On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
> assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
> right.
You were apparently absent during the BADSITES Wars of a couple of
years ago, where one of the principle arguments for draconian stands
against linking to so-called "attack sites", and for McCarthyite
witchhunts against anybody seen as in any way connected with them,
was that those sites were engaged in "outing" Wikipedians.
--
== 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/
----- "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
>
> Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
> assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
> right.
I get the impression many wikipedia editors think anonymity is important. However, I also think it's on the way out, regardless of what people might want.
The internet in general is getting far more interlinked with the "real world". Social networking sites are built around real names; people have been sued for slanderous comments on bulletin boards. And Wikipedia itself has been hit by a number of anonymous scandals including Essjay and SamBlacketer.
Wikipedia is becoming more open to real names - particularly for trusted users - and real names are required for involvement in chapters. That's the way the wind is blowing and I'm not sure it makes sense to try to push against it.
Andrew
2009/6/15 Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>:
> And then I ask what sparked other people's interests in Wikipedia, and
> a really long thread results.
My wife suggested in late 2003 I look something up on "Wikipedia." I
started off in a quiet and noncontroversial manner, first editing
stuff about neo-Nazis then editing stuff about Scientology. A few days
later I posted to my blog "New form of online crack discovered."
(Subject: line changed accordingly)
- d.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/19/us/AP-US-Internet-Background-Che…
New employees, and perhaps current ones (?), are being asked to provide
details of all web-based accounts, including forums and social networking
sites. Details are meant to include usernames and passwords. Maybe we should
have a user category of "Public employees in Bozeman, Montana" just in
case... I doubt this turns into a new wave of intrusiveness, at least in the
near future, but its disturbing even as an isolated case. For the legal
types, any caselaw on whether employers (public or private) can demand this
sort of information without violating the "implied right to privacy"?
Nathan
Hi, picking up Charles's point "Another vertex is the FA people: in theory they don't care about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to
the point where there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third
vertex is comprehensiveness". In my experience as an FA reviewer comprehensiveness is one of the FA criteria, and I've seen FA candidates get significantly more comprehensive at FAC. I've also seen problems when reviewers have seen omissions that the nominator doesn't want in "their" article.
WerSpielChequers
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:18:27 +0100
> From: Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The London Review of Books on
> Wikipedia
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4A3E08F3.7060205(a)ntlworld.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252;
> format=flowed
>
> Cormac Lawler wrote:
> >
> > I think what's interesting here is asking: how does
> Wikipedia harness
> > the energy of the public (for want of a better word)
> in a way that can
> > be more productive, useful (or at least less
> brain-sporkingly
> > nonsensical) than a newspaper open comment section
> does?
> Of course just about any model is superior to encouraging
> low-level
> ranting. The "open comments" are generally less
> interesting than a
> letters page because there may be no filter. Or, as in the
> case of the
> Sunday Times it seems, there is moderation but only to save
>
> embarrassment to the paper. WP's basic idea of "merciless
> editing" is
> one way, and it gets to one major issue at the root:
> touchtyping skills
> don't make you a great writer, while basic copyediting
> skills can
> transform rubbish prose.
> >
> > But I was struck by how in the LRB review of Andrew's
> book, the
> > reviewer singled out the collaboratively-written
> afterword as better
> > written than Andrew's book, which he found "full of
> interest but
> > rather indulgent, containing too much incidental
> detail about people
> > Lih wants to please." I can't imagine Andrew is fully
> happy about that
> > (!) - but it's an interesting take.
> Time for one of my current pet theories: the "triangle of
> takes" on
> upgrading WP. Andrew Lih represents one vertex, as you can
> see in his
> recent NYT interview, where he cites popular culture and
> politics as the
> drivers in WP. Basically this is about being very current
> in our
> coverage. Another vertex is the FA people: in theory they
> don't care
> about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to
> the point where
> there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third
> vertex is
> comprehensiveness. Lih's book - well, I haven't read it yet
> (sorry,
> Andrew), but you can see it fitting roughly in with where I
> locate him
> on the triangle. The "incidental detail" is often how
> popular culture or
> political journalism is (deliberately) written, rather than
> trying for
> in-depth or serious.
>
> Anyway, I commend the triangle: currency,
> comprehensiveness, quality.
> Most people around the wiki can probably plot themselves
> somewhere in
> the interior, and this gives a kind of map of prorities.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 41
> ****************************************
>
In a message dated 6/21/2009 3:02:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cormaggio(a)gmail.com writes:
> But I was struck by how in the LRB review of Andrew's book, the reviewer
> singled out the collaboratively-written afterword as better written than
> Andrew's book, which he found "full of interest but rather indulgent,
> containing too much incidental detail about people Lih wants to please." I
> can't imagine Andrew is fully happy about that (!) - but it's an
> interesting
> take.>>
>
----------------------
This book is at my local bookstore. I picked it up a few times and read
bits and pieces but I always put it down with the thought, "This book is
fluffly nice-nice".
Who wants to read about our glorious everything?
How about a book about the dish?
Will Johnson
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323000x1201367220/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8103132.stm
One wonders what ramifications the High Court's decision in the "Night Jack"
case has for UK wikipedians. Should we approach pseudonymous editing with a
different perspective, now that the court has confirmed itself as unwilling
to uphold the anonymity of online contributors?
AGK
Thinking on Emily's point about social interaction on wikipedia, I'm well aware that the amount of interaction that I have with other editors varies dramatically depending on the areas of the Wiki that I spend time in.
At one extreme reviewing at [[wp:FAC]] is very interactive and in my experience usually very collegial.
At the other extreme, when I'm feeling less sociable I find I can while away hours eradicating preforming from the entertainment industry or removing a surplus s to merge the Olympic sports of synchronised ventriloquism and discus throwing.
Somewhere in between is newpage patrol, most new articles are written by newbies who haven't mastered categorisation and wiki format. If you install hotcat and try to categorise new articles you'll soon find yourself collaborating with lots of editors.
WereSpielChequers
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:41:38 -0700
> From: stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Social ideas (was Hi there)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <7c402e010906182141y47e1ec10kd0211735cdee695f(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> > Stevertigo wrote:
> >
> > But do I understand correctly, Emily, that
> > > by "social aspects" you mean more what we might
> call "community," or
> > > "collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects?
> > Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com>
> wrote:
> > Yes, that's what I mean!
> >
> I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes.
> >
>
> (Because we've gotten our hellos out of the way, I've
> retitled the thread)
>
> It generally "goes" nowhere here unless you seed it with a
> question or idea.
> If your stated interest can be translated into a question,
> it might go
> something like:
> What socially-oriented ideas might make
> Wikipedia better?
>
> Though you may not yet understand the intricacies, it still
> would not be out
> of place for you to suggest some ideas yourself. Especially
> when you want to
> start a new conversation. In threads like this, we can deal
> with a few
> different things at once, and who knows what might come
> up?
>
> I myself am wondering if anyone has seen any userboxes made
> into
> bumperstickers.
>
> -Steven
>
>
> ------------------------------