WikiEN-l November 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

69 participants
251 discussions

Spelling Day?
by Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] 23 Nov '03

23 Nov '03

Today is apparently spelling day, it appears that a number of users are running bots to fix spelling errors. I believe this practice should be stopped; first off, it is a waste of time to correct spelling on articles which are far from finished. But more importantly, the bots are going to write over words which are supposed to be spelled a certain way, I know that there are quotes with deliberately misspelled words in them. Spelling day is a bad idea.

4 3

RE: [WikiEN-l] Wik's views
by libertarian 22 Nov '03

22 Nov '03

--- On Fri 11/21, < kosebamse(a)gmx.net > wrote: > It is not particularly easy to analyse Wik's contributions, It is very easy if you realize that his minor edits are for the purpose of making sure that his contribution is *the* top contribution in that particular thread of discussion (allow me to use the word discussion since Wikipedia is like a discussion board where the latest poster's contributions are on top and many of the users are not knowledgeable.) -libertarian _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com

3 2

Spelling Day
by Martin Harper 22 Nov '03

22 Nov '03

This seems to be being discussed at [[Wikipedia:List of common misspellings]].

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] [mhollist@cox.net: RE: Use of content from Wikipedia]
by libertarian 22 Nov '03

22 Nov '03

Here is my opinion on the issue. If others use contents from Wikipedia, let them do so. Suing them or intimidating them by threatening to appeal to authority to use force on the users of information will make those here no different from the corporate mafias which claim to own informataion and hence others' brains. It will be a violation of intellectual liberty to claim ownership over something that is published. Once you publish it, it should be for public. Don't give me legalese and try explaining what GPL means. I know what it means. The whole idea of it originated as something antithetical to the so called intellectual property "rights" and there were causes to protect those using GPL from being preyed upon by these predators. Just because someone states on their page that they have the copyright doesn't mean they have the copyright to the specific arrangement of words. Let us not be mean-spirited. If you really believe in freedom, you should believe in freedom to claim anything silly too. -libertarian _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com

3 2

Re: Wik's views
by kosebamse＠gmx.net 22 Nov '03

22 Nov '03

I would like to clarify (as it may not be obvious from my last post), that I agree that Wik probably acts in good faith. The problem with him is that he refuses to cooperate with others, and very stubbornly so. In response to Geoff Burling, it is indeed my impression that Wik does not seem to understand the whole concept of Wikipedia (consensus writing etc.), although it has been discussed extensively with him. There is much more in his talk page (and subpages linked therefrom) so it needs not be repeated here. I have no idea what should be done about all this. It would be most unfortunate to ban a user who probably acts in good faith (however there seems to be a precedent case (H.J.) who was eventually banned because of proven inability to work with others), but somehow it must be made clear to Wik that this is no humbug. Kosebamse -- NEU F�R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f�r Fotos, Musik, Dateien... Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru�, GMX FotoService Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More! +++

1 0

Wik, Ed Poor and Brian Corr
by libertarian 22 Nov '03

22 Nov '03

It isn't just that Wik is allowed to have his way. Several days back, Brian Corr and Ed Poor agreed to mediate on an article containing fiction and propaganda. I sincerely provided lots of information and asked that we go over it point by point. They promised to do so and led me to believe that they were sincere in their efforts. I suddenly faced silence and I haven't heard from them for some time. At least they could have been honest with me. libertarian _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Reddi's POV edits of Current Events
by James Duffy 22 Nov '03

