Some time ago I ran into a case where a small airline managed to purchase a domain name with redirection service, pointed it to the Wikipedia article about them, and then later angrily contacted the foundation enraged that we were 'hacking' their website simply because users were editing the article normally.
I didn't think that I'd run into another one as weird as that, but I think this comes close:
Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in userspace and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised. I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this has already survived an MfD.
Nathan
On Jan 28, 2008 5:34 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Some time ago I ran into a case where a small airline managed to purchase a domain name with redirection service, pointed it to the Wikipedia article about them, and then later angrily contacted the foundation enraged that we were 'hacking' their website simply because users were editing the article normally.
I didn't think that I'd run into another one as weird as that, but I think this comes close:
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's not been through a full 5 day deletion debate, but yes, it has been to MfD and was "Speedily Kept".
On 28/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in userspace and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised. I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this has already survived an MfD.
Nathan
On Jan 28, 2008 5:34 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Some time ago I ran into a case where a small airline managed to purchase a domain name with redirection service, pointed it to the Wikipedia article about them, and then later angrily contacted the foundation enraged that we were 'hacking' their website simply because users were editing the article normally.
I didn't think that I'd run into another one as weird as that, but I think this comes close:
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 28, 2008 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in userspace and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised. I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this has already survived an MfD.
I missed that fact, but that just makes it all the more baffling.
Using CSS hacks to hide the site and make it claim to be some other domain is pretty darn outrageous... at least the airline didn't use clever kludges to rewrite the page.
On Jan 28, 2008 6:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in userspace and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised. I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this has already survived an MfD.
I missed that fact, but that just makes it all the more baffling.
Using CSS hacks to hide the site and make it claim to be some other domain is pretty darn outrageous... at least the airline didn't use clever kludges to rewrite the page.
I wouldn't really call that a CSS hack, considering they could have also done it using a magic word ({{DISPLAYTITLE}}). It doesn't seem to be using Wikipedia as a web host, more like using the domain to make a parody page in userspace more amusing/realistic.
On 29/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 6:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in userspace and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised. I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this has already survived an MfD.
I missed that fact, but that just makes it all the more baffling.
Using CSS hacks to hide the site and make it claim to be some other domain is pretty darn outrageous... at least the airline didn't use clever kludges to rewrite the page.
I wouldn't really call that a CSS hack, considering they could have also done it using a magic word ({{DISPLAYTITLE}}). It doesn't seem to be using Wikipedia as a web host, more like using the domain to make a parody page in userspace more amusing/realistic.
Gotta say its pretty close to free web host. Anyone that buys a domain and redirects it to wikipedia is using wikipedia non-profit foundation funds for something that is completely unrelated to the encyclopedia. The userpage guidelines and the what wikipedia is not policy have been designed specifically to restrict this frivolous use of bandwidth and server resources, although the community may have enough powerful supporters to make it an exception, it would break the rule and not be consistent IMO. Recent happenings with spoofing the wikipedia UI may also come into play.
Its always hard to say anything bad about humour pages that established wikipedians create, but buying a domain and making a straight redirect without prior authorisation from the non-profit foundation is pretty clear.
On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here.
Peter Ansell
On Jan 28, 2008 6:10 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Its always hard to say anything bad about humour pages that established wikipedians create, but buying a domain and making a straight redirect without prior authorisation from the non-profit foundation is pretty clear.
Other sites have to ask permission to link to us, now?
On Jan 29, 2008 1:29 PM, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 6:10 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Its always hard to say anything bad about humour pages that established wikipedians create, but buying a domain and making a straight redirect without prior authorisation from the non-profit foundation is pretty clear.
Other sites have to ask permission to link to us, now?
There is a pretty big difference between linking to us and using a redirection service and enwiki to store your website.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 1:29 PM, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 6:10 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Its always hard to say anything bad about humour pages that established wikipedians create, but buying a domain and making a straight redirect without prior authorisation from the non-profit foundation is pretty clear.
Other sites have to ask permission to link to us, now?
There is a pretty big difference between linking to us and using a redirection service and enwiki to store your website.
I'm not so sure. Would it be different if, instead of an instantaneous redirect, their URL led to a page with the text "click here for the main page on Wikipedia?" They're simply automating the process of clicking, IMO.
And how about tinyurl.com? I'm sure there are thousands of links to Wikipedia that come in via tinyurl redirects.
As long as the page that's on Wikipedia is compliant with the requirements to allow that page to stay on Wikipedia - and since this Bathrobe page has been through MfD and survived, it appears that this is the case - why should we care _how_ people get there?
On Jan 29, 2008 5:33 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I'm not so sure. Would it be different if, instead of an instantaneous redirect, their URL led to a page with the text "click here for the main page on Wikipedia?" They're simply automating the process of clicking, IMO.
