a bot, then surely we can revert faster than
he can type. It takes a few minutes to type anything, and only moments
to revert. He'll quickly tire and go away.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1271
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Fri Nov 1 15:20:31 UTC 2002
> From: Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu>
> Larry has already suggested that Nupedia might act like this;
> well, we could have a site that covers Team Nupedia
> and a bunch of other certification teams too,
> if there's interest.
OK, two comments: (1) while I and others have often said in the past that
Nupedia is perfectly free to use Wikipedia articles, and even that Nupedia
could serve as a Wikipedia-vetting project, that is *not* my most recent
proposal. Most recently I specifically said that we probably shouldn't
impose on Nupedia to act as a filter for Wikipedia. The main reason for
this is simply that that isn't what the many good people who signed up for
the Nupedia project signed up for; they'd be furious if I tried to hijack
their project that way, even if it's a project that isn't currently going
anywhere.
(2) No offense but I really don't want any "team" of reviewers that I help
organize associated with other (nonprofessional) reviewing "teams" as
designated by Wikipedia. That essentially defeats the purpose of the
proposal, viz., to use Wikipedia-created materials to create a *clearly
more credible*, mother-, teacher-, and librarian-approved resource. I'm
not saying there couldn't be any other reviewing scheme in place, just
that the professional-level reviewing body should not "just another
Wikipedia reviewing team." That entails that it should just be as
completely independent of Wikipedia.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1272
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Nov 1 15:51:45 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
> The main reason for
> this is simply that that isn't what the many good people who signed up for
> the Nupedia project signed up for; they'd be furious if I tried to hijack
> their project that way, even if it's a project that isn't currently going
> anywhere.
I'm considering a mass email to ask them what they want to do. I
think it's perfectly reasonable for us to offer to setup software for
them to start reviewing and approving articles from Wikipedia. I
can't imagine why they'd be furious about it.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1273
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Fri Nov 1 16:03:53 UTC 2002
> From: Peter Lofting <lofting at apple.com>
>
> At 12:41 PM -0800 10/31/02, Larry Sanger wrote:
> >...It doesn't take an epistemologist to
> >see that accuracy cannot be vouchsafed by a vote--10, or 100, or 1000
> >approving Wikipedians certainly *can* be wrong!
>
> Sure its not fireproof, but it gives a measure of the degree of
> consensus behind the article, which has some interpretable value:
>
> - Firstly it indicates that the article hasn't been vandalized and is
> not contentious - at least as far as the generalist editorial
> midwives are concerned.
>
> - Secondly it shows that it has passed at least first levels of
> evolution - perhaps only of structure and linking. Interrelationships
> to other info is itself valuable even if the body of the article
> isn't top notch.
Hi Peter,
This is all perfectly true. I didn't mean to say that an "everybody has a
vote" certification proposal would be simply useless.
But is there a *solid reason* for the "everybody has a vote" certification
proposal? I'm still not sure I understand what it is. The above are
advantages, but they don't clearly indicate what the reason, or purpose of
the proposal is.
> To suggest that a votes flag would highlight collective wikipedian
> ignorance on a subject implys the fearful belief that members are
> obliged to know everything. Isn't this belief opposite to the whole
> idea of a Wikipedia?
Well, I'm not aware that *I* suggested any such thing...
> It sounds like the project is overshadowed by the old social
> expectation of the high standards expected of an encyclopedia
> publisher. The project is bound to lose credibiity if it fails to
> unload this expectation from immature pages. Clear labelling would
> dispell this and reflect that pages are a living, evolving work, as
> well as invite improved contributions.
Maybe! It *might* also suggest to readers familiar with Everything2 and
Kuro5hin and other projects that are self-evaluating, that the project is
essentially a self-contained community, interested in impressing itself
and not really interested in meeting independent standards.
We all know that *accuracy* is only very poorly vouchsafed by a vote of
the general public. That's as obvious a philosophical platitude as any.
And while we rightly regard the typical Wikipedia participant as much more
intelligent and well-informed than the average citizen of the Internet,
the *reader*, who wants to rely on an encyclopedia for accurate
information, has no particular reason to believe this. Much less does the
reader have any reason to believe that our being "above average" indicates
that articles we approve are necessarily reliable.
> All that would be necessary to gain credibility with students and
> librarians and experts is to accurately label the status of an
> article.
That's quite a bold claim to make, if you think about it. Most librarians
and experts, at any rate, are very careful about what resources they want
to label as reliable. They are, you might say, hired to be information
snobs. They will only recommend the best. And quite right, that's what
they should do. So, no. A mere label will not suffice. The label has to
be, in addition, *credible to the people who might recommend the resource
to their students, colleagues, etc.*.
> Votes is only part of it. Another label could helpfully be
> added indicating whether the article has been reviewed by subject
> area experts or not.
...and if the label is right alongside a label indicating the general
publicly-voted status of the article, the "peer review" label will lose
some credibility, it seems. Suppose Britannica were to put at the bottom
of an article, "Reviewed by John Doe, Ph.D., famous Xologist. The general
public has rated this article a 7.2 (out of 10)."
> An endorsement list would be the ultimate way to go, showing
> names/URLs of individuals or bodies who have accepted the page as
> OK/useful, along with a rating value. Amazon.com book ratings could
> be a first model - open to all with a star rating. Note that such a
> list could also reflect variation in evaluation and people could then
> follow links to those endorsers who diverged in their rating to find
> out why.
But how on earth can we attract the "knowers" of the world to so much as
think about Wikipedia for one hot second, without giving them some
guarantee that they won't be wasting their time? And how *do* we give
them that guarantee?
> Another benefit if this is it could divert the energies of those with
> strongly diverging POVs from "vandalizing" the page. They could
> instead channel their energies into expressing their difference via
> the rating and creating a linked counter-page...always room for one
> more page.
Do you mean that we could create competing pages on the same topic?
Well, notwithstanding the few pages where there are a few different
competing articles on the page (this is viewed as a temporary expedient),
this is one of the original ur-proposals for creating an encyclopedia, and
on both Nupedia and Wikipedia we've always come out against it. Cf.
[[neutral point of view]].
I disagree also that there's always room for one more page; there isn't
always room for one more page. The fact is that Wikipedia has succeeded
by being selective, in a certain sense. If we had not constantly
insisted, "This is an encyclopedia, dammit!", and egged each other on to
uphold certain standards, then we might have ended up like just another
Everything2. You might be shocked (or not :-) ) to hear me say that
Wikipedia is *selective*. It makes it sound like Wikipedia is an
*elitist* project. But you know what--to a certain extent, it *is* an
elitist project, and that is *partly* what's responsible for its success.
The fact that it's elitist is what certain people, who are probably more
jealous than anything, occasionally try to take us to task for, usually
fallaciously appealing to our sense of democracy, freedom, and openness.
How *dare* we think we can enforce a nonbias policy? How *dare* we draw a
distinction between encyclopedia and dictionary? How *dare* we ban people
who simply want to ruin the very thing we're working on? Who do we think
we are, anyway?
People who ask those sorts of questions just fundamentally disagree about
Wikipedia is about--but that's putting it too nicely. In fact, they
fundamentally lack the wisdom to understand what has really made it
possible in the first place.
Descending soapbox...
--Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1274
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Fri Nov 1 16:12:20 UTC 2002
|From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
|Content-Disposition: inline
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 07:51:45 -0800
|
|Larry Sanger wrote:
|> The main reason for
|> this is simply that that isn't what the many good people who signed up for
|> the Nupedia project signed up for; they'd be furious if I tried to hijack
|> their project that way, even if it's a project that isn't currently going
|> anywhere.
|
|I'm considering a mass email to ask them what they want to do. I
|think it's perfectly reasonable for us to offer to setup software for
|them to start reviewing and approving articles from Wikipedia. I
|can't imagine why they'd be furious about it.
|
|--Jimbo
Like many on the Wiki side, I've never warmed up to Nu, possibly
because Wiki lets me write any article I want and Nu probably wouldn't
let me write on any subject, what with my not being an expert on
anything.
Nonetheless, it seems totally appropriate to solve this problem of
incoherence and occasionally upsetting behavior (inherent in the
nature of Wikipedia), by moving properly vetted, well-behaved,
near-complete, shoe-and-shirt-wearing articles from Wikipedia to
Nupedia.
I still think Wikipedia will continue to be the more interesting,
active, and complete encyclopedia.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1275
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 1 16:21:13 UTC 2002
I wish Larry would stay on the soapbox a little longer. I'd be happy to bring him coffee and donuts...
I see two parallel and complementary ideas regarding certification being discussed here:
1. Improving signal to noise ratio
2. Verifying quality of scholarship
Simple, mechanical schemes like "some signed-in user read or wrote this" can help distinguish between sheer vandalism (noise) and someone's sincere attempt to write useful stuff. This is like the squelch control on a radio.
On a higher level, we need to verify content on important matters that only expert reviewers are competent to judge. This is roughly analogous to what the military calls "authentication" (like a PGP key).
There's no way I would want Wikipedia degenerate into a back-patting, incestuous, self-congratulatory mutual admiration society. Like a newsgroup where everyone agrees with each other. That way madness lies.
Nor do I want to see Wikipedia become the victim of its own success. With 100,000 signed-in users and 10,000,000 hits per day, how will we be able to stop the graffiti artists and script kiddies? Once the goat man gets a following...
I still think we should offer our "customers" advanced filtering features. Libraries and moms will want a no-porn guarantee. A CD-ROM publisher donating to the third world (maybe a Unificationist organization like Professors for World Peace) might want to focus more on scholarly topics, and not care about pop music reviews.
We can make the filters as sophisticated as we want. I haven't volunteered (yet) to be a developer, but I'm actually quite good with pattern matching and SQL joins. What I mean is, I'm willing to write code. But it's more a problem of deciding on features than figuring out how to implement them.
So let's take some more about these (and other) kinds of certification. What do we think the public wants and needs?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1276
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 1 16:38:57 UTC 2002
Ortolan wrote:
> Nonetheless, it seems totally appropriate to solve this problem of
> incoherence and occasionally upsetting behavior (inherent in the
> nature of Wikipedia), by moving properly vetted, well-behaved,
> near-complete, shoe-and-shirt-wearing articles from Wikipedia to
> Nupedia.
I agree. There's a huge difference between "requiring proper attire" and outright racism, to expand on Tom's metaphor.
Suppose a town decides to revoke its vagrancy law and allow homeless people to wander the streets and sleep in the park. It would be perfectly permissible for it to draw the line at access to public facilities like restaurants and libraries, with, e.g., a "no shirt no shoes no service" rule. This isn't "discriminatory", because anyone with the price of a meal can still eat in the restaurant: they just can't come in with their dirty, smelly feet or show their tits. Likewise, a dress or bathing code in a library isn't necessarily discriminatory. Even bums and hobos are welcome to read there without paying.
Whether the "well-behaved" articles are moved to Nupedia, or marked in a special way, or linked from some as yet undefined 3rd sites, is not the issue. Sure, Nupedia can stay intact, Larry, no one's trying to hurt your baby :-)
We need a certification scheme that does not:
* inhibit the free flow of info into the Wikipedia
* establish a (deadly) cabal
* reduce everything to the common denominator
Surely we can think of a scheme that satisfies these requirements, as well as any others that Larry, Cunc, Toby, Elian, et al., have posed.
I won't brag about how much money I've made in software development, but I'll say this: when I've been authorized to collect and refine user requirements, it has always led to a system that knocked the users' socks off!
Ed Poor
"Writing for myself, not my company"
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1277
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Fri Nov 1 16:44:47 UTC 2002
erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:
>> I understand your point, and I agree with it to some extent: People who
write articles aren't typically the best judges of their own work. But I
think you're making a mistake by assuming that someone who would take part
in a certification project that is a subset of Wikipedia would necessarily
also be a) a contributor to the specific article/subject he certified, or
even b) a contributor to Wikipedia at all. The experts you want could well
use the system, see below.
I re-read my post and I do see how you might think that my main objection
was that people who write articles aren't typically the best judges of
their own work. That wasn't exactly my point, though (while I agree with
that point, too). My point was that (to oversimplify) the results of
certification-by-general-vote would not be trustworthy from the point of
view of your school librarian. This is not because people would have
judged their own work but because the certification process were not
staffed and led by the sort of experts that your school librarian has been
taught to trust.
(And perforce I wasn't assuming those other things you said I was
assuming.)
>> Elian suggested a scheme where we would simply get aggregated ratings
from everyone. I am familiar with such schemes (Kuro5hin uses it), and I
have considered that option and decided to submit a different proposal,
the team system. The idea here is that teams can make their own rules, and
by selecting a team to trust, I select a whole ruleset according to which
I want to view articles.
This, like my proposal and Elian's, is not new, and in the past I was
lukewarmly in favor of it. I'm now lukewarmly against it. One thing
would have to go: names like "Team Nupedia," as if we were engaged in
sports. :-)
My fundamental objection to the team proposal is that it would make
Wikipedia smack of the amateurism and, worse, the insularity and
in-crowdishness that I detect on Kuro5hin, Slashdot, and other self-rated
websites. There's already too much of that on Wikipedia. That's all
right for K5 and /. but not for the world's largest *encyclopedia*
project. We might let everyone *work* on articles, but I don't see how
that entails that we should therefore set up a system whereby everyone
*rates* the articles.
If the rating website were completely separate from Wikipedia, I think I'd
have little to complain about. There are separate reasons, which someone
rightly pointed out, not to do it on Wikipedia itself: it complicates
things far more than they are already.
>> I think the modus operandi here would not necessarily be different from
what you envision for a separate project, but have the advantage to be
directly and visibly integrated into WP, thereby attracting more people
(even if you want an expert-centric team, you will probably get more
experts by addressing a larger sample of users).
Repeated experience with Nupedia confirmed what I knew already, that
experts are very careful about who they associate with. I predict that
most experts *wouldn't* be interested in participating in a certification
project where they are on "just another team." I'd much prefer that the
"expert-centric" team have its own website and own project.
>> Other teams might adopt more liberal approaches, trying to separate
obvious low quality articles from possibly high quality articles (i.e.
detecting egregious NPOV violations, spam, bad writing etc.). These teams
might produce more output and be valuable to do basic filtering (which
might go both ways -- I think it might be valuable to have negative
certification, too, to detect bad articles; I believe it was Ed who
suggested something similar). This is useful, but a separate goal from
creating a truly trustworthy encyclopaedia -- in the team system, it can
be accomplished within the same framework.
I see absolutely nothing to object to there!
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1278
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Fri Nov 1 16:45:30 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Larry Sanger wrote:
>
>
>> The main reason for
>>this is simply that that isn't what the many good people who signed up for
>>the Nupedia project signed up for; they'd be furious if I tried to hijack
>>their project that way, even if it's a project that isn't currently going
>>anywhere.
>>
>>
>
>I'm considering a mass email to ask them what they want to do. I
>think it's perfectly reasonable for us to offer to setup software for
>them to start reviewing and approving articles from Wikipedia. I
>can't imagine why they'd be furious about it.
>
>
The important thing is that we don't *replace* Nupedia with that new
project, at least not initially. If it turns out that the wikipedia
spin-off boosts, we might think again, in a year or so.
There's another effect we might want to consider. Suppose I want to copy
a wikipedia article to that spin-off, and I will be listed as the one
who did, I'd make pretty sure the article is correct in the first place,
and covers all important points. I'd also like it to be well written.
Now, a good article from wikipedia might lack a few minor things before
I'd consider it ready to be approved. So, the obvoius thing is for me to
edit the wikipedia article and fix these (minor) items before I approve it.
As a result, wikipedia itself will improve from the spin-off.
I think.
I am working on a demo version for a new software. I could have it
running this weekend.
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1279
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Fri Nov 1 17:46:56 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I wish Larry would stay on the soapbox a little longer. I'd be happy to bring him coffee and donuts...
>
>I see two parallel and complementary ideas regarding certification being discussed here:
>1. Improving signal to noise ratio
>2. Verifying quality of scholarship
>
>Simple, mechanical schemes like "some signed-in user read or wrote this" can help distinguish between sheer vandalism (noise) and someone's sincere attempt to write useful stuff. This is like the squelch control on a radio.
>
>On a higher level, we need to verify content on important matters that only expert reviewers are competent to judge. This is roughly analogous to what the military calls "authentication" (like a PGP key).
>
>
>
Ed has made an important distinction.
Simple automated or semi-automated procedures are very good for doing 1,
but totally useless for 2.
Arguments about their uselessness for the purposes of problem 2 do not
mean that they are not a good idea for solving problem 1.
I have no idea how to go about solving the second problem.
Let's see if we can have a go at the first.
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1280
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Fri Nov 1 17:56:32 UTC 2002
>> Larry Sanger wrote:
> The main reason for this is simply that that isn't what the many good
> people who signed up for the Nupedia project signed up for; they'd be
> furious if I tried to hijack their project that way, even if it's a
> project that isn't currently going anywhere.
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>> I'm considering a mass email to ask them what they want to do. I
think it's perfectly reasonable for us to offer to setup software for
them to start reviewing and approving articles from Wikipedia. I
can't imagine why they'd be furious about it.
Hi Jimbo,
First: I could be persuaded to support your position. But:
You remember what happened when we first ran the idea by Nupedians, of
creating just a fun wiki side-project. After a week or two it seemed the
vast majority of Nupedia's editors and reviewers were against continuing
an association with the wiki. It became Wikipedia. Then, we started the
Nupedia Chalkboard, which was going to be a more exclusive wiki that would
be able to import Wikipedia articles (remember?)--a Wikipedia halfway
house. Getting the advisory board to agree to it was like pulling teeth.
Then only about three or four people showed up. After I set it up, Magnus
is the only one who did any serious work on it (thanks, Magnus).
Finally, more recently--about a year ago, when we were debating the future
of Nupedia--there was some talk of making Nupedia simply a vetting
mechanism for Wikipedia. I remember that several Nupedia editors and
reviewers came out very strongly against having any association with
Wikipedia, and at least one (or was it two?) of them threatened to quit
when it was suggested that Wikipedia and Nupedia become more closely
associated. All these people are still there, waiting, by the way, and I
suspect their opinions haven't changed--though of course I could be wrong
about that. So that's why I say *that* they'd be furious.
As to *why* they'd be furious, I can think of a few reasons. While they
*do* want to work on a free encyclopedia, they *don't* want to do
professional-level work with people who are not at a professional level.
Moreover, they don't, individually (though there are some notable
exceptions!), want to be associated with a *wiki*, which smacks of
amateurishness (and there are other anti-wiki reasons as well). That's OK
for us amateurs, but not for most people, including most people who want
to work on a free encyclopedia, who have paid their dues getting the
highest degree in their field and then worked for years at a professional
level. Finally, they can actually view the work of Wikipedia, and while
I'm sure some of them are impressed with the amount of work we've done,
I'm also sure that most of the Nupedia editors and reviewers think that
most of the material currently in Wikipedia is nowhere near to a level
such that they'd like to be associated with it.
I'm not now saying that Nupedians are *right* to feel this way. I do know
Nupedians at least as well as anyone, though, and I'm pretty sure that a
large portion of the outspoken Nupedian population *does* in fact feel
this way.
With respect to my recent "subset" proposal, I have to admit that Nupedia
would be a perfect venue to pursue this, **IF** some significant portion
of the existing editorial and review staff got into the act. I just don't
know if they would. The above-reported experience indicates they might
very well not. But it seems likely to me that there would be a massive
changing of the guard, and perhaps a mass exodus. Definitely, *some* of
the most productive, most helpful Nupedia members would leave--which is to
say that they would never again work on *either* Nupedia *or* Wikipedia.
(Unless, I suppose, Nupedia turned out to be a screaming success, which of
course it might. Then they might come back.)
The other option, of course, is to start a new website, beg Nupedians to
get involved, and save Nupedia for something else.
Whatever becomes a professional review mechanism for Wikipedia, let me
tell ya how I think it should work: the reviewer should look at a
candidate article, perhaps make a few last minute changes on Wikipedia,
and then press a button, and it's posted as certified. End of story.
After our experience with Nupedia, I think it should be *that* simple.
On this conception, *Wikipedia* is the editing mechanism; the review
mechanism consists of qualified people *just* pressing *one* button.
(I'm just offering this as an idea--I'm not saying that it's *definitely*
what we should do. But I do strongly feel it should be that simple, or
nearly that simple. Once we determine the venue, we can discuss the
details fo the mechanism.)
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1281
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Nov 1 18:47:16 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Larry has already suggested that Nupedia might act like this;
>>well, we could have a site that covers Team Nupedia
>>and a bunch of other certification teams too,
>>if there's interest.
>OK, two comments: (1) while I and others have often said in the past that
>Nupedia is perfectly free to use Wikipedia articles, and even that Nupedia
>could serve as a Wikipedia-vetting project, that is *not* my most recent
>proposal.
I didn't mean to imply <This is like Larry's current proposal.>,
I just meant <This is similar to an idea that you've seen before;
if you don't recognise it, Larry mentioned it some time back.>.
Sorry for the inadvertent slander ^_^.
>(2) No offense but I really don't want any "team" of reviewers that I help
>organize associated with other (nonprofessional) reviewing "teams" as
>designated by Wikipedia.
Meaning that Nupedia wouldn't actually participate in the team site.
Well, that's probably to be expected ^_^.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1282
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Possible copyright violation
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 1 19:07:48 UTC 2002
>I'm not really too sure about this one,
>but thought I'd better throw it in to
>your current copyright/fair use debate.
>Someone at 64.175.251.49 has just posted
>all the lyrics to the songs from an album
>called cowboys from hell
>(http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_From_Hell).
>Apart from the fact this doesn't seem like
>encyclopedia material, is it fair use to
>put these here? It doesn't seem safe ot me.
>I've heard that quite a few large lyric
>repositories have been shut down over the
>past few years.
>
>ASB
Sigh, 64 again... Thank your for noticing this. Zoe
and I have already found and removed a half dozen
possible copyright violations by this IP. These are
listed on
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votes_for_deletion near
the end. I had hoped that the replacement of the
offending material with the 'possible copyright
violation' boilerplates would either clue this person
into learning a bit about not stealing the work of
others or at least prompt them into giving some
evidence that the text is used with permission. Since
these new violations of copyright have occurred well
after the posting of the boilerplates I have placed a
24 hour block on that IP so we can have enough time to
clean-up. If you want to help please visit:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=64.175.251.49
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1283
[Wikipedia-l] Lir, again
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 1 22:52:24 UTC 2002
Lir posted "ITZAK MORGA RIN!" on my Talk page, and refuses to explain what it means. Does anyone have a clue?
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021101/a69924fc/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1284
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Feature Proposal: Certification
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 2 00:45:32 UTC 2002
>...
>Whatever becomes a professional review mechanism
>for Wikipedia, let me tell ya how I think it should
>work: the reviewer should look at a candidate
article,
>perhaps make a few last minute changes on Wikipedia,
>and then press a button, and it's posted as
certified.
>End of story.
>After our experience with Nupedia, I think it should
>be *that* simple. On this conception, *Wikipedia* is
>the editing mechanism; the review mechanism consists
>of qualified people *just* pressing *one* button.
>(I'm just offering this as an idea--I'm not saying
>that it's *definitely* what we should do. But I do
>strongly feel it should be that simple, or
>nearly that simple. Once we determine the venue,
>we can discuss the details fo the mechanism.)
>
>Larry
Wow Larry, I really like this idea. It is simple,
fast, easy, doesn't require freezing of a Wikipedia
article during a review and most importantly it would
not represent a version fork. There could even be a
second level pass by somebody else with even higher
qualifications. They would review the Wikipedia
article sometime after the first reviewer, make some
needed changes (possibly reverting some less than
stellar edits since the last review), click a button
and presto!
I have a Bachelors degree in Biology with an
unofficial concentration in microbiology so sign me up
to review some basic biology and microbiology
articles. There would be criteria for a reviewer to
follow, right? We need to work this stuff out. I
suggest we create a Metapedia page to work-out some
details. I would like to also go over Nupedia's review
guidelines and see if we can get some good ideas on
what to do and not to do from that. We also need to
dig-up your original mailing list post on this subject
in the archives. There were some great posts made
during the great beta/stable debate several months ago
that should also be mined for ideas.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1285
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Peter Lofting
lofting at apple.com
Sat Nov 2 17:05:43 UTC 2002
At 8:03 AM -0800 11/1/02, Larry Sanger wrote:
> > Another benefit if this is it could divert the energies of those with
>> strongly diverging POVs from "vandalizing" the page. They could
>> instead channel their energies into expressing their difference via
>> the rating and creating a linked counter-page...always room for one
>> more page.
>
>Do you mean that we could create competing pages on the same topic?
>Well, notwithstanding the few pages where there are a few different
>competing articles on the page (this is viewed as a temporary expedient),
>this is one of the original ur-proposals for creating an encyclopedia, and
>on both Nupedia and Wikipedia we've always come out against it. Cf.
>[[neutral point of view]].
Just the observation that if there are multiple POVs and one slot you
will always have a power struggle between the POVs to own the slot;
wheras if you have a place - someplace, anyplace to put each POV you
can say to each of "them" - "You belong here... stop fighting with
each other... there's room for both of you".
This could take the form of sub-pages or sub-paragraphs or whatever.
This is much like the lemma of a dictionary and the multiple senses
of the term that accumulate under the entry.
Of course it doesn't solve the extreme cases where one POV is in
denial of another, but it does give them somewhere else to "live" in
the document.
Just an attempt to convert some of the heat into light.
Peter.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1286
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Peter Lofting
lofting at apple.com
Sat Nov 2 17:25:16 UTC 2002
At 8:03 AM -0800 11/1/02, Larry Sanger wrote:
> > An endorsement list would be the ultimate way to go, showing
>> names/URLs of individuals or bodies who have accepted the page as
>> OK/useful, along with a rating value. Amazon.com book ratings could
>> be a first model - open to all with a star rating. Note that such a
>> list could also reflect variation in evaluation and people could then
>> follow links to those endorsers who diverged in their rating to find
>> out why.
>
>But how on earth can we attract the "knowers" of the world to so much as
>think about Wikipedia for one hot second, without giving them some
>guarantee that they won't be wasting their time? And how *do* we give
>them that guarantee?
Your comment contains both the assumption that I see as constraining
your POV and also the key criteria that IMHO will encourage "knowers"
to pass by:
(1) Your assumption appears to me to be that knowers won't come to
the site unless it already contains the highest quality knowledge and
you cannot guarentee that so you are in a catch 22 view of the
problem. It sounds like you're living through the night before a big
examination and are terrified of failure!
I would point out that people's motivations are many and varied -
including 'knowers', and imagining a wider variety of reasons other
than just wanting ready-perfected look-ups can ease this catch 22
view of things. e.g.
- joy of knowledge - people love anything on their chosen subject
- joy of sharing - people love sharing with others
- joy of teaching - people love being able to give of themselves
- joy of refinement - people love being able to perfect (ie.
correct a page)
- joy of recognition - people love being seen and acknowledged
- joy of absorbtion - people love being absorbed in their subject
- joy of learning - people love finding out new views and
facets of knowledge
- joy of children - people love helping the next generation
etc... All these can be strong motivations that do not require
perfect knowledge to be already present on the site.
(2) The key criteria for 'knowers' to engage in your site is not that
things are perfect , but that they don't have their time wasted.
That means that there needs to be honest and accurate advertising of
the status of information and the process by which it is edited. Then
people can choose whether to invest their time - for whatever reason.
You will lose people rapidly if their contributions are wasted in
some way - ignored, bounced, defaced, etc.
Cheers
P
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1287
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Peter Lofting
lofting at apple.com
Sat Nov 2 18:02:35 UTC 2002
At 8:03 AM -0800 11/1/02, Larry Sanger wrote:
>Maybe! It *might* also suggest to readers familiar with Everything2 and
>Kuro5hin and other projects that are self-evaluating, that the project is
>essentially a self-contained community, interested in impressing itself
>and not really interested in meeting independent standards.
I'm not familiar with those other sites. I'm not interested in
self-contained communities. I am a stranger who has stumbled across
the wiki site and is interested in the idea of it. It appears to be a
idea with rich potential and noble ideals... abstract attractions
perhaps.
As an "outsider" I now have the nerve/conceit/guile to express my POV
and interact on the list.
What am I now that I interact? An insider or an outsider?
What If I continue to interact? Do I become more of an insider or
more of an outsider?
By the nature of the technology and the setup, there is no boundary
or container and anyone can interact - both positively and negatively.
Yet there is a community, so what binds it and how is it joined and left?
On the one hand you despair of vandalism and yet on the other you
despair of getting informed input.
How do you attract the "right" people and dissuade the "wrong" people
from interacting?
Who should manage/own/weild that distinction of right and wrong?
The words "community" and "consensus" come to mind, but how to
articulate them in a living interaction?
Because it is boundary-less, you as a community don't have powers of
exclusion, so the only way I can think of attracting the right kind
of people is by "resonance": Resonance is the phenomenon of inducing
similar activity in others (e.g. other tuning forks). Whatever you do
will attract people who resonate with that activity.
The implication here is you get where you want to be by embodying the
activities and principles you hold and not feeding (i.e. reacting to)
those of different POVs.
If this is done consistently the result is a collection of
like-minded people all in resonance and aligned to a shared purpose,
while the "others" have lost interest and taken themselves elsewhere
to find their own resonances.
If you're attracting riff-raff and having editorial battles the
implication is that the riff-raff are in resonance with some people
in the community who like creating drama.
If this is the case the most productive thing to do is examine the
motives and goals of each "member" and try to align them better....
that or accept that the present state is what "members" choose -
consciously or unconsciously.
Why are you involved in the Wiki project?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1288
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Feature Proposal: Certification
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Sat Nov 2 20:40:59 UTC 2002
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> >...
> >Whatever becomes a professional review mechanism
> >for Wikipedia, let me tell ya how I think it should
> >work: the reviewer should look at a candidate
> article,
> >perhaps make a few last minute changes on Wikipedia,
> >and then press a button, and it's posted as
> certified.
> >End of story.
> >After our experience with Nupedia, I think it should
> >be *that* simple. On this conception, *Wikipedia* is
> >the editing mechanism; the review mechanism consists
> >of qualified people *just* pressing *one* button.
> >(I'm just offering this as an idea--I'm not saying
> >that it's *definitely* what we should do. But I do
> >strongly feel it should be that simple, or
> >nearly that simple. Once we determine the venue,
> >we can discuss the details fo the mechanism.)
> >
> >Larry
>
> Wow Larry, I really like this idea. It is simple,
> fast, easy, doesn't require freezing of a Wikipedia
> article during a review and most importantly it would
> not represent a version fork.
Yes, this is really important to me, so let me explain why. From the very
beginning we were encouraging people to move articles from Wikipedia to
Nupedia--nobody did it. If we were to propose doing that again now, I
can't see why it would be significantly different from before. To be
sure, a revitalized Nupedia could be greatly simplified; but I think it's
pretty safe to say that Nupedians will insist on being on more than just a
subset of Wikipedia. But in that case, if we had a greatly-simplified
Nupedia just borrowing articles from Wikipedia, and also adding articles
of its own, running a parallel project, that would be great, but because
it *would* be a different project (I don't like the word "fork" in this
context), Wikipedia would still probably have grounds for a certification
process of its own. It couldn't *predict* that Nupedia would serve as a
"best of" Wikipedia; a revitalized, simplified Nupedia might simply ignore
Wikipedia, as it did before, when Nupedia was active.
The present proposal is to create a functionally and editorially
independent project that *only* uploads selected Wikipedia articles, and
does not change them at all.
> There could even be a
> second level pass by somebody else with even higher
> qualifications.
That's sort of what I thought Nupedia could do.
> They would review the Wikipedia
> article sometime after the first reviewer, make some
> needed changes (possibly reverting some less than
> stellar edits since the last review), click a button
> and presto!
>
> I have a Bachelors degree in Biology with an
> unofficial concentration in microbiology so sign me up
> to review some basic biology and microbiology
> articles. There would be criteria for a reviewer to
> follow, right? We need to work this stuff out. I
> suggest we create a Metapedia page to work-out some
> details. I would like to also go over Nupedia's review
> guidelines and see if we can get some good ideas on
> what to do and not to do from that. We also need to
> dig-up your original mailing list post on this subject
> in the archives. There were some great posts made
> during the great beta/stable debate several months ago
> that should also be mined for ideas.
I'm sure we could learn something that way. An essential aspect of the
project as I conceived of it is that it would be potentially attractive to
college professors who want to work with colleagues and who do not want to
have to debate (or check up on) changes made by people whom they think
aren't yet their equals in terms of qualifications or ability. The entry
bar would therefore necessarily have to be high in terms of
qualifications. I think all this entails that, for planning purposes,
once we have decided we're really going to do this (and I at least am
pretty sure I want to get behind it), we should set up a separate mailing
list for the project. It's only appropriate that the project be more
specifically defined, and guided, by the future participants.
But these things (the new mailing list included) is contingent to a
certain extent upon Jimbo's intentions vis-a-vis Nupedia itself. I hope
we'll hear more from him about all of this. He's probably out having fun
on the weekend now, as usual, so we might not hear from him about this for
a few days.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1289
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia subset proposal
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Sat Nov 2 21:17:13 UTC 2002
I just wanted to reply to what people wrote in reply to the original
"Wikipedia subset proposal" (which can be found here:
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-October/006352.html ).
I'm very glad to see Magnus, Axel, and Mav behind it.
Ruth Ifcher kindly wrote in response:
>> It is hard to form an opinion of this proposal, with just a very bare
outline of it. Nevertheless, the first question that occurred to me when I
read it was, would there be someone in charge of this Wikipedia subset,
like an editor-in-chief or whatever.
It would seem that we need to have someone in charge of seeing that
all the policy decisions get made, implemented, and documented, and to see
the project through.
I have a number of questions but the proposal is far from clear to
me. I think more details have to be outlined, before I, for one, feel
ready to ask questions. <<
As is usual for vague new proposals, there's a tension between being clear
enough to let people know if they really want to be involved, and vague
enough so that they might feel they can have a shape in how it's going to
be formed. As far as I'm concerned, Ruth Ifcher should be one of the
people listened to closely for answers to the questions that she would be
apt to ask!
Would there be someone in charge of the Wikipedia subset--an
editor-in-chief? Well, do we need one for *this* project and what for if
so? It isn't obvious to me. The core idea as I see it is simply subject
area experts (bona fide experts, mind you) pushing "approve" buttons and
after that being publicly accountable for their button-pushing. For what
is an editor-in-chief needed here? Perhaps only to approve reviewers, but
surely if I for example were editor-in-chief, I would like to pass on this
responsibility to the most senior or distinguished scholar in a given
area, a "head reviewer." For example, G. B. Lane, Nupedia's music editor,
can more easily tell a good musicologist from a bad one than I can.
As to implementing policy decisions and simply keeping the project on
track, from experience I know that *would* require a leader--though in
fact, many policy decisions have already been discussed ad nauseam on
either Nupedia or Wikipedia or both, and we might as well not reinvent the
wheel.
So it really isn't clear how much work leading a Wikipedia filter project
would require. I know that *I* could make a full-time job of organizing
it, if I could justify actually spending that time; but since I am still
underemployed (but thankfully not entirely unemployed), part of the
justification has to come in terms of money! Before I think any more
about that, though, I'd like to see if enough people are behind it, and
how Nupedia fits into it.
I can say this: if it's under a new domain name that I control, I'll be
much more motivated to work on it; for reasons stated above, I have to
make sure that I have *some* sort of *clear stake* in the project if I'm
going to work on it the way I worked on Nupedia and Wikipedia.
Otherwise, I'll be spending many hours of my free time on a project when I
should, to be responsible to myself and my wife, be out making more money.
If everything goes well, if I wanted to start working on this in earnest,
I would begin by joining Lee's (reported) effort to set up a Free
Encyclopedia Foundation. Hopefully a steady and growing source of income
might come from that, so that the overall project of creating a free
encyclopedia could support the needed *professional* involvement it really
requires.
But even if no money is forthcoming, I think we might be able to organize
a roughly self-managing project, and I'd try to help get it started.
Still, to do a good job, I really do think we need a full-time manager.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1290
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia subset proposal
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Sat Nov 2 21:25:44 UTC 2002
I wrote:
>>As is usual for vague new proposals, there's a tension between being
clear enough to let people know if they really want to be involved, and
vague enough so that they might feel they can have a shape in how it's
going to be formed. ^^^^^
Not "shape," "stake"! :-)
Also, I'm glad Stephen Gilbert and Toby Bartels gave their blessing as
well, thanks guys.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1291
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia subset proposal
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Sat Nov 2 22:00:06 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>I just wanted to reply to what people wrote in reply to the original
>"Wikipedia subset proposal" (which can be found here:
>http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-October/006352.html ).
>
>I'm very glad to see Magnus, Axel, and Mav behind it.
>
>
>
Yes, having read it, it sounds like a good idea, as it
1 looks like a good idea, even if it is only as a "best of Wikipedia"
2 is unlikely to harm Wikipedia
3 might be a way forward towards resolving the scholarly review conundrum
I particularly like the idea that Wikipedia _remains the editing forum_:
editing is the lifeblood of a wiki.
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1292
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sun Nov 3 00:38:45 UTC 2002
Peter Lofting wrote:
>Just the observation that if there are multiple POVs and one slot you
>will always have a power struggle between the POVs to own the slot;
>wheras if you have a place - someplace, anyplace to put each POV you
>can say to each of "them" - "You belong here... stop fighting with
>each other... there's room for both of you".
The way that we're supposed to do this is to have
a paragraph, section, or page (depending on size)
that says <A thinks B about C>. But even this should be NPOV;
B should accurately reflect what A really thinks about C,
and it shouldn't imply that A is right about C or that B is correct.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1293
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sun Nov 3 00:48:03 UTC 2002
On 11/2/02 7:38 PM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Peter Lofting wrote:
>
>> Just the observation that if there are multiple POVs and one slot you
>> will always have a power struggle between the POVs to own the slot;
>> wheras if you have a place - someplace, anyplace to put each POV you
>> can say to each of "them" - "You belong here... stop fighting with
>> each other... there's room for both of you".
>
> The way that we're supposed to do this is to have
> a paragraph, section, or page (depending on size)
> that says <A thinks B about C>. But even this should be NPOV;
> B should accurately reflect what A really thinks about C,
> and it shouldn't imply that A is right about C or that B is correct.
>
Rather, that's *one* way to do this. There are many, many ways of presenting
information and knowledge that do equivalent jobs of achieving balance.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1294
[Wikipedia-l] Certification
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sun Nov 3 02:48:07 UTC 2002
Peter wrote:
>> The way that we're supposed to do this is to have
>> a paragraph, section, or page (depending on size)
>> that says <A thinks B about C>. But even this should be NPOV;
>> B should accurately reflect what A really thinks about C,
>> and it shouldn't imply that A is right about C or that B is correct.
The Cunctator responded:
>Rather, that's *one* way to do this. There are many, many ways of presenting
>information and knowledge that do equivalent jobs of achieving balance.
Please remind me of what the other ways are.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1295
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia subset proposal
David Levinson
dlevinson at mn.rr.com
Sun Nov 3 15:52:02 UTC 2002
Larry's Wikipedia subset proposal is an elegant solution to the problem
of "freezing" a clean cut of the wikipedia.
Sign me up (I have Ph.D. Civil Engineering and teach transportation
engineering, planning, and policy)
It should not go under the name nupedia, nor should it go under the
name wikipedia, but something else. According to network solutions
metapedia.com is owned, but metapedia.org and metapedia.net are
available. Hyperpedia.org is also a good name and available.
We might want to think about an updating protocol, as wikipedia
articles evolve past the frozen versions, some sort of flagging would
be in order of articles that diverged significantly from frozen
articles and the "liquid" wikipedia open to edits.
We might also want to think about allowing multiple groups be able to
"publish" "frozen" versions at the touch of a button (sort of
combination of Larry and Ed's idea). Any individual/group, once
registered, would be able to touch a button and establish a flag on a
wikipedia article. Thus in Frozen version A, the academics might have
a tight standard and only review/update once in a blue moon, but
another group B could freeze a different version and update more
frequently. Since these are only article flags on particular versions
(all of which are stored in a single database), there would not be
forking as such. However someone could search only for group A. Group
A would have their own web interface (own name, own address). If
someone else didn't like group A's cut (too small, too elite, too
whatever), they could publish their own take on the encyclopedia.
It would allow someone potentially to be using wikipedia to publish a
non-NPOV encyclopedia, since versions in the middle of edit wars would
be freezable by a particular group - but as long as that was somehow
acknowledged, and the lines between liquid wikipedia and frozen
wikipedia (versions A, B, ...) were established, I think it could be
tolerated.
The issues of interlinking - linking to a "liquid" article would need
to be addressed either by identifying it as external link, removing
that link in the "frozen" version, or as some third kind of link.
However, this raises questions of self-containment.
David Levinson
levin031 at tc.umn.edu
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1296
[Wikipedia-l] offsite images
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sun Nov 3 19:34:30 UTC 2002
Could we please disallow offsite images?
*Using them steals bandwidth & is rude to the people who have to pay for the other site
*They're useful for vandals (goatse.cx)
*Thanks to e.g. doubleclick, some people run programs that kill offsite images automatically (e.g. Proxomitron for Windows boxes)
*if not killed automatically, they can cause a page not to finish loading when it would otherwise (doubleclick has a problem? well just sit there a few minutes waiting for hotmail to come up)
I'm running proxomitron now; most of the country articles have killed images; the goatse image is thankfully killed also.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1297
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Eli
j-eli at starpower.net
Sun Nov 3 19:35:08 UTC 2002
[Probably not the right place for this plea. Please forward to the right person. (See next to last paragraph below for my reason for using this forum.]
I am a new user of Wikipedia. It seems like a great project. Since about 1963, I have believed that the world needs a really big encyclopedia to access all knowledge about everything (before the internet, I estimated thousands of printed volumes). In the '80s I learned of the idea now called "hyperlink" and I knew, theoretically, how this could work as a continually updated virtual book. Nupedia and Wikipedia promise to fulfill this vision.
But the very second time I tried to add a suggestion I was referred to a page with this content:
============================================================
User is blocked
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1298
[Wikipedia-l] offsite images
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Sun Nov 3 19:45:47 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Could we please disallow offsite images?
>
> *Using them steals bandwidth & is rude to the people who have to pay for the other site
> *They're useful for vandals (goatse.cx)
> *Thanks to e.g. doubleclick, some people run programs that kill offsite images automatically (e.g. Proxomitron for Windows boxes)
Mozilla has an option for this built in, as well as a handy "block
images from this server" option on the context menu for any image.
> *if not killed automatically, they can cause a page not to finish loading when it would otherwise (doubleclick has a problem? well just sit there a few minutes waiting for hotmail to come up)
>
> I'm running proxomitron now; most of the country articles have killed images; the goatse image is thankfully killed also.
Since this has been discussed and generally approved of previously, I'm
going to go ahead and disable them. There are probably still some
legitimate off-site images floating around; I'll make a list for
replacements.
(I'm only going to do this for the English wiki for now; some of the
others are probably still using many external images.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1299
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Sun Nov 3 20:02:12 UTC 2002
Eli wrote:
> Your user name or IP address has been blocked by PierreAbbat. The reason
> given is this:
> Vandalized World Trade Center, William I of England. Removed large
> section of Napoleonic Code,
...
> I am new to Wikipedia. The time I first saw this page, I had not yet
> registered a user name on Wikipedia. I plead innocent to these crimes.
Your ISP uses a caching server which hides both you and some asshole
vandal behind the same IP address. We have no way of telling you apart,
unfortunately.
I've unblocked the IP, and am putting it on a list to watch in case the
vandal comes back as well as you.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1300
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Giskart
giskart at wikipedia.be
Sun Nov 3 20:11:10 UTC 2002
Is there no better way to identify a user instead of a IP-adress? What
when ip6 is used. Can it not be done by the mac-adress?
Giskart
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1301
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia subset proposal
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Sun Nov 3 21:49:48 UTC 2002
> From: David Levinson <dlevinson at mn.rr.com>
> Sign me up (I have Ph.D. Civil Engineering and teach transportation
> engineering, planning, and policy)
Great!
> It should not go under the name nupedia, nor should it go under the
> name wikipedia, but something else. According to network solutions
> metapedia.com is owned, but metapedia.org and metapedia.net are
> available. Hyperpedia.org is also a good name and available.
We clearly need Jimbo to reply on this point. I've got a few name
ideas myself.
> We might want to think about an updating protocol, as wikipedia
> articles evolve past the frozen versions, some sort of flagging would
> be in order of articles that diverged significantly from frozen
> articles and the "liquid" wikipedia open to edits.
Definitely--I'm sure that sort of feature will be one of the first to be
added.
> We might also want to think about allowing multiple groups be able to
> "publish" "frozen" versions at the touch of a button (sort of
> combination of Larry and Ed's idea). Any individual/group, once
> registered, would be able to touch a button and establish a flag on a
> wikipedia article. Thus in Frozen version A, the academics might have
> a tight standard and only review/update once in a blue moon, but
> another group B could freeze a different version and update more
> frequently. Since these are only article flags on particular versions
> (all of which are stored in a single database), there would not be
> forking as such. However someone could search only for group A. Group
> A would have their own web interface (own name, own address). If
> someone else didn't like group A's cut (too small, too elite, too
> whatever), they could publish their own take on the encyclopedia.
>
> It would allow someone potentially to be using wikipedia to publish a
> non-NPOV encyclopedia, since versions in the middle of edit wars would
> be freezable by a particular group - but as long as that was somehow
> acknowledged, and the lines between liquid wikipedia and frozen
> wikipedia (versions A, B, ...) were established, I think it could be
> tolerated.
I think this is a *great* idea. I can easily see how the encyclopedia
filter software could become more popular that PediaWiki itself. It's
essentially a way to import articles from Wikipedia (or, theoretically,
any PediaWiki website).
Of course, the only drawback is that "reviewing" efforts might be spread
too thinly; but somehow I doubt that will be a problem.
> The issues of interlinking - linking to a "liquid" article would need
> to be addressed either by identifying it as external link, removing
> that link in the "frozen" version, or as some third kind of link.
> However, this raises questions of self-containment.
Exactly right. That setting should probably be left open to the reader.
Then we could debate about what the default setting should be.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1302
[Wikipedia-l] Can I be an admin please?
Lee Pilich
pilich at btopenworld.com
Sun Nov 3 22:38:41 UTC 2002
Hi all,
I'd like to be made an admin, or sysop, or whatever you want to call them.
My username is Camembert. I've been around since late July, and have
thought of asking for admin status a couple of times before. It's the
latest goatse.cx vandal and encouragement from mav that have finally
convinced me to ask for the upgrade.
I promise not to abuse my powers by deleting the "Votes for deletion" page,
and if there's some sort of pledge I need to take, then send it over, and
I'll read it out facing the [[Main Page]] with hand on heart.
Cheers
LP (camembert)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1303
[Wikipedia-l] Can I be an admin please?
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Sun Nov 3 22:49:05 UTC 2002
I can't remember if we're supposed to vouch for would-be admins, but I
certainly will for Cam.
He's done tons of work on music-related pages as well as lots of
RecentChanges weeding work.
- tarquin
Lee Pilich wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to be made an admin, or sysop, or whatever you want to call
> them. My username is Camembert. I've been around since late July, and
> have thought of asking for admin status a couple of times before. It's
> the latest goatse.cx vandal and encouragement from mav that have
> finally convinced me to ask for the upgrade.
>
> I promise not to abuse my powers by deleting the "Votes for deletion"
> page, and if there's some sort of pledge I need to take, then send it
> over, and I'll read it out facing the [[Main Page]] with hand on heart.
>
> Cheers
> LP (camembert)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1304
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 4 02:13:02 UTC 2002
Eli wrote in part:
>============================================================
>User is blocked
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>Your user name or IP address has been blocked by PierreAbbat. The reason given is this:
>Vandalized World Trade Center, William I of England. Removed large section of Napoleonic Code,
>You may contact the administrator to discuss the block.
>Return to Main Page.
>============================================================
>"Vandalizing the World Trade Center" may be an unfortunate, unthinking choice
>of words, but I am still deeply offended.
Indeed it is an unfortunate, unthinking choice of words.
I'm glad to see that Pierre didn't in fact use those words.
>(As for removing large sections of the Napoleonic Code: there are large
>sections of the IRS Code and the US Code I should like to delete and replace,
>but under our Constitution my opinion on this doesn't matter--when we vote
>Tuesday, DC will once again choose a Non-Voting Delegate to Congress.)
Again, nobody mentioned anything about
"removing large sections of the Napoleonic Code".
But I realise that you're joking; it's a nice pun.
Especially when Pierre is ignoring the subject,
it's easy to pretend that he's ignoring articles too.
At least you had the presence of mind
to not be offended by your own pun this time.
</grumpy response>
<pleasant response>
>I think you need to rethink the practice of blocking dynamic IP numbers. Not
>everyone lives in an area served by cable modems or DSL. Many of those who do
>cannot afford the additional expense of a high speed connection that is always
>on.
Now you have definitely got a point.
Many adminsitrators block IP addresses routinely
but fail to unblock them in a reasonable amount of time
or even to check to see if they are dynamic.
Yours is the second time that
this problem has come to the attention of the list
(the first time, several regulars were blocked).
If we must block IPs, then we need to do so more intelligently!
>The message advises me to "contact the administrator to discuss the block."
>This is nice. It would have been nicer if a hyperlink to the administrator's
>"mailto:" address were included. Unlike most websites, the Wikipedia home
>page offers no hyperlink to the webmaster. This is why I joined and wrote to
>this list. Probably there is a better place for this msg. If so, please
>forward this, and tell me.
The list is actually pretty appropriate; we'all are the webmasters.
The easiest way to allow people to contact administrators
would be to include a link to [[Wikipedia:Adminstrators]],
where the individual administrator's user page can be found.
Not every administrator has a readable email address there,
but I do, and I've now marked myself for attention on that page.
(Other administrators that publish their email addresses can join me.)
>There are four things that need fixing here: my access to Wikipedia,
Already done by Brion.
>your handling of dynamic IP addresses,
Definitely needs to be a priority.
>an easy way to contact the Wikipedia webmaster or administrator,
A link to [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] will be a useful kludge for now.
>and DC's voting rights.
I like your licence plates, even if that jerk Bush won't use them.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1305
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 4 10:47:25 UTC 2002
Hi,
I'd like to suggest two solutions to the blocking of dynamic IP addresses or
proxies that may affect innocent users.
Solution #1: IP address blocks should expire after n days unless renewed by
someone. That way, instead of forgetting to unblock people, at worst we
forget to re-block them. In my opinion, it's better to fail to punish somone
effectively than to punish someone who's innocent.
Solution #2: We should give blocked users a way to re-gain access to the
site, namely by creating an account. I don't know if this is currently possible,
but it should be. We can block accounts a lot easier than IP addresses. So
we could basically say on the block page: "Because IP addresses cannot be
reliably linked to individuals, it may be that you receive this message in error.
In that case, or if you want to change your behavior, please create an
account and sign in, and you can continue to use Wikipedia."
We might still reserve complete IP&account bans for those who abuse the
account "backdoor", but this should be the exception, not the rule.
This would make our security softer, and hopefully more effective.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1306
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia subset proposal
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 4 12:18:05 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
> > It should not go under the name nupedia, nor should it go under the
> > name wikipedia, but something else. According to network solutions
> > metapedia.com is owned, but metapedia.org and metapedia.net are
> > available. Hyperpedia.org is also a good name and available.
>
> We clearly need Jimbo to reply on this point. I've got a few name
> ideas myself.
I have no opinion at the present time. I am intending to revive
Nupedia in the near future, in some fashion, and I am thinking very
much along the lines of what is being discussed here. Therefore, I
think that Nupedia might be the right vehicle for this in the first
place.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1307
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Mon Nov 4 12:32:15 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger <lsanger at seeatown.com> writes:
> I remember that several Nupedia editors and reviewers came out very strongly
> against having any association with Wikipedia, and at least one (or was it
> two?) of them threatened to quit
Given the amount of progress they've made on Nupedia, how would we tell?
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1308
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 4 13:36:42 UTC 2002
On Sunday 03 November 2002 14:35, Eli wrote:
> [Probably not the right place for this plea. Please forward to the right
> person. (See next to last paragraph below for my reason for using this
> forum.]
>
> I am a new user of Wikipedia. It seems like a great project. Since about
> 1963, I have believed that the world needs a really big encyclopedia to
> access all knowledge about everything (before the internet, I estimated
> thousands of printed volumes). In the '80s I learned of the idea now
> called "hyperlink" and I knew, theoretically, how this could work as a
> continually updated virtual book. Nupedia and Wikipedia promise to fulfill
> this vision.
>
> But the very second time I tried to add a suggestion I was referred to a
> page with this content:
>
> ============================================================
> User is blocked
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>
> Your user name or IP address has been blocked by PierreAbbat. The reason
> given is this: Vandalized World Trade Center, William I of England. Removed
> large section of Napoleonic Code,
>
> You may contact the administrator to discuss the block.
>
> Return to Main Page.
I am very sorry for this. I can't at the moment see what the IP address is,
as Wikipedia is stuck, but we've had incidents before where a proxy server
was blocked.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1309
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 4 13:42:56 UTC 2002
On Sunday 03 November 2002 21:13, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Again, nobody mentioned anything about
> "removing large sections of the Napoleonic Code".
> But I realise that you're joking; it's a nice pun.
> Especially when Pierre is ignoring the subject,
> it's easy to pretend that he's ignoring articles too.
> At least you had the presence of mind
> to not be offended by your own pun this time.
I wasn't ignoring the subject. I was at a friend's house getting his USB DSL
modem to work with his new Linux box. It's a recent Mandrake distro, and
there should have been instructions on how to make it work with Mandrake, but
weren't. So I had to figure out which instructions were irrelevant (don't
need to compile the module) and which had to be done differently.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1310
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia subset proposal
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Mon Nov 4 15:18:15 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>I have no opinion at the present time. I am intending to revive
>Nupedia in the near future, in some fashion, and I am thinking very
>much along the lines of what is being discussed here. Therefore, I
>think that Nupedia might be the right vehicle for this in the first
>place.
>
>
I would like to see Nupedia restart again, with less overhead this time.
I even wrote some software for that (http://nunupedia.sourceforge.net).
However, IMHO a separate (mispeled again?), pure "wikipedia
proofreading" project would be worth trying. It could grow quite fast,
as imports could be done within seconds. As edits would only be possible
on wikipedia, there would be positive feedback on wikipedia, while the
"stable" version would be growing fast, probably faster than wikipedia
did, to a certain point anyway.
*Then*, the "best of the best" articles could serve as a basis for
*some* Nupedia articles. Nupedia aims at yet another level of quality
and *responsibility* than even a peer-reviewed wikipedia would.
If you are not convinced, then ask yourself what we could lose with such
a project running parallel to Nupedia and Wikipedia. IMHO, nothing.
Writing new high-quality articles for Nupedia and pressing a button to
approve a wikipedia article are two entirely different things. I doubt
we'd distribute power to a point where none of the projects really
advances anymore.
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1311
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Feature Proposal: Certification
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 4 15:59:58 UTC 2002
I second Mav's suggestion and applaud his desire to help.
I really like the idea of "levels of certification". There's a big jump up from "some user" wrote this to "a reviewer with a degree in the field" reviewed it. How many more jumps are there? Department head? Published author? Nobel Prize winner?
At first, we might not be able to attract people who are as highly qualified as Britannica's reviewers -- especially if we don't pay them anything. But I would really, MUCH, rather read a biology article reviewed by Mav (or a math article reviewed by Axel) than some unreviewed, open-to-graffiti version. I mean, what if some kid changes a key value in a chemistry equation?
I knew we could do it: the Wiki Borg lives!
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1312
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Feature Proposal: Certification
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Mon Nov 4 16:10:49 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I knew we could do it: the Wiki Borg lives!
>
>
"We are the wiki. Surrender your encyclopedia and prepare to be GPLed.
Your writings will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1313
[Wikipedia-l] user windt
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Mon Nov 4 17:37:23 UTC 2002
User Windt has posted two (so far) copyvios, PInk (singer) and Zero Mostel.
since it's a registered usernam I can't block.
i'm about to log off, so can someone else keep an eye out?
tarquin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1314
[Wikipedia-l] Can I be an admin please?
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 4 18:27:45 UTC 2002
Camembert wrote in part:
>I promise not to abuse my powers by deleting the "Votes for deletion" page,
>and if there's some sort of pledge I need to take, then send it over, and
>I'll read it out facing the [[Main Page]] with hand on heart.
After seeing some other new sysops in the past,
I personally would like all new sysops to pledge
not to get trigger happy on bannings and deletions.
I'm not really in a position to enforce such a desire, however.
(Of course, this should not be construed as a request
to hold off on blocking goatse.cx vandals
and deleting pages with nothing but goatse.cx in their histories!)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1315
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 4 19:06:14 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote in first part:
>I'd like to suggest two solutions to the blocking of dynamic IP addresses or
>proxies that may affect innocent users.
I like both of these ideas.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1316
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 4 19:14:45 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Again, nobody mentioned anything about
>>"removing large sections of the Napoleonic Code".
>>But I realise that you're joking; it's a nice pun.
>>Especially when Pierre is ignoring the subject,
>>it's easy to pretend that he's ignoring articles too.
>>At least you had the presence of mind
>>to not be offended by your own pun this time.
>I wasn't ignoring the subject. I was at a friend's house getting his USB DSL
>modem to work with his new Linux box. It's a recent Mandrake distro, and
>there should have been instructions on how to make it work with Mandrake, but
>weren't. So I had to figure out which instructions were irrelevant (don't
>need to compile the module) and which had to be done differently.
And this led to sloppy grammar when blocking IPs on Wikipedia?
Anyway, if you look at the clauses indicating why the IP was blocked,
I'm certain that you'll find that they contain no subjects, only predicates.
Eli's interpretation of these clauses as insults
relies on their also omitting articles ("the").
(These terms "subject" and "article" are being used in their
technical grammatical senses here.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1317
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Rob Brewer
rob at rbrwr.org
Mon Nov 4 19:36:48 UTC 2002
>
>Solution #2: We should give blocked users a way to re-gain access to the
>site, namely by creating an account. I don't know if this is currently
>possible,
>but it should be. We can block accounts a lot easier than IP addresses. So
>we could basically say on the block page: "Because IP addresses cannot be
>reliably linked to individuals, it may be that you receive this message in
>error.
>In that case, or if you want to change your behavior, please create an
>account and sign in, and you can continue to use Wikipedia."
I definitely agree with this. I was quite surprised to find that when my
(proxy server) IP was banned, I was banned too - even though I was logged
in.
Incidentally, my (default) proxy (194.117.133.196 cache-haw.cableinet.co.uk)
is banned again - my ISP also caters to the recent goatse.cx vandal. I know
how to manually change my proxy, but other valid users on Blueyonder in south
west England ([[user: Nosrail]] for example) may not.
Rob
user:rbrwr
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1318
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mon Nov 4 21:31:04 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:36:48PM +0000, Rob Brewer wrote:
> Incidentally, my (default) proxy (194.117.133.196 cache-haw.cableinet.co.uk)
> is banned again - my ISP also caters to the recent goatse.cx vandal. I know
> how to manually change my proxy, but other valid users on Blueyonder in south
> west England ([[user: Nosrail]] for example) may not.
Perhaps there's a way we can make use of the 'Client-ip' and
'X-forwarded-for' headers which are added by many ISPs' proxies.
I think it would be necessary to decide whether the actual IP address
seemed to be a shared proxy or not when imposing the ban -- simply
matching against these headers whenever they were persent would just
make it easier for people with fixed IP addresses to avoid the ban.
It wouldn't help people with short-term IP address leases at all, of
course.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1319
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 4 21:57:09 UTC 2002
Also, a ban of even a single hour's duration can be effective.
I would include a (standard) note in Recent Changes, like:
"Please do not use this page for graffiti. Try the [[sandbox]] instead."
or
"Yes, you can delete an entire page. But please don't"
If they ignore the first warning, you could give them a second, final warning:
"Please do not make any more edits until you read [[...some policy page]]. Any more (graffiti/deletions) and we'll have to ban you."
Actually, I think we should come up with some standard (boilerplate) text for warnings & explanations to newbies/vandals. I would phrase the first warning so it doesn't scare away an innocent newbie, while giving the second one an air of finality (knock it off, or you're out of here).
And I second the idea of a self-expiring ban. (I'm tempted to unilaterally un-block any IP address that was blocked more than 7 days ago. I just might do so - except dear old Helga, unless I hear a strong objection.)
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1320
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Mon Nov 4 22:41:16 UTC 2002
Rob wrote;
>Incidentally, my (default) proxy (194.117.133.196 cache-
haw.cableinet.co.uk)
>is banned again - my ISP also caters to the recent goatse.cx vandal. I know
>how to manually change my proxy, but other valid users on Blueyonder in
south
>west England ([[user: Nosrail]] for example) may not.
unblocked, and added to [[wikipedia:annoying users]]. no offense to you or
Nosrail. :-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1321
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 4 22:43:37 UTC 2002
On Monday 04 November 2002 14:14, Toby Bartels wrote:
> And this led to sloppy grammar when blocking IPs on Wikipedia?
.oiro'aro'e. I was ignoring the selnoi (because I wasn't here to read the
notci), not the sumti be fi li 1!
> Anyway, if you look at the clauses indicating why the IP was blocked,
> I'm certain that you'll find that they contain no subjects, only
> predicates. Eli's interpretation of these clauses as insults
> relies on their also omitting articles ("the").
> (These terms "subject" and "article" are being used in their
> technical grammatical senses here.)
daspo la'e lu munje nuncanja midju li'u
gi'enai
daspo la munje nuncanja midju
mu'omi'e .pier.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1322
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 4 23:08:59 UTC 2002
On Monday 04 November 2002 16:31, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> Perhaps there's a way we can make use of the 'Client-ip' and
> 'X-forwarded-for' headers which are added by many ISPs' proxies.
If you do that, you'll run afoul of me - I'm running Squid on the laptop, so
the client ip is 127.0.0.1.
> I think it would be necessary to decide whether the actual IP address
> seemed to be a shared proxy or not when imposing the ban -- simply
> matching against these headers whenever they were persent would just
> make it easier for people with fixed IP addresses to avoid the ban.
My criterion for banning is, if there are 3 vandalisms from an IP address, I
check a sample of the IP's contributions. If there are no good-looking edits,
I ban.
I suggest that IPs that have been unbanned because they're proxies be put on
a list, and if someone tries to ban that IP, he be warned that he's banning a
proxy.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1323
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Rob Brewer
rob at rbrwr.org
Tue Nov 5 08:48:23 UTC 2002
At 14:41 04/11/02 -0800, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>unblocked, and added to [[wikipedia:annoying users]]. no offense to you or
>Nosrail. :-)
Thanks. I hope the problems discussed in this thread lead to the
development of a more sophisticated range of tools for dealing
with vandals. Both Erik's solutions (allow logged-in users from a
banned IP, and automatically expire bans by default) sound good
to me. Perhaps IPs whose bans have expired could be automatically
moved to Wikipedia:IP_probation_watchlist or Wikipedia:Annoying users,
and maybe flagged up in Recent Changes?
Rob
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1324
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Rob Brewer
rob at rbrwr.org
Tue Nov 5 09:13:14 UTC 2002
At 18:08 04/11/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>My criterion for banning is, if there are 3 vandalisms from an IP address, I
>check a sample of the IP's contributions. If there are no good-looking edits,
>I ban.
This is a good policy, except that (as far as I can tell) when you check
contribs for an IP address you only see edits made anonymously from that IP,
but when you ban an IP you ban both anonymous and signed-in users at that IP.
If a proxy or a shared computer has been used by an anonymous vandal and a
useful signed-in user, the signed-in user will be blocked, and Wikipedia
will lose the benefit of his edits.
Rob (rbrwr)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1325
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Tue Nov 5 11:48:11 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 04:13, Rob Brewer wrote:
> This is a good policy, except that (as far as I can tell) when you check
> contribs for an IP address you only see edits made anonymously from that
> IP, but when you ban an IP you ban both anonymous and signed-in users at
> that IP. If a proxy or a shared computer has been used by an anonymous
> vandal and a useful signed-in user, the signed-in user will be blocked, and
> Wikipedia will lose the benefit of his edits.
This needs to be changed, then. Either we have to see the signed-in
contributions from an IP address, or blocking an IP address needs to not
block signed-in users and we need a way of blocking signed-in users.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1326
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 5 13:41:58 UTC 2002
Rob Brewer wrote:
> This is a good policy, except that (as far as I can tell) when you check
> contribs for an IP address you only see edits made anonymously from that IP,
> but when you ban an IP you ban both anonymous and signed-in users at that IP.
> If a proxy or a shared computer has been used by an anonymous vandal and a
> useful signed-in user, the signed-in user will be blocked, and Wikipedia
> will lose the benefit of his edits.
Has anyone thought of selective banning?
Refuse anonymous edits from the banned IP, but allow signed-in edits.
We could supply a message like, "Sorry but due to abuse from IP i.j.k.l, you must sign in to contribute."
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1327
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Rob Brewer
rob at rbrwr.org
Tue Nov 5 15:32:11 UTC 2002
At 08:41 05/11/02 -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>Has anyone thought of selective banning?
>
>Refuse anonymous edits from the banned IP, but allow signed-in edits.
>
>We could supply a message like, "Sorry but due to abuse from IP i.j.k.l,
>you must sign in to contribute."
I think that's what Erik Moeller had in mind with point #2 of his message
at 11:47:25 +0100 yesterday, and I think it's a good idea. If vandals want
to be persistent we should at least make them go to the trouble of
getting a fake hotmail address to sign up with ;-)
Rob
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1328
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia subset proposal
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Tue Nov 5 16:00:27 UTC 2002
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
>
> Larry Sanger wrote:
> > > It should not go under the name nupedia, nor should it go under the
> > > name wikipedia, but something else. According to network solutions
> > > metapedia.com is owned, but metapedia.org and metapedia.net are
> > > available. Hyperpedia.org is also a good name and available.
> >
> > We clearly need Jimbo to reply on this point. I've got a few name
> > ideas myself.
>
> I have no opinion at the present time. I am intending to revive
> Nupedia in the near future, in some fashion, and I am thinking very
> much along the lines of what is being discussed here. Therefore, I
> think that Nupedia might be the right vehicle for this in the first
> place.
Then here's what I propose. Magnus, Lee, and I (and anyone else who wants
to, I guess!) will hammer out a test version of the software.
We'll set up a mailing list for the project, in which the new project's
policy (and name), etc., will be discussed. I'll announce the mailing
list on Wikipedia-l, Nupedia-l, and Advisory-l.
> From: Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
>
> Larry Sanger <lsanger at seeatown.com> writes:
>
> > I remember that several Nupedia editors and reviewers came out very strongly
> > against having any association with Wikipedia, and at least one (or was it
> > two?) of them threatened to quit
>
> Given the amount of progress they've made on Nupedia, how would we tell?
FYI, the reasons for the scant progress are (1) the editorial process was
complicated. That doesn't mean that we couldn't make progress in the
future with a simpler system and that someone who has put in hours of work
on Nupedia wouldn't be missed in the future. And (2) the whole process
was top-down, and once it became clear that I had been more or less
reassigned to Wikipedia, all but a few just stopped working. Again, that
doesn't mean they're not there and waiting, and that they wouldn't be
missed in the future if they quit now.
A lot of people are unjustly critical of Nupedia when they don't realize
that it was *always* a project in development, that we were generally
quite open to adjustments to make the project better--and just when we
were making a move to simplify the project, with everybody's blessing,
money ran out, and no one volunteered for the full-time unpaid job of
leading the newly-reorganized project. So don't blame Nupedia for its
stasis. Blame the bursting of the Internet bubble, if you want to blame
anything!
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1329
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 5 17:12:11 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>Ortolan88 wrote:
>>Nonetheless, it seems totally appropriate to solve this problem of
>>incoherence and occasionally upsetting behavior (inherent in the
>>nature of Wikipedia), by moving properly vetted, well-behaved,
>>near-complete, shoe-and-shirt-wearing articles from Wikipedia to
>>Nupedia.
>I agree. There's a huge difference between "requiring proper attire" and
>outright racism, to expand on Tom's metaphor.
Despite the long history of using the former to cover up the latter.
>Suppose a town decides to revoke its vagrancy law and allow homeless people to
>wander the streets and sleep in the park. It would be perfectly permissible
>for it to draw the line at access to public facilities like restaurants and
>libraries, with, e.g., a "no shirt no shoes no service" rule.
While your town would thus be laxer than most WRT vagrancy,
it would be stricter than most WRT "no shirt no shoes no service".
Hardly any municipalities have such a rule for, say, restaurants.
And why should they? It's up to the restaurants to make those rules.
I know one very nice Moroccan restaurant in Colorado Springs
that asks its guests to remove their shoes before entering the dining room,
as is only polite in Moroccan culture. It would be permissible
in the sense of not violating the constitution (at least in the US),
but hardly permissible on grounds of good politics, to ban that.
If the library is run directly by the town, then there's more sense
in the town setting up such a rule for that building,
but frankly IMO it would still be a pretty stupid one.
(The town's insurance might force it on them, unfortunately,
at least WRT the shoes.)
>This isn't "discriminatory", because anyone with the price of a meal can still
>eat in the restaurant:
Well, no, they need the price of a meal, a shirt, and two shoes.
>they just can't come in with their dirty, smelly feet
Speak for yourself. Bare feet aren't smelly, nor dirtier than shoes
(which most people don't wash as often as their feet).
Only feet that have just come out of shoes are smelly,
but if you wash them and then don't put the shoes back on,
then they won't get smelly again. Feet aren't armpits.
>or show their tits. Likewise, a dress or bathing code in a library isn't
>necessarily discriminatory. Even bums and hobos are welcome to read there
>without paying.
Except, of course, for shirts and shoes. And now you added a shower.
I don't mean to imply that there can be no basis for requiring cleanliness.
There's the matter of public health (no flea infected clothing, say)
and the sad fact that 21st century Western society is so sissified
that most of its members truly cannot stand the sight or smell
of a human being; these sensibilities require some respect.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that dress codes have been used,
even tailored, to keep out specifically chosen people.
That the law refers only to dress doesn't mean that
it wasn't designed with ulterior motives.
So what does this have to do with what we're actually talking about,
instead of some metaphor that a couple people have been using?
Well, the fact that I would write all of the above
explains, through the magic of the metaphor,
why I'm happy with Wikipedia and don't feel the need
for any sort of expert approved subset or appendage.
But the beauty of digital copying technology (and public licences)
is that those of you that *do* feel this need
can easily set up your Expertpedia overlay without ruining my fun,
and since it's now agreed all around that Wikipedia itself won't change,
I can only give my blessing to your project.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1330
[Wikipedia-l] Stoping vandals (was: Blocked, insulted, and pissed)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 5 17:21:55 UTC 2002
Rob Brewer, replying to Ed Poor:
> >Has anyone thought of selective banning?
> >
> >Refuse anonymous edits from the banned IP, but allow
> >signed-in edits.
> >
> >We could supply a message like, "Sorry but due to
> >abuse from IP i.j.k.l, you must sign in to
> >contribute."
>
> I think that's what Erik Moeller had in mind with
> point #2 of his message at 11:47:25 +0100 yesterday,
> and I think it's a good idea. If vandals want to be
> persistent we should at least make them go to the
> trouble of getting a fake hotmail address to sign up
> with ;-)
Yeah, but we MIGHT have to grant sysops the power to suspend or curtail editing privileges of signed-in contributors, if they engage in:
* deleting the entire text of a page for no reason
* inserting random graffiti like "I like chicken" into an article
* nonsense like "Shakespeare was born in Marion, Illinois in 1968"
* the goatse image (?)
This change in policy would require agreement from our ever-benevolent and freedom-loving sponsor, Jimbo Wales.
Assuming any of the 41 sysops can "undo" a block initiated by another sysop, I don't think there will be a problem with abuse of this power. 40 to 1 is a lot of veto power.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1331
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 5 17:24:28 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>And this led to sloppy grammar when blocking IPs on Wikipedia?
>.oiro'aro'e. I was ignoring the selnoi (because I wasn't here to read the
>notci), not the sumti be fi li 1!
I'm hoping that the "1!" is a typo and should be "!!",
or else I'll never understand this language.
(Unless it's 1337, but that doesn't fit the rest.)
Beginning words with periods is confusing enough ^_^.
>>Anyway, if you look at the clauses indicating why the IP was blocked,
>>I'm certain that you'll find that they contain no subjects, only
>>predicates. Eli's interpretation of these clauses as insults
>>relies on their also omitting articles ("the").
>>(These terms "subject" and "article" are being used in their
>>technical grammatical senses here.)
>daspo la'e lu munje nuncanja midju li'u
>gi'enai
>daspo la munje nuncanja midju
What *is* this language/script, anyway?
I've seen it here a couple of times.
>mu'omi'e .pier.
mu'omi'e .tobi.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1332
[Wikipedia-l] Peer review project for Wikipedia
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Tue Nov 5 17:34:51 UTC 2002
(Posted separately to Nupedia-l and Advisory-l.)
Hello all,
Recently I proposed on Wikipedia-l to help start a "peer review" project
for Wikipedia.
If you are a Nupedia peer reviewer or editor, I hope you will consider
getting involved, because we really *need* your expertise!
The purpose of the project, at least as I've envisioned it, is limited to
picking and posting those Wikipedia articles that are of sufficiently high
quality (see below). The picking and posting will be exceedingly simple,
to be done by subject area experts--people with qualifications similar to
those required for Nupedia peer reviewers. Any necessary editing will be
done on Wikipedia itself, so this new website will be a *subset*, not a
*fork*, of Wikipedia articles.
I've set up a mailing list ("Sifter-l," see below). Now we can get busy
* discussing policy issues (e.g., article requirements)
* picking a name
* discussing software requirements (Magnus and Lee are at work)
If enough qualified reviewers join up and get to work posting really
excellent articles, I think we could, within several months, have several
thousand expert-certified, great articles. This would go a long way to
winning the whole free encyclopedia movement credibility. It would be
good for Wikipedia *and* Nupedia. It might help win us the funding we
need.
MAILING LIST
I have just set up a mailing list, Sifter-l, for purposes of discussing
this.
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/sifter-l
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
For those on Nupedia-l and Advisory-l, here's the original proposal again:
In view of the facts that Wikipedia has grown tremendously; that we have
lost several of our most overeducated, overqualified participants due to
disgust with having to deal with a few difficult, uncooperative
participants; and above all, that there is a vast body of *hundreds* of
highly educated and willing free encyclopedia participants waiting idle
due to the dormancy of Nupedia; I propose the following:
(1) We--whether Bomis or someone else--should set up another website. It
should definitely not live at the Wikipedia.com domain.
(2) The purpose of the new website will be to *select* and *post*
Wikipedia articles that are up to a certain standard.
(3) The only participants in the new website will be those that meet the
Nupedia requirements in their particular fields, or some other similarly
stringent requirements.
(4) Either I, or a small group of trusted people, will be responsible for
approving participants.
(5) The website will be *read only*. No one will be able to edit it
directly, including its participants. This means it *won't* be a wiki.
(6) Any participant will have to go to Wikipedia to make any edits to an
article.
(7) Participants will save *particular versions* of articles, not the
current article, whatever it happens to be. There should be a link to
"the most current version" of a given article on Wikipedia, as well.
(8) Implementing the website should not require *any* changes to
Wikipedia. I want to leave Wikipedia alone completely. The only thing
that *might* make sense is to add a link (which should be optional!) to a
corresponding "subset" website article, if it exists. In particular,
"subset" participants should **not** be regarded as Wikipedia editors with
any particular, special status on Wikipedia. And "subset" policy,
whatever it might turn out to be, should **not** be regarded as Wikipedia
policy.
(9) Also, I don't think we should host this website on Nupedia.com.
INTERFACE WITH NUPEDIA
Jimbo has made it clear that he wanted to do something like this with
Nupedia, but it also looks like he doesn't intend to do it anytime soon.
I and others think that this would cause an unnecessary firestorm of
controversy, and several of us are anxious to get to work actually doing
something. So the plan is to proceed using some other address--not
Wikipedia.org and not Nupedia.com--and then, later, we'll have a much
better idea of whether it's a wise move to merge the new review project
with Nupedia.
Personal note: I'm still underemployed, though not unemployed, and so I am
thinking of getting behind Lee Crocker's effort to set up a Free
Encyclopedia Foundation. Even if no funding is forthcoming, I want to
help get this new effort off the ground, because I think it's important.
But I won't be able to work on it anywhere near full-time unless a
Foundation can support my work.
Best,
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1333
[Wikipedia-l] Peer review project for Wikipedia
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Tue Nov 5 17:38:49 UTC 2002
(Posted separately to Nupedia-l and Advisory-l.)
Hello all,
Recently I proposed on Wikipedia-l to help start a "peer review" project
for Wikipedia.
If you are a Nupedia peer reviewer or editor, I hope you will consider
getting involved, because we really *need* your expertise!
The purpose of the project, at least as I've envisioned it, is limited to
picking and posting those Wikipedia articles that are of sufficiently high
quality (see below). The picking and posting will be exceedingly simple,
to be done by subject area experts--people with qualifications similar to
those required for Nupedia peer reviewers. Any necessary editing will be
done on Wikipedia itself, so this new website will be a *subset*, not a
*fork*, of Wikipedia articles.
I've set up a mailing list ("Sifter-l," see below). Now we can get busy
* discussing policy issues (e.g., article requirements)
* picking a name
* discussing software requirements (Magnus and Lee are at work)
If enough qualified reviewers join up and get to work posting really
excellent articles, I think we could, within several months, have several
thousand expert-certified, great articles. This would go a long way to
winning the whole free encyclopedia movement credibility. It would be
good for Wikipedia *and* Nupedia. It might help win us the funding we
need.
MAILING LIST
I have just set up a mailing list, Sifter-l, for purposes of discussing
this.
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/sifter-l
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
For those on Nupedia-l and Advisory-l, here's the original proposal again:
In view of the facts that Wikipedia has grown tremendously; that we have
lost several of our most overeducated, overqualified participants due to
disgust with having to deal with a few difficult, uncooperative
participants; and above all, that there is a vast body of *hundreds* of
highly educated and willing free encyclopedia participants waiting idle
due to the dormancy of Nupedia; I propose the following:
(1) We--whether Bomis or someone else--should set up another website. It
should definitely not live at the Wikipedia.com domain.
(2) The purpose of the new website will be to *select* and *post*
Wikipedia articles that are up to a certain standard.
(3) The only participants in the new website will be those that meet the
Nupedia requirements in their particular fields, or some other similarly
stringent requirements.
(4) Either I, or a small group of trusted people, will be responsible for
approving participants.
(5) The website will be *read only*. No one will be able to edit it
directly, including its participants. This means it *won't* be a wiki.
(6) Any participant will have to go to Wikipedia to make any edits to an
article.
(7) Participants will save *particular versions* of articles, not the
current article, whatever it happens to be. There should be a link to
"the most current version" of a given article on Wikipedia, as well.
(8) Implementing the website should not require *any* changes to
Wikipedia. I want to leave Wikipedia alone completely. The only thing
that *might* make sense is to add a link (which should be optional!) to a
corresponding "subset" website article, if it exists. In particular,
"subset" participants should **not** be regarded as Wikipedia editors with
any particular, special status on Wikipedia. And "subset" policy,
whatever it might turn out to be, should **not** be regarded as Wikipedia
policy.
(9) Also, I don't think we should host this website on Nupedia.com.
INTERFACE WITH NUPEDIA
Jimbo has made it clear that he wanted to do something like this with
Nupedia, but it also looks like he doesn't intend to do it anytime soon.
I and others think that this would cause an unnecessary firestorm of
controversy, and several of us are anxious to get to work actually doing
something. So the plan is to proceed using some other address--not
Wikipedia.org and not Nupedia.com--and then, later, we'll have a much
better idea of whether it's a wise move to merge the new review project
with Nupedia.
Personal note: I'm still underemployed, though not unemployed, and so I am
thinking of getting behind Lee Crocker's effort to set up a Free
Encyclopedia Foundation. Even if no funding is forthcoming, I want to
help get this new effort off the ground, because I think it's important.
But I won't be able to work on it anywhere near full-time unless a
Foundation can support my work.
Best,
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1334
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Tue Nov 5 17:55:32 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 12:24, Toby Bartels wrote:
> I'm hoping that the "1!" is a typo and should be "!!",
> or else I'll never understand this language.
> (Unless it's 1337, but that doesn't fit the rest.)
> Beginning words with periods is confusing enough ^_^.
The "1!" is not a typo. Lojban doesn't have a word for "subject" in the
grammatical sense, so I said "sumti in place 1", which is close enough, and
then closed the sentence with an exclamation mark. The periods are needed to
distinguish among ".io.a", ".i.o'a", and ".i'o.a".
> >daspo la'e lu munje nuncanja midju li'u
> >gi'enai
> >daspo la munje nuncanja midju
>
> What *is* this language/script, anyway?
> I've seen it here a couple of times.
See the [[Lojban]] article.
> >mu'omi'e .pier.
>
> mu'omi'e .tobi.
"tobi" means "(8" and can't be a name. Having people named And (a Lojbanist)
is confusing enough; there is now an article about a place named Them.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1335
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 5 17:55:42 UTC 2002
Toby,
I didn't say I wanted MY town library to keep out smelly people (read that as "vagrants") or that I only go to classy "proper attire required" restaurants. Rev. Moon tells the story of how he was once confronted by a maitre d' who told him he had to wear a tie. He said "thank you" and left. He figured that if they had a rule like that they probably had a policy of not serving black people either.
I don't want the Wikipedia to exclude people with views I despise. I just don't want them to rip pages out of the books or put salt in the sugar dispenser.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1336
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked, insulted, and pissed
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Nov 5 19:24:41 UTC 2002
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 10:32, Rob Brewer wrote:
> At 08:41 05/11/02 -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> >Has anyone thought of selective banning?
> >
> >Refuse anonymous edits from the banned IP, but allow signed-in edits.
> >
> >We could supply a message like, "Sorry but due to abuse from IP i.j.k.l,
> >you must sign in to contribute."
>
> I think that's what Erik Moeller had in mind with point #2 of his message
> at 11:47:25 +0100 yesterday, and I think it's a good idea. If vandals want
> to be persistent we should at least make them go to the trouble of
> getting a fake hotmail address to sign up with ;-)
>
At the same time, we should not force people who want to contribute
anonymously to sign in.
If we really feel IP banning is so necessary that we need to impose it
even on proxy IPs, then maybe we should just end anonymous contributions
entirely.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1337
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Wed Nov 6 00:36:36 UTC 2002
Hi
I never wanted to use my block function, but I did. 66.57.25.123 just
vandalized an article and posted a threat. Was that the correct response, or
should that user be unblocked.
Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021105/65300b7f/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1338
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Wed Nov 6 01:06:43 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 19:36, daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> Hi
>
> I never wanted to use my block function, but I did. 66.57.25.123 just
> vandalized an article and posted a threat. Was that the correct response,
> or should that user be unblocked.
That is rdu57-25-123.nc.rr.com (you can type "nslookup 66.57.25.123" or "dig
66.57.25.123" to find this out), which is probably a cable modem user in the
Raleigh-Durham area. He may have the same address for several months, or may
get a new one tomorrow, depending on how often he reboots his computer.
I normally wait until the third offense to block someone, but I'm not going
to fault you for blocking someone who wrote that.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1339
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Wed Nov 6 09:43:28 UTC 2002
The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:
> I'm confused. If you never wanted to use your block function, then why
> did you? Admit that you wanted to use it.
>
> And why, if you have questions about whether you did the right thing,
> did you do it before checking with others?
Are we still looking for things on which you're the sole voice of dissent?
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1340
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Nov 6 15:51:13 UTC 2002
On 11/6/02 4:43 AM, "Gareth Owen" <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:
>
>> I'm confused. If you never wanted to use your block function, then why
>> did you? Admit that you wanted to use it.
>>
>> And why, if you have questions about whether you did the right thing,
>> did you do it before checking with others?
>
> Are we still looking for things on which you're the sole voice of dissent?
Where's the dissent?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1341
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 6 16:04:47 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>I didn't say I wanted MY town library to keep out smelly people (read that as
>"vagrants") or that I only go to classy "proper attire required" restaurants.
I realise that you were only running with somebody else's analogy,
but I could only respond to what was there.
Don't worry, I don't attribute any opinions to you personally.
>Rev. Moon tells the story of how he was once confronted by a maitre d' who
>told him he had to wear a tie. He said "thank you" and left. He figured that
>if they had a rule like that they probably had a policy of not serving black
>people either.
Probably jumping to conclusions, but in the right direction.
>I don't want the Wikipedia to exclude people with views I despise. I just
>don't want them to rip pages out of the books or put salt in the sugar
>dispenser.
That sounds like vandalism; I'm on record as in favour of banning vandals.
But the discussion that sparked the analogy was all of this stuff about
expert approved subsets/forks/overlays/etc.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1342
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 6 16:11:03 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>Danny wrote:
>>I never wanted to use my block function, but I did. 66.57.25.123 just
>>vandalized an article and posted a threat. Was that the correct response, or
>>should that user be unblocked.
>I'm confused. If you never wanted to use your block function, then why
>did you? Admit that you wanted to use it.
>And why, if you have questions about whether you did the right thing,
>did you do it before checking with others?
>Don't be wishy-washy.
And why, Cunctator, if you're such an asshole,
do you continue to infect the world with your existence?
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1343
[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Nov 6 16:11:33 UTC 2002
On 11/6/02 11:04 AM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Ed Poor wrote:
jumping to conclusions, but in the right direction.
>
>> I don't want the Wikipedia to exclude people with views I despise. I just
>> don't want them to rip pages out of the books or put salt in the sugar
>> dispenser.
>
> That sounds like vandalism; I'm on record as in favour of banning vandals.
> But the discussion that sparked the analogy was all of this stuff about
> expert approved subsets/forks/overlays/etc.
>
What's nice about Wikipedia is that noone *can* rip pages out of the books.
They can put salt in the sugar dispenser.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1344
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Nov 6 18:40:30 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 11:11, Toby Bartels wrote:
<snip>
> And why, Cunctator, if you're such an asshole,
> do you continue to infect the world with your existence?
That's a leading question. Why do you assert I'm such an asshole?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1345
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia:Vandal bots
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Wed Nov 6 18:53:20 UTC 2002
This looks like something nasty waiting to happen (see the enclosed HTML
page).
Note the apparently bogus user name, and the fact that the article title
text does not match the link.
In addition, recent changes says that this was created from IP
194.117.133.196
<http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=194.117.133.196>,
which is used by a couple of real users and a persistent vandal.
A nasty thought: is this a rehearsal for an automated attack?
Neil
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Vandal_bots&action=history
<http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Vandal_bots&action=history>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021106/2af4715b/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1346
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia:Vandal bots
Brion Vibber
brion at pobox.com
Wed Nov 6 19:11:54 UTC 2002
Neil Harris wrote:
> This looks like something nasty waiting to happen (see the enclosed
> HTML page).
>
> Note the apparently bogus user name, and the fact that the article
> title text does not match the link. In addition, recent changes says
> that this was created from IP 194.117.133.196
That's just what you get when you try to look at the history of a
nonexistent page; it was deleted after you loaded Recentchanges but
before you loaded the page.
For the curious, the text of [[Wikipedia:Vandal bots]] was:
(-------------
Vandal bots are malicous programs which deliberatley vandalise wiki
based websites, these bots can wreck websites at an amazing rate. To
imfamous vandal bots include
Ram-Man Bot, This bot autogenerated 50,000+ articles about EVERY
settlement in the united states, using us census data. The articles are
nothing but complete nonsence, and it DDOSed Wikipedia for several
weeks.
Sciplius, this bot automaticly deletes articles at random..
Vandal bots are very malicous, but blocking them is almost impossible,
it is up to the community to keep the wikipedia free from vandal bots,
there could be new attacks in the future.
-------------)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1347
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia:Vandal bots
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Nov 6 19:17:52 UTC 2002
You Wrote:
>This looks like something nasty waiting to happen (see the enclosed HTML
>page).
>
>Note the apparently bogus user name, and the fact that the article title
>text does not match the link.
>In addition, recent changes says that this was created from IP
>194.117.133.196
><http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=194.117.133.196>,
>
>which is used by a couple of real users and a persistent vandal.
>
>A nasty thought: is this a rehearsal for an automated attack?
>
>Neil
I don't understand what I'm supposed to make of that. what
attachment? what page?
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1348
[Wikipedia-l] Name-calling and hair-pulling (was: Feature Proposal: Certification)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Nov 6 19:21:28 UTC 2002
What's nice about Wikipedia is that noone *can* rip pages out of the books.
They can put salt in the sugar dispenser.
______________________________________________
Actually, *anyone* can rip out a page. Then the library staff have to (A) detect and (B) revert the rip.
And I don't want salt in sugar dispenser when I'm preparing cafe au lait.
Why are you so cantankerous? You, you -- you CURMUDGEON!
Eddie Spaghetti <------ in a saucy mood
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1349
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia:Vandal bots
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Wed Nov 6 19:23:01 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>You Wrote:
>
>
>>This looks like something nasty waiting to happen (see the enclosed HTML
>>page).
>>
>>Note the apparently bogus user name, and the fact that the article title
>>text does not match the link.
>>In addition, recent changes says that this was created from IP
>>194.117.133.196
>><http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=194.117.133.196>,
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>which is used by a couple of real users and a persistent vandal.
>>
>>A nasty thought: is this a rehearsal for an automated attack?
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>
>I don't understand what I'm supposed to make of that. what
>attachment? what page?
>
>kq
>
>
>
Here's the attachment. Brion has explained it as a race condition in
the code, rather than anything suspicious.
Neil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021106/f3ee2e81/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1350
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Wed Nov 6 19:23:20 UTC 2002
Now, now. Cunctator, Toby. Both of you have used the word "asshole".
You're even now, so cut the crap.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1351
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Nov 6 19:17:45 UTC 2002
Toby, that was a smelly thing to say.
And Cunct, please stop being such a prick.
(signed) a man with a "poor" sense of humor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1352
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia:Vandal bots
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Nov 6 19:29:48 UTC 2002
>>Note the apparently bogus user name, and the fact that the article
title
>>text does not match the link.
>>In addition, recent changes says that this was created from IP
>>194.117.133.196
>><http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=194.117.133.196>,
I did visit the contributions link, found just garbage since the last
ban, & rebanned the vandal. s/he is right, though, that it bans
innocent people also. Unban if you wish; I won't complain. something
more accurate needs to be done for bannings IMHO. I have little faith
this 'contributor' will turn around.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1353
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia:Vandal bots
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Nov 6 19:38:51 UTC 2002
>>I don't understand what I'm supposed to make of that. what
>>attachment? what page?
>>
>>kq
>>
>>
>>
>Here's the attachment. Brion has explained it as a race condition in
>the code, rather than anything suspicious.
>
>Neil
Here's what I get when I click on it (after a few error messages at
the bottom of the email):
----
Sorry! 404 error!
Probably, you should log in!
The page you clicked on or typed in is not (currently) available.
----
Anyway, I just reblocked the IP, and its pseudonym (pseudoaddress?).
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1354
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia:Vandal bots
Rob Brewer
rob at rbrwr.org
Wed Nov 6 19:51:49 UTC 2002
At 11:38 06/11/02 -0800, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>Anyway, I just reblocked the IP, and its pseudonym (pseudoaddress?).
Yes. Let's see if he really knows how to get another IP address.
Blueyonder (the ISP that he and I share) forcibly proxies all port 80
traffic, so he'll most likely reappear on another Blueyonder proxy
server (a list is at http://www.proxyinfo.co.uk/proxies.htm ; I'm
using cache-wit at the moment).
Rob
user:rbrwr
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1355
[Wikipedia-l] Name-calling and hair-pulling
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 6 20:02:37 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>Why are you so cantankerous? You, you -- you CURMUDGEON!
Comparing our personalities:
Is Ed calling somebody "curmudgeon"
equivalent to me calling somebody "asshole"?
Remember, it's all relative to what we normally say.
^_^
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1356
[Wikipedia-l] Name-calling and hair-pulling
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Wed Nov 6 20:05:44 UTC 2002
|From: Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu>
|Content-Disposition: inline
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:02:37 -0800
|
|Ed Poor wrote:
|
|>Why are you so cantankerous? You, you -- you CURMUDGEON!
|
|Comparing our personalities:
|Is Ed calling somebody "curmudgeon"
|equivalent to me calling somebody "asshole"?
|Remember, it's all relative to what we normally say.
|^_^
|
|
|-- Toby
No, it's relative to civility and incivility; "darn" is not as
offensive as "damn" no matter who says it.
Tom P.
O88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1357
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 6 20:07:13 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>And why, Cunctator, if you're such an asshole,
>>do you continue to infect the world with your existence?
>That's a leading question. Why do you assert I'm such an asshole?
I like how you copied down even the word "such".
It contributes to the impression that you're a bot.
(Eliza would have copied down the word "such" just like that.
Actually, Eliza would have refused to talk about herself,
but switch pronouns and then it works.)
Anyway, I didn't support the statement,
because it was based directly on the content that I provided.
And it's a subjective judgement, I can't argue for it rationally.
(Also, I doubt that they would want to read such an argument.)
Let each person that read that context make up their own mind.
Of course, if your subjective judgement is different from mine,
then how can I expect you to answer my question?
But I don't expect that at all; it was a rhetorical question.
No response is required of you (the less the better, in fact).
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1358
[Wikipedia-l] Name-calling and hair-pulling
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Wed Nov 6 20:07:08 UTC 2002
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:05:44PM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote:
>No, it's relative to civility and incivility; "darn" is not as
>offensive as "damn" no matter who says it.
That's because you've never heard an elderly Englishman swear. My
grandpa could turn the most innocuous of words into the deadliest and
most insulting of swears entirely by the tone of his voice
Jonathan.
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021106/64c844bf/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1359
[Wikipedia-l] Name-calling and hair-pulling
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Nov 6 21:33:31 UTC 2002
Britisher: Sir, I take the utmost exception to your farting before my
wife!
Second Britisher: Sorry, I didn't know it was her turn!
Sir Edmund
--
That's because you've never heard an elderly Englishman swear. My
grandpa could turn the most innocuous of words into the deadliest and
most insulting of swears entirely by the tone of his voice
Jonathan.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1360
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 6 22:16:24 UTC 2002
Y'know what? I was just about to ask if Cunctator was a Turing device. His responses sound just like a bot parroting back questions.
Zoe
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>And why, Cunctator, if you're such an asshole,
>>do you continue to infect the world with your existence?
>That's a leading question. Why do you assert I'm such an asshole?
I like how you copied down even the word "such".
It contributes to the impression that you're a bot.
(Eliza would have copied down the word "such" just like that.
Actually, Eliza would have refused to talk about herself,
but switch pronouns and then it works.)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021106/034c0fba/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1361
[Wikipedia-l] Name-calling and hair-pulling (was: Feature Proposal: Certification)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Nov 6 22:22:22 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 14:21, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> What's nice about Wikipedia is that noone *can* rip pages out of the books.
> They can put salt in the sugar dispenser.
> ______________________________________________
>
> Actually, *anyone* can rip out a page. Then the library staff have
> to (A) detect and (B) revert the rip.
A better analogy (since torn pages are not perfectly reversible) is that
people can go in and insert their own books on the shelves, as well as
stick their own propaganda and pamphlets into the books--most of the
time the additions are valuable, but sometimes they're juvenile
pornography, or inflammatory tracts, etc.
And in this library everybody is staff.
> And I don't want salt in sugar dispenser when I'm preparing cafe au lait.
Certainly.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1362
[Wikipedia-l] Is this a waste of time?
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Thu Nov 7 00:00:20 UTC 2002
I've been going back and forth on this Minoa/Minoan civilization thing with
Lir. Obviously, she is wrong. I have consulted with several people, including
a respected archeologist, though I don't know why I bother. She seems intent
on bringing a mad array of proofs, almost all of them web-based, including
computer games (though she is now excited that she found a proof in the Book
of Mormon). I can go back and forth in an edit war, but frankly, I've got a
lot better things to do. Nor is this the first time she has inserted
questionable information: Columbus and Iowa State are two examples. Frankly,
it's frustrating, especially when I actually go to the trouble to research
the subject. It seems like a huge waste of time, but I don't want to see
Wikipedia transformed into a joke either or have baseless "facts" empowered
just because of a user's bullying. Any suggestions?
Danny
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1363
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 7 01:18:10 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 14:23, Tom Parmenter wrote:
>
> Now, now. Cunctator, Toby. Both of you have used the word "asshole".
> You're even now, so cut the crap.
There's a slight difference in how we used the words. Toby called me an
asshole. I asked him why.
If person A says "We should kill bunny rabbits" and person B says "We
should not kill bunny rabbits", even though they both said "kill bunny
rabbits", they're not even.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1364
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 7 01:22:22 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 17:16, Zoe wrote:
>
> Y'know what? I was just about to ask if Cunctator was a Turing device.
> His responses sound just like a bot parroting back questions.
> Zoe
You're confusing [[Turing machine]] and [[Turing test]].
But to prove that I'm no mere program, let me say that my hair is
shingled, and the longest strands are about nine inches long.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1365
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Thu Nov 7 05:05:26 UTC 2002
Cunctator, it seems to me that you don't care that you have alienated, put
off, not just Toby and Gareth but a large number of people on the project.
This is upsetting people on the list, and for good humor among these key
project participants, I'd like to ask you publicly to *start* caring, and
to *stop* taking yourself so damn (sorry) seriously.
Larry (who I'm *sure* Cunc will listen to on this)
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1366
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 7 05:30:44 UTC 2002
On Thu, 2002-11-07 at 00:05, Larry Sanger wrote:
> Cunctator, it seems to me that you don't care that you have alienated, put
> off, not just Toby and Gareth but a large number of people on the project.
> This is upsetting people on the list, and for good humor among these key
> project participants, I'd like to ask you publicly to *start* caring, and
> to *stop* taking yourself so damn (sorry) seriously.
>
> Larry (who I'm *sure* Cunc will listen to on this)
Okay.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1367
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Nov 7 05:52:04 UTC 2002
Cunctator, you make me want to hedge every bet. I say you're the
"conscience of the project" because of your concern about abuse of
authority; you extend that concern to question nearly every action,
dissent without explanation, and strike up drama and confrontation.
Perhaps you're under a lot of stress.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1368
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 7 06:11:47 UTC 2002
On Thu, 2002-11-07 at 00:52, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Cunctator, you make me want to hedge every bet. I say you're the
> "conscience of the project" because of your concern about abuse of
> authority; you extend that concern to question nearly every action,
> dissent without explanation, and strike up drama and confrontation.
> Perhaps you're under a lot of stress.
Probably, what with Bole, Pataki, Romney, Sununu, Coleman, etc. raring
to help Bush drive this nation into the ground, bomb for oil, and cook
the planet, without even the token opposition of a largely ineffectual
Democratic Party, hamstrung by its desperation to compete for the
shrinking middle.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1369
[Wikipedia-l] Is this a waste of time?
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 7 06:18:27 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 19:00, daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> I've been going back and forth on this Minoa/Minoan civilization thing with
> Lir. Obviously, she is wrong. I have consulted with several people, including
> a respected archeologist, though I don't know why I bother. She seems intent
> on bringing a mad array of proofs, almost all of them web-based, including
> computer games (though she is now excited that she found a proof in the Book
> of Mormon). I can go back and forth in an edit war, but frankly, I've got a
> lot better things to do. Nor is this the first time she has inserted
> questionable information: Columbus and Iowa State are two examples. Frankly,
> it's frustrating, especially when I actually go to the trouble to research
> the subject. It seems like a huge waste of time, but I don't want to see
> Wikipedia transformed into a joke either or have baseless "facts" empowered
> just because of a user's bullying. Any suggestions?
I recommend either adding in the new information you've learned (which
is why we bother--learning is fun), making a copy of the article and
adding the new information to that copy (make a page in the User space
or on Meta), and/or sticking the article on your watchlist and waiting a
week. Then put in the article you think is right. Do this once a week.
Or once a month.
Actually, that's not the most effective technique of dealing with the
issue, but the above methods take minimal effort.
Just don't let yourself get upset.
--tc
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1370
[Wikipedia-l] Please revoke my sysop status
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Thu Nov 7 12:29:59 UTC 2002
To those with the power to do so: could you please revoke my sysop status?
I no longer have the will and the time to carry the responsibility that
comes with administratorship. Reading discussions (e.g. on Wikipedia-L) is
taking too much time and bringing too little enjoyment or satisfaction for
me to continue doing it. I'd much rather withdraw myself from that and
focus on writing and editing instead, without being "bothered" by the -
implicit - responsibilities of a sysop.
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1371
[Wikipedia-l] Is this a waste of time?
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 7 14:12:49 UTC 2002
Ever try to win an argument with a 14-year-old girl?
Just revert Lir's changes, if they're wrong.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1372
[Wikipedia-l] Our stratified society
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 7 15:13:06 UTC 2002
It's really a simple matter of social dynamics.
If a community is small enough, it doesn't need "government". People know each other, talk about things, see what everyone else does. Cooperation is easy and informal.
When a community gets too big for this easy-going camaraderie, it must institute standards or disintegrate.
I do not know what the "magic number" is for on-line communities, but I've been in several and I've seen how the absence of standards, combined with (A) too many people or (B) people with too much time on their hands, can bring a group down to its lowest common denominator -- sometimes called "mob rule".
Wikipedia has already had to create rules (no "graffiti") and get up a police force (sysops, who can protect articles and block IP's).
Thus, we have a stratified society with 5 levels of citizens.
(1) Jimbo is a truly benevolent monarch, subsidizing the kingdom from his own pocket. He can veto any decision of the developers, although he rarely does; he rules much more by sharing his wisdom. (I use the words "benevolence" and "wisdom" literally, without any irony or humor.)
(2) The developers (3 at last count) have more clout than the sysops, although like Jimbo they are scrupulous about not imposing their editorial will on any article. They are truly a noble class (again, no irony intended), donating their time to serve and protect the community like the knights of yore.
(3) The sysops (42 and rising) can protect or delete any article, and block an IP. They're supposed to do this only for "vandalism", narrowly defined as (a) inexplicable page deletion, (b) silly, foul or obscene graffiti; or possibly copyright violations. Of the last several dozen blocks that I've reviewed, practically all were for graffiti or deletion.
(4) Signed-in users. There are over 1,000 -- although only around 10% contribute much. They can be blocked by a developer, although this would "cause talk" and might even elicit a comment from Jimbo about exceeding authority, so it rarely happens. They get a user page and a user talk page, which by tradition they can pretty much post or delete whatever they want. For example, Lir keeps what Zoe calls a "nice clean page" (often deleting negative comments -- although she kept my "please don't tease Zoe" request :-)
(5) Anonymous users are the lowest class of our society, yet they have tremendous power. Like users at the higher levels, they can change any page any time in any way, except for a few protected pages. Moreover, since all users have this "any change...any time" power, every "decision" is subject to veto: anyone can revert any change. (Sometimes this balance of power leads to edit wars, but these still occur rarely enough to be tolerable.) An anonymous user who abuses their privileges can be blocked by a user with sysop or higher rights. At this point, they become refugees or exiles; they can apply for unblocking via e-mail.
A related difficulty arises when a signed-in user and an anonymous user share the same IP address, e.g., 2 patrons at a library or 2 customers of a cable system. Blocking the IP also blocks the signed-in user. This is a technical problem, and solving it will not materially change the social dynamics of our stratified society.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1373
[Wikipedia-l] Is this a waste of time?
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Thu Nov 7 15:28:54 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>Ever try to win an argument with a 14-year-old girl?
>
>Just revert Lir's changes, if they're wrong.
>
Ban Lir.
Or flood the page -- recruit enough sysops & old hands to watch that
page (subject AND talk) around the clock simply wipe everything Lir adds.
Whenever this sort of stupid edit war happens, the outcome is that we
lose an old hand and keep the moron -- let's not make that mistake again.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1374
[Wikipedia-l] Is this a waste of time?
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 7 16:29:08 UTC 2002
Tarquin suggested:
> Ban Lir.
> Or flood the page -- recruit enough sysops & old hands to watch that
> page (subject AND talk) around the clock simply wipe everything Lir adds.
>
> Whenever this sort of stupid edit war happens, the outcome is that we
> lose an old hand and keep the moron -- let's not make that mistake again.
I might protect some of the pages that Empress Lir is mangling, if it gets out of hand. But I think SLR is more than a match for her.
If he puts in an "Archaeologists say" thing, but she deletes that, we can just revert her deletion. What's all the fuss?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1375
[Wikipedia-l] Is this a waste of time?
bderksen
bderksen at ualberta.ca
Thu Nov 7 17:20:53 UTC 2002
>===== Original Message From "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> =====
>Tarquin suggested:
>
>> Ban Lir.
>> Or flood the page -- recruit enough sysops & old hands to watch that
>> page (subject AND talk) around the clock simply wipe everything Lir adds.
>>
>> Whenever this sort of stupid edit war happens, the outcome is that we
>> lose an old hand and keep the moron -- let's not make that mistake again.
>
>I might protect some of the pages that Empress Lir is mangling, if it gets
out of hand. But I think SLR is more than a match for her.
>
>If he puts in an "Archaeologists say" thing, but she deletes that, we can
just revert her deletion. What's all the fuss?
The fuss is that once again contributors are spending their time banging their
head against a wall instead of writing new material. I have myself spent some
of my meagre wikipedia time this week reverting or correcting most of the
stuff Lir has done to articles on my watchlist, so I'm painfully aware of how
frustrating it is. Unfortunately I haven't had the time to exhaustively check
over Lir's recent changes, so I won't give any opinions on whether she's worth
the effort, but if people are complaining then the complaints should be taken
seriously.
If people are making a fuss, then there _is_ a fuss. Don't assume that the
people who are cleaning up after Lir are happy to continue doing that
indefinitely.
