Folks,
Please see a Google news alert on recent stories featuring Wikipedia. The
Mail and Guardian article from South Africa relating to articles relevant to
that country is particularly interesting.
The original article is here (
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=255920&area=/insight/insight…)
Our rugby articles were rated 10 out of 10 while our Media in South Africa
article performed poorly rating 2 out of 10.
Regards.
*Keith Old
*
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply(a)google.com>
Date: Nov 16, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: Google Alert - Wikipedia
To: keithold(a)gmail.com
Google Alert for: *Wikipedia*
*Wikipedia* springs into action after M&G Online
article<http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=256607&area=/insight/insight…>
Mail & Guardian Online - Johannesburg,South Africa
Wikipedians have taken to heart the Mail & Guardian Online's recent article
"Can you trust *Wikipedia*?" (November 10), which evaluated the quality of
entries on *...*
Wiki news: Of the people by the
people<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5953168.html>
ZDNet - USA
*...* Wikis began in various forms, but it was the online encyclopedia known
as *Wikipedia* that propelled the concept into the popular consciousness. *
...*
------------------------------
This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.
Remove <http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?s=9a4f2425fa5d9963&hl=en> this
alert.
Create <http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en> another alert.
Manage <http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en> your alerts.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:
>>The validation system will, no doubt, suffer from two "flaws" in the
>>regard of offering reliability:
>>1. Anyone (at least, anyone with a username, if we turn off anons) can
>>"validate"
> Reads outnumber edits at least 200 to 1. Thus there is a HUGE potential
> resource of readers we can draw on to validate articles. I therefore think that
> when/if this feature goes live it should allow anon validation.
Absolutely. Remember, we're just gathering the data at this stage, so we
don't want to restrict the pool unnecessarily. We can decide what
applications make sense later. We'd probably separate the anon responses
from the logged-in responses, but the anon responses are the reading
public who made us top-40.
> But validators
> should also be able to rate the ratings of others (ala 'did you find this
> rating useful'). I also assume that comments will be collected. If problems
> arise, we could implement a trust matrix system for validators (anons could be
> nothing more than lowest rated though; their only effect would be in numbers).
Nice idea - please put a note on [[m:Article validation possible
problems]] :-)
>>2. Validations will have to be interpreted to simplify them to a
>>good/suspicious/bad rating
> A simple star system for a few different areas:
> 1) Completeness
> 2) Accuracy
> 3) Readability
The current [[m:En validation topics]] is reminiscent of the
[[:en:Oxford Capacity Analysis]] ... but I'm sure the
number of questions can be cut for the next round, seeing which ones
actually get responses usably.
>>There is a radical alternative, which I have begun to code a few weeks
>>ago. It alters a MediaWiki installation to "import-only", replacing
>>editing with an import function for an article version from wikipedia.
>>As the imported articles are not editable at all, they do not represent
>>a fork, merely a static wikipedia snapshot, alas per article and not for
>>the whole wikipedia. Such a system would allow imports only for
>>logged-in users, and be invite-only.
> Logged-in users should only be able to import the highest-rated version of
> articles that have at least x number of validations. That would negate the need
> to create a new user class. But if/when that is abused, then we may need to use
> a trust matrix system for users and only allow trusted users to import
> validated article versions. A hack would be to add a new user class and an
> admin-like community approval process. But I don't think that will scale fast
> enough.
This is a bit like [[:en:Wikipedia:Good articles]]. Such a read-only
wiki (if that's not too oxymoronic) would be a good place to put the
stable "1.0" version.
>>Individuals could then chose which "issue" to read, and mirrors could
>>decide if they want to go for "slow quality" or "fast unreliability"...
> Heck - why not just automatically add a prominent link at the top of each page
> that says 'Read the highest-rated version of this article' and mark those
> versions in the database so mirrors can choose to just display those versions?
> Then there would be no need for manual import. But it still may be a good idea
> to have trusted humans doing final reviews of reader-validated content.
I'm beginning to think we need to start [[m:Article validation possible
applications]] - or you could go now and do so, starting with the above!
> Either way works for me so long as the most up-to-date version of articles are
> displayed by default (as is now the case). Logged-in users should be able to
> change their preferences so they only see the highest rated version of articles
> if available.
This is similar to the 10-minute delay idea - where logged-in users get
the current version (with goatse, MR HENDERSON IS GAY, etc) and anons
get the delayed version.
>>Yes, a few people (compared to Wikipedia editors) will take a long time
>>to check/fix/import all Wikipedia articles. Also, the imported versions
>>will soon be outdated compared to Wikipedia. So what? This site will be
>>for reliability; Wikipedia is for development and current events coverage.
