G'day BorgHunter,
> maru dubshinki wrote:
>
> >We shouldn't examine that data, however. Very bad precedent, and poor
> >for privacy, especially since we aren't dealing with out-and-out
> >vandals here, but merely critics.
> >
> But should critics of Wikipedia be admins of Wikipedia? I don't
> believe
> so. However, I suppose it's up to Jimbo and the Board if they want
> to
> expend the energy to look into it. As for privacy...it's not
> against the
> privacy policy, and besides which, I'm not sure that's an invasion
> of
> privacy anyway. You're sending data to the Wikimedia servers every
> time
> you visit a page, and that info is logged, and you (should) know
> that. I
> have no problems with the devs looking through page access logs,
> myself.
Be careful with "critics of Wikipedia". *I'm* a critic of Wikipedia. So are many of the people who post to this list, chat on IRC, or discuss ways to improve certain areas on-site.
There's a difference between "person who criticises Wikipedia" and "person who tries to harm Wikipedia".
Cheers,
--
Mark Gallagher
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
>Steve Bennett schrieb:
>
>
>>I would be curious to know - not necessarily with examples - whether
>>we have had legal threats related to articles that did meet WP:V. That
>>is, we published something which was by all accounts true, and had
>>verifiable sources to back it up - and yet was deemed offensive by
>>some miffed party.
>>
>>
>http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(Hacker)
>
>
It's also worth noting that the response to that complaint was markedly
different from some of the others. A neutrally written article, with
reputable sources and, as Sarah has pointed out, no original research,
should almost never cause problems like this. If they do, I think we're
much more likely to dismiss those complaints and deal with whatever the
consequences may be. But those are the complaints most of you never see,
because they don't require intervention on the wiki.
--Michael Snow
And before anyone jumps all over me on this, the original case was Reno
v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Patrick, Brad
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:10 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why the uproar over wikitruth
Not in its entirety. Two sections were invalidated by the US Supreme
Court, involving overbreadth challenges re: pornography and obscene
material. See generally Ashcroft, 542 U.S. 656, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159
L.Ed.2d 690.
The relevant section for Wikipedia purposes, 47 USC Section 230, is not
one of them, and it has not been found unconstitutional in any federal
court.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:00 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why the uproar over wikitruth
On Apr 21, 2006, at 5:15 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Under the Communications Decency Act
> which provides a general exemption from third party liability to
> online information providers, this exemption does not extend to
> liability for publication by agents of the provider.
Wasn't the CDA ruled unconstitutional back in the 90's?
--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in
this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or
written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any
taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on
the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or
(2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to
recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this
message.
If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the
purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the
additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is
possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as
the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are
private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker
P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant
solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then
delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not in its entirety. Two sections were invalidated by the US Supreme
Court, involving overbreadth challenges re: pornography and obscene
material. See generally Ashcroft, 542 U.S. 656, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159
L.Ed.2d 690.
The relevant section for Wikipedia purposes, 47 USC Section 230, is not
one of them, and it has not been found unconstitutional in any federal
court.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:00 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why the uproar over wikitruth
On Apr 21, 2006, at 5:15 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Under the Communications Decency Act
> which provides a general exemption from third party liability to
> online information providers, this exemption does not extend to
> liability for publication by agents of the provider.
Wasn't the CDA ruled unconstitutional back in the 90's?
--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
The May issue of BBC Focus magazine ("The world's best science and
technology monthly"), (www.bbcfocusmagazine.com, but the contents are
not online) is interesting from a Wikipedia point of view. Firstly
there's a "quick chat" with Jimbo, together with a full page photo of
our benevolent god-king himself, and a three-page "Tried and Tested"
feature on online encyclopaedias - Encarta, Infoplease, Wikipedia, and
Our Favourite Other Encyclopaedia. They only compared three articles --
one for current news ("Bird flu"), one for history ("George
Stephenson"), and one for obscure facts ("Planetesimal"), and also
reviewed the usability of each site together with details of cost (if
any), number of entries, sources, and multimedia.
The usability comment for Wikipedia says "The design is a bit text-heavy
but useful "contents" tools help you navigate the articles. Links
abound, but the sheer number of them means you can soon find yourself
far adrift from your starting point. There are close to 500,000 media
files, but video and audio is restricted to the patent-free formats Ogg
Theora and Ogg Vorbis."
The Bird Flu test:
Reviewed by St Andrews University virologist Dr Richard Elliot, looking
to see whether the encyclopaedias can keep up with a fast-moving
subject.
Encarta: "Encarta has a short entry on avian flu with no details on the
scale of the ongoing H5N1 outbreak. The info is out of date and
cross-referencing is limited. The influenza entry contains a number of
errors (for example, the influenza B virus does not infect birds, as
stated here), and requires thorough revision."
EB: "Britannica online provides a short entry on bird flu that contains
the essential information but with no in-depth coverage. The material is
about six months out of date and does not mention the use of
neuraminidase inhibitors (e.g. Tamiflu) that are being stockpiled in
some countries and widely mentioned in the media."
Infoplease: "There's no specific entry for bird flu and the search
directs to a very brief entry on influenza. However we do get an FAQ
entry heavily based on World Health Organisation material from November
2005. This deals with aspects of the disease in a concise
question-answer format but the lack of cross-references limits any
in-depth analysis."
Wikipedia: "Wikipedia provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date
information with cross-references and links to original sources.
Generally the entries are accurate and suitable as an
undergraduate-level resource, but the terminology section of the H5N1
entry is both confused and contains errors, while some links did not
direct to the correct reference."
The George Stephenson test:
Broadcaster Dick Strawbridge was looking for an accurate and accessible
account of the great railway engineer.
Encarta: "If you need more than a couple of general lines you have to
subscribe to the premium content, but it's easy to read and there are
plenty of dates and facts. Reading Stephenson's obituary from The Times
of 1848 puts the man's life in historical context and some of the links
introduce facts not covered by the other online encyclopaedias."
EB: "Britannica tells a very easy-to-read story about George
Stephenson's life. It's not a comprehensive list of dates and events,
but you do get a rounded portrait of the man. Unfortunately, it reckons
Stephenson's Rocket went a lot faster than the commonly agreed 29 miles
per hour (47 kph) - which hurts when you're paying for the information."
Infoplease: "Even after following all the available links, you end up
with very little useful information here. Historical context was thin,
with no allusion to Stephenson's reputation as the "father of British
steam railways". The ads that flash on the pages would have been very
useful if I'd been looking for love. Sadly, I was after facts."
Wikipedia: "An entry that is clear, comprehensive, and full of facts.
The information is digestible, presented in chronological order, and the
most detailed of all the encyclopaedias on test. For example, it was the
only one to inform me that we can thank Mr Stephenson for the majority
of the world's railway tracks being 4' 8.5"."
The Planetesimal test:
Astronomer Dr Duncan Steel examined how an ambiguous term is handled.
"Planetesimal" is used to describe the blocks that collide to form
planets, but is also used for modern comets and asteroids.
Encarta: "The definition of 'planetesimal' is given in terms of a body
that exists early in a solar system's history. Elsewhere on the site it
says the Oort cloud, a huge sphere of comets about a lightyear from the
Sun, consists of planetesimals, and that asteroids are fragments of
planetesimals. That's fine by me, but contrary to the definition given
here."
EB: "The most authoritative entry on the subject begins with this
admirable definition: 'One of a class of hypothetical bodies that
eventually coalesced to form the planets after condensing from gaseous
matter early in the history of the solar system.' A bit technical for
the lay reader and the possible asteroid-or-comet meaning is not
covered."
Infoplease: "Planetesimals are mentioned in the context of the theory
for the origin of the Solar System. Elsewhere, things get confusing when
the term 'planetoid' is given as another synonym for 'asteroid'. Not
very useful since asteroid means 'star-like' - which fits their
appearance through a telescope, but not their physical nature."
Wikipedia: "Both possible meanings of planetesimal are given, among
various other confusing statements that contain factual errors and
punctuation outrages. But my main beef with Wikipedia is that it
contains an entry for Elbsteel, the asteroid I named for my youngest
son, but not for Arrius, the one named for my eldest. This causes
arguments at home!" [NB, actually we created an entry for "5263 Arrius"
on 12th April, so both sons should now be happy].
The Verdict:
Ratings: Infoplease 2/5; Encarta 3/5; Britannica 3/5; Wikipedia 4/5.
Wikipedia pros: Comprehensive articles with lots of detail, the most
up-to-date encyclopaedia on test, page labels help assess the quality of
the information; it's free.
Wikipedia cons: Some factual errors found; occasional slips in spelling
and grammar.
"All the encyclopaedias contained at least some errors and omissions,
reinforcing the point that they should be viewed as starting points for
your research rather than as all-encompassing fountains of knowledge.
Infoplease fared poorest in our test with very little to get your teeth
into. Encarta has a bright design and engaging multimedia options, but
was let down by a dismal performance in the 'current news' test.
Meanwhile Britannica's long history was showcased in authoritative pages
that are easy to get around. Our winner is Wikipedia which had the most
detailed articles and was best equipped to deal with the ever-changing
news about bird flu. While it was only marginally more accurate, it has
close to 10 times more articles than the next biggest, all freely
available. That means it's most likely to have what you need."
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:53:01 -0700
> From: Jesse W <jessw(a)netwood.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <9691cbca651c3db208190c174fb07004(a)netwood.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> On Apr 19, 2006, at 4:55 PM, maru dubshinki wrote:
> > On 4/19/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Restore_Wikitruth_info.png
> >>
> >> Ad nothing in the metadata suggests photoshop.
> > Point taken. All the other possibilities (an admin innocently taking a
> > screencap, exporting his desktop to another computer who did take a
> > screencap etc) seem less likely than a disgruntled admin. Albeit, the
> > shot is a bit odd- do logged in accounts really look like that in
> > monobook? It's been so long I've forgotten.