Really, if we're going around and manually reverting every change that a
particular user makes, how is that any different from simply banning that user
(other than that it takes way more effort and causes way more frustration to
those who do the work)?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1376
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Nov 7 18:36:24 UTC 2002
>Probably, what with Bole, Pataki, Romney, Sununu, Coleman, etc. raring
>to help Bush drive this nation into the ground, bomb for oil, and cook
>the planet, without even the token opposition of a largely ineffectual
>Democratic Party, hamstrung by its desperation to compete for the
>shrinking middle.
Yes, I'm concerned about all that too.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1377
[Wikipedia-l] Our stratified society
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 7 20:27:35 UTC 2002
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> It's really a simple matter of social dynamics.
>
> If a community is small enough, it doesn't need
> "government". People know each other, talk about
> things, see what everyone else does. Cooperation is
> easy and informal.
>
> When a community gets too big for this easy-going
> camaraderie, it must institute standards or
> disintegrate.
>
> I do not know what the "magic number" is for on-line
> communities, but I've been in several and I've seen
> how the absence of standards, combined with (A) too
> many people or (B) people with too much time on
> their hands, can bring a group down to its lowest
> common denominator -- sometimes called "mob rule".
>
> Wikipedia has already had to create rules (no
> "graffiti") and get up a police force (sysops, who
> can protect articles and block IP's).
>
> Thus, we have a stratified society with 5 levels of
> citizens.
>
> (1) Jimbo is a truly benevolent monarch, subsidizing
> the kingdom from his own pocket. He can veto any
> decision of the developers, although he rarely does;
> he rules much more by sharing his wisdom. (I use the
> words "benevolence" and "wisdom" literally, without
> any irony or humor.)
>
> (2) The developers (3 at last count) have more clout
> than the sysops, although like Jimbo they are
> scrupulous about not imposing their editorial will
> on any article. They are truly a noble class (again,
> no irony intended), donating their time to serve and
> protect the community like the knights of yore.
>
> (3) The sysops (42 and rising) can protect or delete
> any article, and block an IP. They're supposed to do
> this only for "vandalism", narrowly defined as (a)
> inexplicable page deletion, (b) silly, foul or
> obscene graffiti; or possibly copyright violations.
> Of the last several dozen blocks that I've reviewed,
> practically all were for graffiti or deletion.
>
> (4) Signed-in users. There are over 1,000 --
> although only around 10% contribute much. They can
> be blocked by a developer, although this would
> "cause talk" and might even elicit a comment from
> Jimbo about exceeding authority, so it rarely
> happens. They get a user page and a user talk page,
> which by tradition they can pretty much post or
> delete whatever they want. For example, Lir keeps
> what Zoe calls a "nice clean page" (often deleting
> negative comments -- although she kept my "please
> don't tease Zoe" request :-)
>
> (5) Anonymous users are the lowest class of our
> society, yet they have tremendous power. Like users
> at the higher levels, they can change any page any
> time in any way, except for a few protected pages.
> Moreover, since all users have this "any
> change...any time" power, every "decision" is
> subject to veto: anyone can revert any change.
> (Sometimes this balance of power leads to edit wars,
> but these still occur rarely enough to be
> tolerable.) An anonymous user who abuses their
> privileges can be blocked by a user with sysop or
> higher rights. At this point, they become refugees
> or exiles; they can apply for unblocking via e-mail.
>
> A related difficulty arises when a signed-in user
> and an anonymous user share the same IP address,
> e.g., 2 patrons at a library or 2 customers of a
> cable system. Blocking the IP also blocks the
> signed-in user. This is a technical problem, and
> solving it will not materially change the social
> dynamics of our stratified society.
>
> Ed Poor
That's an interesting classification Ed. Really. But.
I am a 4 in YOUR stratified society. Sometimes a 5. I
don't really know any of you except a bit from this
list.
On the fr.wiki, I usually am a 3. But, of course, I am
not one of THE 42 sysops.
Sometimes, it seems I have to deal with a 100mb
message that I cannot really understand on a remote
french speaking mailing list. But, of course, it is
not really one of the THREE wikipedia mailing lists,
isn't it ?
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/006953.html
Stratified society indeed. Main list indeed.
Today, for reasons I cannot understand, I "downgraded"
to level 5 on the fr.wiki, for my identification is
refused. Weird.
J'ai besoin d'un preux chevalier des temps anciens
(strate 2), qui pourrait voler au secours d'une pauvre
cerve (strate 5)...
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1378
[Wikipedia-l] Is this a waste of time?
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 7 20:38:06 UTC 2002
You'll need to do it in the middle of the night or sometime when she's offline, or she'll immediately re-revert them.
Has anyone been reading her additions to the [[Lir]] page (not [[User:lir]] and to the rantings on her own page? I think she's in need of counseling.
Zoe
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:Ever try to win an argument with a 14-year-old girl?
Just revert Lir's changes, if they're wrong.
Ed Poor
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021107/c19904a8/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1379
[Wikipedia-l] Is this a waste of time?
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Thu Nov 7 20:42:19 UTC 2002
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:38:06PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
> You'll need to do it in the middle of the night or sometime when she's
> offline, or she'll immediately re-revert them.
>
> Has anyone been reading her additions to the [[Lir]] page (not
> [[User:lir]] and to the rantings on her own page? I think she's in need
> of counseling.
>
> Zoe
>
> "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
> Ever try to win an argument with a 14-year-old girl?
>
> Just revert Lir's changes, if they're wrong.
I was operating on the assumption Lir was a 12-year-old girl, but her
edits to "Wealth of the Nations" make me suspect she is actually much
older than that. It would be easier to take Lir seriously if she would
engage in dialog, and attribute her sources more readily.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021107/474cd6ad/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1380
[Wikipedia-l] Lir, yet again.
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 7 23:39:54 UTC 2002
Lir is deleting the contents of the [[Talk:Lir]] page. Not that this is NOT her user talk page but is the talk page about the article [[Lir]], concerning the Celtic god. Ed Poor and I have both suggested that she not do so, especially since the thing she is deleting is NOT something she wrote, but she insists on doing so. I will stop the edit war for now, but I will revert it once she's gone to bed for the night. Her bedtime must be soon, she probably has to go to school in the morning.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021107/c3151c53/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1381
[Wikipedia-l] Lir, yet again.
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Fri Nov 8 01:38:23 UTC 2002
Zoe wrote:
> Lir is deleting the contents of the [[Talk:Lir]] page. Not that this is
> NOT her user talk page but is the talk page about the article [[Lir]],
> concerning the Celtic god. Ed Poor and I have both suggested that she
> not do so, especially since the thing she is deleting is NOT something
> she wrote, but she insists on doing so.
FWIW, this is one of few of Lir's actions that I have no objection to.
She deleted the crap she put into [[Lir]], then cleaned up after herself
by blanking the now-irrelevant cruft in the talk page, most of which was
a duplicate of said crap.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1382
[Wikipedia-l] Our stratified society
James Zitzmann
jzcool at lycos.com
Fri Nov 8 02:14:19 UTC 2002
fuck fuck fuck wikipedia
---
Earn free ringtones - go to:
http://www.earnfreeringtones.com/?src=jzcool
James's Domain - Your source for Nintendo, Sega, Playstation, Anime, Manga, and more! http://www.jzcool.net
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:13:06
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>It's really a simple matter of social dynamics.
>
>If a community is small enough, it doesn't need "government". People know each other, talk about things, see what everyone else does. Cooperation is easy and informal.
>
>When a community gets too big for this easy-going camaraderie, it must institute standards or disintegrate.
>
>I do not know what the "magic number" is for on-line communities, but I've been in several and I've seen how the absence of standards, combined with (A) too many people or (B) people with too much time on their hands, can bring a group down to its lowest common denominator -- sometimes called "mob rule".
>
>Wikipedia has already had to create rules (no "graffiti") and get up a police force (sysops, who can protect articles and block IP's).
>
>Thus, we have a stratified society with 5 levels of citizens.
>
>(1) Jimbo is a truly benevolent monarch, subsidizing the kingdom from his own pocket. He can veto any decision of the developers, although he rarely does; he rules much more by sharing his wisdom. (I use the words "benevolence" and "wisdom" literally, without any irony or humor.)
>
>(2) The developers (3 at last count) have more clout than the sysops, although like Jimbo they are scrupulous about not imposing their editorial will on any article. They are truly a noble class (again, no irony intended), donating their time to serve and protect the community like the knights of yore.
>
>(3) The sysops (42 and rising) can protect or delete any article, and block an IP. They're supposed to do this only for "vandalism", narrowly defined as (a) inexplicable page deletion, (b) silly, foul or obscene graffiti; or possibly copyright violations. Of the last several dozen blocks that I've reviewed, practically all were for graffiti or deletion.
>
>(4) Signed-in users. There are over 1,000 -- although only around 10% contribute much. They can be blocked by a developer, although this would "cause talk" and might even elicit a comment from Jimbo about exceeding authority, so it rarely happens. They get a user page and a user talk page, which by tradition they can pretty much post or delete whatever they want. For example, Lir keeps what Zoe calls a "nice clean page" (often deleting negative comments -- although she kept my "please don't tease Zoe" request :-)
>
>(5) Anonymous users are the lowest class of our society, yet they have tremendous power. Like users at the higher levels, they can change any page any time in any way, except for a few protected pages. Moreover, since all users have this "any change...any time" power, every "decision" is subject to veto: anyone can revert any change. (Sometimes this balance of power leads to edit wars, but these still occur rarely enough to be tolerable.) An anonymous user who abuses their privileges can be blocked by a user with sysop or higher rights. At this point, they become refugees or exiles; they can apply for unblocking via e-mail.
>
>A related difficulty arises when a signed-in user and an anonymous user share the same IP address, e.g., 2 patrons at a library or 2 customers of a cable system. Blocking the IP also blocks the signed-in user. This is a technical problem, and solving it will not materially change the social dynamics of our stratified society.
>
>Ed Poor
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
__________________________________________________________
Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get 25MB Storage, POP3 Access,
Advanced Spam protection with LYCOS MAIL PLUS.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1383
[Wikipedia-l] Don't be stupid! Be cool!
Bridget
Bridget
Fri Nov 8 04:30:08 UTC 2002
Some people seem pretty upset about silly things like
Do Minoans come from Minoa?
Frankly, I think wikipedia should stop having debates about what is the more commonly used term, which results in, apparently, people checking google's amount of returns and thus declaring a winning word, and instead focus on what is the best term.
Of course, who am I to suggest that the American mass media sometimes fails to select the best terminology, certainly it is not wikipedia's job to provide any useful contribution to language, our job is simply to make a encyclopedia, a task which clearly involves improving the language, vocabulary, and terminology, so I guess that is our job... hm
Anyways, the dispute about Minoa was easily resolved! Somebody pointed out that they didn't feel Minoa was ever a kingdom! That's news to me, cuz I know it was, but I can understand how people can wonder whether it was a kingdom or not when they stare at all the crumbling ruins. So of course with that in mind (and the fact that we all know that Minoa will eventually become a disambiguation page for Minoan Civilization, Minoan City, Minoan Colony, New Minoan City, and Minoa New York)...the argument was really not about the name of the page but rather about whether or not the Minoans came from Minoa.
If Minoans were united in a kingdom than all Minoans clearly came from Minoa, if Minoans were in independent city-states than whoooo some Minoans came from Knossos and that means that Minoan refers not to the geo-political entity of Minoa but rather to the culture which existed on Cretica, and was typified by the people of Minoa (the city) but certainly not limited to Minoa alone.
Of course, the page Minoan Civilization doesn't really touch on such points but now that it was finally drug out of the loyal opposition that they think Minoans lived in a bunch of city-states...well how quaint.
But anyways, I digress, what I truly wish to address is that rather hostile nature of certain individuals who feel that I have some sort of hostile nature. If you have some issue with me you should feel free to e-mail me at lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com or contact me at AIM MarderIII, in fact, you should prefer that over TALK because wikipedia lags like a mofo, and through communication of that manner (rather than Talk's more ship-in-a-bottle technique) Im sure things would be much happier.
I suggest wikipedia add some chatrooms that don't lag.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021107/f83e5c53/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1384
[Wikipedia-l] Don't be stupid! Be cool!
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Fri Nov 8 05:59:01 UTC 2002
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:30:08PM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Of course, the page Minoan Civilization doesn't really touch on such
> points but now that it was finally drug out of the loyal opposition that
> they think Minoans lived in a bunch of city-states...well how quaint.
What we have here is a "Lirican standoff". Maybe, Lir, if you were
quicker to provide your sources, and they weren't JUST google links,
people would accept what you write with less suspicion.
Wouldn't it be nice if people accepted your contributions as if they
were a delicious handcooked meal, instead of poking at them as if not
sure whether you drug them out of the cesspit, compost heap, or, un
mirable, fresh from the vegetable garden?
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021107/bdbf03b6/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1385
[Wikipedia-l] Lir, yet again.
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 8 15:28:43 UTC 2002
We don't know Lir's real age. She describes herself as a woman, so it's fair to assume we know her sex. But we can only guess at her age. Not only do ladies often not care to reveal such personal info, it's rare for people online to do so either. She acknowledges *acting* like a 14-year-old.
Less than 5% of the contributors whose Usernames I recognize go by their real names: Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger do it because of their positions as founder and shaper. I do it because I don't want anyone saying, "These Moonies always hide behind a facade; see, even BigMetalGuy won't reveal his real name."
As one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons points out, "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog."
Ed Poor (my real name)
"Opinions expressed here are no reflection of my employer's policies." (my official disclaimer)
www.edpoor.com (my real boring website)
-----Original Message-----
From: Zoe [mailto:zoecomnena at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:40 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Lir, yet again.
Lir is deleting the contents of the [[Talk:Lir]] page. Not that this is NOT her user talk page but is the talk page about the article [[Lir]], concerning the Celtic god. Ed Poor and I have both suggested that she not do so, especially since the thing she is deleting is NOT something she wrote, but she insists on doing so. I will stop the edit war for now, but I will revert it once she's gone to bed for the night. Her bedtime must be soon, she probably has to go to school in the morning.
Zoe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021108/45a768c2/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1386
[Wikipedia-l] Lir, yet again.
Bridget
Bridget
Fri Nov 8 17:27:34 UTC 2002
what does it matter?
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:We don't know Lir's real age. She describes herself as a woman, so it's fair to assume we know her sex. But we can only guess at her age. Not only do ladies often not care to reveal such personal info, it's rare for people online to do so either. She acknowledges *acting* like a 14-year-old. Less than 5% of the contributors whose Usernames I recognize go by their real names: Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger do it because of their positions as founder and shaper. I do it because I don't want anyone saying, "These Moonies always hide behind a facade; see, even BigMetalGuy won't reveal his real name." As one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons points out, "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog." Ed Poor (my real name)"Opinions expressed here are no reflection of my employer's policies." (my official disclaimer)www.edpoor.com (my real boring website)-----Original Message-----
From: Zoe [mailto:zoecomnena at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:40 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Lir, yet again.
Lir is deleting the contents of the [[Talk:Lir]] page. Not that this is NOT her user talk page but is the talk page about the article [[Lir]], concerning the Celtic god. Ed Poor and I have both suggested that she not do so, especially since the thing she is deleting is NOT something she wrote, but she insists on doing so. I will stop the edit war for now, but I will revert it once she's gone to bed for the night. Her bedtime must be soon, she probably has to go to school in the morning.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021108/09bd162d/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1387
[Wikipedia-l] Lir, yet again.
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 8 19:19:56 UTC 2002
It doesn't. That was my point.
Let's try to get beyond personalities and find ways to work together to build this encyclopedia.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] [mailto:lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:28 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Lir, yet again.
what does it matter?
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
We don't know Lir's real age. She describes herself as a woman, so it's fair to assume we know her sex. But we can only guess at her age. Not only do ladies often not care to reveal such personal info, it's rare for people online to do so either. She acknowledges *acting* like a 14-year-old.
Less than 5% of the contributors whose Usernames I recognize go by their real names: Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger do it because of their positions as founder and shaper. I do it because I don't want anyone saying, "These Moonies always hide behind a facade; see, even BigMetalGuy won't reveal his real name."
As one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons points out, "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog."
Ed Poor (my real name)
"Opinions expressed here are no reflection of my employer's policies." (my official disclaimer)
<http://www.edpoor.com/> www.edpoor.com (my real boring website)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021108/38919697/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1388
[Wikipedia-l] Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce them
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 8 20:34:25 UTC 2002
We must have clear guidelines and the power to enforce them, or valuable contributors like Julie, Larry, Maveric, Elian and many more will just quit -- the aggravation is just not worth it.
If the rules are not clear, we have to rely on Jimbo or Lee or Brion to make a decision, inform us and then we have to spend a week or two discussing it.
When I taught Sunday School, I just gave trouble-makers a time-out for:
* hitting another pupil
* grabbing something (a book, a chair) from another pupil
* teasing another pupil
Within a half-dozen classes, I had nearly perfect order -- and, to top it off, my class doubled in size! Kids started calling me Uncle Ed, and everyone wanted to be in my class? Why? Because they liked getting time-outs?
No, because they knew that no one would (1) hit them, (2) grab their things, or (3) tease them.
Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give admins the power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail the ability of contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1389
[Wikipedia-l] VANDALISM ALERT
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Fri Nov 8 21:16:50 UTC 2002
This is being done on the mailing list since a known vandal has now got a user account; we have no way of blocking user:
PresidentPTC
Can Jimmy or Lee or someone who has the right magic spell wipe this account //immediately//. This is the same user I blocked yesterday below:
a.. 14:24 Nov 7, 2002, Sjc blocked 62.171.194.36 : Reason: Persistent homophobic vandalism in nonsense article Marcel Petiot, now deleted.
Steve Callaway (sjc)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021108/d6b55acc/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1390
[Wikipedia-l] Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce them
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Fri Nov 8 21:22:19 UTC 2002
Ed Poor is repeating himself, apparently because no one has paid
attention to his sensible remarks, so I will do the same. Ed talks of
Sunday School, I will speak of my experience moderating open mailing
lists on the Internet.
One of these lists was for a group of non-religous recovering
alcoholics. The other was a company list for experts in a
software-development tool that, frankly, required serious attention
from experts to be used at its best. I was neither alcoholic nor
software support. Both lists had their cranks, and certainly strong
opinions were the norm.
On both lists, I left discussion wide open, but retained for myself
the privilege of chiding and chastening when then conversation got out
of hand. Inevitably, these interventions of mine were followed by
periods of profound silence, even from those who had not offended in
any way, and then open discussion would slowly resume. I only banned
one person from the alcoholic list and no one from the company list.
People are confusing the Wikipedia (particularly talk pages) with the
Usenet. If non-participating "moderators" were willing to jump in,
delete nonsense from talk pages, and enforce civility, even incoherent
or ideological contributors can learn NPOV.
Exactly how this would work, I don't know. It seems that at least one
Wikipedia elder is trying but sometimes has a chip on his shoulder.
Nonetheless, I know from experience it is possible to foster civility
without hampering discourse.
This is never happening more than a few places at any one time and I
believe it is possible to stop it when it occurs.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
|From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
|Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:34:25 -0500
|
|We must have clear guidelines and the power to enforce them, or
|valuable contributors like Julie, Larry, Maveric, Elian and many more
|will just quit -- the aggravation is just not worth it.
|
|If the rules are not clear, we have to rely on Jimbo or Lee or Brion
|to make a decision, inform us and then we have to spend a week or two
|discussing it.
|
|When I taught Sunday School, I just gave trouble-makers a time-out for:
|* hitting another pupil
|* grabbing something (a book, a chair) from another pupil
|* teasing another pupil
|
|Within a half-dozen classes, I had nearly perfect order -- and, to
|top it off, my class doubled in size! Kids started calling me Uncle
|Ed, and everyone wanted to be in my class? Why? Because they liked
|getting time-outs?
|
|No, because they knew that no one would (1) hit them, (2) grab their
|things, or (3) tease them.
|
|Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give
|admins the power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail
|the ability of contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
|_______________________________________________
|Wikipedia-l mailing list
|Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
|
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1391
[Wikipedia-l] Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce them
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Nov 8 22:34:47 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 16:22, Tom Parmenter wrote:
>
> Ed Poor is repeating himself, apparently because no one has paid
> attention to his sensible remarks, so I will do the same. Ed talks of
> Sunday School, I will speak of my experience moderating open mailing
> lists on the Internet.
>
> One of these lists was for a group of non-religous recovering
> alcoholics. The other was a company list for experts in a
> software-development tool that, frankly, required serious attention
> from experts to be used at its best. I was neither alcoholic nor
> software support. Both lists had their cranks, and certainly strong
> opinions were the norm.
>
> On both lists, I left discussion wide open, but retained for myself
> the privilege of chiding and chastening when then conversation got out
> of hand. Inevitably, these interventions of mine were followed by
> periods of profound silence, even from those who had not offended in
> any way, and then open discussion would slowly resume. I only banned
> one person from the alcoholic list and no one from the company list.
At first blush, it doesn't seem to be unreasonable to have as a social
norm that text on the article talk pages that is OT or personal,
overheated, etc., can be erased by people who aren't involved in the
topic at hand.
Though I fear that would probably end up not working well unless it's an
all-or-nothing thing. That is, the acceptable thing to do would be to
erase the talk page entirely, or erase it and summarize the topics of
discussion in your own words.
This wouldn't solve everything, but it would certainly help.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1392
[Wikipedia-l] Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce them
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Nov 8 22:45:30 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 15:34, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> We must have clear guidelines and the power to enforce them, or valuable
> contributors like Julie, Larry, Maveric, Elian and many more will just
> quit -- the aggravation is just not worth it.
That's one opinion. There are a number of assertions there that are not
necessarily valid, nor is the syllogism necessarily valid.
> If the rules are not clear, we have to rely on Jimbo or Lee or Brion
> to make a decision, inform us and then we have to spend a week or two
> discussing it.
I really don't know where you have this idea that Lee or Brion have any
special authority to make decisions about participants. There are 15
developers, including me. None of us have any legitimate authority to
ban users, etc. I'm at a loss as to why you think we should assert
baldly that there is a hierarchy of authority determined not by merit
but simply by accidents of code access.
> When I taught Sunday School, I just gave trouble-makers a time-out for:
> * hitting another pupil
> * grabbing something (a book, a chair) from another pupil
> * teasing another pupil
>
> Within a half-dozen classes, I had nearly perfect order -- and, to top it off,
> my class doubled in size! Kids started calling me Uncle Ed, and
> everyone wanted to be in my class? Why? Because they liked getting
> time-outs?
>
> No, because they knew that no one would (1) hit them, (2) grab their things, or (3) tease them.
This isn't Sunday School. We're not being taught by Uncle Ed. We're not
being forced to do this by our parents. Let's not get carried away by
false analogies...
> Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give
> admins the power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail
> the ability of contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
Civility is a laudable goal and a reasonable expectation for Wikipedia.
Civility enforced by a police force is not.
Rather, we should each be able to control our own behavior, and that
goes for the people who feel aggrieved by loonies or robotic
personalities as well.
Again, none of us is being forced to do this. The psychology of the
conflicts that arise in Wikipedia is not complicated, and they can
usually be defused simply, without giving particular groups of people
powers over others.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1393
[Wikipedia-l] Copyright Violation Deleted
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.org
Sat Nov 9 05:14:30 UTC 2002
I just deleted a copyright violation: 67.0.49.91 copied a BBC news
article into [[James Kilgore]]. That seems to be his/her/its only
"contribution."
I don't think anything needs to be done (now that I've deleted the
article) -- just keep an eye out.
--
Sean Barrett | You don't need a Weatherman to
sean at epoptic.com | know which way the wind blows.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1394
[Wikipedia-l] epidemics
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 9 16:15:42 UTC 2002
Some people get the hint pretty quickly.
When they want to advertise their web site or favor
their view point or whatever, they go to one of the
wikipedia...just add their stuff here and there,
couple of links...then they just use the magic
links...land on another language wiki...add their
stuff... and move on to the next wikipedia magic
link...add again...
Think about it. That's how bubonic plague kill 1
person over 3 in 13 years a few centuries ago in
Europe. Boats and rats. How our cows got the ''fievre
aphteuse'' a year ago. Planes and dinner tray.
New channels for enhanced flow, new vector agent, more
disease. Not new, just more.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1395
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Sat Nov 9 18:57:37 UTC 2002
I want to say that I am slowly coming around to Ed's way of thinking.
My departure last winter left a vacuum of power. No, scratch that--far
more people have more power now than I ever presumed to have or use, which
I find disturbing. What it has left is a vacuum of moral authority:
essentially, hardly anyone, including me, has any anymore. This is in
large part because some eedjits (I won't name names, but you know who you
are) will now very predictably challenge any correctly self-righteous
attempts to enforce the rules, and there is no one person who is generally
respected who can step in and say, "You really should stop this.
So-and-so, you don't understand the such-and-such rule. That's how we do
things here. If you don't like it, leave."
Now, to a certain extent, this was always a problem. For many months
before she became a more general public spectacle, Julie and I and a few
others struggled with Helga. There is *nothing* I could do to make Helga
understand, or respect, the NPOV policy. I tried publicly and privately
several times. Julie and others were *forced* to follow her around and
clean up after her.
The reason that I didn't want literally to ban Helga (though, as with
others, I told her privately that she should leave) is that I knew it
would be for reasons of content--viz., her content was usually
outrageously biased--and I knew that that would set a dangerous precedent
and would also potentially undermine what moral authority I did have. I
was *hoping* that we simply never would have to ban people for content,
and that they could be shamed and arm-twisted into behaving. But our
worst trolls have made it abundantly clear that there are some people who
simply cannot be shamed into doing anything at all. They *enjoy* both
being the center of attention and disrupting the flow of productive
activity and discussion. Far from respecting anything like moral
authority, one of their greatest pleasures in life is to flout and
undermine it in whatever forms they find it.
We *do* need an effective way to deal with these people. We *don't* have
an effective way right now.
For purposes of thinking of a solution, it does help, as much as I hate to
admit it, to think of Wikipedia as a sort of microcosm of society (a
classroom is such a microcosm as well, in some respects--I agree with you
there Ed). There's much that's disanalogous, but a few principles are the
same:
(1) In the absence of people who are generally respected as in authority,
"rebellion" will continuously break out.
(2) In the same circumstances, the destructive members of society will
tend to push the productive members of society away from active social
intercourse. (We won't go out at night, as it were; we'll keep to
ourselves.)
(3) As the population (classroom size, Wikipedia editor base) grows, the
need for legitimate authority is made more pressing by ever more constant
disruptions.
We can debate about this, but I hope we can do so reasonably, with a
minimum of fallacy and innuendo. Let's be up front and explicit.
I hate the idea of a literal "police force." We have a "militia" but
that's entirely tongue-in-cheek and has no official powers of any sort.
But I think I do like the idea of *moderators*. My vague, not-entirely-
worked-out idea is a *regularly* changing body of randomly selected but
experienced Wikipedians, something like the Athenian Senate only smaller.
These would not go around and look for infractions of the rules, as police
do. Rather, their job *while working as moderators* would be to hear
complaints from complainants (self-appointed prosecutors) and arguments on
both or all sides on the incident or issue. (Of course, they could simply
refuse to "hear" certain petty disputes.) They would be empowered by the
community to *interpret* rules and make sanctions, much as a court would,
but not actually to *make* rules. They'd also be empowered to ban vandals
peremptorily, as sysops are now.
This raises a lot of really difficult questions. How are moderators
selected? (Perhaps: randomly from some sort of screened pool of qualified
candidates.) How do we ensure that someone who is a poor judge of the
rules and of situations does not become a moderator? (Sounds like it
could get very personal--but given what Wikipedia, probably necessarily,
has become, can that be avoided?) What "rules" would be enforceable?
Doesn't this mean that we should now back away from the "ignore all rules"
thing? (Reluctantly, I admit, it appears so.) Will we build a body of
case law? (Surely.) How can we put checks on the powers of the
moderators, some of whom will certainly be found to be too immature and
too untrustworthy to have the power? (By having three moderators working
at once.) Doesn't this mean an even more baroque power structure? (No,
I'd tentatively suggest we strip all erstwhile "sysops" of their
too-easily-abusable rights, in favor of this system.) How do we ensure
that this system isn't abused by people who want to use it as part of
personal vendettas? (By having multiple moderators who check each others'
work; and by having an explicit rule not to bring "petty lawsuits.") How
do we avoid "conflicts of interest"? (Ditto and by making sure that
*certain* people do not hear complaints from *certain other* people.)
What sanctions would the moderators have at their disposal? (Something
like this: warning; final reprimand; temporary ban; permanent ban with
opportunity for appeal at a later date.)
I am not going to argue for this or elaborate it anytime soon. (I'd like
to get the Wikipedia peer review project going first:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/sifter-l ) But I would lot to
hear nonfallacious, nonvacuous, non-potshot-ish comments about it, if
anyone has any.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1396
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
erik_moeller at gmx.de
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Sat Nov 9 20:37:00 UTC 2002
Larry,
I'm not familiar with Helga's writings, so I cannot comment on that
specific case. In general, I do not see the problems you see. There will
always be edit conflicts, and giving a small, however selected elite
control to resolve them seems like an awful idea. Sure, many times those
who are shouting against the majority are just cranks. Sometimes, however,
they happen to be right.
Note that one of your favorite "bad examples", Everything2, is an example
for a community that has been completely eroded by a supposedly benevolent
elite (albeit not a random, changing one).
I am, like many others, a big believer in the concept of "soft security".
If we want Wikipedia to develop in a certain fashion, we should try to
enforce our rules through peer pressure. People who violate NPOV should be
educated about its purpose. Antagonistic statements of the "if you don't
like it, leave" sort do not cool down conflicts, they drive and fuel them.
Express respect for the other person's view, and try to find a way to
integrate it without violating NPOV.
If this kind of behavior was more effectively trained and practiced by
Wikipedia regulars, I believe we could deal with seemingly destructive
newbies much more rationally. But the prevailing attitude by many
contributors seems to be: "If the other child plays with my toys, I either
take them and go home, or I find someone to complain to". If we want to be
the adults on this playground, we should behave accordingly.
Note that Everything2 does have a few good ideas, and one of them are so-
called mentors. Newbies are taught the ways of the site by old-timers. To
make this work, however, we need an improved internal messaging system and
a mentor selection process.
Article certification mechanisms we are currently discussing may serve as
a further incentive for people to come around. If we get this right, the
biggest honor a Wikipedia author can receive is to contribute to an
article certified by a high number of users -- something that is worth
striving for. Hopefully, this will motivate at least some people to
examine their behavior.
IF and only if *all* else fails, I believe randomly chosen samples are a
bad way to make final decisions. Slashdot uses such a scheme, and you
probably have noticed how well it works. Decisions should not be made
randomly but by those who care about the subject in question and have all
the necessary information. A random sample tends to make uninformed
decisions following a certain average pattern.
I'm not entirely against content-based bans, but I believe open voting
would be necessary in such situations. See my previous posts on the
subject for ideas how to implement this properly.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1397
[Wikipedia-l] Someone erased the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sat Nov 9 20:56:33 UTC 2002
Someone at 194.126.122.18 erased the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page. Someone at
194.126.122.18 also made some good-looking edits to other pages.
nslookup says the address is gennet.gennet.ee. whois.ripe.net says it belongs
to the Estonian Telephone Company. It's not running Squid. Do any of you know
Estonian, and can you find out if it's a proxy or what?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1398
[Wikipedia-l] Someone erased the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page
Imran Ghory
imran at bits.bris.ac.uk
Sat Nov 9 21:03:11 UTC 2002
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> Someone at 194.126.122.18 erased the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page. Someone at
> 194.126.122.18 also made some good-looking edits to other pages.
>
> nslookup says the address is gennet.gennet.ee. whois.ripe.net says it belongs
> to the Estonian Telephone Company. It's not running Squid. Do any of you know
> Estonian, and can you find out if it's a proxy or what?
It's running an open proxy on port 80.
Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1399
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Sat Nov 9 21:26:44 UTC 2002
Erik,
Thanks for the reply.
>> I'm not familiar with Helga's writings, so I cannot comment on that
specific case. In general, I do not see the problems you see.
That's probably one main point of disagreement, then. Suffice it to say
I've been with Wikipedia from the beginning and I do think that things are
very bad right now, far worse than they have been in the beginning. I
think it's becoming nearly intolerable for polite and well-meaning people
to participate, because they're constantly having to deal with people who
simply don't respect the rules. I take it you do care about that, if it's
happening, but perhaps you don't see it happening. In that case, we can
always collect a list of people who have been driven away or who have
quietly stopped editing so much out of disgust with having to deal with
people who just don't get it.
Put me at the top of the list.
>> There will always be edit conflicts, and giving a small, however
selected elite control to resolve them seems like an awful idea.
I'm talking about a body of trusted members, not an "elite." Tarring the
proposal with that word isn't an argument.
>> Sure, many times those who are shouting against the majority are just
cranks. Sometimes, however, they happen to be right.
Well, the times I'm concerned about aren't necessarily times when people
are shouting against the majority, but when they write nonsense, brazen
political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so forth--in other
words, violating community standards.
>> Note that one of your favorite "bad examples", Everything2, is an
example for a community that has been completely eroded by a supposedly
benevolent elite (albeit not a random, changing one).
Note also that the group I propose to great is far more reasonable a
notion of authority than the arbitrary hierarchical power structure of
Everything2. We can learn from their mistakes without being committed to
a completely anarchical situation.
>> I am, like many others, a big believer in the concept of "soft
security".
Why don't you explain exactly what that means here on the list, and why
you and others think it's such a good thing?
>> If we want Wikipedia to develop in a certain fashion, we should try to
enforce our rules through peer pressure. People who violate NPOV should be
educated about its purpose.
It seems to me that in growing numbers people refuse to bow to "peer
pressure" or to be "educated" about anything regarding Wikipedia.
Without generally-accepted standards and moral authority and the shame
culture that accompanies them, peer pressure is impossible.
Peer pressure seemd to work relatively well in the past. It is working
less and less well as the project has grown and since I left a position of
official authority.
>> Antagonistic statements of the "if you don't like it, leave" sort do
not cool down conflicts, they drive and fuel them.
They do certainly cool down conflicts if the person receiving the
statement knows that the person issuing the statement has the authority to
do something about it. They also let the recipient know that there are
some lines that just can't be crossed without the community taking a
forthright stand against it.
>> Express respect for the other person's view, and try to find a way to
integrate it without violating NPOV.
When the disagreement concerns Wikipedia policies and obvious
interpretations of them, when the violator of those policies does so
brazenly, knowingly, and mockingly--and surely you've been around long
enough to know that this happens not infrequently now--then it's not
particularly important that we "express respect for the other person's
view." By then, it's clear that diplomacy will not solve the problem.
>> If this kind of behavior was more effectively trained and practiced by
Wikipedia regulars, I believe we could deal with seemingly destructive
newbies much more rationally. But the prevailing attitude by many
contributors seems to be: "If the other child plays with my toys, I either
take them and go home, or I find someone to complain to". If we want to be
the adults on this playground, we should behave accordingly.
Please do acknowledge that some newbies (and a few not-so-newbies) really
*are* destructive, at least sometimes. And that's a really *serious*
problem, that we must not ignore simply because it violates our righteous
liberal sensibilities (I have 'em too; I am a libertarian but not an
anarchist).
You seem to be implying that, if we simply were nice to people, cranks,
trolls, vandals, and other destructive elements would be adequately
manageable.
First, Wikipedia has grown a lot. It's the biggest wiki project in the
world. We *can't* make people nice as you suggest. They will be as they
are. We can try, of course; but the point is that we will utterly fail.
I'm trying to be realistic about this. If I thought you were right that
people *could* be made more nice, what you say would be more plausible.
Second, again, our experience with *many* different damaging elements
shows that some people just will not behave, no matter what we try.
Third, your proposal requires that the best members of Wikipedia follow
around and politely educate an ever-growing group of destructive members.
We've tried that. We've lost a number of members as a result, and I
personally am tempted, every so often, to completely forget about
Wikipedia, and resign it to the dogs. But I don't want to do that. I
still feel some responsibility for it, and I think I helped build it to
where it is now. I don't want to see something that I've helped build
wear away into something awful.
>>Note that Everything2 does have a few good ideas, and one of them are
so-called mentors. Newbies are taught the ways of the site by old-timers.
To make this work, however, we need an improved internal messaging system
and a mentor selection process.
We do this automatically, of necessity, on talk pages. No internal
messaging system would be better than direct constructive criticism on
offending pages. And, indeed, this is one of the things that has made
Wikipedia work as well as it has: unlike Everything2, we are working
together on the articles themselves, and in order to work together, we
must respect each other.
But there are some people who constitutionally are unable to work with
other people and who do insist on flouting the rules that define the
community. It would be nice if those taking your view, Erik, would
acknowledge that more often. No amount of niceness and mentoring will
solve that problem.
>>Article certification mechanisms we are currently discussing may serve
as a further incentive for people to come around.
This I agree with 100%.
But one reason I'm worried about the current state of Wikipedia is that we
might have some expert reviewers coming in to do some good work here, only
to be attacked by some eedjit who gets his jollies out of attacking an
expert precisely because she's an expert. That *will* happen, almost
certainly, if the Wikipedia peer review project gets going.
>>IF and only if *all* else fails, [...]
When would we have determined that all else has failed?
>>[...] I believe randomly chosen samples are a bad way to make final
decisions. Slashdot uses such a scheme, and you probably have noticed how
well it works. Decisions should not be made randomly but by those who care
about the subject in question and have all the necessary information. A
random sample tends to make uninformed decisions following a certain
average pattern.
The whole reason behind a random sample is precisely to forestall the sort
of "elitism" and abuse of power that you fear. I fear it probably as much
as anyone, in fact. I also fear mob rule, though. Both are to be
avoided, and I'm confident that with wisdom we can avoid both.
Thanks again for the reply.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1400
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Sat Nov 9 21:45:56 UTC 2002
LMS makes the argument that Wikipedia right now is much worse than it has
been in the past.
He asserts that there is an ever-growing group of destructive members.
I don't see that. There seems to be a pretty fixed number of Wikipedians who
write "write nonsense, brazen political propoganda, crankish unsupported
stuff" on a consistent basis.
And that fixed number can be counted on one hand.
It is a problem that people stop editing out of frustration, but the
evidence just isn't there that this is a ballooning problem.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1401
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
erik_moeller at gmx.de
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Sat Nov 9 22:43:00 UTC 2002
> That's probably one main point of disagreement, then. Suffice it to say
> I've been with Wikipedia from the beginning and I do think that things are
> very bad right now, far worse than they have been in the beginning. I
> think it's becoming nearly intolerable for polite and well-meaning people
> to participate, because they're constantly having to deal with people who
> simply don't respect the rules.
It would be nice to get some specific examples. Perhaps Ed's "Annoying
users" page (if renamed) isn't such a bad idea. I have certainly observed
some people like Lir to be quite persistent and sometimes silly, but I
have also noticed quite a bit of hysteria from the other side (see the
recent "Lir again" thread).
So maybe we should start collecting individual case histories and examine
them in more detail, instead of relying on our personal observations
entirely. This might allow us to come up with better policies, and
quantify the need for stronger enforcement.
> In that case, we can
> always collect a list of people who have been driven away or who have
> quietly stopped editing so much out of disgust with having to deal with
> people who just don't get it.
That's not the kind of list I'm talking about, because it only tells us
about the reactions, not the actual actions. You may say that these people
were driven away by silly eedjots, but I cannot tell whether this is true
without looking at the actual conflicts. Often I've seen so-called experts
on Wikipedia try to stop reasonable debate by simple assertion of their
authority. This doesn't work, and this shouldn't work on Wikipedia, and if
they can't handle that fact, it's my turn to say they should better leave.
> I'm talking about a body of trusted members, not an "elite." Tarring the
> proposal with that word isn't an argument.
Sorry, but I do not really see much of a difference. A group with superior
powers is an elite, trusted or not. The word "elite" requires a certain
stability of that position, though, so it might not apply to an approach
of random moderation privileges.
> Well, the times I'm concerned about aren't necessarily times when people
> are shouting against the majority, but when they write nonsense, brazen
> political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so forth--in other
> words, violating community standards.
Do you mean nonsense in the sense of "something that just isn't true" or
in the sense of simple noise, like crapflooders? How do you plan to define
/ recognize "crankish unspported stuff"?
Yes, I know, there are egregious cases where we would all agree that they
are not tolerable. I'm just worried that such terms might mean different
things to different people, and if we adopt them, we risk suppression of
non-mainstream opinions. Is Wikipedia's page about MKULTRA, a CIA mind
control project, nonsense, crankish? No, it's not, it really happened, but
the large majority of Americans would never believe that.
>>> I am, like many others, a big believer in the concept of "soft
> security".
> Why don't you explain exactly what that means here on the list, and why
> you and others think it's such a good thing?
The idea of soft security has evolved in wikis, and it is only fair to
point you to the respective page at MeatballWiki for the social and
technical components of soft security:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity
As to why I, personally, think it's a good idea, that's simple: Once you
introduce hard security mechanisms like banning, deletion etc., you create
an imbalance of power, which in turn creates a risk of abuse of said power
against those who do not have it. Abuse of power can have many different
results, it can encourage groupthink, drive newbies away, censor
legitimate material, ban legitimate users etc. We already *have* a
situation where we occasionally ban legitimate users and delete legitimate
material. We need to get away from this. I am absolutely disgusted by the
thought that we are already banning completely innocent users.
My underlying philosophy here is that it's worse to punish an innocent man
than to let a guilty man go free.
> It seems to me that in growing numbers people refuse to bow to "peer
> pressure" or to be "educated" about anything regarding Wikipedia.
I'd like to see evidence of those growing numbers. Wikipedia's overall
number of users has been growing constantly, are we talking about absolute
growth or relative growth? Again, we should try to collect empirical
evidence.
> Without generally-accepted standards and moral authority and the shame
> culture that accompanies them, peer pressure is impossible.
Yes, but in my opinion, the worst way to attain authority is through the
exercise of superior power. The best way is through respect. With the
trusted user groups that are part of my certification scheme, it might be
easier to build a reputation.
> Peer pressure seemd to work relatively well in the past. It is working
> less and less well as the project has grown and since I left a position of
> official authority.
Well, you know that I disagree about the effect of your departure on the
project, so let's not go into that again.
> They do certainly cool down conflicts if the person receiving the
> statement knows that the person issuing the statement has the authority to
> do something about it. They also let the recipient know that there are
> some lines that just can't be crossed without the community taking a
> forthright stand against it.
I think this kind of last resort authority should not be concentrated but
distributed. If a poll shows that many members think that member X has
"crossed the line", this sends a much stronger message than any non-
totalitarian scheme of concentrated authority. Especially if last resort
measures like banning *can* be approved by the majority.
It appears that Jimbo opposes voting, though, so you might be able to
convince him of your stance.
> When the disagreement concerns Wikipedia policies and obvious
> interpretations of them, when the violator of those policies does so
> brazenly, knowingly, and mockingly--and surely you've been around long
> enough to know that this happens not infrequently now--then it's not
> particularly important that we "express respect for the other person's
> view." By then, it's clear that diplomacy will not solve the problem.
Yes, I agree that those cases exist. But I also believe that we need to
have a lot of patience when dealing with newbies. Not an infinite amount,
but a lot. And I think everyone should be given the opportunity to
rehabilitate themselves.
> Please do acknowledge that some newbies (and a few not-so-newbies) really
> *are* destructive, at least sometimes. And that's a really *serious*
> problem, that we must not ignore simply because it violates our righteous
> liberal sensibilities (I have 'em too; I am a libertarian but not an
> anarchist).
True.
> You seem to be implying that, if we simply were nice to people, cranks,
> trolls, vandals, and other destructive elements would be adequately
> manageable.
No, I just consider hard security a last resort, to be used carefully and
only when all else fails (as to when we know that is the case, we might
actually develop a timeframe of conflict resolution, based on data about
previous conflicts).
> First, Wikipedia has grown a lot. It's the biggest wiki project in the
> world. We *can't* make people nice as you suggest.
Allow me to psychoanalyze a bit. My experience is that most people just
want to be respected, to be part of the "club", but some people have
failed in their life to learn the necessary behaviors to do so. Sometimes
we are dealing with years of problematic experiences, and often we cannot
really help these people, I agree. But I've also seen the opposite cases,
especially on Kuro5hin, where the combination of peer pressure and voting/
rating has driven many trolls away or made them serious (although often
somewhat unskilled) contributors. Why? Because they learned which
behaviors worked and which didn't.
The best example I can think of is a troll called OOG THE CAVEMAN. At
first he would troll and post crap in all upper case. A large number of
his comments were hidden by majority vote, and OOG suddenly started
posting on-topic comments. They still weren't rated highly or of high
quality, but he stopped his behavior. I've seen (but not recorded) similar
turnarounds.
To make this work, we probably need both the carrot and the stick. But I
disagree with the Christian philosophy of "Spare the rod, spoil the
child". Force should not be used as a training mechanism but strictly for
self protection. We should try to *always* be friendly and courteous, even
if we ban people.
> Third, your proposal requires that the best members of Wikipedia follow
> around and politely educate an ever-growing group of destructive members.
> We've tried that. We've lost a number of members as a result, and I
> personally am tempted, every so often, to completely forget about
> Wikipedia, and resign it to the dogs. But I don't want to do that. I
> still feel some responsibility for it, and I think I helped build it to
> where it is now. I don't want to see something that I've helped build
> wear away into something awful.
Again, I'm not seeing that happen. I've seen many articles improve
rapidly, though. Simple vandalism is a growing problem and really putting
the wiki model to the test. We might consider a rather simple solution:
edits only for logged in members. This drastically limits the
accessibility of the wiki, but we do have a core of contributors, and if
we can't grow without losing some of them, maybe we should slow our
growth.
(user-to-user comm.)
> We do this automatically, of necessity, on talk pages. No internal
> messaging system would be better than direct constructive criticism on
> offending pages.
Talk pages are nice, but they have the disadvantage of being not very
personal. The mentor idea truly centers around building a social bond.
Although you might not want to "bond" with strangers, I can tell you with
authority that some people are very, very good at this, and actually enjoy
it a lot. Within a sufficiently large community, which Wikipedia is, you
will have such mentors.
> But one reason I'm worried about the current state of Wikipedia is that we
> might have some expert reviewers coming in to do some good work here, only
> to be attacked by some eedjit who gets his jollies out of attacking an
> expert precisely because she's an expert. That *will* happen, almost
> certainly, if the Wikipedia peer review project gets going.
Well, I can predict that I'm going to "attack" experts myself if they add
non-NPOV content, fail to cite sources properly, insist on their authority
to make their point etc. As you want me to acknowledge the problem of
vandals and cranks (which I do), it would be nice if you would acknowledge
the fallibility of experts more often. My view on experts and what makes
an expert is very different from yours, but I believe both views can
coexist in a good certification system.
> The whole reason behind a random sample is precisely to forestall the sort
> of "elitism" and abuse of power that you fear.
I know, and I respect this good intention. I just don't think it's the
right approach, it will only lead to less informed decisions. Better keep
the decision process open to (almost) everybody (we need to prevent vote
flooding as well), that way we can reduce abuse of power the most
effectively. That's why K5's moderation system works and Slashdot's
doesn't.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1402
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce) (fwd)
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Sat Nov 9 22:50:37 UTC 2002
Cunctator opines:
>> There seems to be a pretty fixed number of Wikipedians who write "write
nonsense, brazen political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff" on a
consistent basis.
And that fixed number can be counted on one hand.
It is a problem that people stop editing out of frustration, but the
evidence just isn't there that this is a ballooning problem. <<
I'm not just concerned about the ones who do it "on a consistent basis."
I'm really concerned about the behavior, not the people. Moreover, the
number of people who have polluted Wikipedia to any very significant
degree in these ways would easily run into the many dozens. That's not
counting the mere vandals. We've just forgotten about them because
they've gone away, in many cases very quickly. The ones whose names
immediately come to mind can be counted on one hand, yes.
I admit of course that I was merely stating my own opinion as to the
seriousness of the problem. It's hard to quantify, but it seems
completely obvious to me. It's not like there was a golden age of
Wikipedia when everyone was friendly and cranks weren't in sight. On the
other hand, I remember writing at one point (for the "replies to our
critics" page, I think) that we hadn't had many problems with cranks and
internecine warfare. Now, I really couldn't write that, and I suspect the
"replies" page should be updated, if it hasn't already been.
What do the rest of you think?
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1403
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 9 22:46:01 UTC 2002
> but when they write nonsense, brazen political
> propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so
> forth
But very often one person's "brazen political
propaganda" is another person's "neutral point of
view". I don't see any way around this problem.
> some lines that just can't be crossed without the
> community taking a forthright stand against it.
Who defines who the "community" is? If one person
comes who the "community" sees as a crank, that
doesn't make them a crank. If twenty people come who
the "community" sees as cranks, that still doesn't
make them cranks. And if enough cranks come that they
become the majority, does that make the old-timers the
new "cranks"?
Wikipedia strives to neutrally present all points of
view, but that really is impossible since there is no
"gold standard" of neutrality.
> It seems to me that in growing numbers people refuse
> to bow to "peer pressure" or to be "educated" about
> anything regarding Wikipedia.
If there is a difference of opinion where one
wikipedia member is in opposition to five hundred
wikipedia members, then it could just as well be said
that the five hundred are failing to bow to "peer
pressure" or to be "educated" by the one. Might does
not make right, and the so-called "community" is
dangerously close to mob rule.
If Wikipedia is to have long-term standards, then I
don't see any way to maintain them other than to
simply state that they exist, state that they will be
enforced, and stop trying to justify them behind
higher principles.
Of course, all of this is IMHO.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1404
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce) (fwd)
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Sun Nov 10 00:02:19 UTC 2002
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 02:50:37PM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
> I admit of course that I was merely stating my own opinion as to the
> seriousness of the problem. It's hard to quantify, but it seems
> completely obvious to me. It's not like there was a golden age of
> Wikipedia when everyone was friendly and cranks weren't in sight. On the
> other hand, I remember writing at one point (for the "replies to our
> critics" page, I think) that we hadn't had many problems with cranks and
> internecine warfare. Now, I really couldn't write that, and I suspect the
> "replies" page should be updated, if it hasn't already been.
>
> What do the rest of you think?
It seems to me that the proportion of bad edits, and bad users, is no
worse now than it has generally been in the last year.
I worry that any proposed cure may be worse than the disease.
I _would_ like to see clearer guidelines on when it is appropriate to
ban people and to freeze pages. I agree with you that currently we have
users doing these things (and threatening to do them) in circumstances
which would have been surprising a year ago.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1405
[Wikipedia-l] Someone erased the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Nov 10 00:29:01 UTC 2002
On Saturday 09 November 2002 16:03, Imran Ghory wrote:
> It's running an open proxy on port 80.
Hmm. It's no longer listed in DSBL, but if it's still open it soon will be.
It's listed in Osirusoft. I'm going to block it.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1406
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Sun Nov 10 09:44:12 UTC 2002
let's see how all this soft security & community expectation stuff
really works: (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?CommunityExpectation
and http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity)
How about we ask Throbbing Monster Cock to:
1) change his/her user name (and thereby invite Isis back)
2) stop being so literal and obstinate on the "Hitler has only..." page
(where everynoe so far disagrees with TMC's interpretation of the
principles of copyright)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1407
[Wikipedia-l] Lir yet again
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 10 11:16:13 UTC 2002
Lir just made a Wikipedians page titled "Anti-American_users" which has (as
the title would indicate) caused a storm of unproductive flames. Pages like
this shouldn't exist because of the divisiveness they cause. They do not
further our goal of creating an encyclopedia and only lead to mean
spiritedness. I vote for removal. See the talk page for more.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
--mav
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1408
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
erik_moeller at gmx.de
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Sun Nov 10 11:45:00 UTC 2002
> 1) change his/her user name (and thereby invite Isis back)
I disagree here. I think his username is perfectly valid, and Cock clearly
explains his stance on his page, quite humorously even. If it drives other
people away, that's unfortunate, but these people would likely be driven
away by other "offensive" content on Wikipedia which we want to preserve.
I could see a much stronger argument made about removing the goatse.cx
link from the goatse.cx article, for example.
If soft security doesn't work here, it's because you do not have enough
community support for your desire to get him to change his nick.
> 2) stop being so literal and obstinate on the "Hitler has only..." page
> (where everynoe so far disagrees with TMC's interpretation of the
> principles of copyright)
I agree here. Do not judge TMC because of his behavior on that page alone,
though. He has made quite a few perfectly valid contributions, and in this
matter, he simply disagrees with the majority, and has presented arguments
to make his case. I think these arguments are wrong, but hard security
would not get us anywhere.
This is an edit conflict where I think voting would be an appropriate
conflict resolution mechanism. First, however, we should try restoring the
original version after waiting for a few days.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1409
[Wikipedia-l] Lir yet again
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at gower.pl
Sun Nov 10 12:31:58 UTC 2002
On 10-11-2002, Daniel Mayer wrote thusly :
> Lir just made a Wikipedians page titled "Anti-American_users" which has (as
> the title would indicate) caused a storm of unproductive flames. Pages like
> this shouldn't exist because of the divisiveness they cause. They do not
> further our goal of creating an encyclopedia and only lead to mean
> spiritedness. I vote for removal. See the talk page for more.
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
I agree with you and vote for removal too.
Is it at all possible to work out policies to discourage political POV
and propaganda that is totally against the principal goals of Wikipedia ?
I'd rather refrain from any hard security measures.
Regards,
Kpjas.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1410
[Wikipedia-l] Lir yet again
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Sun Nov 10 12:46:37 UTC 2002
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>On 10-11-2002, Daniel Mayer wrote thusly :
>
>
>>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
>>
>>
>I agree with you and vote for removal too.
>
>
Gone.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1411
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Sun Nov 10 17:23:02 UTC 2002
erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:
>>2) stop being so literal and obstinate on the "Hitler has only..." page
>>(where everynoe so far disagrees with TMC's interpretation of the
>>principles of copyright)
>>
>>
>
>I agree here. Do not judge TMC because of his behavior on that page alone,
>though. He has made quite a few perfectly valid contributions, and in this
>matter, he simply disagrees with the majority, and has presented arguments
>to make his case. I think these arguments are wrong, but hard security
>would not get us anywhere.
>
>This is an edit conflict where I think voting would be an appropriate
>conflict resolution mechanism. First, however, we should try restoring the
>original version after waiting for a few days.
>
Well I'd LIKE to except TMC will come gallumphing back and delete the
lyrics again.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1412
[Wikipedia-l] Lir yet again
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Sun Nov 10 17:26:06 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>Lir just made a Wikipedians page titled "Anti-American_users" which has (as
>the title would indicate) caused a storm of unproductive flames. Pages like
>this shouldn't exist because of the divisiveness they cause. They do not
>further our goal of creating an encyclopedia and only lead to mean
>spiritedness. I vote for removal. See the talk page for more.
>
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
>
>
>
Could we remove the rest of "wikipedians segregated into categories"
pages too? I don't like any of them, for the same reason.
If people can assert on the Wikipedians pages that they are vegetarian,
mac users, pagan or gay, why not assert their opposition to american
imperialism?
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1413
[Wikipedia-l] Lir yet again
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Sun Nov 10 17:46:39 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
>Could we remove the rest of "wikipedians segregated into categories"
>pages too? I don't like any of them, for the same reason.
>If people can assert on the Wikipedians pages that they are vegetarian,
>mac users, pagan or gay, why not assert their opposition to american
>imperialism?
I didn't see the problem with the anti-American imperialism page, actually,
except that it was titled poorly (IIRC it was "anti-American," rather than anti-
imperialism or anti-American imperialism).
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1414
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Sun Nov 10 19:36:52 UTC 2002
|From: tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com>
|Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:23:02 +0000
|
|erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:
|
|>>2) stop being so literal and obstinate on the "Hitler has only..." page
|>>(where everynoe so far disagrees with TMC's interpretation of the
|>>principles of copyright)
|>>
|>>
|>
|>I agree here. Do not judge TMC because of his behavior on that page alone,
|>though. He has made quite a few perfectly valid contributions, and in this
|>matter, he simply disagrees with the majority, and has presented arguments
|>to make his case. I think these arguments are wrong, but hard security
|>would not get us anywhere.
<snip rest>
Comparison of "perfectly valid contributions" for judging:
TMC:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Throbbing_Monster_Cock
Isis:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Isis
Me:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Ortolan88
TMC states on his user page that he believes the Wikipedia is "doomed
to to failure at worst or uselessness at best" and explicitly states
his opposition to NPOV. Despite his pose of bold nihilism, and his
pretense that the name is pure poultry, he is so embarrassed by his
user name that he never uses it, even on his own pages.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1415
[Wikipedia-l] Soft Bans?
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Sun Nov 10 19:56:17 UTC 2002
If we set a cookie in the browsers of all Wikipedia visitors, anonymous or
not, we could the assign them random global user IDs. Instead of banning users
by IP, we could ban them by GUID, which would eliminate the risk of
accidentally banning legitimate contributors.
While the majority of users have cookies enabled, a minority does not, so
"soft bans" as I like to call them would not work for them. Other users might
be smart enough to turn cookies off to avoid the ban. But I consider both
beyond the technical understanding of most vandals, so I think soft bans might be
quite efficient.
What do you think?
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1416
[Wikipedia-l] IP to watch
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sun Nov 10 21:29:20 UTC 2002
I just unblocked 24.64.223.205 at the request of a legitimate user who was
trying to use the proxy. This was used a few weeks ago to vandalize [[Longest
word in the English language]]. Where do I put the IP to watch?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1417
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 01:07:12 UTC 2002
Hysteria? I'm getting very very close to the point where I find my usefulness to the Wikipedia as being not only denigrated but unappreciated.
Zoe
erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:> That's probably one main point of disagreement, then. Suffice it to say
> I've been with Wikipedia from the beginning and I do think that things are
> very bad right now, far worse than they have been in the beginning. I
> think it's becoming nearly intolerable for polite and well-meaning people
> to participate, because they're constantly having to deal with people who
> simply don't respect the rules.
It would be nice to get some specific examples. Perhaps Ed's "Annoying
users" page (if renamed) isn't such a bad idea. I have certainly observed
some people like Lir to be quite persistent and sometimes silly, but I
have also noticed quite a bit of hysteria from the other side (see the
recent "Lir again" thread).
So maybe we should start collecting individual case histories and examine
them in more detail, instead of relying on our personal observations
entirely. This might allow us to come up with better policies, and
quantify the need for stronger enforcement.
> In that case, we can
> always collect a list of people who have been driven away or who have
> quietly stopped editing so much out of disgust with having to deal with
> people who just don't get it.
That's not the kind of list I'm talking about, because it only tells us
about the reactions, not the actual actions. You may say that these people
were driven away by silly eedjots, but I cannot tell whether this is true
without looking at the actual conflicts. Often I've seen so-called experts
on Wikipedia try to stop reasonable debate by simple assertion of their
authority. This doesn't work, and this shouldn't work on Wikipedia, and if
they can't handle that fact, it's my turn to say they should better leave.
> I'm talking about a body of trusted members, not an "elite." Tarring the
> proposal with that word isn't an argument.
Sorry, but I do not really see much of a difference. A group with superior
powers is an elite, trusted or not. The word "elite" requires a certain
stability of that position, though, so it might not apply to an approach
of random moderation privileges.
> Well, the times I'm concerned about aren't necessarily times when people
> are shouting against the majority, but when they write nonsense, brazen
> political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so forth--in other
> words, violating community standards.
Do you mean nonsense in the sense of "something that just isn't true" or
in the sense of simple noise, like crapflooders? How do you plan to define
/ recognize "crankish unspported stuff"?
Yes, I know, there are egregious cases where we would all agree that they
are not tolerable. I'm just worried that such terms might mean different
things to different people, and if we adopt them, we risk suppression of
non-mainstream opinions. Is Wikipedia's page about MKULTRA, a CIA mind
control project, nonsense, crankish? No, it's not, it really happened, but
the large majority of Americans would never believe that.
>>> I am, like many others, a big believer in the concept of "soft
> security".
> Why don't you explain exactly what that means here on the list, and why
> you and others think it's such a good thing?
The idea of soft security has evolved in wikis, and it is only fair to
point you to the respective page at MeatballWiki for the social and
technical components of soft security:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity
As to why I, personally, think it's a good idea, that's simple: Once you
introduce hard security mechanisms like banning, deletion etc., you create
an imbalance of power, which in turn creates a risk of abuse of said power
against those who do not have it. Abuse of power can have many different
results, it can encourage groupthink, drive newbies away, censor
legitimate material, ban legitimate users etc. We already *have* a
situation where we occasionally ban legitimate users and delete legitimate
material. We need to get away from this. I am absolutely disgusted by the
thought that we are already banning completely innocent users.
My underlying philosophy here is that it's worse to punish an innocent man
than to let a guilty man go free.
> It seems to me that in growing numbers people refuse to bow to "peer
> pressure" or to be "educated" about anything regarding Wikipedia.
I'd like to see evidence of those growing numbers. Wikipedia's overall
number of users has been growing constantly, are we talking about absolute
growth or relative growth? Again, we should try to collect empirical
evidence.
> Without generally-accepted standards and moral authority and the shame
> culture that accompanies them, peer pressure is impossible.
Yes, but in my opinion, the worst way to attain authority is through the
exercise of superior power. The best way is through respect. With the
trusted user groups that are part of my certification scheme, it might be
easier to build a reputation.
> Peer pressure seemd to work relatively well in the past. It is working
> less and less well as the project has grown and since I left a position of
> official authority.
Well, you know that I disagree about the effect of your departure on the
project, so let's not go into that again.
> They do certainly cool down conflicts if the person receiving the
> statement knows that the person issuing the statement has the authority to
> do something about it. They also let the recipient know that there are
> some lines that just can't be crossed without the community taking a
> forthright stand against it.
I think this kind of last resort authority should not be concentrated but
distributed. If a poll shows that many members think that member X has
"crossed the line", this sends a much stronger message than any non-
totalitarian scheme of concentrated authority. Especially if last resort
measures like banning *can* be approved by the majority.
It appears that Jimbo opposes voting, though, so you might be able to
convince him of your stance.
> When the disagreement concerns Wikipedia policies and obvious
> interpretations of them, when the violator of those policies does so
> brazenly, knowingly, and mockingly--and surely you've been around long
> enough to know that this happens not infrequently now--then it's not
> particularly important that we "express respect for the other person's
> view." By then, it's clear that diplomacy will not solve the problem.
Yes, I agree that those cases exist. But I also believe that we need to
have a lot of patience when dealing with newbies. Not an infinite amount,
but a lot. And I think everyone should be given the opportunity to
rehabilitate themselves.
> Please do acknowledge that some newbies (and a few not-so-newbies) really
> *are* destructive, at least sometimes. And that's a really *serious*
> problem, that we must not ignore simply because it violates our righteous
> liberal sensibilities (I have 'em too; I am a libertarian but not an
> anarchist).
True.
> You seem to be implying that, if we simply were nice to people, cranks,
> trolls, vandals, and other destructive elements would be adequately
> manageable.
No, I just consider hard security a last resort, to be used carefully and
only when all else fails (as to when we know that is the case, we might
actually develop a timeframe of conflict resolution, based on data about
previous conflicts).
> First, Wikipedia has grown a lot. It's the biggest wiki project in the
> world. We *can't* make people nice as you suggest.
Allow me to psychoanalyze a bit. My experience is that most people just
want to be respected, to be part of the "club", but some people have
failed in their life to learn the necessary behaviors to do so. Sometimes
we are dealing with years of problematic experiences, and often we cannot
really help these people, I agree. But I've also seen the opposite cases,
especially on Kuro5hin, where the combination of peer pressure and voting/
rating has driven many trolls away or made them serious (although often
somewhat unskilled) contributors. Why? Because they learned which
behaviors worked and which didn't.
The best example I can think of is a troll called OOG THE CAVEMAN. At
first he would troll and post crap in all upper case. A large number of
his comments were hidden by majority vote, and OOG suddenly started
posting on-topic comments. They still weren't rated highly or of high
quality, but he stopped his behavior. I've seen (but not recorded) similar
turnarounds.
To make this work, we probably need both the carrot and the stick. But I
disagree with the Christian philosophy of "Spare the rod, spoil the
child". Force should not be used as a training mechanism but strictly for
self protection. We should try to *always* be friendly and courteous, even
if we ban people.
> Third, your proposal requires that the best members of Wikipedia follow
> around and politely educate an ever-growing group of destructive members.
> We've tried that. We've lost a number of members as a result, and I
> personally am tempted, every so often, to completely forget about
> Wikipedia, and resign it to the dogs. But I don't want to do that. I
> still feel some responsibility for it, and I think I helped build it to
> where it is now. I don't want to see something that I've helped build
> wear away into something awful.
Again, I'm not seeing that happen. I've seen many articles improve
rapidly, though. Simple vandalism is a growing problem and really putting
the wiki model to the test. We might consider a rather simple solution:
edits only for logged in members. This drastically limits the
accessibility of the wiki, but we do have a core of contributors, and if
we can't grow without losing some of them, maybe we should slow our
growth.
(user-to-user comm.)
> We do this automatically, of necessity, on talk pages. No internal
> messaging system would be better than direct constructive criticism on
> offending pages.
Talk pages are nice, but they have the disadvantage of being not very
personal. The mentor idea truly centers around building a social bond.
Although you might not want to "bond" with strangers, I can tell you with
authority that some people are very, very good at this, and actually enjoy
it a lot. Within a sufficiently large community, which Wikipedia is, you
will have such mentors.
> But one reason I'm worried about the current state of Wikipedia is that we
> might have some expert reviewers coming in to do some good work here, only
> to be attacked by some eedjit who gets his jollies out of attacking an
> expert precisely because she's an expert. That *will* happen, almost
> certainly, if the Wikipedia peer review project gets going.
Well, I can predict that I'm going to "attack" experts myself if they add
non-NPOV content, fail to cite sources properly, insist on their authority
to make their point etc. As you want me to acknowledge the problem of
vandals and cranks (which I do), it would be nice if you would acknowledge
the fallibility of experts more often. My view on experts and what makes
an expert is very different from yours, but I believe both views can
coexist in a good certification system.
> The whole reason behind a random sample is precisely to forestall the sort
> of "elitism" and abuse of power that you fear.
I know, and I respect this good intention. I just don't think it's the
right approach, it will only lead to less informed decisions. Better keep
the decision process open to (almost) everybody (we need to prevent vote
flooding as well), that way we can reduce abuse of power the most
effectively. That's why K5's moderation system works and Slashdot's
doesn't.
Regards,
Erik
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021110/f9637b09/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1418
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 11 01:22:45 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>Toby, that was a smelly thing to say.
I can't argue with you about that.
I apologise for stinking up the list.
>And Cunct, please stop being such a prick.
A less smelly body part.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1419
[Wikipedia-l] Name-calling and hair-pulling
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 11 01:24:16 UTC 2002
Tom Parmenter wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Ed Poor wrote:
>>>Why are you so cantankerous? You, you -- you CURMUDGEON!
>>Comparing our personalities:
>>Is Ed calling somebody "curmudgeon"
>>equivalent to me calling somebody "asshole"?
>>Remember, it's all relative to what we normally say.
>>^_^
>No, it's relative to civility and incivility; "darn" is not as
>offensive as "damn" no matter who says it.
That's not what I was referring to.
I meant the equivalent in terms of the speaker's internal thoughts.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1420
[Wikipedia-l] Just blocked someone
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 11 01:29:40 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>Cunctator, it seems to me that you don't care that you have alienated, put
>off, not just Toby and Gareth but a large number of people on the project.
What's particularly upsetting to *me* is that I agree with Cunc
about half the time, and especially when I'm in a minority position.
Much as I have come to dislike him personally,
I think that the project would be worse off
if he weren't here participating in these discussions.
But I will try to keep my personal opinion to myself in the future.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1421
[Wikipedia-l] user windt
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 11 01:41:58 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
>User Windt has posted two (so far) copyvios, PInk (singer) and Zero Mostel.
>since it's a registered usernam I can't block.
>i'm about to log off, so can someone else keep an eye out?
I came upon this 6 days after Tarquin posted it,
but there was still an item that was missed: [[Toni Braxton]].
(I just mention this for those that might assume that
they should ignore a message like this 6 days after it was posted.)
User Windt appears to be same as anonymous user 161.114.1.185,
who also made two apparently useful edits at the same time:
fixing [[October 7]] and [[October 8]] so that Braxton's birthday
is correctly recorded, at least according to the copied biography.
(I just mention this for those that might assume that
copyright infringers aren't interested in improving Wikipedia.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1422
[Wikipedia-l] Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce them
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 11 01:45:55 UTC 2002
Tom Parmenter wrote:
>People are confusing the Wikipedia (particularly talk pages) with the
>Usenet. If non-participating "moderators" were willing to jump in,
>delete nonsense from talk pages, and enforce civility, even incoherent
>or ideological contributors can learn NPOV.
I like the idea that people come from outside the discussion
to impose civility in this fashion by moderating.
We don't have to give people extraordinary powers for us to do this.
(To a large extent, this is what Ed Poor has been doing the whole time.)
These actions would be based on moral authority, not police force.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1423
[Wikipedia-l] Don't be stupid! Be cool!
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 11 03:22:52 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote in part:
>If you have some issue with me you should feel free to e-mail me at
>lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com or contact me at AIM MarderIII ...
I was checking these out, and I found <http://qwert.diaryland.com/>.
I have a question: is all of this stuff yours?
(I assume that <http://qwert.diaryland.com/021107_46.html> is ^_^.)
Or is some of that writing by Adam Jacob [name omitted for privacy reasons]
(<http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_[name omitted for privacy reasons]>)?
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1424
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Mon Nov 11 05:13:50 UTC 2002
Quotes from me are preceded by >, from Erik by >> and followed by <<.
> That's probably one main point of disagreement, then. Suffice it to
> say I've been with Wikipedia from the beginning and I do think that
> things are very bad right now, far worse than they have been in the
> beginning. I think it's becoming nearly intolerable for polite and
> well-meaning people to participate, because they're constantly having
> to deal with people who simply don't respect the rules.
>> It would be nice to get some specific examples. <<
How many specific examples would it take to convince you, I wonder? I
doubt I could produce enough, because our difference is philosophical.
>> Perhaps Ed's "Annoying users" page (if renamed) isn't such a bad idea. <<
Due respect to Ed, but I seriously doubt that.
>> I have certainly observed some people like Lir to be quite persistent
and sometimes silly, but I have also noticed quite a bit of hysteria from
the other side (see the recent "Lir again" thread). <<
Hysteria? I have to support Zoe here; Lir is a disruptive child, and she
should probably be banned. In saying this I am not aware of being
"hysterical." When you seemingly coolly accuse people of "hysteria,"
Erik, the word implies that the people responding to Lir are purely
motivated by irrational emotions and, like literally hysterical neurotics
like Freud studied, merely have emotional problems.
So, here you come out more or less in favor of Lir, because others have
banned her and/or are suggesting that she should be banned; and you accuse
others, who are trying to keep Wikipedia a ***PRODUCTIVE*** project, of
being "hysterical."
>> So maybe we should start collecting individual case histories and
examine them in more detail, instead of relying on our personal
observations entirely. This might allow us to come up with better
policies, and quantify the need for stronger enforcement. <<
No. Our collective experience is more than enough proof that we need
*consistent* enforcement, Erik, not *stronger* enforcement. Right now we
have very strong enforcement. Your interest is obviously not in reducing
power but in keeping power distributed among a lot of different people who
use it in totally different, inconsistent ways, and none of which has any
particular respect among other users. Virtually anyone can, for the
asking, get sysop privileges and start banning IPs and locking pages.
That certainly appears to be mob rule and by golly, in my experience on
Wikipedia lately I have to say it certainly *feels* like mob rule.
If we had power concentrated in the power of a rotating group of trusted
individuals who could be appealed to to enforce the *actual rules* that we
now have on the project--we do have rules on the project, but the
enforcement mechanism for them is no longer working, I think--then there
would be, as there is not now, *clear consequences* for breaking the
rules. These people would have moral authority and respect that *no one*
can command right now.
> In that case, we can always collect a list of people who have been
> driven away or who have quietly stopped editing so much out of disgust
> with having to deal with people who just don't get it.
>> That's not the kind of list I'm talking about, because it only tells us
about the reactions, not the actual actions. You may say that these people
were driven away by silly eedjots, but I cannot tell whether this is true
without looking at the actual conflicts. <<
Be serious--look at what you just wrote. Does anyone other than you
really need it to be proven? It's *obvious* to anyone who has observed
very many of the people who have left the project in disgust. It's also
quite obviously the fact that we have to tolerate a bunch of people who
just don't want to play by the rules--even after being told what the rules
are and that those rules are indeed not going to be changed--that a lot of
highly qualified people see the website and decide not to participate.
>> Often I've seen so-called experts on Wikipedia try to stop reasonable
debate by simple assertion of their authority. This doesn't work, and this
shouldn't work on Wikipedia, and if they can't handle that fact, it's my
turn to say they should better leave. <<
Wait a second. Take a step back and put this exchange into context. I
said that Wikipedia is descending into a sort of mob rule, and that this
has driven away, and will continue to drive away, some of our best
contributors. You reply, here, by defending the mob against the experts.
This seems to me to imply that you simply value the radical freedom and
openness in Wikipedia--which I wholeheartedly agree is one main key to its
success--above retaining the people who can write and have written some of
the best articles in the project.
I think your priorities are seriously askew.
> I'm talking about a body of trusted members, not an "elite." Tarring
> the proposal with that word isn't an argument.
>> Sorry, but I do not really see much of a difference. A group with
superior powers is an elite, trusted or not. The word "elite" requires a
certain stability of that position, though, so it might not apply to an
approach of random moderation privileges. <<
That shows that you're essentially viewing this ideologically, and that
you're expecting the rest of us to buy an essentially anarchistic
ideology: *any* group of trusted members who has powers others don't have
is *by definition* an "elite." But in the mouths of any libertarian or
anarchist, "elites" (and "cabals") are necessarily evil. Hence anyone
distinguished by special powers is an evil elite and to be opposed.
The result of this ideology is that *anyone* who is distinguished in any
way that results in their having more authority--whether officially or
unofficially--will be opposed as an evil "elite" or "cabal" by you and
people like you. Thus we have a small but **far** too vocal band of
Wikipedians who oppose virtually everything that implies any distinctions:
banning, neutrality, prising off meta-discussion from article creation,
and any community standards generally.
They, like every committed Wikipedian, can't help but derive pleasure from
the fact that we have built up a huge structure of knowledge. But they
have a woefully incomplete idea what makes it possible. What makes it
possible is precisely the *combination* of freedom, which makes it easy to
contribute, *and* enforced standards, which define and guide our mission.
But in the context of a wiki, the only way to enforce standards is by a
great enough proportion of contributors *respecting other contributors*
when those other contributors do try to enforce the rules. When that
breaks down--when a large enough quorum of parasites decides the rules do
not apply to them, or that nobody ought to be paid any special respect--it
naturally follows that rules will be openly flouted. (And then there are,
emboldened, people like yourself, Cunctator, and a few others who defend
the parasites because you also innately feel that nobody ought to be paid
any special respect and that there should not be any rules. How elitist.)
And then it becomes a waste of time for people who *do* want to contribute
to a project defined by rules, with a particular purpose.
> Well, the times I'm concerned about aren't necessarily times when people
> are shouting against the majority, but when they write nonsense, brazen
> political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so forth--in other
> words, violating community standards.
>> Do you mean nonsense in the sense of "something that just isn't true"
or in the sense of simple noise, like crapflooders? How do you plan to
define / recognize "crankish unspported stuff"? <<
Do you really think it would resolve anything in our discussion if I were
to supply you with an answer to these questions? No, you seem to want to
ask rhetorical questions, and the point of the questions is: there are no
clear standards whereby we can determine when community standards are
violated.
Some standards are explicitly stated and have been vigorously debated and
shaped to something well-understood and -agreed by Wikipedia's old guard
and best contributors; for example, NPOV, having lower-cased titles, and
not signing articles. Other standards are specific to a field and some of
them are known (and indeed perhaps knowable) only to people who have given
adequate time studying the subject. There are certainly clear standards
of both sorts, and the fact that there are borderline cases, where we're
not sure what to say, hardly impugns the idea that there are such clear
standards. Moreover, if it should turn out that I would be unable to
answer your rhetorical questions in general, if I should interpret them as
nonrhetorical, that would prove nothing. We proceed by practice and
experience and these, as is well understood by philosophers, engineers,
and many others, often produce excellent results even when overarching
principles describing the practice and experience are not forthcoming.
>> Yes, I know, there are egregious cases where we would all agree that
they are not tolerable. I'm just worried that such terms might mean
different things to different people, and if we adopt them, we risk
suppression of non-mainstream opinions. Is Wikipedia's page about MKULTRA,
a CIA mind control project, nonsense, crankish? No, it's not, it really
happened, but the large majority of Americans would never believe that. <<
OK, so you're worried that "crankish unsupported stuff" and other words
we'd use to describe undesirable material and behavior would be such that
we'd disagree about cases. Of course we would. But if we're reasonable
people and understand what an encyclopedia *generally* requires, and we
have much experience actually working on an encyclopedia, then we can
certainly agree on a lot of cases.
The lack of absolute unanimity in every case does not--just to give an
example--provide people an excuse to write unsupportable or provably false
stuff in articles, just for one example. It doesn't mean we can't
forthrightly eject (or completely rewrite) material that is, on any
reasonable person's view, a violation of our neutrality policy.
(As an aside, [[Neutral point of view]] has specific implications for the
case that you raise; where the implications are unclear, we use our
judgment and engage in debate.)
>>> I am, like many others, a big believer in the concept of "soft
> security".
> Why don't you explain exactly what that means here on the list, and why
> you and others think it's such a good thing?
>> The idea of soft security has evolved in wikis, and it is only fair to
point you to the respective page at MeatballWiki for the social and
technical components of soft security:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity <<
I'm not particularly interested in going to the website to find out what
you mean. If you want to introduce an unfamiliar term into a debate, it
is polite to define it. Use information from that Usemod page to make
your case, but don't expect me to go there and provide you arguments
against it here on Wikipedia-L.
>> As to why I, personally, think it's a good idea, that's simple: Once
you introduce hard security mechanisms like banning, deletion etc., you
create an imbalance of power, which in turn creates a risk of abuse of
said power against those who do not have it. Abuse of power can have many
different results, it can encourage groupthink, drive newbies away, censor
legitimate material, ban legitimate users etc. We already *have* a
situation where we occasionally ban legitimate users and delete legitimate
material. We need to get away from this. I am absolutely disgusted by the
thought that we are already banning completely innocent users. <<
Erik, two things. First, we already have banning and deletion. We aren't
debating about those, but what you write above makes it sound as if we
were. From what you say I infer that Wikipedia has LONG AGO decided
against using SoftSecurity. Those of you who promote it apparently are
trying to change it.
Second, the mere *existence* of sanctions hardly implies that those
sanctions will be abused to any degree at all. If your point is simply
"Power can be abused," I'm totally unconvinced and I don't think anyone
else will be either. Surely you must have more reason to support it than
that.
After all, as for example under my rough proposal, we can have strong and
multiple safeguards against abuse. We can have not just one moderator,
but several who are empowered to check on each other. We can make sure
that the moderators are selected on a random and rotating basis, so that
no one becomes particularly power-hungry and so that we can take
power-abusers out of the loop.
You're also forgetting that this all happens in the wide-open context of a
wiki. It's very hard to abuse power in an environment when a sizable
minority of the contributors are virtually drooling with the opportunity
to catch someone in an act of abuse of power. (I oughta know.)
You say that you're disgusted by the thought that we are already banning
innocent users. The best way we have of ensuring against that is by
adopting my proposal; it would provide for a totally open, regular,
rational method of imposing sanctions, quite unlike the present system.
We aren't going to stop banning people, Erik. So we might as well find a
rational method to do it. One that will reinvigorate a sense of
seriousness about our mission and lend moral authority to those vested
with the power to issue sanctions, something that people lack right now,
but which they SORELY need.
>> My underlying philosophy here is that it's worse to punish an innocent
man than to let a guilty man go free. <<
But that's hardly a reason never to punish anyone for anything, is it?
> It seems to me that in growing numbers people refuse to bow to "peer
> pressure" or to be "educated" about anything regarding Wikipedia.
>> I'd like to see evidence of those growing numbers. Wikipedia's overall
number of users has been growing constantly, are we talking about absolute
growth or relative growth? Again, we should try to collect empirical
evidence. <<
Since that will not be forthcoming, I am hoping that others will voice
their opinions; ultimately in any case, that's all we'll have. On the
other hand, you know as well as I do (if you've been paying attention on
Wikipedia-L) that there is a growing number of protests over the growing
anarchy that we're seeing on Wikipedia.
Again, remember, we're not talking about adopting sanctions like banning
and deleting articles; we're talking about adopting a new system whereby
they can be more consistently (and, as I would favor, **leniently**)
imposed.
> Without generally-accepted standards and moral authority and the shame
> culture that accompanies them, peer pressure is impossible.
>> Yes, but in my opinion, the worst way to attain authority is through
the exercise of superior power. The best way is through respect. With the
trusted user groups that are part of my certification scheme, it might be
easier to build a reputation. <<
I agree: the best way is through respect. However, we don't have that
luxury of being able to depend on respect alone, because respect is an
increasingly rare commodity. The situation in that regard is getting
worse, as we've discussed above.
Respect is already a factor, though, coupled with the present messy sysop
system. The people we most want to rein in are precisely the people who
*lack* respect for anybody.
> Peer pressure seemd to work relatively well in the past. It is
> working less and less well as the project has grown and since I left a
> position of official authority.
>> Well, you know that I disagree about the effect of your departure on
the project, so let's not go into that again. <<
No, Erik, I didn't know that, but I don't really care about your opinion
about that, either: that wasn't my point. My point was that peer pressure
*did* indeed work pretty well under my tenure. It seems to be working
considerably less well now. Whether my official presence had anything to
do with it, I don't know or care; I do know that the problem is far worse
than it was.
Again, you could ask the many people who have left or who have stopped
contributing as much.
> They do certainly cool down conflicts if the person receiving the
> statement knows that the person issuing the statement has the
> authority to do something about it. They also let the recipient know
> that there are some lines that just can't be crossed without the
> community taking a forthright stand against it.
>> I think this kind of last resort authority should not be concentrated
but distributed. If a poll shows that many members think that member X has
"crossed the line", this sends a much stronger message than any non-
totalitarian scheme of concentrated authority. Especially if last resort
measures like banning *can* be approved by the majority. <<
You favor a democracy, susceptible to mob rule as at present; I favor a
republic, where the representatives are in the hot glare of the public
gaze but as a result have the moral authority that individuals in mob rule
do not have.
> When the disagreement concerns Wikipedia policies and obvious
> interpretations of them, when the violator of those policies does so
> brazenly, knowingly, and mockingly--and surely you've been around long
> enough to know that this happens not infrequently now--then it's not
> particularly important that we "express respect for the other person's
> view." By then, it's clear that diplomacy will not solve the problem.
>> Yes, I agree that those cases exist. But I also believe that we need to
have a lot of patience when dealing with newbies. Not an infinite amount,
but a lot. And I think everyone should be given the opportunity to
rehabilitate themselves. <<
Well, I do agree with that, and it's not at all inconsistent with my
proposal.
> Please do acknowledge that some newbies (and a few not-so-newbies)
> really *are* destructive, at least sometimes. And that's a really
> *serious* problem, that we must not ignore simply because it violates
> our righteous liberal sensibilities (I have 'em too; I am a
> libertarian but not an anarchist).
>> True. <<
It's nice to know that you agree with that much at least.
> You seem to be implying that, if we simply were nice to people, cranks,
> trolls, vandals, and other destructive elements would be adequately
> manageable.
>> No, I just consider hard security a last resort, to be used carefully
and only when all else fails (as to when we know that is the case, we
might actually develop a timeframe of conflict resolution, based on data
about previous conflicts). <<
If by "hard security" you mean what non-Usemod readers would express by
the ordinary English word "sanctions," I tend to agree with you: actual
sanctions should be doled out carefully and only in relatively extreme
cases. But the threat of sanctions must be there and must be clear, and
the process must not be so *unnecessarily* slow and painful as to put off
valuable contributors.
I'm surprised that it turns out you can accept any "hard security" at all.
That's also nice to know.
> First, Wikipedia has grown a lot. It's the biggest wiki project in the
> world. We *can't* make people nice as you suggest.
>> Allow me to psychoanalyze a bit. <<
This is all very nice, but theorizing is no match for plain experience.
I think our experience clearly indicates that we can't make people nice if
they don't want to be. It might be different when the trolls are simply
tuned out by an efficient process. However, as I've observed before,
trolls in the context of Wikipedia can't simply be tuned out; we've got to
go around and clean up after then, in addition. And Wikipedia's trolls
seemingly get great delight in seeing others try to go around and clean up
after them.
> Third, your proposal requires that the best members of Wikipedia
> follow around and politely educate an ever-growing group of
> destructive members. We've tried that. We've lost a number of members
> as a result, and I personally am tempted, every so often, to
> completely forget about Wikipedia, and resign it to the dogs. But I
> don't want to do that. I still feel some responsibility for it, and I
> think I helped build it to where it is now. I don't want to see
> something that I've helped build wear away into something awful.
>> Again, I'm not seeing that happen. <<
Then, frankly, Erik, you haven't been paying attention, or your ideology
is blinding you to facts that seem obvious to the many others who have
commented on them on Wikipedia-l.
>> Simple vandalism is a growing problem and really putting the wiki model
to the test. We might consider a rather simple solution: edits only for
logged in members. This drastically limits the accessibility of the wiki,
but we do have a core of contributors, and if we can't grow without losing
some of them, maybe we should slow our growth. <<
Vandalism is relatively easy to deal with. I strongly dislike your
proposed solution, and I'm amazed, given what you've said above, that you
actually support it. Anyway, it's the nearly-worthless contributors who
on balance damage the project by the dross they shovel in (and the
resulting controversies and wasted time) that are the real problem.
> But one reason I'm worried about the current state of Wikipedia is
> that we might have some expert reviewers coming in to do some good
> work here, only to be attacked by some eedjit who gets his jollies out
> of attacking an expert precisely because she's an expert. That *will*
> happen, almost certainly, if the Wikipedia peer review project gets
> going.
>> Well, I can predict that I'm going to "attack" experts myself if they
add non-NPOV content, fail to cite sources properly, insist on their
authority to make their point etc. <<
Good luck. Remember, experts know more about their areas than you do.
That's why we call them experts. So don't embarrass yourself too badly.
>> My view on experts and what makes an expert is very different from
yours, but I believe both views can coexist in a good certification
system. <<
I'm a Ph.D. epistemologist. My dissertation adviser was (still is) an
expert on the concept of expertise, and I've read several papers on this
area of social epistemology as part of a graduate course. In addition, I
gave careful thought to this subject while working on Nupedia. Now, what
is that you think my view of what experts are and what makes an expert?
> The whole reason behind a random sample is precisely to forestall the
> sort of "elitism" and abuse of power that you fear.
>> I know, and I respect this good intention. I just don't think it's the
right approach, it will only lead to less informed decisions. Better keep
the decision process open to (almost) everybody (we need to prevent vote
flooding as well), that way we can reduce abuse of power the most
effectively. That's why K5's moderation system works and Slashdot's
doesn't. <<
I just have no idea why you say the system I proposed would "lead to less
informed decisions." Perhaps you should reread the proposal (even though
it was, as I said, just a rough outline); I even went so far as to suggest
that perhaps there would be a body of Wikipedia "case law" developed, that
moderators could consult. This would lead to *less* informed decisions
than in the present case, when virtually anyone can have the power to ban
and delete?
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1425
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 08:33:21 UTC 2002
On Sunday 10 November 2002 09:02 pm, Larry Sanger wrote:
> No. Our collective experience is more than enough proof that we need
> *consistent* enforcement, Erik, not *stronger* enforcement. Right now we
> have very strong enforcement.
Very strong enforcement? That's interesting I thought the whole reason why we
have been losing contributors is because we are /not/ enforcing our
Wikipetiquette policy. I think you have been out of the trenches for too long
Larry -- please join us; become a sysop again. :-)
>..... Virtually anyone can, for the
> asking, get sysop privileges and start banning IPs and locking pages.
> That certainly appears to be mob rule and by golly, in my experience on
> Wikipedia lately I have to say it certainly *feels* like mob rule.
Are you saying that the sysops are a rampaging mob or that the potential
exists for this to occur? I am offended and hurt by that implication if the
former is what you think and not the later. Some of our best and most active
contributors are sysops and I don't know of a single sysop that would wish to
harm the project (quite the contrary). We are already in the spotlight and
are accountable for our actions. Where is the abuse that you seem to imply
exists? Have I done something wrong? If so I need to know about it.
> If we had power concentrated in the power of a rotating group of trusted
> individuals who could be appealed to to enforce the *actual rules* that we
> now have on the project--we do have rules on the project, but the
> enforcement mechanism for them is no longer working, I think--then there
> would be, as there is not now, *clear consequences* for breaking the
> rules. These people would have moral authority and respect that *no one*
> can command right now.
Rotating group? How is that going to solve anything? If anything we need more
trusted sysops because there are many times when I'm the only sysop online
and I'm sure other sysops have experienced this as well. This means that
there are other times when nobody with the power to stop a vandal bot is
watching the shop. Also pretty much everybody who is a trusted member of the
community and who doesn't mind the added responsibility is already a sysop.
It would be silly to rotate this responsibility among the current sysops.
Believe me I have already tried to recruit several long time and trusted
users to become sysops. Some of them simply don't want the added
responsibility at all. That's fine and we shouldn't force this responsibility
on them. Nor should we trust sysop powers to a completely new user who is
clueless about our policies and may not really care about the project. What
does that leave us? With what we have now.
I'm not saying this because I am clinging onto the "power" of being a sysop -
that is counter to my personality type (INTJ). If we didn't have vandals, if
everybody got along, and nobody created junk pages that need to be deleted
then there would be no need for sysops and I would be a very happy person. I
for one would rather work on chemistry, biology and geology articles than
doing the dirty work of sysophood. But in the real world sysops are needed to
do this dirty work and the pool of people who can be trusted with sysop
powers is not yet large enough to enact any kind of rotating sysophood
program.
If you want to establish *clear consequences* for breaking the rules then how
about we add to each edit window a statement saying "By saving this page you
agree to the rules and conditions of using this website" (rules and
conditions would link to our policy page). Of course we would have to redo
the policy page so that only real policies are on it. The policies listed IMO
should be; NPOV, no copyright violations, 'we are an encyclopedia' and yes
Wikipetiquette. That means that conventions or rules to consider should not
be on the policy page (although consistently and purposely not following
conventions - thus knowingly causing a great deal of work for others - would
be a violation of the Wikipetiquette policy).
There should also be a clear escalation process for infringements of policy
that is rather permissive and forgiving in cases that are not outright
vandalism for at least the first few violations that the user has been made
aware of (enforcement is a haphazard and oftentimes unilateral mess right now
and is often not done for Wikipetiquette - thus we lose users). But users
that show a clear pattern of violating policy should be "gasp" told they are
doing so, told what the possible consequences are and if they ignore this
warning then hard security takes over. But there should be a clear process
that is both open and fair.
Just my POV
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1426
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Lir yet again
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 08:44:15 UTC 2002
On Sunday 10 November 2002 05:01 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> On 10-11-2002, Daniel Mayer wrote thusly :
> > Lir just made a Wikipedians page titled "Anti-American_users" which has
> > (as the title would indicate) caused a storm of unproductive flames.
> > Pages like this shouldn't exist because of the divisiveness they cause.
> > They do not further our goal of creating an encyclopedia and only lead to
> > mean spiritedness. I vote for removal. See the talk page for more.
> >
> >
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
>
> I agree with you and vote for removal too.
>
> Is it at all possible to work out policies to discourage political POV
> and propaganda that is totally against the principal goals of Wikipedia ?
> I'd rather refrain from any hard security measures.
>
> Regards,
> Kpjas.
We usually move hopelessly POV stuff to Meta. I vote for moving ALL the
Wikipedia/foo pages there (even the geographic based categories). IMO the
Wikiepdians page at en.wiki should be a alphabetic list with a link to the
the chronological "history" list that states when each user joined.
We needn't set-up different factions of users by having other categories. If
somebody is interested then they can visit the POV-friendly Meta to find out
more by following /one/ vanilla link from the Wikipedians page. I still
wouldn't enjoy seeing the Anti-American page but I really couldn't complain
much if it is in Meta.wiki - which is already filled with POV material.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1427
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Lir yet again
elian
elian at gmx.li
Mon Nov 11 12:48:27 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> writes:
> We usually move hopelessly POV stuff to Meta. I vote for moving ALL the
> Wikipedia/foo pages there (even the geographic based categories). IMO the
> Wikiepdians page at en.wiki should be a alphabetic list with a link to the
> the chronological "history" list that states when each user joined.
No, the geographical categories are really useful. If you need an
information about a country specific topic, you can ask someone there,
f.e. I would even suggest to add more categories. Wikipedia has become
quite anonymously. I think it would be useful for example to set up pages
like "people mainly interested in philosophical topics" or "music
freaks". As Wikipedia grows, we will need small communities of people
working in one field together instead of individuals filling up the
articles.
This would be also a step towards a more efficient dealing with "content
trolls", ie. people who step in, holding obscure views and imposing
their agenda onto wikipedia. One of the main problems with these people is
that they get away a long time with their behavior because the people who
try to control are not able to judge what is rubbish and what is not.
An example: in the German wikipedia I would love to have some economy
students who could at least tell which parts of the content added by our
"Freiwirtschaft"-adherent to the articles about economy are mainstream
view and which need to be marked as minority view.
Don't deny people this possibility to organize!
greetings,
elian
--
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
- Winston Churchill
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1428
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #839 - 15 msgs
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Mon Nov 11 13:45:17 UTC 2002
elian wrote:
>>But then why are users being prevented from asserting their opposition
>>to the US in its current state as a polluting warmonger ruled by an
>>oil baron despot?
>>
>>
>
>Because of the "Anti". Enlisting as a queer user says nothing about your
>attitude about non-queer people. Positive categories are fine (ecologists,
>human right or peace activists, atheist, christian or muslim), negative
>categories are evil: "anti-christian", "antisemite", because they don't say
>only something about the self-categorized person but also insult other
>people.
>
>
That's exactly why I had the "Anti-American users" page deleted (which
Lir instantly identified as "vandalism"). People who are "anti" often
don't know a better alternative, or else they could say they're
"pro"-something ;-)
Besides, having an anti-America page on an American server does
discredit itself somewhat...
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1429
Pro and contra, was: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #839 - 15 msgs
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Mon Nov 11 14:22:15 UTC 2002
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>So it's okay to be pro Osama bin Laden, but bad to be anti American? ;-)
>
>
OK, let's open a pro-Osama page. Once all have signed in (especially
americans), I'll be happy to forward the URL to the FBI. I'm sure
they'll have shut down wikipedia in no time ;-)
Seriously, while geographic location pages for users are surely OK,
political statements etc. have *no* use at all on an encyclopedia, with
the possible exception of a "list of expert users" for some topic.
"wikipedia:Muslim users" might serve a function. Your *views* should be
kept either to your user page or to the meta, where we already have
several "my view on life"-style articles.
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1430
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Mon Nov 11 14:40:06 UTC 2002
>>I have also noticed quite a bit of hysteria from the other side (see
the recent "Lir again" thread).
> Hysteria? I have to support Zoe here; Lir is a disruptive child, and
she should probably be banned.
I want to point out a couple of things about this brief interchange.
First, it is probably not in good taste to call anyone hysterical, as it
implies that the root of mental illness is the uterus. Freud's misogyny
has no place here, and while I'm aware that words have current meanings
apart from their entomology, it is important to know that the use of
this word will sometimes be deemed offensive.
Second, labeling Lir as a disruptive child is not particularly
productive. I think it would better to say that Lir's behavior is often
disruptive, and that the overall impression that this behavior gives is
one of childish stubbornness.
My overall point is that if we are looking to find "moral authority" we
need to think and act in ways which respect human dignity, and which
encourage at least a basic level of kindness and civility. Sometimes we
will miss out on this because we aren't aware that what we say could be
seen as offensive by others, and sometimes we'll miss out because we
just aren't careful with our wording, but we should always aim towards
the highest level of respect, and be willing to apologize when we fail
to live up to that standard.
I want to be clear about one thing -- this comment is not directed at
Larry or Erik specifically. In fact, I chose this exchange because I
think these two cases reflect unintentional and very minor examples of
the larger problem. But I think it is obvious that there is an larger
trend on the whole list toward open hostility and name calling, and it's
not just the most egregious examples which need to stop.
I believe that the current hostilities on the list are in effect
poisoning the village well. If this trend continues, the mailing list
will become less than useless because it does more harm to the project
than good.
Basically, I'd propose that we restate our former agreement to refrain
from "name calling" on the list as well as on Talk pages -- because
"name calling" IS disruptive and childish. I also think that we should
agree to calmly and collectively point out our disapproval of such
actions whenever they occur.
Yours
Mark Christensen
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1431
[Wikipedia-l] USER: LEAR Vandalism
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Mon Nov 11 15:47:49 UTC 2002
re user: Lear
Can someone with the privileges wipe this user's account? It's another manifestation of the persistent page-wiping vandal.
rgds
Steve C
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/253cf35d/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1432
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 16:24:53 UTC 2002
Erik decried the creation of an elite and the resultant imbalance of power.
I agree to some extent, and I do worry about the results he predicts. But as I wrote last week, we already have an elite, and there already is an imbalance of power.
Jimbo has supreme power.
The developers have all the rights of sysops, plus the "can" revoke anyone's sysop status, ban a signed-in user and permanently erase any version of any article. (This doesn't mean they're "authorized" to, just that the power is in their hands.)
The sysops can protect or "delete" a page and ban any IP, even one used by a signed-in contributor, as was done temporarily to Lir. Sysops can edit a protected page.
Ordinary signed-in users have immunity from banning, although they might have to jump through hoops if their IP is blocked. They can't delete pages, edit protected pages or block IPs. They get a user page.
The non-signed-in can edit any page except the few protected pages, and they don't get a user page. They can be blocked by any sysop.
Can anyone view this as other than a 5-level hierarchy, with each level having more power than the levels below? Are not the higher levels an elite? Is this not an "imbalance of power"?
The question is not how to avoid creating an imbalance of power, but what to do with the current imbalance. If everyone is satisfied with the 5 levels we currently have (as is Cunctator, apparently), then we need do nothing. That is what Jimbo will most likely do: don't fix it, 'cause it ain't broken.
But Larry and others are saying:
* it's broken, so fix it or I'll leave, or
* it's broken, and you didn't fix it, so I'm leaving
I'm saying:
* it's broken, so let's all put our heads together and find a way to fix it before it falls apart completely
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1433
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 16:46:13 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 11:24 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Can anyone view this as other than a 5-level hierarchy, with each level having
> more power than the levels below? Are not the higher levels an elite? Is this
> not an "imbalance of power"?
>
> The question is not how to avoid creating an imbalance of power, but what to
> do with the current imbalance. If everyone is satisfied with the 5 levels we
> currently have (as is Cunctator, apparently), then we need do nothing. That is
> what Jimbo will most likely do: don't fix it, 'cause it ain't broken.
Huh? Why would I be satisfied? There's always some improvement to be made.
A "hierarchy" describes levels of authority, rather than functionality.
There are those who, shown a doctor, a plumber, and a fry cook, would say
there's an obvious hierarchy there. But that's an unhealthy way to deal with
people.
I've been saying that Mr. Poor could frame the issue in a better manner, not
that there isn't an issue.
Mr. Poor has properly distinguished the functional categories. But to draw
conclusions from those categories about how to manage Wikipedians is
probably not the best thing. For example, a week ago I was in the same
category as Mr. Poor and Maveric. I don't think we're equivalent
Wikipedians. Now I'm in the same category as LDC and Brion Vibber. I don't
think that makes us equivalent Wikipedians.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1434
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Lir yet again
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
kpj at gower.pl
Mon Nov 11 17:17:17 UTC 2002
On 11-11-2002, elian wrote thusly :
> Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > We usually move hopelessly POV stuff to Meta. I vote for moving ALL the
> > Wikipedia/foo pages there (even the geographic based categories). IMO the
> > Wikiepdians page at en.wiki should be a alphabetic list with a link to the
> > the chronological "history" list that states when each user joined.
> No, the geographical categories are really useful. If you need an
> information about a country specific topic, you can ask someone there,
> f.e. I would even suggest to add more categories. Wikipedia has become
> quite anonymously. I think it would be useful for example to set up pages
> like "people mainly interested in philosophical topics" or "music
> freaks". As Wikipedia grows, we will need small communities of people
> working in one field together instead of individuals filling up the
> articles.
elian : The geographical categories seems quite useful and logical. I take
your point. But let's admit that they are hardly ever used the way you
are proposing.
Wikiprojects or editor teams yes but it needs more discussion. As a side
note there seems to be relatively little community spirit now in
Wikipedia(s) ?
> This would be also a step towards a more efficient dealing with "content
> trolls", ie. people who step in, holding obscure views and imposing
> their agenda onto wikipedia. One of the main problems with these people is
> that they get away a long time with their behavior because the people who
> try to control are not able to judge what is rubbish and what is not.
>
> An example: in the German wikipedia I would love to have some economy
> students who could at least tell which parts of the content added by our
> "Freiwirtschaft"-adherent to the articles about economy are mainstream
> view and which need to be marked as minority view.
> Don't deny people this possibility to organize!
Yes. It is a good idea but it should be given proper attention and
suitable software tools.
Perhaps phpBB forums, that Cuncatator has proposed, can be a temporary
solution for further integration with Wikipedias and further customization.
Regards,
Kpjas.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1435
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 17:09:42 UTC 2002
What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following all over Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical case, I assure you ;-)
"I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't stop me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1436
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 17:21:59 UTC 2002
What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
(1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software.
(2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good encyclopedia articles, that's nice too.
Which is it going to be, people?
I happen to think both are possible, but our choice of which to make PRIMARY will make all the difference. "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood..."
If we make Wiki participation primary, and allow anyone with a magic marker and a pair of scissors to come in and deface or cut out any page, eventually the vandals will overcome the project. It won't happen in 2002; but I won't take any bets on the next 3 years.
Clutch has been reined in, somewhat, by my mentoring. Lir has become bearable, but not trustworthy. While I personally don't mind spending 80% of my screen time checking up on the kids, that's because I really am a Sunday School teacher: I see the value in helping kids to grow up. However, others lack the time or patience or "talent" for this kind of mentoring.
Also, as a mentor of my friends' children, I did not only speak softly; I carried a "big stick". I could give a time out, or even do the dreaded letter-to-the-parents ploy. "Johnny, what will your parents do with you if I write them a letter telling them everything you did today?" "Oh, please, don't send that letter! I'll be good!" "Very well, go apologize to Billy." "Billy, I'm sorry I hit you!!"
Cunctator correctly points out that an analogy could be taken too far. But he misses several points:
* like a Sunday School, the Wikipedia has a lofty goal (higher ideal)
* the enjoyment of peace resulting from not being hurt by others (golden rule)
* I refused to accept students in my class whose parents required their attendance (no prisoners)
The reason attendance increased in proportion to order was that the children found out (and told their friends) how pleasant it was to be there. Kids are aware of the difference between order and chaos. They're not all imbeciles or trouble-makers; even the rambunctious ones just want to have fun. As a teacher, I channeled that desire for enjoyment in a positive direction.
Cunctator, you're never going to call me "Uncle Ed", because you're not one of the kids. You are the paradigmatic example of the rational anarchist. I may not agree with all your article edits, but I can work with you. I can't really work with Lir and her ilk.
Lir proclaimed herself Empress of Wikipedia, if you recall. We others contribute only as she deigns. Maybe this was a joke; I certainly tried to characterize it as such. But in jokes can often be found a germ of truth.
Unless a contributor shows that they place NPOV, et al., above their other goals for participation, then I for one do not and cannot trust them. I don't have to check up after the dozens of contributors I've come to admire. Sure, they might make a typo or grammar error; sure, I can tighten up some wordy prose or wikify it a bit; yes, occasionally they'll get a fact wrong by accident. But when Jeronimo or Axel, to pick just 2 out of many dozens, makes a change -- I rest tranquil in the confidence that I will not have to check for a neutrality violation. I only read the article if I'm curious about the subject.
Like Larry, Julie and the lot, I too get tired of clean-up duty. I would find it less tiresome (A) if more people would be mentors, as Erik suggests; and also (B) if we had moderators with just a bit more power and some rules that were a bit stronger and to the point than "do as you like".
I myself chose the 3 rules of my Sunday School class, after watching Ah-nuld in Kindergarten Cop. I adapted his approach to the situation and after some trial and error settled on (1) no hitting, (2) no grabbing, (3) no teasing. The only sanctions I permitted myself were (A) time-out and (B) "take this letter to your father, please" (i.e., expulsion).
I regard our situation of November 2002 as somewhere between the date I saw Kindergarten Cop and the date I settled upon the "three noes" described above. It was a period of sorting things out, in discussion with parents and church officials.
I took it upon myself to start using power, even before it was authorized. I just decided I wouldn't endure the chaos any more, and like Ah-nuld I "blew the whistle", so to speak: I appointed myself sheriff. Okay, I was a vigilante or an "elitist", a one-man "cabal". But that is often how government arises out of anarchy.
No system is perfect. The US separation of powers into legislative, executive and judiciary isn't perfect. Wikipedia works because Jimbo is a genuinely good guy. It is *de facto* a benevolent dictatorship. What will happen after control and sponsorship passes from his hands is anyone's guess.
I don't really know what is best for Wikipedia. But if I had the power to do so, I would give all sysops banning rights over signed-in contributors; with each ban undoable by any other sysop. Or we could create a super-sysop (moderator) with that power, undoable by any other moderator. This obviously leaves open the question of who should have "ban-a-signed-in-user" power. I guess we could just discuss it on the list, as we do now with granting sysop power.
