Jimmy Wales is cover-featured on the June issue of Reason magazine
(Free Minds and Free Markets), which contains a long article on him
and Wikipedia with a favorable tone (though it does mention some
conflicts like the Siegenthaler matter).
--
== 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/
The notably infamous Brandt has a few more things to say on the
subject of what he might do to Wikipedia even if Wikipedia caves in
fully to his demands that his bio be deleted. Unfortunately, the
comments are on a site where, if I linked to it on Wikipedia itself,
various people would go ballistic about it and try to enforce alleged
policies against linking to such sites, but no such rule seems to
exist on this list, so here's the link:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8430
See how he "may decide" to "file a lawsuit anyway" even if we give
him what he's asking for. Subsequent discussion includes some back-
and-forth debate about whether the "Wikipedia Cabal" has secretly
decided to delete Brandt's bio because it's too much trouble (and,
along with that, suppress all internal opposition to such deletion
forcibly), or, contrariwise, that the cabal will carefully craft a
new BLP policy that allows some recourse to "bio victims" but still
lets them keep the Brandt article... either way, they think he should
sue about it. In addition to supporting such a suit, the
commentators are in general agreement that the fatal flaw of any
possible policy that comes out of Wikipedia is that the policy comes
out of Wikipedia; it's made by people within the Wikipedia community
and consistent with that community's values and principles, which is
inherently wrong: the policy should be imposed on Wikipedia from
outside, preferably by the most fervent haters of the site and
everything it stands for.
--
== 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 27 Apr 2007 at 18:33:21 -0400, "Daniel P. B. Smith"
<wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> So... he now wanted the article deleted. So, this time he argued with
> pitbull tenacity, carefully and methodically and with a clever
> understanding of Wikipedia policies, making the very best possible
> case for deletion... and got it deleted.
Interesting... kind of disproves my "Reverse Psychology Theory",
where I've speculated that the best way to get an article kept is to
be really obnoxious about wanting it deleted, and vice versa.
--
== 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/
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Where is the current proposal for stable article versions described
> and/or discussed? The two most likely places are both very inactive:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stable_versions
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reviewed_article_version
>
> I'm keen to know what is going to be implemented, and to be able to
> discuss this before it suddenly appears live on Wikipedia.
The developers working on this feature have it implemented on a test
server right now. There's still another development phase to go, at
least, before it can be used in production, I believe. But real progress
has been made, at any rate. The feature currently includes flagging
stable revisions as well as grading articles for accuracy, depth, and
readability. Obviously, the present form does not necessarily mean it
will work exactly that way in the end.
If you want more information or are interested in participating with the
test, I'd suggest directly contacting Erik Möller or P.Birken from the
German Wikipedia ([[de:Benutzer:P. Birken]]).
--Michael Snow
Hi,
I am currently doing some work with the barton catalog file (
http://simile.mit.edu/rdf-test-data/barton/) and I am trying to see
how many of the books from that catalog are referenced from Wikipedia.
My notebook is currently unable to handle the size of the English
language Wikipedia, so I am doing this work right now only with the
German language.
It would be great if anyone could run the LA2 Extraktor script
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LA2/Extraktor) on an as recent as
possible dump from wikie and send me the ISBN part.
You can email me at mathias.schindler(a)wikimedia.de or the gmail address.
Thanks in advance,
Mathias
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
>
> http://www.osworld.biz/816/wikipedia-a-source-of-traffic/
I am shocked, _shocked_ that it would ever occur to anybody that
Wikipedia could be used as a vehicle for self-promotion...
By the way, did anyone else follow the course of the Universism
article? A gentleman going by the name of Ford Vox played Wikipedia
like a violin on that one. Universism is a "new religion" which
claimed, I think, seven or eight thousand "members"--counting as an
member anyone who signed up on their website. It had a very
impressive-looking website. In meatspace, there seemed to be a few
chapters of about twenty or so in a few university towns; the one in
Birmingham, where the movement began, was sufficiently small that it
met in a coffee shop. (But of course that was irrelevant in the brave
new Internet world).
Ford Vox, by dint of pitbull-tenacious self-promotion, taking every
AfD to DRV, etc., and by carefully and methodically and cleverly
understanding Wikipedia policies and making the very best case
possible within them, finally got the article to stick.
Then, some months later, there arose some complicated schism within
the Universist ranks and Ford Vox fell out with the group (fell, or
was pushed.)
So... he now wanted the article deleted. So, this time he argued with
pitbull tenacity, carefully and methodically and with a clever
understanding of Wikipedia policies, making the very best possible
case for deletion... and got it deleted.
On 27 Apr 2007 at 18:21:01 -0400, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > But trolls and
> > other bad-faith users, upon seeing such a policy, will actually *look*
> > for the problematic websites.
>
> Consider the source.
Well, he might be an example of "it takes one to know one". Who
better than a troll and vandal to have insights into how trolls and
vandals think?
--
== 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/
Hi all,
I think I asked this recently, but didn't get a definitive reply.
Where is the current proposal for stable article versions described
and/or discussed? The two most likely places are both very inactive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stable_versionshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reviewed_article_version
I'm keen to know what is going to be implemented, and to be able to
discuss this before it suddenly appears live on Wikipedia.
Any ideas?
Steve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography
I've just rewritten this to untangle the grammar and tighten it a bit.
(If there's any particular important wording I've culled, please feel
free to restore it.)
Does this version make it clear enough what to do about an article
about oneself that one is unhappy with? Where would you add it?
- d.