WikiEN-l November 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

121 participants
233 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 09 Nov '06

09 Nov '06

Ray Saintonge wrote > So a few people recently decided that they wanted a COI policy. Let's > not pretend that there was suddenly a groundswell in support of this policy. Let's not pretend that's an accurate history. Someone WAS BOLD and renamed the old WP:VAIN, which was about vanity editing, to WP:COI. David Gerard appealed for help here in getting the text more compatible with the title. Exit DG for a bit (Gothing it up on the Yorkshire coast, I surmise). Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, another guideline page (NB none, but none, of this is hard policy) has been created by User:Eloquence. This is the one that lays down how editors on behalf of companies should comport themselves. I only got involved when DG broadcast his appeal. I resisted the merge (now carried out) that created a composite page, for as long as I could, and until I could see how to fit the bits together. We now do have a composite guideline, not obviously compatible with absolutely everything elsewhere written about autobiographical writing, not integrating in WP:SPAM, and with other potential weaknesses. It does however fill in gaping holes in previous material in this area, making explicit in particular some aspects of procedure at AfD and the implications if you 'declare an interest'. While this is all kind of dull, WP:COI is being cited in a current ArbCom case, and a high profile deletion debate. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 09 Nov '06

09 Nov '06

"Gregory Kohs" wrote > I admit, I have been a royal pain since October 5th. But, if you stop and > think, can you exactly blame me? Yes. In various email exchanges with you, I have detected nothing but a thoroughly self-centred approach. >I think most of you feel Wikipedia is a "good > enough" encyclopedia now, and the new mission is an elaborate game to > "protect" it from evolutionary forces. Some of us put in many hours on the project. This does not disqualify us from also wishing to have a steering role, and having a discrinating eye for exactly what type of evolution would marry the best of our 'old school' tradition to the acquisition of ever-wider content. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation
by Gregory Kohs 09 Nov '06

09 Nov '06

>Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:16:26 -0500 >From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation >Gregory Kohs wrote: > Seriously, I know I'm trolling, but come on -- can anyone else see the > hypocrisy here? >Hmm, a user banned for spamming wikipedia with pr puff pieces admits >that he is trolling in making a silly complaint about nothing? Yeah, I >think I do see the hypocrisy. >--Jimbo I still maintain that the Wikipedia community, in its DRV discussion of the needless delete of [[Arch Coal]] -- an article that nobody paid for at any time, since it was just an experiment (ha ha!) in testing Jimmy Wales' previous agreement with MyWikiBiz that content could be written off-Wikipedia, then scraped in by independently-acting, volunteer editors (which is exactly what happened) -- strongly suggests that the article was NOT a "pr puff piece". Why would independent editors in good standing describe the original article as: "The content was legitimate and the article was neutral" "The article is written in what appear to me to be neutral terms. The company itself is a shoo-in for WP:CORP, if the article is accurate, and if this had been posted by any other editor we would surely never have noticed it" "It sounds partially like a paragraph at the end of press releases, but those do not necessarily 'plug' the company, in fact are often quite factual and NPOV" "I've seen the article, it was a short informative and neutral article (didn't exactly have enough length in it to be POV pushing) of an obviously notable company. ...I thought that for that length, that it covered the most important aspects of the company. I know I can't have been the only one to think that the article was adequate" "I'm not sure I'm even looking at the right article... looks like a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia article on a company to me. As for spam... what, am I gonna go out and order a million tons of coal from them to feed my power station because I've seen this humble piece on Wikipedia? Erm, no." See for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/200… Are each of the above quotes from people who are temporarily insane, or something? Therefore, Jimmy's ban may be illegitimate; but typical, nonetheless, of someone ruling by fiat and unwilling to listen to the community. In my estimation, Wales is simply acting pious about Wikipedia being for non-commercial use only, while he quietly supports all kinds of commercial exploitation of the domain, as long as it goes into his pocket, or that of his for-profit company. Citing the various examples here would be a waste of my energy. I admit, I have been a royal pain since October 5th. But, if you stop and think, can you exactly blame me? You may all consider this my parting shot for the year, because there's apparently no intelligent way of getting most readers of Wikien-L to see that there has been a very poor handling of a potentially controversial subject; when, in reality, with some cooperation and a lot of transparency, MyWikiBiz could have done a great deal to help Wikipedia become a better encyclopedia. I honestly don't think that's the main mission any more. I think most of you feel Wikipedia is a "good enough" encyclopedia now, and the new mission is an elaborate game to "protect" it from evolutionary forces. <On a Wikibreak until 2007> -- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354

2 1

Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline Hitlist
by David Gerard 09 Nov '06

09 Nov '06

What policies/procedures/guidelines on en:wp strike you as just awful? Please list and elaborate. This could be in any of purpose, current wording, ineffectuality or just being a completely bad idea. Or anything else that makes it just awful. - d.

