On 1 Jul 2007 at 22:20:45 +0000, "Fred Bauder"
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> You may appeal the case if you wish, although I would not
> guarantee we would accept the appeal. The decision is binding with
> respect to links to the drama site. The principles which form the
> basis for the case also remain, solidarity with other users and
> reasonable efforts to protect our users from harassment.
It's a weird judicial system that allows or encourages somebody to
appeal a case to which he's not even a party.
Just how did you end up with the "kkk" in the subject line, which
most decidedly was not present in my original posting?
--
== 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/
White Cat wrote:
> I do not understand this overindulgence with the details.
If you don't understand the importance of getting details right, should
you be editing Wikipedia?
--Michael Snow
You may appeal the case if you wish, although I would not guarantee we would accept the appeal. The decision is binding with respect to links to the drama site. The principles which form the basis for the case also remain, solidarity with other users and reasonable efforts to protect our users from harassment.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 01:12 PM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
>
>On 1 Jul 2007 at 16:32:39 +0000, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikime wrote:
>
>> See
>>
>> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop
>>
>> and the other pages associated with that arbitration.
>
>...which actually impose a ban on linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica,
>not Wikipedia Review, which is the site in question in the latest
>incident.
>
>But referring to that arbitration workshop page just underscores the
>idea that it's bad for ArbCom to be making policy, which is exactly
>what it's doing when it does things like imposing sweeping bans on
>linking to sites, regardless of the word-lawyering you may be doing
>to claim that it isn't making policy. The arbitration workshop page
>was frequented by a fairly small group of people -- the combatants in
>the current case (some ED partisans vs. some editors/admins that had
>been targeted for attack on that site) along with the handful of
>policy wonks who pay close attention to all ArbCom cases and other
>such administrivia. It can hardly be considered to be representative
>of the Wikipedia community as a whole, of which one is supposed to
>have a consensus when setting policy. I see that the part on not
>linking to "attack sites" got hardly any discussion or debate on that
>page, with just a handful of comments including your own curt "Game
>Over" against somebody wanting less absolutism. Some other things on
>the page got a greater deal of debate (the "solidarity" part, where
>admins were expected to close ranks in an us-vs-them manner against
>anybody deemed to be "attacking" one of "us", got some expressions of
>concern for over-broadness and slippery-slope dangerousness, but
>these were dismissed with "if you're not with us, you're with the
>terrorists" rhetoric).
>
>To treat anything emerging from this as binding policy enforceable
>against anybody other than the direct parties to the particular case
>is letting a small handful of people impose policy on a greater
>community unaware that this is even happening until it's too late,
>after which everybody gets told to "shut up and follow the binding
>decision".
>
>I know that I was unaware of what was going on in that ArbCom
>decision at the time it was being made; like the vast majority of
>editors, I was busy improving the encyclopedia, not concerning myself
>with silly flame-wars between people on an external site I was not
>interested in and editors on Wikipedia I was not dealing directly
>with at the time. If I'd known that it was being used as an entering
>wedge to impose sweeping rules on all of us, I'd certainly have
>raised objections at the time.
>
>--
>== 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/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
On 1 Jul 2007 at 19:23:35 +0300, "White Cat"
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> News coverage isn't an established notability criteria. Anna Nicole Smith's
> death is not "more notable" than september 11th. It was given greater
> coverage than Sep 11th by CNN as well as other networks. See how airtime
> logic fails?
{{fact}}? As I recall, for several days after Sept. 11, pretty much
every channel was providing 24-hour coverage related to it, pre-
empting just about everything else. Was this done for Smith?
--
== 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 1 Jul 2007 at 16:32:39 +0000, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikime wrote:
> See
>
> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop
>
> and the other pages associated with that arbitration.
...which actually impose a ban on linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica,
not Wikipedia Review, which is the site in question in the latest
incident.
But referring to that arbitration workshop page just underscores the
idea that it's bad for ArbCom to be making policy, which is exactly
what it's doing when it does things like imposing sweeping bans on
linking to sites, regardless of the word-lawyering you may be doing
to claim that it isn't making policy. The arbitration workshop page
was frequented by a fairly small group of people -- the combatants in
the current case (some ED partisans vs. some editors/admins that had
been targeted for attack on that site) along with the handful of
policy wonks who pay close attention to all ArbCom cases and other
such administrivia. It can hardly be considered to be representative
of the Wikipedia community as a whole, of which one is supposed to
have a consensus when setting policy. I see that the part on not
linking to "attack sites" got hardly any discussion or debate on that
page, with just a handful of comments including your own curt "Game
Over" against somebody wanting less absolutism. Some other things on
the page got a greater deal of debate (the "solidarity" part, where
admins were expected to close ranks in an us-vs-them manner against
anybody deemed to be "attacking" one of "us", got some expressions of
concern for over-broadness and slippery-slope dangerousness, but
these were dismissed with "if you're not with us, you're with the
terrorists" rhetoric).
