At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
list
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
I'll be in London tomorrow for two nights. Camel and Artichoke in Lower
Marsh Street near Waterloo from 1830 on Tuesday. Tim Tams will be provided.
--
Peter in Singapore
The Mangoe wrote:
> As
> far as I can tell, DennyColt just took it upon himself to turn the
> ArbCom statements into a policy and then began enforcing it against
> Wikipedia Review (which the ArbCom decision pointed to).
Actually, the arbitration decision often relied on for removing links to
attack sites involved Encyclopedia Dramatica and did not mention
Wikipedia Review at all. How far that principle extends is obviously a
matter of debate, but for an endeavor that requires as much
fact-checking as Wikipedia, I'm constantly disappointed with the
inability of some people to keep even simple, easily checked facts straight.
--Michael Snow
> From: "Jeff Raymond" <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com>
> When the mainstream media consistently uses blogs as reliable
> information for their stories, there's absolutely no reason why we can't
> do the same thing.
>
> -Jeff
It's a question of the "web of trust." My belief is that part of a journalist's skill involves knowing what sources to trust (and in obtaining reliable information from not-fully-reliable sources through various means, such as cross-checking with other not-fully-reliable sources). My belief is also that a journalist measures a blog posting, or anything else, against a large body of background that _he_ has, that _I_ don't have, that _he_ can use to judge the credibility of the source.
Just because the New York Times' source for _a_ story is _a_ blog doesn't mean that _any_ blog has the same reliability as The New York Times.
It's like saying that a "when mainstream surgeons consistently use scalpels as reliable tools for cutting into living flesh, there's no reason why we can't do the same thing."
Of course, if one believes that the existence of bad journalist and bad surgeons implies that journalists and surgeons don't genuinely possess any special skills, then it would follow that anyone can use a blog (or a scalpel) just as safely as a journalist (or a surgeon).
It was Dilbert's pointy-haired boss reasoned that "anything I don't understand must be easy..."
I think it's righteous, for several reasons: bragging rights about Jews' valuable contributions, clear evidence that Jews don't run everything, or even much, and links to interesting accomplished people. There are all kinds of ways to go wrong with this list, but I'm sure the article does not suffer from want of watchers.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:19 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Thoughts on naming people - article content, this time.
>
>So, reading wikien-l in one window, and browsing random-article with
>the other, I came across:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jews_in_politics
>
>"This List of Jews contains individuals who, in accordance with
>Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, have been
>identified as Jews by reliable sources."
>
>Given the context of the ongoing discussion about wilfuly outing
>people... is it just me who finds that wording, hmm, a touch odd?
>Discuss.
>
>--
>- Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
G'day Ken,
> On Wed, 30 May 2007, John Lee wrote:
> > On the other hand, we have firm criteria for what would be an
> attack site -
> > a site devoted to outing the identities of anonymous
> Wikipedians, or a site
> > devoted to libeling Wikipedia editors is unambiguously such a site.
>
> The Tersa Nielsen Hayden situation pretty much demonstrates that
> the attack
> site criteria are not firm or unambiguous.
No, it doesn't. Here, I'll resolve that question now:
Teresa Nielsen-Hayden's weblog is unambiguously *not* an attack
site. Will Beback suffered a momentary lapse of reason, and
he seriously fucked up in a way that should cause him to blush
continously for the next two weeks.
Where's the controversy?
(I'm far from being on the side of the BADSITES people in this debate,
but when you say something moronic, I can't agree with it.)
--
[[User:MarkGallagher]]
I posted this one a few days back; another keeper IMO.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/20070420/cp.850292a055b2ece8b99a978d…
Get Fuzzy: April 20, 2007
----
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E
A229
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] We're famous!
> --- Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:
>
> > On 16/02/07, the wub <thewub.wiki(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Meanwhile in good comics{{POV-statement}}, Cat and Girl
> > had a typically
> > > philosophical strip featuring wp the other day.
> >
> > Is there any page in the Wikipedia: namespace where we
> > links to
> > webcomics featuring WP are collected? If so, shall we
> > start one?
>
> In case someone did, another on WP's legendary accuracy and
> NPOV:
> http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2007/04/29/
>
> For those of you in need of retribution:
> [[Non Sequitur (comic strip)]]
> [[Wiley Miller]]
>
> ~~Pro-Lick
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
> http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
G'day KP,
> On 5/31/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did an entire museum a little while ago - the trick I used was
> to do
> > two seperate sets of photos, the good camera taking high-res
> shots of
> > every artifact and the small compact running off lots of context
> > photos ("here is the entire cabinet") and pictures of labels,
> etc. Put
> > the two sets together, sort by timestamp, and you're done.
> >
> > [Or would be had I not forgotten to set one of them to daylight
> > savings. Still, it was a nice first attempt...]
>
> Yeah, I do this if I'm shooting in gardens, take two cameras,
> shoot the
> label and broad shot, then shoot the images I want with my good
> camera.Also for my art. For me the flowers don't always come with
> signs, except
> for the ones I'm growing. When I shoot in the field I take a
> cheap sketch
> book and a marker and write a sign and shoot it. But yes, with
> air shows
> the signs are often also crowded with the other folks at the air
> shows, and
> not usually are they the one shot of the plane you want (cutting
> off nose
> and tail)--still, it can be useful.
One of the features I really like about my (otherwise quite poor)
digital camera is that it also allows for taking video and sound
recordings. There's even a setting you can use where it will take
the photo, then switch to audio mode, and you speak a short
description of what you've just photographed.
Very handy.
<snip/>
--
[[User:MarkGallagher]]
G'day Gabe,
> On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not at all. My point in all this is the one I've made elsewhere in
> > this thread, or maybe there are two threads going about this, namely
> > that I feel uneasy about seeing people promoted who've racked up
> high> edit counts by using automated or semi-automated scripts,
> but who have
> > very little article-talk interaction.
>
> But you do not use the admin tools to interact in article-talk. They
> *are* used for vandalism-fighting and protection. ~~~~
The most important job for an admin is to interact with people on
talk pages. Rightly or wrongly, admins are perceived to have
special status on Wikipedia, and their words and actions will often
have more impact on editors than the words and actions of an
ordinary editor might.
Admins[0] can mediate a dispute and prevent the need for blocks
or protections. They can convince users to stop vandalising or
spamming and become good contributors. They can calm users
who have been improperly accused of vandalism or spamming.
They can explain our policies and encourage users to become
Clueful.
They can also drive users away from the project. They can
convince a tester that Wikipedia is not really a very nice place,
and cause him to become a vandal. They can offend a good
faith user by calling him a "spammer". They can spread
misinformation about our policies and encourage users to
become Clueless.
Sooner or later, an administrator will interact with other users
on their talkpages. We need to know: is this bloke an
insensitive jerk? We do not know this if all that user has done
is revert vandals, post to AIV, and use those silly {{testN}}
templates.
And that's before you even look at the concern SlimVirgin raised.
I had not considered it, but it is true: if we don't know what the
"voice" of an admin candidate "sounds" like, it's much easier for
a Trojan admin to slip through unrecognised.
[0] Any user, most of the time, but admins are more likely to be
successful, because people pay more attention to us.
--
[[User:MarkGallagher]]