Wikipedia was recently quoted in a New York Times piece, "Buzzing the Web on
a Meme Machine" at
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/arts/26meme.html?th
Here's the quote:
'Wikipedia, the free collaborative online encyclopedia, calls the Internet
"the ultimate meme vector."'
This is from [[Meme#Can memes be resisted?]].
What is of interest here is that this nice piece of writing is most likely
"original research". After all where is the established knowledge which
would back up this rather commonplace but bright turn of phrase?
Thank God, the deleters and reverters haven't gotten around to trashing it
and replacing it with "memes spread rapidly on the internet".
Fred
That was an auto-response from the mailing-list server. I'm not sure
what content type (US-ASCII, Unicode or whatever) your mail program
was sending it didn't like. Hand-forwarded to wikien-l.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Adair <swadair(a)computermail.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Copyright problems need attention
To: wikien-l-owner(a)wikipedia.org
Thank you for the quick response, but I don't understand it. What do
you mean when you say that
the "content type was not explicitly allowed ?" Thank you.
Stephen W. Adair
--- wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
From: wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:00:54 +0000
To: swadair(a)computermail.net
Subject: Copyright problems need attention
The message's content type was not explicitly allowed
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Adair <SWAdair(a)computermail.net>
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Copyright problems need attention
Calling all admins! :-) There is an area that could use a little
more attention to clean up the
backlog. On 13 OCT 04 I had marked [[Open University Malaysia]] as
copyvio. Tonight I found a
message waiting on me, asking if the re-written version could be made
the official version, as it had
been over a week. I checked, and sure enough, there are a lot of
items over 7 days waiting to be
cleared from [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. If each admin reading
this takes care of only one
item, the backlog will be clear in no time. Thank you for your
consideration (and help, hopefully).
Stephen W. Adair (User:SWAdair)
> > "allow non-sysops to view deleted pages".
> You need to thin[k] about legal consequences if you allow everyone to
access
> "deleted" copyright violations or illegal information.
I presume only logged in users would be allowed to view these articles, not
everyone. I don't see how the legal consequences of this are any different
from the legal consequences of allowing admins to access the articles, or
allowing everyone to access the copyright violations in the history.
Yes, there should be some type of real deletion, for articles or history
entries which are illegal for us to distribute, but this is a separate
issue. It should be done regardless of whether access to deleted articles
is limited to admins, to all logged in users, or to admins and me.
> > allow certain IP addresses to access deleted articles.
> That's unfair to IP switchers, including but not limited to people who
access
> WP from many computer networks (home/work/etc), people who change ISP and
> dynamic connections.
It's already "unfair" for these IP switchers, though. At least allowing
some people to access these article would make it less unfair. I suppose
this could be implemented with a username and password in addition, but I'd
prefer to not have to log in, as this is just more overhead for my scripts.
> > [if] there's an objection to me personally having access to deleted
articles.
> Not allowing access to information to a specific person just because that
> person's presence is perhaps undesired is undemocratic.
If I were singled out, perhaps, but I was using myself as an example. If
Wikipedia allowed me, personally, to access deleted articles (in addition to
admins), they certainly wouldn't be in any more legal trouble than if they
only allowed admins.
> I thought there was some due process that disallowed sysops from deleting
> legitimate content via "speedy deletions".
There is considerable disagreement over whether or not small stubs may be
speedily deleted under this process. This is in addition to the fact that
there are a number of admins who regularly break the speedy deletion policy.
> I would say that downloading the dumps just to get some vfd articles
consumes
> too much bandwidth that other people would use for reading and learning.
Well that's not the only reason I get the dumps, but yes, it's not the most
efficient method.
> I think MediaWiki keeps all deleted articles in the archive database table
but
> it is readable only by sysops. Perhaps you could ask for sysop privileges
and
> use them only for reading the deleted articles
I've actually already tried this. My request was overwhelmingly
disapproved.
The arguments which claim that other contributors are "just as bad" are
pernicious and self-serving.
When I taught Sunday School, I figured out how to finesse this tactic.
Any time there were multiple violators of a rule (such as No Hitting or
No Teasing), I would simply target the MOST RECENT violator for a
time-out.
In all likelihood, I wound up giving a time-out to someone who was an
aggrieved party and only "righting a wrong" (as they may have thought).
Yet, the effect was remarkable.
The students soon learned that retaliation was not an effective tactic.
I reinforced this lesson by suggesting that if teased or hit in class,
they might appeal to me (the teacher) rather than taking matters into
their own hands.
The next stage was a real eye-opener. The ones that were always starting
trouble found that they COULD NOT provoke a response from the other.
When one student bullied another, he did not get hit back. Eventually,
he'd get caught red-handed (so to speak) and get a time-out. I can't
recall a case where any student get more than 3 timeouts for the same
type of offense.
In less than 3 months, my class became very orderly. It fairly hummed
with tranquility and good cheer and grew rapidly in size.
The student who had previously been the worst trouble-maker voluntarily
took on the task of telling every new student the rules!
