FYI: I created [[Template:Missing articles in category]], which links
to my category-based Most Wanted tool on the toolserver. So,
{{Missing articles in category|Biochemistry}}
will link to a page showing the up-to-the-minute (well, toolserver
minute;-) most wanted articles linked form articles in that category,
to depth 3.
On larger categories, this will take a few minutes (!) to generate,
however, it might be a big help for smaller category trees with only a
few hundered articles.
Cheers,
Magnus
Hi, I'm looking for some advice about links and embeds. I see there are
regular IMDB and TV.com links in the TV and film pages. I'm from the team
developing the new film and TV search site LocateTV, which allows you to
search for when a programme, film or actor is next on TV, online or on DVD,
specific to your region. We also have embeds for bloggers to put straight on
their pages linking readers to the content. I thought this could be a great
addition to the Wiki pages but I understand there is a very unbranded /
democratic feel to Wiki. Can anyone advise me if, considering other sites
are routinely linked to, it would be possible to put these embeds up or just
links? We don't want to tread on any toes!
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Embeds-and-links-on-Wiki-pages--tf4488462.html#a12800…
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
my school blocks at the least 95% of all proxies. I try and browse through
wikipedia and it tells me that it is wikipedia is using a proxy server known
as http://privacywant.info. Is this something that has happened to anyone
else before, or is it just particular on mine.
thanks
-jc1337-
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wikipedia-is-being-filtered-by-firewall-tf4487787.htm…
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
"Thomas Dalton"
> The real problem you'll come across is all the unwritten rules,
> precedent and tradition that govern most of what we do.
You make a good point.
Watch this space, by the way.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 16/09/2007, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Everything can be undone, any block can be appealed (including to the
> unblock mailing list). I agree that your scenario might be grossly
> insulting if it were true. But it's not. Blocks are easily
> appealable.
Come to think of it, appealing blocks of
any kind can often result in being attacked.
Therefore, my advice to blocked or banned
users who have disclosed their real name or
a long-standing pseudonym is this:
DO NOT APPEAL. Simply request any
courtesy blankings / deletions you want,
hoping that by not appealing you don't
become 'notable', by some odd defintion
that Wikipaedia uses as a justification for
destroying the online and offline reputations
of banned users, and then go poof! Unless
your requests for courtesy blankings and
deletions are refused, or worse yet
responded to with more attacks, in which
case I guess you are screwed.
And by poof I mean leave Wikipaedia
altogether. Do not attempt sockpuppetry -
you can easily get caught and then things will
just get worse. There is more at stake here than
simply being able to edit Wikipaedia. If you
have disclosed your real name, imagine what
future potential employers will think if they
Google your name and find something about
you being banned from Wikipaedia. And even
if you haven't, if you have a long-standing
pseudonym, you probably want to protect the
online reputation of said pseudonym. (If you
have not disclosed your real name or a long-
standing pseudonym, I guess you are okay.)
If it's a short-term block, it depends, you
might be better riding it out and archiving
your talk page when it ends.... And by
archive I mean history link archive, so the
blocking notice is hidden from Google.
For interest and information, a copy of a letter I sent to a local
newspaper.
The original article text is given below - it's one of those small kind of
snips.
FT2.
----------------
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:41 AM
Subject: Your "Wikipedia" article
Dear %EDITOR%,
Thanks for picking up on the news on Wikipedia. I thought Id drop a line to
correct the information you received, and also because the actual
information is even more interesting.
Your paper commented (20 Sept) that Wikipedia will try to improve its
reliability and trustworthiness by "stopping readers changing entries", and
limiting "instant editing". In fact what is happening is even more
interesting than this, and these arent accurate at all.
You are probably referring to what we call "Flagged revisions".
What happens at present is that every edit, made by anyone, shows up
immediately. This means vigilance for vandalism is always on the ball, and
generally according to reviews, we have a good reputation at handling it.
However some can get through for a while.
