I've always seen [[WP:NPOV]] as the most important rule that Wikipedia
relies on.
I've always seen [[WP:BOLD]] as the most important rule that the
community relies on.
I've also seen in recent weeks an increasing reliance on [[WP:IAR]] to
justify certain controversial decisions.
But something that has been sorely missing is what I've always taken to
heart whenever I've dropped a note on someone's talk page:
[[WP:FAITH]]
Please, before you decide that you're going to ban someone, delete
something, claim that someone's in the^W^W^Wthere is a^W^W^Wconspiring
against you, just take a deep breath, and do the following:
Assume Good Faith.
That's it. And once you've assumed good faith, leave a note on their
talk page, and walk away. If someone else wants to take it up, they can
see that you've assumed good faith, and make a decision based on that
assumption. If you were right, no harm done. If you were wrong, whoever
takes action will be justified in that action.
But I warn you, whoever takes action without assuming good faith (or
seeing that the assumption has been disproved), it shall be on your head.
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
While some people are quite good at diverting sensitive discussion toward whether or not certain editors are evil, or to questions about the mating habits of Jews, none of these things are relevant to my proposal.
As per the numerous quotes I listed, and the governments founded upon those concepts, general consensus amongst political philosophers is that truth, goodness, and beauty will all rise to the top in a system where equality is recognized and supported by the construct of government.
Even though equality is not recognized here at Wikipedia by administrators who think they have the right to punish other editors, it still exists in the form of "vandalism" and other methods of indirect _expression. To the extent that editors believe there is no better method to influence the content of articles than consensus, vandalism will cease to exist.
The above is a bold statement that would require considerable risk to implement, but it is exactly the same concept that the founders of my country pledged their "Lives," "Fortunes," and "sacred Honor" to protect. I submit that my nation, the United States of America, is a success because they did so.
It is possible to write the programming code for Wikipedia so that no administrators are necessary and so that nobody can gain undue influence over an article. I would be happy to write this code for free if we can all agree that it will be implemented.
Zephram Stark zephramstark(a)yahoo.com 432-224-6991
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
> It prevents vandles logginf out and going after a completely different
> set of articels. However for blocks on the 3RR and the like it makes
> no sense.
>
> --
> geni
>
OK, well I'll admit I have pretty much no sympathy for vandals
(provided its '''obvious''' vandalism), so what if it was only used
for them, or other complete nutjobs, and not for personal attacks, 3rr
and minor "disruption"?
Jack (Sam Spade
p.s. sorry for the private emails, gmail is being weird today
Did it on the global ones. Did a few hard refreshes and cache purges, no
luck. I suspect I've introduced a JS error in copying it across. If it
can be made to work on Monobook then I can move the code into the common
css.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phroziac [mailto:phroziac@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 September 2005 3:56 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Funky tricks on de
On the global .css and .js, or just yours? And, did you hard refresh a
few times? Also, there is a common .css file, and probably a .js too,
that's shared by all skins. this should go there, instead of in an
individual skin. (for the glodbal)
On 9/22/05, Worldtraveller <wikipedia(a)world-traveller.org> wrote:
> I decided to be bold, copied across the relevant code from Monobook.js and
> style definitions from Monobook.css, and created Template:Dynamic
> navigation box, but it seems not to work. I don't know any javascript so
> it's possible I've ballsed everything up. Any JS experts care to cast an
> eye on this?
Now that the info-en email address is on the "contact us" pages, the
amount of mail is increasing, and we need more help.
We are looking for a long-standing contributor with a good knowledge of
the English Wikipedia and its policies and procedures. You should also
have a working knowledge of other projects. You need to have infinite
patience to reply to the same newbie questions time after time, and a
friendly and helpful style of writing. Most important is the ability
not to laugh at people who write to tell us we have a massive security
hole - an edit link on each page!!!11!.
Being active on IRC is an advantage - it makes a real difference to be
able to talk over the tricky ones sometimes.
Pay is at the usual Wikipedia rate of lots of good feeling and all the
cookies you can eat.
Hopefully there will be a big rush of applicants for this wonderful job,
and I will ask those volunteering to answer a few mails to see if you
have the style we are looking for. Jimbo will have the final say though.
Please mail me directly rather than replying to the list if you are
interested.
Thanks,
sannse
p.s. I lied about the cookies
Hi Wikipedians,
just a question regarding Wiki Vandalism on Wikipedia.
On this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges, would it be possible to display a symbol in front of the line (let's say "V" for Vandalism)
if some facts are met about the changes on an article ?
E.g. : if size has decreased of more than 20%
Another way would be to compute a level of probability of vandalism based on some criteria, a bit like SpamAssasin is working on killing spams.
