In a message dated 10/26/2008 9:14:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
So why don't we just let him fix the Wikipedia article, and consider the
Wikipedia correction to be the subject self-publishing the correction?>>
--------------------------
Ken why don't you go "fix" the George Bush article and claim that you are
in-fact George Bush?
**************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)
Choosing what goes into the header of a subject is always a matter of
selection and discrimination on the part of each editor.
Some people typically put all of a subject's occupation into the header. I
don't. I think most people think of Francis Bacon as a philosopher even if
he was also a mathematician, author, botanist, politician, courtier, military
leader, teacher and astronomer.
"Weight" is enforced by the multitude of editors adding and changing
articles. Once it becomes apparent that part of a header doesn't belong, we are
each, and all able to fix it. But that doesn't make putting something into the
header an "error" or "inaccurate", it's more a question of emphasis.
Will Johnon
**************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 10/26/2008 12:17:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
The good news is that everyone agrees that controversial information about a
living person should be well sourced or removed from any article on
Wikipedia.>>
--------------------------------
Yes and no. It revolves more on "controversial" in this case. Jaron Lanier
was a director, he admits that himself. A source called him a director.
His own now-published position is that he only directed one small portion of an
experimental film (or something like that).
So it's more a weight matter. Regardless, was the original source reliable?
It's statement is factual, if perhaps unweighted. But we have no way to
tell that, without a counter-weight. So the issue isn't as clear.
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 10/26/2008 9:14:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
Demanding that he get an error about himself
fixed in another source is just a hoop to force him to jump through. The
idea that this source will do identity checking that we don't is just a
legal
fiction.>>
--------------------
So you're actually advocating a position that a magazine would do an
interview with "Bill Gates" without in-fact checking that the person is actually
"Bill Gates"? Doesn't that seem a little bit of a radical position?
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 10/22/2008 8:11:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
If our policy demands that someone corrects errors about themselves by
getting the correct information published in a secondary source first, that
policy is broken.
It is doubly broken if the justification for this policy is that a secondary
source would do fact-checking, when most secondary sources in this situation
wouldn't.
Having conflict of interest rules prevent someone from correcting errors
about himself is another broken policy.>>
---------------------------
Firstly, our articles are not about "corrections" because they are not about
"errors". Attribution isn't truth, so it can't be in error. The only way
for an attribution to be in error is to mis-quote it. Making it a meta-error.
The error being about the wording, not about the underlying meaning. We do
not require someone to publish in a secondary source in order to quote them.
We quote primary sources as well. However the essential point should be
raised first in a secondary source, and then the primary source can be used to
enlarge or clarify the secondary.
Secondly, we do not assume that a secondary source "would do fact-checking".
Rather our policy clearly (or should clearly) state that we *use* those
secondary sources who *are known for* doing fact-checking. Just because "News
of the World" is a newspaper does not mean we consider it a reliable source.
So it would fail.
Thirdly our COI rules do not prevent a person from changing their own
biography. We only request that they change it in a way consistent with the way
other editors must work. That is, that they become "expert editors" of their
own biography, using sources.
Finally, as others have pointed out, we have no way of knowing whether an
editor is who-they-claim-to-be. So they should, firstly, post their material
to their own *official* website and then perhaps it can be quoted. This has
happened in many cases. If they decline, then that is not our concern,
apparently it's not important enough for them to do the obvious.
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)
It's right here in the BADSITE:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20784
Merkey says he's planning on suing the Wikimedia Foundation, the
individual members of ArbCom, and possibly other admins or editors.
He's claiming that he has some kind of agreement (with the
Foundation? with Jimbo? it's unclear) that prevents anybody
connected with Wikipedia from banning him, so that his banning was a
contractual violation; he also claims that banning him from Wikipedia
was an act of stalking or harassment.
Is there the slightest bit of truth to his claims of the existence of
a "settlement agreement" between him and Wikimedia, or is this just
entirely a pile of manure?
