WikiEN-l March 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

122 participants
422 discussions

Bug in Wikipedia
by csherlock＠ljh.com.au 18 Mar '05

18 Mar '05

It appears someone has found a bug in our software. They put in #redirect [[de:en:Goatse.cx]] and this redirects to Goatse WITHOUT the redirect link appearing at the top. I figure you guys should know as they just edited [[Evolution]], which is on the front page. I reverted anonymously but now I can't see Evolution. TBSDY

2 1

500k press release
by Sj 18 Mar '05

18 Mar '05

I've put up a draft press release to celebrate the English WP's 500,000th article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/March_2005 It is not quite like our previous press releases; see what you think, edit and improve on it. It should eventually mention the 500,000th article by name, so see if you can spot it as it zooms by. Here is a meta-page for translating the release (though you should wait until the end of the weekend, say, once it has been edited a bit): http://tinyurl.com/58dnq Why translate an EN-centered press release? For one thing, it is not *only* an English-language press release; it is celebrating the project as a whole. For another, all major project announcements should be multilingual. For instance, I would like to see it sent to the many spanish- and chinese-language newspapers (among others) in the US. Skimming through the circulation numbers in Bacon's media directory, it is surprising to see how broad their audiences are; I have no doubt that the bulk of their readers read English to some extent, and could both benefit from EN: and help bridge the gap between it and their native language-edition. -- +sj+

4 4

Wikipedia map of British Columbia
by Richard Holton 18 Mar '05

18 Mar '05

Mr. ONeil, I am an editor on Wikipedia, though I have no official standing at the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I noticed your request regarding the use of the map of British Columbia that came from your website. I have taken the step of tagging that image as a possible copyright violation. You can see the resulting message on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png This issue is also now listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems Please feel free to add comments on that page. Regarding your question about our policy on use of material from other sites. Wikipedia is committed to respecting copyrights. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights As a citizen and resident of the United States, I know that many people here assume that all government documents are public domain, as that is generally true of the US Federal government. I don't know about this particular case, but it could be that this image was placed on Wikipedia based on that assumption. I also do not know if the same sort of rules apply to the government of Canada and/or British Columbia. Either way, the source of the image should be properly attributed, even if the image is in the public domain. If you have any further questions, you can either contact me at richholton(a)gmail.com, or respond to the English Wikipedia mailing list at wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org. Sincerely, Richard J. Holton en.wikipedia:User:Rholton

1 0

Re: Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.
by Stepanek, George 18 Mar '05