23 62

Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration nominee statement censored
by Gregory Kohs 09 Nov '06

09 Nov '06

Geni is taking a "personally interpretive" look at the actual "rule": >>> In order to run you will need to have 1000 edits on en.wikipedia. I asked Geni by private e-mail: "I don't see how you're reading the words 'only one account counts' in the above statement. I only see the word 'you', which doesn't mention accounts, but does imply talking about a person, which I am one." Geni replied with the usual humorous wit: "Reading? I wrote it." Geni might want to look at [[WP:OWN]], and also explain to us why she wrote the rule with the word "you", when she apparently intended that it apply to "a single user account". This seems to be yet another case of "rule creep" to try to address single, uncomfortable situations that sometimes arise. Just what I was talking about. Guy, I'll be the Aunt Sally, if you want to throw sticks at a man who's tied down. -- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354

4 4

Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration nominee statement censored
by Jeff Raymond 08 Nov '06

08 Nov '06

> "Gregory Kohs" wrote > > > I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate > > self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_ statements&diff=86306336&oldid=86305792 > > > > > > When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so that I might > > post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather preemptive > > response was: > > > > "I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in hell. > > None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's > > trying to make money off of it." > > [[Screaming Lord Sutch]] would be proud of you. I didn't think that sort of attitude exported. In all honesty, at what point is he going to be reined in? Seriously. -Jeff -- If you can see this, I'm not at home.

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration nominee statement censored
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 08 Nov '06

08 Nov '06

"Gregory Kohs" wrote > I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate > self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_E… > > > When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so that I might > post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather preemptive > response was: > > "I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in hell. > None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's > trying to make money off of it." [[Screaming Lord Sutch]] would be proud of you. I didn't think that sort of attitude exported. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

1 0

Arbitration nominee statement censored
by Gregory Kohs 08 Nov '06

08 Nov '06

I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_E… When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so that I might post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather preemptive response was: "I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in hell. None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's trying to make money off of it." Is it the policy of Wikipedia, or just the bad behavior of over-presumptuous editors, to delete the nomination of someone for a position of authority, just because their account has been blocked, or certain key people disagree with their philosophy? It's not such a far stretch to see how I might imagine YankSox and Cyde Weys operating from a position of fear, because they have self-doubt about the legitimacy of their own philosophy and entitlement to authority. Don't put it to a community vote, because -- gasp! -- what if some in the community take the "wrong" position?! My realistic expectation is not to "win" the ArbCom election, but I still feel that it's important to gauge community support of my position, regardless. Will the vote be 10-to-1 against? Maybe 20-to-1? Or, possibly, only 2-to-1? If the latter, might it be worth some additional consideration of the point? -- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354

4 4

Claims that Wikipedia was used to distribute malware
by Keith Old 07 Nov '06

07 Nov '06

G'day folks, Vnunet reports that security company Sophos claims that De was used to distribute malware. http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2167949/hackers-wikipedia-dupe-users Hackers are using online encyclopaedia Wikipedia <http://www.wikipedia.com/>to spread malware, according to a security firm. Sophos <http://www.sophos.com/> discovered that hackers had created an article on the German edition of Wikipedia containing false information about a new version of the Blaster worm, along with a link to a fix. However, the fix is actually a piece of malicious code designed to infect visitors' PCs. Wikipedia is built from user contributions, allowing anyone to create or edit the content of a page. The hackers sent spam messages to German computer users, which purported to come from Wikipedia, and directed recipients to the fraudulent information. As the emails linked to a legitimate website, they were able to bypass some anti-spam solutions. "The good news is that the authorities at Wikipedia quickly identified and edited the article on their site," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos. "Unfortunately, a version of the page remained in the archive, allowing the hackers to send spam and continue to direct visitors to the malicious code." Wikipedia has now confirmed that it has permanently erased all versions of the page. "The very openness of websites like Wikipedia, which allow anyone to edit pages, makes them terrific, but can also make them less trustworthy, " Cluley added. "In this case, the article in question was not just misleading, it was downright malicious. "Everyone should exercise caution and ensure they have appropriate defences in place to protect their computer systems. "Additionally, people should remember that if there really is a new threat on the internet, you're likely to hear about it first from the security companies, not an online encyclopaedia." What do we have in place to minimise the impact of something similar in the future. Regards Keith Old

2 1

Newspaper web article links to Wikipedia
by George Herbert 07 Nov '06

07 Nov '06

A San Francisco Chronicle web story (www.sfgate.com) links to a Wikipedia article on the City of Fremont : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/06/BAGEQM75B15.DTL -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

1 0

← Newer
1
...
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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 November 2006