I just thought everyone would like to know:
With Avar's help, I wrote a unix command line script to upload files to
Wikipedia (specifically, it's designed for uploading to commons, but
it's trivial to target it at a different project)
Using wget to fetch whole websites, and oggasm to concode
them into oggs, and the upload script to send them, I've been
using a bot to throw large numbers of files onto commons.
You can see the results from the first run here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound/list (Look for files contributed by Raulbot)
and
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target…
Not bad, huh? :)
A few things though. The next "victim" will be Oyez project, a project
that puts US Supreme Court recordings online. (Like the first site
I harvested, they're CC-by-SA).
I would like to see the upload limit on commons bumped up to 40 megs at least.
It's hard putting an entire SCOTUS argument file into 20 megs.
--Mark
After reading the various opinions expressed here about how to deal with
the small number of controversial articles which -- sadly -- are in
perpetual turmoil, I've distilled what appear to be some points of
agreement, & offer the following proposal based on them. If enough peole
agree it is a step in the right direction, & the ideas outweigh
tendency for being long-winded, I'll add it to the appropriate spot on
Wikiepdia for proper consideration. (Not sure where that is, but as I
said, if this is an intelligent idea, I'm sure someone who does know will
help.)
Geoff
==A new category [[Category:lack of wikilove]] ==
I've selected this title because the problem articles aren't as much over
the facts, but because the editors involved lack consideration for one
another. I've set forth several proposed rules of varying detail, with my
explanations set forth in the paragraphs after the rule.
1. The procedure to put an article in [[Category: lack of wikilove]] must
be simple and allow itself to quick application.
I have no clear idea of how to do this. The procedure for VfD -- setting a
period of 7 days to vote -- would take too long to successfully impliment.
So would delegating this task solely to the ArbCom (although I feel they
should have the power to place any article in this category if they
believe the situation requires it). Allowing anyone (or even only admins)
to slap this tag on articles lends itself to abuses & problems about as
bad as it hopes to solve. The only point I would insist on for tagging
articles is the next one:
2. An article may only be placed in this category if it has already been
marked as being fought over -- e.g. marked with {{NPOV}} or {{disputed}}.
Once an article is so marked, in addition to all existing rules of conduct
the following is observed:
3. To make any non-trivial edit (correct typos, spelling, minor points of
grammar), an editor must first make an appropriate comment explaining the
edit on the talk page.
This seems to be in harmony with some of the opinions expressed here: not
only does it force the editors of this article to talk to each other, it
forces all sides to slow down.
By the word "appropriate", I mean to include at least the following:
* It is not obvious gibberish -- i.e. adding things like "alksfgh" or "I
like apple pie"
* It contributes to the flow of the discussion -- e.g. keeps from making
entries like: "This is the correct view" or "I have to type something so
here it is".
4. All assertions of fact must be properly documented. If another editor
cannot confirm the citation is correct, that editor may correct or remove
the statement and the first cannot revert the deletion. However, if a
third editor can confirm that the original statement was correct, then the
first statement may be restored unchanged, and the second editor may not
revert it.
This one gets a bit tricky. In effect, the intent here is to push hostile
parties with opposing views to cite their sources, both correctly &
usefully -- and to avoid bickering of the "This is true" - "No it isn't"
sort. If an editor fabricates a citation, this allows another editor to
remove it; if the next editor has lied about the source being invented,
then it can be restored.
However, this admittedly moves the battle of wills into a new area:
instead of bickering over whether or not something is true, editors can
now bicker over whether or not an authority actually wrote something or
not. Hopefully, were this to happen, disinterested parties can
independently check citations, determine with a minimum of confusion which
side has resorted to lying, & act appropriately. And the requirement that
all edits be accompanied with comments on the Talk page will slow things
down. If not, then we turn to this:
5. Administrators are given full discretion in enforcing these points for
articles so marked -- only as long as they have not made any edits to the
article.
In short, if two vicious factions have made a battlefield out of an
article, they can expect to get clobbered. One possible amendment to this
point would be to make violation of these rules subject to immediate bans
for more than 24 hours.
6. The article can only be removed from the category after an extended
vote with a minimum number and share of yes votes.
No fair gaming the system to get an article out of this category when it
works to your advantage. The editors who made a mess of an article have to
convince a lot of people that they now can exchange Wikilove while working
on this subject.
F L wrote:
>I'm a graduate student at the University of Michigan
>School of Information (and also an admin at Wikipedia,
>username Ffirehorse). I'm considering a long research
>paper on the dynamics of community at Wikipedia for a
>class on online communities that I'm taking this term.
>
>
>My question is about protocol, and the reason I'm
>asking it is because I'm not having much success in
>locating on Wikimedia or Wikipedia any policy or
>guidelines on how to approach the community in terms
>of consent. Would a community-wide announcement be
>sufficient? As someone who is already a member of the
>community, while I'm doing the research, would it be
>advisable to post some sort of note on my user page
>that I'm also conducting research?
>
>Or is the sort of activity that I'm proposing (i.e.,
>researching Wikipedia while also contributing as a
>member) generally frowned upon? If so, I will drop the
>idea without hesitation.
>
>The research I'm considering would be in the form of
>unobtrusive observation of norms, practices, routines,
>and other forms of community-forming activity on
>Wikipedia, and would not likely involve any direct
>interaction with Wikipedia users. I'd be happy to go
>into further detail about the specifics if need be.
>
>Any guidance/feedback would be appreciated.
