WikiEN-l November 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

121 participants
233 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

Ray Saintonge wrote > Private payments in support of private interests are less dangerous than > direct subsidies from Wikimedia. Or not. >We know they are outsiders. How? >Direct > payment can too easily suggest that the payee has the WMF stamp of > approval, or somehow states the "official" POV for his selected topics. Sorry, that's paranoid stuff. Why would the Board hypothetically spend money to undermine NPOV? Since when has the WMF had an official POV? Why would this sort of thing, which would have to appear transparently in budgets, be _worse_ than political, religious or corporate groups paying people to edit, deniably? I'm against the concept of paid editors, but basically because support for the sites in other ways should have priority. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

2 1

Fwd: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Example II
by Rob Smith 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

Example Two: Same Old Stuff Ellen Schrecker article now reads, "John Earl Haynes charged that "Schrecker… devotes hundreds of pages to demonizing opposition to communism in any form." Schrecker argues that her position is that "in this country[,] McCarthyism did more damage to the constitution than the American Communist party ever did." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_W._Schrecker Hence Wikipedia is used as a soapbox to defame Prof. John Earl Haynes of the Library of Congress as an appologist for McCarthyism by equating McCarthyism with "opposition to communism in any form". This method of allowing "criticsim of critics" for NOPV was raised at Talk:Chip Berlet while the page was protected from editing an unsubstaniated defamatory charge against Mr. Laird Wilcox as "an unethical reporter". I asked, "...is this the normal format in Wiki articles were "Criticism" subhead have been created for NPOV, where than the critics are then smeared..." A neutral editor proposed "criticism of the criticism...should be pruned out." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=… I of course was charged with personal attacks and this group of editors continues to push POV under license as a result of the evidence now admitted to have been errantlly disallowed in my case. Nobs01

2 5

Re: [WikiEN-l] Was: Google Earth screenshots
by Pedro Sanchez 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

On 11/23/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste(a)dapyx.com> wrote: > > > What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? > > > I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example > > > to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the > > > fair-use claim hold up? > > > > Delete them all. Unless they're used in [[Google Earth]] to > > demonstrate how the program looks, there's simply no valid reason to > > include them when: > > > > a) free alternatives are almost always available via WorldWind > > (especially for the US) > > For the UK there is a datated but free high quality alternative for > anyone who is prepared to do a search through the national monuments > record archive. > > -- > geni > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > suggestion: Why don't we push for creating [[Category:Google maps images]] as a subcategory of Fair use images if we get average joe user tagging images with such category it's going to be easier for us reviewing themn and deleting when appropiated

8 12

Fwd: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example
by Fred Bauder 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

Begin forwarded message: > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> > Date: November 27, 2006 3:44:17 PM MST > To: "Rob Smith" <nobs03(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> > Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example > > > On Nov 27, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Rob Smith wrote: > >> On 11/25/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: >> >>> >>> Kiko is still alive. What is this innocent person, who is leading an >>> ordinary life, doing on Wikipedia with false information about him? >>> >>> Fred >>> >>> >> >> Wow Fred. Another extraordinary coincidence in this case (I count >> about four now). Turns out Kiko's papers are closer to where I've >> been sitting and working the past few years than the bathroom I use. >> >> http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:E2qQtWlea6gJ:libxml.unm.edu/ >> rmoa/content/nmu/finished/nmu1mss640bc.html+Francisco+E.+Mart%C3% >> ADnez+Defense+Committee+(FEMDC),&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3 >> >> Looks like I unwittingly may have become another unathorized >> biographer of another activist. >> >> Now we see it wasn't past associations with Chip Berlet, or the NLG, >> why your transformed a Content Dispute into something it was not. It >> was a close and apparantly longtime personal friendship with >> Fransisco >> I. Martinez. >> >> Nobs01 >> > > Interesting. "After he was exonerated, Martinez was reinstated to > the bar. He continues to live and practice law in Alamosa, > Colorado, where he remains involved in community and social > activism." We are on speaking terms, but "longtime personal > friendship" would be a gross exaggeration. > > Fred > >