But whether we do this or not, we need to come up with a clear (and preferable short) list of rules. My Sunday School rules were as short as possible, mainly so that even a 4-year-old could understand them. What is teasing? You said something that hurt his feelings. Don't call someone "stupid", okay? "Okay, teacher." Same with calling a picture someone drew "ugly". If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. These ideas are easy for children to understand.
Wikipedia is not for children. It's run by adults, and nearly of them are men. Does the fact that men are not children mean that Wikipedia need no rules, no "hard security"? Even anarchy requires guidelines or customs of some sort. If everyone carries swords and knives, then you show an open hand as sign of friendship when you approach another armed man, or you risk a sudden skewering. That's a custom -- not a law.
We have some customs. We need to review and codify them. "Ignore all rules" will have to go. "Please follow the rules or be blocked" will have to replace it.
I suggest -- and hereby formally submit for the community's consideration -- that we formulate a set of rules, which like my Sunday School's "three noes" are readily seen as mutually helpful. That is, contributors will follow the rule set we will formulate, BECAUSE DOING SO IS TO THEIR BENEFIT as well as to the benefit of others and the project as a whole.
Here is a partial list of the customs or guidelines I see as already in place:
* don't delete an entire article or insert random nonsense (no vandalism)
* don't alter other user's comments (no forgery)
* don't write partisan articles on controversial subjects (NPOV)
* don't post copyrighted material, except fair use
Here are the 3 enforcement mechanisms:
* anyone can undo a change, thus reverting the vandalism, forgery or POV violation (soft security)
* a sysop or above can ban an IP address
* developers can ban a signed-in user (not "authorized" but "can")
* Jimbo can ban a signed-in user
Is this is fine, then let's keep it. If it could possibly be improved, let's improve it.
Ed Poor
"My opinions are only mine, not my employer's."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1437
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Mon Nov 11 17:36:58 UTC 2002
Mark Christensen wrote:
>> I want to point out a couple of things about this brief interchange. <<
>> First, it is probably not in good taste to call anyone hysterical, as
it implies that the root of mental illness is the uterus. <<
It doesn't imply that for most people (who aren't familiar with Freud),
and it has nothing to do with why I think the word was inappropriate in
this case.
>> Second, labeling Lir as a disruptive child is not particularly
productive. I think it would better to say that Lir's behavior is often
disruptive, and that the overall impression that this behavior gives is
one of childish stubbornness. <<
I disagree, Mark.
>> My overall point is that if we are looking to find "moral authority" we
need to think and act in ways which respect human dignity, and which
encourage at least a basic level of kindness and civility. <<
So your point is that we have to treat even our trolls with kindness and
civility, and that is what will allow our productive members to be
respected and treated as if they had some legitimate authority on the
project? I disagree completely.
Your point too is far overstated. There is much more than we could
possibly do than simply "encouraging at least a basic level of kindness
and civility." I do agree that we should do that. I disagree that
calling a troll a disruptive child conflicts with that ideal; I would hope
that you'd be able to see that, Mark. Anyway, again, moral authority
comes from *respect*, and respect is not merely given by kindness, as many
harmless milquetoasts with no opinions of their own have found out. It is
given in addition by making useful contributions, knowing a lot about the
subject, and--this is what I think we're lacking--working in an atmosphere
in which breaking the rules has consequences that are consistently
enforced.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1438
[Wikipedia-l] What if a signed-in user started writing the following...
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 17:25:20 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 12:09 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following all over
> Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical case, I assure
> you ;-)
>
>
> "I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't stop
> me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
>
For someone who really doesn't like swearing, you seem to do it a lot.
We'd revert the changes, and probably publicly wonder what the user's
problem is. I for example would question the "hate everybody and everything"
assertion. Is that really possible? I mean, it takes a lot of energy to
truly hate. And then there's the question of if you hate everybody and
everything, why have you not committed suicide? And why choose Wikipedia as
a target? I mean, really. WP does not have that much influence or
importance, especially if the targets of your hatred are "everybody" and
"everything".
Writing the above all over Wikipedia is hardly the way to destroy it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1439
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 17:28:49 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
>
> (1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software.
>
> (2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good encyclopedia
> articles, that's nice too.
>
This is a false dilemma.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
We have one choice:
(1) We are building a free Wiki encyclopedia.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1440
[Wikipedia-l] Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce them
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Mon Nov 11 17:32:28 UTC 2002
|From: Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu>
|Content-Disposition: inline
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:45:55 -0800
|
|Tom Parmenter wrote:
|
|>People are confusing the Wikipedia (particularly talk pages) with the
|>Usenet. If non-participating "moderators" were willing to jump in,
|>delete nonsense from talk pages, and enforce civility, even incoherent
|>or ideological contributors can learn NPOV.
|
|I like the idea that people come from outside the discussion
|to impose civility in this fashion by moderating.
|We don't have to give people extraordinary powers for us to do this.
|(To a large extent, this is what Ed Poor has been doing the whole time.)
|These actions would be based on moral authority, not police force.
|
|
|-- Toby
Larry Sanger has been doing it recently, generally to good effect
(against me, as it happens). I would add that anyone doing this sort
of graybeard oversight will have to forego the luxury of sarcasm, even
in the comment line, and resist the temptation to chime in on every
little point. Those things reduce the value of the outside
intervention and make it seem less disinterested (neutral).
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1441
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Mon Nov 11 17:36:44 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following all over Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical case, I assure you ;-)
>
>
>"I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't stop me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
>
>
>
Well it's not hypothetical any more:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AFucking_Asshole
Could we have a vague policy that profanity is not okay for user names?
(vague because people's idea of profanity doesn't always match -- we'd
have to decide on a case by case basis)
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1442
[Wikipedia-l] F***ing A**h***
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Mon Nov 11 17:52:55 UTC 2002
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
>
> What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following
> all over Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical
> case, I assure you ;-)
>
>
> "I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you
> can't stop me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
Indeed, Ed, what would happen in that *purely hypothetical* situation? ;-)
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1443
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Mon Nov 11 17:44:36 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
>>
>>(1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software.
>>
>>(2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good encyclopedia
>>articles, that's nice too.
>>
>>
>>
>This is a false dilemma.
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
>
>We have one choice:
>
>(1) We are building a free Wiki encyclopedia.
>
>
>
Cunc, I think your above reasoning should also be applied to the
following (that you posted a while ago)
(a) we are one multi-lingual encyclopedia
(b) we are many encyclopedias, one in each of many languages
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1444
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 17:44:40 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 12:36 PM, "tarquin" <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>> What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following all over
>> Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical case, I assure
>> you ;-)
>>
>>
>> "I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't
>> stop me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
>>
>>
>>
> Well it's not hypothetical any more:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AFucking_Asshole
>
I believe Ed created the account himself, I suppose to prove a point. At
least it has his email address. I haven't checked the IP logs to make sure.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1445
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Mon Nov 11 17:46:11 UTC 2002
The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:
> On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
> > What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
> >
> > (1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software.
> >
> > (2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good encyclopedia
> > articles, that's nice too.
>
> This is a false dilemma.
Hardly. Time and time again the desire to be actually productive has bashed
up a misplaced desire to bend over backwards for people who are utterly
disruptive.
I recommend new entry in "What Wikipedia is not"
Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchism.
Really, I wish Jimbo were an actual dictator, of the Torvalds school, and be
judgmental. Its fair enough that Jimbo's not like that, I just wish he were.
All it would take is such a leader to say
"Julie : you're productive and intelligent and educated. Please stay.
Helga : you're a kook. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."
No one is here by force, no one can't leave if they don't care for the policy.
Value judgements *aren't* inherently bad.
Discrimination on the grounds of talent and intelligence isn't a problem.
There is nothing wrong with intolerance towards those people who are
disrupting your reasonable goals and wasting your time and resources.
If someone is behaving like a child, say
"You're behaving like a child. Stop it, or get lost"
Then -- if they don't quit -- kick the bastards out.
Allow me to add to add to our melange of bad analogies:
I love to play team sports, and these have rules much like wikipedia's.
If a player continually breaches them, the referee ejects them from the game.
You don't reason with them. You don't change the rules to take on board their
opinions, you kick them out, and get on with the game. As a referee I can
assure you, any other course of action is a recipe for disaster.
ObRhetoricalQuestion :
How did the Linux kernel -- run by a dictator -- get so far ahead of
GNU/Hurd, run by a bunch of committees trying not to offend anybody?
--
Gareth Owen
"And Cunct, please stop being such a prick."
-- wikipedia-l gains a new mantra (Wed Nov 6 2002)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1446
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 17:48:18 UTC 2002
Your solution to the "dilemma" I posed fails to take the bull by the horns.
Our goal is NOT to build a free Wiki encyclopedia, but rather to build a free encyclopedia. Our choice of the Wiki Way is a means to the end, not an end in itself.
Open source software development, such as the GNU project, allows the submission of any change, but the unusable forks are quickly discarded. Only good forks remain.
In writing an NPOV article on a controversial subject, the forks must be incorporated into the text. X says Y about Z.
We cannot continue with the one-pronged, he-who-laughs-last-laughs-best approach. There must be a standard, if there's a standard there must be enforcement.
I trust YOU to be a sysop, moderator or developer. That's because you're dedicated to the cause, which is a higher value than whatever your current opinion happens to be on a subject.
But I do not want Julie's articles mangled. And I do not have the time to follow Helga around, checking whether each edit is constructive or destructive.
I might be an anarchist, but if I see a gang of kids going down the street, methodically knocking out car windshields with baseball bats -- I'm calling the cops. And I want them to have handcuffs, mace and guns. Sometimes having a police force is the lesser of two evils.
Now, I'm not dismissing the risk that "law and order" can turn into fascism. Hitler is ever on my mind. But have you ever lived in a gang-controlled neighborhood?
With no legitimate authority, mob rule develops. With excessive authority, dictatorship ensues. What are we to do?
Just wait and see? No, I think we should plan ahead. Please work with Larry and Erik and others (me, perhaps) to come up with a plan to present to Jimbo.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1447
[Wikipedia-l] What if a signed-in user started writing the following...
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Mon Nov 11 18:01:37 UTC 2002
Cunctator wrote:
>> We'd revert the changes, and probably publicly wonder what the user's
problem is. I for example would question the "hate everybody and
everything" assertion. Is that really possible? I mean, it takes a lot of
energy to truly hate. And then there's the question of if you hate
everybody and everything, why have you not committed suicide? <<
I doubt many people would ask such questions; I mean, such a person would
be beneath contempt and therefore not particularly interesting as a
subject of such speculation.
>> And why choose Wikipedia as a target? I mean, really. WP does not have
that much influence or importance, especially if the targets of your
hatred are "everybody" and "everything". <<
Again, Cunc, you're speculating about stuff that doesn't matter, giving
credibility and interest to someone who clearly isn't worth our interest.
I mean, as you ought to know, that's precisely what trolls want.
The question, rather, is how soon we will delete the user page.
>> Writing the above all over Wikipedia is hardly the way to destroy it.
<<
On the other hand, tolerating trolls, as has been our policy in too many
cases, invites trolls. And trolls--well, not to grant them more power
than they actually have, trolls *are* a way to do damage to Wikipedia. We
still haven't cleaned up after all our trolls in the past.
One useful thing would be to try to track down who the person is, and see
if he or she couldn't be matched up to some other person presently on the
project. Then to "out" that person.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1448
[Wikipedia-l] F***ing A**h***
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 17:56:11 UTC 2002
> > What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following
> > all over Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical
> > case, I assure you ;-)
> >
> >
> > "I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you
> > can't stop me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
>
> Indeed, Ed, what would happen in that *purely hypothetical* situation? ;-)
>
> Larry
Well, if it was "one of us" trying to make a point, he'd probably give up before someone decided to look up his IP and unmask him.
But if it wasn't hypothetical, it would be handy to have a Moderator (rotating or otherwise) with enough clout to block him.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1449
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 18:08:25 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 12:48 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Your solution to the "dilemma" I posed fails to take the bull by the horns.
>
> Our goal is NOT to build a free Wiki encyclopedia, but rather to build a free
> encyclopedia. Our choice of the Wiki Way is a means to the end, not an end in
> itself.
Hardly. There's a reason this is called "Wikipedia". The Wiki software is
what distinguishes this project from other projects such as Nupedia, which
also had the goal to build a free encyclopedia.
Did you mean to say
"Our goal is to build a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software."
instead of
"We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software."
?
They don't mean the same thing.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1450
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 18:17:45 UTC 2002
Well, duh!
If I wanted to hide it, I would have used a fake e-mail address. But I'm not that sneaky.
Besides, just imagine the coincidence of ME asking about a "hypothetical case" of a rant appear on the same day and hour as that rant actually appears, word for word the same?
The point is: what do we do about "obscene" usernames? Is Throbbing Monster Cock okay, just because you see an image of a chicken towering over the skyline and thus "get" the joke? (Not talking about the user himself; he's a good chap; just his nick.)
If we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt, then we have a standard. All I'm saying is: let's refine and enshrine our standards.
Ed "F.A." Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1451
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 18:19:38 UTC 2002
Let me say that I think much of what Mr. Poor says is well-reasoned and
intentioned, even though I'm going to focus on the points which I think are
incorrect.
On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Cunctator correctly points out that an analogy could be taken too far. But he
> misses several points:
> * like a Sunday School, the Wikipedia has a lofty goal (higher ideal)
> * the enjoyment of peace resulting from not being hurt by others (golden rule)
> * I refused to accept students in my class whose parents required their
> attendance (no prisoners)
Rather, I said that it was a poor analogy. Yes, there are connections, but
there are also crucial differences that preclude doing too much reasoning by
analogy (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm).
> Cunctator, you're never going to call me "Uncle Ed", because you're not one of
> the kids. You are the paradigmatic example of the rational anarchist. I may
> not agree with all your article edits, but I can work with you. I can't really
> work with Lir and her ilk.
Is anyone going to call you Uncle Ed here at Wikipedia? I hope not. Mr. Poor
is essentially right in describing me as a rational anarchist, but I want to
make it clear that this is entirely situational; I only think anarchism is
to a reasonable degree possible in such a well-defined online space such as
Wikipedia. I don't think it's a reasonable real-world answer. It doesn't
really work well when people can be physically controlled.
<snip>
>
> Wikipedia is not for children. It's run by adults, and nearly all of them are
men.
> Does the fact that men are not children mean that Wikipedia need no rules, no
> "hard security"? Even anarchy requires guidelines or customs of some sort. If
> everyone carries swords and knives, then you show an open hand as sign of
> friendship when you approach another armed man, or you risk a sudden
> skewering. That's a custom -- not a law.
There are no equivalents to guns or knives at Wikipedia.
<snip>
> We have some customs. We need to review and codify them. "Ignore all rules"
> will have to go. "Please follow the rules or be blocked" will have to replace
> it.
Doing so will destroy Wikipedia. Rather, the type of contributors will
steadily become limited to a certain type of person, which type will over
time become more and more limited.
<snip>
> Here is a partial list of the customs or guidelines I see as already in place:
> * don't delete an entire article or insert random nonsense (no vandalism)
> * don't alter other user's comments (no forgery)
> * don't write partisan articles on controversial subjects (NPOV)
> * don't post copyrighted material, except fair use
The only problem (other than the fair use thing, which is a different kettle
of fish) with these guidelines is that they are not equivalent. It's a lot
easier to determine if a page has been erased than if someone is being
partisan on a controversial subject. "Don't write partisan articles" is
about the same kind of guideline as "Don't write dictionary entries". It's a
matter of degree.
> Here are the 3 enforcement mechanisms:
> * anyone can undo a change, thus reverting the vandalism, forgery or POV
> violation (soft security)
> * a sysop or above can ban an IP address
> * developers can ban a signed-in user (not "authorized" but "can")
> * Jimbo can ban a signed-in user
You forgot also:
* editing to improve entries
* peer pressure
* mentoring
the enforcement mechanisms that you yourself have used.
There's also the enforcement mechanism of denigrating other people, which
some people use.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1452
[Wikipedia-l] Ed F.A. Poor
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 18:27:58 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 1:17 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Well, duh!
>
> If I wanted to hide it, I would have used a fake e-mail address. But I'm not
> that sneaky.
>
> Besides, just imagine the coincidence of ME asking about a "hypothetical case"
> of a rant appear on the same day and hour as that rant actually appears, word
> for word the same?
>
> The point is: what do we do about "obscene" usernames? Is Throbbing Monster
> Cock okay, just because you see an image of a chicken towering over the
> skyline and thus "get" the joke? (Not talking about the user himself; he's a
> good chap; just his nick.)
As obscenity goes, Throbbing Monster Cock and Fucking Asshole are not in the
same category. If you were attempting to make the comparison, you should
have used something like Slick Wet Beaver.
(apologies.)
All I can say is that we have never had a case of vandalism which paralleled
the one you just committed.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1453
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority(wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 18:29:47 UTC 2002
Okay, let me be clearer. And I'll try to stop swearing, damn it!
MY OWN goal is to help build an unbiased encyclopedia. To a certain extent, that goal coincides with Jimbo's goal. Moreover, that goal is sought be many other signed-in contributors whose work I've come to respect.
The Neutral Point Of View policy is, as I see it, a MEANS toward an end. By requiring disputants to cite sources and attribute points of view to spokesman, we avoid the bias that inevitably mars other encyclopedias.
MS Encarta and E. Britannica have long been unfair to my church, as well as being way to soft on Communism.
The idea that Jimbo and Larry have championed is that on controversial matters, we agree to disagree: A said X about it, while B said Y about it. This lets the reader make up their own mind, based upon whatever criteria they choose.
Neutrality in itself is not a goal I believe in. It's only a shared means to an end. Jimbo is pro-free-markets and anti-Marxist. I doubt that he is personally neutral on these subjects, but I daresay he AGREES that the articles should neither favor nor oppose free markets or Marxism.
Likewise (as a small mind may imitate a greater mind) I favor the Unification Church and oppose homosexuality. Yet I have agreed to write neutrally on both these subjects, and I think I've done well enough on maintain "editorial neutrality" to justify the confidence the community has placed in me. (What confidence? Oh, shut up!)
Let us re-examine our aims; then we can decide on means to achieve the ends.
Ed Poor
"My opinion, not my company's"
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1454
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 18:38:08 UTC 2002
Let me say first of all that I agree with Cunctator's well-reasoned points.
However, stop being an idiot! People don't change just because you call them names, you fool!
And you have failed to explain how reviewing and codifying our customs and/or blocking violators of codified will "destroy" Wikipedia. What the heck does "limited to certain type of person" mean? Are you afraid that people like you would be kicked out? Shucks, you're the first person I would vote for to be a Moderator!
We already block the IPs of graffiti artists. How would reviewing and codifying the "vandal blocking" policy make things worse?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1455
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 18:55:33 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 1:38 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>> The Cunctator wrote:
>>> On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>>> We have some customs. We need to review and codify them. "Ignore all rules"
>>> will have to go. "Please follow the rules or be blocked" will have to
>>> replace it.
>> Doing so will destroy Wikipedia. Rather, the type of contributors will
>> steadily become limited to a certain type of person, which type will over
>> time become more and more limited.
> And you have failed to explain how reviewing and codifying our customs and/or
> blocking violators of codified will "destroy" Wikipedia. What the heck does
> "limited to certain type of person" mean? Are you afraid that people like you
> would be kicked out? Shucks, you're the first person I would vote for to be a
> Moderator!
I'd either leave or be kicked out, yes, since I couldn't agree to such a
change.
> We already block the IPs of graffiti artists. How would reviewing and
> codifying the "vandal blocking" policy make things worse?
The same way that extending any policy that harms others makes things worse.
Harming others is only okay to the degree that you're harming bad people.
The more people you harm and the more that you harm them, the harder it is
to be just.
See m:WikipediAhimsa.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1456
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 19:06:59 UTC 2002
Hold on, how does it "harm" someone to restrain them from sabotaging a project? If a school principal requires a student to remove graffiti which says "Aron 151" from other students' lockers in the hallway, does this harm the student? I think it teaches them a valuable lesson in responsibility and in respecting the rights of others.
Enforcing a "do not harm others" rule is not inherently harmful.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1457
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 19:15:05 UTC 2002
I don't understand your "functionality" vs. "authority" distinction.
I maintain that Wikipedia has *de facto* five levels of AUTHORITY. Now, the users on each level may have different roles and responsibilities; they may carry out different functions.
But I maintain that each category of users has power over all the users in the lower categories.
Jimbo can pull the plug on the machine, arbitrarily fire any developer, block any user, etc. The developers can erase a user account, grant or revoke sysop rights. Sysops can block unsigned users.
That is a hierarchy of power, like it or not. By the way, I never said I favored such a hierarchy. I am just describing the status quo.
There are five levels of POWER in our community. If we agree that such is the case, then let's start discussing what responsibilities they should have: if you will, what their "functions" should be. There's always some improvement to be made, right?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1458
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 19:27:22 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 2:06 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Hold on, how does it "harm" someone to restrain them from sabotaging a
> project? If a school principal requires a student to remove graffiti which
> says "Aron 151" from other students' lockers in the hallway, does this harm
> the student? I think it teaches them a valuable lesson in responsibility and
> in respecting the rights of others.
Well, yes, it teaches them that lesson by making them do something tedious
and difficult, and which brands them as a vandal. Which isn't bad, as I
said, as long as they need that lesson. But it certainly would be quite
terrible to force the student to remove the graffiti if the student didn't
do it.
Preventing someone from contributing to Wikipedia takes something away from
them. That is harm.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1459
[Wikipedia-l] Ed F.A. Poor
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 19:31:06 UTC 2002
Okay, then ban me. I surreptitiously vandalized 5 or 10 pages with a fake account, then confessed to Larry.
Suppose you revoke my sysop rights, erase my user name, block my IP. Will that solve the crisis facing Wikipedia? Will that prevent the abuses that you fear will stem from codifying and enforcing standards?
My Fallacious Alter-ego experiment was designed purely to draw attention to the problem of having poorly defined standards. If it was a "poor" idea, chalk it up to the poverty of
your most obedient servant,
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1460
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 19:30:24 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 2:15 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I don't understand your "functionality" vs. "authority" distinction.
Again, there's a doctor, a plumber, and a fry cook in a room. Who has more
authority? Who has more moral authority?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1461
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 19:36:57 UTC 2002
That's why many have suggested a temporary block. Even Jimbo's ban of Helga (H. Jonat) will will expire soon.
How about a 24-hour ban, followed by a 3-day or 7-day ban?
How about blocking write access only -- not read access?
How about limiting banned users to their own talk page?
Let's explore all the options and come to as broad a consensus as possible.
I am REALLY TIRED of seeing users like Maveric, Elian, Larry, Julie, et al., hand in their resignations because some stubborn, um, fellow on the school board says that suspending a student "harms" them.
Ed Poor
"my opinion, not my employer's"
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1462
[Wikipedia-l] Ed F.A. Poor
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 19:38:02 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 2:31 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Okay, then ban me. I surreptitiously vandalized 5 or 10 pages with a fake
> account, then confessed to Larry.
>
> Suppose you revoke my sysop rights, erase my user name, block my IP. Will that
> solve the crisis facing Wikipedia? Will that prevent the abuses that you fear
> will stem from codifying and enforcing standards?
By "you", do mean mean me? Please quote the entries to which you refer. I
never called for banning you.
I don't think there's a crisis facing Wikipedia, nor that this is its most
pressing problem.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1463
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Mon Nov 11 19:46:43 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>On 11/11/02 12:48 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Your solution to the "dilemma" I posed fails to take the bull by the horns.
>>
>>Our goal is NOT to build a free Wiki encyclopedia, but rather to build a free
>>encyclopedia. Our choice of the Wiki Way is a means to the end, not an end in
>>itself.
>>
>>
>
>Hardly. There's a reason this is called "Wikipedia". The Wiki software is
>what distinguishes this project from other projects such as Nupedia, which
>also had the goal to build a free encyclopedia.
>
>
Well, I myself started at the "gnupedia" project, which later changed
its name to "GNE" and vanished soon afterwards. By that time, I had
already switched to Nupedia, which still dies a lonely and forgotten
death, and came to wikipedia, 'cause that's where the action and the fun
was. Today, I seem rather attracted to the soon-to-be "Larrypedia" project.
To cut it short, my goal was always to work on a free encyclopedia. Wiki
is just the tool that got the best results so far.
It seems that's what Ed Poor feels like too. Jimbo probably as well, as
he started with Nupedia. But, we might be a minority ;-)
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1464
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Nov 11 19:44:06 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>On 11/11/02 2:15 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't understand your "functionality" vs. "authority" distinction.
>>
>
>Again, there's a doctor, a plumber, and a fry cook in a room. Who has more
>authority? Who has more moral authority?
>
It depends! Is somebody having a heart-attack? Are they being sprayed
by water from a broken pipe? or Are they simply all feeling hungry?
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1465
[Wikipedia-l] Authority vs. function
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 19:51:41 UTC 2002
I'm not going to understand you better just because you repeat yourself.
Try:
*Hospital Administrator
*Chief Surgeon
*Surgeon
*Scrub Nurse
*Orderly
Each has authority over those on the level below.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1466
[Wikipedia-l] Tokerboy weighs in
Tucci
tucci528 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 19:52:48 UTC 2002
Tokerboy
:Ed Poor
I originally only wanted to respond to two posts.
First of all, I like the Cunctster being a prick--he's
a vaccine against groupthink because no decision will
ever be unanimous as long as he is here--makes me
wonder if that's his goal. Many CEOs and team leaders
and the like secretly designate one board/team member
to disagree on every decision, because otherwise
groups tend to accept the first even remotely viable
option presented.
With that said, he can be a cock. (a throbbing,
monster one, even)
:I might be an anarchist, but if I see a gang of kids
:going down the
:street, methodically knocking out car windshields
:with baseball bats --
:I'm calling the cops. And I want them to have
:handcuffs, mace and guns.
:Sometimes having a police force is the lesser of two
:evils.
Bad vandals destroy cars, property and occasionally
people, but a corrupt police force doesn't stop any of
this and tears apart the community. The best solution
is to have the community oversee the police force.
:Now, I'm not dismissing the risk that "law and order"
:can turn into
:fascism. Hitler is ever on my mind. But have you ever
:lived in a
:gang-controlled neighborhood?
I've lived in several, and it depends on the gang and
the city. In Baltimore, for example, gangs are indeed
dangerous and to be stayed away from. In Richmond,
organized crime gangs exist, and fight with each
other, but generally leave others alone. In some
cities, some gangs have done more to help the local
community than governmental programs. The Mafia is
the same way.
Anyway, we're not discussing organized crime here, but
I think it's a valid analogy. My solution is below.
:With no legitimate authority, mob rule develops. With
:excessive
:authority, dictatorship ensues. What are we to do?
I know exactly what to do, and everybody who disagrees
with me is clearly wrong and should go live in the
desert for forty years and forty nights and ponder the
depths of your wrongossity and incorrectitude.
I think we should divide the controversial powers up.
Currently sysop status is not difficult to achieve;
that's fine and wonderful since it means more people
to delete silly vandalism and ban such IPs. I propose
separating this from the position of moderator. I
don't know if we need/it's possible to do this through
the software, but I think it would work anyway.
Sysop: delete obviously vandalized articles, delete
pages to make way for a move, ban anonymous IPs if
necessary. If there is _any doubt_ as to whether a
change should be considered vandalism, refer the
matter to a moderator.
Moderator: powers of sysop above, but intervenes in
edit wars and disagreements if a user or sysop asks
(or if the moderator simply sees one developing). The
moderator tries to get the situation cooled down, and
the argument resolved in one way or another. I'd say
the standard for freezing an article is 1: if an
actual edit war has erupted and 2: the article should
be frozen at the state it was before the war, or with
no text at all and a reference to the talk page. I'd
also suggest allowing both sides to write an article
(or a section) from their POV, and then having one or
more moderators combine the two.
If someone does not agree with the moderator's
decision, some sort of court should be established
where a user can complain about a moderator's actions,
and other moderators and/or sysops can discuss the
decision and whether or not it was justified.
Moderators should be chosen through some sort of
anonymous nomination system. Any signed-in user can
nominate another user and when a person has been
nominated five times (by different users), he can be
made a moderator. Alternatively, perhaps a person
must be a sysop for a month or two before becoming a
moderator.
I think regardless of the merit of what I propose
above, I do believe we should have a Bill of Rights of
sorts for users without any special status (i.e. not
even signed in) to more effectively guarantee that
abuse will not occur.
1:Users have the right to edit any page, except for
specifically protected ones or articles temporarily
frozen because an edit war was developing
2:Users have the right to access a forum to complain
of abuse of power
Those are the only two I can think of right now. I
have a good bit of experience in trying to spread out
too little power among too many people, which is the
problem we're having now, in one of my old jobs. The
reason this is occuring is because sysops have two
roles: general maintenance and moderation. The power
for general maintenance should be spread out, because
if the basic rule that only clearcut vandalism and
nonsense can be deleted is followed, this can only
help the wikipedia grow. I think that in 99% of
cases, a sysop ruling to delete a page/ban an IP
(currently) is simply because of vandalism. It's the
minority of cases where judgement, and potential abuse
of power, comes into play. If 99% of the problems is
one discrete type, then 99% of the enforcement power
should be directed towards those problems, and the
other 1% where judgement comes into play should be
considered separately, because it is a separate
problem.
Tokerboy
PS: It has been decided that we will, one way or
another, upload fair use material like album covers,
right? I should continue to upload such things as
needed, right? I didn't mean to raise a ruckus,
brouhaha or shenanigans--I was just fed up trying to
describe psychedelic album covers ("There's a woman...
probably... with much... bizareness around her, and a
star... or maybe it's a koala bear") and I saw others
uploading video covers.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1467
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Mon Nov 11 19:53:32 UTC 2002
>> My overall point is that if we are looking to find "moral
>> authority" we need to think and act in ways which respect
>> human dignity, and which encourage at least a basic level
>> of kindness and
> civility.
>
> So your point is that we have to treat even our trolls with
> kindness and civility, and that is what will allow our
> productive members to be respected and treated as if they had
> some legitimate authority on the project? I disagree completely.
No, that is not my point. I'm glad you disagree, because I do too. My
point is that respect for human dignity is a mandatory subset of what we
should do, not that it is the only thing necessary.
> Your point too is far overstated. There is much more than we
> could possibly do than simply "encouraging at least a basic
> level of kindness and civility." I do agree that we should
> do that.
That was my whole point, I did not go further. I made no claims that my
post addressed all the problems we face, so to critique it because "more
can be done" is inaccurate.
In particular, I did not address the point that we need to make our
rules more clear, and be more consistent in enforcing those rules. I
think your description of our need in this area is exactly right.
However, I think that even this needs to be done in a way that indicates
our respect for people generally, and specifically for the people who we
are asking not to work on our project any more. Obviously we need to
also respect the people who've work hard on our project, as well as
experts who donate limited and valuable time to work on our encyclopedia
project. I don't see these goals as mutually exclusive.
In particular, as I see it there's just no point tying negative labels
to anybody. When somebody violates the rules of our project, we should
seek to have the same NPoV description of what they've done that we
expect in other places. And we don't need to judge their character to
say that we think the project would progress more smoothly without their
participation.
As far as I can tell, the only real disagreement we seem to have is
about what constitutes a basic respect for human dignity in the context
of a public project. My position is that negative labels just aren't
respectful, and therefore name calling is not appropriate. In the
office, I expect the people I work for/with to deal fairly with people's
ideas, and not to call each other names. I expect the same from my
roommates, nephews, parents, and friends. And I would --really like-- to
be able to expect it here.
I sometimes catch myself occasionally writing one of my colleagues off
as incompetent, or lazy, or stupid, if only in my head. But when I
recognize this in myself, I recognize it as wrong. I am more than
willing to admit that others don't share my distaste for negative
labels. But before you reject it, I'd like to hear why you think
calling Lir "a disruptive child" is better than attempting to briefly
describe Lir's --behavior-- as disruptive, counterproductive, and
lacking in maturity. As I see it there's no need to judge Lir's value
as a person, we have no idea why Lir is responding in the way she is,
and in other contexts she may be perfectly coherent, mature, and
productive.
Yours
Mark Christensen
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1468
[Wikipedia-l] Authority vs. function
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 20:05:26 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 2:51 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I'm not going to understand you better just because you repeat yourself.
>
> Try:
> *Hospital Administrator
> *Chief Surgeon
> *Surgeon
> *Scrub Nurse
> *Orderly
>
> Each has authority over those on the level below.
>
Only in a sense; I certainly wouldn't want the hospital administrator to
tell the chief surgeon how to perform an appendectomy; nor, say, if the
chief surgeon is a cardio specialist, would I want her to tell a
neurosurgeon how to remove a brain tumor; nor does the surgeon know more
about the scrub nurse's job than the nurse does, etc.
And if the orderly happens to be my mother, the HA doesn't have moral
authority over the orderly.
Authority and levels are *contextual*.
To not use analogy: the developers know more about (or at least have a
greater combination of knowledge, time, and interest) Wikipedia code than
others. That hardly means that they are better judges of what makes a good
editor than non-developers. It doesn't even mean they're a better judge of
interface.
Similarly, I respect Jimbo's authority not because he controls the project,
but because he's demonstrated that he controls the project *and* he knows
how to do it well.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1469
[Wikipedia-l] Tokerboy weighs in
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 20:18:21 UTC 2002
On 11/11/02 2:52 PM, "Tucci" <tucci528 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tokerboy
> :Ed Poor
>
> I originally only wanted to respond to two posts.
> First of all, I like the Cunctster being a prick--he's
> a vaccine against groupthink because no decision will
> ever be unanimous as long as he is here--makes me
> wonder if that's his goal. Many CEOs and team leaders
> and the like secretly designate one board/team member
> to disagree on every decision, because otherwise
> groups tend to accept the first even remotely viable
> option presented.
Oh, I've agreed with many a decision. My goal is not to disagree with every
decision, just to discourage mistakes.
I don't think freezing pages is the right way to deal with edit conflicts.
I think the right thing to do would be to carefully go over the case history
and look at specific examples of where people feel the system has broken
down.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1470
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Mon Nov 11 21:19:51 UTC 2002
tarquin about Ed's unhypothetical hypothetical:
>Well it's not hypothetical any more:
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AFucking_Asshole
>
>Could we have a vague policy that profanity is not okay for user names?
>(vague because people's idea of profanity doesn't always match -- we'd
>have to decide on a case by case basis)
Throbbing Monster Cock points out that [[fisting]] or whatever is in
the wikipedia so his username is really no different. Well, it is:
[[fisting]] does not edit other articles, showing up on Recent Changes
a hundred times a day or more.
I don't mind the name, really. I had a brief chuckle & then went on
with my business--but I can see how other people would mind the name
(and apparently do, as his talk page emphasises).
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1471
[Wikipedia-l] Ed F.A. Poor
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 11 20:23:46 UTC 2002
Why would I use the pronoun 'you' to refer to you? That's silly! One would think I was opposing your call to ban me -- despite your never having made one.
Look, we can trade witticisms all day.
But Wikipedia is getting bigger, it's throbbing, it's monstrous, it's becoming cocky, and I'm with Magnus and Larry:
* I want to build a free encyclopedia.
* I see Wiki software as a means to an end.
When I wrote an appointment scheduler for a hospital, it wasn't because they wanted to "have appointment scheduling software" but because they wanted to "keep track of their appointments".
Let the end guide the choice of means. (Not to be confused with -- or to override -- "the end justifies the means", lest Larry stomp me while you hold me down!)
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1472
[Wikipedia-l] about agendas
elian
elian at gmx.li
Mon Nov 11 20:08:03 UTC 2002
Hello,
I want to speak of agendas in two senses: first of the agendas some people
try to impose upon wikipedia and second of an agenda as a suggestion for
better organization of this mailinglist.
First: concerning trolls, obstructive users and so on:
I see Wikipedia first of all as a scientific project with the remarkable
feature that not only scientists are working at it but also "normal"
people. But that doesn't mean that we should give up the standards of
scientific research. Wikipedia is big and attractive enough - we don't
need contributors who can't behave according to the rules set in
Wikiquette and NPOV. More than more restrictive and/or
effective banning rules we need rules for ourselves:
- Don't give people seeking attention the desired attention (this for
the Anti-American page)
- Warn politely and _ignore_!
- Ban if people violate warnings and continue with their behaviour.
- Don't attack a sysop because of a quick ban if the banned person
contributed nothing remarkably to wikipedia other than quarrels.
Last week I read in another enclycopedia (about theory of science) -
ethics of science, Mertons four norms I think we should adopt:
- the quality of research should not be judged by social characteristics
of the researcher (like race, religion...)
- results of research should be open and free, not secret ;-)
- the working attitude of the scientific community should be organized
scepticism. Each source or belief should be critically examined.
- the researcher should have no interest in the outcomes of his research.
These are ideal norms (like our NPOV), but I think people whose sole
interest is to "prove" something (that USA are evil, that "Freiwirtschaft"
will solve all economical problems, that Karl the Great didn't exist at
all, that the Beatles were the greatest rockband ever) have no place in
Wikipedia.
==============
Second: discussion here often seems to be unproductive. A subject is
discussed, several ideas are presented and nothing is done in the end
until the same subject comes up a little bit later again.
What I propose is some sort of agenda, maybe with a corresponding page at
Meta wikipedia. Items can be put there and removed when they are solved
for the moment. I'd also like to see f.e. Erik's software patches put
there. It's often difficult to distinguish between "just an idea" and an
"I'll do it if nobody refuses" up to an "I just implemented it, it's
now already on the server."
It easier to solve a clearly defined problem than to keep track of
differing opinions presented in no clear order.
An example agenda for actual issues (I added some new which I consider as
necessary)
* Solution for dealing with uncooperative users needed.
* the question of www.wikipedia.org
* technical: identifying and removing bottlenecks in the software, tuning
the database, implement more intelligent caching/ switching to Postgres
(I fear that the constant slowliness of the software may drive more
(especially new!) contributors away than Lir & Co. will ever do)
* adjusting the focus of the mailinglists: creation of enwiki-l.
(Problems with users of the English wikipedia are of absolutely no interest
for us international people who have to subscribe to wikipedia-l because
people forget to inform the international community of important
decisions.)
* designing an emergency plan for an attack of automatized vandalism by
bots which can happen any time!
* decide on a decision making process.
This project has become too big for the fuzzy decision making process used
till now.
* getting a clear policy for unclear copyright issues
Discussions are great, often necessary but in the end we should solve the
problems! How to organize this is another question... I imagine groups of
people willing to solve a problem, discussing it, work out possible and
clear defined solutions and present this as a result to the whole
community who should decide then upon which solution is to be taken
(without big discussion - for this they should have joined the working
group)
proposed steps:
* put an item on the agenda (maybe also assign a priority)
* form a working group of all people interested in and work out solutions.
* present the solutions (with pro and contra arguments) to the community
* let the community decide
* implement the solution
* remove item from the agenda
This procedere requires a lot of discipline but discipline is something we
all have in abundance, don't we? ;-)
Since Ed mentioned my name as one of the frustrated contributors who might
be driven away by Lir & Co, one clarification: I will never leave because
of some trolls, but if most discussions here continue to go in circles
without other results than the status quo I will restrict my activities to
my field of expertise in the German wikipedia, unsubscribe all
mailinglists other than the German and give up the German embassy.
I really like politics but if this here remains a debating club I better
go to write articles.
greetings,
elian
--
heidegger, n. A ponderous device for boring through thick layers of
substance. "It's buried so deep we'll have to use a heidegger."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1473
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Mon Nov 11 21:53:35 UTC 2002
Cunctator wrote:
>Preventing someone from contributing to Wikipedia takes something
away from
>them. That is harm.
Yes, it's a harm to their ego and nothing else. It's not a human or
civic right to edit wikipedia.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1474
[Wikipedia-l] Ed F.A. Poor
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 22:02:26 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 15:23, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 14:38, The Cunctator wrote:
> > On 11/11/02 2:31 PM, <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > > Okay, then ban me. I surreptitiously vandalized 5 or 10 pages with
> > > a fake account, then confessed to Larry.
> >
> > > Suppose you revoke my sysop rights, erase my user name, block my
> > > IP. Will that solve the crisis facing Wikipedia? Will that prevent
> > > the abuses that you fear will stem from codifying and enforcing
> > > standards?
>
> > By "you", do mean mean me? Please quote the entries to which you
> > refer. I never called for banning you.
> Why would I use the pronoun 'you' to refer to you? That's silly!
> One would think I was opposing your call to ban me -- despite your
> never having made one.
>
> Look, we can trade witticisms all day.
I'm not trying to trade witticisms. I'm asking you to quote entries to
which you refer, instead of using pronouns with unclear antecedants.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1475
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 11 22:07:44 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>Ed Poor wrote:
>>What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
>>(1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software.
>>(2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good encyclopedia
>>articles, that's nice too.
>We have one choice:
>(1) We are building a free Wiki encyclopedia.
Hear, hear!
All 3 of the final words in the last sentence are vital.
I wouldn't have cared about Wikipedia without "encyclopedia",
I wouldn't have considered it without "free",
and I wouldn't have joined without "wiki".
Changing any of them would probably cause *me* to leave.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1476
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
erik_moeller at gmx.de
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 11 21:10:00 UTC 2002
Hello Larry!
>>> It would be nice to get some specific examples. <<
> How many specific examples would it take to convince you, I wonder? I
> doubt I could produce enough, because our difference is philosophical.
I don't think so. I respect the current system of sysops. I think it can
be improved, but I'm not against authority. Unlike what you may have
assumed at this point (I get the feeling you read the mail while you
replied), I'm not an anarchist. I believe in direct democracy and
therefore in the necessity of enforcement.
The main problem I have is that right now, we are not a democracy. You may
call it mob rule, an elite, whatever -- decisions are generally made by
individuals, though, and not by a collective. I want to create more
informed decisions by involving more people in a well-defined voting
process with a discussion phase and a decision phase (where these phases
could be very short in emergencies -- user definable).
While I believe such a process could be quite streamlined, I think it
should generally be used only when other, "softer" means don't work. This
is certainly the case with all vandals: here we have no choice but to
intervene. I am more lenient (and that is indeed a difference of
philosophy) towards "cranks" and the like.
By asking you whether the problem you perceive is growing or not I did not
mean to imply that there is no problem. The question whether it is
growing, however, is important to determine the urgency of the solution.
How much time do we have to implement something meaningful?
Working on Wikipedia today, I agree more with you than I did yesterday.
About half of all the anonymous edits were vandalism. It is my
*perception* that this is significantly more than when I started. I'd
still like to quantify this, though. It's quite possible that we are now
primarily getting new users via Google, and the percentage of those who
are valuable contributors is possibly smaller than with our earlier
contributors, with a higher number of vandals.
>>> Perhaps Ed's "Annoying users" page (if renamed) isn't such a bad idea. <<
> Hysteria? I have to support Zoe here; Lir is a disruptive child, and she
> should probably be banned.
I disagree here, but I'm not familiar with all evidence (which is why a
"Problematic users" page, as a record of evidence, might be helpful). I
followed much of Lir's actions today and saw nothing too problematic.
She's antagonistic, sometimes silly and certainly not as smart as she
thinks, but I believe we can deal with here as long as she doesn't
vandalize pages.
The "hysteria" remark referred to a specific incident and was probably an
overstatement, I apologized to Zoe on her user page.
> No. Our collective experience is more than enough proof that we need
> *consistent* enforcement, Erik, not *stronger* enforcement. Right now we
> have very strong enforcement.
I don't think so, IP banning is quite ineffective, we clearly need to work
on this. Unlike Jimbo, I'm not so sure we're dealing with the same vandal.
But I also agree that enforcement needs to be applied consistently. I'm
worried that we may have missed vandalism when sysops weren't available.
But (more below) I don't think that the problem really comes from our
logged in userbase.
> Your interest is obviously not in reducing
> power but in keeping power distributed among a lot of different people who
> use it in totally different, inconsistent ways, and none of which has any
> particular respect among other users.
Actually, no, I believe we need to quantify the generally agreed upon
standards using open voting. I have described such a system already on
wikitech, and have explained why I believe voting is important here on
wikipedia-l.
I am for enforcement in what you rightly call "relatively extreme" cases.
> If we had power concentrated in the power of a rotating group of trusted
> individuals
There are many problems of this idea vs. open voting, such as definition
of "trust", randomness of assignment (Slashdot-style voting) etc., I
pointed these out already.
>>> That's not the kind of list I'm talking about, because it only tells us
> about the reactions, not the actual actions. You may say that these people
> were driven away by silly eedjots, but I cannot tell whether this is true
> without looking at the actual conflicts. <<
> Be serious--look at what you just wrote. Does anyone other than you
> really need it to be proven?
Perhaps, perhaps not. You're talking to me now, though, so either present
to me the knowledge I do not have, or you cannot presume that I have it.
>>> Often I've seen so-called experts on Wikipedia try to stop reasonable
> debate by simple assertion of their authority. This doesn't work, and this
> shouldn't work on Wikipedia, and if they can't handle that fact, it's my
> turn to say they should better leave. <<
> Wait a second. Take a step back and put this exchange into context. I
> said that Wikipedia is descending into a sort of mob rule, and that this
> has driven away, and will continue to drive away, some of our best
> contributors. You reply, here, by defending the mob against the experts.
No, that's a grossly incorrect characterization of my statement. You see,
I asked my question above for examples of the conflicts because I myself
have had conflicts with so-called experts, and I did not accept their
assertion of authority as an argument, which offended them.
Now I would hardly call myself part of a "mob", and I would find it
demeaning and insulting to be called so. I can draw primarily from my own
experience when it comes to conflicts, so what I can say is this: If this
is the kind of conflicts you are talking about, where you think the so-
called experts should be able to enforce their POV just because of their
status as experts, then we are clearly of extremely opposite opinions. I
do not support an expertocracy, and I don't think you do either. In the
above paragaph, it sounds like it, though.
>> I'm talking about a body of trusted members, not an "elite." Tarring
>> the proposal with that word isn't an argument.
>>> Sorry, but I do not really see much of a difference. A group with
> superior powers is an elite, trusted or not. The word "elite" requires a
> certain stability of that position, though, so it might not apply to an
> approach of random moderation privileges. <<
> That shows that you're essentially viewing this ideologically, and that
> you're expecting the rest of us to buy an essentially anarchistic
> ideology: *any* group of trusted members who has powers others don't have
> is *by definition* an "elite." But in the mouths of any libertarian or
> anarchist, "elites" (and "cabals") are necessarily evil.
I'm not a libertarian or anarchist, and I do not consider elites
necessarily evil (I do not believe in a concept of evil). I just don't
think they are necessary either.
> The result of this ideology is..
Please, don't assume so much.
> They, like every committed Wikipedian, can't help but derive pleasure from
> the fact that we have built up a huge structure of knowledge. But they
> have a woefully incomplete idea what makes it possible. What makes it
> possible is precisely the *combination* of freedom, which makes it easy to
> contribute, *and* enforced standards, which define and guide our mission.
As I said repeatedly, I believe in enforcement, but only as a last resort,
and only democratically justified. I also find enforcement more important
in cases of vandalism than in cases of "cranks".
> to a project defined by rules, with a particular purpose.
>> Well, the times I'm concerned about aren't necessarily times when people
>> are shouting against the majority, but when they write nonsense, brazen
>> political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so forth--in other
>> words, violating community standards.
>>> Do you mean nonsense in the sense of "something that just isn't true"
> or in the sense of simple noise, like crapflooders? How do you plan to
> define / recognize "crankish unspported stuff"? <<
> Do you really think it would resolve anything in our discussion if I were
> to supply you with an answer to these questions? No, you seem to want to
> ask rhetorical questions, and the point of the questions is: there are no
> clear standards whereby we can determine when community standards are
> violated.
That's not true. Ed has proposed some good standards, although I agree
with Cunctator that it is not always easy to identify partisanship (but
there are egregious cases). Our policy should be to argue with people, to
revert changes a few times to help them understand the wiki principle, and
if they don't agree with our minimum community standards, we enforce them
by community vote.
I also think, however, that your phrases above are much more vague, and
much less apt for inclusion in a set of minimum standards.
> OK, so you're worried that "crankish unsupported stuff" and other words
> we'd use to describe undesirable material and behavior would be such that
> we'd disagree about cases. Of course we would. But if we're reasonable
> people and understand what an encyclopedia *generally* requires, and we
> have much experience actually working on an encyclopedia, then we can
> certainly agree on a lot of cases.
Hopefully so, but because of the potential for disagreement, I think the
decision making process should remain open.
> The lack of absolute unanimity in every case does not--just to give an
> example--provide people an excuse to write unsupportable or provably false
> stuff in articles, just for one example.
True. However, it's perfectly OK to attribute provably false stuff. Ed
Poor does this all the time when he writes about homosexuality :-)
> It doesn't mean we can't
> forthrightly eject (or completely rewrite) material that is, on any
> reasonable person's view, a violation of our neutrality policy.
I agree.
>>> The idea of soft security has evolved in wikis, and it is only fair to
> point you to the respective page at MeatballWiki for the social and
> technical components of soft security:
> http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity <<
> I'm not particularly interested in going to the website to find out what
> you mean. If you want to introduce an unfamiliar term into a debate, it
> is polite to define it.
It is also polite to visit the links provided in someone else's mail in a
discussion. Are you afraid of MeatballWiki because you associate it with
TheCunctator? Rest assured, he's not much more popular around there than
he is here. MeatballWiki is a pretty good resource for many questions we
are debating, much more rich in content than the meta-wikipedia, and there
are many smart people over there. SoftSecurity as defined by the Meatball
people involves a large amount of different components, usually social
concepts relying on existing wiki technology as opposed to extending it.
We have talked about some aspects already. I suggest you familiarize
yourself with the concept.
> >> We already *have* a
> situation where we occasionally ban legitimate users and delete legitimate
> material. We need to get away from this. I am absolutely disgusted by the
> thought that we are already banning completely innocent users. <<
> Erik, two things. First, we already have banning and deletion. We aren't
> debating about those, but what you write above makes it sound as if we
> were.
No, no, no. I'm not against banning or deleting. I'm for making the
process less error-prone by involving more people in it. We are banning
innocent people behind multi-user proxies, and sometimes overzealous
sysops delete allegedly infringing material which is completely harmless.
This is, in my opinion, a very serious issue that needs to be addresed.
You believe that your trusted moderators could make better decisions, and
it's quite possible that in clear-cut cases, they would be better than
what we have now (though in less clear-cut cases, they might be worse). I
think open voting would be the best solution.
> Second, the mere *existence* of sanctions hardly implies that those
> sanctions will be abused to any degree at all. If your point is simply
> "Power can be abused," I'm totally unconvinced and I don't think anyone
> else will be either. Surely you must have more reason to support it than
> that.
It's quite possible that abuse will be minimal in a scheme like yours. I'm
afraid, however, if broad policies like "crankish unsupported stuff" are
adopted, a high degree of arbitrariness is introduced. We need to be very
precise here to avoid the Everything2/Slashdot dilemma.
> After all, as for example under my rough proposal, we can have strong and
> multiple safeguards against abuse.
I like that about your proposal. It makes it closer to mine :-)
>>> My underlying philosophy here is that it's worse to punish an innocent
> man than to let a guilty man go free. <<
> But that's hardly a reason never to punish anyone for anything, is it?
No, it is not. Repeat violators must be "punished" as a matter of self-
defense.
>>> I think this kind of last resort authority should not be concentrated
> but distributed. If a poll shows that many members think that member X has
> "crossed the line", this sends a much stronger message than any non-
> totalitarian scheme of concentrated authority. Especially if last resort
> measures like banning *can* be approved by the majority. <<
> You favor a democracy, susceptible to mob rule as at present
Please explain "suceptible to mob rule as at present". Currently we have a
situation where decisions are made by individual sysops, they are not
verified by anyone else. In my proposal, they would be verified by anyone
interested in doing so (logged in users, possibly only users with >n
contributions to avoid vote flooding).
> I favor a republic,
It was my understanding that you are libertarian. How is that compatible
with that view? (Yes, I know you're only using a metaphor -- but is real
life group decision making that much different from Wikipedia?)
>>> Yes, I agree that those cases exist. But I also believe that we need to
> have a lot of patience when dealing with newbies. Not an infinite amount,
> but a lot. And I think everyone should be given the opportunity to
> rehabilitate themselves. <<
> Well, I do agree with that, and it's not at all inconsistent with my
> proposal.
I think most of the supposed inconsistencies are simply misunderstandings,
but the main difference in opinion is that you regard cranks as the most
serious problems and I (and probably most sysops) see vandals as much more
annoying and serious.
> I think our experience clearly indicates that we can't make people nice if
> they don't want to be.
Well, no offense, but I don't think you're particularly good at making
people nice, so that may have something to do with the experience :-)
> Anyway, it's the nearly-worthless contributors who
> on balance damage the project by the dross they shovel in (and the
> resulting controversies and wasted time) that are the real problem.
I disagree here. I don't see a high number of "nearly-worthless
contributors" (that you characterize human beings as worthless is another
story). You named Lir (even there I don't agree entirely), who else?
>>> Well, I can predict that I'm going to "attack" experts myself if they
> add non-NPOV content, fail to cite sources properly, insist on their
> authority to make their point etc. <<
> Good luck. Remember, experts know more about their areas than you do.
> That's why we call them experts.
That's incorrect, they're *supposed* to know more about their areas than
non-experts. Often they don't. Sometimes they're even paid to lie,
especially when commercial interests are involved.
> I'm a Ph.D. epistemologist. My dissertation adviser was (still is) an
> expert on the concept of expertise, and I've read several papers on this
> area of social epistemology as part of a graduate course. In addition, I
> gave careful thought to this subject while working on Nupedia. Now, what
> is that you think my view of what experts are and what makes an expert?
I haven't read your adviser's papers, I base my opinions solely on your
mails. It appears that you value credentials such as a degree or
publications very highly, as opposed to reputation building through
verifiable expertise, regardless of background. An expert, in my view, can
be pseudonymous, he can be a 13 year old kid, it can be a motivated
housewife. A degree and other credentials are only one way of measuring
reputation, and not a particularly good one, because many institutions are
highly biased. We had two certified mediavalists on Wikipedia, who both
added highly biased POV material from a Christian-apologetic perspective,
for example. You yourself added quite a bit of NPOV material (often, but
not always, marked as such).
> I just have no idea why you say the system I proposed would "lead to less
> informed decisions." Perhaps you should reread the proposal (even though
> it was, as I said, just a rough outline); I even went so far as to suggest
> that perhaps there would be a body of Wikipedia "case law" developed, that
> moderators could consult. This would lead to *less* informed decisions
> than in the present case, when virtually anyone can have the power to ban
> and delete?
Yes, in some cases, because no longer the people who make the decisions
are the ones who care about the matter, but instead the ones who were
assigned moderation duty by your random number generator. A voting system
I propose would be similar to the Recent_Changes page, you would look at
the polls you find interesting, read the arguments, then vote. In your
system, however, the people who vote/make the decision are simply
assigned, and they may not care at all about the debate at hand and just
throw in a quick "yes or no". Because of your safeguards, this is better
than an individual sysop in the clear-cut cases, but possibly worse in
less clear-cut cases. And I consider this especially problematic because
you seem to see the less clear-cut cases as the more serious problem.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1477
[Wikipedia-l] about agendas
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 11 22:12:00 UTC 2002
Hi Elian,
I agree with much of what you said. I think people with an "agenda" *do*
have a place on Wikipedia, though, and if they believe that presenting
verifiable facts about that agenda in a balanced form will further it,
that's perfectly acceptable. I'm fairly anti-religious, for example, and
Ed is quite fundamentalist. Both of us would like more people to share our
entirely subjective POV. Both of us believe that we can make this happen
by showing the facts.
That's one reason why I think it's possible to convince at least some of
the regular "annoying users": Eventually they will have to realize that if
they want people to take their position seriously, they have to back it up
instead of censoring and vandalizing what their opponents say and
replacing it with their own opinions. Many of them will not be able to do
that, so they will eventually go away. Others might actually add useful
information.
There are key mechanisms for working together: attributing disputed claims
properly, not deleting other points of view, and presenting only
verifiable statements of fact and not irrelevant personal opinions. These
are basic rules that I believe can be enforced if necessary.
I think the [[anti-Americanism]] page (NOT the recent discussion, the
Wikipedia article) is a good example for people with different agendas
working together.
As for the decision making process, I agree entirely, we need to find
something better than the approach we have now, and again I think open
voting is the only viable option, both for the wiki itself and the lists
and policy decisions. What else is there but voting? Do we want Jimbo to
approve everything? Or do we want an elected "government", just because
that's what's used in the real world? Or do we want to use Cunctator's
"consensus for everything" approach, for which he himself guarantees that
it cannot succeed? Or do we want to use Larry's randomized trusted users
who get "decision duty" on rotation?
I have not seen a single plausible argument against open voting other than
that it doesn't produce perfect results (like all decision making
processes).
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1478
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Mon Nov 11 22:33:29 UTC 2002
I solicit your opinion--yes, you, humble (or exalted) list member.
I ask you, dear reader and fellow Wikipedian, to offer your mere opinion.
If you want to support it with reasons, that's great, but I'd like us to
hold off on attack each others' opinions for right now, so that we can
actually get an idea of what we all simply think.
If you don't want to send your reply to the list, send it to me, and I'll
do my best to compile a summary.
As I see it, there are two issues under debate: whether there is a
problem; and if so, what the solution should be.
=======
ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia. Many newbies
(and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the
basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer
pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional
actual sanction seems to be solving this problem. Well-respected, clearly
productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with
these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.
CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their
numbers and effects are perfectly manageable and are not particularly
egregious. Either "well-respected, clearly productive members of the
community"--whose value is probably overrated--are not being driven away,
in fact, or if they are, so much the worse for them, if they can't thrive
in an open, free atmosphere.
OTHER: [Insert your take on this debate here.]
=======
ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of powers
to ban and to delete pages permanently. "SoftSecurity" alone is adequate
as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.
The Status Quo Option: We should continue on as we have been in recent
months, viz., everyone has, for the asking, the power to delete pages and
to ban IP numbers. There doesn't need to be set policy on when this is
appropriate and when not.
The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and
settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out
by our sysops.
The Moderators Option: Rather than having giving power to all sysops who
ask for it, we should give the power to moderators on a rotating basis.
They act explicitly as judges, adjudicating disputes and building up a
history of cases that allows us to find-tune and rationally apply the
rules that eliminate from our presence trolls and others who simply refuse
to play by the rules. They are responsible for judging by the rules
fairly, and as a result the office of moderator is rewarded with moral
authority.
Other Option: [Describe your solution here.]
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1479
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 22:25:20 UTC 2002
On Monday 11 November 2002 09:15 am, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> Here is a partial list of the customs or guidelines I see as already in
> place: * don't delete an entire article or insert random nonsense (no
> vandalism) * don't alter other user's comments (no forgery)
> * don't write partisan articles on controversial subjects (NPOV)
> * don't post copyrighted material, except fair use
>
> Here are the 3 enforcement mechanisms:
> * anyone can undo a change, thus reverting the vandalism, forgery or POV
> violation (soft security) * a sysop or above can ban an IP address
> * developers can ban a signed-in user (not "authorized" but "can")
> * Jimbo can ban a signed-in user
>
> Is this is fine, then let's keep it. If it could possibly be improved,
> let's improve it.
>
> Ed Poor
This seems similar to what I proposed in this post
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/007226.html
In that post I also added that a statement be added to each edit window that
reads;
"By saving this page you indicate that you agree to the terms and conditions
of using this website"
"rules and conditions" would be a link to the policy page (read more in my
previous post - near the bottom).
Yes it is a EULA but dammit is no longer possible to review each days edit and
get to know each new user. Believe me I have tried more than anybody else
except Ed to orient new users. At one time not too long ago at all I greeted
each one that had made more than 2 unoverwritten edits and I edited each of
their first entries for style, NPOV etc and then gave them feedback. But I
don't have time to do this when there are 40 new users every that meet those
selection criteria every several days. I guess I will change the filter to 5
unoverwritten edits.
The point is that we are quickly loosing the ability to effectively do things
like we always have done them. Now instead of "tapping somebody on the
shoulder" as was the previous custom we must have the software point people
to where our policies are and state that those policies are enforceable.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1480
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mon Nov 11 22:32:58 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:21:59PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
> (1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki
> software.
> (2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good
> encyclopedia articles, that's nice too.
Well, (2) is certainly not right. But I don't think (1) is quite right
either. Using the Wiki process isn't the only way to make a free
encyclopedia, as you know well, but it is the way we've chosen. As the
encyclopedia is Free, anyone who wants to try another way is able to get
a head start in doing so by taking our content, and good luck to them.
Those of us who want to carry on using a Wiki can do so here.
So, what does it mean that we are a Wiki? Certainly it doesn't mean that
we have to let any old abuser do anything they want. I think it means
two main things:
1 -- _You_ can edit this page _right now_. I think we should be willing
to work very hard to preserve the ability of any first-time reader of
Wikipedia to make corrections and improvements as they see fit.
2 -- Our main method for dealing with bad edits is simply to fix them.
Ease of editing works for us as much as against us. For every kook and
every troll, there are many constructive users willing to help out.
Now, I am leery of suggestions that we should rely on banning people,
and freezing pages, any more than the absolute minimum we can get away
with. This isn't because I think people who aren't interested in
building a serious encylopedia have a 'right' to edit, or would be
'harmed' by banning. It's because I think these techniques won't work as
well as 'soft security'.
Think about what banning people means. It means having to keep track as
they change IP addresses. It means collateral damage as it turns out
they were working from communal hosts or proxies. In the end, it means
dealing with 'abuse@' their ISP. This kind of work can't be shared very
well. Really, only Bomis is in a position to make official complaints.
There are many, many more of us who can address problems by editing
pages.
I think that dealing with people in positions of authority can be
attractive to trolls. It gives them someone to take aim at, a process to
complain about. If a troll simply finds their changes reverted, by a
different reader each time, _without_ getting into arguments, they're
more likely to take their stupid games elsewhere.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1481
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 22:44:42 UTC 2002
Ortolan88 wrote:
> TMC states on his user page that he believes the
> Wikipedia is "doomed to to failure at worst or
> uselessness at best"
I do believe this, but that doesn't mean that my
objective is to hasten the process. I'd love to see
wikipedia succeed, but I think it has basic structural
problems. Recognizing those problems doesn't make me
an enemy of the project.
> and explicitly states his opposition to NPOV.
I do no such thing. I do refer to the existence of
something I have called the "Tyranny of Neutrality",
but that is not the same as saying I oppose
neutrality. Again, it is just an awareness that
Neutrality, absolutely applied, will cause certain
problems and can become a tyranny of itself.
> pretense that the name is pure poultry, he is so
> embarrassed by his user name that he never uses it,
> even on his own pages.
I am not embarrassed by my chosen user name. If you
read my talk pages you would see that Tarquin asked me
long ago to begin using a nickname instead of my full
name to sign my posts, and I have done so fairly
consistently since then.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1482
[Wikipedia-l] Once again: Please revoke my sysop status
Jeroen Heijmans
j.heijmans at stud.tue.nl
Mon Nov 11 22:45:45 UTC 2002
Once again, because my previous post did not result in any action:
To those with the power to do so: could you please revoke my sysop status?
I no longer have the will and the time to carry the responsibility that
comes with administratorship. Reading discussions (e.g. on Wikipedia-L) is
taking too much time and bringing too little enjoyment or satisfaction for
me to continue doing it. I'd much rather withdraw myself from that and
focus on writing and editing instead, without being "bothered" by the -
implicit - responsibilities of a sysop.
Jeronimo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1483
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 22:48:59 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
> If a school principal requires a student to remove
> graffiti which says "Aron 151" from other students'
> lockers in the hallway, does this harm the student?
It is harmful to the student in many ways.
First, it causes the destruction of the "Aron 151"
embelishment, which was presumably of value to the
student.
Second, the time the student wastes removing the
graffiti in question is time that could have been more
valuably spent by painting "Aron 151" tags in other
places.
Third, it can cause there to be a perception that the
principal has greater "authority" than the student.
> Enforcing a "do not harm others" rule is not
> inherently harmful.
The rule *may* be reasonable, but who defines "harm"?
Ed Poor
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1484
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mon Nov 11 22:50:30 UTC 2002
| ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
|
| PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia. Many newbies
| (and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the
| basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer
| pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional
| actual sanction seems to be solving this problem. Well-respected, clearly
| productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with
| these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.
|
| CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their
| numbers and effects are perfectly manageable and are not particularly
| egregious. Either "well-respected, clearly productive members of the
| community"--whose value is probably overrated--are not being driven away,
| in fact, or if they are, so much the worse for them, if they can't thrive
| in an open, free atmosphere.
CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their
numbers and effects are manageable. Well-respected, clearly productive
members of the community have become tired of spending their time on
janitorial work, and in some cases have declared that they are leaving
altogether. Some of these users have since returned, now concentrating
on producing articles rather than fighting trolls and vandals. There is
as yet no indication that there are insufficient people willing to
perform the clean-up work.
| ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
1.
| The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of
| powers to ban and to delete pages permanently[1]. "SoftSecurity" alone
| is adequate as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.
2.
| The Status Quo Option: We should continue on as we have been in recent
| months, viz., everyone has, for the asking, the power to delete pages and
| to ban IP numbers. There doesn't need to be set policy on when this is
| appropriate and when not.
3.
| The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and
| settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out
| by our sysops.
Option 3 is best if the rule is that we should rely on soft security as
much as possible. Otherwise, option 1 is better.
-M-
[1] Deleting pages is a separate issue. If history-preserving delete
isn't working yet, I think we should do without the ability to delete
pages until such a time as it is -- it's just too divisive. We can live
with just blanking them.
If/when we have history-preserving delete, then I see no good reason not
to make it available to all users.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1485
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 11 22:47:21 UTC 2002
I would be all for your rotating moderators proposal except for one
thing; the user RK. He has an incredible number of "edits" to his name,
but with his style of trying to (not) work with people, giving him
moderatorship would be like handing a flame-thrower to a psychopath
in a crowded subway station.
I agree with Ed, Isis, and others that "Throbbing Monster Cock" isn't an
appropriate name for the Wiki, even though it is a good joke when you
see the picture of the chicken.
I think Ed, and many others would be great with "moderator" powers. But
I worry that with powers come the power-hungry, drawn like moths to a
flame. I'd rather put up with some inconvenience now, than suffer when
the power-hungry finally manage to weasel their way into positions of
power sometime down the road.
Lir is a nuisance, and I'm not sure what the solution to her is. She
seems to honestly try to contribute, but she just doesn't know how an
encyclopedia should go, and what things are appropriate to put in, and
what things are better left out. Her articles on Sumer and "Wealth of
the Nations" are good examples. The problem is she is so prolific;
she overwhelms the small number of editors who are available to "fix"
her modifications.
How do we know she isn't a saboteur sent from the Encyclopedia
Britannica to mess up the Wikipedia? She has lowered the tone and
credibility of an incredible number of our articles.
But I find it hard to recommend any specific action against her; there
are those who violently disagree with my edits on some religious topics
on the Wikipedia, and if Lir is acted against, how much longer until
they demand that I be limited, merely because of my holding
a different POV from the majority? I sincerely want the Wikipedia to be
the best it can be; and my intimate knowledge of some of the topics I
edit *is* at odds with what many people believe; what will protect me
from mob rule, when the mob considers my NPOV to be straight-up
false propaganda?
The one thing I can say is I agree that clarification and codification
of our cultural policies are always appropriate. Our Debian "policy"
document now runs many pages in length, but it lets all of us work
smoothly and harmoniously together, despite being 1000 strong.
Jonathan
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:33:29PM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
>I solicit your opinion--yes, you, humble (or exalted) list member.
>
>I ask you, dear reader and fellow Wikipedian, to offer your mere opinion.
>If you want to support it with reasons, that's great, but I'd like us to
>hold off on attack each others' opinions for right now, so that we can
>actually get an idea of what we all simply think.
>
>If you don't want to send your reply to the list, send it to me, and I'll
>do my best to compile a summary.
>
>As I see it, there are two issues under debate: whether there is a
>problem; and if so, what the solution should be.
>
>=======
>
>ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
>
>PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia. Many newbies
>(and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the
>basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer
>pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional
>actual sanction seems to be solving this problem. Well-respected, clearly
>productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with
>these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.
>
>CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their
>numbers and effects are perfectly manageable and are not particularly
>egregious. Either "well-respected, clearly productive members of the
>community"--whose value is probably overrated--are not being driven away,
>in fact, or if they are, so much the worse for them, if they can't thrive
>in an open, free atmosphere.
>
>OTHER: [Insert your take on this debate here.]
>
>=======
>
>ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
>
>The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of powers
>to ban and to delete pages permanently. "SoftSecurity" alone is adequate
>as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.
>
>The Status Quo Option: We should continue on as we have been in recent
>months, viz., everyone has, for the asking, the power to delete pages and
>to ban IP numbers. There doesn't need to be set policy on when this is
>appropriate and when not.
>
>The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and
>settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out
>by our sysops.
>
>The Moderators Option: Rather than having giving power to all sysops who
>ask for it, we should give the power to moderators on a rotating basis.
>They act explicitly as judges, adjudicating disputes and building up a
>history of cases that allows us to find-tune and rationally apply the
>rules that eliminate from our presence trolls and others who simply refuse
>to play by the rules. They are responsible for judging by the rules
>fairly, and as a result the office of moderator is rewarded with moral
>authority.
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/f6a7fcf1/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1486
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 23:01:51 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
> I might be an anarchist, but if I see a gang of kids
> going down the street, methodically knocking out car
> windshields with baseball bats -- I'm calling the
> cops. And I want them to have handcuffs, mace and
> guns.
In this case we have your opinion that windshields
should not be knocked out, and the opinion of the
"gang" that windshields should be knocked out. What
makes your opinion that the windshields should remain
intact superior to the opinion that they should be
shattered?
Is your attempt to call the police merely another way
of saying you would resort to the use of force
(handcuffs, mace, and guns) to enforce your opinion
regarding windshields? Is force to be the ultimate
determanant of what is "right" or "wrong"? Does that
mean that if the gang has overbearing force to use
against the police, then they are now morally right
regarding the windshields?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1487
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 23:02:00 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 17:50, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> [1] Deleting pages is a separate issue. If history-preserving delete
> isn't working yet, I think we should do without the ability to delete
> pages until such a time as it is -- it's just too divisive. We can live
> with just blanking them.
>
> If/when we have history-preserving delete, then I see no good reason not
> to make it available to all users.
We have history-preserving delete. It's available only to sysops.
I don't think that's terrible terrible, but mainly because I expect that
sysop capacity will be something automatically granted to all
semifrequent users.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1488
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 11 23:05:49 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:01:51PM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
>In this case we have your opinion that windshields
>should not be knocked out, and the opinion of the
>"gang" that windshields should be knocked out. What
>makes your opinion that the windshields should remain
>intact superior to the opinion that they should be
>shattered?
>
>Is your attempt to call the police merely another way
>of saying you would resort to the use of force
>(handcuffs, mace, and guns) to enforce your opinion
>regarding windshields? Is force to be the ultimate
>determanant of what is "right" or "wrong"? Does that
>mean that if the gang has overbearing force to use
>against the police, then they are now morally right
>regarding the windshields?
TMC, you show an immature understanding of anarchism. Those car windows
represent work and labor on someones part, whether the builder, or
someone who traded their labor for those car windows. To destroy those
windows is to rob someone of their labor. Anarchists clearly frown on
robbery, as it is a form of coercion.
And yes, it is legitimate in anarchist society to defend your rightful
possessions with force, if force is the only solution.
Anarchists have nothing against power and authority as such; human
beings naturally have differing amounts of these. Their objection is to
the concentration of power, and to the use of authority as justification
for the abuse of power.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/d95db301/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1489
[Wikipedia-l] voting
Bridget
Bridget
Mon Nov 11 23:19:07 UTC 2002
We need voting. Some people here are advocating for a "republic". Who are they to declare that they are an expert on experts? We must have voting. There are issues to be resolved. Obviously we do not want to be dominated by a "majority" of generated IPs. But we must have voting.
We must end the nonsense. Never again must a page like, "Anti-American Wikipedians" be deleted on the say-so of some elitist. We must vote on such issues. Never again should the name of Munchen or Colombo be decided by some American with administrative powers. We must vote on such issues and we must start this voting process soon.
Democracy is a difficult concept. Should we accept it we are then facecd with the decision of whether to have a representative or pure democracy. I argue, in the spirit of the founding fathers of America (who argued for a blend between a republic and a pure democracy ie the representative democracy), I argue for a blend between the pure democracy and the representative democracy.
We must have a vote. This first vote is very simple. It will ask
Should we start voting?
One can either say Yes, No, or give a user name. If you give a user name then your vote will be identical to that users vote. In that manner, somebody that is unsure of what to vote for, can give way to another whom they believe will make the correct choice.
Once we have a decision to start voting we can then work out the details of such a proces, THROUGH VOTING.
There is one minor detail that must be decided and that is, "Who can vote in this first question?" Shall we limit it to mav and larry sanger? Perhaps we will let Epopt and Cunctuator contribute their opinion as well. On the other hand we could let everyone vote and Fucking Asshole, Lear, and 63.32 will weigh in heavily with their opinions.
This decision must be made. We must vote and we must choose who can vote.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/56e92993/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1490
[Wikipedia-l] Tokerboy weighs in
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 23:19:17 UTC 2002
--- Tokerboy (Tucci <tucci528 at yahoo.com>) wrote:
> I think we should divide the controversial powers up ...<
> Sysop: delete obviously vandalized articles, delete
> pages to make way for a move, ban anonymous IPs if
> necessary. If there is _any doubt_ as to whether a
> change should be considered vandalism, refer the
> matter to a moderator.
> Moderator: powers of sysop above, but intervenes in
> edit wars and disagreements if a user or sysop asks
> (or if the moderator simply sees one developing). The
> moderator tries to get the situation cooled down, and
> the argument resolved in one way or another. I'd say
> the standard for freezing an article is 1: if an
> actual edit war has erupted and 2: the article should
> be frozen at the state it was before the war, or with
> no text at all and a reference to the talk page. I'd
> also suggest allowing both sides to write an article
> (or a section) from their POV, and then having one or
> more moderators combine the two.
I think the term moderator has negative connotations.
> If someone does not agree with the moderator's
> decision, some sort of court should be established
> where a user can complain about a moderator's actions,
> and other moderators and/or sysops can discuss the
> decision and whether or not it was justified.
Arbitration: There should be binding arbitration, just like in what
is happening a lot with corporations in the US.
> Moderators should be chosen through some sort of
> anonymous nomination system. Any signed-in user can
> nominate another user and when a person has been
> nominated five times (by different users), he can be
> made a moderator. Alternatively, perhaps a person
> must be a sysop for a month or two before becoming a
> moderator.
I think an Arbitrator (don't like the term moderator) should be part
of a hierarchy. Logged in users vote, then the top three voted become
arbitrator. I would specifically disallow sysops powers for
arbitrators. The arbitrator should hand down his/her decision and let
a sysop or Jimbo do the actual changes. The claimants should be able
to appeal the decision, in which case the other arbitrators will take
a look at it ande decide whether to reverse the decision.
> I think regardless of the merit of what I propose
> above, I do believe we should have a Bill of Rights of
> sorts for users without any special status (i.e. not
> even signed in) to more effectively guarantee that
> abuse will not occur.
I agree. And if abuse does occur, a clearly detailed appeals
procedure needs to exist.
> 1:Users have the right to edit any page, except for
> specifically protected ones or articles temporarily
> frozen because an edit war was developing.
> 2:Users have the right to access a forum to complain
> of abuse of power.
I think I would add that users have a right to speedy and just
resolution of conflicts. I would not want the parties to go on a
6-month long flame-war, hum, filibuster before the user could get
resolve of his or her issue.
>
> Tokerboy
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1491
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 11 23:21:39 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote in part:
>(1) In the absence of people who are generally respected as in authority,
>"rebellion" will continuously break out.
One can only have rebellion if there is someone to rebel *against*.
Rebellion continuously breaks out, then, in the *presence* of people
that claim to be in authority but are however not resepected as such.
So there are two ways to reduce rebellion: increase the respect,
or reduce the claim.
>Doesn't [the moderator system] mean an even more baroque power structure?
>(No, I'd tentatively suggest we strip all erstwhile "sysops" of their
>too-easily-abusable rights, in favor of this system.)
Have administrators ("sysops") been abusing their power?
While some have made *mistakes*, I haven't seen any abuse.
And the mistakes are correctable, since there are many administrators
(more than just 3 at any given time!).
Even abuse should be correctable in this way.
>I am not going to argue for this or elaborate it anytime soon. (I'd like
>to get the Wikipedia peer review project going first:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/sifter-l ) But I would lot to
>hear nonfallacious, nonvacuous, non-potshot-ish comments about it, if
>anyone has any.
Of course, you *have* been arguing for it since this post ^_^.
But I won't hold you to a promise that was probably unwise to begin with
(much as I don't hold politicians to promises to retire after 2 terms).
You should be able to defend your position against unreasonable attacks
(or even those that you think to be unreasonable).
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1492
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 11 23:26:00 UTC 2002
Larry,
good idea. I presume you wrote this before reading my response to your
last mail, so here are my additions.
> ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
> PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia. Many newbies
> (and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the
> basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer
> pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional
> actual sanction seems to be solving this problem. Well-respected, clearly
> productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with
> these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.
OTHER:
I see two possible problems: a problem of simple, easy to discern
vandalism and nonsense on the one hand and not so simple to evaluate
violations of group policy on the other hand. I submit that vandalism is a
significant and possibly growing problem that is not properly addressed,
because, while it's simple to solve, too few people are involved in its
solution (too few sysops), but increasing their number also increases the
risks of abuse and error. The current administration is therefore not
scalable.
I do consider the problem of regular users who break rules significant,
but not urgent, and believe that our policy needs to focus on
rehabilitation. I further submit that we do, in fact, need a decision
process to decide which policies we want to enforce against regular users
and how much leeway we want to give them, i.e. to which extent we want to
rely on "soft security".
> ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
OTHER:
The Open Voting Option: Users can create two types of polls, inquiry polls
(non binding) and policy polls (binding, with enforcement). Only a smaller
group of users (still larger than the current admin group) can create
policy polls, but the same group of users (e.g. everyone with >=n
contributions) can vote in both types of polls. Policy polls can contain
only specific types of options: ban user X, delete page Y, etc., but still
follow the same discussion/voting principle.
Polls get their own namespace, and on the page where the poll is, users
can also provide arguments for or against the different options. So I
would go to [[Poll:Ban Lir]] and could see the different opinions and vote
on them.
PRO CONTRA
Lir has made many silly Lir has made xx valuable
contributions and can't contributions and is trying
be trusted to improve her behavior
VOTE
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
Don't care [ ]
More info needed [ ]
.. other standard options for policy polls? ..
Inquiry polls would allow the options to be defined freely and primarily
be used to gather opinions in less extreme conflicts among reasonable
persons. As voting styles, both first-past-the-post (winner takes all) and
preferential voting are reasonably simple and should be supported, policy
polls work better with fpp voting (clearly distinct options).
Recently added polls would be listed on a separate page like
Recent_changes. The poll would be closed after a given timespan, defined
by the person who creates it. For policy polls, depending on the type of
action, we could set different threshold for whether we want to take it,
e.g. banning an anon user should be easier than banning a signed in user.
Minimum number of votes may be necessary, but not too high.
Possible problems:
- we need to develop effective ways to deal with vote flooding in the long
term (the system can be designed to repel basic attacks)
- ??
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1493
[Wikipedia-l] voting
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 23:33:33 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 18:19, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> We must end the nonsense. Never again must a page like,
> "Anti-American Wikipedians" be deleted on the say-so of some elitist.
> We must vote on such issues. Never again should the name of Munchen or
> Colombo be decided by some American with administrative powers. We
> must vote on such issues and we must start this voting process soon.
Quite declaratively put. But where's the fire? The Anti-American
Wikipedians page was deleted, but then it was undeleted. I'd say the
only problem is that you're not a sysop; then you could have undeleted
it yourself.
The only other problem is that, as I see it, there's a basic
inconsistency in having both meta and the Wikipedia: namespace, since
they serve overlapping functions, and overlapping functionality leads to
conflict. But I'm willing to go with the implicit rule of "If it annoys
somebody, put it on meta."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1494
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Our options; *your* opinion requested
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 23:38:43 UTC 2002
On Monday 11 November 2002 02:39 pm, Larry wrote:
> The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and
> settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out
> by our sysops.
I vote for this option
> The Moderators Option: Rather than having giving power to all sysops who
> ask for it, we should give the power to moderators on a rotating basis.
> They act explicitly as judges, adjudicating disputes and building up a
> history of cases that allows us to find-tune and rationally apply the
> rules that eliminate from our presence trolls and others who simply refuse
> to play by the rules. They are responsible for judging by the rules
> fairly, and as a result the office of moderator is rewarded with moral
> authority.
Bad idea. We already have the problem of not having enough sysops to watch the
shop and perform maintenance. I would, however, support the /addition/ of
moderators to the current set-up. The moderators would decide the borderline
cases, content wars, blocking of POV users etc.
You still haven't responded to my previous post on this issue.
See
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/007226.html
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1495
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 11 23:45:24 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote to Larry Sanger in part:
>In general, I do not see the problems you see.
I agree with you here, Erik, and with others that have said the same thing.
The problems with disruptive users (Helga, Lir, et al) aren't getting worse.
(This is distinct from the problems with vandals.)
>Note that one of your favorite "bad examples", Everything2, is an example
>for a community that has been completely eroded by a supposedly benevolent
>elite (albeit not a random, changing one).
I think that you're too dismissive of the value of random selection, however.
This should be moot, since I agree with the more overarching point
that it's better to have lots of administrators with devolved power
than a select few, however selected.
But when a select few is selected,
then random selection breaks up concentrations of power --
assuming that the select few in question actually has the power.
>Express respect for the other person's view, and try to find a way to
>integrate it without violating NPOV.
I agree with Larry that it's useless to express respect for
people that are constitutionally incapable of acting respectably.
(And I do believe that there are such people, in the short term.)
However, I don't think that any of us is able to judge ahead of time
which these people are. Ed Poor is famous for mentoring new users,
whom he treats with respect and whose views he tries to integrate,
and many of them have turned out to respond well to his efforts.
A few, like Helga, did not -- but Ed would never have had his successes
if he didn't treat *everybody* with respect.
So in conclusion, I agree with you again, Erik.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1496
[Wikipedia-l] Arms race.
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 11 23:44:24 UTC 2002
People have stated that the percentage of vandalism by anonymous users
has gone up recently.
Is this simply because we have instituted IP blocking, and increasingly
use it?
It's hardly unlikely. In fact, it's what normally happens when hard
security measures are taken.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1497
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Our options; *your* opinion requested
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 11 23:49:00 UTC 2002
> I vote for this option
Since you are voting already, would you mind commenting on my voting
proposal?
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1498
[Wikipedia-l] voting
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Mon Nov 11 23:54:25 UTC 2002
While the rest of the world came to to the conclusion that America is just a jumped up banana-republic junta run by a bunch of crypto-fascists with a finger glued permanently to the self-destruct button a long time ago, you're not allowed to point it out in Wikipedia. How thoroughly refreshing to be working on such an enlightened project. Dickens' Ministry of Circumlocution would have been proud of the people who deleted that page.
rgds
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message -----
From: Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons]
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:19 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] voting
We need voting. Some people here are advocating for a "republic". Who are they to declare that they are an expert on experts? We must have voting. There are issues to be resolved. Obviously we do not want to be dominated by a "majority" of generated IPs. But we must have voting.
We must end the nonsense. Never again must a page like, "Anti-American Wikipedians" be deleted on the say-so of some elitist. We must vote on such issues. Never again should the name of Munchen or Colombo be decided by some American with administrative powers. We must vote on such issues and we must start this voting process soon.
Democracy is a difficult concept. Should we accept it we are then facecd with the decision of whether to have a representative or pure democracy. I argue, in the spirit of the founding fathers of America (who argued for a blend between a republic and a pure democracy ie the representative democracy), I argue for a blend between the pure democracy and the representative democracy.
We must have a vote. This first vote is very simple. It will ask
Should we start voting?
One can either say Yes, No, or give a user name. If you give a user name then your vote will be identical to that users vote. In that manner, somebody that is unsure of what to vote for, can give way to another whom they believe will make the correct choice.
Once we have a decision to start voting we can then work out the details of such a proces, THROUGH VOTING.
There is one minor detail that must be decided and that is, "Who can vote in this first question?" Shall we limit it to mav and larry sanger? Perhaps we will let Epopt and Cunctuator contribute their opinion as well. On the other hand we could let everyone vote and Fucking Asshole, Lear, and 63.32 will weigh in heavily with their opinions.
This decision must be made. We must vote and we must choose who can vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/cf2189fe/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1499
[Wikipedia-l] Re: voting
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 12 00:03:53 UTC 2002
On Monday 11 November 2002 03:12 pm, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] (aka Lir) wrote:
> We must end the nonsense. Never again must a page like, "Anti-American
> Wikipedians" be deleted on the say-so of some elitist. We must vote on such
> issues. Never again should the name of Munchen or Colombo be decided by
> some American with administrative powers. We must vote on such issues and
> we must start this voting process soon.
The Anti-American page was POV nonsense that is counter to our goal of
creating an NPOV encyclopedia and a cohesive community. It has therefore been
moved to meta where it belongs.
Naming conventions have been shaped through many many months of hard work and
discussion by many different users. Unilaterally and deliberately going
against that is a slap in the face of everybody who has worked to shape these
conventions. So the only person acting unilaterally here was the person
moving the page from the naming convention-compliant title to the
non-compliant title.
Voting is fine if it refines established law. But voting is dangerous without
protections in the form of a clear set of rules, conventions and case history
to act as a stop-gap to control mob rule.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1500
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 00:13:33 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>The Cunctator wrote:
>>There seems to be a pretty fixed number of Wikipedians who write "write
>>nonsense, brazen political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff" on a
>>consistent basis.
>>And that fixed number can be counted on one hand.
>I'm not just concerned about the ones who do it "on a consistent basis."
>I'm really concerned about the behavior, not the people. Moreover, the
>number of people who have polluted Wikipedia to any very significant
>degree in these ways would easily run into the many dozens. That's not
>counting the mere vandals. We've just forgotten about them because
>they've gone away, in many cases very quickly. The ones whose names
>immediately come to mind can be counted on one hand, yes.
If they come in, cause some trouble, and then go away,
causing little enough trouble and going away quickly enough
that we've forgotten about them, then I'm OK with that
(much as I'm OK with the fact that anaesthesia wouldn't work as well
if they didn't include amnesia inducing agents in it).
That's the price of being a wiki -- people can cause trouble.
Enforcing community standards will get rid of them --
which we did, without needing to take it to the list.
So the system works.
>I remember writing at one point (for the "replies to our
>critics" page, I think) that we hadn't had many problems with cranks and
>internecine warfare. Now, I really couldn't write that, and I suspect the
>"replies" page should be updated, if it hasn't already been.
>What do the rest of you think?
I think that we haven't had many problems with cranks and internecine warfare.
It would be wrong to say that we haven't had *any*.
Perhaps you and I differ about what "many" is.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1501
[Wikipedia-l] Arms race.
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 00:25:56 UTC 2002
>People have stated that the percentage of vandalism by anonymous users
>has gone up recently.
>Is this simply because we have instituted IP blocking, and increasingly
>use it?
>It's hardly unlikely. In fact, it's what normally happens when hard
>security measures are taken.
Surely you mean to say "logged in users" at the end of the first line?
Then yes, this is what happens when people meet with hard security,
they find ways to work around it.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1502
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 12 00:28:55 UTC 2002
> Those car windows represent work and labor on
> someones part, whether the builder, or someone who
> traded their labor for those car windows. To
> destroy those windows is to rob someone of their
> labor. Anarchists clearly frown on robbery, as it
> is a form of coercion.
This is not a debate on the flavors of anarchism, but
an example illustrating that the gang's desire to
smash windows is objectively equal to Ed's desire to
leave them intact.
If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers
the intact windshields to be the "means of production"
through which broken windshields are produced.
Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use
their ownership of these means of production to exert
control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to
take "possession" of the windshields while they put
they to the use of being smashed.
You can label the thought processes of the gang
whatever you like, I really don't care. Call them
"anarcho-capitalists" or call them "crypto-facists".
The point is that without some moral absolutes, Ed and
the gang are on equal moral ground.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1503
[Wikipedia-l] Re: voting
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 12 00:29:36 UTC 2002
On Monday 11 November 2002 03:48 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> While the rest of the world came to to the conclusion that America is =
> just a jumped up banana-republic junta run by a bunch of crypto-fascists =
> with a finger glued permanently to the self-destruct button a long time =
> ago, you're not allowed to point it out in Wikipedia. How thoroughly =
> refreshing to be working on such an enlightened project. Dickens' =
> Ministry of Circumlocution would have been proud of the people who =
> deleted that page.
>
> rgds
>
> Steve Callaway
Then state your POV on your user page or write an essay and post it at Meta.
But leave the wikipedia:namespace free from POV divisiveness.
We have open POV forums. Please use the correct channels.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1504
[Wikipedia-l] Soft Bans?
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 00:37:33 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
>If we set a cookie in the browsers of all Wikipedia visitors, anonymous or
>not, we could the assign them random global user IDs. Instead of banning users
>by IP, we could ban them by GUID, which would eliminate the risk of
>accidentally banning legitimate contributors.
>While the majority of users have cookies enabled, a minority does not, so
>"soft bans" as I like to call them would not work for them. Other users might
>be smart enough to turn cookies off to avoid the ban. But I consider both
>beyond the technical understanding of most vandals, so I think soft bans might
>be quite efficient.
>What do you think?
I don't think that this is particularly *soft*,
just less error prone that banning by IP.
That is, it's less prone to errors of one type (banning the innocent)
and more prone to errors of the other type (not banning the guilty).
Will it work?
We could test the situation by giving anonymous users such cookies
and seeing how often the same IP comes back without the same cookie.
Then we could try to determine if any of these cases are the same person.
If not, or if rarely, then this method will have a good chance of working,
on the technically unsavvy.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1505
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Tue Nov 12 00:27:44 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 04:28:55PM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
>This is not a debate on the flavors of anarchism, but
>an example illustrating that the gang's desire to
>smash windows is objectively equal to Ed's desire to
>leave them intact.
And? Mere desire has nothing to do with moral absolutes.
>If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers
>the intact windshields to be the "means of production"
>through which broken windshields are produced.
>Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use
>their ownership of these means of production to exert
>control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to
>take "possession" of the windshields while they put
>they to the use of being smashed.
If the cars were being used as instruments of coercion and oppression,
then the gang would be justified in destroying them. But you never
specified that when you first stated the example.
>The point is that without some moral absolutes, Ed and
>the gang are on equal moral ground.
What makes you think anarchists don't have morals?
Capitalists are never anarchists; the accumulation of wealth in private
hands invariably involves coercion.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/8213d5a3/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1506
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Arms race.
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 12 00:54:33 UTC 2002
On Monday 11 November 2002 04:43 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> >People have stated that the percentage of vandalism by anonymous users
> >has gone up recently.
> >
> >Is this simply because we have instituted IP blocking, and increasingly
> >use it?
> >
> >It's hardly unlikely. In fact, it's what normally happens when hard
> >security measures are taken.
>
> Surely you mean to say "logged in users" at the end of the first line?
> Then yes, this is what happens when people meet with hard security,
> they find ways to work around it.
>
>
> -- Toby
That is why we should always try to follow vandals around and fix their
vandalism first before resorting to a block.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1507
[Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 12 01:01:47 UTC 2002
On Monday 11 November 2002 04:43 pm, TMC wrote:
> If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers
> the intact windshields to be the "means of production"
> through which broken windshields are produced.
> Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use
> their ownership of these means of production to exert
> control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to
> take "possession" of the windshields while they put
> they to the use of being smashed.
That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap. If somebody goes to the effort
of building something or working their ass-off to pay for something it is
absolutely wrong for somebody else to destroy that. Basic morality 101.
If this is your true position then their is no reason to try and reason with
you because your frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1508
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Tue Nov 12 01:58:04 UTC 2002
So, having truncated your name out of respect for Tarquin, why not
change it out of respect for Isis?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1509
[Wikipedia-l] Once again: Please revoke my sysop status
Brion Vibber
vibber at lvl-sun703.usc.edu
Tue Nov 12 02:04:05 UTC 2002
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
> Once again, because my previous post did not result in any action:
>
> To those with the power to do so: could you please revoke my sysop status?
> I no longer have the will and the time to carry the responsibility that
> comes with administratorship. Reading discussions (e.g. on Wikipedia-L) is
> taking too much time and bringing too little enjoyment or satisfaction for
> me to continue doing it. I'd much rather withdraw myself from that and
> focus on writing and editing instead, without being "bothered" by the -
> implicit - responsibilities of a sysop.
Done.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1510
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Lir yet again
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 11 22:02:43 UTC 2002
On Monday 11 November 2002 07:52 am, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> Because of the "Anti". Enlisting as a queer user says nothing about your
> attitude about non-queer people. Positive categories are fine (ecologists,
> human right or peace activists, atheist, christian or muslim), negative
> categories are evil: "anti-christian", "antisemite", because they don't say
> only something about the self-categorized person but also insult other
> people.
>
> greetings,
> elian
Somebody already mentioned the "Pro- Osama" vs "Anti- Osama" dilemma. I
therefore renew my call for the moving of the POV wikipedians/foo pages to
meta. Anti this and pro that do not serve our goal of creating an NPOV free
encyclopedia. These categories only serve to divide the community and
community building is means to attaining our goal. Meta was created for POV
material and for Wikipedians to "hang out", so lets use it for what it was
made for.
Somebody else had the idea of creating different types of /useful/ categories
such as Wikipedians who have knowledge of certain subjects. I think this a
great idea that should be integrated with the Wikipedia:Help Desk page along
with the Wikipedians page. These types of categories are useful because they
further goals of the project.
Just because you are a Linux user, or happen to be gay, or a vegetarian
doesn't mean that you have the requisite knowledge to write NPOV articles on
these subjects. These pages are therefore only of peripheral interest and
should be moved to a POV-friendly forum.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1511
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 02:22:41 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>Our collective experience is more than enough proof that we need
>*consistent* enforcement, Erik, not *stronger* enforcement.
You're talking about consistency regarding people like Helga and Lir, right?
(I think that we're already pretty consistent about vandalism.)
I agree with you and Ed (if you're saying what I think you are)
that we need to design policies for these situations
so that they can begin to be enforced consistently.
I don't think that this requires a new class of administrator,
since the situations come up rarely enough that
ordinary adminstrators can deal with them
(or could if given the power to ban logged in users,
a change that would be useful even only for vandals).
But a consistent policy on what the authority to ban should be
would be a very good idea.
>Your interest is obviously not in reducing
>power but in keeping power distributed among a lot of different people who
>use it in totally different, inconsistent ways, and none of which has any
>particular respect among other users. Virtually anyone can, for the
>asking, get sysop privileges and start banning IPs and locking pages.
>That certainly appears to be mob rule and by golly, in my experience on
>Wikipedia lately I have to say it certainly *feels* like mob rule.
It doesn't feel like mob rule to me,
because adminstrators don't abuse their power.
When we have mistakes, it's because the policies either aren't clear
(and in that case we need a change, we need to write clear policies)
are aren't understood (and in that case we don't need a change,
since the mistake can be undone by another administrator).
>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>Larry Sanger wrote:
>>>In that case, we can always collect a list of people who have been
>>>driven away or who have quietly stopped editing so much out of disgust
>>>with having to deal with people who just don't get it.
>>That's not the kind of list I'm talking about, because it only tells us
>>about the reactions, not the actual actions. You may say that these people
>>were driven away by silly eedjots, but I cannot tell whether this is true
>>without looking at the actual conflicts.
>Be serious--look at what you just wrote. Does anyone other than you
>really need it to be proven? It's *obvious* to anyone who has observed
>very many of the people who have left the project in disgust.
It's obvious to me only because I've looked at the conflicts,
and then only in those cases where I *have* looked at the conlficts
(which is all of the cases that I know about, which is very few).
If Erik hasn't seen the conflicts, then they should be pointed out to him
(this is where viewing deleted pages without undeleting them would be useful)
so that it can become obvious to him.
>It's also
>quite obviously the fact that we have to tolerate a bunch of people who
>just don't want to play by the rules--even after being told what the rules
>are and that those rules are indeed not going to be changed--that a lot of
>highly qualified people see the website and decide not to participate.
And it's not obvious to me that this actually happens at all.
Who are the "highly qualified" people that decide not to participate?
You know them, I suppose; Erik and I don't.
>But in the mouths of any libertarian or anarchist
(quoted for context of the word "ideology" below)
>The result of this ideology is that *anyone* who is distinguished in any
>way that results in their having more authority--whether officially or
>unofficially--will be opposed as an evil "elite" or "cabal" by you and
>people like you.
Although Erik claims not to be one of them (and I believe him),
I suspect that we do have a lot of libertarians and anarchists here,
and if you want people to have moral authority among these users,
then it won't be helpful to give them extraordinary powers.
(Of course, the anarchists will prefer to say
"community trust" rather than "moral authority",
but you don't have to let them in on that -_^.)
>>>Well, the times I'm concerned about aren't necessarily times when people
>>>are shouting against the majority, but when they write nonsense, brazen
>>>political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so forth--in other
>>>words, violating community standards.
>>Do you mean nonsense in the sense of "something that just isn't true"
>>or in the sense of simple noise, like crapflooders? How do you plan to
>>define / recognize "crankish unspported stuff"?
>Do you really think it would resolve anything in our discussion if I were
>to supply you with an answer to these questions? No, you seem to want to
>ask rhetorical questions, and the point of the questions is: there are no
>clear standards whereby we can determine when community standards are
>violated.
I think that it's an important practical question
if your system of moderators is to be used.
What will the standards by which moderators decide
whether or not community standards have been violated?
Specifically (for Erik's question), how will they decide
when something is "crankish unsupported stuff"?
You answer this practical question in general below:
>Some standards are explicitly stated and have been vigorously debated and
>shaped to something well-understood and -agreed by Wikipedia's old guard
>and best contributors; for example, NPOV, having lower-cased titles, and
>not signing articles. Other standards are specific to a field and some of
>them are known (and indeed perhaps knowable) only to people who have given
>adequate time studying the subject. There are certainly clear standards
>of both sorts, and the fact that there are borderline cases, where we're
>not sure what to say, hardly impugns the idea that there are such clear
>standards.
:except for the borderline cases, which is a pretty good start.
And if the borderline cases are rare, then the answer to that could be
case law, as you mentioned in your original moderator proposal,
so now the general question is completely answered.
But you didn't answer the specific question,
about detecting "crankish unsupported stuff",
which IMO is still a reasonable practical question.
>(As an aside, [[Neutral point of view]] has specific implications for the
>case that you raise; where the implications are unclear, we use our
>judgment and engage in debate.)
Well, we do now. What will the moderators do,
when there are only 3 of them at one time,
and nobody besides Jimbo can overrule the trifecta
until their term of office is over?
(after which they still leave their precedent in case law).
It might be better to clarify the implications now, where possible.
We don't have to figure this out immediately,
but I think that it's important to Erik,
so if you have ideas, then it will help you to mention them.
(It will also help Erik to read [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]
and come up with specific examples, hypothetical or not,
of the sort of thing that still worries him after reading that.)
>>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>>>I am, like many others, a big believer in the concept of "soft
>>>>security".
>>>Why don't you explain exactly what that means here on the list, and why
>>>you and others think it's such a good thing?
>>The idea of soft security has evolved in wikis, and it is only fair to
>>point you to the respective page at MeatballWiki for the social and
>>technical components of soft security:
>>http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity
>I'm not particularly interested in going to the website to find out what
>you mean.
Then you're not particularly interested in engaging in discussion with him.
That's your right.
>If you want to introduce an unfamiliar term into a debate, it
>is polite to define it. Use information from that Usemod page to make
>your case, but don't expect me to go there and provide you arguments
>against it here on Wikipedia-L.
I went to the web page, and it means pretty much what I thought that it did
(I had previously just figured out the meaning from context on this list).
I'd copy down the definition for you, but there is no definition;
it's a vague concept, so instead I'll list examples and nonexamples.
And of course, I'll have to define what each of the examples is.
Actually, rather than put all that text into this post,
let me just point you to two web pages that have it already:
<http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity> (for the examples)
and <http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?HardSecurity> (for the nonexamples).
Both pages have some stuff after the lists of examples,
but you can ignore all of that (although you might find it interesting).
I think that this is an entirely reasonable way to carry on a discussion.
It's not like I've put down a dozen links that you need to hunt through;
I've put down two links that clearly and up front say what I want to say.
If you don't want to continue the discussion under these terms,
then that's your choice.
>Erik, two things. First, we already have banning and deletion.
>From what you say I infer that Wikipedia has LONG AGO decided
>against using SoftSecurity. Those of you who promote it apparently are
>trying to change it.
Rather, Wikipedia has decided against using *only* soft security.
It still uses many soft security measures,
the most obvious being the ability of any user
to undo the changes done by any other user
(on the same level of Ed's hierarchy of power).
>It's very hard to abuse power in an environment when a sizable
>minority of the contributors are virtually drooling with the opportunity
>to catch someone in an act of abuse of power. (I oughta know.)
Well, but you never really *tried*, now did you? ^_^
>You say that you're disgusted by the thought that we are already banning
>innocent users. The best way we have of ensuring against that is by
>adopting my proposal; it would provide for a totally open, regular,
>rational method of imposing sanctions, quite unlike the present system.
But your proposal isn't about banning vandals, is it?
Surely you're not saying that 3 moderators at a time
is better than every administrator going after the vandals!
And the banning of innocent users is primarily occurring
as a side effect of the war against vandalism.
This is an important, but I think different, issue.
One possible solution is to automatically unban after, say, a week.
Erik (or maybe it was somebody else) has suggested a technical fix
that would improve this (but possibly worsen other things),
on a different thread.
>My point was that peer pressure
>*did* indeed work pretty well under my tenure. It seems to be working
>considerably less well now. Whether my official presence had anything to
>do with it, I don't know or care; I do know that the problem is far worse
>than it was.
>Again, you could ask the many people who have left or who have stopped
>contributing as much.
We should also ask the people that *haven't* done this.
(Not me; I wasn't around when Larry was official.)
>>>I don't want to see
>>>something that I've helped build wear away into something awful.
>>Again, I'm not seeing that happen.
>Then, frankly, Erik, you haven't been paying attention, or your ideology
>is blinding you to facts that seem obvious to the many others who have
>commented on them on Wikipedia-l.
I've been paying attention, but I'm not seeing it happen either.
Perhaps I'm blinded by my ideology; perhaps you're blinded by yours.
Since I can't tell in either case, I'm just going to have to give
each of our impressions equal weight.
>>>But one reason I'm worried about the current state of Wikipedia is
>>>that we might have some expert reviewers coming in to do some good
>>>work here, only to be attacked by some eedjit who gets his jollies out
>>>of attacking an expert precisely because she's an expert. That *will*
>>>happen, almost certainly, if the Wikipedia peer review project gets
>>>going.
These experts will be in a much better position
than Julie was to ignore their attacks.
They make their edits, approve the article,
and if the eedjit messes it up, still Recylopediasifter will be OK.
So while they'll no doubt be just as annoyed
(since they'll have to undo the eedjit every time that
the article comes back around on their schedule for review,
assuming that nobody else has dealt with it in the meantime),
they won't have to leave the project, since Wikipedia isn't the project.
>>Well, I can predict that I'm going to "attack" experts myself if they
>>add non-NPOV content, fail to cite sources properly, insist on their
>>authority to make their point etc.
>Good luck. Remember, experts know more about their areas than you do.
>That's why we call them experts. So don't embarrass yourself too badly.
First, the people on Recyclopediasifter will be PhDs, not experts.
While these characteristics tend to go together, they're not the same thing.
More importantly, if Erik attacks an expert (not just a PhD, but an expert)
for not citing sources and arguing fallaciously (argument by authority),
and if the expert comes back and cites sources and argues validly
and proves her point beyond any doubt, leaving her critics in the dust,
then I for one will not consider Erik to have lost any face.
(Nor the experpt, because while she was in danger for a moment there,
in the end she made good.)
OTOH, if Erik tells an expert that she isn't being NPOV,
and the withering force of her vast knowledge proves that she is,
then, yeah, he should be embarrassed. That's the risk of debate.
>>My view on experts and what makes an expert is very different from
>>yours, but I believe both views can coexist in a good certification
>>system.
>I'm a Ph.D. epistemologist. My dissertation adviser was (still is) an
>expert on the concept of expertise, and I've read several papers on this
>area of social epistemology as part of a graduate course. In addition, I
>gave careful thought to this subject while working on Nupedia. Now, what
>is [it] that you think [is] my view of what experts are and what makes an
>expert?
(I'm not sure if I parsed the last sentence correctly, so please check it.)
I get the strong impression from what I've read of your opinions,
here and on Nupedia, that you think that experts are usually correct
and that academic degrees are strong evidence of expertise.
I get the (weaker) impression that Erik doesn't believe these things.
But rather than go by my impressions (or Erik's, since you asked him),
we'd probably get further if each of you just came out and said
*what* your views on experts and what makes an expert *are*.
>>>The whole reason behind a random sample is precisely to forestall the
>>>sort of "elitism" and abuse of power that you fear.
>>I know, and I respect this good intention. I just don't think it's the
>>right approach, it will only lead to less informed decisions. Better keep
>>the decision process open to (almost) everybody (we need to prevent vote
>>flooding as well), that way we can reduce abuse of power the most
>>effectively. That's why K5's moderation system works and Slashdot's
>>doesn't.
>I just have no idea why you say the system I proposed would "lead to less
>informed decisions." Perhaps you should reread the proposal (even though
>it was, as I said, just a rough outline); I even went so far as to suggest
>that perhaps there would be a body of Wikipedia "case law" developed, that
>moderators could consult. This would lead to *less* informed decisions
>than in the present case, when virtually anyone can have the power to ban
>and delete?
