-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
We are quoted in this month's issue of Focus, the Mathematical Association of America's newsletter, on page 5, for bringing a source for the term "spline".
PDF link here: http://www.maa.org/pubs/march07web.pdf
- --Avi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.2.0
iD8DBQFGCIFMy6A/RnheoikRAs+hAJ4lA/NMuxZrtdrjTjJqu7FkZ9BEGgCfdJwp
b67bkMzQkVhcz/E+3xHvjTY=
=6t6j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----
User:Avraham
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related Key) <avi_wiki(a)yahoo.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229
---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
We now have about 1500 articles in
Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP
addresses can't edit. I picked a few at random, and
most I checked were entirely uncontroversial articles
which had briefly had some trouble from an IP address,
which was over months ago and there was no reason to
believe it would ever occur again.
This is in violation of one of our basic principles.
Would it not make more sense for admins to be expected
to automatically make this sort of semi-protection
have a time limit, assuming there was no reason to
believe the article was a permanent vandal magnet?
An ever growing list of permanently semi-protected
articles is not what we want, especially given that
it's happening out of sheer laziness.
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
"Denny Colt" wrote
> I am wondering why the 'blog' aspect itself has this dirty Scarlet Letter
> connotation...
If you want to use a blog as a source, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate its reliability. The low barriers to access for blogging mean this is the only sane approach.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
It's important for our project's integrity that we follow our own
standards and not be pushed into either keeping or deleting the
article on the grounds of acceding to or defying the demands of its
subject, or fighting or caving into a lawsuit. However, it's
interesting to note that the wiki whiners are already commenting on
the case and noting how we deleted that article while keeping
Brandt's, so perhaps the way to get Wikipedia to delete a bio is to
sue it:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7684
--
== 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/
> David Gerard
> It surprises me when our odder critics claim Wikipedia is the
> personality cult of Jimbo Wales. I really can't imagine L. Ron
> Hubbard putting up with the crap Jimbo does ...
Hey, I resemble that remark! :-)
More seriously, the problem in your statement above is that
there are different types of personality cults. Apocalyptic cults
which commit mass suicide get a huge amount of publicity. But for
obvious reasons, they tend to be self-limiting. Despite jocular
references to "drinking the Kool-Aid", Wikipedia is NOT a doomsday
type of cult. It's more of "New Age" cult. They're different.
But being any sort of cult leader is no easy task. You can't
just sit back and expect the followers to come to you. They've got to
be recruited, and that's a tough job. Then the followers need to be
retained, as at least some of them are going to get unhappy with
selling flowers at the airport or working in the fields all day (or
reverting vandals), and want to leave. Cults tend to use both physical
and psychological means of control, though most people just hear about
the lurid physical elements and don't consider the manipulative
psychological elements.
Wikipedia is really interesting in a way, since it doesn't
have any physical aspect, so it has to rely entirely on psychological
aspects. Which, in fact, means the leader putting up with a lot of crap.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 06:14 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] blogs vs websites - (was Bauer DRV question - history)
>
>Guettarda wrote:
>
>>The issue is self-published sources. It's really the same if you blog or it
>>you use a vanity press. It's the preponderance of blogs that causes them to
>>be singled out. It's a readily available medium, and anyone can register a
>>blog and spout off on whatever topic they want. The main issue is "be
>>careful with self-published material"...whether it is a blog, a non-blog
>>webpage, or a book published by a vanity press.
>>
>Being careful is key. I have a large number of book(let)s on philately
>and postal history. A significant proportion of these were privately
>published by the author out of a genuine interest in the subject, and
>there is no question of controversy. The one that I have in front of me
>now was limited printing of 65 copies. Similar situations arise in
>relation to many local histories. If we waited for professional
>historians to review this material we would never be able to use any of it.
>
>Ec
That sort of philately or postal history publication is subjected to intense peer review in the philatelic community. If you are reading the philatelic press and are in the appropriate sections of the American Philatelic Society you can can determine the reputation of such publications by inquiring.
Fred
On 27 Mar 2007 at 08:07:40 -0400, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> After you have placed a "citation needed" flag into an Article, is there a
> specific length of time you wait for either the citation to be added, or the
> statement in question to be removed by the person who wrote it, before
> deleting it yourself? The Article in question, BTW, is the one on [[Franz
> Kafka]].
Well, if you mess with the Kafka article, it wouldn't surprise me if
you're suddenly dragged into an inscrutable legal proceeeding... or
else wake up finding yourself transformed into some sort of insect.
--
== 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/
On 27 Mar 2007 at 10:03:41 -0400, Philip Sandifer
<snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The only thing that makes the case remarkable is that the WMF got
> sued. But this is not a lawsuit about a false, defamatory, or even
> sloppily done article. This is a lawsuit targeted at WMF on an
> article where the process had previously worked and worked pretty
> well. It's a lawsuit targeting us at, if not our best, at least at
> our pretty darn good.
I wouldn't say that WMF was "targeted" by this suit; they weren't the
only defendant, or probably even the most important one. Most
likely, the major target is the SFWA, which put her on their "20
worst agents" list. Various other sites and forums were added to the
suit in a scattershot approach to attack everybody who published
anything that she didn't like, but WMF is unlikely to be the main
reason she filed it.
If this suit proceeds to trial, it will probably get mainstream
coverage, and at that point she'd probably be inescapably notable;
right now, with the only apparent coverage being in blogs and forums,
the notability is fairly marginal, though not necessarily below the
threshold for inclusion given that at least some of the blogs in
question are notable ones in the field of science fiction writing.
--
== 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/
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman@gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 05:33 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions
>
>On 3/25/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
><charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote
>>
>> > I think we need some input from the Office as to how this situation should
>> > be handled on-wiki.
>>
>> Maybe. But the deletion of a badly-sourced attack piece biography would not be the > problem.
>
>And that's exactly why we have CSD, AFD, PROD etc.
>
>"Out of process" deletions have their uses and the ability to do them
>is a necessary tool in fighting the firehose of crap but I offer this
>proposal to avoid any more Brandt type wheel wars..
>
>If an admin makes an "out of process" deletion, then any other admin
>if free to restore the article without prejudice. If restored, it
>cannot be deleted again by anyone without going through one of the
>established deletion processes. (AFD, CSD, etc) If the admin who
>originally deleted it, deletes it again, he is subject to the
>immediate loss of his admin privs. If deleted by another admin, he is
>informed that it is a contested "out of process" delete and the
>article is restored again. If he deletes it again, he could lose his
>privs.
>
>This protection shouldn't last forever though. After a certain amount
>of time has passed, perhaps a month or 3 (that can be determined by
>consensus) someone can try to "OOP" it again.
No, that's why we have BLP. Malicious material may be reverted and deleted without limit by any user. There will be no penalty forthcoming from the arbitration committee for such actions. Normal penalties will apply to users restoring such material.
Fred