> This was what was more or less thrashed out on [[Talk:Alternative
> medicine]] - that "alternative medicine" may or may not be rubbish, but is
> sincere; but quackery includes knowing deception. FWIW.
I don't see how this is a workable distinction.
It's not the treatments that are sincere or not
- it's their practitioners. I'm sure there are
lots of sincere homeopaths - but who's to say
that there aren't a few who know that the remedies
don't work (better than any placebo) but sell
them anyway?
Likewise, how do you know that [[Jomanda]] wasn't
sincere and acting in good faith? And how can you
know that practitioners of [[Chelation therapy]]
aren't sincere? Both are currently in the quackery
category.
Regards,
Haukur
Since the upgrade yesterday, my python bot code is no longer working
and halts with the following error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "D:\Programmas
Stijn\Python234\Pywikipedia\pywikipedia\login.py", line 164, in
-toplevel-
main(sys.argv[1:])
File "D:\Programmas
Stijn\Python234\Pywikipedia\pywikipedia\login.py", line 150, in main
if not allowedbot(username, ensite):
File "D:\Programmas
Stijn\Python234\Pywikipedia\pywikipedia\login.py", line 59, in
allowedbot
text = pl.get()
File "D:\Programmas
Stijn\Python234\Pywikipedia\pywikipedia\wikipedia.py", line 357, in
get
self._contents, self._isWatched = getEditPage(self.site(),
self.urlname(), read_only = read_only, get_redirect = get_redirect,
throttle = throttle)
File "D:\Programmas
Stijn\Python234\Pywikipedia\pywikipedia\wikipedia.py", line 1536, in
getEditPage
text = getUrl(site, path)
File "D:\Programmas
Stijn\Python234\Pywikipedia\pywikipedia\wikipedia.py", line 1496, in
getUrl
site.checkCharset(charset)
File "D:\Programmas
Stijn\Python234\Pywikipedia\pywikipedia\wikipedia.py", line 2303, in
checkCharset
raise ValueError("code2encodings has wrong charset for %s. It
should be %s, but is %s"%(repr(self),charset, self.encoding()))
ValueError: code2encodings has wrong charset for wikipedia:en. It
should be utf-8, but is iso-8859-1
I know this is probably too technical for most of the people on this
list, but could some experienced bot owner help me back on track?
--Mgm
> OK, I could very well be wrong. May I ask, is it the only meaning of
> the word mentioned, or the main one? Someone else who has a good book
> to check? Words often have several meanings... the word is often used
> as an insult, carrying negative connotations. On that I hope we can
> agree.
Certainly. And the word "quackery" is negative
because the phenomenon it describes is negative
like, say, "vandalism".
> It looks to me that you actuallly
> want to use it for this very purpose - to warn the readers i.e. you
> decide what people should be warned of. Maybe I want to warn people
> for religion - can I create [[Category:Unscientific supernatural
> beliefs]] and put [[Christianity]] in it?
Fine by me. And wouldn't most Christians
agree that their religion is a collection
of unscientific supernatural beliefs?
> During the course in oncology, our teachers told us that many of their
> patients also sought for some alternative method of various kinds.
> They were not at all against it - they said the alternative people
> gave the patients something they badly needed, both for better
> prognosis and for quality of life - often not a very long period of
> time. That thing the alt.med. stuff can give in that situation, is
> hope...
Sure, how about [[Category:Comforting lies]]?
>and I still can not see that you have explained
>wherein the usefulness of this particular category lies.
What's the usefulness of any category? It's mostly
an aid to browsing, I suppose. You're reading about
one thing and maybe you'd like to read about other
similar things.
You're right that the category shouldn't be a primary
warning label. The article itself should make clear the
efficacy of its subject (or lack thereof). On the other
hand I'm arguing that upholding a distinction between
quackery and alternative medicine in the category system
is misleading.
Regards,
Haukur
P.S. I hope I'm not getting too worked up about this.
I haven't actually edited much in the quackery field
in the past, I mostly work on Norse mythology. In that
field I frequently see categories used to claim something
not actually supported by the article.
Nothing good can come from enouraging editors to use socks and proxies to
evade blocks. Where this has happened in the past I've found that
escalating blocks on all offending sources tires the miscreant out.
