WikiEN-l December 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

192 participants
299 discussions

Re: About our disclaimer and what I wish...
by Ryan W. (Merovingian) 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

I guess that means they're no better/worse than us. --Ryan > From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] About our disclaimer and what I wish... > To: wikien-l(a)wikimedia.org > Message-ID: <43959FD4.3030400(a)wikia.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > "Now, you do have a general disclaimer on the site, it says that > Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here, > none of the authors, contributors, or anyone else connected with > Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of > any inaccurate or libellous information." - Kyra Phillips, talking to me > on CNN > > I wish my response could have been: > > "Yes, Kyra, and let me read you the disclaimer from _your_ website: > NEITHER CNN, ITS AFFILIATES NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, > AGENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT CNN > INTERACTIVE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; NOR DO THEY MAKE ANY > WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM USE OF CNN > INTERACTIVE, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY OR CONTENT OF ANY > INFORMATION, SERVICE, OR MERCHANDISE PROVIDED THROUGH CNN INTERACTIVE." > > But I didn't have that handy. > > --Jimbo "I've been hung by my heels, set on fire, handcuffed... that part was okay." -- ___________________________________________________ Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/

1 0

The Wiki meritocracy
by J.F. de Wolff 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

Wikipedia is not wiki. Indeed it is not. It is not a wiki like usemod and Ward's wiki etc. It has ceased being egalitarian. The reason is: because it is an encyclopedia. It aims at being an encyclopedia, not just a collection of information for everyone to wade through without any moderation, guidelines, structure or policy. A corrolary of this striving towards higher quality articles is the meritocracy that comes with it. Admins are awarded their adminship for various reasons, but people with a low edit count and no good article namespace work need not apply. Some people feel that one can only become an admin after coaching an article succesfully through the process obtaining featured status. The present system of conflict resolution is officially egalitarian. If I protect an article I've been edit warring on, reverted four times and then unblocked myself, blocked an abusive troll that had been attacking me, I can expect an RFC and some nasty shouting at. Good thing too. It avoids abuse of power. However, whenever admins seem to be favoured (or supportive of each other) in the conflict resolution process, there is tut-tutting, screaming of "tag teaming". There are meat puppets. There is a clique, a cabal, an underground right/left/chicken wing conspiracy to rule Wikipedia, etcetera. Still, it's very simple. Wikipedia has become a meritocracy. Those with the patience to revert vandalism, explain NPOV to newbies, NOR to partisans, CITE to creative souls, conflict resolution and 3RR to edit warriors... they will be attacked but most of them seem to survive. Editcountitis. Yes. Deep jealousy of Olivier, SimonP, Bryan Derksen and the tangibly absent Derek Ramsey. Because in the end the main aim of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia. Neutral. Verifiable. Referenced. Coming to a mirror near you. Jfdwolff -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 02/12/2005

6 7

NPOV trainwreck
by Sam Spade 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_… The appointed arbiters don't seem to be working out, place have a look at their handiwork. Note the lack of recusals, and near perpetual conflicts of interest. Note the political railroading of a handful of "rightwingers" on trumped up conspiracy charges. Look at the ability of an editor who barely warrants an article to cite himself, and enforce his blatantly biased POV w impunity, due to friends in the right places. It is a caricature of wikipedia at its worst. Sam Spade

7 27

yet another image lost for posterity
by Anthere 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=SablePl… yet another image deleted *without any personal warning to the uploader *even though it was uploaded before the tags ever existed... I find that pityful. Really pityful. Really really pityful. Ant

25 100

If in doubt, don't delete
by Tony Sidaway 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

The belief that certain verifiable, neutral, or potentially verifiable and neutral, articles must be deleted from wikipedia is one of the most seductive, most destructive siren calls on Wikipedia. All that stands in its way is the principle that we actually need a concrete reason to delete something: if in doubt, don't delete. There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to sideline it as a historical curiosity. Please let us keep this. We don't delete stuff unless we have a bloody good reason to do so. Otherwise what's the point?

4 6

A bold fix needed to the "omg backlog" problem
by Alex Schenck 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

I will copy what I wrote to David here... That's right! I want to ask for your opinion here. I was feeling brave this morning and decided to see if I could make a dent in Category:Wikipedia backlog<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog>. After looking at about 25 articles with the wikification tag attached to them, and being so disgusted with the lot as to be unable to make a *single* change, something major hit me. We need to, as one might say, flush the crap down the toilet. Allow me to explain. A LOT of the articles in Category:Articles that need to be wikified<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified>are so poorly written and so obscure that they have *no possible use, worth or value to anyone!* Jimbo himself made it clear in that interview that although Wikipedia does have some gems of articles (ie our Featured Articles), there is a rather poor signal to noise ratio. We all know that backlogs need to be cleared out, but no one is going to be able to do it without a.) time that reaches beyond time itself, b.) unlimited patience and c.) endless knowledge. In other words, to clear out the backlogs would be akin to an act of God. I know you know what I'm thinking, David. I want to nuke a ton of articles in the backlog. Things like this<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_the_Aged>may have a place on Wikipedia, but *not* in their current form. If these things are important enough, they can be tagged as such and someone can be given it to work with. But I want to delete a lot of articles. I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from other users concerning this. They will kneejerk to "OMG ABUSIVE ADMIN LALALALLA" and "DELETIONIST! OMG DELETIONIST!". But, we *need* to do something about the absolutely wretched backlogs. Get back to me on this. Thanks. Alex Schenck<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Linuxbeak>(that's Linuxbeak <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Linuxbeak> to you) 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Now, with that said, I need feedback. Please provide. --Linuxbeak

