David Gerard wrote:
>Matt R wrote:
>>How about we talk about something that vaguely matters?
>Yeah, it's not like we'll have to work with anyone else or have any
>sort of good image in the world to get that accomplished.
I'm pleased to see WT:AFD is taking this a bit more seriously as a
symptom of the problems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT%3AAFD#Public_relations
- d.
Forwarded to wikien-l itself, which this presumably was for. Can
someone please help?
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: burophone.lyon <burophone.lyon(a)wanadoo.fr>
Date: 27-Jan-2006 08:46
Subject: Hoping not mistaking adresse
To: wikien-l-owner(a)wikipedia.org
Good morning,
Since I've not speak english for a very long time, I don't undestand
exactly what you expect from me. Shall I re_subscribe or not. I'd like
to have a "interlocuteur" (somebody to speak with) and hav try to find
a translator on your site but with the big work I have to do at this
time (en ce moment) I can't go as fast as you. I have "béanmoins"
have contacts with some of yours for a projet (the Skype one if I
remenber well and was very interessting to participate an implicate to
it. If I have done or say something wich make that I must stop any
relation with your "aimable" so insteresting but "étrange et complexe
for me" I 'll ask for your indulgence and pray you to forgive me. I
shall first read the "Wiki-rules" sure but let me a little time or
send me a trans lator a burophone.lyon(a)wanadoo.fr as soon as possible.
There is also the fact that some people NOT CONCERNED who have access
at this adresse, so my mail "perso" c.j.ferreira(a)free.fr will be ready
in 1/4h (the trouble was that it was full). And to end, if you don't
want of the collaboration of a "acharné, travailleur et honnète
homme", just tell it to me... hoping I have not again do a mistake
answering at this adress.
Dans l'attente d'une réponse au c.j.ferreira(a)free.fr that will totally
be free at 11h00 (hour of France). I hope. 'cause there is a Cpatain
of PJ (Police Judiciaire who wait to listening me for one of my
custumer who have trouble with TVA stories...
So, waiting for your answer,
Je vous prie d'agréer, Monssieur l'expression de mes courtoises salutations.
Cyrille Jean Ferreira
Le Diacre PSSW C#a&b@O
>Forwarded to wikien-l itself, which this presumably was for. Can
>someone please help?
>
>
>- d.
Babel would be a good place to start, although I would be happy to speak with anyone needing a french translator as I speak the language relatively well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning,
Since I've not speak english for a very long time, I don't undestand
exactly what you expect from me. Shall I re_subscribe or not. I'd like
to have a "interlocuteur" (somebody to speak with) and hav try to find
a translator on your site but with the big work I have to do at this
time (en ce moment) I can't go as fast as you. I have "béanmoins"
have contacts with some of yours for a projet (the Skype one if I
remenber well and was very interessting to participate an implicate to
it. If I have done or say something wich make that I must stop any
relation with your "aimable" so insteresting but "étrange et complexe
for me" I 'll ask for your indulgence and pray you to forgive me. I
shall first read the "Wiki-rules" sure but let me a little time or
send me a trans lator a burophone.lyon(a)wanadoo.fr as soon as possible.
There is also the fact that some people NOT CONCERNED who have access
at this adresse, so my mail "perso" c.j.ferreira(a)free.fr will be ready
in 1/4h (the trouble was that it was full). And to end, if you don't
want of the collaboration of a "acharné, travailleur et honnète
homme", just tell it to me... hoping I have not again do a mistake
answering at this adress.
Dans l'attente d'une réponse au c.j.ferreira(a)free.fr that will totally
be free at 11h00 (hour of France). I hope. 'cause there is a Cpatain
of PJ (Police Judiciaire who wait to listening me for one of my
custumer who have trouble with TVA stories...
So, waiting for your answer,
Je vous prie d'agréer, Monssieur l'expression de mes courtoises salutations.
Cyrille Jean Ferreira
Le Diacre PSSW C#a&b@O
********************************************************************************
All mail sent and received may be examined to prevent transmission
of unacceptable material.
Wellington College does not accept responsibility for email contents.
Problems to administrator(a)wellingtoncollege.org.uk.
Website: http://www.wellingtoncollege.org.uk
********************************************************************************
eliezer imposes an unfair, seriously biased and inaccurate article
dealing with messianic judaism. when i had previously raised my concerns
in the discussion page and point out the gross misinformation in the main
article, eliezar would delete my tag. (as a side note, i observed others
tag this article as violating the npov policy only to have their tags
deleted without explanation.)
i expressed my concerns on the talk page, only to be vandalised by
OpenInfo and blocked by Eliezer. Eliezer prevented me from explaining:
1. where the npov policy was violated in several places; 2. show where
the facts were seriously inaccurate and, 3. show where the author
contradicted himself. eliezer blocked me without sufficient warning per
the blocking policy.
while i strongly disagree with eliezer's anti-messianic agenda, i do not
feel i vandalized the article or site in any way. this site's policy
allows me the freedom to edit articles that violate the npov in a good
faith effort to make them more accurate.
i believe eliezer will only force his anti-messianic agenda upon the
public and a new administrator needs to be appointed who will fairly
address the topic. thank you for your prompt and open-minded attention
to this matter.
