WikiEN-l August 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

147 participants
183 discussions

"Software Weighs Wikipedians' Trustworthiness"
by David Goodman 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

from Chronicle of Higher Education, Wired Campus blog. http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2278 "software that color-codes Wikipedia entries, identifying those portions deemed trustworthy and those that might be taken with a grain of salt. To determine which passages make the grade, the researchers analyzed Wikipedia's editing history, tracking material that has remained on the site for a long time and edits that have been quickly overruled. A Wikipedian with a distinguished record of unchanged edits is declared trustworthy, and his or her contributions are left untouched on the Santa Cruz team's color-coded pages. But a contributor whose posts have frequently been changed or deleted is considered suspect, and his or her content is highlighted in orange. (The darker the orange, the more spurious the content is thought to be.)" Examples at http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/ Wikimania 2007 talk: http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/UCSC_Wiki_Lab action=AttachFile&do=get&target=wikimania07.pdf by Luca de Alfaro B. Thomas Adler Marco Faella Ian Pye Caitlin Sadowski -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

18 29

Re: [WikiEN-l] Oh shit, Slashdot is an attack site!
by Durova 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

Re: "BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I don't think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware." I did a bit of refactoring myself on that, and for the record SV didn't ask me to. That was based purely upon my reading of policy and arbitration precedents, in which only self-disclosures of an editor's identity may be repeated by others onsite. It really doesn't matter whether an attempted outing is accurate or not, nor how well known the information may be elsewhere on the Internet. Some of the trolls tried to use this example as a wedge issue: if we accept their claims then we allow them to override policy and arbitration and we create a loophole of unknown size in which Internet harassment becomes a basis for attempted identifications onsite. The double bind they tried to force us into is basically a claim that the sysop community would undermine Wikipedia's credibility and lend credence to the conspiracy story if we followed normal procedure and continued deleting those attempted disclosures. In my view, I just followed normal procedure. SlimVirgin didn't become a public figure because one indivdual tried to astroturf a single story in three very minor venues. The comparisons they tried to make to the Essjay incident don't bear up to any level of scrutiny. -Durova

17 35

Re: [WikiEN-l] Are there really articles on Wikipedia that need fixing, or just gossip that needs hashed?
by K P 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

I don't really know what's going on here, and I don't know all the histories. What I have gone and read seems to have no relationship to Wikipedia. The converstion keeps coming back, and keeps being directed to discussing SV. I've only interacted with her and Guy about a dozen times each on Wikipedia, 90% negative with each. Does this matter? Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one. Then, can we discuss this issue instead of SV, unless someone has a news article about her, that belongs in Wikipedia, rather than a blog of gossip? I apologize to everyone for being part of this list while this is going on, especially to Slim Virgin, whom I don't know, and can't know from malicious and petty gossip about her on an Internet blog. Please, let's move on to what we can do about anything that needs repaired on Wikipedia. If we need to discuss gossip on the web about Wikipedia editors on this list, can we set some realistic guidelines? KP

13 34

This article was adapted with permission from a report...
by Brock Weller 07 Aug '07

07 Aug '07

>From the acknowledgements section (yes, there is one) on Kuru: This article was adapted with permission from a report "Kuru: The Dynamics of a Prion Disease", authored by Stacy McGrath. notes on medical virology- Timbury Both out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) and annoying as hell to track down specific revisions, except in this case, because the copyrighted text is the base for the whole damn article. Literally the first edit, and its stuck around since 2004. The timbury one can just be wiped, he's a user who contributed it under the GFDL, the report one is more troublesome, did she give permission for GFDL, or just wikipedia? its non-free if its just permission for us. This needs some fixing, probably some oversight as well. Any thoughts on someone coming up with a method to identify and flag or template articles to be reviewed that have an acknowledgement section, something used 'with permission' or copyright notices? -- -Brock

3 5

Subject: Re: Oh shit, Slashdot is an attack site!
by Durova 06 Aug '07

06 Aug '07

"Durova, I greatly respect your work on this, but slashdot is not a minor venue. I highly regret such a posting appeared there, but it did." You're right; Slashdot itself isn't minor. I was referring to the publications the Slashdot conversation was based upon. Jimbo had lost some credibility from his initial support of Essjay last spring, so when I saw the inevitable comparisons I put together a set of links and diffs to demonstrate how baseless the accusations really were. If anyone cares to check up on it I had been among the first to call for Essjay's resignation (if not the very first). The main thing, I thought, was to put forward enough verifiable information that no legitimate journalist would touch the story. This was a weird conspiracy theory, one of many such things on the Internet, and it really didn't hold together. -Durova

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Moving forward
by Michael Snow 05 Aug '07