Another tool that would usefull to fight spam would be to create a page like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
but with differences directly displayed, without the full articles. I mean you would have all the differences on the latests articles amended displayed on one page.
Ok ok It would cost maybe too much CPU to do this, but this could be a tool reserved for "significant Wikipedia contributors"
Fred
(Sorry if this topic has already been discussed/solved but I didn't find a way to query the ML's history)
Hi, my problem is:
I'm writing from Thailand and got blocked two days ago by [[user:Ral315]].
quote:
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Ral315.
The reason given is this:
Indefinite block was removed, so I'm adding a 1 week block. This IP
was responsible for some very nasty personal attacks.
You can email Ral315 or one of the other administrators to discuss the
block. You may also edit your user talk page if you wish. If you
believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the
block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Note that you may not use
the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and
a valid email address registered in your user preferences.
Your IP address is 203.147.0.44. Please include this address, along
with your username, in any queries you make.
end quote.
Please look into my case and remove blocking, because I didn't do
anything against other users. I'm admin in the German WP.
Thank you
Media_lib
LOL, I'm obviously not talking about "the" admins. I'm talking about
cliques: People who '''do''' show a vested interest in some
particular, and coordinate edits accordingly. There are also cliques
which are primarilly focused on chatting w one another, leaving small
jokes and images on one anothers pages. The latter are usually a good
thing, encouraging community and making people happier about editing.
They can become a problem however when 1 member has a conflict, and
rallies the others into prejudiced partisan support.
Please be mindful, were talking about middle school style
'''cliques''', not some outdated usenet concept or crazed conspiracy
theories w Jimbo playing puppeteer from the shadows.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 9/22/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > This distinction between Clique and Cabal is an important one. While I
> > suppose one could imagine a "developers clique", or a "old hands
> > clique" which might be synonymous w some peoples conception of a
> > cabal, I really don't see those as being a problem on the wiki. Rather
> > the problem I see are users and admins which act as one, creating
> > partisan voting blocks on areas of mutual interest, and coordinating
> > efforts to shout down criticism and attempts to NPOV their POV.
> >
> > Jack (Sam Spade)
> >
>
> You might have a case if anyone had ever managed to get the admins to
> agree on anything.
> --
> geni
>
Thing is, the only verifiable thing about me in this context would be that
I was one of the authors of a paper. If I am no-one special then ipso
facto I shouldn't have an article. I may have an Erdos x Bacon number of
27 but I reckon anything below about 10 for that is not notable enough :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony DiPierro [mailto:wikispam@inbox.org]
> Sent: 22 September 2005 12:17 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: FW: [WikiEN-l] Improper speedy taggings
>
>
> Why isn't Wikipedia best served by both? If someone comes across one of
> your
> papers and wants to know more about the author, isn't that useful, even if
> they just find out that the author is no one special?
>
> There's clearly a potential benefit, and I just don't see what the
> negative
> is. As long as you stick to insisting that everything in the article is
> easily verifiable, anyway (which is already a rule outside of notability).
>
> I suppose you could argue that such an article is best served by a
> dedicated
> wiki, one for all authors, for instance. But that would mean either
> creating
> a fork or taking all articles on authors out of Wikipedia entirely. The
> other alternative, to have notable authors in Wikipedia and non-notable
> ones
> out of Wikipedia, would likely cause way too many problems in
> implementation. Taking all articles on authors out of Wikipedia is very
> unlikely to happen, so you're basically ensuring a fork.
>
> Anthony
>
> Nah, I disagree with that. I've written several papers in astronomy, and
>> a referee's report has even described me as a world leader in my field,
>> but I'd hate to see an article about myself. The specific field I am
>> allegedly a world leader in does not even deserve its own article,
>> although it gets a mention in [[planetary nebula]] (because I wrote
>> that)
>> and one of my papers is cited in [[Cat's Eye Nebula]].
>>
>> Wikipedia readers are far better served by a brief mention of my field
>> in
>> the appropriate context than they would be by any article on my personal
>> contribution to that field, and I suspect the same is true for 90% of
>> published academics.
>>
>> WT
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
>
> On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by
> Energis
> in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
> for further details.
>
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error please return it to the address
> it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your
> system.
>
> This email message has been swept for computer viruses.
>
> **********************************************************************
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by
> Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
>
Not sure why they need be mutually exclusive, but can this thread be
about the auto-blocker please? ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 9/22/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If we're getting rid of things, I'd much rather see AfD go.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Jack Lynch wrote:
>
> > Can we please get rid of it? The harm rather dramatically outweighs
> > the good.
> >
> > Jack (Sam Spade)
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>