And how about tinyurl.com? I'm sure there are thousands of links to Wikipedia that come in via tinyurl redirects.
As long as the page that's on Wikipedia is compliant with the requirements to allow that page to stay on Wikipedia - and since this Bathrobe page has been through MfD and survived, it appears that this is the case - why should we care _how_ people get there?
Because the use of an external domain pretty much demonstrates that the page isn't being used for project purposes, but is instead being used as a replacement for an external web hosting service.
Off-topic wacky userspace pages from established users are not so bad, but when they are clearly targeted at an outside audience?
As far as the MFD goes: I can't really comment there. To me that seems to be a pretty baffling and embarrassing outcome: Frequently pages are deleted which are no more off-topic than this appears to be now some more of those will be protested with "but admins can do it!" ... we've lost more than a bit of the high-ground we once had there.
It certainly isn't the end of the world but I find the apparent double standard mightily confusing.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 5:33 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
As long as the page that's on Wikipedia is compliant with the requirements to allow that page to stay on Wikipedia - and since this Bathrobe page has been through MfD and survived, it appears that this is the case - why should we care _how_ people get there?
Because the use of an external domain pretty much demonstrates that the page isn't being used for project purposes, but is instead being used as a replacement for an external web hosting service.
Off-topic wacky userspace pages from established users are not so bad, but when they are clearly targeted at an outside audience?
I don't get the impression from the page itself that it's targeted at an outside audience. The entire raison d'être of the page appears to be to have fun at Wikipedia-related subjects, things that an "outsider" wouldn't have any awareness of. A random non-Wikipedian would have no idea what "RfAs" or "1RR" were, or why the goal of "Promot[ing] IPs to adminship" was funny.
If someone were to do something like this with a page about their internet florist shop or a fan site for some sports team or what have you, then sure, that's clearly a case of using Wikipedia for non-Wikipedia-related purposes. This, however, is clearly Wikipedia-related and I don't see how a redirect hosted by some external site changes that.
As far as the MFD goes: I can't really comment there. To me that seems to be a pretty baffling and embarrassing outcome: Frequently pages are deleted which are no more off-topic than this appears to be now some more of those will be protested with "but admins can do it!" ... we've lost more than a bit of the high-ground we once had there.
I don't pay attention to MfD, but if it routinely deletes stuff no more off-topic than this then IMO there's a problem with MfD's standards.
On Jan 28, 2008 9:10 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 6:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in
userspace
and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised. I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this has already survived an MfD.
I missed that fact, but that just makes it all the more baffling.
Using CSS hacks to hide the site and make it claim to be some other domain is pretty darn outrageous... at least the airline didn't use clever kludges to rewrite the page.
I wouldn't really call that a CSS hack, considering they could have also done it using a magic word ({{DISPLAYTITLE}}). It doesn't seem to be
using
Wikipedia as a web host, more like using the domain to make a parody
page in
userspace more amusing/realistic.
Gotta say its pretty close to free web host. Anyone that buys a domain and redirects it to wikipedia is using wikipedia non-profit foundation funds for something that is completely unrelated to the encyclopedia. The userpage guidelines and the what wikipedia is not policy have been designed specifically to restrict this frivolous use of bandwidth and server resources, although the community may have enough powerful supporters to make it an exception, it would break the rule and not be consistent IMO. Recent happenings with spoofing the wikipedia UI may also come into play.
Its always hard to say anything bad about humour pages that established wikipedians create, but buying a domain and making a straight redirect without prior authorisation from the non-profit foundation is pretty clear.
On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here.
Peter Ansell
The only thing they're using WMF funds for would be the hosting, and it's a userspace page like several others, and it's been kept in MfD. It's not like this is using the foundation as a host for something completely irrelevant- this is a parody Wikipedia cabal, for which the creators decided to buy a domain to redirect to it. I don't see what the problem is.
On 30/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 9:10 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 6:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in
userspace
and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised. I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this has already survived an MfD.
I missed that fact, but that just makes it all the more baffling.
Using CSS hacks to hide the site and make it claim to be some other domain is pretty darn outrageous... at least the airline didn't use clever kludges to rewrite the page.
I wouldn't really call that a CSS hack, considering they could have also done it using a magic word ({{DISPLAYTITLE}}). It doesn't seem to be
using
Wikipedia as a web host, more like using the domain to make a parody
page in
userspace more amusing/realistic.
Gotta say its pretty close to free web host. Anyone that buys a domain and redirects it to wikipedia is using wikipedia non-profit foundation funds for something that is completely unrelated to the encyclopedia. The userpage guidelines and the what wikipedia is not policy have been designed specifically to restrict this frivolous use of bandwidth and server resources, although the community may have enough powerful supporters to make it an exception, it would break the rule and not be consistent IMO. Recent happenings with spoofing the wikipedia UI may also come into play.
