WikiEN-l June 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

151 participants
160 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 10
by John Lyden 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '06

> From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> > Rob wrote: >>> On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote: >>> Nobody really believes, that anyone would be afraid of >>> drawing a Mohammed picture at home. >> >> I would be afraid of doing *anything* at home were I targeted by a mob >> of violent religious fanatics. (A cartoonist would of course have >> nothing to fear from the sternly worded letters of non-violent >> reasonable religious folks.) > >Surely, but why would you be targeted by a mob of violent >religious fanatics? Are you asking this rhetorically, or are you being obtuse? I'm sure I'm not the only one who saw the firebombings and threats related to the J-P cartoons. -- 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

4 5

Psychology of problem Wikipedians: excessive "need for cognition"
by David Gerard 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '06

Discussion on the LJ of a psychologist friend. http://sushidog.livejournal.com/541492.html?thread=9649716 Discuss. - d.

3 2

Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no personal attack
by Raphael Wegmann 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '06

Hello, even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief. I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]] One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to file a Deletion review http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=5… which itself got removed after administrators commented "Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it. It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree with. [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]] Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]] block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs where I allegedly personally attacked him. Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits. best regards -- Raphael

17 42

Blocked for disruption and trolling?
by Anittas Hatti 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '06

The recent days have been very confusing to me. I'll keep it short. User:Zoe demanded a certain part of the article to be sourced. That part of the article was sourced, but had no footnotes attached to it. Zoe asked what the sources were, and I gave them the two souces: one was a book and another was a Doc-file. These sources had been included in the article. Zoe claimed that they didn't have the book and that the Doc-file could not be accessible for all people. After much discussion, Zoe agreed to restore the part of the article, until it was found that the text was plagiarized from another site and was again removed. All was fine. Meanwhile, I went to a few articles started by two other users and removed the unsourced material. I was reverted and warned for being disruptive. After some negotiations, I started instead to discuss the issue, as Zoe said that I should do. I went to ANI to ask questions about the Wiki policy on sources. I didn't care about the text that was removed due to plagiarization, as I deemed the decission to be a correct one. I went to ANI to ask whether an article about a comicbook could use that same comic as a source. I then asked if an article about a movie could use the same movie as a source. I thought it was original research, because the author of the article needs to interpret the art by himself and then write about it. No-one gave me any answer to the topic; instead, Zoe blocked me for disruption and trolling. I'm sure that most admins will agree with Zoe's decission, even tho I was being polite the whole time and even tho I was ultimately blocked for asking questions on ANI (which ironically, saw a couple of admins contradict themselves) by an admin who was involved in the dispute. That's fine with me: you can agree with Zoe and everyone else that disagreed with me. Perhaps I was being disruptive by asking too many questions. But I would still like to know if an article about a movie can use the movie as a source; and if an article about a comicbook can use that same comicbook as a source. If the answer is no, can any action be taken against such articles? And where can this info be found? I don't want to be accused of taking things out-of-context or for whatever else, so I will include the links to the relevant discussions. The question on ANI that ultimatelly got me blocked: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide… * My first question on ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide… * Vlad III Dracula source conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vlad_III_Dracula#Nine_anecdotes * My talkpage (accused of vandalism, trolling, disruption, etc.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Vlad_III_Dracula * The discussion on ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide… * Discussion on one of the related articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abin_Sur User:Anittas --------------------------------- Be a chatter box. Enjoy free PC-to-PC calls with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin-driven death of Wikipedia: a diatribe
by Molu 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '06

I notice that throughout your extended grumblings you have never managed to tell me how on Earth I'm supposed to stop this thing called top-posting. Molu On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:00:54 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote: <snip> >As for why he quoted it *above* his message, it's because he knows how >to send emails. *Please* stop top-posting. >-- >Mark Gallagher >"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" >- Danger Mouse __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

7 6

Re: [WikiEN-l] The shift of Wikipedia
by le Richard 02 Jun '06

02 Jun '06

>As a mathematician I'm particularly interested on his contributions to see >why (if they were correct) were removed and think of possible reasons, but >again, no user with that username Sorry I got it wrong. My username on the English wikipedia is Herve661. And the contribution that was deleted is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=26373… Thanks for the replies, everyone.