What we have now created, and are trialling in the smaller German Wikipedia,
is a system whereby readers will be shown (if they choose) the most recent
version of the article that has been checked for reasonableness. It is
anticipated that a very large number of editors in fact all editors who
have shown their editing is constructive - will have the ability to check
articles, meaning that most articles will show the most current version as
usual. But those revisions that are vandalised will not get this "flag",
and will not be the version shown to readers by default.
Because a major change like this will take some exploring to ensure it runs
smoothly, and to see how it works in practice, it is being trialled on a
smaller (but still major) language version of Wikipedia, rather than the two
million articles of the English version, until we understand how best to
manage it, and the best policies to apply.
Thus the change is not that some editors will not be able to change
articles. Wikipedia remains "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". But unless a
person has acquired a degree of trust, and constructive editorship, ones
edits may not show up immediately to the world at large, until confirmed by
another editor that they are of a positive nature and non-vandalistic.
Thanks for your article though. Its good to know you are out there keeping
us on our toes!
Best regards
FT2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2
--------------
ORIGINAL ARTICLE TEXT:
Online encyclopedia Wikipedia will try to improve its reliability and
trustworthiness - by stopping readers changing entries.
The website is visited by 7% of all internet users everyday but has been
dogged by accusations of inaccuracy. Now the German-language version will
bar readers from altering entries. Instant editing will be limited to
"trusted editors" who could earn status by making a specific number of
"reliable edits".
The English version will stay the same for now.
--------------
> Earlier: "... Installing Tor on a
> school computer, if it's even
> possible, would almost certainly
> be in violation of the school's
> rules and policies regarding
> computer use..."
Peter Blaise responds:
So go ahead and try it! ;-)
Tell 'em we told you to do it - it's okay.
We're programmers, and we're grown ups.
We be smart. =8^o
Actually, I respectfully decline to act as ad hoc surrogate police for
any other party, especially anyone trying to lord it over children. I
figure each party can negotiate with each other party without my
generalizing advice ... except to say:
(a) I don't think judges hold anyone under age to a binding contract,
and
(b) I don't think a judge inflicts a non-negotiated contract on anyone,
and
(c) I don't think any judge will uphold any contract without
"consideration" between the parties, that is, money change hands.
Ask a lawyer who practices in your jurisdiction.
Fight the Power!
"Matthew Brown" wrote
> On 9/20/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm afraid that I don't see the controversy in this whole thing. I do
> > know, however, that there is no one on Wikipedia who could explain it
> > in a couple of paragraphs, with a couple of links, so that an outsider
> > not deeply enmeshed in the sourrounding intrigue might understand.
>
> I feel a lot of the controversy is about the principle of the thing,
> among those not associated with any of the particular incidents.
Two principles:
- wiki believes external linking is a basic permission
- pedia believes we are here to do a specific job, and all uses of the site's space are subordinate to doing that
We need to get recognition that external linking is only a basic permission _other things being equal_; and that administrative restrictions of some kind on the site's space are not unreasonable. enWP has 10 million pages. The AC can still tell people not to do certain things in that space. As in the Tobias Conradi case, where user space was used in a grudge-bearing fashion, and we said "oh no you don't".
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 21 Sep 2007 at 13:52:55 -0400, "Armed Blowfish"
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> Short-term solutions do not preclude long terms ones. I also
> suggest attempting to improve relations with certain websites.
Banning links to them will really help in this, won't it? :-)
> But if you do let people talk about it, some of them may
> agree with the attacks, or say that the attackee needs to
> have thicker skin. As Fred pointed out, some things which
> may be said are false, but not obviously so. I'm not saying
> you would, but it is common practise.
Oh, horrors! Allowing public discussion of something might result in
there being some actual opinions expressed... and some of them might
even possibly disagree with yours! That's an intolerable situation
we must never permit to happen.
--
== 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 15:31:30 -0400, "Armed Blowfish"
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> Who is this we of whom you speak? I am not a Wikipaedian.
That's by your own choice, since (despite your own insistence) you
are not banned.
One of the failings of the English pronoun system (along with its
failure to distinguish singular and plural "you") is the lack of a
distinction between inclusive and exclusive "we"; some other
languages let you specifically indicate whether you're talking about
a "we" that includes the addressee or one that excludes him/her.
--
== 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/