Its always hard to say anything bad about humour pages that established wikipedians create, but buying a domain and making a straight redirect without prior authorisation from the non-profit foundation is pretty clear.
On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here.
Peter Ansell
The only thing they're using WMF funds for would be the hosting, and it's a userspace page like several others, and it's been kept in MfD. It's not like this is using the foundation as a host for something completely irrelevant- this is a parody Wikipedia cabal, for which the creators decided to buy a domain to redirect to it. I don't see what the problem is.
People keep referring to a discussion that only lasted a few hours as evidence that the community supports the idea, as opposed to a few admins who were alerted to the page, including the participants who purchased the domain to use with wikimedia hosting. Wikipedia Cabals are, perhaps surprisingly to you, totally irrelevant to the purpose of the encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to host websites for people it might as well say it instead of proclaiming the no free web hosting statement as policy (except when its an admin who gets special treatment). If this is meant to be simply ignored because its a joke then it isn't succeeding.
Peter
On Jan 29, 2008 6:31 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 9:10 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 6:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in
userspace
and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised.
I
think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this has already survived an
MfD.
I missed that fact, but that just makes it all the more baffling.
Using CSS hacks to hide the site and make it claim to be some
other
domain is pretty darn outrageous... at least the airline didn't
use
clever kludges to rewrite the page.
I wouldn't really call that a CSS hack, considering they could have
also
done it using a magic word ({{DISPLAYTITLE}}). It doesn't seem to be
using
Wikipedia as a web host, more like using the domain to make a parody
page in
userspace more amusing/realistic.
Gotta say its pretty close to free web host. Anyone that buys a domain and redirects it to wikipedia is using wikipedia non-profit foundation funds for something that is completely unrelated to the encyclopedia. The userpage guidelines and the what wikipedia is not policy have been designed specifically to restrict this frivolous use of bandwidth and server resources, although the community may have enough powerful supporters to make it an exception, it would break the rule and not be consistent IMO. Recent happenings with spoofing the wikipedia UI may also come into play.
Its always hard to say anything bad about humour pages that established wikipedians create, but buying a domain and making a straight redirect without prior authorisation from the non-profit foundation is pretty clear.
On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here.
Peter Ansell
The only thing they're using WMF funds for would be the hosting, and
it's a
userspace page like several others, and it's been kept in MfD. It's not
like
this is using the foundation as a host for something completely
irrelevant-
this is a parody Wikipedia cabal, for which the creators decided to buy
a
domain to redirect to it. I don't see what the problem is.
People keep referring to a discussion that only lasted a few hours as evidence that the community supports the idea, as opposed to a few admins who were alerted to the page, including the participants who purchased the domain to use with wikimedia hosting. Wikipedia Cabals are, perhaps surprisingly to you, totally irrelevant to the purpose of the encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to host websites for people it might as well say it instead of proclaiming the no free web hosting statement as policy (except when its an admin who gets special treatment). If this is meant to be simply ignored because its a joke then it isn't succeeding.
Peter
What I'm saying is that this is no difference from, say, [[User:Ryulong/Penguin Cabal]] or any others on the list at [[WP:LOC]] (the penguin one was just the first I scrolled to), just because some domain redirects to it.
If folks are worried about Wikipedia being used as a webhost for external purposes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashim100 that is more the type of thing to be concerned about.
NAthan
On 30/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
If folks are worried about Wikipedia being used as a webhost for external purposes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashim100 that is more the type of thing to be concerned about.
That is worrying, but more in that case because the user has only edited one page, to put up maths formulas in an exercise format. It should be reasonably clear even under the current definition on WP:NOT with its MfD exceptions.
On 30/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 6:31 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
People keep referring to a discussion that only lasted a few hours as evidence that the community supports the idea, as opposed to a few admins who were alerted to the page, including the participants who purchased the domain to use with wikimedia hosting. Wikipedia Cabals are, perhaps surprisingly to you, totally irrelevant to the purpose of the encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to host websites for people it might as well say it instead of proclaiming the no free web hosting statement as policy (except when its an admin who gets special treatment). If this is meant to be simply ignored because its a joke then it isn't succeeding.
Peter
What I'm saying is that this is no difference from, say, [[User:Ryulong/Penguin Cabal]] or any others on the list at [[WP:LOC]] (the penguin one was just the first I scrolled to), just because some domain redirects to it.