22 Nov '03

>Ed Poor wrote >James, > >Try saying, "How's that again?" Hi Ed, here's some examples of Reddi's comments, which left everyone on the talk page utterly confused about what he was taking about. :: [snip 'avoid points of the discussion and attack me personally'] :: ''suicide bombing'' means the deliberate MURDER of people, carried out by a person who kills THEMSELVES as part of the process? THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S DEFINED AS!!! [http://www.wordspy.com/words/suicidebomber.asp] [http://www.wordspy.com/words/homicidebombing.asp] :: Its meaning could not be clearer? hmmm ok ... sure it does ... :: ''Homocide bombing'' is a politically manufactured term created to obscure the methodology of the murder? to yours [and others] POV ... YMMV on that ... :: As such it is POV and not in any way wiki-suitable. :: [snip attack on me personally again and disreguard the points] :: I'm not misrepresent anything ... my "''agenda''" is to be correct in the statements of facts ... apearantly it's nice to avofd the facts, they get in the way of the truth. (see the links @ the top of the page and refer to the misapplication of the terms hacker and cracker )which is very similiar to this discussion)) :: Wiki can go on an be incorrect (if everyone want it to be) ... :: Wiki policy is to use clearly understood, internationally recognised NPOV terminology? better start using "Martyrdom operation" because BOTH "Homicide bombing" and "Suicide bombing" is not NPOV internationally (BTW, as a side note, each term of the three is a "spin" ... you just spin it one way that you prefer (incorrectly from the definitions, also)). : ''does not belong''? YMMV on that ... ''getting annoying''? [chuckles] : Just a note: particular cartoon -> star wars cartoon; not a US cartoon network [can we say "distortion"?], it was/is an ''international'' network; ... YMMV on how interesting / topical entertainment news is ... it does introduce topics for wikipedia. Just an opinion ... "''[[User:Reddi|Not an irish drunk]]''" :: call it what ''MANY'' say it is AND what it is in it's nature ... :: That is NPOV, not POV ... :: LOL@99% ... (lie, lies, and staticstics ... really it's only 98 let's not quibble on math BECAUSE it's irrelevant; see below) :: Alot of nations helped promote Cuba's propagada? ... ok :: I expressed america'a view of the situation (which is the ''main view'' ... the poiint of which is conviently ignored and not expressed [''see bilateral dispute'']) :: I didn't "'add''" in any preferred loaded terms ... it is what it is ... and the view of many american officals (which didn't participate in the propaganda forum) ... :: not the first time i've POV'ed [[Current events]]? sure, ''whatever, that is IYO ... :: LOL@ÉIREANN n Breaks '''every'''... which guideline on wikipedia? mabey the "ignore all rules" guideline? mabey not ... :: The fact it's a bilateral dispute and it's not a matter of the UN (among the others i mentioned previously) ... that show that it is propaganda piece driven by mainly 3rd worlders and European (both o' which are biased; mainly from thier already biased press) ... :: Other nations's views are irrelevant to this ... and their input is a use of propaganda (pretty plain to see, sorry you can't see it (though I don't expect you to ÉIREANN (nor '''some''' other ''individuals'' on wiki) to see it)) ... :: This is not the first time you've made allegations of POV [[Current events]] @ me and attacked me (ala. clumsy, opinionated) ... but that does nothing for you points (and detracts from them) :: NPOV involves careful use of language? why don't you look up propaganda in a dictionary and take out your POV and "try" to see (though I doubt you will, nor can) .... :: Attribution of comments and POVs? It was ''facts'' from the article ... :: Adding in "loaded" language? IYO ... :: "shoddily written, agenda-driven bit of tabloid-ese"? again IYO ... :: So ANY editorial lines to the [[Current events]] should be removed? I'll then make sure I to remove the editorial lines of europeans and 3rd world nations .... :: [snip rest o' ÉIREANN's POV / personal attack] :: I really don't care and it's largely irrelevant though, because ppl can see it for what it is ... a non-binding and non-enforceable piece of propaganda ... :: Sincerely, [[User:Reddi|reddi]] _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

1 0

Wik's views
by kosebamse＠gmx.net 21 Nov '03

21 Nov '03

Although there is a seemingly constant debate about [[User:Wik]]'s conduct, people do not seem to care too much about the consequences of tolerating his behavior. I would like to raise some concerns. It is not particularly easy to analyse Wik's contributions, as he rarely comments his edits and does a great number of minor changes. It is however obvious that he has a tendency to get involved in reversion wars, is generally unwilling to discuss his views, frequently uses words like "vandals" and "trolls", and refuses to talk to people whom he has declared as such. I had a long conversation with him over a few days (see [[User talk:Wik]], where all the following quotations are taken from) and would like to report my impressions, because I believe that some of the more distressing points about Wik are not too obvious but should be discussed. Wik: "There is no way to reconcile POV and NPOV". When we discussed this, he has made it clear that he sees it as his right to decide what "the NPOV version" of an article is, and to engage in reversion wars to "defend" it. Wik: "As far as I know NPOV is the community norm, and I am its staunchest defender. And this inevitably (and regrettably) involves getting into edit wars. What is the alternative, just leaving the POV version there?" He refuses to accept that reversion wars create unstable articles, while NPOV measures create stable articles. He refuses to enter conversation with his adversaries and has stated his goal of continuing reversion wars to victory. Wik: "Edit wars aren't endless, at some point one side gives up." Behind this attitude is apparently his conviction that respecting other's views is somehow "POV relativism", as he likes to call it. He also seems to believe that a gradual improvement of an article should not be pursued once he has unilaterally declared what "the NPOV version" is. Wik has a list of users he doesn't like and with whom he refuses to discuss anything and whom he calls "vandals and trolls" rather frequently. He does not accept the hard-and-fast policy of "no personal attacks" and insists that his use of such vocabulary is purely descriptive. Wik: "I'm always talking, except with those people where it would be wasted time. I'm using the terms vandals and trolls exactly where appropriate." When some articles where he had been engaged in reversion wars were protected, and others started discussing them, bridging their differences and working on a compromise, Wik outright refused to ever participate in this approach but stated his freedom of reverting any result of their work. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, he wrote: "It is a fundamental misconception to think that edit wars can be solved by protecting the page and telling the people to discuss." This seems to be related to his condescending view of people who disagree with him, as he maintains that once having declared his opinions, further talk would be useless, even while others were now actively debating points that had been the subject of his reversions before. Wik's attitude towards his fellow Wikipedians is often rather reckless, and he demonstrates disrespect of many of Wikipedia's very foundations (NPOV, cooperation, policies, respect for others, Wikiquette). He has often been told (by Jimbo Wales, Stan Shebs, and Angela to name only a few) that his conduct is not acceptable but I can see no tendency of his to change his ways. Although one may try talking to him, my experience with him makes me believe that he is unwilling to accept advice. He has even declared his will to "make [Wikipedia] less lame or be banned in the attempt". Given that by saying "lame" he seems to refer to our fundamental dogmas, I see little hope that he can be convinced to become more collegial. I do not think that we should set a precedent by continuing to tolerate such conduct. Kosebamse -- GMX Weihnachts-Special: Seychellen-Traumreise zu gewinnen! Rentier entlaufen. Finden Sie Rudolph! Als Belohnung winken tolle Preise. http://www.gmx.net/de/cgi/specialmail/ +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More! +++

3 2

Wik
by A 21 Nov '03

21 Nov '03

2 weeks ago I noted my situation with Wik, at this mailing list. This situation continues; most recently at [[death camp]] and [[extermination camp]] where I was trying to apply the naming convention on most common usage. Google uses "death camp" with a frequency of 6:1. I hear "death camp", in my daily life, with a much higher frequency. No matter what I edit, no matter what subject, no matter what sort of edit, and no matter how controversial -- Wik almost invariably comes and reverts it. I then appeal for assitance from the community, and nothing happens. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

2 1

Ahoermeister blocked a signed-in user (was: Blocked user: HeadCase)
by Poor, Edmund W 21 Nov '03

21 Nov '03

++>> From: Poor, Edmund W ++ ++>> Well, if you say so, I'll unblock him. ++>> ++ I just want to make it clear I have no idea whether or not ++ HeadCase should be >blocked or not. It's just that from ++ how Ed described the situation, Ed should not have been ++ the one to take such an action. > 05:36, 21 Nov 2003, Ahoerstemeier blocked Rothwellisretarded (contribs) > (unblock) (account only created for vandalism) I think Andy was correct, although Cunc might not. Opinions? Uncle Ed

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
26
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l November 2003