Since Wikipedia.org seems to be inaccessible in mainland China by
standard internet means, one might assume that one of the
"legitimate" companies in the PRC might jump in. Guess what happened
http://baike.baidu.com/ describes itself as a encyclopedia that is
collaboratively written by its users or however you translate
http://www.virtual-china.org/2006/04/baidus_alternat.html has a first
review about it.
"Baidu's Baike [an alternate Chinese wikipedia] has finally formally
launched. but it's nothing to get excited about...I looked around a
bit and most of the articles are naked plagiarism. They've
hypocritically put links to reference material at the
bottom...Basically there's little of value here. When I looked
carefully, this is the copyright contract: "Baidu owns all of the
copyrights to material found on this website." How shameless. "
This system seams to feature some kind of karma/credit point system
where different kind of actions might lead to an increasing score of
Die Klugheit von Wiki besser verstehen
He he, that's even better :D How do you think of these things? Put this in the wikipedia namespace.
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:47:52 -0400
From: "maru dubshinki"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the verifiability of articles we already HAVE
To: "English Wikipedia"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 4/26/06, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Sounds vaguely familiar. Let's see...
> * Avatars (user names) ... check
> * Thousands of players online at any time ... check
> * Highly addictive ... check
> * Players can engage in alliances (user page templates) ... check
> * Extreme players can become super-players (admins) ... check
> * Trolls ... check
> * (Edit) wars ... check
> Wikipedia - largest MMORPG *ever*!
Nah... I prefer the analogy of CCGs. One's deck corresponds to one's
watchlist. Every turn (or "day"), one goes through one's deck, drawing
certain edits. Careful strategic choice of edits allows one to
accumulate edits (one can choose to use one's limited time/number of
edit selections to revert vandalism, getting a moderate number of
riskfree additions to one's edit counts, or one can choose to revert
or add text, possibly starting a battle with the other player- a risky
ploy, but with the chance of reaping many additions to one's edit
Once the draw phase is over, one then lays out one's policy cards
(each of which costs a certain number of edit points), and finally one
summons one's "monsters"- or editors, I should say. IE, one could
start with a lowly cheap anon editor, upgrading to a new registered
user. With the passage of three or four turns (or "days"), one's
registered editor evolves into a regular user. Regular users' stats
can be boosted.
If a player invests some policy cards and a healthy number of edit
points into a particular editor, he can activate the RFA policy card,
and flip some coins. If successful, the editor then becomes a dreaded
Administrator, with devastating powers of deletion and
When the attack phase comes, such an editor will be a powerful asset
for a player (but expensive!). Of course, one can shun
the-few,-the-proud,-the-expensive strategy, and go for more of a
Zergling rush attack, or a "sock puppet strategy".
Of course, there is more to it than just editors and policy cards. One
has field bonuses, like Wikiprojects (ex: if a player has the Star
Wars Wikiproject on the field, and the current battle is over a Star
Wars-related article, the player's editors could get defense bonuses
or special summons), or magic cards like semi-protection (stops
lower-level editors cold). And what would a CCG be without special
cards, such as (with apologies to Yu-Gi-Oh) "Limb of Wales"- assemble
all the pieces on the field, and you summon the God-King himself?
Victory of course comes when certain conditions relating to the
articles are met, or you destroy all the "tolerance points" of the
other player with your editors and the other person is indef banned.
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
That's brilliant :Dlol:D
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:16:07 +0200
From: Magnus Manske
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the verifiability of articles we already HAVE
To: English Wikipedia
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Erik Moeller wrote:
> That shouldn't come as a surprise. MMORPGs are known for their
> addiction potential. Players spend hundreds of hours in these games.
> They form emotional attachments with the game and the players.
Sounds vaguely familiar. Let's see...
* Avatars (user names) ... check
* Thousands of players online at any time ... check
* Highly addictive ... check
* Players can engage in alliances (user page templates) ... check
* Extreme players can become super-players (admins) ... check
* Trolls ... check
* (Edit) wars ... check
Wikipedia - largest MMORPG *ever*!
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
There has been no explanation as to how this alleged consensus has taken
place. Its because there is no actual consensus on this. The only consensus
that exists is merely between the people on one side of the dispute. .
Alkivar has certainly abused his power on this occasion. I have tried to
find out how to contact Alkivar however Ive found it to be exceedingly
obscure to contact and reason with him. Can anyone help me in this regard.
