By the way, I think I have finally figured out how I could have possibly
missed the fact that the page was protected when I edited it (note that
I concede that I *did* edit a protected page).
Look at this version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Occupation_of_Palestine&oldid
=6099350
It's just a REDIRECT. There's no {{protected}} notice on it. To be fair
to the others, I don't think we ever had a convention that a "protected
redirect" should have a notice on it. I guess they thought I was
following the action more closely.
I didn't think the matter was closed, and I also thought (and still
think) that making significant changes to a page under vfd automatically
necessitates a new vote.
If there is a policy page that says no one can edit a page which others
want deleted, I must have missed it.
If people think a page should not be edited, because they want to vote
on its disposition -- well, I'm not sure that's a good idea, but I don't
think I would have dared to edit a protected page with a {{protected
notice}} on it. I'm not usually that bold. I would at least have
unprotected it first and said so on the talk page...
Ed Poor
Somewhere in the Hamptons
(with Martha Stewart, under house arrest)
I admit that I edited a protected article. In my defense, I did not
realize that Ambi had protected it, and I immediately unprotected it
when its 'protected state' was pointed out to me. Since then, to show
good faith, I have made NO EDITS WHATSOEVER to any article; I've
confined myself to talk pages until this is sorted out. Like Martha
Stewart, wanting to start her sentence before the appeal? You decide....
As far as hijacking a vote is concerned, well, I've never been a fan of
"votes for deletion". Every time somebody wanted to delete an article I
like, I've simply rewritten or expanded it and asked for a new vote. I
can't recall a time anyone's really objected before. Have the rules
changed while I wasn't watching? It wouldn't be the first time.
If you vote about a situation, but the situation changes, I think this
calls for a new vote.
Besides, I think people are trying to sneak in their POV any way they
can: including 'voting'. This is not good for Wikipedia. We should write
accurate and unbiased articles that shed light on all points of view
(POV).
Especially when there are organized forces trying to SNEAK THOSE POV'S
in to the real world debate on these issues.
It all hinges on what a "Palestinian" is, and this was not well-covered.
The redirect simply glossed over the fact that this stuff was not well
covered.
Anyway, this kind of matter should not be decided by a vote. The
tradition has been, that before eliminating an article (either by
deleting it, or REDIRECTING from it), that good information from it
should be merged into another article. Voting to ignore the elephant in
the living room is not a valid option.
I'll follow what ever the arbcom or Jimbo says; I agree in advance, even
not knowing what they'll say. But it this point I don't think I've done
anything wrong.
172 gave me a lot of grief for breaking the [[Augusto Pinochet]] logjam,
and I weathered that storm. I think I can handle this too. If not, well
I always did want to go down in a blaze of glory ;-)
Ed Poor
Chris,
I unprotected both pages, because I realized belatedly that when I undid
the REDIRECT and added now material -- it was without realizing that
*somebody else* had protected those pages.
I can't find the protected page log, so I don't know who. (And I don't
really care, as long as no one thinks it was me ;-)
Anyway, if you think they should be protected -- either as redirects, or
as my latest version -- I will abide by your decision. I'm gonna upgrade
my "stress thermometer" and go back on vacation!
Ed Poor
Hi,
Mandrakesoft, the company which created and sells the Linux distribution, is
interested to distribute a DVD with an English and French version of
Wikipedia. This DVD will be sold in their web site and included with the next
distribution, due in next April.
Mandrakesoft will take legal responsibilities for this publication and is
ready to donate some money to the Wikimedia Foundation. The amount is still
to be decided.
Mandrakesoft wants that we provide them with a master DVD, and would like to
complete this first edition for Christmas.
As you may have noticed, a mention about this was included in the press
release and the newsletter with the authorization of Mandrakesoft who will
also publish a press release about this project.
The summary below is also available on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_and_Mandrakesoft
== Points fixed so far ==
* It will first be sold on Mandrake web site, then included in the next
version of the distribution.
* It will include only the current version of the English and French
distribution. Mandrakesoft publishes a French version sold in French speaking
countries and an English (international) version sold elsewhere in the world.
The English Wikipedia will be sold with the international version of Mandrake
Linux.
* Mandrakesoft asks that the Wikimedia Foundation provide them with a master
DVD.
* Mandrakesoft will take the legal responsibility for this publication.
* Fair use images should be removed as the publication has to comply with
worldwide copyright standards, not US only. Also images without proper
licensing information have to be removed.
== Questions that need answering ==
* Do we include only complete articles or the whole of Wikipedia including
stubs?
* How do we package it? Several possibilities, see the page on meta.
== What you can do ==
So we need some help to complete this project.
* Work is needed to provide proper lisensing information on all images in the
English Wikipedia.
* Help packaging. Help with technical knowledge is needed here. Med and
Hashar, among others, are already working on this.
Thanks,
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
An edit war is brewing over [[Occupation of Palestine]] and [[Israeli
occupation of Palestine]]. I am heavily involved in editing those pages,
and I am an admin. I am determined not to 'break the rules'. I have no
intention of using sysop rights to 'get my way' here.
Jayjg and Gadykozma want these pages to REDIRECT to some other article
-- [[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]], I guess. However, a vfd vote went
heavily against them. Less than 30% voted for redirect, even before I
started editing.
Moreover, the fact that I have added considerable new material means
that there should be a new vote. No such vote has been made.
Any suggestions?
Ed Poor
Zero,
If a contributor's only source is a pirate radio station, then write an
article about the station. Then link all mentions of the station with [[
and ]] brackets, like this:
* According to [[Pirates R Us]], the PLO leader smells of elderberries.
Anyone whose opinion or judgment you value will click on the link and
read your accurate and neutral article on them:
'''Pirates R Us''' is a clandestinely operated radio station
broadcasting from mall parking lots in Tel Aviv and north Jerusalem. It
was banned by the Israeli government after a court found it in violation
of Regulation 123-456. After losing on appeal, the group said, "What the
heck" and turned "pirate".
Okay, the content above is, er, somewhat imaginary, but it's just an
example of HOW TO DO IT. Now, please, go do it, and then let us know how
it works out.
Ed Poor
Resident Genius, Peacemaker, and all-around nice guy
----- Forwarded message from Thijs van Domburg -----
From: Thijs van Domburg
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:50:10 +0200
To: jwales(a)bomis.com
Subject: Sesame Street
Dear mister Wales,
I found an article about Fat Blue on wikipedia, a character from sesame street. I created the Sesame Street Encyclopedia www.sesame-encyclopedia.com . The article is exactly copied from my site. I do not mind if some facts are used from my site, but I do not tolerate exact copies of my writings. I hope you'll remove it soon, or write your own version of it.
Thijs van Domburg
----- End forwarded message -----
--
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org
I think that Node has expressed his agreement that his behavior was a
mistake. We all make mistakes. Node has also contributed considerably to Wikipedia,
and does have a vast knowledge of language information. He is certainly a
passionate contributor, and he has, in his passion, raised issues that we should
consider--whether we agree with him or not.
I suggest that we let this pass, and get on to more worthwhile topics, i.e.,
building an encyclopedia.
Danny
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> If you think we get silly complaints now about sysop abuse, just
> imagine what it would be like if we let sysops win arguments over
> content by blocking people who disagree.
Of course you are right. However, I did not block him to win
an argument over content but to stop his vandalism. The issue
was not over the content of the material but the fact that
his only source for it was a pirate radio station well known
for inventing news stories. He has been inserting material
from this same source for months despite repeated complaints
from many editors, and the time has passed for it to be
regarded as vandalism. If the same material is found in a
respectable source, there would be no problem.
Having said that, in my frustration it appears that I went
further than the rules for dealing with vandals permit.
As you say, I should have consulted another sysop. I won't
do it again. In fact I might not do anything again as I am
reconsidering my involvement in Wikipedia altogether. This
is not a reaction to this particular event but a more general
issue that I will write a separate note on.
--Zero
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I have some guesses about the evolution of the "stub" concept on Wikipedia
and am seeking information from oldtimers as to whether my guesses are right.
I first encountered the word "stub" in a technical context. About the time I
started hearing about "top-down programming," which would have been, um, the
1980s, I also started hearing about "stubs."
When you are following the top-down methodology, you often encounter a
situation where subroutine A calls (and hence depends on) subroutine B. Yet
you want to write and test A before B is written.
For example, subroutine A might call subroutine B to find out whether a
device is ready before trying to output to it. Subroutine B is
absolutely vital to the finished program, but for purposes of writing and
testing A you just write a "stub" version of B which doesn't actually talk to
the device, but just says "the device is ready."
In this context, a stub is a piece of temporary scaffolding that is put in
place solely to allow work to proceed, which is not a part of the finished
product, and which must be removed and replaced with the real subroutine
before the product is released.
I fantasize that it is a couple of years ago, and that there are enormous
numbers of articles that anyone can see need to be written, and that I have
decided to write about (say) echinoderms. As I start to write, say, an
article on "Echinodermata," I realize that I will eventually want to write
and link to Asteroidea, Echinoidea, etc. So I create stubs for these, with
two things in mind. First, I have at least some intention of going back and
actually writing those articles. Second, I know that there are other people
who know as much or more than I do about echinoderms, and may prefer to write
the article on Asteroidea myself rather than waiting for me to do it.
So the stub serves _three_ purposes: a reminder to everyone that there's an
article that needs to be written, an implied statement that I sort of plan to
write that article when I get around to it, and an implied invitation to
others that if they feel like working on this _before_ I can get around to
it, they should just jump in.
I notice that "The Perfect Stub" clearly presents stubs in the context of an
intention by the creator of the stub to continue personally working on
expanding the stub. It seems to suggest that the expected timeframe for
this expansion is a few weeks; that is, it should reasonably expected that
the stub contributor will keep nibbling away, adding small accretions to the
stub, and that if a few weeks have elapsed and nobody else has taken on the
job of writing the article the stub creator should assume that nobody else is
going to, and they should write the article themselves.
Part and parcel of this viewpoint is that a stub is not useful in itself. As
with the programmer's stub, it is just a temporary expedient to allow work to
continue, and must be replaced with a real article before "release."
Does this imaginary view of mine correspond to an historically correct
description of the mindset with which stubs were viewed a couple of years
ago?