Okay, the most humourous WIkipedia space page that I have agreed with so far is [[WP:ROUGE]], and even then not without extensive discussion as to its relevance for giving people a view on the real reasons admins have to do some things. That is relevant, cabals (true/untrue), or discussions about them, are a totally irrelevant artifact that doesn't help wikipedia at all. If there wasn't a cabal to keep irrelevant cabal articles in wikipedia they would be subject to the WP:NOT guidelines like other pages, but catch 22 says you can't see the forest for the trees in this case. All of [[Category:Wikipedia humor]] is irrelevant IMO. But there are enough people who want an exception for humour to keep it in, and still avoid telling most people that in WP:NOT a free webhost/social network.
I am not trying really to point this out as a case that should be deleted while others in either WP:LOC or the humour category, are kept. Wikipedia is about the encyclopedia first, and only community for collaboration, not for making up clubs for people to join. Why was it that Esperanza was deleted? (Not to bring it up as a specific example relevant to this discussion of humourous cabal jokes, but it was a big precedent for WP:NOT IMO) If Esperanza had been a humourous cabal then it would have fit as a precedent of course, but it was too transparent for that to occur by definition.
Peter
I don't think there is a problem, but if you do MfD is the way to go.
Personally, I don't see that a pass is being given to admins to violate policy because they are admins. It looks to me like it is a group of longtime and active contributors who are using some IAR leeway to have a little fun. The leeway is extended to them because I'm pretty sure pissing them off and having them leave would do a whole lot more damage than allowing a few subpages (using up how much space and bandwidth again?) to continue to exist. The issue of the domain name is a red herring - it has no practical effect on Wikipedia at all. It doesn't draw in outside users, it doesn't cost Wikimedia anything, it doesn't allow them any access they wouldn't otherwise have. Its basically the same as a tinyurl address or favorites link.
When it becomes a focal point for their activity, a distraction for other users or a source of disruption I will of course join you in voting delete in an MfD.
Nathan
On 30/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is a problem, but if you do MfD is the way to go.
Personally, I don't see that a pass is being given to admins to violate policy because they are admins. It looks to me like it is a group of longtime and active contributors who are using some IAR leeway to have a little fun. The leeway is extended to them because I'm pretty sure pissing them off and having them leave would do a whole lot more damage than allowing a few subpages (using up how much space and bandwidth again?) to continue to exist. The issue of the domain name is a red herring - it has no practical effect on Wikipedia at all. It doesn't draw in outside users, it doesn't cost Wikimedia anything, it doesn't allow them any access they wouldn't otherwise have. Its basically the same as a tinyurl address or favorites link.
If they leave because a userspace page, which was not promoting collaboration on wikipedia articles, was deleted then they were *not valuable* to the encyclopedia. Its not like the encylopedia would be practically affected by a deletion of a social networking user page. It could however be affected if others figure out that admins aren't consistent and chuck a fuss because their Userspace pages were deleted for the same reason that page was kept in a shortened discussion.
When it becomes a focal point for their activity, a distraction for other users or a source of disruption I will of course join you in voting delete in an MfD.
Too soon for another MfD, you would just get the creators of the page voting Keep again and possibly pulling in loyalty votes as such. Maybe once discussion had died down here it would be reasonable to try again.
Peter
bathrobecabal.org is not even in the same ballpark as the airline example. In fact, comparing them at all is quite frankly moronic.
The .org was bought *after* the creation of the Wikipedia url, and it's maintained by a devoted Wikipedian who didn't want others subverting a url that applied to their self-categorization. It's not even group that does anything as a unit, it's actually a joke about taking a picure of yourself wearing a bathrobe.
On Jan 29, 2008 4:15 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is a problem, but if you do MfD is the way to go.
Personally, I don't see that a pass is being given to admins to violate policy because they are admins. It looks to me like it is a group of longtime and active contributors who are using some IAR leeway to have a little fun. The leeway is extended to them because I'm pretty sure pissing them off and having them leave would do a whole lot more damage than allowing a few subpages (using up how much space and bandwidth again?) to continue to exist. The issue of the domain name is a red herring - it has no practical effect on Wikipedia at all. It doesn't draw in outside users, it doesn't cost Wikimedia anything, it doesn't allow them any access they wouldn't otherwise have. Its basically the same as a tinyurl address or favorites link.
If they leave because a userspace page, which was not promoting collaboration on wikipedia articles, was deleted then they were *not valuable* to the encyclopedia. Its not like the encylopedia would be practically affected by a deletion of a social networking user page. It could however be affected if others figure out that admins aren't consistent and chuck a fuss because their Userspace pages were deleted for the same reason that page was kept in a shortened discussion.
When it becomes a focal point for their activity, a distraction for other users or a source of disruption I will of course join you in voting delete in an MfD.
Too soon for another MfD, you would just get the creators of the page voting Keep again and possibly pulling in loyalty votes as such. Maybe once discussion had died down here it would be reasonable to try again.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 29, 2008 10:45 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
bathrobecabal.org is not even in the same ballpark as the airline example. In fact, comparing them at all is quite frankly moronic.