18 Mar '05

From: <jfdwolff at doctors.org.uk> >This is getting ridiculous. >This issue has now generated close to 60 messages. I urge Blair, his >detractors and everyone else to stop this discussion. I apologise for adding to an already overlong debate, but my name has been mentioned many times, motivations have been attributed to me, and I would just like an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and to clear my name. Apart from this one email, I will not post further to this mailing list. Even if Blair responds--and I have no doubt he will--I will not be responding. Before I begin, may I first thank Blair for his recent attempts to discuss the issues at hand on the Weight Training talk page. I hope that a compromise can be achieved that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. The fact is that the first revert was made by Blair, not myself. I'm sorry if this sounds like a kindergarten justification ("he started it", "no he did"), but this fact sheds light on what follows, so please bear with me. Here are Blair's original changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11090304& oldid=11088511 I left the bulk of the changes as they were, and only undid changes to the lead section that I felt removed information, or put in information that had already been disputed by three other editors (Sfahey, Taxman and myself): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11158163& oldid=11090304 The information that was removed was: * that whether weight training is effective at building strength depends upon how it is done * that weight training provides functional benefits (etc.) only via increases to strength and muscle size * that the progressive overload principle is essential to building strength via weight training The disputed fact was Blair's assertion that weight training is aerobic if done at a sufficiently low intensity. I explained my reasoning on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weight_training#Article_summary This was at least an opportunity for Blair to discuss the proposed changes, and seek consensus before putting in place an agreed text, but instead he simply reverted my last edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11159169& oldid=11158163 Why did I revert his revert? Because I didn't want to see one stubborn individual override the consensus that had been achieved by the other interested parties. Why did I count my reverts (first, second, third) in the edit summaries? Because I didn't want to break the 3RR myself, or give Blair any opportunity to accuse me of doing so. And because I knew that the revert war was futile, since we were both limited by the 3RR, and I wanted to make this fact totally obvious. After my third revert, Blair made the following changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11177874& oldid=11171514 While not exactly the same as his previous edits, this edit implemented all four of the changes that I had discussed on the talk page. I felt that this was an attempt to subvert the 3RR. I therefore flagged it as a possible 3RR violation, while mentioning the fact that the 4 edits were not exactly alike. I left the matter to the discretion of the admins monitoring the 3RR page. I mentioned the potential 3RR violation to Taxman while asking his advice whether to open an RfC. He suggest not to do so yet, and to "try as hard as you can to see what part of what he has to say is helpful and incorporate those changes." Being an admin Taxman could have blocked Blair at that point, but he chose instead to merely revert once more, and leave it to another admin to block Blair. Taxman's behaviour has been beyond reproach at all times. After Taxman's last revert, I attempted to create a compromise version that included as many of Blair's grammatical and phrasing changes as possible, but including all of the information that Blair had removed, and without the disputed assertion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11226439& oldid=11185482 From: Blair P. Houghton <blair at houghton.net> >It was a trap. GeorgeStepanek accepted almost all of my edits, but only after >I was blocked. >Clearly he wasn't disagreeing with everything I was saying, he was just reverting >the page to goad me into re-reverting it. This is simply not true. I did not, and still do not agree with the four changes described above, and that I have discussed at some length on the talk page. I utterly reject the insinuations that I somehow "tricked" Blair into breaking the 3RR. Indeed, by counting the reverts, I was making it as obvious as possible just how many reverts we were each doing. From: John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> >If you would stop blabbing about Taxman and George for a minute to >understand this, we might get somewhere. Just because they are the >aggressors does not give you the right or privilege to go ahead and >participate in the fight. I hope that the above evidence is sufficient to show that I was not "the aggressor" in this "fight". I do not wish to have such aspersions against my name left on the record. I am aware that this issue has become a political football between those who support the 3RR, and those who oppose it. I do not wish to enter this debate, except to mention some aspects that no-one has yet mentioned: 1. Yes, Cecropia had every right to unblock Blair. But think about it: isn't this just reverting CryptoDerk's actions? What efforts did Cecropia make to discuss the issue with CryptoDerk, and achieve consensus? As the admin community grows, are we going to see more and more "admin revert wars" pitting one admin against another? Isn't this just going to motivate troublemakers to try to exploit differences of opinion between admins? 2. Yes, a 24-hour block is ineffective in itself at resolving ongoing disputes between long-time users. But a 3RR sanction is not ipso facto meaningless in such cases. To compare it to a real-world example, why do we have $50 parking fines if most people can easily spare $50? A sanction like this is effective because it unequivocally conveys the message that you have broken the rules. It also serves as evidence of poor conduct for any future investigation of the dispute. 3. The 3RR prevents edit wars with hundreds of reverts on each side. Does anyone seriously want to go back to that? It's an arbitrary rule, to be sure, but rules help people to work together by clearly indicating where boundaries of acceptable conduct lie. 4. No-one can build the Wikipedia alone. Indeed, given how hard it is to write to a strict NPOV, I would argue that no-one can even create a single article alone. Jimbo's primary goal--creating an encyclopedia--is impossible without a community that can work together effectively. We should find ways to identify, sanction and eliminate any and all forms of disruptive behaviour, simply because they just stop us from achieving our primary goal. From: JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> >>Am I the only one who feels that the 3RR is making life harder for admins? > >I'm sure you're not the only one, but I feel quite the opposite. More >importantly, I think it's made it less likely for regular (i.e. non >edit-warrior) editors to be scared away from Wikipedia. May I note two of Blair's assertions that no-one has yet challenged. He says that I am one of the "Evil Ones", and that I "raped" him. Is this kind of language and conduct acceptable in Wikipedia? My impression from the events so far is that it is. I have found this dispute to be extremely unpleasant and stressful, and I really do not wish to find myself in this kind of situation again. I am therefore going to withdraw from the Wikipedia community. I will still read articles, and fix typos when I find them, but I will no longer be working seriously on any more Wikipedia articles. Thank you for reading my comments. George Stepanek

