Hi everybody,
I was actually going to say something about the deletions that have been
going on for some time now, but I realize that I can't access Wikipedia
right now. Are there problems again, or is it my own computer again? (I had
some problems lately.) As someone who uses these machines as tools only, my
knowledge concerning technical matters is very limited.
In case there *are* problems, would it be asking too much to humbly suggest
that a notice be posted here on the mailing list whenever Wikipedia is down?
Have a nice day,
KF
The previous message was written by me, LDan, but I
accidentally signed it only "L".
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Hi,
JoeM's latest acts include placing a blatently inflammatory picture
of the WTC collapse in [[Islam]], and vandalising [[Talk:France]]
with a poster calling France the nation of cowards or somesuch (the
pic is now deleted, I don't recall it precisely). These are just the
latest dubious acts of his; I'm increasingly convinced he's just a
troll (possibly DW, though I don't rest my case on that).
Is there any chance of a real ban - ie a statement that all edits by
him will be reverted? I think he's had a fair chance.
Evercat
--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)
Nicholas Knight wrote:
>a) Most people have their freedom abruptly denied
>before recieving any notice. Cops show up, say
>"you're under arrest", and cart them off to jail. The
>analogy really doesn't work.
That is talking about probable cause for cops to make an arrest. My analogy is
akin to providing proper notices to appear in court. The analogy is very
sound and mentioning cops making arrests is a strawman.
>b) Speaking of the analogy not working... The article
>is on trial, not the author.
Thus the notice goes on the article itself; the author may or may want to act
in the article's defense. Your reasoning is weak.
>The article should have all the time in the world
>to check vfd and prepare its defense
You have any idea how odd that sounds? The article cannot be its own advocate.
>"unwiki" means very different things to very
>different people. To me, personally, "wiki" is
>purely a TECHNICAL term, not a philosophy.
Wiki is a philosophy, a very radical one in which websites are open to
contributions by complete strangers. Thus "unwiki" is anything which tends to
make things less open (like listing articles for deletion without providing
notice on the article itself).
>What I have a problem with is being told I'll
>have to go through yet another irritating step
>that was never needed until somebody decided
>for themselves that it was.
It became necessary once the volume of submissions to the VfD page became as
large as it is today. Since so many things are listed there is less debate on
each item. Thus the chances of something being unfairly deleted increases.
Our policies have evolved this way; at first everything was very informal and
lax, but as we have grown we have needed to develop written policies to make
things run smoothly.
>Why wasn't this little "policy" decision advertised
>far and wide?
It was an extension of our current largely un-written policies of openness,
accountability and fairness. IMO, the Admin that made the written change was
just codifying these precepts to apply in this particular case.
>I never saw any mention of it until Saturday.
You are well aware of it now.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
>Dear Jtdirl,
>
>A couple of weeks ago I reacted to your remarks concerning
>the Israel page. I saw a small number of similarities
>between what you were writing and what a small group of
>other people were writing, and I mistakenly inferred that
>you had the same beliefs as them.
>
>However, I have re-read your statements, and have come to
>the conclusion that I was in error. When you challenged my
>work, I can see now that you were trying to do so from the
>perspective of an essayist trying to maintain NPOV. I thus
>apologize to you for my earlier comments.
>
>BTW, I am sending you this note in public, on the WikiEn
>list, because I made remarks about you on this list. It
>isn't proper to say one thing in public, but then take it
>back in private.
>
>Robert ("RK")
>
I sent a reply yesterday to Robert's note but it never came back to me on
the wiki list, which messages I send invariably do. It could be that my
account was jammed with all these annoying large virus files that were sent
to me (but never opened, just deleted on sight!!!), or that something went
wrong and it never did the wiki-list rounds. In case of the latter, let me
repeat:
Thank you Robert. I appreciate your comments.
In addition, I meant to say but didn't get around to it - to apologise
publicly for an accusation made publicly is a difficult act, and to my mind,
the act of a gentleman.
I can understand why Robert acts emotionally to what sees as anti-semitic
comments, given the horror suffered by the Jewish people within living
memory. We owe Robert the sensitivity of understanding his reaction. I do
not believe that there are many anti-semitic people on wiki. I hope Robert
will understand that all criticism of Israel or indeed of his opinion is not
automatically intended to be anti-semitic but may be motivated by a sense of
belief that some articles, understandably if written by someone from one
side of the divide, may seem to be less than fully NPOV, albeit
unintentionally. I am glad that Robert now understands that my edits were
not in any way, shape or form intended to be POV, but to add additional NPOV
information in. I hope we can all develop a constructive working
relationship in editing all the many articles that touch on the whole
Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Again, Robert, thank you for your comments. As far as I am concerned all our
past disputes are closed and forgotten.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Karl Wick wrote:
>The main problem I see with the GNU FDL as
>it stands is that it demands that any work that
>uses any of its content must be released under
>the same GNU FDL license.
