WikiEN-l March 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

181 participants
397 discussions

CSPAN copyright
by Guettarda 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

According to an "email release" CSPAN is going to shift to a cc-by-nc type license. Not quite good enough for us to use, but certainly a nice step. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/7/1522/54537

9 14

Re: [WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made nearly 2 years...
by Bartning＠aol.com 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

In a message dated 3/6/2007 8:25:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, cunctator(a)gmail.com writes: Frankly, I think one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it forces people to become disabused of Arguments by Authority, to force people to engage in critical thinking, etc. Why? Because it doesn't rely on the lazy trappings of credentials and curricula vitae and titles and celebrity endorsement, etc. Any credentialling system can be gamed. So why encourage people to have a false sense of security about something that isn't really needed for the goals of the project? I disagree. People do not use critical thinking in their ignoring authority, and it's not just credentials, it's making a joke out of something serious with pseudonyms or using systemic ad hominems such as WP:DICK, not to mention the unfair application of standards. Vincent ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made nearly 2 years...
by Bartning＠aol.com 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

In a message dated 3/5/2007 12:58:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, jwales(a)wikia.com writes: How to confirm? What counts as confirmation? What sorts of things need confirmation? These are very interesting questions, as there are many types of situations. But one thing that we have always been very very good at is taking the time to develop a nuanced policy. I wouldn't say academia should be the only criteria for credibility. What about work in field or exposure to it? Someone who fought in World War II or a family member who had their loved one being killed in action provides exposure to the topics involved. Often, historians interview those involved. Slavery and the Civil War provide other examples. Vincent Bartning UN: John Wallace Rich ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made nearly 2 years ago
by Sheldon Rampton 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

David Gerard wrote: > I just can't get my head around the idea of a default assumption other > than honesty if you're going to work on an encyclopedia project. I would have thought everyone was on the same page with that too, if I hadn't seen a significant outpouring of support for deception in the Essjay case. It was a case where we clearly had deliberate deception over an extended period of time, but nevertheless people defended it on in grounds that it was okay and even "brilliant" if it was "just on the user page" or if it helped protect anonymity. It appears clear therefore that some people think honesty is *not* a "default assumption." That's what a policy should clarify. Is honesty something we should expect always, or are there circumstances in which it's okay to mislead? I know this sounds odd to be discussing. It reminds me a bit of that Seinfeld episode where George Kostanza is fired for having sex with the cleaning lady on his office desk, and he tells his boss, "If only I'd known this sort of thing was frowned upon..." However, we have a very clear transcript in front of us which tells us that some people think deception on Wikipedia user pages is okay, and if we don't address that, this community will have learned nothing from this whole sad episode. -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------

2 1

Be bold [in updating pages]
by Steve Bennett 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

Another fundamental principle that seems to have changed when I wasn't looking: "Be bold" is now "Be bold in updating pages". Was it that ambiguous? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages Steve

5 5

Essjay RFC deleted
by David Gerard 07 Mar '07

07 Mar '07

# 15:01, 5 March 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "User talk:Essjay/RFC" (talk page of deleted RFC) # 15:00, 5 March 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Essjay/RFC" (uncertified RFC, not requested 'kept' by the subject; deleted per RFC policy and for the precise reasons contained in that policy) I eagerly await an RFC and arbcomming over an in-process deletion ... - d.

20 43

Re: [WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally problematic conflict of...
by Bartning＠aol.com 07 Mar '07

07 Mar '07

In a message dated 3/5/2007 11:15:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes: This is very much the way a hospital functions: A combination of paid staff and volunteers working together to accomplish the same goal - the best patient care possible. How these two groups get along in there interactions is what a culture is all about. Acceptance of this culture requires maturity on the part of the individual participants - and care and nurturing by all. <I don't think that's a good analogy in this day and age. "In Wikipedia, the patients run the hospital" has become a worn out cliche, not to mention inappropriate because it's unfair. We've got to think outside the box - come up with something new. Granted I've experienced a wannabe psychiatric-nurse admin, but the mental-health system's not supposed to fold in on itself for every reason in the book, Murphy's Law to the extreme where ignorance and knowledge both lead to dysfunction. Many hospitals are nonprofit, but non-profit organizations themselves also have structures. We're going to get regional biases besides, being an international encyclopedia. Has anyone suggested separating Wikipedia by country rather than language, not that it would help mind you?> Vincent Bartning UN: John Wallace Rich ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made nearly 2 years ago
by Sheldon Rampton 07 Mar '07

07 Mar '07

David Gerard wrote: > Can I just say this is a brilliant idea, per Bruce Schneier's paper on > this style of security: > > http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/cya_security_1.html My proposal is not a "security" proposal. (Maybe Jimbo's scheme is.) It's a proposed policy stating clearly that Wikipedians are expected to be honest. David evidently thinks this is absurd and unnecessary. I would have thought so myself until I saw the parade of people defending deception as acceptable in the case of Essjay on grounds such as "he had to do it to protect himself from all the wackos on Wikipedia" or "he only did it on his user page" or "I like him, so it's okay." > I would also like to propose new rules in a similar vein, since > (thankfully) you can in fact change people's thought processes by > altering text on a policy page: > > * Don't Rob Banks And Send The Money To The Foundation To Make A Point > * Don't Kill Your Fellow Wikipedians And Eat Their Brains To Make A > Point We don't need rules to cover either of these situations, because fortunately every civilized nation on earth has already enacted rules in the form of laws. Evidently every legal system in the world is designed by people who are idiots like me. If only they were brilliant like David, they would know that rules don't influence behavior and would immediately repeal their pointless little policies on murder and theft. > * Don't Climb The Reichstag Dressed As Spiderman To Make A Point > * Don't Shove Beans Up Your Nose We don't need rules against these actions. It's perfectly fine with me if David does them. -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 07 Mar '07

07 Mar '07

Guettarda wrote > > Interesting argument that the majority of readers are American, so that > > American spelling should be used. What numbers do we have on that? ComScore > > has something; our total readership is in the region of 150m? > > > > Charles > Of course, where do the figures come from? ComScore gives something like this: WP sites in all are read by 165m, with 43m of those from the USA. Now the argument is really about enWP alone. Most of those reading WP sites in the USA will be reading enWP, but I suppose there will be a proportion reading esWP, and smaller numbers reading all other languages. So we'd have to assess the non-USA readers of enWP. The native speakers of English aren't going to add up to 43m; might be more like 20m? There will be many European readers of enWP who aren't native anglophones. On balance it may be true that Americans reading enWP are in the majority. But probably this will change. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 07 Mar '07

07 Mar '07

Guettarda wrote >http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307… Andy Schlafly discusses with Jim Redmond. Hmmm. About: Common Era dates Spelling (claims majority of readers are in US) Christianity in the Renaissance Americans in Philipines 'WP more liberal than the general public (of US)' 'removal of pro-Christian, pro-American edits' Schlafly say WP 'run by a mob', uses phrase 'lynch mob'. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

← Newer
1
...
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
...
40
Older →

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 March 2007