geni wrote:
>On 11/13/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Public perception is not required.
>However it normaly exists. I can't at short notice think of any cases
>involveing it's use where no one had raised any questions.
You have that backwards: the cases are already questionable, then I do
a checkuser. There are lots and lots and lots you don't see.
Read the FAQ I just posted: Q. Why aren't there public logs?
- d.
Kelly Martin wrote:
>I temporarily withdrew with the hope that delaying the request with
>relation to me would perhaps allow it to go through with respect to
>the others. I see no reason why I should not have CheckUser, and did
>not withdraw the request permanently. I am aware of no credible claim
>raised against my qualifications to use the CheckUser tool.
FWIW: Of the new five, Kelly is probably the first I would have chosen
myself. And unless the moon falls out of the sky in the next two
months, keeping the power after Dec 31st as well.
- d.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>I don't completely disagree with the idea of having grammar
>specialists. They do need the ability to pay attention to detail, but
>also need the flexibility to understand that there is more than one way
>of doing things. We have long recognized that British and American
>English will vary according to vocabulary and spelling, but it is also
>important to remember that this also applies to the less well understood
>domain of grammar.
We have them. They're called "editors who like copyediting" and they
roam from article to article, fixing crappy prose as they spot it ;-)
(I haven't been a paid editor in ten years ... my red-pencil finger
still twitches reliably.)
- d.
Tom Cadden wrote:
>Wikipedia needs to do something to reign in the delete
>brigade. Deletion used to be used to keep up
>standards. Now it is bringing down standards, doing
>damage to content and design and seriously pissing off
>users who are doing serious work and have to spend
>their days fighting off attempts to delete things.
But don't forget! If you don't want them to trash your hard work, it's
up to *YOU* to spend three hours a day going through all the deletion
pages! %-D
I'm surprised AFD doesn't seem to acknowledge that driving off
contributors or making them not bother is actually a bad thing.
> The
>final twist is that many of the most fanatical
>deleters seem to be down damn all writing themselves,
>simply proposing large numbers of things for deletion
>all the time, irrespective of quality, usefulness or
>benefit to Wikipedia.
I'd like to see numbers on that before agreeing.
- d.
Sometimes, when I am reading an article, I come upon some really
atrocious grammar - for example, misplacing adverbs, especially
"only," or mismatched pronouns.
We need a committee to check the grammar in Wikipedia articles and
make corrections! We need some really picky people on this committee
too - and I will be glad to help.
- Fearless Freya of Arty Atlanta
Meet people who share your interests!
http://www.meetup.com/
I've been following a number of these disputes, where somebody
objects either to the very fact of Wikipedia having an article on
them, or to the content of the article, or to the fact that they
don't have absolute veto power over it, or to basic aspects of the
structure of Wikipedia (e.g., that anybody can come in and edit any
article, and sometimes they may insert nasty, unjustified comments
which stick around until somebody else removes them, and could be
indexed or cached by search engines or scraped by mirror sites in the
meantime). While these people may have some philosophical points
worth consideration, their method of pursuing them, by coming in and
vandalizing their own article, making unreasonable demands that go
against Wikipedia policy, and making legal threats, understandably
leads to antagonistic battles.
Through all of this, our Fearless Leader Jimbo has taken a consistent
position of being friendly and reasonable with all of these people,
even if they don't act the same way to us. He aims to convince them
that their goals and ours are not irreconcilable, and we can all be
better off with cooperation instead of warfare. He's a better man
than I; my emotional reaction to each of these cases has always been
to feel like, "If that guy wants war, then war is what he should
get!", and to want to get my adrenaline up and fight back as fiercely
as the other guy, or fiercer.
With some reflection, once I'm calmed down, I see that Jimbo's
position is actually not just good for his own karma; it really does
work. If you look over the articles involved in such controversies,
they are almost without exception better off now than they were
before the fighting started. The assertions made in the articles are
carefully sourced and referenced, the NPOV policy is scrupulously
followed, and the articles are vigorously patrolled for vandalism,
whether by the article subject and his/her friends, or by malicious
enemies. All of this is consistent with what Jimbo urges we all do
with such articles; actually, it's what we should do with *all*
articles, but it's urged in a particularly strong way for disputed
ones such as these. And, once people here get tired of feuding over
the articles and get to work improving them, the result is a better
encyclopedia.
But beyond this, in at least some of the cases, this method of
dealing with them has actually brought the controversy to an end. I
observe at least one of the formerly hostile article subjects
participating constructively in Wikipedia since his last block was
lifted. True, he's sometimes editing his own article, something
generally frowned upon, but the edits have been reasonable,
consisting of adding or modifying a source reference for greater
accuracy. He's no longer trying to delete all criticism or insert
unsourced grandiose claims of his own feats, or to get the article
deleted, or threatening legal action. Hence, there seems to be a win-
win situation there; we've got a better article and one fewer people
fighting us, while he's got a better article about himself that he is
apparently satisfied with.
Some of the other cases don't have as satisfactory a resolution; some
of their subjects remain blocked or banned for their activity, and/or
are continuing to agitate against Wikipedia on outside sites.
However, as far as I am aware, none of their legal threats has
resulted in any actual legal action (perhaps Jimbo can correct me on
this if I'm wrong), and all the articles seem reasonable and often
quite favorable to their subjects, even if the subjects themselves
still aren't happy about them.
