Jussi, private archives are not "published" and so they fail WP:RS on that
specific note.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/25/2008 3:34:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cimonavaro(a)gmail.com writes:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2008/12/23 Wilhelm Schnotz <wilhelm(a)nixeagle.org>:
>
>> I hate to pop into this, but have we thought about the question of
>> reader access. By this I mean as it currently is with most of our
>> sources, our readers are able to verify the articles themselves if
>> they wish to. If we start to use sources that only certain people can
>> access, that closes off the ability of the average reader to verify
>> what we write.
>>
>
> We've discussed this before, in a general case, and pretty much dismissed
it.
>
> Limiting ourselves to easily-accessible sources sounds good in
> practice, but immediately runs into trouble. We simply can't write
> articles on most of our subjects to a good and reliable standard
> without relying heavily on access to print books (which people object
> to because they're offline) or subscription databases (which people
> object to because they're not accessible to casual users).
>
> (This should be distinguished from, eg, people sourcing things to
> private archives; in the former case they're accessible by anyone who
> goes through the right channels, but in the latter they may be
> literally inaccessible to anyone else...)
>
>
This brings to mind an interesting case...
About how to source an un-prejudiced article about the
former Finnish president [[Urho Kaleva Kekkonen]]. A
vastly controversial figure in Finnish politicians.
The problem of sourcing stands thus:
While there have been researchers of varying credibility
writing about Kekkonen (some clearly conspiracy nuts,
others with a clear wish to create a national mythos around
his persona, with no problems about letting the mythopoiesis
be transparent, and some serious seeming researchers), the
big festering problem with "Kekkolology" has been the
asymmetry of access to primary sources that researchers
have had.
The researcher Juhani Suomi long held a near solitary
access to Kekkonens private archives, as he was chosen
by Kekkonens estate holders to create a "definitive"
biography the statesman. This was vociferously criticized
by the conspiracy nuts on the other hand, and at least
on the surface serious people such as his successor
Mauno Koivisto, who wanted in his own retirement
years write a wider historiography of the era, in which
both of them operated (him still as a Prime Minister in
the critical years). The accusations were both about
the inequality of access to the primary sources, but
also about the fact that Suomi might have been a partisan
for the cause of the agrarian centrist party Kekkonen and
Suomi were both aligned with, thus creating a "official"
party historiography of the man.
This inspires me to check out the talk page of that
article, to study how wikipedias editors have solved
that knotty problem.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
_______________________________________________
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
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
The following idea is based on a suggestion someone just came out with. A
number of users were discussing BLPs and the point that verification of
written sources and journals was not that easy in many cases.
Many colleges or libraries use a subscription and their members or even
members of the public can then read those references. I'm not an expert, but
the following idea came to mind as worthwhile asking for thoughts on, if it
has any merit.
Suppose the Foundation subscribed to various key databases. A proxy (however
one does it), gets set up that people can log in to, and then read those
journals or databases. The Foundation sets a fee scale for access, in
whatever way works, and any person who wants to subscribe, can do so. In
some cases, subscription might be free. Anonymity, including anonymity of
any payment, is easy (see below)
* General and society benefits -- spread of knowledge; user and third party
enjoyment at having access to information they might otherwise not have;
less widely used subscription-only databases may be made more accessible
* Wikipedia quality benefits -- users can purchase easy access to reliable
sources that otherwise they may not conveniently have; users can verify
citations and references that they might otherwise not be able to; articles
will more regularly become exposed to updated research (if the idea takes
off).
* Other project benefits and possible features -- Financial (steady income
stream from subscriptions); small trial ability; great scaleability if
successful; inherently fairly safe in an income/expenditure sense.
Payment can readily be made anonymous (the means to pay via anything from
credit card to paypal to "internet gold" already exists) so that
pseudonymous users can participate equally, a login account is issued with
payment so no identification to WMF is needed, and given a login the login
can be used from home, school, mobile, or work.
One novel example of pricing differentiality might include, a lower rate (or
free) for users who routinely add cited high quality content to the project,
or who use/have used the sources directly to benefit articles. Perhaps a
cheaper rate for users with at least one FA or two GAs, or a subjective
decision for the year, for users who can show good cause in their
contributions. Some ideas, but the principle is interesting.
If there are practical issues, so be it, but I don't see an obvious problem,
and it might be worth passing round for thoughts.
FT2
Back in March of 2006, I did a check of image uploading. The results
were, to put it bluntly, appalling.
I've re-done the check with a new batch of 1,945 images. This covers
a little over two days' uploading, where the original set was 1,866
images uploaded in a little over 24 hours.
For 1,945 images uploaded and not later deleted, 1,960 license tags
were applied.
858 images, or 44%, were tagged with a non-free content tag, up from
40% in 2006. with album covers and logos making up slightly more than
half. The vast numbers of promotional photos that were uploaded in
2006 are nowhere to be seen: only 20 images were so tagged.
At least 917 images (47%) were tagged with a free-content license tag,
up from 41% in 2006. The most popular tags are PD-Self (334 images),
GFDL (250 images), and Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike (221
images)
Only 176 images (9%) did not have a license tag, a vast improvement
over 2006, when 26% were untagged.
500 of the images were checked for tag correctness. Things are
looking *much* better than they were in March 2006: of the 494 tags
applied, 35 (7%) were clearly incorrect, and 34 invalid fair-use
claims were made. In 2006, the error rates were 22% incorrect and 16%
invalid fair-use claims.
