WikiEN-l June 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

151 participants
160 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
by Daniel R. Tobias 06 Jun '06

06 Jun '06

On 5 Jun 2006 at 13:53, "Selina ." <wikipediareview(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Racism is illegal and as well as the editor puts Wikipedia in a bad > position. If people can't put bigotry aside and instead try to force > articles into their personal view of the world, it's right to ban them. How is racism illegal? Racism is a belief system, and unless you have a regime that prosecutes thought-crimes, it can't be made illegal. Certain forms of speech or action that are racially- related, and perhaps motivated by racism, are illegal in certain places, though the free-speech protections of some countries' constitutions place sharp limits on the criminalization of pure speech without action in those places, including the United States. -- == 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/

9 10

Category analysis with perl
by Anthony DiPierro 06 Jun '06

06 Jun '06

On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: > > You could always put "See also: [[:Category:The Beatles]]" (I think > > that's the syntax) in the description for [[Category:British rock > > bands]]. > > That's probably not bad. The page would have a basic structure like: > > Description > Related categories <-- new > Subcategories > Articles in this category > > People *want* to put "related categories", but they break the category > system if they make them subcats. We need to channel that desire. > > Steve While playing around with perl and [[Category:Airports]] last night I noticed an instance of what will probably be another common one: [[Category:Lists of airports]] is a subcategory. There are probably enough instances of that sort of thing that we would have to make an exception (in the interest of consensus), but the cleaner solution would be to go with something like the related categories idea above. I should also note that [[Category:Airports]] itself is treated like a theme for articles, but the subcategories are treated like attributes. (Actually, now that I look at it directly on Wikipedia I see "Airport lounges" and "Airport operators" are also subcategories. I didn't notice that in my original, very fast, skim of the tree, but looking back it *was* there). If anyone wants to take a look at my "tree" for airports, or my perl script (which is really simplistic), let me know where I can upload it. To run it you need to download and import two mysql database files, enwiki-20060518-categorylinks.sql (290 megs) and enwiki-20060518-page.sql (354 megs). The "tree" looks like this: Airports_by_country *Airports_in_Afghanistan *#Bagram_Air_Base *#Kabul_International_Airport *Airports_in_Albania *#Rinas_Mother_Teresa_Airport [...] *Airports_in_Australia **Royal_Australian_Air_Force_bases ***Former_RAAF_Bases ***#RAAF_Station_Archerfield ***#RAAF_Station_Bairnsdale ***#RAAF_Base_Rathmines ***#RAAF_Station_Tocumwal **#RAAF_Base_Amberley **#RAAF_Bare_Bases Are air force bases airports? I'd say so. I also tried making a tree for [[Category:Buildings and structures]] (a "parent" of airports). That one grew quite messy, and my script bailed at 10 levels of recursion, so I haven't really analysed it much. I'll try turning it up to 20 or 25 and see what happens. Anthony

3 8

A categorical question
by Steve Bennett 06 Jun '06

06 Jun '06

Can anyone tell me whether [[Lasers]] is a taxonomic category or a thematic category? What a nightmare. Steve