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no personal attack
by Scott Stevenson 01 Jun '06

01 Jun '06

[[User:Raphael1]] (Raphael Wegmann) has literally been droning on about this issue for MONTHS. He is extremely singleminded about this to the point of making his issue with the displaying of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons very disruptive. It is very much a pity to see Raphael1 (Wegmann) bring his disruptive tendencies here to the mail list. The following bit of his last letter is extremely demonstrative of his one sidedness here. </snip> >Take a look yourself: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/148.81.117.224 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.173.27.37 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.135.119.144 >A single contribution can't be much of editwarring, can it? >At least you definitely can't violate the 3RR by it. What Raphael1 (Wegmann) fails to mention is that one of these IPs is a confirmed open proxy and the other two were part of image blanking barrages by IP hopping vandals. Raphael1 has had no qualms taking matters into his hands in terms of altering the display characteristics of the cartoons on the [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] article repeatedly himself and has been repeatedly blocked for it (thankfully): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:… Raphael1's latest disruption (for which he's been EXTREMELY correctly blocked for a week over) was the creation of a list entitled "Persecutors of Muslims" that listed every single admin who ever blocked so much as an IP address of those who vandalistically removed the images (which he subsequently spammed messages providing links to a group of select editors -without ever even informing the admins listed on his user page-): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide… Raphael1's actions have inspired copy-cat editor who've gone so far as to impersonate him in efforts to remove the images (never with any attempt at consensus). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael101 The way Raphael1 is going, much like the extremely disruptive editor that he recently tried to defend, Resid Gulerdem (see the Admins causing death of Wikipedia letter thread) and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:… he'll probably be permanently blocked before too long as well. Please move on and be less disruptive and help make Wikipedia even better so that those familiar with your neverending "discussion" won't first think of the expression "don't feed the trolls" the moment your name pops into their heads. -Scott Stevenson (Netscott)

6 23

[[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations
by Resid Gulerdem 01 Jun '06

01 Jun '06

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''. I thought I should provide the ones who would like to see that proposal with the correct link. Earlier version can be found at [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. It is tag'ed as 'rejected' but the truth is, I could never find an opportunity to put it to a vote properly. I also copy pasted the updated version below this message for the sake of completeness and for your convenience. Best, RG > >------------------------------ > >Message: 8 >Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 04:53:20 -0700 (PDT) >From: Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations >To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org >Message-ID: <20060531115320.74085.qmail(a)web52711.mail.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > >The comments were very useful in general. The most >important ones among them are the ones addressing >possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal >for it was one of them. > >I was thinking on this problem for quite some time >and had already some ideas about the solution in >mind. I decided to post them here. I am a user who >blocked indefinitely (how do you think I know the >'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a >chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I >hope that the points raised below contribute to the >efforts towards a solution. Just a quick >suggestion... > >I tried to express it using a semi-formal language. >Further explanations are given [in the square >brackets]. > >Best, > >Resid > >-------------------- >[[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. When 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 dynamics 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]] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

General Eisenhower
by Joe Anderson 01 Jun '06

01 Jun '06

[[User:General Eisenhower]] is in breach of [[WP:USERNAME]] where is states: Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures ( e.g. Benjamin Franklin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin>; > Chuck Norris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris>). On his userpage he claims I'm General and future president Eisenhower. I requested he changed his username, as to which a poll was started<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%253AGeneral_Eisenhower&…>however. According to GeorgeMoney, it was a bad faith nom : how is this? Eisenhower said on my talk page: I am not changing my username. General Eisenhower <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General_Eisenhower> • ( at war or at peace <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_Eisenhower>) 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC). He has not accepted he is in breach of policy, which he is. I am posting here to seek other people's views (as per [[WP:USERNAME]]) and to possibly make a namechange compulsory. Eisenhower would normally have been given a username block, however he slipped through the net to become fairly estabilished (albeit it not in the main namespace), which makes it harder. -- Joe Anderson [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.

8 14

Top-posting: was Re: Admin-driven death of Wikipedia: a diatribe
by Daniel R. Tobias 01 Jun '06

01 Jun '06

On 31 May 2006 at 11:42, Molu <loom91(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I notice that throughout your extended grumblings you have never > managed to tell me how on Earth I'm supposed to stop this thing > called top-posting. Your keyboard presumably has a set of arrow keys on it, which you can use to move the cursor beneath the text you are quoting even if your program starts it out above. You might also try to configure your mail program to abide by the line-length standards of Internet e-mail, while you're at it. http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/ http://mailformat.dan.info/body/linelength.html http://mailformat.dan.info/config/ -- == 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/

2 1

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