To treat anything emerging from this as binding policy enforceable
against anybody other than the direct parties to the particular case
is letting a small handful of people impose policy on a greater
community unaware that this is even happening until it's too late,
after which everybody gets told to "shut up and follow the binding
decision".
I know that I was unaware of what was going on in that ArbCom
decision at the time it was being made; like the vast majority of
editors, I was busy improving the encyclopedia, not concerning myself
with silly flame-wars between people on an external site I was not
interested in and editors on Wikipedia I was not dealing directly
with at the time. If I'd known that it was being used as an entering
wedge to impose sweeping rules on all of us, I'd certainly have
raised objections at the time.
--
== 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/
I see Wikipedia cited more and more as a possible first step for serious
research. I have seen more and more people suggest that Wikipedia should
encompass all or most of the articles included in specialist encyclopedias,
such as the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (my personal
favorite). I have also seen many more calls for working on quality of
articles, rather than quantity. I see a major lack in terms of using WP for
deeper research, rather than quick information gathering, when comparing
Wikipedia to these specialist encyclopedias. This lack is in well developed
and defined bibliographies.
I am not talking about people citing their sources and sticking them in
reference sections, which I also think is important. I'm talking about a
limited review of the literature, mentioning which works are considered
seminal, which are standard, which give the best overview for the
uninitiated, basically a good bibliography which is not too bloated and
which is not too biased.
We frequently talk about how students should not use Wikipedia as a sole
source, but as a starting point. I see the best way for Wikipedia to be a
starting point is to give the basic information, and then point people to
the very best information. The best books or journal articles will not
necessarily be the ones which were to hand when a person was first writing
the article, or when someone was getting rid of {{fact}} templates. In the
best of all possible worlds they were, but it's more likely they were the
most easily accessible, and may have been online resources which were not as
good as what would be available in your local library or with a subscription
to JSTOR or similar.
I would like to encourage everyone to think about how to create great
bibliographies, especially for subjects where you could easily be snowed
under with relevant works, or where the best literature is not necessarily
obvious.
And some questions about Bibliographies - should we create them in separate
pages or namespaces so they can be better controlled and saved from
spammers? Is ISBN really the best way to identify and find books? Should we
think about a partnership with OCLC/WorlCat or some other database so that
people can easily find the books mentioned locally? Can we simplify our
templates for citing books, or should we make them even more complex so they
fit with the MARC standards <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARC_standards> ?
Sorry for the long rant, but this is something which has been bothering me
about Wikipedia for the last year and a half, and where I don't feel like
much progress has been made in terms of quality.
Makemi
See
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop
and the other pages associated with that arbitration.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 09:46 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
>
>On 1 Jul 2007 at 14:50:20 +0000, "Fred Bauder"
><fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>> There was a hearing regarding the specific site and a
>> determination was made to outlaw it. I think it is probably best
>> to limit such a drastic remedy to sites which, after a hearing,
>> have been determined to be destructive to Wikipedia.
>
>Which hearing was that, exactly? Not the one that was referenced in
>the request for clarification, since that concerned a different site
>entirely.
>
>
>--
>== 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/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
On 1 Jul 2007 at 14:50:20 +0000, "Fred Bauder"
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> There was a hearing regarding the specific site and a
> determination was made to outlaw it. I think it is probably best
> to limit such a drastic remedy to sites which, after a hearing,
> have been determined to be destructive to Wikipedia.
Which hearing was that, exactly? Not the one that was referenced in
the request for clarification, since that concerned a different site
entirely.
--
== 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/
Is there anybody here who has a serious interest in accounts on
[[Metaweb]]'s Freebase project? They just gave me another tranche of
them, and there's no sense letting them just sit there.
I think the short description is that they would like to be the
Internet's machine-readable almanac. Where Wikipedia is about prose,
they're about data. For example, they've done some parsing of Wikipedia
extracts on things like movies and albums, so that you can make
database-like queries against that info. So you could build queries to
answer questions like, "What actors has Francis Ford Coppola worked with?"
Right now they're at an early stage, and are mainly looking for
developers who will build Freebase-backed tools and people likely to
spend time actually contributing content. If that's you, please drop me
a line off-list.
Thanks,
William