You do not need to mention "all" contributors.
A satisfactory attribution is merely a URL pointing to the Wikipedia
article and possibly one pointing at the history page.
By our inaction we've made it clear you do not need to directly mention any
contributors.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/18/2009 9:29:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
To my knowledge, all that is
required to meet a -BY- requirement is one mention of all contributors.
Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
protected articles per: WP:FULL.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL>
Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
consensus?
WereSpielChequers
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:47:18 -0400
> From: wjhonson(a)aol.com
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
> To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <8CBD991B3A1AD8C-1414-581B(a)webmail-mh03.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> When full protection is used, then it should stay until it is changed to
> semi-protection.
> We should not have a type of protection that allows admins to make
> *content* changes willy-nilly.
> When an article is in full protection, admins should not be making content
> changes, except perhaps to revert changes that were the problematic ones in
> the first place.
>
>
>
> <<Jay's original email refers to using this when there has been an edit
> war - in other words when full protection *is* used currently.>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello friends,
I just wanted to take a moment to put out there that we also have
another English Wikipedia. It is designed for folks who may not
understand English very well, such as "ESL" users (English as a Second
Language), among other users. If this interests you, stop by for a
moment: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page perhaps if you have
time in addition to what you volunteer at our other project, the
"English Wikipedia".
Thank you for your time,
- --
Best,
Jon
- --- --- --- ---
PGP key located at http://www.nonvocalscream.com/key.txt
PGP encrypted mail preferred.
PGP Key ID: 6F19ED63
Fingerprint: 8397 9B96 6518 5A90 10CA F3C1 C653 AE86 6F19 ED63
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkqK9ywACgkQxlOuhm8Z7WPb4QCdEBuyc4/6mVTtKkoSJeMRg3/y
PcUAniP1EapW0rTlkFsaU5hHzfrYS4AU
=YhdY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Although as I've said before WikiNEWS is for "NEW" not for old.
So where do you put old investigative journalism ?
In a message dated 8/18/2009 10:07:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
particularly when you have editors who confuse an
encyclopedia with investigative journalism. (We have Wikinews for
original journalism!)
Strategic Planning office hours happen tomorrow - Tuesday - at
Tuesdays from 20:00-21:00 UTC, which is: 1-2pm PDT; 4-5pm EDT.
We're going to try having this conversation in #wikimedia-strategy
instead of taking over #wikimedia.
Hope to see you there!
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategic Planning
Wikimedia Foundation
pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Trying to overcome my aversion towards Java, I've written a little app
that can aggregate watchlists for a user across WikiMedia projects.
'nuff said:
http://magnusmanske.de/MetaWatchlist/
Cheers,
Magnus
It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to
some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to
eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this
not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it?
-Steven
The civility thread has got me thinking, but I didn't want to hijack
it, so here we go. This idea isn't fully formed, so forgive me.
I was going through wikipedia, when I came across a newer editors talk
page. S/he had several speedy deletion templates, and obvisouly didn't
know what xe was doing when it came to creating articles (xe was
making test-type articles, so copy-and-pasting WP:FIRSTARTICLE, stuff
like that), but for whatever reason, xe wasn't going to ask for help.
I came up with the idea that maybe we can rename the "New
Contributors' help page" to "Request for assistance for new editors".
Not that it's already used enough already, but maybe this will make it
more well-used. At the very least, we can maybe add to huggle
something that says "This new editor needs help fitting into
wikipedia. Can anyone help him/her?"
Of course, while thinking about this, I forgot to help the editor who
got me thinking about it!
Emily
I recently created three lists of winners of scientific awards, partly
because it needed doing, partly to see how good our coverage is now
(and how many articles remain to be written in such fields) and partly
to take a more systematic approach to checking links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_N._Potts_Medalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Medalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin_Medal_(Franklin_Institute)
The year ranges are: 1911-1991, 1915-1997, and 1998-2008 respectively.
The lists consist of scientists across a range of fields, with 99,
114, and 80 entries respectively. The number of redlinks vs blue links
(at the time of writing) are: 51 vs 48, 3 vs 111, and 18 vs 62,
respectively.
