I did a redirect the other day. They got after me because there was "no article". So I ended up protecting the redirect. I did write a half-assed article eventually, but did that under duress. I can see no problem having a redirect to a red link, if the redirect is to the best title. When did a red link become an offense, anyway?
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Sandifer [mailto:Snowspinner@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:34 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] When did RfD Become Toxic?
>
>Can anyone quickly get me up to speed on when Redirects for
>Deletion... sorry. Redirects for "discussion" became a toxic hellhole
>of idiocy that makes the rest of our deletion procedures look sane?
>
>Seriously. People are nominating perfectly sane if misguided
>redirects for deletion because no articles use them. Things like
>[[Cammy (Street Fighter)]] are up because there's no other Cammy
>articles. Which is fine, but someone who doesn't know that and is
>trying to guess our naming conventions could type in. Similarly, we
>have people seriously suggesting that [[The Twilight Zone (pinball)]]
>is not a reasonable redirect for [[Twilight Zone (pinball)]].
>
>Seriously. When did we begin purging redirects, which are possibly
>the most harmless thing imaginable on Wikipedia. These are not
>offensive or POV redirects. They're sensible things that people might
>well guess when trying to type in an article name.
>
>-Phil
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
Please see:
[[Wikipedia:Requests for verification]]
http://tinyurl.com/ypmy36
A proposal designed as a process similar to {{prod}} to delete
articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.
It reads:
" It has been suggested that this article might not meet Wikipedias's
core content policies Verifiability and/or No original research. If
references are not cited within a month, the disputed information
will be removed.
If you can address this concern by sourcing please edit this page and
do so. You may remove this message if you reference the article.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 30
days. (This template was added: XXX XX 2007.)
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead,
improve the article so that it is acceptable according to
Verifiability and/or No original research."
Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole
and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others ( me
included) see this as a negative thing for the project with the
potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.
I would encourage your comments in that page's talk.
-- Jossi
It kind of feel off AN/I a few days ago before I could find the email. I had
wrongly licensed it as had somebodty else. Do I have to post the full email
to OTRS or get him to post a full cc 2.5 email?
mike
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com>
Date: 14-Jul-2007 22:15
Subject: Re: http://xkcd.com/c285.html
To: Randall Munroe <rmunroe(a)gmail.com>
Thanks so much, it made my day when I saw it. Your a star :-) . mike
On 14/07/07, Randall Munroe <rmunroe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, I mentioned just now to another user that I was happy to relicense it.
>
> -- Randall
>
> On 7/5/07, michael west < michawest(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, I've just uploaded your cartoon to wikipedia and incorrectly
> licensed it
> > as CC 2.5 by Attributable (without the by-nc). Do you want me to put a
> > deletion tag on it? or will you relicese it for wikipedia's sake. It was
> the
> > funniest thing I have seen.
> >
> > kind regards Mike
>
For kicks, a while back when there was the BJAODN debate on copying
content from one page to another and possible copyvios, I took it upon
myself to write to the FSF compliance lab with my understanding of the
situation and see if they would provide their commentary.
I just got a response and thought I should share it with you.
Angela
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brett Smith via RT <licensing(a)fsf.org>
Date: Jul 18, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #336602] FDL and Wikipedia
To: psu256(a)member.fsf.org
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:25:25PM -0400, psu256(a)member.fsf.org via RT wrote:
> There is a bunch of discussion on the English Wikipedia mailing list
> over the last week or so about the FDL and whether some of the
> practices of the Wikipedia do not meet the letter of the law of the
> FDL.
Angela,
I'm very sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We needed to make
sure we completely understood Wikipedia's practices before providing an
answer.
> 1 ) Since providing a "History" of the whole Wikipedia would be
> unwieldy, individual pages are generally considered separate
> documents, each with their own history log. Now, imagine someone wants
> to copy text from one article on the Wikipedia to another article (for
> "merge and delete" into one main article, etc.). The issue is, the
> editor who did the copying is logged by the software, but the copier
> doesn't go through the history of the original and log each individual
> contributor to the original as part of the new article history. (For
> an article with hundreds of edits, attempting to find who added a
> particular copied sentence might be a nightmare.) Since, unlike the
> wiki for the GPLv3 which assigns copyright to the content to the FSF,
> the Wikimedia Foundation never assumes copyright for the content. So,
> technically, does the "merge and delete" process violate the FDL
> because the history for the copied text is lost when the original
> article was deleted?
I'm reluctant to definitively state that this is a violation, but that
information really should be available in some form or another. I think
there are lots of ways that could be done; for example, it would probably
be fine if the history section of the final article had a link to the
history section of the article that was merged in.
> 2) Currently, anonymous edits are logged by IP address, but an IP
> address cannot be traced to an individual (despite what RIAA might
> have to say about that topic??? but I digress.) Is this logging of IPs
> enough to fulfill the history requirements of the FDL?
I think Wikipedia itself is fine doing what it does here: since authors
have almost full control over how they're identified to Wikipedia -- they
can provide as little as an IP address, or go as far as offering complete
contact information on their user page -- and contributors should know that
going in, there should be no problem with simply relaying that
information to the rest of the world.
If you have further questions, please let me know.
Best regards,
--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
Please note that I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.
Bryan Derksen wrote
>IMO this is a bad idea. It's going to result in bad references being
inserted simply to stave off deletion, it's going to result in good
articles being deleted because nobody happened to be paying attention at
the particular moment they were marked for deletion or because a library
is required for sourcing, and it's going to result in people (such as
myself) avoiding using {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}} tags because it'd
draw unwanted consequences.
These are all excellent points. Particularly, the addition of somewhat irrelevant references, just for the sake of it, would be a quality crash, not a quality drive.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
_______________________________________________
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
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kamryn Matika [mailto:kamrynmatika@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 10:58 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
>
>On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>> I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>Why did you endorse my block if this is the case? The block was enacted
>solely on the ruling in the MONGO case and was applied to my reverting to a
>version of a page that contained a reference to Wikipedia Review. If there
>was no arbitration ruling that relates to Wikipedia Review, how is the
>justification for my block valid? Why did you support it?
I didn't read the link right. In this case the link might be fine, although Wikipedia Review is down right now. I don't support broad generalization of the MONGO case. Glad we cleared that up. Maybe we can resolve this. Who is it that thinks someone can be blocked for a link to Wikipedia Review based on the MONGO case?
Fred
As part of the testing for ImageRemovalBot, I had it running through
the oldest entries in the deletion log -- not that I was expecting it
to find anything to remove.
On December 27, 2004, the image [[Image:Bardock.jpg]] was deleted.
Sometime in mid-February of 2007, the image was added to [[List of
Saiyans in Dragon Ball]]. Am I reading this correctly, and if so, did
someone deliberately add a nonexistent image to an article?
--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]
Heads up: Just today I happened to notice that Wikipedia has a bio
that reads like a press kit for [[Ronn Torossian]], the owner/founder
of a New York city PR firm named [[5W Public Relations]], which has
its own separate article. Both of those articles have been heavily
and repeatedly edited by User:Judae1, whose user page describes him
as "Juda S. Engelmayer, Senior Vice President, Government and
Corporate Issues Practice at 5W Public Relations."
I also noticed that User:Judae1 has himself repeatedly edited
[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]], so it is hard to
imagine that he is unaware that his editing of the [[Ronnn
Torossian]] and [[5W Public Relations]] articles is in violation of
Wikipedia policy.
--------------------------------
| 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
--------------------------------