Hi,
Re: Viking - myself, Wapcaplet and Dante all seem to have decided we
were being too hasty in calling for a ban. Sorry for all the
excitement.
Evercat
--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
My apologies - it was Dante Alighieri who wrote this, not Little Dan
I blundered:
>At 16:51 30/05/2003 -0700, Little Dan wrote:
>>Some people seem to think that T may be one and the same as JD,
>
>I don't think anybody believes that - if they do, they're off their
>trolley. You probably mean that some people think Triton is DW.
>
>LP (Camembert)
At 16:15 30/05/2003 -0700, Dante Alighieri wrote:
>In the interest of fairness I wanted to state that it may not be strictly
>true that no one objects to the ban on User:Viking.
Well I object if nobody else. Viking has done some pretty crummy things,
but the user made their first edit not 36 hours ago, and hasn't edited any
article at all in the last ten and a half hours (although judging from the
number of edits to user talk pages in that time, they've had plenty of
chance to do so). They've "vandalised" just two pages ([[fisting]] and
[[anal sex]]) over the course of just two days. I'm surprised this has
generated as much discussion as it has - there's an encyclopaedia to build,
let's send our time doing that instead!
I'm not saying I like the user, but banning should be a last resort, not
the first course of action. I suggest we just ignore them, and if they
delete content again, simply restore it without comment.
LP (Camembert)
Wikikarma: expansion at [[Luciano Berio]]
>cprompt wrote
>Many organizations also restrict what parts of their website can be edited,
>if any. They restrict access to their services to those without an account,
>and they verify accounts. Personally though, I think some protection should
>be offered against "ego surfing" where information on a person from the
>list is indexed in Google. This can still be an open and transparent public
>project with a fully searchable mailing list archive. I think that anyone
>should be able to search the archive only after clicking an appropriate
>link on Wikipedia.org.
>
Here's a practical example. We have all being condemning Lir. That could
rebound on Adam (I won't use his full name here so as not to provide another
link to his name!) But how many of his 'names' on wiki are also the names of
real people. For example, if there is someone called Vera Cruz, they might
not be happy to find the following on google:
[WikiEN-l] vera cruz is a troll
... WikiEN-l] vera cruz is a troll; ... |From: Oliver Pereira
<omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> |X-ECS-MailScanner:
Found to be clean |Sender: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org |Reply ...
I have clashed with Fred Bauder, but Fred does not deserve to have the
following on google, which comes via a different dispute he was involved in:
[WikiEN-l] [FB] and academic dishonesty
[WikiEN-l] [FB] and academic dishonesty. Fred Bauder wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:08:18 -0700: Previous message ...
(I have removed Fred's name from the above so as not to create another link
to that claim!)
These are just from a couple of quick google searches I did at random.
In view of this, I would suggest:
1. That the list NOT be available to check on google or any search engine.
2. That users be discouraged from using their own name. If they don't have a
nickname, initials or an unusual spelling of their name should be used.
3. We should not use a person's in the title of any messages on the list.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>Brion wrote: Because it's not very informative, changes with little notice
>(therefore
>will likely not be maintained well), and would probably be better
>served by linking to the embassies' home pages which will have more
>information?
>
>Dan wrote in reply
>I still think it's bad to delete npov content, even if it's incomplete.
The problem, Dan, is that for any article to focus on a country's
relationship with only one country is not NPOV. If an article on say,
Canada, Australia or New Zealand only listed the diplomatic relationship
between that country and the UK, it would implicitly be suggesting a special
relationship between the country and the UK over other states, or that
Wikipedia believed there was a special relationship that required special
mention. That by definition is POV, not NPOV.
The problem isn't that it is the US, it is that only one country is
mentioned in these articles. Whether it was the US, UK, Ireland, China or
Outer Mongolia is irrelevant; focusing simply on one country and listing its
diplomatic relationship exclusively gives that relationship an implicit
extra weight. We should not do that. The only way to introduce a balance
would be to add in other countries, but that is a POV minefield; use too
many European states and it would look eurocentric. Too many western
countries and it would look as though it was giving the west additional
weight. Too many African states and it would look like it was giving Africa
special weight. So either to achieve absolute balance you mention ALL
diplomatic relationships, or none. All diplomatic relationships would be a
nightmare to construct, would date quickly and would dominate most articles
on countries because maybe 10% of the article space would be taken up with
that country's information, and 90% with a list of their diplomatic
relationships with 150 countries or more, possibly 300 if one takes each
country's representative in the country whose page it is on, and that
country's own embassies and ambassadors to each country with whom it has
diplomatic relations.
I understand totally how this problem arose and don't doubt for one moment
the genuine reasons behind it. But as it stands it send out the message that
the most important diplomatic relationship countries have is with the US.
