WikiEN-l July 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

77 participants
155 discussions

jimbo and lir and the wiki too!
by Adam von 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

The only reason my email name says Adam, is because one of the reasons I was banned, was that a few of you didn't like the fact that my email name didnt say Adam. I dunno why, but Im sure you have some very "good" reasons. I have already apoligized for numerous actions, it is a lie to say I have not. I am sure that you will be disagreeable at my insinuation that you are not being honest; but I have apoligized and if you don't know that - its because you have chosen not to know. I have apoligized, and you have decided not to accept my apology. This has occurred on numerous occasions, spanning the past 8 months. I have apoligized, you have not accepted the apology. Please stop acting as if I have failed to apoligize. I am sorry that you feel I have "publically lied" about why I was banned, there is little I can do to refute your allegations that I have some evil agenda. I have a right to try and understand I was banned, and part of that right involves my attempting to explain, in my own words, why I was banned: As I understand it, I was banned for: * suggesting that there might be latent racism behind certain naming conventions * calling mav a fuckhead for not acting in what I felt was a reasonable manner * making Zoe upset * stepping on Larry Sanger's toes * attacking RK for being a Jew * attacking Clutch for telling the truth * not making enough friends, leaving me without a substantial defense * alleging that there might be a cabal arrayed against me * suggesting that the position of a "benevolent monarch" was totalitarian * engaging in an edit war over the name of an Italian and a spot in Vietnam * making too many suggestions for changes, thus "stirring up trouble" * not using the minor edits flag enough * not using the major edits flag enough * making too many edits, on the same article, in too short of a time period * and not taking the time to go back over my edits and fix errors, instead leaving them for other editors to fix * too frequently using POV in articles * too frequently using NPOV in articles * not using the name which certain users felt I should use * creating a user page which was not considered "tasteful" or "well formatted" * causing an amount of vandalism such that the wiki will not recover during this decade * lying and twisting words and the truth to fit my own needs * trolling constantly * etc Im sure there are many more reasons. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Michael claiming identity of actor Ahmed Best
by james duffy 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

>Geoff Burling wrote > >Here we face another problem: why can't we trust that if someone says >she/he is a celebrity, that person is telling the truth? After all, >celebrities >*do* participate on the Internet (Wil Wheaton is one example, but the woman >who used the name Brandy Alexander in several porn movies also was a >regular >on alt.sex.movies for many years.) And I hope that some of these actors & >actresses eventually come to Wikipedia & make useful contributions. > >I'd recommend that we trust people to be whom they say they are: if >someone creates the user account of Jennifer Lopez or Gus van Sant (for >example), we take them at face value until it's clear that they aren't >whom they say they are (e.g. "Jennifer Lopez" doesn't understand Spanish, >or "Gus van Sant" clearly has never been to Portland, Oregon in his life), >at which point they are told to change their user name or face being >banned. > >Otherwise, we trust that Equity will tell us when someone is not one of >these celebrities, & require better documentation that Equity is whom >they say they are (e.g., a certified letter with a lawyer's letterhead with >a valid phone number will always trump email), & give the user the choice >of either changing their username (unless it's clear that they have been >a nuisence in more ways than this) or be banned. There's an infinite >number of possible usernames out there: I see no profit to Wikipedia in >condoning identify theft. In normal circumstances I agree that we should trust someone until proven otherwise. However in Michael's case, his behaviour is such that it becomes obvious almost immediately that it is him. In the circumstances as we know Ahmed Best /isn't/ Ahmed Best but Michael, we cannot sit back and allow Michael to steal Best's name, nor anyone else's, not least because that would place /us/ in legally complicated waters, if by our inaction though we knew the facts we allowed the defamation of someone, the theft of a trademark, on wiki. And and anyone who has ever clashed with them on such issues knows, Equity and Lucasfilm do not tend to politely ask you why did you let this happen. They use the law, and they have some of the best lawyers at their disposal. As so often unfortunately Michael is a unique case. While in the case of 99% of wiki users we can give them the benefit of the doubt, there are clearly a small but dangerous number of people (Michael & DW being two examples currently but more will no doubt arise in the future) where past history shows they will simply use our tolerance as a means to damage wiki. JT _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

2 1

Jimbo says that my name is unimportant
by Adam von 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

And how many posts have been placed both on this list, and on the wiki itself, harrassing, belittling, and attacking me because, apparently, my name is Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] (or so the cabal says) and that I should be banned for not using that name. Jimbo can say all he wants that my name was not a factor in banning me, but the history of the mailing list says otherwise. Perhaps he didn't read all the mailing list posts. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Partial deletion
by james duffy 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