>
>
I'm not sure what kind of consent you're concerned about, but I would
think that for research purposes, Wikipedia is pretty clearly a public
arena that can be researched freely. Research about Wikipedia is
certainly permitted, I would even say encouraged. There's even a
fledgling WikiProject devoted to the idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikidemia
Researching while being a Wikipedia editor is not a concern, as long as
your edits are legitimately focused on Wikipedia goals, and not designed
to conduct a test or prove a point. A typical problem is people
vandalizing articles to see how quickly the vandalism gets removed.
Research by observation should be fine.
If you want to disclose on your user page that you're conducting
research, you can invite anyone who has questions to contact you on your
talk page. Also, if you let us know the results of your research, I'm
sure that would be greatly appreciated.
--Michael Snow
Thanx, there were some subleties that I did not get from my own perusal, such as how to get those pages that have the "Related changes" options in the toolbox section of the left panel. It appears they occur automatically when one creates a username/pagename.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
> > Interesting, can anyone create a watch list like this? Is there
> > documentation of how?
>
> Yes, anybody can do it, You can have as many different lists as you like,
> too. I have put some articles that I've removed from my Wikipedia
> Watchlist into a page called [[User:Tony Sidaway/Watched]]. It's just a
> list of wikilinks to the articles. A button on my user page contains a
> link to the following URL, and I just click the button to see recent
> changes to articles on the list:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Tony_Sidaway/…
> This enables me to have a relatively small Wikipedia watchlist for
> day-to-day use but still oversee many articles via a list that I check
> from time to time.
> On thing to watch for is that if you insert images or categories into this
> list make sure you put a colon before "image:" or "category:", otherwise
> the image will appear in the watchlist (and not just a link) or the
> watchlist will be added to the category (again, not just a link).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Interesting, can anyone create a watch list like this? Is there documentation of how?
BTW, you might want to add [[neoconservatism]] to the list. I had to clean up a lot of Jewish conspiracy bias awhile ago. What remains is well contained and put in perspective. The opposition I encountered yielded to wiki standards quite reasonably however, so it may not have been them.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&targe…
Done, I figured out the watchlist thing and added [[Neoconservatism (United States]] myself. Like a lot of wiki it was pretty easy to figure out, almost self documenting. Pretty neat. -- thanx, Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
> Interesting, can anyone create a watch list like this? Is there documentation
> of how?
>
> BTW, you might want to add [[neoconservatism]] to the list. I had to clean up a
> lot of Jewish conspiracy bias awhile ago. What remains is well contained and
> put in perspective. The opposition I encountered yielded to wiki standards
> quite reasonably however, so it may not have been them.
Hi,
I am assuming you are concerned with the ethics of disclosure of scholarly observation. By posting your question to this list and adding a note to your user page you have probably done most of the task, but an additional notice to some more public place on Wikipedia would probably be a good idea for any defense of procedure to a committee.
For others offering advice, the key here is that the Wikipedia community as a whole needs to have a reasonable ability to learn of the observation, which gives them the option of non-participation (in theory by not posting). Just because Wikipedia is a public exercise may not meet the requirements that a university committee responsible for checking research ethics would find appropriate. There has to be a good faith effort at notice (which is just what Frank Lester is trying to establish!).
:-)
-Chip Berlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of F L
Sent: Wed 2/9/2005 10:01 PM
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Question about researching Wikipedia
I'm a graduate student at the University of Michigan
School of Information (and also an admin at Wikipedia,
username Ffirehorse). I'm considering a long research
paper on the dynamics of community at Wikipedia for a
class on online communities that I'm taking this term.
My question is about protocol, and the reason I'm
asking it is because I'm not having much success in
locating on Wikimedia or Wikipedia any policy or
guidelines on how to approach the community in terms
of consent. Would a community-wide announcement be
sufficient? As someone who is already a member of the
community, while I'm doing the research, would it be
advisable to post some sort of note on my user page
that I'm also conducting research?
Or is the sort of activity that I'm proposing (i.e.,
researching Wikipedia while also contributing as a
member) generally frowned upon? If so, I will drop the
idea without hesitation.
The research I'm considering would be in the form of
unobtrusive observation of norms, practices, routines,
and other forms of community-forming activity on
Wikipedia, and would not likely involve any direct
interaction with Wikipedia users. I'd be happy to go
into further detail about the specifics if need be.
Any guidance/feedback would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Frank Lester
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm a graduate student at the University of Michigan
School of Information (and also an admin at Wikipedia,
username Ffirehorse). I'm considering a long research
paper on the dynamics of community at Wikipedia for a
class on online communities that I'm taking this term.
My question is about protocol, and the reason I'm
asking it is because I'm not having much success in
locating on Wikimedia or Wikipedia any policy or
guidelines on how to approach the community in terms
of consent. Would a community-wide announcement be
sufficient? As someone who is already a member of the
community, while I'm doing the research, would it be
advisable to post some sort of note on my user page
that I'm also conducting research?
Or is the sort of activity that I'm proposing (i.e.,
researching Wikipedia while also contributing as a
member) generally frowned upon? If so, I will drop the
idea without hesitation.
The research I'm considering would be in the form of
unobtrusive observation of norms, practices, routines,
and other forms of community-forming activity on
Wikipedia, and would not likely involve any direct
interaction with Wikipedia users. I'd be happy to go
into further detail about the specifics if need be.
Any guidance/feedback would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Frank Lester
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
Frank -
People write papers about Wikipedia all the time. Andrew Lih
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fuzheado) is
a journalism professor and has published quite a bit. Since most everything
is (intentionally) all done in the open,
I don't really think you need consent from anyone, although you might want
to refrain from using anyone's real-life
name.
--Mark (Raul654)