WikiEN-l February 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

184 participants
279 discussions

Clarify
by - Essjay - 05 Feb '06

05 Feb '06

The formatting in my last message was lost in transmission; I responded to two quotes from two different individuals (which I intended to be italicized). I'll have to be more careful with gmail in the future. Essjay ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

2 1

Discussions for Adminship
by Ilya N. 05 Feb '06

05 Feb '06

Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DFA and comment on it. I guess people didn't like us suspending RFA before discussing, so we made a different page, where you can tie up the whole thing in discussion until the cows come home. Please inform me of any obvious contradictions in the pages. -- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.

4 8

Re: Should we be declaring war on vandals?
by Michael Snow 05 Feb '06

05 Feb '06

Chris Jenkinson wrote: > MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote: > >> I could, but if I did that I would mess up the listings in GMail >> which I use >> myself. >> I can't make everyone happy at the same time. >> I'll try quoting part of the messages I reply to instead, which >> hopefully >> makes as much people happy as possible. > > Why does it mess up the listing in Gmail? If that's the case, Gmail is > broken. Of course it's broken, it's only in beta. Doesn't mean we should ban it, though. Otherwise, by a similar logic, perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation should optimize all of its sites for Internet Explorer. --Michael Snow

3 2

NY gubernatorial candidate's campaign altered newspaper articles
by SP 05 Feb '06

05 Feb '06

Politician caught doing wiki style editing of newspaper articles on their web sites. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/kentucky/news/breaking_news/13793129.h… Sydney aka FloNight

1 0

Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 31, Issue 28
by Pedro Sanchez 05 Feb '06

05 Feb '06

> > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 04:53:36 +0200 > From: "gediza(a)gmail.com" <gediza(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 31, Issue 27 > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > Message-ID: > <1228d5bb0602041853n1a56b8d6uac3b9f1b92e35535(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > 3. I am at a state of war against some vandals, spesificaly ones that use > wikimedia vunrabilities to get good users blocked. There are vandals whom > could spoof IPs of good users and get them blocked. The more extreme vandals > get, the more exreme I will get. I'd like to note I am "warring" bare > handed. I cannot block a vandals. If we don't declare "war" on persistant > vandals who only seek to vandalise wikipedia we created for their amusement. > We need to "war" against vandalism. The ultimate battle strategy is to > destroy the will of the opponent to fight. Most vandals stop after test > warnings or a 5-15 minute "warning" block. Provoking vandals is just asking > for more. And for the record and to avoid possible further trolling, those are HIS views, doens't mean every RC patroller thinks he's at war, to clarify

1 0

Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 31, Issue 28
by Pedro Sanchez 05 Feb '06

05 Feb '06

> Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 19:54:33 -0500 > From: The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Should we be declaring war on vandals? > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> > Message-ID: > <dfd0b40602041654w4f10c8aaoe616b5f6ad511990(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 2/4/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris(a)starglade.org> wrote: > > The Cunctator wrote: > > > [[User:Cool Cat]]. > > > > One person? It seems a more productive path would be to discuss it on > > his talk page rather than discussing it behind his back on the mailing > > list - as far as I know, he's not subscribed. > > He's the person who founded the "Counter Vandalism Unit", so his > attitudes are influential. I resent that, most of us have our own mind and our own attitudes, philosophies and approaches to our wikiwork. And again, this is no about coolcat, you seem to be shifting the target of yoru criticisicm: cvu is bad, not it's not cvu, it's the name, not it's not the name, it's the fantasy, no it's not the fantasy, it's one person statemetn, no it's not a pern statement, it's his influence, and so on. as someone pointed: you're just looking for things to criticize on.

1 0

Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 31, Issue 27
by gediza＠gmail.com 05 Feb '06

