Jonathan Hochman, the owner of Hochman Consultants, will give a speech
about Wikipedia at Tumblebrook Country Club in Bloomfield, Connecticut
on January 9, 6:30 - 9 p.m.
More information on http://tiny.cc/speech239.
Would be lovely if anybody could go there and listen.
---
Tomasz W. Kozłowski
What bothers me about the quote below is that it completely ignores the fact
that like-minded editors usually have the same articles watchlisted; not to
mention the fact that we all have editors who when we see there names as the
last edit in our watchlist, pique our interest to look at the
discussion--editors we agree or disagree with. It's more likely, IMO, to
ascribe "blocks" to editor watchlists than private lists, although that
could just be naivte.
So now it seems we're destine for the latter, and the best thing we
> can do is to let everyone know that the lists exist, and the next time
> six peopel show up and agree, don't just automatically assume you got
> six independent opinions-- instead consider the possibility that you
> got one opinion and five friends.
>
>
--
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
The following is an update on the ongoing ArbCom election. The
percentages after the candidate's name are the percent of voters in
favor of the user.
----
Newyorkbrad - 99%
FT2 - 93%
Sam Blacketer - 80%
Deskana - 79%
FayssalF - 78%
Rebecca - 78%
Thebainer - 70%
Raul654 - 66%
Wizardman - 62%
Manning Bartlett - 60%
Shell Kinney - 59%
Giano II - 57%
MastCell - 52%
David Fuchs - 51%
Moreschi - 51%
Swatjester - 48%
JoshuaZ - 40%
Misza13 - 38%
John Reaves - 37%
Will Beback - 37%
Hemlock Martinis - 35%
Endlessdan - 33%
Adam Cuerden - 27%
Physchim62 - 10%
White Cat - 10%
Alexia Death - 5%
Jeepday - 5%
----
Sincerely, Jonathan
Here's an idea: a direct "Upload to Commons" link in the sidebar. Good
idea? Awful idea? Please don't say "wait till SUL" ...
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com>
Date: 3 Dec 2007 11:26
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Commons: Help!
To: ninovessella(a)yahoo.it, wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Nino,
on the Italian Wikipedia left side bar there are two buttons: "Carica un
file" and "Carica su Commons". The first one uploads the file on the
Italian Wikipedia, the second one on Commons. So, if you click on that
one, provided that you're logged on Commons, just follow the
instructions and uploading should be straightforward.
Basically:
from the Italian Wikipedia: click on "Carica su Commons"
the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload/it opens
I think "È interamente opera mia"
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=itown…>
applies - therefore click on that link (or another one if more appropriate)
Fill in the tempalte in the "Dettagli del file" box, select a license,
same as in other projects more or less
That should be it.
The template {{NowCommons}} on it.wikipedia is used to tell an
administrator that the same image is available on commons, but won't put
that image on commons alone.
BTW - I suppose you're Italian, we can continue the discussion in
Italian if you want (maybe off-list?)
Marco
Nino Y ha scritto:
> I've just discoverd that as I used the italian page to upload the image it
> is visible in http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Immagine-004.jpg
> But there is written:
>
> ''Questo file č ora disponibile su Wikimedia Commons con un nome differente:
> tavolabao''
>
> But if you go to the link to 'tavolabao' you get: "No file by this name
> exists."
>
> Thanks,
> Nino
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 12/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Alec, do you think if you repeat this falsehood 100 more times it will
> somehow morph into a truth?
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:57:32 -0500, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The opinions of many individuals on this thread are already well
> known, yet that does not stop them from continually repeating them.
> Please don't single out Guy just because he disagrees with you.
...and, of course, their continually repeating them don't make them
true, no matter how much they might wish it.
--
== 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/
> Earlier: "... The 150 words I've posted here are 150 too many ..."
Peter Blaise responds: That's unusual - do you want us to block your
emails from getting to yourself, then?
Some reflections on the current 'sock' discussions;
If I've read correctly, dg is saying that there's no problem with Genisock,
because that account is clearly linked to Geni. Which would seem to indicate
that it's fine for Geni or Genisock to edit anywhere without geni being
accused of abuse, or of causing disruption.
I wonder if any might agree that this seems somewhat in tension with this
unambiguous final decision from the arbs;
"The use of sockpuppet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry>accounts,
while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet
accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user
accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or
vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in
discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."
And hey, I can't let the following from Guy pass without brief comment;
"You had at least *eight* accounts, and your use of them was outside of
community norms."
