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 :-)
It worries me a little that I can spot Wikipedia text a mile off - our
house style isn't that obvious, is it? - but it seems to be one of
those little skills you pick up after a while. Very useful for marking
school essays, I'm sure.
Anyhow, I was packing up some boxes today, and happened across the box
for the Nokia 770 (a really useful little bit of kit, incidentally),
which shows someone merrily using the device to chatter away to a
friend on an instant messenger. For some reason, the friend is writing
something to them about poetry.
I looked at the sentence. Something went click.
"Kim: A poem is a composition usually written in verse. Poems rely
heavily on imagery, precise word choice, and metaphor, may be written
in measures consisting of" [...]
I'm used to seeing our content reused all over the place, but somehow
I didn't expect to see fragments used as lorem-ipsum filler on a box
- Andrew Gray
I like the fact that people (by one means or another) agreed on using
the banner space for something other than the fund drive (there is
already a permanent link in the interaction sidebox, no?). Then
things is an interesting usage for that valuable bulletin space.
But I don't think its the best usage. A better usage would be for
mobjobs; fix-it tasks which would effectively serve double duty as
reminders (or first time notices) of some basic process and policy,
focusing on particular problems or aspects. These can be minor items
that need lots of eyeballs to correct on a large scale. My favorite
* the misuse of external links in the body of articles,
* improper hatnotes (WP:HAT - hey, my protologism is official terminology! ;)
* self refs in-body/outside-of-parenthesis. 'For more information,' etc.
"michael west" wrote
> As for REDIRECTS - what is the current policy? take two of my google
> searches yesterday as examples* j s m ward *
> the first wikipedia page is miles away John Sebastian Marlow Ward
I would have no hesitation in creating a redirect of [[J. S. M. Ward]] to [[John Sebastian Marlow Ward]]. I would do that simply on the basis that an academic book indexed Ward by initials.
> ;and kryolite (my alternative? spelling of Cryolite)
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=kryolite&meta= If one hears
> a word on television or radio its not always obvious how it is spelled
Typos a little harder to justify. If this is an actual alternate spelling, the redirect would be automatic
> i would never suggest that every permutation of an articles name should be a
> redirect, but i wouldn't consider writing one now that everybody has TW. I
> just wouldn't be bothered with arguing over a PROD on a redirect.
The resource implications of redirects are apparently small. Using many bytes to justify deleting a couple of dozen seems to make little sense.
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
In respect to a thread here and a recent private discussion I'll highlight
the valuable side effects of misogyny.
*Misogyny discredits the individual who possesses it.* From a distance it
may not be obvious which side of a dispute can supply better evidence,
but open bigotry sure as heck is obvious.
*Misogyny relieves me of regrets.* Sometimes I second guess myself after I
use the sysop tools. A sexist quip clears my conscience. I go away happy
to be the sysop and equally happy the fellow is blocked or banned.
*Misogyny is the perfect troll. * I'm not above a little *schadenfreude*; I
think it's hilarious. Misogyny generates misery among a certain set of
people who are basically unpleasant anyway and wastes huge amounts of their
time and energy. Best of all, I break zero rules and keep all my online
buddies while they make themselves despised and sometimes even endanger
On 8/25/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> even an entire article
> in Wikipedia is seldom ever the contribution of only one editor,
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
All the data that I've seen so far suggest that most articles may well
be the product of single authors. Not most high profile articles, or
most featured articles, ... but most articles. Most articles are
mostly short and on obsecure matters.
Yes, most have had edits by a few others. But these edits are
overwhelmingly tagging and markup related. It would often be hard to
argue that they were substantial enough to carry a copyright interest,
and no one sane would argue that such edits are enough to rightly call
the editor an author.
On 28 Aug 2007 at 14:57:16 -0700, "George Herbert"
> Either the system works... we are mostly honorable people, and have
> enough honest and principled people that if something seriously
> sinister started someone would stand up and publically announce it and
> call for it to end.
