http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-incl…
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents. Somewhere in the
middle is a debate struggling to get out: is the volume of reversions
indicative of good gatekeeping (poor edits to popular and well-developed
articles have little chance of sticking), or bad gatekeeping
(established editors assert ownership)? Stats from 2007 and 2009 show a
step-change of some sort, as we know, but don't really prove that there
is a current trend (we could be going sideways).
Charles
It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
details.
Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various
Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then in that article
describe the plot, characters, moral, date, number of issues, etc.
*Now* for each character make an article for them, describing each issue
they were in, with the plot details, and link them all together.
You'd have something like three to twenty thousand articles on Superman.
Many people would see that as overwhelming in scope and most relevant for a
specialist work.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/18/2009 8:56:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Cathy.Edwards(a)bbc.co.uk writes:
I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
So you repeat what I say and then say you're not repeating what I said, and
then repeat it....
There's an issue here that you're arguing against your very own position.
I'm not sure you are understanding what I said.
W.J.
Yes I'm reminded of that lack of accountability in this exchange:
A: Why did you, as an admin, do action X within Wikipedia?
B: Well I asked on IRC and they told me to do it
A: Who told you to do it
B: I can't remember but I'm sure it was someone who thought I should do it.
A: So you yourself have no reason to, as an admin, do the action you did?
B: Yes I asked on IRC.
This is a true story. Which is why IRC should be shut down. There is no
accountability, and no transparency. And yet things which pass on it, are
then imposed in-project with no back-trail.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/2/2009 11:43:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
Jay Litwyn wrote:
> One reason they are not publicly archived is so that discussions are not
> driven into DCC for want of not being held to word, quoted, or caught
> displaying a degree of ignorance or a prominent prejudice that you
actually
> want to be argued out of. It can be live and off the cuff remarks,
perhaps
> even admissions about personal and otherwise private life. There really
is
> no telling how your logs will date. I remember one time when it was
newsfeed
> about war in Tibet, then noise about magnetic levitation. I find IRC
tiring
> to read and follow when it gets active, then boring when it slows down.
Then
> there was that ad for carbonated black piss. The trick is to make the
logs
> yourself in whatever group you want, and pretty much keep it to yourself.
>
>
I prefer having nothing to do with IRC, but I am often left with the
impression that its participants come to some agreements which they
treat as decisive elsewhere. That subverts acountaability.
Ec
_______________________________________________
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
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=htt…
=JulystepsfooterNO115)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Board Election Committee has concluded the
board selection process, and is pleased to announce that the
candidates ranked as follows:
Final ranking
1 Ting Chen (Wing)
2 Kat Walsh (mindspillage)
3 Samuel Klein (Sj)
4 Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
5 Domas Mituzas (Midom)
6 Thomas Braun (Redlinux)
7 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (Cimon Avaro)
8 Steve Smith (Sarcasticidealist)
9 Dan Rosenthal (Swatjester)
10 José Gustavo Góngora (Góngora)
11 Brady Brim-DeForest (Bradybd)
12 Lourie Pieterse (LouriePieterse)
13 Adam Koenigsberg (CastAStone)
14 Ralph Potdevin (Aruspice)
15 Beauford Anton Stenberg (B9 hummingbird hovering)
16 Gregory Kohs (Thekohser)
17 Kevin Riley O'Keeffe (KevinOKeeffe)
18 Relly Komaruzaman (Relly Komaruzaman)
A full pairwise defeats table will be posted shortly.
These names have been respectfully submitted to the Board, which has
moved to seat the top three candidates.
The Committee wishes to thank all those who submitted themselves as
candidates. It was a broad and diverse field this year. We also wish
to recognize the many volunteers that helped with this process. The
committee extends its gratitude and thanks to them
For the committee,
Philippe
It was raised before on the Village Pump, but I think this is so disturbing
that we ought to do something.
"Alphascript Publishing" has published over 1900 (and counting) books, all
available on Amazon. Prices range from $31 to $179. All of these books are
simple computer-generated copies from Wikipedia and (at least according to
one Amazon reviewer) couple other public domain websites. Trouble is, from
book description page there is absolutely no way of knowing that the book is
a Wikipedia mirror on paper. At least several Amazon buyers have been
fooled. What really gets my blood boiling is that Amazon user "VDM Verlag
Dr.Müller" (I think someone exposed him as 100% shareholder of the
publishing co) goes on rating these products as "five star"....
The publisher seems to observe the copyright (even includes full edit
history) so legal action seems impossible. Someone already contacted Amazon,
but they "are not responsible for the quality of books sold". In the
meantime the number of such books grew from 900 in June to almost 2000 as of
today... I think we should do something. At the very least publishing
product reviews warning that what this is....
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript_Publishing_sells_…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive…http://rufftoon.livejournal.com/59337.html
Thanks,
Renata
P.S. on a happier note: half of Wikipedia editors now can claim to be
"published authors".
The Polish Wikipedia has hacked together a neat little pop-up tool for
reporting errors in articles. To see it, go to
http://pl.wikipedia.org/
click around, and follow the "Zgłoś błąd" link in the sidebar. If you
click the middle button, it gives you a form that you can use to
report an error with the page you're looking at. That report will then
be appended to a problem reports page.
It clearly requires a lot of maintenance of said error reports page to
pull something like this off, but perhaps it would be worth trying out
for a while?
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate