Hello, Wikimedians.
This weekend I plan on finalizing the timeline for phase two of the Living
Person Task Force: a community findings recommendation.
What we are interested in is people from all size wikis participating in
discussing common interests and problems on interpersonal and intrapersonal
interaction relating to Wikimedia projects. This includes statistics
gathering, examination of how projects handle OTRS complaints/issues, image
use, quotation use, and sourcing. It is very important that we get
participation in these areas, if anything just to received feedback on the
wiki. I have subpages set up for these discussion on the Strategy site, <
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People>.
In six to eight weeks we'd like to develop recommendations from the Task
Force that are more in-depth than the proposed recommendations to be
submitted to the Board this month, to assist in developing projects identify
and set up structures for the issues that come with societies.
If you have experience dealing with living people on any of our wikis, or if
you have ideas on how policies can be established/improved, please
participate in the discussions so that we can adequately asses the projects
as a whole.
Thanks for your time, see you on the wiki!
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
The Content scope Task Force at strategy.wikimedia.org is at the
moment compiling a "List of things that need to be free". The purpose of
this list is to list all kinds of content that ought to be available
for free, to see what other organizations provide such content, and to
judge in which areas WMF can help providing such content. Any help in
filling this list in would be very much appreciated.
You will find it at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
/Dafer45
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
More progress has been made, and new requests have tapered off
substantially, which suggests that a release is within reach.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
To see what we've changed this week, there's a list here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Flagged_Protection_upd…
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and
Backlog:
http://www.pivotaltracker.com/projects/46157
The backlog was relatively stable again this week, so we are definitely
moving closer to launch.
We expect to release to labs again next week, and each week thereafter
until this goes live on the English Wikipedia.
William
On 5 April 2010 17:59, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd(a)lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> At 01:44 PM 4/4/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
>>What about Wikipedia editors who change career to become PR people? :-)
>>
>>Carcharoth
>>
>>(Who nevers wants to be a PR person, ever)
>
> Not even to support a cause which, you might know, is not
> representing itself well, and you could help?
>
> Pure, ethics-free PR, sure. I never want to be that kind of PR person
> either. I would not ever lie or deceive to promote a cause, paid or not.
>
> But the skills I gained as a Wikipedia editor may prove to have been
> invaluable in the work I'm starting to do with cold fusion,
As a defence of PR that has to be mildly worse than citing Edward Bernays work.
--
geni
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-u…
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients
March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised
to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign
strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted
by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource
to promote clients.
(muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's
rationales and likely actions very well indeed.)
- d.
At 01:44 PM 4/4/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
>What about Wikipedia editors who change career to become PR people? :-)
>
>Carcharoth
>
>(Who nevers wants to be a PR person, ever)
Not even to support a cause which, you might know, is not
representing itself well, and you could help?
Pure, ethics-free PR, sure. I never want to be that kind of PR person
either. I would not ever lie or deceive to promote a cause, paid or not.
But the skills I gained as a Wikipedia editor may prove to have been
invaluable in the work I'm starting to do with cold fusion, which is
to overcome widespread confusion based on how the early evidence was
framed, with that framing then being applied reflexively to later
evidence as it appeared, assuming that it was all the same. It wasn't.
I know what the critical results are, because they are the ones that
convinced me to give up my own skepticism. They are not mentioned
accurately in the Wikipedia article, and the most important,
heat/helium correlation, still, is only cited with a blatant error in
an anonymous 2004 DOE review (if that text were true, it would not be
correlation at all, it would be anti-correlation), when the real
results are covered extensively in reliable source (and even with
accurate mention, I recently found, in Huizenga, the fiercest
critic). ScienceApologist has started improving the article, it's
possible he'll get to this, some of his work is quite good.
It was not intended that way, but my work on-wiki also introduced me
to the cold fusion community, and through that to the senior
scientists, and I've been asked to help edit a paper for submission
to a mainstream journal. I know that Pcarbonn, also topic-banned
(this time by a grossly unfair process on AN, spearheaded by JzG,
who, those who followed RfAr/Abd and Jzg would know, was highly
involved, but which wasn't disclosed there, nor was it disclosed that
many of those voting were already involved....), got a job working as
a researcher. Again, I see no sign that this was his goal, it simply
fell out of being topic-banned and then turning more attention to
direct involvement.
So thanks, Wikipedia.
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> And
>> further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of
>> the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the
>> topic.
>>
>> Carcharoth
>
> That is why I despise the war on external links and further reading some
> editors seem to think is appropriate.
I don't think I've seen much evidence of a "war on external links"
... what there is is, however, is pressure against an unfiltered flood
of external links.
Anyone capable of using Wikipedia is also capable of using Google,
Bing, or any of a number of other search engines. Beyond a point
adding links reduces the value that Wikpedia provides over these
resources.
Even if you held the position that the world needed another
unselective source of links, Wikipedia isn't especially well
structured to provide it: There is little to no automation to remove
dead or no longer relevant things, no automation to find new
worthwhile links, and a lot of vulnerability to manipulation by
interested parties.
I think that at its best Wikipedia should be directly including all
the information available up to Wikipedia's coverage depth, linking
only for citations, then it should have links to the most valuable
external resources which go deeper into the subject than Wikipedia
reasonably can. If you need a raw feed of sites related to some
subject area this is what the search engines do well.
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Feedback from users has dropped off, which we are taking as a sign that
people are relatively happy with things.
If that's not the case, or if you'd like to test it for yourself, start
here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
To see what we've changed this week, there's a list here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Flagged_Protection_upd…
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and
Backlog:
http://www.pivotaltracker.com/projects/46157
The backlog was relatively stable this week, so we are definitely moving
closer to launch.
We expect to release again next week, and each week thereafter until
this goes live on the English Wikipedia.
William