At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
As some of you already know, I've undergone an RFA recently. Thats ok.
No matter the result, I try to vote on some RFA's whenever I ask for
the community do discuss me.
On the same token, I try to vote on some AFDs (or close some) whenever I
submit an AFD.
As I read some of the RFAs ongoing, I discovered a trend. So I looked
into the recent historical RFA votes. (Lets not get to wrapped around
vote=!vote, for simplicity of this proposal/idea, I'll call all
comments, discussions... votes)
I have discovered what appears to be a trend in clique mentality and
power centralization. Also, I have discovered some crazy oppositions,
for example "I view self noms a prima facia evidence of power hunger."
This is among the craziest I've seen. Not that the editor is crazy, but
the oppose is.
Here is my suggested solution:
Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped
under a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edits
and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks.
Permit the crats or admins to grant and take away adminship. If this
idea has some support on the mailing list (with any suggested
alterations) I think I might put up a policy page as I have done on
IPBLOCKEXEMPT for discussion.
The advantages of such a system would eliminate power centralization,
clique mentality, and some of these outrageous opposes.
Everyone here is an academic. We are building en encyclopedia.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I am new to Wikipedia and am involved in an organization that wishes to
incorporate wiki-style features into an existing internal collaboration
tool. I have looked into Wikipedia's structure and understand that all
processes related to quality control are completely self-driven on the
part of its contributors. What do you think motivates the average user
to contribute as much as he or she does? What incentive do the
individuals have to devote much of their time to monitor pages? One of
our challenges will be getting our organization's members to use the
wiki once we roll it out. Thank you for your time and help.
Deloitte Consulting LLP
Tel: +1 312 486 1746
Fax: +1 312 247 1746
Mobile: + 1 847 946 2225
111 S Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message.
Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. [v.E.1]
Carl Beckhorn <cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I expect that any site with as many active editors as English Wikipedia
> should have good statistical data about members - age, sex, race,
> nationality, and income distributions, among other things. Where can I
> find these statistics for English Wikipedia? I expect the Foundation
> has at some point retained an independent polling firm to obtain this
> data, right?
> - Carl
I don't want to seem rude, but I don't think that anyone cares about the
demographics of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter.
In a message dated 7/31/2008 3:12:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Why is libel tolerated on the talk pages in the first place? I don't
> see many people arguing for noindexing the project pages because of
It isn't. This is just a tired old horse that keeps getting trotted out by
those who want to destroy the transparency that others have to constantly fight
Some people don't like the idea that what they say today, can be compared to
what they said last year, and that this can be done by anyone with the
persistence to dig.
Any true libel, can and is, removed as soon as it's found. However in the
U.S. "you can't libel garbage by saying it stinks" and opinions are not libel,
so instead you get smoke screens like this trying to confuse the evidence. And
we operate under U.S. laws no matter what craziness Britain institutes :)
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:45:29 -0000
> From: "Zahd" <owl(a)spaz.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial hatnotes or two-article disambiguations
> To: <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <twig.1217479529.73923(a)spaz.org>
> RFC: I'm having a little throw with someone named David over the usage of
> hatnotes and whether or not to disambiguate. On the [[sola scriptura]]
> article, there's a hatnote which points "for the [[Neal Morse]] album
> [[Sola Scriptura (album)]]." I removed this hatnote in favor of a standard
> otheruses disambig. The principle here is that the article's substance is
> more *substantial than the tangential, and relatively speaking, trivial,
> hatnote on top.
> David thinks this is some kind of specious subjectivity - that noone can
> state whether articles are more or less trivial than others - and in any
> case two-article disambiguations are just wrong. I hope others here feel
Triviality is subjective. I do not see celebrity gossip as important. People
with nothing to do but absorb that stuff probably do care about what happens
to famous rockstars.
The same is with articles. Unless we can agree upon a standard (i.e., the
longest article should link to the disambig), this should not happen. I
think that if two or more subjects are named the same thing, the name (w/o
parentheses) should redirect to a disambiguation page.
[[Foo]] should be a redirect to [[Foo (disambiguation)]]. That page should
be a disambiguation page that would link to three articles:
* [[Foo (terminology)]]
* [[Foo (magazine)]]
* [[Foo (song)]]
This discussion should take place in a setting such as the village pump,
on-wiki. It would be more convenient, if we want to have a consensus
discussion for a standard proposal. However, for technical reasons, I cannot
edit Wikipedia (blocked) .
RFC: I'm having a little throw with someone named David over the usage of
hatnotes and whether or not to disambiguate. On the [[sola scriptura]]
article, there's a hatnote which points "for the [[Neal Morse]] album
[[Sola Scriptura (album)]]." I removed this hatnote in favor of a standard
otheruses disambig. The principle here is that the article's substance is
more *substantial than the tangential, and relatively speaking, trivial,
hatnote on top.
David thinks this is some kind of specious subjectivity - that noone can
state whether articles are more or less trivial than others - and in any
case two-article disambiguations are just wrong. I hope others here feel
Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis support for the HTML5 <video> element has
landed in Firefox Minefield nightlies (3.1a2-pre). This is *big news*
because it means a standard way of displaying video in web browsers
will be available to all without being stuck with Flash. And Theora is
the only accepted format on Wikimedia Commons.
What we need is people to test this. So please download a copy of
Minefield, test it thoroughly on Wikimedia Commons video, beat on it,
thrash it, report bugs. There's plenty.
You need to load the video, click "More …" and it'll give you the
option. Wikimedia would very much like to make it a first option
rather than a last one, but first it needs to be better (more
functional and stable) than loading Cortado with Java.
Apple and Nokia tried some truly disgusting FUD around the topic and
successfully got the words "Vorbis" and "Theora" taken out of the
HTML5 spec, but Firefox adoption means 20% of Web users in short
order. So we can leave them to play catchup per business needs. "You
got a Nokia? No wonder you can't watch that Wikipedia video, Nokias
I am trying to plan and prepare a 3day
While I am still negotiating an exact date the conference probably will be
held at late January or early February. Potential sponsors want to have an
idea what they are throwing their money in so I need to provide them a
schedule to give them a general idea. This schedule will not be binding - It
will just be an unofficial general outline.
So feel free to fill in slots at