> I was looking at this earlier today and changed my preferences to notify for new tickets in permissions-en.
>
> One questions that might be of interest to others then I'll contact you off-list.
>
> Do you know the usual volume and how long it takes to handle each ticket?
>
> Sydney
There are typically 2-3 new tickets per day in addition to spam and
misdirected mail. Proper handling takes around 10 minutes per ticket,
since several replies are generally sent and the ownership needs to be
confirmed, then documented on the wiki.
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
---- "The Uninvited Co. wrote:
=============
If you are an admin on ENWP and are interested in copyright and
permissions issues, I would like to encourage you to become involved in
the permissions OTRS team. For an idea of what's involved, take a look
at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/permissions-en-guide.
Participants must understand copyright issues as they affect Wikipedia,
understand and support the project's position on copyright and fair
use, and have a history of keeping their cool.
If interested, email me off-list.
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
======================================
I was looking at this earlier today and changed my preferences to notify for new tickets in permissions-en.
One questions that might be of interest to others then I'll contact you off-list.
Do you know the usual volume and how long it takes to handle each ticket?
Sydney
In the unlikely case anyone interested has missed it: There
are some troubles re mandatory in-line citing and science
articles.
It all started with a warning put at large number of "good
articles" that they will be delisted soon for lack of
in-line cites. This immediately got the response, that standard
textbooks facts are not and should not be in-line cited, the
references section will name selected textbooks and one cannot
judge the correctness without having some context anyway.
The main struggle seem to be played out by (a subset of)
WikiProject Physics vs (a subset of) WikiProject Good Articles.
For an example of the amount of in-line cites requested see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_relativity&diff=78107405&…
For a list of places where discussion occur see below.
What worries me most about this incident, is the idea that proper
and extensive in-line citing will allow anybody (the proverbial
"layperson") to verify the contents of the article. The proponents
of this position refer to the "any editor" in "Editors adding new
material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may
be challenged or removed by any editor".
In my not so humble opinion, in many articles of science (and
elsewhere) this is a false and dangerous idea. You need some
basic experise in the field to judge the reliability of sources,
the selection of sources and even to see whether a statement
in the article is the correct summary of a larger chapter in a
source.
I cannot help but see some of the recent actions as an example
of anti-academedic bias by factions withing Wikipedia.
Regards,
[[User:Pjacobi]]
Linklist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_relativity#GA_Re-Review_and_In-li…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_candidates#Discuss…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Another_rea…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#When_not_to_cite…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Physical_cosmology#Noncompliant
--
GMX DSL-Flatrate 0,- Euro* - Überall, wo DSL verfügbar ist!
NEU: Jetzt bis zu 16.000 kBit/s! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
Needed quickly for a journalist - a link to Greg Maxwell's study
showing most en: articles have only one or two editors and aren't at
all controversial. The journalist was very interested and wants some
numbers. I said I'd email him a link asap.
- d.
David Russell wrote
> The problem is that most hired PR people will not have the same attitude
> as you - they will take great offence when 'their' article is deleted.
> No matter how clear we make the policy, we can't legislate for people
> taking offence just because we enforce it.
They are surely mostly bright enough to understand the words 'no ownership of articles'. In any case, this is a policy as deeply set in WP's approach as anything else. If they can't live with it, tough.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
My phone number and email are publicly available for media contact
purposes. This means, of course, I get emails and calls about
*everything*.
A common call is "How do I get an article about me/my book/my achievement?"
Now. What's a helpful answer to this? Better than "You don't, someone
else has to write one," because you *know* they'll just write a really
bad one themselves and it'll all end in a tearful AFD entry and
someone hating or fearing Wikipedia henceforth.
Assume that referring them to a web page or policy page is less good
than being able to answer on the phone right there.
Ideas please?
- d.
Dear community,
after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Wikipedia was
overwhelmed by people expressing their sympathy for the victims,
adding material about affected organizations, and generally flooding
us with content that was inappropriate. Rather than turning these
people away, the decision was made to set up a separate wiki,
sep11.wikipedia.org, which still exists today.
A poll on Meta for closing the project showed 104 people in support
and 6 people in opposition. A volunteer, Jeff Merkey, has offered to
host the content under a dedicated domain name, sep11memories.org, in
a read-only state. It will from then onward be completely separate
from the Wikimedia Foundation.
Before we make this move, I would like to call all volunteers to help
review the state of the wiki. Remove comments or pages which are
inappropriate, remove inappropriate references to Wikipedia which
suggest an ongoing association (pointing out the historical
association is fine), and so on. An alternative logo would also be
helpful; otherwise the logo will have to be turned off.
To help, do the following:
1) Create an account on http://sep11.wikipedia.org/
2) Add yourself to the "Cleanup Group" on
http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal
3) Start working. :-) If you need admin rights, leave a note on my
talk page (User:Eloquence).
I hope people will help. I believe our own project history is
important and deserves respect and attention, even if we decide that a
project is not within the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation, and
especially when dealing with a subject such as this.
I would suggest a cleanup period of 4 weeks at most. Remember, this is
not a call for reviving the project and adding new information (though
new navigation structure is fine), but to get it into a state where it
can exist as a separate, valuable resource.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>From Danny:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/business/media/25asktheeditors.html
You should all read this (you need to log in, but these things
happen). It answers a pile of relevant questions for Wikipedia:
notability, how to write a good bio (our best bio articles would a
well-written obituary, whether the person is alive or not), research
... fantastic stuff.
- d.
"David Mestel" wrote
> My only concern with the book idea is that it really has to go one of
> two ways - either a guide to doing shiny stuff in WML, or a guide to
> Wikipedia policy and process.
Hah. It should of course be _what you really need to know_, not a wonkathon. And on page 1 it would have to say 'Wikipedia is dynamic', book already out of date, that sort of thing. But actually the old-lag Wikipedians can confirm that some essential things don't change that much. Certainly the hardest bit is social interaction, and that is a constant.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
[[:en:WP:PRO]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Practical_process
I consign this essay to the fiery depths of the project space.
/me dives for cover
Does this look useful? Is it something of practical use to you? (Not
"is it something you wish other people would read?" Though that's
useful too, I suppose. But half the point is that telling people stuff
doesn't work.)
- d.