Fuzheado wrote:
> > All this talk of deliberately wrong edits has apparently inspired a
> > misguided person, one [[User:AlHalawi]], to do it.
>
> FYI, this is the experiment, and the 100% grade RC patrol folks attained.
>
> http://alex.halavais.net/news/index.php?p=794
>
> And a longer post by Ross Mayfield about this:
>
> http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/08/29/wikipedia_reputation_and_th…
>
In the Many2Many blog, one correspondent writes
"Reading the posts you'd think it was a war, when in fact EVERYONE's supporting the Wikipedia
except this rather insignificant journalist."
Congrats to our editors for meeting a challenge few even knew existed. I think we ought to be
careful, though, not to let our agenda be set by morons. The writer who set this off, just as in
the instance a few weeks ago where we were criticised on someone else's site, did so with no
intention of being anything other than confrontational. At the same time, we rose to the two-bit
bait as if we'd been attacked by a senior editor of the New York Times. I'm thinking we ought to
relax a bit. We know what we have as a product, and we know there is an endless supply of morons.
Denni
Back in May 2004 [[User:ChrisDJackson]], who appears to be inactive on
Wikipedia at the moment, uploaded [[Image:Bushlogo.jpg]], but provided
no information about its source or its use status. Assuming it came
from http://www.georgewbush.com/ then it would fall under the sites
copyright terms which are http://www.georgewbush.com/copyright.aspx
"All compilation and content of this site, including its assembly,
design, text, illustrations, photographs, logos, etc. are the
intellectual property of Bush-Cheney '04, Inc., its affiliates or its
content suppliers and constitute copyrighted material, trademarks
and/or trade dress. This site and its contents may be used only for
personal, noncommercial use. All worldwide rights, titles and
interests are reserved."
Now, Wikipedia is certainly noncommercial, but these copyright terms
bring up another larger question, is Wikipedia "personal"?
Should we continue to use this image, or other images protected for
"personal" use? What's the US law in this area, do laws of other
nations also apply because Wikipedia is an internet site?
About the inclusion of those terror attacks in the year lists.
I think it's important that they go in, but at the same time,
considering the lack of detail (and the complaining user's prior
record), I think it's pretty important they be cited. If Mirv or
someone can provide me with a list of affected articles, I'll see what
I can do about going through and finding citations for each one.
ambi
>From Wikipedia:Copyrights:
"Government photographs
Works produced by employees of the United States federal government in
the scope of their employment are public domain by statute. However,
note that, despite popular misconception, the US Federal Government
can own copyrights that are assigned to it by others. As a general
rule photographs on .mil and .gov sites are public domain. However
there are some notable exceptions. Check the privacy and security
notice of the website. It should also be noted that governments
outside the US often do claim copyright over works produced by their
employees (for example, Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom). Also,
most state governments in the United States do not place their work
into the public domain and do in fact own the copyright to their work.
Please be careful to check ownership information before copying."
>From Template:PD-US
"This image is in the public domain in the United States and possibly
other jurisdictions. See Copyright."
I think it's a bit vague but don't dare "fix" it because i might be
"un-fixing" something, what it reads like to me is that things marked
as {{PD-US}} are in the public domain in the United States but might
not be in the public domain in other countries. Is this the desired
message or does it mean to say that things marked as {{PD-US}} are
things put into the public domain by the US Government?
Dear Mr. Fasoldt, dear Ms. Stagnitta,
I am writing in response to your article "Librarian: Don't use
Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard.
I.
I would like to strongly second what fellow Wikipedia contributor
Mathias Schindler recently wrote to you (see his email below). Mathias
observed that the Wikipedia is not alone in having a disclaimer as
regards the accuracy and validity of our content. He pointed out that
the Encyclopaedia Britannica also has a legal disclaimer. To that I
would also like to add what fellow contributor Pcb21 has found:
Practically ALL encyclopaedias have such disclaimers:
>> Columbia : http://www.bartleby.com/sv/terms.html , section 3
>> Encarta : http://privacy.msn.com/tou/ , section 9
>> Encyclopedia.com : http://www.encyclopedia.com/terms.asp, section 5
II.
You wrote that there was no editorial review at the Wikipedia.
This is incorrect. Our articles DO undergo substantial editorial
review. However, contrary to how paper-based encyclopedias operate,
editorial review at the Wikipedia takes place AFTER publication.
Our system works as follows:
- A user makes a submission, for instance he or she edits an article or
creates a new one.
- EVERY submission (to any article) automatically causes the article in
question to be added to this machine-generated list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
- EVERY article change is tracked in the article's history.
- By clicking an article's "diff" link on the Recent changes page, it
can be seen precisely WHAT was changed.
- A large number of users regularly patrol the Recent changes page.