The most-misused tag by count is the self-creation tag (at least 21
images were not self-created), with the GFDL/CC-BY-SA-3.0 dual-license
tag especially problematic. By proportion, it's CC-BY-3.0 (5 out of
12 incorrect).
On the non-free content side of things, the problematic tags are
{{non-free television screenshot}} (6 out of 10 used to illustrate a
person's biography), {{non-free audio sample}} (3 out of 4 samples
were over-long), and {{non-free promotional}} (2 out of 3 images were
clearly replaceable). As before, album covers and logos tended to be
used correctly (74 out of 84 and 46 out of 57, respectively).
28 out of 254 free-content tags were incorrect, compared to 7 out of
205 non-free-content tags. Breaking non-free content down by type of
media and getting rid of the generic "fair use" tags ("promotional",
"fair use", etc.) seems to have worked wonderfully.
We still need to do something about people uploading images with
incorrect information, but it's far less of a problem than it used to
be.
--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]
w00t!
Perhaps we can do a data dump of .au localities as well to be combed
through by en:wp editors ...
(no, NOT making rambot articles automatically, human consideration ;-)
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jessica Coates <j2.coates(a)qut.edu.au>
Date: 2008/12/23
Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] CC licensing implemented for the ABS
To: "cc-au(a)lists.ibiblio.org" <cc-au(a)lists.ibiblio.org>,
"cc-community(a)lists.ibiblio.org" <cc-community(a)lists.ibiblio.org>,
"cc-nz(a)lists.ibiblio.org" <cc-nz(a)lists.ibiblio.org>,
"cci(a)lists.ibiblio.org" <cci(a)lists.ibiblio.org>,
"asia-commons(a)googlegroups.org" <asia-commons(a)googlegroups.org>,
"wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org"
<wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Those following the post a few weeks ago about the announcement by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics that they were going to release their
material under a Creative Commons licence will be pleased to know that
it's happened.
All content on the ABS website (other than logos and other trade
marked content) is now marked as CC BY - including all census data,
economy data, fact sheets, analysis, press releases etc.
Hopefully this will just be the start of a general move towards open
access by the Australian public sector.
For more information see http://creativecommons.org.au/node/207
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Looks like the self-described "small giant" (Grawp) was doing his thing this
morning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/V2score
Time in a jail cell should be the ultimate Christmas/Hanukkah present for
Grawp.
William King (Willking1979)
--------------------------------------------------
> From: "William King" <williamcarlking(a)gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:14 PM
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
>
>> I strongly agree. Something must be done very soon. I noticed just in the
>> past hour or so on RC patrol, Grawp harassed a few more users.
>>
>> William King (Willking1979)
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Durova" <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:24 PM
>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
>>
>>> There would be no shortage of people to sign a petition to the ISP, if
>>> you
>>> want to go that route. This has gone on long enough.
>>>
>>> -Durova
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert
>>> <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > 2008/12/11 Fran Rogers <fran(a)nutmeg.ws>:
>>>> > > Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old
>>>> > > and
>>>> in
>>>> > > college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him.
>>>> > > Yet he
>>>> > > still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the
>>>> > Internet,
>>>> > > even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his
>>>> > > identity
>>>> is
>>>> > > known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them
>>>> > > to
>>>> > him,
>>>> > > and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And
>>>> > > he
>>>> > still
>>>> > > soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to
>>>> > > titles
>>>> > "I
>>>> > > will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be
>>>> running
>>>> > > through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
>>>> >
>>>> > If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should
>>>> > contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with
>>>> > him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will
>>>> > occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
>>>> >
>>>> > Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him
>>>> > doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
>>>> >
>>>> > You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have
>>>> > someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C-
>>>> > they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably
>>>> > just
>>>> > get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be
>>>> > many ISPs in his area.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the Foundation could send a cease-and-desist letter to both her
>>>> and
>>>> him, cc the ISP?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -george william herbert
>>>> george.herbert(a)gmail.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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://durova.blogspot.com/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
All this talk about copyright on public domain "Text" is moot.
You cannot copyright something already in the public domain.
You can say you are, but your declaration has no power.
Also this line is a bit too vague for me, can you specify, clearly and
exactly *what* you think Jstor is copyrighting that is PD?
Please be specific, with a specific citation. Otherwise I call bull.
Thanks
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/23/2008 12:03:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gmaxwell(a)gmail.com writes:
Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even
consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we
always reinvent the wheel?>>
-----------------
Please provide a university library that allows anybody to simply telephone
them and get access without physically showing up, nor physically living in
their area of service.
I for one would REALLY like to have that.
Thanks
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
You mean, it isn't? And I was so sure! See, bring in that knowledge and fact stuff and everything goes to hell. So much easier to pass judgment without looking.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de>
Subj: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and "indecent" content
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:40 am
Size: 1K
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Thomas Larsen wrote:
>> Actually seeing the image is arguably critical to having a nuanced
>> understanding of the debate about the image. As an encyclopedia
>> Wikipedia believes it has an obligation to try to be maximally
>> informative.
>>
>
> Is seeing the image really critical? I personally don't think so. For
> one, I haven't looked at the image myself, and have no intention of
> doing so, as I noted in my post. Isn't it possible to just describe
> the picture textually, without actually showing it? More importantly,
> is showing the image actually scholarly? My main argument against
> inclusion is that it isn't.
>
> Thomas Larsen
>
How can you conclude that without ever take a glimps of the image?
This sort of argumentation is very strange to me. It is like: I don't
need to take a glimps of any astronomical observations or physical
theories, I just THINK the earth is the middlepoint of the universe.
Ting
_______________________________________________
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