Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother
Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
WHILE
The whole discussion on watch list issues move from
the english list to the general list, where it is
relevant
OR
could we just swap mailing list names since
discussions relevant on english matter are on the
general list, while discussions relevant to the whole
community are on the english list ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
As there was genuine, repeated interest in NSK's user identity and NSK
has AFAIK still not clarified his identity himself, I will "blow the
whistle", that is, I will relay the relevant info (which is, after all,
freely and openly available):
NSK appears to be [[en:User:Npc]].
He has been active since October 23 and as of this writing has made 96
edits.
A certain share of his contributions are insertions of links to his own
wiki projects. These link insertions may be (or may not be) perceived
as inappropriate, but others be the judge of that. Not all of NSK's
contributions are such link insertions and IMHO some of his
contributions are quite ok.
Sorry to be the one to "blow the whistle" but I feel there's a public
interest; no offense to NSK.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.comhttp://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?
collection=independent_news&collectionid=Mosh
On Oct. 26 UncleBungle made the following contribution to the Jew Watch
talk page:
"I'm not going to start an edit war User:Slrubenstein."
I don't really like other people posting comments to pages in my name. Is
this something I just have to watch out for and delete, or do we have some
policy on this? Clearly it is not at the level of a banable offense -- I
am not even sure if it is enough to ask for mediation. Still, it is wrong
and I wonder if there is some community response. I appreciate any
suggestions/thoughts,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
I have noticed that many people believe that a number of Wikipedia articles
are very US-centric and I think in some occasions this is true. I would say
that you might need more non-US contributors.
Have you considered using geotargeting advertisement for solving this problem?
For example, you could target ads to places like India, Japan, South Africa,
UK, Brazil or Canada.
--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
The second point is this one.
A lot of the opposition on the wikinews project is
related to
* dividing community forces (stretching human
resources)
* reduced number of editors will mean less chance for
npov
* breaking news-pressure will push editors to publish
quickly, while nearly 4 years of experience show us
only time and number of editors allow us to approach
npov. As best said by Maha_ts ''Establishing NPOV
within the short time span required for news reporting
will almost be impossible, to any degree of fairness
and accuracy''
* fear of legal issues (consider setting up a legal
team at the same time than wikinews)
* and mostly, concerns on original reporting.
So, overall, though I think the idea of wikinews is
great, and should become a major hit, I think that we
need
- that rules be collectively worked on, so that
concerns voiced by non-supporters are taken into
account. For this, I hope that many editors join the
future project so that we all work on it.
- possibly to get some journalists involved in the
project, so that we get more (or different)
perspective. There are some journalists interested in
wikipedia, and who would feel ready to discuss the
project with us. Or even to join it.
For this reason, and after several discussions here
and there, given the controversial nature of the
project and its likelyhood to get in the sunlights of
media immediately upon its creation (contrarywise to
wikipedia, which had time to polish before it become
known), I would suggest that we try to contact some
interested journalists and possibly have them join a
sort of advisory board. What do you think ?
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
NSK wrote:
>Perhaps WP could disallow anonymous edits and require by people who
open an
>account to read a short policy and agree to it, for example with an "I
>Agree" checkbox.
I can't imagine that that would make any difference. People create stuff
without reading the policy now - you can force them to scroll over a
page of policy and click a checkbox at the bottom, but you can't force
them to read it (ever read an EULA when installing software?) and you
certainly can't force them to follow it.
>Anons that create useful content *will* create an account if they are
>serious in their wikiwork.
..and..
>I think you need to make account creation a bit more difficult:
>0. Anons aren't needed; disable anon editing.
>1. People will be required to validate their account through an e-mail
>address.
>2. New account holders will be denied editing until after 1-2 days.
>3. To make anons open an account you could make some pages readable
only by
>account holders, et cetera.
These ideas have been suggested before, but are so far out of alignment
with the philosophy that Wikipedia was founded under that they will
never be implemented. A "no anon editing" Wikipedia can only be done as
a fork, I think.
Cheers!
David...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information which is confidential and/or
legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without
the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive
this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email.
I sent this to the foundation list and CCed to WikiEN, but it was posted on
foundation-l twice. How can I avoid this behaviour?
----
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:26, David Gerard wrote:
> what was your Wikipedia username again?
The reason I have not answered that question is because it was first asked by
a person who offended me ("as faulty as your logic", 23 October 2004).
Although I have ignored his e-mail address, thanks to your webarchive it came
to my attention that he repeats his attacks:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-October/031751.html
Please note that I am a bit touchy and any kind of personal attack is not
compatible with my culture and my education. I have no problem with people
who disagree with me, but I have zero tolerance for things who engage in
personal attacks.
That said, I also don't understand why I need to answer this question. Is it
some kind of policy in Wikipedia to say your user names in emails? I notice
many people post without mentioning their usernames and I wonder why you
picked me specifically.
> Do you in fact edit on Wikipedia at all?
Does it matter? I cannot understand why you ask this question. Are your
mailing lists restricted only to your members? I don't think so, because it
was very easy for me to register (if that's not the intended behaviour, you
need to configure your Mailman installation).
You can find me in many mailing lists or fora, including FSF-GNU/GNOME/CC/AMD,
and I am lurking on many other mailing lists and communities, while I have
also joined projects such as Drupal.org and OpenFormats.org and very soon I
will join KDE. Slashdot has published stories written by me (KDE/FSF's
WIWO...) and my karma there is Good. My university dissertation is on wikis.
I notice some people refer to me as "he/she" and I wonder whether they have
noticed who am I.
