WikiEN-l December 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

157 participants
289 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid material
by Daniel P. B. Smith 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> > On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote: >> What I meant is that _in Wikipedia,_ uncited material is not high- >> quality material. > > What do you mean by "high quality"? Well, according to the verifiability policy, content is _not supposed to go into Wikipedia at all_ unless it's sourced. I'd say that content that isn't supposed to be in Wikipedia at all can hardly be considered to be "high quality" _for Wikipedia_. That's going to be my last reply, as it seems to me that basically you do not agree with the verifiability policy.

6 9

Re: [WikiEN-l] Introducing a new mailing list
by dmehkeri＠swi.com 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

> > It's not my problem if you can't tell a complaint from an attack. > > I've criticised no person here, only an action. I've provided what I > hope to be a clear argument about why I think the action is > intolerable, and with Matt's help, I provided input on how to resolve > the matter. What else would you like from me? Nothing! Please, nothing... Okay, seriously? We're talking about Matt Crypto, right? By referring to other similar lists, the points he was trying to make were not so much about the rights men have. I hope I am not putting too much of my own spin on his words here, but rather he was pointing out that our voices can contribute to the discussion, and that for women's voices to be heard over ours, it is not necessary that they exclude us entirely. Input of the loud, this-is-intolerale-shun-everyone-involved kind might have contributed to getting the list moved to Wikia, but hosting seems to be such a minor issue. I like to think I'm not one to post OH-STFU-STOP-ARGUING type things, but in this case I think no matter what clear arguments we hope to provide, the tone and the volume will undermine these other points. Regards, Dan

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia
by Gregory Kohs 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

Matt Brown writes: >Missing one important proviso: public relations workers are quite >welcome to edit wikipedia in a personal capacity. What has been >prohibited is editing Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client. Again, see the case of [[Arch Coal]]. Nobody paid or received any compensation for the authorship of that article. Still, Jimmy Wales deleted it and banned the original author. These quotes from Jimmy Wales don't sound too welcoming to public relations workers, regardless of their potential desires to edit from a "personal capacity": "I deleted the articles and banned Kellen Communications from contributing. I think that PR-firms editing in a community space is deeply unethical..." "I think the article is a travesty of NPOV. I am glad that it is undeleted so that people can see. It is corporate fluff." (Once again, this was regarding an article about [[Arch Coal]] that the community eventually reconstituted into Wikipedia, and for which no money changed hands. Nonetheless, the user was still banned for 30 years.) The more excuses and explanations that the community comes up with, the more obvious it is that you're avoiding the real issue. Wikipedia unilaterally has chosen to discriminate against non-volunteer activity in the article space, despite the likely fact that the credentials and income sources of 90% of editors are never questioned or verified by the community or the Wikimedia Foundation. Only those who state that they are being paid in some way are excluded. I would argue that if you looked at the original authors of the New Pages in Wikipedia, 90% had some financial or career "conflict of interest" that could be found if everyone was exposed to a background check. You'd also be interested to know that a public relations firm called Schwartz Communications created their own article in Wikipedia, and it was defended for some time by the Wikipedia community. Why? Schwartz did some amorphous pro-bono work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Talk about a conflict of interest! People who have never purchased or sold a pet skunk are unlikely to start an article about [[Pet skunks]]. The ones who do start such articles don't seem to get questioned about their income sources, investigated, or banned, though. Seems that there's a different standard when an article is about a corporate entity. That's discrimination. -- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Introducing a new mailing list
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

Steve Summit wrote > phoebe wrote: > > Honestly, I think I am being discriminated against in this community > > because my patience for endless bickering is thin. > Hear, hear. Without belittling your concern, I'm sure you're far > from the only person who feels this way. > (The saving grace is that, some if not much of the time, you can > ignore the endless petty bickering and go off and edit the > encyclopedia instead.) Phoebe is of course right. Over the years, UseNet and mailing lists have proved little except who has the debating skills (not right on their side). This sort of contradicts something Solzhenitsyn wrote in 'The First Circle', about how prisoners with a running argument were made by their peers to do it in a threaded discussion on a blackboard; and that shortly it became clear who had won. Come to think of it, it doesn't really contradict that: the spectators may still see better than the participants. But Steve is also right. WP shows that, where more is involved than mere debate, discussion online need not be so sterile. 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] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid material
by Daniel P. B. Smith 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

