>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 05:56 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
>
>On 14/07/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Speaking only for myself, I do not think it was a good idea to try to
>> legislate for admins' judgment about links via BADSITES, which is why
>> I got only briefly involved, then withdrew when I realized what was
>> happening. What happened there is we were trolled and we fell for it.
>
>Taking an argument to its logical conclusion is "trolling"?
Yes, and very clever. We are convinced now that trashing other users is OK.
NOT
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 01:57 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
>
>On 14/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:48:31 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >I mean SlimVirgin asked Gracenotes if he supported the policy, he
>> >said "case by case is best" and she went to town on the RFA. This has
>> >been discussed at length on this list already. I'm sure I recall you
>> >participating in the thread at the time.
>
>> SV has been the target of egregious harassment from WR, so it's not a
>> surprise, but we should have reined her in.
>
>
>That's easy to say now, but the problem is not advocacy for WR links -
>the problem is that no-one is in fact reining in those admins going
>stupidly overboard in advocating full site bans. The problematic
>behaviour keeps happening over and over again, and when called on it
>we see (as we have on this list) that they become abusive to anyone
>questioning their behaviour, let alone expecting them to acknowledge
>that it could conceivably be problematic in any way whatsoever.
>
>They are arguably being more disruptive and damaging to the community
>than the damage from the attack site links itself is.
>
>
>- d.
Arguably, but we didn't get to see the dynamics resulting from easy acceptance of links to attack sites.
Fred
This section of the BLP is kind of rot:
----
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons
that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards
specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural
interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where
the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the
three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to
biographical material about living persons found anywhere in
Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.
----
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick
google search? Wouldn't a better formulation be:
----
Editors should add proper sources to contentious material about living
persons. If such a source cannot be found, the material should be
removed. Where the material is derogatory and unsourceable, relies on
improper sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), or is a conjectural
interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research), the
three revert rule does not apply.
Derogatory opinions about living persons on user and talk pages must
follow the above rules. Contentious or negative biographical material
on user and talk pages must be verifiable. If properly contextualized,
contentious material from questionable sources may be discussed, but
the problems with the material and the sources must be clearly
identified, and such material may be removed if the discussion has
ended or is not contributing to the development of the article. When
in doubt, derogatory material that is not properly sourceable should
be removed.
----
Folks,
Real quick question. If I add data, and its source, to an Article that
contains an "unreferenced" tag; should I then remove the tag, or wait until
an admin. (or the person who placed it) does?
Still learning,
Marc Riddell
sorry I am not sure how to list all the threads, but it certainly raises
questions about how we approach the subject on en.wikipedia.
Mike
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bogdan Giusca <liste(a)dapyx.com>
Date: 13-Jul-2007 19:37
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sensitive subjects on some Wikipedias
To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
The Turkish Wikipedia has no article on Armenian Genocide.
However, unlike all the other 38 Wikipedias which have articles
on the "Armenian Genocide", it has an article on "Claims of
an Armenian Genocide".
I'm sure that if German Wikipedia had "Holocaust" redirect to
"Claims of a Holocaust", there'd be an outcry, but why doesn't the
same thing happen about this article on Turkish Wikipedia?
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kamryn Matika [mailto:kamrynmatika@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2007 11:13 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
>
>On 7/5/07, Adrian <aldebaer(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
>> > On 5 Jul 2007 at 03:42:01 +0000, "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Part of the ban is posturing
>> >>
>> >
>> > So it's kind of like the "security theatre" we have to endure every time
>> we travel by air... lots of
>> > silly rules, enforced in an arbitrary, draconian way, with all sorts of
>> inconvenience to innocent
>> > people, which probably doesn't do much or anything at all to prevent
>> actual terrorism, but
>> > which show everybody that the authorities are Doing Something.
>> >
>> >
>> >> So it is very much a matter of saying and meaning:
>> >>
>> >> We will make every effort to support our contributors and to defeat
>> attempts to harass them.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ...and we don't care how many contributors we need to harrass in order
>> to accomplish this!
>> >
>> > KamrynMatika seems possibly to have been run off in this way now.. at
>> least, she's blanked
>> > out her user and talk pages and hasn't made any appearance in a couple
>> of days, after
>> > getting into conflict with the "draconian-link-ban" people.
