> From: Guy Chapman aka JzG
> Look up a fact? No problem. Join the dots from a series of facts you
> looked up? Original research, in my book.
I was recently working on an article (not in Wikipedia) on the phrase "Slippery slope," which these days usually means "a course leading inexorably to disaster." I wanted to support a statement that although there _are_ old uses of the phrase in its modern meaning, it became much more popular starting around 1980.
My public library (and _many_ others) provide online access to a searchable full page-image database of complete back issues of the New York Times. In a few minutes, I was able to compile this:
Hits on exact phrase "slippery slope", all article types, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) (a database available to patrons of many public libraries)
1857-99: 5 (average about 1 per decade)
1900-49: 41 (average 8.2 per decade)
1950-59: 11
1960-69: 23
1970-79: 36
1980-89: 144
1990-99: 402
Well, can I use this in an article? Under Wikipedia's present rules, I don't think so.
And yet.
It is certainly original research. But it's verifiable, sensu Wikipedia, in that it the database is very widely available so it's easy to confirm my results. In fact it's easier than verifying an obscure print publication with no online copy. And, in this particular case, my assemblage of facts is intellectually honest: it is reasonable to want to know the history of the phrase's use, and this is a reasonable way to find out. This is not a selective assembly of facts made for the purpose of suggesting a biassed conclusion.
And I was _not_ able to find a published source that said in so many words that the phrase bloomed in popularity around 1980.
Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?
Other than its being the first step on a slippery slope, of course.
It's official: AFD is dead.
Because if you don't like the decision, you can always just try again,
and keep trying until you get the decision you want.
A disgrace.
On 1 Apr 2007 at 19:09 -0400, Versageek <wiki(a)versageek.com> wrote:
> Use Alexa's comparison feature to compare wikipedia.org and google.com,
> they seem to mirror each other quite closely in terms of the sawtooth
> pattern.
Interestingly, youtube.com shows a sawtooth pattern that's almost
completely the inverse of that of google.com and wikipedia.org. This
apparently reflects a distinction between "serious research and
information" sites that are used at work / school (or that one can at
least get away with surfing at such environments even if it's really
for fun) versus "frivolous entertainment" sites that are mostly used
at home in one's free time.
The fact that Sunday gets more Wikipedia traffic than Saturday could
reflect the general cultural norm (excluding Orthodox Jews who
strictly observe a sabbath from Friday night to Saturday sundown)
where Saturday is the day people are out and about doing everything
from shopping to partying, while Sunday is a day for relaxation at
home; as a result, TV ratings are higher on Sunday (Sunday night
prime time is a very popular TV night in the United States), and
maybe people are also surfing the Internet more.
--
== 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 Sat Apr 7 00:05:44 UTC, Mets501 mets501wiki at gmail.com wrote:
>
> But the important thing is that not all admins do everything. A user who
> has never reverted a single vandal can become an admin as much as a user who
> has never tagged an article for speedy deletion, or written a featured
> article. This system would prevent that.
I think you have it the wrong way round.
Under the present system, an admin candidate who comes up on RfA
having not done any vandal fighting probably attracts a slew of oppose
!votes from people saying "has not demonstrated any need for the
tools". Under my proposal, there would be an opportunity for other
editors to say that the user had no experience of this aspect of
adminship, but it would be up to the closing bureaucrat to say whether
this lack of experience demonstrated unsuitability as a whole. I would
expect, if the candidate had good experience of other areas, that it
wouldn't pose a problem.
--
Sam Blacketer
London E15
The Cunctator cunctator at gmail.com wrote:
> On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:21:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> > <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > >In this case, the criterion for list membership is "has been on the Top
> > >Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation
> > >than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
> >
> > That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes. Like saying
> > it was No. 1 in the charts. But, as with the charts, including the
> > entire list violates copyright.
>
>Huh? You keep repeating this, but the evidence for the claim just isn't there.
I am not a copyright lawyer (thanks be to God after reading this thread)
but it is quite clear that this list is a violation of copyright. The decision
to put cars in various sections of the 'Cool Wall' is a creative process.
Copying the results of this creative process in its entirety is therefore
a violation of copyright. The copyright rests in the compiling of a list
by arbitrary criteria; compiling a list by objective criteria would not be
copyright.
The Stanford guide to Copyright and fair use is clear:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.ht…
"the work must be original -- that is, independently created by the
author. It doesn't matter if an author's creation is similar to
existing works, or even if it is arguably lacking in quality,
ingenuity or aesthetic merit. So long as the author toils without
copying from someone else, the results are protected by copyright.
Finally, to receive copyright protection, a work must be the result of
at least some creative effort on the part of its author. There is no
hard and fast rule as to how much creativity is enough. As one
example, a work must be more creative than a telephone book's white
pages, which involve a straightforward alphabetical listing of
telephone numbers rather than a creative selection of listings."
What we have here is a creative selection of listings.