In the interests of transparency in mailing list admin actions, I have
placed two recent contributors to the list (DANIEL RAY and Henry
Kissinger) on moderation (i.e. their messages require list admin
approval) because their messages to the mailing list appear to be
gibberish. If anyone feels this is unwarranted, please contact me or
one of the other mailing list administrators.
~Mark Ryan
Responding to:
-> <sarcasm> Way to go, Wikipedia! Good job
-> treating volunteer editors who are simply
-> standing up for their rights like criminals. </sarcasm>
It's a common mistake to assert that anyone has rights at Wikipedia.
Aside from the technical matter of "sysop rights", Wikipedia grants no
rights whatsoever.
Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and I think I speak for the
English part of that organization when I say that volunteers here have
no rights or privileges. Wikipedians have only duties, voluntarily
assumed.
Our duty as volunteers is to create a free encyclopedia filled with
accurate, neutral articles for the benefit of the general public.
Anyone is welcome to join us, as long as they come to help us create
this kind of encyclopedia. Others will be shown to the door.
Ed Poor
Hi people,
This is my first proper contribution to how Wikipedia is "run", and
I'm jumping straight in the deep end! I would say 'please be gentle',
but adminship is a serious issue, no matter who says "adminship is no
big deal".
My first contribution to Wikipedia was only back in November of 2004,
when I fixed a couple of links regarding spin in politics. I
unfortunately think this is somewhat how requests for adminship is
going at the moment, with people quoting Jim Wales' comment about
adminship when it suits them.
I didn't contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis for a few weeks, I
made a few edits relating to photosynthesis in plants, and a few
spelling corrections and one instance of reverting vandalism, which I
had encountered for the first time on Wikipedia. It was nothing major,
just me dipping my toes in the water. As I am a forum moderator at a
fairly large internet community, I'm quite used to spam, trolling and
most importantly, controversy. While some rightly say that Wikipedia
is not an experiment in democracy and the community should not be the
foremost target, it is important not to forget that it is hard to
imagine what Wikipedia would be like without its community and
consensus.
Every time I look at Wikipedia I am reminded just how much I don't
know. I pride myself on my general knowledge and I'm normally able to
do a substantial part of any general knowledge crosswords, and I was
gratified when one of my friends commented on it. The pursuit of
knowledge is a lofty goal and I'm glad to be someone contributing to
it, even with minor contributions like me, like spelling corrections,
rewrites and aiming to improve comprehension and clarity of some
Wikipedia articles which may not be written as well as they could have
be.
I have tried my hand at simple vandalism reversion for a set period of
time - one time I managed 90 minutes, the second time a bit less. The
reason I stopped was that /vandalism reversion is tedious/ -
especially without the rollback feature. That people voting on the
current votes for adminship expect people to have tried their hand at
vandalism reversion (not just when they see it, but actively hunting
it) is counter-productive - reverting simple vandalism is time wasted
for people without rollback. We should give the ability to rollback
liberally, but revoke that privilege liberally. If someone uses the
rollback function for something other than vandalism, it should be
rescinded. I think I am right in saying that the rollback feature was
initially developed specifically to fight vandalism - I do not yet see
any need to widen that remit.
The page protection tool is another useful ability, being used to
forcibly stop edit wars. I think it should be used in one more
scenario - suspected copyright violations. As a relative newcomer I
read the events leading up to RickK's departure with great interest. A
suspected copyright violation should be protected until the situation
is resolved - isn't that what the point of it is? I think that
copyright paranoia is something to be wary of, however it shouldn't be
dismissed. If a copyvio is suspected, the page should be protected as
soon as possible (with the template in place) so we don't have the
same repeat situation with revert warring over whether or not
something is a copyright violation. I think we need a clearer policy
for admins on this.
Banning is a different issue, and something I believe new admins
should be careful about doing. We have a 3RR policy, sure, but it's
supposed to be for clear-cut cases of revert warring. When we get to
the grey area about edit warring and defining vandalism I think we
should be wary of using the 3RR to forcibly settle a dispute. Assuming
good faith on behalf of the person who made the accusation should
definitely be done (surely they had a reason, especially if they are a
long-term contributor - making unsubstantiated copyvio reports might
be vandalism). I think we should be less hasty with applying the 3RR
rule if people are disagreeing over whether it should apply under the
3RR rules.
Where am I going with this? I've reviewed the different admin
abilities (excluding deleting, which we have a good policy for in my
opinion), so what? I think we need to look at our admin appointment
system as a whole.