>> >
>> > Dan
>> > Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
>> > Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
>> > Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>> >
>> Dan, please don't take this the wrong way, but KamrynMatika's 245
>> mainspace edits are rather negligible compared to the tens of thousands
>> of edits the most attacked Wikipedians have contributed. If protecting
>> several of our more prolific editors from attacks means that some fairly
>> new users get disgruntled (which I do not quite understand in the first
>> place), then, well, that's an acceptable price to pay.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>Thanks.
If you chose to be roadkill, so be it. I consider it a minor matter. That so much ink was wasted on the issue has little or nothing to do with you. Just keep on editing and enjoy contributing.
We must not only support our productive contributors and administrators, our workers, we must also make it plain that doing so is a priority. Protecting the "right" to link to critical posts on external websites, is pretty low on the list of priorities. However, let''s assume you are a good editor and you can assume we are trying our best and had nothing against you personally and go from there.
Fred
http://www.webhostingreport.net/blog/archives/2007/07/08/wikipediaorg-on-it…
It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is
not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.
How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation."
That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick.
- d.
Forward from Wikipedia list
anyone want to comment? (AN/I ad infinitum)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ronald Chmara <ron(a)opus1.com>
Date: 14-Jul-2007 04:10
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sensitive subjects on some Wikipedias
To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
> There's always idiocy, on every wiki. But Turks being allowed to
> use a WMF
> wiki to continue to deny what was, lexicographically, the world's
> first
> genocide isn't simple stupidity...it's evil. If such a word carries
> any real
> meaning.
FWIW, the word "genocide" didn't enter the lexicon until 1943,
according to several articles on en:wp....
But that's not really the point/problem, per se.
Since I know my own culture the best, I'll use articles from its
space, to demonstrate that this is possibly a universal human failing.
The english language wikipedia, for example, doesn't really take the
perspective that the biggest number of civilians ever outright
slaughtered by an external government in *one single event* is
really a nightmarishly terroristic, immoral, and wrong thing, to do.
Instead, it equivocates and quibbles, repeating old party lines
*justifying* the action, and combines articles on two separate events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
How about the United State's first major genocidal policy? Is it
called a genocide? Nope. Again, Quibbling and equivocation, and an
"official policy name":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal
How about the deplorable white supremacist, ignorant, racism, of a
man who said he was "not in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races" and "If I
could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it"? Is he
condemned for it? Nope. Instead, there's non-stop hagiography and
justification for his blatant racism, and a blatant cultural white-
washing (*cough*) of both his character and actions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincolnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery
I could keep going on, but I'd better get to my point. Within
cultures, there is usually a dominant language (and languages is
where wikipedia divides), and those cultures each carry their own
narrative style, and with it, their own perspectives on history.
Where wp is *very good* is that those narratives actually get stored,
and carried forward, to future generations.
Where wp can be argued as 'bad' (on these kind of topics) is that
different cultures, through their language spaces, are allowed to
actually display their different perspectives.
This tends to upset folks who want *their* perspective, *their*
cultural narrative, to dominate the narrative landscape *across all
cultures and languages*. That's not gonna happen until we have one
global mono-culture, and whoo boy, we are nowhere near that.
-Bop
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/I
ncidents#MONGO:_vexatious_litigation
[unfortunately, that URL is long enough that it got wrapped and needs
to be put back together]
Background: Somebody started a RFC on User:MONGO to complain about
his uncivil behavior, including an edit summary that insulted an
entire country by saying that anybody posting from there was "anti-
American". This resulted in MONGO and a few of his good buddies
getting a whole lot of laughs about how another nutcase was attacking
MONGO again, and how they were probably a sockpuppet of a banned
troll or something, and can't we find some excuse to ban him too? At
one point, a special section was created in the RFC page for
"vexatious litigation against MONGO", though this was soon reverted.
In the end, the RFC was deleted as "frivolous", although it had
received the required two endorsements. Once again, we see the
clique protecting its own, and making personal attacks with impunity
when they're against people who dare to criticize a clique member.
Some comments from that thread:
"Yet another frivolous RfC on MONGO: Wikipedia:Requests for
comment/MONGO 3, this time by an obvious sockpuppet." -- Bishonen
"Which ED sock is it this week, one wonders?" -- Corvus cornix
"Another brand new account that finds its way to ANI and jumps
straight in to a dispute about MONGO. Yawn!" -- ElinorD
So, who is it that said that we're not a "drama site"?
--
== 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/