In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:03:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gmaxwell(a)gmail.com writes:
If you think that some of the proposed improvements are too sweeping
and dramatic, then perhaps you should be working on making sure some
alternatives happen>>
------------------
I've seen no proposed improvements that address vandalism.
Do you have any? I've already made one.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:15:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jwales(a)wikia.com writes:
Policies biased towards inclusionism mean that we have targets like
this to start with, and people are afraid to delete them because they
may get beaten up for being "overzealous" by people who think it is no
big deal to call a private person names like this.>>
----------------------
If we have editors who "think it is no big deal to call a private person
names" then they are not journalists and encyclopedists. That is not something
we handle by content-policies, it is a user-policy issue.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
I thought my idea of a "bad-word robot" to collect (not correct) examples of
certain words into a one-page-to-monitor was a good one.
Every six months or so, I bored, try search on things like "poop" and seeing
how many vandals I can thwart. It would make it a lot easier if we had a
single page or set-of-pages that could monitor usages of words that are almost
never used in encyclopedic content.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 10:42:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
shimgray(a)gmail.com writes:
It is really a bit misleading to give the impression that being
against this sort of tripe is "hiding" things or somehow making us
"look like censors".>>
-------------------------------------
I'm not against tripe. I'm against characterizing BLP as "don't hurt
people" or "do no harm". It isn't. And that's the only thing about which I've
been speaking.
People already overuse that "do no harm" characterization to bolster the
most bizarre antics I've ever seen and never seen done in journalism.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
My attention has repeatedly been drawn to serious negative effects created
by the ability of Google and other searches to search and display pages
outside the mainspace, including pages such as XfD's, DRV's, AN/I
discussions, and the like. Some of these discussions have taken place
on-wiki and others, I am advised, on discussion of OTRS tickets posted by
affected persons.
Given the visibility of Wikipedia results on Google and other searches, and
consistent with the overall intent of [[WP:BLP]] on En-Wiki (and what I hope
is its equivalent on other projects), we have a serious responsibility to
ensure that the overall effect of Wikipedia content is a responsible one.
This includes eliminating the likelihood that the first hit on the Google
search for a living person is not (for example) a deletion discussion on how
insignificant and non-notable that individual is, or a page discussing the
ban of that individual (who might be a minor, for example) who chose to edit
Wikipedia under his or her real name and made some mistakes in doing so and
was criticized or even banned as a result.
There has been discussion from time to time about implementing a technical
modification such that only mainspace pages (or such other pages as the
community might consciously choose) would be visible to searches. In view
of the number of concerns raised about the current situation where
everything is searchable, it seems to me that the necessary changes should
be developed and implemented quickly.
The main argument in opposition to this change that I have seen is that the
internal Wikipedia search capability is not as strong as the external search
engines, so that it is desirable that the ability to conduct a complete
external search be maintained. I know that I have sometimes found it useful
to be able to search all spaces within the site in, for example, looking for
precedent cases while drafting EnWiki arbitration decisions. It therefore
would probably be desirable to upgrade our internal search capability.
However, in view of the number of third parties affected by the current
practice, I do not believe that implementation of the non-search capability
should await this development.
As a matter of disclosure, although I have raised this concern in passing on
prior occasions, my attention has been focused (this is something of an
understatement) on it again by an ongoing and extremely unpleasant thread
concerning me on the Wikipedia Review site. I understand that my concerns
in this matter might be discounted for that reason. Nonetheless, they are
sincere, of long standing, and I urge that they receive priority attention.
Newyorkbrad
In a message dated 4/29/2008 10:22:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jwales(a)wikia.com writes:
The victim of the bad biography in this case did nothing to deserve the
insults that were flung at him by the vandals.>>
-------------------------
Then I'm not sure what the point was of bringing up this particular article.
A) That we shouldn't have stubs on marginal people at all because they just
invite vandalism?
or
B) That we need a better system for monitoring use of the words "fucktard"
"asshole" "buttwipe" etc. ?
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 8:00:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jwales(a)wikia.com writes:
Second, no one is talking about blanking any pages at all, much less
millions.>>
-----------------
By "blanking" I meant something like "making them invisible and impenetrable
to 99 percent of the world". Most people understand how to use Google, very
few understand how to use Wikipedia search.
By hiding our process behind a cloak, how does that serve our mission?
We already have process for oversight of things that violate policy.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a message dated 4/29/2008 7:58:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jwales(a)wikia.com writes:
We are here to do something positive and loving for the world, and it
makes us proud to be a part of it.>>
-------------------------------------
I'm going to quote this in my article on Ayn Rand and Wikipedia ;)
I think there is something analogous in Atlas Shrugged.
W.J.
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
In a recent EnWiki policy discussion there was a conversation which I
found quite interesting. I've removed the names to avoid singling out
the guilty, because I doubt they are alone:
Person A: "(...) I think that might be a good idea. Doing so for any
BLP deletion is a bad idea since they are usually for reasons
completely against policy (as in the current case where the only
reasons given are "The subject is going to sue us" and "We mustn't
harm people", neither of which are policies)"
Person B: "Heh, that last bit is a little disturbing. Indeed, there is
no policy that says we mustn't harm people. I think the idea here is
to change policy in order to reduce the amount that we unnecessarily
harm people. It's fair to debate to what extent this proposal actually
accomplishes that goal, but it's a little disturbing to here someone
basically assert that since there is no Wikipedia policy saying we
can't needlessly harm people, that it is okay...."
Person A: "This is a proposal to change procedure. If you want to
change an underlying principle, you need to do so explicitly."
Basically person A is arguing that avoiding causing harm to people is
not explicitly a English Wikipedia policy, and so if you want to push
a proposal or argument based on the concept of avoiding harm you must
first change Wikipedia policy to recognize harm avoidance as a
principle worth upholding.
I never used to expect Wikipedia policies to contain such points
because I always considered Wikipedia policies to ultimately be
subordinate to a number of higher powers: The laws of the countires we
live in, basic common sense, and basic human decency. Yet I've seen
a number of cases were Wikipedia contributors seem to have built the
opinion that Wikipedia policies are the only rules binding the actions
of Wikipedia users, and that details like human rights not only should
but must be ignored unless they are established in the sovereign law
of Wikipedia policy.
Person B's response gives me hope that this believe system is not yet
the majority view. ... So I'm left wondering, how the heck did this
start happening, and how can it be avoided? Is it the result of how
the policies are presented? Or are there just a few bad applies that
need to be disinvited from the community.
Thoughts?
Addressing this on ALL non-mainspace is quite a bit of overkill. Perhaps
you could narrow your request to something a little more specific.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)