Thank you for your kind words.
The .org was bought *after* the creation of the Wikipedia url, and it's
The airline redirected the URL to a long pre-existing article. They thought it was their pre-existing webpage. (After all, it was all about them! :) )
maintained by a devoted Wikipedian who didn't want others subverting a url that applied to their self-categorization. It's not even group that does anything as a unit, it's actually a joke about taking a picure of yourself wearing a bathrobe.
...which has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia.
By 'maintained by a devoted Wikipedian' do you mean 'kept in a protected state to inhibit editing by others'?
So, as far as you're concerned I can setup some joke page entirely unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Redirect a domain name to it. Use CSS hacks to overwrite the user interface. .. and keep it protected to prevent unapproved people from modifying my website. Did I get that right?
If not, please spell it out for me, because that sounds like what you're claiming.
On 30/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
By 'maintained by a devoted Wikipedian' do you mean 'kept in a protected state to inhibit editing by others'?
I have unprotected this page. Hopefully it will not be reprotected without a bloody good reason.
I didn't know it was protected - that is probably taking it a bit too far.
Nathan
On Jan 30, 2008 9:13 AM, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 30/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
By 'maintained by a devoted Wikipedian' do you mean 'kept in a protected state to inhibit editing by others'?
I have unprotected this page. Hopefully it will not be reprotected without a bloody good reason.
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Peter Ansell wrote:
If they leave because a userspace page, which was not promoting collaboration on wikipedia articles, was deleted then they were *not valuable* to the encyclopedia.
That seems like an extremely petty criterion of "value." Have you checked the contributions lists of the Bathrobe Cabal members? If all they do is work on the Bathrobe Cabal page, sure, no big loss. But considering they have to run the gauntlet of RfA to join the Bathrobe Cabal that seems unlikely. Almost by definition they've had to contribute a lot of valuable work to Wikipedia to get there.
It could however be affected if others figure out that admins aren't consistent and chuck a fuss because their Userspace pages were deleted for the same reason that page was kept in a shortened discussion.
We could leave all harmless user subpages like this one alone, admin-created or not. That would be a consistent approach.
So, as far as you're concerned I can setup some joke page entirely unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Redirect a domain name to it. Use CSS hacks to overwrite the user interface. .. and keep it protected to prevent unapproved people from modifying my website. Did I get that right?
First off, I didn't know it was protected. That is inappropriate, and makes no sense.
But the Bathrobe Cabal isn't just a joke page. It's a humorous page that is a community building tool for admins and a resource for non-admins to find help from a friendly and knowledgeable set of sysops, which is far useful than a lot of the off-topic userpage stuff that gets let alone. I do not understand that logic of attacking an obviously useful page just because someone has bought and redirected an outside domain to it. It's more than just "no harm done". There is a palpable benefit to the page.
On Jan 30, 2008 11:36 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
If they leave because a userspace page, which was not promoting collaboration on wikipedia articles, was deleted then they were *not valuable* to the encyclopedia.
That seems like an extremely petty criterion of "value." Have you checked the contributions lists of the Bathrobe Cabal members? If all they do is work on the Bathrobe Cabal page, sure, no big loss. But considering they have to run the gauntlet of RfA to join the Bathrobe Cabal that seems unlikely. Almost by definition they've had to contribute a lot of valuable work to Wikipedia to get there.
It could however be affected if others figure out that admins aren't consistent and chuck a fuss because their Userspace pages were deleted for the same reason that page was kept in a shortened discussion.
We could leave all harmless user subpages like this one alone, admin-created or not. That would be a consistent approach.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think any joke about a cabal is a disaster, and an example of trying to inappropriate defuse what is a serious concern. This is all the more true when the people involved are important enough to be part of a real cabal if there were one. Come to think of it, I haven't seen any low-status editors making jokes about cabals. i wonder why.
On Jan 30, 2008 3:13 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
So, as far as you're concerned I can setup some joke page entirely unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Redirect a domain name to it. Use CSS hacks to overwrite the user interface. .. and keep it protected to prevent unapproved people from modifying my website. Did I get that right?
First off, I didn't know it was protected. That is inappropriate, and makes no sense.
But the Bathrobe Cabal isn't just a joke page. It's a humorous page that is a community building tool for admins and a resource for non-admins to find help from a friendly and knowledgeable set of sysops, which is far useful than a lot of the off-topic userpage stuff that gets let alone. I do not understand that logic of attacking an obviously useful page just because someone has bought and redirected an outside domain to it. It's more than just "no harm done". There is a palpable benefit to the page.
On Jan 30, 2008 11:36 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
If they leave because a userspace page, which was not promoting collaboration on wikipedia articles, was deleted then they were *not valuable* to the encyclopedia.
