> Google has agreed to take down links to a website that promotes racist views of indigenous Australians.
> Aboriginal man Steve Hodder-Watt recently discovered the US-based site by searching "Aboriginal and Encyclopedia" in the search engine.
> He tried to modify the entry on Encyclopedia Dramatica, a satirical and extremely racist version of Wikipedia, but was blocked from doing so.
> Mr Newhouse said Google agreed to take the link down after he filed an official complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
> "Lo and behold they agreed last night to take down the sites."
I'm so torn. On the one hand, the hypocrisy is blinding - filtering
its search results is exactly what Google was doing in China. On the
other hand, it's Encyclopedia Dramatica...
I've just been named a Coordinator of the Mediation Cabal, and one of my
first tasks is to drum up some new recruits. I was hoping there might be
a few brave souls on the mailinglist who are willing to help resolve
disputes with us. There's nothing that you need to do to apply for
membership (indeed, we don't even have a list of cabalists) and there is
no vetting procedure. We're also nor process wonks; each mediator has
his or her own style, and that's fine. Nearly anyone can accept a case
and just start doing it.
Mediation, especially informal mediation, isn't always easy. It can.
however, be very rewarding when you help resolve a content dispute that
had been plaguing an article for months (or even years).
What I would like to do eventually is have multiple mediators working on
a case (Medcab actually started out as a sort of swarm that traveled
around helping where needed). However, in order to do that, we need to
have enough mediators to go around. We need a few good men (or women, or
other) to help us out.
This is one of those "small earthquake, not many dead" stories. But the
banner I read from Jimbo suggests the $7.5 m has been banked now, within
the Twelve Days of Christmas.
Anyway, we'll presumably still be discussing some of the same issues in
2011, whatever the Wall Street Journal thinks (and it is good to see
that the media frenzy on "WP over, it's official" didn't leave a mark).
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Flagged revs on en:wp?
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On 12/13/2009 03:28 PM, William Pietri wrote:
> That seems like a fine thing to do. I've already promised to post an
> update here once we have a clearer picture; I'll write up a more
> general-audience version for the blog, too.
As promised, here's an update:
Feel free to drop me a line with questions or comments.
Wikitech-l mailing list
> Yes, it's not that difficult to create an account and wait a few days is
You are making the mistake of assuming newcomers think like "addicted"
Wikipedians or persistent troublemakers. This user only ever made about 25
edits and stayed just over a month, unless he or she got an account or
This goes in the same category as:
"Anyone with good intentions can get through the 6757836 step New Article
Wizard, so it's not too complicated"
"It doesn't matter if someone gets wrongly blocked, because they can just
request to be unblocked."
Edit completion rate - someone not merely clicking "edit", but
actually editing and hitting save - goes *way* up. Based on Wikia's
Wikitext used to be a lot simpler. Now it's impenetrable computer
code. This is not good enough.
There are all sorts of reasons why WYSIWYG editing in Mediawiki is a
Hard Problem. But FCKeditor is really very good these days and I'd
strongly recommend it for any fresh wikis. Turning it loose on
existing piles of wikitext such as, ooh, en:wp, is probably a
Fascinating! I note how the article Celilo Falls was created a brought up to
four long paragraphs by User:184.108.40.206. Today IPs are not allowed to
create articles and some want to limit it to accounts that are four days old
and have made 10 edits.
> When introducing non-Wikipedians to the concept of Wikipedia, I've found
> many people want to know: *how does an article develop?*
> I just composed an overview of the development of a GA article I worked
> on with several others over several years:
> And also, started a page on the Outreach wiki to link to such stories. I
> linked to several time lapse YouTube videos I've seen that do more or
> less the same.
> Does anybody else have an article they'd like to explore in this way? Or
> feedback on the Celilo Falls overview?
Strategic Planning Office Hours this week are Wednesday from
04:00-05:00 UTC, which is:
Tuesday, 8-9pm PST
Tuesday, 11pm-12am EST
As task forces start to move toward recommendations, things are really
starting to get interesting. We invite everyone to join and get
updates about process, where we are, and what we're learning.
You can access the chat by going to http://webchat.freenode.net and
filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-strategy). You
may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine.
Another option is http://chat.wikizine.org.
It's worth noting that all strategic planning office hours chats are
logged and you can review old ones at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
Hope to see you there!
Facilitator, Strategy Project
mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
[to list as well, sorry Shlomi!]
2010/1/4 Shlomi Fish <shlomif(a)iglu.org.il>:
> I personally detest all WYSIWYG web-based editors. They are slow and clunky
> and produce broken markup, and just get in the way. I'm also not fond of
> WYSIWYG word processors and prefer using XHTML or DocBook/XML or other non-
> WYSIWYG markup languages. If you are going to enable such a feature, please
> make it optional.
Oh, absolutely. It's just that you and I are maybe 10% of the possible
editor pool. We have to not put up a gigantic barrier to the other