WikiEN-l June 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

163 participants
295 discussions

Changing the AfD process (Was: Re: [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again)
by James Farrar 24 Jun '07

24 Jun '07

On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > James Farrar wrote: > > On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> And naturally it's gone as a result of what looks to me like a rather > >> messy process. > >> > >> The 14th AfD just closed. > > > > That says a lot. Why should the 14th AfD be any different from all the > > other AfDs? > > And furthermore, the article's been around since September 2005 so that > means on average it's gone up for AfD roughly every 1.3 months. Some > sort of rate limit would be nice. I agree. A four month moratorium following a "Keep", or two months after a "no consensus" seems plenty to me. Maybe 6 and 3 respectively. The other change I'd really like to see to the AfD process is that, following a "Keep" result, there should be a presumption against deletion in further AfDs, with the preferred remedy (if remedy proves necessary) being restoration to the version of the article that was Kept. Otherwise, you get silly situations like this where people keep going and going until they eventually get the result they want.

16 53

Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room
by Fred Bauder 23 Jun '07

23 Jun '07

The problem is that Wikipedia, for better or worse, has an inquisitorial system, with all the dangers such a system presents. We need to limit our investigations to harmful activities. Harmful activities cause harm, observable trouble. An administrator who uses open proxies but does not engage in vandalism or sockpuppetry is not producing observable trouble. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Gabe Johnson [mailto:gjzilla@gmail.com] >Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 01:28 PM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room > >On 6/17/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: >> What I said is that all productive and trusted users are exempt from inquisition, witch hunts, to put it bluntly. >> >> Fred >> > >One man's "witch hunt" is another man's "this person is doing >something legitimately wrong and I no longer trust him". ~~~~ > > >-- >Absolute Power >C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y > >_______________________________________________ >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 >

18 26

Re: [WikiEN-l] Posting on the List
by Daniel R. Tobias 23 Jun '07

23 Jun '07

On 23 Jun 2007 at 11:03:26 -0400, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: > on 6/23/07 9:52 AM, Mark Gallagher at m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au > wrote: > > > Damn you, Marc Riddell! > > Some say that happened the day I entered UC Berkeley ;-). Do the gates of the place say "Abandon hope all ye who enter here"? -- == 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

Posting on the List
by Marc Riddell 23 Jun '07

23 Jun '07

Folks, I just responded to a post by David Goodman. As is my practice, I addressed him by name - that's just a habit of mine. I want you to know that when I do this, I am not in any way wanting to restrict the dialogue to just him and me. Please, if you have a response to any of my posts - no matter who they are addressed to - do jump in. I'm still learning online protocol, so humor me :-). If I needed to say this, OK. If I didn't - just ignore it, and I'll shut up :-). Marc

6 7

Re: [WikiEN-l] Posting on the List -- Go Bears
by K P 23 Jun '07

23 Jun '07

On 6/23/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/23/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/23/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > on 6/23/07 9:52 AM, Mark Gallagher at m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Damn you, Marc Riddell! > > > > > > Some say that happened the day I entered UC Berkeley ;-). > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Well, I'll be damned, too, then. > > Ah, excellent. More of us Bears. > > I hope we won the Big Game at least once while you all were going .... > > > -- > -george william herbert > george.herbert(a)gmail.com > Well, let's just say our mascot didn't have to do hard time, and the tree eventually resprouted. Sadly that's the best I can say..... We don't seem to have anything on the mascot behaviour controversy--or probably deleted under BLP. KP

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Deleting over 45000 items
by Daniel R. Tobias 23 Jun '07

23 Jun '07

On 22 Jun 2007 at 08:10:15 -0700, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote: > Instead, I'm saying that the if Orson Welles thinks the best way to tell > the Citizen Kane story is to create a mystery, we should not casually > reveal it just because somebody thinks, as a couple of people on this > list have suggested, that it's just as good either way. Although, in [[RKO 281]], a 1999 film that was a fictionalized account of the creation of Citizen Kane, Welles is shown yelling the spoiler about "Rosebud" to the crowd waiting in the theater lobby before the start of an opening-night showing, just for the heck of it. (At that point he's pretty frustrated with the whole movie business, after all the manipulations to try to suppress his film.) -- == 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] Wiki Research
by James Sutton 22 Jun '07

22 Jun '07

Hi My name is Jim Sutton and I'm undertaking research in the School of Library, Archive, and Information Studies, UCL. http://www.slais.ucl.ac.uk/ My research involves studying wiki usage, the reasons why individuals use wikis and the benefits/disadvantages of using wikis to manage knowledge. I was wondering if you would agree to my analysing your contributions to Wikipedia. This will basically involve calculating how many times you've contributed to Wikipedia within the time period of a week. I was also wondering what your reasons are for using/contributing to Wikipedia. I'd be extremely grateful for any feedback you can provide. If you agree to my analysing your contributions then please email me with your Wikipedia username. I also have a survey online which I'm using as part of my research at: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/stqa7937/survey/ My Wikipedia username is Sutton4019 and my research is being carried out jointly with Melissa Terras at UCL. Her email address is m.terras(a)ucl.ac.uk . If you have any questions please let me know and thank you for your time. Kind Regards Jim Sutton

7 6

Re: [WikiEN-l] LOL
by Daniel R. Tobias 22 Jun '07

22 Jun '07

On 21 Jun 2007 at 23:26:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: > If you want to maintain discussions it would be easier on everyone if > you avoided top-posting. Though it's odd to criticize top-posting in a message that's at least partially top-posted too; you start out with interleaved replies, but then have a big block of untrimmed quotage trailing off at the bottom. There *has* been quite a burst of top-posting on this list lately. http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html -- == 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/

4 6

LOL
by Florence Devouard 22 Jun '07

22 Jun '07

I got this on my user talk page today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Orphaned_non-free_image_.28I… Which is an issue I was already informed of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Orphaned_non-free_image_.28I… I am ***certain*** we discussed this issue. And I am 200% certain I deleted the image. Yet, it is back up and I am again informed it is an orphaned-non free and it should be speedy deleted. I do not get it... errr, a mad electron ? ant

11 25

Deleting over 45000 items
by arromdee＠rahul.net 22 Jun '07

22 Jun '07

[[Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler]] Is it really fair to delete 45000 spoiler warnings and claim that the failure to undelete them is "consensus"? (Especially when it turns out there actually were hundreds restored, but they kept getting deleted anyway) This is not the dead issue people have claimed it is, and 45000 is just the last number anyone's bothered to count. It seems blatantly obvious to me that nobody's going to be able to restore 45000 spoiler warnings; deleting them is easy, but restoring one is impossible without reading the whole article to figure out where the right place for them is. Particularly without AWB-like software. And creating "consensus" by unilaterally making an impossible-to-reverse mass change should disturb anyone, regardless of their opinion on spoiler warnings.

21 57

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
...
30
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 June 2007