WikiEN-l April 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

179 participants
353 discussions

The Principle of Wikienl Induction
by Daniel P. B. Smith 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

> Subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD is dead > > It's official: AFD is dead. It's official: I hereby declare the Principle of Wikienl Induction. The Principle of Wikienl Induction states that the observation of a single perceived imperfection in the outcome of a process proves that the process is flawed, inherently flawed, broken, irretrievably broken, dead, dead and stinking with the fetid odor of putrescent decomposition wafting to the outermost reaches of the Kuiper belt. And should immediately be replaced with a process involving no community input, or, preferably no human decision-making at all, but a flawless automatic bot working from a precisely specified intensely- bright-line algorithmic definition. This general principle is proved by the recent posting "AFD is dead."

1 0

OT: Zero tolerance
by Ron Ritzman 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

On 4/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote: > http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html > > That mindset dislikes letting the "authorities" have any discretion to > use common sense in administering rules depending on the circumstances; > they'd rather have an absoulute rule, enforced absolutely ([[Judge > Dredd]] style). You see a lot of that both on Wikipedia and in the > outside world these days; too many people want to simplify a complex > world by being absolutist in their following of rules. On Usenet once I proposed an alternate rational for "zero tolerance" in some cases. An example I used was "weapon like" items carried by school children. Take this scenario. 1. A white (or black) student is caught with a key chain that's sharp enough to possibly be used as a weapon. The principal makes a determination that the student didn't know it was not allowed and lets him off with a warning. 2. A black (or white) student is caught with a switchblade knife and expelled. 3. The black (or white) student's parents, with the support of Al Sharpton (or David Duke), sues the school for racial discrimination arguing that the administration gives preferential treatment to white (or black) students caught with weapons. To avoid the possibility of having to spend taxpayer dollars defending such a suit, (frivolous or otherwise) the school simply chooses to follow a zero tolerance rule to the letter so they can say that everybody gets treated equally.

2 1

Wikimania 2007 - Call for Submissions
by Erik Moeller 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

I'm (re)sending this to lots of lists -- people, we need more submissions! Please be bold in sending us your papers -- we'd love to see you in Taiwan this year. :-) Please forward to other relevant lists as well! See http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Participation/distribution for the ones we've already covered. Erik - - - - Wikimania is an annual global event devoted to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia Foundation projects. It is a community event, which is also open to the public and to researchers. This year's conference will be held from August 3-5, 2007 in Taipei, Taiwan at Chien Tan Overseas Youth Activity Center. For more information, please visit the Wikimania site: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/ Send your submissions through: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submission We are accepting submissions for posters, presentations, workshops, and discussion groups. We are also accepting nominations for speakers and speaker panels, and suggestions for other activities. Please note the details below and be bold in your submissions! == Important dates == * 1 March – 30 April: Submission * 1 May – 31 May: Feedback and notification of acceptance * 3 – 5 Aug 2007 : Wikimania == Conference Themes == Submissions should address one or more of the following themes: * Wikimedia Communities – Interesting projects and particularities within the communities (we explicitly invite you to present your local Wikimedia project's community!); policy creation within individual projects; conflict resolution and community dynamics; reputation and identity; multilingualism, languages and cultures; social studies. * Free Content – Open access to information; ways to gather and distribute free knowledge, usage of the Wikimedia projects in education, journalism, research; ways to improve content quality and usability; copyright laws and other legal areas that interfere with Wikimedia projects. * Technical infrastructure – Issues related to MediaWiki development and extensions; Wikimedia hardware layout; new ideas for development (including usable case studies from other wikis or similar projects). Your topic must be related to Wikimedia projects and its communities or to the creation of free content in general. == Types of Submissions == We are seeking submissions for * presentations (10–30 minute talks with optional short or full papers) * posters (printed presentations or visual displays that can stand on their own) * workshops (30–120 minute session with more involvement of the audience) * panels (group of 2-5 speakers to discuss on a specific subject) * Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) (45-60 minute informal meetup of group discussion on a particular topic) * artistic artifacts (plays, competitions, comedy, visualizations, or other representations of some aspect of the projects) == Guidelines == Wikimania is organized by volunteers, so please help us to minimize wasted effort by following these guidelines carefully before submitting and be sure not to forget anything that is mentioned here. All submissions must explicitly include the following: * an English title * a short English abstract of 50 to 100 words. The abstracts should be provided as plain text, and not as file attachments. This abstract will be used as public description of your submission in the conference program * a detailed description (or full paper) of at least one page (300 words or more). This description will not be published unless you want it, but used for reviewing your submission. Give an overview of the areas to be covered or taught. State clearly the relevance to the Wikimedia projects and whether submission concerns a specific wiki project. You may use any language, but we strongly suggest English or Chinese. Full descriptions may include a link to a full paper or slides in HTML or PDF, if available. * full name, email address, and a short bio of 1–3 sentences for each author. You may also add wiki usernames and nicknames. * the type of submission (presentation, poster, workshop, panel, BoF, artistic) * the language(s) you are going to talk in (or the language of your poster) Please tell us with your submission whether you will attend to Wikimania (a) surely, (b) probably, (c) only if your submission is accepted, or (d) only if we provide travel and/or accommodation. Additionally, please specify: * the target audience you are going to reach and what previous knowledge is needed * special requirements (such as equipment for a workshop or panel) if needed * images or sketches of the poster or artistic artifact if available * for panel submissions short biographies of each suggested panelist * whether the presentation is intended to be a specific length. * BoF proposals should describe the significance of and community interest in the topic, and name the proposed discussion leader(s). For poster sessions there are additional guidelines: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Poster_session Please note that all submissions must be dual licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution License. == Submissions == Once you are sure you have included all of the required information, please send your submission by the respective deadline through our submission system: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submission Please do not send submissions by email. If you need help for translating your work please visit our translation help page. Questions, but not submissions, may be directed to cfp(a)wikimedia.org. == Hacking Days == Before the main conference there will also be informal Hacking days for MediaWiki developers who are familiar with the software, If you are interested in joining it, please visit: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Planning/Hacking_Days_Extra_2007 == See also == * About the venue: http://www.cyh.org.tw/ * Brainstorming page for program ideas: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program_Ideas * Editable list of attendees: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Attendees * WikiSym 2007 (October 21-23, 2007, Montreal), an alternative wiki conference: http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/

