On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:52:51 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/922216/BBC-Radio-4-launches-Wikipedia-par…
>
> "LONDON - BBC Radio 4 is launching a "broadwebcasting" show parodying
> the internet by mocking pop-ups, search boxes and other aspects of
> online activity. Produced and directed by Pozzitive, the four-part
> series is called 'Bigipedia' and has taken its inspiration from
> Wikipedia. It airs from July 23 at 11pm."
The Wikipedia it's parodying seems to be an alternate-universe one
which has ads, corporate sponsors, and intrusive offers to get its
readers to purchase enhanced access levels.
--
== 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/
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:56:32 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> > From: Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com>
> > Date: 2009/7/22
> > Subject: [Wikitech-l] Watchlistr.com, an outside site that asks for
> > Wikimedia passwords
> > To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> > I'm not sure what to do about this; it seems like a good idea but a
> > major security risk:
> > http://www.watchlistr.com/ is a site that creates aggregate watchlists
> > across multiple projects. See
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bounty_board#Transwiki_…
> > l
Aggregators are a longstanding tradition in Web services; there are
several of them around that get users to provide their passwords to
banking and other financial sites (something with likely greater
risks than one's Wikipedia password) so that they can show the user
aggregated information such as net worth. Social networking sites
also often seek to get one's password to other social-networking,
messaging, and e-mail services so that contact lists and status
updates can be shared.
These services are at once very useful and very scary; one needs to
have more trust in the sites that one gives one's passwords to than
any web operator is likely to deserve.
--
== 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/
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has
been given. It is my understanding that when individuals are blocked
from an open list, the list moderator must give some kind of
explanation. In an open discussion forum, it is appropriate to give
this notification openly.
As far as private explanations go, Austin Hair gave only the terse
"see my last post." His post there said nothing about blocking or
moderation. When Austin or one of the other invisible hands there can
openly explain the reasons for the block, and perhaps also identify
who ordered it, then we can get back into dealing with substantive
discussion, and not just playing games.
The simple issue with blocking, just as with the usage or reliance on
private communications to deal with issues on an open project, is that
these modalities run counter to the open philosophy this project was
founded on. I have a great deal of respect for most of the people who
currently deal with those private modalities, and I feel obligated to
correct their continued unprincipled usage.
Regards,
-Stevertigo
PS. Apologies if some feel this message belongs somewhere else, but I
would say the same thing about that same criticism.
Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the
quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for
perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN discussion, that they feel there can
be issues at ANI:
- *"For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more
calm and rational than ANI"*
- *"ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's just
the mentality there"*
- *"AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers [as ANI]"*
Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much?
A simple request for thoughts.
Since ANI and VP tend to be followed by more experienced users and admins,
I'm posting it on the en mailing list to increase the exposure and odds of
feedback being given from non-admins.
Link to on-wiki
post<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI_curiosity>
FT2
Why care about what foundation-l does or doesn't do ?
It's a silly place full of silly people :)
In a message dated 7/25/2009 8:40:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
stvrtg(a)gmail.com writes:
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has
been given. It is my understanding that when individuals are blocked
from an open list, the list moderator must give some kind of
explanation. In an open discussion forum, it is appropriate to give
this notification openly.
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323048x1201367271/aol?redir=htt…
yExcfooterNO62)
"Barack Obama is the head of household {{fact}}"
Michelle has that look in her eye. Behind closed doors, do we really know?
In a message dated 7/25/2009 7:16:22 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
foxyloxy.wikimedia(a)gmail.com writes:
Barack Obama
is the head of the household and President of the United States. and is
a neutered male Portuguese Water Dog, or Portie."
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323048x1201367271/aol?redir=htt…
yExcfooterNO62)
I recently came across this page, on another wiki, where they compare
themselves to Wikipedia.
Interesting or not? What good points do they make?
http://groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Groupprops:Groupprops_versus_Wikipedia
Does anyone else know of any other "comparison" essays out there?
Carcharoth
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
list
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
I'd say it is a "site that falls on its face when tested". I ran several
searches in it for minor articles in Wikipedia, in some cases the ads that
came up were relevant but there was no relevant information. Then I tried
their Easter Island article, which in my view gives more info than we do on
some of the fringe theories "The stones were moved from quarry to ahu using
ancient secrets known to the Lemurians, perhaps involving levitation or the
secret for liquifying stone." And omits some of the info we have as to how
archaeologists believe the statues were carved.
WereSpielChequers
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:37:29 -0500
> From: "kgnpaul(a)gmail.com" <kgnpaul(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia.com
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4a6a61dc.c5c2f10a.6d9e.5d58(a)mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I think that I was taught in school to never use any encyclopedia as a
> reference work, and that others should learn the same instead
>
> -- Sent from my Palm Pre
> wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> About us
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/about.aspx
> "Other Web sites that allow anyone to rewrite reference entries can be
> fun. But when you need credible information from reliable sources you
> can cite, Encyclopedia.com (www.encyclopedia.com) is the place to go. "
>
> "Encyclopedia.com is owned and operated by HighBeam Research. "
>
> What do others think. Is this site merely another fluffy, we're better
> than you, site that falls on its face when tested?
>
> Will Johnson
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/922216/BBC-Radio-4-launches-Wikipedia-par…
"LONDON - BBC Radio 4 is launching a "broadwebcasting" show parodying
the internet by mocking pop-ups, search boxes and other aspects of
online activity. Produced and directed by Pozzitive, the four-part
series is called 'Bigipedia' and has taken its inspiration from
Wikipedia. It airs from July 23 at 11pm."
(That's 10pm UTC tonight, a bit over three hours from now.)
- d.