>sannse wrote > The article for "pop punk" ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_punk ) >was >expanded last week by a new user. He then realised that his work may have >copyright implications and asked for it to be deleted. After all the hazzle over copyright with Michael, DW et al, it is so nice to hear of new users who want to the right thing, rather than leaving copyright stuff in situ. Is it too early to nominate him as a sysop? :-) JT _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

8 11

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo says that my name is unimportant
by james duffy 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

>A user about whom there is confusion over name wrote: And how many posts >have been placed both on this list, and on the wiki itself, harrassing, >belittling, and attacking me because, apparently, my name is Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] >(or so the cabal says) and that I should be banned for not using that name. >Jimbo can say all he wants that my name was not a factor in banning me, but >the history of the mailing list says otherwise. Perhaps he didn't read all >the mailing list posts. > According to mailing info, it was sent >From: Adam von [name omitted for privacy reasons] <cddvdlenscleaner(a)yahoo.com> Personally I don't give to hoots whether the person is called Adam, Bridget, Vera, Susan, Napoleon von Humberdick or whatever. But it would make things a lot easier if the person in question could settle on /one/ name and stick to it. And it would show other wikipedians a lot of respect if the user used that name and no others when editing wikipedia. So do you agree to stick to one identity? Y__ N__ What name do you wish to be known as? ________________ One final point: a question was asked some time ago of 'Adam' as to whether he is the user currently known as Pizza Puzzle. I am not here advocating PP's banning. But it would clear the air if 'Adam' could answer a simple question asked in the past but not answered. An honest and upfront relationship with other wikipedians would go a long way to solving the issues that have arisen in 'Adam's relationship with wiki. And note I am not raking over past issues of past identities. All I want to know, as part of a process of trust building is, is Pizza Puzzle 'Adam'? Yes _____ No _____ If there is honesty with regard to usernames then that could well form the beginning of a new relationship between the user formerly known as Adam and wikipedia. JT _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Use of Wikipedia articles at Malaspina.com (fwd)
by Oliver Pereira 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

This is the message I sent. Oliver +-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:15:39 +0100 (BST) From: Oliver Pereira <omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> To: Russ McNeil <russmcneil(a)malaspina.org> Subject: Use of Wikipedia articles at Malaspina.com Dear Dr. McNeil, I discovered your "Malaspina Great Books" website today, and found that you have included quite a few biographical articles adapted from Wikipedia in your database. I'm an editor at Wikpedia, and I should point out that the articles there are covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (or GFDL), which says that if you want to copy material covered by this licence, you need to release your copies under the same licence. See the "Wikipedia:Copyrights" page at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights and the text of the GFDL at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AText_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentatio… I am not a lawyer, and I'm not sure *exactly* what you have to do to licence your copies of the articles under the GFDL, but you have to at least say on each page that the text is licenced under the GFDL, and you have to link to the text of the GFDL as well. Perhaps you could link to the copy of the GFDL on the GNU website itself: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html Perhaps it would be worthwhile asking what you have to do on the WikiEN-L mailing list <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> or just come along to the Wikipedia website itself and ask there. Oliver +-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+

9 16

Unacceptable behaviour
by Robert 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