1 0

Wikipedia article cited on Open Democracy
by Cormac Lawler 18 Mar '05

18 Mar '05

There's an interesting article on Open Democracy (diverse site with good debate) about code and copyright, ending with a feature on open source, and which references the en:Wikipedia article on the [[Tragedy of the commons]]. http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-40-2370.jsp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Cormac

1 0

Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l] Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk
by Jim Cecropia 18 Mar '05

18 Mar '05

Blair, I removed the autoblocks as well. You should be able to edit now. I strongly suggest you brush up Wittiquette. I know how frustrating it can be to see what you view (and may be) unfair or inaccurate material in an article. Yet the (sometims almost goofy) courtesies of Wikipedia, surprisingly, go a very long way. Argue on substance, not personalities or characterizations. Remmeber that cardinal Wikirule "No 'Roid Rage" ;-) --C > > Thanks, Jim. > > I don't see my named account as blocked in the block list, but > there are two numbered accounts autoblocked (probably because of > the NAT serving the multiple computers on my IP) still listed > there, which may be why I still can't edit a page yet. > > How long does an unblock take to work? > > --Blair > > Jim Cecropia wrote: > > I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself > > in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia. > > > > The 3RR blocking is being extremely abused, IMO. We sometimes > > give actual anon vandals who trash articles more slack than some > > logged-in users that have an honest difference of opinion. I am > > an amateur body builder for 20 years. I am no expert but, like > > many who enjoy the sport, I've studied a good bit about it. > > Either the prior version or Houghton's version are accurate, and > > I believe Houghton's is a bit better written and more reflects > > the state-of-the-art. > > > > HOWEVER, I am not taking a position on which version should > > stand, just indicating that I know Houghton's version is, at > > least, not vandalism. > > > > The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends > > to favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the > > better solution is to protect the article for a limited time to > > get the combatants to hash out the issue in article talk. In the > > instant case, I notice that GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered > > his reverts ("first, second, third") which telegraphs > > consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor who > > disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting. > > > > The 3RR page says that you will not necessarily be blocked for > > 3RR, it is admin's discretion. CryptoDerk used his discretion to > > block; I ordinarily will not get in the way of another admin's > > judgment, but in this case I've used my discretion to unblock. > > > > I caution Blair P. Houghton to take his arguments about the > > article to its talk page for now, and to argue about his being > > blocked in other forums. > > > > I also must state that, as Houghton infers, neither truth nor > > accuracy is determined by consensus, and that is NOT a comment > > specifically on the Weight Training article. > > > > -Cecropia > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

6 15

Re: Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.
by jfdwolff＠doctors.org.uk 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

This is getting ridiculous. This issue has now generated close to 60 messages. I urge Blair, his detractors and everyone else to stop this discussion. It is a clash between an admin and the 3RR policy, which should be discussed on the wiki and not here. Am I the only one who feels that the 3RR is making life harder for admins? Jfdwolff ____________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by the StreamShield Protector antivirus system. Doctors.net.uk is used by over 111,000 UK doctors. ____________________________________________________________

4 3

Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonable block of user
by Jim Cecropia 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