>
> Well, the photo has obviously been carefully cropped, as the personal
> toolbar (which begins with the account name) has been erased. Also,
> I've only checked on Firefox on Mac OS X, but the font picked might be
> able to identify what browser and OS it was taken from. Furthermore,
> as it contains the toolbox links for Lupin's anti-vandal tool, a
> combination of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/User:
> Lupin/recent2.js&limit=500&from=0 and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Special%3AListusers&group=sysop&limit=2000 results in the
> following list of 60 admins(a much smaller list than 800+...) who have
> installed Lupin's tool into their monobook.js file and have not taken
> the easy step of removing the link-back to recent.js.
>
> Aaron Brenneman
> Acetic Acid
> Adashiel
> Arwel Parry
> Banes
> Bbatsell
> Bkonrad
> BorgHunter
> BorgQueen
> BrokenSegue
> Brookie
> Can't sleep, clown will eat me
> Canderson7
> Cdc
> Celestianpower
> Chris 73
> Commander Keane
> DaGizza
> Dan100
> Dante Alighieri
> Docu
> Drini
> Dustimagic
> EdwinHJ
> Flcelloguy
> Fuzheado
> Gflores
> Hall Monitor
> Icairns
> Jacoplane
> Jareth
> Johnleemk
> Jpgordon
> Kbh3rd
> Kmccoy
> Marudubshinki
> Master Jay
> Mathwiz2020
> NSLE
> No Guru
> Petros471
> Pschemp
> Quadell
> Ral315
> Raven4x4x
> Redvers
> Rhobite
> RoyBoy
> Shanel
> Sj
> Ta bu shi da yu
> Tawker
> TexasAndroid
> Tom harrison
> Trevor macinnis
> Ugen64
> Vary
> Who
> Woohookitty
> Zippy
Hi. Watch me get a little upset that I'm on the accused list, along with
many other innocents because I don't know how to edit my monobook properly.
Seriously folks, its great to know that everyone will be looking at me
suspiciously now. For christ's sake, one of the people on that list was
promoted TWO days ago.
pschemp
Hello, I'm having trouble with a user named "Hall Monitor" who blocked
me for absolutly no reason, asating the following completely absurd
claim:
"returning vandal, long term vandalism, warned repeatedly, sixth unique
block; have your system administrator contact me"
Your IP address is 209.165.134.49.
This is either a huge error, or a complete lie.
I have absolutely no idea why I've been blocked, but this has happened
before. I have contributed a good amount of worthwhile helpful material
to wiki over the the past year and a half and I hereby request that
measures be taken to ensure this does not happen again. I have a message
that says a picture I took might be removed, but since I'm blocked, I
can't do anything about it.
Also, since this guy "Hall Monitor" blocked me, I can't email him to ask
what reason he had for blocking me. What should I do to make sure this
doesn't happen again?
How do I get in touch with this fellow named "Hall Monitor" when he
blocked me from wiki? What right does he have to block me in the first
place?
|:). |V|.
Hi all,
Anyone know if there is a convention/guideline for how to document
templates, given the existence of <noinclude>? Previously, the
discussion page was used. Now it would seem more appropriate to move
documentation onto the main template page, inclosed within
<noinclude>. However, before launching into doing this, two questions:
* Is there consensus for this?
* Is there more of a burden on the surver to transclude a template
which includes a large amount of <noinclude>'d documentation?
Steve
I forgot to tell you my wiki username: knowmoore
|:). |V|.
----- Original message -----
From: "David Miller" <davidmm(a)alumni.upenn.edu>
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:30:40 -0800
Subject: blocked for NO REASON, multiple times.
Hello, I'm having trouble with a user named "Hall Monitor" who blocked
me for absolutly no reason, asating the following completely absurd
claim:
"returning vandal, long term vandalism, warned repeatedly, sixth unique
block; have your system administrator contact me"
Your IP address is 209.165.134.49.
This is either a huge error, or a complete lie.
I have absolutely no idea why I've been blocked, but this has happened
before. I have contributed a good amount of worthwhile helpful material
to wiki over the the past year and a half and I hereby request that
measures be taken to ensure this does not happen again. I have a message
that says a picture I took might be removed, but since I'm blocked, I
can't do anything about it.
Also, since this guy "Hall Monitor" blocked me, I can't email him to ask
what reason he had for blocking me. What should I do to make sure this
doesn't happen again?
How do I get in touch with this fellow named "Hall Monitor" when he
blocked me from wiki? What right does he have to block me in the first
place?
|:). |V|.
Wikien-l needs two or three more mods. I think we had a pile of extra
volunteers last time, they would be most welcome first. I'll make it a
test with some requirements:
* Must email "I'd like the job" message back to wikien-l-owner, not to
the list. Fail this and wh00h! 500 volts go through your chair.
* Must be some sort of respected personage on en:. This includes
pissing off the right people, of course.
* Must have time to hit the queue on a regular basis, that being the, ah, point.
* Must deal calmly with ridiculous crap. But then, I repeat myself.
* Must pass the coin-toss when we get ten instead of just two or three.
- d.