I am concerned, as some people have already voiced, that requesting
adminship is becoming a popularity contest. Some people are elected
with huge majorities, with a couple of dissenting voices from people
who have had disagreements with the electee in the past. Without a
reason for voting, it's difficult to tell what people are voting for.
Are they voting for the person's character, or something else? I think
Boothy443 is right to question the voting procedure (however I don't
agree with the method of doing it). I am attempting to demean those
admins who have been elected to adminship with large majorities and
turnouts - but what does 50 names really show?
The procedure in requests for adminship I do like is the discussion on
opposition votes - the tone it sometimes takes may just have to come
with the territory. When you vote at elections in the "real world", at
least in the UK, you aren't voting for your concillor's or MP's
character, you're voting for the policies that they stand for. This
analogy is not quite apt to requesting adminship, as there is one set
of policy formulated by everyone. But only today I read a story about
a conman who convinced many people that he was a spy, and deceitfully
conned thousands of pounds. I would contend that someone's outward
personality is not, alone, a valid reason to give them administrative
powers. But the issue arises - how does one determine whether someone
would make a good admin without trusting that they would? I would
argue that it's very difficult.
Therefore I would like to propose a mentor system for new admins. If
someone wishes to become an admin, they should find an existing admin
who would willingly mentor them. When a mentor is found, the request
would be put forward, and the adminship ability would be temporarily
granted. During a set period (maybe 2-3 weeks) the mentor would
monitor the actions of the adminee. A page for comments by other users
and admins would exist. At the end of the period, the mentoring admin
would provide a synopsis of the adminee's actions, and offer a
decision on whether or not the admin should become a permanent admin,
or returned to "normal user" status. A bureaucrat would be
responsible for making the final call on whether to promote or not.
An obvious flaw, so far, with this system, is that a potential
malicious user can go through the adminee period, get nominated
without a hitch, and then cause trouble. This is why a deadminship
procedure would need to be created - abuses of power should /not/ be
tolerated. Currently there are irrevocable actions admins can take -
these must either be fixed in code, or more appropriately, it made
absolutely clear that anyone who takes malicious actions as an admin
will face severe disciplinary action.
This proposal, as it stands, does give admins more of a
responsibility. I don't think this is a bad thing - admins do keep the
wheels of Wikipedia turning. Changing the process to become an admin
will result in it being thought less of as a status symbol and more of
as a means to an end - ensuring that Wikipedia stands the test of time
to become a fountain of knowledge - the reason I joined up to
contribute, in my own way, to Wikipedia.
Chris
--
Chris Jenkinson ([[User:Talrias]])
http://talrias.net/
Hi,
I tried to clarify this on several pages, e.g. on
[[Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy]], but I got no answer so far.
I'll try to be short:
- For a 3RR violation an admin can *block* a user but cannot ban him
- The rules for blocking don't mention that the block can be extended
or known socks of the same user can be blocked if the block is
violated
Therefore, a user blocked under 3RR can argue that:
- No admin can extend the block after 24 hours if he doesn't continue
the revert war
(Since this is an option only for bans but not blocks)
- No admin can block him when he returns through a known sock
I think this wasn't the intention of those, who formulated the rules
and the penalties for evading the block after a 3RR violation should
be extended based on WP:BAN.
I've learned that several admins do interpret the policies this way,
i.e. that they have the right to block the known sock and have the
right to extend the block.
I think this should be fixed.
Thanks,
[[User:Nyenyec]]
Hi,
I am emailing from Hong Kong and I am the Photo Editor of Hong Kong
Tatler magazine. Our magazines cover the business, cultural, social
and sporting life and our readers are generally affluent, well-
educated individuals who are active in social circles in Hong Kong.
Please have a look at our website for more information About us
(www.cmlink.com)
We are working on the local article in August and we are planning to
use the image of "Moorehead as Endora on bewitched" to illustrate
the sidebar of the story. We like to give the credit of this image.
If you can provide the hi-rez image to us we would be appreciated.
Please let us know.
Many thanks
Joyce Lee
Communication Management Ltd.
1808 Hong Kong Plaza
188 Connaught Road West Hong Kong
Tel:(852) 2859-4419
Fax:(852) 2858-2671
E-mail: joyce(a)cmlink.com