Jules writes: > I looked at the last comments that RK said he removed > from his talk page. Although the one from E of T was > a bit inflammatory, it seemed to be a response to one > of Roberts own "attacks" -- I infer a typically > one-sided and less than tactful comment he made about > someone else's work. If my inference or > characterization are incorrect, I apologise. Jules, I really wish you had made an effort to ascertain the truth; as it turns out, your idea is totally off base. In point of fact, I was writing comments about creationism, evolution, speciation, genetics and cooperating with others on classifying our Gaia theory articles. These are science issues. I ask you: What kind of people see such mundane science discussions as appropriate for denunciations of my perceived views on the Israeki-Palestinian issue? What kind of obsessed person thinks the appropriate response to a discussion on genetics is something like "But you Zionists should stop oppressing Palestinians". Am I mistaken here? Is evolution now "anti-Arab"? Is Gaia theory now pro-Zionist? Come off it. Let's talk about speciation and transitional fossils, as I was doing on Wikipedia. Wait! Doesn't this call for remarks about the Palestinians? No. At least, not to someone who doesn't have a grudge against a Wikipedia contributor, because he is Jewish. No matter what topic I write about, certain people simply ignore the topic, and drag the Zionists (i.e. the Jews) into this. They are not trying to produce encyclopedia quality work; they are out to score points, hurt people, and make themselves feel "liberal". > The comment made by Pizza Puzzle may have been *personally* offensive to > Robert, but it is simply a statement of PP's own opinion on the > situation. I may not be popular, but he is entitled to it. No, he is not entitled to keep harassing me on my own personal User page about his political views, especially when I am trying to work with others on some science articles. > Presumably user talk pages are meant to be places where we communicate with > each other in public -- so I don't see why there is a problem. So if you are white, then white-haters can taunt you repeatedly on your User page, and you won't have a problem with it? Zoe is gone due to similar harassment. A few of my other Jewish friends visited (teachers, PhD.s, etc.)...and left quickly, sensing a bit too much self-righteous left-wing animosity towards Jews. (And those same Jews were themselves rather left wing.) They think I am nuts for staying here. > If RK doesn't like a comment, he can erase it -- as he did -- but > it's a pain in the arse to have to look it up in the history. No, I can't! You totally missed the point. When I tried to erase the comment, I was slandered as an Arabophobe. That, by the way, is untrue. I happen to have lived for two years with a Muslim Arab from Morocco, and had Muslim Palestinian friends in graduate school, and I also happen to support Israeli political parties that are to the left of the current government. I also have particiapted on numerous occasions with interfaith Muslim-Jewish prayer groups, and my synagogue is considered somewhat progressive for precisely this sort of thing. I am, however, opposed to what the U.S. State Department condemns as Palestinian terrorism...and this last fact alone has caused me to be repeatedly slandered as a bigot, as a racist, etc. And no one on Wikipedia objects to these false characterizations of me. But what this has to do with speciation, creationism and evolution, I'll never know! It seems pretty clear to me that many people on Wikipedia do not care if one is pro-tolerance and pro-Arab or not. Facts don't matter one whit to one whose conclusions are based only in prejudice. All that many Wikipedians care about is constant proving how evil the Zionist (read: "Jewish") position is, even if they haven't the slightest fucking idea what I actually do or believe. > But my disagreement is less that RK is phobic of Arabs, but instead > is overly sensitive, perhaps even paranoid, about anything that isn't > vehemently pro-Israeli/pro-Zionist. Sorry, Jules, but I disagree. GENETICS AND SPECIATION ARE NOT PRO-ZIONIST. Sorry for shouting, please look at the topics I was working on, and compare them to the comments. Do you see any relation? Of course not; there isn't one. People are lashing out at me simply because I am a Jew. That is not paranoia. It is, however, unacceptable. I thus ask you to reconsider your comments. Robert (RK) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

