WikiEN-l April 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

175 participants
238 discussions

Wikipedia as a playground for other companies' disputes
by Mathias Schindler 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/13/205967/Online+encyclop%c3%a… DATE:13/04/06 SOURCE:Flight International Online encyclopædia Wikipedia aircraft group allege deliberate misleading Airbus and Boeing entries Readers of the online open-access encyclopædia Wikipedia have raised concerns that the entries of both Airbus and Boeing have been altered in possibly deliberately misleading ways.

2 1

Now I wonder if this counts as a reliable source?
by Guy Chapman aka JzG 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

Surely as a public service this important new research should be incorporated into our growing series of articles on alien abduction theories and other conspiracies, but is it a reliable source? http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ It put me rather in mind of this ground-breaking study: http://www.plokta.com/plokta/issue23/teapot.htm which gives us a verifiable source to back the frequently-repeated assertion that ''foo'' is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Sorry, a slow afternoon in the office :-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

2 1

How Wikipedia deals with hoaxes: a practical example
by David Gerard 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

This is the story of a real case on en: Wikipedia, prompted by a journalist query on the subject. I'm sending it to wikien-l and wikimediauk-l as it's on topic, and Aphaia suggested wikipedia-l would benefit from it as well. Full credit to en:user:Average Earthman on this one - he did an excellent job. This shows how Wikipedia deals with hoaxes: patiently and carefully the first time around, less patiently the second, shoot-on-sight the third. The (Glasgow) Daily Record articles: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16929538%26method=full%26site… http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16929536%26method=full%26site… The eventual Times article barely mentions Wikipedia: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2130227.html - but I got a nice thank-you note back from Mr Lister and I think we can say another journalist has successfully been informed. I also blogged it: http://reddragdiva.livejournal.com/307381.html - d. Original query: My name is David Lister and I am a journalist for The Times. I am doing a story today about a man called Alan McIlwraith, a call centre worker in Glasgow, Scotland, who has been passing himself off as an Iraq war hero. Mr McIlwraith, who claimed he was a sir and had received the Military Cross, was exposed by a Glasgow tabloid newspaper today; the British Army says that he has never even served in its ranks. He also had an entry in wikipedia - which I am assuming he wrote himself - in which he was described as someone who "can get things done and is thought of as a hero…by the UK and NATO". His entry has now been deleted: can you please tell me when it was removed? I am assuming that he wrote this entry himself - what are the procedures that one has to go through to submit an entry on your website? My reply: Creating an article is easy - the only requirement is that you create a WIkipedia user account, which is about thirty seconds' effort. (This requirement was put into place in November last year, which is actually after the Alan Mcilwraith article was first created.) This means it's very easy to create something. The figures as of November last year were about 4000 new articles a day, 2000 of which were deleted within 24 hours. We've become ridiculously popular since then, so I'm sure the numbers are much higher now. We get a lot of rubbish, but we operate on the principle of "keep it open and clean up later" because it generally works well enough and *most* jokes and hoaxes are easily spotted. Ever since the John Seigenthaler hoax late last year, we've kept a *particularly* close eye on the biographies of living people, which helps in areas such as the current case. The article "Alan Mcilwraith" was created and deleted a few times. I have administrator powers on English Wikipedia ("administrator" = "janitor", rather than any sort of "senior editor" - an admin has various cleanup powers, the ability to block vandals, delete and undelete articles, etc.), so I am able to look up the history of the article. It's actually a pretty typical example of how Wikipedia deals with people putting rubbish or hoaxes in, so I'll detail exactly what happened for you to give you an understanding of the process. We get this sort of thing all the time, and we have reasonably effective procedures for dealing with persistent hoaxers. The article was first created 18:28 GMT, 5 October 2005 by an anonymous IP-address user. It was a badly-spelt and ungrammatical article detailing Mcilwraith's improbable heroics, and reads like something a high-school student would create as a prank - a lot of deletable articles are of that description, and we're used to this sort of thing. The creator kept working at the article, also creating a username (User:MilitaryPro) to continue working on it - that username doesn't appear to have written on any other subject. (MilitaryPro did add Alan Mcilwraith to "List of honorary British Knights" on 21:18 GMT, 4 October 2005, but someone removed him two hours later, at 23:19 GMT, with the comment "del Alan Mcilwraith - Google has never heard of him - pretty good for someone supposedly knighted this year". Lists of this sort tend to be on a lot of editors' watchlists.) MilitaryPro uploaded a purported picture of Mcilwraith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alan.No2.jpg , uploaded 22:36 GMT, 9 October 2005. Note that he marked it "may be reused for any purpose", so if MilitaryPro is Mcilwraith and he owns the image, he has in fact legally released it for free reuse if you need a pic :-) The article triggered the suspicions of Wikipedia editors in fairly short order. One user, "Average Earthman", tagged it "cleanup-verify" at 17:49 GMT, 10 October 2005, with the comment "This smells like a hoax to me. What year was he made a CBE then?" The "cleanup-verify" tag not only warns the reader, but adds tagged articles to a category for dubious articles, so others can easily look over what needs an unforgiving eye. Ten days later (19:48 GMT, 20 October 2005), with no verification having been added to the article, another editor (user "RussBlau") marked it for deletion. You can read the deletion debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Mcilwraith - typical for an obvious hoax or joke article with no-one coming forward with anything to verify otherwise. So it was deleted at 11:50 GMT, 26 October 2005. Interestingly, the same IP address that had created the article had come back on 24 October and blanked the article, before its deletion but after the first two comments on the deletion debate. MilitaryPro came back and created the article again at 18:39 GMT, 21 December 2005, working on it for a few days further, both as a logged-in user and as an anonymous IP address. (The same IP address also tried twice to delete the previous deletion discussion from the list of old discussions, though these changes were quickly spotted and reverted.) "Average Earthman" spotted the recreation at 12:44 GMT, 22 December 2005 - presumably he had the article on his watchlist - and tagged it for deletion again, then re-tagged it 24 December for speedy deletion as recreated deleted content, with the comments: "No, forget the AfD, it's already failed in the past. Same lies again. It's a hoax. And in case it isn't speedied, I still think it's a hoax. Uni at 14? Advisor to Generals at 22? No google hits? Really?" It was then deleted the second time at 17:50 GMT, 24 December 2005. MilitaryPro came back to create the article a *third* time at 10:53 GMT, 17 February 2006. It was tagged two minutes later, at 10:55, for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense." MilitaryPro then blanked the page at 11:00; "Average Earthman" tagged it for deletion *again* at 11:09. (The more persistent the hoaxer, the easier they are to deal with.) It was deleted for the third and final time at 16:19 GMT, 17 February 2006, and the page was locked with a "do not recreate" notice (as you can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mcilwraith ) a few seconds later. Interestingly, the hoax has been noted on the talk page of the article (the "discussion" tab at the top): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Mcilwraith . Now that he's making the papers, we have the question of whether his newfound fame as a hoaxer makes him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article!

