On 29 Nov 2006 at 15:28, The Cunctator wrote:
> On 11/29/06, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't matter if the article was about [[World War II]] and the
> > discussion only involved three people would voted delete on the grounds of
> > "never heard of it", DRV is supposed to comment on process, not merits of
> > deletion (you'll be told "that's what *fD is for, and you should have
> > commented when you had the chance).
>
> That's total bullshit.
Only partial bullshit. There really *are* factions around who behave
exactly as described. They aren't always the majority in the
appropriate areas at any given time, and they don't always win the
debates, but they're there.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Yesterday I blocked Fys for edit warring and serial reversion in
respect of text sourced from an attack blog in the article on Anne
Milton, a British Conservative MP. We know from other evidence that
Fys is an active member of the Labour party; this may or may not be
considered relevant.
The content was actually jointly sourced to the attack blog and to an
article in the press. Another editor has modified the content to be
sourced solely from the press article.
Fys is now agitating for the blog itself to be linked. I don't think
it's appropriate. It is probably acceptable in the article on its
author, Tim Ireland, but I don't see how it comes under any of the
acceptable reasons for linking to a blog, especially in a WP:LIVING
article.
Fys being Fys, this is not going to go away until he gets his way or
some escalation takes place. I'd like to know whether it's worth the
effort - in other words, is it OK to link an attack blog if it is
mentioned elsewhere, albeit as a bit of local colour in the election
coverage? I note that the blog is not linked from the Times article
from which the text is sourced.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
> Quotes in the article where appropriate are fine - I thought you meant
> in the footnotes (you mentioned "more verbatim footnotes".
>
> If you're writing an article on a mathematical theorem, for example,
> quoting from the paper that first discussed it (ie. the main primary
> source) would probably add to the article. I'm not sure quoting
> secondary sources would be useful very often, though.
I'm not thinking about mathematics here. I am thinking about giving verbatim quotes in footnotes: I thnk this can be clarifying, and can add to the article. I wouldn't suggest any extended quoting that doesn't clearly add value.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
> I don't think there's any need to quote the passages we're using, just
> cite the paper in the usual way. There are plenty of academic
> Wikipedians that can verify the source.
That wasn't my point. I'm rather more obsessed with the practical issue of building the encyclopedia than with the theoretical one of verifiability in principle. Relevant quotes add to articles; obviously not just for the sake of it.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Thomas Dalton"
> I don't like this idea at all. It's the first case of sexism I've seen
> on Wikipedia. Discriminating against men is not a solution to
> discrimination against women (which as far as I can tell, doesn't
> exist anyway).
The odd things are that the chuntering on this list about 'no obvious sexism' has not only been just about self-refuting, but has has the unintended consequence of the setting up of said list. Now to see whether its continuation will drive women onto the new list ...
Charles (a male person)
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 4, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiyouth
To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
In the spirit of announcing a mailing list for women, I would like to
announce a wiki and message board for the youth (20 and under) of wiki
communities. Below is our announcement letter / about page, since I feel it
bests describe the mission and I'll be darned if I make a redundant message.
Are you an advocate of youth rights on the Internet?
Have you ever used or edited a wiki, such as the world-famous Wikipedia?
Then we want you to join the Wiki Youth Movement.
http://www.wikiyouth.org/
Wikis like Wikipedia allow young people everywhere to share knowledge, ideas
and experiences. But wherever young people use the Internet, they are faced
with reactionary and condescending views. Fearful adults try to regulate the
content they can see and the communities they can contribute to. The Wiki
Youth Association seeks to give young readers, users and editors a voice.
Beyond demanding equal treatment as wiki contributors, our goal is to build
a shared understanding of wiki ethics. Vandalism and immature behavior are
condemned on most wikis, and sensible learning approaches for new wiki users
are encouraged. We want to have fun, but not at the expense of others. We
want to help you to understand the maze of wiki-rules, so that you too can
have fun.
We would also like to give intelligent young people a shared social space
where they can talk about their experiences in not only wiki communities,
but also their daily lives. eventually, we hope that we can develop the WYA
into a true social movement which organizes events and campaigns. But our
initial goals are modest: we only want to become the single largest
world-wide community of young wiki users.
The WYA is not a formal organization. There is no membership other than
registration for our wiki and forums.
Join today!
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote
>Can you give any examples of
> sexism or bias on WP or the mailing list?
Haven't we had this thread already?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Steve Bennett" wrote
> I believe we should also have a way of making dead-tree sources
> available (through scans etc) for verification. Currently, we don't
> seem to have any way of uploading a scan of a page or whatever, simply
> for the purpose of verification. It wouldn't be for inclusion in the
> article itself, and possibly restricted to logged in users, but I
> would have thought this would easily satisfy "fair use".
No, I don't think it would. And I'm against any movement from 'verifiability' as we understand it, to 'anyone online ought to be able to verify'. Entirely different things.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 12/4/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fair use generally only applies if you are using the copyrighted
>>material in an article about the material itself.
>>
>>
>That's a very specific example of fair use which Wikipedia generally
>dictates as the only one it's willing to accept. I believe that lots
>of other uses can be "fair use". For example, it's generally
>acceptable for an academic to photocopy bits out of a journal so that
>they can study it at home, if the journal can't be borrowed - no
>violation of copyright takes place. I believe this would be in the
>same category. We would not be copying the material to avoid someone
>having to buy the book, we'd be copying it to enable readers to simply
>check that it says what someone is claiming it does. Perfectly fair,
>IMHO.
>
>From experience as an academic who regularly photocopies bits out of
journals, I can tell you that the practise is certainly NOT "generally
acceptable". There are tight restrictions on what can and cannot be copied,
and an absolute limit of 10% of the material is imposed. The British
Library, and many of the other top-quality academic libraries, have staff
specially assigned to ensure that this limit is not breached.
For the purpose being talked of here, the copyright laws simply wouldn't
allow it, particularly as you are talking about reproducing the article
online for more than just personal use.
James
I noticed this too. But I tend to assume that these messages are like health warnings on cigarette packets: they become more extreme, because the moderate versions are ignored by the people they are really aimed at.
We may need to audit deletions. I'm becoming uneasy about the quick paths. But a great deal of discretionary deletion does need to happen.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l