7 12

Response to Anthere's claims
by Robert 06 Jul '03

06 Jul '03

I need to reply to Anthere's statements. First off, the issue has never been about how many Gaia titled articles that Anthere personally created. At least six Gaia articles already exist, and frankly, I don't care who authored these. So please stop acting as if this is an issue. Anthere writes: > When Royal We decided all articles should be united > in one, some merged were done, resulting in three > articles. Whoa...Anthere has been refusing to do merging, and has repeatedly mass reverted many attempts to do merging. Anthere is even pushing science dicussions (on Gaia theory) into an article an the Greek goddess Gaia. Now, if Anthere wishes to defend her refusal to merge articles, that's her perogative. But to present *my* position as her own (I am the one who is trying to merge), and to gloss over the fact that she is preventing such merging, is quite misleading. Anthere writes: > Unlike what Royal We claims, I was *not* the author of > these moves, nor of the new names proposed." Sigh. This is not my point, and she is wasting our time attacking a position I couldn't care less about. Anthere writes: > He is currently suggesting that we move away the > general article, to replace it with the content of the > scientific one. This is very wrong. This is wrong > because there is more to the Gaia theories than just > *science*. This is just not so. Look, among English speakers, people who look up encyclopaedia entries on Gaia theory are usually looking for information on theories about how life on Earth may regulate the Earth itself to make it more hospitable for life. Most English speakers generally are not using this title to look for information on pre-1900s mystics (who *never* used the name Gaia theory), nor are they looking for info on radical European left-wing political acitivists (i.e. the Gaiains). If someone wants to link to articles on those topics, fine: We already have a working convention for this. We can create a disambiguation page, or use "See also". This is a convention that all of us have successfully used in the past; why now are so many people dead set against it? Anthere writes: > And that is no reason to disperse all the > non-scientific points in other articles to keep just > the scientific point. I think that here, that is the > scientism of User Royal We that makes him try to push > away all non-scientific points away. This is bad. I do not like it when people make accusations of "scientism". It is a perjorative word, used to demean and insult. (Anthere's charge, by the way, is false. I am not an adherent of "scientism". Frankly, I have never met *anyone* who is.) Also, I have never tried to prevent these non-scientific points of view from being presented. Ever. Her claims to the contrary are bizarre and baseless. In fact, I have stated publicly time and again that do *not* have a problem with Wikipedia presenting these views. I just wish to disntinguish them from scientific theories. Ok? (Sigh...Why do some people seem to believe otherwise? Such beliefs are certainly not based on anything I have written.) Anthere writes: > For this reason, I think keeping the scientific > theories *apart* from other perspectives is a best > choice, to avoid mixing scientific perspectives from others. How can she claim this? After all, this is precisely what I have been saying all along! I am confused as to how she could claim otherwise. Anthere writes: > The second point : the most famous of all Gaia > theories is Lovelock Hypothesis. Mind you, this is > under this name I believe it is most well-known. This > is not a crazy suggestion of mine to call it that way. > This is what can be read in articles on the topic, as > well as in Lovelock book. Suffice it to read a bit > litterature on the topic to realise that. I am astonished at seeing so many misleading claims. I have *never* denied that James Lovelock refers to his idea as the Gaia hypothesis. Ever. I have never tried to prevent this from being stated in Wikipedia articles, ever. Anthere writes: > I think that since it is the most famous theory, that > is in fact the one most readers will look for, when > searching information on the topic. For this reason, I > believe it is a good idea to have an article named > "Gaia Hypothesis". It is likely the name under which > they know this theory, I would say it would be > confusing to redirect them in a more general article > dealing with every aspect of scientific views of the > Gaia topics. I am just trying to avoid losing them > here. Um, twenty years ago, when only one person was writing about this in science books, that might have been true. But today that positions is totally misleading! Many parts of the Gaia hypothesis (also called the Gaia theory by scientists) are now accepted (to one degree or another) by many scientists. When people do research on this issue, they usually do _not_ want to find out the views of only one person, from 20 years ago. They want to learn about the entire topic. Consider Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. At the time he developed this theory, when people wanted to learn about it, they read Albert Einstein's papers. Simple, right? But today if someone wants to learn about general relativity, it would be grossly misleading to refer them *only* to Albert Einstein's work! Relativity has been accepted by physicists in general, many other scientists have contributed greatly to this subject, and others have created a number of potential extensions to it. Look, my position is very simple: When people search for articles on General Relativity, they should find a general article on this subject. Specific sub-topics within an article can and should be split off into their own page. For instance, we can and should have an article on how Einstein developed the theory of general relativity; an article with a detailed mathematical treatement of it; an article on preposed extensions to it; etc. I have always agreed with you that there should be a general article on the topic of the Gaia hypothesis (or Gaia theory, use what name you like.), and that there can be other articles with more specialized information. I just am confused about your unwillingness to understand this, and am perterbed by your mispresentation of my views. Anthere sarcastically writes: > Yes. You are right. I entirely made up the "Gaia > Hypothesis" name. All the 12500 references to that name > on google.. This is too much. I can't imagine why Anthere is doing this. I have never implied that Anthere made up this term. I have, on the other hand, pointed out that Anthere's *useage* of many of this term is confusing, and needs to be standardized. But why is she repeatedly attacking statements I have never made? Attributing false positions to fellow Wikipedians, and then publicly lambasting them for non-existent view is a serious violation of our code of ethics, and an impediment to our working together. Please stop such behaviour. Anther writes: > Here is where you are uncovering you. For the past month, > Royal We has been trying to remove anything *not* about science on the topic. Not true. I have only been trying to distinguish science from mysticism and politics. Again, please stop attributing positions to me that I do not have. You are seriously confused, if not deliberately insulting. Robert (RK) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