I was lurking here for some time before I decided to start posting, so I had
accumulated many possible suggestions and ideas about Wikipedia. Since I
decided to start posting, I started remembering whatever I had thought about
all that time, so perhaps some people disliked me because of the initial
quantity of my postings. Although I have already asked whether anybody wants
me to stop posting, nobody said something like that, so I understand that I
should be welcome here - but I still notice that some participants seem to
dislike me and I cannot understand why.
I don't really have enough time to edit much on Wikipedia. I have my own
projects and soon/hopefully will have my own nonprofit organisation. So,
although my community website now is still very new (just opened this August,
but already serving more than 65 thousand hits per month), it will certainly
become very known and important in the near future. My interests in the
Wikipedia community are mostly establishing public relations, helping each
other to improve our community policies and sharing software development tips
and practices. I mostly want communication with Wikipedia decision makers,
the Board and the development team, so that we can find ways to cooperate as
independent separate projects. So, I think it should be obvious that I
participate in your mailing lists as a representative of a friendly website
which seeks to have relations, cooperation and knowledge sharing with
Wikimedia. But if WMF does not wish to cooperate or thinks I am a
"competitor", then you can just say so and I will leave.
I suspect that some people may dislike me because I have my own wikis. Please
try to understand that I am not a "competitor" of Wikipedia. I have written
interesting articles under the GFDL that you can copy if you like (by
providing proper attribution under all the terms of GFDL - please include the
authors' names in the article). See for example this article of NerdyPC.org,
my knowledge base wiki on computer hardware and the Information Technology
industry: http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/AMD_Opteron - note the most
recent version under development is at
http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Test:AMD_Opteron
Finally, I would like to know how we can implement interwiki links to each
other and whether WMF is interested in this kind of linking.
--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
The relentless discussion about deletion that I am just catching up with
on this mailing list prompted to review a deletion decision that got on
my nerves back in June. "Full nice handbag co" was a pathetic little
article about a textile company in Hong Kong. It was never much of an
article, but it was real, neutral, factual, verifiable. It was very
narrowly VfDed (with a small majority of about 55-60% voting delete) on
grounds of non-notability. Following deletion, I objected at VfU - my
grounds for undeletion were that the reasons for deletion were so
tenuous (see below) and the majority so small that we should have erred
on the side of caution and kept the article
Notability is extremely subjective. To my mind, a manufacturing company
of twelve years standing is more notable than a minor character in a
Lord of the Rings book. But others disagree. The VfU eventually failed -
both to get the article undeleted and to raise the issues about
systematic biases of domain of knowledge of editors affecting deletion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I came to the conclusion that I would be
helping Wikipedia if I was bold and reinstated the article anyhow.
Unfortunately good old RickK got in a right tizz about this. Rick and I
have exchanged words that just about stay civil on our talk pages, and
Theresa Knott helpfully suggested I come here to the mailing list (a
kind of higher court than VfU if you will, and one arena more open to
more philosophical/esoteric debates) to see if I want did was reasonable.
So here I am, throwing myself open to community opinion,
Pcb21
Since voting for the new project wikinews is well
under way... I would like to mention 2 things.
When Erik set the vote, he set the voting bar at 50%.
That means that if the number of approval is just over
the number of disapproval, the project will be
accepted (and obviously, it will be, since much more
than 50% of people are supportive).
I would like to first remind that *I* asked Erik to
set a vote, to avoid any further accusation of
unilateral decision from the board. So, I *support*
this vote. However, it was my mistake that I did not
check in time the voting bar for the project to go
live.
Launching a new projet is something extremely
important. A voting bar set at 50% is something I find
plain wrong.
Though it is too late for this time, I would be very
glad if next time a project is proposed, a more
consensual procedure is adopted. And at least
possibility to agree on some points, and refuse
others.
I know that in any decision the global community will
adopt, there will be some happy and some unhappy
people, and this is also why, though we must sometimes
rely on voting procedure because of community size, I
see voting as a bad choice. In such a vote, with a 50%
barrier, that mean a project may be lauched with as
much as 49 people very unhappy among 100. I do not see
that as a positive move *at all*.
And this in particular as some of those opposing the
creation believe this project, as is, could hurt the
project overall.
So, it does not matter for this one project (I'll try
to give time so that policies are developped which can
fit with more expressed opinions) but just as some
users were not happy with the way wikispecies was
launched, let me just state officially once for all,
that I am not happy with such an important decision
taken at simple majority.
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Stan Shebs wrote:
> Another interesting exercise is to look at the 1911 encyclopedia
> articles. Hundreds of obscure personages of ancient Rome each
> have their own article, carefully documented and cited, but there
> is no article for Standard Oil; it is briefly described in
> Rockefeller's bio, and under Trusts, but there is no encyclopedic
> description of the company itself, and ditto for the many other
> companies of the time. Despite the evidence all around them that
> corporations had come to be a significant part of their world,
> it seems that the 1911EBers had the idea that corporations were
> somehow "unencyclopedic", and to us today it looks like an odd
> oversight in Britannica's coverage.
In their British Empire-centric view, the EB editors of 1911 looked
backward to empires of the past (especially Rome), and it's not
surprising that they didn't recognize the empires of the future that
would displace them. At the time, the concept of a commercial
corporation in most cases was still strongly tied to the individuals who
organized them, often as family firms, so it probably didn't seem
worthwhile to create another article that would simply duplicate
information already covered. Had they been using a wiki, they probably
would have created [[Standard Oil]] as a redirect to [[John D.
Rockefeller]].
--Michael Snow