Why can't we start developing the case law anyway,
either under the present system of discussion and consensus,
or under Erik's voting proposal?
In fact, I claim that we *have*been* developing such case law,
in the form of the precedents and customs that we bring up
every time discussion of a new content based banning takes place,
and also bring up in the talk discussions that precede such efforts.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1512
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Our options; *your* opinion requested
Lee Pilich
pilich at btopenworld.com
Tue Nov 12 02:53:09 UTC 2002
Herein my opinion:
At 22:39 11/11/2002 +0000, Larry wrote:
>ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
>
>PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia.
[snip]
No, the "problem" now is no worse than it has ever been, at least not since
July, when I arrived. If there is a problem, it is manageable.
Vandalism happens in many forms - revert or improve the edits. Simple.
>ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
>
>The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of powers
>to ban and to delete pages permanently. "SoftSecurity" alone is adequate
>as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.
I don't see how this is the "anarchist" option. I should think the
anarchist option, in as much as anarchists can be said to be a unified body
(which they're certainly not), would be to give everybody (read "all signed
in users") the ability to delete pages, the ability to undelete pages, the
ability to block and unblock IPs. I would be in favour of that. But things
work as they are now, also, I think.
I love the wikipedia, but sometimes I get the impression that certain
people on this list are very bored, and so argue about something when
there's really bugger all to argue about. Edit some articles, for god's
sake. I thought the idea was to build an encyclopaedia, not argue in circles.
There's my opinion. Sorry I couldn't quite resist mild rudeness. I shall
now retreat once more into my shell.
LP (camembert)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1513
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 03:12:55 UTC 2002
Mav wrote in part:
>If you want to establish *clear consequences* for breaking the rules then how
>about we add to each edit window a statement saying "By saving this page you
>agree to the rules and conditions of using this website" (rules and
>conditions would link to our policy page). Of course we would have to redo
>the policy page so that only real policies are on it. The policies listed IMO
>should be; NPOV, no copyright violations, 'we are an encyclopedia' and yes
>Wikipetiquette.
I like this idea, although rather than change the main policy page,
we should have one specific [[Wikipedia:Absolute policies]] page,
and link to that. This page should be locked.
(If we're really paranoid, then we could link to
a specific spot in the page's history.)
We can then discuss what should be on that page,
which should always be kept very short.
I agree with the first 2 of your 4 suggestions,
and I await others' opinions.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1514
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 03:29:02 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>Jimbo has supreme power.
>The developers have all the rights of sysops, plus the "can" revoke anyone's
>sysop status, ban a signed-in user and permanently erase any version of any
>article. (This doesn't mean they're "authorized" to, just that the power is
>in their hands.)
>The sysops can protect or "delete" a page and ban any IP, even one used by
>a signed-in contributor, as was done temporarily to Lir. Sysops can edit a
>protected page.
>Ordinary signed-in users have immunity from banning, although they might have
>to jump through hoops if their IP is blocked. They can't delete pages, edit
>protected pages or block IPs. They get a user page.
>The non-signed-in can edit any page except the few protected pages, and they
>don't get a user page. They can be blocked by any sysop.
I disagree with your assessment of the current situation
only in that I believe that the bottom 2 levels are really the same.
You're talking about power here, what people can do if they so choose.
(For instance, you list the developers' *power* to permanently delete pages,
because they can, even though they don't have the *authority* to do so.)
Well, an anonymous user can sign in, quite easily.
There's really no difference; even I make anonymous edits occasionally.
But this doesn't mean that I'm shifting levels back and forth,
because at any time that I want to use my adminstrator powers,
I can sign in and do so.
>This is what Jimbo will most likely do:
>* don't fix it, 'cause it ain't broken.
>Larry and others are saying:
>* it's broken, so fix it or I'll leave, or
>* it's broken, and you didn't fix it, so I'm leaving
>I'm saying:
>* it's broken, so let's all put our heads together and find a way to fix it
>before it falls apart completely
I say:
* it's not broken, except in the sense that it's a hierarchy at all,
but it can still be improved; I'm no conservative.
Whatever happened to mav's suggestion of automatic old hand status?
That makes the difference between the bottom two levels smaller
(where "bottom two" is defined after I merge Ed's old bottom two).
And since the only reason that administrators can't ban logged in users
is that we have no way to figure out what their IP numbers are,
let's open that up to all administrators.
After all, developers don't have more power than other administrators
because we decided that they should have more authority,
and then gave them the power to back that up;
rather, they have more power because they have direct access to the database.
If that's power that needs to be used (other than for coding, of course),
then the authority should devlove to all administrators,
and we should find a way to give us the power to back that authority up.
This still leaves the problem that banning can be cast too wide --
this *is* broken, but it's a technical problem of getting the right peron --
and the problem of when we should ban other than for vandalism --
that's not broken, since we discuss it on the list,
but it can be improved, primarily by coming up with clear policies.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1515
[Wikipedia-l] Survey replies
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Tue Nov 12 03:41:18 UTC 2002
I'd better report on two private replies I received to my survey.
Further replies to my survey should go to the list. Here were the two
replies.
First reply:
Issue 1: Yes, it is a serious problem and it exists.
Issue 2: The Moderators Option
Second reply:
>ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
I don't agree with either your pro or your con. Yes, there is a
problem, yes people can often be guided not to be a problem, yes it's
happened before, no it's not happening now (and I'm part of the
problem in that regard, b/c I've not been active on the pedia lately
and would have made considerable strides towards calming e.g. Lir if
at all possible).
>ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
>The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and
>settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out
>by our sysops.
yes. we do. I think we've grown past the point where community norms
are obvious, and the more we grow the less obvious they will be (and
the less normative also).
The only consensus I see developing is the need for more clearly stated
community standards. I certainly agree with that myself.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1516
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 03:35:52 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following all over
>Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical case, I assure
>you ;-)
>"I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't stop
>me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
That's clearly vandalism, of a fairly ordinary sort,
so the user should be banned; there's no doubt there.
The only problem is that, due to a technical feature
(that you can't find out the user's IP number
without looking directly into the database),
most administrators don't have the power to ban the user.
(We all have the authority, however; we all may ban vandals.)
I suppose that the administrators might take a closer look
and realise that there were mitigating circumstances,
such as we have here, where the vandal is a trusted user
(in fact an administrator himself) that we know will clean his mess up,
and was simply trying to make a point, however "poor"ly (as he later admits).
With clear guidelines and policies about how banning works, however,
we might be in a situation where we're not allowed to make an exception.
*That*'s an important point.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1517
[Wikipedia-l] Enough for now
Larry Sanger
lsanger at seeatown.com
Tue Nov 12 03:54:54 UTC 2002
Well, folks, I've had enough for now. I can't continue these
conversations, because they are taking far too much of my time; I couldn't
do them justice if I wanted to. You also won't see me much anytime soon
on Wikipedia itself. I really do apologize to those (few, no doubt) who
thought I was a positive influence recently. I wish I had the time,
energy, and patience to continue, and I hope you'll keep fighting the good
fight.
I will continue to work on Sifter-l, though.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1518
[Wikipedia-l] Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce them
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 03:47:29 UTC 2002
Ortolan88 wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>I like the idea that people come from outside the discussion
>>to impose civility in this fashion by moderating.
>Larry Sanger has been doing it recently, generally to good effect
>(against me, as it happens). I would add that anyone doing this sort
>of graybeard oversight will have to forego the luxury of sarcasm, even
>in the comment line, and resist the temptation to chime in on every
>little point. Those things reduce the value of the outside
>intervention and make it seem less disinterested (neutral).
Right. You can't be a moderator if you're a participant.
Of course, now the word "moderator" is associated with
Larry's proposal of a new class of superuser,
in addition to or replacing the ordinary sysops,
with powers to back up their (hoped for) moral authority,
and limited to a small number at a time (say 3),
but rotating randomly to everybody eventually.
I'm opposed to all of that (except the random rotation,
if it must happen at all).
*However*, nothing is stopping any of us, *right*now*,
even those of us that are *not*sysops*,
from using the respect that we have gained in the past,
and the moral authority that this confers upon us,
to act as Ed has been doing since he arrived,
as moderators in a purely etymological sense of the term,
without the need for any special powers or official appointments.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1519
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 03:54:09 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>If we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt, then we have
>a standard. All I'm saying is: let's refine and enshrine our standards.
Do we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt?
We have standards on not violating copyright and on vandalising;
either of these alone is sufficient for those specific cases.
I personally wouldn't want to enshrine an additional standard.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1520
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 03:59:30 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote in part:
>I don't understand your "functionality" vs. "authority" distinction.
>I maintain that Wikipedia has *de facto* five levels of AUTHORITY.
>There are five levels of POWER in our community.
I don't know exactly what "functionality" is supposed to mean,
but there is definitely a difference between power and authority.
You alluded to it in your description of the developer level,
although not with exactly those terms.
Power is purely factual; it's what you can do if you decide to.
Authority is normative; it's what you're authorised to do.
Power without authority, if acted upon, is abuse of power.
Authority without power cannot be acted upon, but should be;
to rectify this, authority must be backed up with power.
"functionality", AFAICT, could mean either of these,
or something else entirely.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1521
[Wikipedia-l] how to stop vandal bots
Bridget
Bridget
Tue Nov 12 05:20:32 UTC 2002
Code a means by which all edits by a certain user can be undone.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/8abcab93/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1522
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 05:40:19 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
>Capitalists are never anarchists; the accumulation of wealth in private
>hands invariably involves coercion.
(Actually, this statement is a category error.)
But why in the world are we talking about it here?
Even the post that you responded to didn't mention
capitalism, or anarcho-capitalists, or anything like that.
Is this some other discussion, drifted over from [[Anarchism]] or something?
Is that why TMC is trying to score rhetorical points over nobody?
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1523
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Tue Nov 12 05:37:40 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:40:19PM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Capitalists are never anarchists; the accumulation of wealth in private
>>hands invariably involves coercion.
>
>(Actually, this statement is a category error.)
>But why in the world are we talking about it here?
>Even the post that you responded to didn't mention
>capitalism, or anarcho-capitalists, or anything like that.
>Is this some other discussion, drifted over from [[Anarchism]] or something?
>Is that why TMC is trying to score rhetorical points over nobody?
There was a mention of anarcho-capitalism in the post I replied to, but
I edited it out when I replied. My bad. Anarchism isn't the same thing
as believing in no government; that is a part of it, but there is a
whole lot more to it. Right now I am working on a definition of
Anarchism that doesn't use the words "government" or "property" at all.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/790efbdd/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1524
[Wikipedia-l] Tokerboy weighs in
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 05:52:11 UTC 2002
Tokerboy wrote:
>First of all, I like the Cunctster being a prick--he's
>a vaccine against groupthink because no decision will
>ever be unanimous as long as he is here--makes me
>wonder if that's his goal. Many CEOs and team leaders
>and the like secretly designate one board/team member
>to disagree on every decision, because otherwise
>groups tend to accept the first even remotely viable
>option presented.
I knew that there was a reason that I'm glad that he's here.
>Bad vandals destroy cars, property and occasionally
>people, but a corrupt police force doesn't stop any of
>this and tears apart the community. The best solution
>is to have the community oversee the police force.
The best solution is to have the community *be* the police force.
>In some
>cities, some gangs have done more to help the local
>community than governmental programs. The Mafia is
>the same way.
And Hezbollah, for another example.
They all do this in an effort to buy community support,
so that it will be easier to commit their crimes against others.
Mind you, the government does the same things for the same reasons.
>I think regardless of the merit of what I propose
>above, I do believe we should have a Bill of Rights of
>sorts for users without any special status (i.e. not
>even signed in) to more effectively guarantee that
>abuse will not occur.
This is an interesting idea.
A lot of people will balk at the idea that
anonymous users have *rights* to our Wikipedia,
or that any users have *rights* to Jimbo's server.
But to be effective as a wiki,
there are certain states of affairs that need to be preserved,
even if we call them "principles" instead.
>The power
>for general maintenance should be spread out, because
>if the basic rule that only clearcut vandalism and
>nonsense can be deleted is followed, this can only
>help the wikipedia grow. I think that in 99% of
>cases, a sysop ruling to delete a page/ban an IP
>(currently) is simply because of vandalism. It's the
>minority of cases where judgement, and potential abuse
>of power, comes into play. If 99% of the problems is
>one discrete type, then 99% of the enforcement power
>should be directed towards those problems, and the
>other 1% where judgement comes into play should be
>considered separately, because it is a separate
>problem.
I agree with that;
but I also think that that responsibility should be spread out.
Recognising it as a distinct problem is still important.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1525
[Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 12 05:54:11 UTC 2002
> That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap.
Relativistic? Certainly. Crap? It isn't for me to
judge.
> If somebody goes to the effort of building something
> or working their ass-off to pay for something it is
> absolutely wrong for somebody else to destroy that.
I can appreciate that as your position, but that
doesn't invalidate anyone else's position.
> If this is your true position then their is no
> reason to try and reason with you because your
> frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
My "true position" is that there are no absolute
morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1526
[Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Tue Nov 12 05:48:43 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:54:11PM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
>> If this is your true position then their is no
>> reason to try and reason with you because your
>> frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
>
>My "true position" is that there are no absolute
>morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
That's the morality of a sociopath, and not conducive to cohesive
communities.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/986ba246/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1527
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 06:07:47 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>I solicit your opinion--yes, you, humble (or exalted) list member.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to your august majesty.
>I ask you, dear reader and fellow Wikipedian, to offer your mere opinion.
Thanks, that's better.
>ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
I agree with Matthew Woodcraft's non-strawman CONTRA.
That doesn't mean that there can't be improvements, as below.
>ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
>The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and
>settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out
>by our sysops.
That's basically my choice.
There are some smaller matters of refining the banning process:
* Technical fixes to avoid banning innocent users;
* Granting all administrators the ability to ban logged in users
(whether by user name or just letting us find out their IP numbers;
this may depend on how the previous point plays out);
* Unbanning vandals after (say) a week and automatically adding them
to a page like mav's [[Wikipedia:IP watch list]] (or whatever it's called);
* Anything else that I mentioned earlier but forgot right now
(I don't think that there is anything, but one never knows).
But I think that banning vandals works pretty well right now.
Banning users like Helga and Lir, however, needs clarified rules,
which will allow people to apply them consistently,
and I'm glad that you have said that you want these rules to be lenient,
because then you'll be on my side in the proposed debate ^_^.
We're not in a crisis situation with regards to this issue,
but we can still get ready for the next time.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1528
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 12 06:17:07 UTC 2002
Matthew Woodcraft wrote in part:
>[1] Deleting pages is a separate issue. If history-preserving delete
>isn't working yet, I think we should do without the ability to delete
>pages until such a time as it is -- it's just too divisive. We can live
>with just blanking them.
It's not working as well as it could, in my opinion.
In particular, you can't view a deleted page without restoring it
(after which you have to delete it again, if you only wanted a look).
We also need a way to restore a deleted page that's been recreated,
by melding the histories together (has anybody needed this yet?).
But it works.
>If/when we have history-preserving delete, then I see no good reason not
>to make it available to all users.
Deleting a page can be much more disruptive than blanking it.
I'd restrict it to logged in users, just like moving pages is,
to discourage casual use by newbies (including new vandals).
But we'll *definitely* want a non-reviving viewing option if this happens,
since there will be more deletions that will need review,
and we don't need to clutter the deletion log
with a bunch of redeletions of resurrected pages.
This still makes it available to all users,
of course, but it makes it harder to get to.
(They call this "Security by obscurity" over on MeatBall ^_^.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1529
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Nov 12 06:20:44 UTC 2002
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 01:07, Toby Bartels wrote:
<snip>
> Banning users like Helga and Lir, however, needs clarified rules,
> which will allow people to apply them consistently,
> and I'm glad that you have said that you want these rules to be lenient,
> because then you'll be on my side in the proposed debate ^_^.
> We're not in a crisis situation with regards to this issue,
> but we can still get ready for the next time.
>
Considering that only Helga has been banned, it might be healthier not
to stick Lir in with her.
Otherwise I concur with Mr. Bartels.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1530
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedians/Queer etc.
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 12 06:47:31 UTC 2002
On Monday 11 November 2002 09:39 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> -------
> Just because you are a Linux user, or happen to be gay, or a vegetarian
> doesn't mean that you have the requisite knowledge to write NPOV articles
> on these subjects. These pages are therefore only of peripheral interest
> and should be moved to a POV-friendly forum.
> ------
>
> Well, if you want to look at it that way, just because you are a Canadian
> or a Russian or a Scot doesn't mean you have the requisite knowledge to
> write NPOV articles on that subject. So I suppose we should move the
> geography ones too.
>
> Matt
Yep - all these categories are at best only of peripheral interest and at
worst highly POV and hurtful.
Moving all these pages will take some time though....
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1531
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Enough for now
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 12 06:57:47 UTC 2002
On Monday 11 November 2002 09:39 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> Well, folks, I've had enough for now. I can't continue these
> conversations, because they are taking far too much of my time; I couldn't
> do them justice if I wanted to. You also won't see me much anytime soon
> on Wikipedia itself. I really do apologize to those (few, no doubt) who
> thought I was a positive influence recently. I wish I had the time,
> energy, and patience to continue, and I hope you'll keep fighting the good
> fight.
>
> I will continue to work on Sifter-l, though.
>
> Larry
There were a hell of a lot of posts on Monday but that was probably due to
en.wiki being down and everybody flooding the mailing list because they
didn't have anything else to do. I'm sorry to hear that you are leaving
wikipedia proper but the fact that you are concentrating your efforts now on
the Wikipedia subset project more than makes up for your leaving.
One thing that Wikipedia lacks right now is credibility and reliability. One
thing that projects like Nupedia has is a lack of material and contributors.
The new project you are working on will add credibility to many Wikipedia
articles and thus dramatically improve their usefullness.
I look forward to working with you on this project (I'm not leaving Wikipedia
though - I really like to dabble in areas I don't have much formal training
in).
Regards,
Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1532
[Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Nov 12 07:29:00 UTC 2002
TMC wrote:
>My "true position" is that there are no absolute
morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
You wouldn't believe that if you had ever been a victim of violent
crime. You sound like a "rebelling against my rich parents"
anarchist: vapid philosophy and a daytrip, cushioned by moneyed luxury.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1533
[Wikipedia-l] Re: voting
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Tue Nov 12 07:40:51 UTC 2002
The problem is that most content is actually highly POV masquerading under
the flag of POV. And often it tends towards a certain perspective i.e. one
which is both supportive of the hegemonistic status quo and suppressive of
alternative viewpoints. This debate is just the visible tip of an iceberg,
and you know it so do me and a few other people who don't subscribe to your
cosy little view of things a little respect and CUT THE BULLSHIT. The
Anti-America deletion and the yattering of the mental sheep that supported
it is highly indicative of how desparate some people are to pretend to
follow some sort of highly vacillatory NPOV party line.
>>Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write
articles without bias, representing all views fairly. This is easily
misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an
article from just one point of view, which would be the one unbiased,
"objective" point of view. The Wikipedia neutrality policy says that we
should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article
state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. <<
Anti-American views are not represented. Fact. Moreover, not only are they
not represented, they are frequently systematically excised. This is not the
first time that I have been disgruntled to see a comment which drew
conclusions about Amerika being ruthlessly and swiftly excised. It is
beginning to seem that America and its proponents have taken to book
burning.
If you think that there aren't ideological processes in play in this respect
then I suggest your rub the sleep from your eyes. A systematic and rigourous
NPOV review of the body of work to rmove some of the more overt pro-US
propaganda so far is long overdue.
Slightly fewer rgds
Steve Callaway
> Then state your POV on your user page or write an essay and post it at
Meta.
> But leave the wikipedia:namespace free from POV divisiveness.
>
> We have open POV forums. Please use the correct channels.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 12:29 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: voting
> On Monday 11 November 2002 03:48 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org
wrote:
> > While the rest of the world came to to the conclusion that America is =
> > just a jumped up banana-republic junta run by a bunch of crypto-fascists
=
> > with a finger glued permanently to the self-destruct button a long time
=
> > ago, you're not allowed to point it out in Wikipedia. How thoroughly =
> > refreshing to be working on such an enlightened project. Dickens' =
> > Ministry of Circumlocution would have been proud of the people who =
> > deleted that page.
> >
> > rgds
> >
> > Steve Callaway
>
> Then state your POV on your user page or write an essay and post it at
Meta.
> But leave the wikipedia:namespace free from POV divisiveness.
>
> We have open POV forums. Please use the correct channels.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1534
[Wikipedia-l] Re: voting
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Nov 12 07:47:35 UTC 2002
On 11/12/02 2:40 AM, "Steve Callaway" <sjc at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> The problem is that most content is actually highly POV masquerading under
> the flag of POV. And often it tends towards a certain perspective i.e. one
> which is both supportive of the hegemonistic status quo and suppressive of
> alternative viewpoints. This debate is just the visible tip of an iceberg,
> and you know it so do me and a few other people who don't subscribe to your
> cosy little view of things a little respect and CUT THE BULLSHIT. The
> Anti-America deletion and the yattering of the mental sheep that supported
> it is highly indicative of how desparate some people are to pretend to
> follow some sort of highly vacillatory NPOV party line.
This is why we'd be much better off admitting that NPOV is an ideal, not
something that anything or anyone on Wikipedia actually achieves.
See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV_is_an_ideal.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1535
[Wikipedia-l] Re: voting
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Tue Nov 12 09:37:32 UTC 2002
Steve Callaway wrote:
>Anti-American views are not represented. Fact.
>
The purpose of wikipedia is not to *represent* anti-American views.
Neither pro-American views, BTW.
They can be *mentioned*, *described*, *analyzed* in encyclopedia
articles. Maybe we *should* have an article about anti-American views,
if we don't already have one.
If you feel that some (or all) articles are biased towards american
views, point it out in these articles, and weight such statements
accordingly. No one, including me (who originally deleted that
anti-American users page), will stop you from doing that, if your
intention is clearly to present facts, and mark all viewpoints as such,
If you feel like smearing "I hate America" all over some place,
wikipedia is not it. Get yourself a home page somewhere else and stop
wasting my time.
Magnus
CEO, Ministry of Circumlocution ;-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1536
[Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Nov 12 10:05:16 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
>TMC wrote:
>
>
>>My "true position" is that there are no absolute
>>
>>
>morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
>
>You wouldn't believe that if you had ever been a victim of violent
>crime. You sound like a "rebelling against my rich parents"
>anarchist: vapid philosophy and a daytrip, cushioned by moneyed luxury.
>
>
>
No, TMC sounds like a troll.
Do not feed it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1537
[Wikipedia-l] how to stop vandal bots
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Tue Nov 12 12:23:45 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 00:20, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Code a means by which all edits by a certain user can be undone.
What happens if someone else later edits the same article?
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1538
[Wikipedia-l] how to stop vandal bots
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Tue Nov 12 12:41:08 UTC 2002
> On Tuesday 12 November 2002 00:20, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> > Code a means by which all edits by a certain user can be undone.
>
> What happens if someone else later edits the same article?
It should only be applied to articles that have not received later edits.
Those that have are likely un-vandalized already.
This belongs on wikitech-l, discussion should continue there. I won't code
this (too much in my pipe already).
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1539
[Wikipedia-l] What if a signed-in user started writing thefollowing...
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Tue Nov 12 14:38:48 UTC 2002
> I doubt many people would ask such questions; I mean, such a
> person would be beneath contempt and therefore not
> particularly interesting as a subject of such speculation.
I know this is all hypothetical, and that "beneath contempt" is a stock
phrase, but I am strongly opposed to holding anyone "beneath contempt."
As far as I am concerned contempt is a part of the problem, not part of
the solution.
Let's take a brief example. As I understand it Helga deserved the
oportunity to make her case as best she could, and we had a
responsibility to take her seriously, to look at her case and ask the
right questions, and offer her an opportunity to learn to work with us.
And then later, when that failed, we had a responsibility to ask her to
leave. We had this responsibility because she was not respecting
others in the community by: refusing to take seriously questions about
the credibility of her sources, insulting a number of core contributors,
and disregarding core policies like the NPoV.
One of the ways that we can better respect people in our community is to
set out clear rules, and to enforce those rules. I personally think
there is a lot more which can be done using social pressures (so called
SoftSecurity) rather than technological means (a banning feature of the
hardware), but I don't think we can afford the pie-in-the-sky attitude
that banning, page freezes, etc. will always be unnecessary.
Yours
Mark Christensen
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1540
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 14:39:42 UTC 2002
TMC, your rejoinder is silly, and I can't help but think that someone as thoughtful as you is unaware of the fallacies you included in it.
I gave an example of an act, which you realized I considered wrong ("that they should remain intact superior to the opinion ...").
I then proposed force be used to stop the wrong act.
Then, as if you had no idea that it was the judgment of wrongness of the act that justified force to prevent it, you insinuate that I hold the opposite opinion: that the *power* to enforce a standard of right and wrong somehow *defines* that standard.
If you can't see that you put the cart before the horse, then I'm going to have to emulate Larry: I'm just going to ignore your silly remarks, because you're not helping. P.S. Don't expect to be appointed a Moderator any time soon...
Ed Poor
Rational Anarchist and all-around nice guy <--- who can only be pushed so far
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1541
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 14:44:48 UTC 2002
TMC, you sound like a relativist. You seem to claim, I may do whatever I wish and no one has a right to restrain me.
So I am not going to debate with you any more.
One word of advice. Be careful what you do around here. If I catch you breaking windshields, you know what I'll do.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Throbbing Monster Cock [mailto:thromoco at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:49 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Ed Poor wrote:
> If a school principal requires a student to remove
> graffiti which says "Aron 151" from other students'
> lockers in the hallway, does this harm the student?
It is harmful to the student in many ways.
First, it causes the destruction of the "Aron 151"
embelishment, which was presumably of value to the
student.
Second, the time the student wastes removing the
graffiti in question is time that could have been more
valuably spent by painting "Aron 151" tags in other
places.
Third, it can cause there to be a perception that the
principal has greater "authority" than the student.
> Enforcing a "do not harm others" rule is not
> inherently harmful.
The rule *may* be reasonable, but who defines "harm"?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1542
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 15:13:11 UTC 2002
-> > Hysteria? I have to support Zoe here; Lir is a disruptive child, and she
-> > should probably be banned.
->
-> I disagree here, but I'm not familiar with all evidence (which is why a
-> "Problematic users" page, as a record of evidence, might be helpful). I
-> followed much of Lir's actions today and saw nothing too problematic.
-> She's antagonistic, sometimes silly and certainly not as smart as she
-> thinks, but I believe we can deal with here as long as she doesn't
-> vandalize pages.
Thanks to the power of banning, plus a lot of coaching (and coaxing) from me. After she was banned, and then un-banned, I reminded her that I stuck up for her. I also told her to stop teasing Zoe.
You'll note that of all the remarks she has erased from her talk page, she left up my "stuck up for her" and "stop teasing" comments. I think this means she knows which side her bread is buttered on.
I also likened Lir to a 14-year-old girl. She accepted this designation, and added it to her user page: i.e., she concedes that she ACTS like a 14-year-old.
Why didn't fight back against my three adverse comments? She could have argued or erased as she has done in other cases.
I believe it is because of a combination of three things:
* she wants to contribute
* she perceives that I care about her
* she perceives me as embodying the authority of the community
Now don't go off half-cocked (throbbing or otherwise): I'm not claiming any special status. None has been granted me. I'm talking only about what I guess is Lir's perception.
I myself follow a fairly consistent pattern of "soft security" (as Cunc. puts it). I try to educate, not berate.
I don't want anyone to tease others (like, call them names, impugn their integrity) -- so I try very hard not to tease them. (Except Cunctator, who seems to like it :-)
I don't want anyone to revert others' edits peremptorily, so I don't do that to them. On the few occasions when I revert, I generally copy the offending passage, comment on it, and invite the other contributor to address the issues I've raised. This works pretty well.
Sometimes, like Larry, I lecture people. "You guys are acting like a bunch of..."
I would really like to see a rule that would stop people like RK from continually saying "reverting so-and-so's vandalism" when it's just an edit he disagrees with because of RK's own failure to grasp or attain POV. A "no teasing" rule would stop him in his tracks.
Don't call people a "vandal" if you disagree. Just attribute their point of view, e.g., "Some people think the Torah requires Jews to do X every day." The comment would be "Attributing POV" -- not "reverting ultra-Conservative VANDALISM".
Soft security is good, and even if Jimbo nixes any of ideas about granting Moderator or Arbitrator rights, we still need to codify our values and our enforcement procedures.
We are growing too large as a community to do otherwise.
Ed Poor
"My opinion probably bears no resemblance to my employer's."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1543
[Wikipedia-l] voting
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 15:25:13 UTC 2002
What are you talking about?
1) You are free to post your "banana" opinion on your user page, user talk page, and Metapedia.
2) You are free to STATE THAT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE the "banana' thing on any relevant page.
The only thing Wikipedia policy forbids is to state that America ACTUALLY IS what you think it is. This is not an opinion board, like Usenet. It's an encyclopedia. Points of view must be attributed to their adherents. If you can't think of a famous author or person who agrees with you, just attribute the POV to "some people".
Sheesh. You act like someone's trying to censor you. What is it with you people? Don't you read the guidelines?
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Callaway [mailto:sjc at easynet.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 6:54 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] voting
While the rest of the world came to to the conclusion that America is just a jumped up banana-republic junta run by a bunch of crypto-fascists with a finger glued permanently to the self-destruct button a long time ago, you're not allowed to point it out in Wikipedia. How thoroughly refreshing to be working on such an enlightened project. Dickens' Ministry of Circumlocution would have been proud of the people who deleted that page.
rgds
Steve Callaway
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021112/cddde6e5/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1544
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 15:32:03 UTC 2002
Here are the moral absolutes I believe in:
It is evil to harm another person for my own benefit.
It is good for to benefit another person.
Unless your friends are rescuing earthquake victims who are trapped in their cars by rubble, they are harming others for their own benefit (by destroying their property). I'm going to call them a "gang" and try to stop them.
I don't expect you to agree with this, but I bet you could write a very nice [[relativism]] article for Wikipedia.
...unless you're too chicken (or just being cocky).
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1545
[Wikipedia-l] Automatic unblocking
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 15:46:45 UTC 2002
Toby wrote:
> One possible solution is to automatically unban after, say, a week.
I have unilaterally applied the following rule to blocked IPs:
* If it was blocked more than 30 days ago, unblock it.
Note that this includes the IP of Helga (H. Jonat), whose 2-month ban should have expired Nov. 9th.
Total of 24 IP's unblocked, leaving three dozen still blocked. (I have a list of the ones I unblocked, available on request.)
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1546
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 16:06:42 UTC 2002
-> Ed Poor wrote:
->
-> >If we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt, then we have
-> >a standard. All I'm saying is: let's refine and enshrine our standards.
->
-> Do we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt?
-> We have standards on not violating copyright and on vandalising;
-> either of these alone is sufficient for those specific cases.
-> I personally wouldn't want to enshrine an additional standard.
->
->
-> -- Toby
Don't we have a standard? There isn't a single instance of a link to the goatse image other than on the article about it. Every time it has appeared, people have given it a good swift kick in the, er, I mean deleted the link as soon as possible. It's the single most common entry in "vandalism in progress".
Then someone decided to remove the ability of ANYONE to make in-line links to external images. I noticed that when the "mediator" cartoon gracing my user page disappeared.
Oh, we have a standard all right. We're debating whether it should be "official" or what.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1547
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 16:11:42 UTC 2002
-----Original Message-----
From: Toby Bartels [mailto:toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu]
Larry Sanger wrote:
>ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
>ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
>The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and
>settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out
>by our sysops.
That's basically my choice.
[I agree with Toby 100%. --Ed Poor]
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1548
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Lir
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Nov 12 16:28:19 UTC 2002
anonymous Wrote:
>Just my opinion but I think hindsight has proven that is was a big
mistake to
>unblock Lir. This single individual has proven to be a anti-social
pest who
>is on the verge of driving at least one other contributor away and drove
>Andre away for some time. I also haven't seen Lee around much since
you so
>publically reverted his IMO perfectly valid ban on Lir. I guess he is
a bit
>discusted about the whole matter - I sure would be (and am).
>
>Please refresh my memory on why it is necessary to be so permissive
about
>alloying trolls to troll about? Their mere presence attacks more of
their ilk
>and drives away the type of contributors we want, like Zoe.
>
>Do you really want to have more Lirs and fewer Zoes?
>
>--.sig
>
>PS it is late and the above may sound a bit harsh. Please don't take
it that
>way -- I still have the greatest respect for you and your
contributions. I
>just think that your idealism has been a bit on unrealistic side in this
>particular matter.
FWIW, I've been regretting the unbanning also. Lir does not
contribute nearly as much as any one of the people she's constantly
butting heads with. I'd much rather ban Lir again, and if I were able
to do it now I think I would. I had high hopes that Lir would turn
around, but those hopes now seem completely divorced from reality: I
think she gets her jollies by stirring up trouble and antagonizing.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1549
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Enough for now
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 16:18:34 UTC 2002
Larry, you are welcome to sail in and sound off any time you want. You know that.
What you might not know is that I appreciate your input very much, even though I don't post a "me, too" every time you score a point. If I nodded my head every time I agreed with you, I'd sprain my neck muscles.
I respect you not only as the founder of Wikipedia but also as a man of uncommon sense. I never had the chance to attend your university classes, so I consider your visits to the list or the 'pedia to be a "class". I take notes (really!) and I'm ready for the next pop quiz.
Thank you for devoting the time to analysis and discussion of the needs of Wikipedia. I am totally in favor of your Sifter idea; please take that ball and run with it.
Sorry about all the posts yesterday, I probably shouldn't have tried to debate the Prictator...
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1550
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Nov 12 16:39:48 UTC 2002
>Thanks to the power of banning, plus a lot of coaching (and coaxing)
from me. After she was banned, and then un-banned, I reminded her
that I stuck up for her. I also told her to stop teasing Zoe.
I admire your patience, Ed. Sometimes I even wish I shared it. :-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1551
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Nov 12 16:44:07 UTC 2002
Ed wrote:
>Then someone decided to remove the ability of ANYONE to make in-line
links to external images. I noticed that when the "mediator" cartoon
gracing my user page disappeared.
Yes, that was at my provocation: b/c of the goatse man; b/c borrowing
bandwidth is rude; b/c some programs and browsers (sensibly, I think)
kill offsite images. I thought it would be a benefit to quit using
inline images? :-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1552
[Wikipedia-l] What if a signed-in user started writing thefollowing...
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 16:51:57 UTC 2002
Mark Christensen wrote:
> As far as I am concerned contempt is a part of the problem,
> not part of the solution.
I agree with that, and in the light of a private message I received today from the Cunctator, I am taking a 12-hour timeout from posting to Wikipedia.
I will meditate on the following story (and commentary) on a similar situation described by an elder in my church:
http://unification.net/fcolf/fcolf-11.html
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1553
[Wikipedia-l] The poor, tired, windshield police...
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 12 18:08:16 UTC 2002
I think Ed is tired of me. Actually, I don't just
think he is, I know he is. I'm going to try to
respond again, but I'll make it as direct to the key
points as I can. Also, since I'd like to stop fanning
the flames (in the hope that what I'm saying will
actually be thought about), this will be my only post
to wikipedia-l today.
Ed Poor wrote:
> ...as if you had no idea that it was the judgment of
> wrongness of the act that justified force to prevent
> it...
I'm taking the liberty to restate how I understand
your position.
1: gang smashing windows -> wrongful act
2: wrongful act -> force justification
3: force justification -> calling police
> you insinuate that I hold the opposite opinion:
> that the *power* to enforce a standard of right and
> wrong somehow *defines* that standard.
I didn't intend to make an insinuation regarding your
opinions. What I mean to do is point out that you are
relying upon your personal sense of right and wrong.
Put yourself in the shoes of the gang after the police
arrive. Their personal sense of right and wrong could
very well lead to this line of reasoning.
1: police interference -> wrongful act
2: wrongful act -> force justification
3: force justification -> capture of police
The question before us, as I see it, is what makes
Ed's personal sense of right and wrong any superior to
the gang's personal sense of right and wrong. Ed was
kind enough to share with us one possible "set of
absolutes":
> Here are the moral absolutes I believe in:
>
> It is evil to harm another person for my own
> benefit.
>
> It is good to benefit another person.
This is a perfectly reasonable set of core beliefs,
but that doesn't mean that all people have to share
these same beliefs. Nor is it clear that all people
who did share these beliefs would apply them the same
way.
> TMC, you sound like a relativist. You seem to claim,
> I may do whatever I wish and no one has a right to
> restrain me.
Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can
do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock
can do whatever he pleases? The end result is the
same either way, since I see your actions and my
actions as morally equal. Just so there is no doubt,
here is what I am saying:
* Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
right to restrain him.
* Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
right to restrain him.
* Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act
to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
* Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will
act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
Paraphrasing a private email I had with another
wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house
smashing my car window then I am going to go outside
and use force to stop them. What I'm not going to do
is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any
way, or that I had some "right" to stop them. I'm
simply using my ability to project force to enforce my
will over them.
> ...unless you're too chicken (or just being cocky).
Cool! Two puns for the price of one.
--Cock
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1554
[Wikipedia-l] Tentative spiders and bots policy
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Nov 12 19:40:39 UTC 2002
Since I've unilaterally banned a couple of IPs from accessing the site
due to unfriendly spidering and extreme database-stressing, I thought it
best that we set up some sort of actual policy for this.
Tentative beginnings:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spiders_and_bots_policy
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1555
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Nov 12 19:53:26 UTC 2002
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Ed wrote:
>>Then someone decided to remove the ability of ANYONE to make in-line
>>links to external images. I noticed that when the "mediator" cartoon
>>gracing my user page disappeared.
>
> Yes, that was at my provocation: b/c of the goatse man; b/c borrowing
> bandwidth is rude; b/c some programs and browsers (sensibly, I think)
> kill offsite images. I thought it would be a benefit to quit using
> inline images? :-)
A couple other good reasons which may or may not have been mentioned in
the previous debates, but which were in my mind when I agreed:
Reliability: The site with the pictures may yank, move, or change the
images without notice, or block third-party access, and *poof* we lose
the images.
Reproduceability: A mirror site, backup, or CD-ROM version should be
able to take the pictures with it, with or without a net connection to
the outside for the reader. Linking offsite images makes this harder.
Legality: It's much more inviting to link an offsite image of dubious
copyright status than to upload one and put it on our server, but if
it's _inline_, we are still for all intents and purposes republishing
it, possibly in violation of copyright. (IANAL)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1556
[Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 20:10:18 UTC 2002
FUCK YOU !!!!!!!!!!! SHIT !
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1557
[Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Tue Nov 12 20:29:52 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 15:10, Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com may or may not have
written:
> FUCK YOU !!!!!!!!!!! SHIT !
Look at the headers. It was sent through the hastio remailer.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1558
[Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 20:45:47 UTC 2002
I would never use so many exclamation points. That's simply childish.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Abbat [mailto:phma at webjockey.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:30 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 15:10, Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com may or may not have
written:
> FUCK YOU !!!!!!!!!!! SHIT !
Look at the headers. It was sent through the hastio remailer.
phma
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1559
[Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Nov 12 20:49:38 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>On Monday 11 November 2002 04:43 pm, TMC wrote:
>
>>If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers
>>the intact windshields to be the "means of production"
>>through which broken windshields are produced.
>>Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use
>>their ownership of these means of production to exert
>>control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to
>>take "possession" of the windshields while they put
>>they to the use of being smashed.
>>
>That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap. If somebody goes to the effort
>of building something or working their ass-off to pay for something it is
>absolutely wrong for somebody else to destroy that. Basic morality 101.
>
I think that his argument is related to the economic argument that
windshield breakers are creating employment for the windshield repair
industry. One well-known enterprise with Italian roots in the insurance
industry modified this argument to convince businesses to buy their
protection.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1560
[Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Tue Nov 12 20:56:21 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 15:45, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I would never use so many exclamation points. That's simply childish.
It was just a poor imitation.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1561
[Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Nov 12 21:22:40 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:54:11PM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
>
>>> If this is your true position then their is no
>>> reason to try and reason with you because your
>>> frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
>>
>> My "true position" is that there are no absolute
>> morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
>
> That's the morality of a sociopath, and not conducive to cohesive
> communities.
Although I can agree that it is not conducive to cohesive communities, I
disagree that it is necessarily sociopathic. It can be idealistic or
naïve, or a reflection of despair in the manner of Ivan Karamazov.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1562
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Enough for now
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Nov 12 21:53:58 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>On Monday 11 November 2002 09:39 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
>
>>Well, folks, I've had enough for now. I can't continue these
>>conversations, because they are taking far too much of my time; I couldn't
>>do them justice if I wanted to. You also won't see me much anytime soon
>>on Wikipedia itself. I really do apologize to those (few, no doubt) who
>>thought I was a positive influence recently. I wish I had the time,
>>energy, and patience to continue, and I hope you'll keep fighting the good
>>fight.
>>
Just like a philosopher! :-) He seeds the newsgroup with prolix
thoughts to consider, and sits back to watch us argue.
>There were a hell of a lot of posts on Monday but that was probably due to
>en.wiki being down and everybody flooding the mailing list because they
>didn't have anything else to do.
>
Clearly a symptom of acute wikiholism! My mailbox was clear before I
went to bed, and there were 77 new messages when I woke up.
>One thing that Wikipedia lacks right now is credibility and reliability. One
>thing that projects like Nupedia has is a lack of material and contributors.
>The new project you are working on will add credibility to many Wikipedia
>articles and thus dramatically improve their usefullness.
>
They need each other for those very reasons. Together they reflect the
interplay between quantity and quality - an infinite series which
hopefully converges.
Eclecticology
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1563
[Wikipedia-l] anti-amerikan wikipedians
Bridget
Bridget
Tue Nov 12 23:34:22 UTC 2002
The anti-american wikipedians page was clearly not POV. It never stated, "America is bad" it never stated "wikipedia thinks America is bad" it stated, "lir thinks america is bad and sjc thinks america is bad and fonzy thinks america is bad" that sounds npov to me...
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021112/4d29dccc/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1564
[Wikipedia-l] anti-amerikan wikipedians
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 12 23:38:24 UTC 2002
The problem wasn't POV-related.
It was that your opinion, my opinion and the other Wikipedians opinions are not relevant to an encyclopedia. Keep it on your user page, or take it to Meta.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] [mailto:lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:34 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] anti-amerikan wikipedians
The anti-american wikipedians page was clearly not POV. It never stated, "America is bad" it never stated "wikipedia thinks America is bad" it stated, "lir thinks america is bad and sjc thinks america is bad and fonzy thinks america is bad" that sounds npov to me...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021112/11f99b83/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1565
[Wikipedia-l] enough of the foul language please
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Wed Nov 13 02:08:32 UTC 2002
I do not enjoy seeing those words every time I download my email! And I
don't enjoy the perpetual squabbling that's going on here either. I
thought this was about making a better wikipedia, not acting like five
year olds in the playground. If it doesn't improve SOON I'll be leaving
the list again because I'm sick of this.
And as for the actual wikipedia, the timelag on entries seems to be
ridiculously long. What's going on? I waited so long for a simple
blank-page deletion to take place last night that I closed my browser
and gave up.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1566
[Wikipedia-l] The poor, tired, windshield police...
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 03:56:18 UTC 2002
Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
> Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can
> do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock
> can do whatever he pleases? The end result is the
> same either way, since I see your actions and my
> actions as morally equal. Just so there is no doubt,
> here is what I am saying:
>
> * Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
> right to restrain him.
>
> * Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
> right to restrain him.
>
> * Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act
> to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
>
> * Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will
> act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
>
> Paraphrasing a private email I had with another
> wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house
> smashing my car window then I am going to go outside
> and use force to stop them. What I'm not going to do
> is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any
> way, or that I had some "right" to stop them. I'm
> simply using my ability to project force to enforce my
> will over them.
First regarding the logical argument that seems
to be in progress:
I agree with both Ed and TMC that our rules, customs
and application of force to enforce them are currently
ill defined, sporadically and inconsistently applied.
Second on a practical note:
Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock
in use as accounts names and spread throughout the
Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of
the database and site for a lot of potential users.
Specific example: A few months ago I was looking forward
to coaching some nieces and nephews in some composition
efforts collaboratively here. IMHO Since most of my extended
family and better educated friends believe kids/minors should
learn to function in polite society first (by example) and pick
up gutter slang as appropriate later; the lack of effective
well defined customs and consistent enforcement against all
(yes even founders, moderators, nonmembers of the nonexistent
cabal or elite, newbies, and other special people in self
defined categories) severely compromises the utility
of the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and its ability to
attract and help train future effective Wikipedians.
The above should not be construed as advocating censorship
in the articles. Merely opposing the use of loopholes in our
system structure to spread graffiti, taunts, etc. potentially
offensive to large groups of people.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1567
[Wikipedia-l] Tentative spiders and bots policy
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 04:01:41 UTC 2002
Brion VIBBER wrote:
>
> Since I've unilaterally banned a couple of IPs from accessing the site
> due to unfriendly spidering and extreme database-stressing, I thought it
> best that we set up some sort of actual policy for this.
>
> Tentative beginnings:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spiders_and_bots_policy
Looks like a good starting point.
I am technically illiterate regarding spidering
and web-bots.
It is possible to specify a maximum acceptable hit rate
quantitatively in robots.txt or should we lay out some
guidelines on the page for bot/spider adminstraters?
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1568
[Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 04:20:36 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 12 November 2002 15:45, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> > I would never use so many exclamation points. That's simply childish.
>
> It was just a poor imitation.
I sent the message below to the hastio.org site.
Hopefully it will do some good. The email address
I used has already been compromised to spammers so
hopefully it can do no harm. 8)
<start message to hastio.org>
To the hastio.org admin:
The message below was sent to a mailing list that I
frequent. I believe it to be an abuse of the service
you provide and I would appreciate any efforts that
you can take to reduce future abuses of this nature.
Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Irwin
<snip full message quote>
<end message to hastio.org>
semi-anonymously yours,
the remarkable allegedly lying troll
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1569
[Wikipedia-l] The poor, tired, windshield police...
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 04:44:44 UTC 2002
Mike Irwin wrote:
Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock
in use as accounts names and spread throughout the
Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of
the database and site for a lot of potential users.
My reply:
Could pages be rated for maturity and the appropriate rating meta tag be inserted into the page header for childproofing software?
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021112/dc9f115b/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1570
[Wikipedia-l] Strong request for a new edit window boilerplate requested (was Re: Lir)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 05:08:42 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 08:09 am, kq wrote
>anonymos wrote
>>Just my opinion but I think hindsight has proven that is was a big
>> mistake to unblock Lir. This single individual has proven to be a
>>anti-social pest who is on the verge of driving at least one other
>>contributor away and drove Andre away for some time. I also haven't
>>seen Lee around much since you so publically reverted his IMO perfectly
>>valid ban on Lir. I guess he is a bit discusted about the whole matter - I
>>sure would be (and am).
>>
>>Please refresh my memory on why it is necessary to be so permissive
>>about alloying trolls to troll about? Their mere presence attacks more of
>>their ilk and drives away the type of contributors we want, like Zoe.
>>
>>Do you really want to have more Lirs and fewer Zoes?
>>
>>--.sig
>>
>>PS it is late and the above may sound a bit harsh. Please don't take
>>it that way -- I still have the greatest respect for you and your
>>contributions. I just think that your idealism has been a bit on
>>unrealistic side in this particular matter.
>
> FWIW, I've been regretting the unbanning also. Lir does not
> contribute nearly as much as any one of the people she's constantly
> butting heads with. I'd much rather ban Lir again, and if I were able
> to do it now I think I would. I had high hopes that Lir would turn
> around, but those hopes now seem completely divorced from reality: I
> think she gets her jollies by stirring up trouble and antagonizing.
>
> kq
"Anonymous" is really me - I guess kq just didn't attribute my name or nick
out of respect for me since it was an off-post email. Thank you :-)
Alas, I don't think Lir has learned much at all since you lifted the ban - in
the last few days she has been pestering at least me, Bryan and April and
being very childish, stubburn and generally anti-social. In short she is
reducing our productivity and wearing us down with her petty games.
Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I
make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to
each edit window. It could state something like the following;
"By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the
rules and conditions of using this website"
'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a
new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the
basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and
Wikipetiquette.
Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to
the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social
contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract
set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more
explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1571
[Wikipedia-l] The poor, tired, windshield police...
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 06:10:47 UTC 2002
> Mike Irwin wrote:
> Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock
> in use as accounts names and spread throughout the
> Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of
> the database and site for a lot of potential users.
>
>
> My reply:
>
> Could pages be rated for maturity and the appropriate rating meta
tag be inserted into the page header for childproofing software?
>
>
> Christopher Mahan
> chris_mahan at yahoo.com
> http://www.christophermahan.com/
>
On one hand .... Anything is possible given sufficient
free labor and infinite time. Whether volunteers think it
is reasonable or worthwhile for implementation is
another question.
It is my experience that most of my relatives and friends do not
mess around with kiddie censorship or spy software. It is sufficient
that the kids know where they should or should not be and that they
have occasional adult advice/supervision. If they do not use the
computer responsibly, then they do not use it for a while. Remarkably
repressive I know but it seems effective. They seem to absorb what
parents or "Uncle" Mike will view as "responsible" quite quickly,
their furtive behavorial cues inviting a spot check makes baby
sitting or casual supervision fairly easy and amusing.
If this nonsense can be easily avoided then the adults will
mandate that it should be avoided. If the adults find
it permeates the site past a threshhold, the site will
be placed off limits. Probably redundant. The kids
know the basic rules, no spy/censorsihp software required,
we check on our minors periodically, and they learn rapidly.
Also, one kind of has to wonder if an account name like
Throbbing Monster Cock; and the associated visual humor; is
a cruising tool for a potential child molester. Of the
adults I know, some would find it amusing in private while
most would not consider it appropriate public humor with
minors present in the audience.
Have we determined what our target audience for
Wikipedia (online and derivative products) should be?
The last attempted discussion I saw on the topic at
meta was cut short due to uncivil behavior.
It would certainly seem, to me, more appropriate free
speech to exercise at an adult porn site rather than a
general encyclopedia site.
Finally, IMO, it is unreasonable to expect kids to use an
encyclopedia where pages and utilities are randomly and
arbitarily (from the minor's perspective) restricted
due to the casual dropin of a flashing account name.
Consider the following operational scenario:
1. A minor is checking occasionally to see if an answer to their
question on a science or math talk page has appeared from one of
the admired Wikipedian authors.
2. Suddenly due to [[Throbbing Monster Cock]] attempting
to flash them with this signature, they are restricted from
the applicable talk page.
Not a very good operational scenario in my view.
So I say censorship software is probably a waste
of time and undesirable. A public librarian or
school board might have a different perspective.
Likewise other parents and relatives with different
rearing habits or experiences.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1572
[Wikipedia-l] Strong request for a new edit window boilerplate requested (was Re: Lir)
Karen AKA Kajikit
kaji at labyrinth.net.au
Wed Nov 13 06:33:27 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> "Anonymous" is really me - I guess kq just didn't attribute my name or nick
> out of respect for me since it was an off-post email. Thank you :-)
>
> Alas, I don't think Lir has learned much at all since you lifted the ban - in
> the last few days she has been pestering at least me, Bryan and April and
> being very childish, stubburn and generally anti-social. In short she is
> reducing our productivity and wearing us down with her petty games.
>
> Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I
> make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to
> each edit window. It could state something like the following;
>
> "By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the
> rules and conditions of using this website"
>
> 'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a
> new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the
> basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and
> Wikipetiquette.
>
> Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to
> the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social
> contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract
> set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more
> explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least).
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
> See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
I agree Mav! Something like that does not force 'rules' down people's
throats, since they seem to object to the idea of having them, but it
does give us better grounds for control over the morons who consistently
break the peace. Of course I agree to the rules of the wikipedia, and I
have no objection to that little line being inserted on the screen :)
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1573
[Wikipedia-l] Strong request for a new edit window boilerplate requested (was Re: Lir)
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 07:23:21 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I
> make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to
> each edit window. It could state something like the following;
>
> "By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the
> rules and conditions of using this website"
>
> 'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a
> new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the
> basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and
> Wikipetiquette.
>
> Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to
> the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social
> contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract
> set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more
> explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least).
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
> See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
I heard something somewhere approximately: ~ Just powers are derived
from the consent of the governed. ~ I think it was Jefferson in the
U.S. Declaration of Independence but it has been long since middle
school civics.
I think your suggestion above has mucho merit as long as we
achieve clear definitions, due process, and uniform application.
Somebody suggested a short user/contributor bill of rights as well.
Ed's analysis and suggestions seem (to me) quite insightful,
applicable, and easily mergeable with your concepts above.
I think you are somewhat incorrect regarding the size causing
the problem. In my view, it merely makes the noise unbearable. I
see the root in a classic fallacy pattern resulting in a
destructive (to the community machinery) positive feedback loop.
New users and old hands alike
think to themselves: "Others do not follow the social contract,
why should I?" Positive feedback (used in the engineering sense
not the behavorial reinforcement sense) is established as others
observe the growing infractions and the problem grows ever more
rapidly until uncivilized behavior is the norm
and the "community" fragments. Steady state is achieved
when as many people are leaving as are arriving. We may be
at or close to this point.
The material Stephen pointed at (on meatballwiki?) seemed very
excellent and correct to me. IIRC, he placed us somewhere
between 16 and 18 on the scale of 20 observed phases of wiki
community life cycles.
I also like Erik's idea of documenting the prevailing "consensus"
by voting. gnome.org has a public voting process which they seem
to think works to avoid stuffing the ballot box but it may be based
upon a public key infrastructure. As Elian and others have pointed
out we need to start resolving some issues. Alas, this would
require the self discipline to abide by the expressed documented
will of the prevailing voting majority unless Mr. Wales vetos some
truly abhorrent tyranny of the ignorant, irresponsible, unwashed
masses found here such as "no profanity, blasphemy, or porn in
the user account names" referendum which I would immediately submit
to the English community.
Say, I also liked your reorganization proposal for the mailing
lists. It seemed; to me; well thought out, symmetrical, and logical.
In closing I would like to emphasize that I think we first
need the clear definitions, ratification, due process and
equality before the community policy hammered out before
we implement the boilerplate.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1574
[Wikipedia-l] Social contract
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 05:44:09 UTC 2002
I just read the Wikipedia social contract article and I think it describes our
current situation to a tee. I have copied the WikiText here in case en.wiki
is not reachable.
'''Social contract''' is a phrase used in [[sociology]] to denote an agreement
within a group or community regarding the rights and responsibility of the
group and its members to each other. All members within a society are assumed
to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within
the society.
Most social contracts are informal and many are not well understood. In very
dynamic or mobile societies the local [[consensus]] is often rapidly shifting
as people move in and out of groups. Conflict often arises out different
understandings of the local aggregate expectations as well as disagreement
regarding appropriate rules of behavior and interaction. This can be very
stressful for group members until new informal agreements have been
informally negotiated between interacting members of the group, community, or
society.
The term "social contract" was coined by [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], in his
influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1575
[Wikipedia-l] enough of the foul language please
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Nov 13 08:40:54 UTC 2002
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
>I do not enjoy seeing those words every time I download my email! And I
>don't enjoy the perpetual squabbling that's going on here either. I
>thought this was about making a better wikipedia, not acting like five
>year olds in the playground. If it doesn't improve SOON I'll be leaving
>the list again because I'm sick of this.
>
Although I have a fairly high personal tolerance for this kind of
language, I am sympathetic to your complaints. But as much as I may
believe in free speech, I find that some users become so carried away
with proclaiming their right to free speech, that they ignore the equaly
valid rights of others not to be unduly exposed to objectionable
language. They also ignore the fact that when such language is used to
excess it becomes cliché and loses its effectiveness. In the right
circumstances it can be quite effective as in the following creation of
the contemporary Scots poet, Ivor Cutler.
>"Living creatures, unaware of Man's immortal soul, see
>him only as a vicious, destructive creature with an
>infinite capacity for making a mess, unable to relate to
>the earth & without aesthetics. As a dying butterfly was
>heard to whisper.........'He's a fucking lunatic!' "
>
I too feel distracted by the interminable missives over banning and
other disciplinary matters, but it won't be the issue that drives me
away. It does mean that I'll ignore a lot of these e-mails, and
probably miss the creative gems that do occasionally appear.
From time to time I've considered promoting Wikipedia as a teaching aid
to teachers and others who deal with children, but the often
inconsiderate use of language makes me very hesitant about that.
Eclecticology.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1576
Offensive usernames (was: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The poor, tired, windshield police...)
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Wed Nov 13 10:46:30 UTC 2002
Christopher Mahan wrote:
> Mike Irwin wrote:
> Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock
> in use as accounts names and spread throughout the
> Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of
> the database and site for a lot of potential users.
>
Agreed. We have already lost Isis because of this. Let's agree on policy
& then a) removed "Fucking Asshole" (it was Ed making a point, wasn't
it?) and b) insist "Throbbing Monster Cock" choose a different name
>
> My reply:
>
> Could pages be rated for maturity and the appropriate rating meta tag
> be inserted into the page header for childproofing software?
>
I don't see a problem in a page like "fuck" -- it discusses the
etymology, history and suitability of a word which a child can find in a
dictionary (and hear on television).
I would much rather a child, on hearing the word, went to look it up on
wikipedia to rather than mindlessly repeat it.
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1577
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Offensive usernames
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Nov 13 14:31:33 UTC 2002
In respect to Karen and other lovers of small, soft, or furry creatures, let us rein in our salty language.
And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A****** user account and vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a point, i.e., that our social contract has loopholes that can and will be exploited.
I apologize to all for using illegitmate means to dramatize my point.
Unlike TMC, I am perfectly willing to be bound by the rules that others make. I am an absolutist -- rather than a relativist -- and I am obligated by my religious beliefs to avoid actions which harm others for my own benefit, and to carry out actions that benefit others (even to the point of self-sacrifice)
Thus I will refrain from offending Karen and from frustrating Uncle Mike's desire to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool for children. I myself long ago decided not to let my children use Wikipedia, for the very reasons Karen and mirwin gave -- and which I dramatized with the F.A. episode.
Please, some developer, erase the F.A. user account which I created.
Penitently,
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1578
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Nov 13 14:47:36 UTC 2002
I like the idea expressed by Anthere and others of finding a way to shield tender eyes from "adult" stuff. A significant minority of users believe that young people of a certain age should not be exposed to certain materials.
This is totally without prejudice to the debate over whether sexuality is "sinful", just a reflection of the desire of many parents and educators to introduce some subjects step by step, keyed to the maturity level of the learner.
Someday, we plan to make the Wikipedia available on CD-ROM for schools and libraries that don't have T-1 lines (or the patience to tolerate the "lag" problem). It would be very useful to allow a parent or educator to filter out a few articles such as [[****-piercing]] or [[fisting]] or whatever.
A rating system would facilitate this.
I myself would like to be able to filter out the following (in no particular order):
* Any mention of TMC's username (as in Recent Changes, his user page and user talk page)
* All articles on bizarre sexuality (BDSM, etc.)
I would like to retain the articles related to homosexuality, since they are so well written (i.e., NPOV rather than pro-gay) -- but I might be biased by pride of workmanship since I put a lot of effort into some of them.
Those who don't want this filtering should be able to bypass it easily.
So it could be a user option, with the default set to NO FILTERING.
Ed Poor
Tolerant Absolutist
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1579
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Offensive usernames
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Wed Nov 13 15:43:59 UTC 2002
Somebody with the IP address mail11.disney.com [208.246.35.55] sent
this message in the name of "Poor, Edmund W":
> And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A******
> user account and vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a
> point,
Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must
assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a
mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just
pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make
an investigation into who really sent that message.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1580
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Wed Nov 13 16:17:05 UTC 2002
This is a very dangerous area indeed and a seriously slippery slope. I can
see the arguments for it but the obverse side of this coin is that if it's
possible to introduce sexual censorship in this way it is entirely
conceivable that political censorship could be attained by a similar
mechanism. This is NOT a genie to be let out of the bottle. There is enough
political and social hypocrisy and outright political propaganda in the
corpus of Wikipedia already without introducing convenient new mechanisms
for the thought & ideas police.
rgds
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
> I like the idea expressed by Anthere and others of finding a way to shield
tender eyes from "adult" stuff. A significant minority of users believe that
young people of a certain age should not be exposed to certain materials.
>
> This is totally without prejudice to the debate over whether sexuality is
"sinful", just a reflection of the desire of many parents and educators to
introduce some subjects step by step, keyed to the maturity level of the
learner.
>
> Someday, we plan to make the Wikipedia available on CD-ROM for schools and
libraries that don't have T-1 lines (or the patience to tolerate the "lag"
problem). It would be very useful to allow a parent or educator to filter
out a few articles such as [[****-piercing]] or [[fisting]] or whatever.
>
> A rating system would facilitate this.
>
> I myself would like to be able to filter out the following (in no
particular order):
> * Any mention of TMC's username (as in Recent Changes, his user page and
user talk page)
> * All articles on bizarre sexuality (BDSM, etc.)
>
> I would like to retain the articles related to homosexuality, since they
are so well written (i.e., NPOV rather than pro-gay) -- but I might be
biased by pride of workmanship since I put a lot of effort into some of
them.
>
> Those who don't want this filtering should be able to bypass it easily.
>
> So it could be a user option, with the default set to NO FILTERING.
>
> Ed Poor
> Tolerant Absolutist
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1581
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Offensive usernames
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Nov 13 16:27:57 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:43, Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
> Somebody with the IP address mail11.disney.com [208.246.35.55] sent
> this message in the name of "Poor, Edmund W":
>
> > And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A******
> > user account and vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a
> > point,
>
> Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must
> assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a
> mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just
> pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make
> an investigation into who really sent that message.
>
Yes, it was him.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1582
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Offensive usernames
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Nov 13 16:46:44 UTC 2002
Fine. I'm going to leave anyway, if articles like [[pussy]] with the picture of girls holding kittens at waist level and saying "Do you want to see my pussy?" and usernames like Throbbing Monster Cock are permitted.
Ed Poor
212-456-5479 <-- call this number if you don't believe it's me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Aronsson [mailto:lars at aronsson.se]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:44 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Offensive usernames
Somebody with the IP address mail11.disney.com [208.246.35.55] sent
this message in the name of "Poor, Edmund W":
> And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A******
> user account and vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a
> point,
Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must
assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a
mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just
pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make
an investigation into who really sent that message.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1583
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
elian
elian at gmx.li
Wed Nov 13 16:28:52 UTC 2002
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> writes:
> Someday, we plan to make the Wikipedia available on CD-ROM for schools
> and libraries that don't have T-1 lines (or the patience to tolerate the
> "lag" problem). It would be very useful to allow a parent or educator to
> filter out a few articles such as [[****-piercing]] or [[fisting]] or
> whatever.
Wikipedia is open content, the wikipedia software is open source. Any
Library, university, school or whatever institution which wants a
filtering system can develop one for itself.
I consider filtering or censuring articles on Wikipedia itself a blatant
violation of its NPOV-policy.
Besides, entries about sexual "perversions" are found in "normal"
encyclopedias as well, the parents in question would in logical
consequence have to deny their children access to britannica, too.
I have no other encyclopedia to check at the moment, but I am almost sure
to find more dangerous and misleading information in it than in wikipedia,
where the articles in these areas were written by well informed
and responsible practitioners.
greetings,
elian
--
Math problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i)^2]-[sin(xy)/2.362x]
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1584
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Wed Nov 13 17:06:32 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I like the idea expressed by Anthere and others of finding a way to shield tender eyes from "adult" stuff. A significant minority of users believe that young people of a certain age should not be exposed to certain materials.
>
>This is totally without prejudice to the debate over whether sexuality is "sinful", just a reflection of the desire of many parents and educators to introduce some subjects step by step, keyed to the maturity level of the learner.
>
>Someday, we plan to make the Wikipedia available on CD-ROM for schools and libraries that don't have T-1 lines (or the patience to tolerate the "lag" problem). It would be very useful to allow a parent or educator to filter out a few articles such as [[****-piercing]] or [[fisting]] or whatever.
>
>
Basically, I agree that articles might (should?) be tagged as "adult",
as long as the default access for everyone is "no filter".
Likewise, as I have suggested long, long ago, and as has been suggested
again several times, articles might also be tagged with "categories"
(philosophy, biology, etc.), and by type (biography, city, etc.).
But, if I look at our current interface, it is already loaded with links
and information *about* the article, not to mention the article itself.
Adding filters, categories, and types might be just too much for the
average user who passes through our humble site. The "hard core" of
users/writers would no doubt manage, though.
But, the three options above might be just perfect for the "stable"
wikipedia version that Larry proposed. Contents there will be controlled
and checked anyway, so a little categorization on the side will be
managable to the reviewers. The readers there would see categories and
filters, but things like editing, talk, and all the tons of links needed
for an "editable" encyclopedia will not be there, so there's plenty of room.
Beside, we wouldn't want to give a CD-ROM with a current wikipedia dump
to a school anyway. The reviewed version would be perfect for that.
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1585
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Nov 13 17:22:43 UTC 2002
I'd like to point out that my original certification proposal would allow a
team to be formed to certify only articles deemed not to hurt certain
sensibilities. Anyone who shares these sensibilities could add the team to his
"trusted teams" list and decide to view only articles certified in this fashion.
(As any censorship expert will tell you, whitelists are the only effective
filters.)
While I'm against all types of censorship and consider it quite dangerous to
censor sexual information in an encyclopedia, if a government mandates the
use of such filters, this should be fought on the political and legal level,
and not within Wikipedia. If Saudi-Arabia wants its own Wikipedia, it's
probably better if they have one than if they have none at all.
The team proposal is much more neutral than any "tagging" feature. For
example, another team might as well decide to select only the most instructive
articles about sexual behavior etc. I would personally strongly oppose any
attempt to create an exclusionary filter specifically for one type of subject
("family filter" etc.). But the team proposal seems to have no disadvantages.
See
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-October/006816.html
and replies.
As for usernames, we might need a policy there eventually, I consider TMC to
be a borderline case. Individual RecentChanges filtering would also be
helpful, if just to exclude bots from being listed.
Instead of complaining about the lack any of this, you can help fix it on
wikitech-l.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1586
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Wed Nov 13 17:14:39 UTC 2002
It's much easier just to delete the pages you don't like or which don't suit
your agenda, though, isn't it Magnus?
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske at epost.de>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>; "sifter-l" <sifter-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> >I like the idea expressed by Anthere and others of finding a way to
shield tender eyes from "adult" stuff. A significant minority of users
believe that young people of a certain age should not be exposed to certain
materials.
> >
> >This is totally without prejudice to the debate over whether sexuality is
"sinful", just a reflection of the desire of many parents and educators to
introduce some subjects step by step, keyed to the maturity level of the
learner.
> >
> >Someday, we plan to make the Wikipedia available on CD-ROM for schools
and libraries that don't have T-1 lines (or the patience to tolerate the
"lag" problem). It would be very useful to allow a parent or educator to
filter out a few articles such as [[****-piercing]] or [[fisting]] or
whatever.
> >
> >
> Basically, I agree that articles might (should?) be tagged as "adult",
> as long as the default access for everyone is "no filter".
> Likewise, as I have suggested long, long ago, and as has been suggested
> again several times, articles might also be tagged with "categories"
> (philosophy, biology, etc.), and by type (biography, city, etc.).
> But, if I look at our current interface, it is already loaded with links
> and information *about* the article, not to mention the article itself.
>
> Adding filters, categories, and types might be just too much for the
> average user who passes through our humble site. The "hard core" of
> users/writers would no doubt manage, though.
>
> But, the three options above might be just perfect for the "stable"
> wikipedia version that Larry proposed. Contents there will be controlled
> and checked anyway, so a little categorization on the side will be
> managable to the reviewers. The readers there would see categories and
> filters, but things like editing, talk, and all the tons of links needed
> for an "editable" encyclopedia will not be there, so there's plenty of
room.
> Beside, we wouldn't want to give a CD-ROM with a current wikipedia dump
> to a school anyway. The reviewed version would be perfect for that.
>
> Magnus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1587
[Wikipedia-l] The poor, tired, windshield police...
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 17:36:30 UTC 2002
--- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net> wrote:
> So I say censorship software is probably a waste
> of time and undesirable. A public librarian or
> school board might have a different perspective.
> Likewise other parents and relatives with different
> rearing habits or experiences.
Yeah, I agree. In fact, there are a lot more interesting things to
look at on the internet for a kid than an encyclopedia, no matter how
"racy" it might be.
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1588
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Nov 13 17:49:45 UTC 2002
Steve Callaway wrote:
>It's much easier just to delete the pages you don't like or which don't suit
>your agenda, though, isn't it Magnus?
>
Before you delete them you have to know that they are there.
Some terms like "pussy" have both ordinary and ribald meanings. How
often on "Are You Being Served?" did we here about Mrs. Slocum's pussy?
From our perspective the filtering would only be used to identify the
articles. It is then up to the end user to adjust his preferences
accordingly if he wants things filtered.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1589
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Wed Nov 13 17:54:47 UTC 2002
Oh, go bother someone else.
Steve Callaway wrote:
>It's much easier just to delete the pages you don't like or which don't suit
>your agenda, though, isn't it Magnus?
>
>Steve Callaway
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske at epost.de>
>To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>; "sifter-l" <sifter-l at nupedia.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:06 PM
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
>
>
>
>
>>Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I like the idea expressed by Anthere and others of finding a way to
>>>
>>>
>shield tender eyes from "adult" stuff. A significant minority of users
>believe that young people of a certain age should not be exposed to certain
>materials.
>
>
>>>This is totally without prejudice to the debate over whether sexuality is
>>>
>>>
>"sinful", just a reflection of the desire of many parents and educators to
>introduce some subjects step by step, keyed to the maturity level of the
>learner.
>
>
>>>Someday, we plan to make the Wikipedia available on CD-ROM for schools
>>>
>>>
>and libraries that don't have T-1 lines (or the patience to tolerate the
>"lag" problem). It would be very useful to allow a parent or educator to
>filter out a few articles such as [[****-piercing]] or [[fisting]] or
>whatever.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>Basically, I agree that articles might (should?) be tagged as "adult",
>>as long as the default access for everyone is "no filter".
>>Likewise, as I have suggested long, long ago, and as has been suggested
>>again several times, articles might also be tagged with "categories"
>>(philosophy, biology, etc.), and by type (biography, city, etc.).
>>But, if I look at our current interface, it is already loaded with links
>>and information *about* the article, not to mention the article itself.
>>
>>Adding filters, categories, and types might be just too much for the
>>average user who passes through our humble site. The "hard core" of
>>users/writers would no doubt manage, though.
>>
>>But, the three options above might be just perfect for the "stable"
>>wikipedia version that Larry proposed. Contents there will be controlled
>>and checked anyway, so a little categorization on the side will be
>>managable to the reviewers. The readers there would see categories and
>>filters, but things like editing, talk, and all the tons of links needed
>>for an "editable" encyclopedia will not be there, so there's plenty of
>>
>>
>room.
>
>
>>Beside, we wouldn't want to give a CD-ROM with a current wikipedia dump
>>to a school anyway. The reviewed version would be perfect for that.
>>
>>Magnus
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1590
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 17:54:19 UTC 2002
--- Steve Callaway <sjc at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> This is a very dangerous area indeed and a seriously
> slippery slope. I can
> see the arguments for it but the obverse side of
> this coin is that if it's
> possible to introduce sexual censorship in this way
> it is entirely
> conceivable that political censorship could be
> attained by a similar
> mechanism. This is NOT a genie to be let out of the
> bottle. There is enough
> political and social hypocrisy and outright
> political propaganda in the
> corpus of Wikipedia already without introducing
> convenient new mechanisms
> for the thought & ideas police.
Indeed it is very dangerous. For how would we decide
which articles are to be put in the list of "to
filter" or not "to filter"?
But isn't that ''filter'' somehow already on, when
some people complain for some titles/articles and ask
them to be removed because they find them offensive
???
What is better
- that articles are not there at all, because too many
people threaten to leave if they are and fight for
them to be removed.
- that articles are here, but might be put in a
"special" list in case the readers really find reading
them too much to bear
- that articles are here, free and open, but that the
encyclopedia is not used because too offensive.
Well, it was just an idea to support one side. I think
their point of view and sensibility is important to
consider and deserve attention. Cultural differences
on sexual matters can be very high.
On political matters, neutrality can be approached by
stating facts and explaining every point of view.
Neutrality on sexual matters cannot be reached through
showing all point of views ;-)
Maybe is it that giving all the details, the
pictures...somehow is forcing a point of view on
'sensible' (no judgement value here) person : forcing
on them the point of view of those with tough-skin and
'liberal' education toward kids.
Maybe a two-level reading could solve the matter - one
expurged, and one not. With the choice for the
expurged one.
Again, I know this is dangerous in terms of
censorship. I agree. Still, that ought to be adressed.
(My own level of tolerance is pretty high on the
sexual scale - hope there is no misleading hint here)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1591
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Offensive usernames
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Wed Nov 13 18:01:44 UTC 2002
Well, I hate the name TMC, but I wasn't too wild about your satire
either, Ed.
I agree that the picture in [[pussy]] is ridiculous and inappropriate,
but I have attempted to add some encyclopedic content to the article.
I am of two minds about censorship and filtering. On the one hand, I
don't care for it (slippery slope, matter of opinion, etc), but on the
other it seems only polite to give people a chance to opt out of
discussions easily identifiable as vulgar. That's why I A) put the
"one-ball" lyrics in while B) agreeing that they should be on a
separate page.
I, for one, have been intrigued and admiring to watch your evolution
over the past year and the intelligence, care and kindness which you
have come to embody in almost all discussions in which you take part.
On several occasions I have simply gone away when the Wikipedia gets
me down, but I always come back because I think the whole thing is
worth doing.
Good luck to you, either way.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
|From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
|Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:46:44 -0500
|
|Fine. I'm going to leave anyway, if articles like [[pussy]] with the picture of girls holding kittens at waist level and saying "Do you want to see my pussy?" and usernames like Throbbing Monster Cock are permitted.
|
|Ed Poor
|212-456-5479 <-- call this number if you don't believe it's me.
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Lars Aronsson [mailto:lars at aronsson.se]
|Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:44 AM
|To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Offensive usernames
|
|
|
|Somebody with the IP address mail11.disney.com [208.246.35.55] sent
|this message in the name of "Poor, Edmund W":
|
|> And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A******
|> user account and vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a
|> point,
|
|Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must
|assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a
|mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just
|pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make
|an investigation into who really sent that message.
|
|
|--
| Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
| Aronsson Datateknik
| Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
| tel +46-70-7891609
| http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
|
|_______________________________________________
|
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1592
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 18:07:13 UTC 2002
There is a difference between a true encyclopedia and a book for
children.
Can you imagine a book where attacks against indians were perpetrated
by a detachment of the british army during the french and indian war
under the command or none other than George Washington (he fought
that war, that wasn't a pretty war--none are), and then the next
paragraph exhalts the same man as the Father of our Country?
(I am not stating this is a fact, just saying that if in the future
such example came to light, I would put it in wikipedia)
This would have absolutely nothing to do with porn and sensitivities,
but I bet you there would be 100,000,000 people calling for the FBI,
the CIA, and the Office of Homeland Security (if it ever sees the
light of day) to shut down the server, arrest all involved, and
charge them with sedition. We are at war, remember, and there are
people in US jails who have been denied due process because of the
color of their skin, origin, and/or religion. I wouldn't put it past
the Ashcroft Posse.
So the encyclopedia should have a big fat disclaimer on top: "This is
intended for a mature audience" (let the reader, based on their
culture and jurisdiction decide what mature is to them), and let it
be at that.
The girl holding the pussy and asking the question can go under
"eroticism: the power of suggestion".
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1593
[Wikipedia-l] Strong request for a new edit window boilerplate requested (was Re: Lir)
Axel Boldt
axelboldt at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 18:39:58 UTC 2002
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be
> added to each edit window. It could state something like the
following;
>
> "By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the
> rules and conditions of using this website"
>
> 'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a
> [in a new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page
with just
> the basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations
and
> Wikipetiquette.
I think that's a good idea. I would modify the text a bit: the rules
are more about *contributing* rather than *using*, i.e. reading. Maybe
"By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the rules
and conditions of contributing to this website"
or even nicer
"By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the rules
of our community."
This could replace the current GFDL copyright notice.
In any event, the [[Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette]] document right now is a
joke and can in this form not be made part of the rules. E.g. rule 1:
"Try to say something positive for each complaint you make." ?? If
Wikipetiquette is to be included, than it has to be a minimalistic
version: be polite, no personal attacks.
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1594
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Nov 13 18:39:21 UTC 2002
Anthere wrote:
>--- Steve Callaway <sjc at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>This is a very dangerous area indeed and a seriously
>>slippery slope. I can
>>see the arguments for it but the obverse side of
>>this coin is that if it's
>>possible to introduce sexual censorship in this way
>>it is entirely
>>conceivable that political censorship could be
>>attained by a similar
>>mechanism. This is NOT a genie to be let out of the
>>bottle. There is enough
>>political and social hypocrisy and outright
>>political propaganda in the
>>corpus of Wikipedia already without introducing
>>convenient new mechanisms
>>for the thought & ideas police.
>>
>Indeed it is very dangerous. For how would we decide
>which articles are to be put in the list of "to
>filter" or not "to filter"?
>
We can only make whatever filtering mechanism we choose available, and
generally defaulted to "off". The choice to apply it lies with the user.
>What is better
>1- that articles are not there at all, because too many
>people threaten to leave if they are and fight for
>them to be removed.
>2- that articles are here, but might be put in a
>"special" list in case the readers really find reading
>them too much to bear
>3- that articles are here, free and open, but that the
>encyclopedia is not used because too offensive.
>
I prefer 2, which gives choice to the reader.
>Maybe a two-level reading could solve the matter - one
>expurged, and one not. With the choice for the
>expurged one.
>
Not practical. We have enough difficulties with NPOV; getting the
contributors to make two versions of articles may not get many writers
out. On top of that tolerance is not simply an off/on switch. For
example, some people believe in open sexual discussion, as long as it
doesn't involve "perverted" sex. The "meaning" of "perverted" then
becomes an open question.
>Again, I know this is dangerous in terms of
>censorship. I agree. Still, that ought to be adressed.
>
Your idea of using the "XX" code as a filter is good. I would extend
that to saying that any "X" code could be used for articles with some
kind of restriction. This would allow for a gradation of explicit
articles where the "XX" might be used for the most offensive ones of the
"goatse" variety, and "XS" could refer to something that a relatively
small portion of the readers might find offensive. One possible use of
other "X" codes could be using "XC" for copyright restricted, when
copyright problems arise. Access to this category might be restricted
to sysops while the copyright problems are being resolved, and the
restrictions removed when the review is complete.
I"m still waiting for comments from someone about the technical
feasibility of my letter code idea.
>(My own level of tolerance is pretty high on the
>sexual scale - hope there is no misleading hint here)
>
I have no plans to visit France in the forseeable future. Hypothesis
testing will just have to wait.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1595
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 18:58:26 UTC 2002
> I have no plans to visit France in the forseeable
> future. Hypothesis
> testing will just have to wait.
To read XX wikipédias articles on the same screen
together ???
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1596
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Censorship and bowdlerization
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 19:41:20 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 09:18 am, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org
wrote:
>......
> But, the three options above might be just perfect for the "stable"
> wikipedia version that Larry proposed. Contents there will be controlled
> and checked anyway, so a little categorization on the side will be
> managable to the reviewers. The readers there would see categories and
> filters, but things like editing, talk, and all the tons of links needed
> for an "editable" encyclopedia will not be there, so there's plenty of
> room. Beside, we wouldn't want to give a CD-ROM with a current wikipedia
> dump to a school anyway. The reviewed version would be perfect for that.
>
> Magnus
I now agree. WIkipedia is not the place to have self-descriptive tags on
articles. Newbies won't know about them and old hands would be swamped with
adding and reviewing tag relevance. There are also /way/ too many articles
now to really even consider this. This idea /may/ have been possible to
implement a year ago but IMO it is too late now. But this idea is perfect for
Larrypedia/sifter.
However, I still think it would be neat to automatically set-up 'communities
of articles' by having some software program dig through all the article
links and see what links where, what links back, how often and then assign
scores to articles - higher scores for a given category would be categorized
in that category. The program can start from the Main Page, dig its way down
into the links and then group links based on the categories we have on the
Main Page.
This of course wouldn't be perfect and the 'categories' would need to be made
into lists that could then be human edited. But then we could use the 'Watch
links' function to have a customized Recent Changes and searches.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1597
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 20:13:26 UTC 2002
I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
Quoting [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]
> Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally
> to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia
> contributor for a while and is generally a known and
> active member of the community.
I have been active on Wikipedia since October 15th.
I am a known and active member of the community.
Sample pages I have contributed to:
[[Flag of Germany]]
[[Rainbow Flag]]
[[Flag of Oregon]]
[[Oregon]]
[[Michael Bellesiles]]
[[Sea of Cortez]]
--TMC
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1598
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Offensive usernames
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 20:20:53 UTC 2002
Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
> Somebody with the IP address mail11.disney.com [208.246.35.55] sent
> this message in the name of "Poor, Edmund W":
>
> > And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A******
> > user account and vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a
> > point,
>
> Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must
> assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a
> mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just
> pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make
> an investigation into who really sent that message.
It did not seem stupid or obnoxiously fatuous to me.
It appeared political and diplomatic. Further comment
below:
Ed said:
> In respect to Karen and other lovers of small, soft, or furry creatures, let us rein
> in our salty language.
Interesting. Ed has voluntarily agreed to desist with
behavior that he and others find potentially damaging
to Wikipedia.
A standard which trolling regulars sometimes fail to
meet when having disagreements with others.
IMHO It is not stupid to attempt to get along with others.
Many people consider turnabout fair play. I do not find
this stupid either, but this may be rather transparently
self serving.
>
> And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A****** user account and
> vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a point, i.e., that our social contract
> has loopholes that can and will be exploited.
The point was effectively made. I had missed "TMC"s
previous contributions but was aware that we lack any
means of ratifying community policy, applying consistent
education and enforcement efforts, and even vary substantially
in how we inform novices and regulars alike that we think
they are in error relative to currently prevailing
community expectations (which change rapidly with the weather
and the influences of newcomers).
No lasting harm. I also have currently not invited
minors to participate here as I am not yet satisfied that
an effective, pleasant, educational environment has been
established uniformly for longer than microseconds.
So Ed's actions highlighted an existing problem by making
it a bit worse temporarily.
Stupid? Perhaps not. A flu shot lowers your resistance
to the flu temporarily to produce a more robust immune
system. Timing is everything .... well sometimes it is
something anyway.
>
> I apologize to all for using illegitmate means to dramatize my point.
I contend this is a fallacious and erronius statement
which I now assume was made with good diplomatic intentions.
I mean it is possible I suppose that Ed stupidly made
a mistake .... it is not paranoid to assume he is sneaking
up on us again to make another point if he has already admitted
doing so once ... is it?
There is no legitimate authority on this site beyond
that fact that Mr. Wales through Bomis owns the server,
hard drive, and bandwidth we are using.
Despite Mr. Crockers allegation that I am a liar I
suspect he will confirm the approximate truthfulness of
the above statement if you ask him nicely or else
explain why it is untruthful and provide you with the
complete truth as he sees it.
If there is no legitimate authority or means of establishing
policy or procedures which it is expected legitimate actions
will fall within .... then how can there illegitimate means
of making a point? We are reduced to expediency and Ed's
actions seem to have provoked some discussion of issues
pertinent to resolving some widely percieved problems.
Personally I think the time for growth serving diplomacy
is past. We have a substantial community who has bought
into the Wikipedia concept and our current progress is
being stalled by unnecessary strife, discord, and confusion
regarding how to establish a legitimate governing authority
for our community. With clarity those who agree can contribute
in a better constrained environment and those who do not
agree can move on .... possibly prior to buying in via
uncompensated contributions to the database. Would any
consider a site designed to receive uncompensated contributions
from non citizens prior to banning them for failing to
respond to the cabal's dictates an abusively exploitive
situation?
Mr. Wales does not own me or GPL'd source code or
the FDL'd database. Thus there are limits to the influence
which can be brought to bear by appeal to the owner.
Since one of our rules is to disregard the rules nothing
Ed or "TMC" have done can be viewed as "illegitimate".
Does it follow that since we have no rules and people can
always move on that there is no way to abusively exploit
casual drop in users?
I do not find this attempted misstatement of Ed's in
support of diplomacy "stupid".
Merely ineffective at this time in the context of larger
goals implied by our Wikipedia mission.
So .... nobody attempt to use Ed's fallacious admission
of illegitimate means as a means of convincing me that
my methods are illegitimate. Better simply to allege
troll or liar until sufficient community support has
materialized for a lynching party.
>
> Unlike TMC, I am perfectly willing to be bound by the rules that others make. I am an
> absolutist -- rather than a relativist -- and I am obligated by my religious beliefs
> to avoid actions which harm others for my own benefit, and to carry out actions that
> benefit others (even to the point of self-sacrifice)
I require due process, appropriate symmetry, and the consent
of the governed before I am bound by self discipline by rules
others make.
I have committed to having no rules beyond peer pressure
as per the existing contradictory and confusing policy
statements and repeatedly informed (usually rudely in kind)
Larry in public (and Mr. Wales in private correspondence) that
"Larry says ..." or "Jimmy says ..." is insufficient to
dictate my behavior.
This is apparently not an uncommon situation. Prior to Larry
leaving the project in his paid capacity he was requesting from
the community the authority to enforce his decisions upon people
who ignored them. It does not appear to me that he proposed to
establish any legitimate means of deriving authority from the
consent of the governed at large (beyond a few/prevailing majority
amongst the valuable regular contributors on the mailing list and
the owner) or any due process beyond an email complaint to the
owner or the community mailing lists.
I have not yet been banned despite Mr. Wales (and Larry, and
Mr. Crocker, et. al.) expressed low opinions of me, so clearly we
currently have room for some diversity of views and opinions.
Should Mr. Wales or Bomis sell us (Wikipedia.com or .org) to Larry
at some point in the future this may change abrubtly without notice
depending upon what the P'hds, the Board (of elite P'hds), or Larry
come up with in regard to "troll" allegation and L&L (labeling and
lynching) party policies.
>
> Thus I will refrain from offending Karen and from frustrating Uncle Mike's desire to
> use Wikipedia as a teaching tool for children. I myself long ago decided not to let my
> children use Wikipedia, for the very reasons Karen and mirwin gave -- and which I
> dramatized with the F.A. episode.
Let me clarify a bit: On the overall scale of things
the occasional tidbit of pornography and foul language in
inappropriate places is less important to me than the overall
tone and approach of the community.
Kids learn by example and I have no desire for the types
of uncivil behavior which routinely erupt at this site
(IMO largely because we have no legitimate means of establishing
what comprises civil behavior and then routinely curtailing or
damping violations) to damage my family and friends kids.
As citizens, we have the responsibility to teach them to be
effective citizens and how to get along in society at large.
It is my opinion that as Wikipedia is currently structured it would
only reinforce bad habits that all children must learn to put away
if they are to be productive, prosperous citizens. Indeed, it
seems to bring out some of my poorer behavior (ala usenet) and
thus I have been recently self rationing my personal exposure
somewhat. Actually, usenet might be fairly restful when I am
on sabbatical from Wikipedia .....
In conclusion: Lars, I do not find Ed's post stupid.
Rather I find it rather ingenious in a myriad of ways
from a diplomatic, political, and pedagogical standpoint.
I find your suggestion that Ed take action to please
you because you are too ignorant or uncreative in your
thought processes to find any merit in his post rather
lacking on your part. If you disagree then I suggest you either
leave to avoid stupid people like me and Mr. Ed ( poor
humor I know ... I did it again; stupid, stupid, .... this will
crack we stupids ... ahem) by leaving Wikipedia,
or undertake to educate us at your leisure.
In my stupid (ironically/sarcastically or perhaps stupidly
self alleged should go without saying but in the interests
of clarity I wasted some bandwidth here)
opinion, you may might find the undertaking
educational, even if Ed and I are fast learners. Of course,
we may need more than shouted unsubstantiated allegations
of "stupid", "troll", etc. to make readily apparent rapid
progress by your possibly exacting self defined standards.
Regards,
Mike Irwin, aka
the lying troll
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1599
[Wikipedia-l] unproductive posts
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 20:20:46 UTC 2002
Lars wrote:
> Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must
> assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a
> mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just
> pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make
> an investigation into who really sent that message.
SJC wrote:
> It's much easier just to delete the pages you don't like or which don't
> suit your agenda, though, isn't it Magnus?
>
> Steve Callaway
Stop it you two. Lars, Ed was trying to make a valid point and you repay that
with a stupid, unproductive and unnecessarily combative response. Granted it
wasn't the most productive way to accomplish his ends but Ed is one of our
best, if not the best, community builders and he deserves much more respect
than that. Your, comment, on the other hand, only tends to tear down
community.
SJC, get over it. The wikipedia namespace is not a place for propaganda an POV
divisiveness -- it is a place to describe and work on the /NPOV/
encyclopedia. You have already been told that you can use your user page or
Meta for most of your POV needs. So this is hardly censorship when we offer
you valid forums for this. Then there is also geocities, again free.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1600
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 20:33:44 UTC 2002
Steve Callaway wrote:
>
> This is a very dangerous area indeed and a seriously slippery slope. I can
> see the arguments for it but the obverse side of this coin is that if it's
> possible to introduce sexual censorship in this way it is entirely
> conceivable that political censorship could be attained by a similar
> mechanism. This is NOT a genie to be let out of the bottle. There is enough
> political and social hypocrisy and outright political propaganda in the
> corpus of Wikipedia already without introducing convenient new mechanisms
> for the thought & ideas police.
Are you saying that Wikipedia should be designed to make
it difficult for parents or guardians to exercise their
responsibility in the oversight of minors' education?
This seems rather radical and beyond the scope of
an encyclopedia project even if it is intended as
an educational resource.
Most societies that I am aware of implicitly place
at least some responsibility for controlling access
to information for irresponsible persons (a juvenile
is not a responsible adult or citizen in my opinion,
although increasingly U.S. courts attempt to claim
they are at random whim of proscutors) upon their
responsible guardian.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1601
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 20:37:41 UTC 2002
If we don't do this, we're going to find that Wikipedia is being filtered out by dumb parental control software and the protective filters in place with such search engines as Google. Then of what use will it be to anyone?
Zoe
Steve Callaway <sjc at easynet.co.uk> wrote:This is a very dangerous area indeed and a seriously slippery slope. I can
see the arguments for it but the obverse side of this coin is that if it's
possible to introduce sexual censorship in this way it is entirely
conceivable that political censorship could be attained by a similar
mechanism. This is NOT a genie to be let out of the bottle. There is enough
political and social hypocrisy and outright political propaganda in the
corpus of Wikipedia already without introducing convenient new mechanisms
for the thought & ideas police.
rgds
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "Poor, Edmund W"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
> I like the idea expressed by Anthere and others of finding a way to shield
tender eyes from "adult" stuff. A significant minority of users believe that
young people of a certain age should not be exposed to certain materials.
>
> This is totally without prejudice to the debate over whether sexuality is
"sinful", just a reflection of the desire of many parents and educators to
introduce some subjects step by step, keyed to the maturity level of the
learner.
>
> Someday, we plan to make the Wikipedia available on CD-ROM for schools and
libraries that don't have T-1 lines (or the patience to tolerate the "lag"
problem). It would be very useful to allow a parent or educator to filter
out a few articles such as [[****-piercing]] or [[fisting]] or whatever.
>
> A rating system would facilitate this.
>
> I myself would like to be able to filter out the following (in no
particular order):
> * Any mention of TMC's username (as in Recent Changes, his user page and
user talk page)
> * All articles on bizarre sexuality (BDSM, etc.)
>
> I would like to retain the articles related to homosexuality, since they
are so well written (i.e., NPOV rather than pro-gay) -- but I might be
biased by pride of workmanship since I put a lot of effort into some of
them.
>
> Those who don't want this filtering should be able to bypass it easily.
>
> So it could be a user option, with the default set to NO FILTERING.
>
> Ed Poor
> Tolerant Absolutist
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021113/1d93d5f4/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1602
[Wikipedia-l] unproductive posts
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Wed Nov 13 20:39:25 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> writes:
> You have already been told that you can use your user page or Meta for most
> of your POV needs. So this is hardly censorship when we offer you valid
> forums for this.
And even if we didn't it *still* wouldn't be censorship.
There is a lot of twaddle talked about censorship,
Lets go to the OED.
CENSOR (n)
a. transf. One who exercises official supervision over morals and conduct.
b. spec. An official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all
books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that
they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the
government. More explicitly dramatic censor, film censor.
You see that word *official*? Its important.
What it means is this *Only governments can censor*
If I take a book I've written to a publishers and they say "No, we'll pass"
- thats not censorship.
If I print a magazine and a large chain of newsvendors refuse to stock it
- thats not censorship.
If I take a send a letter to the Times and they don't run it
- thats not censorship.
If I publish a webpage and the webhosts say "we don't want to host this"
- thats not censorship.
If I write a wikipedia article and Jimbo, or the community say "No thanks"
- thats not censorship.
As someone very wisely said -- just yesterday :
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia"
Now, before people get their panties in a knot over the "repression"[0] of
the majority, they should be forced to repeat that 3 times.
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia"
Once more for luck?
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia"
If someone has the ability to edit wikipedia taken away from them, we're not
harming them, we're not infringing on any right that they innately possess
and we cannot -- by definition -- be censoring them.
[0] And what a feeble middle class repression to choose to kick against.
If you're so righteously angry, go channel it into something worthwhile
-- like child poverty -- rather than defending your non-existent "right"
to talk about politics on someone else's bandwidth.
--
Gareth Owen
"I love the wikipedia, but sometimes I get the impression that certain people
on this list are very bored, and so argue about something when there's really
bugger all to argue about. Edit some articles, for god's sake." -- LP
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1603
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Requesting Sysop Status
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 20:51:27 UTC 2002
> I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
I see that within minutes of my requesting sysop
status, Maveric149 rushed to the
[[Wikipedia:Administrators]] page to alter the
admission policy.
Specifically, he added the word "trusted" to the
criteria. This word has not been part of the policy
since August 12th, when it was removed by Lee Daniel
Crocker.
I interpret this action to imply that Maveric149 does
not trust me, and intends to use his post facto
manipulation of the policy to oppose my promotion.
Nonetheless, my request for Sysop status still stands.
My edits have been useful contributions to Wikipedia.
I have not been involved in any edit wars, with the
possible exception of the "Hitler's Balls" issue which
was (and is) a difference of opinion regarding the
copyright status of the text in question.
I fit the written guidelines prior to Maveric149's
edits. Since I can further attest that I consider
myself "trusted", I continue to fit the guidelines
after his edits.
--TMC
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1604
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Imran Ghory
imran at bits.bris.ac.uk
Wed Nov 13 21:10:06 UTC 2002
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Anthere wrote:
>
> Indeed it is very dangerous. For how would we decide
> which articles are to be put in the list of "to
> filter" or not "to filter"?
Using ICRA/RSCAI labelling ?
Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1605
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Nov 13 21:14:16 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 15:13, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
> I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
>
> Quoting [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]
>
> > Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally
> > to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia
> > contributor for a while and is generally a known and
> > active member of the community.
>
> I have been active on Wikipedia since October 15th.
>
> I am a known and active member of the community.
You also deliberately antagonize other contributors without
justification or apology.
I think that you should get sysop status, but I also think you should
change your username (at least change the one you use most of the time).
Since you seem to discount my opinion on changing your name, I won't be
terribly upset if others discount my opinion on granting you sysop
status.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1606
[Wikipedia-l] POV accusations
Bridget
Bridget
Wed Nov 13 21:25:49 UTC 2002
Its interesting how POV all these accusations against
me are. Why, apparently Ive been harrassing mav AND
April! Dear me, I can't remember having any
communication with April besides a talk page message
of
"Instead of simply reverting all my changes would you
care to explain what is wrong with them?"
As for mav...Isn't he harrassing me? I'm not the one
that flings around petty insults.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1607
[Wikipedia-l] POV accusations
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 21:45:07 UTC 2002
--- Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] <lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Its interesting how POV all these accusations against
> me are. Why, apparently Ive been harrassing mav AND
> April! Dear me, I can't remember having any
> communication with April besides a talk page message
> of
>
> "Instead of simply reverting all my changes would you
> care to explain what is wrong with them?"
>
> As for mav...Isn't he harrassing me? I'm not the one
> that flings around petty insults.
Lir,
You've heard the one about not feeding the trolls? it's a funny one.
Also, you know what it means to "operate under the radar"? It's a
military term used by low flying aircraft to achieve their objective
(reaching target and bombing it in general) without alerting enemy
defenses and triggering response. It's also used nowadays by
companies that operate in stealth mode, meaning without publicly
disclosing their activities. It is used to be able to operate without
interference from pesky things like reporters and analysts.
So, don't feed the troll and operate under the radar... It works for
me. I accomplish my goals without interference. :)
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1608
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 22:08:16 UTC 2002
elian wrote:
>
> "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> writes:
>
> > Someday, we plan to make the Wikipedia available on CD-ROM for schools
> > and libraries that don't have T-1 lines (or the patience to tolerate the
> > "lag" problem). It would be very useful to allow a parent or educator to
> > filter out a few articles such as [[****-piercing]] or [[fisting]] or
> > whatever.
>
> Wikipedia is open content, the wikipedia software is open source. Any
> Library, university, school or whatever institution which wants a
> filtering system can develop one for itself.
Very true. They can also create an appropriate
fork if they desire to retain full interactive access
for their students with the medium.
A sifter-L (absent the P'hd requirements and stacked by
any bias the controlling authorities choose to institutionalize)
type activity could initialize their fork project and then
occasionally augment as desirable from the base Wikipedia material.
>
> I consider filtering or censuring articles on Wikipedia itself a blatant
> violation of its NPOV-policy.
How so? Are we to provide a mandatory reading list and track
what users read to assure that they receive fully balanced
doses of human knowledge in accordance with our mythical
and unclearly defined NPOV policy?
This would clearly be silly. Sort of like failed liberal
education requirements which require engineers to study
literature but which allow mathmatically (perhaps even
arithmetically?) illiterate P'hd "scholars" to teach
engineering students literature.
Our ideal (according to the NPOV as I understand
its intent) is to provide as closely as possible
all applicable information or knowledge summarized as
neutrally or objectively as possible.
Allowing the reader to move away from our default full
view to a self (or guardian) selected filtered view is
far different from applying an externally (user frame
of reference) imposed censorship filter regardless of
the filtering criteria or purpose.
>
> Besides, entries about sexual "perversions" are found in "normal"
> encyclopedias as well, the parents in question would in logical
> consequence have to deny their children access to britannica, too.
Not necessarily. Access via paper is by index and
organization. In principle it should not be hard to
rip out offending sections with an exacto knife.
Note that I do not insist on imposing this method on you,
merely that it is possible for me to use prior to handing
the paper to minors for whom I am temporarily responsible.
In practice, I suspect parents with extreme concerns will
simply purchase or provide access to a children's encyclopedia
with published standards that look appropriate, by
their standards.
How is this different
from allowing a parent to set a filtering mechanism
within their children's account at Wikipedia?
If the child resets the filter criteria without parental permission
inappropriately (or appropriately), that is between them,
their guardian authority, and any involved societal authorities.
>
> I have no other encyclopedia to check at the moment, but I am almost sure
> to find more dangerous and misleading information in it than in wikipedia,
> where the articles in these areas were written by well informed
> and responsible practitioners.
This is a manifestation of incompleteness of Wikipedia
more than any existing merit. Eventually some knowledgeable
engineers (or crackpots or "terrorists") will show up and explain
in detail how to build ballistic missiles, truck bombs, etc.
out of common household materials or materials and energy found
in any cubic mile of earth with surface access to atmosphere
and sunlight.
Much of this is not explicitly available
in existing paper encyclopedias due to lack of space and editorial
selection. Online Wikipedia has no immediate space constraints and
the person who feels lack of knowledge is not the best way to
constrain societal behavior and choices may show up anytime.
Of course others may routinely delete the detailed information if
they feel it is too dangerous or explicitly simple but a window
of availability will occur occasionally no matter how rigorously
we apply the community consensus to removing inappropriate
material (notice at the moment we have no way to ratify guidelines
regarding "inappropriate" or uniformly apply them, so let the
edit wars begin!).
Does this mean the NPOV is violated if a meta tag is inserted
to allow parents to filter out detailed specific information
and blueprints on bomb building?
I do not think so. Information does not get any more neutral
or unbiased than hard engineering data and plans. The bomb
design either works or it does not. The universe will let
us know when a garage or building blows up accidentally, a stump
is removed, or the police find a failed pipe bomb at the site
of a mass murder suicide) The Wikipedia site has no way to
determine a priori whether the bomb information is going to
be used well or poorly by our standards. It may be very
appropriate to give responsible guardians the ability to
slow down juvenile access to materials which a mature farmer
needs to improve his productivity or society.
Notice I am not concerned with adults. This may change if
the U.S. successfully convicts U.S. citizens for attending
Al Quaeda training camps. I doubt that members
of TINC, or Wikipedians at large, wish to be stuck in a cell with
me for assisting preadolescent or puberty striken "terrorists" in
learning how to spray offensive graffiti on the Pentagon any more
than I wish to be stuck there with them for complicity in learning
how this could be done or assisting others with learning how this
could be done. If we are successful then it is merely a matter
of time until some criminal fingers us (Wikipedia) for providing
information he needed to attempt to commit a crime.
Extreme example:
"I learned that a bar of steel can be rubbed on concrete
to create a sharp edge at Wikipedia. Whereupon I used it
to assault a homeland security officer who wished to search
me. I say this now freely and voluntarily to the juvenile
court so that my murder conviction can be reduced to 2 weeks
public service and I can be remanded into the custody of
my clearly capable parent/guardian of 12 years and parole
office of 4 years."
More extreme example:
"The jury finds you guilty of accessing information at
Wikipedia, the same site that the Pentagon taggers used
to learn how to assault the Pentagon."
The server currently resides in the U.S. so,
it is clearly in our best interest to put a meta tag
system in place to allow parents to filter out tagging technology
and methods in the D.C. area before the Pentagon gets tagged.
Our defense becomes the technology was available to the parent
or irresponsible adult to avoid the tainting information which
was allegedly responsible for their crime spree.
I contend that the NPOV attempts to state only that we write in
such a way as to not villify the chemical composition used in
attempts to assassinate Hitler or
to glorify the design of the atomic bombs used to incinerate
Japanese non-combatants. It does not (nor intended?) to
address whether parents (or Wikipedia) have a responsibility
to keep plans for pipe bombs out of the hands of minors until
(in the judgement of the guardian) the juvenile has adequate
judgement to determine when to make a pipe bomb and throw or
plant it and when to not even think about it.
Clearly Wikipedia currently assumes to a great extent that
adult users are responsible for how they use the information
they attain at Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia site or the
providers of the information.
If our target audience does not include minors then
we should acknowledge that and post a warning that this
is an adult only site. Then someone else can establish
the kiddypedia sifter list and everyone will be happier.
If children are in our target audience then I think the
maturity meta approach has a lot of merit from a functional
requirements standpoint.
The capability might be useful to other sites using the
GPL'd software and FDL'd data even if
Wikipedia chooses not to use it.
For example: A site
setup to deal with potentially hazardous engineering projects
and information might require users to attain a certain
trusted certification prior to providing access to dangerous
data (in the hands of the ill informed, overly optimistic,
or careless) regarding chemical propellants or explosives so useful
in some farming/space flight applications. No sense letting
interested novices blow themselves up through sheer incompetence.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1609
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 22:18:04 UTC 2002
Steve Callaway wrote:
>
> It's much easier just to delete the pages you don't like or which don't suit
> your agenda, though, isn't it Magnus?
Often when working with information one wishes
to filter according to varying criteria.
For example:
If designing a curriculum in physics one would
typically start from the simple approximatations and
work towards the more correct complex information.
Material accessed via an maturity level index of
some kind might be very useful in writing lesson plans
and supporting material.
If researching business opportunities one might
wish to start with simple overviews and then start
requesting more complete detailed information or
even raw data for personal analysis.
When you say agenda are you referring to the site's
agenda or the users agenda?
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1610
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 22:38:17 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> Instead of complaining about the lack any of this, you can help fix it on
> wikitech-l.
>
Are we at the pointless complaint stage already? 8)
I thought we were discussing the possibilities with a
view towards achieving consensus on what the
policy/technology options are and what the community
thinks should be done. Meanwhile mixing in the lobbying
or case arguments in favor or against various options
as per private agendas or personal beliefs.
More seriously, we can only develop alternate
technologies on wikitech-l ..... and only after
arduous study and effort.
In some cases, only the benevolent god king (or an
authorized developer) influenced by the Wikipedia-L
can "fix" Wikipedia.org after a technology becomes
available by implementation on the server.
In other cases the community can begin immediate implementation
by deleting offending account names and material.
In some cases I think the censorship has already
begun merely by calling it vandalism or POV and proceeding
forthrightly (or obnoxiously or self righteously) to delete
the offensive material.
regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1611
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
Axel Boldt
axelboldt at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 22:56:47 UTC 2002
--- Throbbing Monster Cock <thromoco at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
I'm against it. You obviously try to create conflict in Wikipedia, so I
don't see why we should make it easier for you. I don't care
what the policy says or said at one point, since I ignore all rules.
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1612
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Wed Nov 13 23:06:00 UTC 2002
We see too much of that stupid ugly name already. If sysops are
supposed to be trusted, then that lets you right out, because I don't
trust you.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
|From: Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com>
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:56:47 -0800 (PST)
|
|--- Throbbing Monster Cock <thromoco at yahoo.com> wrote:
|
|> I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
|
|I'm against it. You obviously try to create conflict in Wikipedia, so I
|don't see why we should make it easier for you. I don't care
|what the policy says or said at one point, since I ignore all rules.
|
|Axel
|
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1613
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 23:06:13 UTC 2002
--- Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Throbbing Monster Cock <thromoco at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
>
> I'm against it. You obviously try to create conflict in Wikipedia,
> so I
> don't see why we should make it easier for you. I don't care
> what the policy says or said at one point, since I ignore all
> rules.