05 Aug '07

Armed Blowfish wrote: > I seem to recall people asking not that long ago why I use Tor. I > believe I just answered the question. > I seem to recall people asking not that long ago why Jayjg publicly exposed CharlotteWebb's use of Tor. There's a certain irony in him now being so vociferously criticized for forwarding messages to this list on behalf of another Tor user, whose situation also played into the arguments in the CharlotteWebb case. I would hope that this settles the question of his oft-questioned motives for such controversial actions, whatever their wisdom. As tired as I am of the interminable discussion surrounding each of these incidents, this contrast is a useful reminder that people are complex beings with many motivating factors behind their decisions. When we "know" each other only online and then often through pseudonyms, it is basically impossible to divine these motivations. *That* is why it is so critical to assume good faith, and why the thoroughgoing failure to do so on this list has poisoned so many discussions for so long. It would in fact suffice to respond to people in ways that avoid assuming anything about their good faith or bad faith, but disappointingly few people seem capable of that. Remember that assumptions of bad faith are often manifest in the tone of the response. --Michael Snow

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fair use issues; we need serious help
by SPUI 05 Aug '07

05 Aug '07

Gwern Branwen wrote: > On 0, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> scribbled: >> Gwern Branwen wrote: >>> As for the pre-1964 stuff: precisely what notable material wasn't renewed? >> Lots of maps. >> > This is a trivial point to make, so I'll make it offlist: maps are usually not notable. And the notable maps I can think of, like the Vinland Map, don't fall into this category of copyright. Then you're using the stupid Wikipedia definition of notable. Non-renewed maps can be used to illustrate articles about things shown on them, or for research purposes. For instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_New_York_City_Subway_expansion_%28192… includes the two original maps of the proposed expansions, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highways#AASHO_and_the_… includes the 1926 "final" plan (of course this is US Government, but pretend it's not). Sure, for Wikipedia's purposes they can be redrawn, but the originals are better for other articles to reference.

1 0

Oh shit, Slashdot is an attack site!
by SPUI 05 Aug '07

05 Aug '07

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/1943254 is currently on the front page, along with the text "It turns out that a Wikipedia administrator named SlimVirgin is actually Linda Mack..." Looks like outing to me.

29 47

Re: [WikiEN-l] The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?)
by Joshua Brady 05 Aug '07

05 Aug '07

Guys/Gals/Others, This has turned into a free-for-all attack fest on SlimVirgin's handling of things, and Jayjg's just being on the project. Let's try to remember not to launch into personal attacks and remain calm, if you seem like you are going to explode and can't take it anymore; please back away from the computer, and do not post in the heat of things. We have all established: - SlimVirgin's handling could have been better/worse/should be oversighted/should not have been oversighted/we need to hire ninjas to settle this/her MI6 handler is ready to wage a nuclear war James Bond style. - Jayjg's time here has come to a close and he should give it up or go into hiding. Let's all remember we can not by consensus or forcing it down someones throat, make them leave the project. If and only if Jayjg himself decides to leave, he will leave. Removal of bits or asking him to give them up, only gets old. If you want to involuntarly take tools away from someone, first get a consensus to even make that possible, then put the specific user up for removal of tools. English wikipedia does not have a method of doing this currently. -Other people saying 'we' really mean to say 'I'. - That online harassment can evolve into a real life danger, something one person has already confirmed, and something I can attest to as well. - Trying to run between terminals at tokyo, with only 30 minutes to do so, will undoubtly result in a missed flight and forced delay as you are put on another flight. Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future? -Josh On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady <somitho(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/2/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: > > > Jayjg wrote: > > > > O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to > > > > discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total > > > > involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk page. > > > > > > Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not > > > involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread? > > > > I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I > > suddenly become "involved". Does that mean everyone who posted to this > > thread is now "involved", and should leave Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge amounts > > > > of "drama"... > > > > > > The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of > > > the problem this thread purports to be about. > > > > Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it. If > > the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't have > > started it, and shouldn't be continuing it. > > > > > It's obvious to everyone but you > > > > Please don't presume to speak for "everyone"; I've had off-wiki > > communications from others who say they have no idea what this is all > > about. > > > > > but: nobody's talking about you > > > just because of that one action. Your involvement is not due to > > > having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question > > > from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent > > > advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.) > > > > Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff > > from SV's talk page? Where have I done this? And you think I should > > leave Wikipedia because you disagree with opinions that you apparently > > have invented for me? > > > > I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to > > accord with any reality I am familiar with. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > >

16 34

Wikipedia's finished, we can all go home now
by David Gerard 04 Aug '07

04 Aug '07

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Wikipedia_%22reached_completion%22%2C_s… - d.

2 1

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 August 2007