WikiEN-l August 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

133 participants
174 discussions

Dead wikipedians and how to really make a project boring to death
by Anthere 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Image:Norbert3.jpg_listed_fo… Norbert was a much appreciated wikipedian on the french wikipedia. He contributed a lot. Wikipedia is not produced by machines. But by living beings. We should value people and we should value good contributors. Norbert died some time ago. It was the first wikipedian we lost on the french project. At that point, he was the editor with the largest number of edits. And it was not only typos. He left us a last word just before he had an operation and did not survive it. We sent flowers to his burial. We told his family how important he was for us and they were proud of what he did for Wikipedia. A text was written about him. And for some reasons, it was translated on the english signpost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-10-10/News_a…. I uploaded the picture of Treanna on the english wikipedia. It was the picture he had on his user page. A bad image, but the only one we had for him. Certainly an image which will never be reused by anyone. But an image of Treanna. The crime : it was uploaded as a non-derivative license. So, it is proposed for deletion. And frankly, I can not ask Treanna any more if he would be nice enough to change that license to make it free by wikipedia definition. -------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians This page is also part of our history. People matter. Please do not delete editors pictures because they uploaded an image of them under a non-derivative licence. please try to find the balance between dogma and wikilove. Anthere

20 76

Re: [WikiEN-l] Common sense exceptions to our copyright policy.
by Michael Snow 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On 7/31/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/29/06, Sherool <jamydlan(a)online.no> wrote: >> > The problem is though that a lot of people are remarkably resistant >> > to taking any notice of instructions and warnings. They just want to >> > upload cool images, and get very upset when we remove and delete them. >> >> Which is why we need to remove the upload link. If they need to hunt >> around a bit before they can upload images, there's a chance they'll >> run into the instructions. > > Simply making the upload link a link to upload instructions... and > asking users to upload by forming a image redlink would actually do a > lot to help. A lot of images get uploaded without ever being linked > in.. and where an image is used is very helpful in figuring it out its > status (for fair use images, at least). While I like that we're debating ways to encourage more copyright-compliant uploads, I'm not sure about this particular idea. Right now, when I happen across an article with a red link for an image, I know to remove it and/or look for a substitute. Do we want to make people wonder whether they should wait around in case there's an upload forthcoming? --Michael Snow

4 4

Re: [WikiEN-l] An alternative to "critics"
by Daniel P. B. Smith 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

"Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...". Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]: Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good. > On 7/31/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> It's still weasel words. How about, "So and So from ''newspaper X'' >> have written that that dude messed up and should be fired. <source >> from newspaper X by So and So>" Be specific. Who are these >> "commentators" or "critics". If it is a general feeling, then is >> there some sort of poll that could show that? --LV > > Obviously specific quotes are the best solution. But the wiki model > strongly encourages the addition of "better" while waiting for "best". > > At least by saying "some commentators", you're not trying to imply > that it was a "general feeling" - it's simply *some* (preferably > notable) people expressed that opinion. I agree with Lord Voldemort... and not only does wordsmithing the weasel words not help _much,_ in this case I don't even think it's clear whether the proposed substitute helps at all. To me, the phrase "critics charge" is a warning that this represents a point of view that is held by a substantial number of people, but probably a faction, and probably a minority. "Some commentators" is vaguer and _softens_ the impression that a faction is being represented. But frankly I think the "better solution while waiting for the best" is to slap a {{citation needed}} on any sentence beginning "critics charge..." and delete it eventually if none is forthcoming. The funny thing, of course, is that an actual verbatim quote from one particular critic is usually stronger, more flavorful, and more precise than any attempt to summarize what "the critics charge." Which is better: "Critics charge that the United States Constitution failed to define a meaningful role for the Vice President" or "In 1932, John Nance Garner said 'The vice presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss.'" {{cite book|title=Cassell's Humorous Quotations|first=Nigel|last=Rees| publisher=Sterling Publishing Company, Inc.|year=2003|id=ISBN 0304365882}} [http://tinyurl.com/g9lal p. 760] "Critics charge" is journalistic language. _This is OK_ in a newspaper because the assumption (don't pile on me, I know about Jayson Blair), ah say the _assumption_ is that reporters are authorities, maintain journalistic standards, and wouldn't write "critics charge" unless it were reasonably accurate. It's not OK in Wikipedia.

2 1

Wikipedia on the Colbert Report
by Rob 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

In case you didn't catch Comedy Central tonight, we should probably keep an eye on the articles for The Colbert Report, elephants, and Lutherans. (Together again!)

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

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 August 2006