> As noted earlier in this thread, that is exactly the moral I've learned.
> Wikipedia has no tolerance for works in progress.
I tend to agree with Guy's and Aaron's evaluation here. The article, once it
enters main namespace, is in the frontline. People making a "normal" search
for it will be able to access it. The article should be able to stand on its
own legs by then and if it doesn't it should be deleted, even if the subject
is notable and a proper article can be written in its place.
For example, the first edition we got about Robert Aumann contained
"He won the Nobel Prize!"
Lets go through why this type of article is bad. First, the article is not
very useful to the readers. The people who are likely to look up Robert
Aumann are those who read that he had won the economics prize already. The
people who didn't know this would also find the article useless. (They would
think "Huh?, What Nobel prize? When? For what?". Second, it is an
embarrassment to Wikipedia if people look this up or follow a bluelink,
expecting to find a real article, and find this. The reader is annoyed and
decides that the reputation of Wikipedia being low quality is absolutely
true. Third, the presence of such articles, written by a veteran Wikipedian I
might add, tells newbies that they don't need to put any effort into writing
the articles (after all the vets don't), and that makes the quality of newer
articles very poor.
Therefore, that revision of the article was speedy deleted, based on the
criterion of little or no context. So when you push the save button on a new
article make sure that you have made an attempt at answering
*What/Who IS the subject?
*Why should the reader care?
*Could this article be useful to anyone?
If you plan on making a longer article for first submission and don't want to
suffer a browser crash right before you submit it, you can put work in
progress on a subpage of you userpage, and then move it off to the main
article namespace when the article is in reasonably good shape.
This is not extreme immediatism. A poorly written, or short article which is
still useful and establishes context can be included.
Sigvat Stensholt (AKA "Sjakkalle")
c.f.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_…
Our actions have real-world consequences. Wikipedia is no longer a
closed society where we may make our rules and policies as we please.
Instead we are a prominent web site in a larger world that imposes
standards of behavior and conduct rather more stringent than
Wikipedia's own. When we have a lapse in judgement, we put "an
encyclopedia that anyone can edit" at risk. Our ability to live up to
"your changes will be visible immediately" without interference from
the courts, the government, the press, and other powerful institutions
depends increasingly upon our ability to demonstrate that we can
conduct our affairs responsibly. Responsible websites don't joke around
about pedophilia; they shut down any discussion that has the least hint
of a solicitation for sex with minors. A user who places a userbox
reading "this user is a pedophile" might be seen by some as soliciting
minors. We can't take the risk.
I applaud Jimbo's actions in dealing with this matter decisively and in
desysopping a few people who clearly lack the judgement to be
administrators at Wikipedia.
Wake up and smell the coffee, everyone. With our new Alexa rating,
we've had our very own September That Never Ended, and the rules have
changed.
Can I just state that it's annoying for those of us who don't have
specialized mailing list readers, reading by thread title, to have "Re:
WikiEN-l Digest, Vol x, Issue y" as a subject line? This makes it
difficult if you've got a thread on, say, AfD and a thread on
plagiarism and you're following one or the other. Could people follow
the instructions included on the Digest itself and edit the subject
line to be more descriptive? </rant>
-Hermione1980
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
A user claiming to be the cult X-rated film star Tove Jensen (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tove_Jensen), has appeared on that
article's talk page and complained about some of the details in the
article posing a danger to her and her family. (see the diffs
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tove_Jensen&diff=39744088&ol…
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tove_Jensen&diff=next&oldid=…)
The specific facts in the article that this user is complaining about
are fairly unverifiable. Of course, I'm not sure to what extent this
user's identity as the subject of the biography is verifiable, either.
Input on the proper way to proceed here would be welcome.
I normally don't post to the mailing list, but since this is
potentially a foundation issue and I know there have been similar
controversies in the past, I wanted to bring it to the attention of
whoever needs to know, in case we have a lawyer-mandated process for
such claims.
