WikiEN-l February 2009

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

78 participants
74 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Short 3RR-like blocks for incivility
by WJhonson＠aol.com 15 Feb '09

15 Feb '09

Oh good call. I haven't even looked at the linked diff, but after I looked at it, I have no idea how this related to "incivility". I can't see anything incivil in this diff. Will In a message dated 2/15/2009 12:11:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, saintonge(a)telus.net writes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminshi… FBackslash_Forwardslash&diff=270554330&oldid=270553832 **************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusye…)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Short 3RR-like blocks for incivility
by WJhonson＠aol.com 15 Feb '09

15 Feb '09

I dispute that this is the case. Do you have any evidence? In a message dated 2/15/2009 12:06:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, pattonabc(a)gmail.com writes: Currently editors are allowed to continue being incivil untill they are evenetually indefinitly banned with no chance of rehabilitation. I think this system would be more desireable. **************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusye…)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Short 3RR-like blocks for incivility
by WJhonson＠aol.com 15 Feb '09

15 Feb '09

With 3RR you don't have a "both editors" situation. It's not as clear that the situation is completely unjust, as it is, when one side of a incivil exchange is blocked and the other (usually a friend of the blocking admin) is not. Of course the blocked party is given no possibility of challenging their block. That's why we do not want to go down this road. More ways to smother contributors is not what we want. Will Johnson In a message dated 2/15/2009 11:51:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, scream(a)datascreamer.com writes: Current policy prescribes a 24H block for 3RR violations on both editors. I don't see a similar policy on incivility. That is the difference. **************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusye…)

2 1

Fwd: [Foundation-l] Flagged Revisions, Report on german WP
by David Gerard 15 Feb '09

15 Feb '09

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: P. Birken <pbirken(a)gmail.com> Date: 2009/2/15 Subject: [Foundation-l] Flagged Revisions, Report on german WP To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Hiho, there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I would like to share with this list. On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors have to be looked at. On average, around 1.000 pages were marked for the first time per day and these are now carried over to looking at edits that have to be flagged. This means that since February 4th, the number of pages with revisions awaiting review has dropped from almost 13.000 to 5.000 (see http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=german&action=images&… last picture). More importantly, the maximal waiting time for edits to be reviewed has dropped from 16 days to less than 7 now, which means that finally, we are now in an acceptable regime. The goal is, to reduce this time until tuesday to 5 days (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gesichtete_Versionen/Nachsichtung). The median waiting time for edits until review is still within hours. Still on the list of things to do is making the criterias for a sighted version more precise from "has been looked at by an experienced editor and is without vandalism." Best, Philipp _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 0

Desysopping
by Patton 123 15 Feb '09

15 Feb '09

I know a de-admining process is proposed practically every other day, but this <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVula/opining/RfA_overhaul>doesn't appear to have had much discussion. What do you think about it? Personally I think it's a good idea, the only draw back being new accounts abusing it.

15 33

Wikipedia, the overly standarised Encyclopedia you wouldn't dare edit
by White Cat 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

I am a bit weary about the over standardization of the site. There seems to be a "one correct version" philosophy. I was hoping it to self-destruct but it seems like that aint gonna happen. We are now forced to use US style dates... Thus it is the American Encyclopedia internationals (non USians) should feel uncomfortable in visiting let alone editing. We are now forced to use a certain specific template when an alternate is available... Self righteous people will deprecate the other one without even bothering to discuss... We are now forced to not link to dates on list articles... There are tens of other similar changes. Even more trivial issues are dictated by either a guideline or a wikiproject. Are we a bureaucracy now? In the past we had multiple correct ways. For example the use of ISO dates (aka [[yyyy-mm-dd]] dates) were encouraged. Users could alter their settings to display the dates in any way they please. The ISO dates were drafted as a compromise to the international versus US date war. Now US dates are hard coded. You do not get to alter it. The site is becoming increasingly hostile. Oh and yes I know this mailinglist post will most certainly not fix anything. There isn't a better median though.

12 33

Wikipedia before Wikipedia: Trictionary
by David Gerard 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2009/02/wikipedia_before_wikip… - d.

2 1

Spoiler-driven plots on movies articles
by Alvaro García 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hey, I have a question: Every time I go to a movie page to know how it is, I read the Plot section. However, I have realised that 95% of them write about key twists or scenes and they even tell the ending. I have thought of editing some of them, but I thought I'd rather ask here first. Are movie articles supposed to tell you ALL the movie? Thank you, -- Alvaro

11 17

Yet another political alteration...
by Andrew Gray 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

...but absurdly trivial this time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm I note that the BBC helpfully doesn't tell us what the right answer was! (For the record, Grove Art states "b ... ?1485–90; d Venice, 27 Aug 1576", so it's definitely unclear) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] How to raise the tone of the wiki
by WJhonson＠aol.com 09 Feb '09

09 Feb '09

<<In a message dated 2/9/2009 2:00:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes: David Gerard wrote: > Suggestion posted to AC noticeboard: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboa… > > More input needed for the idea, general support, general revulsion, etc. > I would go broader, for a cleanup of userspace, now widely used for blogging and personal attacks. Basically we want to get back to the point where it is understood that (a) Wikipedia pages relate to the mission, not anyone's felt need for self-expression, and (b) although this tenet needs to be relaxed somewhat around elections, the pages are also not for battling and campaigning for personal attitudes and beefs. In short, as far as I'm concerned, the yelling and personalia can all go offwiki, even if there needs to be a special site set up for that. People, we are a serious organisation, with something as technical as FR getting broad coverage (another column in today's London Independent). Charles>> ----- I disagree with equating "blogging and personal attacks" with "self-expression". Most of our editors enjoy marking up their user page with details about themselves, and I see no harm to the project in that and it's my believe that those who do it, constitute the majority of the editors and thus the "consensus" that it should be viewed as just fine. Will Johnson **************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes you there. (http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000002)

8 19

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l February 2009