11 24

Re: The Wiki meritocracy
by J.F. de Wolff 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

Sam Spade wrote: >Are you saying that now that I have a F.A. I have a chance to become an admin? > >Sam Spade I was simply echoing sentiments about what constitutes admin material. I was not suggesting that this is valid, nor was I suggesting that everyone who has created a WP:FA should automatically become an admin. Jfdwolff -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 02/12/2005

1 0

The difficulty of retaining volunteer writers
by Poor, Edmund W 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

SlimVirgin is about to leave, and Essjay has already left. And I'm so upset by recent events that I'm poised on the brink, too. It seems the only way to deal with breakdowns in collegiality is simply to leave - or say you're considering it. The emotional cost - not to mention the time cost - of stopping a fellow contributor from directing abusive language at another contributor has always been rather high, but it has reached a new high of late. By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the arbitration committee. I am told that I must say something in MY DEFENSE, with dark hints of un-mentioned adverse consequences to me if I just leave it alone. It's just too much trouble to sift through FuelWagon's 2000+ word statement (which should only be 500, by the way). He made a personal attack, I blocked his account for 3 hours. No one has told me (by email, IRC, or wiki talk page) that I have done wrong in this. And yet I feel embattled. I'm labeled the bad guy. This is not an environment conducive to collaboration, and I am reminded of what Yogi Berra said: "If people want to stay away from the ballpark, you can't make them." For those unfamiliar with Yogi-isms, this translates to thousands of potential contributors simply staying away from Wikipedia. Not because it's hard to edit, but because it's hard to defend the edit. Not because it's hard to discuss topic "whatever", but because it's hard to endure the name-calling, humiliation and accusation on [[talk:whatever]]. Perhaps I've been too bold in trying to take matters into my own hands. So be it. I'm a dinosaur, I'm not scaling with the project. Okay. Fine. I'll do whatever I'm told. Ask mav: if I'm told what to do, I do it. So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us? Ed Poor (in exile)

14 24

RE: [WikiEN-l] NPOV trainwreck
by Chip Berlet 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