> A validation feature could feed an import queue: Article versions that reach a
> certain rating threshold could go into an RC-like list. Then a group of
> logged-in users check the queue and give the final go ahead for that article
> version to be marked as the 'Highest rated version' for that article.
Please add to [[m:Article validation possible applications]]!
>>I would see such a site working in parallel to the validation feature.
>>Some might argue that this would "split out forces", with some people
>>validating and some importing. OTOH, a little friendly compedition might
>>do good for motivation.
> Readers validate and editors import. I don't see how that is splitting out
> forces when readers do so little as is.
Volunteers will do what they damn well please. More things to do is not
a problem - the volunteers will choose to do whatever interests them
and/or they feel is important.
>>Lastly, there is one major reason to deploy such a site: Because it will
>>undoubtedly be deployed, by someone, sooner or later; I'd rather it's us
>>doing it than some company.
> I completely agree. We need to control this.
I think we'll do fine *if* we continue to do what makes sense for the
wiki, the community and the resulting article base without being spooked
by our popularity.
[wikien-l added back to cc:]
- d.
On 11/17/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I will simply re-iterate that there are far more seriously damaging and
> "poisonous" things happening on Wikipedia, and they are related to
> extremely
> weak dispute resolution mechanisms.
>
> Jay.
>
>
This is so true, Jay. We squander huge amounts of time and energy dealing
with disputes. Do you have any suggestions to improve our dispute resolution
mechanisms?
Ok, here is my suggestion. This is a stratagy for dealing with disruptive
editors who might turn into good contributers if treated right.
First, a simple example;
1) Newbi is a disruptive moron, HardAss(admin) gives him simple clear
instructions on how not to be disruptive moron, once.
2) Newbi replies to HardAss(admin); "Fuck You", and continues to disrupt.
3) HardAss blocks Newbi and gives another short, clear lecture on how to
behave
4) Newbi replies by spitting venom and calling for justice over his violated
civil rights.
5) Cycle repeats, escalating each time in the tone of rhetoric and length of
blocks.
6) Along comes NiceGuy(admin) who sticks up for Newbi, telling him
"..listen, I will unblock you, but you gotta do x,y and z..." Thereby
supplying a face saving mechanism for Newbi.
7) Newbi either starts to behave, or gets blocked for longer and longer
periods
The most common mistake made implementing this strategy is that NiceGuy is
overly critical of HardAss, not realising that his mentorship of Newbi won't
work without the threat of HardAss looming. Likewise, HardAss often takes it
personally when NiceGuy unblocks someone, not realising it as a face saving
feature that allows Newbi to behave.
Variation- If Newbi(moron) fails to respond to the first NiceGuy, then both
admins proceed to wail on him with a clue stick, until HiceGuy2 comes along
:|| (repeat as needed).
Some of the nice things about this strategy are;
*Self checking (admins constantly are reviewing each other during
implementation)
*If done right, Newbi receives repeated, clear instruction on behavior,
backed up with blocks
*The more idiotic the Newbi, the more effective this strategy
*There is room for lots of different authoritarian/mentorship roles here
*It can really be fun when done right
see also; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop_bad_cop
Happy Thanksgiving!
> I am responding to nobody in particular, because there's such a wide
> variety of hysteria to respond to that I can barely choose.
>
> The objection that Seigenthaler is having to Wikipedia is not
> even to
> the process or to the speed at which we fix vandalism. It is not to
> our current quality, it is not to anything fixable.
>
> The fundamental objection that Seigenthaler has is that we allow
> people to post freely. His objection is to the belief that we ought
> not carefully monitor our users and that we ought avoid turning them
> in to the legal authorities in a dispute. His assumption that the
> article was posted by a vandal is dodgy at best - I would be shocked
> if he were not the subject of some conspiracy theory or another, and
> if whoever posted the article were anything more than a particularly
> stupid POV pusher. If Wikipedia were to in any way assist with
> turning a mere stupid POV pusher in to legal authorities, I know my
> support for the site would drop off swiftly.
>
> The entire goal of this project is freedom and openness. That opens
> us to stupidity, and we have an obligation to deal with the
> stupidity. And if Seigenthaler wanted to criticize us for our
> failings in reverting this stupidity and to the process that let it
> sit there for 153 days, he'd be right. But to criticize us for being
> open and free in the first place is not a problem we can or should
> fix. And to my mind, it is a problem that puts Seigenthaler so far
> outside of any of the core beliefs of this project that the point is
> only narrowly worth debating.
>
> A final comment - we have been adamant and active about finding ways
> for our Chinese contributors to participate even as their government
> tries to shut them down. On what possible grounds can we even
> consider acquiescing to an argument that amounts to "It should be
> easier to sue if I don't like my Wikipedia article." Think of what
> would have happened in the Bogdanov Affair, or with John Byrne, or
> with dozens of other cases if what Seigenthaler were calling
> for were
> to come true.