>
> Axel
Same here. No rules, only common sense.
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1614
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Nov 13 23:19:29 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 18:06, Tom Parmenter wrote:
>
> We see too much of that stupid ugly name already. If sysops are
> supposed to be trusted, then that lets you right out, because I don't
> trust you.
That's why TMC is trying to score points by pointing out that Mav just
added "trusted" to the explicit guidelines only after TMC requested
sysop status.
And if I was scoring, I would give points to TMC for that. I just think
this is a tedious game, especially since he hasn't asserted what his
principles are for antagonizing people like me, Anthere and David
spector.
Actually, I can understand why people would want to antagonize me, but
really, there are more focused ways of doing that.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1615
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Requesting Sysop Status
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Wed Nov 13 23:33:23 UTC 2002
Having read some of your comments and the arrogance which you have responded
to a number of people who have expressed legitimate concerns about your
actions, I would about as much consider trusting you with sysop status as I
would consider inviting George W. Bush around for supper, i.e. not very.
rgds
Steve Callaway [sjc]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Throbbing Monster Cock" <thromoco at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:51 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Requesting Sysop Status
> > I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
>
> I see that within minutes of my requesting sysop
> status, Maveric149 rushed to the
> [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] page to alter the
> admission policy.
>
> Specifically, he added the word "trusted" to the
> criteria. This word has not been part of the policy
> since August 12th, when it was removed by Lee Daniel
> Crocker.
>
> I interpret this action to imply that Maveric149 does
> not trust me, and intends to use his post facto
> manipulation of the policy to oppose my promotion.
>
> Nonetheless, my request for Sysop status still stands.
> My edits have been useful contributions to Wikipedia.
> I have not been involved in any edit wars, with the
> possible exception of the "Hitler's Balls" issue which
> was (and is) a difference of opinion regarding the
> copyright status of the text in question.
>
> I fit the written guidelines prior to Maveric149's
> edits. Since I can further attest that I consider
> myself "trusted", I continue to fit the guidelines
> after his edits.
>
> --TMC
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1616
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Wed Nov 13 23:51:52 UTC 2002
Zoe wrote:
> If we don't do this, we're going to find that Wikipedia is being filtered out by dumb parental control software and the protective filters in place with such search engines as Google. Then of what use will it be to anyone?
> Zoe
It will be useful to anyone who does not install dumb parental
control software or rely on censoring search engines.
Please consider this:
If a minor has not established sufficient trust/respect
with his or her guardian to be trusted online without censorship or
spy software enabled ..... then perhaps it would be better (for
the project and possibly for the child) if they were not participating
at Wikipedia?
This might discreetly eliminate a lot of problem children
which we could do without .... unless part of our purpose is to
help civilize or educate problem children?
That pesky target audience or customer profile thingy again.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1617
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
elian
elian at gmx.li
Wed Nov 13 23:49:46 UTC 2002
Hello Throbbing Monster Cock,
Throbbing Monster Cock <thromoco at yahoo.com> writes:
> I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
Why?
greetings,
elian
--
heidegger, n. A ponderous device for boring through thick layers of
substance. "It's buried so deep we'll have to use a heidegger."
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1618
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Thu Nov 14 00:14:15 UTC 2002
Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
>I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
>
I think you're just trying to divert our attention from the suggested
policy to prevent vulgarity in usernames.
>I have been active on Wikipedia since October 15th.
>
>I am a known and active member of the community.
>
Yes, and you have cause (at least) one contributor to leave: Isis.
>Sample pages I have contributed to:
>
>[[Flag of Germany]]
>[[Rainbow Flag]]
>[[Flag of Oregon]]
>[[Oregon]]
>[[Michael Bellesiles]]: gun culture guru: your specialist POV it seems
>[[Sea of Cortez]]: you've added 17 words
>
I remain unconvinced that you're not here to cause trouble.
Changing your username might be a start.
>
>
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1619
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Nov 14 00:35:47 UTC 2002
Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
>
> I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.
>
> Quoting [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]
>
> > Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally
> > to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia
> > contributor for a while and is generally a known and
> > active member of the community.
>
> I have been active on Wikipedia since October 15th.
>
> I am a known and active member of the community.
I think "known" is intended to mean "trusted" or
"capable" in the approximate sense of "thought to have the
judgement, skills, and intent necessary and sufficient to
responsibly exercise the powers of a sysop in the best judgement
of the evaluator most of the time and willing to work with
others to correct any errors which occur and minimize the
resulting damage to the extent possible".
This is just my interpretation and I admit that it
could easily be interpreted as intended to allow active
trolls and alleged trolls sysop status.
Indeed, I am an alleged troll and an alleged liar
and I do not think I ever requested sysop status,
yet I am a sysop. Clearly some lattitude is possible
in application of the stated policy.
<snip contribution list>
I believe that you are an active contributor
and I suspect that much of your contribution is
very solid and valuable.
I think your choice of an account name (and refusal
to change it per other users request) demonstrates
a lack of understanding of the intent of the Wikipedia
project and of the processes necessary and sufficient
to grow a large, stable, pleasant community that can
attract the large effort and diverse expertise and
perspectives required to complete such a massive
undertaking.
Therefore, I will state that I do not think you
are a good candidate for a sysop at this time.
I hope this does not discourage you from future
participation. In fact, be of good cheer. Since
I do not weld much influence around here for historical
reasons, until some type of voting mechanism is deployed,
my opinion or judgement can quite safely be ignored
in policy matters. If voting becomes a norm, then
once again I might have some influence in controversial
issues.
Thank you for bringing further attention to the loopholes in
our policies and policy making processes. In view of this
valuable service to the community I am willing to reevaluate
your contributions in detail with a view towards
supporting your bid for sysophood at any time; after
you request deletion or transmutation of your account
name as Ed Poor has with his "Fucking Asshole" non de plume.
Please do not consider this blackmail as I have not
reviewed your article contributions and you have no
guarantee that I will think you ready for sysop status
after doing so. A lot of people have found the NPOV writeup
and concept confusing in the past and IMO you may need to
hang around a while to absorb the community's current
interpretation of it adequately to wield sys op status
effectively.
Thanks again for your contributions to date, both
in the subject articles and to the policy debates
underway regarding community governance and policy
creation. I hope you stick around and help us improve
our community, processes, and encyclopedia regardless
of the near term outcome of your request.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1620
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Nov 14 01:11:05 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 15:13, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
> I am a known and active member of the community.
Known to whom from where else? When I asked for sysophood, LDC (IIRR)
recommended making me one because he knew me from Lojbangug, as do Brion
Vibber, Jay Kominek, and maybe some others.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1621
[Wikipedia-l] unproductive posts
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Thu Nov 14 01:26:01 UTC 2002
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Stop it you two. Lars, Ed was trying to make a valid point and you repay that
> with a stupid, unproductive and unnecessarily combative response. Granted it
> wasn't the most productive way to accomplish his ends but Ed is one of our
> best, if not the best, community builders and he deserves much more respect
To me this sounded like a police force that starts to kill civilians
in order to get more funds to protect the citizens better. It's not
the way we build communities around where I live. The point that Ed
succeeded to make with me was that he doesn't like Wikipedia and
doesn't want to be part of any community. And the better way to make
that point would be to simply leave. Maybe I just misunderstood
everything. If so, I still haven't understood what's going on here.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1622
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Requesting Sysop Status
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 14 02:15:36 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 02:50 pm, TMC wrote:
> I see that within minutes of my requesting sysop
> status, Maveric149 rushed to the
> [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] page to alter the
> admission policy.
>
> Specifically, he added the word "trusted" to the
> criteria. This word has not been part of the policy
> since August 12th, when it was removed by Lee Daniel
> Crocker.
Normally I wouldn't have seen your post until much later since I get the
digest (which are 3-5 a day now!). But while at work I peeked at the archives
and saw your post which brought to my attention that there is an obvious
error in the policy; the word "trusted" had been replaced by a redundant
"active". I'm sure this was a mistake by LDC since it is my understanding
that this is in still the policy - in fact "trust" is implicit in having
extra account privileges such as deleting pages and banning IPs.
> I interpret this action to imply that Maveric149 does
> not trust me, and intends to use his post facto
> manipulation of the policy to oppose my promotion.
Well I don't trust you but I was not manipulating policy as a way to oppose
your application -- aritcle histories make this impossible anyway. If
anything, your own words and actions have assassinated your character for
you. The below text that you posted simply pointed out an error that needed
to be fixed;
"Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally
to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia
contributor for a while and is generally a known and
active member of the community."
Notice "...active Wikipedia contributor for a
while and is generally a known and active..."
The two "actives" jumped right off the page as being wrong. So I fixed it to
reflect the original wording and still current intent.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1623
[Wikipedia-l] Re: POV accusations
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 14 02:31:48 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 02:50 pm, Christopher Mahan wrote:
> --- Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] <lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Its interesting how POV all these accusations against
> > me are. Why, apparently Ive been harrassing mav AND
> > April! Dear me, I can't remember having any
> > communication with April besides a talk page message
> > of
> >
> > "Instead of simply reverting all my changes would you
> > care to explain what is wrong with them?"
> >
> > As for mav...Isn't he harrassing me? I'm not the one
> > that flings around petty insults.
>
> Lir,
Jump up and down and pretend to be the victim all you want Lir, but your
inability to be civil and play nice is very evident with your constant "my
way or the highway" approach that often leads to edit wars. Heck your own
user page states your own contempt for the "inferior lifeforms" that
contribute to Wikipedia;
"I am not a nice person and few on wikipedia like me. This is because I am the
world's foremost authority. People are generally not happy when they meet
somebody who knows the great truths. I am thus extremely egocentric and
despicable. I act like a 14 year old child because I never want to grow up. I
view most humans as inferior lifeforms."
Chris Mahan wrote;
> You've heard the one about not feeding the trolls? it's a funny one.
>
> Also, you know what it means to "operate under the radar"? It's a
> military term used by low flying aircraft to achieve their objective
> (reaching target and bombing it in general) without alerting enemy
> defenses and triggering response. It's also used nowadays by
> companies that operate in stealth mode, meaning without publicly
> disclosing their activities. It is used to be able to operate without
> interference from pesky things like reporters and analysts.
>
> So, don't feed the troll and operate under the radar... It works for
> me. I accomplish my goals without interference. :)
Perhaps you should consult a dictionary on what a troll actually is before you
use the term. An internet troll is a person who is disruptive to just be
disruptive. They don't intend to contribute to conversations but only intend
to start flame wars.
I was responding to a post by another Wikipedian stating that he regretted
lifting the ban on Lir. I concured and added some detail on Lir's current
activities. After that I went on with an idea on a new boilerplate that in
effect makes people promise to abide by our rules in order to contribute to
our website. That is hardly unproductive or "trollish".
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1624
[Wikipedia-l] Requesting Sysop Status
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Thu Nov 14 04:13:00 UTC 2002
You Wrote:
>We see too much of that stupid ugly name already. If sysops are
>supposed to be trusted, then that lets you right out, because I don't
>trust you.
>
>Tom Parmenter
>Ortolan88
Helga was quite active also, and supposedly would have qualified for
sysop-hood also. I think trust is clearly a component we are looking
for, and I for one also don't trust you. I regard your goals as
mischievous rather than straightforward. I might be wrong--I've been
wrong before, quite publicly, on occasion.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1625
[Wikipedia-l] unproductive posts
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 13 19:24:30 UTC 2002
Lars wrote:
> Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must
> assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a
> mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just
> pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make
> an investigation into who really sent that message.
SJC wrote:
> It's much easier just to delete the pages you don't like or which don't
> suit your agenda, though, isn't it Magnus?
>
> Steve Callaway
Stop it you two. Lars, Ed was trying to make a valid point and you repay that
with a stupid, unproductive and unnecessarily combative response. Granted it
wasn't the most productive way to accomplish his ends but Ed is one of our
best, if not the best, community builders and he deserves much more respect
than that. Your, comment, on the other hand, only tends to tear down
community.
SJC, get over it. The wikipedia namespace is not a place for propaganda an POV
divisiveness -- it is a place to describe and work on the /NPOV/
encyclopedia. You have already been told that you can use your user page or
Meta for most of your POV needs. So this is hardly censorship when we offer
you valid forums for this. Then there is also geocities, again free.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1626
[Wikipedia-l] unproductive posts
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 14 05:35:27 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 15:20, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Lars wrote:
> > Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must
> > assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a
> > mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just
> > pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make
> > an investigation into who really sent that message.
>
> SJC wrote:
> > It's much easier just to delete the pages you don't like or which don't
> > suit your agenda, though, isn't it Magnus?
> >
> > Steve Callaway
>
> Stop it you two. Lars, Ed was trying to make a valid point and you repay that
> with a stupid, unproductive and unnecessarily combative response. Granted it
> wasn't the most productive way to accomplish his ends but Ed is one of our
> best, if not the best, community builders and he deserves much more respect
> than that. Your, comment, on the other hand, only tends to tear down
> community.
Mav, lashing out at Lars is not appropriate. Ed Poor's whole F.A.
charade could quite reasonably be considered stupid and unproductive--or
worse. Even if you don't think so, you should certainly not attack
people for stating so.
Ed may be good a building community but he's also very capable of doing
stupid and silly things. He deserves respect for the good he does, but
disapprobation for the stupid things he does. And I suspect Ed would be
the first to agree. Judge not the man, but his actions.
Lars may have gone too far in saying that Ed should leave, but it's not
entirely irrational.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1627
[Wikipedia-l] Re: TMC.
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 14 07:16:58 UTC 2002
I wrote a hideously long email, then realized it was hideously long, so
I've put it up at meta.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMC%27s_sysop_request
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1628
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Thu Nov 14 07:37:52 UTC 2002
Mike Irwin wrote (for full text see beneath):
> If a minor has not established sufficient trust/respect
> with his or her guardian to be trusted online without censorship or
> spy software enabled ..... then perhaps it would be better (for
> the project and possibly for the child) if they were not participating
> at Wikipedia?
You could quite easily extend that argument, replacing "guardian" with
government and "child" with "people". Just a thought.
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
> Zoe wrote:
>
> > If we don't do this, we're going to find that Wikipedia is being
filtered out by dumb parental control software and the protective filters in
place with such search engines as Google. Then of what use will it be to
anyone?
> > Zoe
>
> It will be useful to anyone who does not install dumb parental
> control software or rely on censoring search engines.
>
> Please consider this:
>
> If a minor has not established sufficient trust/respect
> with his or her guardian to be trusted online without censorship or
> spy software enabled ..... then perhaps it would be better (for
> the project and possibly for the child) if they were not participating
> at Wikipedia?
>
> This might discreetly eliminate a lot of problem children
> which we could do without .... unless part of our purpose is to
> help civilize or educate problem children?
>
> That pesky target audience or customer profile thingy again.
>
> Regards,
> > _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1629
[Wikipedia-l] Re: TMC.
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Thu Nov 14 12:02:18 UTC 2002
Regarding the immutability of the TMC username -- are article histories
stored as text values or User IDs?
If it's the latter, someone with database access can hack TMC's username
and poof! all the histories automagically change to read "Fluffy bunny
land" or something.
The Cunctator wrote:
>I wrote a hideously long email, then realized it was hideously long, so
>I've put it up at meta.
>
>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMC%27s_sysop_request
>
>
> We shouldn't say, "It's all right to be juvenile and rude as a
contributor, but sysops require more responsibility and ability to work
with others than average Wikipedians."
Agreed. It is not alright to be juvenile or rude.
Lir...? TMC...?
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1630
[Wikipedia-l] Re: TMC.
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 14 15:45:55 UTC 2002
Tarquin wrote:
> Regarding the immutability of the TMC username -- are article
> histories stored as text values or User IDs? If it's the latter,
> someone with database access can hack TMC's username and poof! all
> the histories automagically change to read "Fluffy bunny land" or
> something.
Both: the user name is included in the record along with the article, both in the "current article" table and in the "old versions" table. There is also a user ID (a positive integer) that links to the "user name" table, so the hack you describe is possible to perform in more than one way.
For example, we could run an "update query" that changes a throbbing and monstrous barnyard fowl to a cute and harmless child's pet in each record of the article tables.
Whether we *ought* to do this is another question, of course.
If TMC agrees to adopt the nom de plume of "TMC", it would take Brion about 2 minutes to write, run and check the results of a name-change update query.
And TMC could still keep his "Chicken that ate Milwaukee" picture. It's actually funny, once you get over the double entendre.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1631
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Nov 14 16:24:43 UTC 2002
The username "Throbbing Monster Cock" is vandalism and will be
deleted. This is an unusual situation, in that the vandalism is *in
the name* rather than *in the article*. This would be cute if it
weren't so juvenile and stupid.
If someone wants to argue that this is anything other than a cornball
juvenile stunt, feel free. But good luck with that.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1632
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 14 16:35:15 UTC 2002
> The username "Throbbing Monster Cock" is vandalism and will be
> deleted. This is an unusual situation, in that the vandalism is *in
> the name* rather than *in the article*. This would be cute if it
> weren't so juvenile and stupid.
>
> If someone wants to argue that this is anything other than a cornball
> juvenile stunt, feel free. But good luck with that.
>
> --Jimbo
Thank you for stepping in to settle this issue, Jimbo.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1633
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Thu Nov 14 16:34:32 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:
> This would be cute if it weren't so juvenile and stupid.
And if third rate punk band King Kurt hadn't pulled *exactly* the same "joke"
about 20 years ago, even down to the picture of the chicken on the cover...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006AL7E/ref=sr_aps_music_1_2/202-9064094-7937469
--
Gareth Owen
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1634
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Thu Nov 14 16:47:43 UTC 2002
> The username "Throbbing Monster Cock" is vandalism and will be
> deleted. This is an unusual situation, in that the vandalism is *in
> the name* rather than *in the article*. This would be cute if it
> weren't so juvenile and stupid.
I tend to agree (preserving the name doesn't have any positive effects, but
some negative ones), but I would prefer it if there was a process in place
where we wouldn't have to resort to the benevolence of a "dictator" to enforce
our (in this case unwritten?) policy.
I'm thinking of voting, of course :-)
Regard,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1635
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 14 17:32:16 UTC 2002
It's easy. We just agree on the mailing list:
1. no obscene user names; and
2. no using double entendres to evade rule #1
Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who:
* announces from the outset that our project is doomed
* makes no constructive suggestions of his own
* demands power -- but won't say why
We should learn from the TMC episode, as it comes now to close, while it's still fresh in our minds.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1636
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Thu Nov 14 17:42:29 UTC 2002
On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:32, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> It's easy. We just agree on the mailing list:
> 1. no obscene user names; and
> 2. no using double entendres to evade rule #1
Also, no user names that are valid IP addresses, whether IP6 or IP4. This can
easily be enforced in software. Such a user name would confuse the user
contributions page.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1637
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Thu Nov 14 17:47:20 UTC 2002
|content-class: urn:content-classes:message
|X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
|X-MS-Has-Attach:
|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
|Thread-Topic: [Wikipedia-l] TMC
|Thread-Index: AcKL/dLHa3FoEXhRTkGBSgG5I8FAegABNtOQ
|From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
|X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2002 17:32:16.0282 (UTC) FILETIME=[C67F57A0:01C28C03]
|X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www.wikipedia.org id gAEHO1h11627
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:32:16 -0500
|
|It's easy. We just agree on the mailing list:
|1. no obscene user names; and
|2. no using double entendres to evade rule #1
Satire that can be understood by the authorities is quite properly
prohibited. -- Ambrose Bierce, I think.
|
|Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who:
|* announces from the outset that our project is doomed
|* makes no constructive suggestions of his own
|* demands power -- but won't say why
|
Indeed.
|We should learn from the TMC episode, as it comes now to close, while it's still fresh in our minds.
Not to mention the alternate name for Ed Poor incident.
|
|Ed Poor
|_______________________________________________
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1638
[Wikipedia-l] Re: unproductive posts
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 14 18:28:33 UTC 2002
On Thursday 14 November 2002 01:55 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> Mav, lashing out at Lars is not appropriate. Ed Poor's whole F.A.
> charade could quite reasonably be considered stupid and unproductive--or
> worse. Even if you don't think so, you should certainly not attack
> people for stating so.
OK I guess I repaid an uproductive post with a less than productive comment.
Ed made a mistake in what he origianally did, Lars made a mistake in stating
that Ed should leave the project and then I guess I made a mistake in being
too harsh on Lars. But calling for Ed to go was over the top.
We all live and learn.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1639
[Wikipedia-l] Re: TMC.
Brion Vibber
brion at pobox.com
Thu Nov 14 18:39:01 UTC 2002
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 04:02, tarquin wrote:
> Regarding the immutability of the TMC username -- are article histories
> stored as text values or User IDs?
Both.
> If it's the latter, someone with database access can hack TMC's username
> and poof! all the histories automagically change to read "Fluffy bunny
> land" or something.
That could be done with a single database query in either case.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1640
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Nov 14 18:40:00 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
> As you can see at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMC%27s_sysop_request
> I basically agree, but I'll ask you to consider a more scalable resolution;
> that is, have the Recent Changes etc. display the nickname only, and enforce
> innocuousness of the nickname.
Is the nickname actually in the database? (Forgive my cluelessness on
this point.) Or is the nickname just whatever someone happens to
write?
This does sound like a better solution. I just now asked the
wikitech-l list for an opinion on how hard it would be to change his
name to TMC from Throbbing Monster Cock. It seems not-impossible but
a pain in the neck.
But if nicknames are in the database, then that sounds like a useful
solution.
> If we can figure out a way to not have to fight, that is, give TMC a
> harmless playpen that doesn't bother anyone else, then I think everyone
> wins. TMC, other than his need for such a playpen, is a good contributor.
That's the strange thing about it, isn't it? I agree. His
contributions are fine.
> And I think it's good to have a few antiestablishment figures around. It's a
> sign of a healthy society.
Sure.
> But even if you think my plan has merit, I could certainly understand
> banning TMC in the meantime.
Well, I don't intend to ban him unless he tries to be a pain in the
ass about the name change.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1641
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Thu Nov 14 20:11:44 UTC 2002
"Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
>
> It's easy. We just agree on the mailing list:
> 1. no obscene user names; and
Perhaps we should cc our definition of obscene
to those fools in the U.S. Judicial branch and Congress.
> 2. no using double entendres to evade rule #1
Where should we document these rules?
Personally I do not think the mailing list is adequate
ratification to reduce future problems of this nature.
This is sort of our existing process is it not?
The mailing list advises Mr. Wales.
>
> Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who:
> * announces from the outset that our project is doomed
If he is right and articulates clearly why he is right
then we can take action to avoid our phophecised fate.
> * makes no constructive suggestions of his own
I thought I saw some constructive suggestions implicit
in some of his actions and statements.
> * demands power -- but won't say why
A reason is needed to scratch an itch?
>
> We should learn from the TMC episode, as it comes now to close, while it's still fresh in our minds.
Agreed. Also, documentation from previous
incidents may exist in the mailing list archives
should we decide to get systematic or pedantic
with regard to any reengineering of existing processes.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1642
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Brion Vibber
brion at pobox.com
Thu Nov 14 21:11:03 UTC 2002
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 10:40, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > As you can see at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMC%27s_sysop_request
> > I basically agree, but I'll ask you to consider a more scalable resolution;
> > that is, have the Recent Changes etc. display the nickname only, and enforce
> > innocuousness of the nickname.
>
> Is the nickname actually in the database? (Forgive my cluelessness on
> this point.) Or is the nickname just whatever someone happens to
> write?
An optional nickname can be set in the user preferences (so it's stored
in the chunk o' options in the user table, but not in a conveniently
accessible fashion). Its sole purpose is to appear as the text of a user
page link in ~~~-signings in talk pages.
Showing the nickname *everywhere* would make the independent existence
of the username both pointless and confusing.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1643
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 14 21:50:04 UTC 2002
On 11/14/02 4:11 PM, "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 10:40, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> The Cunctator wrote:
>>> As you can see at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMC%27s_sysop_request
>>> I basically agree, but I'll ask you to consider a more scalable resolution;
>>> that is, have the Recent Changes etc. display the nickname only, and enforce
>>> innocuousness of the nickname.
>>
>> Is the nickname actually in the database? (Forgive my cluelessness on
>> this point.) Or is the nickname just whatever someone happens to
>> write?
>
> An optional nickname can be set in the user preferences (so it's stored
> in the chunk o' options in the user table, but not in a conveniently
> accessible fashion). Its sole purpose is to appear as the text of a user
> page link in ~~~-signings in talk pages.
>
> Showing the nickname *everywhere* would make the independent existence
> of the username both pointless and confusing.
That's its sole current purpose, but why should the nickname only appearing
on talk pages be any less confusing?
The tagging of RecentChanges and revision edits with the username can be
seen as equivalent to signing comments on the userpages. I don't think it's
inherently confusing.
The majority of people don't use a nickname, so this change wouldn't even be
an issue for the majority of the people.
I'm not saying this is a perfect idea; I just don't think its consequences
would be mass confusion, and it certainly wouldn't be pointless.
Why not? Because we can't perfectly adjudicate the inoffensiveness of
usernames. People have even thought that my username is vulgar.
The downside, as I see it, is more one of added complexity, and possibly
just shunting off an issue that will come back later. But I'm not going to
panic about unpredictable future possibilities.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1644
[Wikipedia-l] TMC
Brion Vibber
brion at pobox.com
Thu Nov 14 22:38:58 UTC 2002
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 13:50, The Cunctator wrote:
> On 11/14/02 4:11 PM, "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> >> The Cunctator wrote:
> >>> As you can see at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMC%27s_sysop_request
> >>> I basically agree, but I'll ask you to consider a more scalable resolution;
> >>> that is, have the Recent Changes etc. display the nickname only, and enforce
> >>> innocuousness of the nickname.
[...]
> > Showing the nickname *everywhere* would make the independent existence
> > of the username both pointless and confusing.
>
> That's its sole current purpose, but why should the nickname only appearing
> on talk pages be any less confusing?
>
> The tagging of RecentChanges and revision edits with the username can be
> seen as equivalent to signing comments on the userpages. I don't think it's
> inherently confusing.
People can sign their edits in-page however they wish or not at all. The
tilde-signing is a labor-saving convenience feature to automatically put
in a link back to the user page, which is common in such signing; the
nick is a convenience feature for those who wish their signings to
appear differently from their user name, but still want a simple
labor-saving method to link back to their user page. If we didn't have
it, we'd still have people making manual links to their user pages whose
text wasn't identical with their usernames.
Tagging on RC and page histories, on the other hand, is automatic
tracking. Its sole purpose is to be clear and informative. It's not a
signature; it's a return address.
> The majority of people don't use a nickname, so this change wouldn't even be
> an issue for the majority of the people.
>
> I'm not saying this is a perfect idea; I just don't think its consequences
> would be mass confusion, and it certainly wouldn't be pointless.
>
> Why not? Because we can't perfectly adjudicate the inoffensiveness of
> usernames. People have even thought that my username is vulgar.
Then what makes you think that we _can_ perfectly adjudicate the
inoffensiveness of nicknames, or that if we could there would be any
reason to do so separately from hidden usernames which would never be
seen by anybody (so why do they exist?)?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1645
[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Fri Nov 15 02:49:03 UTC 2002
Steve Callaway wrote:
>
> Mike Irwin wrote (for full text see beneath):
>
> > If a minor has not established sufficient trust/respect
> > with his or her guardian to be trusted online without censorship or
> > spy software enabled ..... then perhaps it would be better (for
> > the project and possibly for the child) if they were not participating
> > at Wikipedia?
>
> You could quite easily extend that argument, replacing "guardian" with
> government and "child" with "people". Just a thought.
>
> Steve Callaway
Consider that in the U.S.A.; We, the people, are sovereign; while
George W. Bush is a paid employee, with some specifically delegated
responsibilities and authority. These are not small despite being
constitutionally limited, as the Taliban discovered and as Saddam
Hussein (who is also sovereign but who apparently has few fellow
sovereigns nearby with the desire or means necessary to constrain
his actions) is about to find out.
A juvenile in the U.S. is considered incompetent to
manage their own affairs and is assumed to have a guardian. If
the authorities become aware that they do not have a competent
guardian, one is appointed by a court. Thus we may conclude
that in the U.S. the juvenile's self sovereignty has been
deferred somehow despite its inalienibility. Essentially
enough adults in our society have agreed to certain constraints
and have enough collective force available to implement these
constraints. Our founding poetry is not allowed to get in
the way of survival and prosperity on a practical day to
day basis.
The argument extension you propose above could be made easily
only if rights are alienable and the government could
convince enough people of that to maintain their authority
by guile, force or divine right.
IMO, George W. Bush is making the case to the American people
effectively (they believe him and support his actions and preparations
for war to date) that we can no longer rely on common sense
and the sovereign Iraqui people to constrain Saddam Hussein's potential
use of weapons of mass destruction should conflicting interests
in the Middle East lead to warfare.
I hope this clarifies things regarding the U.S.A. I have very
limited exposure or detailed understanding of other cultures.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1646
[Wikipedia-l] Re: TMC
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 15 00:16:47 UTC 2002
The one true voice of power associated with Wikipedia,
Jimbo, has ruled. That ruling is that my account will
be deleted.
With the exception of my username, I cannot see what
faults anyone can take with my time on Wikipedia to
date. My edits and submissions have been useful, I
have not been insulting (other than is the norm) to
other users, and I respectively carried out a debate
here on wikipedia-l with Ed regarding views on
absolute versus relative "right and wrong".
For those who asked why I was requesting sysop status,
the answer was simple. To better deal with acts of
vandalism as they occured. Entries that consist of
nothing of strings but "gfkjslkjskjsfglkj" or pictures
of the goatse man need to be deleted, and I would
simply be one more potential deleter.
Finally, I'll point out that Brion is correct that
deciding to adjucate the offensiveness of usernames is
just opening a whole new can of worms. It appears
that from now on calling oneself "Sweet Pussy", "I
Love Hitler", or "George Bush is a Weenie" will all be
bannable offenses.
--TMC
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1647
[Wikipedia-l] Re: TMC
Brion Vibber
brion at pobox.com
Fri Nov 15 08:38:32 UTC 2002
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 16:16, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
> The one true voice of power associated with Wikipedia,
> Jimbo, has ruled. That ruling is that my account will
> be deleted.
Or rather, renamed. You're not being banned from editing.
> Finally, I'll point out that Brion is correct that
> deciding to adjucate the offensiveness of usernames is
> just opening a whole new can of worms.
You're probably thinking of someone else. All I said on the subject was
that if you treat the typing-saving convenience feature that is the
signature nickname as a functional replacement of the username, whatever
issues you have with usernames automatically slide onto the nicknames;
ergo "censor the nicks not the usernames and use the nicknames
everywhere" is a null solution.
Personally I am not offended by wacky usernames such as the one in
question and think little of people who are, but I'm not nearly as
concerned about "censorship" of *usernames* as I would be about
censorship of *encyclopedic content* or banning of *contributors* who
are clearly making a good-faith effort to help the project.
This is not an issue of "censorship" so much as one of a professional
dress-code. This is a serious project; try to look sharp.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1648
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Nov 15 10:52:08 UTC 2002
Mav wrote:
>TMC wrote:
>>If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers
>>the intact windshields to be the "means of production"
>>through which broken windshields are produced.
>>Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use
>>their ownership of these means of production to exert
>>control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to
>>take "possession" of the windshields while they put
>>they to the use of being smashed.
>That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap. If somebody goes to the effort
>of building something or working their ass-off to pay for something it is
>absolutely wrong for somebody else to destroy that. Basic morality 101.
Absolutely wrong? If you can't imagine situations where destroying
something that somebody built is morally justifiable,
then I think that you suffer from a lack of imagination.
Examples on request.
>If this is your true position then there is no reason to try and reason with
>you because your frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
There is no lack of reason on TMC's part.
Logic alone isn't enough to allow you to conclude
that any particular ethical stance is correct;
you must start with some assumptions.
Perhaps there is no reason to try and reason with TMC
because he doesn't share any assumptions with you?
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1649
[Wikipedia-l] windshield police
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Nov 15 11:01:11 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
>TMC wrote:
>>My "true position" is that there are no absolute
>>morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
>That's the morality of a sociopath, and not conducive to cohesive
>communities.
This reminds me of the (now thankfully rare) response to atheism
that says that infidels can't have any ethical principles.
Of course it's quite possible to derive ethical principles
from a source other than religious beliefs about God's opinions.
I manage to do this, for example, without difficulty.
Now you imply that if someone has *no* absolute ethical principles,
then they're incapable of acting morally (that is, they're sociopathic).
This is equally false; it's quite possible to act morally
on a basis other than your own absolute ethical principles.
I manage to do this too, as it happens, although I'm a weak example
(I have ethical principles, as per the previous paragraph,
but I often restrict my behaviour morally
even when my ethical principles argue otherwise);
I know some other people with no ethics whatsoever
that provide better examples.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1650
[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Nov 15 11:02:54 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Banning users like Helga and Lir, however, needs clarified rules,
>Considering that only Helga has been banned, it might be healthier not
>to stick Lir in with her.
It wasn't meant to be a selection of banned people,
but a selection of people that were proposed for banning.
I listed one banned in the end and one not banned in the end,
to indicate the full range.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1651
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Nov 15 11:11:30 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Do we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt?
>>We have standards on not violating copyright and on vandalising;
>>either of these alone is sufficient for those specific cases.
>>I personally wouldn't want to enshrine an additional standard.
>Don't we have a standard?
We have standards, but I'm not aware of any about goatse as such.
>There isn't a single instance of a link to the goatse image other than on the
>article about it.
I can't think of anywhere else that such a link would be relevant.
We have a standard against inclusion of irrelevant links,
and we had it before goatse ever appeared.
>Every time it has appeared, people have given it a good swift kick in the, er,
>I mean deleted the link as soon as possible. It's the single most common entry
>in "vandalism in progress".
Every time it has appeared has been, in fact, a case of vandalism.
It's also presumably been a copyright infringement.
We have standards against vandalism and copyright infringement,
and we had them before goatse ever appeared.
>Then someone decided to remove the ability of ANYONE to make in-line links to
>external images. I noticed that when the "mediator" cartoon gracing my user
>page disappeared.
This change was suggested in the wake of one goatse vandalism spree, yes,
but I (and many others) supported it for quite different reasons,
all (IIRC) of which have been mentioned to you in others' responses by now.
So we have a standard against directly linking external images,
for those reasons.
>Oh, we have a standard all right. We're debating whether it should be
>"official" or what.
I don't think that it's much of a surprise that ordinary standards
would lead to a situation where goatse has a difficult time
legitimately appearing in about any form at about any place on Wikipedia.
It really is true that that image is hardly appropriate for Wikipedia;
that follows from general principles, not as a special case.
This isn't a conspiracy of hypocritcal standards
designed to banish that image without admitting that we're doing so.
So there's no reason to create an explicit standard against it,
and I'd certainly oppose such a thing.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1652
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
Jason Williams
jason at jasonandali.org.uk
Fri Nov 15 11:20:31 UTC 2002
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:11:30AM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Every time it has appeared has been, in fact, a case of vandalism.
> It's also presumably been a copyright infringement.
> We have standards against vandalism and copyright infringement,
> and we had them before goatse ever appeared.
So what you're saying is that if somebody created an article [[goatse.cx]]
or somesuch, with an encyclopeadic writeup, and got permission from the
copyright owner, then that would be fine by you?
I'm not specifically raising any objection to that, just trying to be
clear.
--
jason at jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1653
[Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Fri Nov 15 11:37:04 UTC 2002
> So what you're saying is that if somebody created an article [[goatse.cx]]
> or somesuch, with an encyclopeadic writeup, and got permission from the
> copyright owner, then that would be fine by you?
There is already a goatse.cx article, without the image. I think the
description of the image is more than enough, furthermore, posting material that can
be classified as pornography can get us into legal trouble. To pick a
somewhat less offensive example than goatse.cx, say we wanted to illustrate
articles about porn movies -- sooner or later someone is probably going to write
them. I don't think we could legally complement these articles with pornographic
screen captures, even if we wanted to.
If Jimbo wants to take the risk, however, I'm all for it.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1654
[Wikipedia-l] F***ing A**hole
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Nov 15 12:12:11 UTC 2002
Jason Williams wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Every time it has appeared has been, in fact, a case of vandalism.
>>It's also presumably been a copyright infringement.
>>We have standards against vandalism and copyright infringement,
>>and we had them before goatse ever appeared.
>So what you're saying is that if somebody created an article [[goatse.cx]]
>or somesuch, with an encyclopeadic writeup, and got permission from the
>copyright owner, then that would be fine by you?
(Note that everything except the copyright permission is already on [[en:]].)
Yes, that would be fine by me, although I know that others would object.
If the group decided not to allow the now permitted and relevant image,
still that would require discussion; we don't have that standard now.
>I'm not specifically raising any objection to that, just trying to be
>clear.
Clear?
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1655
[Wikipedia-l] 217.168.172.132
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Fri Nov 15 12:21:29 UTC 2002
How do I get his attention? He is the most frequent editor of the mispeeling
page, but doesn't comment his edits. He erased the [[saltpetre]] page, which
at the time contained nonsense, but had a good article in the history.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1656
[Wikipedia-l] Re: TMC
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 15 14:25:21 UTC 2002
TMC complained,
> The one true voice of power associated with Wikipedia,
> Jimbo, has ruled. That ruling is that my account will
> be deleted.
You misread Jimbo. And apparently you missed my follow-up.
Your user name is being changed. That's all.
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein in 'The Man Who Traveled in Elephants': "Don't cry till you're hurt."
Regards,
Ed Poor
P.S. Jimbo says he likes your contributions.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1657
[Wikipedia-l] Re: TMC
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 15 14:35:32 UTC 2002
TMC also wrote:
> It appears that from now on calling oneself "Sweet
> Pussy", "I Love Hitler", or "George Bush is a Weenie"
> will all be bannable offenses.
I didn't conclude that from Jimbo's ruling.
But a precedent might have been set that users calling themselves by offensive names might be required to change them to something "nice".
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1658
[Wikipedia-l] goatse (was F.A.)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 15 14:41:02 UTC 2002
We have a [[goatse.cx]] article, and I don't like it. But anyone who's foolish enough to click on the link for it will be able to read it. And anyone who's foolhardy enough to click on the external image link will see it.
And do us a favor -- or at least Karen, who requested it -- and change the f------- a------ subject line in your replies. Please.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1659
[Wikipedia-l] Decision Making Process - Please Participate
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Fri Nov 15 16:01:33 UTC 2002
Jimbo Wales has agreed to work with all interested participants on a page
that describes the different types of process that can be used to make
decisions about Wikipedia policies and their interpretations. When we agree that the
page is more or less finished, Jimbo will announce a decision based on the
arguments presented there.
If you have particular ideas about how decisions should or should not be
made, please present them on this page. There isn't too much there yet, but it
will hopefully grow as others weigh in:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADecision_Making_Process
The current options are voting and consensus-finding. Please add arguments
for and against these options in an NPOV-style, and try to add other options
or variants as well.
This is something, I think, every Wikipedian should be interested in to help
us avoid stagnation and endless debates.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1660
[Wikipedia-l] goatse (was F.A.)
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 15 16:18:33 UTC 2002
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
We have a [[goatse.cx]] article, and I don't like it. But anyone who's foolish enough to click on the link for it will be able to read it. And anyone who's foolhardy enough to click on the external image link will see it.
So ?
You might - perhaps - avoid saying people who have different sensibilities than yours, are fools.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021115/a5d12585/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1661
[Wikipedia-l] Erik's team certification proposal
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Fri Nov 15 16:33:04 UTC 2002
> The consensus seems to be that there is no need for a certification
> system in addition to Larry's sifter.
False. Several people have supported the idea, and even Larry himself has
said that the certification system may well complement his sifter idea, one of
his main arguments against it, IIRC, was the use of the word "team". Please
don't spread FUD about ideas you disagree with.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1662
[Wikipedia-l] goatse (was F.A.)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 15 16:35:50 UTC 2002
Words, Mouth. I am capable of putting A into B myself, thank you.
You'd be a fool to think that I was saying that people who have different sensibilities than mine, are fools.
And you'd be an idiot to think that I just now called you either a fool or an idiot.
To clarify:
* The article entitiled [[goatse.cx]] sounds like the English phrase "goat sex".
* Anyone who wants to avoid descriptions of sex, should be wise enough not to visit that article.
* Those who read an article clearly (or even vaguely) labeled "sex" have no grounds to complain that the topic actually described sex -- or something related to it.
Same argument for clicking on an image link labelled, "Warning".
Get it now, Ant?
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthere [mailto:anthere5 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:19 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] goatse (was F.A.)
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
We have a [[goatse.cx]] article, and I don't like it. But anyone who's foolish enough to click on the link for it will be able to read it. And anyone who's foolhardy enough to click on the external image link will see it.
So ?
You might - perhaps - avoid saying people who have different sensibilities than yours, are fools.
_____
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! <http://rd.yahoo.com/hosting/mailsig/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com> Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021115/221ea2d0/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1663
[Wikipedia-l] Erik's team certification proposal
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 15 16:50:53 UTC 2002
I'm not sure the consensus is to reject Erik's idea.
Erik is still for it. And I'd like to see it happen, if we can find a way that's technically feasible and doesn't conflict with the Wikipedia's main goals.
Nonetheless, Larry's idea has several advantages:
1. Magnus already wrote some software for it.
2. It doesn't require any change to PediaWiki software.
3. It's troll-proof.
4. We can start testing it any day now.
Erik's idea has my support, plus the support of a few others (sorry, names escape me, it's been a hectic week).
One way to support team certification on Wikipedia is similar to sifter:
* Create certification teams
* Let any team member certify any article
* Display a list of articles, each of which is certified by every member of a given team.
This can be done in software. I've begun sketching out a simple design already. If there's enough interest, we can move discussion to wikitech-l for implementation.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1664
[Wikipedia-l] goatse (was F.A.)
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Fri Nov 15 16:57:05 UTC 2002
|From: Anthere <anthere5 at yahoo.com>
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:18:33 -0800 (PST)
|
|--0-1467761140-1037377113=:2558
|Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
|
|
| "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
|We have a [[goatse.cx]] article, and I don't like it. But anyone who's foolish enough to click on the link for it will be able to read it. And anyone who's foolhardy enough to click on the external image link will see it.
|
|So ?
|
|You might - perhaps - avoid saying people who have different sensibilities than yours, are fools.
|
|
|
You don't have to be a fool to be foolhardy "delighting in needless
risks". Have you followed that link? Do you ever want to see it
again?
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1665
[Wikipedia-l] 217.168.172.132
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 15 17:22:46 UTC 2002
I don't know how to the attention of 217.168.172.132.
He has made 37 edits to [[List_of_common_misspellings]] since his arrival on November 9th.
You might try this, although it sounds severe:
* Each time he makes an edit, revert it.
* Include an attention-getting comment on each revert.
* Put the same comment, or a longer one in the talk page.
Beware, this might drive away an otherwise good contributor.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1666
[Wikipedia-l] goatse (was F.A.)
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 15 21:49:08 UTC 2002
>Have you followed that link?
I saw the picture once on the current events (I
think), but didnot realize it was *that* image you
were all talking about.
And, then, I followed the link some weeks later (I'm
*curious*). And discover it again.
>Do you ever want to see it again?
Maybe a third time is not really necessary :-(
But then, what do you propose to avoid the link to be
inserted without anybody noticing ? A special query
for "well-known" offensive web links ? That could be
added in the special maintenance pages for people to
check from time to time ?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1667
[Wikipedia-l] Decision Making Process - Please Participate
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Fri Nov 15 23:56:48 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> Jimbo Wales has agreed to work with all interested participants on a page
> that describes the different types of process that can be used to make
> decisions about Wikipedia policies and their interpretations. When we agree that the
> page is more or less finished, Jimbo will announce a decision based on the
> arguments presented there.
>
> If you have particular ideas about how decisions should or should not be
> made, please present them on this page. There isn't too much there yet, but it
> will hopefully grow as others weigh in:
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADecision_Making_Process
>
> The current options are voting and consensus-finding. Please add arguments
> for and against these options in an NPOV-style, and try to add other options
> or variants as well.
>
> This is something, I think, every Wikipedian should be interested in to help
> us avoid stagnation and endless debates.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
At this risk of appearing pedantic, is there is reason this
is placed in the English Wikipedia accessed via wikipedia.org
instead of at the meta.wikipedia.org?
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1668
[Wikipedia-l] Erik's team certification proposal
Michael R. Irwin
mri_icboise at surfbest.net
Sat Nov 16 00:07:01 UTC 2002
"Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
>
> I'm not sure the consensus is to reject Erik's idea.
>
> Erik is still for it. And I'd like to see it happen, if we can find a way that's technically feasible and doesn't conflict with the Wikipedia's main goals.
>
> Nonetheless, Larry's idea has several advantages:
> 1. Magnus already wrote some software for it.
> 2. It doesn't require any change to PediaWiki software.
> 3. It's troll-proof.
> 4. We can start testing it any day now.
>
> Erik's idea has my support, plus the support of a few others (sorry, names escape me, it's been a hectic week).
It sounds interesting to me for general use in
information wikis but I am not certain I think
it is a good idea for the English Wikipedia at the moment.
>
> One way to support team certification on Wikipedia is similar to sifter:
> * Create certification teams
> * Let any team member certify any article
> * Display a list of articles, each of which is certified by every member of a given team.
Unanimity sure slows things down occasionally.
I wonder if implementing a trust metric similar to that
used at advogato.org but generalized to allow team members
to certify/scale each other and users to set their evaluation
of the team's product would work better.
This way a selection could be reported as per the weight
given by a subset of team members as modified by your
personal opinion of the team's typical results.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1669
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Sat Nov 16 12:37:03 UTC 2002
seems we have multiple vandals:
* TMC (though whether it's the same as the TMC we know of old, who knows)
* Wikipedia moderator
* Vandalbot
Recent Changes appears to be swamped with them.
I think the time has come for sysops to be able to ban usernamed users.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1670
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalisme en
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 16 12:38:20 UTC 2002
Some help against vandals is - I believe - needed on
the en.wiki
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1671
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Sat Nov 16 13:09:21 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
> seems we have multiple vandals:
>
> * TMC (though whether it's the same as the TMC we know of old, who knows)
> * Wikipedia moderator
> * Vandalbot
>
> Recent Changes appears to be swamped with them.
>
> I think the time has come for sysops to be able to ban usernamed users.
I have removed two of these usernames, hoping it would break any
bot/script running, at least for a while.
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1672
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] vandalism
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Sat Nov 16 13:30:16 UTC 2002
Erik Zachte wrote:
>Maybe this has been asked before, anyway: couldn't a script be writtten
>for administrators to roll back all changes made by a certain user or ip
>address after a certain date/time, provided noone else has updated
>since.
>
>
I wrote about just that 10 minutes ago; didn't my mail make it through?
Anyway, on user contributions, all edits of a user that are still
current revision are now marked with "(top)". Makes it easier to see
what still needs reverting. Online for en and de.
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1673
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Sat Nov 16 14:30:19 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
> (1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki
> software.
> (2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good
> encyclopedia articles, that's nice too.
>
> Which is it going to be, people?
Wikipedia is clearly of type 1. I don't see how there can be any
doubt about that. But it is still an interesting issue.
I think you can say that http://susning.nu/ (in Swedish) is of type 2,
which is one of several differences between my project and Wikipedia.
I consider individual self regulation (as opposed to enforcement of
rules) to be an important part of the wiki concept, but when I'm in
Wikipedia I follow Wikipedia's rules. I feel no need to rebel.
I think there is still room to create another large, general purpose
wiki (type 2) in English, which doesn't have the ambition to create an
encyclopedia, and where people can go that don't like Wikipedia's
rules. From Wikipedia's position, this would mean walking in the
opposite direction of Larry's sifter project. Starting this would be
a big project, and I doubt that anybody has the energy to do it. If
it was a GFDL project, it could start out with a copy of the current
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is the combination of a free encyclopedia (an old idea, as
Axel Boldt can tell you) and the wiki concept. This combination can
be problematic for those who don't already know both components, which
is the case in many non-English languages where the Wikipedia is the
first wiki that people see. Maybe this is a problem for many English
Wikipedia newcomers as well.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1674
[Wikipedia-l] Uploaded cracking attempt
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Sat Nov 16 15:09:57 UTC 2002
LearII uploaded the following, which appears to be an attempt to read from
one port on one box and write to a port on another box. He also uploaded
another PHP file, which was an attempt to list the files on the server. PHP
doesn't run in the upload directory, and he left out the semicolons, but
would someone please block him?
phma
---
<html>
<body>
<?php
?arg1=a&arg2=b&arg3=c&arg4=d
$fp2 = fsockopen($arg1, $arg2)
$fp1 = fsockopen($arg3, $arg4)
set_socket_blocking($fp1, false)
set_socket_blocking($fp2, false)
while (1) {
$recvbuf = fgets( $fp1, 512)
fwrite($fp2,$recvbuf,strlen($recvbuf))
$recvbuf2 = fgets( $fp2, 512)
fwrite($fp1,$recvbuf2,strlen($recvbuf2))
}
fclose($fp1);
fclose($fp2);
}
?>
</body>
</html>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1675
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Erik's team certification proposal
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 16 20:20:11 UTC 2002
I'm still seeing way too many similarities between having multiple themed
Sifter groups and Erik's team certification proposal. What is the putpose of
Erik's idea? From what I gather it is to create selections of articles that
have been reviewed by different groups. Each group would have its own rules
on certification and on who they decide should be group members. These
members would "certify" certain articles based upon those criteria and then a
list of articles certified by any particular group would be automatically
generated. Heck, this can be done right now without any change to the
software so long as group members manually added articles to a list.
Sifter will be doing the /exact/ same thing except instead of compiling a
list, particular article versions are automatically copied to a separate
static website. There is no reason why a log of articles that have been
uploaded by any particular Sifter group couldn't be generated and available
at Wikipedia.
One of the great things, it was thought, about Sifter was that /no/ changes
would have to be made to PediaWiki for it to work. But Erik wants to change
the software anyway to do a very similar thing from within Wikipedia. So why
not marry the two ideas and get the best of both worlds? Then when somebody
visits a Wikipedia article that has been reviewed they will be able to see
that at least a previous version had been reviewed. They would also be
presented a link to a static copy of the certified version (with maybe a diff
link so that the person can easily compare it with the current Wikipedia
version). I don't think this is possible with the "hands-off Wikipedia"
version of Sifter.
The trouble with Erik's certification idea is that people still can't rely on
certified articles because somebody could completely replace a certified
article with another version right after it is certified. Sifter versions are
stable and therefore something that can be trusted (so long as you trust the
quality and reputation of the Sifter member that certified the article and
Sifter group that the member belongs to).
And as soon as there are a certain number of certified articles for any
particular themed Sifter group, then a CD can be made of that selection -- no
need to recheck each article for vandalism or rubbish that has been added
since certification.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS I probably missed some points or even misrepresented Erik's certification
idea. If this is the case, I apologize in advance and please do correct me
Erik (I can't find your original email on this).
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1676
[Wikipedia-l] goatse
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sat Nov 16 21:05:05 UTC 2002
Ortolan88 wrote:
>Anthere wrote:
>>Ed Poor wrote:
>>>We have a [[goatse.cx]] article, and I don't like it. But anyone who's
>>>foolish enough to click on the link for it will be able to read it. And
>>>anyone who's foolhardy enough to click on the external image link will see
>>>it.
Meaning "anyone who's foolish enough to click on the link for it
when they know that they're the type to be offended or disturbed
by an image such as the one described on the page", of course.
>>You might - perhaps - avoid saying people who have different sensibilities
>>than yours, are fools.
>You don't have to be a fool to be foolhardy "delighting in needless
>risks". Have you followed that link? Do you ever want to see it
>again?
Making assumptions?
I thought that the picture was rather interesting when I first saw it.
Now I'm too familiar with it to care; ho hum, says I, it's goatse.cx again.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1677
[Wikipedia-l] Vandals,proxies, and so on:a proposal
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Sun Nov 17 13:26:32 UTC 2002
Many vandals hide behind shared HTTP proxies, which makes them difficult
to ban.
Here's an idea:
Add a new attribute to user accounts:
* "authenticated" users are users **who have supplied a non-throwaway
E-mail address**: authentication to be done by sending them an E-mail
which they have to reply to, in the same way as mailing list authentication.
We can then "greylist" IP addresses or ranges, so that only
''authenticated'' logged-in users can post from behind these addresses.
We can point out to new users from these ISPs that the reason why they
are being asked to authenticate is that other users from the same ISP
have acted as vandals.
The good bit:
* At the same time, non-greylisted IP addresses can still allow
anonymous or non-authenticated user account edits, so we stay "open" to
>99.99% of all users.
We should greylist just the IP address for a proxy, or the whole /19
range for a user IP address: this is the minimum routable block on the
Internet, and will generally catch all users from a particular region.
This significantly increases the costs to vandals, and provides
traceability back to providers, or even real identities if necessary.
Vandals can go on making new accounts as many times as they like, but
they have to incur the costs of setting up new provider accounts every
time we ban their user account. (I believe that ISPs share phone
numbers and credit card numbers of persistent abusers, so these people
will either end up without access, or using rogue providers, who we can
then blacklist. )
Then, we can reserve "blacklisting" only for IP addresses that are
beyond hope, such as individual users who are non-cooperative, or
providers without a workable anti-abuse policy. "Blacklisting" should
then ban all editing.
We can also refuse to accept authentication E-mails from E-mail
providers who do not have a good abuse policy.
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1678
[Wikipedia-l] Re: vandalism spree
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 18 01:44:55 UTC 2002
tarquin wrote:
> seems we have multiple vandals:
>
> * TMC (though whether it's the same as the
> TMC we know of old, who knows)
I had no involvement with any edits made as "TMC".
Whatever happened on Saturday (when the above was
sent), I missed it.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1679
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Erik's team certification proposal
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 18 09:54:19 UTC 2002
> I'm still seeing way too many similarities between having multiple themed
> Sifter groups and Erik's team certification proposal. What is the putpose
> of
> Erik's idea? From what I gather it is to create selections of articles
> that
> have been reviewed by different groups. Each group would have its own
> rules
> on certification and on who they decide should be group members. These
> members would "certify" certain articles based upon those criteria and
> then a
> list of articles certified by any particular group would be automatically
> generated. Heck, this can be done right now without any change to the
> software so long as group members manually added articles to a list.
Actually, what I proposed is very similar to what you propose:
- Every user has a list of trusted teams.
- There may be a default team that is trusted by all users, possibly the one
that applies the most rigid certification criteria.
- When a user views an article, he gets a notification:
"This article has been certified by Team X"
"An [[older version]] of this article has been certified by Team X"
"This article has been certified by Teams X, Y, and Z"
-- depending on whether the article has been changed or not since the
certification, and on whether several teams have certified it or just one. Only
teams trusted by the user would be listed here. It would be possible, as you
suggest, to show the differences between the older version and the new,
uncertified one (which is easiest if both versions are stored in the same database).
Furthermore, in order to solve the problem of stumbling across uncertified
content even if you don't want to, I have suggested to give the user the
option to view the entire Wikipedia in a mode where only articles certified by at
least one team are displayed. This would allow all types of filtering,
including the family filters that some people want.
My proposal has several advantages over a simple static HTML sifter:
- Teams can work according to different criteria. They can certify high
quality articles, low quality ones, factually correct ones, stylistically correct
ones, neutrally written ones etc. With different rules and different goals,
they would be open not just to certified experts but to anyone who wants to
take part in the quality selection process.
- It gives users the option to have both the advantages of certification and
to enjoy Wikipedia as a huge, dynamic project -- it is part of the editing
process, not separate from it. Certification, by default, is only an
indicator, not a filter.
- It allows the combination of approval criteria (several trusted teams) for
indication and filtering, something that is only possible if the filtering
is done within Wikipedia.
- It makes it possible for a team culture to grow and thrive within
Wikipedia (instead of requiring users to join separate sifter projects), thereby
greatly increasing the potential size of the effort. It's a very wiki-ish idea
because it relies a lot on social interaction.
The idea does not contradict the Sifter project, every team could define a
static HTML repository where its certified articles are stored as Larry
suggested.
Note that my original proposal was posted to the wikitech list and only
forwarded here in part. It is here:
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2002-October/001089.html
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1680
[Wikipedia-l] vandal bots
Bridget
Bridget
Mon Nov 18 12:30:57 UTC 2002
i was watching some city bot spam recent changes and saw the bot wasn't logged in under any name. it occured to me that we should set some kind of limit to the amount of editing that an unregistered user can do so that it's harder to use a bot.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021118/d434afd1/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1681
[Wikipedia-l] Re:vandals
Matt M.
matt_mcl at sympatico.ca
Mon Nov 18 12:53:11 UTC 2002
> > * TMC (though whether it's the same as the
> > TMC we know of old, who knows)
>
> I had no involvement with any edits made as "TMC".
> Whatever happened on Saturday (when the above was
> sent), I missed it.
If I remember correctly, the vandalism was done by a party logged in as
"Throbing Monster Cock" with one "b" in "throbing". Another vandal was "Edd
Poor" with two "d"s.
Matt (Montrealais)
Montreal, Quebec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1682
[Wikipedia-l] vandal bots
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 18 12:45:13 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:30:57AM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> i was watching some city bot spam recent changes and saw the bot wasn't
> logged in under any name. it occured to me that we should set some kind of
> limit to the amount of editing that an unregistered user can do so that
> it's harder to use a bot.
Your own flood of tiny, continual edits is as annoying as the city bot.
You are making the Recent Changes page useless again. Perhaps you could
use the Preview button a lot while you are editing, then think,
cogitate, invest some mental effort, and make a real contribution other
than changing an articles punctuation, and taking 10 edits to do so?
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021118/d3b904fd/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1683
[Wikipedia-l] Re:vandals
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 18 14:40:48 UTC 2002
Oi, veh.
I already apologized for the "F.A." episode -- which was half a dozen Wikipedia edits to call attention to this very issue. I won't be doing it again; that's implicit in the apology.
Also, I never post on weekends: I'm too busy.
Maybe we need to go with the "grey list" & "e-mail authentication" ideas that Neil Harris proposed.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1684
[Wikipedia-l] vandal bots
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 18 16:38:45 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 07:45, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:30:57AM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> > i was watching some city bot spam recent changes and saw the bot wasn't
> > logged in under any name. it occured to me that we should set some kind of
> > limit to the amount of editing that an unregistered user can do so that
> > it's harder to use a bot.
>
> Your own flood of tiny, continual edits is as annoying as the city bot.
> You are making the Recent Changes page useless again. Perhaps you could
> use the Preview button a lot while you are editing, then think,
> cogitate, invest some mental effort, and make a real contribution other
> than changing an articles punctuation, and taking 10 edits to do so?
It would be a beneficial habit for Lir to start using the Minor Edit
button.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1685
[Wikipedia-l] Re:vandals
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 18 16:40:31 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 09:40, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Maybe we need to go with the "grey list" & "e-mail authentication" ideas
> that Neil Harris proposed.
>
Those are profoundly bad ideas for Wikipedia. They represent a complete
shift in the basic policy of openness, trust, and ease of use that makes
this project successful.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1686
[Wikipedia-l] Re: vandalism spree
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 18 16:58:53 UTC 2002
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 20:44, TMC wrote:
> tarquin wrote:
> > seems we have multiple vandals:
> >
> > * TMC (though whether it's the same as the
> > TMC we know of old, who knows)
>
> I had no involvement with any edits made as "TMC".
> Whatever happened on Saturday (when the above was
> sent), I missed it.
It was evidently someone who participates in Wikipedia or is otherwise
fascinated by its participants, given the tributes (not of a desired
kind, to be sure) to TMC, Ed Poor, Lir, Ram-Man, and the Wikipedia
moderator concept.
What interests me is not particularly trying to discern who it was, but
the fact that the action was entirely a response to the atmosphere of
paranoia about "vandalism" that pervades so much of the discussion about
Wikipedia.
I still think the "VANDALISM in progress" page is a terribly named page
which encourages juvenile behavior, and the ALL CAPS SHOUTING is
entirely unnecessary, especially now that we have watchlists.
That said, I'm glad that there are people who enjoy keeping the site
clean.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1687
[Wikipedia-l] Re:vandals
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Mon Nov 18 17:02:38 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 09:40, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe we need to go with the "grey list" & "e-mail authentication" ideas
>>that Neil Harris proposed.
>>
>>
>>
>Those are profoundly bad ideas for Wikipedia. They represent a complete
>shift in the basic policy of openness, trust, and ease of use that makes
>this project successful.
>
>
I agree that openness, trust, and ease of use are essential goals.
The greylist idea is intended to make the Wikipedia accessible to users
who share a proxy with a vandal, not to restrict the 99.99% of ordinary
users, logged-in or otherwise.
The alternative is to blacklist IPs shared with vandals, which also
blocks all other users on those IP ranges from editing. Unless you have
another alternative?
Neil
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1688
[Wikipedia-l] vandal bots
Steve Callaway
sjc at easynet.co.uk
Mon Nov 18 17:31:57 UTC 2002
I am actually fairly guilty of this, particularly when working on pages with
complex tables. Is this really such a big deal? Save often is my motto. But
I'll save less frequently if the consensus suggests this is the right way to
go....
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at kband.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] vandal bots
> On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 07:45, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:30:57AM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> > > i was watching some city bot spam recent changes and saw the bot
wasn't
> > > logged in under any name. it occured to me that we should set some
kind of
> > > limit to the amount of editing that an unregistered user can do so
that
> > > it's harder to use a bot.
> >
> > Your own flood of tiny, continual edits is as annoying as the city bot.
> > You are making the Recent Changes page useless again. Perhaps you could
> > use the Preview button a lot while you are editing, then think,
> > cogitate, invest some mental effort, and make a real contribution other
> > than changing an articles punctuation, and taking 10 edits to do so?
>
> It would be a beneficial habit for Lir to start using the Minor Edit
> button.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1689
[Wikipedia-l] Re: vandalism spree
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Mon Nov 18 17:57:19 UTC 2002
>I still think the "VANDALISM in progress" page is a terribly named page
>which encourages juvenile behavior, and the ALL CAPS SHOUTING is
>entirely unnecessary, especially now that we have watchlists.
I think the shouting should go, too, and for the same reason.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1690
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Nov 19 07:12:34 UTC 2002
Tarquin wrote in part:
>I think the time has come for sysops to be able to ban usernamed users.
Let me tell y'all how I spent my weekend.
First, Friday morning (15:00 UCT), I got email from <lorp at myfonts.com>,
who identified himself as [[User:Hotlorp]]
(which was eventually confirmed when he
left a message on my user talk page while signed in).
Apparently his IP (194.117.133.198) was blocked.
Note that Hotlorp contacted me, not the admins that had blocked him,
because I have an email address on my user page,
which is advertised on [[Wikipedia:Administrators]].
Since it had been a week and the IP was dynamic, I unblocked it
once I got his message, which was around noon (19:00 UCT).
I mailed this information to Hotlorp then.
Hotlorp tried again later (around 19:00 UCT),
but was on IP 194.117.133.196, which was still blocked.
So I unblocked that when I got the message (around 23:00 UCT).
Then he came on and made some edits a few hours later
(around 4:00 UCT or so), and I went to bed.
While I was sleeping (around 12:00 UCT), a vandal arrived,
using bots (apparently) to splatter goatse across Wikipedia.
This vandal thwarted our standard blocking mechanisms
by using signed-in user names, which were chosen to make fun of us.
The vandal made fun of Scipius, who responded to the vandal,
but also made fun of people that had nothing to do with
responding to the vandalism: Ed Poor, TMC, proposed moderators.
These moderators were mentioned only on the mailing lists,
and Ed and TMC were also participants in those discussions.
Conclusion: The vandal has been reading the mailing lists.
Suspicion of the vandal fell on 194.117.133.196 (and 194.117.133.198),
which were the last IPs to be used for goatse
and which had (as mentioned) been unblocked less than a day earlier.
These IPs had few redeeming edits -- after all,
all of Hotlorp's good edits didn't show up in their user contribs.
However, these IPs weren't blocked again right away,
and there was no confirmation posted to the VANDALISM page
that these IPs were actually being used by the vandal.
An hour after arriving, the vandal left.
I saw no record of any IPs' being banned at that time.
A couple of hours later (shortly before 15:00 UCT),
Koyaanisqatsi blocked these IPs to stop the vandalism.
In email with KQ, we've been unable to figure out why
the last evidence of the vandalism now on Wikipedia
ended hours before the blocking, even though KQ
remembers seeing vandalism on Recentchanges just before blocking
(and saw that the vandalism stopped after the blocking).
Were people no longer reporting the vandal's user names
to [[Wikipedia:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS]]?
Or was the vandal now creating pages that people were deleting?
(But there were no deletions during that time either;
the last deletion log entry connected to goatse is 12:55 UCT.)
Indeed, AFAICT, there is no particular evidence
that this particular vandal was ever using these IPs,
only that some goatse vandal (maybe a different person entirely)
had used them a week ago.
Whether or not KQ actually blocked the vandal,
he did block somebody else. Hotlorp had just returned,
and he managed to get in 3 edits before he was blocked again.
He emailed me again (no contact information for KQ)
and I unblocked the IPs when I got the message (just before 24:00 UCT).
I watched [[VANDALISM IN PROGRESS]] like a hawk all night,
looking for a sign of returning goatse, but there was none,
and has been none since.
The problem, of course, is that we're blocking an innocent user
when it's not at all clear that we're even blocking the vandal.
And it's a cruel joke to tell the innocent user
to contact the admin that blocked them
when they have no method of doing so besides editing pages.
Solutions:
* Block more intelligently:
** Let admins see the IP of signed in users.
Then we can at least know for sure who to block.
** Let admins whitelist a user name known to use a dynamic IP.
(This can always be undone later if abused.)
** Allow admins to see all contributions from a given IP,
whether or not they were made anonymously.
This will allow us to check for multiple users
and give us the opportunity to create the above whitelist
at the same time that we block the vandal.
* Give blocked people a way to contact admins:
** At the very least, include a link to [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]
in the message telling people that they've been blocked,
so that it will be easy for them to get in touch with me.
** Other admins can advertise their email addresses there too.
(Risk: I've never yet received inappropriate mail at <toby+wikipedia>,
and this is the only case where I've been contacted by a blockee.)
** Set up a mailing list for administrators to take blocking complaints
and give blocked people a link to that on the block message.
(Same risk as before, and we only need a few admins to sign up.)
* Others?
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1691
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Nov 19 07:48:15 UTC 2002
On 11/19/02 2:12 AM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Solutions:
>
> * Block more intelligently:
>
> ** Let admins see the IP of signed in users.
> Then we can at least know for sure who to block.
>
> ** Let admins whitelist a user name known to use a dynamic IP.
> (This can always be undone later if abused.)
>
> ** Allow admins to see all contributions from a given IP,
> whether or not they were made anonymously.
> This will allow us to check for multiple users
> and give us the opportunity to create the above whitelist
> at the same time that we block the vandal.
>
> * Give blocked people a way to contact admins:
>
> ** At the very least, include a link to [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]
> in the message telling people that they've been blocked,
> so that it will be easy for them to get in touch with me.
>
> ** Other admins can advertise their email addresses there too.
> (Risk: I've never yet received inappropriate mail at <toby+wikipedia>,
> and this is the only case where I've been contacted by a blockee.)
>
> ** Set up a mailing list for administrators to take blocking complaints
> and give blocked people a link to that on the block message.
> (Same risk as before, and we only need a few admins to sign up.)
>
> * Others?
How about not blocking?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1692
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Nov 19 10:32:09 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>How about not blocking?
>
How do you propose we fend off vandals?
It sometimes seem there are too many of them and not enough of us to
revert their changes.
Granted, the new search feature which shows only the pages where the
user in question is the last to have edited will be extremely useful in
cleaning up.
May I suggest another utility to speed up the cleaning process for sysops:
one of:
* a "revert last edit" link
* a "restore this version" link available when viewing an old version
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1693
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Tue Nov 19 11:04:18 UTC 2002
> ** At the very least, include a link to [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]
> in the message telling people that they've been blocked,
> so that it will be easy for them to get in touch with me.
I've added this to the CVS version, as soon as Brion or someone else updates
the code again, it's live.
As for blocking more intelligently, we definitely need this. Not blocking is
not an option -- this may work on less active wikis where you just let the
vandal work and then fix their changes when he gets tired, but there are
actually people who want to use Wikipedia in the meantime.
The easiest way to stop vandalism, of course, would be to limit new members
(automatically by requiring validated email addresses or manually by
approving each member individually) and to require signing in to edit pages. I don't
like that much either, but it would work.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1694
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Nov 19 15:29:22 UTC 2002
toby wrote:
>Whether or not KQ actually blocked the vandal,
>he did block somebody else. Hotlorp had just returned,
>and he managed to get in 3 edits before he was blocked again.
>He emailed me again (no contact information for KQ)
>and I unblocked the IPs when I got the message (just before 24:00 UCT).
My email is on my userpage, and there's also of course the "email this
user" function on each userpage--neither of which, unfortunately,
would have been any help, as I left town to shoot 2 interviews for a film.
As for the snafu I participated in, I'm still more than a little
confused. Suffice it to say I've had enough of banning for awhile.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1695
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Nov 19 15:54:20 UTC 2002
The Cunctator:
>>How about not blocking?
Toby:
>An obvious solution to the problems of this weekend.
>But I don't think that you'll get the rest of Wikipedia
>to go along with your suggestion.
>Do you think that the other ideas will make things better?
Assuming people are allowed to continue blocking, could we modify the
blocked IP log to list who's blocked when, and when unblocked (this
would require breaking every 50 entries or so off onto an archive).
Toby, Laurence, and I could not figure out at what time I blocked the
.96 and .98 IPs. I had a range it could have been in, Toby had one
also; we probably got within 15 minutes or so.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1696
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 19 15:58:49 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>* Block more intelligently:
>>* Give blocked people a way to contact admins:
>>* Others?
>How about not blocking?
An obvious solution to the problems of this weekend.
But I don't think that you'll get the rest of Wikipedia
to go along with your suggestion.
Do you think that the other ideas will make things better?
======
A sysop being able to act by preventing more than one save per xx of time(dunno 2/5 minutes for example) for
- a specific ip
- or a specific user name
- or all non-logged ips
for a given time (dunno again - say 1 hour) ?
These options allow to slow down vandalism process, in particular *bots*.
It gives more time to (quietly) hunt for the vandals ips, and then eventually proceed to a block.
It does not prevent a "good" wikipedian (unjustifiably blocked by very quick protection measures) to actually edit a page though (even if it might be unpleasant to have to wait to save a page...maybe a good way to promote consequent editing ;-))
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021119/1cfe1943/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1697
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Nov 19 17:44:27 UTC 2002
No, seriously, how about not blocking?
If you try to think of solutions to our problems that don't involve
blocking, the solutions are generally much cleaner.
For example,
1. more powerful ways of searching and sorting edits,
2. more powerful ways of rolling back edits
3. Bayesian filtering of contributions
I see #3 as an interesting solution that would deal with most of our
problems.
http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/background.html
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1698
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Tue Nov 19 18:05:37 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>No, seriously,
>
Oh, how boring ;-)
> how about not blocking?
>
IMHO "don't block at all" won't work, but neither does "block everything
at once", as we've seen.
>If you try to think of solutions to our problems that don't involve
>blocking, the solutions are generally much cleaner.
>
>For example,
>1. more powerful ways of searching and sorting edits,
>
We now have the "top" mark at user contributions, so we can see which
edits haven't been reverted yet. What else could we use? I already
suggested marking IP contributions on Recent Changes in red (or bold
or...) for logged-in users, but was turned down as being "unfair" to the
good contributors, which *are* the majority.
>2. more powerful ways of rolling back edits
>
How about a link on the user contributions, for sysops only probably, to
undo all "top" contributions of this user?
>3. Bayesian filtering of contributions
>
That would be similar to the automatic "quality rating" I suggested earlier.
Characteristics could include:
* removal of large parts of the text
* insertion of repetetetetitive sequences
* insertion of certain keywords ("f**k")
* insertion of off-site links (?)
Suspicious edits could be highlighted on the Recent Changes page.
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1699
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Tue Nov 19 18:23:43 UTC 2002
The Cunctator Wrote:
>No, seriously, how about not blocking?
>
>If you try to think of solutions to our problems that don't involve
>blocking, the solutions are generally much cleaner.
>
>For example,
>1. more powerful ways of searching and sorting edits,
>2. more powerful ways of rolling back edits
>3. Bayesian filtering of contributions
>
>I see #3 as an interesting solution that would deal with most of our
>problems.
>
>http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/background.html
I'd support trying it. The current system is frequently inaccurate
and unfair, even without human or technical error.
how would it be implemented? who has the power and interest to try it?
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1700
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 19 20:33:05 UTC 2002
Please explain Bayesian filtering?
Zoe
The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:No, seriously, how about not blocking?
If you try to think of solutions to our problems that don't involve
blocking, the solutions are generally much cleaner.
For example,
1. more powerful ways of searching and sorting edits,
2. more powerful ways of rolling back edits
3. Bayesian filtering of contributions
I see #3 as an interesting solution that would deal with most of our
problems.
http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/background.html
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021119/ca7d2569/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1701
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Imran Ghory
imran at bits.bris.ac.uk
Tue Nov 19 20:43:37 UTC 2002
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Zoe wrote:
>
> Please explain Bayesian filtering?
> Zoe
See [[Naive_Bayesian_classification]].
Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1702
[Wikipedia-l] stupid anglicization
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Tue Nov 19 21:53:37 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on
> wikipedia. This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia
> start becoming a democracy and voting on stuff. Atm, wikipedia is pretty
> totalitarian-basically if mav, larry, vibber, and one of a couple others
> doesn't agree with something, it doesn't happen.
Oh, would that that were true! You'd still be banned, and Wikipedia
would be a much happier place.
> One of the things they
> don't agree with is the idea that wikipedia, rather than striving to
> maintain the mistakes of earlier information sources, we should strive
> to eliminate those mistakes.
So, you think Wikipedia should be a totalitarian dictator of "correct"
language usage? Interesting.
> Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should
> always strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is
> america and if you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the
> country cuz this is america and this is the american wikipedia and we
> are gonna use american names here and thats the end of the discussion"
No, my child, it amounts to "write in the language you're writing in,
and note words in other languages when they are relevant." This is not
anglo- or americo-centric, but a bit of common sense that applies
equally well in every language.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1703
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Tue Nov 19 22:14:00 UTC 2002
> For example,
> 1. more powerful ways of searching and sorting edits,
> 2. more powerful ways of rolling back edits
I strongly support this, but let's be careful not to lose article
histories.
> 3. Bayesian filtering of contributions
> I see #3 as an interesting solution that would deal with most of our
> problems.
I noticed that you're in the list of Wikipedia developers. I think few
people would object to such modifications. So go for it.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1704
[Wikipedia-l] stupid anglicization
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Tue Nov 19 22:26:00 UTC 2002
Hi Lir,
you do have a habit of holding positions that are inane enough to annoy
almost everyone and reasonable enough to find a small minority of
supporters ;-)
Brion nailed it. There's no point to redirect to "München" when I'm
visiting the "Munich" page on en.wikipedia.org, and I'm saying that as a
German. We have Wikipedias in almost every relevant language, including
Esperanto and Latin -- if I want to search for the native version of a
name (and am able to read it) I'll go to the Wikipedia in that language.
To just force a redirect to the native language is simply confusing and
unhelpful. There's no problem with mentioning the native name in the
article, that's educational, especially if there's information on
pronounciation etc. But if you think that simply enforcing redirects is
educational, you don't understand how learning works.
This policy is valid for other Wikipedias as well. If I go to the
"Kambodscha" page on de.wikipedia.org I don't want or expect to be
redirected to "Kambuchea". This would only confuse me, and in many cases I
wouldn't know how to pronounce or even read (for non-Latin characters) the
native versions.
Redirects are good in case of full titles etc., e.g. when I'm searching
for "Origin of Species" and get to "On the Origin of Species", or whatever
-- here the original title doesn't create confusion, but carries useful
information.
I agree with you that voting would be a good idea. Then this debate would
already be over.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1705
[Wikipedia-l] Educating newcomers (was: stupid anglicization)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Nov 19 22:32:07 UTC 2002
Erik,
The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a responsibility to educate newcomers.
I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe she really wants to contribute. Please join me in gently (or firmly) coaching her about Wikipedia standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1706
[Wikipedia-l] Educating newcomers
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Tue Nov 19 23:13:00 UTC 2002
A mail from Ed? Surely this cannot be, as you just announced your
departure from the project a couple of days ago (for the second time), and
wrote that Wikipedia is doomed. Or are you perhaps a bit moody? Let me
guess, the big advantage of Sunday school over Wikipedia was that it was
*only* on Sundays ;-)
> The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a
> responsibility to educate newcomers.
Well, Lir (Bridget) is not quite that new. Besides, the problem in this
case is not that she's not aware of our policies but that she wants to
change them. Advocating to do so is perfectly OK, and I pointed out, as
others have, why this would be a bad idea. If all goes well, the debate
will end soon, and everyone will follow conventions. We could even add the
resulting arguments to an FAQ.
The problem I see is that in a consensus-finding decision making process,
a single dedicated person can prolong discourse forever. If democracy is
the "tyranny of the majority", consensus-finding is the tyranny of the
cranks. Nothing in our rules says that Lir cannot continue the debate
about naming conventions forever -- so it would be wrong for us to punish
her if she does. And I'm afraid that when people get tired of our tedious
decision making process, they will want to resort to more drastic forms of
enforcement and more permanent power structures, which will in turn lead
to wrong decisions, alienation, power struggles.
That's why I will work more on the Wikipedia:Decision Making Process page
as soon as I have the time, and encourage others to do so.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1707
[Wikipedia-l] Educating newcomers (was: stupid anglicization)
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Nov 19 23:17:19 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>Erik,
>
>The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a responsibility to educate newcomers.
>
>I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe she really wants to contribute. Please join me in gently (or firmly) coaching her about Wikipedia standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
>
>Ed Poor
>
>
That's an admirable aim, Ed.
Is Lir kidding when she writes:
"You just /think/ that Anne Rice made that interview up...but I guess
you are allowed to your silly POV thoughts"
?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1708
[Wikipedia-l] Educating newcomers (was: stupid anglicization)
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 19 23:45:55 UTC 2002
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> >Erik,
> >
> >The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a
> responsibility to educate newcomers.
> >
> >I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe she really
> wants to contribute. Please join me in gently (or firmly) coaching
> her about Wikipedia standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
> >
> >Ed Poor
> >
> >
>
> That's an admirable aim, Ed.
> Is Lir kidding when she writes:
> "You just /think/ that Anne Rice made that interview up...but I
> guess
> you are allowed to your silly POV thoughts"
> ?
Tarquin, it's called sarcasm.
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1709
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 01:16:49 UTC 2002
Koyaanisqatsi wrote in part:
>Toby wrote:
>>no contact information for KQ
>My email is on my userpage, and there's also of course the "email this
>user" function on each userpage--neither of which, unfortunately,
>would have been any help, as I left town to shoot 2 interviews for a film.
My apologies -- you do indeed provide contact information.
Reading Hotlorp's mail to me more carefully,
it only says that you didn't reply --
which you explain the reason for above.
Can I convince you to advertise this fact on [[Wikipedia:Admininstrators]],
similar to my advertisement, to make it easier for banned users
to reach at least one of us -- it took me several hours to reply as well.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1710
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 01:18:02 UTC 2002
>3. Bayesian filtering of contributions
This is an intriguing idea.
Where can we work on developing a filter that will be useful.
BTW, I trust that the purpose of this filter will be
to highlight changes that may require human intervention --
not to block changes automatically by an algorithm.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1711
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Nov 20 01:37:49 UTC 2002
>My apologies -- you do indeed provide contact information.
>Reading Hotlorp's mail to me more carefully,
>it only says that you didn't reply --
>which you explain the reason for above.
>
>Can I convince you to advertise this fact on
[[Wikipedia:Admininstrators]],
>similar to my advertisement, to make it easier for banned users
>to reach at least one of us -- it took me several hours to reply as well.
Done. And we should start using the wikiEN list, huh? :-)
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1712
[Wikipedia-l] stupid anglicization
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 01:30:49 UTC 2002
Lir wrote in part:
>Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on wikipedia.
>This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia start becoming a
>democracy and voting on stuff.
Democracy is by no means the same thing as voting.
With the exception of Jimbo's rarely used dictatorial powers,
we're a pretty good democracy now -- nobody has much opportunity
to force their view on others. There's room for improvement --
like automatic old hand status instead of sysophood on request --
but some improvement will be possible in any system, however good.
>Atm, wikipedia is pretty totalitarian-basically if mav, larry, vibber, and one
>of a couple others doesn't agree with something, it doesn't happen.
Larry? Larry's one of the people that keeps trying to *change* things.
Personally, I think that his ideas are much more appropriate
for an auxiliary project and that he should leave Wikipedia itself alone
(I mean in the sense of not changing how Wikipedia works,
not in the sense of not participating here!), and that's what he's doing.
He only began the sifter project after several other suggestions
on the mailing list received little support; he has no particular power.
As for mav and Brion, yes, they are more conservative voices.
But they're never close to alone. Only The Cunctator regularly
stands in the way of proposals that almost everybody else wants,
and even then, he doesn't get his way if he's truly alone.
Furthermore, Larry, mav, Brion, and even Cunc have no special powers;
anybody can block (or spur) progress just as much as they can.
>Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should always
>strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is america and if
>you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the country cuz this is
>america and this is the american wikipedia and we are gonna use american
>names here and thats the end of the discussion"
If you think this, then you don't understand Wikipedia at all.
The English Wikipedia is the *English*language* Wikipedia,
not the *United*States* Wikipedia. That's why, for example,
American spellings have no favoured position WRT British spellings.
America is a red herring; it's English that's at issue here.
>however, as far as I can tell far more people seem to support using native
>spellings of names, and that includes the use of non-western alphabets, an
>ability we have due to the power of #REDIRECT.
Then you should get these people to come onto the mailing list to discuss it.
I hope that they do (and one or two are starting to already),
since I'd like to make this change in policy as well.
But right now, the change is being held up because the voices on the list
are a clear majority of opposition. No vote would help you here.
>It is also noteworthy that most of the people who speak out against using such
>"unamerican and inappropriate" naming generally make an argument stating,
>"Well, I tend to agree that we should use the native names but it's really
>not a big argument"
You're not helping our cause by presenting this sort of strawman.
That's not at all what they're saying; they think that the current system
is *right*. You and I disagree with that, but we won't get anywhere
by implying that they secretly agree with us and are just stubborn.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1713
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Nov 20 01:36:14 UTC 2002
On 11/19/02 8:18 PM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
>> 3. Bayesian filtering of contributions
>
> This is an intriguing idea.
> Where can we work on developing a filter that will be useful.
>
> BTW, I trust that the purpose of this filter will be
> to highlight changes that may require human intervention --
> not to block changes automatically by an algorithm.
Well, even automatic Bayesian blocking would be much less clumsy than
automatic IP blocking.
But my goal is to come up with strategies that make problems get solved
invisibly without crippling necessary flexibility--or adding layers of
complexity and hierarchy.
The benefits or harms of any particular technological method depend on the
implementation.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1714
[Wikipedia-l] Educating newcomers
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 01:59:39 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
>A mail from Ed? Surely this cannot be, as you just announced your
>departure from the project a couple of days ago (for the second time), and
>wrote that Wikipedia is doomed. Or are you perhaps a bit moody? Let me
>guess, the big advantage of Sunday school over Wikipedia was that it was
>*only* on Sundays ;-)
Ah, he's only bluffing ^_^.
(I hope *_*.)
>The problem I see is that in a consensus-finding decision making process,
>a single dedicated person can prolong discourse forever.
A *single* person can't prolong the decision-making process forever,
because we have enough people around that lack of a single person
is no obstacle to reaching a consensus. Consensus != unanimity
(in English, although apparently it does mean that in French --
see some earlier posts between me and Anthere).
And even with a voting mechanism in place, a single dedicated person
could still prolong *discourse* forever. Or would you censor speech?
[[Democratic centralism]] != democracy (indeed, the term is a misnomer).
Whatever decision-making process we use, those who dissent
must still always have the right to express that dissent,
or democracy is over, whatever of its trappings may remain.
>Nothing in our rules says that Lir cannot continue the debate
>about naming conventions forever -- so it would be wrong for us to punish
>her if she does.
Absolutely wrong! Voting is one thing, but if this much *ever* changed,
then there would be no democracy left in Wikipedia, and I would have to leave.
>And I'm afraid that when people get tired of our tedious
>decision making process, they will want to resort to more drastic forms of
>enforcement and more permanent power structures, which will in turn lead
>to wrong decisions, alienation, power struggles.
Agreed, but IMO, that's exactly what *you* are trying to do ^_^.
(Don't misunderstood me; I know that your intentions are only the best.
I only think that the effect would be bad.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1715
[Wikipedia-l] Re: vandalism spree
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 20 02:08:43 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 03:37 pm, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > For example,
> > 1. more powerful ways of searching and sorting edits,
> > 2. more powerful ways of rolling back edits
>
> I strongly support this, but let's be careful not to lose article
> histories.
I hate to do this but: Yes me too!
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1716
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 03:20:32 UTC 2002
Koyaanisqatsi wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Can I convince you to advertise this fact on [[Wikipedia:Admininstrators]],
>>similar to my advertisement, to make it easier for banned users
>>to reach at least one of us -- it took me several hours to reply as well.
>Done. And we should start using the wikiEN list, huh? :-)
Inasmuch as we're mostly discussing technical possibilities for banning,
rather than proposals about *policy* for banning,
I think that this belongs on the main list,
since those possibilities will be open to everybody.
But that reminds me: do the non[[en:]] Wikipedias
have pages analogous to [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]?
If not, where will the banning message point to on them?
I would suggest that any Wikipedia that uses banning at all
should have methods like those that I proposed
to allow banned users to contact administrators.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1717
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 03:23:43 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>BTW, I trust that the purpose of this filter will be
>>to highlight changes that may require human intervention --
>>not to block changes automatically by an algorithm.
>Well, even automatic Bayesian blocking would be much less clumsy than
>automatic IP blocking.
IP blocking is easy to keep track of and correct
(so long as the lines of communication are kept open).
But perhaps we'll develop a method of Bayesian blocking
that has the same good properties -- the important thing
is that humans have manual override.
>But my goal is to come up with strategies that make problems get solved
>invisibly without crippling necessary flexibility--or adding layers of
>complexity and hierarchy.
A Bayesian algorithm won't be hierarchical, but will it be complex?
Again, the answer will depend on just what we come up with.
>The benefits or harms of any particular technological method depend on the
>implementation.
Exactly. I look forward to your ideas, if you have any.
(I don't have a clue about this myself ^_^.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1718
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 03:35:54 UTC 2002
Magnus Manske wrote in part:
>How about a link on the user contributions, for sysops only probably, to
.undo all "top" contributions of this user?
Only up to a certain time period that the back-roller must specify!
Please!!!
Many anonymous vandals share IPs with good anonymous users,
and the latter will often have top edits that we'll want to keep.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1719
[Wikipedia-l] Irritating edits to ones User page
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Wed Nov 20 07:43:45 UTC 2002
Could we have a persons contributions listed on a "Special" page, or
someone automatically included in their User page?
I mean, something showing which articles a user started, and which a
user has contributed a non-minor edit to.
I find Lirs perpetual updates to her user page annoyingly spammy on the
Recent Changes page, and I believe this solution could get rid of that
spam.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021119/9e7b68e8/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1720
[Wikipedia-l] Irritating edits to ones User page
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Wed Nov 20 08:22:20 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Could we have a persons contributions listed on a "Special" page, or
> someone automatically included in their User page?
Click the "User contributions" link in the sidebar of any user page. For
anonymous IP addresses, you'll get this direct from clicking the IP in
the recentchanges or history pages.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1721
[Wikipedia-l] Irritating edits to ones User page
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Wed Nov 20 08:31:56 UTC 2002
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:22:20AM -0800, Brion VIBBER wrote:
>Jonathan Walther wrote:
>>Could we have a persons contributions listed on a "Special" page, or
>>someone automatically included in their User page?
>
>Click the "User contributions" link in the sidebar of any user page. For
>anonymous IP addresses, you'll get this direct from clicking the IP in
>the recentchanges or history pages.
Well, that page is certainly useful, but not exactly what I had in mind.
I mean, something that doesn't show a list of all your edits, but just a
list of articles you have edited, since the beginning of your time on
the Wikipedia.
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021120/2b2fd0b2/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1722
[Wikipedia-l] Educating newcomers
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Nov 20 09:50:31 UTC 2002
Hi Toby,
> A *single* person can't prolong the decision-making process forever,
> because we have enough people around that lack of a single person
> is no obstacle to reaching a consensus. Consensus != unanimity
> (in English, although apparently it does mean that in French --
> see some earlier posts between me and Anthere).
> And even with a voting mechanism in place, a single dedicated person
> could still prolong *discourse* forever. Or would you censor speech?
No, but in a voting process, the discourse period can be time-limited. Of
course, people could continue to discuss the issue on a dedicated page, but an
enforcable decision could be made before that.
> >And I'm afraid that when people get tired of our tedious
> >decision making process, they will want to resort to more drastic forms
> of
> >enforcement and more permanent power structures, which will in turn lead
> >to wrong decisions, alienation, power struggles.
> Agreed, but IMO, that's exactly what *you* are trying to do ^_^.
Not at all, the idea is to decentralize power, and thereby reduce the
potential for abuse. Voting seems to me very much complementary to the wiki idea.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1723
[Wikipedia-l] Irritating edits to ones User page
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Wed Nov 20 09:53:00 UTC 2002
(User contributions page)
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Well, that page is certainly useful, but not exactly what I had in
> mind. I mean, something that doesn't show a list of all your edits,
> but just a list of articles you have edited, since the beginning of
> your time on the Wikipedia.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, that might be kinda nice.
This could be done, but
a) would be obscenely long in some cases :)
b) with the current setup, it is *very* slow to query the entire old
revisions table checking for this stuff. As in, it takes several
minutes and lagifies the whole server.
The current user contributions page is sped up by strictly limiting the
number of entries to search only the last couple weeks' woth of edits.
Indexing by user ID might help, though...
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1724
[Wikipedia-l] Request for SysOp status
Khendon / Jason Williams
jason at jasonandali.org.uk
Wed Nov 20 11:03:06 UTC 2002
I've been here a few months now; can I be a sysop, please?
--
Khendon / Jason Williams
jason at jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1725
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 20 13:58:08 UTC 2002
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> But that reminds me: do the non[[en:]] Wikipedias
> have pages analogous to
> [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]?
> If not, where will the banning message point to on
> them?
> I would suggest that any Wikipedia that uses banning
> at all
> should have methods like those that I proposed
> to allow banned users to contact administrators.
Hum, yeees.
Thoughts on tc, Toby, and Giskart (among others)
comments on vandalism (reference : pure nasty
vandalism : bots, porn images and so on...not "hard to
integrate" participants)
Vandalism does not only occur on the english
wikipedia, but also on the international ones, even
if, fortunately, attacks are infinitly less frequent
and less destructive in terms of volume.
Having far less participants, non-english wikipedias
do not "work" 'round the clock. There are periods of
time when nobody is watching, and nobody can react to
an attack. To speak of the case I know, there is very
often noone between 2am and 5am, and sometimes noone
between 9am to 12am on the fr:wiki. Or when somebody
is around, it's often a newcomer.
If any vandalism was to occur from an anonymous ip, we
are only 3 sysops to be able to ban it anyway.
Last monday at the end of the afternoon, a loggued-in
unknown user replaced the fr:homepage with a porn
picture (not as bad as the goatse, but still not one
that is appropriate for kids to see amha). Another
anonymous ip later replaced the picture by a single
line basically stating 'this is an encyclopedia,
please
don't do that' (hence, he was obviously not one of the
old hands, otherwise, he would have reverted the whole
page). I came around 20 mn later, and clean all. This
was fortunately a very minor vandalism (in terms of
page).
Athymik has been pointing out to us about a month ago
how damaging a bot running (loggued, behind proxy,
several ip addresses) could be.
Projection : if a bot run on the fr:wiki between 2am
to 5am and changes 2 pages per minute, the total
number of pages which could be vandalized is 360
(ain't I mastering calculus pretty well ?). I.e., more
than 10% of total pages right now.
Vandalism issues should not be treated language
separated. That is a global issue. Any knife cut in
one wiki as consequences on all wikis. Should the
international homepages be replaced by a goatse image
3 hours per week, my belief is that the english
wikipedia image would one day suffer from it -
Global public image issue, no ?
I support system that could automatically detect a
potential problem.
It is very likely that
- one user/ip saving every minute for more than 10 mn
is a potential problem
- any edit replacing more than xxxx characters by x
characters (except redirect...) is a potential problem
- any edit replacing more than xxxx characters by an
image that was downloaded less than tt minutes before
is a potential problem
But, then, what good would it do, if an automatic
system detect a potential problem but has no human to
warn ?
Some time ago, I raised the point of multi-wiki
vandalism (jumping through links). It was
interpretated as a personal whinning over consequences
interlangage links could have on minor wikis...Bah,
no. Really no. I am too happy with the links !
I had the front-idea in mind that a vandal on one
wiki, could also damage another wiki, so it could be
interesting somehow that a common system of reporting
existed, where maybe some connections could be made
between one vandal here and one vandal there. For
quicker and more effective reactivity.
With the back-idea that vandalism was a global issue,
and had to be considered including all wikis. I mean :
detection, human warning (in case of automatic
detection), human action to stop vandalism, human
action to revert vandalism.
If an international wiki is plagued by gore images
every week or so, thus damaging the image of the whole
project, if en.wikipedians has to come to help to
clean up 360 pages in a row, the issue is not local,
it's global.
I'd like not to hear "but, vandalism on international
wikis is a rare occurence". Yep, just as petrol ships
crushing on french, spanish and portuguese coasts are
a rare occurence. About every couple of years. Rare,
but damaging, no ? I see everywhere references to the
exxon waldez. Well, our last disaster was in 1999, the
Erika was an *absolutely* similar boat to the
Prestige. Same age, some construction type, same
content, same "pavillon de complaisance". Are we gonna
do nothing just because it is a rare occurence ?
In the past two months, we noticed there were people
coming through links, not because they were nominally
invited, but followed google. If they come, vandals
will come. Anticipation, prevention...
I like the idea of automatic detection. I'd like it to
be coupled with a system of automatic reaction (not
banning, rather slowing down save for example).
But, mostly, it should have an ACTIVE system of
COMMUNITY warning. Maybe, different levels of warning.
Maybe automatic emails to a list or to a board. Maybe
an automatic signal to bilingual people. Something.
Peace
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1726
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Throbbing Monster Cock
thromoco at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 20 16:17:31 UTC 2002
> I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe
> she really wants to contribute. Please join me in
> gently (or firmly) coaching her about Wikipedia
> standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
Lir's current standards are just as valid as the so
called "community standards". Her persistance in
applying these standards could be seen as her attempt
to coach all other Wikipedia users to adapt to her
naming conventions and POV.
Just because a viewset is shared by the majority, no
matter how overwhelming that majority, the majority
has no authority over the dissenting individual.
--TMC
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1727
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Jason Williams
jason at jasonandali.org.uk
Wed Nov 20 16:29:07 UTC 2002
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:17:31AM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
> Just because a viewset is shared by the majority, no
> matter how overwhelming that majority, the majority
> has no authority over the dissenting individual.
wikipedia, though, is fundamentally a community based on
certain shared views. Somebody who doesn't share the
most fundamental views of a community can't be a productive
member of that community. (Views that you don't have to
share to be a productive member are, by definition,
not fundamental views. Groups of people that don't
share fundamental views aren't communities)
Anybody who wants to be in a community of different
values can start a new one.
--
jason at jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1728
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a creche
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Wed Nov 20 16:35:40 UTC 2002
Here's another thing WikipediaIsNot: a creche.
Lir's been learning to follow rules, sure: she's applying NPOV to such
entries as Star Wars (maybe the empire isn't evil) and Vampirism (maybe
Anne Rice didn't make that interview up).
Perhaps Ed will succeed in teaching her not to indulge in edit wars, but
she seems to lack the critical faculties required to work on this
encyclopedia -- those can't be taught quickl (if at all).
maybe she would be happier somewhere like Everything2 or H2G2 -- a more
"fun" site.
meanwhile, she is getting up more & more people's noses: see Talk:Battle
of Dien Bien Phu
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I think Ram-Man has 2 equally valid reasons for playing chess with Lir on her user page:
>* it has been excellent practice for learning how to set up tables
>* it's a friendly way to engage a new community member
>
>Ed Poor => moving discussion to wikiEN-l
>
>
>
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list
Email: 1729
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Nov 20 17:03:57 UTC 2002
TMC, if you enter my house, you must follow my rules -- or I'll throw you the hell out. Just as you would stop a gang of windshield bashers if they tried to vandalize your car.
The difference is, you don't think you have any "right" to do so -- whereas I think you do!
The problem with being a relativist, as I'm sure you've already found, is that you have no grounds for doing anything. The standard is always your own desires.
Switching to absolutism would be a step up for you, because then you would be confident that whenever you do something beneficial for the sake of another, it would be "good". (I leave the question of "what is beneficial" as an exercise for the student.)
Cute Little Bunny, aka Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1730
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a creche
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Nov 20 17:48:09 UTC 2002
tarquin Wrote:
>Here's another thing WikipediaIsNot: a creche.
>
>Lir's been learning to follow rules, sure: she's applying NPOV to such
>entries as Star Wars (maybe the empire isn't evil) and Vampirism
<snip>
>meanwhile, she is getting up more & more people's noses: see Talk:Battle
>of Dien Bien Phu
LDC saw the writing on the wall long before I did. I should have left
well enough alone. apologies again for the unbanning.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1731
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a creche
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Nov 20 17:53:34 UTC 2002
sorry about that last message, I sent it to the wrong list. :-/
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1732
[Wikipedia-l] Educating newcomers
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 18:04:16 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
>In a voting process, the discourse period can be time-limited. Of
>course, people could continue to discuss the issue on a dedicated page, but an
>enforcable decision could be made before that.
And the same thing is true of a consensus process.
We discuss until a consensus is reached an implement that;
The Cunctator (or whoever ^_^) can continue to talk forever afterwards.
(For example, Cunc still talks about getting rid of banning,
despite the clear consensus in favour of banning.
If we voted on banning instead, the result would be the same.)
>>Agreed, but IMO, that's exactly what *you* are trying to do ^_^.
>Not at all, the idea is to decentralize power, and thereby reduce the
>potential for abuse. Voting seems to me very much complementary to the
>wiki idea.
Voting seems quite antithetical to wiki if you ask me.
(Not completely antithetical, of course;
the usual web page written by a single author
is even more far off from either of these.)
And I've never understood how decentralisation will result.
What *would* help with decentralising administrators' power
is mav's idea of automatic old hand status.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1733
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Request for SysOp status
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 20 18:00:32 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 04:00 am, Khendon / Jason Williams wrote:
> I've been here a few months now; can I be a sysop, please?
As a matter of fact I was thinking about inviting you to become one.
Developers, please upgrade Khendon's account to sysop.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS Khendon this is a request better suited for the en.wiki mailing list
(wikiEN-L).
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1734
[Wikipedia-l] Request for SysOp status
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 18:04:56 UTC 2002
Khendon wrote:
>I've been here a few months now; can I be a sysop, please?
This request seems reasonable to me.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1735
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
bderksen
bderksen at ualberta.ca
Wed Nov 20 19:09:55 UTC 2002
>===== Original Message From "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> =====
>The problem with being a relativist, as I'm sure you've already found, is
that you have no grounds for doing anything. The standard is always your own
desires.
Only in some interpretations of relativism. :) A less naiive approach to
relitavism recognizes that other people do exist, and that those other people
do have the ability to influence you - in the case of Wikipedia, by editing
the things that you do. So, although one might full well believe that one
should have the "right" to do anything one wants to on Wikipedia, the fact
remains that community standards _will_ be enforced because the rest of us
have the ability to stop you. I see no fundamental problem with applying this
through mechanisms other than mere editing and reversion, all the way up to
full-blown banning in extreme cases.
So community standards do matter, whether they're "official" or not and
whether they match your own desires or not.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1736
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 20 19:14:29 UTC 2002
--- Jason Williams <jason at jasonandali.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:17:31AM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock
> wrote:
> > Just because a viewset is shared by the majority, no
> > matter how overwhelming that majority, the majority
> > has no authority over the dissenting individual.
>
> wikipedia, though, is fundamentally a community based on
> certain shared views. Somebody who doesn't share the
> most fundamental views of a community can't be a productive
> member of that community. (Views that you don't have to
> share to be a productive member are, by definition,
> not fundamental views. Groups of people that don't
> share fundamental views aren't communities)
>
> Anybody who wants to be in a community of different
> values can start a new one.
Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the
notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for
that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and
Whales" encyclopedia.
To deny access to wikipedia who do not conform to 20th century
western academic standards would deny, oh, roughly, 90% of the human
race from participating. In which case, it would not be an
encyclopedia of the human knowledge, but rather a wanna-be
encyclopedia with only 10% of human knowledge.
It's sort of like saying: all persons have inalieanble rights yet
only citizens have access to lawyers free of charge. Pretty silly
huh?
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1737
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 19:49:40 UTC 2002
Anthere wrote in part:
>Having far less participants, non-english wikipedias
>do not "work" 'round the clock. There are periods of
>time when nobody is watching, and nobody can react to
>an attack. To speak of the case I know, there is very
>often noone between 2am and 5am, and sometimes noone
>between 9am to 12am on the fr:wiki. Or when somebody
>is around, it's often a newcomer.
>If any vandalism was to occur from an anonymous ip, we
>are only 3 sysops to be able to ban it anyway.
>I support system that could automatically detect a
>potential problem.
>It is very likely that
>- one user/ip saving every minute for more than 10 mn
>is a potential problem
>- any edit replacing more than xxxx characters by x
>characters (except redirect...) is a potential problem
>- any edit replacing more than xxxx characters by an
>image that was downloaded less than tt minutes before
>is a potential problem
>But, then, what good would it do, if an automatic
>system detect a potential problem but has no human to
>warn ?
OK, here's an idea:
We should develop (on [[m:]]) a Bayesian vandal detector.
We'll implement this detector (or versions of it) on every wiki,
and set up a mailing list of militia members to be warned
when the detector suspects vandalism.
The catch is, the mailing list is international.
So if there's vandalism on [[fr:]],
then I can learn about it and respond to it
during the time that I'm online,
even if none of the French speakers are online then.
(Of course, I need to know a little French to do this,
so I can list the languages that I know a little of
when I sign up for the mailing list,
lest I get warnings about vandalism on [[zh:]]
that I can't safely do anything about.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1738
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Nov 20 19:54:08 UTC 2002
Christopher Mahan wrote:
>Khendon wrote:
>>Anybody who wants to be in a community of different
>>values can start a new one.
>Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the
>notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for
>that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and
>Whales" encyclopedia.
No, what you should say is: That is not the case if Wikipedia
clings *only* to the notion that it will cover human knowledge.
But it *also* clings to certain other notions, such as NPOV.
POV writers can set up theire POV encyclopaedia.
>To deny access to wikipedia who do not conform to 20th century
>western academic standards would deny, oh, roughly, 90% of the human
>race from participating.
Right, which is why Wikipedia (unlike Nupedia) has no such limits.
>It's sort of like saying: all persons have inalieanble rights yet
>only citizens have access to lawyers free of charge. Pretty silly
>huh?
Yes, pretty silly. You have my support in national politics.
But that's a situation with no analogy here.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1739
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 20 20:07:49 UTC 2002
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
>
> No, what you should say is: That is not the case if Wikipedia
> clings *only* to the notion that it will cover human knowledge.
> But it *also* clings to certain other notions, such as NPOV.
> POV writers can set up theire POV encyclopaedia.
By definition, if it includes all human knowledge, it will be NPOV,
and if it does not, it will be POV.
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1740
[Wikipedia-l] Re: vandalism spree
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 20 20:13:19 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 11:22 am, Anthere wrote:
>.....
> I like the idea of automatic detection. I'd like it to
> be coupled with a system of automatic reaction (not
> banning, rather slowing down save for example).
> But, mostly, it should have an ACTIVE system of
> COMMUNITY warning. Maybe, different levels of warning.
> Maybe automatic emails to a list or to a board. Maybe
> an automatic signal to bilingual people. Something.
>
> Peace
Seems like a good set of ideas to me. Under a multilanguage Phase IV, however,
wouldn't it be a good idea to have sysops be sysops for all languages? If
this were the case I would pop into several different languages periodically
to check for obvious vandalism.
En.wiki has sysops watching it 20-24 hours a day so if en.wiki sysops popped
in to check various other languages periodically (esp. during the no, or slow
edit times you talk about) then that should provide better coverage against
the most blatant goat sex type vandalism and vandal bots.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1741
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Wed Nov 20 20:29:46 UTC 2002
Christopher Mahan wrote:
>--- Jason Williams <jason at jasonandali.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the
>notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for
>that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and
>Whales" encyclopedia.
>
Try putting some emphasis on *knowledge* as well...
>To deny access to wikipedia who do not conform to 20th century
>western academic standards would deny, oh, roughly, 90% of the human
>race from participating. In which case, it would not be an
>encyclopedia of the human knowledge, but rather a wanna-be
>encyclopedia with only 10% of human knowledge.
>
"The earth is flat" is not human knowledge. "Some people believe the
earth is flat" is.
If 90% of the human race don't know the diameter of earth, it will
suffice to write down that knowledge of the 10% remaining. It could also
be mentioned that most people don't know the diameter of earth, but
their not-knowing (or assuming something wrong) is *not* knowledge in
itself, and can therefore not be counted.
>It's sort of like saying: all persons have inalieanble rights yet
>only citizens have access to lawyers free of charge. Pretty silly
>huh?
