I am personally endorsing and promoting a proposal that the 3 Revert
Rule be enforced. The exact wording of the proposal is:
If you violate the 3 revert rule, sysops may block you for up
to 24 hours.
In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops
should treat both sides equally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement
I encourage everyone to vote. I actually even encourage you to vote
yes. This is a long overdue change, and I believe there is strong
community consensus for it. After the poll is finalized, I will back
it fully.
I discussed the exact wording with several people, and have discussed
the revert rule generally with a lot of people, even some of the worst
violators. I don't think we'll have much problem getting this passed
quickly.
--Jimbo
--
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org
> Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com>
mentioned having seen his first example of plagiarism and says "Sadly,
a huge amount of NYC inner-city high school student are literally
writing at a fourth or fifth grade level, and show zero awareness of
issues such as plagiarism and copyright infringement."
This isn't particularly new and is not limited to inner-city students.
In the 1970s I knew someone who taught a junior high-school class in a
middle-class neighborhood of a Wisconsin town of about 100,000. The
story is long, but the punchline is: "Well, you shouldn't have copied
his lab notes. But if you're going to copy something and you don't want
to be caught, don't make a _carbon_ copy. But if you do make a carbon
copy, at least be sure you erase the other student's name _completely_.
And don't put it in my in-basket _directly underneath the original._"
When I was a teaching assistant in a lab course, I frequently received
lab notes containing illustrations which students had copied or traced
out of textbooks. I made a big point of saying "If you do copy
something you _must_ say that it's a copy and you _must_ credit it." I
showed them some examples in their textbook that said "after so-and-so"
and "from so-and-so." Interestingly enough, from that point on they
continued to copy illustrations but gave proper credit lines. (They
didn't seem to regard illustrations in lab papers as part of the
factual record, but as some kind of decoration or enhancement).
When I was in high school--and in the eyes of the locals, the only
scope for debate was whether our town, or New Trier, or Newton,
Massachusetts had the very best high school in the entire world--I was
once was in a health class where we all had to write up papers about
something. One fellow-student was very annoyed that he had received a
C+, after he had gotten his father's secretary type it up, neatly,
straight out of the _Scientific American._ (By the way, this was not an
act of arrogance; this was a really nice guy who wasn't fantastically
bright and completely sincere in his puzzlement over his grade).
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 05:05:33PM +0000, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> I have had difficulties finding a "list" of California legislatures
> from your http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/california.html page. As
> well, on the sports list of professional sports in California - there
> is no mention of minor league soccer - there are various numbers of
> teams - here's two websites:
> http://prosoccer.uslsoccer.com/teamdirectory/66078.html ;
> http://pdl.uslsoccer.com/teamdirectory/65510.html ; &
> http://www.mpsl.info/teams.aspx
>
Dear Steve,
Firstly, the site you link from, fact-index.com, merely re-uses
Wikipedia content, as Wikipedia's copyright allows it to do; we are
however not responsible for the content of any such re-use. Often such
sites use old versions of the articles. Wikipedia's actual article
is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California.
As for your substantive comments, Wikipedia is the creation of its
users. Every article on Wikipedia is written, revised, and improved
through the collective efforts of people like yourself! You can fix any
omissions or errors that you come across if you can. If you can't fix an
article, or don't have the time or inclination, leave a comment on the
article's "discussion page" (you can click on the "discussion" tab on the
top of the article to go to it), so that the people who are interested in
working on this particular article can see your comments.
Thanks for taking the time to contact us.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel
robert.merkel(a)benambra.org
http://benambra.org
One of the young bankers at Deer Valley told how he went to buy
a Superman costume for his son's ninth birthday party and found
the label weirdly appropriate: "Wearing this garment does not
enable purchaser to fly".
-- Tina Brown, salon.com, 2003-03-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal political views disclaimer: I voted for John Kerry, and am of
the mind that the possibility of voter fraud in the just-completed
election cannot be altogether discounted.
---
That said, I find the fact that people keep adding
[[en:2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities]] to the main
page odd. It's a poorly-written article that mostly cites amateurish
statistical correlations (with lots of graphs) and draws unwarranted
causations from them, and generally reads like it was written by the
tinfoil-hat crowd. Furthermore, this issue isn't really "in the news"
by any stretch of the imagination, and even on left-leaning sites such
as dailykos.com, it's controversial and not agreed upon. In short, this
article presents a viewpoint that:
1) Shouldn't be on the front page, based on newsworthiness and
neutrality; and
2) Is controversial *even* by the standards of a left-wing community
that agrees John Kerry would make a much better president than George W.
Bush.
As such, it would be nice if someone would remove it from the front
page. I've already reverted three times today, so will not do so again,
but I feel it makes us look like we're both amateurish and biased.
-Mark
After a year (?) or so on the arbitration committee, and not being
particularly interested in staying on it, there's one main obstacle I've
seen: A lack of people with sufficient free time and interest to wade
through the often complicated disputes. It's not, in my opinion,
problems in getting together a quorum, or even problems in discussing
contentious disputes that are the primary stumbling block. It's just
the lack of getting *anything* rolling at all.
Often parties to disputes will dump literally hundreds of links to edit
histories, and engage in lengthy multi-page accusations and
counter-accusations. Someone has to sort through that and try to make
sense of it. It's not a particularly interesting job, of course.
Once someone does sort through it, and proposes something, the actual
voting is comparatively unproblematic. There have been occasions when
voting has been too slow, but that can be dealt with by e.g. leaving
nagging messages on peoples' talk pages. The biggest and hardest to
overcome delays are those where voting has simply never started, because
nobody had the time or inclination to wade through the pile of evidence
and accusations to distill a set of options to vote on in the first
place. How to solve that I don't really know.
