WikiEN-l April 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

179 participants
353 discussions

Attempting to fix the major dysfunction in RfA Culture
by David Gerard 17 Apr '07

17 Apr '07

On 17/04/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/17/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:> > > You mean, rather than just lower the now-ridiculous requirements at RFA? > That approach has a record of at least 2 years of total failure. I'm now going through the RFAs noting opposes that are irrelevant to the question "is this user safe with the tools? are they going to go nuts?" and suggesting they be ignored. Others are welcome to do so as well. - d.

2 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Morality of deletionism/inclusionism (was "Suicide methods" article)
by Info Control 17 Apr '07

17 Apr '07

If we're going to impose moral judgements on the encyclopedia, whose will they be? Christian, North American values? Atheist? Humanist? Jewish, Muslim? Buddhist? Yours, mine? WP:NPOV extends to morals, as well: whose has authority over the project? The loudest, the most vocal? I think applying any sort of moral compass to the existence of an article is a horrific precedence, because it then opens morality to the consensus process. At that point, does the most vocal, or highest numerical concentration of moral authority on the encyclopedia get to decide what is appropriate for inclusion based on personal values rather than facts and knowledge?

1 0

Please Support, a study about Wikipedia
by Marchi 17 Apr '07

17 Apr '07

Hello all, this is my first time of being here. It's good that there's a place to gather wikists eventually. :-) I'm now conducting a research on knowledge sharing behavior via wikipedia. Please kindly give me a hand and spend few minutes on the questionnaire which aims at improving the knowledge sharing environment. Thank you very much! http://wikipedia.wufoo.com/forms/questionnaire-on-sharing-knowledge-via-wik… Please Click HERE for Filling-in Again, thanks for filling-in. Any comments are welcome. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Please-Support%2C-a-study-about-Wikipedia-tf3580522.h… Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

6 6

Foreign language WP as a source
by Marc Riddell 17 Apr '07

17 Apr '07

Folks, Real quick question: Is there any problem with using a foreign language WP Article as a source in the English language one? In this case it's birth & death dates. Thanks, Marc Riddell -- :-) ---- Smile - touch a life! ---- :-)

11 18

FYI: Ombudsman commission
by David Gerard 17 Apr '07

17 Apr '07

Not many people seem to know about this, including rather a lot of the checkusers: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission The ombudsmans deal with alleged breaches of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy. I've just added a note to the header on WP:RFCU: "Privacy violation? If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission." (Note that having a check done is very unlikely to be considered a breach; having information from one revealed may be.) The ombudsmans have checkuser power and are on checkuser-l, but don't typically perform checks themselves. - d.

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Virginia Tech
by Fred Bauder 16 Apr '07

16 Apr '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net] >Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 11:00 AM >To: 'Wiki-EN-L (new topics)' >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Virginia Tech > >Folks, > >Someone who can should consider locking down the [[Virginia Tech Campus]] >Article for a couple days. At least 21 students were killed this morning in >a shooting incident. Who knows what kind of stuff people will try to add to >the Article before all of the facts are in. > >Marc Riddell I have added Template:Current I don't think protection is appropriate. We do no worse than CNN Fred

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Foreign language WP as a source (Marc Riddell)
by Andries Krugers Dagneaux 16 Apr '07

16 Apr '07

> On 16/04/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> Real quick question: Is there any problem with using a foreign language WP >> Article as a source in the English language one? In this case it's birth & >> death dates. >> >> I don't think we are meant to use ourselves as sources. Certainly using an >> internal link as a source is not allowed, so I would guess a link to another >> Wikipedia/WMF project would be similarly frowned upon. Where does the other >> Wikipedia get its source for the DOB? - you could use that? >> >> You should cite the non-English Wikipedia article in the reference unless you have personally checked the sources listed as references in the non-English Wikipedia. Not doing so would violate [[[WP:CITE]] that states "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite." Andries

2 1

I despair
by Guy Chapman aka JzG 16 Apr '07

16 Apr '07

I deleted an article on a living individual which led with the statement that she had been a leader in a disbanded hate group. The subject mailed OTRS and stated this was false, and it was unsourced. The rest of the article was also largely unsourced, or sourced to a polemical website. It's been taken to deletion review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_14#.5… It is asserted by several people that we should undelete the article because the subject is notable and a sourced article could be written. NO! FOR GOD'S SAKE, PEOPLE, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING! If someone started a new article on the Dalai Lama that said he eats babies, we would delete it like a shot. We would not ''undelete'' it in order to write a new, sourced article. That would be pointless and stupid. Where is the sense in undeleting an article whose content is of absolutely no value in creating a sourced neutral article? I despair. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

12 35

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
by Daniel R. Tobias 16 Apr '07

16 Apr '07

On 16 Apr 2007 at 14:15:04 +1000, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/13/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > About child actors. I tend to include birthdates as I do with any biography, > > but I keep personal photographs and religion out of it. I only include > > schools if it is already mentioned in almost every newspaper article written > > about them, or if it's on their official website. I have written an article > > about a kid for whom I found a streetname where he lived. I didn't include > > that on purpose for privacy concerns. > > And presumably for relevance. I can't see why we would be that > specific about where someone lives. Some public figures may like to > publicise their exact location, which would make it relevant, but most > don't. The city they live in is plenty for encyclopaedicness, and > their suburb is already getting a bit nosy... Unless they use their (former) home street address as an album title, as the Jackson Five did with [[2300 Jackson Street]]. -- == 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/

1 0

Wikipedia privacy concerns
by Denny Colt 16 Apr '07

16 Apr '07

On the Arbitration page, an interesting idea is presented. MONGO says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitrat… "If we started linking in all the posts that proves that website has actively engaged in trying to "out" real identities and allows other egregious attacks, then that might help explain why we don't have an article about that website. Due to information posted on WR, either mirrored from some other site or posted there originally, I can think of at least 5 wikipedians who have left or assumed new identities on Wikipedia to avoid the harassment associated with those posts. That the website actively engages as a forum to collaborate in an effort to "discover" who people are in real life is no mystery...it is transparent.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)" In response, Risker says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio… "In response to Mongo, I believe that there is good reason to be more upfront about potential risks to registering an account at Wikipedia. I've just gone and checked the information given about registering accounts, and there is very little about the risks of doing so, and plenty about the benefits. It would be good to have a subpage there discussing things like choice of user name, deciding how much personal information to put on your user page, and the fact that (as one of the most read sites on the internet) Wikipedia cannot guarantee the privacy of any person. I would be willing to work on this, but I have no idea who manages that page. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)" Is this a good idea? Put up a warning for all new registrations that your privacy is not/cannot be guaranteed by Wikipedia? If there will be no policy to stop people from linking to sites/sources that DO engage in outing our identaties this may be required. If the press got hold of this... This conversation spawned from some vehement opposition to a proposed policy to ban links to attack, outing, and hate sites aimed at hurting Wikipedians. The policy is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_sites -- - Denny

11 23

← Newer
1
...
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
...
36
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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 April 2007