WikiEN-l April 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

179 participants
353 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?
by wikipedia2006＠dpbsmith.com 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

> 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.

7 6

AFD is dead
by James Farrar 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

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.

9 18

Re: [WikiEN-l] Weekly cycles to Wikipedia traffic
by Daniel R. Tobias 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

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/

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] RfA reform
by Sam Blacketer 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

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

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question
by Sam Blacketer 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

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

7 8

RfA reform
by Sam Blacketer 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

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

3 2

Any Chicago Wikipedians... WP:ANI report of suicidal Wikipedian
by George Herbert 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

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

5 12

Any Chicago Wikipedians... WP:ANI report of suicidal Wikipedian
by daniwo59＠aol.com 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

I am talking to the authorities. danny ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Report on unprotected, high-profile articles
by Daniel R. Tobias 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

On 6 Apr 2007 at 12:38 -0500, Erica <fangaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: > *Earth - Still unprotected. Fairly heavy IP vandalism. Mostly harmless... -- == 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

Report on unprotected, high-profile articles
by Erica 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

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

3 4

← Newer
1
...
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
...
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