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
> From: Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com>
> It occurred to me that there are three totally different situations
> which could be described "deletion":
>
> Topic: The topic itself simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and even a
> brilliant article should be deleted. Examples: Dictionary definitions,
> un-notable people/groups. Solution: Delete and put a note on the
> topic.
> Article: The topic itself could belong in Wikipedia, but it doesn't
> deserve a whole article. Examples: Less well known songs of notable
> but not famous groups, less well known characters in fictional
> universes ("fancruft"). Solution: Merge with other articles.
> Content: The topic itself could make a good article, but this isn't
> it. As it stands it's worse than nothing. Examples: Copyright vio,
> substub, horribly POV etc. Solutions: Delete, reduce to stub, call for
> help to rewrite, trim, as appropriate.
>
> Perhaps the format for AFD could be modified to split nominations into
> these three categories. This could reduce some hurt for some article
> "owners" ("It's not that your writing is bad, it just doesn't belong
> here"), and also make it a bit clearer when an article is being
> deleted for the wrong reason. Ie, it's in the bad topic section, but
> the dispute is about poor writing or lack of comprehensiveness.
>
> Comments?
Mod +1, "insightful."
Hi,
I just got wonderful news: Zenodot / Directmedia Publishing GmbH has
announced an encyclopedia project. They are planning to take wikipedia
(in a license compliant way..) content from the German language
Wikipedia. The time schedule is for around 100 volumes until December 2010.
For those of you who speak German, you can read more about it at
www.wp10.de and de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WP_1.0
Mathias
Jay Converse wrote:
>I think that may be a symptom of the problem that is #wikipedia's general
>unwillingness to be on topic. People are going to go where they can have a
>serious discussion, whether or not that's the right place for it.
Or follow me from channel to channel wanting to argue Deletion 101 ...
a "discussion" I could probably conduct entirely in macros by now.
I'm still not convinced #wikipedia-en-admins is a great idea as it
stands, but it *does* tend to be on-topic more often.
#wikipedia is officially not an official Wikimedia channel for all
sorts of good reasons ;-)
- d.
friends,
this user *Ragib* had banned my IP adress since I edited a page.He alleged
me as "*vandalism* " even without a sufficient cause.I think he banned me
because he is in favour of PAKISTAN in which I modified some parts according
to my knowledge.my IP is *202.56.231.116* and my username is Cutejoe.
This is a attack on the freedom of press in which I tried to keep
up.ShameWikipedia Shame, of this unmatured Admin.
joe
crossposting to wikipedia-l as this is an international issue
=========
Hi all,
as a totally non-en person, admin on other wikis and actually working
"behind the scenes", I would like to give my view on what I believe is
needed, and why an en-admin-only channel and list won't help to the
extent that is needed. This is long, but please bear with me.
Let me try to make this more concrete.
OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) receives a lot (and here I
mean "A LOT") of complaints.
Those range from:
"there's a mistake in this article, please fix it", to:
"You're defaming me, delete this article/those revisions, or I will
sue you!" through
"this page is an enormous copyvio from my site!"
with as Sam Korn already pointed out, various degrees of civility.
The problem is the following:
Only a few people have agreed to help on OTRS. It's one thing to spend
hours editing wikipedia, it's another to want to spend hours alone on
a boring screen answering (most of the time) crazy emails. We have
appealed to the en population several times (why en? because it is the
one most attacked, but actually, other wikipedias are suffering from
the same problem, and as we grow, these will get bigger and more
numerous) and have gotten only very few answers. Fine, I can
understand that.
The people who *are* working on OTRS are for some "good editors", for
others "better e-mail answerers" than "editors" (me, for example). In
the end, I think anyway that we *will* have to pay someone to answer
those emails. As I speak, there are 280 unanswered emails in the
info-en queue. Probably most of these are spam, but even sorting spam
takes an awful lot of time.
What happens is this: you get an email with a complaint, you go see
the page, realize there's about 2 hours of work on the page, and get
discouraged. Because on one hand, you can't really go "public" with
the complaint (it's, after all, an email, gives personal information
etc.) and on the other, you *know* that something needs to be done.
Here you have two options:
-either you take the two hours to fix the article, but then, there are
still 279 emails to be answered in OTRS.
-or you go to a person you know, who you think could be good at fixing
the article.
Here two options again:
-the person you chose to tell does have two hours and can fix the article
-they don't and it gets forgotten
and maybe a third one:
-They don't have the time, go to other people, the "issue" is somehow
broadcasted, makes the front page of USA Today... and you know the
rest.
So what's the solution?
I don't think that the solution is en-admin-only anything. I think the
solution is something that would be more like:
- The wikipedia community at large realizes that there *are* problems
with some articles
- The wikipedia community at large *knows* who is: "good at NPOV",
good at "speedy deleting", good at "cleaning histories", good in
"Famous people stuff", good at "sourcing an article".
-The wikipedia community at large *does* agree that something needs to
be done to clean up Wikipedia in a (sorry, but it's true) hidden kind
of fashion.