----- Original Message ----- From: "JAY JG" <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonableblock of user Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:41:32 -0500 I really don't think this is helpful. I sense that Blair can be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. He is new and can be engaged. I've seen those more agreesive than he become valuabled members of the community. I would like him to calm down and work with the community, and also for the community to not go out of their way to bait him or any other honest user. And as to the specific comment "Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and disputed." Nonsense. It can mean that, or it can mean that someone or more people editing the page feel invested in particular wording and are dismissing someone out of hand, or a combination of the two. Sometimes I have excised entire new sections from an article, but I carry them over to Talk, and explain why they are incorrect or problematic and try to suggest ways to make them better. --C > > > From: "Blair P. Houghton" <blair(a)houghton.net> > > > > JAY JG wrote: > >> I hadn't heard "Be bold" referred to as Wikipedia's "prime > >> directive" before; I'm not sure everyone here would agree. In > >> any event, while I don't know the details of this particular > >> case, it amazes me how often people attempting to make major, > >> usually contentious, and often highly POV re-writes to articles > >> cite "Be bold", yet fail to note that the majority of that > >> policy is devoted to when you *should not* "Be bold". In > >> particular, much of the policy clearly points out that on > >> disputed issues and controversial subjects one should, instead, > >> get consensus on Talk: pages first. > > > > Clairvoyance isn't my strongest skill. I don't know who will > > complain until I do what I have a right to do. And I suspect I'm > > "only human" in that regard, as is everyone else. > > Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you > are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and > disputed. And it's a bad sign when people start taking about what > they "have a right to do" on Wikipedia; as far as I know, editing > Wikipedia is still not covered under the Constitution, Bill of > Rights, or similar legislation. > > >> I believe we are straying into "argument from silence" logical > >> fallacy territory here. > > > > It's the basis for most of the Wikipedia. What doesn't get > > munged is accepted. And if you see a problem, you fix it. Has a > > lot to do with the way life works, too. Which is one of the > > attractive features of the place. > > As soon as you are reverted, the "argument from silence" is > obviously no longer correct. > > >> Cooperation is something that comes from both sides; it cannot > >> be unilaterally imposed by "Bold" individuals. > > > > Tell that to the guy who reverted me, hollering "consensus!" from > > the back of his mule, then having me jailed for arguing the > > point, then including everything I added > > Referring to one's opponents on Talk: pages as "juvenile > delinquents" and oneself as the "teacher" is a particularly bad > strategy for getting cooperation. > > > (but retaining a bit of stuff that is soon to be gone anyway). > > This statement is an ominous sign. > > Jay. > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

3 3

Apropos of absolutely nothing whatsoever
by David Gerard 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV Better names welcomed. - d.

7 11

Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonable block of user
by Rick 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

--- Jim Cecropia <jcecropia(a)mail.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> > > > > > > --- "Blair P. Houghton" <blair(a)houghton.net> > wrote: > > > One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle > was > > > when GeorgeStepanek claimed I was a newbie. His > account is dated > > > December 10. Mine is dated January 1, but if I > look around I can find > > > edits I made over a year ago without having > created a login. > > > > > > Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can > assure > > > you. > > > > Jim Cecropia, please note this. Your apologetics > for > > him can end now. > > > > RickK > > > Well, that's kind of a tepid smoking gun. I thought > you were going to catch him admitting he was Usama > bin Laden or something. > > If you've read my posts, I've made two points: (1) I > believe in engaging "problem" users, not banning > them; I've said much the same about others users > (172, GBWR, Rei come to mind) that I've been at > polar opposites with; (2) 3RR is a new and abusive > procedure in a Wikipedia that is moving to control > minority users instead of improving the content. > > Your post here illustrates part of the problem. If > you can "prove" Blair is a bad guy (and assert that > I am trying to "prove" him a good guy) you don't > have to deal with the substantive issues. I think > that's called a straw man, and a sort of convoluted > way of begging the question. > > --C I think his emails speak for themselves. He came in here with a chip on his shoulder, he keeps making attacks on even the people who are trying to work with him, you keep saying, "He's just a newbie that we need to make concessions to." He objects to the idea that he's a newbie and claims to have been around for about a year and half. He therefore knows the Wikipedia philosophy of Wikiquette and assume good faith, and yet he continues to write these nasty emails in which he's the only person right in the entire world. RickK __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

2 1

← Newer
1
...
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
...
43
Older →

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 March 2005