On Dec 5, 2006, at 1:20 AM, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote: > From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> > >> On 12/1/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: >>> The verifiability policy has never been a hardline policy, but a >>> guideline and something to aim towards. When it was first adopted, >>> nobody thought it meant that we should summarily delete the 80%+ >>> of the >>> encyclopedia that at the time was unsourced. Instead what it >>> meant was >>> that we should begin going through and adding sources to it. > > What if a person picks a random article from the 80% of the > encyclopedia > that isn't sourced and says "I'm going to delete this unless > someone else > sources it"? If "ifs" and "ans" were pots and pans we'd have no need of tinkers. If it happened to an article I cared about and was knowledgeable about, I'd add some sources. If someone did it rapidly and wholesale to articles in what appeared to be a biased way, I'd call WP:POINT on them. I don't think 80% of our articles are _utterly_ unsourced, by the way. Let's do a quick reality check. I'm going to hit the "random article" button ten times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_asynchronous_receiver/transmitter Good example of an utterly unsourced article that shouldn't be deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Moss Good external link to a bio. Badly sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer% 27s_Dictionary_of_Irish_Phrase_and_Fable Stub article. Does an ISBN number count as a source? I think so, because it can be used to locate further information. Badly sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_Dead_and_Dynamite Pop culture article. Three OK external links. Badly sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Markov An athlete. Good external link to "IAAF profile for Dmitri Markov." Badly sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Ferragamo Seven-or-eight-paragraph article on an athlete. Utterly unsourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_McClen An athlete. Are you sure the random article button works? Two good external links. Badly sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusky_Thrush Good print source. Good external link. No inline sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokémon_Dash Three OK web "references." One OK external link (Nintendo's official Pokémon Dash game profile). One fansite external link. One inadequately-cited print reference ("Instruction manual for Pokémon Dash"). Weakly sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller Controversial abortion doctor. Eleven inline citations to reasonably good news sources. So, there you have it. Nothing like "80%" of our articles are unsourced. The vast majority of them might be called feebly sourced (no inline citations, what citations there are are mostly web links. So, in answer to the hypothetical, if anyone tried to delete the entire article on the basis of its being "unsourced," I'd strongly object in the case of nine of the ten. In the case of the UART article, I believe I could scare up a couple of sources in about ten minutes and that's probably what I'd do.

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Request to mailing list Wikichix-l rejected
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

"The Cunctator" wrote > Wikichix should not be on the wikimedia servers. No one yet suggested Wikihunx, the men-only list? 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] Attack blogs in WP:LIVING articles
by david＠election.demon.co.uk 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

Charles R. Matthews writes: > >Some tension between your two points, here. Milton, we assume, commented >on the blog, i.e. she reacted to its existence. Would it not be more accurate to say she reacted to its contents? For instance I don't suppose she would have reacted, or the blog would have been noticed, if its criticism was limited to (e.g.) her dress sense. >There might be some cause to include the blog in the article if her >reaction had been extreme (e.g. legal measures). But if it is being >argued that her reaction was in any sense over-reaction, then indeed >including the blog in the Milton article is a negative comment ("MP >lashes back at blogger shock", in tabloid terms); and so the BLP >guideline is relevant. Hmm. Quite difficult, that one, since WP:NPOV applies. The article does report Milton as having refused to discuss the blog contents and having described Tim Ireland dismissively. Is that an over-reaction? Almost certainly not. Does that engage WP:BLP? Probably not, although even if it did, the sources are adequate to keep it. The report from Sandra Howard, which might be considered an over-reaction and probably does engage WP:BLP, isn't included. However, the fact that it is not included in the article doesn't mean we dismiss it from our thoughts when assessing the noteworthiness of the blog. >This only makes for Milton's notability if politicians rarely do this. I do not see the relevance. As I pointed out before, the issue is not Milton's notability (she's automatically notable as an MP) but whether a critical blog is noteworthy. That depends on whether the criticism is targeted at the reason she is notable, or at some other aspect, and here it is unquestionably targeted at her political activity. >I really think, outside the rather airless atmosphere of Westminster >politics, this gets the big 'so what?'. I think we're discussing the blue-rinsed atmosphere of Guildford politics. Does "so what?" apply to the blog or the debate over the blog, though? david(a)election.demon.co.uk - Ta fys aym -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