--
== 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/
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:44:16 -0500
From: "Charlotte Webb" <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "Citation needed" in popular culture
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<4286fc440810231044o3eeda97bhe5eadc1ab8aaac03(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
On 10/22/08, Kevin Wong <wikipedianmarlith(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I call dibs on writing that article once it gets notable enough.
If any Americans still read this mailing list I triple-dog dare them
to unfurl a [citation needed] banner at a large rally before the
presidential candidate of their choosing.
?C.W.
Any one of my high school assemblies would do quite well for this, actually..
For instance, "studies have shown that 90% of people who use drugs die instantly".
I have just been sent this. I wasn't subscribed to this particular
list but am not. The reply below is a brief summary.
Hi Guys,
I have left a fairly full reply to this on the WMF blog awaiting
approval from Jay and also it is discussed on the project pages on
Wikipedia, over several years. There is a gap between the wording of
licenses and urban myths circulating about what they say.
Broadly the GFDL demands that authors are "credited" but does not
include anything on how you identify them (unlike the creative
commons licenses). Either this means to comply with GFDL you need to
carry a local copy of the edit history (which provides the only local
way of identifying authors, albeit in a tedious fashion) including all
>10,000 versions of the Global Warming article complete with every
piece of obscene vandalism etc.) or this means you have to credit
authors providing a theoretically possible route to identify them (not
just include them in a long list of possibles). Nothing in between
this is any better than the second option since to
find an author for a piece of text you still have to go to the page
history on Wikipedia. The German DVD which carries an author list copy
locally which may be better for egos (or not, since it does imply the
authors are
responsibly) but is not more compliant than us: to get the author who
wrote xyz is still a long trip through WP page histories. There is no
different in license terms between a link
back and any other way given of directing the reader to the page
histories in Wikipedia. GFDL does not mention "link" (see
Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License)
Some of the CC licenses include carrying a local copy of an artists
preferred name (we do this as we carry the image pages). GFDL does not.
We also incidentally do not carry references or sources and leave the
individual to find these at Wikipedia in the same way.
Andrew
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> Date: 2008/10/24
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SOS Children Wikipedia Selection 2008/9
> BitTorrent link up
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> 2008/10/24 Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca>:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>> Instructions:
>>> http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/2008-wikipedia-for-scho…
>>>
>>> Torrent link:
>>> http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/schools-wikipedia-full-20081023.tar.…
>>>
>>> Size of .tar.gz is 3.1 GB.
>>
>> Good idea but bad implementation - they're not compliant with the GFDL
>> as far as I can tell. The articles have no author lists or backlinks to
>> the edit histories on Wikipedia. Not sure if backlinks would actually be
>> sufficient for a mirror intended for offline browsing, for that matter.
>>
>> I've put them on the list over at
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#2008.2F9_Wikip…>
>> but I haven't the time or energy to do proper follow up this weekend,
>> anyone else want to take a stab?
>
> Someone mentioned that in a new thread as well. I agree, it doesn't
> look compliant. I never thought to check since it was being organised
> by a Wikipedia Admin... That admin reads this mailing list, so
> hopefully we'll get some comment soon.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=166342&
"So how will today's brutal economic climate change the Web 2.0 "free"
economy? It will result in the rise of online media businesses that
reward their contributors with cash; it will mean the success of Knol
over Wikipedia, Mahalo over Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), TheAtlantic.com
over the HuffingtonPost.com, iTunes over MySpace, Hulu over YouTube
Inc. , Playboy.com over Voyeurweb.com, TechCrunch over the
blogosphere, CNN's professional journalism over CNN's iReporter
citizen-journalism... The hungry and cold unemployed masses aren't
going to continue giving away their intellectual labor on the Internet
in the speculative hope that they might get some "back end" revenue.
"Free" doesn't fill anyone's belly; it doesn't warm anyone up. "
If only the economic downturn would eliminate the market for Andrew Keen.
- d.