05 Feb '06

> > The Cunctator wrote: > > > Should any of us declare war on vandals? > > > > > > Aren't most vandals people who are just being juvenile, and likely if > > > shown how much fun being a productive contributor to Wikipedia is, > > > would rather have their edits last, influencing others? > > > > > > Shouldn't we distinguish between fighting vandalism and fighting > > > vandals? It's not personal -- it's business. Right? > > > > > > Isn't declaring war a gross violation of assuming good faith? > > > >> > Please tell me why "declaring war" on vandals is a good idea. > > > > Who's been declaring war on vandals? > > > [[User:Cool Cat]]. It is highly dishonorable to talk behind someones back although you did mention the mailing list on my talk page. If you have a problem with me, please use my talk page. Your personal problems with me does not concern rest of wikipedia. And if it does concern rest of wikipedia there is arbcom or rfc. 1. Should we declare war on vandals: Firstly define "war". a. If you suggest reverting vandalism is war. Then yes there shall be war. b. If you are suggesting using bots to monitor every edit on wikipedia, then let there be war c. Fighting vandalism does not mean you get to bite newbies. Thats the major thing I tried to emphecise with the Counter Vandalism Unit. 2. You practicaly are campaigning against everything RC patrolers are doing ranging from opposing semi-protection, Counter Vandalism Unit to Anti-vandalism barnstar. I do not think you have any idea the level of vandalism wikipedia has. I'll give you two easy examples. See the history of my talk page. Check past 5000 edits. you will see about 5+ vandal bot attacks. Also see articles such as [[Geroge W. Bush]]. Articles such as [[George W. Bush]] is finaly reliable. Aka when you load the page you do not see random images of genetials. Granted Bush is a dick as far as I care but I'd rather have an encyclopedic article about him rather than a picture of someone elses dick. 3. I am at a state of war against some vandals, spesificaly ones that use wikimedia vunrabilities to get good users blocked. There are vandals whom could spoof IPs of good users and get them blocked. The more extreme vandals get, the more exreme I will get. I'd like to note I am "warring" bare handed. I cannot block a vandals. If we don't declare "war" on persistant vandals who only seek to vandalise wikipedia we created for their amusement. We need to "war" against vandalism. The ultimate battle strategy is to destroy the will of the opponent to fight. Most vandals stop after test warnings or a 5-15 minute "warning" block. Provoking vandals is just asking for more. 4. I invite you to RC patrol for several days. Feel free to join us at #wikipedia-en-vandalism on freenode. In an enviorment you are assuming good faith there should be no reason why you should not give it a try. 5. RC patroling is not an easy task. It requires dedication of numerous people watching practicaly thousands of edits per hour. For that we RC patrolers only ask to be left alone, we don't even require patting in the back. Just let us do our work and allow people to recognise our hard work by giving us the Anti-vandalism barnstar. Vandalism can only be fought with comunity concensus, a joint effort. Tens of vandalism happens per hour. Mostly highschool kids testing or some congressman blanking contraversies about him or some disturbed individual who likes to replace pages with images of penises. It is absolutely painfull for RC patrolers to be sconred upon for fighting against vandalism. Cool Cat

1 0

Re: US Congress Staff Editing Wikipedia
by Michael Snow 05 Feb '06

05 Feb '06

Tim Starling wrote: >Michael Snow wrote: > > >>Bryan Derksen wrote: >> >> >>>My secret dream is to see the United States Congress hauled up before >>>the Arbitration Committee. Maybe we could get them to pass clearer >>>fair-use legislation as part of their parole. >>> >>> >>Clearer fair use legislation is not likely to do us any good. What we >>want is *more generous* fair use legislation. >> >> >US fair use legislation is already among the most generous in the world. Coupled with US-centric >Wikipedia policy, this has the effect that anyone attempting to distribute Wikipedia offline outside >the US risks being sued for copyright infringment. I'd prefer it if US fair use legislation was >brought into line with the rest of the world, i.e. made more restrictive not less. > > You mean this seriously? You'd rather make fair use in the US more restrictive than make fair use/dealing/practice/whatever in other countries less restrictive? I understand the concern about Wikipedia policy vis-a-vis the laws of nations generally, and personally I think we should avoid relying on fair use if at all possible, but that's not what I was getting at. The point was that asking for more clarity on these issues from Congress, or any other body where rights organizations wield their influence, would likely only result in making it more clear when the answer is "No." >Or, you know, they could just give us money. Whatever. > > Now there's a question - if the US government offered us money, no strings attached, how would people respond? --Michael Snow

11 17

Re: [WikiEN-l] Should we be declaring war on vandals?
by Dave 04 Feb '06

04 Feb '06

Wikipedia hasn't declared war on vandals! If you look at the tempaltes almost all of the level 1 warnings sound more like welcome messages!!!! "Shouldn't we distinguish between fighting vandalism and fighting vandals? It's not personal -- it's business. Right?" -Hence the Counter *Vandalisim *Unit. There are many vandals who have became productive members of the wikipedia community. Who is declaring war on vandals?? Flying Canuck

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: US Congress Staff Editing Wikipedia
by Chip Berlet 04 Feb '06

04 Feb '06

use-it-or-lose-it? That would really mess over us authors. :-( -Cberlet ________________________________ From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Ray Saintonge Sent: Fri 2/3/2006 8:51 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: US Congress Staff Editing Wikipedia Anthony DiPierro wrote: >I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair >use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter >all that much in my daily life. > >But making it more clear when the answer is "No." That'd be >tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of >conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything. > Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision. If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

4 3

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 February 2006