...and get labeled a "troll", his messages summarily deleted as
trolling, and eventually he gets banned, then any subsequent person
who expresses similar ideas gets labeled a "sockpuppet" and banned
too, even more summarily. And the clique pats themselves on the back
for defeating another bad guy.
== 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/
User:Jayjg has apparently been missing from Wikipedia since August 4th
before an ArbComm in which he is named as a party formally opened.
Perhaps also not coincidentally, one of the other editors named in the
case, User:Urthogie, has also disappeared without a trace.
Unlike Urthogie, Jayjg is a trusted user and admin who has access to
tools such as Oversight and Checkuser and is also on the ArbComm
mailing list as a former member of that body. He's well aware of the
custom of announcing when you are on "Wikibreak" or "Wikiholiday" but
has not posted any such announcement.
Further, he is also now at the center of a very serious allegation
that he misused his Oversight tools in order to coverup an old
incident of abusive sockpuppetry by one of his friends
The Sockpuppet case is old and evidently occurred when SV was still a
new editor though, given that she used an "alternate account" to
support her main account on various pages including "double voting" in
the instance of a Featured Article nomination, it would have been nice
had she simply publicly admitted her mistake and apologized. Instead,
she has sent out private emails explaining away the "alternate
account" by saying wikipedia was different then, she was new and her
double voting was simply a "mistake". I think we can excuse an old
mistake but a bit of contrition would have been nice.
In any case, the real problem is not SV's sockpuppetry but Jayjg's
agreement, in the past year, to coverup any evidence of this by
oversighting various edits.
Several respected editors have expressed concern about Jay's behavior
in the ANI discussion:
Gmaxwell: "Except it's already been before Arbcom and it appears that
they failed us. When oversight was first introduced the logs were
public. I noticed Jayjg's mass over-sighting of seemingly harmless
edits like spelling corrections with an summary of "pi". I brought the
issue up with Brion, who thought it looked odd so he temporally
removed oversight from Jayjg. . Arbcom looked at the issue, and
apparently decided that it was all okay. Jay's access was restored,
the revisions stayed oversighted, and he continued mass over-sighting
old edits like these. I trusted then. Having seen the evidence I think
it would be unwise to extend the same trust again. --Gmaxwell 03:03,
25 August 2007 (UTC)"
"Although Sarah's actions are old enough to be uninteresting, as Dan
pointed out above, the possible appearance of coverup is very
interesting and important and should be fully resolved." (Gmaxwell)
Thatcher131: "Overly aggressive use of oversight by Jayjg was brought
up privately as an issue when oversight was first instituted, but the
concerns were apparently dismissed. This should be looked into again."
Jayjg really needs to explain himself but he has evidently decided to
abandon wikipedia, at least for the period of the ArbCom case against
him. Apart from an initial post opposing the ArbComm taking on the
case he has made no contribution to the ArbComm case, not to the
Workshop or Evidence page. In the past admins who have failed to
participate in an ArbComm case involving them have been desysopped.
Given Jayjg's unexplained absence, his failure to respond to one
ArbCom case against him, the serious questions that exist considering
his use of Oversight in another matter and the possibility that an
account that has quite a number of tools attached has been abandoned
and may be usurped by a hacker I'm wondering whether anything will be
done? Will Jayjg be desysopped and have his tools removed (and be
unsubscribed from ArbComm-L) at least as a precaution until he returns
and explains himself? Will he be deemed to have abdicated his
responsibilities by refusing to respond to an ArbComm case against him
and refusing to explain the Oversight situation?
At the very least Jimbo should direct the ArbComm to examine Jay's
possible abuse of his Oversight tools and investigate other possible
abuses. The dereliction of duty by a senior admin is a serious
problem which should not be swept under the carpet or overlooked.
Doing so only further damages Wikipedia's credibility in a year in
which we have taken a number of serious blows.