WikiEN-l August 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

77 participants
183 discussions

structure/ideas for people pages?
by Ray Kiddy 31 Aug '03

31 Aug '03

Hello - I am new to this list, but I do not see relevant posts in the archive. Is there any interest in analyzing the structure of people pages and relationships between them? People pages seem to have a loosely defined structure. It might be interesting to analyze these pages and automatically build up meta-content that relates people to each other, or that provides for a more consistent searchability of people. I have done related work with California state lobbying and campaign finance information. This information is published electronically by the state, but the format obfuscates the identity of individuals and the relationships between them. I have been working on disambiguating these people and relationships. Certainly there are other structured relationship that could be looked at. A genealogy is one example. But there are also ad hoc relationships that can be developed. When one person's page mentions another person's page, for example. This fact could be captured in meta-information that would allow the browsing of these relationships. Please let me know if there is a better source for this information, apart from this list. It does not seem that there is a separate list for content rather than the discussion of ... um... personalities, but any pointers would be appreciated. thanx - ray http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayKiddy

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dealing with AOL over vandalism
by james duffy 31 Aug '03

31 Aug '03

>Mark wrote >While I doubt that this idea will go anywhere, I figured I'd weigh in >against it anyway. > >First of all, the whole idea is somewhat ridiculous. AOL is the single >largest ISP in the United States, providing internet access to millions of >people, including quite a few of our better contributors. Blocking it >would be incredibly counter-productive, and do far more damage than Michael >could possibly do. Furthermore, it is unlikely to receive *any* even >remotely good publicity, regardless of what publicity blitz you put on. It >will receive good publicity on slashdot, in NANAE, and other similar >internet-zealot locations, but universally bad press everywhere. You are joking!!! AOL is extremely unpopular among the media, who see it as an arrogant and incompetent organisation. I mentioned out problems to a friend of mine who works in the New York Times some weeks ago and asked him whether the media would be interested in a negative story critical of AOL. His response was 'you betcha. AOL is the sort of arrogant big name we are all just waiting to take a pot shot at.' Anyone attacking AOL would be guaranteed media interest and follow up stories based on contacts with other people in the internet business who are furious with AOL for various reasons but because they are tiny don't want to draw attention to themselves. Wiki isn't; it is one of the fastest growing sites on the net. AOL needs criticism from something like wiki like a hole in the head. It spends millions every year in PR to create the image of a 'good' service provider. The last thing it would want is to get attacked by a rapidly growing and highly regarded encyclopædia for facilitating vandalism. Wikipedia will >essentially be painted as an elitist internet-zealot organization that >doesn't allow common folk in, while we'd like to be painted as a bit more >open than that. No. It would be painted as a high quality information source accusing an organisation already privately criticised as putting money before protecting web-sites, of recklessness and facilitating vandalism. And the media /love/ taking pot-shots at high profile people or organisations, like Microsoft. politicians, religions, big business, etc. I don't think you grasp /how/ the media works, Mark, or how important good publicity is to organisations like AOL, how much they pay to get it, how damaging bad publicity to them can be, and the lengths they will go to to avoid it. > >In addition, it's completely unnecessary. Lets see. One vandal consistently vandalised every music sites he could get his hands on. Now he has spent two months vandalising user pages. His latest game is to delete 7 months of deaths from the [[Recent deaths]] page and to add in the deaths of users he clashes with onto the page, calling them ''bastards''. That is /one/ user. How many such people do you think it would take to do far more damage, on such a scale as to distract serious users from doing serious work and drive away people? This one user has already driven away people. As wiki gets bigger, the certainty is that more assholes like Michael will join in the 'game'. Even if we were to need a >technical block of sorts (which IMO would require far more vandalism than >Michael has caused so far to justify), it should be done as minimally as >possible. Using something heavy-handed like blocking all AOL IPs from >editing is certainly not minimal. A first step I *might* possibly support >*if* it were a huge problem and all other avenues were exhausted What avenues are left, given that this user can hide behind AOL's lax controls and vandalise articles at will. I don't want to spent my days on wiki reverting everything he does and protecting user pages when the user isn't on and Michael is targeting them /again/. >would be to allow sysops to ban logged-in users if they are currently on an >AOL IP (then Michael could simply be banned by any sysop each time he pops >up by clicking the "ban" button). However, even this I'd prefer not to >have, given that other solutions are possible (my preferred so far being >extending rollback to support rolling back page moves). > I think you are seriously underestimating the problems Michael is causing, the scale of the problems that additional Michaels could cause or the vulnerability of AOL to criticism. And you grossly misunderstand how the media would cover criticism of AOL. JT _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