I've told this story many times on this list, but no one has figured out
how to apply its lessons to management of adult Wikipedians. Too bad. So
much time and talent wasted.
I would like the arbcom to apply swift and short bans. Or change the
system so that any admin can apply a ban of up to 7 days, subject to
arbcom review.
If a contributor has been clearly warned of the rule on his talk page,
but continues to violate it, why not let ANY SYSOP apply a temp-ban?
Can't we trust administrators to apply the 'rule of law'?
If the contributor genuinely feels the rule has been misapplied, let him
appeal to the arbcom himself. (Not charge the admin with 'abuse', of
course, but apply to the arbcom for leniency or clemency or a reversal.)
Like a squad of sheriffs. Lock up the troublemaker first. Then, he can
either stay 'in jail' while he cools off (or sobers up) *OR* he can
demand a hearing in front of a judge.
We're getting to be such a big community that we're going to have to do
SOMETHING like this.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Matthews [mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 7:35 AM
> To: Wikien list
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Objecting to hatespeech is
> grounds forbeingbanned? Huh?!
>
>
> Rebecca wrote
>
> > Sometimes, Charles, I really do wonder if you read people's posts
> > before replying to them.
>
> Not a fair comment. My point is that consistency cannot under
> current conditions be instantly demanded, in the form that if
> Y is just as bad as X etc. It can be demanded in the longer
> term in the form of precedents; which indeed is something to
> ask about.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> From: NSK <nsk2(a)wikinerds.org>
>
> On Saturday 23 October 2004 13:36, Rebecca wrote:
>> What self-respecting encyclopedia gives me the right
>> to write an article on my deceased cat?
>
> I see no reason why the online WP couldn't have such an article.
> Obviously the
> 1.0 paper edition couldn't, but if you have disk space and you flag the
> "non-encyclopedic" articles as such, there is absolutely no problem.
There is no problem if what you are trying to do is something other
than create an encyclopedia.
There is a _big_ problem _if_ what you are trying to do is create an
encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is a project whose purpose is to create a free encyclopedia.
Encyclopedias should not contain "non-encyclopedic articles." You do
not improve an encyclopedia by putting in non-encyclopedic articles,
any more than you would improve the Superbowl by putting in a
performance of _Hamlet_.
You say we are removing valuable content from Wikipedia. Well, all of
this material is GFDL-licensed just like everythiing else, and you are
perfectly free to copy it into Wikinerds.
Furthermore, if you are serious about the value of this material, and
if _you_ have disk space, I believe the community here would be
agreeable to set up some continuing arrangement whereby every article,
prior to deletion, is emailed to you for inclusion in Wikinerds. The
total volume is really not that large; far less than an active USENET
newsgroup. if you check the deletion log,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_log , you will see that
about 500 deletions were made on 22 October. Most were _extremely
short_, less than 200 bytes each but even if we assume an average size
of 5000 bytes that's only 2.5 megabytes. (I believe the real number
would be well under 500K). And disk is cheap.
If you not sure you actually want content like "SOMETHING THAT
PHILLIPPE GEORGE TUCK SAYS, FROM CALNE IN WILTSHIRE WHEN HE IS VERY
VERY DRUNK AND I LOVE HIM LOADS" or "fvgkfcgyufdcyrfdrt7rsx5esasees==
Headline text ==kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmnjknjvyhi
ancstdxydtsjsxtesb'ljasgvbjo..." or ""Hocus Pocus (novel)" (content
was: 'poop')," we could send you only articles that are deleted as an
outcome of the VfD process. That's only 20 articles per day; if we
assume an average of 5000 bytes, that's only 100K per day. I think the
real amount of traffic would be less than 30K per day.
Is Wikinerds interested in such arrangement?
Perhaps we could even set up a mailing list whose content is all the
material deleted from Wikipedia. Anyone concerned about what is being
deleted could subscribe.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"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 think [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools]] and
[[Wikipedia:What's in, what's out]] both pretty
clearly show that in the wider community there is no
consensus to remove schools. - ~~~~
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
I would like to ask everyone to just stop the inclusionism vs.
deletionism flamewar. It's inundating my mailbox (and I receive messages
from this list in digest mode!) with a bunch of circular discussions
between people who aren't listening to each other very well and aren't
showing much interest in developing consensus that *includes* the other
side's perspective. As a result, nothing productive is being
accomplished, and we have better things to do with our time, like
writing an encyclopedia.
--Michael Snow
Andrew Lih wrote:
>On a lighter note, good thing Halloween is near, otherwise we'd be
>unprepared for the expression on Jimbo's face here:
>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6298340/site/newsweek/
>
>
Yes, I did think that was a rather unusual shot. Unfortunately, I might
have to wait another year or two before he's famous enough to
successfully pull off dressing up as Jimbo for my Halloween costume.
Then again, maybe I should just do it anyway and use it as an
opportunity to explain to everyone about Wikipedia.
--Michael Snow