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
On 4/25/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Just got this charming missive. If we're not going to do anything
> about Brandt, I'll just stop editing the article like he wants because
> I don't need to spend the rest of my life being hounded by a crazy
> Just one more edit from Jokestress on my bio article, or just one more
> edit from you on my bio article <b>OR</b> on any of the two Talk pages
> or my User page, regardless of the nature of the edit -- even if it is
> ostensibly friendly -- and you and Jokestress are both going into a
> Google-Watch sidebar with your real names and pictures. I may throw in
> Sir William Reierson Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet of Kittybrewster, into the
> mix as well, since he is part of the Google Groups episode as of today
> (which makes it relevant to Google-Watch.org). I don't know about him
> yet because I'm not sure he knew what he was doing. By the way, this
> is not a threat. It's a promise. Also, I'd advise you to put your real
> name on your user page, because all of your harassment (please learn
> to spell this word) from January 5, 2006 until now has been done
> "without disclosing his identity," which makes you potentially liable
> for criminal penalties under that new law that you deleted from my
> user page. It doesn't matter that I've identified you, because you are
> still operating on Wikipedia as someone whose identity is not
> disclosed. Yes, please take this to Brad Patrick, Wikipedia's lawyer,
> in Tampa. My position is that he should be reporting you to the U.S.
> Attorney in Tampa as part of his legal obligation to protect
> Wikipedia. If he doesn't, I can raise the issue with the Florida bar.
> In other words, it would be a conflict of interest for Mr. Patrick to
> give you any advice on this. Jokestress is off the hook in terms of
> the criminal statute because she identifies herself on her user page.
> I'm sending a copy of this to Jokestress by external email. --Daniel
> Brandt [[User:126.96.36.199|188.8.131.52]] 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Good grief. I'm starting to wonder whether we should have a group of
editors who haven't been foolish enough to break their pseudonymity
assigned to articles like this (the idea being that if they haven't
been foolish enough to give out their names and pictures for people
like Brandt to abuse, they'll be less liable to be threatened by
"exposure"; for instance, if Brandt were to make any threats against
me, they would be completely hollow: no one on the wiki or the web
knows who I am, where I live, or what I look like; the data just isn't
Hi folks. I'd like to solicit your opinions of fair
use image galleries in articles.
In the area I edit in most (British television
history), many of the subjects have a long visual
history of changing logos and graphic design. This is
usually reflected in the illustrations in the
However, a couple of them - [[UTV]] and [[HTV]] for
instance - have grown little galleries of fair use
images at the foot of the article.
I see two potential problems here.
The first is that these stills are all taken from
various hobby sites on the subject. Whilst the hobby
sites don't hold the copyright on the images, they did
do all the hard work in capturing the images and
uploading them in the first place. They are often not
credited, and, if they are, they're rarely credited
with a clickable link (which would seem to be the
absolute least an uploader could do).
The second is that "fair use" clearly has limits -
somewhere. The current logo of a company is almost
always fair use. Previous logos, in context, are
likely to be fair use. But a gallery of 6 or 8 images,
without accompanying text, seems to be right on the
borders of fair use and senseless copyright
I'm wary of taking this up directly with the editors
in question as people are remarkably attached to their
fair use images. Of the three people I've contacted in
the past about fair use images possibly being misused,
one changed usernames, one quit the 'pedia instantly
on the grounds that I was a pedantic fucking cunt (a
direct quote), and one blanked his talk page without
One day, fair use image policy is going to cause an
explosive RfC... but I'd rather my name wasn't on it.
Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets. http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Your "detractors" were attempting to edit according to a consensus achieved on the talk page. You were attempting to ram through your personally preferred version and wear everyone else down until they gave up and submitted to you. You were told many times that your behaviour was not appropriate and you were warned many times by many people for several weeks and despite what you say, at least two of the people who warned you are administrators. You just ignored everyone and continued editing against consensus. Your contributions show that you have contributed little to Wiki outside of trying to enforce you preference for the wording of one sentence in one article.
As for 3RR, it was explained to you at least once that you do not have to break the letter of that rule to break the spirit of it.
I can't believe you are genuinely surprised that the other editors on that page had had enough and sort administrative intervention after you ignored numerous appeals to stop. Seeking administrative intervention was discussed openly on the article's talk page. But you ignored that, too.
On 26/04/2006 4:40:26 AM, "Ricky Reno" <juice2122(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>First of all Guy, I've
>stated that I have not violated the 3rr and I also made a point of
>explaining that my detractors were doing what I was doing and much more as
>well as in a more aggressive manner.
How does one resolve errors in checkuser results?~~~Pro-Lick
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Monday, April 24, 2006
GALESBURG - Knox College has announced the names of the 2006 honorary
Stephen Colbert, star of "The Colbert Report"; Shirley E. Barnes,
former U.S. Ambassador to Madagascar; and Jimmy Wales, the founder of
Wikipedia, will all received the award at Knox's 2006 commencement
ceremony at 10 a.m. June 3.
- Wales will receive the honorary doctor of laws degree.