1 0

Dealing with AOL over vandalism
by james duffy 31 Aug '03

31 Aug '03

>From: daniwo59(a)aol.com >Reply-To: Discussion list for English-language >Wikipedia<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org >Subject: [WikiEN-l] blocking AOL users >Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:58:48 EDT >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by >mc12-f18.adinternal.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, >30 Aug 2003 05:59:06 -0700 >Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by >pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7UCx3n32081;Sat, 30 Aug >2003 12:59:03 GMT >Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163])by >pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7UCx1n32071for ><wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:59:01 GMT >Received: from daniwo59(a)aol.comby imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) >id 8.43.21785a6e (16781)for <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 >08:58:48 -0400 (EDT) >X-Message-Info: vAu4ZEtdRigHscoddWhVe52f53EV3Kow >Message-ID: <43.21785a6e.2c81f988(a)aol.com> >X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 531 >X-BeenThere: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 >Precedence: list >List-Id: Discussion list for English-language >Wikipedia<wikien-l.Wikipedia.org> >List-Unsubscribe: ><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >List-Archive: <http://pliny.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l> >List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l@Wikipedia.org> >List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=help> >List-Subscribe: ><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe> >Sender: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org >Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org >Return-Path: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2003 12:59:06.0412 (UTC) >FILETIME=[7EC166C0:01C36EF6] > >I am an AOL user. I am also a sysop and I have been contributing to >Wikipedia >for well over a year. I have found myself blocked on several occasions >because of blocks against Michael. There is absolutely no justification for >blocking >thousands of potential users like me just because we happen to use AOL. >There >must be some other solution. > >Danny I would hate to use Danny, who is a superb contributor, and many other potentially excellent contributions. What I would suggest is 1. Wiki FORMALLY requests that AOL produce a solution to the Michael problem, with the threat that if they don't , all AOL users will be blocked and the blocking of AOL will be PUBLICLY announced to the media in a publicity blitz, in which it will be accused through negligence of placing wikipedia and other websites in danger from vandalism. That formal request come from Jimbo to SENIOR figures in AOL. To balance the threat, Wiki must make it clear that it will work with AOL to do what it takes, if AOL is willing to act. That should offer a methodology whereby, to avoid public criticism, AOL can back down and work of a solution. If they don't, it must be made clear that Wiki WILL act. That will require a professional media campaign, with Jimbo and others available to brief the media on why this extreme action is being taken. Press releases should be released to all news organisations, including AP, Reuters and the main print and broadcast sources in the US. The BBC in particular should be targeted. AOL is currently mounting a major PR campaign in the UK. Having criticism of it on the BBC both locally and internationally would be something I suspect AOL would be desparate to avoid. The effects of this campaign would be three-fold: (a) to leave AOL in no doubt but that wikipedia is deadly serious about its threat; (b) That AOL risks damaging its own reputation, and having other websites also publicly criticising its behaviour (there is a lot of unhappiness out there with AOL. One credible encyclopædia attacking AOL may well lead to other websites too going public on their problems with AOL); (c) the campaign would earn widespread coverage for wikipedia, identifying itself as a credible, serious encyclopædia that will not tolerate vandalism and will not allow its reputation to be damaged by the arrogance and poor standards of any provider. 2. A specific date, perhaps two weeks or a month from the issuing of the press release, is stated at which point a ban will be imposed. In the intervening period, a message is prominently displayed on the main page and if possible in a banner on other pages, stating that because of AOL's negligent refusal to offer a means to control vandalism to the site, AOL users will no longer be able to enter the site from 'x' date. 3. A separate page be created explaining in detail /why/ this decision is being taken, with suggestions to users like Danny as to how to change provider, making it clear that wikipedia is not accusing AOL users of vandalising site and that the problem with AOL, not them. 4. A message is created which will show up after the cut-off date to AOL users trying to access the site explaining why they cannot gain access. The chaos with Michael and others cannot continue. And the threat from isolated nutters targeting the site is likely to increase as the site grows. So this problem needs to be confronted now, rather than left drift until we have a far bigger problem later on, one which could turn good users away on frustration. JT _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

5 6

Re: [WikiEN-l] Controversial user nicknames
by Adam Bishop 30 Aug '03

30 Aug '03

How would you stop people from creating fake "real" names? They could just use the random name generator that Tim Starling posted on Saddam Hussein's talk page. >From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> >Reply-To: Discussion list for English-language >Wikipedia<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Controversial user nicknames >Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:16:20 -0700 (PDT) > >IMO, this is a Bad Thing (TM). It will discourage many useful users from >participating in Wikipedia. I use my real name (at least part of it), but >I totally can understand why people would not do so. > >RickK > >Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> wrote: > >I have been thinking lately about [[PPR:RealNamesPlease]]. >(That's .) >This is a longstanding policy on the orginal wiki >which perhaps Wikipedia should have adopted a long time ago. >??? > > >-- Toby >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? >SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