2 1

Some statistics I wish I had...
by Jimmy Wales 06 Jun '06

06 Jun '06

(Sorry for the cross posting, but there are several groups who might find this interesting.) For years now, it has been common for people to claim that "all the good editors are jumping ship" or "we are losing our best people". Generally, this has not proven to be true: people come and go, to be sure, but as some people drift away, others have drifted in. Whether the rate of burnout is "too high" or "too low" or "just right" is quite hard to say. However, it ought to be possible to at least quantify what that rate actually is, by using the Erik Zachte statistics or a modification of them. I would be fascinated if we could figure out such statistics as "For any given edit, what is the average length of service of the editor?" "For any given edit, what is the median length of service of the editor?" These could be measured by either time since first edit, or total number of edits or (perhaps best) some weighted average of the edit history. It would be nice to track that number over time... are we becoming "younger" as a community, "older" as a community? Staying about the same? Are old-timers sticking around longer than they used to, or jumping ship faster? There are also a whole set of related questions around newbies: Are newbies more likely to stick around, or less likely to stick around, than they were a year ago. Some people feel we are being overrun by newbies, others feel that we are becoming a more closed and cliqueish community which does not welcome newbies. I would measure this by saying "Of people who made at least 100 edits a month ago, how many of them made at least 100 edits this month". And similar stats for "at least 10 edits". (Merely looking at "new accounts" would not be right, because we had a huge spike in new account creation when it became necessary to have an account to create a new page.) --Jimbo -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations
by Resid Gulerdem 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia >Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:49:21 +0200 > >Jimmy Wales wrote: > > Resid Gulerdem wrote: > >> The admins are only part of the community now and > >> will stay like that in the future, as far as I can > >> see. Are some modifications needed in your opinion? I > >> believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you could > >> see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list > >> recently. I think it can be useful and can be > >> developed further. I tried to outline some important > >> points which may reduce the conflicts between the > >> admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think it > >> is feasible? > > > > I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment. Can > > you send it to me? > > > >I've just created the proposed policy on [[Wikipedia:OURS]]. > >-- >Raphael > By the way, I would like to thank you for also improving the proposal to a more professional and a better version. Resid __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations
by Resid Gulerdem 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia >Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:49:21 +0200 > >Jimmy Wales wrote: > > Resid Gulerdem wrote: > >> The admins are only part of the community now and > >> will stay like that in the future, as far as I can > >> see. Are some modifications needed in your opinion? I > >> believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you could > >> see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list > >> recently. I think it can be useful and can be > >> developed further. I tried to outline some important > >> points which may reduce the conflicts between the > >> admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think it > >> is feasible? > > > > I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment. Can > > you send it to me? > > > >I've just created the proposed policy on [[Wikipedia:OURS]]. > >-- >Raphael > Raphael, I do appreciate for it. You are sure brave. The troublemaker ([[User:TT]]) is in action though, did you realize that? Best, Resid __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations
by Resid Gulerdem 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