>
Your comparison, yes.
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1742
[Wikipedia-l] Ångström
Bridget
Bridget
Wed Nov 20 21:31:57 UTC 2002
Angstrom, being a word not in common usage at all, should be written Ångström, in honor of Anders Jonas Ångström, who was smarter than many of you and thus knew how to spell his own name.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021120/e5f920eb/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1743
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Wed Nov 20 21:32:35 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:12:34PM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
[On Saturday]
> While I was sleeping (around 12:00 UCT), a vandal arrived,
> using bots (apparently) to splatter goatse across Wikipedia.
I'm not sure it really was using a bot, despite its claims. If it had
been, it could have vandalised many more pages.
> The problem, of course, is that we're blocking an innocent user
> when it's not at all clear that we're even blocking the vandal.
>
> * Block more intelligently:
>
> ** Let admins see the IP of signed in users.
> Then we can at least know for sure who to block.
>
> ** Let admins whitelist a user name known to use a dynamic IP.
> (This can always be undone later if abused.)
>
> ** Allow admins to see all contributions from a given IP,
> whether or not they were made anonymously.
> This will allow us to check for multiple users
> and give us the opportunity to create the above whitelist
> at the same time that we block the vandal.
These are surely good plans. Note that if we're willing to do the work
to classify IPs, we can ban on the 'Client-ip' and 'X-forwarded-for'
headers instead of the real IPs, for known shared proxies. This doesn't
help the case where an innocent user ends up reusing the actual client
IP address of a vandal (either because the address was reallocated, or
just because they used the same public computer), but it would do
something to mitigate problems with shared proxies.
But in the long run, nothing based on ip-banning would be able to stop
a sufficiently determined vandal. Neither would relying on registered
accounts. At present, stealing someone else's account would be quite
easy. This doesn't matter, as there's little currently little incentive
to do so. If we relied more strongly on authenticated accounts, that
could change.
I think techniques for automatically slowing down bots would be the
most valuable place to concentrate our efforts.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1744
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Nov 20 21:38:22 UTC 2002
> But in the long run, nothing based on ip-banning would be able to stop
> a sufficiently determined vandal. Neither would relying on registered
> accounts. At present, stealing someone else's account would be quite
> easy.
How so? Brute force password attacks? We can catch these by limiting the
attempts. What else?
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1745
[Wikipedia-l] Ångström
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 20 21:50:50 UTC 2002
--- Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] <lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Angstrom, being a word not in common usage at all, should be
> written Ångström, in honor of Anders Jonas Ångström, who was
> smarter than many of you and thus knew how to spell his own name.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
dang I laughed...
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1746
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Ångström
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Wed Nov 20 21:52:45 UTC 2002
At 01:31 PM 11/20/02 -0800, Bridget wrote:
>Angstrom, being a word not in common usage at all, should be written
>Ångström, in honor of Anders Jonas Ångström, who was smarter than many of
>you and thus knew how to spell his own name.
Angstrom is part of my everyday vocabulary, and that of many other people.
As a personal name, it takes a diacritic not available in English; as a term of
art in the metric system, it does not. Being so smart, you know this already.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021120/168b4e48/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1747
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Wed Nov 20 22:00:45 UTC 2002
> > But in the long run, nothing based on ip-banning would be able to stop
> > a sufficiently determined vandal. Neither would relying on registered
> > accounts. At present, stealing someone else's account would be quite
> > easy.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:38:22PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> How so? Brute force password attacks? We can catch these by limiting the
> attempts. What else?
Stealing the cookie. Non-brute-force password guessing. Compromising a
public machine. Compromising a private machine.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1748
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Wed Nov 20 23:36:45 UTC 2002
Magnus Manske wrote:
>>
> How about a link on the user contributions, for sysops only probably,
> to undo all "top" contributions of this user?
>
Good idea.
it would certainly mean we no longer feel we're drowning in vandal edits.
I think an alert to a user that appears above all their edit boxes could
be useful -- there could be a flag that says "you have been identified
by user X as making vandal edits / breaching copyright / etc. Please use
the Sandbox to test wiki markup."
-- something to let them know a) we're onto them and b) where they can
respond if there has been a misunderstanding
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1749
[Wikipedia-l] Diên Biên Phû
Bridget
Bridget
Wed Nov 20 23:44:55 UTC 2002
Diên Biên Phû was a battle between the French and the Vietnamese and a name which is not in common usage. It is a disgrace for the Americans to think they can rewrite this otherwise. This name must be rendered in either French or Vietnamese, being a Vietnamese sympathizer I vote for Vietnamese, but I am willing to compromise, however this was certainly not an American battle.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021120/7162ae3b/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1750
[Wikipedia-l] RE: [Wikipedia-l] Diên Biên Phû
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Nov 20 23:58:27 UTC 2002
The accents on Diên Biên Phû are fine, Lir.I've put them back in, just now. Cheers.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] [mailto:lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 6:45 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Diên Biên Phû
Diên Biên Phû was a battle between the French and the Vietnamese and a name which is not in common usage. It is a disgrace for the Americans to think they can rewrite this otherwise. This name must be rendered in either French or Vietnamese, being a Vietnamese sympathizer I vote for Vietnamese, but I am willing to compromise, however this was certainly not an American battle.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021120/10943e98/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1751
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] RE: [Wikipedia-l] Diên Biên Phû
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Thu Nov 21 00:13:51 UTC 2002
Good, Ed. Now let's fix up Viêt Nam, and someone will have to check on Ho Chi
Minh City because that certainly isn't the name in Viêt (the term used by
native language speakers for their language instead of the colonialist
Vietnamese).
Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021120/22034849/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1752
[Wikipedia-l] Diên Biên Phû
elian
elian at gmx.li
Thu Nov 21 00:33:57 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] <lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com> writes:
> Diên Biên Phû was a battle between the French and the Vietnamese and a
> name which is not in common usage. It is a disgrace for the Americans to
> think they can rewrite this otherwise. This name must be rendered in
> either French or Vietnamese, being a Vietnamese sympathizer I vote for
> Vietnamese, but I am willing to compromise, however this was certainly
> not an American battle.
Would you please stop this nonsense? There is no "must" in Wikipedia
except for NPOV and Copyright. Stop dictating other people what they
"must" do. I doubt if your capabilities regarding Vietnamese are any
greater than your transcription efforts of Hebrew words.
For the records: the article on Osama bin Laden is also totally wrongly
named, but even as an arabist I don't fuzz about it because I don't derive
pleasure from insisting on "political or otherwise correct spelling" and
keeping people from doing more important work.
greetings,
elian, who gets really annoyed by this ridiculous behaviour
PS:reply to wikien-l please.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1753
[Wikipedia-l] Diên Biên Phû
Bridget
Bridget
Thu Nov 21 00:58:14 UTC 2002
The trend in the UK, but less so in the USA, has been to try hard to use the correct foreign spellings of foreign words. Since Wikipedia allows use of full Unicode, since it presumably aims at a world-wide English-speaking audience, it seems unjustifiably Americancentric for Wikipedia to discourage Vietnamese accents.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021120/e04097ae/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1754
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Diên Biên Phû
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Thu Nov 21 01:00:56 UTC 2002
I just wonder how many British newspapers use the Danish spelling of
Copenhagen.
Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021120/51aa0fbe/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1755
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Thu Nov 21 03:57:09 UTC 2002
Christopher Mahan wrote:
>By definition, if it includes all human knowledge, it will be NPOV,
>and if it does not, it will be POV.
This is not what the neutral point of view is.
In fact, anything that includes *all* of human knowledge must be POV.
For example, I believe that George W. Bush is an awful US President,
my belief is justified, and it is correct (as it so happens ^_^).
Therefore, I *know* that George W. Bush is an awful US President.
But it wouldn't be NPOV of me to state this in a Wikipedia article
(although I might attribute the opinion to certain people,
explaining their reasons for their belief
and presenting rebuttals from Bush's supporters).
Thus Wikipedia will always lack that bit of human knowledge.
See [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] for more.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1756
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 21 04:09:17 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 22:57, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Christopher Mahan wrote:
>
> >By definition, if it includes all human knowledge, it will be NPOV,
> >and if it does not, it will be POV.
>
> This is not what the neutral point of view is.
>
> In fact, anything that includes *all* of human knowledge must be POV.
Yup. I would much rather the official Wikipedia definition of neutral
point of view actually gibe with the meaning of "neutral point of view"
(see [[m:NPOV is an ideal]]) than the convoluted redefinition that
stands now.
In other words, I'm with Mr. Mahan here.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1757
[Wikipedia-l] Somebody please block 63.229.80.161
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 21 04:49:17 UTC 2002
63.229.80.161 has vandalized [[Timeline of medicine and medical technology]] four times now. I've reverted him four times, but how long am I supposed to keep doing it?
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021120/d7c709ba/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1758
[Wikipedia-l] Ångström
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Thu Nov 21 06:27:40 UTC 2002
Lir wrote:
>Angstrom, being a word not in common usage at all, should be written Ångström,
>in honor of Anders Jonas Ångström, who was smarter than many of you and thus
>knew how to spell his own name.
Maybe the word *should* be spelled "Ångström", but it's not.
I agree with you that Anders Jonas' name shouldn't be Anglicised
(which in this case would involve dropping the diacritics),
but the unit of measurement has been called "angstrom"
since it was invented (I believe after Ander Jonas' death).
Maybe the people in charge of units of measurement
(le Bureau International des Poids et Mesures)
shouldn't drop the diacritics, but they do.
This is a common noun, and isn't analogous to "Lunik"
(where I believe that you are right).
-- Toby
PS: Most of this discussion is now happening on <wikiEN-l>.
You're missing out! Without you, I'm one side of the debate,
but with you, I'm the voice of reason and compromise ^_^.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1759
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Thu Nov 21 06:33:41 UTC 2002
[Moving to <wikitech-l>, since we're now discussing programming, not policy.]
Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
[plans]
>These are surely good plans.
Thanks!
>Note that if we're willing to do the work
>to classify IPs, we can ban on the 'Client-ip' and 'X-forwarded-for'
>headers instead of the real IPs, for known shared proxies.
I don't know what this means. But I hope that it works! ^_^
>But in the long run, nothing based on ip-banning would be able to stop
>a sufficiently determined vandal. Neither would relying on registered
>accounts. At present, stealing someone else's account would be quite
>easy.
Right, the passwords and cookies are sent over the Net unencrypted.
They just need to sniff our packets (how rude!).
>I think techniques for automatically slowing down bots would be the
>most valuable place to concentrate our efforts.
This sounds promising to me too.
What's the fastest rate of saving that a legitimate user is likely to use?
What's the fastest rate of saving that we can expect to keep up with
if used by a bot? I'm going make a 0th approximation of 1 minute for each.
Too slow? too fast?
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1760
[Wikipedia-l] Diên Biên Phû
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Thu Nov 21 07:19:23 UTC 2002
Lir wrote:
>Ðiên Biên Phú was a battle between the French and the Vietnamese and a name
>which is not in common usage. It is a disgrace for the Americans to think they
>can rewrite this otherwise. This name must be rendered in either French or
>Vietnamese, being a Vietnamese sympathizer I vote for Vietnamese, but I am
>willing to compromise, however this was certainly not an American battle.
It's not about sympathy; it's a Vietnamese town, not a French town.
And we currently normally include diacriticals on foreign proper nouns
that can be written in Latin-1, as in [[Poincaré conjecture]].
Or is the idea to be consistent within Vietnamese
and drop all diacriticals in that language
since it also includes some non-Latin-1 diacriticals?
We could still agree to mark the letters but not the tones
(as is the case in "Ðiên Biên Phú", in fact,
which has some tonese too that aren't marked here).
It seems to me that it should be [[Ðiên Biên Phú]] under *current* rules.
-- Toby
PS: Lir, this is going to <wikiEN-l>! Go there too!
<http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1761
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Thu Nov 21 07:35:42 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>In fact, anything that includes *all* of human knowledge must be POV.
>Yup. I would much rather the official Wikipedia definition of neutral
>point of view actually gibe with the meaning of "neutral point of view"
>(see [[m:NPOV is an ideal]]) than the convoluted redefinition that
>stands now.
Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article,
but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault.
No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition,
which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal
for replacing that definition.
Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact
that George W. Bush is an awful US President!
But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge;
it will at best only contain the knowledge that
certain people hold that view for certain reasons.
(Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while,
but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version,
as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1762
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Bridget
Bridget
Thu Nov 21 09:01:31 UTC 2002
genocide involves the destorying of culture. americinization is a form of genocide. stop saying that i should be banned for opposing King Jimbo Wales, whoever that is, he probably would rather see the correct name of things, than the same ol americanized crap.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/5cf4b2c3/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1763
[Wikipedia-l] stupid anglicization
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Thu Nov 21 09:08:40 UTC 2002
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:56:06AM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on
> wikipedia. This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia start
> becoming a democracy and voting on stuff. Atm, wikipedia is pretty
Democracy and voting suck. Anarchist direct action is where it's at,
baby. If you still want to vote, vote with your feet.
There is an English alphabet for the English language, and it does NOT
include diacritical remarks. Wikipedia is a multilingual project; stop
trying to make the English part of it be an amalgam of every language
under the sun.
When a foreign word gets adopted into the English language, all English
speakers get to say how it is used, and so far those who insist on using
diacritics are a vast minority.
Why are you trying to destroy the Wikipedia?
I think Groliers Encyclopedia is paying you minimum wage to sabotage our
effort here. You have no idea of the sorts of things that normally go
into an Encyclopedia, and the things that don't. By your own admission
you see the Wikipedia as "an information dump" with no more value than
the same information scattered all over the web.
Why are you here Lir? Because you saw a nice community here, and you
wish to prove you can be a member here after your initial rejection? I
wish your motive instead was to build the greatest Encyclopedia in the
world, and that the community aspect came after. The Encyclopedia
doesn't exist to support the community; the community exists to support
the Encyclopedia.
> Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should always
> strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is america and
> if you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the country cuz this
> is america and this is the american wikipedia and we are gonna use
> american names here and thats the end of the discussion"
The Wikipedia is no place to push a political platform. You claim to be
from Iowa; speaking ill of your country, in the way that you do, is
treason. Criticize the government; criticize trends and tendencies;
but cease to lump all your compatriats together in your negative rantings.
I am Canadian. I wish to see proper ENGLISH spellings of things used.
It is disengenous and intellectually dishonest of you to label such
wishes as "pro-Americanizing" when the vast majority of the English
speaking world shares them. But this shows your own American bias; you
think all the English speaking world is in the USA. Get over it.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/b1cf876f/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1764
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Thu Nov 21 09:19:14 UTC 2002
Well most names like "Munich" were anglicized long before the USA existed.
Nowadays we anglicize less - we tend to leave the names of people as
they are; if Spanish actor became an international star today, we might
call him Christobal Colon; but as it is we're left with past anglicization.
Do you think the French wikipedia should write "london" instead of
"londres"?
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> genocide involves the destorying of culture. americinization is a form
> of genocide. stop saying that i should be banned for opposing King
> Jimbo Wales, whoever that is, he probably would rather see the correct
> name of things, than the same ol americanized crap.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> -
> Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1765
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Thu Nov 21 09:13:56 UTC 2002
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:01:31AM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> genocide involves the destorying of culture. americinization is a form of
> genocide. stop saying that i should be banned for opposing King Jimbo
> Wales, whoever that is, he probably would rather see the correct name of
> things, than the same ol americanized crap.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you want
Americans to stop destroying other cultures, you won't accomplish it be
trying to destroy American culture. Americans have as much right to
their culture as anyone else has to theirs.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/365f4ad2/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1766
[Wikipedia-l] Indoctrinating (was Educating) newcomers
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Nov 21 08:14:10 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>Erik,
>
>The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a responsibility to educate newcomers.
>
>I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe she really wants to contribute. Please join me in gently (or firmly) coaching her about Wikipedia standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
>
There's no need to be so damned paternalistic! You make it sound as
though the only thing you need to do is to insure that Lir does
everything "our" way, and that newcomers should not be re-opening
debates because we settled that a year ago before these newcomers came
aboard. I fully expect that some of these debates will repeat
themselves, and will go on for years before there is a consensus. This
will be especially true for naming conventions. There is a broad
appreciation that NPOV is a good thing, but there is great diversity in
just what that term means.
If Lir or any newcomer comes along and questions one of our conventions,
that opinion deserves respect just as much as the opinions of
long-standing contributors.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1767
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Jason Williams
jason at jasonandali.org.uk
Thu Nov 21 09:43:07 UTC 2002
> >--- Jason Williams <jason at jasonandali.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the
I don't want to be picky, but could we be more careful with
attributions? I didn't say that - it is in fact the opposite
of my view.
--
jason at jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1768
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 21 10:28:58 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:01:31AM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> genocide involves the destorying of culture. americinization is a form of
> genocide. stop saying that i should be banned for opposing King Jimbo
> Wales, whoever that is, he probably would rather see the correct name of
> things, than the same ol americanized crap.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you want
Americans to stop destroying other cultures, you won't accomplish it be
trying to destroy American culture. Americans have as much right to
their culture as anyone else has to theirs.
Jonathan
It might be best not to answer to that kind of message, maybe. See how Lir is trying to irritate each of us in turns. Wikipedians in americans and others. British and others. French and vietnamese. Promoting similar reactions, such as european and americans (hey, Eclecticology, aren't you canadian ?).
Bugging people and antagonizing them is just one way some follow to express themselves. They can do so. You can choose not to answer.
I'll be glad if people could agree that - HERE at least - we are more wikipedians than french, american, german or whatever. Let's stick together for godsake ! Learning from each others and recognising our differences will help more for the preservation of each cultural identity than throwing into faces painful assumptions and worn-out statements.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/f9c24fa5/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1769
[Wikipedia-l] blocked huh?
Bridget
Bridget
Thu Nov 21 10:40:47 UTC 2002
Well i was writing about anglicization but apparently I was blocked. I find it strange that I would be blocked when I havent been vandalising anything or harrasing anybody.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/d6f7a292/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1770
[Wikipedia-l] sumer and wealth of nations
Bridget
Bridget
Thu Nov 21 10:44:13 UTC 2002
It has been said I am blocked for my work on sumer and wealth of nations. Nobody has directed a complaint regarding this to me before. I see no reason why you wouldn't be willing to discuss things.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/d0a8d3d1/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1771
[Wikipedia-l] O.k., let's ban Lir
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Nov 21 11:40:23 UTC 2002
As usual, she can write to me to discuss it.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1772
[Wikipedia-l] O.k., let's ban Lir
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Thu Nov 21 11:54:26 UTC 2002
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:40:23AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>As usual, she can write to me to discuss it.
It has my vote. But I request it only be for a week. If she still
isn't interested in modifying her behavior, I suggest a month... a
year... Unfortunately this could be like playing whack-a-mole.
Maybe require her to provide some real life contact information before
coming back?
"As usual"... Lir has been banned before? I suspect Lir and Helga are
one and the same.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/2ab23a0f/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1773
[WikiEN-l] Criteria for banning
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Nov 21 12:00:35 UTC 2002
(As a warning to others, wikien-l at nupedia.com goes into a black hole. The
old lists work at both @nupedia.com and @wikipedia.org. Jason, can you
fix this?)
Ultimately, I would say that it is perfectly o.k. to ban people if,
after a reasonable period of time, they appear to be unwilling or
unable to work together with others in a collegial spirit of mutual
respect.
Wikipedia is not Usenet. It is not the right place for people to
attempt to put forward particular ideological positions. It is
important for all ideological positions to be put forward in a fair
manner, and it is therefore valid for people with a particular
ideology to work on Wikipedia to ensure that their viewpoint is fairly
represented. But the essential here is that people from all
viewpoints should be working towards NPOV. To fail to do so is to
fail to work together with others in a collegial spirit of mutual
respect.
Wikipedia is not a joke book. User names like Throbbing Monster Cock
are inappropriate. TMC's contributions have been perfectly o.k., as
far as I know, but his name is clearly chosen in an attempt to be
funny or (likely) to deliberately annoy people. TMC has argued that
changing his name is tantamount to the use of force against him. This
argument is stupid, because he has no property interest in his
username, but if he wishes to press it, he should write to me
personally about it, as this was my decision.
We should take great care to ensure a diversity of contributors. We
should take great care that people are not banned for making policy
proposals that are annoying to us. We should take great care that
people are not banned too soon, even for breaking the rules.
For ip addresses, anonymous contributions, we should continue our
policy of banning them for simple vandalism at the slightest
provocation.
For usernames, we should be more forgiving, but only because the fact
that someone has taken the effort to login suggests that there is some
hope of sincerity. Even so, simple vandlism is ample grounds for a
ban.
The more difficult cases are cases like Lir, or TMC. TMC has
committed only one violation -- the selection of a deliberately
annoying username. His contributions are, apparently and to date, not
bad. Lir, on the other hand, has been uncollegial and rude to others
on multiple occassions, and has received ample warning.
--Jimbo
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list
Email: 1774
[Wikipedia-l] O.k., let's ban Lir
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Nov 21 12:04:56 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> "As usual"... Lir has been banned before? I suspect Lir and Helga are
> one and the same.
In the case of both '24' and Helga, I specifically offered them the
opportunity to discuss things with me privately to regain access.
What I would be seeking in such a case would be a sign of
understanding on their part about what behaviors are unacceptable, and
a pledge to change those behaviors.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1775
[Wikipedia-l] O.k., let's ban Lir
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Thu Nov 21 12:13:10 UTC 2002
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 04:04:56AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>In the case of both '24' and Helga, I specifically offered them the
>opportunity to discuss things with me privately to regain access.
>
>What I would be seeking in such a case would be a sign of
>understanding on their part about what behaviors are unacceptable, and
>a pledge to change those behaviors.
Hearing that makes me very happy. Lir has a lot she could contribute,
if she is willing to work in the spirit of collegial respect and
fellowship.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/d47f8185/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1776
[Wikipedia-l] O.k., let's ban Lir
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Nov 21 12:22:35 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Hearing that makes me very happy. Lir has a lot she could contribute,
> if she is willing to work in the spirit of collegial respect and
> fellowship.
Yes. One of the great things about wikipedia is how much positive
good people of wildly different viewpoints can do, if they commit to
this sense of "collegial respect and fellowship".
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1777
[Wikipedia-l] why have i been banned?
Bridget
Bridget
Thu Nov 21 12:30:13 UTC 2002
Why am I being banned for adding an article on Wilhelm Wien? What the hell :<
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/db128e25/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1778
[Wikipedia-l] why am I banned? :<
Bridget
Bridget
Thu Nov 21 12:36:51 UTC 2002
I do not understand why I have been banned. I do not understand why nobody has bothered to specifically address anything I have done wrong, with the exception of those who reverted various changes I have made after which I have moved on to other topics and in many cases one should note that my changes have, at the very least, been partially accepted.
Anyone examing my user contributions will see that I have been doing nothing but working on topics such as blackbody, wilhelm wien, electromagnetic radiation, etc., while being harrased by Clutch who repeatedly vandalized my page and insulted everything I did, without explanation of what he did not like.
Why am I being banned and why has no attempt been made to explain what it is I have done that is so offensive? What am I supposed to do for the next week? I have nothing to do ever. My whole life I just sit around wishing I had something productive to do and now you ban me for trying to correct the numerous errors I found in your naming schema?
i think ill go kill myself
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/98533957/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1779
[Wikipedia-l] why am I banned? :<
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Nov 21 12:45:24 UTC 2002
I'll handle this offlist. I think having a flame war here would be
counter-productive. (But the list is unmoderated, so if people feel a
compelling need, go ahead.)
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
>
> I do not understand why I have been banned. I do not understand why nobody has bothered to specifically address anything I have done wrong, with the exception of those who reverted various changes I have made after which I have moved on to other topics and in many cases one should note that my changes have, at the very least, been partially accepted.
>
> Anyone examing my user contributions will see that I have been doing nothing but working on topics such as blackbody, wilhelm wien, electromagnetic radiation, etc., while being harrased by Clutch who repeatedly vandalized my page and insulted everything I did, without explanation of what he did not like.
>
> Why am I being banned and why has no attempt been made to explain what it is I have done that is so offensive? What am I supposed to do for the next week? I have nothing to do ever. My whole life I just sit around wishing I had something productive to do and now you ban me for trying to correct the numerous errors I found in your naming schema?
>
> i think ill go kill myself
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1780
[Wikipedia-l] i think u are racist but its no reason to ban me
Bridget
Bridget
Thu Nov 21 13:29:17 UTC 2002
If you didnt want me talking on wikipedia-l then all you had to do was say, "Dont talk here" I didnt want to talk on the stupid thing-I only was there cuz people told me to!
I think its racist to not make more of an effort to use foreign words. Im sorry that has upset all of you so much. I don't see why I should be banned for it.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/e55f0ab7/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1781
[Wikipedia-l] plz let me play chess :<
Bridget
Bridget
Thu Nov 21 13:40:49 UTC 2002
plz let me play chess with ram-man i have nobody else to play :<
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/fcd47689/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1782
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 21 14:48:41 UTC 2002
Lir,
I know the mailing list has been "spammy" recently, but you might want to take a look at Jimbo's e-mail. He didn't say that discussion of the rules is grounds for banning -- but only repeated violation.
No one talks about banning the Cunctator, although he questions the rules more often than any one else -- even you!
You have complete freedom on the Internet, anywhere you go. With the exception that the owner of the server hosting Wikipedia won't permit certain kinds of edits to the article database.
But any contributions to the encyclopedia project that fit the NPOV rules are fine, and we'd appreciate your cooperation on transliteration, too.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] [mailto:lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 4:02 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] americanization
genocide involves the destorying of culture. americinization is a form of genocide. stop saying that i should be banned for opposing King Jimbo Wales, whoever that is, he probably would rather see the correct name of things, than the same ol americanized crap.
_____
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/36f9f149/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1783
[Wikipedia-l] Indoctrinating (was Educating) newcomers
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 21 14:51:58 UTC 2002
Eclecticology,
Please don't condemn my paternalism, it's one of my best qualities.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1784
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 21 14:51:56 UTC 2002
On 11/21/02 2:35 AM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> Toby Bartels wrote:
>
>>> In fact, anything that includes *all* of human knowledge must be POV.
>
>> Yup. I would much rather the official Wikipedia definition of neutral
>> point of view actually gibe with the meaning of "neutral point of view"
>> (see [[m:NPOV is an ideal]]) than the convoluted redefinition that
>> stands now.
>
> Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article,
> but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault.
> No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition,
> which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal
> for replacing that definition.
That's what "NPOV is an ideal" is.
> Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact
> that George W. Bush is an awful US President!
> But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge;
> it will at best only contain the knowledge that
> certain people hold that view for certain reasons.
> (Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while,
> but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version,
> as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
Exactly.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1785
[Wikipedia-l] O.k., let's ban Lir
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 21 14:55:59 UTC 2002
Lir and Helga have distinct patterns of speech. Lir's English is
excellent, and she probably is American as she said. Helga is obviously
European and not a native speaker of English.
They are similar only in that they both flouted the rules too much.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1786
[Wikipedia-l] Collegial respect and fellowship (was: O.k., let's ban Lir)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 21 15:00:38 UTC 2002
> Jonathan Walther wrote:
> > Hearing that makes me very happy. Lir has a lot she could contribute,
> > if she is willing to work in the spirit of collegial respect and
> > fellowship.
>
> Yes. One of the great things about wikipedia is how much positive
> good people of wildly different viewpoints can do, if they commit to
> this sense of "collegial respect and fellowship".
>
> --Jimbo
This is why I'm grateful to Jimbo and the Wikipedia community. Even though the server owner thinks I'm a "nut" (no offense meant, I'm sure, and none taken) -- I am generally polite and scrupulous about NPOV and cooperating with my fellow contributors.
In any other forum, my pro-absolutist and pro-Unificationist views would be drowned out in a chorus of derision.
Whoever dreamed up the idea of an NPOV encyclopedia is a genius.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1787
[Wikipedia-l] O.k., let's ban Lir
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 21 15:01:02 UTC 2002
On 11/21/02 9:55 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Lir and Helga have distinct patterns of speech. Lir's English is
> excellent, and she probably is American as she said. Helga is obviously
> European and not a native speaker of English.
>
Lir is Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons], not Helga Jonat.
It's not like there's any big mystery about his identity.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1788
[Wikipedia-l] plz let me play chess :<
Paul Ebermann
ebermann at mathematik.hu-berlin.de
Thu Nov 21 13:46:36 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] skribis:
> plz let me play chess with ram-man i have nobody else to play :<
>
Why don't you do this on the meta-wikipedia?
There it is (a little bit) on topic ...
Paul
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1789
[Wikipedia-l] O.k., let's ban Lir
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 21 15:41:16 UTC 2002
Cunctator, why do you keep calling Lir "Adam" -- which is a boy's name -- when she calls herself a woman and e-mails to the list as "Bridget"?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1790
[Wikipedia-l] O.k., let's ban Lir
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 21 16:14:46 UTC 2002
On 11/21/02 10:41 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Cunctator, why do you keep calling Lir "Adam" -- which is a boy's name -- when
> she calls herself a woman and e-mails to the list as "Bridget"?
Why? Because Lir is Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons].
Adam only calls himself a "paragon of womanhood" because
someone else did. See http://qwert.diaryland.com/021031_8.html.
I assume he uses "Bridget" to maintain the fiction.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1791
[Wikipedia-l] Re: plz let me play chess :<
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 21 19:20:41 UTC 2002
On Thursday 21 November 2002 06:52 am, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> plz let me play chess with ram-man i have nobody else to play :<
I don't think the block affects your ability to edit meta. I also don't see
why you shouldn't be able to play chess there - even develop articles for
later importing into Wikipedia.
I for one don't have a big problem with your edits -- many, if not most are
quite sensible. What I do have a very big problem with is your apparent
inability to get along with others and work constructively within the
community and respect (however wrong you think they are) our conventions.
This doesn't mean that you can't work to change the conventions.
As somebody has already mentioned Cunctator disagrees with many people here on
many points. But he does it as a community member and doesn't demean others
or their culture and insist that only he is correct and also demand things
(not to mention your assertion that you think most humans as "inferior
lifeforms" and that you are the "world's foremost authority" in presumably
everything). This type of professed arrogance, true or not, doesn't a
community build. And as Jonathan Walther so elegantly said " The
Encyclopedia doesn't exist to support the community; the community exists to
support the Encyclopedia." So with a fractured or sick community, the
Encyclopedia suffers.
I do wish you can come back in a week and start working with the community
instead of against it.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1792
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Nov 21 19:53:31 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> genocide involves the destorying of culture. americinization is a form
> of genocide.
However true that may be, it's grossly impolite to say so.
> stop saying that i should be banned for opposing King Jimbo Wales,
> whoever that is, he probably would rather see the correct name of
> things, than the same ol americanized crap.
Banning threats are not a constructive form of debate.
Jimbo Wales is the fiscal benefactor of this project, but as a monarch
is very tolerant of the silliness of some of his subjects. He also has
the wisdom of mostly remaining silent in these debates. A lot of the
rules in this discussion are not his doing; the evidence does not
support an accusation of lese-majesty.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1793
[Wikipedia-l] sumer and wealth of nations
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Nov 21 20:46:09 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> It has been said I am blocked for my work on sumer and wealth of
> nations. Nobody has directed a complaint regarding this to me before.
> I see no reason why you wouldn't be willing to discuss things.
I just looked at both of these articles and their talk pages, and there
is no apparent cause for this drastic action. These actions against Lir
are reminiscent of sharks on a hysterical feeding frenzy.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1794
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 21 21:02:41 UTC 2002
Yes, she does. She's said so frequently.
Zoe
tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
Do you think the French wikipedia should write "london" instead of
"londres"?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/965cbdfc/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1795
[Wikipedia-l] why am I banned? :<
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Nov 21 21:14:07 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> I do not understand why I have been banned. I do not understand why
> nobody has bothered to specifically address anything I have done
> wrong, with the exception of those who reverted various changes I have
> made after which I have moved on to other topics and in many cases one
> should note that my changes have, at the very least, been partially
> accepted.
>
> Anyone examing my user contributions will see that I have been doing
> nothing but working on topics such as blackbody, wilhelm wien,
> electromagnetic radiation, etc., while being harrased by Clutch who
> repeatedly vandalized my page and insulted everything I did, without
> explanation of what he did not like.
>
> Why am I being banned and why has no attempt been made to explain what
> it is I have done that is so offensive? What am I supposed to do for
> the next week? I have nothing to do ever. My whole life I just sit
> around wishing I had something productive to do and now you ban me for
> trying to correct the numerous errors I found in your naming schema?
>
> i think ill go kill myself
>
The last bit of dramatics is singularly unhelpful for those of us who
are not convinced that you have committed a banning offence. As to your
suicide bluff - if it's your body, it's your right.
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1796
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 21 21:32:59 UTC 2002
You know Zoe, most of your posts are a real mystery to
me...
Who is she ?
Is it okay to answer "yes she does" to a "do you think
this should be" ?
Since when is an encyclopedia talking ?
What is "frequent" ?
Did you ever go on the french wiki and check the
"Londres" article (please some bilingual do something
for that poor lonesome city...)
I am at a loss really
--- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, she does. She's said so frequently.
> Zoe
> tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> Do you think the French wikipedia should write
> "london" instead of
> "londres"?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1797
[Wikipedia-l] Collegial respect and fellowship (was: O.k., let's ban Lir)
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Nov 21 21:33:43 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>This is why I'm grateful to Jimbo and the Wikipedia community. Even though the server owner thinks I'm a "nut" (no offense meant, I'm sure, and none taken) -- I am generally polite and scrupulous about NPOV and cooperating with my fellow contributors.
>
We need nuts to control the loose screws~ :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1798
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia slowdown
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Nov 21 22:02:33 UTC 2002
On 11/21/02 4:34 PM, "Jonathan Walther" <krooger at debian.org> wrote:
> At 18, I would have had no problem remembering people mentioning on the
> mailing list here "be careful about using the URL interface to doing
> raw SQL queries, because some queries can REALLY SLOW THE DATABASE
> DOWN". We have no idea about this young mans technical abilities, good
> or bad. We do know he was immature and unstable enough to threaten to
> commit suicide on a public mailing list. He also posted on my
> Eleutherphilic Creed article yesterday that the Wikipedia didn't
> provide any value over the same information being scattered all over
> the web... Sounds to me like he doesn't really care about the Wikipedia
> itself, and is getting a charge out of getting people here riled up.
No, he really cares about Wikipedia. That's the problem.
http://qwert.diaryland.com/021120_73.html
This whole scene is a repetition of tedious Usenet wars, where both sides
think that being online allows for more rudeness, not less. Lir's rudeness
comes in the form of seeing wp az jst ant4r kewl haxor site fiting r fr33d0m
and teasing all the stuck-up people who treat him like an idiot, and the
rudeness on the other side is from people being stuck up and treating him
like an idiot.
Or to put it another way: once you assume Lir's behavior comes from not
caring about Wikipedia, you've missed what's actually going on.
And if you take his "i'm going to commit suicide" comment seriously, you're
missing what's going on.
He's fallen into the insidious trap that using an online persona can create:
acting to meet expectations. That is to say, he's already got the standard
anti-authority mindset of young college students, but people here have
treated him like he's an unstable, deranged girl, and whenever he makes some
inane comment people react, so he keeps it up.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1799
[Wikipedia-l] Collegial respect and fellowship (was: O.k., let's ban Lir)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 21 22:05:55 UTC 2002
Ray wrote:
> We need nuts to control the loose screws~ :-)
LOL, I resemble that remark!
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1800
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Thu Nov 21 22:23:26 UTC 2002
> >Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the
> >notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for
> >that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and
> >Whales" encyclopedia.
>
> No, what you should say is: That is not the case if Wikipedia
> clings *only* to the notion that it will cover human
> knowledge. But it *also* clings to certain other notions,
> such as NPOV. POV writers can set up theire POV encyclopaedia.
Not to mention that there are some important assumptions about what we
are doing inherent in calling it "a compendium of human knowledge" --
not a compendium of "information about what humans think."
Knowledge is more than just information, it's information we are
warranted in believing to be true. Alternatively some philosophers
would say that knowledge is information we are justified in believing to
be true. But no matter what you call it, there's something which must
be added to mere belief which makes it knowledge, and unless we are
willing to give up on knowledge all together we'll have to require
something more than mere humanity, we require accurate reporting of
known true information.
One of the ways we know things to be true, is that the "experts"
investigate and tell us what they have discovered. Everything I know
about subatomic partials I learned this way. And since "western
education" has produced a large number of experts in a large number of
fields, we ought never discount the value they bring to our project. At
the same time, there are experts on agricultural techniques who live in
Zambia and have never seen the inside of a "western school." They have
a different knowledge set than the average agriculture student in the
U.S., but it they have real and valuable knowledge to bring to the
project. Either way, being human is not what makes you able to
contribute to Wikipedia, it is the ablility to communicate knowledge
about some subject.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1801
[Wikipedia-l] plz let me play chess :<
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Nov 21 21:15:26 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> plz let me play chess with ram-man i have nobody else to play :<
Please don't whine.
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1802
[Wikipedia-l] sumer and wealth of nations
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Nov 21 23:55:46 UTC 2002
That's not why Jimbo banned her. How can you be so obtuse?
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge at telus.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:46 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] sumer and wealth of nations
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> It has been said I am blocked for my work on sumer and wealth of
> nations. Nobody has directed a complaint regarding this to me before.
> I see no reason why you wouldn't be willing to discuss things.
I just looked at both of these articles and their talk pages, and there
is no apparent cause for this drastic action. These actions against Lir
are reminiscent of sharks on a hysterical feeding frenzy.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1803
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Fri Nov 22 00:25:44 UTC 2002
explication:
c'etait au sujet de Lir, celle / celui que Jimbo a aujourd'hui barr'e du
EN-Wiki.
Lir a monte une campagne contre l'anglicization des noms propres, et
aurai voulu qu'on ait, par ex., une page "Munchen" au lieu de "Munich".
pour remuer un peu, j'avais dit -- et les autres langues? faut-il
qu'elles aussi utilises les noms propres etrangers dans leur forme
d'origine?
c'etait purement de la rhetorique.
je passerai voir "Londres", mais je previens que j'ai du mal a taper les
accents, meme sur mon Mac.
Anthere wrote:
>You know Zoe, most of your posts are a real mystery to
>me...
>
>Who is she ?
>
>Is it okay to answer "yes she does" to a "do you think
>this should be" ?
>
>Since when is an encyclopedia talking ?
>
>What is "frequent" ?
>
>Did you ever go on the french wiki and check the
>"Londres" article (please some bilingual do something
>for that poor lonesome city...)
>
>I am at a loss really
>
>--- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, she does. She's said so frequently.
>>Zoe
>> tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>>Do you think the French wikipedia should write
>>"london" instead of
>>"londres"?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
>http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1804
[Wikipedia-l] Lir's demands
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.org
Fri Nov 22 03:00:56 UTC 2002
>I demand that the authoritarians recognize the value of other cultures
and
>languages and that while a german katze is most certainly a cat,
>Dumkopfmeyerstrasse is never Dumbheadmeyerstreet, no matter how many
americans
>say otherwise, unless the local inhabitants decide that the americans
are
>right and go and change the street signs.
Your authoritarian demand is rejected.
--
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1805
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.org
Fri Nov 22 03:07:17 UTC 2002
>>I think techniques for automatically slowing down bots would be the
>>most valuable place to concentrate our efforts.
>This sounds promising to me too.
>What's the fastest rate of saving that a legitimate user is likely to
use?
>What's the fastest rate of saving that we can expect to keep up with
>if used by a bot? I'm going make a 0th approximation of 1 minute for
each.
>Too slow? too fast?
I often prepare a set of inter-related articles and upload them using
multiple browser tabs, saving them as fast as I can click the button.
There's no reason I couldn't wait between saves, but I don't want to....
--
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1806
[Wikipedia-l] sumer and wealth of nations
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Nov 22 03:38:43 UTC 2002
On 11/21/02 6:55 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> That's not why Jimbo banned her. How can you be so obtuse?
>
Now, now, no need to quote the Shawshank Redemption.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1807
[Wikipedia-l] sumer and wealth of nations
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 22 04:28:58 UTC 2002
It has nothing to do with those articles and has all to do with her repated confrontational style and disrespect for others, not only on the Wikipedia but here on the mailing list.
Zoe
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> It has been said I am blocked for my work on sumer and wealth of
> nations. Nobody has directed a complaint regarding this to me before.
> I see no reason why you wouldn't be willing to discuss things.
I just looked at both of these articles and their talk pages, and there
is no apparent cause for this drastic action. These actions against Lir
are reminiscent of sharks on a hysterical feeding frenzy.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/3805eb29/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1808
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 22 04:31:03 UTC 2002
Are you serious, or are you being facetious? Tarquin's was in response to Lir's comments regarding americanizatin of the Wikipedia. I was responding to was his question to Lir.
Zoe
Anthere <anthere5 at yahoo.com> wrote:You know Zoe, most of your posts are a real mystery to
me...
Who is she ?
Is it okay to answer "yes she does" to a "do you think
this should be" ?
Since when is an encyclopedia talking ?
What is "frequent" ?
Did you ever go on the french wiki and check the
"Londres" article (please some bilingual do something
for that poor lonesome city...)
I am at a loss really
--- Zoe wrote:
>
> Yes, she does. She's said so frequently.
> Zoe
> tarquin wrote:
> Do you think the French wikipedia should write
> "london" instead of
> "londres"?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021121/ea26b4d9/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1809
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 22 06:08:11 UTC 2002
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> explication:
> c'etait au sujet de Lir, celle / celui que Jimbo a
> aujourd'hui barr'e du
> EN-Wiki.
>
> Lir a monte une campagne contre l'anglicization des
> noms propres, et
> aurai voulu qu'on ait, par ex., une page "Munchen"
> au lieu de "Munich".
> pour remuer un peu, j'avais dit -- et les autres
> langues? faut-il
> qu'elles aussi utilises les noms propres etrangers
> dans leur forme
> d'origine?
> c'etait purement de la rhetorique.
>
>
> je passerai voir "Londres", mais je previens que
> j'ai du mal a taper les
> accents, meme sur mon Mac.
Super!
A part sa jolie photo, cette page est
intersidéralement vide...
Les accents ne sont pas un problème. D autres
personnes ne les mettent pas non plus car ils sont a l
etranger avec un clavier anglosaxon, et je sais
combien c est penible. D autres reprennent après ;-)
Par contre, le systeme de "mispeeling" ne marche pas
pour les accents. Le terme "légèr" n est pas reconnu
comme tel, "égyptien" est confondu avec "egyption".
C'est un bug !
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1810
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 22 06:42:58 UTC 2002
Sorry, no I was serious. I'm absolutely not a
facetious person :-)
the top of the message was missing...I just missed a
step...boum
Excuse me Zoe
PS : about the strange duplication of messages (apart
from potential quadripletion from the tech, the inter,
the main and the en), I remember it started when we
moved from nupedia to wikipedia.org. Could it be still
related ?
--- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Are you serious, or are you being facetious?
> Tarquin's was in response to Lir's comments
> regarding americanizatin of the Wikipedia. I was
> responding to was his question to Lir.
> Zoe
> Anthere <anthere5 at yahoo.com> wrote:You know Zoe,
> most of your posts are a real mystery to
> me...
>
> Who is she ?
>
> Is it okay to answer "yes she does" to a "do you
> think
> this should be" ?
>
> Since when is an encyclopedia talking ?
>
> What is "frequent" ?
>
> Did you ever go on the french wiki and check the
> "Londres" article (please some bilingual do
> something
> for that poor lonesome city...)
>
> I am at a loss really
>
> --- Zoe wrote:
> >
> > Yes, she does. She's said so frequently.
> > Zoe
> > tarquin wrote:
> > Do you think the French wikipedia should write
> > "london" instead of
> > "londres"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1811
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Nov 22 08:26:03 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article,
>>but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault.
>>No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition,
>>which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal
>>for replacing that definition.
>That's what "NPOV is an ideal" is.
What's what "NPOV is an ideal" is?
A definition? "an ideal" isn't a definition.
>>Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact
>>that George W. Bush is an awful US President!
>>But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge;
>>it will at best only contain the knowledge that
>>certain people hold that view for certain reasons.
>>(Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while,
>>but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version,
>>as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
>Exactly.
OK, so again we seem to agree on NPOV --
except that I can't see where this contradicts
the definition on [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
I mean, I get *everything* (it seems), and basically agree,
except the idea that it has to do with any *definition*.
I press because I do want to understand you,
and I sense that you have a point in using that word.
Please, define "neutral point of view".
(Or tell me where on meta or something this has happened before.
I can't find any extensive discussion involving you now,
but I'm sure that some must be preserved somewhere.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1812
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Fri Nov 22 09:09:19 UTC 2002
>
>
>Les accents ne sont pas un problème. D autres
>personnes ne les mettent pas non plus car ils sont a l
>etranger avec un clavier anglosaxon, et je sais
>combien c est penible. D autres reprennent après ;-)
>
>Par contre, le systeme de "mispeeling" ne marche pas
>pour les accents. Le terme "légèr" n est pas reconnu
>comme tel, "égyptien" est confondu avec "egyption".
>
>C'est un bug !
>
L'interpretation des accents par les ordinateurs est au-delà de mes
compréhension. À l'heure actuelle je m'en sers d'un clavier
franco-canadien. En effet ça veut dire un clavier ou les lettres sont
placées de la façon américaine, avec des clefs spéciales qu'il faut pour
écrire le français. Quand-même, je m'en sers avec un logiciel anglais.
Pour qu'il fonctionne comme il faut j'aurais besoin de changer des
préférences dans mon système, ce qui me causerait de nouvelles peines.
Mais je m'habitue, et pour écrire "é", par example, je m'en sers de Alt
+ 0233. Ça devrait fonctionner car si mon texte est cité dans une
réponse, il est tout en forme.
Ce qui me confond sont les textes que je reçois. J'ai bien copié le
texte ci-dessus de ton messagee, et les lettres accentées ont l'air bien
rendu. Mais dans le courriel que j'ai reçu toutes ces lettres accentées
sont représenter pae un espèce de carreau noir contenant un point
d'interogation.. Je ne comprends pas comment ça peut arriver.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1813
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 22 09:17:16 UTC 2002
--- Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> I often prepare a set of inter-related articles and upload them
> using
> multiple browser tabs, saving them as fast as I can click the
> button.
> There's no reason I couldn't wait between saves, but I don't want
> to....
Same here.
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1814
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Nov 22 09:20:05 UTC 2002
On 11/22/02 3:26 AM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> Toby Bartels wrote:
>
>>> Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article,
>>> but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault.
>>> No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition,
>>> which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal
>>> for replacing that definition.
>
>> That's what "NPOV is an ideal" is.
>
> What's what "NPOV is an ideal" is?
> A definition? "an ideal" isn't a definition.
I'm referring to the meta article, not the statement.
>>> Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact
>>> that George W. Bush is an awful US President!
>>> But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge;
>>> it will at best only contain the knowledge that
>>> certain people hold that view for certain reasons.
>>> (Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while,
>>> but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version,
>>> as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
>
>> Exactly.
>
> OK, so again we seem to agree on NPOV --
> except that I can't see where this contradicts
> the definition on [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
> I mean, I get *everything* (it seems), and basically agree,
> except the idea that it has to do with any *definition*.
>
> I press because I do want to understand you,
> and I sense that you have a point in using that word.
> Please, define "neutral point of view".
>
> (Or tell me where on meta or something this has happened before.
> I can't find any extensive discussion involving you now,
> but I'm sure that some must be preserved somewhere.)
I'd rather start with how "neutral point of view" is defined on Wikipedia
proper: as presenting conflicting extremes. The lengthy article there
repeated presents neutral or unbiased writing in terms of conflicting
viewpoints. Framing knowledge in terms of conflict is not the best way to do
it. It can be a helpful starting point, but a more complete synthesis is
desired (and should be possible).
And statements like this: "according to our understanding, when one writes
neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or
carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular
view at all is correct" are just wrong.
And the distinction between "facts" and "opinions", as written, is just not
helpful. "Mars is a planet", where "planet" is a "massive object that orbits
the Sun" has only been a "fact" for a few hundred years. "God exists" has
been a "fact" for much longer than that.
The whole page could be greatly improved and shortened by stating that the
NPOV relies on evidentiary criteria. That is to say, all statements are
assertions which rely on some form of evidence and definition, both of which
should be explicated somewhere, preferably within Wikipedia itself (though
primary sources should simply be referenced).
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1815
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Fri Nov 22 09:54:44 UTC 2002
Christopher Mahan wrote:
>--- Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I often prepare a set of inter-related articles and upload them
>>using
>>multiple browser tabs, saving them as fast as I can click the
>>button.
>>There's no reason I couldn't wait between saves, but I don't want
>>to....
>>
>>
>
>Same here.
>
>=====
>Christopher Mahan
>chris_mahan at yahoo.com
>http://www.christophermahan.com/
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
>http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>
>
This sort of situation is a well known problem in network traffic
shaping and other queueing systems.
This can be handled by a "leaky bucket" mechanism which gives the user
an allowance of say five saves that can be used as fast as they like.
When the burst allowance is used up, they have to wait for their
allowance to be refilled before they can do it again. This allows quick
bursts of edits, whilst restraining the sustained rate.
So, a reasonable specification for a "leaky bucket" rate filter might be:
instantaneous edit rate: no limit
max sustained rate: 2 edits per minute
bucket size: 5 edits
Neil Harris
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1816
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Criteria for banning
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Fri Nov 22 10:00:48 UTC 2002
[Moving to <wikipedia-l> since Jimmy's pronouncements are of a general nature,
including his reaction to offensive user names.]
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>TMC has argued that
>changing his name is tantamount to the use of force against him. This
>argument is stupid, because he has no property interest in his
>username,
*gag* Right-libertarian ideology! *choke* ^_^
In case anybody else finds the "property interest" angle odd,
let me note that I, a complete nonbeliever in the legitimacy of
any notion of property rights, agree that TMC's argument is stupid,
because his name is not him.
As it happens, I even disagree with the decision to change his name,
but I *still* think that the <force> argument is stupid.
>For ip addresses, anonymous contributions, we should continue our
>policy of banning them for simple vandalism at the slightest
>provocation.
At the slightest provocation?
Note that according to [[en:Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress]],
an isolated instance of text deletion, for instance, is not vandalism.
So the slightest provocation that qualifies as vandalism,
but not the slightest provocation that might be so interpreted
if the interpretation as vandalism is incorrect by our policy.
(This is ultimately just what Jimmy's text above says,
but I wanted to clarify.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1817
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Nov 22 15:47:19 UTC 2002
Neil Harris wrote:
> This can be handled by a "leaky bucket" mechanism which gives the user
> an allowance of say five saves that can be used as fast as they like.
> When the burst allowance is used up, they have to wait for their
> allowance to be refilled before they can do it again. This allows quick
> bursts of edits, whilst restraining the sustained rate.
This all sounds very icky to me. At it's core, wikipedia is a very
simple thing. I think a better solution is to find the problem and
fix it.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1818
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Fri Nov 22 18:43:53 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>I'd rather start with how "neutral point of view" is defined on Wikipedia
>proper: as presenting conflicting extremes. The lengthy article there
>repeated presents neutral or unbiased writing in terms of conflicting
>viewpoints. Framing knowledge in terms of conflict is not the best way to do
>it. It can be a helpful starting point, but a more complete synthesis is
>desired (and should be possible).
>
>And statements like this: "according to our understanding, when one writes
>neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or
>carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular
>view at all is correct" are just wrong.
>
>And the distinction between "facts" and "opinions", as written, is just not
>helpful. "Mars is a planet", where "planet" is a "massive object that orbits
>the Sun" has only been a "fact" for a few hundred years. "God exists" has
>been a "fact" for much longer than that.
>
>The whole page could be greatly improved and shortened by stating that the
>NPOV relies on evidentiary criteria. That is to say, all statements are
>assertions which rely on some form of evidence and definition, both of which
>should be explicated somewhere, preferably within Wikipedia itself (though
>primary sources should simply be referenced).
>
I've just looked at the "NPOV" page, and it seems to me that NPOV needs
to be applied recursively. It makes statements that support reliance on
experts without any guidelines about how we can determine when experts
are a big part of the problem Expert opinion is still just opinion.
The article includes the following "FAQ" type of discussion:
>
> 10.4 But wait. I find the optimism about science vs.
> pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that
> pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on
> pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numercial
> majorities of its followers to force their views on the anyone
> they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who
> literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that
> the Holocaust never occured, the result is that it will
> (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can
> be termed evil.
>
> Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy
> certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity"
> to completely repugnant views. It does state that we must not take a
> stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from
> representing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the
> strong arguments against the repugnant views; from describing the
> strong moral repugnance that many decent people feel toward them; and
> so forth.
>
> Hence, on the one hand, Wikipedia does not officially take a stand
> even on such obvious issues, but on the other, it will not look as
> though we (the authors of Wikipedia) had accorded equal credibility to
> morally repugnant views. Given that the authors of Wikipedia represent
> a rough cross-section of the educated public, our readers can expect
> us to have a similar cross-section of opinion about extremism: most of
> us abhor it.
>
This seems to start with a controversy about science and ends up in
moral repugnance over holocaust denial. Is the implication here that
pseudo-science is not just false but morally repugnant as well? I find
the term "pseudo-science" itself to fail NPOV. The prefix "pseudo-"
means false. That puts any person defending a practice that has been
put under that rubric in the untenable position of supporting a
self-contradictory characterization. When you get to that, the
factuality of the practice is irrelevant. The dogma of falsifiability
in discussions about scientific method almost appears designed to
maximize confusion.
Scientific method is asymptotic to truth, and I would also extend that
assertion to NPOV. That a particular view is held by a significant
majority (either of the general public or of experts) does not magically
convert that opinion into fact. Scientific method very fairly allows
for the possibility that eccentric views may ultimately be found valid;
nevertheless, these allowances only represent distant hopes. Poker
players are not dealt royal flushes very frequently.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1819
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] A concept from Buckminster Fuller
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Fri Nov 22 20:33:37 UTC 2002
Jimmy wrote:
>There are lessons to be learned here. In the design of proper traffic
>systems, it's important to not fight against human nature. Rather
>than expecting and hoping people to behave properly at huge
>intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and ramps.
>
>In dealing with problem members, we should ask ourselves: are we
>shooing a wasp? Is there a better way?
>
>--Jimbo
Yes, I agree with that. What are the better ways? I'm getting
disgusted with *what I perceive to be* (and which in fact may not be,
at all) a breakdown of community standards. Notwithstanding 24, I
think everyone would agree that wikipedia is a community. We try to
be friendly, we have the occasional tiffs, we choose to live together
and socialize a bit. This to me is a no-brainer: Wikipedia is a
community? Yes.
Physical communities have little compunction against casting people
out, either explicitly or implicitly: through gentrification, through
draconian rules regarding presentation, through neighborhood groups,
through calls to the police. Sometimes this is a good thing,
frequently it is not. Yet, unlike most communities, we are a
community bound by choice rather than circumstance, and we are bound
by intention rather than location. We are together because we have a
common goal. We are a community of people trying to build a free
online encyclopedia. To this regard, it seems to me that we should
not hesitate to show people the door when they prove not to share our
goal. We are a community, yes, but we are not a community of people
whose goal is to remove content, or to argue or chitchat (though some
of that will invariably occur along the way).
Imagine a community of economists who choose to work together in a
room dedicated to studying the economy. An overzealous filmnut with
the initials KQ shows up and wants to talk about films endlessly, and
at every mention of trade he goes off on _Star Wars I_. He doesn't
know much about the economy, he doesn't know much about trade, he
doesn't even know much about math; if he's aware of these defects he
doesn't even particularly care. What he's found is a healthy
community who let him hang out, using their tolerance to assuage his
own clingy personal needs.
Would this person belong in a group of economists, given that he can't
discuss economy? Should he go with them to work? Certainly not.
Should he know this already? Certainly. Should the group tell him
this if he does not know? IMHO: absolutely. He is interfering with
work. He is welcome to stay provided he's not interfering with work,
but if he is, he has to go.
I see nothing wrong with people who want to change community rules.
If we need to discuss a rule change, we need to discuss a rule change.
What might be helpful is to put on each rule and convention page a
gloss over why the decision to support that convention was reached.
That way people can address specific points in the future rather than
starting the whole debate again from scratch (I've been here a year
and a half and I've seen more than enough of the basic debates about
basic conventions). These new debates, when started, should be both
calm & respectful, which IMHO means logical and unemotional.
If the community decides that we should append "all hail Dubya the
wise and mighty U.S. emperor" to every page title, then I will either
roll up my sleeves and get started or I will remove myself from the
community. But what I will *not* do is remain in a community whose
goal is so often ignored or forgotten that it resembles usenet. I'm
not here to chitchat incessantly; I'm not here to sling insults and
cast people out; I want to help contribute to this free/free
encyclopedia because I believe in the idea. I've seen what we've done
in two years; I want to see what we can do in another two.
It seems to me that people should know what we're here for and respect
that, and people who don't should be asked, kindly, if their
priorities are straight in coming to the website. As far as I'm
concerned, the encyclopedia is what matters; there are plenty of other
places online to chitchat, argue, or pontificate. Try yahoo!groups,
or livejournal, or usenet, or even slashdot. Our community is unified
in purpose, and quite frankly, anyone who is not here for that purpose
belongs to a different community. Banning comes about IMHO because
people aren't seeing enough community pressure to quit being an
asshole and/or get to work.
So how we determine someone has nothing to contribute? Isn't that a
bold decision? How long do we allow someone to try to contribute
before deciding it's not worth it?
I believe that: 1) It should not be necessary to tell people to leave.
The community expectation should be so great that we are here to
build an encyclopedia that trolls and vandals are immediately and
thoroughly discouraged. 2)I'd rather not feel compelled to tell
people to leave because they're interfering. Most people realize it,
and so most people don't dabble where they don't belong. 3) If
someone proves a stubborn & insistent impediment, we should tell him
or her to leave. 4) When we do tell someone to leave, we should be
able to enforce it if necessary. some people are simply not helpful.
We don't all agree who those people are, but I think we do agree that
such people exist. For those people who won't listen to reason and
won't listen to community pressure, we should have an accurate means
of blocking access. We are accepting to people by default, but wasps
should make their nests outside, not inside.
I daresay our standards are fairly open: come here to help build an
encyclopedia. Do not come here to chitchat, to troll, to play. Work
may be fun, work may not always be fun (I know this for certain), but
work is why we are here. We are open to people who want to help; we
are not open to people who want to hinder. We also, it seems (and
here I'm thinking of Helga), are not open to people who want to help
and consistently can not. Jerry Lewis can play in the
[[wikipedia:sandbox]]; he should keep his hands off the [[muriatic acid]].
kq
p.s. I like Axel's idea of making an edit per email to the list. This
was a long email, and so deserved more than a few edits--however, the
'pedia is responding very slowly. I will redeem myself. :-)
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Aunt_May&diff=439390&oldid=439389
(and later adding the missing verb) :-)
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Third_Man&diff=0&oldid=439397
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Academy_Award_for_Best_Cinematography&diff=439410&oldid=439407
and corrections. Speaking of which, why doesn't "preview" preview?
All I get is a text-edit box showing what I've typed in. An HTML
preview might be handy.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1820
[Wikipedia-l] americanization
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 22 20:31:45 UTC 2002
I think a lot of the problem has to do with the fact that Yahoo forces us to put our replies at the top instead of interspsersed through the message. If we could do that, it would be much easier to follow.
Zoe
Anthere <anthere5 at yahoo.com> wrote:Sorry, no I was serious. I'm absolutely not a
facetious person :-)
the top of the message was missing...I just missed a
step...boum
Excuse me Zoe
PS : about the strange duplication of messages (apart
from potential quadripletion from the tech, the inter,
the main and the en), I remember it started when we
moved from nupedia to wikipedia.org. Could it be still
related ?
--- Zoe wrote:
>
> Are you serious, or are you being facetious?
> Tarquin's was in response to Lir's comments
> regarding americanizatin of the Wikipedia. I was
> responding to was his question to Lir.
> Zoe
> Anthere wrote:You know Zoe,
> most of your posts are a real mystery to
> me...
>
> Who is she ?
>
> Is it okay to answer "yes she does" to a "do you
> think
> this should be" ?
>
> Since when is an encyclopedia talking ?
>
> What is "frequent" ?
>
> Did you ever go on the french wiki and check the
> "Londres" article (please some bilingual do
> something
> for that poor lonesome city...)
>
> I am at a loss really
>
> --- Zoe wrote:
> >
> > Yes, she does. She's said so frequently.
> > Zoe
> > tarquin wrote:
> > Do you think the French wikipedia should write
> > "london" instead of
> > "londres"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021122/6f29bbba/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1821
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] A concept from Buckminster Fuller
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Fri Nov 22 20:56:34 UTC 2002
Thank you, kq, for saying it even better than Larry:
> We are a community of people trying to
> build a free online encyclopedia. To
> this regard, it seems to me that we
> should not hesitate to show people the
> door when they prove not to share our goal.
I agree wholeheartedly with this, as well as your entire post.
Clearly the days of optional rules and options like "ignore all rules" are over. We can only inch toward tyranny or lapse into obliteration, unless we clarify our principles and find a way to live by them together.
I suggest a thorough overhaul of the Wikipedia namespace, with re-codification (and condensation where needed). Please work with me on this.
I'm stretched too thin, which is one reason I kept "quitting" this month. I can't orient newcomers, adjudicate POV battles, research new articles, run my spellchecker and tune the database to relieve the lag problem all at once. Oh, and I also wish I had time just to browse through the 'pedia and actually read some articles!
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1822
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 23 09:57:20 UTC 2002
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Anthere wrote in part:
> >I support system that could automatically detect a
> >potential problem.
> >It is very likely that
> >- one user/ip saving every minute for more than 10
> mn
> >is a potential problem
> >- any edit replacing more than xxxx characters by x
> >characters (except redirect...) is a potential
> problem
> >- any edit replacing more than xxxx characters by
> an
> >image that was downloaded less than tt minutes
> before
> >is a potential problem
>
> >But, then, what good would it do, if an automatic
> >system detect a potential problem but has no human
> to
> >warn ?
>
> OK, here's an idea:
> We should develop (on [[m:]]) a Bayesian vandal
> detector.
> We'll implement this detector (or versions of it) on
> every wiki,
> and set up a mailing list of militia members to be
> warned
> when the detector suspects vandalism.
> The catch is, the mailing list is international.
> So if there's vandalism on [[fr:]],
> then I can learn about it and respond to it
> during the time that I'm online,
> even if none of the French speakers are online then.
> (Of course, I need to know a little French to do
> this,
> so I can list the languages that I know a little of
> when I sign up for the mailing list,
> lest I get warnings about vandalism on [[zh:]]
> that I can't safely do anything about.)
This seems like all good ideas to me. Now, the tough
point is how to detect mostly vandalism, but not
confuse good users with vandals...
Mav said
>Seems like a good set of ideas to me. Under a
multilanguage >Phase IV,
Very likely yes
>however, wouldn't it be a good idea to have sysops be
>sysops >for all languages?
>If this were the case I would pop into several
different >languages periodically to check for obvious
vandalism.
>En.wiki has sysops watching it 20-24 hours a day so
if en.wiki >sysops popped in to check various other
languages periodically >(esp. during the no, or slow
edit times you talk about) then >that should provide
better coverage against the most blatant >goat sex
type vandalism and vandal bots.
That's a tough point really.
Theoretically, it sounds natural that somebody trusted
for one wiki should be trusted on another (though, to
be honest...I am not convinced myself).
Practically, that's could be a problem unfortunately.
The english wiki process while deciding who should be
a sysop or not is done through peer review (general
behavior, respect to the community standards...). But,
communities don't have the same standards, and what is
ok on one could be hardly tolerable on another. And
the tobe-sysop being not known, how would it be ok to
accept somebody you don't know (say would you blindly
accept Shaihulud as a sysop ?), while you reject
somebody you know, just on the behalf he is refusing
to change his name ?
I know you Mav, so I would say "yes, please, come and
help us", and I thank you very much for your
proposition. But why would other french agree for
somebody they don't know to have more admin "power"
than they have ?
Btw, didnot tmc changed his name as the community was
'kindly' asking him ?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1823
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sat Nov 23 18:35:54 UTC 2002
>> I'd rather start with how "neutral point of view" is defined on
Wikipedia proper: as presenting conflicting extremes. The lengthy article
there repeated presents neutral or unbiased writing in terms of
conflicting viewpoints. Framing knowledge in terms of conflict is not the
best way to do it. It can be a helpful starting point, but a more complete
synthesis is desired (and should be possible). <<
This objection is very obscure. Neutrality is defined "as presenting
conflicting extremes"? No, that's not how it's defined. Certainly, if
there *are* conflicting *extremes* on an issue, then they're presented,
yes. Is the objection instead that neutrality shouldn't be defined in
terms of conflict *at all*? In that case I'd say the whole reason for the
neutrality policy is that people will naturally fall into conflict over
what positions are true (or--of course, this isn't the same thing--have
adequate "evidentiary support"). The neutrality policy specifies what we
should do in such cases. If there's concern about stating what is
supported by evidence, we must acknowledge that there are different views
on that in any significant controversy.
"A more complete synthesis" might be desired by you, but it is not the
place of an *encyclopedia* to proffer such a thing. Individuals and
interested groups do that.
>> And statements like this: "according to our understanding, when one
writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate
or carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any
particular view at all is correct" are just wrong. <<
And why are they "just wrong"? Who, besides you, thinks they are "just
wrong"? In fact, that particular point is not only correct about what
Wikipedia policy is, it should be placed in neon lights and shouted from
the hilltops and brandished in the face of people who use Wikipdia to
further their agenda.
>> And the distinction between "facts" and "opinions", as written, is just
not helpful. "Mars is a planet", where "planet" is a "massive object that
orbits the Sun" has only been a "fact" for a few hundred years. "God
exists" has been a "fact" for much longer than that. <<
What's "unhelpful" about it? I find unexplained and unfair criticisms
unhelpful. Suppose the text said instead, as you say here, "Mars is a
massive object that orbits the Sun." That's something that virtually
everyone now agrees upon; therefore, according to the definition in the
text it is a "fact" (something that we would all acknowledge to be fact,
rather than opinion). What difference does it make that it was not a
"fact," in this sense, five hundred years ago? The text explicitly
acknowledges that "facts" can actually be falsehoods and "opinions" can be
true, and that "facts" can change. Is there something *wrong* with that
state of affairs, and do you think there's anything we can do about it?
It has never been and certainly is not a *fact*, by the definition given
on the page, that God exists. The text actually explicitly uses that
proposition as a prime example of an opinion.
>> The whole page could be greatly improved and shortened by stating that
the NPOV relies on evidentiary criteria. That is to say, all statements
are assertions which rely on some form of evidence and definition, both of
which should be explicated somewhere, preferably within Wikipedia itself
(though primary sources should simply be referenced). <<
This would hardly be an improvement: it would entail completely undoing
the neutrality policy so that it does not concern neutrality. The issue
of providing support and definitions, while certainly important, is
strictly speaking *orthogonal* to the issue of the bias of a text or lack
thereof. To be sure, a fair presentation of all views will, in perhaps
most cases, require definitions and support (i.e., the support offered by
the proponents of the respective views). But any neutrality or lack of
bias worthy of the name *requires* stating competing views fairly and not
taking sides. That's simply what neutrality, in presenting controversial
issues, *is*. "Providing evidence and definitions" is a good thing, but
it isn't what neutrality is, even if neutrality in many cases requires it.
If the suggestion is instead (and it's made none too clearly if so) that
we can simply do away with the practice of presenting alternative views
fairly, and instead present as correct the view that has the best
evidence--good luck with making your case. That's precisely what we're
trying to avoid *arguing about* with this policy.
By the way, certainly, we can admit that the page *might* need to be
changed. That the page in fact does need to be changed in any particular
way receives not the least support from the above.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1824
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Sat Nov 23 18:55:11 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>What's "unhelpful" about it? I find unexplained and unfair criticisms
>unhelpful. Suppose the text said instead, as you say here, "Mars is a
>massive object that orbits the Sun." That's something that virtually
>everyone now agrees upon; therefore, according to the definition in the
>text it is a "fact" (something that we would all acknowledge to be fact,
>rather than opinion). What difference does it make that it was not a
>"fact," in this sense, five hundred years ago? The text explicitly
>acknowledges that "facts" can actually be falsehoods and "opinions" can be
>true, and that "facts" can change. Is there something *wrong* with that
>state of affairs, and do you think there's anything we can do about it?
>
>It has never been and certainly is not a *fact*, by the definition given
>on the page, that God exists. The text actually explicitly uses that
>proposition as a prime example of an opinion.
>
I think you have a philosophic way of looking at this that other
wikipedians may not share.
I would be inclined to say "Mars is a planet" has *always* been a fact
-- though at one time it was not *known*.
If next year we discover that Mars is made of green cheese, then that
too will have always been a fact -- and things that we currently hold as
facts about Mars will be shown to be wrong.
(though that's the mathematician side of me -- things are still true
even when you're not looking at them ;-) -- I do see Larry's point, just
trying to highlight possible communication problems.
I think NPOV is sometimes abused, when articles on controversial topics
degenerate into a list of every single possible opinion, with things
like "Christian views on X" spiralling off.
>
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1825
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sat Nov 23 19:47:23 UTC 2002
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, tarquin wrote:
> I think you have a philosophic way of looking at this that other
> wikipedians may not share.
> I would be inclined to say "Mars is a planet" has *always* been a fact
> -- though at one time it was not *known*.
Oh, I agree with you! In the [[NPOV]] article, "fact" and "opinion" are
actually given glosses that (I think) more closely match the distinction
that is made in ordinary language than any distinction made by
philosophers. I mean, I'm not sure about this, but I think most
philosophers would agree with you that it has always been a fact that Mars
is a planet. The distinction between facts and *opinions* isn't one
that philosophers per se are ordinarily inclined to make; it's more of
an ordinary language distinction.
The distinction is useful nonetheless, if for no other reason than that it
allows us to sum up and conceptualize, in a simple way, a relatively
complex policy. We could say, "Articles are to consist of claims that
virtually everyone believes (or would believe, if apprised of the relevant
texts, experiences, experiments, etc.); where there are different views
about a given proposition, those views are to attributed to their owners."
But that's quite a mouthful. It can sometimes, at least, help to say,
"Articles should state facts, including facts about what some opinions on
a controversial subject are; but they shouldn't state, i.e., assert as
true, the opinions themselves." Or even simply, "State facts, not
opinions (modulo the discussion given in [[NPOV]])."
> If next year we discover that Mars is made of green cheese, then that
> too will have always been a fact -- and things that we currently hold as
> facts about Mars will be shown to be wrong.
Yes, I agree, again. I am the world's biggest opponent of relativism,
actually.
> (though that's the mathematician side of me -- things are still true
> even when you're not looking at them ;-) -- I do see Larry's point, just
> trying to highlight possible communication problems.
And, I appreciate that and thanks for it.
> I think NPOV is sometimes abused, when articles on controversial topics
> degenerate into a list of every single possible opinion, with things
> like "Christian views on X" spiralling off.
Well, certainly the NPOV policy shouldn't be construed so as to recommend
simply *listing* various views on a subject.
OK, enough for now, really!
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1826
[Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 23 20:59:38 UTC 2002
Hi all --
First, I'm not actually back -- just jumping in. I've been popping in
every couple of weeks to lurk, but even if I were inclined to rejoin the
fray on a permanent basis, I've got four courses this quarter, one
totally new, and I'm somewhat swamped.
Second, I've been watching this whole Lir thing develop, and finally
feel I should throw in my $.04.
Regarding banning Lir or not. If Lir can't be bothered to speak with
Jimbo, stop behaving childishly (name-calling, whinging, and making
guerilla edits that result in non-NPOV articles), and work in a
cooperative, collegial, manner, then a ban is in order. The community
has certain standards, and from what I've seen, Lir is as guilty as
Helga ever was of flouting them. By the way, Helga is back, adding in
stuff about the genocide of the Heimatvertriebene, but somewhat more
neutrally.
Regarding Americanization being genocide. First, Lir's belief in this
(more to that later) is his choice. The argument has, however,
unfortunately gone off on a tangent and not addressed the real point --
Lir's belief is very POV. Articles he renames or redirects in
furtherance of that belief are therefore infected with that non-neutral
POV. Second, Lir, what is your point? I mean this in a historical
sense. Although I personally agree that the McDonaldsization of the
world is a tragedy, and that the ubiquity of American culture may (and
probably is) damaging to other cultures, the process is not itself
unnatural or new. As an historian, I can't honestly name one culture
that had not been dramatically changed once it came in contact with
another, especially in cases of technology. Moreover, without the
fusion of different cultures (for example, barbarian and Roman), many of
the things that make up distinctive European cultures would not exist --
in fact, there's a good chance we'd all be Muslims now.
As to correct language and the evils of americanization -- bullshit,
pure and simple. The idea that using English-language norms in and
English-language encyclopedia is in anyway related to forcing
English-speaking culture on other cultures is simply ridiculous. While
it is deplorable that most English speakers are not bilingual, that fact
does not make it in any way sensible to change place-names, etc., to
their "original" form. By the way, I'm not even sure what that means --
is it Strassburg, Strasbourg, or, as it was called before there was a
clear definition between French and German, Straziburgensis? London, or
Londinium? Should Paris have a note in the title that says "pronounced
Paree, you morons"?
Some while back, those of us most interested and most learned in these
things worked together to come up with a nomenclature policy. We agreed
that it made the most sense to use the most common English-language
version of a name (different forms of English notwithstanding) for the
title BUT, because we all felt it very important to let people know that
other cultures and language-speakers had different names for the same
thing, so we listed alternate names in the article itself. This means
that English-speakers, arguably the largest audience, could search for
articles in the way most natural to them, but the articles would still
appear in searches by speakers of other languages searching in those
languages. I can't see that Lir's political beliefs are valid reasons
to change this policy.
That's all I can think of for now. Hope lir talks to Jimmy and gets a
clue. Otherwise, it seems to me that normally productive members of the
community should be allowed to get on with the project and stop having
to deal with this type of nonsense.
Cheers, all!
Regards,
Julie Hofmann Kemp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021123/01d3c5c4/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1827
[Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing
Oliver Pereira
omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Sun Nov 24 05:51:00 UTC 2002
I must protest!
I know that I'm just a newbie here, and you're a terribly important sysop
person, but Lir doesn't seem to be around right now, and I'm not going to
let that attack go undefended...
> Regarding banning Lir or not. If Lir can't be bothered to speak with
> Jimbo, stop behaving childishly (name-calling, whinging, and making
> guerilla edits that result in non-NPOV articles), and work in a
> cooperative, collegial, manner, then a ban is in order. The community
> has certain standards, and from what I've seen, Lir is as guilty as
> Helga ever was of flouting them.
Judging by what I've seen, Lir is an intelligent person with much to
contribute. Childish, of course, but then I've seen just as childish
behaviour from some of the regulars and even (perhaps more so) from the
sysops. It seems that Lir is just more vociferous about it. There seem to
be a lot more complaints about Lir's attitude and over-the-top
pronouncements than about any actual edits, which surely should be what we
are most interested in here. If Lir's actions are to be the subject of
public debate, could we establish details of specific bad edits, rather
than just ranting?
> Lir's belief is very POV. Articles he renames or redirects in
> furtherance of that belief are therefore infected with that non-neutral
> POV.
This is just plain nonsense. *Everyone's* political beliefs are POV:
that's the whole point of them! But an editor's renaming an article to
give it a different version of its name doesn't somehow magically invest
that article with the editor's point of view. Of course, one *can* insert
a point of view into an article title, by inserting a qualifying adjective
such as "Excellent" or "Rubbish" into it, but as far as I'm aware we're
only talking about exchanging one version of a name (used by one set of
people) with another (used by another set of people). This has no effect
on the point of view whatsoever.
> As to correct language and the evils of americanization -- bullshit,
> pure and simple.
Now, now, let's not descend into that sort of language. Lir has a point. I
personally would be quite offended if English-speaking people were to
rename *me* "Oliver Peartree", simply to make it more "English". I would
consider it to be arrogance: who are they to decide my name? This was my
name at birth, and always will be, no matter what anyone else decides to
call me! Of course, I am exaggerating to make my point: no-one is trying
to call *me* by any other name. We are mostly talking about inanimate
locations and dead people, who are in no position to object. But the
principle is the same. I think it smacks of arrogance to rename other
people and places without the consent of the people and inhabitants of the
places, even if the people and places are distant in time or space, and
even if their renaming has now become widespread. And I am offended on
their behalf, even if they're not. :)
But all this talk of emotions is just a side issue. The main point is not
about what offends whom, or anything like that. This is an encyclopaedia.
We're after facts. And the fact of the matter is that anglicisations of
names are simply distortions (or replacements) of foreign names. Calling
Jo~ao "John" is just an *approximation* to the truth in the same way that
calling a Jean Claude van Damme "French" is. It's sort of *nearly* right,
but not quite. The job of an encyclopaedia should be to correct these
sorts of approximations!
> While it is deplorable that most English speakers are not bilingual,
> that fact does not make it in any way sensible to change place-names,
> etc., to their "original" form. By the way, I'm not even sure what that
> means -- is it Strassburg, Strasbourg, or, as it was called before there
> was a clear definition between French and German, Straziburgensis?
> London, or Londinium?
I don't think anyone was arguing for *original* names of places, so you
are attacking a straw man here. In the case of a place which still exists,
I would argue that it makes most sense to call it whatever the people who
live there do. It is, in a sense, *theirs*, after all. If there are
several official versions of the placename locally, one could simply use
the one that the largest number of locals use. We should aim to be most
familiar with whatever is on the signposts, so that we don't get lost when
we get there. ;)
> Should Paris have a note in the title that says "pronounced Paree, you
> morons"?
I'd quite like to see that, actually. :)
> We agreed that it made the most sense to use the most common
> English-language version of a name (different forms of English
> notwithstanding) for the title BUT, because we all felt it very
> important to let people know that other cultures and language-speakers
> had different names for the same thing, so we listed alternate names in
> the article itself. This means that English-speakers, arguably the
> largest audience, could search for articles in the way most natural to
> them, but the articles would still appear in searches by speakers of
> other languages searching in those languages.
Eminently sensible, of course. Which is why nobody is proposing the
removal of any of these alternative names. As I understand it, the
argument is simply about swapping one name round with another. Both names
would still be there, but just in different places.
> I can't see that Lir's political beliefs are valid reasons to change
> this policy.
It's not about political beliefs; it's about giving articles (arguably)
more accurate titles. I hope I've laid out some of the arguments clearly
enough. I probably haven't, but it'll do for now. Oh, and I should add
that the language thing applies to all languages equally; I'm just using
anglicisation as the example I'm most familiar with. Just thought I'd add
that so that I'm not told to post this on the English language mailing
list (which I haven't quite got round to subscribing to yet)...
Phew. That's enough of that for one day. I think I really *will* go to bed
now... :)
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk |
+-------------------------------------------+
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1828
Oliver is Lir (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Sun Nov 24 08:44:20 UTC 2002
As long as "Oliver" tries to stick to the collegial spirit of mutual
respect, that is fine. But I find it odd his user account appears right
after Lir is banned, and then he jumps in and makes edits in a fashion
that indicates he is anything but a newbie. Not to mention him joining
the list and "defending" himself. Lir is fast and loose with his online
identity. So far he has just been using this as a role-playing
"playground"... seeing what kind of personas he can get us to believe
are really him. This is fun, and I don't deny anyone the right to go
through this phase of their lives, but it can lead to difficulties on
the Wikipedia when that is a persons main reason for being there.
If he can play nice, I'm happy about that. But if he acts up, as
this post from Oliver seems to indicate he wants to do later on, I
hope that we won't take as long to act this time around.
Who knows, maybe "Oliver" is a real person and not yet another alter-ego,
and he is now ready to be accountable and deal with us on equal terms.
That is a definate positive step forward.
Cheers!
Jonathan
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:51:00AM +0000, Oliver Pereira wrote:
>I must protest!
>
>I know that I'm just a newbie here, and you're a terribly important sysop
>person, but Lir doesn't seem to be around right now, and I'm not going to
>let that attack go undefended...
>
>> Regarding banning Lir or not. If Lir can't be bothered to speak with
>> Jimbo, stop behaving childishly (name-calling, whinging, and making
>> guerilla edits that result in non-NPOV articles), and work in a
>> cooperative, collegial, manner, then a ban is in order. The community
>> has certain standards, and from what I've seen, Lir is as guilty as
>> Helga ever was of flouting them.
>
>Judging by what I've seen, Lir is an intelligent person with much to
>contribute. Childish, of course, but then I've seen just as childish
>behaviour from some of the regulars and even (perhaps more so) from the
>sysops. It seems that Lir is just more vociferous about it. There seem to
>be a lot more complaints about Lir's attitude and over-the-top
>pronouncements than about any actual edits, which surely should be what we
>are most interested in here. If Lir's actions are to be the subject of
>public debate, could we establish details of specific bad edits, rather
>than just ranting?
>
>> Lir's belief is very POV. Articles he renames or redirects in
>> furtherance of that belief are therefore infected with that non-neutral
>> POV.
>
>This is just plain nonsense. *Everyone's* political beliefs are POV:
>that's the whole point of them! But an editor's renaming an article to
>give it a different version of its name doesn't somehow magically invest
>that article with the editor's point of view. Of course, one *can* insert
>a point of view into an article title, by inserting a qualifying adjective
>such as "Excellent" or "Rubbish" into it, but as far as I'm aware we're
>only talking about exchanging one version of a name (used by one set of
>people) with another (used by another set of people). This has no effect
>on the point of view whatsoever.
>
>> As to correct language and the evils of americanization -- bullshit,
>> pure and simple.
>
>Now, now, let's not descend into that sort of language. Lir has a point. I
>personally would be quite offended if English-speaking people were to
>rename *me* "Oliver Peartree", simply to make it more "English". I would
>consider it to be arrogance: who are they to decide my name? This was my
>name at birth, and always will be, no matter what anyone else decides to
>call me! Of course, I am exaggerating to make my point: no-one is trying
>to call *me* by any other name. We are mostly talking about inanimate
>locations and dead people, who are in no position to object. But the
>principle is the same. I think it smacks of arrogance to rename other
>people and places without the consent of the people and inhabitants of the
>places, even if the people and places are distant in time or space, and
>even if their renaming has now become widespread. And I am offended on
>their behalf, even if they're not. :)
>
>But all this talk of emotions is just a side issue. The main point is not
>about what offends whom, or anything like that. This is an encyclopaedia.
>We're after facts. And the fact of the matter is that anglicisations of
>names are simply distortions (or replacements) of foreign names. Calling
>Jo~ao "John" is just an *approximation* to the truth in the same way that
>calling a Jean Claude van Damme "French" is. It's sort of *nearly* right,
>but not quite. The job of an encyclopaedia should be to correct these
>sorts of approximations!
>
>> While it is deplorable that most English speakers are not bilingual,
>> that fact does not make it in any way sensible to change place-names,
>> etc., to their "original" form. By the way, I'm not even sure what that
>> means -- is it Strassburg, Strasbourg, or, as it was called before there
>> was a clear definition between French and German, Straziburgensis?
>> London, or Londinium?
>
>I don't think anyone was arguing for *original* names of places, so you
>are attacking a straw man here. In the case of a place which still exists,
>I would argue that it makes most sense to call it whatever the people who
>live there do. It is, in a sense, *theirs*, after all. If there are
>several official versions of the placename locally, one could simply use
>the one that the largest number of locals use. We should aim to be most
>familiar with whatever is on the signposts, so that we don't get lost when
>we get there. ;)
>
>> Should Paris have a note in the title that says "pronounced Paree, you
>> morons"?
>
>I'd quite like to see that, actually. :)
>
>> We agreed that it made the most sense to use the most common
>> English-language version of a name (different forms of English
>> notwithstanding) for the title BUT, because we all felt it very
>> important to let people know that other cultures and language-speakers
>> had different names for the same thing, so we listed alternate names in
>> the article itself. This means that English-speakers, arguably the
>> largest audience, could search for articles in the way most natural to
>> them, but the articles would still appear in searches by speakers of
>> other languages searching in those languages.
>
>Eminently sensible, of course. Which is why nobody is proposing the
>removal of any of these alternative names. As I understand it, the
>argument is simply about swapping one name round with another. Both names
>would still be there, but just in different places.
>
>> I can't see that Lir's political beliefs are valid reasons to change
>> this policy.
>
>It's not about political beliefs; it's about giving articles (arguably)
>more accurate titles. I hope I've laid out some of the arguments clearly
>enough. I probably haven't, but it'll do for now. Oh, and I should add
>that the language thing applies to all languages equally; I'm just using
>anglicisation as the example I'm most familiar with. Just thought I'd add
>that so that I'm not told to post this on the English language mailing
>list (which I haven't quite got round to subscribing to yet)...
>
>Phew. That's enough of that for one day. I think I really *will* go to bed
>now... :)
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021124/df8019a8/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1829
Oliver is Lir II (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Sun Nov 24 09:41:00 UTC 2002
Sorry folks, I got paranoid. I went back in the mailing list, saw
Olivers previous posts, and am not as sure sure as I was, but Olivers
last post seems pretty strong evidence. Oliver previously seemed to
take the opposite stance to that of Lir on the anglicization issue.
Lir being the role-player that he is, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
But I much prefer this more intelligent and reasonable Oliver persona to the
Lir persona.
The email I reply to below is like the old Lir come back, expressing his
disregard for community standards in his nihilistic desire to be able to
"do whatever he wants, and screw what anybody else thinks".
Lir stated, ON THE WIKIPEDIA that the Wikipedia is just a dumping ground
for information. However much a few others may leap to his defense, the
truth his, his ungrammatical edits filled with junk information have caused
more work for other people than was saved by his "contributions". And that
is entirely aside from the social costs of the people he burned trying to
help him.
My reply below is a blow by blow account of why I think Oliver is Lir.
I also refute the points he thought he raised.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:51:00AM +0000, Oliver Pereira wrote:
>I know that I'm just a newbie here, and you're a terribly important sysop
>person, but Lir doesn't seem to be around right now, and I'm not going to
>let that attack go undefended...
If you are a newbie, how do you know the person you are replying to is a
sysop?
Why do you feel you have to defend Lir, given that you are a newbie and
thus not familiar with the long-running history of this case and all
it's particulars?
If you are really a newbie, then you have no idea of the ones of work
Wikipedians put into trying to help Lir become a productive member of our
community, only to be slapped in the face time and time again, and our
well-meaning advice not only ignored, but denigrated.
>> Regarding banning Lir or not. If Lir can't be bothered to speak with
>> Jimbo, stop behaving childishly (name-calling, whinging, and making
>> guerilla edits that result in non-NPOV articles), and work in a
>> cooperative, collegial, manner, then a ban is in order. The community
>> has certain standards, and from what I've seen, Lir is as guilty as
>> Helga ever was of flouting them.
>
>Judging by what I've seen, Lir is an intelligent person with much to
>contribute. Childish, of course, but then I've seen just as childish
You haven't seen much. That childish behavior vastly outweighs whatever
intelligence Lir has shown.
And your claim of his "intelligence" is overrated. His edits show him
to have a reckless attitude toward the work of others; they show him to
have no grasp of what properly belongs in an encyclopedia and what does
not; and they appear calculated to frustrate others who wish to make the
Wikipedia, not some random "dumping ground" of information, but a great
encyclopedia! This hasn't even mentioned his poor grammatical skills.
>behaviour from some of the regulars and even (perhaps more so) from the
>sysops. It seems that Lir is just more vociferous about it. There seem to
>be a lot more complaints about Lir's attitude and over-the-top
>pronouncements than about any actual edits, which surely should be what we
>are most interested in here. If Lir's actions are to be the subject of
Lirs edits, taken together as a body, are bad enough. It may take us
a year to recover.
>This is just plain nonsense. *Everyone's* political beliefs are POV:
That's why we leave our political beliefs at home when we work on the
Wikipedia.
Lirs edits to Sumer are illustrative; why the hell did he insist that it
was important to mention that "In Sumer, women did the weaving"? In
many societies at the time, women did weaving. What was so unique about
that fact that it is justified to be included in an encyclopedia article
on Sumerians? Lir refused to answer any such question, merely maintaining
that his edits were proper.
Someone took a quick look at the "Wealth of the Nations" article and
pronounced it "fine". Excuse me. Go look at any REAL encyclopedia.
None of them have an article on a book that consists of a series of
short quotations from the book in question, and NOTHING ELSE.
Interesting as the quotes were, they were NOT an encyclopedia article,
and illustrate Lirs attitude that the wikipedia isn't a thing of quality,
but a mere dumping ground for information.
Lir is like a magpie of information; he picks up cheap shit information
as well as some real gold sometimes, and inserts it into the wikipedia
on an equal opportunity basis.
>Now, now, let's not descend into that sort of language. Lir has a point. I
>personally would be quite offended if English-speaking people were to
>rename *me* "Oliver Peartree", simply to make it more "English". I would
Go to the Philippines. Try as you might, you won't be able to stop them
from calling you "Joe". "Hey Joe!". Whatcha gonna do about it? Guess
you'll just have to learn to cope, huh?
You seem to be arguing that one language cannot modify the things it
borrows from other languages to suit it's own needs. Now THAT is an
arrogant, paternalistic attitude.
>even if their renaming has now become widespread. And I am offended on
>their behalf, even if they're not. :)
With that attitude you'll always be offended; you can find offense
wherever you look, if that is your desire. But if that is your desire,
I fear you won't be a very good Wikipedia editor.
>names are simply distortions (or replacements) of foreign names. Calling
>Jo~ao "John" is just an *approximation* to the truth in the same way that
>calling a Jean Claude van Damme "French" is. It's sort of *nearly* right,
>but not quite. The job of an encyclopaedia should be to correct these
>sorts of approximations!
Sure, we agree. Except to succeed in our work, we need to convince
people to listen to us. Lirs silly anti-Americanism doesn't help the
cause one bit.
>I don't think anyone was arguing for *original* names of places, so you
>are attacking a straw man here. In the case of a place which still exists,
It wasn't a straw man at all. qv Dien Bien Phu. I think you are trolling.
>> Should Paris have a note in the title that says "pronounced Paree, you
>> morons"?
>
>I'd quite like to see that, actually. :)
And thus I conclude that you are Lir. You are showing a similar lack of
taste.
>It's not about political beliefs; it's about giving articles (arguably)
>more accurate titles. I hope I've laid out some of the arguments clearly
Don't be a twit. No matter how much HTML may have advanced, and
browsers now support Unicode, URLS are NOT unicode, they are ascii, and
many browsers break if the urls are anything BUT ascii. Making the
Wikipedia unusable over some obscure and unsatisfying point is the
height of lunacy. Not to mention your idea of "accuracy" really is not.
>Phew. That's enough of that for one day. I think I really *will* go to bed
>now... :)
Yes, you do that Lir. For a few minutes I had started to think you were
prepared to share in the collegial spirit of mutual respect. Alas...
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021124/1e37c5a8/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1830
Oliver is Lir (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Sun Nov 24 11:45:06 UTC 2002
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:44:20AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> As long as "Oliver" tries to stick to the collegial spirit of mutual
> respect, that is fine. But I find it odd his user account appears right
> after Lir is banned, and then he jumps in and makes edits in a fashion
> that indicates he is anything but a newbie.
Eh? Oliver's account existed well before Lir was banned. It seems
unlikely that Lir would have acquired an email account at a British
university. If you look at Oliver's list of edits, you'll find they're
perfectly sensible and restrained.
Why on earth would you think he is Lir?
> Not to mention him joining the list and "defending" himself.
I haven't seen him defending Lir (is that what you meant?). He's just
taking the same side which Lir did on the question of anglicised
article names, which is certainly an issue on which reasonable people
can differ.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1831
[Wikipedia-l] poor oliver
Bridget
Bridget
Sun Nov 24 13:50:07 UTC 2002
The vindicative hate campaign against Oliver shows how much abuse I suffered from various wiki "elites" who, unlike in Oliver's case, had no doubt that I was Lir. I find it absurd that I am to be criticized on the grounds of
"Lir's edits are like magpie droppings" and yet I am the one that is banned.
Jimbo says the official reason I was banned was because I accused certain people of racism and totalitarianism. The truth is, there are racist assholes here on wikipedia, and Im being banned for noting it.
Now, Im not calling Jimbo racist, if he was racist this would be kkkpedia.com. But he is totalitarian, and can't possibly deny that without denying his stance on voting and banning. I hope he realizes that persecution is wrong, no matter how much the evil ones urge him to abuse power in their name.
Remember, I was banned for being a constant annoyance to wikipedians everywhere. That means that all of you who I got along with just fine...all of you are me...and your day will come soon, unless you shut up and never ever state that you disagree wholeheartedly.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021124/612d86eb/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1832
[Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Sun Nov 24 17:36:00 UTC 2002
Oliver Pereira wrote:
> We're after facts. And the fact of the matter is that anglicisations of
> names are simply distortions (or replacements) of foreign names. Calling
> Jo~ao "John" is just an *approximation* to the truth in the same way that
> calling a Jean Claude van Damme "French" is. It's sort of *nearly* right,
> but not quite. The job of an encyclopaedia should be to correct these
> sorts of approximations!
"Jo~ao" contains characters that do not exist in English. This is not
materially different from words like "Tokyo" or "Osaka". They can not
be written in English in the same way that they are written in their
native language, because they use characters that do not exist in
English.
> I would argue that it makes most sense to call it whatever the people who
> live there do. It is, in a sense, *theirs*, after all. If there are
> several official versions of the placename locally, one could simply use
> the one that the largest number of locals use. We should aim to be most
> familiar with whatever is on the signposts, so that we don't get lost when
> we get there. ;)
Until people are willing to give concrete examples, it's very
difficult to imagine what is being advocated. Japanese people do not
call Japan "Japan". It's either "Nihon" or "Nippon". They don't call
Mount Fuji "Mount Fuji", they call it "Fuji-san".
There are perhaps cases in which we should prefer something closer to
the original than what is most common. In English, the name of
Beijing is now "Beijing" where it was "Peking". Good.
-------
None of this really gets at the problem with Lir's behavior. It isn't
so much that Lir was wrong about anglicization, although that's true
too. It's that Lir was obnoxious about it, calling people who
disagreed "racist". (And, by the way, Lir/Bridget/Adam continues to
strongly assert that her opponents are racist in our conversations
about possible reinstatement, which grows less likely each day, I'm
afraid.)
It's quite possible for people to disagree on these matters in a
collegial and intellectual way, respecting that other people have
reasons for their opinions, and to work together to formulate a more
sophisticated policy that appeals to all parties.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1833
[Wikipedia-l] poor oliver
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Sun Nov 24 17:46:06 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Now, Im not calling Jimbo racist, if he was racist this would be
>kkkpedia.com. But he is totalitarian, and can't possibly deny that
>without denying his stance on voting and banning.
My stance on voting is totalitarian?
I am generally opposed to voting precisely because of its inherently
authoritarian nature -- a majority imposes its will on the minority.
One of the problems I foresee with any implementation of a voting
system is that it will lead us to seek solutions that garner majority
support, which is significantly less representative than the "wiki
way" of seeking solutions that garner _nearly unanimous_ support.
The wiki way encourages us all to be creative and tolerant, to look
for ways to mutually benefit each other. The voting ways encourages
us to seek power blocs, and to stop negotiating for improvement as
soon as a majority is found.
Voting is a cruel kludge which may someday become necessary if
thoughtful, rational, co-operative wiki-style consensus-building
fails.
If that's totalitarian, well...
Having said that, I do think that it would be better if people did not
launch personal attacks on Lir. It only complicates thing, you see.
What we are trying hard to do is create a culture in which
Usenet-style arguing is not the norm.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1834
Oliver is Lir II (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Oliver Pereira
omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Sun Nov 24 23:18:38 UTC 2002
Greetings,
Well, I must admit that I'm quite perplexed! In just one day, I have been
transmogrified from a British student of Computer Science into an Iowan
anarchist! Did my British accent not come across in the message? ;)
Seriously, though, perhaps I did get a bit overheated in my response last
night, for which I apologise. Since Lir did not immediately post a
defence, I guessed that perhaps he had left the mailing list, and I don't
like the idea of attacking people who are not around to defend themselves.
You know, fair play and all that. :) As it turns out, Lir is still on the
list, but even so, I still think he means well (even if he goes about
things the wrong way), and deserves a bit of a defence. I don't like the
idea of writing people off.
Now it seems that in defending Lir and some of his points, I have become a
valid target for abuse. *sigh*
I won't go into a point-by-point defence of my arguments again right now,
as perhaps I didn't express them very well, and it would be better to plan
them in my own time with a cool head. I have no intention of getting into
a flame war. Perhaps I will put some of my points on my user page later,
if that's all right with everyone. For now, I would prefer to concentrate
on doing some university work and doing my bit to improve (hopefully!) the
Wikipedia itself.
In the meantime, if anyone thinks that I may be doing Bad Things to the
Wikipedia, please feel free to check through my user contributions. They
go back to 8th November, which was when I first registered a user name - I
was using the term "newbie" relatively. If anyone has any problems with
any of my edits (and as far as I am aware no-one has made any specific
complaints, apart from one or two minor edit skirmishes), please feel free
to let me know about them, either by e-mail or in my Talk page. Similarly,
I would be interested to know (preferably off-list) where I ever hinted
that I might want to "act up" or that I might not be "prepared to share in
the collegial spirit of mutual respect". You've got me quite baffled
there. Oh yes, and as for my grammatical skills, I'm always happy to hear
how I can improve them. :)
Oh, perhaps I should point out that my agreement with the "pronounced
Paree, you morons" thing was a joke, of course.
Two points to close with:-
(1.) Could we please not use this mailing list for personal attacks on
people, whether they are here to defend themselves or not. I know that
this list is not subject to the NPOV rule, but calling people "twits"
and so on is simply not constructive.
(2.) Could we please not make assumptions about people that are based on
little or no evidence. Such disregard for the need for evidence casts
serious doubt on one's standards of scholarship, and hence on the
reliability of any information one might contribute to an encyclopaedia.
Thanks,
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk |
+-------------------------------------------+
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1835
Oliver is Lir II (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 25 00:55:40 UTC 2002
Oliver wrote
> Oh, perhaps I should point out that my agreement
> with the "pronounced
> Paree, you morons" thing was a joke, of course.
Ah, this is too bad, because, well... I thought it was
an interesting proposition...
Not the reference to morons of course :)
But the idea to indicate the native pronounciation of
a name or of a city could be a good one.
Say...some 20 years ago, we were told not to say (and
write) Pékin any more but to replace it with Beijing
(same with Mao Zédong, Jiang Jieshi, Changzhou...).
These changes were strongly enforced in France, maybe
because we were under a socialist/communist
government. It seems we are slowly drifting again
toward Pékin :-)
The fact is that change could not really be said to be
to "look" (read) more like the "real" (native) words,
since it is in no way written that way. What really
mattered was not so much we wrote it that way, but we
*learn to pronounce* it a way that sound more like the
native word.
And maybe is that education also to learn how to
pronounce place names and people names properly ?
And maybe an encyclopedia is JUST the perfect place to
acquire that kind of knowledge. Especially in cases
such as these ones where there is also a nice
historical point to develop.
There's a international code for prononciation no ?
And what about sound later ?
-----
Annihilation of opposition through body-unification of
dissenting voices ???
I agree with some of Lir points of views, but likely,
I will not be confused with him/her :-)))
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1836
[Wikipedia-l] Pronunciation guides (Was Re: Oliver is Lir II [...])
Oliver Pereira
omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Mon Nov 25 01:38:06 UTC 2002
Oliver wrote:
> > Oh, perhaps I should point out that my agreement with the "pronounced
> > Paree, you morons" thing was a joke, of course.
Anthere wrote:
> Ah, this is too bad, because, well... I thought it was an interesting
> proposition...
>
> Not the reference to morons of course :)
Quite right! I only meant that the bit about morons was a joke. :)
Indications of native pronunciations would be very useful. Is there
support for displaying all the standard IPA characters...? And I like your
idea of linked sound files, too. (It would be quite a task, though!) I
often read about things in works of reference, but find that I have to
guess how to pronounce the words. I might eventually find out how to
pronounce them if they come up in conversation (although the person I'm
talking to might be guessing too) or on the radio or television.
> The fact is that change could not really be said to be to "look" (read)
> more like the "real" (native) words, since it is in no way written that
> way. What really mattered was not so much we wrote it that way, but we
> *learn to pronounce* it a way that sound more like the native word.
I agree. When I was arguing for native words in article headings, I didn't
mean in the original orthography, if the languages don't use the Roman
alphabet. (Those which use the Roman alphabet with diacritics seem to be
contentious, but I'll go into that later...) I'm all for logical and
consistent transliteration systems: these, in conjunction with the
pronunciation guides, would allow the reader to read the words in the
native way. And of course, the original orthography should be included in
the article body - as an image if necessary. It would be good education, I
think.
> Annihilation of opposition through body-unification of dissenting voices
> ???
I know, it's a funny tactic to use, isn't it? I've seen it used a lot on
Internet forums and so on, but fortunately it rarely works, and it only
makes the one who used it look silly! :) Oops, am I ignoring my own advice
about not insulting people? I'm terribly sorry... ;)
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk |
+-------------------------------------------+
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1837
Oliver is Lir (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 25 02:00:51 UTC 2002
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:45:06AM +0000, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:44:20AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
>> As long as "Oliver" tries to stick to the collegial spirit of mutual
>> respect, that is fine. But I find it odd his user account appears right
>> after Lir is banned, and then he jumps in and makes edits in a fashion
>> that indicates he is anything but a newbie.
>
>Eh? Oliver's account existed well before Lir was banned. It seems
>unlikely that Lir would have acquired an email account at a British
>university. If you look at Oliver's list of edits, you'll find they're
>perfectly sensible and restrained.
How long before? When I looked at Olivers "User Contributions" page, it
showed no entries earlier than November 22 of this year.
As I said in my email, "If Oliver continues to play nice, I don't mind"
and "I like his Oliver persona better than the Lir persona". Those
aren't the words of someone accusing Oliver of being anti-social, in the
style of Lir.
Oliver, in his defense of Lir, has been putting up straw men and
ignoring legitimate problems with Lirs behavior. That seems at odds
with his previously reasonable personality.
>I haven't seen him defending Lir (is that what you meant?). He's just
>taking the same side which Lir did on the question of anglicised
>article names, which is certainly an issue on which reasonable people
>can differ.
He took Lirs side to "defend" Lir. Previously, he was taking the
opposite side. Very usenetish behavior.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021124/94441dd2/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1838
Oliver is Lir (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Brion VIBBER
brion at pobox.com
Mon Nov 25 02:34:15 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:45:06AM +0000, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>> Eh? Oliver's account existed well before Lir was banned. It seems
>> unlikely that Lir would have acquired an email account at a British
>> university. If you look at Oliver's list of edits, you'll find they're
>> perfectly sensible and restrained.
>
> How long before?
Two weeks.
> When I looked at Olivers "User Contributions" page, it
> showed no entries earlier than November 22 of this year.
That's because it only shows the last 50 edits by default. Bump up the
number to 500 and the days to 30 and you'll see edits back to November
7/8 (depending on your timezone setting).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1839
[Wikipedia-l] User pages
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 25 02:35:13 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:22:36AM +0000, Oliver Pereira wrote:
>I gather that it the general agreement is that the User pages are for the
>users' own use, and that it is bad manners for other Wikipedians to edit
>them. Would it be sensible to formalise this as a definitive rule - in
>fact, to make the page protected from edits by anyone but the user and the
>sysops? Anyone who wishes to address the user would still be able to on
>the associated Talk page, of course.
Lir is a special case, in that he used his User page to antagonize and
piss off a lot of Wikipedians. None of the recent edits in any way
attacked Lir personally; they just massaged the material to show how one
does things when one DOESN'T think the Wikipedia is just an information
dump, when one actually cares about what one is writing, and not just
the raw amount of information one dumps.
I have a feeling Lir was trying to get on that list of the top 250 most
prolific Wikipedians... Too bad for him it isn't dynamically generated.
>I don't know how difficult it would be to implement technically, but I
>think it would be a good move to prevent people from vandalising other
>people's User pages, as some are doing.
To call those edits "vandalism" is to use far too strong a word,
especially from an admitted newbie who isn't familiar with the full
history of Lir's actions here.
>And I repeat, if anyone has any problems with my behaviour, please tell me
>on my Talk page, or in a private e-mail.
The only problem so far is your poorly informed defense of Lir. Apart
from that, it's good to have you on the Wikipedia.
Cheers!
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021124/a6a60055/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1840
[Wikipedia-l] Pronunciation guides (Was Re: Oliver is Lir II [...])
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Mon Nov 25 03:13:30 UTC 2002
Tom Parmenter wrote:
> The very word diacritic is Anglocentric. [...]
> I mention this only to point out that this whole banal
> eliminate-English-from-the-English-encyclopedia movement is doomed due
Maybe we need a simple "the English Wikipedia is in English" page, to
make this point just as natural as the NPOV?
I think the problem is that Lir is young and has more energy to
question authority, than patience to listen before he speaks. This
makes it hard for him to engage in a dialogue. He questions his
peers, with whom he should cooperate, instead of knowing his enemies
and where he should direct his energy. Been there, done that, got the
T-shirt. I think his homepage indicated he was 21. I'm 36. I have
no idea how old or young or energetic or lazy everybody else is. I'm
lazy enough, not to bother very much in all the detail. But I know
that after Lir we will still have the same problem with the next of
the same kind. So what is our conclusion, and what tools will we have
prepared for the next time this happens?
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1841
Oliver is Lir II (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 25 04:14:06 UTC 2002
Oliver -- I hope I do not understand you correctly in that you think I
was somehow insulting Lir. I don't know Lir, only what I've seen of
his work. Although I certainly used what are generally considered
pejorative terms to refer to Lir's behavior, I think one can only say
that they are pejorative when there is no justification for their use.