Considering the 24/7, worldwide nature of our encyclopedia, there is
hardly ever an article that would pass through Recent changes
unchecked. If there is a mistake, it is very likely to get spotted and
it can be changed instantly once spotted (our readers don't have to
write a letter to the publisher).
There also is a separate page for newly created articles (also
auto-generated):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages
These are not the only tools we use for editorial review of our
articles:
This template (which is included in many of our procedural and
administrative pages) lists but a few:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Resources_for_collaboration
As you can see, there are a large number of ways in which we conduct
editorial review, even if errors get past Recent changes.
III.
You also questioned the authority of our site and whether our content
is well-researched. I am going to tell you something I am not really
supposed to:
If you doubt the standards of our editorial review mechanisms, go try
and introduce some decidedly un-encyclopaedic (unproven, contentious
and/or unacademic, etc.) information into an article of your choice.
Then check back and see how long your contribution will remain in the
article. My confidence is high that -- depending on how much this
contribution falls short of encyclopedic standards -- you will find
your contribution challenged on the respective article's discussion
page (where you will likely be asked to provide references for your
claims) or outright removed.
Your concerns over the quality of our content are however justified in
one respect:
At any given point in time, it is possible that a mistake (or
vandalism) has just been introduced to an article you're retrieving.
Users are thus encouraged to check any article's history -- a
tremendous tool for readers and contributors alike:
As an example, let's look at the CGA article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Graphics_Adapter
You will note the "history" tab. Clicking it takes you to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
title=Color_Graphics_Adapter&action=history
On this page, you can see and compare every previous version of the
article.
You can compare these versions and easily see precisely WHAT was
changed. As an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
title=Color_Graphics_Adapter&diff=5388826&oldid=5388760
If someone eg. vandalizes an article, it will almost certainly be
quickly caught and reverted
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert).
Especially popular and contentious articles do regularly get
vandalized. But never for long. Look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush&action=history
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry&action=history
Note how little time typically elapses until vandalism is corrected.
IV.
Many of us believe that it is beneficial to make it as EASY as possible
to contribute to our encyclopedia.
The traditional approach to writing encyclopedias, to aggregating human
knowledge, has been to make it as DIFFICULT as possible to contribute.
You have to obtain formal certifications and undergo formal training to
be even allowed to contribute. This is done in the hope of reaching
and maintaining high standards.
Many of us believe that this however stifles progress as it excludes
all knowledge and knowledge-based skills obtained in any other way
(than formal accreditation).
We put a process in place that will accept all comers in the first
instance -- and combine and distill these collective contributions to
reach high standards.
Our daily growth and quality improvement shows that the traditional
approach -- only allowing very few select individuals to contribute --
wastes enormous talent, potential and opportunity for progress in all
fields of human knowledge. Thus, one of our core operating principles
is to lower any bars to entry as much as possible, if not to outright
abolish them. Anyone can contribute. You don't need to provide
certifications. You don't need to show ID or a credit card. You don't
need to give an email address. You don't even need to log in or create
an account. You can edit. Because you have UNIQUE knowledge skills. Dr.
Pyotr Anokhin calculated that the number of possible combinations in
the human brain was 10 to the power of 799 (seven hundred ninety nine).
In short, NO ONE on this planet will ever have the same thoughts as
you. It thus makes sense for us to be as inclusive as possible. We
would be honored to welcome your contribution to our modest but growing
record of human knowledge.
If you have any remaining doubts about our potential to deliver the the
most comprehensive, comprehensible and correct encyclopedia on the
planet, please refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#lang
The irony of course is that you will probably now find yourself doing
the exact same thing we do all of the time:
Review and correct your Post-Standard article AFTER publication. That
doesn't necessarily make your publication a worse information source --
as long as you DO correct inaccuracies where found.
Yours sincerely,
-- Jens Ropers
Wikipedia contributor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roperswww.ropersonline.com
PS: Oh, and as for "accredited scientists", "academics" and
"intellectuals"? We're "building it" -- and they are coming.
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:14:24 +0200
> From: Mathias Schindler <neubau(a)presroi.de>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] another supposedly authoritative web sites
> To: technology(a)syracuse.com
> Cc: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org, wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org,
> sue_stagnitta(a)liverpool.k12.ny.us
> Message-ID: <412D9BE0.6010902(a)presroi.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Dear Mr. Fasoldt, Dear Ms Stagnitta,
>
> I read your article in the Post-Standard "Librarian: Don't use
> Wikipedia
> as source" at
> http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/
> 1093338972139211.xml,
> where you wrote:
> I was amazed at how little I knew about Wikipedia.
> If you know of other supposedly authoritative Web
> sites that are untrustworthy, send a note to
> technology(a)syracuse.com and let me know about them.
>
> Have you visited britannica.com?