>From: John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.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: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:48:26 +0800 > >Resid Gulerdem wrote: > > >The proposal [[WP:OURS]] is below. Since I am > >referring to another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] > >in this proposal, I copy-pasted the updated version of > >the Wikiethics proposal below too for your > >convenience. Right after the proposals, I provided > >further explanations about them. > > > >Please consider this as a sincere effort from a > >relatively new user who lived through some hard times > >because of some structural problems. I would like to > >see the success of this project like many others, > >liked the philosophy behind Wiki movement, and would > >like to suggest some small changes for a better > >environment at which Wikiediting has some written > >ethical statements and standards and user rights and > >admin privileges are well-balanced. That, I believe > >will have some positive impact on Wikipedia. The > >proposals are needed in my opinion if Wikipedia will > >be a welcoming community and an encyclopedia at the > >same time in the future while it is growing. > > > > >Just so we're all on the same page, what is the "philosophy" behind the >Wiki movement? Also, what makes this relevant to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is >an encyclopaedia being built through a wiki because a wiki happens to be >the most efficient way to write an encyclopaedia, not for any >philosophical reasons. > The philosophy behind wikipedia refers to: writing an online free encyclopedia by contribution of the volunteers. > >(The sections below are my earlier messages to some > >people during the discussion on this list. I combined > >the relevant ones together and cc'ing to the list if > >anyone else missed them too.) > > > >------------ > >[[WP:OURS]] > >------------ > > > >[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is > >ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations > >between sysops and users. > > > >[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User > >RelationS) as well.] > > > > >Um....what problems are there between sysops and users that need >clarification? I rarely see a strict dividing line between admins and >ordinary users. In many polemical meta issues, Wikipedians have not been >divided along any demarcation boundary that would indicate a significant >causatory relationship between the sysop flag and one's views of a >particular subject. The fact that admins often seem to "gang up" is >usually caused by the fact that they've been here the longest, so they >*tend* to have a better view of what's going on. ([[Correlation does not >imply causation]], for anyone who's interested.) If you are reading the messages on this list that would be enough to see the problems. > > >1. '''Ethics and Standards''' > > > >'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type > >encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow > >well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia > >(e.g. > >[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]) > > > > >Those "ethics" are controversial and are not supported by the community. >What's wrong with current policy that necessitates a new policy? It cannot be said that they are not supported by the community, as explained at the end of last message. Discussing the standards and ethics in Wikipedia and related policies and guidelines coherently is very useful for both newcomers as a guide and old users as a reference. > > >[I think content disputes and the disputes around a > >controversial issue are very important to address. If > >the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that > >would reduce the energy loss around these kind of > >disputes.] > > > > >This ignores the fact that in a [[meritocracy]] (which includes >encyclopaedia publishing houses), some people's opinions do count more >than others. > > If the problem is about how Wikipedia works that might be true. If the dispute is related to a content of an article that connot be true. Whoever knows the subject should be listened. > > >[It is easier to write an article on a purely > >technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor, > >etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some > >problems because sometimes (if not all the times) > >admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience > >and privileges then does not constitute a base for > >neutralization of the article but -let me put it this > >way- rather make them a target for > >accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain > >only ordinary user behavior. It is important to > >realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the > >reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account > >of the controversial issues.] > > > > >This seems to be grandstanding to me. What're you getting at? > > >[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I > >started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote > >properly.] > > > >2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees''' > > > >Based on the area of specialization and interest, > >experienced users (more than 6 months of editing > >experience) may join the study groups. Study groups > >work on the controversial articles categorized > >as being related to their area of specialization and > >can make recommendations on particular points. If > >necessary, the study groups may also supervise > >controversial articles until the dispute is resolved. > > > > >This idea may have some merit, and is worth exploring. It depends on how >the community reacts, however. Such committees should not be placed on a >pedestal, nor should they be given excessive privileges. Standing >mini-arbcoms for dealing with content disputes is something worth >considering, nevertheless. > Yes. It does not have to be in an ArbCom form either. It is natural to think that people with similar interests and area of specialization have better view on a related article. It is not hard to find a way that they form groups to discuss the points which lead to disputes. Can you imagine how can that eliminate edit-wars and 3RR violations, etc? > >[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to > >form some study groups based on the area of > >specialization of the users, say 'history of science', > >etc., for example. When the disputes arise, > >the users may ask the opinion of the related study > >groups. The group may vote if necessary on the dispute > >and comes up with a decision. It does not have to be a > >final decision though, as usual. Many > >violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be > >diminished that way which may result in a more > >friendly atmosphere between users and admins who feel > >obligated to force the rules consciously.] > > > >3. '''Mentor-mentee program''' > > > >Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one > >admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia. > >The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required > >to have a mentor. Users can change their > >mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute > >by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a > >mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these > >accounts will be managed as before. > > > > >What is the purpose of this? Isn't this just coddling confirmed problem >editors? This smells like pointless [[m:instruction creep]]. > This is already explained below. This part propose to educate the users about wikiediting rather then irritate them, teach them a lesson by blocking, etc. > >[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and > >will provide a dynamic measure of their success. This > >dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them > >periodically. There is almost no accountability of > >admins in a practical way. They should be accountable > >to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be > >added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount > >importance.] > > > > >We've gone down this road before. RECONFIRMATION OF ADMINS IS NOT A GOOD >IDEA. (Refer to the talk page archives of RfA.) Also, [[WP:NOT]] a >democracy. Popularity should never be a factor in deciding whether an >admin should remain an admin or not. The only thing that matters in any >encyclopaedia publishing house is whether an editor or supervisor's net >contribution is positive or negative. > I did not propose reaffirmation process. I did not propose that the popularity should be a factor in determining adminship either. All I am saying is this: popularity is an indication of how admins do their job. If they are nice to users, trying to help them, educate them related to wikiediting the users will chose them as a mentor. The proposal does not talk about if an admin becomes unpopular s/he should quit. > >4. '''Limited block policy''' > > > >A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case > >the mentor is not available, an explanation should be > >posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can > >unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate. > >Anonym IP's will be managed as before. > > > >Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by > >an admin. > > > > >Any reason for this? As far as I can tell, rogue decisions are undone >pretty quickly (refer to Carnildo's actions in the Joeyramoney scandal) >and legitimate decisions stand. If it ain't broke, why fix it? > The indefinite block is an ultimate decision in my opinion. An admin should not have that privilege. > >[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern > >about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an > >agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not > >be hard to convince an admin about the applicability > >of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion > >of the validity of a block onto the admins involved > >rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not > >surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives > >the flexibility to the admins who think a block is > >unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's > >toe.] > > > >[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far > >should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally, > >after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may > >bring some reconciliations and peace > >to the project.] > > > > >WHY? > >This seems to be a very poorly thought out proposal to me, with no >unifying theme. It appears to be something created solely for the >purpose of mollycoddling trolls who have issues of their own. Wikipedia >is not a counseling centre, and it is not a place for the reformation of >editors who cannot work with other editors either. If you have personal >problems in working with other Wikipedians, and as a result are >contributing a net negative, you have no place here. End of story. We're >an encyclopaedia publishing house, not a democracy. > >John > It is explained why [[WP:OURS]] is proposed at the beginning. It will serve as a toll to strengthen and improve the efficiency of the bridges between community and encyclopedia component of Wikipedia. It can also serve as a tool to enhance community spirit. I did not say it is perfect. It is a first step towards clarification and balancing admin-user relations, though. Best, Resid __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