11 15

Fwd: My Wikipedia Rant
by jdepape＠cfl.rr.com 30 Aug '03

30 Aug '03

This message from Politics: The Bully Pulpit on DelphiForums.com was forwarded to you by 2MINUTESHATE. You can view it in the context of the entire discussion by going to: http://forums.delphiforums.com/bully/messages/?msg=25069.7 To view 2MINUTESHATE's Profile, visit http://www.delphiforums.com/dir-app/showprofile.asp?uname=2MINUTESHATE ======== 2MINUTESHATE says to you ======== Here's the one who made the 'clever' alterations on the planet Mars entry... =======================Forwarded Message======================= Forum: the Politics: The Bully Pulpit Forum Subject: My Wikipedia Rant From: Fish (FFFFFFFFFISH) To: John (CHICAGOJOHN) DateTime: 8/25/2003 12:52:16 PM Hey, this could be fun! Check out my edit on the planet Mars: "Mars is the third planet in the solar system, named for the Klingon god of war (the counterpart of the Greek Ares), on account of its blood red color." http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(planet) Now I know where to go when I get bored. -Fish ================================================= DelphiForums.com: Home to the Web's most vibrant online communities. Explore more than 100,000 Forums or create your own at http://www.delphiforums.com =================================================

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Michael again *sigh*
by Lee Pilich 30 Aug '03

30 Aug '03

JT wrote: >Michael's behaviour is gone beyond annoying at this stage. We have talked >and talked about contacting AOL. Has that been done? I wrote to AOL a few months ago (shortly after I wrote to the list saying I intended to do so, whenever that was), but I must admit, it was a rather half-hearted effort, which is why I never reported back on it. I gathered together a few IP numbers and times from when he'd not been logged in, but not many. I've not kept my message to them, and I never got a reply. Best of luck to anybody who has a proper attempt at going down this route. Lee (Camembert)

1 0

RE: Michael again *sigh*
by koyaanis qatsi 30 Aug '03

30 Aug '03

--- james duffy wrote: >> >> Michael's behaviour is gone beyond annoying at this >> stage. We have talked >> and talked about contacting AOL. Has that been done? --- Christopher Mahan wrote: >Block AOL IP Block for edits. > >If people complain, tell them that there is no other >way to stop AOL users from damaging the system, and >that AOL itself does not care. > >I say we might get some advertizing that way. KQ writes: While I'm sure the thought is tempting, isn't it a bit counter to wikipedia's stated goals of openness to block *all* of AOL? I can't imagine how it would result in generally *good* press. Also, I think it's bad protocol to break the web (which kind of relies on linking from one place to another). As an aside, AOL is already blocking all links from Livejournal.com (not just images): http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/29/2057242.shtml?tid=120&tid=187&tid=96&… . Insert your own metaphor about walled gardens and/or gated communities. kq __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Tacit acceptance of harassment
by Anthere 30 Aug '03

30 Aug '03

> Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:40:53 -0700 (PDT) > From: Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Tacit acceptance of harassment > To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org > Message-ID: > <20030830024053.84463.qmail(a)web20309.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > A very sick man has now created a dozen Wikipedia > pages > dedicated to abusing me. (Yes, I know I previously > said > that EntmootsOfTrolls had created six, but his > latest list > is much longer. He is still creating more, even > though that > is hard to believe.) > > Yet your communal response? Anthere starts > attacking me, > and James Duffy starts ranting about "the boy who > cried > wolf", and denies that serious amounts of Jew > baitiing > exists - in the midst of some of the most serious > anti-Semitic slander Wikipedia has seen. Robert I have not started to attack you anywhere. Please Robert, would you stop deleting other people comments from talk pages during a conflict? It is unnice and unconstructive. Please. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

1 0

deletion of "List of Heterosexuals"
by Al Shaw 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

Can we please delete the page "List of Heterosexuals" It was on VfD, before it was moved off. There are only two entries on the list, and the page is generally misguided. --Lypheklub

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] message to Kurt Kawohl
by james duffy 28 Aug '03

28 Aug '03

This was my reply to Kurt's message. ------------------------- >Please voice your opinion on deletion. > >21st Century Transcendentalism is not a religion and does not advocate >(request belief, membership or anything else) anything; it stands for >religious rationality in the 21st Century. If Wikipedia can describe what >atheists, Christianity, Islam, Bokononism thinks then why can not I as a >21st Century Transcendentalist describe what I think? Bias, maybe? > >Transcendentalism Today Org. with Kurt Kawohl as its founder has been >accepted by and is a member of: >IONS - Institute of Noetic Sciences, >World Interfaith Congress, >United Communities of Spirit, >Alliance for Spiritual Community, >Interfaith Voices for Peace And Justice, >[[user:kkawohl]] > Kurt, there is a fundamental difference. When it comes to christianity, Islam, etc wiki is merely reporting objectively on a belief and values system subscribed to by large numbers over a long period of time. Yours is a personal belief. It is not for wiki to rule on its validity or invalidity. But wiki has a long established policy of using independently sourced religions, not one person's own article on his own personal religion. If there is independent evidence that your religion is practiced widely then it qualifies as an entry. But wiki has a long established policy of not accepting promotional articles on tiny religious groupings from the founder of that religion. The deletion of such pages is standard practice. Many of the above organisations have far more liberal entry requirements than an encyclopædia has. 'Vanity pages' in the absence of concrete evidence as to their worth are unencyclopædic, hence the deletion. JT _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

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 August 2003