The relatively high numbers of redlinks for the Potts Medal is due to
it being a somewhat lesser medal than the other two (which are
essentially the same medal, but the latter one arising after a
reorganisation of the awards process of the Franklin Institute,
Pennsylvania, USA). It was very encouraging to see that there were
only 3 redlinks in the Franklin medal list, but given the calibre and
stature of some of the names there, that was to be expected. 18
redlinks (from 80) on the medal covering the last ten years is not too
bad when you consider that coverage of current scientists is not
always that good.
I've summarised this on the talk pages, and also laid out there the
approach I took to checking the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Howard_N._Potts_Medalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franklin_Medalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Franklin_Medal_(Franklin_Institu…
The process is essentially this:
1) Create list from reliable source
2) Check for typos and other mistakes
3) Check all redlinks to see if a redirect can be created
4) Check all blue links for wrong links and disambiguation pages
5) Disambiguate where possible
6) Disambiguate incorrect blue links to red links where possible
7) Leave sources behind that were found while disambiguating to redlinks
8) List redlinks on talk page and check back periodically to see if
articles created
9) Create articles on the redlink list as alternative to waiting for
others to create
10) Periodically repeat search for redirects to create, and checking
that links are accurate
>From experience, watching a redlink list like this fill in, or
checking a list of blue links remains accurate, the common and not so
common changes are:
A) A redlink turns blue, but the article is about someone else (turn
back into redlink by disambiguating)
B) A redlink turns blue, but it is a disambiguation page someone has
created (disambiguate if possible)
C) A blue link turns from an article into a disambiguation page (and
someone forgot to fix the incoming links)
Are there any other common situations where the status of a link changes?
One of the annoying things is that sometimes you can have a grouping
of possible titles and possble redirects (e.g. A. Other, Any Other, A.
M. Other, Any Middle Other, Any Other (disambiguator), and so on), and
sometimes redlinks for more than one possibility have been created,
but until the actual article has been created, it is not possible to
create the other redlinks as redirects because there are bots that
will delete these as "broken redirects". I've never managed to figure
out a satisfactory solution to this.
Anyway, I did this "list maintenance" and tracking thing previously
for the Royal Medal article, which is now (thanks to another editor) a
featured list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Medalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Medal
You can see on the talk page the timings of when the redlinks turned
blue. It should be interesting to see how fast that happens for those
three lists I've set up above, for the lists I created recently.
Providing, of course, that I resist the temptation to create some of
those articles myself (I will, at some point), and that everyone on
this list doesn't rush off to create some of those articles... :-)
Anyway, what I wanted to know was whether there are places on
Wikipedia where such approaches to lists and checking links is
documented? I do remember something about various lists of entries
from places like the DNB.
Ah here we are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_art…
"List maintenance, first pass. Add {{tick}}, {{dn}} and {{mnl}}
templates, respectively for correct bluelinks, bluelinks needing
disambiguation and bluelinks that are definitely wrong." [...] List
maintenance, second pass: redirecting redlinks. Go through creating
redirects and adding {{tick}} to new bluelinks."
That comes closest, I think, to what I was describing above.
Here's the example page from that project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles_Matthews/DNB_Working_List_63
That's getting bit away from general list maintenance, towards merging
from public domain encyclopedias, but the list link checking and
maintenance points are still the starting point.
Thoughts would be appreciated on whether an essay or guideline on link
maintenance in lists would be useful (or a link if it already exists
somewhere). Or whether there are any other common things that need
checking when working with such lists.
Carcharoth
This is still up in the air but it has been mentioned on UK television
news in various contexts recently: because the business model of free
online newspapers funded by advertising doesn't seem to be brining in
the bucks, there is much discussion in the media as to whether online
newspapers will start charging their customers.
It's just this second struck me that this could have dire consequences
for Wikipedia. Presumably we have millions of citations that point to
online newspaper content. If they decide to put their archives behind
a pay wall, what's going to happen to those citations? Are we going to
say that we accept that people will have to pay if they now wish to
verify a statement? Or are we going to have to a) laboriously
re-reference everything and b) lose a great deal of content that we've
been unable to find alternative citations for?
Arguably I'm jumping the gun here. But it may be worth discussing in
advance as I reckon this issue isn't going to go away.
Does anyone think I should post this to the 'Foundation' mailing list too?