That is highly POV. A far better solution would be to pull all that info out
of separate articles and pull it together in an article on [[US Ambassadors
and diplomats]], which in time could be augmented by pages on anything from
Congolese Ambassadors and diplomats to Irish, Chinese, Russian, Dutch,
Argentinian, etc etc etc. That could be linked to pages on what is a [[head
of state]], on what is a [[Letter of Credence]], on what legally diplomacy
and diplomatic immunity means, on the differing types of diplomatic
relationships (head of state to head of state with ambassadors, government
to government through Charges d'Affaires) But in its present form it is
unworkable and POV.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>james duffy wrote:
> > I agree. People need to be able to discuss matters openly and frankly.
>It
> > really is nobody else's business but the people on the mailing list what
>is
> > said on that list.
>
>Well, I don't agree at all. Wikipedia is a transparent public
>project, what we do is all out in the open for anyone to see.
>
>Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
>
This argument reflects an ongoing debate in political science over
tranparency versus confidentiality in public office decision taking. Keeping
of records and access to them is vital. To too much ''immediate'' access
tends to lead to (a) people not being able to be open in a discussion
without their words coming back to haunt them or being used outside
wikipedia against them (if they were called on the list a rascist, a bigot,
a homophobe, anti-semite, anti-catholic, any-woman, anti whatever) (b)
playing to the gallery, ie., phoney positions being taken up simply for the
impression they give if anyone does a google search on someone.
Most organisations provide a space where full records are kept of
discussions, debates, etc but where that information is not instantly
available, providing a degree of confidentiality that allows things to be
discussed fully and frankly without the worry that someone doing a google
search discovering that 'x' was accused of such and such. I know I wanted to
send a sensitive message to someone on wiki, but couldn't email them as they
have no email account listed.
I would hate to think, for example, that if Mav ever ran for public office,
an opponent could do a google search under Mav's name, find that someone on
the list in the heat of an argument once accused him of anti-semitism (and
that is a ficticious example!) and use such a suggestion against him. I
myself was accused of being like a holocaust denier here once. Luckily this
email account doesn't give my real name, but if it did, that wild accusation
could show up against me in a google search if for example in next year's
Irish local elections I agreed to run for office as I have been asked. Or if
ran in the next Irish general election in 2007. If there was the slightest
chance that that wild claim or others could be found if someone did a google
search under my real name, I would be gone from the list (and probably from
wikipedia) like a shot.
Communication on this list should only be available (a) through a carefully
restricted means (eg, through being a contributor to wikipedia), not simply
through a google search, and (b) perhaps with some time delay mechanism.
There is, for example, a US Democratic Party political consultant called
James Duffy, a soccer manager called James Duffy and a number of others.
What happens if someone does a google search, finds attacks made on me under
the name of this email account and presumes it was some other 'James Duffy',
one with a public profile. That is why organisations 'always' provide
restricted access to discussions such as those here, usually with a time
delay mechanism. They universally find that unrestricted access blocks free
discussion and prevents, not encourages, free speech.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Zoe wrote
>I really think that the mailing list pages should be
>blocked from search engines.
I agree. People need to be able to discuss matters openly and frankly. It
really is nobody else's business but the people on the mailing list what is
said on that list. Other email conversations aren't accessible generally.
Why should this mailing list be available? Many people don't realise that
what they say on the mailing list isn't private and if they did might simply
opt out of it.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> If no one else would like to undertake the task of
> writing out the boilerplate texts, I'll add it to my todo list.
>
> --cprompt
Hmm, I've still not seen an answer to the problem I raised - links to
blanked pages will no longer be coloured as stubs. This isn't a small
problem, I feel...
It might be OK if in all cases the page was going to be either
deleted or turned into an actual stub - but can you guarantee this?
Evercat
--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
The bottom of [[fr:Accueil]], the French Wikipedia's home page, contains the text "Site
gracieusement h�berg� par _Bomis_", with a link to the website. Loosely translated, it says, "Site
graciously hosted by Bomis." Should we add something like this to the [[en:Main Page]], e.g.,
"Thanks to [[Bomis]] (www.bomis.com) for hosting the Wikipedia!"? It's awfully nice of them to
provide for what's probably the last big site on the Internet without banner ads and popups; we
really ought to say thanks somehow, and at the least give them a bit of traffic.
-Geoffrey
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
H. Jonat wrote me a nice letter, expressing concern that when her name
is searched for at google, the bulk of what is found is wikipedia talk
pages and wikipedia mailing list postings that are sharply critical of
her. She resents the accusation that she is 'right wing' and in any
event doesn't like this turn of events.
Now, some might say, well, if you don't want your name to be
associated on the Internet with various things, then don't write in
thus-and-such a way, and they'd be right of course.
But since Helga requested nicely that perhaps we could do something
about this, I am thinking that perhaps we could refactor some pages.
This part is important: I presume, and I asked her, that if we did
this, she would agree to simply part company with us peacefully. ALSO
IMPORTANT: She did not threaten to stay if we don't do this, she did
not make this as a tit-for-tat offer or request, she did not make any
kind of legalistic or other threat.
It sounds to me like she may regret ever getting mixed up with
wikipedia, and would like to simply go away. It would be helpful to
this process if we refactored some pages.
Thoughts?
Wikipedia holds no grudges, of course, and if people who have been
controversial wish to end things peacefully, then that's great as far
as I am concerned.
--Jimbo