[[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations
by Resid Gulerdem 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia >Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:07:18 -0500 > >Resid Gulerdem wrote: > > The admins are only part of the community now and > > will stay like that in the future, as far as I can > > see. Are some modifications needed in your opinion? I > > believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you could > > see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list > > recently. I think it can be useful and can be > > developed further. I tried to outline some important > > points which may reduce the conflicts between the > > admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think it > > is feasible? > >I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment. Can >you send it to me? The proposal [[WP:OURS]] is below. Since I am referring to another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] in this proposal, I copy-pasted the updated version of the Wikiethics proposal below too for your convenience. Right after the proposals, I provided further explanations about them. Please consider this as a sincere effort from a relatively new user who lived through some hard times because of some structural problems. I would like to see the success of this project like many others, liked the philosophy behind Wiki movement, and would like to suggest some small changes for a better environment at which Wikiediting has some written ethical statements and standards and user rights and admin privileges are well-balanced. That, I believe will have some positive impact on Wikipedia. The proposals are needed in my opinion if Wikipedia will be a welcoming community and an encyclopedia at the same time in the future while it is growing. (The sections below are my earlier messages to some people during the discussion on this list. I combined the relevant ones together and cc'ing to the list if anyone else missed them too.) ------------ [[WP:OURS]] ------------ [[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations between sysops and users. [This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User RelationS) as well.] 1. '''Ethics and Standards''' 'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]) [I think content disputes and the disputes around a controversial issue are very important to address. If the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that would reduce the energy loss around these kind of disputes.] [It is easier to write an article on a purely technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor, etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some problems because sometimes (if not all the times) admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience and privileges then does not constitute a base for neutralization of the article but -let me put it this way- rather make them a target for accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain only ordinary user behavior. It is important to realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account of the controversial issues.] [I referred to an updated version of a proposal I started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote properly.] 2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees''' Based on the area of specialization and interest, experienced users (more than 6 months of editing experience) may join the study groups. Study groups work on the controversial articles categorized as being related to their area of specialization and can make recommendations on particular points. If necessary, the study groups may also supervise controversial articles until the dispute is resolved. [Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to form some study groups based on the area of specialization of the users, say 'history of science', etc., for example. When the disputes arise, the users may ask the opinion of the related study groups. The group may vote if necessary on the dispute and comes up with a decision. It does not have to be a final decision though, as usual. Many violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way which may result in a more friendly atmosphere between users and admins who feel obligated to force the rules consciously.] 3. '''Mentor-mentee program''' Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia. The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required to have a mentor. Users can change their mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these accounts will be managed as before. [This will indicate the popularity of the admins and will provide a dynamic measure of their success. This dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them periodically. There is almost no accountability of admins in a practical way. They should be accountable to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount importance.] 4. '''Limited block policy''' A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case the mentor is not available, an explanation should be posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate. Anonym IP's will be managed as before. Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by an admin. [Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not be hard to convince an admin about the applicability of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion of the validity of a block onto the admins involved rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives the flexibility to the admins who think a block is unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's toe.] [And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally, after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may bring some reconciliations and peace to the project.] ------------------------- [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] ------------------------- {{Proposed|[[WP:ETH]]}} {{Policy in a nutshell|<CENTER>Be wise and responsible...</CENTER>}} {{Policylist}} [[Image:Nuvola apps kwrite.png|80px|left]] '''Wikiethics''' (Wikipedia editorial standards and ethics) include the principles of [[ethical]] standards related to editing articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a body of policies that presuppose the existence of ethical standards that reflects the common heritage of human [[literacy]] in both the editors contributing, and the encyclopedia itself. This document aims to outline their parameters and scope. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently, their place in the whole picture and their relation to the Wiki ethics and standards are the main issues to be addressed. == Editorial Guidelines == It is helpful to have a productive editorial discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when disputes arise. The following sections provide important guidelines for editing an article. === Article-based classifications === Owing to the diversity of backgrounds that the editors come from, the interpretation of terms like 'offensive', 'censorship', 'pornography', 'minority', 'acceptability' etc. should always be decided on an article by article basis, and by following [[WP:CON|consensus]] based on the judgement of the contributing editors in that particular article. Generalizations do not help as it is almost impossible to agree on the definitions of these particular terms based on cultures, religions, life styles, etc. As a quantitative measure to 'majority', 'supermajority' and 'consensus', by [[Wiktionary:majority|majority]] more than 50% of the contributing editors is meant, by supermajority more than 75%, and the term [[Wiktionary:consensus|consensus]] refer to 'no significant disapproval'. === Collective consciousness === Collective consciousness can be explained as [[common sense]] and a common understanding between the contributing editors. This does not strictly exclude ideas from minorities in a particular discussion. With Wikipedia policies in mind, consensus among the contributing editors should determine what is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in a particular discussion. === The culture of compromise === [[Empathy]] and [[sincerity]] towards '[[the other]]' during the discussion of articles by editors or third parties is a powerful tool for [[compromise]]. === Conflict resolution === It is generally possible to resolve a conflict by taking all possible options available into the consideration. === Images === If a picture is causing concerns in an article, choosing visual or verbal descriptions based on the judgment of the contributing editors might be helpful. Changing the image with a more encyclopedic one, lowering the picture in the article, providing a link instead, or posting a warning template are other options can be considered. === Polls === A [['straw poll']] on a particular argument or on part of an article can be started at any time to see where the community stands on that particular issue. It is reasonable to think that an [['approval poll']], however, needs to be started upon the completion of the proposals based on a consensus. === Discussion pages === Editors are encouraged to seek whatever process is most likely to result in consensus and build a better encyclopedia using the existing guidelines. For efficiency of the discussions on an article one ''might'' chose to copy the part from the article onto the discussion page, express his/her ideas why s/he thinks the part is not appropriate and give his/her suggestion to fix the problem. This could help to get more input from the other editors and consequently may lead to a better article. === Anonymity === The editor's [[anonymity]] does not exempt them from a responsibility to their personal ethics. ==Editorial standards== High editorial standards would add to the reputation of Wikipedia. Wikipedia recognizes the standards which are shaped for centuries and currently practised in the mainstream media, for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Harm_limitatio… Harm limitation principle], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Taste.2C_decen… Taste, decency and acceptability] listed in [[Journalism ethics and standards]]. [[Ethic_of_reciprocity|Golden Rule]] ("not to inflict harm") can be taken to be another example. Some of the important editorial standards in Wikipedia are discussed below. === Objectivity === A Wiki article should reflect judgment based on observable phenomena, physical reality, and should be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. Absence of [[bias]] and lack of emotional involvement are necessary. Separation between news, opinions, and advertisements is also equally important. Competing points of view need to be balanced and fairly characterized in the articles. === Privacy === As Wikipedia becomes more popular and readership increases, the potential impact of published material, whether positive or negative, also magnifies. Therefore, [[journalism ethics and standards]] become relevant and editors are encouraged to consider when editing wikipedia. Editors should also consider notable individuals' rights to [[privacy]] and strive to [[Journalism ethics and standards#Harm limitation principle|limit unnecessary harm or discomfort]] to them. These factors should be balanced against the [[public interest]] in reporting information about them. This might occasionally lead to an [[ethical dilemma]], and requires greater effort on the part of editors to discuss and deliberate when making editorial decisions. === Responsibility === When making editorial decisions, each editor should make some personal consideration of sensitivity towards private individuals, children and juveniles, victims of crime, and people who are currently suffering grief and tragedy. === Public accountability === Wikipedia has an obligation towards it's readers. It is not in Wikipedia editors' interest to act irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is contrary to public interest and in a fashion that violates the trust of our donors and the public. Upholding the public's trust is easier than re-gaining it. === Censorship === [[Censorship]] in any form is not acceptable. 'No censorship' means information/descriptions/expressions should be included into or excluded from an article for editorial reasons or ethical concerns only based on the editorial consensus. Based on their judgment concerning verifiability of information, information content, and encyclopedic nature of the article, Wikipedia editors can include or exclude some information, expressions, and visual or verbal descriptions into or from an article. A description can be considered inappropriate for one article but it might be appropriate for another. The article-based classification gives that flexibility in decision-making to the editors. === Offense === It is not in our interest to offend Wikipedians or people who are using Wiki as a source of information. It is generally possible to find a different version of the same description which might be found less offensive or not offensive at all, while expressing the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can help in that direction. Keeping the informative materials stated objectively in the article is necessary as a means to this end. No offense policy restricts deliberate attacks to any religious values or people, [[culture]]s, [[life style]]s, etc. It is always good to be considerate regarding the concerns raised by 'minorities' of particular discussions or articles. === Pornography === [[Pornography]] can be described as visual or verbal descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause sexual excitement and should generally be avoided in Wiki articles. The decision of what is appropriate and what is pornographic is discussed on an article by article basis to form a consensus. === Violence === Editors should be sensitive in portraying [[violence]], that is aggression or rough unwarranted force intended to cause