Replace "any work" with "any derivative work" and you are right. And the viral
nature of the license is the whole point - otherwise somebody could make a
proprietary fork. The GFDL ensures that the content is forever free.
>However there are other open content licences
>out there that people will be using. So, if some day
>down the road anyone wants to mix content from a
>Creative Commons license or any other license at
>all, the work must be released under the GNU
>license.
And the same problem applies to the Creative Commons Share Alike license; text
under that license can't be incorporated into GNU FDL works. Same for every
other copyleft viral license. So what is your point? I've already mentioned
that our long term goal should be to encourage the major open content license
writers to make their licenses compatible wherever possible. See
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2003-July/000127.html
>So any work I do on a textbook will be limited
>to only GNU versions.
No - you can re-license any work you create any way you want. But the version
on Wikipedia and all subsequent modifications by others will forever be under
the GNU FDL.
>It would be as if the work wereforever condemned to
>be in its own, proprietary format, 100% incompatible
>with all other sources and licenses, including all other
>open content licenses that I am familiar with.
Proprietary? Do you have any idea what that means?
>Remember that the GNU FDL was created for software,
>not open content.
Uh, no. It was created for documention and any other non-fiction works.
>And remember that even RMS says that it may
>not be the ideal license for open content.
He said no such thing. All that is written on that particular subject is that
"We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also,
using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License
(GNU FDL)." and "For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the
licenses proposed by Creative Commons." Were in there does it say that the
GNU FDL isn't ideal for open content?
>One solution I see would be to create a special
>version of the GNU FDL just for open content, or
>just for Wikipedia.
For God's sake man! The GNU FDL /is/ already for open content.
>That way we could decide for ourselves without
>needing the rest of the GNU world to go along with it.
Where were you two and a half years ago when such an idea actually had a
chance to see daylight? Due to the viral nature of the the GNU FDL it cannot
be revoked unless every single person who has ever contributed unique
copyrightable content to Wikipedia agreed to the change in license terms.
And to ignore Wikipedia as a text resource by having the textbook project
under an incompatible license or license combination would defeat the whole
purpose of Wikipedia. There is already a great deal of text in Wikipedia that
can be ported to textbook form and organization with relative ease.
>Or, adapting another license like one of the Creative
>Commons ones.
? Sorry, but they have the same problems. The only real advantage they have
over the GNU FDL is that they are easier to understand and are not written
specifically for documention.
>Thats the only way I see that will prevent eternal,
>unmixable forks of content.
And where are these mythical content forks that you speak of? There is no
magic bullet here and the only way we can ensure the freedom of our content
is to choose one copyleft viral license and go with it. Wikipedia is by far
the largest open content resource in the world -- let's follow their lead and
try to encourage license compatibility with the people who write the
licenses.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Jimbo wrote:
...
It would be wrong of someone to add something like
this if they wrote
"When you list a page... you are required to place the
following
notice". It would even be wrong to write it in a
command form, as in
"When you list a page... -- place the following
notice."
...
-------------------------
I think what Nicolas may have been referring to was
not so much the note at the top of VfD, but the
message that mav left on many people's talk pages a
few days ago.
<quote> When you list a page on Votes for deletion
you must say "Listed on Votes for deletion" on the
page you are listing. Otherwise the page will not get
deleted. --mav 23:38, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) </quote>
The 'must' was italicised. Notices on VfD and on the
policy page that it is in fact optional were only
added after people took issue with mav's statement.
Angela.
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Pushing_To_1.0
We've discussed this a bit in the mailing list, but I thought it would
be helpful to group-edit a page (or pages) about it. I'd like to try
to work towards a central vision that we can all get on board with.
Your input is very much desired! Edit the page, add pages as needed,
refactor. I put it in my User: space so that I can feel comfortable
massively refactoring with a heavy hand from time to time. :-)
--Jimbo
>Dear Jtdirl,
>
>A couple of weeks ago I reacted to your remarks concerning
>the Israel page. I saw a small number of similarities
>between what you were writing and what a small group of
>other people were writing, and I mistakenly inferred that
>you had the same beliefs as them.
>
>However, I have re-read your statements, and have come to
>the conclusion that I was in error. When you challenged my
>work, I can see now that you were trying to do so from the
>perspective of an essayist trying to maintain NPOV. I thus
>apologize to you for my earlier comments.
>
>BTW, I am sending you this note in public, on the WikiEn
>list, because I made remarks about you on this list. It
>isn't proper to say one thing in public, but then take it
>back in private.
>
>Robert ("RK")
>
Thank you Robert. I appreciate your decision to put your comments here. I
look forward to working with you in the future. We may disagree on
perspectives but both of us are striving to achieve NPOV and I for one want
to forget the past disagreements and work constructively with you in the
future. lol
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail