On 12/31/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Remember that "notability" is a Wikipedia jargon word back-formed from
> the use of "non-notable" on AFD to mean "I've never heard of it."
Something just struck me as very odd with some edit patterns:
Are they one in the same person? I noticed they both just edited the
Led Zeppelin II article, and looking back at their contributions I was
surprised in noticing they edited Oasis and Primal Scream at almost
the same time periods, for some months now.
Then User:Indopug appears on the December 24th, I noticed very similar
editing patterns as well.
Led Zeppelin II, Stone Roses, The Smashing Pumpkins,
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joy Division, clasifying every
article B class... etc
I had to say something about this one as it’s been a discussion across so
many wikmedia lists over the past years. Sorry about having to repeat all
the stuff below but you know how it is – email is lousy for keeping threads
together, so repetition is constant while our monthly usage is wasted.
Even though I’m across another five lists in the wikimedia.org domain, it
still needs me to register = prove that I won’t contaminate this one; we
can’t expect anything otherwise with horizontally challenged elists. And you
will know the time it takes to delete the spam produced from all of them,
with 95% of all emails being spam these days.
Let me use the ammunition you have provided for us and quote from Ben at
“Wikis are bad for resolving disagreements or determining consensus. The
wiki renders no verdict."
In the same manner elists are atrocious for sharing a discussion across
projects (and their domains) since once they’re underway, busy people, quite
reasonably, are stuck in their groove, with their mates, who help filter the
good from crap.
Every media technology has its strengths and weaknesses. The effect of the
wiki/list server combination has been to create different types of libraries
of various quality articles, coupled with narrow communication channels in
which the technically knowledgeable are safe from curious interlopers. So
when such ideas (E.g) as broadening a reference desk are suggested it
becomes heresy for it to be considered at a meta or extra-project level.
d_be_split_off_into_its_own_separate_project ; that is, it cannot be
considered by the broader community at all due to the nature of the silos.
And that’s before you even consider adapting an English library for another
So let me just note an emailed proposal from Eric about a year ago.
He also stuck the content over here. HYPERLINK
He finishes off the prop with “There are literally thousands of groups we
want to work with in our global strategy to spread free knowledge. This
cannot be handled by a small committee or the staff of a chapter; it needs
the support of a global community of volunteers”. Sounds fair, no?
Well I don’t know if that is gonna work either. But it’s a good attempt to
get a few groovologists to jump. Ultimately we are trying to support global
groups do what they do better, faster, easier, and once. So forums would be
one step. But I would hope we might start getting serious this year about
actually talking in REAL TIME rather than just writing asynchronously all
OK That’s enough for this year. Back to groundhog day. Again and again and
PS. You should be able to set up a flag on a forum and get notice of a new
thread, no problem. But theoretically, you’ll never get a forum to pick up
all the references in an email header and put it in the right place. Cause
some moderator might decide the conversation is not in the right spot in the
first place. And as they can understand a broader environment, they’re
probably right. Luv and kisses.
On Jan 1, 2008 1:52 PM, Earle Martin <HYPERLINK
> On 28/12/2007, Risker <HYPERLINK
> > > A good idea, UC; forums are usually better at threaded conversation
> > it is much easier to correct things when folks go off-topic.
> A bad idea. Forums are manifestly inferior to email, which can be read
> from anywhere using a number of methods, instead of having to go to a
> site and use some hateful forum software. Not that I feel the need to
> post here often, but it offers more value than any forum can. I
> certainly won't be joining.
I think the biggest advantage of email lists is that I can access all
of them in one place. I'm subscribed to about a dozen different
mailing lists which I can access all at once under the "mailing lists"
label in gmail. So I get threads from Larry Sanger's SharedKnowing
mailing list (HYPERLINK
mixed with threads from the Tor mailing list or-talk
with threads from the Tampa
linux user group (HYPERLINK
threads from the OpenStreetMap mailing list, etc. I can search all of
these from one location, no one can delete messages on them out from
under me, I find it very convenient. If I want to read one of the
mailing lists individually I can do that too, but I pretty much never
do this. I guess some people wouldn't like this, but for me it's
When Citizendium switched their mailing list to forums and made their
mailing list announce-only, my participation fell off dramatically.
I've recently tried setting up their forums to send me an email
whenever a new thread on the forums is started, but it isn't working
very well. Gmail doesn't thread it properly, I have to mark each
thread I want to follow separately, I lose the messages between the
first and whenever I marked the thread. It doesn't work.
In theory there should be a way to get the best of both worlds,
though. Just let me set a flag on the forum to send me an email every
time a message is added, properly titled and referenced for any email
program which handles threading, and let me reply to the messages by
email (and pick up the references or whatever in the email header to
direct the message to the right spot in the forums).
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 2/01/2008
This is an interesting thread (one of a few on this subject, including
in the Jimsch62 (sp) RfAr) - two editors who are in the military/work
for the US government claim that it is their legal responsibility to
report to the USAF the use of a military PC to edit Wikipedia because
that is a violation of the UCMJ. I'm curious about whether that is
true, and if it is why we don't block .mil IPs from editing en masse.
Mike Godwin, do you have an opinion on this issue?
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:39 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
> On 26/12/2007, Nachman <nachman.chayal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Additionally, it turns out that if intelligence employees have their names
> > published on a site like Wikipedia (even without a connection to their
> > position) they are dismissed or transferred to a public position (i.e .
> > public relations).
> > The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia. You're the new CIA
> > job fair representative."
> That would be an extremely stupid policy... so it's probably true.
After all, the "intelligence" in their name doesn't refer to the sort
that is measured by IQ tests.
== 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/
I'm talking about the ethics as i personally see it, not legal questions.
On Jan 3, 2008 8:17 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Assuming the employer has a policy totally prohibiting incidental use of
> the internet, the only ethical thing for Foo to do is to remind Baz to edit
> from home.
> This would be true in all situation unless it were specifically part of
> Foo's normal functions to detect & report violations of this policy--and in
> that case i would be concerned whether Foo may have trapped Baz by inducing
> him to violate it.
> On Jan 3, 2008 5:13 AM, Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, let's break this down into slightly more abstract, essential
> > elements
> > and questions:
> > Users Foo and Baz are in a dispute. Baz edits from work, sometimes. Foo
> > realizes this, and says they're going to contact Baz's employer to
> > inform
> > them of this workplace policy violation.
> > Is this a problem?
> > Does it matter if Foo and Baz work for the same employer?
> > Does it matter if that employer is a government agency?
> > -Luna
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
I find it hypocritical that User:Save Us 229 has removed a logo on the
basis of copyright violation, and then proceeded to add Image:Zoso.svg
in the image link space instead, then blanked all other links The
users edits on this issue makes little sense.
Sorry if this has been asked before. I've looked everywhere I can think of
on Wikipedia to find out what to do.
On a particular contentious article I'm editing, there are 3 IP addresses
editing the article on one side of the debate. After looking these IP's up
on http://www.ip-adress.com/, 2 are from the same city and 1 is from a city
30 miles away. Thus, it sppears as though somebody is playing games and
editing as though they are 3 different people (the city isn't a big city or
anything so can't be by chance).
Anyone know what I can do about this?
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-to-do-about-messages-edits-from-the-same-user-wi…
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.