1 0

Fwd: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example
by Rob Smith 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rob Smith <nobs03(a)gmail.com> Date: Nov 25, 2006 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example To: nobs03(a)gmail.com On 11/20/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote: > There may have been some earlier discussion I can't see Discussion during proposed rewrite of Wikipedia:Verifiability reveals some of the process abuses (I would encourage reviewing the entire subsection "Query"). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff… Mr. Bauder comments that the ArbCom case was essentially a content dispute, "Ok, here's the problem. You put stuff on there about Kiko Martinez; what does Chip Berlet have to do with Kiko Martinez? Fred Bauder 20:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01#Talk:Chip_Berlet and in in the 2005 Candidate Questions Mr. Bauder again refers to a content dispute, "...He lists one man as having been convicted of a crime and being dead when I sometimes chat with the same man at our local library." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_E… my rejoinder, "So I have a published source that says Kiko Martinez blew himself up in 1970; [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] says he sometimes chat's "with the same man at our local library", my inclusion is valid as [[WP:V]], whereas Fred's is uncitable. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC) "uncitable", i.e. Original Research. See also for a fuller exposition. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_E… In Summary, the Plaintiffs pursuit of Dispute Resolution lacked merit, had numerous conflicts of interest and outright policy violations that brought the matter to Arbitration. Once in Arbitration, Defendants Evidence was either disallowed or totally ignored. Ultimately, Defendant in stupidity and frustration made "personal attacks" on his own User Page. Defendants arguement then -- and now -- is that there was never any basis for pursuing Dispute Resolution. And Mr. Bauder now admits, denying me a right to defend myself "was in error". The question now is, is it reversible error. I've served my time, carry no grudges, and only seek some modification to the language, "The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration should personal attacks of the virulence found in this case continue" given the admitted errors. Thank you. Nobs01

2 6

(semi-OT) What to do with old but not old enough encyclopedias?
by David Gerard 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

A friend of mine has a 1980 set of Encyclopedia Britannica he's trying to get rid of. They're not going to be public domain in many of our lifetimes and the information will be out of date enough to be misleading in many ways - they would not be appropriate for a school. I see there's another 1980 EB on eBay right now that's had no bids. Nobody Cares (tm). Your suggestions are welcomed ... - d.

13 24

Re: [WikiEN-l] Non-stupid wikien-l thread
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

"Jim Schuler" wrote > I'll play with it, if you don't mind. Do you think you could possibly not do this, i.e. top post something glib or me-tooish? It's poor list etiquette, and this was supposed to be the sensible thread. 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] Community Sanction
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

"George Herbert" wrote > On 11/27/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > > > The profile of Wikipedia is now such that we have a significant number > > of aggressively tendentious editors. These go well beyond the > > occasional "characters" like SPUI and cause massive wasted time and > > effort. > Having them is just an indicator of the scope of Wikipedia; if you look back > at all the prior Internet interactive projects of note, they have all > attracted malcontents of various sorts over time. Success attracts them. > > The question is what is done about it. The best solution I saw was benign > dictatorships where someone in power just booted troublemakers, and was > trusted by the rest to not boot good guys, and where social pressure > functioned and kept good guys having really bad days from becoming > troublemakers requiring the boot. >From where I sit, the issue is not about having some different kind of constitution. It's about whether you have the 'police' or the 'judiciary' on top. It is clear that people in the past have wanted judicial solutions. Problem users get their day (month) in court. The current system of Arbitration doesn't go looking for 'aggressively tendentious editors'. It waits for cases to be brought. We hear quite a lot currently about possible vigilantism, by those without the time or the patience or the faith in the system of Arbitration to bring the cases it would need. I actually doubt we have proportionately more of the really disruptive editors than in the past. That doesn't mean that there aren't the annoying characters. Some of the most tiresome definitely have been removed or have left or have been domesticated in 2006. I think people should not be facile about this. Putting a problem editor out of circulation is worth the trouble of submitting evidence in a case. That's basic civics: be public spirited enough to go through the process. 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] Non-stupid wikien-l thread
by Daniel P. B. Smith 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> > > So ... written any good articles lately? No, but I've really _enjoyed_ making a stab at "Free lunch," http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_lunch , and expanding "Raines law," http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raines_law . For me, probably the most enjoyable thing about WIkipedia is the discovery of self-assigned research projects on topics I'm curious about and know absolutely nothing about. Having read old novels, I was vaguely aware of the institution known as the "free lunch." I still haven't got the whole picture, but obviously it went out with prohibition and I _believe_ it never came back, presumably since after prohibition there was no need whatsoever to promote saloons, and probably because depression economics didn't make it feasible for saloon keepers. I don't have a clear picture of its rise and fall, or its regional aspects. I kind of have the idea the saloon's "free lunch" was universal in big cities but not in small towns. But I'm sure it was strongly influenced by local regulations regarding alcohol licensing. (It's always annoyed me that people that quote "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" don't understand that it is a specific reference to the "free lunches" offered by saloons). The fascinating thing about "Raines law" and "Raines law hotel" is that they are such totally _unfamiliar_ phrases, although when I started poking into "free lunch" I found dozens of references to them... in New York State it seems to have been conspicuous and disliked a law, and as much of a topic of public discourse, as prohibition itself was later.

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fiction and Wikia
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

"The Cunctator" wrote > I think it's bad business to get in the habit of setting up official > policies that exclude factual, referenced, neutral information from > inclusion in Wikipedia. I agree, but I don't see the sequitur from what I wrote. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

1 0

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
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