That is sadly not the case. It is honorable for you to stick up for
Lir, and unfortunate that you were mistaken for him. I suggest that the
response to your post is merely indicative of the unpleasant feelings
that Lir tends to stir up. If he has been insulted, I'm sorry, but I
think that my estimation of Lir's behavior is based much more in fact
that Lir's very insulting and groundless accusations towards people who
don't agree with him. BTW, I also do not in any way blame you for the
Saints' tragic win yesterday ;-) I did find it interesting that you
knew I was a sysop and had been here a while, when I've been gone for
months -- you can't be that much of a newbie!
Lir -- hyperbole, especially when coupled with unveiled sarcasm, isn't
really a persuasive form of debate. It's merely annoying. I suspect
you know that and don't care.
Other than that, I like Anthere's idea of adding a pronunciation guide.
One drawback is that I think there may not be a universal guide -- I
think Americans use a different system of notation (but am not sure).
Also, I teach east Asian history. I grew up with Wade-Giles, am
becoming more familiar with Pinyin by the day, and neither comes close
to approximating the correct pronunciations.
Jules
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1842
[Wikipedia-l] please ban Lir's IP?
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 25 07:04:00 UTC 2002
Lir has been coming back, using his raw IP. Can it please be blocked
until the ban is lifted off his user account?
Maveric tells me this is his IP: 129.186.80.133
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021124/6b1e858d/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1843
Oliver is Lir II (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 25 07:14:58 UTC 2002
Sure. Just convince Lir to quit calling people who disagree with him/her racist.
Zoe
Oliver Pereira <omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:(1.) Could we please not use this mailing list for personal attacks on
people, whether they are here to defend themselves or not. I know that
this list is not subject to the NPOV rule, but calling people "twits"
and so on is simply not constructive.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021124/86261885/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1844
[Wikipedia-l] User pages
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 25 07:37:39 UTC 2002
On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 21:35, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >I don't know how difficult it would be to implement technically, but I
> >think it would be a good move to prevent people from vandalising other
> >people's User pages, as some are doing.
>
> To call those edits "vandalism" is to use far too strong a word,
> especially from an admitted newbie who isn't familiar with the full
> history of Lir's actions here.
You, too are a newbie. And "vandalism" is far too strong a word in 95%
of its usage at Wikipedia. Oliver's use is consistent with the Wikipedia
norm.
In other words, you sounded a bit high-handed in your response to
Oliver. I hope that wasn't your intention.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1845
[Wikipedia-l] User pages
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 25 07:41:33 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:37:39AM -0500, The Cunctator wrote:
>You, too are a newbie. And "vandalism" is far too strong a word in 95%
>of its usage at Wikipedia. Oliver's use is consistent with the Wikipedia
>norm.
>
>In other words, you sounded a bit high-handed in your response to
>Oliver. I hope that wasn't your intention.
My intention was to get my point across. Yes, you are right that the
word "vandalism" has been used far too much; I have been a victim of
such accusations frequently when editing articles on religious topics.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021124/cc028277/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1846
[Wikipedia-l] my user page was offensive?
Bridget
Bridget
Mon Nov 25 09:23:13 UTC 2002
In the continuing splurge of hate against me as a result of my (continued) insistence that it is a bad idea to use the most common English phrase for a foreign place or person, it has now been declared that my user page is incredibly offensive. I wonder at this, since nobody has ever spoken to me about something being offensive on my user page. I hope wikipedia grows up enough to discuss personal issues rather than engaging in flame warz.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021125/4994f95b/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1847
Oliver is Lir II (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Nov 25 10:23:30 UTC 2002
It seems that Jonathan's obsession about Lir has now turned into a
criminal slander of Oliver.
His so-called evidence that they are the same is nothing but speculative
bullshit. So was his previous accusation that Lir might somehow be
responsible for a slowdown in the entire system.
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Sorry folks, I got paranoid. I went back in the mailing list, saw
> Olivers previous posts, and am not as sure sure as I was, but Olivers
> last post seems pretty strong evidence. Oliver previously seemed to
> take the opposite stance to that of Lir on the anglicization issue.
> Lir being the role-player that he is, that doesn't necessarily mean
> anything.
> But I much prefer this more intelligent and reasonable Oliver persona
> to the
> Lir persona.
>
> The email I reply to below is like the old Lir come back, expressing his
> disregard for community standards in his nihilistic desire to be able to
> "do whatever he wants, and screw what anybody else thinks".
>
> Lir stated, ON THE WIKIPEDIA that the Wikipedia is just a dumping ground
> for information. However much a few others may leap to his defense, the
> truth his, his ungrammatical edits filled with junk information have
> caused
> more work for other people than was saved by his "contributions". And
> that
> is entirely aside from the social costs of the people he burned trying to
> help him.
>
> My reply below is a blow by blow account of why I think Oliver is Lir.
> I also refute the points he thought he raised.
>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:51:00AM +0000, Oliver Pereira wrote:
>
>> I know that I'm just a newbie here, and you're a terribly important
>> sysop
>> person, but Lir doesn't seem to be around right now, and I'm not
>> going to
>> let that attack go undefended...
>
> If you are a newbie, how do you know the person you are replying to is a
> sysop?
>
> Why do you feel you have to defend Lir, given that you are a newbie and
> thus not familiar with the long-running history of this case and all
> it's particulars?
>
> If you are really a newbie, then you have no idea of the ones of work
> Wikipedians put into trying to help Lir become a productive member of our
> community, only to be slapped in the face time and time again, and our
> well-meaning advice not only ignored, but denigrated.
Obviously Oliver felt that an injustice was being done, and saw fit to
speak up. It is not clear from the quote who the sysop involved was or
if the person even was a sysop, but that really doesn't matter. Sysops
are people who have been around for a while longer, and perhaps should
be held to a higher standard of behaviour than the rest of us. They
should be putting out fires, not exacerbating the arguments. Sometimes
a newbie is able to bring a fresh perspective on a debate.
>>> Regarding banning Lir or not. If Lir can't be bothered to speak with
>>> Jimbo, stop behaving childishly (name-calling, whinging, and making
>>> guerilla edits that result in non-NPOV articles), and work in a
>>> cooperative, collegial, manner, then a ban is in order. The community
>>> has certain standards, and from what I've seen, Lir is as guilty as
>>> Helga ever was of flouting them.
>>
>> Judging by what I've seen, Lir is an intelligent person with much to
>> contribute. Childish, of course, but then I've seen just as childish
>
> You haven't seen much. That childish behavior vastly outweighs whatever
> intelligence Lir has shown.
I too have expressed concerns about the way Lir has been treated, but
when Jimbo replied that he has been trying to work things out with Lir
that satisfied me. From that point I was willing to let well enough alone.
>> behaviour from some of the regulars and even (perhaps more so) from the
>> sysops. It seems that Lir is just more vociferous about it. There
>> seem to
>> be a lot more complaints about Lir's attitude and over-the-top
>> pronouncements than about any actual edits, which surely should be
>> what we
>> are most interested in here. If Lir's actions are to be the subject of
>
> Lirs edits, taken together as a body, are bad enough. It may take us
> a year to recover.
Exaggeration for dramatic effec!
> Lirs edits to Sumer are illustrative; why the hell did he insist that it
> was important to mention that "In Sumer, women did the weaving"? In
> many societies at the time, women did weaving. What was so unique about
> that fact that it is justified to be included in an encyclopedia article
> on Sumerians? Lir refused to answer any such question, merely
> maintaining
> that his edits were proper.
I can't see why the women's role as weavers is such a major issue. If
you say it happened in many societies anyway, where's the beef?
> Someone took a quick look at the "Wealth of the Nations" article and
> pronounced it "fine". Excuse me. Go look at any REAL encyclopedia.
> None of them have an article on a book that consists of a series of
> short quotations from the book in question, and NOTHING ELSE.
> Interesting as the quotes were, they were NOT an encyclopedia article,
> and illustrate Lirs attitude that the wikipedia isn't a thing of quality,
> but a mere dumping ground for information.
If you're so concerned about this article, and it's so important to you
go ahead and fix it instead of whining about Lir's quotes from the book.
> Lir is like a magpie of information; he picks up cheap shit information
> as well as some real gold sometimes, and inserts it into the wikipedia
> on an equal opportunity basis.
Sometimes we all engage in such practices. Why single out Lir?
>> Now, now, let's not descend into that sort of language. Lir has a
>> point. I
>> personally would be quite offended if English-speaking people were to
>> rename *me* "Oliver Peartree", simply to make it more "English". I would
>
> Go to the Philippines. Try as you might, you won't be able to stop them
> from calling you "Joe". "Hey Joe!". Whatcha gonna do about it? Guess
> you'll just have to learn to cope, huh?
Nothing in Oliver's post suggests he plans to visit the Philippines.
The baiting sounds like a little kid saying "You can't make me do it."
> You seem to be arguing that one language cannot modify the things it
> borrows from other languages to suit it's own needs. Now THAT is an
> arrogant, paternalistic attitude.
What he says and what you interpret that he "seems to be arguing" are
not the same thing.
>>> Should Paris have a note in the title that says "pronounced Paree, you
>>> morons"?
>>
>> I'd quite like to see that, actually. :)
>
> And thus I conclude that you are Lir. You are showing a similar lack of
> taste.
The conclusion is a non-sequitur.
>> It's not about political beliefs; it's about giving articles (arguably)
>> more accurate titles. I hope I've laid out some of the arguments clearly
>
> Don't be a twit. No matter how much HTML may have advanced, and
> browsers now support Unicode, URLS are NOT unicode, they are ascii, and
> many browsers break if the urls are anything BUT ascii. Making the
> Wikipedia unusable over some obscure and unsatisfying point is the
> height of lunacy. Not to mention your idea of "accuracy" really is not.
The discussion was about article titles. How do you get from that to URL's
>> Phew. That's enough of that for one day. I think I really *will* go
>> to bed
>> now... :)
>
> Yes, you do that Lir. For a few minutes I had started to think you were
> prepared to share in the collegial spirit of mutual respect. Alas...
More unfounded sarcasm.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1848
[Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Mon Nov 25 11:42:57 UTC 2002
(this is a general feature suggestion, BTW, though it's a case on En
that's reminded me of it)
Someone on En: is adding pages on actors with just dates of birth. it's
not vandalism, but admins have deleted many of these, because they're
such tiny stubs they're basically worthless.
it's not the first time that we get users who make many well-meaning
edits, but make mistakes that leave us a lot to clean up.
This reminds me of something I suggested ages ago -- we need a way to
contact unregistered users to politely point of where they're putting a
foot wrong.
My suggestion was this:
* on the IP contributions page, add a "alert this user" dialog box, or a
link to one
* that user will then see the message text above above every edit box
This could save us a lot of cleaning up work. I also worry that these
people may get discouraged and leave when they find we've deleted their
additions -- we may be losing potentially valuable contributors.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1849
[Wikipedia-l] Attn: 217.5.141.103
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 25 13:30:47 UTC 2002
Please stop creating pages consisting only of interlanguage links (e.g.
Faraday cage, olfaction). [[Olfaction]] is blank except for a link to
[[Geruchssinn]], which in turn consists only of a link to [[olfaction]].
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1850
Oliver is Lir II (Re: [Wikipedia-l] This whole Lir and Americanization thing)
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 25 14:34:58 UTC 2002
Oliver Pereira wrote:
> (1.) Could we please not use this mailing list for personal attacks on
> people, whether they are here to defend themselves or not. I know that
> this list is not subject to the NPOV rule, but calling people "twits"
> and so on is simply not constructive.
I agree completely, and urge others to practice similar restraint.
> (2.) Could we please not make assumptions about people that are based on
> little or no evidence. Such disregard for the need for evidence casts
> serious doubt on one's standards of scholarship, and hence on the
> reliability of any information one might contribute to an encyclopaedia.
Yes!
--Jimbo
p.s. You should throw in some British slang. Better yet, some
American slang that Americans *think* is British, whether it is or
not. Lots of references to tea, old chap. :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1851
[Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 14:43:56 UTC 2002
How about giving admins the ability to throw up a "Please read this" message.
Something like this:
* User submits an edit
* Wikipedia accepts the edit, and...
* Sends user to a "You have an urgent administrative message" page.
User can then:
* Click on the "Read message" button, or
* Just ignore it
We can think of variations, like, send the user directly to the message page, rather than the "you have a message waiting". Another, for egregious cases, would send the user to the "message waiting" or 'please acknowledge this' page after EVERY edit, until the click an OKAY button.
Ed poor
-----Original Message-----
From: tarquin [mailto:tarquin at planetunreal.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 6:43 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
(this is a general feature suggestion, BTW, though it's a case on En
that's reminded me of it)
Someone on En: is adding pages on actors with just dates of birth. it's
not vandalism, but admins have deleted many of these, because they're
such tiny stubs they're basically worthless.
it's not the first time that we get users who make many well-meaning
edits, but make mistakes that leave us a lot to clean up.
This reminds me of something I suggested ages ago -- we need a way to
contact unregistered users to politely point of where they're putting a
foot wrong.
My suggestion was this:
* on the IP contributions page, add a "alert this user" dialog box, or a
link to one
* that user will then see the message text above above every edit box
This could save us a lot of cleaning up work. I also worry that these
people may get discouraged and leave when they find we've deleted their
additions -- we may be losing potentially valuable contributors.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1852
[Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 25 14:59:03 UTC 2002
On Monday 25 November 2002 09:43, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> How about giving admins the ability to throw up a "Please read this"
> message.
>
> Something like this:
> * User submits an edit
> * Wikipedia accepts the edit, and...
> * Sends user to a "You have an urgent administrative message" page.
>
> User can then:
> * Click on the "Read message" button, or
> * Just ignore it
>
> We can think of variations, like, send the user directly to the message
> page, rather than the "you have a message waiting". Another, for egregious
> cases, would send the user to the "message waiting" or 'please acknowledge
> this' page after EVERY edit, until the click an OKAY button.
Sounds good, but we'd still have trouble contacting the AOLer who's been
writing pages consisting only of someone's birthdate.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1853
[Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 25 14:52:44 UTC 2002
> How about giving admins the ability to throw up a "Please read this"
> message.
>
> Something like this:
> * User submits an edit
> * Wikipedia accepts the edit, and...
> * Sends user to a "You have an urgent administrative message" page.
>
> User can then:
> * Click on the "Read message" button, or
> * Just ignore it
A good idea, but it would need to have at least a message queue to handle
multiple messages, so you arrive at an internal messaging system.
Unfortunately, this would have to be a bit of a hack, as IPs expire rather quickly. With
cookies it could be done more reliably but not in all cases. Anyway, I think
there's little opposition to more advanced messaging/ban/revert features, they
just haven't been coded so far.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1854
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked: 217.5.141.103
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 25 15:16:18 UTC 2002
I just blocked 217.5.141.103. Some sysop on the German Wiki please do the
same. The block should be removed in a few hours, or sooner if he gets the
message.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1855
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Oliver is Lir II
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 15:21:07 UTC 2002
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." (Jesus)
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." (Gandhi)
"No teasing." (Uncle Ed)
Ed Poor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021125/30c3cadf/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1856
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Oliver is Lir II
Jason Williams
jason at jasonandali.org.uk
Mon Nov 25 15:27:14 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:21:07AM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." (Jesus)
> "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." (Gandhi)
> "No teasing." (Uncle Ed)
"The loveliest fairy in the world, and her name is do as you
would be done by" (Alisha's Attic)
PS; about me being "promoted" to SysOp - I don't want to hassle
you all, but I don't want you to forget either ;-)
--
jason at jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1857
[Wikipedia-l] My vacation, dealing with Lir
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 25 15:23:41 UTC 2002
I will be going with my wife and dauther to visit my parents for the
Thanksgiving holidays. We will be leaving here (Florida) on Tuesday
morning early, and returning the following Monday. My parents do have
broadband access, so I will be able to get online some, but I won't be
giving my usual daily attention to the mailing list.
I give a greenlight to sysops and developers to continue and extend
the ban on Lir to new i.p.'s, usernames, and the like, as necessary.
If this person continues to post in violation of the ban, then I'll
see what I can do to prevent this vandalism at the source. This
includes, if necessary, removing Lir from the mailing list in the
event of more smartass defensive remarks.
Try to avoid mistakes. :-) And try not to argue about it on the list.
I request that we all just take a little break from fussing about Lir,
Lir's user page, etc. I just protected Lir's user page, to give a
break from people feeling a need to fight about it. If Lir decides
not to continue at wikipedia in the future, we can just delete the
page permanently, so it really doesn't matter either way what is done
with it now.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1858
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 15:36:23 UTC 2002
Jonathan wrote:
> To call those edits "vandalism" is to use far too strong a word,
> especially from an admitted newbie who isn't familiar with the full
> history of Lir's actions here.
Calling edits one doesn't agree with "vandalism" is analogous to calling
racial/ethnic discrimanation "genocide". Yes, some UN-sponsored treaties
have re-defined genocide so it means more (and less) than mass murder --
but that doesn't make killing 10 million civilians equivalent to not
welcoming refugees. Inhospitality is not murder.
I would really like everyone to stop throwing around the word
"vandalism" except in the narrowly-described cases of:
* scribbling graffiti, like "Hi, I'm a newbie"
* deleting a page without explanation
* obvious obscenity
We don't have a firm rule on name-calling, but if we ever do then I'm
going to make sure calling a fellow contributor a vandal is at the top
of the list.
Making an edit that isn't neutral is not an offense so terrible that it
justifies revenge. Besides, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
leaves us all blind and wearing dentures".
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1859
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 25 15:51:58 UTC 2002
Ed and Jimbo,
*sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it. Even when Lir was
still unbanned, he kept changing her page, linking to articles about "good taste"
to help her develop "the good taste she lacks", kept reverting her attempts
to restore the page and threatened to do so until Lir would "call him uncle"
(and not in the uncle Ed sense, I presume). Now that Lir is banned, he is,
against the explicit will of others, changing Lir's page to contain the links
he used to offend her, I presume as a last demonstration of his power.
This is vandalism of a user page -- it's identical to me editing Ed's page
and inserting some snide remarks about the Unification Church and "Moonies",
making it look like Ed wrote them. That's why everyone kept reverting Clutch's
changes, but he is patient enough to re-insert his version again and again.
Now we have basically justified Clutch's vandalism by protecting the
*vandalized* version of the page which links to the "how to develop good taste" etc.
which Clutch deliberately inserted.
I don't care much about Lir's page, but I care about antisocial behavior.
Rules should be enforced consistently, as Larry said. Please restore Lir's last
version of the page and protect that one, instead of Clutch's vandalized
one.
I've dealt with trolls a number of times, and I know one when I see one.
Don't let Clutch pull your leg. He's an experienced troll. SoftSecurity won't
work here.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1860
[Wikipedia-l] RE: Oliver is Lir II
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 15:52:56 UTC 2002
Khendon wrote:
Wed 11/20:
> I've been here a few months now; can I be a sysop, please?
Mon 11/25:
> about me being "promoted" to SysOp - I don't want to hassle
> you all, but I don't want you to forget either ;-)
> Jason Williams [jason at jasonandali.org.uk]
There being no objections...
Khendon, you are now a sysop. Congratualations, and remember always to use your power for good not for evil :-)
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1861
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 25 15:53:31 UTC 2002
On Monday 25 November 2002 10:36, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I would really like everyone to stop throwing around the word
> "vandalism" except in the narrowly-described cases of:
> * scribbling graffiti, like "Hi, I'm a newbie"
> * deleting a page without explanation
> * obvious obscenity
"Hi, I'm a newbie" is not vandalism. It's a newbie experiment. OTOH IMHO,
repeatedly changing Athens to Istanbul in [[Greece]] is vandalism, though it
is none of the above.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1862
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 15:59:16 UTC 2002
Well, I've had words with Clutch -- both publicly and privately. I don't think the v-word applies. And name-calling, once it's gotten people's attention, is best dropped quickly. (that's a hint, Erik :-)
I think Jimbo protected the [[user:Lir]] page, and I'm happy to revert it to something nice and agreeable. (I seem to remember going through something like this Friday, too.)
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Moeller [mailto:erik_moeller at gmx.de]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:52 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Cc: jwales at bomis.com
Subject: Re: The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Ed and Jimbo,
*sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it. Even when Lir was
still unbanned, he kept changing her page, linking to articles about "good taste"
to help her develop "the good taste she lacks", kept reverting her attempts
to restore the page and threatened to do so until Lir would "call him uncle"
(and not in the uncle Ed sense, I presume). Now that Lir is banned, he is,
against the explicit will of others, changing Lir's page to contain the links
he used to offend her, I presume as a last demonstration of his power.
This is vandalism of a user page -- it's identical to me editing Ed's page
and inserting some snide remarks about the Unification Church and "Moonies",
making it look like Ed wrote them. That's why everyone kept reverting Clutch's
changes, but he is patient enough to re-insert his version again and again.
Now we have basically justified Clutch's vandalism by protecting the
*vandalized* version of the page which links to the "how to develop good taste" etc.
which Clutch deliberately inserted.
I don't care much about Lir's page, but I care about antisocial behavior.
Rules should be enforced consistently, as Larry said. Please restore Lir's last
version of the page and protect that one, instead of Clutch's vandalized
one.
I've dealt with trolls a number of times, and I know one when I see one.
Don't let Clutch pull your leg. He's an experienced troll. SoftSecurity won't
work here.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1863
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 25 15:55:59 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:51:58PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>*sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it. Even when Lir was
>still unbanned, he kept changing her page, linking to articles about "good taste"
>to help her develop "the good taste she lacks", kept reverting her attempts
>to restore the page and threatened to do so until Lir would "call him uncle"
>(and not in the uncle Ed sense, I presume). Now that Lir is banned, he is,
This is possibly a cultural difference. Your address and name indicates
you are German. In English, when you make someone "holler uncle!" it
means "do you give up now?" It is specifically used when someone is
being an unbearable annoyance, so you sit on them, and you don't let
them up until they indicate they recognize they have been an annoyance
and are prepared to change, by hollering "uncle!" It's a fine old
tradition, rarely used by people who are older than school age. In Lirs
case I saw no other way to impress on him what he was doing to other
Wikipedians.
And remember, Lir IS a "he", not a "she". He attends Iowa State
University. He should know better.
>This is vandalism of a user page -- it's identical to me editing Ed's page
>and inserting some snide remarks about the Unification Church and "Moonies",
>making it look like Ed wrote them. That's why everyone kept reverting Clutch's
>changes, but he is patient enough to re-insert his version again and again.
>
>Now we have basically justified Clutch's vandalism by protecting the
>*vandalized* version of the page which links to the "how to develop good taste" etc.
>which Clutch deliberately inserted.
I asked you to please look at the edits more carefully. Fact is, Lir
decided to add the link to the "Good Taste" article all by himself. He
"incorporated" it into his own page after one of my edits. I ask you
again: look carefully. I have added nothing to Lirs page that he did
not add himself. I just cleaned it up, made it look more dignified and
less careless, and removed the few things Lir had put in specifically to
antagonize people.
I am happy with the compromise page that was achieved this morning, and
hope Jimbo lets it stand.
>I've dealt with trolls a number of times, and I know one when I see one.
>Don't let Clutch pull your leg. He's an experienced troll. SoftSecurity won't
>work here.
I am experienced in dealing with trolls. My troll days are long past;
that's why I understand what Lir is going through, and can empathize
with him. Unfortunately, this makes it worse for him. I know what it
means to role-play at the cost of the community one role-plays in. Lir
doesn't yet appreciate the cost, he just sees it as a game.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021125/a2826977/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1864
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked: 217.5.141.103
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 25 16:05:59 UTC 2002
On Monday 25 November 2002 10:16, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> I just blocked 217.5.141.103. Some sysop on the German Wiki please do the
> same. The block should be removed in a few hours, or sooner if he gets the
> message.
Unblocked. He got the message.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1865
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 25 16:07:19 UTC 2002
> Well, I've had words with Clutch -- both publicly and privately. I don't
> think the v-word applies. And name-calling, once it's gotten people's
> attention, is best dropped quickly. (that's a hint, Erik :-)
The "v-word" will be dropped as soon as the unvandalized version of the page
is restored. Again, what would you call it if people used your user page to
advocate their points of view under your name?
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1866
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 25 15:59:06 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:59:16AM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>Well, I've had words with Clutch -- both publicly and privately. I don't think the v-word applies. And name-calling, once it's gotten people's attention, is beest dropped quickly. (that's a hint, Erik :-)
>
>I think Jimbo protected the [[user:Lir]] page, and I'm happy to revert it to something nice and agreeable. (I seem to remember going through something like this Friday, too.)
Ed, please don't revert the Lir page on the say-so of Erik; his own
email shows he wasn't in possession of all the facts when he dubbed me a
"vandal". Other people have also worked on the Lir page since then, and
we came to a compromise that everyone except Erik seems to have
accepted.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021125/ead23ba4/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1867
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked: 217.5.141.103
elian
elian at gmx.li
Mon Nov 25 16:05:54 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat <phma at webjockey.net> writes:
> I just blocked 217.5.141.103. Some sysop on the German Wiki please do the
> same. The block should be removed in a few hours, or sooner if he gets the
> message.
Stop, this user makes in the German wikipedia absolutely valuable
contributions (see f.e. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gew%FCrzvanille)
I suppose he is just not aware of how to place interlanguage links
correctly, but he seems to be goodwilled and no vandal.
greetings,
elian
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1868
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 25 16:03:00 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:07:19PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>The "v-word" will be dropped as soon as the unvandalized version of the page
>is restored. Again, what would you call it if people used your user page to
>advocate their points of view under your name?
You are running hot under the collar based on false information. Please
cool down. What Clutch was doing isn't vandalism, but I doubt anyone
here has the time to look at every single edit that was done to Lirs
pages and see all the tiny changes that were made; the fact that Lirs
page is long makes the job much harder than it otherwise would be.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021125/dbe4f6eb/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1869
[Wikipedia-l] Newbies (was: The v-word)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 16:13:04 UTC 2002
Pierre replied to Ed:
> > I would really like everyone to stop throwing around the word
> > "vandalism" except in the narrowly-described cases of:
> > * scribbling graffiti, like "Hi, I'm a newbie"
> > * deleting a page without explanation
> > * obvious obscenity
>
> "Hi, I'm a newbie" is not vandalism. It's a newbie experiment. OTOH IMHO,
> repeatedly changing Athens to Istanbul in [[Greece]] is vandalism, though it
> is none of the above.
>
> phma
You're right. I stand corrected.
Let's not even brand newbies who experiment with little bits of graffiti as "vandals". They're just pushing the buttons to see if they work.
We ought to make a concerted effort to encourage newbies to stick around and learn our ways. Any ideas?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1870
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 25 16:15:26 UTC 2002
> My troll days are long past;
That's not what I get from your changelog to Lir's page:
"Lir, I'm going to sit on you till you cry uncle"
"No. Bad Lir. No more senseless linking!"
"Still sitting on Lir; she isn't showing that she's interesting in
developing good taste in editing"
"We want good taste, or we'll spit you out."
"adding link to important article on Good Taste"
"Don't try to wriggle out of it Lir; a contributor of your stature needs to
develope some TASTE"
"Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you don't take other peoples feelings
seriously Lir, why should we take your work seriously?"
"Give me some evidence you know what good taste is Lir. C'mon, I challenge
you"
"not even close. try again, Lir baby"
"(your fate is being decided; if you don't take your fate seriously, it will
certainly take YOU very seriously"
again: "putting in link to article on Good Taste"
This is when other Wikipedians started reverting your changes. Lir
repeatedly *removed* your link to the good taste article and only left it in because
you kept vandalizing her page and threatened to continue to do so. And yes,
I'm going to continue to say "her", nobody seems to be female on the Internet
anyway, so I can use it as a neutral gender [*].
You're falling back into your old trolling behavior, Jon. The sad thing is
that you got away with it for too long, because nobody likes to stick up for
Lir.
Regards,
Erik
[*] Yes, that was a joke.
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1871
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 25 16:15:03 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
> *sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it.
Clutch, knock it off.
(Similar words added to Clutch user talk page.)
I'm reverting Lir's user page to Lir's last version.
I don't think we should really care much about this stupid page anyway.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1872
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 25 16:18:01 UTC 2002
I just posted a non-page to the page, a request that we all just drop
it. Please let's drop it.
On Thanksgiving Day (Thursday) I will say a toast to everyone on the
entire planet who does not fuss over this page between now and then.
:-)
Erik Moeller wrote:
> > Well, I've had words with Clutch -- both publicly and privately. I don't
> > think the v-word applies. And name-calling, once it's gotten people's
> > attention, is best dropped quickly. (that's a hint, Erik :-)
>
> The "v-word" will be dropped as soon as the unvandalized version of the page
> is restored. Again, what would you call it if people used your user page to
> advocate their points of view under your name?
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
> --
> +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
> NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1873
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Nov 25 16:39:13 UTC 2002
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I would really like everyone to stop throwing around the word
> "vandalism" except in the narrowly-described cases of:
> * scribbling graffiti, like "Hi, I'm a newbie"
> * deleting a page without explanation
> * obvious obscenity
I totally agree with this. But I also think it's important that we keep
this word, as it is indispensible precisely for those cases. No one
should ever be accused of misusing the word "vandalism" when quite
properly labelling pictures of goatse, for example, and why they're
removed.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1874
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Mon Nov 25 16:18:29 UTC 2002
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:15:26PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>"Lir, I'm going to sit on you till you cry uncle"
>"No. Bad Lir. No more senseless linking!"
>"Still sitting on Lir; she isn't showing that she's interesting in
>developing good taste in editing"
>"We want good taste, or we'll spit you out."
>"adding link to important article on Good Taste"
>"Don't try to wriggle out of it Lir; a contributor of your stature needs to
>develope some TASTE"
>"Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you don't take other peoples feelings
>seriously Lir, why should we take your work seriously?"
>"Give me some evidence you know what good taste is Lir. C'mon, I challenge
>you"
>"not even close. try again, Lir baby"
>"(your fate is being decided; if you don't take your fate seriously, it will
>certainly take YOU very seriously"
>again: "putting in link to article on Good Taste"
You are quoting Clutches edit comments out of context; ignoring the edits that
Lir made that triggered them. Lir was determined to show that he didn't
give a damn about community standards, or trying to build quality
articles. That is why Lir is banned.
As for the comment about Lir's fate being decided, that comment was made
because just then Jimbos had sent out a mail to the mailing list saying
he was going to ban Lir. Yet Lir's behavior that was causing Clutch to
edit his page didn't cease; he continued it. He didn't believe anything
could happen to him because "this is anarchy, and that means anything
goes".
>This is when other Wikipedians started reverting your changes. Lir
>repeatedly *removed* your link to the good taste article and only left it in because
>you kept vandalizing her page and threatened to continue to do so. And yes,
That is your perception. It is wrong. He thought he saw a humorous way
to incorporate it into his webpage, and he did so. Lirs humor is often
inappropriate and designed to enrage people, but it is pretty funny. As
long as you persist in thinking of Lir as a poor, defenseless little
girl who didn't have any idea what she was doing, you aren't going to
understand Lir.
>You're falling back into your old trolling behavior, Jon. The sad thing is
>that you got away with it for too long, because nobody likes to stick up for
>Lir.
You never knew my old trolling behavior. The Wikipedia is something I
care about. Your defense of Lir's edits makes me wonder how much you
care about it.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021125/e4dc93a3/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1875
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Mon Nov 25 16:28:44 UTC 2002
> I just posted a non-page to the page, a request that we all just drop
> it. Please let's drop it.
I have no problem with that.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1876
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked: 217.5.141.103
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Mon Nov 25 16:29:12 UTC 2002
On Monday 25 November 2002 11:05, elian wrote:
> Pierre Abbat <phma at webjockey.net> writes:
> > I just blocked 217.5.141.103. Some sysop on the German Wiki please do the
> > same. The block should be removed in a few hours, or sooner if he gets
> > the message.
>
> Stop, this user makes in the German wikipedia absolutely valuable
> contributions (see f.e. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gew%FCrzvanille)
>
> I suppose he is just not aware of how to place interlanguage links
> correctly, but he seems to be goodwilled and no vandal.
I didn't say he was a vandal, and I unblocked him as soon as he acknowledged
the message. We need a better way to contact IPs, but blocking is all we have
now.
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1877
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Mon Nov 25 16:44:34 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 11:18, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:15:26PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> >"Lir, I'm going to sit on you till you cry uncle"
> >"No. Bad Lir. No more senseless linking!"
> >"Still sitting on Lir; she isn't showing that she's interesting in
> >developing good taste in editing"
> >"We want good taste, or we'll spit you out."
> >"adding link to important article on Good Taste"
> >"Don't try to wriggle out of it Lir; a contributor of your stature needs to
> >develope some TASTE"
> >"Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you don't take other peoples feelings
> >seriously Lir, why should we take your work seriously?"
> >"Give me some evidence you know what good taste is Lir. C'mon, I challenge
> >you"
> >"not even close. try again, Lir baby"
> >"(your fate is being decided; if you don't take your fate seriously, it will
> >certainly take YOU very seriously"
> >again: "putting in link to article on Good Taste"
>
> You are quoting Clutches edit comments out of context; ignoring the edits that
> Lir made that triggered them. Lir was determined to show that he didn't
> give a damn about community standards, or trying to build quality
> articles. That is why Lir is banned.
The context doesn't matter. The above comments are rude, juvenile, and
indefensible.
Lir certainly gave plenty of evidence of trying to build quality
articles. To claim otherwise is not accurate.
> You never knew my old trolling behavior. The Wikipedia is something I
> care about. Your defense of Lir's edits makes me wonder how much you
> care about it.
Lir cares about Wikipedia too. Caring about Wikipedia doesn't make you
right.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1878
[Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Mon Nov 25 17:00:24 UTC 2002
Ed,
I know you mean very well, and that you're trying to help solve an
important problem, but I'm generally opposed to giving admins any special
powers that they do not already have have. Maybe give everyone this
power?
Isn't there another way to achieve what you are trying to achieve?
Larry
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> How about giving admins the ability to throw up a "Please read this" message.
>
> Something like this:
> * User submits an edit
> * Wikipedia accepts the edit, and...
> * Sends user to a "You have an urgent administrative message" page.
>
> User can then:
> * Click on the "Read message" button, or
> * Just ignore it
>
> We can think of variations, like, send the user directly to the message page, rather than the "you have a message waiting". Another, for egregious cases, would send the user to the "message waiting" or 'please acknowledge this' page after EVERY edit, until the click an OKAY button.
>
> Ed poor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tarquin [mailto:tarquin at planetunreal.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 6:43 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
>
>
> (this is a general feature suggestion, BTW, though it's a case on En
> that's reminded me of it)
>
> Someone on En: is adding pages on actors with just dates of birth. it's
> not vandalism, but admins have deleted many of these, because they're
> such tiny stubs they're basically worthless.
> it's not the first time that we get users who make many well-meaning
> edits, but make mistakes that leave us a lot to clean up.
>
> This reminds me of something I suggested ages ago -- we need a way to
> contact unregistered users to politely point of where they're putting a
> foot wrong.
> My suggestion was this:
> * on the IP contributions page, add a "alert this user" dialog box, or a
> link to one
> * that user will then see the message text above above every edit box
>
>
> This could save us a lot of cleaning up work. I also worry that these
> people may get discouraged and leave when they find we've deleted their
> additions -- we may be losing potentially valuable contributors.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
--
SeeATown webmaster
lsanger at seeatown.com
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1879
[Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 17:22:45 UTC 2002
I was thinking of applying this "special power" only for the case of:
* an anonymous user, i.e., IP address
* when a sysop would really rather talk than ban
I see this as being LESS powerful a move than simply clicking the "ban this IP" link.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:00 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
Ed,
I know you mean very well, and that you're trying to help solve an
important problem, but I'm generally opposed to giving admins any special
powers that they do not already have have. Maybe give everyone this
power?
Isn't there another way to achieve what you are trying to achieve?
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1880
[Wikipedia-l] Re: The v-word
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 25 17:37:23 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther (Clutch?) wrote:
>In English, when you make someone "holler uncle!" it
>means "do you give up now?" It is specifically used when someone is
>being an unbearable annoyance, so you sit on them, and you don't let
>them up until they indicate they recognize they have been an annoyance
>and are prepared to change, by hollering "uncle!"
No, that's not how it's used.
It's used to *bully* somebody, pure and simple.
I've dealt with many a bully in my day, so I should know.
(And I am an American.)
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1881
[Wikipedia-l] vandalism spree
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 17:46:42 UTC 2002
Anthere to Toby:
> >however, wouldn't it be a good idea to have sysops be
> >sysops for all languages?
> >If this were the case I would pop into several
> >different languages periodically to check for obvious
> >vandalism.
> >En.wiki has sysops watching it 20-24 hours a day so
> >if en.wiki sysops popped in to check various other
> >languages periodically (esp. during the no, or slow
> >edit times you talk about) then that should provide
> >better coverage against the most blatant >goat sex
> >type vandalism and vandal bots.
>
> That's a tough point really.
> Theoretically, it sounds natural that somebody trusted
> for one wiki should be trusted on another (though, to
> be honest...I am not convinced myself).
> Practically, that's could be a problem unfortunately.
> The english wiki process while deciding who should be
> a sysop or not is done through peer review (general
> behavior, respect to the community standards...). But,
> communities don't have the same standards, and what is
> ok on one could be hardly tolerable on another. And
> the tobe-sysop being not known, how would it be ok to
> accept somebody you don't know (say would you blindly
> accept Shaihulud as a sysop ?), while you reject
> somebody you know, just on the behalf he is refusing
> to change his name ?
>
> I know you Mav, so I would say "yes, please, come and
> help us", and I thank you very much for your
> proposition. But why would other french agree for
> somebody they don't know to have more admin "power"
> than they have ?
>
> Btw, didnot tmc changed his name as the community was
> 'kindly' asking him ?
I don't think I should be a sysop on a wiki whose language I can't read and write well (e.g., Français). I have caused enough trouble on Wiki-EN speaking my native language (English) with French speakers. Imagine how many people I could offend if I went global: Où est la plume de ma tante? Quelle dommage! Vive La France! Cherchez la femme! L'état, c'est moi!
About le coq... TMC refused to change his name. He said he would leave Wiki-EN if we changed it. Jimbo insisted that TMC's old name was "vandalism" and asked the developers to change it. A few days later, Brion changed it. Since then, I haven't heard anything from TMC.
Ed Poor, aka [[user:Edmond Le Pauvre]]
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1882
[Wikipedia-l] Re: The v-word
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 25 17:49:01 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther (Clutch?) wrote:
>You are running hot under the collar based on false information. Please
>cool down. What Clutch was doing isn't vandalism, but I doubt anyone
>here has the time to look at every single edit that was done to Lirs
>pages and see all the tiny changes that were made; the fact that Lirs
>page is long makes the job much harder than it otherwise would be.
It's easy to look at every single edit. I did it.
(Yes, Erik, Lir put in the link to good taste first,
after Clutch had put it on her user talk page.)
There's no doubt in my mind that vandalism was at work.
This is not name-calling; I do not say this gratuitously.
These sorts of changes to a user page are unprecedented,
and they were done repeatedly, despite admonition
from several other Wikipedians. Normally bannable.
However, we made an exception, because we hate Lir.
-- Toby
PS: Who are you on Wikipedia?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1883
[Wikipedia-l] Re: The v-word
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 25 18:06:35 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
>I doubt anyone
>here has the time to look at every single edit that was done to Lirs
>pages and see all the tiny changes that were made; the fact that Lirs
>page is long makes the job much harder than it otherwise would be.
And I said that it was easy to do.
But Jon's right -- it can be very tricky.
In fact, *Clutch* was the first to link the article on good taste, not Lir:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Lir&diff=437516&oldid=437514
If Lir linked it anytime before then, then she'd taken it out.
However, Lir *did* choose to let it stay in,
although she changed the format of the link.
I think that it's necessary that ordinary administrators
be given the power to block signed in users for vandalism.
I'm not arguing for further *authority*,
such as to ban people like Helga and Lir
that weren't engaged in vandalism as such
but eventually proved impossible to work with --
only Jimbo has the authority to ban such people.
I mean that logged in users should be bannable for
the *same* acts of vandalism that anonymous users can be banned for.
All that this requires on the technical end
is that administrators be able to see the IP numbers
of signed in users.
And, yes, we need to clarify what rights users have to their user page.
Until the episode with Lir, users were given quite a free rein,
up to the point that advertising was explicitly allowed.
While I've said that Clutch's edits to [[User:Lir]] were vandalism,
I do think that this needs to be clarified.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1884
[Wikipedia-l] Re: The v-word
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Mon Nov 25 18:15:13 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>On Thanksgiving Day (Thursday) I will say a toast to everyone on the
>entire planet who does not fuss over this page between now and then.
>:-)
OK, but remember, some of us get this in digest ^_^.
-- Toby
And now I think that I have some time to edit encyclopaedia articles!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1885
[Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
Neil Harris
usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk
Mon Nov 25 18:17:33 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>Ed,
>
>I know you mean very well, and that you're trying to help solve an
>important problem, but I'm generally opposed to giving admins any special
>powers that they do not already have have. Maybe give everyone this
>power?
>
>Isn't there another way to achieve what you are trying to achieve?
>
>Larry
>
>On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>
I agree with Larry on this. All logged-in users (or maybe even all
users) should have the power to send a message to unregistered IPs:
there is no need for a similar power to talk to logged-in users, as the
talk page will already work for them.
Perhaps this could be done by just editing the [[User:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]]
page for the appropriate IP.
Neil
>
>
>>How about giving admins the ability to throw up a "Please read this"
message.
>>
>>Something like this:
>>* User submits an edit
>>* Wikipedia accepts the edit, and...
>>* Sends user to a "You have an urgent administrative message" page.
>>
>>User can then:
>>* Click on the "Read message" button, or
>>* Just ignore it
>>
>>We can think of variations, like, send the user directly to the
message page, rather than the "you have a message waiting". Another, for
egregious cases, would send the user to the "message waiting" or 'please
acknowledge this' page after EVERY edit, until the click an OKAY button.
>>
>>Ed poor
>>
>>
>>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1886
[Wikipedia-l] The h-word (was: The v-word)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 18:19:16 UTC 2002
Toby said, "...we hate Lir."
I think you're speaking for yourself, there, pal.
I've been amused, angry, annoyed, astonished, bewildered, confused, downtrodden, enlightened, etc., all through the alphabet.
But I don't hate anyone on Wikipedia.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1887
[Wikipedia-l] User pages
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Nov 25 18:24:49 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:22:36AM +0000, Oliver Pereira wrote:
>
>> I gather that it the general agreement is that the User pages are for
>> the
>> users' own use, and that it is bad manners for other Wikipedians to edit
>> them. Would it be sensible to formalise this as a definitive rule - in
>> fact, to make the page protected from edits by anyone but the user
>> and the
>> sysops? Anyone who wishes to address the user would still be able to on
>> the associated Talk page, of course.
>
> Lir is a special case, in that he used his User page to antagonize and
> piss off a lot of Wikipedians. None of the recent edits in any way
> attacked Lir personally; they just massaged the material to show how one
> does things when one DOESN'T think the Wikipedia is just an information
> dump, when one actually cares about what one is writing, and not just
> the raw amount of information one dumps.
Why not just put your reactions to Lir on his User Talk page rather than
his User page.
> I have a feeling Lir was trying to get on that list of the top 250 most
> prolific Wikipedians... Too bad for him it isn't dynamically generated.
This is yet more unsupported speculation.
>> I don't know how difficult it would be to implement technically, but I
>> think it would be a good move to prevent people from vandalising other
>> people's User pages, as some are doing.
>
> To call those edits "vandalism" is to use far too strong a word,
> especially from an admitted newbie who isn't familiar with the full
> history of Lir's actions here.
I don't think that a newbie should be prevented from expressing things
as he sees them. I know of no single page that clearly outlines the
case against Lir, and allows a newbie or any fair-minded Wikipedian to
separate fact from speculation.
Hmmm! It sounds like I'm suggesting policy relating to disciplinary
procedures. It could begin with an indictment page on which the
complainant states what individual A did wrong, and what should be done
about it. I'm afraid that further ideas on this will have to come
elsewhere.
>> And I repeat, if anyone has any problems with my behaviour, please
>> tell me
>> on my Talk page, or in a private e-mail.
>
> The only problem so far is your poorly informed defense of Lir. Apart
> from that, it's good to have you on the Wikipedia.
Some of Lir's accusers were just as poorly informed as his defenders.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1888
[Wikipedia-l] Re: The v-word
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 25 18:39:06 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels wrote:
> Normally bannable.
> However, we made an exception, because we hate Lir.
As cute as this is, I should point out that it's not literally true.
There's no "o.k. to be mean to people, if we hate them" exception.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1889
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked: 217.5.141.103
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Mon Nov 25 17:00:09 UTC 2002
Pierre Abbat wrote:
> I just blocked 217.5.141.103. Some sysop on the German Wiki please do the
> same. The block should be removed in a few hours, or sooner if he gets the
> message.
I'm curious, is this how we want Wikipedia to work? No trial? No
reasons stated? Just "block him now!", really? I find this
problematic. Am I the only one?
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1890
[Wikipedia-l] what people I know have to say about anglicization
Bridget
Bridget
Mon Nov 25 19:24:50 UTC 2002
MarderIII: should people pronounce the names of foreign places in the foreign manner?
Bakunin 18: Er, as they are pronounced by their populations?
MarderIII: yes
Bakunin 18: I think so
MarderIII: wikipedia banned me over that question
MarderIII: i really fucking hate people right now
Bakunin 18: You can't switch IPs?
MarderIII: i can
MarderIII: i already did it once
MarderIII: i found some good info on the Taino
MarderIII: and so i added it
MarderIII: and then some troll went and deleted it because I was banned and not allowed to contribute
Bakunin 18: That's... incredibly stupid.
MarderIII: they are also threatning to ban other people who don't think I was so uncontrollab
MarderIII: e
Bakunin 18: Is there not some head admin you can talk to?
MarderIII: he is very mad at me
Bakunin 18: Oh
MarderIII: should people pronounce the names of foreign places in the foreign manner?
opium4themasses: hrm
opium4themasses: well, it would be best if they did
opium4themasses: well no...
MarderIII: wikipedia banned me over the question
opium4themasses: erg?
MarderIII: I came to the conclusion that it boiled down to a latent racism from not considering the other culture's name to have any real tangible value in excess of the outsiders name
opium4themasses: hrm, maybe not racism
opium4themasses: more just egocentric
MarderIII: I believe names are very important
MarderIII: egocentrism is racism I believe
opium4themasses: it's more than just racism
MarderIII: should people pronounce the names of foreign places in the foreign manner?
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: no
MarderIII: why not?
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: because you are not in the foreign place
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: i have someone at work mad at me
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: someone in brazil
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: the program puts Brazil at the top of their report
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: however in Brazil they spell Brazil like this Brasil
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: they don't like that i spell brazil the correct way in the us
MarderIII: So shouldnt we start saying Brasil?
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: but if i spell it brasil then people in the us will think i spelled it wrong
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: no
MarderIII: they are just uneducated though
MarderIII: its Brasil
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: does germany call germany germany
MarderIII: Brazil is just a mistake that a foreigner made
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: or deustchland
MarderIII: Deutschland
MarderIII: I want to go to Deutschland
MarderIII: not Germany
MarderIII: Germany is an american tourist spot
MarderIII: Deutschland is a real place
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: i am sure the germans do not call the united states the united states
MarderIII: who are we to say what germans should do
MarderIII: we need to focus on us
MarderIII: and set a good example
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: yet it is proper to pronounce people's names as they pronounce them in their home country
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: so perhaps proper names should be pronounced as the local people wish them to be pronounced
MarderIII: I agree
MarderIII: and of course there are difficult questions
MarderIII: like what should Asia be called?
MarderIII: I for one, am not particular, as to whether we refer to it in Chinese or Vietnamese
MarderIII: but surely we should use an Asian language
MarderIII: and as Chinese are the most populous
MarderIII: I would much rather use the Chinese name for Asia
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: now i disagree
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: you should call everything whatever your local language calls it
MarderIII: why?
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: it is a different language
MarderIII: why should that matter?
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: your language can call it whatever it deems proper
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: it is language
MarderIII: thats a good point
MarderIII: languages are code
MarderIII: but what about names?
MarderIII: personal names?
Franz[name omitted for privacy reasons]: they should be as the person call themselves
MarderIII: what about Christopher Columbus
MarderIII: he never called himself such
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021125/6f8b1345/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1891
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked: 217.5.141.103
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 19:37:51 UTC 2002
If participation in Wikipedia ever gets so problematic that we have to appoint a court and hold trials, I really will leave -- permanently.
I neither wish to be a judge and hear cases, nor be hauled in front of one and put on trial.
But there has to be away to stop "vandalism" -- even if that way is imperfect.
Could we possibly stop re-visiting every issue, on this mailing list?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1892
[Wikipedia-l] Pronunciation guides (Was Re: Oliver is Lir II [...])
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Nov 25 19:34:27 UTC 2002
Lars Aronsson wrote:
>I think the problem is that Lir is young and has more energy to
>question authority, than patience to listen before he speaks. This
>makes it hard for him to engage in a dialogue. He questions his
>peers, with whom he should cooperate, instead of knowing his enemies
>and where he should direct his energy. Been there, done that, got the
>T-shirt. I think his homepage indicated he was 21. I'm 36. I have
>no idea how old or young or energetic or lazy everybody else is. I'm
>lazy enough, not to bother very much in all the detail.
>
The issue of using diacritical marks is not about Lir. Lir may have
been the one to raise the matter, but that does not alter the objective
question of diacriticals. At 59 I'm much lazier than a 36-year old kid.
I know that people with a poor credibility occasionally make worth
while contributions, and that highly respected people are not immune
from stupidity.
If anything, the debate so far has shown that we are far from unanimous
in our opinions about how non-English names should be treated. A rule
that "the English Wikipedia is in English" seems trivial at first
glance. It works well as long as we stick to common nouns and concepts
of English language origin. There's a whole non-English speaking world
out there with many interesting ideas that are worth incorporating into
Wikipedia. A dictionary is about words; an encyclopedia is about ideas,
and, in the absence of direct neural interfaces, an encyclopedia needs
the words to communicate its ideas. The diacritics of another language
enhance communication, and often are the distinguishing feature between
dissimilar words. The poetics of another language can suffer badly in
translation, yet such a small concession as allowing foreign words to be
fully accented is worth doing if it enhances the understanding of the
other culture. Yes, I know that Spanish considers "n" and "ñ" to be
separate letters which follow each other in alphabetical order, and that
Swedish considers "a" and "å" to be separate letters with the latter put
in a group of special letters at the end of the alphabet. I would never
propose that we adopt the hodge-podge of aphabetical orders from other
languages. Algorithms can be established to link these letters to their
unaccented counterparts. The French certainly have no trouble treating
"e", "è", "é" and "ê" as the same letter for alphabetical purposes, and
that's just fine for English. It also allows for users who just don't
know what the correct accent is in a given circumstance including native
speakers. What I really oppose is having English as the foundation for
a modern Tower of Babel.
>But I know
>that after Lir we will still have the same problem with the next of
>the same kind. So what is our conclusion, and what tools will we have
>prepared for the next time this happens?
>
Indeed we will! I very strongly agree that we should have objective
procedures for dealing with these. Those procedures should help us not
only to deal with "guilty" parties, but also safeguard users from being
overwhelmed by the mob instinct..
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1893
[Wikipedia-l] what people I know have to say about anglicization
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Nov 25 19:56:31 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> MarderIII: should people pronounce the names of foreign places in the foreign manner?
> Bakunin 18: Er, as they are pronounced by their populations?
> MarderIII: yes
> Bakunin 18: I think so
> MarderIII: wikipedia banned me over that question
This is simply untrue.
> MarderIII: i really fucking hate people right now
This may be true, but isn't helpful. When you let go of your anger, you will be
better able to think clearly about how to achieve the things that you want to
achieve.
> Bakunin 18: You can't switch IPs?
> MarderIII: i can
> MarderIII: i already did it once
> MarderIII: i found some good info on the Taino
> MarderIII: and so i added it
> MarderIII: and then some troll went and deleted it because I was banned and not allowed to contribute
> Bakunin 18: That's... incredibly stupid.
> MarderIII: they are also threatning to ban other people who don't think I was so uncontrollab
> MarderIII: e
> Bakunin 18: Is there not some head admin you can talk to?
> MarderIII: he is very mad at me
I am not mad at anyone. I am disappointed that Lir has not recognized
that the problem is not even remotely related to legitimate
disagreements about how to pronounce foreign words. The problem is
*directly* related to misrepresenting why he/she was banned.
Pretending that you were banned over pronunciation, after our long
conversations, is not really fair.
If you ask your friends for input into this situation, and you tell
them things that are not true, then you will get advice that is
inaccurate. If you tell them that you were banned for your views on
anglicization, when you were actually banned for being an obnoxious
pest who calls people racist for no reason, they will be unable to
tell you "Stop being an obnoxious pest... present your views with
reason and good will, and others will agree or disagree with some
details, but you can likely achieve your significant goals to a
significant extent."
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1894
[Wikipedia-l] Pronunciation guides (Was Re: Oliver is Lir II [...])
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Mon Nov 25 20:51:01 UTC 2002
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> The issue of using diacritical marks is not about Lir.
To some extent, though, it is. Lir is very alone in suggesting that
Germany should be called Deutschland in an English text. There are
other foreign places where the English use is unstable, e.g. both the
English spelling Gothenburg and the Swedish spelling Göteborg are used
for the same city in English texts. I think the NPOV policy is
sufficient to address this. For most smaller cities there never was
an English name, and the use of diacritics might be justified. But
the name Germany never was in any of these categories.
My remarks about Lir was about the "Deutschland" cases. It was my
interpretation that this was the result of independent thinking (which
I admire) in combination with lack of interest in the opinion of
others (which might come with more experience - it did for me).
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1895
[Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
Neil Harris
neil at tonal.clara.co.uk
Mon Nov 25 18:17:10 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
>Ed,
>
>I know you mean very well, and that you're trying to help solve an
>important problem, but I'm generally opposed to giving admins any special
>powers that they do not already have have. Maybe give everyone this
>power?
>
>Isn't there another way to achieve what you are trying to achieve?
>
>Larry
>
>On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>
I agree with Larry on this. All logged-in users (or maybe even all
users) should have the power to send a message to unregistered IPs:
there is no need for a similar power to talk to logged-in users, as the
talk page will already work for them.
Perhaps this could be done by just editing the [[User:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]]
page for the appropriate IP.
Neil
>
>
>>How about giving admins the ability to throw up a "Please read this" message.
>>
>>Something like this:
>>* User submits an edit
>>* Wikipedia accepts the edit, and...
>>* Sends user to a "You have an urgent administrative message" page.
>>
>>User can then:
>>* Click on the "Read message" button, or
>>* Just ignore it
>>
>>We can think of variations, like, send the user directly to the message page, rather than the "you have a message waiting". Another, for egregious cases, would send the user to the "message waiting" or 'please acknowledge this' page after EVERY edit, until the click an OKAY button.
>>
>>Ed poor
>>
>>
>>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1896
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 25 21:21:30 UTC 2002
Erik, could you please take this off the list? It's boring.
Zoe
Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:> My troll days are long past;
That's not what I get from your changelog to Lir's page:
"Lir, I'm going to sit on you till you cry uncle"
"No. Bad Lir. No more senseless linking!"
"Still sitting on Lir; she isn't showing that she's interesting in
developing good taste in editing"
"We want good taste, or we'll spit you out."
"adding link to important article on Good Taste"
"Don't try to wriggle out of it Lir; a contributor of your stature needs to
develope some TASTE"
"Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you don't take other peoples feelings
seriously Lir, why should we take your work seriously?"
"Give me some evidence you know what good taste is Lir. C'mon, I challenge
you"
"not even close. try again, Lir baby"
"(your fate is being decided; if you don't take your fate seriously, it will
certainly take YOU very seriously"
again: "putting in link to article on Good Taste"
This is when other Wikipedians started reverting your changes. Lir
repeatedly *removed* your link to the good taste article and only left it in because
you kept vandalizing her page and threatened to continue to do so. And yes,
I'm going to continue to say "her", nobody seems to be female on the Internet
anyway, so I can use it as a neutral gender [*].
You're falling back into your old trolling behavior, Jon. The sad thing is
that you got away with it for too long, because nobody likes to stick up for
Lir.
Regards,
Erik
[*] Yes, that was a joke.
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021125/4abbe4c5/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1897
[Wikipedia-l] User pages
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 25 21:29:01 UTC 2002
What about the case where Lir attributed a quote to me on her User page that I never made?
Zoe
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:There is only one instance that comes to mind where I would make minor
changes to somebody's user page, and that is to fix broken links or
multiple redirects incidental to a change somwhere else on Wikipedia.
Even there a piping to the correct title while retaining the appearance
of the user page is often to be preferred.
Eclecticology
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021125/14542866/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1898
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked: 217.5.141.103
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 25 21:44:28 UTC 2002
--- Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > I just blocked 217.5.141.103. Some sysop on the
> German Wiki please do the
> > same. The block should be removed in a few hours,
> or sooner if he gets the
> > message.
>
> I'm curious, is this how we want Wikipedia to work?
> No trial? No
> reasons stated? Just "block him now!", really? I
> find this
> problematic. Am I the only one?
Hu, no. You are not.
Actually, what I did was to delete these pages...
He didnot put many of these, I had no way to know who
he was, nor to communicate with him. I did not want
him to create endless empty pages, unlikely to be
filled before long (architecture stuff, we have no
architect around !)
I thought maybe he would notice...maybe is that a
wrong move, dunno...
There's one thing I know though.
It is now more than a week that the french wikipedia
is basically not usuable in the evening. All the usual
evening participants don't participate any more.
*This* is a *problem* to me.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1899
[Wikipedia-l] Re: The v-word
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Mon Nov 25 22:22:55 UTC 2002
>It's easy to look at every single edit. I did it.
>(Yes, Erik, Lir put in the link to good taste first,
>after Clutch had put it on her user talk page.)
>There's no doubt in my mind that vandalism was at work.
>This is not name-calling; I do not say this gratuitously.
>These sorts of changes to a user page are unprecedented,
>and they were done repeatedly, despite admonition
>from several other Wikipedians. Normally bannable.
>However, we made an exception, because we hate Lir.
>
>
>-- Toby
I don't hate Lir, and I was very tempted to ban Clutch. My previous oath to
avoid banning as much as possible would have stopped me, even if my lack
of developer access didn't.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1900
[Wikipedia-l] A lesson in logic (was: The v-word)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Mon Nov 25 22:29:11 UTC 2002
There's a particular kind of argument, often used in politics:
------------------------
A is VERY BAD.
B is an A.
Therefore, B is VERY BAD.
We all agree that genocide is bad. Especially those of us who are (or know) people who lest relatives in the [[Holocaust]].
G is very bad.
Israeli policy (settlements in the West Bank, etc.) is "genocide".
S is G.
Therefore, S is very bad.
--------------------------
We can pull the same trick with Vandalism.
V is very bad.
That edit is vandalism.
E is V.
Therefore, E is very bad.
It's what my logic textbook calls a "valid but unsound" argument. It's valid, because the conclusion really does follow from the premises. It's unsound, because not all of the premises are true.
It only takes one untrue premise to demolish the soundness of an otherwise "valid" argument.
I would like to request to all my fellow (and lady!) contributors that we not use the bludgeon of this kind of fallacious argument against one another.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1901
[Wikipedia-l] what people I know have to say about anglicization
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Mon Nov 25 22:56:54 UTC 2002
We the peoples of the formerly well-known nations of Shqiperi,
Al-Jaza-ir, Hayastan, Druk-yul, Zhongguo, Hrvatska, Kalaalit Nunaat,
Misr, Eesti, Viti, Ellas, al'Urdan, Choson Minjujuui In'min
Konghwaguk, Taehan-Min'guk, Dhivehi Jumhuriya, Pyidaungsu Myanma
Naingngandaw, and Aotearoa would prefer not to get lost, actually, so
no thanks.
You'd never get all our little marks right in your barbaric typefaces,
so we're happy being known to you as Albania, Algeria, Armenia,
Bhutan, China, Croatia, Greenland, Egypt, Estonia, Fiji, Greece,
Jordan, North Korea, South Korea, the Maldives, Myanmar, and New
Zealand.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1902
[Wikipedia-l] what people I know have to say about
Julie Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 25 23:09:31 UTC 2002
Pax to your Thanksgiving, Jimbo. Please accept that
this is not about Lir, but rather just about
nomenclature and an attempt to support the way we've
been doing things.
I just read with interest what Lir's friends have to
say about the anglicisation (for you, Steve) of
foreign words. I also looked at what Lir had to say.
Based on that, I am even more convinced that the
article titles should remain in English. They are
completely valid words in English. Moreover, I was
just thinking about what we do with foreign names in
English. Often it's true that the names were changed
or misspelt or otherwise mutilated at Ellis Island.
Sometimes, though, the bearers of those names changed
them -- or their pronunciation -- to make them sound
more "American" (I think the same is true in England).
When one correctly pronounces those names (as I did
after living in Germany for several years), one is
often the immediate giver of offense.
Furthermore, when I think back to the old days of
"it's Prussia," "No, it's Poland," (the argument was
over what name to use for cites which spent much of
their history as part of Prussia, but are presently
located in Poland) the only way to come to a
reasonable agreement was to rely on what English
speakers most normally (and currently) use.
As for leading through good example -- I have to ask
about this. As I understand Lir's argument, he says:
It's correct to use the local name for a place,
because we should be more sensitive to others,
But speakers of other languages may in fact not do
this(I personally know people who speak French,
German, and Spanish as their native languages -- they
all use that language's version of US when speaking
the respective language)
If these other-language-speakers don't practice the
"local-name-use" rule, then they aren't behaving as
they should, BUT, we should be better than they are
and lead by example -- then they may catch on.
Can we please leave it alone, and accept that
languages reflect a good many things, but that, unless
terms are not translatable, it's best to try and speak
one language at a time in the Pedia?
Jules
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1903
The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Nov 25 23:04:57 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:51:58PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> *sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it. Even when Lir was
>> still unbanned, he kept changing her page, linking to articles about
>> "good taste"
>> to help her develop "the good taste she lacks", kept reverting her
>> attempts
>> to restore the page and threatened to do so until Lir would "call him
>> uncle"
>> (and not in the uncle Ed sense, I presume). Now that Lir is banned,
>> he is,
>
> This is possibly a cultural difference. Your address and name indicates
> you are German. In English, when you make someone "holler uncle!" it
> means "do you give up now?" It is specifically used when someone is
> being an unbearable annoyance, so you sit on them, and you don't let
> them up until they indicate they recognize they have been an annoyance
> and are prepared to change, by hollering "uncle!" It's a fine old
> tradition, rarely used by people who are older than school age.
Rarely used by them because it's the tactic of a schoolyard bully. A
lot of effort has been put by British Columbia schools in recent years
to prevent this kind of bullying that amounts to lynch mob justice.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1904
[Wikipedia-l] Blocked: 217.5.141.103
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Nov 25 23:22:15 UTC 2002
Lars Aronsson wrote:
>Pierre Abbat wrote:
>
>>I just blocked 217.5.141.103. Some sysop on the German Wiki please do the
>>same. The block should be removed in a few hours, or sooner if he gets the
>>message.
>>
>
>I'm curious, is this how we want Wikipedia to work? No trial? No
>reasons stated? Just "block him now!", really? I find this
>problematic. Am I the only one?
>
You're not the only one. Some of this stuff is starting to look like
cowboy justice.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1905
[Wikipedia-l] Pronunciation guides (Was Re: Oliver is Lir II [...])
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Nov 26 01:26:56 UTC 2002
Lars Aronsson wrote:
>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>The issue of using diacritical marks is not about Lir.
>>
>To some extent, though, it is. Lir is very alone in suggesting that
>Germany should be called Deutschland in an English text. There are
>other foreign places where the English use is unstable, e.g. both the
>English spelling Gothenburg and the Swedish spelling Göteborg are used
>for the same city in English texts. I think the NPOV policy is
>sufficient to address this. For most smaller cities there never was
>an English name, and the use of diacritics might be justified. But
>the name Germany never was in any of these categories.
>
>My remarks about Lir was about the "Deutschland" cases. It was my
>interpretation that this was the result of independent thinking (which
>I admire) in combination with lack of interest in the opinion of
>others (which might come with more experience - it did for me).
>
I know that Lir was at the far end of the scale on this issue. I too
would find it unwarranted to refer to Germany as Deutschland in an
English text. Continuing to discuss the issue in terms of Lir only
serves to keep alive an extreme POV that nobody else supports. Once we
remove the Lir factor we may find that our opinions are not that far apart.
For Gothenburg/Göteborg I see the issue as more in transition than
unstable. I just looked at a popular work: "The World Almanac and Book
of Facts, 1998" and it uses "Göteborg". This seems to reflect a modern
trend. My 1906 Encyclopedia Americana lists it under "Gottenburg".adds
both alternatives and show "Götheborg" with the extra "h" as an
alternative Swedish spelling..
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1906
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Fri Nov 29 21:36:22 UTC 2002
Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As far as
I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I missed
an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
Vicki
At 10:19 AM 9/9/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
>arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
>to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
>period of 3 months.
>
>After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1907
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Sat Nov 30 00:53:22 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As
> far as
> I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I
> missed
> an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
If she's here that's a fact. The arbitrary 3-month period should not be
treated so significantly. What's really important is her behaviour from
now forward. Dwelling on her past sins doesn't help anybody.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1908
[Wikipedia-l] Tarquin
Bridget
Bridget
Sat Nov 30 14:33:32 UTC 2002
Plz do not slander or harass me. It is not appropriate.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021130/eac900f4/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1909
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sat Nov 30 19:21:29 UTC 2002
Eclecticology wrote:
>Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>>Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As far as
>>I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I missed
>>an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
>If she's here that's a fact. The arbitrary 3-month period should not be
>treated so significantly. What's really important is her behaviour from
>now forward. Dwelling on her past sins doesn't help anybody.
There is the issue of the integrity of banning procedures.
She can only have been unbanned by an administrator,
and there was discussion earlier on the list that her time was about up.
I suspect that somebody simply messed up the timing.
If this is correct, and there was no subversion of the process,
then you're right, we should concentrate on her behaviour now.
But if she did an end run on the system (and Jimbo's wishes) somehow,
then that shouldn't be rewarded.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1910
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism spree
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 1 19:24:56 UTC 2002
Vandalisme :
N'oubliez pas de mettre un message sur la liste
française en cas de vandalisme : plus de chance
d'attraper un sysop non actif sur la wikipédia
Eventuellement, mettre aussi un message à Tarquin sur
la wikipédia anglaise, il peut s'y trouver et venir
aider à bloquer les ip
Aussi, en cas de submergement, mettre un message sur
la main liste pour demander de l aide à la réversion
Peut-etre mettre un mot sur la wikitech si il est
nécessaire de bloquer un vandale logué
Oui, il faut que plus de personnes prennent le status
sysop pour aider en cas de pb
Néanmoins cela ne changera rien en cas de vandalisme
logué, ou en cas de vandalisme aux heures creuses.
Heureusement que Shai etait la...
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/007713.html
ant
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1911
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism spree
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 1 19:28:59 UTC 2002
Brion,
Quand un utilisateur a été bloqué, pourquoi son ip
apparait t elle toujours avec (bloque) dans les recent
change ???
La seule facon de savoir si il est effectivement
bloque est d aller voir sur la liste des adresses
bloquees. C est une perte de temps. Il faudrait
pouvoir voir directement dans les recent changes si
une ip a été bloquée en aval ou pas.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1912
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism spree
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 1 19:58:16 UTC 2002
Please, could so promote some sysop for the fr.wiki
and come help...I cannot stay...and shai is the only
sysop to be avail
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1913
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Mon Dec 2 00:25:14 UTC 2002
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 11:21:29AM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Eclecticology wrote:
>
> >Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> >>Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As far as
> >>I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I missed
> >>an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
>
> >If she's here that's a fact. The arbitrary 3-month period should not be
> >treated so significantly. What's really important is her behaviour from
> >now forward. Dwelling on her past sins doesn't help anybody.
>
> There is the issue of the integrity of banning procedures.
> She can only have been unbanned by an administrator,
> and there was discussion earlier on the list that her time was about up.
> I suspect that somebody simply messed up the timing.
> If this is correct, and there was no subversion of the process,
> then you're right, we should concentrate on her behaviour now.
> But if she did an end run on the system (and Jimbo's wishes) somehow,
> then that shouldn't be rewarded.
I think Jimbo unbanned her. But I think it was a fault. Frau Jonat is
doing what she's done before (List in no particular order):
* Shows disrespect against the Polish national border:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wolin&diff=452458&oldid=452448
* reverting articles to a status that was considered
wrong by other experts, without providing prove or
arguments for her position
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Boleslaus_I_of_Poland&diff=456005&oldid=443686
* Changing articles from NPOV
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Lithuania&diff=456047&oldid=452553
* Articles which do not cover the subject
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Galindan_language&oldid=456004
JeLuF
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1914
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Dec 2 10:55:14 UTC 2002
Jens Frank wrote:
>I think Jimbo unbanned her. But I think it was a fault. Frau Jonat is
>doing what she's done before (List in no particular order):
>
>* Shows disrespect against the Polish national border:
>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wolin&diff=452458&oldid=452448
>
>* reverting articles to a status that was considered
> wrong by other experts, without providing prove or
> arguments for her position
>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Boleslaus_I_of_Poland&diff=456005&oldid=443686
>
>* Changing articles from NPOV
>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Lithuania&diff=456047&oldid=452553
>
>* Articles which do not cover the subject
>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Galindan_language&oldid=456004
>
I've reviewed these articles, and although some of the changes seem
debatable, or involve exchanging one POV for another, that is nothing
unusual in the thrust and parry of debate. To say that adding the
single word "current" to "Polish border" is a disrespect of Polish
borders makes arguments out of nothing. The addition is at worst a
redundency of trivial importance.
If temporary bans are to have any value, fair-mindedness demands that
when the offender returns to the community her contributions be judged
with the same objectivity that would be applied to any other
contributors. There is no need to look at her contributions through a
microscope for every tiny point that you may find offensive. If you
look hard enough you can find that in anybody's contributions.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1915
[Wikipedia-l] Plz stop harrassing Helga
Bridget
Bridget
Mon Dec 2 16:35:55 UTC 2002
Plz stop harrassing Helga. It was argued that her changes were POV by changing German ultimatum to German/Lithuana treaty --- it seems to me that Helga was making the article not only NPOV but also more informative, as ultimatum is a much more weighted word than treaty.
On Boleslaus I - the changes do not make me wish to ban Helga-it makes me wonder why, if Helga is wrong and Boleslaus managed to pass the crowd to successors, then why doesn't the page link to these successors?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021202/f21f6171/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1916
[Wikipedia-l] Plz stop harrassing Helga
Gareth Owen
wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk
Mon Dec 2 16:43:36 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] <lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com> writes:
> Helga was making the article not only NPOV but also more informative, as
> ultimatum is a much more weighted word than treaty.
Yes. But it wasn't a treaty and it *was* an ultimatum.
Von Ribbentrop told the Lithuanian minister
"The situation in the Klaipëda Territory is such that any minute German
blood may be spilled there, and if that happens the German army will march
into Lithuania and nobody can predict where it may halt."
Thats not a treaty, thats an ultimatum, if not an outright threat. The only
relevant treaty, that of 1927, said Klaipëda was a Lithuanian territory.
I know, don't feed the trolls, especially those with unresolved gender issues.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1917
[Wikipedia-l] Plz stop harrassing Helga
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Dec 2 17:30:11 UTC 2002
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Plz stop harrassing Helga. It was argued that her changes were POV by
> changing German ultimatum to German/Lithuana treaty --- it seems to me
> that Helga was making the article not only NPOV but also more
> informative, as ultimatum is a much more weighted word than treaty.
>
>
> On Boleslaus I - the changes do not make me wish to ban Helga-it makes
> me wonder why, if Helga is wrong and Boleslaus managed to pass the
> crowd to successors, then why doesn't the page link to these successors?
>
With all due respect, Lir, you will appreciate that your impaired
credibility on Wikipedia means that your intervention on issues
concerning Helga may be counterproductive to your apparent
intentions.... or more crudely put: With friends like you she doesn't
need enemies.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1918
[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Dec 3 14:39:46 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As far as
> I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I missed
> an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
This return is without my knowledge or assent. She's supposed to talk to me
first.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1919
[Wikipedia-l] Plz stop harrassing Helga
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Dec 3 15:15:58 UTC 2002
Eclecticology wrote:
>Lir wrote:
>>Plz stop harrassing Helga.
>With all due respect, Lir, you will appreciate that your impaired
>credibility on Wikipedia means that your intervention on issues
>concerning Helga may be counterproductive to your apparent
>intentions.... or more crudely put: With friends like you she doesn't
>need enemies.
Ah, but perhaps this is Lir's plan all along!
See, Lir sees things in highly politicised terms,
and is a leftist (an anarcosocial-communist, to be precise),
while Helga's edits could easily be seen as rightwing
(perhaps sympathetic to Nazis, and definitely antiCommunist).
If Lir does see them that way, and thus identifies Helga as an enemy,
the naturally this is just what she would do!
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1920
[Wikipedia-l] Plz stop harrassing Helga
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Tue Dec 3 15:29:20 UTC 2002
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:15:58AM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
>See, Lir sees things in highly politicised terms,
>and is a leftist (an anarcosocial-communist, to be precise),
No. He adopts the rhetoric of libertian socialism, but is really a
burn-and-smash nihilist. Not the same thing at all, and rather a
discredit to freedom lovers everywhere.
>while Helga's edits could easily be seen as rightwing
>(perhaps sympathetic to Nazis, and definitely antiCommunist).
Even libertarian socialists are firmly opposed to Marxism, Leninism, and
Stalinism. As for the Nazis, they were socialists too.
>If Lir does see them that way, and thus identifies Helga as an enemy,
>the naturally this is just what she would do!
In which case we should deny Lir the impression that he is still able to
manipulate or have an effect on the Wikipedia.
Helga does seem to have returned; I haven't seen a long string of edit
wars like before; I hope she talks to Jimmy. When I saw her reply on
her talk page, I assumed her account had actually been unblocked in the
database itself.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021203/e3308ef3/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1921
[Wikipedia-l] Plz stop harrassing Helga
Lars Aronsson
lars at aronsson.se
Tue Dec 3 16:24:45 UTC 2002
Toby Bartels wrote:
> See, Lir sees things in highly politicised terms,
> and is a leftist (an anarcosocial-communist, to be precise),
I don't agree that Lir is a leftist. He's just immature, looking for
a project where he can spend his energy. Why not give him a project?
Perhaps he can learn to program PHP and fix Wikipedia's performance
problems. Perhaps he can learn Serbian and translate the SH
Wikipedia?
--
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1922
[Wikipedia-l] Helga's back and no one's harassing her, dammit
Julie Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 3 17:00:32 UTC 2002
Lir, in answer to your questions: 1) it was an
ultimatum. Helga wants it to be a treaty because she
is trying to prove that most of what is now Poland and
the Baltic states, along with much of Hungary, the
Czech Republic, and Slovakia, are traditionally part
of an entity anachronistically known as Magna
Germania. This is somewhat of an oversimplification,
but sums up the essence of over a year of Helga's
"cooperation" on the site. 2) The fact that no one
has taken the time to write on Boleslav's successors
doesn't mean there aren't any, only that no one has
taken the time. The articles started out as a Helga
demonstration that the Poles were somehow vassals of
the Emperor, and so really their lands were German...
More importantly, I do hope someone is talking to
Helga (hint, Jimmy), because one of her new pages is
entitled something like German cities conquered by the
Soviet Union -- again, something that by itself could
be seen as almost (but really not) neutral, but is in
fact meaningless separate from a series of articles
that will include information on how these areas were
unfairly conquered by evil communists...
JHK, who was beginning to be re-lured into it at the
end of the quarter, but is now thinking it's still SOSDD.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1923
[Wikipedia-l] Ed Poor IP unblocked Helga's IP -- was: Helga banned
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Dec 3 17:28:56 UTC 2002
I unblocked Helga's IP on November 12th and reported this on the mailing list as follows:
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/007408.html
However, to my regret and consternation, I note that my e-mail was so obscure as to fail to catch anyone's attention.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1924
[Wikipedia-l] FW: Say 'high' to a new sysop
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Dec 3 17:55:06 UTC 2002
-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W.
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:37 PM
To: 'wikien-l at wikipedia.org'
Subject: Say 'high' to a new sysop
Why don't we give Tokerboy (aka Tucci) sysop rights? I have developer rights, so if no one objects in the next few hours I'll just run the script.
We'll have a party with cake and some other more potent goodies later this evening... ;-)
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Tucci [mailto:tucci528 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 3:50 PM
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #25 - 9 msgs
> You forgot a vital piece of information. By which
> user name do you want sysop
> user rights? Tokerboy or Tucci528 (I assume Tokerboy
> since that is the user
> name you seem to be using these days).
Tokerboy, definitely. I only used Tucci528 before I
could think of anything better (I'm indecisive).
I was out of town for a few days, and I thought for
sure I'd have about a million digests waiting for me.
Turns out there were three, so I guess I'm not the
only one who was vacationing from wikipedia during Thanksgiving.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1925
[Wikipedia-l] Ed Poor IP unblocked Helga's IP -- was: Helga banned
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Tue Dec 3 17:58:29 UTC 2002
At 12:28 PM 12/3/02 -0500, Ed Poor wrote:
>I unblocked Helga's IP on November 12th and reported this on the mailing
>list as follows:
>
>http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/007408.html
>
>However, to my regret and consternation, I note that my e-mail was so
>obscure as to fail to catch anyone's attention.
Having gone back and read that email, I note that this unblocking was in
violation
of stated policy and decisions--Jimbo had banned Helga for three months. It may
be that your reference to a two-month ban that "should have expired" is part of
why nobody noticed that you had, in fact, changed the rules unilaterally.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1926
[Wikipedia-l] Ed Poor IP unblocked Helga's IP -- was: Helga banned
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Dec 3 17:55:11 UTC 2002
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> Having gone back and read that email, I note that this unblocking was in
> violation
> of stated policy and decisions--Jimbo had banned Helga for three months. It may
> be that your reference to a two-month ban that "should have expired" is part of
> why nobody noticed that you had, in fact, changed the rules unilaterally.
Ed informed me before you wrote this that he had made a simple error.
He misread "three months" as "two months" in the relevant email and thought
he was just doing an administrative task that had been previously ignored.
He didn't mean to "change the rules unilaterally".
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1927
[Wikipedia-l] Ed Poor IP unblocked Helga's IP -- was: Helga banned
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Dec 3 18:05:01 UTC 2002
Vicki wrote:
> Having gone back and read that email, I note that this unblocking was
> in violation of stated policy and decisions--Jimbo had banned Helga
> for three months. It may be that your reference to a two-month ban
> that "should have expired" is part of why nobody noticed that you
> had, in fact, changed the rules unilaterally.
Vicki,
You are right, and I'm sorry that I jumped the gun. I have also apologized privately to Jimbo.
Based on discussion on the wikitech-l mailing list, I think Jimbo is going to restore the ban.
Actually, any sysop can do it. Simply click on the following URL.
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Blockip&ip=164.58.161.98
You'll be taken to a confirmation page, where you can enter the reason. Then, click the "Block this address" button.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1928
[Wikipedia-l] FW: Say 'high' to a new sysop
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Tue Dec 3 18:38:49 UTC 2002
On Tuesday 03 December 2002 12:55, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poor, Edmund W.
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:37 PM
> To: 'wikien-l at wikipedia.org'
> Subject: Say 'high' to a new sysop
>
>
> Why don't we give Tokerboy (aka Tucci) sysop rights? I have developer
> rights, so if no one objects in the next few hours I'll just run the
> script.
>
> We'll have a party with cake and some other more potent goodies later this
> evening... ;-)
I'd bring the sage if I had some - but all I have is basil (and the one you
see in the picture has lost all its leaves - I brought its son inside).
phma
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1929
[Wikipedia-l] FW: Say 'high' to a new sysop
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Dec 3 18:50:00 UTC 2002
> > Why don't we give Tokerboy (aka Tucci) sysop rights? I have developer
> > rights, so if no one objects in the next few hours I'll just run the
> > script.
> >
> > We'll have a party with cake and some other more potent goodies later this
> > evening... ;-)
>
> I'd bring the sage if I had some - but all I have is basil (and the one you
> see in the picture has lost all its leaves - I brought its son inside).
>
> phma
I'm going to take your wry comment as a tacit endorsement, thus bringing the tally to 4 in favor, none opposed.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1930
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiFR-l] Alerte de vandalisme
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 3 20:03:35 UTC 2002
--- athymik <athymik at ifrance.com> wrote:
> Des nouvelles :
>
> * Une autre vague a été repousée...
> * LAG total ! On peut même plus voir ce qu'il fait !
>
> Une idée ?
> Merci ;-)
>
> Tim
Je suis de retour depuis 15 mn
Aucune connection a aucun site
Good news
We are safe, horray !!!
Bad news : maybe the lag is happening because the
assault moved to another place
Do not restart the server !! When down, we are safe
!!!
Athymyk, seriously, could you tomorrow work on a
"REPAIRBOT"
I agree with it by default !!!!
below some thoughts
A vandal bot not taking all the advantages it could is
either
* a vandal managed by an idiot
* a fire drill
Typically
* running the bot under an ip rather than loggued in
user
* giving up after a couple of minutes
* only using a dozen ip at most
* running on small wikis at the very moment when it is
most likely for people to be watching rather than
off-peak hours
* same comment and same text everywhere
== How could we detect a vandal bot ? ==
* more than xxx edits per minut with a max of yy edits
per t mn
* replacement of a text of more than xxx characters
per a chain of less than yyy characters, this more
than t times (especially the same text)
* replacement of a text of more than xxx characters
per picture, this more than t times (especially the
same picture)
* replacement of a text of more than xxx characters
per blank page, this more than t times
* identical comment per same user more than t times
Pros : some perfectly acceptable actions can be
repeted many times (reversion, typos...)
:reponse : why not make a list of old-hands loggued
users who might be excluded from the watch ?
== How could detection system alert people ? ==
* automatic alert on mailing lists (main list,
wikitech list, specific language list)
* personnal mail alert for designed users, for
specific language
* general alert with visual indicator on all wikipedia
(specific to language, example : interlanguage gets
red)
* personnal alert on talk pages of designed used
== How could we stop the vandal bot ? ==
* international sysops
* in recent change, the status of the ip or of the
loggued-user must be displayed ("block this ip" or "ip
blocked")
* possibility to limit the number of edit per page of
a loggued-in user per a sysop
cons : abuse during edit war
answer : peer pressure
== How could we repair the damage ? ==
* RepairBot
Spec :
1. accessibility
:from the special pages
:directly from recent change by clicking on the "ip
blocked" link
:sysop only ?
:feature available only for blocked user or ip to
limit abuse
2. Displays a page, with the vandal ip or user name,
list of pages with "top" qualification (vandal was
last to edit)
3. the repairBot go through all those pages one after
the other; check if the last edit was the vandal one,
revert to the last before vandalism.
4. repairBot is a non-loggued ip, to be stopped by a
sysop
cons : abuse during edit war
Answer : the bot could be used only by a sysop
different from the one who did the block
>
> > Peut-être revenir m'aider maintenant... il est
> revenu !!!
> >
> > > holalala, mais qu est ce qu on va faire !!!!!
> > >
> > > --- athymik <athymik at ifrance.com> wrote:
> > > > Bonjour à tous,
> > > >
> > > > Iala'29899 est revenu nous dire bonjour alors
> :
> > > >
> > > > * diff) (hist) . . Alcaloïde; 22:16 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Albin; 22:16 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Alberta; 22:16 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Albert King; 22:16 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Albert Ducrocq; 22:15 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Albert Collins; 22:15 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Albert Camus; 22:15 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Albanie; 22:15 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Albanais; 22:15 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Alan Greenspan; 22:15 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Ai; 22:15 . . Francis
> (revert)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Alan Cox; 22:14 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Alain Madelin; 22:14 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Alain Juppé; 22:14 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Alain-Fournier; 22:14 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Al-Bahnasah; 22:14 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akseli Gallen-Kallela;
> 22:14 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akira Kurosawa; 22:14 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akihito; 22:14 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akihabara; 22:14 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akhénaton; 22:14 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akhit; 22:13 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akhenaton; 22:13 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akh; 22:13 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Aker; 22:13 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akenaton; 22:13 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Akachan; 22:13 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Aka; 22:13 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Aisne; 22:13 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Aires protégées; 22:13 . .
> > > > 213.4.108.197 (bloquer)
> > > > (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Ain; 22:12 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Aiguchi; 22:12 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Aichi; 22:12 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899
> > > > RULEZ)
> > > > * (diff) (hist) . . Ai; 22:12 . .
> 213.4.108.197
> > > > (bloquer) (Iala'29899 RULEZ)
> > > >
> > > > Voila... @+ HELP ! On est que trois...
> > > >
> > > > Tim
> > >
> > >
>
_____________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > > GRAND JEU SMS : Pour gagner un NOKIA 7650,
> envoyez
> > > > le mot IF au 61321
> > > > (prix d'un SMS + 0.35 euro). Un SMS vous dira
> si
> > > > vous avez gagné.
> > > > Règlement :
> http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/sign.sms
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiFR-l mailing list
> > > > WikiFR-l at wikipedia.org
> > > >
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikifr-l
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiFR-l mailing list
> > > WikiFR-l at wikipedia.org
> > >
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikifr-l
> > >
>
_____________________________________________________________________
> > > GRAND JEU SMS : Pour gagner un NOKIA 7650,
> envoyez le mot IF au 61321
> > > (prix d'un SMS + 0.35 euro). Un SMS vous dira si
> vous avez gagni.
> > > Rhglement :
> http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/sign.sms
> >
> >
>
_____________________________________________________________________
> > GRAND JEU SMS : Pour gagner un NOKIA 7650, envoyez
> le mot IF au 61321
> > (prix d'un SMS + 0.35 euro). Un SMS vous dira si
> vous avez gagné.
> > Règlement : http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/sign.sms
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiFR-l mailing list
> > WikiFR-l at wikipedia.org
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikifr-l
> >
>
_____________________________________________________________________
> > GRAND JEU SMS : Pour gagner un NOKIA 7650, envoyez
> le mot IF au 61321
> > (prix d'un SMS + 0.35 euro). Un SMS vous dira si
> vous avez gagni.
> > Rhglement : http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/sign.sms
>
_____________________________________________________________________
> GRAND JEU SMS : Pour gagner un NOKIA 7650, envoyez
> le mot IF au 61321
> (prix d'un SMS + 0.35 euro). Un SMS vous dira si
> vous avez gagné.
> Règlement : http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/sign.sms
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1931
[Wikipedia-l] Plz do not slander me
Bridget
Bridget
Tue Dec 3 22:37:01 UTC 2002
Plz do not discuss my sexuality, political viewpoints, religion, philosophy, or the like. I have not discussed these things with you and those of you doing so are slandering me.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021203/92da9ee0/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1932
[Wikipedia-l] Plz do not slander me
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 4 00:06:41 UTC 2002
--- Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] <lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Plz do not discuss my sexuality, political viewpoints, religion,
> philosophy, or the like. I have not discussed these things with you
> and those of you doing so are slandering me.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Adam Aka Bridget aka Lir,
We wo are US citizens are exercising our constitutionally guaranteed
right of free association and free speech in private. If you feel
strongly enough that you have a case against us, please contact the
State Attorney's office in your state and ask initiate legal
proceedings.
-OR-
Go rant on slashdot.
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1933
[Wikipedia-l] Plz do not slander me
Jason "Rodzilla" Rodzik
rodzilla at seriouszone.com
Wed Dec 4 00:14:23 UTC 2002
No slander has occured or can occur. Now if you want to talk about libel... ;)
---------------------------------------------------
Jason "Rodzilla" Rodzik
Seriously! Owner & Director of Operations
http://www.seriouszone.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons]
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Plz do not slander me
Plz do not discuss my sexuality, political viewpoints, religion, philosophy, or the like. I have not discussed these things with you and those of you doing so are slandering me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021203/eef391cf/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1934
[Wikipedia-l] Plz stop harrassing Helga
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Dec 4 09:40:14 UTC 2002
Clutch wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>See, Lir sees things in highly politicised terms,
>>and is a leftist (an anarcosocial-communist, to be precise),
>No. He adopts the rhetoric of libertian socialism, but is really a
>burn-and-smash nihilist. Not the same thing at all, and rather a
>discredit to freedom lovers everywhere.
Goodness, I'm not claiming that Adam/Lir is an *intelligent* political thinker!
Only that (s)he (under either name) identifies with the political left.
(Just look at the list at [[m:anarcosocial-communism]].)
That's enough for my theory -- he can still be a discredit.
>>while Helga's edits could easily be seen as rightwing
>>(perhaps sympathetic to Nazis, and definitely antiCommunist).
>Even libertarian socialists are firmly opposed to Marxism, Leninism, and
>Stalinism. As for the Nazis, they were socialists too.
Sure, *real* anarchists oppose Marxism, but you just said that Lir is a faker.
And even then, anarchists oppose Redbaiting, which Helga has tendencies toward.
(I don't want to charge Helga with anything seriously along those lines;
the only issue is what one might reasonably expect Lir to perceive.)
Also, calling Hitler "socialist" is like, well, calling Stalin "socialist".
(Or calling either "democratic", which both liars claimed to be as well.)
>>If Lir does see them that way, and thus identifies Helga as an enemy,
>>the naturally this is just what she would do!
>In which case we should deny Lir the impression that he is still able to
>manipulate or have an effect on the Wikipedia.
I only want Lir to get the impression that I made a joke out of the situation.
And this is enough work to sustain that joke, I think.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1935
[Wikipedia-l] Ed Poor IP unblocked Helga's IP -- was: Helga banned
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Dec 4 09:44:09 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
>I unblocked Helga's IP on November 12th and reported this on the mailing list as follows:
>http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/007408.html
>However, to my regret and consternation, I note that my e-mail was so obscure as to fail to catch anyone's attention.
I noticed it at the time, but then I forgot all about it!
So, yes, some administrator just made a mistake, and it was Ed ^_^.
So Ec is right that we can judge her based on her actions now,
and not worry that she managed to evade Jimmy by some underhanded tactic.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1936
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 4 16:08:28 UTC 2002
Can anyone find out whether Wikipedia has been censored by China?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2540309.stm
While of course that would be very unfortunate, it would be a great
selling point for the website: "Censored by China!" I can even see making
some great banners and graphics. ;-)
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1937
[Wikipedia-l] Plz DOO knot tok 2 Leer NEmore
Julie Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 4 16:24:23 UTC 2002
Toby and everybody. Who cares about Lir or what he
espouses? It's pretty clear that Adam/Bridget/Lir has
burned most of his/her bridges -- let's please just
leave it at that. He isn't contributing at present
and lurks on the mailing list more to comment than to
try to learn more about the community and how to work
within it, as far as I can tell. Let's just leave off
on any speculation that would induce a response that's
other than helpful. It's just too much of a drain on
our e-mail boxes ;-)
Jules, who apologizes for the header, but thinks we
really should try to maintain some orthographical
standards.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1938
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Nathan Silva
nathans at desi.com
Wed Dec 4 16:53:38 UTC 2002
Currently Wikipedia is blocked according to Harvard.
http://asp-cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/list.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 8:08 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Can anyone find out whether Wikipedia has been censored by China?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1939
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Dec 4 16:56:21 UTC 2002
Nathan Silva wrote:
> Currently Wikipedia is blocked according to Harvard.
> http://asp-cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/list.html
Interesting! So is Bomis, but then, anyone in their right mind would
block Bomis. :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1940
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Wed Dec 4 17:11:45 UTC 2002
Nathan Silva wrote:
>Currently Wikipedia is blocked according to Harvard.
>http://asp-cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/list.html
>
>
I wonder if that was a Chinese initiative, or if Britannica paid them ;-)
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1941
[Wikipedia-l] Plz do not slander me
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Wed Dec 4 17:08:53 UTC 2002
Lir,
The problem with that approach is that you have by your editing actions
shown us all those things; not that knowing those things about you
justifies a negative or hostile attitude in this mailing list or in our
editing behavior.
Some one once said, "Speak that I may know you." A character in Shakespeare
I think. Well, "act before a large audience and we will know you is just
as true."
Fred
>Plz do not discuss my sexuality, political viewpoints, religion,
>philosophy, or the like. I have not discussed these things with you and
>those of you doing so are slandering me.
>
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com>Yahoo! Mail
>Plus - Powerful. Affordable.
><http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com>Sign up now
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1942
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 4 17:25:06 UTC 2002
Better yet, if we could write article (even about Taiwan, et al.) so NEUTRALLY that even mainland China had no objections, that would be a big plus -- besides being a public service to China and the world.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:08 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Can anyone find out whether Wikipedia has been censored by China?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2540309.stm
While of course that would be very unfortunate, it would be a great
selling point for the website: "Censored by China!" I can even see making
some great banners and graphics. ;-)
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1943
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Wed Dec 4 17:34:34 UTC 2002
I expect some articles are. A good place to find out is on the China forum
at the New York Times. A number of people on the mainland participate in
that forum and could readily test whether certain pages can be accessed.
Fred
>Can anyone find out whether Wikipedia has been censored by China?
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2540309.stm
>
>While of course that would be very unfortunate, it would be a great
>selling point for the website: "Censored by China!" I can even see making
>some great banners and graphics. ;-)
>
>Larry
>--
>"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
>the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1944
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Wed Dec 4 17:43:41 UTC 2002
Ed, You just don't get it. The only article acceptable to them will be an
article that is neither objective or neutral.
Fred
>Better yet, if we could write article (even about Taiwan, et al.) so
>NEUTRALLY that even mainland China had no objections, that would be a big
>plus -- besides being a public service to China and the world.
>
>Ed Poor
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:08 AM
>To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
>
>
>Can anyone find out whether Wikipedia has been censored by China?
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2540309.stm
>
>While of course that would be very unfortunate, it would be a great
>selling point for the website: "Censored by China!" I can even see making
>some great banners and graphics. ;-)
>
>Larry
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1945
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Wed Dec 4 18:02:03 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>Better yet, if we could write article (even about Taiwan, et al.) so NEUTRALLY that even mainland China had no objections, that would be a big plus -- besides being a public service to China and the world.
>
That's not the way it works. For many bureaucrats it's the most neutral
articles that are the most offensive.
Ec
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1946
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Brion Vibber
brion at pobox.com
Wed Dec 4 18:18:53 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 08:53, Nathan Silva wrote:
> Currently Wikipedia is blocked according to Harvard.
> http://asp-cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/list.html
The Chinese wikipedia (zh.wikipedia.org) seems to get through fine,
though.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1947
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Wed Dec 4 18:28:32 UTC 2002
At 10:02 AM 12/4/02 -0800, Ec wrote:
>Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>>Better yet, if we could write article (even about Taiwan, et al.) so
>>NEUTRALLY that even mainland China had no objections, that would be a big
>>plus -- besides being a public service to China and the world.
>That's not the way it works. For many bureaucrats it's the most neutral
>articles that are the most offensive.
>
>Ec
I also suspect that the structure of the Wikipedia is enough to get us banned
by censors--even if they found our articles on X, Y, and Z entirely acceptable
when they looked, they know that the articles could change at any time.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1948
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
giskart at gmx.net
giskart at gmx.net
Wed Dec 4 19:12:14 UTC 2002
> Can anyone find out whether Wikipedia has been censored by China?
No, it is not.
Test it here:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/test/
Giskart
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1949
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Wed Dec 4 19:25:29 UTC 2002
Even this is accessable:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/china
I guess Ed Poor's dream has come true.
Fred
>> Can anyone find out whether Wikipedia has been censored by China?
>
>No, it is not.
>Test it here:
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/test/
>
>Giskart
>
>--
>+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
>NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1950
[Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 4 20:07:10 UTC 2002
You may say I'm a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us.
Then the world will live as one.
--John Lennon (may he rest in peace)
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud at ctelco.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 2:25 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Censored by China?
Even this is accessable:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/china
I guess Ed Poor's dream has come true.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1951
[Wikipedia-l] Sorry, I can't help being pedantic...
Kemp, Julie
kempj at exegrnnts001.seattleu.edu
Wed Dec 4 22:44:17 UTC 2002
Lir,
No one has comment on your sexuality, AFAIK -- just your gender. There *is*
a difference.
JHK
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1952
[Wikipedia-l] Lir's gender (was: Sorry, I can't help being pedantic...)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Dec 5 16:53:19 UTC 2002
Sorry, I can't resist. Look at this cartoon.
http://www.unitedmedia.com/creators/onebighappy/archive/images/onebighappy2002166261128.gif
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Kemp, Julie [mailto:kempj at exegrnnts001.seattleu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:44 PM
To: 'wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org'
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sorry, I can't help being pedantic...
Lir,
No one has comment on your sexuality, AFAIK -- just your gender. There *is*
a difference.
JHK
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1953
[Wikipedia-l] Helga is back under another IP
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
Thu Dec 5 19:16:01 UTC 2002
Helga Jonat is connecting using 66.47.62.78, still arguing over
Gdansk, weird posts on Lithuanian history (see [[Memet]] for
example), and signing as H.Jonat (I was fairly sure it was her
before, but the signed entry on Talk:Gdansk clinches it).
A check yesterday reported that IP address as being somewhere
at Mindspring. Is that sufficient reason not to block it?
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1954
[Wikipedia-l] Helga is back under another IP
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Dec 5 19:13:42 UTC 2002
Done. If it's from a pool of dynamic ip numbers, she'll be back soon
enough at a different number, and we'll want to unblock this one in a
few days.
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> Helga Jonat is connecting using 66.47.62.78, still arguing over
> Gdansk, weird posts on Lithuanian history (see [[Memet]] for
> example), and signing as H.Jonat (I was fairly sure it was her
> before, but the signed entry on Talk:Gdansk clinches it).
>
> A check yesterday reported that IP address as being somewhere
> at Mindspring. Is that sufficient reason not to block it?
> --
> Vicki Rosenzweig
> vr at redbird.org
> http://www.redbird.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1955
[Wikipedia-l] Rollbacks: SoftSecurity on Steroids
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 7 12:01:42 UTC 2002
On Wednesday 04 December 2002 03:38 pm, wikitech-l-request at wikipedia.org
wrote:
> Despite all the critics, at least for our first vandal bot on the German
> pedia the rollback function came just handy and worked fine. Thanks Brion.
>
> Sven (Ben-Zin)
Mega Dittos! I love this feature because it offers an easy way to wear-down
vandals without having to block the vandal's IP. Rolling back each edit a
vandal makes two seconds after they make it should cause most vandals to lose
interest and leave for good instead of instantly getting pissed-off by
getting blocked (therefore evoking the "I'll show you" response whose only
outlet would be circumventing the block or jumping wikis). Thus a string of
rollbacks would tend to reduce the chance that the vandal will come back
later with bigger guns (or trash a sleeping non-English wiki).
For example; as soon as I determine that an IP is a vandal, I leave that IP's
user contribs page open and periodically hit reload. And WAMMO! I click on
the rollback link each time the vandal makes an edit. So far every vandal has
gotten the hint after less than 10 rollbacks.
It would be nice, however, if clicking on rollback takes you back to the user
contribs page and not the reverted article. But I understand that there still
in the problem of possible rollback conflicts where two Admins hit rollback
in succession and Admin 2 reinstates the vandal version that Admin 1 already
reverted. So until that can be fixed I don't mind hitting the back button.
When it does get fixed I would like to propose that a limited rollback feature
be added as a logged-in user default. The limited part would be this; Regular
logged-in users would not be able to rollback edits made by other logged-in
users. But IPs would be fair game.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Payment for this post:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ruthenium&diff=463516&oldid=461717
PS IMO there already are way too many features available to the greenest of
newbies. It would be nice if we started off new accounts with basic features
and automatically added more features based on the number of edits that user
has made and the age of the user account (maybe have three feature-set
levels: novice, intermediate and old hand). I fear that having too many
features is intimidating to many non-technical new users. I'm also a wee bit
apprehensive that new users would abuse features we might otherwise want to
give to many users (such as the limited rollback feature described above).
However, after the Lir fiasco I'm no longer in favor of automatically granting
pure meta-level powers to users. Old hands can and should continue to ask and
be invited to ask about being Admins.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1956
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Rollbacks: SoftSecurity on Steroids
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Sun Dec 8 15:48:49 UTC 2002
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> PS IMO there already are way too many features available to the
> greenest of newbies. It would be nice if we started off new accounts
> with basic features and automatically added more features based on the
> number of edits that user has made and the age of the user account
> (maybe have three feature-set levels: novice, intermediate and old
> hand). I fear that having too many features is intimidating to many
> non-technical new users. I'm also a wee bit apprehensive that new
> users would abuse features we might otherwise want to give to many
> users (such as the limited rollback feature described above).
>
> However, after the Lir fiasco I'm no longer in favor of automatically granting
> pure meta-level powers to users. Old hands can and should continue to ask and
> be invited to ask about being Admins.
Thanks for this great work, but I think you should have stopped before
"PS".
I think we should eliminate the "rollback" feature, and other features,
*for everyone*, if they turn out to be a problem, long before we start
considering making a hierarchy such as you suggest. This is a wiki,
remember!
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1957
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Dec 10 16:44:37 UTC 2002
Erik, are you Eloquence? I'm a bit confused about who everyone is.
Anyway, I have unprotected the [[Richard Wagner]] page as promised, since Jimbo answered the question about NPOV.
And if anyone wants me to stop being a sysop because of this, well, let me just point out that no one seemed to mind the page block when it stopped Jonathan (aka Clutch). In fact, this is the first objection I've heard in a long time (months ^_^).
I will do whatever it takes to make peace, but if I'm told to back off then I'll just let there be war.
I will do as I'm told, as always :-)
your humble servant,
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1958
[Wikipedia-l] Role of a sysop: (was: Wikipedia and anti-Semitism)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Dec 10 17:00:00 UTC 2002
I agree with Erik's "eloquent" suggestion wholeheartedly, which I have paraphrased as follows:
* A sysop should only use his administrative privileges as a "time out" to direct discussions in case of conflicts to the talk page, but he should not do that if he states a position in the matter. Otherwise he is no longer a sysop or a moderator
but an editor, which is not the function assigned to him.
I intend to follow this suggestion to the letter.
BTW, I do not actually hold the position that, even if nobody disagrees with the statement that Wagner was an anti-Semite, it should be attributed. Rather, I asked Jimbo for a policy clarification on this point. And got one, quite promptly. Whereupon I immediately unprotected the page -- as promised.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1959
[Wikipedia-l] Sysops and war-editing (was: Wikipedia and anti-Semitism)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Dec 10 17:05:51 UTC 2002
LOL, I actually support Erik's sysop nomination! He and I are on the
same side, even if we had a little dust-up over Wagner. You, Jonathan,
on the other hand <grin> need a bit more seasoning first before we put
the database in your [[user:Clutch]]es.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1960
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Dec 10 17:07:51 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Jimbo, I know you like compromise, but I generally prefer consistency. If we
> do this in this article, we should use a phrase such as "is universally
> regarded as" in any sentence that falls into the same class, i.e. makes a value
> statement about a person that the majority sees as negative, but which is
> nevertheless not disputed. Is this a policy you would want?
But there are further distinguishing characteristics here, I think.
Each case will be different, and so no general rule of this type is
advisable.
> "I'm just not ready for that kind of commitment" ;-). I think it's good for
> some of the more involved people to keep an eye on how it looks from down
> here instead of up there, if you know what I mean.
Yow, then I need to re-emphasize what sysop powers are all about.
There is no "down here" and "up there". Sysop powers are purely a
technical matter, to be treated solely in that capacity. They should
not be used as tools or weapons in a debate.
We are all wikipedians, meeting on the equal field of wiki. That is
why people are upset at Ed Poor for protecting the page.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1961
[Wikipedia-l] Role of a sysop: (was: Wikipedia and anti-Semitism)
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Tue Dec 10 17:14:47 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> * A sysop should only use his administrative privileges as a "time
> out" to direct discussions in case of conflicts to the talk page,
> but he should not do that if he states a position in the
> matter. Otherwise he is no longer a sysop or a moderator but an
> editor, which is not the function assigned to him.
I'm not even really comfortable with that, unless things have gotten
way out of hand or something. Most importantly, we should ALL exert
social pressure for co-operation rather than Usenet-style argument. It's
hard, but it has worked wonders for us so far.
> BTW, I do not actually hold the position that, even if nobody
>disagrees with the statement that Wagner was an anti-Semite, it should
>be attributed. Rather, I asked Jimbo for a policy clarification on
>this point. And got one, quite promptly. Whereupon I immediately
>unprotected the page -- as promised.
I'm doubtful that my ramblings really clarified anything. But if you
saw light, I'm glad to have been mumbling in the vicinity. :-)
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1962
[Wikipedia-l] Role of a sysop
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Tue Dec 10 17:32:32 UTC 2002
> > BTW, I do not actually hold the position that, even if nobody
> >disagrees with the statement that Wagner was an anti-Semite, it should
> >be attributed. Rather, I asked Jimbo for a policy clarification on
> >this point. And got one, quite promptly. Whereupon I immediately
> >unprotected the page -- as promised.
>
> I'm doubtful that my ramblings really clarified anything. But if you
> saw light, I'm glad to have been mumbling in the vicinity. :-)
>
> --Jimbo
LOL! I nominate Jimbo for "king of the world" rights ;-)
Summing up:
* A sysop should not use his powers as weapons in a debate
* A sysop shouldn't use protection unless things have gotten way out of hand
* Let's all cooperate with good will and avoid factionalism
Ed Poor <-- not frozen, but considerably melted
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1963
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Tue Dec 10 18:02:23 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>I agree that it's not good to use administrative powers "in the heat
>>of battle".
>>Do you want sysop access, Erik? You should have it.
>Given Eriks partisan war-editing, I humbly request that he not be given
>sysop powers. I don't trust him to use them wisely.
OTC, he's the one arguing that sysop powers shouldn't be used in edit wars.