*This refers to activity over three years
* two accounts never edited, unsurprisingly, there has been no assertion of
disruption
* two accounts less than 10 edits, no assertion of disruption
* 1 account 28 edits 6 months ago, no assertion of disruption
* 3 accounts used extensively (the ones I disclosed to you privately, the
ones I consider pertinent)
You are however correct that the arb.s have agreed with you. Further
discussion discussion between us here seems only likely to bore and annoy,
so feel free to have the last word........
Re : banned editing and vandalism;
"if he gets found out it will be really bed for him." - much as "really bed"
actually sounds quite fun, I understand that I shouldn't be doing any
editing, and I won't - your approach here though really is interesting to
me. Is it correct to say that you believe I should not revert vandalism,
because of my ban? I find that revealing.
Here's another diff that I spotted (fortunately this one got bot.ed pretty
quick) - I'm glad that the vandalism I reported earlier only stood for a
couple of hours in total (and only seconds after I reported it here - it was
a bit weird to be unsure of what I should do for the couple of hours I was
aware of it, and it was publicly visible.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socrates&oldid=175322777
best,
PM
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:46:11 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
<alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/4/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 04/12/2007, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Private Musings wrote:
> >
> > > > two journalists have contacted me to date
> > > > concerning these events, and personally, whilst it may blow over, I
> >
> > > Funny, looks like you wrote the Slashdot.org article about it. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/04/0333252
> >
> > I've booted this troll from the list as counterproductive for working
> > on the encylopedia. I'm sure he can have lots of fun on WR.
>
> Eeek. I always wish we could make things just a little bit clearer
> that we're not, say, blocking, banning, or booting people just for
> saying bad things about us.
A few years ago, a critic of the Singapore government wrote an
article alleging that the government tried to suppress its critics by
bringing frivolous legal action against them. The government
responded by suing the critic for libeling the government.
Hopefully, the leadership of Wikipedia and of this list can show more
sense than this, but I'm not always particularly confident of it.
--
== 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/
The assessment of The Register as being quite a fan of controversy is pretty
much accurate - but it's of course true of much of the mass media (and
perhaps human nature? a digression.....) - leaving aside the fact that I
believe the article is actually pretty fair and accurate, perhaps the more
important thing to do is to quickly realise that this really is of interest
to people. This is a function of both the nature of the behaviour, and the
profile of Wikipedia nowadays. Two journalists have contacted me to date
concerning these events, and personally, whilst it may blow over, I feel
there is a possibility of the story 'going mainstream' - our (your?) ability
to react calmly, sensibly, and openly could be important - I'd consider it
to be.
To briefly comment about some of the replies concerning my interest /
behaviour at the moment - JZ said he finds it odd that I would like to help
still, having been banned. From my perspective, I find the fact that I have
been banned a little odd - I still care just as much as last month if the
'Socrates' article says 'Socrates is a clown nigger' - it just really really
pisses me off.
I've noticed what I consider to be an unsustainable trend to permanently
label people 'trolls' or 'enemies' - it isn't the accuracy of the label
which worries me, it's the permanence (I don't believe I deserve it,
either). I see circular reasoning being employed to define me as a troll,
then criticise me for being one. This can only ever work if such a thing (a
troll) can empirically exist. btw. - I'm not interested in 'wedge' issues,
or banging on unduly here - I am glad that the list I am now emailing
quickly fixes the vandalism that pops up on my watchlist (and are very very
helpful and pleasant about it too.....)
best,
PM.
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was
basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing
lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret
evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
There's an arbitration on-going that is looking into the behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_…
Durova has resigned as an admin. A good user appears to have left the
project after being falsely accused of being a sleeper puppet.
This is a LOT of drama.
---
At this time, I can't help but point out that this could have been
prevented. The names of the militia haven't yet been made public, but
they won't come as a shock to anyone. We've
all known about the existence of the rabid Pro-BADSITES crusaders
willing to bend or break the rules in order to "defend the
encyclopedia". This milita of dedicated troll fighters has been a
growing problem here, leading to rampant incivility and massive rifts
in the community, and bad feelings all around.
Not long ago, I asked the community (through an RFC) and then Arbcom
to intervene to help rein in this behavior. Neither group did so--
Arbiters expressed the belief that it would " cause too much drama".
I understand nobody wants to deal with "drama"-laden cases, and I
don't question their motives. Bu with the wisdom of hindsight, I think
we've often seen that procrastinating-- putting this problems off and
not confronting them immediately-- leads to the problems getting worse
and worse, as people become embolden by the community's unwillingness
to place checks on unacceptable behavior. I think that in the end,
letting these problems continue inevitably causes far more "drama".
I can't help but think that if we had dealt with the incivility and
edit-warring issues in a timely fashion, this whole "secret evidence"
mess might never have occured, and Wikipedia wouldn't have lost one
valuable admin and another promising editor.
Alec
