Does Wikipedia have a terms of use policy? The policy on Wikipedia
looks like if the are term of use rules that Wikipdians that have to
follow.
--
Regards,
Jet (a.k.a. Jet123)
The solution obviously is to ban links to vicious sites, but not extend bans, at least in policy conversations to sites which have significant legitimate critical content. Asking critical sites to ban posting by those who have been banned from Wikipedia for good reason is not a practical solution. Asking them not to engage in repeated harassment of our users might be.
It is important to support our productive and responsible users and to do what we can to protect them from harassment both on Wikipedia and on external sites.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Blu Aardvark [mailto:jeffrey.latham@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 11:35 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkkkk site link policy
>
>Ironically, so would I, and many of the other users who reject policies
>such as BADSITES and its numerous incarnations.
>
>Removing such links isn't controversial; it's basic common sense. No
>policy is necessary, it just is done, and the only ones who whine are
>the trolls, generally those who posted the link in the first place.
>
>Blanket bans, however, don't fall under this same common sense concept.
>That's what the community has soundly rejected, yet this same proposal
>keeps rearing its ugly head at every turn.
>
>Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I'll certainly stand by this:
>>
>> "Links to aggressive attacks on Wikipedia users may be removed. No oneneeds permission, no one needs to spend time making a policy about it,or arguing about it."
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 7/13/07, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon at
prwatch.org<http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>>
wrote:
>>* Heads up: Just today I happened to notice that Wikipedia has a bio
*>>* that reads like a press kit for [[Ronn Torossian]], the owner/founder
*>>* of a New York city PR firm named [[5W Public Relations]], which has
*
>Tell [[WP:COIN]]. That's what they deal with.
>Quiddity
I am amazed that Guy Chapman and User:Calton are letting this stand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5W_Public_Relations
A firm with "only" $9,000,000 in revenue, and the article created by the
Senior VP of the firm? I am shocked! Where is Jimmy Wales with a
MyWikiBiz-style cell phone call to both Ronn Torossian and Juda Engelmayer?
Yet, a stable article about ICR (International Communications Research)
which still has seven article-based links pointing to it, the anti-Kohs
clique hastened to delete, despite $20,000,000 in revenue and numerous news
mentions of the company's studies (I see forty Google News citations of
"International Communications Research" in just the past month). I can see
why Badlydrawnjeff decided that it's hopeless to work with such rampant
deletionists, when they can't even be consistent with their deletions, nor
clean up after themselves by removing all the red-links they create.
Thanks for bringing this to the list's attention, Sheldon. Looks like
nothing serious was actually done about it, though.
P.S. I don't work for ICR any more, so there's no conflict of interest in me
mentioning how its article was needlessly erased by the vindictive crew we
know and love.
P.P.S. I wrote about this privately to Guy, but he's got his e-mail set to
reject anything from my address. Remember, he's quoted as saying that he
doesn't "ignore" e-mails.
Makes a whole lot of sense.
Greg
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
> From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] listcruft
>
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen"
> <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are
>> better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about
>> masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
>
>
> No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about
> masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has
> any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I
> suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney
> Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the
> performer than anybody watching). The connection is an arbitrary
> one, and pretty much every entry in the list was also unsupported by
> references, because in the end what constitutes being *about*
> something, rather than simply mentioning it in the lyrics somewhere?
> I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever,
> for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but
> there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable
> encyclopaedia is not the place for them.
I wish there were widespread general consensus that there should not
be a "list of X" article unless there is already a high-quality
article on the topic of "X." And the list should begin as a section
within the "X" article and should not be broken out until it becomes
unmanageably long.
I wish there were widespread general consensus that every item in a
"list of X" article should be individually referenced. A year or so
ago I tried checking out such lists, particularly those of which it
was asserted that a reference was not needed because "references can
be found in the linked article," and my experience was this was
usually not true.
The reason why references are needed is that in many cases list
inclusion involves a matter of judgement, and the judgement should be
that of an authoritative third party, not that of Wikipedia editors.
Re-greetings,
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?
-Bennett
bennett(a)peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org
(425) 497 9002
On 7/15/07, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> But we don't need to speak in the abstract. Take some of today's AfD
> entries, for instance: they include [[Bubbles the Clown]], [[Katie
> Hopkins]], [[Chess strategy]] and [[Chess tactics]] -- all of which
> (even the first) are well written, contributed to by many people, well
> to very-well referenced or linked, and in the latter two cases have
> been around for five years.
>
>
So, [[Bubbles the Clown]] was nominated by an editor who had been
editing for less than 36 hours, [[Katie Hopkins]] by an editor who has
been editing for less than 30 days, plus we're apparently the type of
encyclopedia that has to question whether Rock Climbing and Chess
Strategies are notable.
Interesting. But, really, something is going on in AfD. These are
sock puppet accounts created by beligerant AfD deletionists who have
been caught out on various things--like probably the editor who
deleted stuff from an article then nominated it for deletion based
upon what he'd deleted not being there, is back.
I still think it's a secret contest.
KP
There is a discussion at ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Age_of_unreferenced
... in which proposals are being made to remove unsourced content
from articles and/or delete articles all together if material is not
sourced within 30 days after placing a warning template.
I am no inclusionist, but I see this as a dangerous narrow
application of policy that may cost us a lot of lost content that
*is* verifiable.
My view is that editors should endeavor in *looking for sources*
rather than deleting content that is not sourced. After all, we are
here to build an encyclopedia, and the tens of thousands of
occasional contributors that do not know of our policies, are after
all, those that *add* most of the new material to our project.
-- Jossi
[[User:Jossi]] @ en.wiki
Hi English Wikipedia!
Your friend Hemanshu from , just invited you to his online photo albums and journals at Zorpia.com.
So what is Zorpia?
It is an online community that allows you to upload unlimited amount of photos, write journals and make friends. We also have a variety of skins in store for you so that you can customize your homepage freely.
Join now for free! Please click the following link to join Zorpia:
http://signup2.zorpia.com/signup?invitation_key=200704dd09eee4a3801ae9dd0df…
This message was delivered with the Hemanshu's initiation.
If you wish to discontinue receiving invitations from us, please click the following link:
http://signup2.zorpia.com/email/optout/wikien-l@wikipedia.org