1 0

Persistent addition of untrue "facts"
by James Farrar 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

Ladies and gents, I've not come across this in the past, so am unaware how best to deal with it, so any thoughts, comments and/or advice is gratefully appreciated! There's a bit of an edit war developing in [[Stockport County F.C.]] as one or more individuals (anon, natch!) have made several attempts to introduce a "fact" that s/he/they believe to be true (and they actually have a reference for - albeit merely an assertion that is not backed up) - namely that the said football club's recent 7-2 home defeat was the first time the club had conceded seven goals in a home game. I know this to be untrue because I have a counter-example. I have now expanded the "Club Records" section to include the counter-example, and added a hopefully appropriate reference and commented on the talk page, but what should I do if the false statement is added again? I'm conscious of the existence of [[WP:3RR]]... J.

4 3

Line length
by Daniel R. Tobias 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

A few of you are sending messages to this list with malformed lines that break the RFC 2822 guidelines of avoiding lines longer than 78 characters. This is particularly noticeable when browsing the list archives on the Web, where the lines go way out to the right and are very difficult to read. Some examples: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/067929.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/067934.html More info on line-length standards: http://mailformat.dan.info/body/linelength.html Info on configuring particular mail clients: http://mailformat.dan.info/config/ -- == 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/

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Suppression of links to 'attack sites'?
by Fred Bauder 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: Brian Haws [mailto:brian@bhaws.com] >Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:25 PM >To: ''English Wikipedia'' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Suppression of links to 'attack sites'? > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org >[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Derksen >Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:13 PM >To: English Wikipedia >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Suppression of links to 'attack sites'? > >>This "violation" is highly dependant on the context in which it's made. You >can't just find one instance where a link to a web site is >>used as a personal attack and then declare _all_ links to anything on the >entire site, used _anywhere_ in Wikipedia, to be a personal >>attack. I could probably get major news sites like The Register banned >under this interpretation. > >>The hard banning of external sites should be sparingly used and only in >cases where it's absolutely clear that it's appropriate for all >>concievable situations. We have human editors with human editorial >judgement for a reason. > >The difference is that WR encourages and promotes the investigation and >publication of personal information regarding Wikipedia editors. For that >reasoon, if for no other, is why linking should be banned... > >Brian I guess the distinction is that they don't openly advocate publication of false information. Fred

1 0

Cool tool that lets you check for copyright renewals on books
by Fastfission 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

This is a new, neat tool that helps you find whether certain US published books are out of copyright even if they are published after 1923. As most copyright savvy people know, there was a period of time after that in which copyrights had to be officially renewed to stay valid, meaning that a lot of works published after that time are officially in the public domain in the United States. But these are hard to find, since renewal notices are hard to peruse and in many cases not machine-searchable at all. But no longer! Stanford has created a Copyright Renewal Database, making it quite easy to check if any book published first in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 are in the public domain. It could potentially clear up copyright ambiguities for certain things taken from these works. http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/ FF

3 2

Original research or common sense inferral?
by Earle Martin 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

On [[Latymer Upper School]], one contributor has added, in relation to the school's new logo/shield: "No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]." I originally removed it from the article as needing a source, but replaced it after the contributor in question demonstrated to me on the talk page that he appears to know what he is talking about - certainly more than I know about heraldry. However, is this original research? Or does it follow on naturally once the Law of Arms is understood? It appears to be a legal opinion, and I would imagine that any legal opinions should come from a citable source. My main concern is that, even if it is true, it would need to be proved that approval was not in fact obtained, and that could be difficult to do. My instinct is to remove the statement from the article again pending this. -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