I support giving Erik (Eloquence) administrator status on [[en:]].
Discussion of this should move to <wikiEN-l>.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1964
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Tue Dec 10 18:15:56 UTC 2002
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:02:23AM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Given Eriks partisan war-editing, I humbly request that he not be given
>>sysop powers. I don't trust him to use them wisely.
>
>OTC, he's the one arguing that sysop powers shouldn't be used in edit wars.
Wrong. He only protested Ed's use of sysop powers when the version he
wanted didn't get frozen; he didn't complain when Ed froze versions I
didn't like earlier.
Erik was very involved himself in edit-warring; not good attributes for
a sysop.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021210/f5a811d1/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1965
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism
elian
elian at gmx.li
Tue Dec 10 21:22:26 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 07:32:36PM +0100, elian wrote:
> >Rather I'd suggest a temporary ban of RK because of repeated NPOV abuses,
> >if that didn't entail accusations of Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia.
>
> My earlier statements requesting clarification of Wikipedia policy came
> from my observing the way RK on the one hand, ignores it, and on the
> other hand accuses others of ignoring it.
>
> I too would support a temporary ban of RK. He is always biasing things.
You misunderstood. I don't call for a ban of RK.
First, I consider myself (like you, too) in regard to RK's writings as
clearly biased and not able to judge if he deserves a ban.
It seems to me that he really has NPOV in mind, but is too mangled in his
hatred against anything he considers as anti-semitic to realize how biased
his own writings are. However, I would prefer if anybody whose emotions go
that high refrains voluntarily from writing in this area. I trust people
like Julie more to write accurately and adequately about Wagner's
anti-semitism.
Second, I consider a ban as really dangerous. As I already pointed out in
my previous posting, even a rumour of anti-semitism (justified or
unjustified) is likely to seriously harm Wikipedia.
Better be anti-Arab, it is politically a lot more opportune...
greetings,
elian
--
There are two ways to be rich:
earning more or desiring less.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1966
[Wikipedia-l] Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses Wars -- page frozen
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 10 22:06:50 UTC 2002
Hi All -- I think I just froze this page, since I think it needs a time
out -- I don't really know if I did it correctly, though, because In all
the time I've been here (and gone), I've never actually used my sysop
admin rights. There wasn't any kind of place to say why, so I'll leave
a message on the talk page. Hope I wasn't overstepping bounds, and
apologies If I have. Also, I realize I don't know how long this kind of
thing normally stays in place -- I'll go back in a couple of hours and
unlock it, if no one else has done so by then.
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021210/64b9540a/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1967
[Wikipedia-l] Not a flame, but a statement for you all on NPOV and expertise
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 11 04:31:02 UTC 2002
Right --
This is somewhat in response to Eloquence's last, but I'd like to use
it to point out something that has to do with Lir, Ark, and Helga as
well.
1) Historians are trained to try to put aside their own personal
prejudices before writing. We assume this when we talk about NPOV
--that writers will try to write objectively. Historians also try to
explain things in term of the temporal context. It's something else we
are trained to do. What historians of the late 20th and 21st centuries
consider to be the best way to approach something is different than the
approach followed by people a hundred years ago. Historians are
expected to be reasonably conversant in the different schools of thought
and what's acceptable. Finally (on this point), a recent NPR interview
pointed out that History is the academic discipline that offers students
the best opportunity to learn expository, analytical writing -- and that
it is being neglected in US K-12 courses.
2) all of the stuff initially written on NPOV and similar policies
points out that not all theories are equally valid, and that those that
aren't should receive proportionately less space than the predominant
theories. When theories are crank theories, or when they have fallen
into disrepute, we don't need to put them in -- or should mentions this.
3) Most Medievalists (and many historians focusing on later periods),
these days reject the notion of the Dark Ages (except in Greece between
about 1100 BC and 800 BC), because we now know that a lot was going on,
much of it having to do with learning. Moreover, we can now speak of
the Northumbrian, Carolingian, Ottonian, and 12th century renaissances
-- to a certain degree, this has made the Renaissance a bit less unique.
4) Just because much of the modern world view began in the Enlightenment
doesn't mean it's the best view.
5) Not all people accept that religion is a destructive force in society
6) Erik, who comes at the world believing that religion is by nature (or
application) socially destructive, that post-Enlightenment thought is in
some way, more correct, and that the world before the Renaissance was
somehow a lesser thing to be judged by modern standards, seems unable
to keep these views from influencing many of his contributions. What
makes it seem more reasonable in Erik's case is that he assumes that his
views are both correct and universally accepted as sensible. This is
about as neutral as, for example, Helga with her anachronistic
nationalist backwards projections or Ark with his dogmatic acceptance of
deMause's marginal theories. If bans were imposed on Helga and Lir
(with his own prejudicial notions) and Ark (if he didn't just leave),
then I don't understand why we don't hold Eloquence to the same standard
-- He is equally incapable of neutrality and equally anti-social -- one
has only to read the Galileo talk to see that his inability to work with
others and his lack of respect for people who disagree with him is
clear.
Y'all might at some point notice that you've lost most of the people who
actually are specialists in History and who actually work in that field
as a profession. And you might ask why -- except, I think, that you
don't really care. It's funny, when you realize just how much of the
stuff in the 'pedia falls under the stuff historians do for a living.
Pax
Jules
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021210/616c5983/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1968
[Wikipedia-l] Not a flame, but a statement for you all on NPOV and expertise
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 05:23:02 UTC 2002
I'm unsubscribing from this list. If I shouldn't be a sysop while not
following the list, then make it so.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1969
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Dec 11 12:55:13 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> I too would support a temporary ban of RK. He is always biasing things.
We aren't going to get into banning people like RK, unless he's doing
things that I'm not aware of.
> RK may be a Jew, but banning him for his persistent and long-standing
> disrespect for the NPOV policy does NOT constitute anti-Semitism.
No, of course not. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest
otherwise. Your mentioning it seems unwarranted in this context.
The wiki process and a social culture of co-operation gives us plenty
of tools to deal with bias.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1970
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Dec 11 12:59:28 UTC 2002
elian wrote:
> It seems to me that he really has NPOV in mind, but is too mangled in his
> hatred against anything he considers as anti-semitic to realize how biased
> his own writings are.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you about RK, because I haven't
read much of the relevant writings, but I suspect that virtually
everyone has some "hot button" issue where NPOV writing will be
difficult. I wouldn't trust myself, for example, to write an article
on John Kenneth Galbraith, who I consider a fascist blithering idiot.
:-)
> However, I would prefer if anybody whose emotions go
> that high refrains voluntarily from writing in this area.
Certainly good advice. Unfortunately, it is also true that people
tend to know a lot about their "hot button" issues, and therefore have
the ability to write a lot about them.
> Better be anti-Arab, it is politically a lot more opportune...
Better, still, of course, is to not get involved on the level of
advocacy at all.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1971
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Wed Dec 11 14:17:59 UTC 2002
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 04:59:28AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Certainly good advice. Unfortunately, it is also true that people
>tend to know a lot about their "hot button" issues, and therefore have
>the ability to write a lot about them.
Jimmy, I caught RK pulling 'facts' out of his ass, and provided a link
to it. Bias is one thing, but outright fabrication should be taken
seriously. Do you take it seriously? Do we as an encyclopedia take it
seriously? I personally take it very seriously.
>> Better be anti-Arab, it is politically a lot more opportune...
>
>Better, still, of course, is to not get involved on the level of
>advocacy at all.
I believe what elian was saying is, he is both afraid, and too exhausted
to correct the Zionist bias RK keeps inserting into articles. He is
not alone; there are an incredible number of others in the same
situation. RK frequently abuses the "Vandalism in Progress" page and
yells at contributors who are interested in the NPOV.
I'd like to know which is more important to you: RK, or NPOV?
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021211/c1e26273/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1972
[Wikipedia-l] Role of a sysop: (was: Wikipedia and anti-Semitism)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 16:07:07 UTC 2002
> > * A sysop should only use his administrative privileges as a "time
> > out" to direct discussions in case of conflicts to the talk page,
> > but he should not do that if he states a position in the
> > matter. Otherwise he is no longer a sysop or a moderator but an
> > editor, which is not the function assigned to him.
>
> I'm not even really comfortable with that, unless things have gotten
> way out of hand or something. Most importantly, we should ALL exert
> social pressure for co-operation rather than Usenet-style argument. It's
> hard, but it has worked wonders for us so far.
For an example of "exerting social pressure for co-operation",
see [[Talk:Book_of_Mormon]]. In apparent response to a comment
I made, parties to a dispute began editing their previous
comments <<patting self on back>>. You'll have to dig through
the "older versions" now, to find any of the mean-spirited
comments I was objecting to.
Uncle Ed
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1973
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 17:25:43 UTC 2002
> From: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
>
> I'm unsubscribing from this list. If I shouldn't be a sysop while not
> following the list, then make it so.
I'm highly inclined to do this myself--again. I can totally sympathize.
On the occasion of one of my posts, some have suggested, rather
ironically, that all flames be banned from the list--or at least
self-censored.
I fully support such a rule, and if we adopt it, I'll pledge to follow it
and, if necessary and appropriate, enforce it. But how *would* we
*enforce* such a rule?
If there is no enforcement of any sort, the rule would be absolutely
worthless, and I won't support it. There are members of this community
that pride themselves on flouting rules, and they would take only too much
joy in flaming away at people who felt morally obliged, by the rule, not
to reply in kind. Moreover, in the current atmosphere, there is no
serious possibility to shame the offenders into silence, because
unfortunately our worst offenders are literally shameless.
I have a suggestion--and I know this will be a highly unpopular
suggestion, but let me get the idea out there anyway. I'm beginning to
think the list should be moderated.
In my eight years' continuous and active experience on mailing lists and
Usenet, I have discovered that some lists can remain productive and useful
while remaining unmoderated. This is because there is a preponderance of
full-fledged adults on the list who are polite, and who know how to reply
witheringly to the occasional eedjit; in short, there's a huge base of
great contributors and a very large shame culture involved.
Now, the value of many other unmoderated lists--like this one--is
undermined by continuous flame wars by battling, enormous egos, to say
nothing of the worthless newbie posts that come from people who have not
read the FAQ.
One of the very best mailing lists I was on (and I think others involved
with it would agree with this assessment) was one that I, and then Ben
Kovitz, moderated. It was a philosophy mailing list. There was a strict
policy of politeness as well as a minimum requirement of philosophical
cogency. I think the list would have suffered hugely if it had been made
unmoderated, because there were a lot of people who would have otherwise
been given to flame wars involved; it was the fact that it was moderated
that gave it a lot of its value, because there was a guarantee of quality.
I am very familiar with the arguments for and against moderation, and of
course one main argument against list moderation in all cases is that it
quells "free speech." Being a lover of freedom, I can understand very
much. But the fact of the matter is that some lists just wouldn't exist,
or they wouldn't be a fraction as interesting as they actually are, if
they weren't moderated. Moderation is, we might say, a necessary evil in
some cases.
In the case of Wikipedia, I'm beginning to think it is a necessary evil.
I for one would be overjoyed if Wikipedia-l were to become moderated and
the moderator were empowered to deal appropriately with flaming and with
trolls.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1974
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Dec 11 17:45:20 UTC 2002
I'm not entirely opposed to moderation. Julie's personal attack against me
would not have made it to the list with proper moderation in place, and the
same goes for Larry's flames against TheCunctator et al. However, as someone
who currently moderates a mailing list with 170 members, I can say that it's
quite a lot of work to do so, and it's also often hard to make fair decisions.
I would oppose a moderation system where the entire duty of moderation rests
on one person, but if there's a system we can use where moderation decisions
are reviewed by several persons, that would sound reasonable.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1975
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 17:45:21 UTC 2002
I agree with Larry's proposal for a moderated Wikipedia mailing list.
Two issues arise therefrom:
* which lists should be moderated?
-- wikiEN-l
-- wikipedia-l
-- both
* who should moderate?
I will support any of following as moderators for either of the the above lists:
* Larry Sanger
* Daniel (mav)
* Jimbo
Larry would be the best, although he also participates. But I trust him not to abuse his role. I only worry that he'd be too soft-hearted on the eedjits and let them rant on too long.
Daniel could also do an equally good job, although I doubt he has the time what with school and all. I bet he'd be quicker to pounce on eedjicy.
Jimbo simply doesn't have the time, so I don't think he'd agree to do this.
And of course while I feel compelled to abstain from self-nomination, I'm willing to take a crack at it: I think I'd make an excellent moderator :-)
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1976
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Wed Dec 11 17:43:51 UTC 2002
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 06:45:20PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>I'm not entirely opposed to moderation. Julie's personal attack against me
>would not have made it to the list with proper moderation in place, and the
>same goes for Larry's flames against TheCunctator et al. However, as someone
I saw a reasoned criticism of your actions from Julie, not an "attack".
If moderation means that Julie would have been cut out, while your
baiting of Julie would be allowed in, then I can't support it.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021211/199017d3/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1977
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Wed Dec 11 17:46:10 UTC 2002
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:45:21PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I will support any of following as moderators for either of the the above lists:
>* Larry Sanger
>* Daniel (mav)
>* Jimbo
I would support Larry, Jimbo, and Ed as moderators. I cannot support
Maveric for the position; his tendency to jump on apparent idiocy is too
peremptory and shoot-from-the-hip.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021211/b64e4b75/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1978
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Wed Dec 11 17:57:54 UTC 2002
Actually, from my experience, just having a moderator who weighs in
occasionally keeps the tone a bit higher with no loss of freedom of
expression. I moderated mailing lists for an addiction group and for
a company and I never had to stop any piece of mail and only had to
ban one contributor (who I now understand to have been trolling).
Every once in awhile, I'd send a piece of mail (I did not otherwise
participate in either list) sort of tooting the lifeguard whistle and
things would calm right down.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1979
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Dec 11 18:18:37 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Jimbo simply doesn't have the time, so I don't think he'd agree to do this.
That's right. Count me out. :-)
I'm not really supportive of the idea, either. Maybe there should be
a moderated list for announcements or what have you, or someone could
put together and offer an edited digest of this list, but I prefer the
vibrancy and speed we have here, and that's hard to replicate in a
moderated list.
Mostly, I think people should just relax a notch or two. :-) Before
each post, ask yourself if you are on the path to slack. If not,
don't post.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1980
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 18:32:42 UTC 2002
Any decent moderator would have cut out:
(A) Julie's attack on Erik
(B) Erik's attack on Julie
(C) Jonathan's attack on RK
etc.
If Uncle Ed ever became moderator, the first person he'd probably
squelch would proabably be Clutch.
(My goodness, I'm even starting to talk like him! "Holy 3rd person,
Batman!")
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1981
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation of the main list (not the english list)
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 11 18:37:45 UTC 2002
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I agree with Larry's proposal for a moderated
> Wikipedia mailing list.
> * which lists should be moderated?
> -- wikipedia-l
> * who should moderate?
> * Larry Sanger
> Larry would be the best, although he also
> participates. But I trust him not to abuse his role.
> I only worry that he'd be too soft-hearted on the
> eedjits and let them rant on too long.
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-November/000120.html
> And of course while I feel compelled to abstain from
> self-nomination, I'm willing to take a crack at it:
> I think I'd make an excellent moderator :-)
En toute honneteté, permettez moi de ne pas être
*entièrement* d'accord Edmond...
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1982
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 19:02:05 UTC 2002
In response to Ed's questions, I'd say we should start with Wikipedia-l,
and see how moderating that goes, and then if it's a success or if it's
felt to be needed, we should moderate WikiEN-l. I think it's entirely
possible that the new sobriety of the "master list" will have a positive
effect on other lists.
I think there should be 2-4 moderators. I made the suggestion and I am
willing to act as part-time co-moderator, but not as the only moderator.
That's how much I would appreciate a polite, non-trollish, non-flamebait,
non-flaming list. As a co-moderator, I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate the
workload, and maybe we shouldn't try her patience, but I'd love to have
Ruth Ifcher, who has a low tolerance for BS and a high appreciation for
what we're doing. My next choice would be KQ, who would make an
incredible moderator, I think. Ed would be great too. Other people who I
think would do a brilliant job include (since I think they could be
extremely fair, because they're smart, and because they have a deep
respect and understanding of what we on Wikipedia are doing):
Julie Kemp
Mav
April
Axel
Brion (he has better things to do, though, with the software)
Magnus (ditto)
Lee Crocker (ditto)
There should also be a French language moderator. :-) Actually, I did
have four years of French in high school, so I could do an OK job but I
think I'd probably miss things like (the French equivalents of) "your
mother wears army boots."
This is just the short list--I'm sure I'm leaving off many people who I
think could do at least as good a job.
If we go with moderation, maybe KQ will come back and help moderate the
list so that it becomes something he feels he won't have to quit in
disgust. ;-)
Anyway, there's an important question you left off of your list of
questions, Ed: what should the moderation policy be?
I've written two or three moderation policies before and I've given them a
lot of thought. Roughly speaking (this would need fine-tuning), I suggest
the following:
* When in doubt, approve the post. Don't block posts that are on the
borderline.
* Reject posts that express any sort of disrespect for others. There can
be exceptions; for example, if we have to discuss a problem troll on
Wikipedia, then expressions of disrespect (among other things) are
totally on-topic. This implies reject of the following:
* Plain old insults.
* Slightly subtle implications of something highly insulting.
(Certain Wikipedians have perfected this to an art form.)
* Really obvious condescension and other disrespectful attitudes.
* To human beings and listmembers (as opposed to spammers, for instance),
always give some explanation of why the post is rejected. If the
software doesn't do it (I think it does, though), include the full post
with the rejection so that the author can revise it.
* Reject all spam without comment.
* On Wikipedia-l, reject posts that should go to WikiEN-l (I happen to
agree with this rule that was foisted upon us without much discussion
;-) ).
* Reject trollish suggestions from newbies that Wikipedia should be
radically changed in some particular way. This is to be distinguished
from reasonable and well-supported suggestions, from anyone, that
Wikipedia should be radically chagned in some particular way. Bear in
mind that people can disagree about what is "reasonable." The point is
that we should not have to listen, for the umpteenth zillionth time,
to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for example. Moderators
should direct offenders to the relevant documents and ask the poster to
rewrite the post bearing in mind that we've probably heard it all
before.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1983
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation of the main list (not the english list)
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 11 19:10:48 UTC 2002
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > > And of course while I feel compelled to abstain
> from
> > > self-nomination, I'm willing to take a crack at
> it:
> >
> > > I think I'd make an excellent moderator :-)
> >
> > En toute honneteté, permettez moi de ne pas être
> > *entièrement* d'accord Edmond...
>
> Je ne me nomine que la liste anglaise.
>
> Edmond Le Pauvre
Ne vous inquiétez pas pour ça Edmond. Ce n'est que mon
impression, et elle apparait ultra-minoritaire, au vu
du bon travail que vous faites sur la wiki anglaise.
Après avoir lu le mail de notre futur (?) modérateur
et des règles de modération proposées, j'étais
moi-même en train d'envisager de quitter la main
liste. Après tout, elle va un peu redevenir la liste
anglaise à ce qu'il semble.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1984
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 19:12:50 UTC 2002
We need a flame-free, no-nonsense haven for discussion of Wikipedia.
I agree 100% with:
*Larry's list of nomimated moderators
*Larry's proposal for the duties of a moderator
Please note that my agreement is NOT contingent on me being one of the moderators; I'm not volunteering myself: just agreeing to serve if called upon.
P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a flame-free haven!
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1985
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 19:28:37 UTC 2002
Jimbo wrote:
>> I'm not really supportive of the idea, either. Maybe there should be a
moderated list for announcements or what have you, or someone could put
together and offer an edited digest of this list, but I prefer the
vibrancy and speed we have here, and that's hard to replicate in a
moderated list. <<
I thought you'd have this reaction, and I agreed with you when we first
set up Wikipedia-l that it should be unmoderated.
We have a lot of things we *need* to talk about and moreover to *do* on
Wikipedia. There are people who are constantly disrupting this work in
various ways that have made me and a lot of other people want to stay off.
But, like moths to the flame, we come back--because we rightly don't want
to abandon the project to the disruptors. Of course, some amount of
disruption (depending on exactly what we mean by this) is healthy. You
could say that I think we are way too robust in this regard.
I'm guessing your concern is that moderation would make the project less
open. And who can deny that moderating the list makes the project
slightly less open, and that indeed that is a bad thing. I totally agree
with that. But alas it also appears to be a necessary thing, or so I
think, which is why I call it a "necessary evil." If we keep our
moderators properly reined in (by making sure they have a set of rules
that they are to follow), I think we can minimize the damage in this
regard.
Remember, you were a great moderator of a list in the distant past, Jimbo,
and it's safe to say that it was your moderatorship that made it the great
list it was.
>> Mostly, I think people should just relax a notch or two. :-) Before
each post, ask yourself if you are on the path to slack. If not, don't
post. <<
Wise advice but giving such advice is a solution only as long as people
are inclined take it. Surely the last many months have made it clear that
they're not. Would that we were all as relaxed as you, KQ, Magnus, and
many others sitting in embarrassed silence while the more tightly-wound
among us make fools of ourselves.
You are a very relaxed person (he really is, folks!), and you to your
credit can often not see what all the fuss is in our flame wars or
debates. But this doesn't really help those of us who are in the middle
of flame wars that you would, again to your credit, never get involved in.
I think we need a better solution.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1986
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation of the main list (not the english list)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 19:22:19 UTC 2002
Could someone please translate the following? It seems important.
(S'il vous plait, traduisez le text prochain; c'est tres important.)
Ne vous inquiétez pas pour ça Edmond. Ce n'est que mon
impression, et elle apparait ultra-minoritaire, au vu
du bon travail que vous faites sur la wiki anglaise.
Après avoir lu le mail de notre futur (?) modérateur
et des règles de modération proposées, j'étais
moi-même en train d'envisager de quitter la main
liste. Après tout, elle va un peu redevenir la liste
anglaise à ce qu'il semble.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthere [mailto:anthere5 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:11 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation of the main list (not the english
list)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1987
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 19:38:49 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
> P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a
flame-free haven!
One or the other, it doesn't matter to me.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1988
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Wed Dec 11 19:14:59 UTC 2002
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:12:50PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>We need a flame-free, no-nonsense haven for discussion of Wikipedia.
Julie said some things about Erik's behavior that needed to be said.
They may not have been pleasant things, but they did not constitute a
flame either.
Neither did my detailing of RK's behavior constitute a flame; it was a
factual appeal to the list for help in dealing with something
destructive to the community.
Since you have said you wouldn't have forwarded those messages, I see
that we disagree on the definition of a "flame". I am against flaming.
But we need a place to put forward the facts when coming to a group
concensus about a persons behavior.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021211/68e17c4b/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1989
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Dec 11 19:24:22 UTC 2002
To clarify, I'm not going to fight this thing tooth and nail, but I
have reservations.
> I'm guessing your concern is that moderation would make the project less
> open. And who can deny that moderating the list makes the project
> slightly less open, and that indeed that is a bad thing. I totally agree
> with that. But alas it also appears to be a necessary thing, or so I
> think, which is why I call it a "necessary evil." If we keep our
> moderators properly reined in (by making sure they have a set of rules
> that they are to follow), I think we can minimize the damage in this
> regard.
Well, it isn't _necessarily_ less open in any relevant sense. It can
actually lead to greater diversity of views if we get more people
subscribed because of the lower volume. Now, a few loud voices (like
me) dominate through sheer volume if nothing else.
I thought your view of the role of moderators was a little bit
expansive and risky. But moderation with a very light touch can of
course do wonders without imposing any serious burden on the
legitimate expression of ideas.
I really am more concerned with speed and vibrancy. If we have
multiple moderators (the more the merrier, I guess), then this is less
of a concern, as the lag between posting and sending out will be
reasonably short.
> Remember, you were a great moderator of a list in the distant past, Jimbo,
> and it's safe to say that it was your moderatorship that made it the great
> list it was.
Ah, an appeal to my vanity! This is always a good tactic, if for no
other reason that I'm too lazy to engage in the endless self-promotion
that I desire. :-)
------------------
I just quit a mailing list (related to parenting, nothing to do with
wikipedia) in disgust because the actions of the moderators were
entirely arbitrary. That list had a strict rule against "meta", by
which they meant "commenting on the discussion itself". For various
reasons which I can explain in a tedious diatribe if anyone asks, this
is an incoherent rule, which cannot be enforced fairly.
I wasn't considered a "bad guy" on the list when I left, quite the
contrary, I hope. The list will not be as good, by a little bit at
least, without me there. And I can't say that the moderators were
really "bad", either. They were tasked with something impossible.
I'm thinking that if we moderate, I am going to get complaints about
the moderation. But I get complaints about everything anyway, so
that's not such a big deal I guess. :-)
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1990
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Dec 11 19:33:14 UTC 2002
Proposed moderators:
>Ed Poor
I suspect that Ed would block too often (for my tastes at least),
but he would be scrupulously fair.
>Larry Sanger
If trolling is blockable, then I wouldn't want Larry to moderate.
>Ruth Ifcher
>Julie Kemp
I think that any moderators should be current Wikipedia participants.
>Koyaanis Qatsi
I agree with Larry that KQ would do an excellent job.
>maveric149
>-- April
>Axel Boldt
>Brion Vibber
>Magnus Manske
>Lee Crocker
Any of these would probably do all right.
>Jimbo
Jimbo would be perfect, but he won't do it --
and I think that there's probably a lesson in that for all of us.
I don't see the need yet.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1991
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Wed Dec 11 19:25:54 UTC 2002
I think that's not a bad idea. It leaves the main policy list,
wikipedia-l, wide open, and thus insulates us from (some) charges of
censorship, etc.
But at the same time, it moderates the forum where the worst flame
wars have belonged. Specific grievances against each other for
specific edits tend to be our "hottest" topic where a little moderation
might do wonders.
Larry Sanger wrote:
> Ed Poor wrote:
>
> > P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a
> flame-free haven!
>
> One or the other, it doesn't matter to me.
>
> Larry
> --
> "We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
> the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
> This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1992
[Wikipedia-l] Apologies and goodbye
Julie Hofmann Kemp
juleskemp at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 11 19:58:07 UTC 2002
First to Anthere -- I'd have put this on the En list, but really can't
be bothered to subscribe for one post. Sorry about that.
All -- I have written a personal note to KQ to apologize to him for my
part in the recent flame war -- I had certainly not intended with my
first post (which actually offered concrete suggestions for how the
Wagner issue could be resolved and was an attempt to tone down a flame
war on that front. With luck, my removing myself from this arena will
help to draw him back to the list.
As for Larry's moderation suggestion, I think it's a good one. As for
me being a moderator, I appreciate the support, but do not at present
have the time. Also, considering the accusations that Erik has hurled
at me on Ed's talk page (he has repeatedly called me a liar), I cannot
see that my being included as a moderator at this juncture would be for
the good of the project. I realize (and very much appreciate) that many
of you on the list actually do think I contribute fair-minded NPOV
articles and that I am not pushing some kind of pro-Catholic agenda --
and also that you've seen me on many occasions work with others to
fine-tune debated articles into NPOV . I also appreciate your accepting
that I may have some idea about what's going on in my field -- but that
isn't enough, unfortunately. I don't have time to reinvent the wheel,
which includes trying to prove that certain schools of though do not
exist to the extent that others would have wikipedia readers believe.
Proving a negative is nearly impossible, and most of the people labeled
as trolls have based the validity of their arguments on forcing others
to prove them wrong. Best to remain uninvolved with moderation and
preserve the perceived integrity of the project. For the same reason, I
think Ed and Mav might be compromised. Appearances really *are*
important.
This can be a good project. I've enjoyed most of my time here, and am
glad to have worked with many of you. However, were any of my
colleagues to ask me if they should participate, I would at this time
say "absolutely not." I truly believe that the wikipedia is walking a
very fine line between being at best very ordinary (information that
pretty much reiterates what's already out there, and perhaps as
out-dated as the 1911 encyclopedia) and at worst being subverted by a
few people who have more interest in revisionism (IMO more dangerous
than some forms of relativism), misplaced political correctness, and the
subtle propagation of misleading information. I wish you all the best
in your tightrope act -- as for me, I'm off to continue to teach things
that Erik says medievalists don't teach. Sue me.
Pax, Salaam, and Shalom
Jules
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1993
[Wikipedia-l] Religious and non-religious sayings (was: Moderation)
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 19:39:39 UTC 2002
I didn't say half the things I said. --Yogi Berra
What makes you think I said I wouldn't have forwarded any of your recent
messages?
May I take your recent post as an admission that what you said about RK
was "an attack"? If so, would you care to apologize to him?
Uncle Ed, a most forgiving man
----
"Come to me, all who are heavy-laden, and I shall give you rest. For my
burden is light and easy to bear." (Christianity)
"Let us reason together, saith the LORD. Though your sins be dark as
scarlet, they shall be made pure as snow." (Judaism)
"Before each post, ask yourself if you are on the path to slack."
(atheism)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1994
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Dec 11 19:37:00 UTC 2002
> Julie said some things about Erik's behavior that needed to be said.
> They may not have been pleasant things, but they did not constitute a
> flame either.
Clutch, with friends like you, Julie doesn't really need any enemies. I
rest my case.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1995
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation of the main list (not the english list)
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 20:01:01 UTC 2002
Translation for Ed (correction encouraged):
"Don't worry about that, Ed. It's only my impression, and it appears to
be an ultra-minority one, in view of the good work that you do on the
English Wiki. After having read the mail about our future (?) moderator
and the proposed moderation rules, I was planning on leaving the main list
myself. After all, in a little it will become the English list again, or
so it appears."
If Anthere would leave Wikipedia-l over this, maybe we should begin with
WikiEN-l. I'd like to hear what arguments he has to make about the
proposal (which is just that, of course). "I'll leave if you do" isn't
very much of an argument, though it might have an effect. I don't see
why he says that it will become the English list again soon.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1996
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Matthew Woodcraft
mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Wed Dec 11 19:51:49 UTC 2002
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:14:59AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Julie said some things about Erik's behavior that needed to be said.
> They may not have been pleasant things, but they did not constitute a
> flame either.
>
> Neither did my detailing of RK's behavior constitute a flame; it was a
> factual appeal to the list for help in dealing with something
> destructive to the community.
And to complete the set, what Erik wrote about Julie was not flaming,
either.
What we have is people disagreeing with each other's behaviour, and
describing what they disapprove of. It would doubtless have been
possible to do so with rather more tact on all sides, but there's value
in honesty, too.
Flames are valueless, unconstructive insults. I've seen no flaming on
either this list or -en for some time. I don't think either list needs
moderating yet.
-M-
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1997
[Wikipedia-l] Religious and non-religious sayings (was: Moderation)
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Wed Dec 11 19:45:59 UTC 2002
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:39:39PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>What makes you think I said I wouldn't have forwarded any of your recent
>messages?
I quote this from a previous email of yours, Ed:
==QUOTE==
Any decent moderator would have cut out:
(A) Julie's attack on Erik
(B) Erik's attack on Julie
(C) Jonathan's attack on RK
==END QUOTE==
Hope that clears things up.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021211/b784eaa9/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1998
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 19:57:00 UTC 2002
A moderated list need not be one in which each post is pre-filtered. What if the moderator wants to go to sleep?
I envision a moderator classing letter-writers into three groups:
* good (posts go directly to list)
* bad (posts are held pending approval)
* ugly (posts are automatically deleted)
As long as a poster didn't get nasty, they could stay on the good list. If someone started "acting up", the moderator could shift them to the "bad" list for a while. Like, until they calmed down.
Ed "go stand in the corner!" Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 1999
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 20:14:06 UTC 2002
Cc'ing wikien-l in case there are members of that list that aren't on
Wikipedia-l and haven't seen the recent discussion about making
Wikipedia-l or WikiEN-l moderated.
Jimbo wrote:
>> I think that's not a bad idea. It leaves the main policy list,
wikipedia-l, wide open, and thus insulates us from (some) charges of
censorship, etc.
But at the same time, it moderates the forum where the worst flame
wars have belonged. Specific grievances against each other for
specific edits tend to be our "hottest" topic where a little moderation
might do wonders. <<
I suggest we keep discussing this for a while and then, if the discussion
is *generally* in favor of some sort of moderation scheme, Jimbo picks the
first moderators.
(I just thought that appeal to vanity would do the trick. ;-) )
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2000
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Dec 11 19:56:00 UTC 2002
> I think that's not a bad idea. It leaves the main policy list,
> wikipedia-l, wide open, and thus insulates us from (some) charges of
> censorship, etc.
> But at the same time, it moderates the forum where the worst flame
> wars have belonged. Specific grievances against each other for
> specific edits tend to be our "hottest" topic where a little moderation
> might do wonders.
1) How will the moderation be set up? If there are several moderators,
will the first to approve or reject a post make the decision, or will
moderation decisions have to made in consensus, or by majority rule?
2) As for specific moderators, I would object especially to making Larry
Sanger a moderator (who has proposed himself). Larry has repeatedly shown
himself to resort to insults and ad hominem arguments whenever people
start to disagree with him. During his tenure as Wikipedia's editor, he
has driven away quite a few contributors because of his inability to
accomodate opposing views. His paranoia about "subversion" of NPOV is
proof that his mindset hasn't changed. I'm sure I've made his personal
"black list" by now, the top position of which is currently occupied by
Cunctator. Sanger is exactly the kind of person who can destroy a project
like Wikipedia if given too much power and control.
I would, for obvious reasons, also object to Julie, but she isn't likely
to do it anyway.
Other than that, I can live with most nominations. I don't trust Ed quite
enough to have him the only moderator of a list, but if he was part of a
group, that would probably be OK.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2001
[Wikipedia-l] Apologies and goodbye
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Dec 11 20:04:00 UTC 2002
> All -- I have written a personal note to KQ to apologize to him for my
> part in the recent flame war -- I had certainly not intended with my
> first post (which actually offered concrete suggestions for how the
> Wagner issue could be resolved
That's why I didn't - and still don't - understand why you had to
introduce your message with an unfounded personal attack against me.
Perhaps you were afraid that expressing too strong agreement might weaken
any potential future case?
In any case, as long as Julie doesn't spread false claims about me, I
consider this issue settled. I will, however, continue to respond to any
and all false claims (tit for tat).
That being said, we should resolve the Wagner issue. More on that on
wikien-l.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2002
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 20:21:11 UTC 2002
Erik asked,
<< How will the moderation be set up? >>
I think the majority of posts should go directly to the list.
If a poster violates etiquette, for example by calling a reader a "poopoo face", the moderator ought to chide them (in public or private, it doesn't matter).
If they keep violating etiquette, the moderator can place the poster on the "screened posters" list. (That is, they'd move a step down from "good" to "bad" on my good, bad and ugly scale.)
Only screened posts would have to be read by a moderator.
Ed Poor
P.S. I don't think Larry actually nominated himself, although he may have seconded his own nomination.
P.P.S. I hereby second my own nomination
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2003
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Dec 11 20:45:00 UTC 2002
> If a poster violates etiquette, for example by calling a reader a "poopoo
> face", the moderator ought to chide them (in public or private, it doesn't
> matter).
Are you talking about a single moderators, or a team of moderators?
If you're talking about a team, how will consistency be guaranteed?
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2004
[Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 20:47:57 UTC 2002
Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a list moderator:
-- April
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
Axel Boldt
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
Brion Vibber
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
Ed
* for: Larry, Jonathan (Clutch)
* pregnant chad: Erik (only as co-moderator)
* dimpled chad: Toby
* hanging chad: Anthere (pas *entièrement* d'accord)
Jimbo:
* for: everyone but him
* opposed: himself
Julie
* for: Larry
* opposed: Erik, Julie, Toby
KQ
* for: Toby, Larry, Ed
Larry
* for: Ed, Jonathan (Clutch)
* opposed: Erik, Toby
Lee Crocker
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
Magnus Manske
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
maveric149
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
* opposed: Jonathan (Clutch)
Ruth
* for: Larry
* opposed: Toby
Having moderation at all: Larry proposed it, and I assume everyone else who "voted" agrees with it
* dimpled chad: Erik (Eloquence)
* hanging chad: Tom Parmenter (aka Ortolan88)
* pregnant chad: Jimbo (won't fight it, but has reservations)
* opposed: Matthew Woodcraft
(signed)
Ed Poor
Administrator for wikiEN-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2005
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Lee Pilich
pilich at btopenworld.com
Wed Dec 11 20:53:38 UTC 2002
At 18:43 11/12/2002 +0000, Jimbo wrote:
>Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> > Jimbo simply doesn't have the time, so I don't think he'd agree to do this.
>
>That's right. Count me out. :-)
>
>I'm not really supportive of the idea, either.
I don't like the idea either. It would slow down the pace of the list, and
I fear that a moderated list would only lead to more bad feeling, when
somebody who thinks they are making a legitimate point has their message
rejected because somebody else considers it a flame. And of course, that
bad feeling will spread to the wikipedia itself.
I understand why people want the list moderated - there's been a lot of
tiresome crap on here lately (there usually is). But if you don't want to
read a message, what's wrong with simply deleting it? Everybody can be
their own moderator that way, without having somebody decide what they
should and shouldn't read.
LP (camembert)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2006
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 21:20:06 UTC 2002
I don't much like Ed's suggestion that we moderate people rather than
posts. With a virtuous few exceptions, most of us have posted things to
the list that would have been rejected by a good moderator.
The idea of having a list of people who need approval first would be
*highly* controversial, and that's controversy we don't need. We don't
need to give anyone more reason to think that there is a cabal. I support
treating everyone equal in this regard, even if it means more work for the
moderators.
There is, by the way, one implication of making WikiEN-l moderated but not
Wikipedia-l. I think it's safe to predict the following sort of
situation. Some people will no doubt try to post something on Wikien-l
and when it is rejected, they will post it on Wikipedia-l and scream
bloody murder about abuse of power.
This means two things. First, most importantly, we've got to ensure that
moderators do *not*, in fact, abuse their power. (Never give the
above-mentioned types legitimate reason to complain.) The policy has to
be clear and decisions have to be rendered fairly and objectively.
Second, we need to make it clear from the outset that if wikien-l *does*
become moderated, that *does indeed* mean that somebody's going to have
power that they didn't have before. That in turn means that we have
accepted the associated risks, and a *few* mistakes are perfectly
predictable, and moreover, within the bounds of acceptability.
LP/Camembert wrote:
>> I understand why people want the list moderated - there's been a lot of
tiresome crap on here lately (there usually is). But if you don't want to
read a message, what's wrong with simply deleting it? Everybody can be
their own moderator that way, without having somebody decide what they
should and shouldn't read. <<
The problem is that the noise drives off the signal and even literally
drives off prime producers of signal (e.g., posts from Julie and KQ would
count as signal). Basically, there are too many children on the list, and
there needs to be a few playground moms, or else the adults will want to
have nothing to do with the list.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2007
[Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
Brion Vibber
brion at pobox.com
Wed Dec 11 21:11:44 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 12:47, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a list moderator:
[..]
> Brion Vibber
> * for: Erik, Ed, Larry
I'll pass -- as it is, my Wikipedia time is mostly taken up maintaining
the software and I don't have time to contribute content.
> Having moderation at all: Larry proposed it, and I assume everyone else who "voted" agrees with it
> * dimpled chad: Erik (Eloquence)
> * hanging chad: Tom Parmenter (aka Ortolan88)
> * pregnant chad: Jimbo (won't fight it, but has reservations)
> * opposed: Matthew Woodcraft
I'd be happy with a little self-moderation -- remember, boys and girls,
it's JUST a world-class encyclopedia that will become the primary
reference source for the whole world in centuries to come. No need to
get worked up! ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2008
[Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 21:23:51 UTC 2002
Ed, I'm really not meaning to be contrary here, but I don't think it's a
terribly great idea to tabulate "votes" on this particular issue for the
simple reason that the people whose posts most need moderation will be
voting. I suggest we simply leave the actual choice of moderators up to
Jimbo and debates the merits of the proposal itself.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2009
[Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 21:29:08 UTC 2002
I wrote:
Ed, I'm really not meaning to be contrary here, but I don't think it's a
terribly great idea to tabulate "votes" on this particular issue for the
simple reason that the people whose posts most need moderation will be
voting. I suggest we simply leave the actual choice of moderators up to
Jimbo and debates the merits of the proposal itself.
-----
By "this particular issue" I meant only who the moderators should be--not
whether there should be moderation. That is, indeed, something that I
think should depend a great deal on "votes."
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2010
[Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Dec 11 21:17:00 UTC 2002
> Ed, I'm really not meaning to be contrary here, but I don't think it's a
> terribly great idea to tabulate "votes" on this particular issue for the
> simple reason that the people whose posts most need moderation will be
> voting. I suggest we simply leave the actual choice of moderators up to
> Jimbo and debates the merits of the proposal itself.
Ed has put up an "Election" page on Wikipedia, which should invite votes
from more people.
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2011
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 21:18:16 UTC 2002
> > If a poster violates etiquette, for example by calling a reader a "poopoo
> > face", the moderator ought to chide them (in public or private, it doesn't
> > matter).
>
> Are you talking about a single moderators, or a team of moderators?
>
> If you're talking about a team, how will consistency be guaranteed?
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
Nearly all posts should go straight to the list. It is only someone who who won't listen to reason whose list postings should be filtered by a moderator (or moderator team).
I guess if there are multiple moderators for a mailing list, it should be the same as having multiple sysops on Wikipedia itself.
Whoever takes action first will probably decide the issue. On the other hand, anyone can undo an action.
Like: any sysop can protect an article (as I have sometimes done), and any sysop can unprotect it (as Camembert has sometimes done). I presume that moderators won't start a "moderator war"!!! :-)
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2012
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Wed Dec 11 21:23:00 UTC 2002
> Nearly all posts should go straight to the list. It is only someone who who
> won't listen to reason whose list postings should be filtered by a moderator
> (or moderator team). I guess if there are multiple moderators for a mailing
> list, it should be the same as having multiple sysops on Wikipedia itself.
> Whoever takes action first will probably decide the issue. On the other
> hand, anyone can undo an action.
I could agree with that. But does our software actually support such
moderator teams?
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2013
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 21:30:29 UTC 2002
As far as I know, the mailing list software is already set up to support moderation, either by a single individual or a team -- exactly as previously discussed.
The only issues are:
* should wikiEN-l or wikipedia-l (or both) be moderated
* who ought to be moderator(s)
* what should the rules of participation be
I bet the first rule we'd all like to have is that a Moderator should not use "moderation" to as a weapon in debate (!) -- just as a sysop should not.
Ed Poor
(just a list administrator -- not a moderator)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2014
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 21:38:56 UTC 2002
My suggestion is actually that neither people nor posts be moderated. If everyone will be "good" and seek slack (whatever the heck that is), then no posts need be filtered at all.
My proposal is only to use the "naughty" category as a temporary measure, to cool off someone who's flagrantly violating the rules. Like a one-hour, three-hour or one-day suspension of "good" status.
I wager that no more than 2 or 3 people would ever get placed in such status at a time. Even then, if even one member of the Moderator Team approved a post from a "person in limbo", it would go through to the list.
If you were suggesting that ALL POSTS be checked first, then count me out. That would be too much work for me. If nominated, I *might* serve, but I'm liable to just set the "pass all posts" flag and not actually read each one first.
I think we should only filter posts from scofflaws, not from everyone.
I hope I've made my position clear -- if not persuasive.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2015
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Tom Parmenter
tompar at world.std.com
Wed Dec 11 21:58:23 UTC 2002
The moderator doesn't have to approve every posting. Just watch the
list, toot the lifeguard whistle from time to time when swimmers go
too far from shore or bother others, correspond privately with problem
posters, have the power to check mail from a problem poster and use it
wisely, including permanently sending their mail to the bit bucket if
necessary.
Tom P.
O88
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2016
[Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Dec 11 22:09:58 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote:
I said that these would all probably be OK, so let's call that a pregnant chad:
>-- April
>Axel Boldt
>Brion Vibber
>Lee Crocker
>Magnus Manske
>maveric149
But this I am against, despite voting on moderators if they must exist,
or at best am a dimpled chad:
>Having moderation at all: Larry proposed it,
>and I assume everyone else who "voted" agrees with it
Even if Jimbo chooses the moderators (and if we have them),
I would strongly suggest avoiding controversial people
(most famously Larry and The Cunctator, also others) --
a single opposition should be enough to derail a moderator
(not counting the case where somebody opposes every moderator).
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2017
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Wed Dec 11 22:21:46 UTC 2002
Eloquence wrote:
>Sanger is exactly the kind of person who can destroy a project
>like Wikipedia if given too much power and control.
Although I've tangled with Larry myself in the past,
and have said that I wouldn't want him to be moderator,
I don't think that this is a fair appraisal.
Larry strikes me as somebody that might not wield power wisely (sorry),
but nevertheless would not abuse it.
And what power he does have and has had has not been abused, AFAICT.
I suspect that he would be particularly loathe
to censor posts critical of himself.
Well, that's my impression of him, in any case.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2018
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 22:30:41 UTC 2002
> The moderator doesn't have to approve every posting. Just watch the
> list, toot the lifeguard whistle from time to time when swimmers go
> too far from shore or bother others, correspond privately with problem
> posters, have the power to check mail from a problem poster and use it
> wisely, including permanently sending their mail to the bit bucket if
> necessary.
>
> Tom P.
> O88
That's exactly what the mailing list software is set up to do.
I just took a look at the administrative website, and I'm prepared at the drop of a hat to implement a Moderation Policy. All I need is a list of who's on the Moderator Team.
I suggest we bat it around for a few more days, though. No sense in making a quick decision.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2019
[Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Wed Dec 11 22:36:29 UTC 2002
I will stop participating in Wikipedia if the lists are moderated by
anyone other than Jimbo.
This is, to use one proposed moderator's turn of phrase, a "*really,
really* bad idea, nay, a breathtakingly idiotic idea".
Or to use another proposed moderator's turn of phrase, "Horseshit".
Or maybe we should have the person who wrote "I hate everybody and
everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't stop me." moderate.
Or maybe the one who wrote "The mailing list is the semi-secret
repository for the behind-the-scenes scheming to change Wikipedia."
At least 90% of our problems would be solved, without adding hierarchies
and censorship, if we just moved to a bulletin board system.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2020
[Wikipedia-l] Offense at repeated slander on the Wikipedia-L list by Clutch
Robert Kaiser
rkaiser1 at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 11 22:48:43 UTC 2002
Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:>
Jimmy, I caught RK pulling 'facts' out of his ass, and provided a link
>to it. Bias is one thing, but outright fabrication should be taken
>seriously. Do you take it seriously? Do we as an encyclopedia take it
>seriously? I personally take it very seriously.
This is outright libel. Jonathan is not only lying, he has a public history
of flaming both me and other Wikipedia contributors with virulently
anti-Semitic statements.
He has created some rather hateful lies about how Wikipedia is turning into
"Zionipedia" (itself a blatantly racist statement); he has some clinically
paranoid delusions about how "Zionists" are warping "Zionipedia". The facts,
however, show no such thing. If people take the time to read the Talk pages
that Jonathan is contributing to, they will see that I also make a good
faith effort to work with others to create NPOV articles - for instance, see
my recent contributions to the Book of Revelations article and the Book of
Mormon article. In contrast, note that virtually everyone is opposed to his
virulently hateful attacks, and his distastfeful apologetics for
anti-Semitism within Wikipedia articles.
I have stayed silent on this issue long enough. Time and time again he is
slandering me on this forum, and it has reached the point of libel. Stop it.
And stop it now. If people on Wikipedia cannot act like civilized human
beings, then leave. But don't use this forum for repeated libel.
Robert (RK)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2021
[Wikipedia-l] Offense at repeated slander on the Wikipedia-L list by Clutch
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Dec 11 23:05:05 UTC 2002
If I were a Moderator, I would give Jonathan a "day off" from the list. You have been very patient and cooperative, though, Robert.
Ed Poor
--not a moderator, just an admin for wikiEN-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2022
[Wikipedia-l] BBS vs mailing list (was Re: Moderator nominations)
Brion Vibber
brion at pobox.com
Wed Dec 11 23:29:43 UTC 2002
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:55, The Cunctator wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 17:45, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:36, The Cunctator wrote:
> > > At least 90% of our problems would be solved, without adding hierarchies
> > > and censorship, if we just moved to a bulletin board system.
> >
> > What are the problems that this would solve, and how would it solve
> > them?
> >
> It would solve the basic scaling problems
> * the problem of flooded inboxes
Present solution: Filter your mailbox; put lists in their own folders.
(But not everyone has a mailreader that does filtering, or knows how to
set it up if they do.)
> * the problem of lack of threading
Present solution: Use a threaded mailreader.
(But not everyone has a mailreader that does threading, or knows has to
turn it on if they do.)
> * the problem of ephemerality of content (by making it easy to refer to
> earlier threads)
Present solution: Hyperlink to the archives on the web; most mailreaders
these days will let you click on a URL.
(But it's harder to reply to the original post; it's hard to search the
archives; URLs are long.)
> These scaling problems underlie the current tensions causing the
> upswells of conflict on the lists.
>
> If the bbs were integrated with the Wikipedia system (that is, it
> recognized users and/or allowed people to make wiki links) it would
> solve
> * the problem of obscurity and
Not sure what you mean here -- perhaps easier ability to link from
Wikipedia pages to particular threads in the bbs? How so?
> * the problem of not being able to link directly to [[Wikipedia]]
Now, that _would_ be nice.
> * the problem of not being able to coordinate Talk page discussion with
> list-based discussions
I'm not sure how the bbs helps here. It's trivial to include a URL to a
talk page in a list message, and URLs to bbs threads are about as
obscure as URLs to the mailing list archive.
A web board is also inimical to offline reading (as is the 'pedia, at
present) and doesn't integrate well with people who have an organized
way to deal with massive amounts of e-mail. Possible solution:
smtp<->bbs or nntp<->bbs gateway.
There's some potential here though; feel free to set up a page on meta
with some specific proposals.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2023
[Wikipedia-l] Against moderation
Axel Boldt
axelboldt at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 11 23:58:12 UTC 2002
I am against moderation of any Wikipedia mailing lists.
* It creates a new level of power, and thus goes completely in the
wrong direction and against wiki principles. Some people appear to be
rather eager to serve as moderators because of this. (Was this a
flame?)
* What a flame is can be debated. Erik's recent rather hostile analysis
of Julie's work could certainly be judged either way. But it is always
better to see borderline cases than to suppress them.
* If you, like me, think these lists carry too much traffic, get
yourself a throwaway email account at yahoo.com and/or read the lists
on the web. Yahoo even lets you filter out and trash messages by
subject, author or keyword.
* Simply ignore flames, what could be easier?
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2024
[Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations & compromise suggestion
Rosa Williams
aprilrosanina at charter.net
Thu Dec 12 00:16:00 UTC 2002
> >-- April
Wha, wha? I'm honored and flattered and enormously pleased. :) That said,
I have enough self-knowledge to know that I can run pretty hot-tempered at
times, I just express it as sarcasm rather than direct insult. Same song,
different key... just as inappropriate for someone who has to be impartial.
I also, realistically, doubt that I'd have the time to put in to proper
moderation duties.
That said, I was struck by what Tom Parmenter said earlier: how just having
a striped shirt around to blow the whistle and say "cool it, guys!" can be
bloody useful. This gives me the idea for a compromise proposal. Instead
of moderating the list, at least for now, why not appoint a few "referees"?
Their function would be to respond ASAP when a discussion starts to get
ugly, and say: "TWEET!! If I were a moderator I would have blocked that
post for X reason." This means the list keeps at its current speed and
responsiveness, while still having people around to step in and point out
that someone's going beyond the pale when they're too emotionally involved
to see it themselves.
Nor would the position of referee be toothless, as some might fear. After
all, they can always threaten to start up the moderation discussion again.
;) More seriously, if someone's collecting a lot of whistle-toots, that can
be brought to the attention of Fearless Leader... er, kidding, Jimbo.... who
can then Take Appropriate Steps. Note that this doesn't require too much
extra effort either from Jimbo or the referees, making it quite easy to
institute. And such "referees" could check each other, too, an important
point to keep in mind, as we're all human and slip sometimes. This, my
objections to myself above would not apply to a referee position (hint,
hint... :)
Now, on the other side of things, some people are vehemently against
establishing any sort of heirarchy. It is, of course, quite possible for
everyone to referee; to an extent, we all do (calls to stop flaming, etc).
However, there's a difference between a few people saying "stop that!" and
a few people /who have been mutually agreed upon by the list to keep an eye
on things/ saying "stop that!" The first is an expression of personal
opinion; the second is an expression of personal opinion backed by a mutual
agreement. When attending demonstrations, there are often people with
orange T-shirts or armbands running around, and the demonstrators usually
listen to them. They have no legal power, but the demonstrators understand
that they're there for the safety and well-being of all. (Yes, there are
some who will get out of hand. That's why we have police and Jimbo,
respectively...)
And, of course, my best argument: if we try voluntary moderation via
referee, and it doesn't work, then full moderation will remain an option,
and now with the advantage of saying, "we tried it the other ways..." :)
-- April (chucking another opinion onto the pile)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2025
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Thu Dec 12 00:11:37 UTC 2002
Lee Pilich wrote:
> At 18:43 11/12/2002 +0000, Jimbo wrote:
>
>> I'm not really supportive of the idea, either.
>
> I don't like the idea either. It would slow down the pace of the list,
> and I fear that a moderated list would only lead to more bad feeling,
> when somebody who thinks they are making a legitimate point has their
> message rejected because somebody else considers it a flame. And of
> course, that bad feeling will spread to the wikipedia itself.
>
> I understand why people want the list moderated - there's been a lot
> of tiresome crap on here lately (there usually is). But if you don't
> want to read a message, what's wrong with simply deleting it?
> Everybody can be their own moderator that way, without having somebody
> decide what they should and shouldn't read.
Lee pretty well captures my on the moderation issue. There's no point
to my adding more verbiage to this topic.
Eclecticology
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2026
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia, anti-Semitism, and other offensive terms
Rosa Williams
aprilrosanina at charter.net
Thu Dec 12 00:23:54 UTC 2002
(That Subject's a joke, ah say, a JOKE, son...)
On the dispute involving the bias (whichever way) on pages relating to the
Israeli-Palestinian situation, and particularly RK's expression thereof:
This particular aspect of this topic has come up before. The old discussion
is available at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism_vs_Anti-Zionism
and could well be used for further permutations of the discussion, if people
want to see that off the list.
In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel the
term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own writings.
Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly I'm
disagreeing with. :) It may conceivably help to moderate disputes with RK to
use such precise language, though yes, I have known him to be pretty quick
off the mark in accusing others of being anti-Semitic.
Now, as to real anti-Semitism. It doesn't at all seem out of place to spend,
say, a paragraph discussing the prejudices of a historically important
person. It shouldn't be the first paragraph, and should come after a more
lengthy discussion of why the person was historically important. However,
unless the latter strongly relates to the former, a paragraph should be
sufficient, and anyone wanting to discuss the aspect in more detail can then
spin off a separate article.
The key points of a biographical entry, as I think of it, are to hit on a
person's life history in brief, their personality and attitudes, and their
contributions (positive or negative) to society and history at large.
Noting that Wagner was a seriously disagreeable person to many, that his
affairs were notorious, and that his prejudices were vehement has a place;
for one, it detracts from the sort of "hero worship" seen in the past by
"great man" school biographers. It presents a more realistic view of a
complete human being. Feet of clay, and all that.
In sum: if the discussion of Wagner's anti-Semitism dwarfs the remainder of
the article, it should be reduced (and/or the rest of the article seriously
built up.) If it's discussed briefly, preferably with mention of the
historical context, that seems reasonable. Here endeth long-winded opinion.
-- April
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2027
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Anthere
anthere5 at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 12 00:32:45 UTC 2002
In answer to your comment Larry
1. I would *really* appreciate that you refer to me as
a she and not as a he. Respecting people gender is
important
2. I think conflict issue could be solved in most
cases by discussion and appeasement. That could imply
that some - non involved in a conflict - take time to
calm things down, publicly or privately. I don't
support blocking mails as a way to quiet things down
3. On wikipedia (the encyclopedia), it is possible to
participate anonymously. Only Jimbo has the right
(except for couple of occasions, but I think there was
no abuse) to *ban* people. This is done after careful
and lenghty examination of case. This mean wikipedia
is - to a certain point - respecting freedom of
speech. How could it be that the mailing list do not
follow the same line ? Why could it be that more
freedom of speech is allowed on wiki than on the
mailing list ?
What you imply with your moderation system is that a
mailing-list sysop will be given more power than
encyclopedia-sysop.
> I think there should be 2-4 moderators. I made the
> suggestion and I am
> willing to act as part-time co-moderator, but not as
> the only moderator.
>BS
>KQ
>Ed
> Julie Kemp
> Mav
> April
> Axel
> Brion (he has better things to do, though, with the
> software)
> Magnus (ditto)
> Lee Crocker (ditto)
4. This is a *general* mailing list (and don't try to
sneakily say it is been done behind everybody's back.
The subject has been raised several time, and it took
at least 2 months before being there - you were not
there - or not listening). A general list moderated by
only english (one exception who likely will not have
the time) people is an english list.
But I understand non-english users will not be trusted
since not known.
> There should also be a French language moderator.
> :-) Actually, I did
> have four years of French in high school, so I could
> do an OK job but I
> think I'd probably miss things like (the French
> equivalents of) "your
> mother wears army boots."
5. I won't recognise you as a french moderator should
there be need of one. I don't see 4 years in french at
school as a credential to give you this role when you
care so little about us. Actually, there are no french
with a real moderating role right now. But we are
polite enough :-)
> Anyway, there's an important question you left off
> of your list of
> questions, Ed: what should the moderation policy be?
6. Currently is under work a list of moderators for
which NO job has been defined. Until a proper
definition of what *moderation* could be, I fail to
see why would people accept or not accept that role,
or how could people be given that role.
> I've written two or three moderation policies before
> and I've given them a
> lot of thought. Roughly speaking (this would need
> fine-tuning), I suggest
> the following:
>
> * When in doubt, approve the post. Don't block
> posts that are on the
> borderline.
> * Reject posts that express any sort of disrespect
> for others. There can
> be exceptions; for example, if we have to discuss
> a problem troll on
> Wikipedia, then expressions of disrespect (among
> other things) are
> totally on-topic. This implies reject of the
> following:
> * Plain old insults.
> * Slightly subtle implications of something highly
> insulting.
> (Certain Wikipedians have perfected this to an
> art form.)
> * Really obvious condescension and other
> disrespectful attitudes.
> * To human beings and listmembers (as opposed to
> spammers, for instance),
> always give some explanation of why the post is
> rejected. If the
> software doesn't do it (I think it does, though),
> include the full post
> with the rejection so that the author can revise
> it.
> * Reject all spam without comment.
> * On Wikipedia-l, reject posts that should go to
> WikiEN-l (I happen to
> agree with this rule that was foisted upon us
> without much discussion
> ;-) ).
> * Reject trollish suggestions from newbies that
> Wikipedia should be
> radically changed in some particular way. This is
> to be distinguished
> from reasonable and well-supported suggestions,
> from anyone, that
> Wikipedia should be radically chagned in some
> particular way. Bear in
> mind that people can disagree about what is
> "reasonable." The point is
> that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
> to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example. Moderators
> should direct offenders to the relevant documents
> and ask the poster to
> rewrite the post bearing in mind that we've
> probably heard it all
> before.
>
> Larry
7.Your initial proposition was to avoid the
unpleasantness of flame war. I see quite a number of
points here that have *nothing* to do whatsoever with
flaming wars.
* Reject trollish suggestions from newbies that
> Wikipedia should be
> radically changed in some particular way. This is
> to be distinguished
> from reasonable and well-supported suggestions,
> from anyone, that
> Wikipedia should be radically chagned in some
> particular way. Bear in
> mind that people can disagree about what is
> "reasonable." The point is
> that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
> to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example.
8. To come back to the international issue, you should
know that all wikipedias don't necessary have a clear
neutrality point of view policy yet. It might be
necessary that we discuss it one day. So you might
have to listen to newbies, and these suggestions can
be worth listening to
The point is
> that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
> to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example. Moderators
> should direct offenders to the relevant documents
> and ask the poster to
> rewrite the post bearing in mind that we've
> probably heard it all
> before.
9. And of course, I might also add that most
international who start on this list, usually start
with basic questions of copyrights, neutrality....
issues. Coldly sending a "worried" international to a
remote english circonvoluted 10000 words page on a
copyright subject is not gonna make it. Human answer
will. If you don't want to answer...just don't answer
for the zillionth time...but don't prevent others to
do so.
Please don't mix flame issues with other issues.
-----
But 2 is the most important point.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2028
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Dec 12 03:21:00 UTC 2002
As I originally expected, we're seeing more and more "no" answers to
moderation. That's too bad.
Good luck, everyone, trying to implement other solutions, or with the
status quo: I think the list will continue to be mired in constantly
flowing excrement. Those with a low toleration for it will continue to be
driven off.
The rest will be a reply to Anthere (her comments are preceded by ">>"):
>> 1. I would *really* appreciate that you refer to me as
a she and not as a he. Respecting people gender is
important
Of course that's important--I simply didn't know whether you were male or
female, and simply (and wrongly) assumed you were male.
>> 2. I think conflict issue could be solved in most
cases by discussion and appeasement. That could imply
that some - non involved in a conflict - take time to
calm things down, publicly or privately. I don't
support blocking mails as a way to quiet things down
Good luck, again, with your proposed solution.
>> 3. On wikipedia (the encyclopedia), it is possible to
participate anonymously. Only Jimbo has the right
(except for couple of occasions, but I think there was
no abuse) to *ban* people. This is done after careful
and lenghty examination of case. This mean wikipedia
is - to a certain point - respecting freedom of
speech. How could it be that the mailing list do not
follow the same line ?
I would have thought it was obvious that there is a HUGE difference
between banning someone from Wikipedia and making the mailing list
moderated.
>> Why could it be that more
freedom of speech is allowed on wiki than on the
mailing list ?
What you imply with your moderation system is that a
mailing-list sysop will be given more power than
encyclopedia-sysop.
There's nothing at all unusual about moderating mailing lists, as surely
you must know. Many mailing lists are moderated. Some moderators are
virtual tyrants, and others are basically rubber stamps that might as well
not exist. If the community decides--as it has not--to adopt a moderated
list, then it seems strange to say that there is a "freedom of speech"
issue involved at all, unless you're of the opinion that all moderation
implies an infringement of freedom of speech.
> I think there should be 2-4 moderators. I made the
> suggestion and I am
> willing to act as part-time co-moderator, but not as
> the only moderator.
>BS
>KQ
>Ed
> Julie Kemp
> Mav
> April
> Axel
> Brion (he has better things to do, though, with the
> software)
> Magnus (ditto)
> Lee Crocker (ditto)
>> 4. This is a *general* mailing list (and don't try to
sneakily say it is been done behind everybody's back.
The subject has been raised several time, and it took
at least 2 months before being there - you were not
there - or not listening).
Perhaps indeed I wasn't there, but it certainly came as a surprise to me
and others when you started enforcing the rule, which I happen to agree
with. (So, you can stop arguing with me now. I agree with you. :-) )
>> A general list moderated by
only english (one exception who likely will not have
the time) people is an english list.
But I understand non-english users will not be trusted
since not known.
You didn't understand. In the very next sentence,
> There should also be a French language moderator.
I suggested that there should be a French language moderator among any
moderators of Wikipedia-l. Also, the proposal now on the table is to
moderate WikiEN-l, leaving you with even less to worry about.
> :-) Actually, I did
> have four years of French in high school, so I could
> do an OK job but I
> think I'd probably miss things like (the French
> equivalents of) "your
> mother wears army boots."
>> 5. I won't recognise you as a french moderator should
there be need of one. I don't see 4 years in french at
school as a credential to give you this role when you
care so little about us. Actually, there are no french
with a real moderating role right now. But we are
polite enough :-)
It wasn't clear enough that I was joking, Anthere. Of course I'll admit
I'm unqualified to moderate French language posts to Wikipedia.
> Anyway, there's an important question you left off
> of your list of
> questions, Ed: what should the moderation policy be?
>> 6. Currently is under work a list of moderators for
which NO job has been defined. Until a proper
definition of what *moderation* could be, I fail to
see why would people accept or not accept that role,
or how could people be given that role.
Nobody has decided anything. I first proposed a number of possible
moderators (mainly, in fact, to give people the idea that there were a
number of people that we really could trust). Then, I described some
*possible* rules--which I myself might reject, after reflection--that
would indeed define what moderation would be.
>> 7.Your initial proposition was to avoid the
unpleasantness of flame war. I see quite a number of
points here that have *nothing* to do whatsoever with
flaming wars.
Indeed, that's correct.
* Reject trollish suggestions from newbies that
> Wikipedia should be
> radically changed in some particular way. This is
> to be distinguished
> from reasonable and well-supported suggestions,
> from anyone, that
> Wikipedia should be radically chagned in some
> particular way. Bear in
> mind that people can disagree about what is
> "reasonable." The point is
> that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
> to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example.
>> 8. To come back to the international issue, you should
know that all wikipedias don't necessary have a clear
neutrality point of view policy yet. It might be
necessary that we discuss it one day. So you might
have to listen to newbies, and these suggestions can
be worth listening to
You should know, Anthere, that they *do* have a neutrality policy, though
it might not be enforced (and too bad, if so). That's one point about
Wikipedia that is non-negotiable. If you have questions regarding this
point, I suggest you ask Jimmy Wales about it.
Moreover, the item above is not directed to polite suggestions, questions,
or any such thing, but to newbies who are, unwittingly or not, trying to
undermine well-established policy when they're not familiar with it. It
seems perfectly reasonable to me (though I can certainly understand it if
you want to disagree with me on this point) that we ask the newbie first
to get acquainted with what he or she is attacking.
Asking *questions* is, of course, always perfectly appropriate.
The point is
> that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
> to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example. Moderators
> should direct offenders to the relevant documents
> and ask the poster to
> rewrite the post bearing in mind that we've
> probably heard it all
> before.
>> 9. And of course, I might also add that most
international who start on this list, usually start
with basic questions of copyrights, neutrality....
issues. Coldly sending a "worried" international to a
remote english circonvoluted 10000 words page on a
copyright subject is not gonna make it. Human answer
will. If you don't want to answer...just don't answer
for the zillionth time...but don't prevent others to
do so.
I'm not suggesting any such thing at all!
>> Please don't mix flame issues with other issues.
I will if I want to, thank you very much. I think several related issues
go to undermine the quality of the list.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2029
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Thu Dec 12 03:32:10 UTC 2002
on 12/11/02 10:25 AM, Larry Sanger at lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> Now, the value of many other unmoderated lists--like this one--is
> undermined by continuous flame wars by battling, enormous egos, to say
> nothing of the worthless newbie posts that come from people who have not
> read the FAQ.
We don't have continuous flame wars. Yes Pot, the Kettle is BLACK. Newbie
posts are not worthless.
>
> In the case of Wikipedia, I'm beginning to think it is a necessary evil.
> I for one would be overjoyed if Wikipedia-l were to become moderated and
> the moderator were empowered to deal appropriately with flaming and with
> trolls.
>
> Larry
I've been happy on moderated lists and have sometimes wished certain
unmoderated lists were moderated, but moderation is so alien to the spirit
of a wiki that it seems grossly inappropriate. We allow anyone, even
anonymously, to edit any article, but if a serious question arises, would
deny them an opportunity to air it out here; doesn't make sense.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2030
[Wikipedia-l] Advice I'm following: take a break
Larry Sanger
lsanger at nupedia.com
Thu Dec 12 06:27:28 UTC 2002
I'm going to take a break from the lists of at least one week. If a
moderated list is not to be--which is a damn shame, because we *REALLY*
need one--I at least definitely need a break.
For the health of the list and the project, I think it would be an
excellent idea if several of us would take a break as well, and let the
more peaceful among us to move on to more productive matters. Then, maybe
when we return, we can be calmer and work together in a spirit of mutual
respect, or at least as much respect as we can muster.
Larry
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2031
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Dec 12 11:10:39 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 1) How will the moderation be set up? If there are several moderators,
> will the first to approve or reject a post make the decision, or will
> moderation decisions have to made in consensus, or by majority rule?
By the nature of the software, the only practical way to do it would
be to have the moderators log into the website and process things. If
a moderator felt that a post was borderline, he or she could just
leave it in the queue, rather than accepting or rejecting, but if the
moderator does reject or accept, then that's that -- as far as the
software is concerned, anyway.
It's fun and cute to imagine a process whereby 2 moderators have to
blackball a post before it's really rejected, or similar, but
realistically, it'd be too much work to program that, when simple trust
and kindness are so much more powerful.
Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts receive a
message saying that if they want to appeal, to forward the post to an
alias, which goes to all the moderators plus me. Also good would be
for all rejected posts to go separately to all the moderators plus
me, thus inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right
thing.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2032
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Dec 12 11:15:47 UTC 2002
Larry Sanger wrote:
> The idea of having a list of people who need approval first would be
> *highly* controversial, and that's controversy we don't need.
I think that's right. We're hoping here to be more inclusive by
providing a friendlier forum, and setting everyone, even the
moderators, on equal footing, is a good thing. (So, generally,
moderators should not approve their own posts.)
> There is, by the way, one implication of making WikiEN-l moderated but not
> Wikipedia-l. I think it's safe to predict the following sort of
> situation. Some people will no doubt try to post something on Wikien-l
> and when it is rejected, they will post it on Wikipedia-l and scream
> bloody murder about abuse of power.
This is a virtual certainty, yes. :-)
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2033
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Dec 12 11:27:51 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> My suggestion is actually that neither people nor posts be
>moderated. If everyone will be "good" and seek slack (whatever the
>heck that is), then no posts need be filtered at all.
Slack is the perfect cheeseburger at sunset.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2034
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Thu Dec 12 11:37:19 UTC 2002
> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts receive a
> message saying that if they want to appeal, to forward the post to an
> alias, which goes to all the moderators plus me. Also good would be
> for all rejected posts to go separately to all the moderators plus
> me, thus inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right
> thing.
That sounds like a reasonable alternative.
Given the dissent on the question, are we or aren't we going to moderate?
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2035
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Dec 12 12:15:59 UTC 2002
Fred Bauder wrote:
> We allow anyone, even anonymously, to edit any article, but if a
> serious question arises, would deny them an opportunity to air it
> out here; doesn't make sense.
No one has suggested that the purpose of moderation would be to
prevent airing out "serious questions"? To the contrary, it seems
that the purpose is precisely to permit more discussion of serious
questions, by striving (with a light touch) to gently improve the
civility of debate.
The wiki way is partly the idea that we approach each other with good
will and the default assumption that even people who are in deep
opposition on a particular point share a common goal, which is
improvement of the wikipedia.
I can see how light moderation can help to defuse some of the flames
that lead us to fight rather than work together. We've all been
guilty of injudicious remarks sent in the heat of the moment. But
these flames detract from "serious questions".
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2036
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Dec 12 12:17:31 UTC 2002
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Given the dissent on the question, are we or aren't we going to moderate?
It seems likely that we'll soon some to a consensus that doesn't
perfectly address everyone's concerns, but that attempts to address
almost all of them.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2037
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Dec 12 13:57:35 UTC 2002
> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts receive a
> message saying that if they want to appeal, to forward the post to an
> alias, which goes to all the moderators plus me. Also good would be
> for all rejected posts to go separately to all the moderators plus
> me, thus inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right
> thing.
>
> --Jimbo
I have found the spot on the mail administration page, where this "rejected posts...appeal" message should go.
Once again, Jimbo reminds us of the value of peer pressure.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2038
[Wikipedia-l] Which Moderation proposal?
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Dec 12 14:12:22 UTC 2002
Larry lamented,
> As I originally expected, we're seeing more and more "no" answers to
> moderation. That's too bad.
>
> Good luck, everyone, trying to implement other solutions, or with the
> status quo: I think the list will continue to be mired in constantly
> flowing excrement. Those with a low toleration for it will continue to be
> driven off.
I beg to differ, esteemed colleague. The prospect of elevating the tone of our discourse remains ever bright. Your original proposal was made less than 24 hours ago, was it not? Do not despair.
----
Let us consider rather WHICH proposal to adopt or reject:
1. Moderate wikipedia-l
Opinion seems to be turning away from this option. Indeed, a couple of non-English speakers want wikipedia-l abolished (!).
2. Moderate wikiEN-l
Some posters whose reputations carry some weight (like you, Larry, you fat slob! ;- [oops, I wouldn't be able to say that on a Moderated List <mischievous grin>, even with emoticons]) have turned toward this option.
3. Just continue to use social pressure
This remains a viable fall-back position.
----
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2039
[Wikipedia-l] What kind of moderation?
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Dec 12 14:28:57 UTC 2002
For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us consider our moderation options:
1. Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
2. Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
3. No moderation (status quo)
I myself reject option #1, since it would take way too much time. It would overwork any finite group of moderators. It would prevent urgent messages from being passed on quickly. (If this were the only option, I would withdraw my support for Larry's idea of moderation altogether.)
Option #2 means that posts would be transmitted immediately, as they are now. The exception, however, would be that a moderator could mark any subscriber's posts as requiring "administrative approval" (this phrase comes from the mailing list software). It would only be the small number of subscribers whose posts would be filtered by the moderators. Each post held for approval would then either be passed on or rejected. If rejected, it would get the appropriate comments:
* reason for rejection
* notice of right-of-appeal
I would expect that anyone whose post was rejected, would then either:
(A) Clean up their language and participate like an adult, or
(B) Go sulk, like a naughty child (thus proving that they did indeed merit the "time out")
In either case, I predict that only someone who was deliberately working against the project would refuse to comply with the simple, easy-to-follow rules of civil discourse: exactly the kind of *ahem* troll no one wants on a mailing list anyway.
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2040
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Mark Christensen
mchristensen at humantech.com
Thu Dec 12 14:44:31 UTC 2002
What I'd like to see is a moderated and unmoderated version of the same
list, or at least a publicly accessible archive of all posts to the list
moderated or unmoderated. That way those who want the "raw" stream
could get it, and anybody who cared could track exactly what the
moderators are doing.
I think this shouldn't be very hard if you can send all rejected posts
to another list. Anybody who want's to could sign up for that list too.
Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
forwarded to a moderated list for approval. Then those who want the raw
list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.
> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts
> receive a message saying that if they want to appeal, to
> forward the post to an alias, which goes to all the
> moderators plus me. Also good would be for all rejected
> posts to go separately to all the moderators plus me, thus
> inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right thing.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2041
[Wikipedia-l] What kind of moderation?
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Thu Dec 12 15:25:56 UTC 2002
on 12/12/02 7:28 AM, Poor, Edmund W at Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com wrote:
> For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us
> consider our moderation options:
>
> 1. Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
> 2. Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
> 3. No moderation (status quo)
>
> I myself reject option #1, since it would take way too much time. It would
> overwork any finite group of moderators. It would prevent urgent messages from
> being passed on quickly. (If this were the only option, I would withdraw my
> support for Larry's idea of moderation altogether.)
I'm coming around to the idea, but it has to include folks like Larry who
whatever their other merits, lapse habitually into insult. Option #2
presumably would focus on those who come here enraged by what they see as
nasty behavior. They may or may not be right, but there is no reason to
single them out for attention. Although it would also catch folks who are
just not in the game. I think some other system could be set up for alerts.
>
> Option #2 means that posts would be transmitted immediately, as they are now.
> The exception, however, would be that a moderator could mark any subscriber's
> posts as requiring "administrative approval" (this phrase comes from the
> mailing list software). It would only be the small number of subscribers whose
> posts would be filtered by the moderators. Each post held for approval would
> then either be passed on or rejected. If rejected, it would get the
> appropriate comments:
> * reason for rejection
> * notice of right-of-appeal
>
> the simple, easy-to-follow
> rules of civil discourse.
Well, not so simple. It's not going to work if someone who is slick can get
away with stuff and someone who is mad (perhaps justifiably) is excluded.
If I were moderating I would allow one or two statements of rage from
someone. (At least someone who new to the list). It's the constant
repetition, and bulldog determinedness, and over and over that spoil the
list.
>
> Ed Poor
Anyway I think moderation could work. As Jimbo points out anyone who has
something important to say can get it together and say it in a civil way.
They may say they're mad and "Ain't gonna take it anymore" but that
addresses their own feelings, not the essential evil which they might feel
resides in the character of those who have offended them.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2042
[Wikipedia-l] Moderation
Fred Bauder
fredbaud at ctelco.net
Thu Dec 12 15:27:17 UTC 2002
on 12/12/02 7:44 AM, Mark Christensen at mchristensen at humantech.com wrote:
> What I'd like to see is a moderated and unmoderated version of the same
> list, or at least a publicly accessible archive of all posts to the list
> moderated or unmoderated. That way those who want the "raw" stream
> could get it, and anybody who cared could track exactly what the
> moderators are doing.
>
> I think this shouldn't be very hard if you can send all rejected posts
> to another list. Anybody who want's to could sign up for that list too.
>
>
> Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
> forwarded to a moderated list for approval. Then those who want the raw
> list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.
>
>> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts
>> receive a message saying that if they want to appeal, to
>> forward the post to an alias, which goes to all the
>> moderators plus me. Also good would be for all rejected
>> posts to go separately to all the moderators plus me, thus
>> inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right thing.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
This is good.
Fred
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2043
[Wikipedia-l] Which Moderation proposal?
Giskart
giskart at wikipedia.be
Thu Dec 12 20:02:57 UTC 2002
Poor, Edmund W heeft geschreven:
[cut]
> 1. Moderate wikipedia-l
>
> Opinion seems to be turning away from this option. Indeed, a couple of non-English speakers want wikipedia-l abolished (!).
Can you explain why it is not a good idea to abolish wikipedia-l?
I find that like it is now wikipedia-l is not usefull. It is used like
it is the English list. Some messages are only posted on wikipedia-l,
some on wikiEN-l and most on the two. Most of the treads are broken
because of this. I think a lot of people are to lazy to subscribe to
wikiEN-l.
Giskart
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2044
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Dec 12 21:00:06 UTC 2002
On 12/12/02 9:28 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us
> consider our moderation options:
>
> 1. Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
> 2. Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
> 3. No moderation (status quo)
You have failed to mention:
4. Use a BBS instead of mailing lists
Option 2 is astoundingly pernicious.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2045
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Thu Dec 12 21:57:47 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
> 4. Use a BBS instead of mailing lists
Just to be clear, I think we should research this, but it's a big
step. I have no opposition to it at all, if it means that I can still
work the same way I do now, i.e. I can just read this like a mailing
list, using Mutt/Emacs. If I have to go on the web and contend with a
browser interface, oh the horror.
But, if most people keep using mail software, it's hard to see a big
advantage relative to a regular mailing list and archive.
--Jimbo
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2046
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?
Giskart
giskart at wikipedia.be
Thu Dec 12 23:07:56 UTC 2002
Jimmy Wales heeft geschreven:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>>4. Use a BBS instead of mailing lists
>
>
> Just to be clear, I think we should research this, but it's a big
> step. I have no opposition to it at all, if it means that I can still
> work the same way I do now, i.e. I can just read this like a mailing
> list, using Mutt/Emacs. If I have to go on the web and contend with a
> browser interface, oh the horror.
>
> But, if most people keep using mail software, it's hard to see a big
> advantage relative to a regular mailing list and archive.
>
> --Jimbo
Or using a newsreader.
Wikitech-l is ready for use now
For instructions see http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
The others are comming very soon.
I am waiting for responds from the admins of the English, Polish and
German list.
Do not know what to do whit wikipedia-l
*.wikipedia.wikipedia
*.wikipedia.policy
*.wikipedia.general.policy
*.wikipedia.main
*.wikipedia.misc
Giskart
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2047
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?
Imran Ghory
imran at bits.bris.ac.uk
Thu Dec 12 23:25:34 UTC 2002
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Giskart wrote:
> Or using a newsreader.
> Wikitech-l is ready for use now
> For instructions see http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> The others are comming very soon.
Wouldn't it make more sense to create a generally distributed wikipedia.*
hierarchy, rather than have thee newsgroups on just one server ?
Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2048
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Thu Dec 12 23:29:56 UTC 2002
On 12/12/02 6:07 PM, "Giskart" <giskart at wikipedia.be> wrote:
> Do not know what to do with wikipedia-l
> *.wikipedia.wikipedia
> *.wikipedia.policy
> *.wikipedia.general.policy
> *.wikipedia.main
> *.wikipedia.misc
>
.misc would be standard.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2049
[Wikipedia-l] Mark's moderation compromise
Axel Boldt
axelboldt at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 12 23:36:41 UTC 2002
--- Mark Christensen <mchristensen at humantech.com> wrote:
> Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
> forwarded to a moderated list for approval. Then those who want the
> raw list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.
This is a beautiful compromise. Those of us who like our daily smut
don't have to go cold turkey, and the filtered version of the list is
also available for those who feel so inclined.
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2050
[Wikipedia-l] Mark's moderation compromise
Erik Moeller
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Thu Dec 12 23:42:00 UTC 2002
> -+- Mark Christensen <mchristensen at humantech.com> wrote:
>> Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
>> forwarded to a moderated list for approval. Then those who want the
>> raw list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.
> This is a beautiful compromise. Those of us who like our daily smut
> don't have to go cold turkey, and the filtered version of the list is
> also available for those who feel so inclined.
I have to express my opposition to this compromise. I'm afraid it would
result in lax moderation standards with the standard explanation "well, if
you wanted to read this, you could have gone to the other list". Also,
what about replies to posts that are filtered on one list etc.?
Regards,
Erik
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2051
[Wikipedia-l] Mark's moderation compromise
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Dec 12 23:52:39 UTC 2002
What is the fear of Jimbo's proposed moderation experiment?
All he's saying is that wikiEN-l will be moderated for a little over 2 months, i.e., until March 1, 2003. At that point we will decide whether to unmoderate it, or to continue.
Anyone who wants to participate on a moderated English-language list, to discuss the English Wikipedia, is welcome. All others are still free to post to wikipedia-l which will remain unmoderated. Those who like their scum or slush or whatever unfiltered will still get plenty this way.
What could possibly be wrong with such an experiment?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2052
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Thu Dec 12 23:58:50 UTC 2002
Can we do the following?
(A) Automatically send EVERY wikiEN-l post to the newsgroup
(B) Still filter the mailing list according to Jimbo's moderation plan?
Ed Poor
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2053
[Wikipedia-l] Mark's moderation compromise
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Dec 13 00:11:22 UTC 2002
On 12/12/02 6:52 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> What is the fear of Jimbo's proposed moderation experiment?
>
> All he's saying is that wikiEN-l will be moderated for a little over 2 months,
> i.e., until March 1, 2003. At that point we will decide whether to unmoderate
> it, or to continue.
>
> Anyone who wants to participate on a moderated English-language list, to
> discuss the English Wikipedia, is welcome. All others are still free to post
> to wikipedia-l which will remain unmoderated. Those who like their scum or
> slush or whatever unfiltered will still get plenty this way.
>
> What could possibly be wrong with such an experiment?
>
Some brief answers: It would establish a corrosive policy as status quo. It
would imply--and then establish as the baseline reality--that wikipedia-l is
useless, a haven of scum and slush. It would create even more divisions in
the wikipedia community.
It evokes some of the similar problems with charter schools, tracking, etc.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2054
[Wikipedia-l] Mark's moderation compromise
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Fri Dec 13 00:30:48 UTC 2002
Axel Boldt wrote:
>--- Mark Christensen <mchristensen at humantech.com> wrote:
>
>>Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
>>forwarded to a moderated list for approval. Then those who want the
>>raw list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.
>>
>
>This is a beautiful compromise. Those of us who like our daily smut
>don't have to go cold turkey, and the filtered version of the list is
>also available for those who feel so inclined.
>
I think so too. I would continue to subscribe to the fiull XXX-list,
and not be bothered with the Wiki-Nannied one.
Eclecticology
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2055
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Dec 13 11:24:11 UTC 2002
The main problem with ideas of this type is that people will respond to messages
that shouldn't have been sent in the first place, which leads to a confusing situation.
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Can we do the following?
>
> (A) Automatically send EVERY wikiEN-l post to the newsgroup
> (B) Still filter the mailing list according to Jimbo's moderation plan?
>
> Ed Poor
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2056
[Wikipedia-l] More vandalism on English Wikipedia by Clutch
Robert Kaiser
rkaiser1 at worldnet.att.net
Fri Dec 13 16:14:02 UTC 2002
Can someone PLEASE ban clutch? The community has reached a consensus on the
"Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues" article, and Clutch has kept
unilaterally vandalizing it. Worse, today he he started a campaign of lying
about what the consensus is. Comments from others indicate that Clutch may
well, in fact, be a pathological liar.
The vandal is out of control, and *everyone* who has been commenting keeps
saying. Wiki Sysops, please stop shirking your responsibility, and stop
allowing vandals to ride rougshod over Wikipedia community consensus by
deleting articles. Whether you like it or not, the _fact_ is that your
silence effectively implies consent.
Robert
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2057
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Mark's moderation compromise
Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu
Sat Dec 14 00:03:58 UTC 2002
Ed Poor wrote in part:
>Anyone who wants to participate on a moderated English-language list, to
>discuss the English Wikipedia, is welcome. All others are still free to post
>to wikipedia-l which will remain unmoderated. Those who like their scum or
>slush or whatever unfiltered will still get plenty this way.
>What could possibly be wrong with such an experiment?
What could be wrong is described in your big paragraph above.
People may well go to <wikipedia-l> to discuss [[en:]] specifically,
which is not what <wikipedia-l> is for -- we already have enough problems.
I am about to make a post in which I consent to trying this experiment,
but I think it would work best to combine it with an outlet
that sends out an unfiltered version of <wikien-l> --
the Gmane idea sounds like it would work for this.
We don't need to increase the [[en:]] on <wikipedia-l>.
-- Toby
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2058
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 22:19:40 UTC 2002
Brion Wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 12:47, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>> Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:
>[..]
>> Brion Vibber
>> * for: Erik, Ed, Larry
>
>I'll pass -- as it is, my Wikipedia time is mostly taken up maintaining
>the software and I don't have time to contribute content.
I read the list backwards--I see now. Erik, Ed, and Larry voted for
Brion, not the other way around. Apologies, Ed; I've misunderstood
your post.
Hangdog,
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2059
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 22:17:42 UTC 2002
Ed Wrote:
>Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:
<snip>
>KQ
>* for: Toby, Larry, Ed
Ed, I did *not* tell you this, and I'm curious how you came to that
conclusion. I have not discussed moderation with anyone.
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2060
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
Wed Dec 11 22:24:40 UTC 2002
Ed Wrote:
>Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:
<snip>
>KQ
>* for: Toby, Larry, Ed
*opposed: KQ
best,
kq
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2061
[Wikipedia-l] warning user fauxpas
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Dec 17 15:31:55 UTC 2002
did we work out a way of getting a message to an IP user without blocking?
195.93.33.13
<http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.93.33.13>
is adding stubs of British actors with only the name and the DoB in an
ambiguous format. Should I just ban for 30 minutes with a polite
explanation?
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2062
[Wikipedia-l] warning user fauxpas
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Dec 17 16:00:16 UTC 2002
On 12/17/02 10:31 AM, "tarquin" <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> did we work out a way of getting a message to an IP user without blocking?
>
> 195.93.33.13
> <http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.
> 93.33.13>
> is adding stubs of British actors with only the name and the DoB in an
> ambiguous format. Should I just ban for 30 minutes with a polite
> explanation?
>
Banning would be entirely innapropriate, especially now that we have the
stub threshhold which makes stubs much less of a problem.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2063
[Wikipedia-l] warning user fauxpas
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Dec 17 16:13:22 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>On 12/17/02 10:31 AM, "tarquin" <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>did we work out a way of getting a message to an IP user without blocking?
>>
>>195.93.33.13
>><http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.
>>93.33.13>
>>is adding stubs of British actors with only the name and the DoB in an
>>ambiguous format. Should I just ban for 30 minutes with a polite
>>explanation?
>>
>>
>>
>Banning would be entirely innapropriate, especially now that we have the
>stub threshhold which makes stubs much less of a problem.
>
>
>
I only suggested that as a means to guarantee a message reached this
person -- not as any kind of punishment.
s/he doesn't seem to be reading Recent Changes, or reloading his pages:
I've left messages there with no result.
>
>
>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2064
[Wikipedia-l] warning user fauxpas
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Tue Dec 17 16:33:05 UTC 2002
On 12/17/02 11:13 AM, "tarquin" <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>> Banning would be entirely innapropriate, especially now that we have the
>> stub threshhold which makes stubs much less of a problem.
>>
>>
>>
> I only suggested that as a means to guarantee a message reached this
> person -- not as any kind of punishment.
> s/he doesn't seem to be reading Recent Changes, or reloading his pages:
> I've left messages there with no result.
I still wouldn't ban. The harm of the stubs is minimal. But I won't cry if
you do it.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2065
[Wikipedia-l] warning user fauxpas
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Tue Dec 17 17:00:52 UTC 2002
The Cunctator wrote:
>I still wouldn't ban. The harm of the stubs is minimal.
>
But in this case it was dumb legwork we could avoid. This person was
adding dates as "4-5-1945", which means someone later on has to go look
it up again.
>But I won't cry if you do it.
>
>
I wasn't comfortable either about using the ban feature for this, which
is why I brought it up here. :-)
I'd rather we had a "soft" way of doing this.
For example, make the contents of the page [[user:{IP address}]] appear
above every edit box this IP sees.
That way:
* they see it (hopefully ... I've seen people overlook what's right in
front of them when it comes to computer interfaces)
* we're not banning them, and they can still edit
* they can reply to confirm they've read the message on the same page.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2066
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 20 03:44:42 UTC 2002
Someone with ip addresses beginning with 152.163 is deleting article, vandalizing, modifying, and variously randomly changing whatever articles they happen to encounter. The IP address changes with each change. We need to do something quick.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021219/2a566b69/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2067
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Fri Dec 20 03:46:00 UTC 2002
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:44:42PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
> Someone with ip addresses beginning with 152.163 is deleting article,
> vandalizing, modifying, and variously randomly changing whatever articles
> they happen to encounter. The IP address changes with each change. We
> need to do something quick.
fsck. Looks like wikipedia has attracted a vandal who has enough skill
to spoof his IP's. No ideas on how to deal with that one.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021219/d38b0a2b/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2068
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Dec 20 04:38:43 UTC 2002
On 12/19/02 10:46 PM, "Jonathan Walther" <krooger at debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:44:42PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
>> Someone with ip addresses beginning with 152.163 is deleting article,
>> vandalizing, modifying, and variously randomly changing whatever articles
>> they happen to encounter. The IP address changes with each change. We
>> need to do something quick.
>
> fsck. Looks like wikipedia has attracted a vandal who has enough skill
> to spoof his IP's. No ideas on how to deal with that one.
>
Just wait a while. It's not a big deal.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2069
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
Jens Frank
JeLuF at gmx.de
Fri Dec 20 07:10:04 UTC 2002
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:46:00PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:44:42PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
> > Someone with ip addresses beginning with 152.163 is deleting article,
> > vandalizing, modifying, and variously randomly changing whatever articles
> > they happen to encounter. The IP address changes with each change. We
> > need to do something quick.
>
> fsck. Looks like wikipedia has attracted a vandal who has enough skill
> to spoof his IP's. No ideas on how to deal with that one.
>
He's not spoofing. He's just an AOL user and AOL has a farm of web proxies.
The IP you see is the IP of AOL's proxy server, not that of his PC.
Please don't ban these IPs.
JeLuF
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2070
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 20 17:18:21 UTC 2002
--- Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de> wrote:
> He's not spoofing. He's just an AOL user and AOL has a farm of web
> proxies.
> The IP you see is the IP of AOL's proxy server, not that of his PC.
> Please don't ban these IPs.
How would everyone feel if proxy isp users were required to log in to
make changes? They can chose their ISP, and if they don't like it,
they can go Earthink.
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2071
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Dec 20 17:13:16 UTC 2002
Christopher Mahan wrote:
> > He's not spoofing. He's just an AOL user and AOL has a farm of web
> > proxies.
> > The IP you see is the IP of AOL's proxy server, not that of his PC.
> > Please don't ban these IPs.
>
> How would everyone feel if proxy isp users were required to log in to
> make changes? They can chose their ISP, and if they don't like it,
> they can go Earthink.
I'd prefer if we didn't do that.
It might be useful to rate-limit edits from certain known "problem
proxies".
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2072
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 20 18:09:26 UTC 2002
It's a big deal to those of us who keep reverting all of the idiot's changes, especially since this isn't the first time he's done this. It's the third.
Zoe
The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:On 12/19/02 10:46 PM, "Jonathan Walther" wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:44:42PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
>> Someone with ip addresses beginning with 152.163 is deleting article,
>> vandalizing, modifying, and variously randomly changing whatever articles
>> they happen to encounter. The IP address changes with each change. We
>> need to do something quick.
>
> fsck. Looks like wikipedia has attracted a vandal who has enough skill
> to spoof his IP's. No ideas on how to deal with that one.
>
Just wait a while. It's not a big deal.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021220/6610a18a/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2073
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 20 18:10:24 UTC 2002
Then what do you suggest be done?
Zoe
Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de> wrote:On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:46:00PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:44:42PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
> > Someone with ip addresses beginning with 152.163 is deleting article,
> > vandalizing, modifying, and variously randomly changing whatever articles
> > they happen to encounter. The IP address changes with each change. We
> > need to do something quick.
>
> fsck. Looks like wikipedia has attracted a vandal who has enough skill
> to spoof his IP's. No ideas on how to deal with that one.
>
He's not spoofing. He's just an AOL user and AOL has a farm of web proxies.
The IP you see is the IP of AOL's proxy server, not that of his PC.
Please don't ban these IPs.
JeLuF
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021220/ca7d05a1/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2074
[Wikipedia-l] Somebody needs to intervene in the Swedish wiki
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 20 19:53:13 UTC 2002
See http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Brion_VIBBER&diff=0&oldid=0
Dan Koehl and Liftarn are in an edit war, and Dan Koehl seems to be using his admin powers against Liftarn.
Zoe, who doesn't speak Swedish
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021220/cabae31d/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2075
[Wikipedia-l] Somebody needs to intervene in the Swedish wiki
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Fri Dec 20 20:34:17 UTC 2002
Well, it is Friday, so our timeout is over and we can fight again on
the list. :-) Except, as usual, I won't be logged in over the
weekend.
I support cool heads trying to help them resolve the problem. Liftarn
sounds like a real piece of work to me, to the point that a ban is
probably in order. So Liftarn using his admin powers against Liftarn
may not be as problematic there as it is here, since I am not
effective (due to speaking on English) as final arbiter there.
(Heh, no jokes about me not being effective here, either.)
Zoe wrote:
>
> See http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Brion_VIBBER&diff=0&oldid=0
>
> Dan Koehl and Liftarn are in an edit war, and Dan Koehl seems to be using his admin powers against Liftarn.
>
> Zoe, who doesn't speak Swedish
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2076
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com
Fri Dec 20 22:20:50 UTC 2002
On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 13:09, Zoe wrote:
>
> It's a big deal to those of us who keep reverting all of the idiot's changes, especially since this isn't the first time he's done this. It's the third.
> Zoe
If it bothers you, then don't revert the changes. Let someone else do
it. There are more of us than there are of him.
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2077
[Wikipedia-l] 152.163 is back
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 20 22:11:03 UTC 2002
And the first thing he did was to vandalize my User page.
Since you all think he's no big deal, you can all revert his vandalism, I'll sit this one out.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021220/6bcf6618/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2078
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is under attack
Pierre Abbat
phma at webjockey.net
Fri Dec 20 23:04:04 UTC 2002
On Thursday 19 December 2002 22:44, Zoe wrote:
> Someone with ip addresses beginning with 152.163 is deleting article,
> vandalizing, modifying, and variously randomly changing whatever articles
> they happen to encounter. The IP address changes with each change. We
> need to do something quick.
It's a bunch of AOL proxies. I complained to abuse at aol.net and got an answer
(below) that suggested that I should complain to one of several other
addresses beginning with "tos" but gave me no clue that it actually tossed
the message at any of them.
phma
---
Thank you for writing with your question, concern or comment! You are
receiving this automatically generated message to notify you of a change in
AOL's postmaster mailbox procedure.
We have implemented a subject scanning mechanism to aid your abuse reporting
efforts. If you include any of the following tags in the subject line of
your issue, your email will be auto-forwarded to the appropriate mailbox.
These tags are not case-sensitive.
Tags: massmail, spam, uce, ube, unsolicited, junk, email, e-mail
Will send your issue to "tosemail1 at aol.com".
Tags: usenet, newsgroup
Will send your issue to "tosusenet at aol.com".
Tags: security, harassment
Will send your issue to "tosgeneral at aol.com".
Tag: web
Will send your issue to "tosweb at aol.com".
Tag: IRC
Will send your issue to "tosirc at aol.com".
The following mailboxes remain active, in the event you wish to continue
sending directly to the appropriate mailboxes, rather than send only to
"abuse at aol.com" or "abuse at aol.net".
** All unsolicited email complaints ("spam mail") should be sent to
"tosemail1 at aol.com"
** All usenet/newsgroup abuse issues should be sent to "tosusenet at aol.com"
** All Internet security issues (hacking reports, mailbombs, denial of
service attacks, port scans etc.) should be sent with all log info to
TOSGeneral at aol.com
** All incidents of member harassment or threats should be sent to
"TOSGeneral at aol.com"
** All reports of AOL Web pages which do not comply with AOL's Terms of
Service should be forwarded to "TosWeb at aol.com"
** All reports of IRC abuse should be forwarded to "tosirc at aol.com"
** No IM abuse reports will be accepted via email. IM users (AOL
members/account holders) should use the "notify AOL" button found in the
bottom right corner of the IM window. AIM (the free AOL Instant Messenger
client) users should utilize the "block" and "warning" features found at the
bottom of the AIM window to stop abuse.
Please visit the Postmaster FAQ at http://hometown.aol.com/postmaster for:
** Questions about junk mail (abuse policy, reporting abuse, reading
headers, terms of service)
** Questions about sending mail to AOL (explanations of mailer-daemon
bounces, DNS errors, etc.)
** General questions about AOL's services (billing, access, technical
support)
** If you are experiencing network difficulties with AOL, or are
experiencing a denial of service attack for which AOL is responsible, please
find aol.com's ARIN or InterNIC registration and contact our Network
Operating Center.
As always, please be sure to include all pertinent header information; we can
not process email abuse/usenet abuse issues without full header information.
Thanks, and have a great day!
Postmaster Team
America Online, Inc.
v20000425
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2079
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 22 05:29:10 UTC 2002
Well, since nobody else seems interested in vandalism, I guess I won't bother to try to revert any that happen in the future.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021221/9cfdcc69/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2080
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism
Jonathan Walther
krooger at debian.org
Sun Dec 22 07:12:32 UTC 2002
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 09:29:10PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
> Well, since nobody else seems interested in vandalism, I guess I won't
> bother to try to revert any that happen in the future.
It's Christmas. We're tired, and hung over, and snuggling up for a warm
winters sleep with our hoochie coochies. Get back to us when the
holiday is over, the sun has returned, and the new year has begun :-)
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021221/9d6e17cc/attachment.pgp
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2081
[Wikipedia-l] LOTR flood
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Sun Dec 22 16:26:50 UTC 2002
User 213.123.19.25 has added some articles about parts of the Lord of
the Rings story which look - well, enthusiastic, but they don't say
"this is located in the LOTR universe" or something. Also, the texts are
awfully close to those at http://www.glyphweb.com/arda
Someone please come to the rescue ;-)
Magnus
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2082
[Wikipedia-l] Vandalism
Jimmy Wales
jwales at bomis.com
Mon Dec 23 14:10:44 UTC 2002
I'm concerned about it. I would support that the ip numbers in
question be banned, at least through the holidays until we are back in
full strength. It's a pain that these are AOL proxies, and so we
should try to unban them as soon as we can, but the cost to us of
having this headache is much higher than the cost of losing a few
edits from a few AOLers.
Zoe wrote:
>
> Well, since nobody else seems interested in vandalism, I guess I won't bother to try to revert any that happen in the future.
>
> Zoe
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2083
[Wikipedia-l] User 172
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 24 20:13:43 UTC 2002
User 172 is continually deleting other people's comments on [[Talk:Soviet Union]], even though he has been asked not to do so.
Zoe, not involved in the debate
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021224/87af3057/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2084
[Wikipedia-l] Year in music
Magnus Manske
magnus.manske at epost.de
Wed Dec 25 22:47:46 UTC 2002
He's back with another, similar IP. Now [[2003]] already contains:
* [[2003 in film]]
* [[2003 in literature]]
* [[2003 in music]]
* [[2003 in sports]]
* [[2003 in television]]
IMHO this is *way* too far out.
I left him a note at Talk:List of musical events
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_events>, lacking a
better place. Someone please make him stop, before we have to clean up
all year entries again.
Magnus
Zoe wrote:
> I didn't care for it from the beginning, especially since it seems to
> be solely dedicated to The Year in Rock Music, and all other genres
> are ignored. Also, I don't like that he's predicting the future with
> "2003 in music", etc.
>
> Zoe
>
> */rose.parks at att.net/* wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Having finally checked the Recent Changes last night and read some of
> the "Year XXXX in music" articles, I agree with Mr. Manske. I
> think this is
> not a good idea and foresee this followed by "Year XXXX in
> painting," "Year
> XXXX in dance," "Year XXXX in literature."
> Further, the articles are rather summary, listing publication of
> songs,
> performers' highpoints, deaths etc.
> I would think this information will be incorporated in Wikipedia
> in some
> other form eventually, if it isn't already. For me. it is hard to
> find much
> meaning in these entries, as events appear out of context. For
> this reason, I
> think we should consider whether this is a good idea, before it
> goes much
> further.
>
> As Ever,
>
> Ruth Ifcher
>
> --
>
> > Someone's creating articles like "1974 in music".Can't that just go
> > under [[1974]]?
> >
> > Ma! gnus
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> -
> Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com>
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2085
[Wikipedia-l] Tallini and his 5th World nonsense
Zoe
zoecomnena at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 26 07:29:16 UTC 2002
Please see http://groups.msn.com/FifthWorld/the5w.msnw, which Tallini linked to from [[Micronation]]. He has an anti-Wikipedia bias that makes no sense, and it's time that he stop whatever it is he's doing and explain just what is going on.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021225/d5bbdf27/attachment.htm
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2086
[Wikipedia-l] Tallini and his 5th World nonsense
tarquin
tarquin at planetunreal.com
Thu Dec 26 11:14:50 UTC 2002
Zoe wrote:
> Please see http://groups.msn.com/FifthWorld/the5w.msnw, which Tallini
> linked to from [[Micronation]]. He has an anti-Wikipedia bias that
> makes no sense, and it's time that he stop whatever it is he's doing
> and explain just what is going on.
>
"The following entry didn't make into to "Wicked-pedia".
Oooooh! Ouch!
Let's start an "Enemies of Wikipedia" page
;-)*
*
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list
Email: 2087
[WikiEN-l] block open proxies only for non-logged-in users please
Phroziac
phroziac at gmail.com
Mon Aug 1 22:55:43 UTC 2005
Because that would allow trolls and vandals and other evil items to
make accounts using a tor, and freely evade any ban. I really don't
see why any government would care what you're doing..
On 8/1/05, Tor Ville <tor_ville at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your policy of indiscriminate blocking of edits from
> IP addresses of the TOR anonymous network is a serious
> violation of individual privacy. At the moment you
> generate a "User is blocked" page as tor is classified
> as "open proxy".
> OK, I understand that you want to prevent abuse from
> open proxies when the use is not logged in, but WHY
> BLOCK LOGGED IN USERS who use the Tor network only
> because they don't want everyone (and any government
> agencies) to be able to track what they are personally
> interested in.
>
> Please block only users who are not logged in from
> open proxies. Abuse from logged in users can be dealt
> with by blocking the user rather than the IP of the
> open proxy. Please don't be indiscriminate, please
> don't block innocent users who prefer privacy.
>
> This is very important. I realized I cannot edit
> Wikipedia any more if anyone can check everything I am
> interested in. Thanks!
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
--
signature
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list
Email: 2088
[WikiEN-l] Re: Tor horror stories
Tim Starling
t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au
Tue Sep 27 16:11:57 UTC 2005
Neil Harris wrote:
> Regarding Tor, does anyone have, or has anyone considered, an
> auto-discovery robot to find Tor proxies?
>
> This would be a Tor client which would connect to Tor at regular
> intervals and hit a special URL with a magic authenticating token in it,
> that would automatically ban the IP in question.
>
> Sooner or later, it would work its way through all, or almost all, of
> the proxies in the Tor cloud.
It's not necessary, Tor have a public exit node list. See for example
http://serifos.eecs.harvard.edu:8000/cgi-bin/exit.pl . The Tor
developers are actually very sympathetic to our situation... or at least
they became sympathetic after a series of conversations between our
developer Domas Mituzas and Tor developer Roger Dingledine, starting at
the CCC last December.
My question to Roger at his CCC lecture was "are you going to provide us
with a client library for automated blocking of Tor exit nodes?" to
which his answer was no, but several months later we received this:
http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor/contrib/exitlist
and the Tor developers even made plans to integrate it into MediaWiki
for us. That hasn't eventuated, but I appreciate the gesture.
Roger's preferred solution in MediaWiki is to enable admins to make
short-duration blocks (say 15 minutes) of all Tor exit nodes
simultaneously. My preferred solution is to delay edits:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/18932
...although that is quite a bit more complicated and thus less likely to
get done. At least my proposal serves to highlight our differences in
viewpoint. Tor supporters like to justify their existence from the moral
high ground of protection against government persecution or industrial
espionage. But what the bulk of Tor users are really interested in is
obscuring their identity server administrators, and that carries with it
a different set of ethical implications.
Administrators of wikis, forums, webmail and IRC all use IP blacklists
as a means to enforce a code of behaviour. Roger counters that server
administrators should move from IP-based access control to more secure
identification methods such as PKA coupled with credit card
authentication. But would that really be a step forward for privacy?
-- Tim Starling
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list