That seems like an extremely petty criterion of "value." Have you checked the contributions lists of the Bathrobe Cabal members? If all they do is work on the Bathrobe Cabal page, sure, no big loss. But considering they have to run the gauntlet of RfA to join the Bathrobe Cabal that seems unlikely. Almost by definition they've had to contribute a lot of valuable work to Wikipedia to get there.
It could however be affected if others figure out that admins aren't consistent and chuck a fuss because their Userspace pages were deleted for the same reason that page was kept in a shortened discussion.
We could leave all harmless user subpages like this one alone, admin-created or not. That would be a consistent approach.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
haven't seen any low-status editors making jokes about cabals. i wonder why.
how would you define "low status" Non-admins? I don't think heirarchy on the wiki is that concrete. I'm not an admin or "high status", and I find the Cabal humor page uplifting. It defuses my urge to assume bad faith.
On Jan 30, 2008 2:41 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I think any joke about a cabal is a disaster, and an example of trying to inappropriate defuse what is a serious concern. This is all the more true when the people involved are important enough to be part of a real cabal if there were one. Come to think of it, I haven't seen any low-status editors making jokes about cabals. i wonder why.
On Jan 30, 2008 3:13 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
So, as far as you're concerned I can setup some joke page entirely unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Redirect a domain name to it. Use CSS hacks to overwrite the user interface. .. and keep it protected to prevent unapproved people from modifying my website. Did I get that right?
First off, I didn't know it was protected. That is inappropriate, and makes no sense.
But the Bathrobe Cabal isn't just a joke page. It's a humorous page that is a community building tool for admins and a resource for non-admins to
find
help from a friendly and knowledgeable set of sysops, which is far
useful
than a lot of the off-topic userpage stuff that gets let alone. I do not understand that logic of attacking an obviously useful page just because someone has bought and redirected an outside domain to it. It's more
than
just "no harm done". There is a palpable benefit to the page.
On Jan 30, 2008 11:36 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
If they leave because a userspace page, which was not promoting collaboration on wikipedia articles, was deleted then they were *not valuable* to the encyclopedia.
That seems like an extremely petty criterion of "value." Have you checked the contributions lists of the Bathrobe Cabal members? If all they do is work on the Bathrobe Cabal page, sure, no big loss. But considering they have to run the gauntlet of RfA to join the Bathrobe Cabal that seems unlikely. Almost by definition they've had to contribute a lot of valuable work to Wikipedia to get there.
It could however be affected if others figure out that admins aren't consistent and chuck a fuss because their Userspace pages were
deleted
for the same reason that page was kept in a shortened discussion.
We could leave all harmless user subpages like this one alone, admin-created or not. That would be a consistent approach.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've made jokes about cabals, and I'm a low status editor.
On Jan 30, 2008 5:41 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I think any joke about a cabal is a disaster, and an example of trying to inappropriate defuse what is a serious concern. This is all the more true when the people involved are important enough to be part of a real cabal if there were one. Come to think of it, I haven't seen any low-status editors making jokes about cabals. i wonder why.
On Jan 30, 2008 3:13 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
So, as far as you're concerned I can setup some joke page entirely unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Redirect a domain name to it. Use CSS hacks to overwrite the user interface. .. and keep it protected to prevent unapproved people from modifying my website. Did I get that right?
First off, I didn't know it was protected. That is inappropriate, and makes no sense.
But the Bathrobe Cabal isn't just a joke page. It's a humorous page that is a community building tool for admins and a resource for non-admins to find help from a friendly and knowledgeable set of sysops, which is far useful than a lot of the off-topic userpage stuff that gets let alone. I do not understand that logic of attacking an obviously useful page just because someone has bought and redirected an outside domain to it. It's more than just "no harm done". There is a palpable benefit to the page.
On Jan 30, 2008 11:36 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
If they leave because a userspace page, which was not promoting collaboration on wikipedia articles, was deleted then they were *not valuable* to the encyclopedia.
That seems like an extremely petty criterion of "value." Have you checked the contributions lists of the Bathrobe Cabal members? If all they do is work on the Bathrobe Cabal page, sure, no big loss. But considering they have to run the gauntlet of RfA to join the Bathrobe Cabal that seems unlikely. Almost by definition they've had to contribute a lot of valuable work to Wikipedia to get there.
It could however be affected if others figure out that admins aren't consistent and chuck a fuss because their Userspace pages were deleted for the same reason that page was kept in a shortened discussion.
We could leave all harmless user subpages like this one alone, admin-created or not. That would be a consistent approach.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I seem not =to have had an adequate sample.
On Jan 30, 2008 5:46 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I've made jokes about cabals, and I'm a low status editor.
