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
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
The Mangoe wrote:
> 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.
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 18:28, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 June 2007 11:01, Phil Sandifer wrote:
*>> I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers
>> see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes, and
>> we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
*> Why should the fact that he's "one of our own" entitle him to special
> He's not a "kid who made a mistake", he's an adult who knew fully well
> what he was doing and did it anyway.
It doesn't entitle him to special consideration, Kurt. Wikipedia is becoming
increasingly sensitive towards all human beings of borderline notability,
whose lives may be adversely affected by the existence of a Wikipedia
article about them. I don't think there's anyone who is arguing in favour of
deletion who would not argue in favour of deleting a similar article about a
non-Wikipedian of similar borderline notability. Certainly Phil Sandifer
didn't argue that Essjay deserves special consideration because he's "one of
our own"; you read it into his words.
What age was Essjay when he joined? Twenty? Twenty-one? Twenty-two? Many
people would consider that he *was* a kid.
Did he invent that persona with the intention of becoming an an
administrator, a bureaucrat, a checkuser, an oversighter? I doubt it very
much. I doubt if he even knew there were such things when he started.
It sounds to me like an immature kid, just out of his teens, finding it fun,
as an insignificant new user, to tell a few whoppers about being a Professor
of Theology, then, as a result of some genuinely good qualities, becoming
popular on Wikipedia, becoming an administrator, rising still higher, and
finding himself trapped in the lies that he had started as before he ever
suspected that he was going to rise to power. Obviously it was wrong, but it
wasn't a scheming, calculating, plan to gain positions of trust. As far as I
know, he gained those positions by being friendly and helpful, not by saying
that he had two doctorates.
Like Phil, I'm uncomfortable with having an article that puts Essjay's real
name at or near the top of Google. A mention of the event in the article on
[[Criticism of Wikipedia]] shows that we're not sweeping it under the
carpet. Essjay is only notable (and not even particularly so) because of a
single event, and the tendency at Wikipedia is to discourage articles about
non-notable people who became notable from being in the news over a single
I wonder how many people on this mailing list never told lies between the
ages of twenty-one and twenty-four. What Essjay did was wrong, but it seems
that his punishment is out of proportion.
A few months ago I was here for a very interesting discussion about
Wikipedia vs. Citizendium and in particular about the idea of having teams
of identity-verified "experts" who could take custody of articles to help
prevent errors and vandalism. This time I'm asking about something less
controversial. Well, maybe :)
Peacefire runs a network of proxy sites like
https://www.StupidCensorship.com/ for getting around Internet filtering;
unlike most proxy sites which are widely known and get blocked quickly, we
encourage people to sign up to receive e-mail updates whenever we create
new sites, and since it usually takes a few days for newly mailed sites to
get blocked, most of our users are usually able to use the latest one we've
mailed out. One of the most frequent comments from our users is that
they're glad that they can get on Wikipedia through the proxies. So how
can we help get the word out to more Wikipedians -- many of whom are
undoubtedly not aware of the easy methods for accessing Wikipedia from
censored networks? (That is, they probably know about proxies, but may not
know how to get an unlimited supply of proxies so the latest one is always
unblocked.) Our organization's whole purpose is to help people get around
Internet blocking, so every time we help someone gain access to Wikipedia,
we're achieving our mission and, presumably, helping Wikipedia achieve
theirs as well.
We're willing to spend the money on the hardware and the bandwidth for the
proxies to help people get access, so how can we do it in a way that
benefits Wikipedia users the most? (Disclaimer: we do get some money back
from the ads that runs on our site, but not at a profit; we just barely
break even on the ads right now. So there may not be quite the same "halo"
around these services as there is around the bandwidth and hardware that's
donated outright to Wikipedia for free :) However, to be constantly
setting up new dedicated sites to help people get around Internet blocking,
requires creating new accounts with different hosting companies all the
time, and it would be impractical to try and get each of them to agree to
provide pro bono services each time we set up a new site, which is why we
have to spend money for that and why the ads help to pay for it.)
Since Wikipedia does have articles about subjects such as sexuality that
are often blocked in schools, I recognize there might be a minority of
Wikipedia supporters who nonetheless feel that the site *should* be blocked
from students, but I'm hoping that the vast majority of Wikipedians would
not feel that way. First of all, most blocking programs claim not to block
sites that deal with those subjects in an "educational" context, which
means the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia, even those about topics
like sex, should not be blocked, by the companies' own stated
criteria. Second, I think most reasonable people would agree that
virtually every teenager could read almost everything on Wikipedia without
"harm", and that the educational benefits are enormous. (Well, they would
be if you had experts sign off on the articles. *ducks*)
So, what can we do to help? If we had an unlimited budget for
circumvention services, how could we best use it to help
Wikipedia? (Whatever the answer to that would be, there's probably a way
we can achieve some part of it, even on a limited budget.) In addition to
just providing the sites, there might be times when if a new Wikipedia
feature is being released, for example, we could do cross-platform testing
to see if it's compatible with our proxies so we can alert users to any
issues. What do you all think?
(425) 497 9002
>From [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates]]:
> I only just joined this project, so forgive me if my suggestion is somehow
> naïve. I use the 'who' tag often, as in:
> Some groups[*attribution needed <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words>*] oppose these measures.
> It seems to me that one could simplify this tag to "who?", as in:
> Some groups[who?] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution> oppose these measures.
Can we PLEASE make a blanket ban on editorial footnotes in the middle of
> No, the point was that if an admin doesn't behave well when it's
> absolutely essential that they do so, it's likely that they'll behave
> even worse when they aren't under the microscope. Please don't troll.
Great. An invitation to make all our elections a pillory, just so we can be sure people are made of the right stuff. The psychology is completely naff, too. Most people are much happier out of the spotlight.
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 6/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:29:00 -0700, "Joe Szilagyi"
> <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is it appropriate for a CheckUser to disclose on someone's RFA the methods
> >of *how* they connect to edit Wikipedia?
> Yes, if they are using TOR. TOR is verboten, for good reason.
> Guy (JzG)
jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> to English
show details 8:52 am (3 hours ago)
>Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions,
and you're neither a prosecutor nor a judge. There's no particular
reason I should answer questions from an obviously hostile questioner
who has been applying outrageous double standards in this incident
from the very start.
If the TOR was forbidden for good reasons, Charlotte should have
simply been asked, long before the RfA, to stop using it. I have no
doubt she would have complied with a request. There was no need for a
revelation of information gained through use of check user tools to
sink her RfA.
That is the real Occam's razor coupled with AGF in this incident: ask
her to stop, when you first find out, explaining it is verboten, for
There was a thread about this in the list back in January, but nothing
happened because of it. So I started an on-wiki proposal about this (which
was adding a certain edit count to the autoconfirmed threshold) at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_Proposal . I hope that
everyone goes there and at least gives an opinion (and maybe this email will
actually make it to the list this time).