Hi all,
I don't know whether this is the right place to send this mail or not.
I am a small time wikipedia 'volunteer' who sometimes adds some small
bits to wikipedia whenever have the time or the inclination for the
same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shirishag75
So I have number of queries which perhaps some of the learned people
could advise/help as well :-
a. Now I have also a blog https://flossexperiences.wordpress where
there is a sidebar where I would like to put up the wikipedia logo and
stuff promoting wikipedia and my relationship with wikipedia . Does
anybody know of such a button/graphic in existence?
Wordpress doesn't use iframes, so one without iframes would be nice.
Something perhaps to what last.fm gives
http://www.last.fm/widgets perhaps some kind of .png or .mng which has
the stats in-built.
What do people think?
b. I was reading the wikiwix blog via "Google translate" and this is
what it translated.
http://blog.wikiwix.com/
> Wikipedia releases new search engine
> October 24th, 2008
>
> Hello,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has updated the version of Lucene for research on Wikipedia, it is now on version 2.1.
>
> I spent last is two hours to test and I remain good septic on the relevance as an example and comparison:
I saw the wikipedia page on Lucene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Lucene but nowhere does it
explicitly say that wikipedia uses it. Shouldn't it be saying that?
There is a hint in the reference section but that isn't enough.
c. AFAIK wikimedia (the foundation) is the brains behind wikipedia. Is
there a way to know what changes are being made to wikipedia at any
point in time, any newsletter or anything of that sort to know what's
happening under the hood.
Looking forward to know more of the same.
--
Regards,
Shirish Agarwal
This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17
In a message dated 10/27/2008 9:29:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
No. I want to take away the right for an editor to revert an edit for
the sole reason that we can't verify the person's identity so what
they say doesn't count. >>
---------------------
That isn't what occurred.
What occurred was that the editor stated "I am this person and I say this"
It's not whether we can verify who the editor is, it's whether we can verify
that they are the subject.
That's the issue. What was done in this case, is exactly what we should do,
barring a way to verify the identify of a BLP subject.
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
But Phil the information wasn't "bad".
It was accurate.
Our sources state it.
Continuing on this road, isn't going anywhere. I'm sure you can see that.
Reliable Source A states X
There is no reliable source which states not-X
You want to give an anonymous editor the right to state not-X.
That isn't going to work. So you or someone else who wants this change will
have to come up with something we can all agree upon.
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/27/2008 8:35:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
We fucked it up here, and
our policies did not enable us to fix it. That is a problem.>>
--------
No we didn't "fuck it up".
He was a director, even if that job was only two weeks long.
It was a question of emphasis, not a question of accuracy.
I gave you a way to fix the system. Continuing to complain about it, is
ineffective.
Will Johnson
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:58:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
I'll sidestep the specifics of Lanier beyond saying that the version
of the article he objected to was crap, and at least two of his
objections were absolutely spot-on. I have not evaluated beyond that,
but certainly he was not wrong to object.>>
-------------
I don't think anyone is saying he was wrong to object.
But as independent editors, we don't have a simple way to determine that: A)
he is the actual subject; and B) his word takes priority over cited sources.
That's the real crux of the matter.
If that system is broken than we should be determing how to fix it. For
example, user verification would be one way. Knol for example, allows a person
to verify their own name, cross-related to the phone directory. So at the
very least, you know that an author called "Sam Smith" actually matches a "Sam
Smith" in the phone book, at a certain phone number. To prevent people from
just using any number in the book, it *calls* you, and gives you a code that
you have to then re-key into the system to verify that you are in fact, the
person who was called and are in fact, the person who is now typing the
response key. :)
There are still ways to beat that system, but it's better than nothing.
So that, would be one way, to allow subjects to verify themselves, and then
"fix" their own records with a certain level of priority.
Will Johnson
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:36:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Leave it to local consensus of editors on a given article, taking the
specific situation on its merits instead of consulting with an
inflexible rule.>>
----------------------------------------
I think the local editors did that.
Are you stating that in this case, what was done was the proper thing to
have been done in this case?
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:32:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
There's a fallacy in assuming that the only functional rule is one
that is determined in advance, with no attention to specifics, and no
room for judgment or nuance.>>
----------------------------------------
Possibly. But that doesn't give any method by which we can solve this issue.
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/27/2008 10:33:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
Because common sense would indicate that someone who claims to be George
Bush when fixing an article probably isn't. George Bush is a massively
well known public figure who is likely to be a target for impersonation.
We already have WP:NPF which makes this distinction, so it's not exactly a
new idea that some people are more public than others.
I'm sure that if someone claiming to be George Bush had written an article
for Edge, they'd have verified his identity too.>>
-----------------------
So you think we should allow some non-verified people to fix their own
articles, and others not.
And where exactly do you draw the line on a case-by-case basis then?
This particular case wouldn't count since Jaron Lanier is definitely a
public person, by choice I might add.
Will Johnson
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/27/2008 10:34:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
He just doesn't know enough
about Wikipedia to be able to phrase it as an undue weight claim or even to
realize we have a rule about it.>>
------------------------
Then the proper response you're saying would have been to inform this editor
(whoever he is) of that rule, and how he could simply move the weightly
component into a minor remark.
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:28:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
delirium(a)hackish.org writes:
> than "some guy on Wikipedia has investigated, and determined that all
> the sources are in fact wrong".>>
>
---
This part is great. Made me smile.
Will Johnson
**************
Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of
your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)