4 3

Michael claiming identity of actor Ahmed Best
by james duffy 06 Jul '03

06 Jul '03

I said before that Michael and Adam's 'trolling' of wiki, whatever one may think of it, never raised the problems including serious legal issues (ie possible copyright abuse) thrown up by DW. I'd like to amend that to suggest that Michael could potentially be raising another legal nightmare. A couple of times lately he has assumed the names of ''real people'' and claimed to be them when editing wiki. He apparently has now assumed the identity of actor Ahmed Best. Not knowing anything about Star Wars (I'm more of a Trekkie!) I know nothing of Mr. Best, including whether he does exist. But he does feature in wiki articles that seem to have been created by other genuine contributors, so I presume he must. According to the page of [[User:Jar Jar Binks]] (the character on Star Wars played by Best), Michael wrote: Hi there, I'm the real [[Jar Jar Binks]] ([[Ahmed Best]]). I heard this website is a tough place for a banned user that I don't know. I played in all [[Star Wars]] sequals from 1998 to 2003. Going by editing style, topics picked and past behaviour, not to mention the banned user jibe, Jar Jar Binks has generally been presumed to be Michael and Infromation reverted all JJB's edits (which in any case were strikingly typical of Michael). If [[User:Jar Jar Binks]] is not the actor he purports to be: What are the possible legal problems if any that might follow if someone not merely uses a real person's name but purporting to be him/her while contributing to wiki. While our NPOV policy should ensure that nothing written in articles could damage the reputation of the real person whose identity has been 'stolen', what of 'personal' comments, including abusive or threatening one, placed on users talk pages? While Michael has in the past used the real names of minor rock stars, using Ahmed Best is potentially more dangerous. i. Actors' names and identities are ruthlessly guarded by the actors' union, Equity; ii. Actors' agents and lawyers are also ruthless in their efforts to protect the name and reputation of an actor. This is understandable. An actor's employability rests on their reputation. Should someone in the movie business look at wiki and find comments of an abusive or threatening nature coming not merely from someone called ''Ahmed Best'' but supposedly from the Ahmed Best who starred in Star Wars, they could form the impression that Best is someone they should avoid employing. As a result, the name and reputation of an actor, being central to their employability, is ruthlessly guarded from exploitation by Equity, their agents and lawyers. The issue isn't what they purportedly said to 'x' or 'y' on wiki, but how what they supposed said reflects on them and their reputation. Even if Equity, the actor or his lawyers chose not to act, or were unaware of it, the use of the username Jar Jar Binks is also a potential legal minefield. Using a username is perfectly OK. But as the above quote shows, this supposed user claims a direct association with the star wars films. The chances are the /character/ JAR JAR BINKS is almost certainly the copyright property of George Lucas's company. The company might take considerable offence at the usage what they might see as not the use of a name but of a character. That could have implications for Ahmed Best, whom they might see as abusing their copyright by using a character of theirs which he played on screen in his private life off-screen, to gain attention, notoriety, etc. And that in turn might lead Equity or Best to raise the issue with wiki. Even if there was no legal case, it could be used by him to publicly attack wiki (to get publicity!), in the process of damaging our reputation. After all a serious encyclopædia hardly needs in the public mind with the impression that one of its contributors is someone who 'steals' actors identities and copyright names. Two final points: If Michael is willing to steal a real life actor's name and a copyright film character, having previously stolen the identity of some singers in some minor rock bands, whose identity will he steal next? Bono? Some senior politician? Someone in the media? The bigger the name, the greater the likelihood that someone will take offence turn to their lawyers or go public and damage wiki. Finally, how do we stop Michael doing this and so potentially doing wiki damage? I have in the meantime removed all reference to Ahmed Best and Star Wars from the [[User:Jar Jar Binks]] page and protected the page to prevent Michael reinserting it. As of now, all the page does is use the user name in isolation, which should kill off any danger of copyright breach. Because Ahmed Best, Equity or Lucasfilm does not act in this case does not mean that if Michael continues to use real names of prominent people someone, next week, next month or tomorrow will not react. We need to know what if any legal problems could arise, and what PR problems could arise, should Michael continue on this course. And we need to find some way of stopping Michael before Michael seriously damages wiki. JT PS: The great thing about Ireland is that it is so small we all tend to know each other (or know someone who knows someone who . . . ) If Michael uses Bono's name, I'll have a word with him and try to stop him from suing wiki. (I know his wife Ali!) :-) _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

4 3

Ideas on a methodology
by Daniel Mayer 06 Jul '03

06 Jul '03

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote: > Overall, I think that 'Nupedia' is a much better name than > 'Wikipedia', and I sort of wish now that we had simply opened > Wikipedia under the name 'Nupedia wiki'. Hm. Our two major defining characteristics are 1) We let anybody edit at any time (that is, we are a wiki) and 2) we are an encyclopedia. The "Nu" in Nupedia means next to nothing other than to be phonetically similar to "New." A new encyclopedia. So what? GNU, however, means free as in content freedom. Now /that/ would be a central defining characteristic of a static distribution of Wikipedia. -- mav

5 4

← Newer
1
...
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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 July 2003