On 6/7/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > For the record, and as I have said many times in the past, I do NOT
> > think that cultural distinctions between difference language Wikipedias
> > are accidental or to be regarded as accidental, and even if it were
> > possible to translate every article using machine translation, I cannot
> > imagine that we would want to do so.
> >
>
> This seems like a strange position to me.
>
It doesn't make any sense to me either, and it seems to directly
contradict this exchange:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Is it considered acceptable to have spearate Wikipedias for different
> cultures and peoples rather than languages? Are any existing
> Wikipedias considered in this capacity?
Jimbo responded:
> In general, no, but there are many complications of course relating to
> ISO language codes, dialects, languages, etc.
Anthere responded:
> Imho, it is not acceptable at all.
> We try to reach people in their mother language or at least a language
> they handle very well, but we should not provide different content based
> on any other specificity such as nationality, religion, political view point
> and such. By definition, since we try to stick to neutrality, the content provided
> should fit all.
Angela responded:
> No it isn't. I agree with what Jimmy, Anthere, and others have already
> written in reply to this.
Jimbo claims he's said this many times in the past. I couldn't find
any, but if anyone else can maybe I can better understand what he's
saying. If Jimbo does "NOT think that cultural distinctions between
difference language Wikipedias are accidental", then he must think
they're intentional. That raises the question as to who intended
these distinctions, and what distinctions were intended. I always
thought the English Wikipedia at least was supposed to be neutral with
regard to culture. Maybe English is the exception?
Jimbo also writes "Anyway, if we were going to use a constructed
meta-language, obviously it would be Klingon or Toki Pona. ;-)" This
presumably was a response to "Yes, the original plan was to write all
articles in Esperanto and then have them autotranslated to all the
other languages of the world." This might point to some of the
confusion, as my statement had NOTHING to do with constructed
languages. I was thinking more along the lines of Wikipedia after the
invention of the [[babel fish]].
If everyone in the world could write to everyone else in the world and
be understood, would there still be a need for multiple language
Wikipedias? Is Jimbo saying that yes, there would? If so, I'd LOVE
to see some of the "many times in the past" he's talked about this,
because it makes absolutely no sense.
Anthony
Daniel Brandt is a notable public figure. By all rights, he should
have an article in Wikipedia. And the article we have on him is a
good one.
We should also, after contacting Brandt, delete it.
I don't know if you all caught what Brandt and the folks at Wikipedia
Review did to me last month. If you didn't, here: http://
www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22/u_florida_cops_ask_f.html Basically,
someone on Wikipedia Review contacted my University to express
concern that I was a murderer, and I got to deal with a week of being
the subject of a police investigation that demanded my fingerprints.
In my case, who I am is public knowledge, and I decided to make it
that way. But that's not the case for everyone on Brandt's Hive Mind
site. A lot of them are people who didn't accept their RFA expecting
that they'd have their names, cities of residence, and photos
released. Nobody on Wikipedia, I don't think, realized that accepting
adminship meant painting a target on yourself, and, frankly, on your
family and friends.
The Foundation doesn't and can't provide admins with protection here.
And we need protection. The other admins on this site should not get
to go through what I did, or any of the far worse things that can and
will eventually happen to us.
But, after thinking about it, its my belief that the Foundation owes
its editors and admins the protections it can give. And one of those
is offering to delete Brandt's article in exchange for the removal of
the Hive Mind site. It's an awful trade. It's a horrible, awful
trade. We should hate making it, and we should hate Brandt for
forcing us to make it.
But we should make it. Because the consequences of not making it are
just too dangerous.
-Phil
On 11 Jun 2006 at 23:17, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
> We should be identifying and booting all underage editors (admin
> status is irrelevant, from legal pov) until their parents have
> been informed of the risks and give permission.
How, exactly, do you plan on enforcing this on a site that allows
anonymous and pseudonymous editing?
--
== 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/
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> There's a big, wonderful, English-speaking world out there that aren't
> American, and we aren't British, either.
Apparently in that wonderful world of English for non-British
non-Americans, people has some interesting rules for subject-verb agreement.
--Michael Snow
A separate, but related issue to the Daniel Brandt thread.
It's common enough sense that Wikipedia is going to get sued someday.
And I know we've been preparing financially for that.