-Mark
Well, I have just come across my first case of Wikipedia
plagiarism. Someone just turned in an extra-credit research
paper on the legality and morality of abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_legality_of_abortion
They simply cut-and-pasted the entire article, including
bulet points and "Related articles", added their own
introduction paragraph, and their own conclusion paragraph.
I dealt with this in accord with my school's plagiarism
policy - and a lot of leeway - since the student in
question really did not understand the difference between
plagiarism and writing one's own paper. Sadly, a huge
amount of NYC inner-city high school student are literally
writing at a fourth or fifth grade level, and show zero
awareness of issues such as plagiarism and copyright
infringement.
>From my conversations with middle-school teachers (and
reading articles in teaching journals) it is an unwritten
policy in NYC schools that children are automatically
promoted to the next grade as long as they have good
attendance and behave in class. The result of this
pseudo-liberal(*) attitude is that we have high schools
full of illiterate kids who can't read, can't write, and
think that "handing a paper in" is truly what matters, even
if they did not write it themselves.
Currently, I am trying to deal with this issue by giving a
copy of the following paper to all of my students, and
having a day discussing this topic.
Plagiarism: What It is and How to Recognize and Avoid It
http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml
Obviously, a high school science shouldn't have to do this;
we should be teaching science. But in practice most of our
students have been failed by their family, their community
and many of their previous teachers; they come to us
ignorant of what a well-schooled sixth grader should know
by heart. (Some high-schoolers, in fact, are on a
third-grade reading level.) We thus need to spend time
teaching them things that others did not.
Lately I have been seeing more and more borderline
plagiarism taking place in homework assignments, and the
text is often coming from sites that have copied Wikipedia
content. Have others here seen this problem?
I understand that Wikipedia is not at all responsible for
someone's plagiarism or copyright infringement; however I
was thinking that we should have an article on the subject
that we could use as a handout. Our Plagiarism article is a
good start.
Robert (RK)
(*) I say pseudo-liberal, because these policies do not
represent actual progressive educational policies. Actual
progressive educational policies help students learn; the
status quo, however, grossly lowers the bar for passing to
give the illusion of progress, which hurts the students and
eventually their community.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
(crossposted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration)
One of the largest complaints about arbitration is that it is too slow. In
an attempt to remedy this, the arbitration committee has decided to require
that '''all evidence''' on evidence pages be formatted chronologically, with
concise summaries of events and links to page diffs.
[[User:Raul654/Plautus]] should serve as an example. Evidence not formatted
this way may be summarily deleted.
The reasoning behind this is as follows - the slowest part of arbitration is
arbitrators trying to understand what happened in a dispute. All too often,
disputants do 'mental dumps' onto the evidence pages, making the job of
sorting it out extremely difficult and time consuming. This requirement
should serve to make this step it easier and faster.
--Mark
Mav and I had a chat today on IRC about the arbitration committee, and
we came to a somewhat different and more aggressive model to the one
Michael Snow is proposing.
I can take very little credit for this, since our discussion basically
consisted of me putting forward my ideas, Mav saying his were better,
and me agreeing.
The basic problem, as I think we all understand, is that the Arbitration
Committee is slow. It is slow because some of the members don't reply to
emails and don't watch the relevant pages on the wiki. What emails they
do send are few and far between.
The first and most important measure to improve the speed of the AC is
to reduce the necessary quorum to three members. Decisions are made by a
simple majority. Any member of the arbitration committee may request a
review of such decisions by the full committee.
The second is that deliberation should be conducted by IRC, not email.
Cases will still be accepted on the wiki, and findings will still be
announced on the wiki. But deliberations will be performed by any and
all AC members present in #arbcom.wikipedia, as long as there is more
than three of them.
Under this proposal, the size of the arbitration committee can expand to
meet the ever-increasing demands placed on them. Preliminary judgements
leading to blocking pending a full review should be possible within
minutes of a request.
I'll put up this proposal on the wiki some time in the next couple of
days, unless someone else beats me to it.
-- Tim Starling
Preliminary Deletion's voting has closed; alas, a consensus was
unobtainable, although some have been making effort arguing that a
consensus is not necessary, as a 2:1 majority in favour of the proposal
was achieved. I take no sides in this debate. However, I have taken the
leisure of rewriting the proposal to include a suggestion of anthony's,
and answers to nine questions/objections. I have also merged a popular
suggestion with the proposal itself, albeit cutting out a lot of fluff.
I hope I can get quite a few people from the mailing list to go over the
proposal again, because I fervently believe we need to do something
about VFD before collapses under its own weight. I wanted to address
people's objections, I really did, but I can see no conceivable way to
do so without alienating yet another sizeable segment of Wikipedia.
People want less bureaucracy, but they don't want to give admins a free
rein. So what do we do? Let users delete and recreate articles freely?
Imagine the delete wars! I think it's very sad that about half of the
objections couldn't be addressed with more than a list of points about
why they cannot be handled. I'm quite unhappy that we can't have our
cake and eat it too, but I'm even more unhappy that it seems quite a bit
of people think we can.
Some others seem to have voted against the proposal without giving a
reason beyond that "it's bad", so I could not address their objections,
whatever they may be.
In closing, I beg some of the wiser and not-so-wiser ones reading this
list to read (or reread) [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]] and engage
in discussion about it; we need all the suggestions we can get. If we
could still somehow grasp that elusive cake from our stomachs and yet
obtain full nutitrional benefit...
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])