-The wikipedia community at large decides to "appoint", "elect",
"designate" (whatever suits the wikipedia community at large) a few
trusted users who are reknown for the things listed above and agrees
that they should all get together on one list where the people working
behind the scenes (in OTRS) can just forward the email and are *sure*
that it is going to be taken care of in a timely and discreet fashion.
NB. This list should not be of 800, it should not either be of 20, I
am thinking something along the lines of 50-70 people from all across
the wikipedias (because there are problems that may be repercuted from
one language to the other- see tron for example), admins and
non-admins (I can cite at least 5 people on fr who are not admins whom
I would trust to do that kind of stuff better than many admins).
I am not sure how we can do that without ever falling in the "clique"
type thing. But how different is it from all the "associations" of
every kind that I have come across on en? Not sure.
What I am sure of is this: either the wikipedia community at large
acknowledges the problem and tries to find a solution *together*, or
we'll end up (not tomorrow, but soon enough) by having to "pay" some
"NPOVers", or "history-cleaners", or choose them in a cabal-fashion,
to do the work. Because the work to be done is there and most of it
has to stay a little private.
The idea is to have people who know how to do this stuff (NPOV,
sourcing), who are recognized for doing it well, who can get together
on an article and work together on it when the complaint comes in, who
are ok with doing it as part of their "normal" participation on
wikipedia. The only thing is that their "work" will be a little
directed. ie. "Please look at these 20 articles, that are a copyvio of
this site". They can be tasked with asking people outside the list to
help them etc.
This is what it's all about.
Hope this long email helped a little, and that it will spark ideas...
I am for my part, short on ideas about how to deal with this stuff,
and afraid that some day it will backfire in a much nastier way than
just the front page of USA Today.
Delphine
--
~notafish
Hi all,
My decision to found the admin IRC channel has meant that I've had to
take a lot of flak from some of my friends which has been quite
upsetting. I thought I would write this email to the list to explain
what I see its purpose as. This also serves to highlight the importance
of RC patrol.
I started the channel following Danny's suggestion that there should be
a private place for discussion of confidential issues which we don't
want the public (and by extension, the media) to know about. Such issues
include complaints to the Foundation about libel in articles. Everyone
should know this is one of Wikipedia's greatest problems, that anyone
can say nasty things about someone else and quite often this isn't
picked up on RC patrol.
Danny's suggestion for a private method of communication between
"trusted users" given the issues we face was an excellent one in my
opinion and I thought that an IRC channel is an ideal medium for this
type of discussion to occur. Admins form a pretty diverse group of
trustworthy users (all admins have the best interests of their project
at heart) so for simplicity I created the channel for admins only.
The suggestion of a "trusted user" group is an interesting idea but
unfortunately very selective. Who is responsible for choosing who is a
trusted user? Whoever it was, there would be a large number of people
who would be missed off even though they are perfectly trustworthy.
Also, think of the consequences if someone found out if they weren't
considered trustworthy as they weren't given channel access - it would
be quite demoralising for one. Rationally, there may be perfectly solid
reasons why they weren't given access but emotionally it is still
demoralising. That's why I went by the simple, easily-defined standard
of admins on the English-language Wikipedia.
Later Danny and I talked about the scope of the channel and raised the
point that people who work the OTRS lists should be given access, since
they get the bulk of the libel complaints and are best placed to notify
people of potential issues. This is an entirely sensible argument.
Some people have raised concerns about backroom decisions, cliques and
the lack of transparency this channel will create. These are fair
comments to raise but I believe they are unfounded. Firstly, the
channel's purpose is not a decision-making one. Unrelated chit-chatter
and non-confidential discussions are pointed out as inappropriate for
the channel and go on to take place in #wikipedia. Some admins have
refused to join because they think the channel is closed and hidden. I
think a better action for them to take would be to join, and
self-regulate what the channel discusses. If it's not appropriate, ask
the people discussing to talk in a different channel.
On a related note, the entire reason this channel exists is due to the
problem we face from libel. This is why we must be grateful for the
existing work people who work RC patrol do, and we should do everything
we can to help them out. Problems which are ending up in OTRS and the
admin channel are due to edits slipping through RC patrol. What we need
to do is make their job easier. Admins who help out on RC patrol know
the huge difference admin rollback makes, compared to having to do it
manually. This is why we should either make the majority of RC
patrollers admins, or give them access to rollback. Because of the
rising standards for becoming an admin on the English language
Wikipedia, the former is becoming more hard. Arguments of "adminship is
no big deal" have now become "adminship should be no big deal". We have
to recognise that this shift has taken place - and those who hold this
principle should take part in RFA more, supporting more candidates.
Another - and better - solution, however, is to grant the rollback
privilege to good contributors who are not admins. This would make the
jobs of RC patrollers much easier - and will have the knock-on effect of
lowering the amount of complaints the Foundation gets. The Foundation
agrees that this is a great solution to the big problem we face. There
is a poll to gauge community consensus on the issue:
-->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges/Poll
Chris (Talrias)
--
Chris Jenkinson
chris(a)starglade.org
"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra