WikiEN-l April 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

179 participants
353 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] idea: BLP clean up category
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

"Denny Colt" wrote >But not everyone is also an > admin. Non-admins can't do that, and there might be an article that *should* > exist for whatever reason--notable subject, say--but the current article is > a complete mess that the person maybe feels they don't have the time or > ability to clean themselves. So it looks like the correct approach is for any editor confronted with a clear BLP problem to hack out, there and then, the worst (unsourced attack) stuff, and drop a note onto [[WP:BLPN]] as an alert/request for help. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] deleting unsourced articles ..... gradually
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

"The Cunctator" reply > This also shows how pushing too hard on the Sourcing issue promotes a bias > against the third world and the like which have a lesser internet presence. True. They also have fewer lawyers. We don't want to defame anyone, but should worry most about Americans. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

Ref Desk makes Boing Boing
by William Pietri 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

Wikipedia's reference desk gets a nice mention on Boing Boing: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/30/nyt_changes_backdate.html It also claims that the New York Times changed a published article without mentioning it on the page or issuing a correction. That's very interesting in the context of the recent discussion on the reliability and durability of web-based citations. William

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] idea: BLP clean up category
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

"Denny Colt" > How about something like "Living persons clean-up" or some similar wording, > which can be used with a variant clean-up template on BLP articles. I.e., if > you see one that needs it, but either don't know how, don't have the time > to, or whatever reason, can immediately flag an article as Very High > Priority for clean-up. This is the one case in which we actually want people to make drive-by deletions, and ask questions afterwards. That's one issue. A second is that creating a template that says 'potential libel here, come look' could have a downside. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

3 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still
by Seth Finkelstein 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

> Vee > Brandt is not being given a 'free pass' to edit, he is being allowed > to make useful comments about concerns he has about his own article. I > am certain that if he were to make any abusive edits to > [[Talk: Daniel Brandt]], they would be reverted. However, reverting > his edits to the _talk page_ of the article about *himself* when he's > merely expressing concerns about an article that could affect his > PERSONAL LIFE directly is simply unfair and isn't going to help anybody. I endorse this viewpoint. Just call it the exception WP:HUMANITARIANGROUNDS It is the right thing to do morally, as it violates very basic standards of fairness to discuss a person so directly, yet deny them the opportunity to defend themselves *in the same forum*. It is the right thing to do pragmatically, as otherwise accusations of sockpuppetry fly back and forth. It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of dispute resolution, as it allows at least the (admittedly small) chance of developing some mutual understanding from the discussion. It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of minimizing harm, as otherwise the situation looks like something out of Kafka ("Anyone can write accusations against you, but *you* aren't even allowed to speak in your defense, since we don't like you and we 0wnz ur bi0"). If nothing else, the obvious ill-will that is generated from not even being able to defend oneself should make the choice clear. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com/ Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php

3 3

Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia Thesaurus Posted enwiki-20070206
by David Gerard 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey(a)wolfmountaingroup.com> Date: 04-Apr-2007 11:30 Subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia Thesaurus Posted enwiki-20070206 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> A machine generated thesaurus constructed from interwiki and wiki links and tags contained in the XML dumps has been posted at ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/thesaurus. This build analyzes the 20070206 enwiki dumps and contructs a thesaurus based upon relationships between wiki links and interwiki links contained within the XML dumps. Included are raw files of links, lexicon, and XML dump created based upon the embedded Thesaurus inside of Wikipedia. Text file of stripped links and interwiki links with tags: ftp://www.wikigadugi.org/wiki/thesaurus/wikipedia-thesaurus-20070206.links.… Machine generated text lexicon of stripped links and interwiki links: ftp://www.wikigadugi.org/wiki/thesaurus/wikipedia-thesaurus-20070206.lex.bz2 Machine Generated XML MediaWiki dump which can be imported as a basic Thesaurus has a few title problems, I will finish it up in the morning and post to the thesarus area. Jeff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

