Wikia appears, at first glance, to have shut Uncyclopedia off. I
haven't seen any statement, but you can't get there at the moment.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
On 20 Sep 2007 at 16:52:26 -0400, "Armed Blowfish"
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well, women, on average, have tear ducts 60% larger
> than men's. There's a fair amount of business advice
> encouraging women to adopt masculine communication
> techniques. And there are Debora Tannen's books....
Is this a true, documented fact, or a myth? There are a lot of bogus
theories going around about differences between men and women; here's
a debunking of one of them:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004922.html
--
== 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 21 Sep 2007 at 11:44:16 +0000, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
[long line rewrapped to comply with RFC 2822]
> Let's suppose, James Farrar, that the "point of view" that is
> being linked to was an accusation that you, James Farrar, were an
> employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, a registered sex
> offender, a Nazi (Plug in what ever would cause the most trouble
> in your personal situation). Now, how does that link look to you?
Well, I obviously can't answer for James, but let's say that the site
was saying stuff like that about me, Dan Tobias. I believe my
response would be to want to link to it from my user page (if this
didn't violate any policies), in order to laugh at the silly
accusations being made about me. In fact, at one point I had links
to both the Brandt HiveMind and MerkeyLaw pages while they attacked
me, for this purpose (which didn't, at the time, cause anybody to go
batshit about how I was "linking to attack sites").
Meanwhile, if it happened that the same site had a page in it that
happened to have lots of interesting palindromes, and no attacks on
anybody on that particular page, and that page was linked in the
[[Palindrome]] article with the link text "Collection of interesting
palindromes", I would not go berzerk about how whoever was editing
the Palindrome article was committing grievous personal attacks on me
by linking to something in the same domain as somebody else's attack.
I would have the sense not to invent a personal attack where none
existed.
--
== 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/
The issue is malicious content, our concern regardless of legality.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 03:50 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>Mark Ryan wrote:
>> On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But this is (a) wrong (at least in the case of www hyperlinks),
>>> and (b) not relevant to a site hosted in Florida, USA.
>>>
>>
>> It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is
>> read, not where it is hosted.
>>
>
>Why exactly would we worry about this?
>
>The way I look at it, all non-US law is relevant only to editors working
>in those jurisdictions. If Britain or Venezuela or China believes that
>the public can't handle certain material, that is interesting, but not
>relevant to how we run Wikipedia.
>
>What might be relevant is the spirit behind the law. If the law gets
>made because of some particular harm that we think is worse than
>impeding honest discussion or the free flow of factual information, then
>we should take a look at altering our course. But the law itself is the
>business of the citizens under its jurisdiction, and not our collective
>problem.
>
>William
>
>
>
>--
>William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
How few pages would I need to encompass the whole beast that is
the policies, practises and implemented MediaWiki software features?
That is if I took the time and effort to commit the present state of them to
a fixed format, such as a "beach-reading" ready computer printout
from an old matrix printer, 80 columns, 36 or so lines (the old 2000
characters per page, or so, format)?
A second question. Is there a list which pages I should print out to
have in my hands that immensely valuable, but essentially ephemeral
object? (it really goes without saying that the reference work would
stay current all of minutes or less)
I am carefully not broaching the subject of what I would have to do
to comply with the GFDL. That doesn't really interest me at all, or
perhaps to put it differently, taht would be a beast of a totally
different colour, and is welcome to stay within its own worm-can.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
"Armed Blowfish" wrote
> On 21/09/2007, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Armed Blowfish"
> >> If you ask ED to remove something, they will attack you
> >> even more. Where do you think they learnt that from?
> >
> > You are implying that it could _only_ be from Wikipedia.{{fact}}
> >
> > Charles
>
> That's my theory, do you have another?
>
> Even if ED learnt it elsewhere, it is rather hypocritical
> of WP to engage in the same activity while noting that
> is a significant part of what makes ED so bad.
I happen to have been talking, not long ago, to someone professionally involved in cleaning graffiti and obscenities off a website. This person, inured as you might think, explained clearly to me how ED could still disgust and shock. (Yes, I know those guys will find encouragement to greater efforts in that.)
You may think you are cleverly comparing like with like, but that is far from the case.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"Armed Blowfish"
> If you ask ED to remove something, they will attack you
> even more. Where do you think they learnt that from?
You are implying that it could _only_ be from Wikipedia.{{fact}}
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"George Herbert"
> I am sincerely and deeply worried that a decision is forthcoming that
> will muddy the waters rather than clarify. I see you and Fred and
> others acknowledging that, but I am still concerned with the last
> version of the proposed decision.
I think we are a long way from putting that case to bed.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:08 PM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>On 20 Sep 2007 at 21:33:58 +0000, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
>[long line rewrapped]
>> We do not have an exception to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
>> which permits linking to a personal attack on an external web
>> site.
>
>Which is relevant if you buy into the concept that "everything not
>explicitly permitted is prohibited."
>
>Anyway, the questions at issue tend to be of the form "Does the above
>apply in any way to a link, for a purpose unrelated to any attack, to
>a site that happens to also have attacks in it?"
Depends on the site. If the site is used in a campaign of harassment, maliciously, yes.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 02:57 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 21/09/2007, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Worse, kicking up such a big fuss about such attacks draws
>> > attention to them.
>>
>> Which is why they should be quickly and quietly removed, and
>> discussion about whether or not they should be re-included
>> should occur privately.
>
>And anyone asking about it should be told not to talk about it, or
>have their comments removed themselves and privately told to discuss
>it, and anyone asking about that...
>
>That won't upset anyone or make the situation worse. I am sure our
>administrators will behave with tact, decorum and common sense at all
>times.
>
>--
>- Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>
Heh, you've got your finger on the problem. We don't have a consensus.
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
>