On Jan 30, 2008 5:41 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I think any joke about a cabal is a disaster, and an example of trying
to
inappropriate defuse what is a serious concern. This is all the more
true
when the people involved are important enough to be part of a real cabal
if
there were one. Come to think of it, I haven't seen any low-status
editors
making jokes about cabals. i wonder why.
On Jan 30, 2008 3:13 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
So, as far as you're concerned I can setup some joke page entirely unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Redirect a domain name to it. Use CSS hacks to overwrite the user interface. .. and keep it protected to prevent unapproved people from modifying my website. Did I get that right?
First off, I didn't know it was protected. That is inappropriate, and makes no sense.
But the Bathrobe Cabal isn't just a joke page. It's a humorous page
that
is a community building tool for admins and a resource for non-admins to
find
help from a friendly and knowledgeable set of sysops, which is far
useful
than a lot of the off-topic userpage stuff that gets let alone. I do
not
understand that logic of attacking an obviously useful page just
because
someone has bought and redirected an outside domain to it. It's more
than
just "no harm done". There is a palpable benefit to the page.
On Jan 30, 2008 11:36 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
If they leave because a userspace page, which was not promoting collaboration on wikipedia articles, was deleted then they were
*not
valuable* to the encyclopedia.
That seems like an extremely petty criterion of "value." Have you checked the contributions lists of the Bathrobe Cabal members? If
all
they do is work on the Bathrobe Cabal page, sure, no big loss. But considering they have to run the gauntlet of RfA to join the
Bathrobe
Cabal that seems unlikely. Almost by definition they've had to contribute a lot of valuable work to Wikipedia to get there.
It could however be affected if others figure out that admins
aren't
consistent and chuck a fuss because their Userspace pages were
deleted
for the same reason that page was kept in a shortened discussion.
We could leave all harmless user subpages like this one alone, admin-created or not. That would be a consistent approach.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steven Walling wrote:
So, as far as you're concerned I can setup some joke page entirely unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Redirect a domain name to it. Use CSS hacks to overwrite the user interface. .. and keep it protected to prevent unapproved people from modifying my website. Did I get that right?
What CSS hacks? It looks like a perfectly ordinary Wikipedia page to me, complete with all components of the standard user interface. I do notice now that the text "Welcome to the Jungle!" has been inserted above the horizontal rule at the top of the page, in a spot that's normally blank on other pages, but this hardly seems like a reason to freak out.
I oppose protection unless there's a good and ongoing reason, as a general rule. But that's been taken care of too.
So yeah, I really don't see what the problem is.
Steven Walling wrote:
So, as far as you're concerned I can setup some joke page entirely unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Redirect a domain name to it. Use CSS hacks to overwrite the user interface. .. and keep it protected to prevent unapproved people from modifying my website. Did I get that right?
What CSS hacks? It looks like a perfectly ordinary Wikipedia page to me, complete with all components of the standard user interface. I do notice now that the text "Welcome to the Jungle!" has been inserted above the horizontal rule at the top of the page, in a spot that's normally blank on other pages, but this hardly seems like a reason to freak out.
I oppose protection unless there's a good and ongoing reason, as a general rule. But that's been taken care of too.
So yeah, I really don't see what the problem is.
I didn't write that, I responded to it.
On Jan 30, 2008 3:20 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
So, as far as you're concerned I can setup some joke page entirely unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Redirect a domain name to it. Use CSS hacks to overwrite the user interface. .. and keep it protected to prevent unapproved people from modifying my website. Did I get that right?
What CSS hacks? It looks like a perfectly ordinary Wikipedia page to me, complete with all components of the standard user interface. I do notice now that the text "Welcome to the Jungle!" has been inserted above the horizontal rule at the top of the page, in a spot that's normally blank on other pages, but this hardly seems like a reason to freak out.
I oppose protection unless there's a good and ongoing reason, as a general rule. But that's been taken care of too.
So yeah, I really don't see what the problem is.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 30, 2008 6:20 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What CSS hacks? It looks like a perfectly ordinary Wikipedia page to me, complete with all components of the standard user interface. I do notice now that the text "Welcome to the Jungle!" has been inserted above the horizontal rule at the top of the page, in a spot that's normally blank on other pages, but this hardly seems like a reason to freak out.
The actual page name [[User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal]] has been intentionally obscured and the text www.bathrobecabal.org made to look like the actual title.
Chris Howie wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 6:20 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What CSS hacks? It looks like a perfectly ordinary Wikipedia page to me, complete with all components of the standard user interface. I do notice now that the text "Welcome to the Jungle!" has been inserted above the horizontal rule at the top of the page, in a spot that's normally blank on other pages, but this hardly seems like a reason to freak out.
The actual page name [[User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal]] has been intentionally obscured and the text www.bathrobecabal.org made to look like the actual title.
