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/
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
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
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?
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
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
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)
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. 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/