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Featured article deterioration
by Ben Greenberg 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

It doesn't seem to me like Greasemonkey could solve the systemic problem-- it'd just help deal with it better for a couple individual users who choose to use it. How could we systemically work to prevent deterioration? I've identified the following causes: 1.Multiple vandalisms, where only some are reverted 2.Additions of poorly written stuff, but stuff not bad enough to warrant straight up reverting. 3.Citations getting removed 4.Unecessary factoids and observations getting added.

2 1

LS Studio and pro-pedophilia pov
by Sydney Poore 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

LS Studio is an article with content introduced by editors with a pro pedophiles pov. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_Studio Jimbo is aware of the problems with this article. I'm speculating that his comments about trolling come from observing the pro-pedophilia pov pushing at this article and a dozen more articles. I'm trying to gather consensus to delete LS Studio. There is no verifiable reliable sources for the content of the article. Evidently the current content is original research. Look through past versions and you will see that more detailed original research describing the web site has been removed. None of the newspaper articles identify LS Studio by name. I searched through FBI press announcement looking for some evidence that LS Studio was raided. I've looked through the United States official statements on human rights violations for Ukraine. Again, I find general reference to the FBI's involvement in shutting down child porn web sites in Ukraine but nothing specifically naming this studio. This article was nominated for deletion on February 4 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LS_Studio I'm not satisfied with the outcome of this Afd. There was heavy input from pro-pedophilia pov editors. There was a vote from a brand new user. This Afd vote was their first and last edit. Unless someone can find verifiable reliable sources in the next 48 hours I'm going to start another Afd. WP child pornography article already includes this content so there is no need to merge. Sydney aka FloNight

26 63

Ethics
by Thommandel＠aol.com 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

Is it ethical for an editor to support one viewpoint and then edit the opposing viewpoint? Is it ethical for a supporter of the big bang to edit the alternative plasma cosmology? tom

7 7

Re: [WikiEN-l] Featured article deterioration
by Ben Greenberg 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

Its simply naive to say that infinite edits means an infinitely good article. If you dont believe that bad, non-vandalism edits take their toll on articles, I invite you to look at the Featured article review. So many articles are ruined by people who simply aren't good at writing prose, and who enjoy adding useless factoids. Articles quite often get worse-- if your idealism has you believing otherwise, please look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_hop_music&diff=41510779&oldid… This should be a big wakeup call to anyone who thinks that the pure wiki system allows articles to get better indefinitely. Unless we do something about it, wikipedia will simply be a place where articles get great then start to deteriorate. I'm not suggesting stable versions, but surely... something needs to be done.

6 8

Re: [WikiEN-l] Georgia/Victoria
by Michael Snow 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

Steve Bennett wrote: >On 4/11/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>To back up Mark's point with a concrete example, >>[[Victoria]] has had no controversy, despite the >>Australian state getting far less prominence on that >>page than it deserves. >> >> >That is truly the mother of all disambiguation pages! > It would be more appropriate to call it the queen of disambiguation pages. --Michael Snow

1 0

Answers.com tool released
by Erik Moeller 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

Jimmy has added a link to the answers.com Wikipedia edition to the [[Wikipedia:Tools]] page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tools&diff=48023818&old… Since Jimmy has also said that the decision to list this tool, and where to list it, should be an editorial decision, I have begun an editorial discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools#Answers.com_tool about whether it is wise to effectively advertise this tool, which is at the heart of Answers.com's software patents lawsuit against Babylon Software. You can find more information about Answers.com's lawsuit in their press release on the matter: http://www.answers.com/main/ir/press03082006.jsp I have also pointed out the issue on foundation-l and asked the Wikimedia Board to re-evaluate the Answers.com deal in light of the software patents lawsuit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/006356.html The Board has not responded to this request. Again, failing any comment to the contrary, I will assume that the decision whether to list this tool on [[Wikipedia:Tools]] and/or highlight it in other forms is up to the community. I personally object to it unless the software patent lawsuit is mentioned on the page in an NPOV manner. Erik

13 18

Why voting *is* evil
by Steve Bennett 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

Hi all, Just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia . It is obvious beyond words to me that [[Georgia]] should be the country, and the US state should be at something like [[Georgia (US State)]]. However, an ongoing poll evenly ties between that, and keeping Georgia is a disambiguation page. I find this sad. :( Steve

20 67

← Newer
1
...
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
...
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 April 2006