Jimbo wrote:
> Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
>> I wonder how the community would react if an Arbitrator said, I want
>> to take a 6 month break but not give up my seat entirely; and would
>> Jimbo appoint a replacement for that 6 month period.
>
> That sounds entirely reasonable and possible to me. One of the
> reasons
> we retain our "constitutional monarchy" is to make possible just that
> sort of reasonable flexibility.
It sounds reasonable to me too, but I don't see how having a
"constitutional monarchy" is necessary in order to make this sort of
thing possible. Many corporations (which are not constitutional
monarchies) have policies that enable employees to take leaves of
absence. The U.S. government (which is also not a constitutional
monarchy) also has policies that allow judges, members of Congress,
or even the president to take a break from their duties (for example,
under circumstances of illness).
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/donate
--------------------------------
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> They have explicit policies to enable them to do that. What Jimbo is
> saying is that we can do it without an explicit policy. We could make
> a policy, but it's not really worth it.
Okay, I'll buy that. Cavil withdrawn.
--Sheldon Rampton
This is to be expected. This was one of the main issues in the Waldorf Schools case where the schools were being described in glowing terms.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: David Goodman [mailto:dgoodmanny@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:02 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: [WikiEN-l] University COI
there's an article just out in the online Chronicle of Higher Education,
http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=/weekly/v54/i08/08a00601.htm
"The Wiki Watcher
Scanner catches colleges embellishing their online-encyclopedia entries
Boosters beware: An online database developed by Virgil Griffith, a
graduate student at the California Institute of Technology, makes it
easier than ever to catch self-interested parties polishing their own
Wikipedia entries. Computer IP addresses serve as a kind of electronic
signature. Mr. Griffith's WikiScanner correlates those addresses with
the institution that owns the network, identifying who made changes in
Wikipedia articles. Here is what users on some campuses edited in
their own colleges' entries, misspellings and all. ..."
The full article is available only to subscribers. I'll be glad to
email the descriptive listing to individuals, as permitted by the web
site, but I can't fairly post it here.
some of it is polishing--others polishing only in the satyric sense of
the usual undergraduate vandalism. None of it strikes me as a serious
problem, and none is very recent.
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"David Goodman" wrote
> some of it is polishing--others polishing only in the satyric sense of
> the usual undergraduate vandalism. None of it strikes me as a serious
> problem, and none is very recent.
It's usually kind of obvious. "TUVXYZ B&N College's mission statement cherishes individual students in order to maximise their individual potential, through vocational training in iPhone science and no classes Friday to allow quality weekends; while maintaining the highest standards of civic awareness in the tradition of our founder, Maximilian Q. Hackenbush." You would lay money someone employed by the College pasted that in.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
there's an article just out in the online Chronicle of Higher Education,
http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=/weekly/v54/i08/08a00601.htm
"The Wiki Watcher
Scanner catches colleges embellishing their online-encyclopedia entries
Boosters beware: An online database developed by Virgil Griffith, a
graduate student at the California Institute of Technology, makes it
easier than ever to catch self-interested parties polishing their own
Wikipedia entries. Computer IP addresses serve as a kind of electronic
signature. Mr. Griffith's WikiScanner correlates those addresses with
the institution that owns the network, identifying who made changes in
Wikipedia articles. Here is what users on some campuses edited in
their own colleges' entries, misspellings and all. ..."
The full article is available only to subscribers. I'll be glad to
email the descriptive listing to individuals, as permitted by the web
site, but I can't fairly post it here.
some of it is polishing--others polishing only in the satyric sense of
the usual undergraduate vandalism. None of it strikes me as a serious
problem, and none is very recent.
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
"Magnus Manske"
> <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Magnus Manske" wrote
> > > http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/filterdone.php
> >
> > I don't do that. The blue links are often the natural way in which a search engine will pick up a redirect.
>
> Well, if you want to have a list as an "anchor" for search engines,
> then no. But, shouldn't the search engine pick up the created page or
> redirect, once created?
I don't know. And do all search engines work the same way?
> The tool is for the "classic" ever-shrinking lists. I admit, I like to
> see numbers of articles-to-write dropping, it gives nice feedback and
> a sense of accomplishment. (I think it was me who started these
> "missing encyclopedia topics" thing back in the day;-)
Yes. I'd get satisfaction from seeing some of the big lists shrink (Catholic Encyclopedia, for example; the Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't even have a full listing?). But on the other hand some other lists have a sort of reference value as well. Thank you for all your past work, anyway.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"Magnus Manske" wrote
> Oh wait: [[Category:Red list]] is already there, since May 2006...
Thanks for that. Having more than half-a-dozen articles would be good.
> Also, if you have a page with a long, "mixed" red-and-blue list of
> articles, and you want to get rid of the blue ones:
>
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/filterdone.php
I don't do that. The blue links are often the natural way in which a search engine will pick up a redirect.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
-----Original Message-----
From: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 01:17 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 10/17/07, Will Beback <will.beback.1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His
> blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience,
> and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up
> on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their
> lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against
> censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't
> begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at
> is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest
> inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think
> we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the
> guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see
> the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks".
It's an official website, not merely a blog. And even then, I'm pretty sure
we frequently link to the official blogs of prominent people. The question
is, why are we making an exception for Michael Moore? Is it motivated
because of some editorial reason (i.e. including the link reduces the
usefulness and value of the article), or because we're Wikipedia and we
don't like how Moore treated one of our editors? If the latter, it's a
pretty clearcut NPOV violation.
Johnleemk
_______________________________________________
That's the real dilemma. We don't much like that editor ourselves and we do like Michael Moore, enough of us anyway to over-ride our policy regarding harassment of users. Neutral point of view has nothing to do with it. NPOV has to do with the content of the article, not a link to a site which was harassing a Wikipedia user by inviting vandalism of his talk page.
Take a real good look at this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Arbcom.jpg
Is Michael Moore so wonderful, that such behavior is excusable? What harm is done by removing the link to his website for so long as that is its content?
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Will Beback [mailto:will.beback.1@gmail.com]
No part of NPOV requires that we link to the self-published sites of
folks who are trying to improperly affect Wikipedia editing. It does
require that we include all significant viewpoints, but can you give an
example of a significant point of view that is only sourceable to
someone who is actively harassing Wikipedia editors?
W.
_______________________________________________
Yes, that is the bottom line: Harassment is done in order to influence content.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 12:33 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
> > I'm at least happy that it limits the application of this principle to
> > websites set up for the purpose (I would prefer sole/primary purpose,
> > though) or substantially devoted to harassing Wikipedians. This should
> > *hopefully* reduce the wikidrama that goes on.
>
> But it still gives free reign to remove links to attack sites that are
> used in discussing an attack sites policy. It also allows the situation where
> a user is accused of posting on an attack site and is not allowed to give
> links to show that what he posted was innocuous.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Please do not republish personal attacks.
>
> Fred
I don't see how that's in any way responsive to what I said. Are you trying
to tell me that someone defending himself by saying "this is an innocuous
link", or someone arguing on an attack site policy discussion page, is
republishing personal attacks?
_______________________________________________
If the link is to a personal attack, it should not be republished. Depends on what's on the other end.
Fred