So we seem to be doing something right; we should all try to stay
calm and follow Jimbo's example.
There *are* some genuine legal, moral, and philosophical issues
raised by these disputes; if something truly harmful (libel, slander,
defamation, invasion of privacy) got into an article (perhaps by a
vandal) and caused actual harm to somebody (not just the mostly
hypothetical scenarios which tend to be spun by our attackers), then
who, if anybody, would be held responsible? How would such a thing
be dealt with, without changing our site's very nature?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
> >Jimbo's plan calls for everyone being able to rate, including
> >not-logged-in users. This will be for test purposes only;
> the ratings
> >from the test phase will be deleted again, once the
> statistics people
> >got their hands on it and can hopefully tell us how to fine-tune the
> >rating process.
> >
> >The "performance hog myth" dates back to the very first
> version. I have
> >worked on the problematic parts and IMHO they should be
> good. I can't
> >be certain without real testing, though. However, I doubt it will
> >degrade performance in the initial phase; if there's a
> problem, it will
> >most likely show once there are at least a few hundred thousand
> >ratings. There will be many write/delete queries on the table, which
> >might lead to table locks; this might be countered with low priority
> >queries, though.
> >
> >Magnus
If testing this new feature does NOT cause the servers to slow down
immediately, then there is no reason not to try it out. Someone had
claimed an immediate TRIPLING of access time, but Magnus says "I doubt
it will degrade performance in the initial phase", and I believe him.
Magnus is one of the three people whom we all trust the most at
Wikipedia. If he says there's no risk in a live test of a new feature,
then I say there's no risk.
Tim Starling, do you agree?
Ed Poor
Former Developer
Hi,
I put "Category:Soviet spies" on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea, since most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep. I objected, but got no response.
-Cberlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Sam Korn
Sent: Mon 11/7/2005 9:34 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies
I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD
I agree that the change needs to be made. Perhaps there can be a
second category for confirmed Soviet spies.
Sam
On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet(a)publiceye.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least one person is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
>
> At best, this should be renamed to something like: "Category:Accused Soviet spies" .
>
> I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter, currently well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_N…
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_N…
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_N…
>
> But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the mediation to hit the year 2006.
>
> Some folks here on this list should consider the possible defmation issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to deal with this on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but misunderstood the process.
>
> I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice, but it cost tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss me out of the case.
>
> Cberlet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi,
Consider the situation from the point of view of a Wiki editor whose entry repeatedly has been attacked and filled with false claims and defamatory text. My real name is Chip Berlet. I discovered my entry after being on Wiki for a short time when I got an e-mail from a reporter asking me why I had hid the fact that I had been a member of SDS, a radical group in the U.S. in the 1960s. I had never been a member of SDS, I responded. It's all over the Internet, he replied.
Sure enough, it was all over the Internet, but is was not true. I tracked it back to an entry made by a LaRouche supporter here on Wiki. I deleted the false information, and was immediately embroiled in a controversy over whether or not it was proper for me to edit my own entry. Forget that the entry was false, and given that I am freelance journalist, potentially defamatory, and certainly something that threatend my ability to earn a living.
Since then, several Wiki editors with whom I have had a disagreement have gone out of their way to add negative text to my entry. Currently, one Wiki editor has added a large amount of false and defamatory material to my entry. This material has appeared on various websites and print publications, but it simply is not true. This editor is also in the middle of a lengthy mediation with me that has been protracted and not to his/her liking. Editing my entry is a form of juvenile retribution.
Am I supposed to publish a printed document refuting false statements plonked onto my entry by cult lunatics, right-wing fanatics, and just plain jerks? Am I supposed to rely on sympathetic and honest Wiki editors who take the time to demand documentation and evidence on my behalf on my entry page? Am I supposed to leave the false and defamatory on my page in the meantime?
Am I pissed off?
YES!
I do not have an answer to these question, but I do know that the typical anarcho-libertarian response that it will all work out in the long run is not very statisfying when someone is filling up your entry with crap.
-Cberlet
aka
Chip Berlet
I've been involved in a pleasant private correspondence with a very
controversial Internet figure who normally writes and works under a
pseudonym. Wikipedia, along with many other outlets including prominent
mainstream media outlets, publishes this person's real name.
I have been asked to remove the real name from the Wikipedia article,
but of course given recent history in which random things I post to the
mailing lists make international headlines :-(, me doing something like
that would likely make his name more known rather than less known.
My correspondent claims that he's gotten death threats at his doorstep
due to people knowing his real name (not necessarily due to our
publishing it, of course).
Nonetheless, my correspondent asks me an interesting question: where do
we draw the line?
As a practical matter, I think what we follow is a non-policy in this
area, that is to say, we follow the same exact policies we follow for
all sorts of information: is it verifiable, is it NPOV?
I am not asking about libel. We must not libel anyone, ever. I am
asking about privacy and respect.
My own opinion is that in most cases we should publish real names if any
mainstream media outlet has done so first. We should not (usually)
regard blogs and hate sites as sufficiently reliable confirmation for
real names. We never post anyone's home address (since this is just
totally unencyclopedic and irrelevant to our mission anyway), though of
course there could be some bizarre exceptions I suppose.
Your thoughts?
--Jimbo