Hi -
I'll be in the Bay Area July 11-15; I'd be available for a meetup on
Saturday if anyone is interested, either with other Wikipedians or 1:1
if nothing can be arranged on short notice.
There's already a meetup page for an SF meetup at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco_2
--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Janet Hawtin <lucychili(a)gmail.com>
Date: 13-Jul-2007 23:41
Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Fwd: [FC-discuss] Share your vision of a free
culture future
To: Linux Australia List <linux-aus(a)linux.org.au>,
teachAndLearnOnline(a)googlegroups.com, Open Source and Education
<Discussion(a)fossed.org>, Australian Linux Lobby In Edu Sector
<allies(a)lists.linux.org.au>, Wikimedia-au
<wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hello folks
At 'free culture' they are mapping their next steps forward.
They have asked people to include in their wiki their thoughts about
free culture and what it would look like 5 years from now if we were
successful.
There is a response from a person on open education, thought I would
spread the word in case there are other perspectives people would like
to get out there.
Janet
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevin Driscoll <driscollkevin(a)gmail.com>
Date: Jul 14, 2007 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Share your vision of a free culture future
Hi everyone!
This is a reminder to get your daydream machine churning and post your
vision up on the FC wiki before next Wednesday's first deadline!
http://wiki.freeculture.org/Developing_Vision
Thanks out to everyone who sent supportive emails. I've tremendously
enjoyed our conversation. Let's take it to the next step and get some
rough visions out to the world!
Kevin Driscoll
reppin' South Boston, USA
On 6/28/07, Free Culture blog <webleader+rss-bot(a)freeculture.org> wrote:
> The movement toward a more free culture has united the strangest
> assortment of characters. Hip-hop DJs mingle with free software hackers,
> ivy league lawyers make smalltalk with teenage media activists,
> kindergarten teachers talk shop with dotcom millionaires. To overground
> this diversity, I am seeking a statement of your personal vision for a
> free culture future.
>
> In other words, _what does winning look like_?
>
> Imagine your life after five successful years working on your free
> culture projects. How is your day-to-day existence different? What does
> a city look like? How have the lives of your parents and friends
> changed? What does it feel like to live in a more free culture? Does it
> smell different? Sound different?
>
> To contribute to this project, please visit the [Developing Vision page
> on the Free Culture wiki][1]. There you will find space to add your
> vision.
>
> The submission deadline is on July 11.
>
> [1]: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Developing_Vision
>
> URL: http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/06/28/share-your-vision-of-a-free-culture-…
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss(a)freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Schools are a constant source of frustration for me. Take, for instance, [[Dean Rusk Middle School]] - personally, I wouldn't call it notable. I've AFD'd ones similar before, and been beat back with a stick (OK, there was no stick, but let's pretend the stick is a metaphor, shall we?) and have been clearly informed that middle schools are notable and that my dog would be kidnapped and my offspring subjected to a game of thwack the mole (again, hyperbolic) should I so much as presume to look at a school listing again, must less post it to afd. I know from my experience last time that there are a few others who, like me, question the notability of such schools, but I get the feeling we're all so shell shocked on this issue that we've just sort of started to ignore the school listings.
Could we, once and for all (or at least until the wind changes) make a determination on whether such school should be included in the 'pedia? Or, if not a determination, at least a very strong suggestion?
Philippe
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Tulsa, OK
philippebeaudette(a)gmail.com
On 13 Jul 2007 at 16:46, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> That's no quite true, though. What's actually going on here is a lot
> of sleight of hand and goalpost-moving in order to try to pretend that
> links to WR might, in some places, be OK.
Who's doing sleight of hand and goalpost-moving here? I'd say it's
the side that starts with the premise that linking to that site is
wrong in all cases, and then keeps coming up with an endless array of
"creative" arguments (which might even contradict one another) to try
to justify this.
My side starts from the premise that we should treat one another as
responsible adults, and not need to hide any information from one
another, even if some of this information is distasteful.
Free speech can be messy, obnoxious, annoying, and just plain nuts...
but that hasn't stopped it from being adopted as a core value
everywhere from the U.S. constitution to the U.N. declaration of
human rights to the part of WP:NOT that says Wikipedia is not
censored.
> There are so many reasons that links to WR are utterly inappropriate
> that it is a constant source of mystery to me why we are still having
> a debate about them.
