Jimbo wrote:
> If no consensus by committee members develops soon enough as
> to what it will do, I can step in and say "O.k., let's have a vote of
> the committee on the options that have been proposed" and then
> we'll go with that.
If, as chair, I judge that we are unable to reach a consensus on one or more issues,
then I will take appropriate action, which will probably entail us requesting that Jimbo
step in. However, I would view an *uninvited* intervention by Jimbo as unwelcome
interference, and I do not believe it would prove productive.
I have no idea what "soon enough" might mean. We will be ready when we are
ready. We have eight agenda items to get through, and as we work through you'll all
be able to see how fast we are progressing, and can form your own estimates as to
when we'll be finished. By the way, we're all human. A little support and
encouragement from time to time goes a long way.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
This user is turning into a royal pain, and multiple sysops have been watching recent changes and blocking his IPs almost continiously for about twenty minutes.
I'd like to request that, if things don't let up, a "PHP ban" be imposed on 80.54.196/18 for at least a day or two.
Thanks,
Pakaran
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:16:31 -0600
> From: "Ira Stoll" <irastoll(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy Suggestions
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <Law12-F47IGOHE44UQu0001b8be(a)hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> That's exactly what I'm getting at. The wikipedia should be packed with
> clickable citations.The reason why I've always loved encyclopedias so
> much
> is the quality of the information, and the impartial manner in which
> it was
> presented. Citations (particularly linkable) bring with them evidence
> for
> belief, and an option for the reader to learn further, investigate for
> themselves (by clicking on it). A basic of polite discourse (and a
> policy in
> my debate club) was to accept another's argument so long as it is
> logical,
> and to accept their premise so long as you could not disprove it (like
> thru
> a citation). What I Don't like about the wikipedia is when the truth
> (or a
> way of interpreting it) is removed from an article, regardless of the
> quality of citation, due to overriding majority POV. My suggestions are
> meant to address that. JackLynch
I agree completely. Lack of citation and traceability is IMHO a big
glaring
deficiency in traditional encyclopedias, and it's one that should be
remediable
in a hypertext encyclopedia. (However, like so much about Wikipedia,
there's no big barrier to "just doing it" and hoping that others will
follow suit. Much as I'd like better Wiki-apparatus for the purpose).
As for "Wikipedia is not a list of citations"—fine; neither is
Lauren Hillenbrand's "Seabiscuit: An American Legend," but every
darn statement she make in that readable, popular bestseller is
documented and attributed.
The omniscient viewpoint adopted by textbooks below the college
level and encyclopedias is intellectually dishonest. When an educated
person reads any factual matter, the question "Why should I believe
this?"
is (or should always be) in the back of their mind. "Because it's in a
book
and 'they' wouldn't print it if it weren't true?" "Because the style of
writing
gives me the impression the author knows what he's talking about?"
Verifiability is important. (And it's just as important for
noncontroversial
facts as for controversial facts).
One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that it gives us an
opportunity to think about the nature of knowledge
and authority.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)world.std.com alternate:
dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
I cleaned up the rest of the Pending Admin Requests, Anthere, and if no
one else volunteers for next month I'll
keep doing it.
Ed Poor
Unsung Hero of Administration
P.S. The pity party will be held in the Hall Closet,
accompanied by the World's Smallest Violin ;-)
> Uh, if this is the same CE that can be found online,
> it may be helpful to note that that edition is from
> 1911.
>
> Why use something from 1911?
>
> John
The 1911 Britannica is used extensively throughout
Wikipedia.
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
> > On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman wrote:
> > > Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off
> the Minor Changes to
> > > watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular
> users and ALL CHANGES
> by
> > > anonymous users, among which unluckily are some
> vandals. If vandals
> > > can in some way click this nonexisting box, they
> can do their hobby
> > > unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who
> work in this way.
> >
> > If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box
> for anonymous
> users,
> > how about this?
> >
> > 1) Put the "minor edit" box back
> > 2) Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all
> edits, hide minor
> > changes, hide minor changes from logged-in
> users
> >
> > This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a
> fairly small cost in
> > software effort.
> >
> > (I actually like not having the "minor edit" box
> as an anonymous user;
>
> > it helps me remember to log in!)
I just use a different skin
>
> Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on
> this one!
>
> Ed Poor
> Developer
Me too
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
We need to especially follow our own "laws", Wikipedia terms of use, our own
bylaw. Definitely copyright law which all members need to learn and respect
for the welfare of the project. Since we are not copyright experts we need
to make conservative interpretations.
With respect to real world law in general, we need to use common sense. For
example, in Colorado, it is slander to speak ill of the dead.
Unconstitutional but on the books last I heard. Likewise we cannot so
completely avoid covering the activities of Nazis and Communist mass
murderers that we can satisfy France, Germany, or Red China.
Fred
> From: "Martin Harper" <martin(a)myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Reply-To: martin(a)myreddice.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000
> To: arbitration(a)nerstrand.net
> Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
>
> Next on the agenda is "Rules": what rules are we going to enforce - on what
> basis
> will people be found guilty. Some possibilities (brainstorming, really):
> * The real world law
> * The [[Wikipedia:terms of use]]
> * The copyright license
> * Wikimedia bylaws
>
> There are no doubt many more. There's also the option of going with a similar
> approach to the way we handled Jurisdiction and starting off with a minimal
> set that
> we can interpret flexibly and nail down (if necessary) later.
>
> So, opinions?
>
> -Martin
We are on the 27th of january.
The end of the month is in 4 days.
Today, the mailing list received over 25 messages to clean up.
Tonight, my mail box is full of virus and other crap.
In 4 days, the list will be without anyone to let go through cute
messages from students wondering "what the name of the ocean current in
the atlantic to the west of the uk is".
It is high time that someone steps in...:-)
> From: "Martin Harper"
> <martin(a)myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] "admin abuse"
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:41:21 -0000
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> If the name alone was the problem, we do have an
> established
> procedure for involuntary name changes: it's a
> developer judgement
> call based on community consensus. Anyone remember
> Drolsi
> Susej or TMC or SH?
>
> Naturally, the arbitration committee will be
> usurping the power to
> judge the appropriateness of Wikipedia usernames and
> using it to
> take over ze world! Or not.
>
> -Martin
IIRC, those were all voluntary, albeit after a good
deal of peer pressure.
Daniel Ehrenberg
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
I've noticed a number of editors (especially newbies) mark small
additions of content as minor. I've also seen people make two or three
edits in a row as minor when, had they added all that info in one go
they would probably not mark it minor. I agree with your definition of
minor changes. I work on the principle of better to not mark it minor
when it is than mark it minor when it isn't.
Theresa
-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W [mailto:Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com]
Sent: 27 January 2004 15:04
To: Wikimedia developers
Cc: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] What is a minor change?
There is no official definition of what a "minor change" is. My
working definition is "anything that my fellow contributors would
agree is minor".
And the operative question is "Would they want to see this on
Recent Changes (with 'hide minor changes' in effect?"
I mark these as minor:
* Nearly all my grammar and spelling fixes
* Copy-edits that DO NOT CHANGE the meaning
I usually don't mark these as minor:
* Copy-edits that subtly correct a nuance of POV
* Re-writes and re-phrasing which PROBABLY DON'T CHANGE the
meaning, but which some other user might think is a sly attempt
to inject my own POV (in a controversial article).
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l