To one & all,
I have been participating in this Mailing List for a relatively short time,
but in that time I have found us to be a somewhat eclectic- &
diverse-thinking group. This turns me on. (OK, I'm easy :-) )
I realize this List is restricted to subjects directly related to all things
Wikipedia. What would you think, and how would you feel about creating a
similar Wikipedia-community-based Mailing List in which broader
sociocultural issues are discussed?
Would you participate in such a group?
Your thoughts?
Marc Riddell
On Wed Feb 7 23:48:52 UTC 2007 Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > And the other way around. Last weekend I witnessed Ward Cunningham saying
> > "Wikipedia" when he meant "Wiki".
> >
> > Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't been there.
>
> I wasn't there, so I don't believe it... you sure you understood him correctly?
Well, considering that he was sitting only a few feet away from me & that I
corrected him immediately, I'd say I'm pretty sure. All assembled had
a moment's laugh at his slip of the tongue.
If you still don't believe me, all I can say is "No, I was not abusing any mind-altering
drugs, so I can't share them with you."
Geoff
For your consideration and consternation...
Is it:
A) Ilegal
B) Immoral
C) Fattening
...if US Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Agency
staffers remove an image repeatedly from a Wikipedia article, which
came from a Department of Energy press photo, showing the Q clearance
badge of the now-former head of NNSA. The claimed reason for deletion
is that it's illegal to show the badge, despite the fact that Linton
Brooks wore it in public all the time, there are numerous public press
photos of it, and that the image in question came from an unclassified
government press image freely released (though, they subsequently
erased that section of the image with photoshop)...
Several of us have asked the people removing it to identify themselves
and explain whether the image was subsequently classified or tell us
what law prevents us from legally hosting it, if there is one, and
have heard nothing back. All they are doing is deleting it over and
over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_clearance&action=history
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
David Gerard wrote:
> On 03/02/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I "changed" email addresses because I was told that the database tables
>> related to my account were beyond repair and had to be deleted. This
>> was the
>> whole cause of the "bob" incident, despite whatever sinister motives you
>> want to try to read into a problem purely created by a data storage
>> medium
>> somewhere going bad.
>
> This is transparent rubbish. Google told you no such thing.
Note the passive voice, Parker never claimed that Google told him that.
It was probably "Bob" that told him. Of course, problems with the
"database tables" might cause loss of old messages or possibly other
quirky behavior, but if they've been deleted I see no reason why
somebody couldn't start over with the same email address as before.
--Michael Snow
On Mon Feb 5 15:54:41 UTC 2007, David Gerard wrote:
> "I wiki'd it" will probably be used. People already use "wiki" to mean
> "Wikipedia."
And the other way around. Last weekend I witnessed Ward Cunningham saying
"Wikipedia" when he meant "Wiki".
Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't been there.
Geoff
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 02:53 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia', 'English Wikipedia'
>Cc: bpatrick(a)wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] For your consternation...
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray@gmail.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 02:23 PM
>>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] For your consternation...
>>
>>On 07/02/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For your consideration and consternation...
>>>
>>> Is it:
>>> A) Ilegal
>>> B) Immoral
>>> C) Fattening
>>>
>>> ...if US Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Agency
>>> staffers remove an image repeatedly from a Wikipedia article, which
>>> came from a Department of Energy press photo, showing the Q clearance
>>> badge of the now-former head of NNSA. The claimed reason for deletion
>>> is that it's illegal to show the badge, despite the fact that Linton
>>> Brooks wore it in public all the time, there are numerous public press
>>> photos of it, and that the image in question came from an unclassified
>>> government press image freely released (though, they subsequently
>>> erased that section of the image with photoshop)...
>>>
>>> Several of us have asked the people removing it to identify themselves
>>> and explain whether the image was subsequently classified or tell us
>>> what law prevents us from legally hosting it, if there is one, and
>>> have heard nothing back. All they are doing is deleting it over and
>>> over again.
>>
>>I am reminded of a nice chap, editing from somewhere deep in *.mil,
>>who kept trying to remove a map of the Green Zone, citing "operational
>>security" reasons. The fact that we had obtained the map from the
>>website of a US Congressman didn't seem to faze him...
>>
>>(On examination, that claim boiled down to the user not understanding
>>that a rule which said *he* couldn't talk about something didn't have
>>to apply to everyone else)
>>
>>In this case... if there is a legal issue, please direct him to Brad
>>and ask him to cite chapter and verse.
>>
>>--
>>- Andrew Gray
>> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>
>Done
>
>Fred
Well, No I did not refer him to Brad, but gave Brad a heads up. There is a chance that there is such a law, after all, and it is a public relations problem at any event.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 02:23 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] For your consternation...
>
>On 07/02/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> For your consideration and consternation...
>>
>> Is it:
>> A) Ilegal
>> B) Immoral
>> C) Fattening
>>
>> ...if US Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Agency
>> staffers remove an image repeatedly from a Wikipedia article, which
>> came from a Department of Energy press photo, showing the Q clearance
>> badge of the now-former head of NNSA. The claimed reason for deletion
>> is that it's illegal to show the badge, despite the fact that Linton
>> Brooks wore it in public all the time, there are numerous public press
>> photos of it, and that the image in question came from an unclassified
>> government press image freely released (though, they subsequently
>> erased that section of the image with photoshop)...
>>
>> Several of us have asked the people removing it to identify themselves
>> and explain whether the image was subsequently classified or tell us
>> what law prevents us from legally hosting it, if there is one, and
>> have heard nothing back. All they are doing is deleting it over and
>> over again.
>
>I am reminded of a nice chap, editing from somewhere deep in *.mil,
>who kept trying to remove a map of the Green Zone, citing "operational
>security" reasons. The fact that we had obtained the map from the
>website of a US Congressman didn't seem to faze him...
>
>(On examination, that claim boiled down to the user not understanding
>that a rule which said *he* couldn't talk about something didn't have
>to apply to everyone else)
>
>In this case... if there is a legal issue, please direct him to Brad
>and ask him to cite chapter and verse.
>
>--
>- Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Done
Fred
[also sent to foundation-l]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_e…
Basically, it says "go to help desk, and maybe send us an email."
Note the careful wording of the line about legal problems. I'm trying
to tread a fine line here between encouraging people to contact us the
right way about real problems, and not encouraging cranks and
nuisances.
OTRS volunteers: is that the right address and subject line in case of
a substantial legal concern? Please edit as appropriate!
If this looks workable to people, we'd like to publicise this
(slightly) as a place to get concerns dealt with, so companies feel
they have somewhere to approach that won't get them bad press in 100
newspapers around the world (as happened to Microsoft). Per Geni's
excellent suggestion, we can recruit new en:wp admins to help with the
queue :-)
- d.