>
> http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html
>> Disclaimer of Warranties
>>
>> Neither Britannica, its affiliates, nor any third-party content
>> providers or licensors makes any warranty whatsoever, including
>> without limitation: that the operation of the Site will be
>> uninterrupted or error-free; that defects will be corrected; that
>> this Site, including the server that makes it available, is free of
>> infection, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses, or other harmful components
>> or other code that manifest contaminating or destructive properties;
>> as to the results that may be obtained from use of the materials on
>> the Site; or as to the accuracy, reliability, availability,
>> suitability, quality, or operation of any information, software, or
>> service provided on or accessible from the Site or as to any
>> information, products, or services on the Internet in any way. In
>> addition, Britannica does not assume any responsibility or risk for
>> your use of the Internet.
>
>> THE SITE AND ALL INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND OTHER CONTENT (INCLUDING
>> THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND CONTENT) INCLUDED IN OR
>> ACCESSIBLE FROM THIS SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES
>> OF ANY KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED, AND STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT
>> LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF TITLE AND NONINFRINGEMENT AND THE
>> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>> PURPOSE), ALL OF WHICH BRITANNICA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS TO THE FULLEST
>> EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE
>> RISK.
>
> Information at britannica.com can be edited by anyone who was given
> permission from the company. It might be a PhD who hasn't done anything
> else than writing about this specific topic. It might be someone else
> who feels competent. You never know.
>
> Just compare
> http://www.britannica.com/eb/dailycontent?eu=422756#e%0Avent " Haile
> Selassie" with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie
>
> At wikipedia, you can see a) who wrote b) when c) which part of the
> text, who changed it, who altered the order who removed parts.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
> title=Haile+Selassie+of+Ethiopia&action=history&limit=500&offset=0
>
> The authors, such as David Parker can be emailed or asked for
> clearification in doubt.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Parker
>
>
> You and Susan Stagnitta are perfectly right to advise people never to
> "trust" unreliable sources but I can't see a difference in this case
> between a "black box" company and a group of academics and skilled
> laymen who make the process of encyclopedic writing transparent.
>
>
> Several wikipedians have created a document called "Making fun of
> Britannica" http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Making_fun_of_Britannica,
> which contains a list of "errors" (in a broader sense). This does not
> change the level of trust towards Britannica.
>
> If you spot a mistake in Britannica, what are the consequences? If it
> was in a book, there is no chance to correct it and the risk might be
> that a student relies on wrong information. She/He will not be able to
> get a refund from Britannica or even a discount on the new and
> (hopefully) corrected version.
>
> Ms. Stagnitta said "Anyone can change the content of an article in the
> Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content." Even if
> the
> first part of that sentence is correct, the second part does not
> describe the reality.
>
> Just have a look at the procedures at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. It
> might be hard to get used to the fact that editorial review might be
> ad-hoc or it might be a constant effort. If an article was found fit
> for
> being a "Featured article", the process of improving that article does
> not stop.
>
> I would like you to encourage you to ask Britannica if they feel that
> their content is "authoritative" in a sense that they will guarantee
> any
> given fact in their Encyclopedia. Ask them if they are able to
> attribute
> every sense to a specific author who can be contacted. Ask them if they
> will make their decision transparent, which lemma does get into the EB
> and which lemma does not get into it.
>
> Yours,
> Mathias Schindler
> neubau(a)presroi.de
>
> Ringelstr.50
> 60385 Frankfurt am Main
> Germany
>
What is the stance of the Islamic community on militants taking refuge
inside a mosque? Are they permitted to use mosques as military bases?
What is the stance of the Islamic community on armies attacking
militants who take refuge inside mosques?
Who is the desecrator:
* the armed men who take refuge inside the mosque and use it as a base
to attack enemies; or,
* those who attack the armed men inside the mosque?
I've heard that in international law, both sides to a conflict should
avoid damaging holy places. But I've also heard that if soldiers from
one side occupy a "holy place", then the other side is no longer bound
by international law. That is, the holy place loses its protected status
and becomes a legitimate target.
Where in the Wikipedia can I find information about these matters?
Ed Poor
Now, normally I'm an engineer-type who sneers at marketing and "image" and
branding, and believes that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
But I do have to wonder whether a VfD by some other name might have less
sting.
In practice as I know it today, Wikipedia is not quite as radical a departure
from traditional publishing practice was outsiders sometimes think. In
particular, there is still a process by which articles are "accepted" or
"rejected." The big difference is that everything takes place in the open and
happens in the order ready-fire-aim.
Normally an article would go first to a closed group of editors who would
accept or reject it, and nobody sees it until it gets accepted.
In Wikipedia, an article gets published first. In almost every case, an
article gets glanced at very promptly within a very short period of time
after it appears. Contributors don't realize it, but if it survives twenty-
four hours without a notice having been placed on it, it has already been
"accepted."
Borderline articles get subjected to a process. The process is called "Votes
for Deletion." To someone unfamiliar with Wikiprocess, this sounds like
"someone want to delete my article" or "someone is trying to delete my
article" or "someone hates me" or "someone hates Dartmouth."
Normally, the nomination language reinforces this question, because, unlike
the sometimes-phony practice of softening a statement by phrasing it as a
question,
phrasing it as a question, VfD nominators traditionally harden a question by
phrasing it as a statement. E.g. (GROSSLY caricaturing an actual VfD debate
for purposes of illustration) instead of saying "I've never heard of Lehman
Brothers, what do you know about them?" a nominator is more likely to say
something like "Vanity, some non-notable insurance company, delete spam."
Typically there will be a more comments like that until someone with _some_
topic familiarity runs across the VfD entry. THEN someone chimes in "The firm
is really quite large, unless I'm very much mistaken." Then there are follow-
ups "It's a Fortune 500 company," "Definite keep," "Keep article on major
financial force of the twentieth century," "Need more articles like this,"
etc.
A newbie who joins the discussion at an early stage does not understand that
his article is not in imminent threat, that there will be a full week for
people who have knowledge of the topic to notice and join in, that the curt
dismissiveness tone is shorthand, etc.
To Wikipedians, "Votes for Deletion" means "even though several hundred
people can delete articles, we take deletion so seriously that we hash over
everything for a week."
It really does seem to me that there might be ways to make the process more
intelligible to newcomers. I honestly believe that the current process
_induces_ bad behavior from new contributors who might not naturally show it.
I'm thinking something like this:
a) Change the name of Votes for Deletion to something like Editorial Review.
b) Every article when submitted automatically gets a tag at the top, saying
something like "New article, not yet reviewed."
c) Like any other edit, anybody can remove this tag, but, by custom, it is
removed by someone knowledgeable who has made a judgement that it does not
need to go to Editorial Review.
d) If the article looks like VfD-worthy material, the tag gets replaced with
a tag saying, you know, "This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Editorial
Review and may not be accepted. Please see its entry on that page for
justifications and discussion. If you want the page accepted, please read the
acceptance guidelines and vote for its acceptance there. Please do not remove
this notice or blank this page while the question is being considered.
However, you are welcome to make improvements to it."
Yeah, I know, flipping it around from "deletion" to "acceptance" makes me
gag, too.
There is a disconnect. Many newcomers do not and never will read all the
scattered policy documents (and it is in the Wikinature that they always will
be scattered and not perfectly clear or consistent). Many newcomers have the
misperception that everything is allowed in Wikipedia unless it's outright
false. Warnings about "ruthless editing" don't really convey the way it
works.
Everybody understands the concept of submitting an article for review and
possibly having it be rejected. If newcomers perceive Wikiprocess as a
variation of that model, fewer of them will be unnecessarily shocked or
offended by the VfD process.
Maybe.
On 28 Aug 2004, at 14:54, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:47:00 -0400
> From: "Anthony DiPierro" <anthonydipierro(a)hotmail.com>
>
>> However, I do feel that I did not lecture but plead and also feel that
>> I did not engage in hostile behaviour.
>
>> -- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
>
> Considering you called the professor who did nothing wrong stupid and
> arrogant I'd say you were hostile.
>
> Anthony
Are you referring to my response to Geoff Burling? Is he "the
professor"?
If not, please explain.
If yes, then please note that I did NOT call Geoff "stupid and
arrogant" -- and I would be curious to hear where you are taking that
from.
Maybe you are confusing me with Christiaan. I am not Christiaan. I am
Jens. Jens Ropers. Known here as User:Ropers. Also called Ian. Also
known as (the) rop. Aka the fake Irishman. Historically known as
Ropercop. Anyway. Christiaan has his views and I have mine. Christiaan
has his way to respond and I have mine. There may be some common ground
between Christiaan and me, but there also is common ground between
Geoff and me. That said, I believe Christiaan, too, for all the
emotionally charged language he used, DID NOT call Geoff "stupid and
arrogant" EITHER. So again, I really don't know where you are taking
that from.
This was my first response email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030079.html
(Note that I wrote it as a general email to the list, quoting only
Geoff's comment and not giving his name, to avoid the issue getting
personal.)
Geoff chose to respond to me and Christiaan in one email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030105.html
Because I'm not Christiaan, I only responded to the sections of Geoff's
email that I felt were directed at me:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030140.html
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
On 28 Aug 2004, at 14:54, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:59:00 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again
>
>> The Phoenicians were aware of the consequences of denuding the cedar
>> forests of Lebanon.
>
> Can't speak to that one, but in any case they were the exception
> not the rule.
We have one example of "the exception". Can you give examples of "the
rule"?
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
> However, I do feel that I did not lecture but plead and also feel that
> I did not engage in hostile behaviour.
> -- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
Considering you called the professor who did nothing wrong stupid and
arrogant I'd say you were hostile.
Anthony