physical or emotional harm on another being, in Wikipedia articles. They should also be sensitive about the rights of victims who are subject to violence and also the possibility, if any, that these portrayals may incite someone to harm others. === Racism === [[Racism]] can be defined as the notion that people of one race or creed are superior to another. In Wikipedia articles, expressions that unnecessarily portray prejudice, discrimination or intolerance of people of a certain race or creed are to be avoided. The expressions that intended to be divisive over nationality, race, colour or creed and also that glorify or incite someone to ethnic, racial hatred, strife, and violence cannot be considered as encyclopedic. === Propaganda === Wiki articles must not be written from the perspective of supporting any political, social, or religious movements. Editors should be careful about the information uploaded by an organization or a government to promote a policy, idea, or cause. It is also advisable to be more conscious regarding deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread. === Bias === Editors should be careful in regard to reflecting their religious or spiritual beliefs as well as ideology into the composition of the articles. It is advised that the possibility of causing animosity between spiritual beliefs, lifestyles or ideologies should be carefully examined and avoided. === Sexism === [[Sexism]] can be defined as discriminatory or abusive behavior towards someone based on their gender identification. Expressions that unnecessarily promote sexism in articles are not encyclopedic. === Language === Language used is often as important as the context. [[Slang]] words, [[rudeness]], [[sarcasm]] are not useful in articles and should be avoided. == Policies relevant to ethics on Wikipedia == === Policies === # [[Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions]]: Wikipedia strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia. Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. That does not mean you should ignore a consensual decision; it means that everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later date. # [[Wikipedia:Civility]]: Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed. # [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]: The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as open source software is licensed freely. # [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information. # [[WP:IUP]]: Be very careful when uploading copyrighted images, fully describe the images' sources and copyright details on their description pages, and try to make images as useful and reusable as possible. # [[Wikipedia:Libel]]: It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous revisions from the page history. If you believe you have been defamed, please contact the help desk. # [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. # [[Wikipedia:No original research]]: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. # [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. # [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is first and foremost an online [[encyclopedia]], and ''as a means to that end'', [[meta:The Wikipedia Community|an online community]]. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not. # [[WP:OFFICE]]: The Wikimedia Foundation receives an increasingly large number of phone calls and emails from people who are upset about various uploads on the site. Sometimes these complaints are valid; more often they are not. However, in most cases, even with the invalid complaints, there is a short-term action which can and should be taken as a courtesy in order to soothe feelings and build a better encyclopedia in the long run. # [[WP:OWN]]: You agreed to allow others to modify your work here. So let them. # [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]: Do not [[Wikipedia:Revert|revert]] any single page ''in whole or in part'' more than three times in 24 hours. (Or else an Administrator may [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|suspend your account]].) # [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Vandalism is determined by the judgment of the Wikipedia administrators. # [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by [[WP:RS|reliable and reputable sources]]. Articles should [[WP:CITE|cite these sources]] whenever possible. Any un-sourced material may be challenged and removed. === Guidelines === # [[Wikipedia:Accountability]]: As an informal guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should log in before making drastic changes to existing articles. # [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]: To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any Wiki project, including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. # [[WP:ATK]]: A Wikipedia article written for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. # [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]: Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails. # [[Wikipedia:Criticism]]: [[Wikipedia]] must strive for a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] in general and in regards to [[criticism]] of article's topics. # [[Wikipedia:Divisiveness]]: Divisiveness on Wikipedia between members of the Wikipedia community is against Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and reason for existing because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and dividing Wikipedia contributors up into seperated camps hinders rather than helps the process of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia. # [[Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic]]: Wikipedia is a communal effort. To make it work, contributors must think from a community perspective as well as a personal one. # [[Wikipedia:Don't_panic]]: It's easy to get caught up in an emotionally fired up argument over something that is so important that it must be fixed immediately. Moral outrage over an issue is a common source of panic. Before removing the offending text, perform a sanity check to see if any actual policies are being violated. # [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]: Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is the key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. # [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]]: Neutral Point Of View. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in which very often there is an abundance of differing views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts. # [[WP:POINT]]: State your point on Wikipedia. Do not attempt to make an example out of anyone/anything to prove the point. # [[Wikipedia:Profanity]]: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. # [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]: If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be deleted by any editor. # [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]: Sign all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation. # [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]: When writing on a Wikipedia talk page, certain methods of communication are counterproductive, while others help make progress smoother. This guideline is designed to help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively. # [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]: Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author. == See also == # [[Journalism ethics and standards]] --------------------- Further Explanations --------------------- Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some good suggestions in it I believe: 1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user relations. Isn't it time to start talking about solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent versions of the same problem? 2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from my point of view. Can be and need to be modified. 3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does not devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not propose radical changes but maybe a different look and acceptable variations of the current infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of Wikigod(des)s. 4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of admins. 5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather than irritate them. 6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from possible problems before they arise (by constructing study groups, etc., for example). 7. Both community and encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia. The problems are caused by the fact that '''the bridges between these two components are not efficient'''. [[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention. Regarding Wikiethics: Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user, who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I then started another poll right after that to ask the community if an approval poll is needed at that stage. I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the poll I started to ask what people think about the timing of an approval poll vandalized many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=ne… or its place suddenly became a problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45… Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I started, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a… simply because it was not available to them. So the numbers reported on the talk page does not reflect the case as is. Best, Resid __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations
by Resid Gulerdem 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> >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: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 04:55:42 +0200 > > >> Resid Gulerdem wrote: > >>> After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for > >>> admin-user relations - below) the link to the > >>> updated version of another proposal > >>> [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] > >>> under my old user page is deleted for ''the good of > >>> Wikipedia''. > > > > Raphael wrote: > >> Fortunately I've made a backup of your last version > >> here [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] > >> though I am not sure whether some administrator will > >> censor this too. > >> >Resid Gulerdem wrote: > > > > Dear Raphael, > > That is very kind of you. I do appreciate for it. > >Dear Resid, > >unfortunately now even my copy of your latest version >of Wikiethics got deleted. I've filed a Deletion review, >but it seems like some admins are already at a point, >where they completely disregard any policy and act as >one thinks best. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1.2FWiki… > >I truely appreciate your efforts to try to find a >reasonable solution to the problem. But I doubt, >that those in power, who would have to allow such >a proposal to be discussed and passed, are already >too detached from the consequences of their >"might makes right" mentality to even realize the >problem, and will use all possible means to make >it fail. > >Beside those addressed in [[WP:OURS]] I see multiple >problems: > >RfCs seem to be some kind of sympathy contests, >where admins get the possibility to defend each other. >It seems to be an important place for admins to improve >their social standing. Allegations are not taken seriously, >instead the accused party can simply claim to follow >policies "in spirit" and accuse the nominating editor of >Wikilaywering. > >The way Wikipedia implements voting generally >increases peer pressure. Even though it would >include some technical work, Wikipedia desperately >needs _anonymous_ voting. Editors with weak personalities >tend to use the possibility of a vote to express >their support to a "higher ranking" individual. > >There is no separation of powers: Admins are judges >and hangmen in one person and have plenty of possibilities >to cover up their action behind weakly worded policies. > >Generally speaking - we must not forget, that Wikipedia >is a social community, where all (good and bad) associated >mechanisms play along. > >best regards >-- >Raphael Hi Raphael, Nice try, thanks a ton. What they are doing does not surprise me anymore. Do not bother yourself with their poor behaviour either. If you are right, you are strong! People who do wrong deliberately cannot find a standpoint in their spirit and their soul always suffer, feel week and are in fear. Best, Resid __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Oddball question
by John Lyden 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

I recently indef-banned another sock of ENorcross (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide… at AN/I) and requested a checkuser. Eric has decided (in addition to posting personal information to my talk page in a...somewhat threatening manner, see its deletion log) to correspond with me through myspace. In addition to a message he sent me at 4:16AM EDT saying that "wikipedia has you whipped, boy", he sent the following via myspace: "Subject: User: Investigation Request Body: In a last ditch effort to make peace I've decided to give you all of my alias's. ericnorcross almostfamous sevenlinefeatures katherinejohnson nicole lyn finding a solution (heh, I noticed all history of the contributions have disappeared... interesting.) econrad and of course that IP you posted on the request for check user pages. I'm prepared to make a peace offering, that is of course, unless you're willing to accept it. " With the exception that econrad is the user he previously threatened and started the most recent conflict with. Would it be a waste of time to throw this up at Arb as well? -Ras -- John Lyden - rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com "The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time..." -Kerouac

3 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 June 2006