Asking that people look into and comment on the arbitration is appropriate. Bringing the arbitration issues here, and expanding them to content disputes, is not. I have already agreed to stop all edits on Wikipedia until the arbitration is over--relying solely on a few discussion page comments when I feel it is important. Obviously I disagree with the way Sam Spade presents the matter, but this is simply not the place to have the conversation. I note only that Fred Bauder and I MAY have had a brief conversation many years ago. Maybe not. That we both once belonged to the same national organization with thousands of members, is hardly significant. For details, by all means visit the arbitration and make comments. Cberlet ________________________________ From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Sam Spade Sent: Mon 12/5/2005 10:59 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV trainwreck I'm sorry to say, you appear to be making my case "you can't legitimately argue about something you can't or won't look at." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Cberlets_POV_forks_.2F_incivility http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARight-wing_politics&diff=2… When asked for cites, I provided them. They were of course ignored. I didn't ignore Cberlets cites, I explained to him that by his own words, they failed to justify his claims. Even if I lived in NYC and had access to every book he mentions, I only have so much time in the day. I assume good faith regarding his excerpts and such, but he never claimed evidence that [[Extreme right]] is different enough a term, w a specific enough a meaning to justify a fork from far-right. As far as Nobs, I have gotten to know him by email due to this case. He is a man w a legitimate vendetta against Cberlet. He feels Cberlet is guilty of treason and complicit in murder, based on his work with the Covert Action Information Bulletin outing of CIA agents (some of whom were killed shortly thereafter). I think Nobs could have been made less angry, and less a threat to Chip Berlet by a fair hearing on the wikipedia. I get the impression he will be spending the time he used to spend editing exposing Chip's objectionable past, attempting to have him audited and etc... A different sort of trial might have had a more calming effect. Nobs is not concerned about wiki-verdicts against him, but would likely have responded better to a different approach. I, for my part, made an error on Political correctness. I didn't understand that this error had occurred until just recently, because it had never been properly explained to me. Apparently after having read and cited William Lind, I inadvertently quoted him without clear attribution in the 1st sentence of [[Political correctness]]. That was unfortunate, but not in my opinion ''as'' unfortunate as the incoherent and unhelpful way it was responded to. The matter is a complex one, w many easily misunderstood subtleties. I am also willing to admit that at least one of my statements to Cberlet was incivil. I insist however that these minor infractions (out of some 30,000 edits on my part) are not notable enough for a RfC, much less ArbCom censure. Additionally, they wither before the scale of Cberlets POV pushing, ignoral of consensus, and incivility (he has personal attacks less than a week old). I am not saying he should be "more" NPOV than me (lol!), I am saying he should obey the NPOV policy! Please, ArbCom, review the evidence and rethink your results. This purging of the "right wingers" is not what the ArbCom is for. I understand Cberlet is your friend and colleague, but for the sake of integrity, please hold us to the same standard. Sam Spade On 12/5/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: > You need to look no further then Talk;Chip Berlet and User:Nobs01 to > see that Nobs01 is not being railroaded but being sanctioned for > personal attacks. Talk:Chip Berlet has been spammed with a large > volume of material regarding other people and other activities based > on Chip's membership in the National Lawyer's Guild. It is like > blaming any one who is a member of the Democratic Party for Clinton's > sex adventures. User:Nobs01 starts off: "The Extremist Personality" > then proceeds to link the "twenty-two common traits of extremists" to > edits of Cerlet. The policy of the arbitration committee is not to > carefully investigate the truth of personal attacks but to sanction > the attacker. The reason a lengthy ban is proposed in the case of > Nobs01 is that when it seemed he would be sanctioned with a one month > ban for one attack he responded with another lengthy attack. > > No one is giving authority to Cberlet to make thing ups and then cite > them. He would probably be wise not to cite himself extensively, but > anyone else is free to, as in a limited area, right wing and > totalitarian movements in the United States, he is a generally > recognized expert. > > As to the article, Chip Berlet: he has been criticized, for example > by David Horowitz, and under our NPOV policy, reports of those > criticism may be legitimately included in the article on him. > Deciding what criticisms and how extensive they ought to be is up to > the normal editing process. > > Chip Berlet is no more neutral than Sam Spade and he need not be. As > a Wikipedia editor the requirement is that he respect our policies > and abide by them which he more or less does. > > He did initiate the arbitration case, but that is trouble which we > welcome as opposed to endless edit warring and personal attacks. When > his claims were investigated, we found no conspiracy but a lot of > piling on by various POV editors with a right wing perspective. > Looked at individually, they were engaged in a number of combative > activities which are mentioned in the proposed decision. Sam Spade, > for example, seems to not have access to adequate sources but is > inclined to argue about the sufficiency of sources put forward by > others. This is a dead end because you can't legitimately argue about > something you can't or won't look at. > > Fred > > On Dec 4, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Sam Spade wrote: > > > The results are one sided. There is a mountain of evidence. Nobs is > > being railroaded, and Cberlet appears about to be given authority to > > cite himself whenever and wherever he might find an opinion, based on > > his "expert" status. I don't contest that he merits an article (altho > > it is a bit of a resume), but I do contest his neutrality and range of > > expertise. That, combined w the mountains of evidence against him and > > the conflict he has fostered (5 people he rounded up and shoved > > together just in this one case!) should provide all the proof you need > > of the difficulty he presents. > > > > Sam Spade > > > > On 12/4/05, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> From what I can see, the arbitrators are doing quite well with a > >>> difficult case. > >>> > >> > >> -Matt > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] David Hager is listed as convicted rapist
by Fl Celloguy 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

>1. Was this information spread to other web sites like Answers.com? Who do >I ask >to find out? Answers.com and other forks and mirrors don't update that often, if I am correct. It is highly unlikely that information that stayed there for only a few hours would be copied. To find out, you could check out Answers.com - I highly doubt that the information has been copied given its relatively short amount of time on Wikipedia. >2. Do we all agree that this is a BIG problem. Can you imagine what would >happen >if another major media source published Hager’s name on a list of >convicted >rapists? I agre with you that this is a problem that we need to address sooner or later. The use of Wikipedia for slander, libel, or political reasons is huge, as evidenced both by the John Seigenthaler Sr. case and the German Wikipedia's polticial articles. >2. How do I (hopefully, we) stop this unregistered user (or any other) from >doing this again? Being very, very generous, I will assume this was an >isolated >incidence of poor judgment. This doesn't change the fact that this libelous >misinformation appeared in OUR encyclopedia. Shouldn't this be question number three, by the way? :-) There's really no way to stop it except to keep a watch on the article and on the user's contributions. If s/he has a pattern of adding misleading information, you may wish to warn him about citing sources and verifiability. If he persists, a block may be needed. >3. I can‘t unring this bell. The Wikipedia article is listed 6 in an >Yahoo >search of the words David Hager. Being a registered user, I will be >associated >with this article forever. While, an unregistered user can damage >Wikipedia, >Hager, and me. True; this should only make us more vigilant and aware of the people who strive to manipulate Wikipedia. >Immediate solution? Ask everyone here to put his name on your watch list. >Long term solution?……. Sorry, can't read your proposed long-term solution. Short-term solution, as you state - be more vigilant and aware. 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/

3 2

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l December 2005