WikiEN-l June 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

137 participants
234 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Pseudoscience category - GSPOV
by Haukur Þorgeirsson 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

> 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

3 2

Pywikipedia bot : iso --> utf-8
by MacGyverMagic/Mgm 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

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

1 0

Should [[Category:Alternative medicine]] and [[Category:Quackery]] be merged?
by Haukur Þorgeirsson 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

> 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.

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] 3RR penalty is a block and not a ban -> problems
by Tony Sidaway 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

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.

3 2

In the interests of transparency
by Mark Ryan 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

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

2 1

Rights at Wikipedia (was: Silly mailing lists)
by Poor, Edmund W 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

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

1 0

Requests for adminship reform
by Chris Jenkinson 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

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/

9 12

3RR penalty is a block and not a ban -> problems
by Nyenyec N 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

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]]

5 6

Could we have the old Special:Blockip interface back, please?
by Tony Sidaway 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

There isn't enough fine control on that dropdown list.

2 1

Re: Press inquiry
by Joyce Lee 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

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

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
24
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 June 2005