14 47

Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?
by Daniel P. B. Smith 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:09:50 -0700 > From: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> > > A nice example :) > > Well, the OED, generally recognized as the gold standard in > etymology, lists > the first use of the term in a figurative sense ("leading to > disaster") in > 1951: *"1951* J. > FLEMING<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f.html#j-fleming> > *Man who looked Back* x. 132 You go off down the slippery slope; > it'll do > you good." There are two more quotations, one from 1964 and one > form 1979. > There are of course earlier uses of the phrase but they are not > meant in the > same way. Seems to me that to really make your case based on your > original > research in the NYT, you'd need to check every single use of the > citation to > make sure they were talking about a slippery slope (figuratively, > as in > leading to disaster) and not a slippery slope (literally). Did you > do this? I made a sort of loosy-goosy due-diligence effort. There were really two questions here. One was: what are some example of early uses in its present sense. That's sort of a separate topic. The second is: despite the fact that there _are_ early uses in its present sense, its use exploded circa 1980 or so. Based on casual sampling, virtually all uses after 1980 are in the present figurative sense. (Before that, quite a lot of them are not). If I search _only_ for articles in which the phrase "slippery slope" appears _in the title_, the very first such reference is in 1943, and is to a literal use: "Dauntless Is the Skier Seeking Snow; The Uncertainties of Travel Fail to Halt His Quest for Slippery Slopes as Shown by a Railroad Trip to Snow Valley Above Manchester, Vt." The next nine span 1963 to 1988, and all are, I claim, I judge, I opine, the modern use. "Russia and China Edge Down a Slippery Slope;" "The Nation; U.S. and Cambodia: Down the 'Slippery Slope' Again?;" "On the Slippery Slope To Another Vietnam," etc. So, again, what would you do here? State the common-sense inference ("the very first such reference is in 1943, and is to a literal use; the next nine span 1963 to 1988 and are all the modern use," and give title, date, and page of all ten in a footnote? Surely not: put title, date, page of all ten in the article itself? With regard to the OED and first use in its present sense, why yes, I know better than that edition of the OED. First of all, William Safire gives a 1909 example in a 2002 column: "The key task of the phrasedick is to find earliest uses of ["slippery slope"] in its present sense of "a course that leads inexorably to disaster." The OED tracks it to a 1951 novel, but new retrieval technology lets us do better than that.... We have this 1857 use from Chambers' Journal: "When the educated person of the middle class is reduced to pennilessness... what but this gives him the desire to struggle again up the slippery slope of fortune?" In both of these citations, the meaning is closer to "the greasy pole...." The current sense... probably surfaced in the early 20th century, possibly in an article by a writer in a 1909 Quarterly Review, published in London: "the first step down that slippery slope at the bottom of which lies a parliamentary government." But new retrieval technology, namely Google Books, lets me do better than Safire. I found an 1878 reference by one Bernard O'Reilly: "It is not with them we are concerned: they will not be taught or reformed; so, they will go down the steep and slippery slope on which the heartless move, to perdition!" I think that's unquestionably an example of usage to mean "a course that leads inexorably to disaster." (Of course, I'd never draw such an inference; I'd just quote it and let the reader decide. The reference is: The Mirror of True Womanhood, A Book of Instruction for Women in the World, 2nd Edition, Dublin, M. H. Gill and Son, "Reprinted from the Thirteenth American Edition." p. 136." Actually the question of the year is complicated because the Google Books image is from an 1883 edition, but the 1883 edition says it's from the Thirteenth American Edition, which was published in 1878. Whether it was in earlier editions I don't know. But it's older than 1951 and by golly it's older than 1909. And I found an 1837 reference that does not actually use the phrase "slippery slope," but does say: "There are points where the Christian must always stand on guard. His danger is seldom found in gross offenses... but in small indulgences, and weak compliances, where conscience rather doubts, than condemns. These gradually draw him nearer and nearer to the world, till the line of separation is lost. Many a Christian has glided down this slope to perdition." Osler, Edward (1837), Church and King," Smith, Elder and Co., London, p. 13

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?
by Fred Bauder 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: Earle Martin [mailto:wikipedia@downlode.org] >Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 05:35 AM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral? > >On [[Latymer Upper School]], one contributor has added, in relation to >the school's new logo/shield: > >"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new >shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]." > >I originally removed it from the article as needing a source, but >replaced it after the contributor in question demonstrated to me on >the talk page that he appears to know what he is talking about - >certainly more than I know about heraldry. > >However, is this original research? Or does it follow on naturally >once the Law of Arms is understood? It appears to be a legal opinion, >and I would imagine that any legal opinions should come from a citable >source. > >My main concern is that, even if it is true, it would need to be >proved that approval was not in fact obtained, and that could be >difficult to do. My instinct is to remove the statement from the >article again pending this. > > >-- >Earle Martin It strikes me that this information can be checked. Also, the harm done if it is wrong is minimal. Fred

4 8

← Newer
1
...
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
...
36
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 April 2007