2 1

Time for preformatted empty articles?
by David Gerard 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

Rather than going on a campaign to kill all new articles without sufficient sourcing, would it be time to introduce article prefilling, using the <inputbox> extension? For an example, go to en.wikinews.org, type something into the "Start a new article" box and hit "Create article". This example is created using the wikitext: <inputbox> type=create preload=Template:New_page editintro=Template:New_article_intro width=25 bgcolor=#f0f0ff </inputbox> Presumably we'd need this switched on for en:wp if it isn't already. - d.

5 11

Re: [WikiEN-l] Attack blogs in WP:LIVING articles
by david＠election.demon.co.uk 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

Guy Chapman asks The Cunctator: > >What do you think should be the circumstances under which we link an >attack blog from an article on a living individual? I would answer this question as follows: Only if the blog has been referred to by mainstream publication, and is mentioned in the text. The situation would be different where (as in the case of people like Noam Chomsky) there exists a separate article devoted to criticism. WP:BLP still applies to such an article, but more extensive linking would be appropriate. In such a case I would judge the value of the link by the contents of the blog. david(a)election.demon.co.uk - Ta fys aym. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Attack blogs in WP:LIVING articles
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

David Boothroyd wrote > Charles R. Matthews writes: > >David Boothroyd wrote: > > > The question is > > > not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for > > > anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or > > > not to mention it in the article; the subsidiary issue is, should that > > > question be answered in the affirmative, it should be linked to. > > > > >From WP:BLP: > > > >[...] insist on reliable third-party published > >sources and a clear demonstration of relevance > >to the person's notability. > > > >NB that it is the _person's notability_ in question. It is not just a > >matter of whether the blog has some notability, for close watchers of > >UK politics. It is a question of whether an MP, attacked by a blog, is > >in some way characterised for notability by such an attack. You are > >saying 'the only': i.e. the only pair of blog and MP in such a relationship. > > I think you have slightly misread the policy. The point being made there > is that, in the case of negative material which does engage WP:BLP, > the negative material must have a relevance to the reason why the > person is considered notable. Therefore, if there was a blog set up to > attack Anne Milton for her treatment of her neighbours, that would fall > foul of that requirement because she is not notable by virtue of living > next to someone. However, in this case we have a blog which attacks her > for her political position: that passes the requirement because she is > notable for holding a political position. > > This of course assumes that the mere existence of the blog does engage > WP:BLP. I do not see how this is the case. It is not even potentially > defamatory of person X to say that person Y does not like them. > > > 3) The fact that Anne Milton is quoted by Sandra Howard asserting that > > > Tim Ireland was "stalking" her through the weblog is particularly > > > significant. It is a notably extreme accusation. > > > >Well, the jury will have to describe whether objecting to such > >harassment makes Anne Milton more notable than otherwise. Or whether > >she is reacting as a normal person might well do. > That does beg the question of whether the existence of the blog or its > contents amounts to "harassment", or whether such harassment would be > over and above the level of scrutiny and fair comment anyone might > expect when standing for public office. I haven't made my mind up on > that. Some tension between your two points, here. Milton, we assume, commented on the blog, i.e. she reacted to its existence. There might be some cause to include the blog in the article if her reaction had been extreme (e.g. legal measures). But if it is being argued that her reaction was in any sense over-reaction, then indeed including the blog in the Milton article is a negative comment ("MP lashes back at blogger shock", in tabloid terms); and so the BLP guideline is relevant. This only makes for Milton's notability if politicians rarely do this. I really think, outside the rather airless atmosphere of Westminster politics, this gets the big 'so what?'. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

2 1

← Newer
1
...
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
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 December 2006