-Nandesuka
I see a number of serious problems with this approach.
I believe there is a copyright issue since my taking "good edits" and
remaking them in your name you are guilty of plagiarism. You are not
actually deriving anything as the GFDL allows and you are not correctly
attributing as the GFDL requires. Conversely, you are actually
deceiving readers about the source of the material and misrepresenting
your own authority.
I would assume that if the policy is to role back all edits from a
banner editor that the best solution is to apply the policy and expect
that independent contributors will take up the slack.
With respect
Steven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenZenith
>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:18:53 +0000
>From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <fbad4e140602150918q52c92dafg(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks
>and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His
>personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other
>editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on
>anything to do with Wikipedia.
>
>I'm trying to build up a pattern for a strong complaint, and I'm also
>rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
>if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
>email me or leave a note on my talk page.
>
>
>- d.
>
>
>
>
>Just curious...have you read the revision Sean saved? Because while
>stubby, it was far from one or two context-less sentences. (I do think
>brenneman has a point, but a lot of the messages on this matter seem to
>think Sean's initial article was crap.)
>John
I have read the first version of Cart00ney yes. The version was not horridly
"crappy", I mean, the article had enough context to define the subject and
say a bit about it, but it DID fail to explain significance of the neologism.
Now I understand that it might be an idea to give an article more than nine
minutes before tagging them for deletion, if the article gets improved five
minutes later to the point where inclusion is obvious, the AFD debate looks
rather silly.
In the case of Cart00ney, it doesn't matter all that much, several people on
the debate are expressing concerns not only over the article's quality but
also over the subject's suitability as a topic.
If the article is a speedy candidate, a speedy deletion can be done
expediently without any grace period because a new and improved version can
be made easily without an AFD debate getting in the way.
In general, articles on neologisms which don't explain significance are prime
targets for the New Page Patrollers' AFD tags, and they will, and should,
only take into account the merits of the article, not its creator.
Sjakkalle
Hello all,
Everyone seen this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Bounty
At first glance, it looks rather brilliant. Both focusing energy on
improving articles, and donating money to the foundation.
Just thought I'd bring it to your attention.
Steve
They jumped the gun with the release but yes, there is a deal with Babylon pending.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
To: English Wikipedia; foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed Feb 15 07:58:54 2006
Subject: [Foundation-l] Babylon Ltd using Wikipedia - press release questions
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060214/uktu013.html?.v=48http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-1…
OR YEHUDA, Israel, February 14 /PRNewswire/ -- Babylon Ltd., the leading
provider of single-click translation and information access software, and
Wikipedia the free-content, user edited encyclopedia, today announced the
launch of the Wikipedia as part of Babylon's solution.
[...]
"Our collaboration with Wikipedia is the first of its kind for Babylon".
said Alon Carmeli, VP Sales and Marketing, Babylon Ltd.
Dropping our name so as to imply a more active collaboration than
downloading a database dump ... that seems slightly questionable
behaviour. Unless, of course, there was an active collaboration with
Babylon Ltd?
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060214/uktu013.html?.v=48http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-1…
OR YEHUDA, Israel, February 14 /PRNewswire/ -- Babylon Ltd., the leading
provider of single-click translation and information access software, and
Wikipedia the free-content, user edited encyclopedia, today announced the
launch of the Wikipedia as part of Babylon's solution.
[...]
"Our collaboration with Wikipedia is the first of its kind for Babylon".
said Alon Carmeli, VP Sales and Marketing, Babylon Ltd.
Dropping our name so as to imply a more active collaboration than
downloading a database dump ... that seems slightly questionable
behaviour. Unless, of course, there was an active collaboration with
Babylon Ltd?
- d.
Sometimes username are quite offending and or provoking e.g. by
including another username or theme.
Under wich circumstances it is allowed to rename usernames/useraccounts
without asking the user?
Heinz