1 0

Fwd: thannae...
by cu clt 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

I received this abusive and threatening email from a Wikipedia admin (User:Thunderboltz) after I edited an article he created. Please look at the article to see the edits I made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C3%A9_River Please see User:Thunderboltz's frantic reactions on his User Page and Talk Page. Also note that he deleted my User page and put sock template on it and protected both User Page and Talk Page. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Deepu Joseph <deepu.joseph1(a)gmail.com> Date: Apr 3, 2007 9:24 PM Subject: thannae... To: cu clt <abcclt(a)gmail.com> thannae polae olla aalkaarae naatil oru peru villikum. ha! thaan thane thaniku oru asalu peru ittitondalo! thaan aaranado thante vicharam? thaniku njan ente phone numberu thannathalaedo? thanikku enae kondu vallo prashnam undenkil atu nerittu aanungalae polae samsarichu teerkannam. allandu orumaathiri.... njan onnum parayunnilla. poyi chaavado. angane enkillum thannaekondu ee nadinnu oru gunam undakate. I dont care even if you post this email onto wikipedia or take this to the police. It's just so sad to be you. You must brood over urself often. How sad. Only stuff like this can give you the lulz to go forward. oh, and one more thing. Take it as a threat or whatever. Never ever dare to post a message on my talk page again. For ur own good. The effects of one fking email you sent is yet to be over. Do you even care about other people? Do you know what all I've been through? What YOU put me through? Do you find so much fun in torturing ppl who are nearly half your age? How desperately did I beg at ur knees when I asked you to phone me? Ha! and he replies saying he doesnt trust me! Do you think everyone has minds as screwed up as yours? Honestly, it's best for you if you never happen to see me in real life. ciao

2 1

Question for copyright savvy folks
by Guy Chapman aka JzG 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

I have just uploaded a scan of the first page of Bernstein's Chichester Psalms. I believe this satisfies fair use in illustrating the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichester_Psalms and I am confident it does not interfere in any way with the publisher's ability to profit from their intellectual property. This particular scan includes the copyright statement, which is a bonus. Acceptable? I would be very surprised if not. Next up: Duruflé Requiem. Problem: not much happens on the first page, the obvious target for a scan here is the first page of Movement II, the Kyrie. This does not have the copyright statement, although of course I put it in the image description. Acceptable in illustrating an article on the Duruflé Requiem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_%28Durufl%C3%A9%29 Probably OK, I would say. Yes? OK, I have a pretty extensive library of scores, and most of them I can find a single page, usually the first, which illustrates the work well and does not in any way interfere with the copyright owner's ability to profit. But there are some hard cases. * Works where the work is listed in a section in the article on the composer. In order not to overwhelm the article I would be inclined to scan a single system, but that does not fundamentally change matters; it would not have the copyright on the scan, but it would be on the description page, the question is, would fair use justly apply to use in illustrating a discussion of the work in an article on a wider topic? * Works where there are multiple editions, for example Copland's Old American Songs. Here I have one of a number of different versions, and available in different keys. Simple Gifts, an iconic melody (it's the melody in Appalachian Spring), probably the best known of all the American songs he collected. Melody by Trad, filtered through Copland, filtered again by the editors of my edition. Valid? Clearly in the case of a short work like windmills of your mind (theme from the original Thomas Crown Affair, keep up at the back there) a full page is too much for fair use, a single system or two systems is the most one could justify. Would the same apply to Summertime? It's a short work, but part of a whole opera. I have few reservations about the Messiah, the Watkins Shaw edition is now pretty much ubiquitous and Novello publish both that and Prout anyway. Beethoven Missa Solemnis,no problem, only one edition I know of. Mozart Requiem - a problem. The Novello edition, completed by Sussmayr, is far and away the most widely used in the UK, but there is a newish critical edition completed by Robert D. Levin which includes an amen fugue taken from sketches by Mozart. Would a single system or two systems from that be acceptable in discussing that critical edition in the article on the Mozart requiem? What of scores from ChoralWiki? That is public domain, I guess we can borrow at will? Or should we restrict ourselves to the same level of caution? Note that some of the stuff on ChoralWiki is actually copyright, it's externally hosted, so I would have to watch that of course. Most of them are in PDF format. Finally, does anyone have a good, cheap or free converter from jpeg / tiff to a more efficient format? Thanks, Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

8 9

Thoughts from yesterday for today
by Marc Riddell 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

Folks, It seemed like a slow evening on the List so I wanted to share this with you - as relevant today as when it was first written: ³These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it Now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value ." Thomas Paine VERY sincerely, Marc Riddell

1 0

idea: BLP clean up category
by Denny Colt 03 Apr '07

03 Apr '07

How about something like "Living persons clean-up" or some similar wording, which can be used with a variant clean-up template on BLP articles. I.e., if you see one that needs it, but either don't know how, don't have the time to, or whatever reason, can immediately flag an article as Very High Priority for clean-up. This wouldn't be for stuff like formatting, grammer, or the usual stuff--for suspected actual BLP issues. Good idea? -- - Denny

1 1

← Newer
1
...
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
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