But with the rise of Brandt, Wikipedia Review, and whatever is going
to come after them in this progression, the fact of the matter is
that admins and regular editors are in danger too. Not just legal
danger (As I assume the Foundation would use its legal resources to
protect an admin who was sued), but personal danger.
Our photos, names, and cities are being published. People are
stalking us. Eventually, something bad is going to happen.
When it does, there should be a fund to help - whether its helping
with the medical bills of someone who's physically attacked, helping
with the legal bills of someone who's trying to stop a stalker, or
helping defray the costs of someone who's fired because of harassment
at their workplace, Wikipedia needs to be able to help the volunteers
who are put in danger by helping Wikipedia.
I believe that we should, as soon as possible, start a special
fundraiser to build this fund, and after that should devote a regular
portion of the Foundation budget to it.
Supporting Wikipedia is acquiring a high price. Simply put, Wikipedia
needs the ability to support us.
-Phil
>From: mboverload <mboverload(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:03:54 -0700
>
>You are welcome to contest your blocking/request to
be unblocked. The
>wikipedia IRC channel is pretty good if you want to
discuss it with several
>admins in real time.
>
>mboverload
>
With a little bit of embarrassment I should disclose
that I am not an internet-person. I would appreciate
if you could give me more insight how I can use the
wikipedia IRC channels.
Thank you in advance,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Reference link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Wo…
I know that the proposal I started ([[WP:OURS]]) on
this list is modified and posted on Wikipedia by
another user ([[User:Raphael1]]). I would like to
clearly and explicitly state that I approve the
actions taken and have no problem with these actions.
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I would like to start by applauding Mr. Wales for his
wonderful idea of writing a free online encyclopedia
by the contribution of volunteers. I am hoping that it
can be improved to a reliable source of information as
time goes.
At this point, it is evident that, there are some
structural problems in Wikipedia. Ignoring these
problems doesn't lead to a reasonable solution and
doesn't help.
The main problem I can see is the unbalance between
the user rights and admin privileges. It can be
adjusted and corrected but the problem needs to be
identified first. It might not seem to be a
serious issue for one who is not effected, but it
really is. It is of paramount importance to realize
that motivation of ordinary users from any background
can be stimulated only by a fair treatment of
their edits.
It is also equally important to realize that the
conjuncture has a strong influence on the editors
without an exclusion of the admins. Some people feel
marginalized and faced to bias actions from some
admins. Isn't this important enough to address? The
answer to the question is strongly related to the
strategic call of being inclusive or exclusive.
Please note that any person leave Wikimedia is not
only a minus to the community, in general, is a plus
to the anti-Wikipedia community. I, myself, am at or
around that border line and before crossing it I
wanted to make a friendly call for a discussion of the
issue. I would be glad to discuss the issue and make
some suggestions for the solution if you are
interested.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:22:07 +0100
>
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:32:46 -0700 (PDT), Guy Chapman
aka JzG wrote:
>
> >It is not surprising to me that you -like a few
> >others- are interpreting the proposals around some
> >specific discussions you have in mind.
>
>Hard not to given that you are an indefinitely
blocked POV pusher, and
>the proposals appear designed to strengthen the
position of POV
>pushers and weaken that of the admins who have to
clean up after them.
>
>Guy (JzG)
>--
This statement requires rephrasing too: I am a
relatively new user, blocked indefinitely and unjustly
-twice- by the same admin, who takes the issue so
personal, behaves unquestionable, and misuse his
privileges, and the proposals are for protecting
current users and newcomers from the rage of abusive
admins who are master of wikilawyering to strengthen
their position with a crude temerity as their main
contribution. I would like to say that I know quite a
few admins who are really nice guys and I am sorry if
my statements sound like a generalization.
Don't you think it would be better if you discuss the
proposals themselves and show the weakness they may
have so that they can be modified and put into a
better and so useful from? Is it harder than personal
attacks? I am sure it, at least, requires more brain
energy.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight
Hello,
It seems I have entirely missed the whole discussion over this new tool.
I discovered the tool just today and I was wondering :
* how did the current editors with access to this tool got it ? (which
process to get that new status). Are the people only from the arbcom ?
Or are they accepted by the arbcom ?
* what is the procedure followed in case of abusive use of the tool ?
Ant