> Earlier: "... There was no question of the
> board "disclosing" information that we
> did not have..."
I think it's more of a question of taking responsibility for NOT having
such information beforehand, then pretending there was nothing to be
concerned about - including concern for the Wikipedia community.
Where I come from, things work this way for fix a problem:
GIVEN: Out of recognition of a connection to others, and recognizing a
break in that connection, and taking responsibility for that break:
1 - stop what you're doing
2 - fix what you broke
3 - take steps to prevent it from happening again.
Simple, no?
Defending oneself has no function. Explaining may soothe, and dampen
speculation, but is insufficient. Criticizing, condemning and
complaining, well, as Dale Carnegie would have said, are also
inappropriate.
See
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/13/hey-dad-wikipedia-says-that-
you/
for an example of a public life in the new wiki world.
> Earlier: "...it would help to use syntax
> coloring (when in edit mode) to make
> the [wikimarkup] tags, and what's
> contained in them be another color..."
Doh - so simple!
I vote for this ... until we have a true, backward compatible
IPE-WYSIWYG = In Place Editing, not in a subsequent window, What You See
Is What You Get, in other words, click and start editing IN PLACE
anything you see on a wiki page.
The color idea is probably still not section 508 compliant (see
http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=content&ID=12 and so on),
but it would be a super simple aid to novice - and well practices -
editors, nonetheless!
For the ibid style ref's one can use <ref> tags for Author-page references
and usecombination
{{reflist}} ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Reflist )
{{refbegin}}
*{{cite book .....}}
*{{cite book...}}
{{refend}}
This creates a section where the ref tags get populated above and below it
there is a bulleted (optional) list of the citations to which the refs
refer. For an example see how El haj and Gevlin are references in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facts_on_the_Ground:_Archaeological_Practice_a…
Also, there is always {{rp}} ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rp )
--Avi
--
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E
A229
Following up with my post to the election discussion pages:
I think the 150 mainspace edits requirement was poorly discussed and
is an ill-advised change to the requirements in prior elections. It
disenfranchises relatively new (but not brand-new) editors who make
large edits to articles and make most of their edits by numbers to
talk pages. According to the discussion the rule is aimed at
preventing the participation of sockpuppets. I think that the actual
effect of this rule has been to deny suffrage to more than a dozen
editors whose total edit counts and edit history make it clear that
they are not sockpuppets. I and others have spent a fair amount of
time reading and following along with the growth and change of the
Wikipedia community for some time without always actively
participating and in some cases prior to registering a username. This
does not mean that we are unqualified to vote or have no interests in
Wikipedia that we would like to protect/advance through voting.
There ought to have been a fuller discussion about this restriction,
particularly considering the mainspace edit count rule has not been
well received in any forum where it was aired in a limited fashion.
Additionally, the decision should have been made by consensus in the
community - not be an election volunteer 'officer' - however hard
working.
If I have misunderstood the process that led to the restriction, I
apologise, but my objection to the restriction itself remains.
Avruch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Personally, this is why I prefer to have the <ref> and {cite}
data pasted in columnar format (each option on a separate line).
It is invisible when reading the page, and it has the non-text
ref stuff stand out noticeably in edit mode. When the ref is in-
line in the edits, it can sometimes be impossible to determine
what is text and what is a ref.
- --Avi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.63
iD8DBQFHYBQCy6A/RnheoikRA4c3AJ9jID3ax/kGV6+4yNWxhnYcRTSM5gCffSN4
61MTWhvnFXDyI8PwW+iK2ds=
=dKov
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E
A229
On Dec 12, 2007 11:11 AM, <wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:24:17 +0000
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Mediawiki-l] that awful <ref> syntax
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: River Tarnell <river(a)wikimedia.org>
> Date: 12 Dec 2007 11:52
> Subject: [Mediawiki-l] that awful <ref> syntax
> To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list
> <mediawiki-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> so, the first thing i notice when editing Wikipedia articles these days
> is that they're full of <ref> tags that make it nearly impossible to
> find the actual text of the article. the problem seems to be that the
> entire reference is inline in the text. while this is useful for
> locality of editing, wouldn't it be nice if it would be close to the
> text, but not inline?
>
> for example, references could be named and referred to with [name], and
> then defined at the end of each paragraph:
>
> Wikipedia[wikip] is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation[wmf].
> [wikip] http://en.wikipedia.org/
> [wmf] http://wikimediafoundation.org/
>
> now, it's still easy to see and change the references, but you can
> actually see the article text as well.
>
> for an example from a real Wikipedia article, see
> <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Kate/ref>.
>
> of course this would require some changes to the core parser to do
> properly, but i think the feature is useful enough to be worth it.
>
> comments?
>
> - river.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MediaWiki-l mailing list
> MediaWiki-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
>
>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The hard work of NPOV
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
Date: Thu, December 6, 2007 12:15 pm
To: <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>
I was in an evil mood and confess to trolling; there are a lot of good
thoughts at http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ besides the sentence I seized
on. We have published a "consensus of the most widespread error" from
time to time, particularly in the run-up to the Iraq War. (I was one of
the parties in error). Especially with current events, it is hard to
know when you are doing that as our favored sources, in my case The New
York Times, are fostering the error.
It would be interesting to go back and look at the development of those
articles and see how much "air time" we gave to the view that there were
no weapons on mass destruction. Some modesty is in order. Even some
intelligence services were taken in. We can aspire to do better then
they, but without good sources on the ground, and willingness to use
what they might tell us, which is their failing too, we cannot expect to
surpass them.
Fred
> perhaps we should redefine it our goal, as the nearest practical
> approach to truth the wiki process can obtain, obtained at in a spirit
> of impartiality. That's what people reasonably expect from us, not a
> consensus of the most widespread error.
>
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2007 9:17 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
>> > http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/
>> >
>> > Please discuss.
>> >
>> >
>> > - d.
>>
>> "If you fail to achieve a correct answer, it is futile to protest
>> that you acted with propriety."
>>
>> NPOV is a measure of propriety, not of truth.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On 10 Dec 2007 at 14:36:52 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
wrote:
> The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
But the way its members preserved its privacy was by trying to keep
everything pertaining to it secret, right?
--
== 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/