>
> -Phil
Agree 100% with both points:
1. We should not help people punish stupid or POV-pushing contributors.
2. We should facilitate contributions from (and access by) people
suffering under dictorial regimes which censor "anti-government" POV.
Ed Poor
Hi all,
It's been one month since Jimbo Wales edited the Arbitration Committee
elections page for this December (now just a few days away) to change
the procedure, adding some brainstormed thoughts. Those thoughts are
still all the information we have on the procedure, and we're almost in
December.
A number of potential candidates have said they don't wish to put their
name forwards if they don't know the election procedure, yet recently a
member of the current Arbitration Committee said that all Wikipedians
wishing to become arbitrators should put their name forwards immediately.
This is really a terrible state of affairs for a number of reasons:
Firstly, we have no idea how the new Arbitration Committee is going to
become the new Arbitration Committee at all. Not even the current
arbitrators say they know how it's going to be done.
Secondly, it has been almost a year since the last elections, and there
has been plenty of community discussion about what was good and bad
about the procedure, and action has been taken on this by the community
(for example, the deletion of the endorsements/disendorsements page).
Thirdly, Jimbo has been deathly quiet. These are probably the most
important positions in the Wikipedia community and the process deserves
to be discussed openly. Yet all we've seen are some brief thoughts from
Jimbo. He hasn't responded to other suggestions or to criticism of his
thinking.
Come on Jimbo, sort it out! It's been almost a year since the last
elections, there has been plenty of discussion from the community
(including the current arbitrators) on reform of the system, but all
we've heard from you is a "current line of thinking". Yes, we know you
have other things to do, such as the incredibly important role of
getting funding. However, the encyclopaedia project relies on its
community to exist and we have to get this right. Please join in the
discussion and make your thoughts clear.
Chris
Does anyone here subscribe to USA Today? If so, would anyone be willing to
write a letter to the editor expressing our apologies and highlighting our
strenths? (Quite frankly, I would also be outraged if I stumbled upon
blatantly incorrect and misleading information on Wikipedia.)
Thanks.
Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Keith and Fred are both suggesting things that make Wiki not Wiki,
but would work for a free online encyclopedia in the long run. Do we
want anonymous editors spamming their URLs all over, or writing
"poop" or "Andrew is gay" in major pages? It's not wiki to lock them
out, but we're writing an encyclopedia.
I have recently seen numerous instances where anonymous editors have
removed vandalism, often within 30 minutes (or even quicker) on pages
that are not especially popular. This means several things. This
means anons can contribute very constructively, but it also means
that our traffic has reached the point that pages are served so
often. I wouldn't expect every visitor to correct the vandalism
(figure of 1:6 comes to mind). Therefore, every epidosde of vandalism
is witnessed by countless visitors until a kind soul picks it off,
either through RC patrol, a Wikipedian with the article on his/her
watchlist, or said anonymous saint.
Fred is suggesting a para-wiki where arcticles are fact-checked
before they go live. I would like to propose that as soon as an
article reaches featured article status, it is semi-protected. Only
registered users (or even registered users with a good track record)
can edit those pages. Changes can be proposed on talk by anons and
then be effectuated by registered users. This will put an editing
funnel on our most prized content.
Jfdwolff
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/188 - Release Date: 29/11/2005
On 11/30/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
> This case Slim Virgin mentions is in arbitration now and a blatant
> example of gaming Google by associating the name of the person with a
> lot of accusations he has only a marginal connection with ...
> At a minimum we need to not allow Google to index our talk pages. We
> talk about a lot of things. They may be about information but they
> are not encyclopedic.
Fred, the case I was referring to isn't the one that's in arbitration,
though I know the one you mean, and it's quite similar. I'm starting
to wonder whether this is happening a lot: that troublemakers see our
talk pages as a sort of Trojan horse. They pretend to be having an
innocent conversation designed to sort out the good from the bad
material, whereas in fact the discussion is only a vehicle being used
to spread the bad stuff, which they know won't survive in our
articles.
Sarah
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be, like, into this
'freedom of information thing,' (and stuff) and, like,
that includes our friends even in the UK, who arent
used to like, living under freedom (and stuff)...
I thought it might not be out of our mandate to put
this little image (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illpublish.png ) on
the front page. Maybe even at Wikisource! (Im sure
somebody here is an admin there. Ive only got my meta
priveleges left now - snif!). The image is a little
white box that says "Ill publish the Al Jazeera memo."
It may or may not be linked to the Blairwatch.org
site.
Anyway, though it might, like, be cheezy to stand up
for freedom of information (and stuff) though. Plus,
that might violate Wikisource's NOR policy.
Stevertigo
Confused: Is it still called 'Valspeak'
when a guy uses it?
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