--
Sam Blacketer
London E15
Having looked at some debates on this mailing list from before when I
joined it about how RfA is broken as a process, read tonight's
'Request for Arbitration' read the almost surreal RfA for Danny, and
(most importantly) read Mackensen's statement in his Request for
Bureaucratship, I have a half-formed idea for a replacement system
might be organised. Thought it best to try here rather than by putting
up a proposal because the audience is more select and thoughtful
(flattery will get you everywhere).
The key problem with RfA that too many people have identified is that
although it is formally 'not a vote', it is a vote in effect and in
practice. The second problem is that oppose notvotes are cast for
reasons which have little importance on Any replacement needs to move
away from a system of pure votes. However, it does need to offer an
opportunity for editors at large to evaluate a candidate's editing to
assess whether they are likely to fall into any of the problem areas
for admins.
The system I have in mind would involve an expanded list of questions
to ask the candidate in more detail about their contributions and how
they see themselves fitting in. Then, instead of asking editors to
support or oppose, editors would be asked to assess the candidate's
contributions in several different aspects. That might fall into these
divisions (this is just an example):
* Article writing
* Interactions with other Wikipedians
* Contributions to Wikipedia internal debates
* Vandal-fighting and cleanup
* Miscellaneous
Instead of 'support' or 'oppose', editors judging the candidate would
comment on whether the candidate's contributions in each area were
worthy of commendation or indicated unsuitability. They could add, if
they wanted, a recommendation to the closing bureaucrat that the
candidate had such serious problems that they should not be promoted.
At the end of the debate, the bureaucrat would ascertain whether any
problems with the candidate taken overall made them unsuitable, not by
counting numbers but by qualitative assessment. The way this might
work is that the candidate who registered an account last week and has
10 edits would fail almost immediately, as now. The candidate who has
no involvement with copyright checking but has good experience in
everything else would pass because they can pick that experience up
later if they need to. The candidate who edits controversial articles
and is inevitably accused of bias and targeted by trolls, will pass if
it is clear they react calmly.
I recognise this proposal vastly increases the discretion of the corps
of bureaucrats but that would probably be inevitable in any change. I
am not suggesting that RfB procedure should be changed. Also, I think
I should declare an interest in that I'm rather hoping to go through
RfA myself sometime in the future.
--
Sam Blacketer
London E15
If you're a Chicago resident, please see WP:ANI "PatPeters" thread -
we have a user who threatened suicide. Someone should notify Chicago
PD, but I can't find any out-of-area contact numbers to use to call
them.
If we have anyone in Chicago reading, please read the ANI thread and
then call 3-1-1 and let Chicago PD know about the situation...
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
FYI--
After some concerns were raised about the indefinite protection or
semi-protection of some high-profile articles, I decided unprotect
some that had been protected for a long time. (I also created a recent
change list and requested the help of a few other editors to help me
watch the pages. A list of pages I unprotected or set end-dates for is
available at [[User:Fang Aili/sandbox2]].)
All articles listed below were unprotected by me around March 29. Here
is a report on what has happened since. All re-semi-protected articles
were protected in response to IP vandalism, unless otherwise
specified.
==Countries and continents==
*France - Indef semi-protected on April 1.
*Mexico - Re-semi-protected, March 31. (expires April 14)
*Iraq - Re-semi-protected, April 4. (expires April 14)
*England - Re-semi-protected, April 3. (expires April 17)
*Europe - Still unprotected. Target of much vandalism, but also
constructive edits by IPs.
*Africa - Re-SP'd April 2. Expires April 7.
*Australia - Much anon vandalism. Re-SP'd on April 3, expires April 24.
*People's Republic of China - Still unprotected. Some vandalism. (I
kept page move protection.)
==People==
*Ayn Rand - Still unprotected. Some anon vandalism.
*Bill Cosby - Semi-protected again by myself after vandals claimed
Cobsy was dead, expires April 16.
*Benito Mussolini - Still unprotected. Some anon vandalism.
==Planets==
*Earth - Still unprotected. Fairly heavy IP vandalism.
*Sun - Re-SP'd on April 2, expires April 7.
*Mars - Re-SP'd on April 5, expires May 17.
==Other==
*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - This has gone through many
edits lately, as can be expected. It was unprotected March 28,
re-protected the next day, and unprotected March 31.
*Black Death - A suprising target of much anon vandalism,
semi-protected again by myself, expires April 12.
*Buddhism - Still unprotected. Some IP vandalism.
*Aztec - Still unprotected. Minor IP vandalism.
*Baibars - Still unprotected. No vandalism.
*Amish - Still unprotected. Minor IP vandalism. At least one instance
of a constructive IP edit.
*History of Croatia - Still unprotected. No edits since I unprotected it.
==Analysis==
1. Of this group, countries were most likely to be re-protected.
2. With some articles, it seems our choices are: 1)Constantly monitor,
and revert often, or 2)Semi-protect and still monitor for (perhaps
less frequent) vandalism from registered users. [[England]], for
example, was still getting vandalized even while semi-protected.
3. We may just have to accept that some articles will be indefinitely
semi-protected, or will go through cycles of one-week-unprotected,
several-weeks-protected.
Take the information for what you will. I am not sure I accomplished
anything other than reasserting what we already know. But it was an
interesting experiment.
Erica
User:Fang Aili