There are so many reasons that link bans are utterly inappropriate
that it is a constant source of mystery to me why we are still having
a debate about them.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 13 Jul 2007 at 03:35:49 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> This site does not have pages, it has threads, every one of which is a
> ticking bomb because they can beb added to by any subscriber and the
> bar to subscription is apparently low; all you need is a grudge .
And this is different from wikien-l, and its Web archive, how? You
seem to be claiming that open forums are inherently evil.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Although infoboxes can annoy a lot of people (certainly me), they do
vastly increase the utility of Wikipedia in one very important
respect: they provide data in a machine-parseable form.
This is REALLY COOL STUFF and makes the Wikipedia database useful for
all sorts of things, including ones we haven't thought of yet. Note,
for instance, that the {{coord}} template is already used by Google
Earth and other mapping applications.
So, how's our progress in making infoboxes more consistent?
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Date: 12-Jul-2007 16:31
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] New Wikipedia interface in development
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On 12/07/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > SemanticWiki would be a key feature in making that idea a reality.
> > > Parsing the plain text articles can only provide very limited data for
> > > answering such questions.
> > Infoboxes and so forth are very popular on en:wp - Google already uses
> > {{coord}} like this, but the other infoboxes are a pretty good source
> > of this sort of parseable data. Note that infoboxes are not entirely
> > consistent as yet.
> That's what I mean by limited: you can only get data that is in
> infoboxes. SemanticWiki would allow the parsing of far more data.
Although the SMW extension isn't live on WMF servers, we can at least
gather the data in a parseable form like this. The various infoboxes
are slowly converging and becoming more consistent in their fields;
they may conceivably supersede or incorporate {{PERSONDATA}} on en:wp.
(The consistency usually works by a process of people making them
consistent then doing a bot run to fix the articles.) Then the data
will easily be converted to SMW form.
So we'll get there, but slowly :-)
- d.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 09:45 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
>
>On 13/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> There are so many reasons that links to WR are utterly inappropriate
>> that it is a constant source of mystery to me why we are still having
>> a debate about them.
>
>
>I'm still concerned that a policy of banning entire sites that haven't
>been specifically named as unacceptable (a) has in practice led to
>blithering idiocies being perpetrated, in the best of faith, despite
>all warnings that these were the obvious consequence of encouraging
>people to delink entire sites willy-nilly (b) that I haven't heard a
>peep from the people telling me not to mention (a) of why this isn't
>going to continue to be a problem in future.
>
>- d.
Both links to attack pages and inappropriate bans of "attack sites" will continue to be a problem.
Fred
Hi. I was under the impression that screenshots of Wikipedia pages, despite
having the Wikipedia logo in them, were under a free license and did not
have to have a fair-use rationale or pass any other fair use criteria to be
uploaded to Wikipedia. Am I right?
--
Thanks,
Robert
(en:User:BlastOButter42)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman@spamcop.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 03:14 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
>
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:04:04 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry, when you said "Don't do it", I thought it referred to the last
>>action you mentioned - "Linking to harassment sites". I suppose it would
>>have been clearer if you said "Linking to harassment sites with the intent
>>of harassing someone", but then the tautology would have become very
>>obvious, wouldn't it?
>
>No, "don't do it" in the sense of don't do it. Linking to harassment
>sites is forgivable the first time, because poeple might not know, but
>it rapidly becomes unacceptable if pressed, because even if *they*
>don't see it as harassing, *others* (specifically those harassed by
>the site) may well do. I can be perceived as harassment without being
>intended as such.
>
>>What I'm trying to say is, the proponents of a blanket ban on linking to
>>attack sites, without regard for the intentions of those linking to said
>>sites (and/or assuming that those who link to such a site must obviously be
>>acting in bad faith) are not going to get very far, because as even you
>>acknowledge, this sort of blanket ban is ridiculous.
>
>In theory, yes. In practice I am still waiting for an example which
>is not obviously unacceptale. I am also pointing out that the fact of
>ED being the only site named in that ArbCom case absolutely does not
>mean it's the only site covered, per the prinicples I quoted above.
>Some people seem to think only ED is covered, I would say they are
>wrong.
>
>Guy (JzG)
>--
>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
My position has evolved quite a bit during this discussion. Theoretical discussion about how a ban on links to attack sites is a bad idea, futile, counterproductive, etc. is fine. Not welcome, but fine.
What is not acceptable is a determined effort, in the face of warnings, to repeatedly link to an attack site. Whatever the excuse given.
We have a responsibility to protect our productive editors and administrators from harassment.
Fred