Oh, okay, I see that it's obscured when I switch to the Monobook skin. They didn't do that very robustly, I prefer the Classic skin and it looked normal in that. Yeah, the title should be un-obscured. I'll fix it.
Appears the redirect from the mailing list has been disabled anyway. Not really necessary, in my opinion, but apparently they decided to react to complaints anyway. Sounds like conduct we might expect of productive and dedicated administrators - which is just the reason they should be allowed to keep it the way they had it.
On Jan 30, 2008 6:39 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Chris Howie wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 6:20 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What CSS hacks? It looks like a perfectly ordinary Wikipedia page to me, complete with all components of the standard user interface. I do notice now that the text "Welcome to the Jungle!" has been inserted above the horizontal rule at the top of the page, in a spot that's normally blank on other pages, but this hardly seems like a reason to freak out.
The actual page name [[User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal]] has been intentionally obscured and the text www.bathrobecabal.org made to look like the actual title.
Oh, okay, I see that it's obscured when I switch to the Monobook skin. They didn't do that very robustly, I prefer the Classic skin and it looked normal in that. Yeah, the title should be un-obscured. I'll fix it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
(Redirect from the mailing list? Huh) The redirect from www.bathrobecabal.org to the user page appears to have been disabled, in case anyone else experienced the "Wtf?" moment that I did when I reread what I wrote.
Nathan wrote:
(Redirect from the mailing list? Huh) The redirect from www.bathrobecabal.org to the user page appears to have been disabled, in case anyone else experienced the "Wtf?" moment that I did when I reread what I wrote.
It seems I was actually the first person to go to the talk page in question and point out to the bathrobe people that this subject was being discussed. That should probably have been the _first_ thing to be done, the assumptions of bad faith would have been disposed of straightaway.
On 31/01/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Nathan wrote:
(Redirect from the mailing list? Huh) The redirect from www.bathrobecabal.org to the user page appears to have been disabled, in case anyone else experienced the "Wtf?" moment that I did when I reread what I wrote.
It seems I was actually the first person to go to the talk page in question and point out to the bathrobe people that this subject was being discussed. That should probably have been the _first_ thing to be done, the assumptions of bad faith would have been disposed of straightaway.
In hindsight that would have been good. I had assumed that if they thought it necessary to protect the page they were pretty determined to keep it as was, but still should have commented to them about it.
Peter
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 31/01/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Nathan wrote:
(Redirect from the mailing list? Huh) The redirect from www.bathrobecabal.org to the user page appears to have been disabled, in case anyone else experienced the "Wtf?" moment that I did when I reread what I wrote.
It seems I was actually the first person to go to the talk page in question and point out to the bathrobe people that this subject was being discussed. That should probably have been the _first_ thing to be done, the assumptions of bad faith would have been disposed of straightaway.
In hindsight that would have been good. I had assumed that if they thought it necessary to protect the page they were pretty determined to keep it as was, but still should have commented to them about it.
The page is protected again last I checked, but rather than wheel war over it it'd probably be best to discuss the matter on-wiki and then if that fails take it to [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]] to get a fresh outside view on the matter.
In my own personal opinion the protection isn't that big a deal either, even though I'm opposed in principle. Might as well let it slide until the bad blood dies down.
On 29/01/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here.
Why is this statement being debated on-wiki when it was totally ignored here? Two days and it didn't receive a comment and then in the last few hours I get a huge spate of angry comments on my user page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Any comments from the participators here about it?
Peter
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 29/01/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here.
Why is this statement being debated on-wiki when it was totally ignored here? Two days and it didn't receive a comment and then in the last few hours I get a huge spate of angry comments on my user page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Any comments from the participators here about it?
As you noted at the time, it was irrelevant to the subject at hand. Ignoring it completely was probably the best response to hope for.
Regardless of my own position on this, it seems a number of people felt the domain redirect wasn't entirely appropriate, and I applaud the reasonable compromise on the part of the maintainers who removed it.
On Jan 30, 2008 10:38 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Any comments from the participators here about it?
I personally felt it was inappropriate, but didn't think I should draw attention to it.
Now that we're soliciting comments, I would say that the concern itself is legitimate but should probably be divorced from anything that could be taken as a personal jab -- removing or rephrasing the second sentence ("utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that") would probably remove the potential for gut emotional offense. People could still read into it, but they'd have to try harder. I think you can safely apologize for the unintended offense without suddenly reversing your overall position on pictures of children, if you're in a mood to do so.
In retrospect, I agree we would have done well to notify the people under discussion; I was remiss not to make sure this had been done.
-Luna
On 31/01/2008, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of my own position on this, it seems a number of people felt the domain redirect wasn't entirely appropriate, and I applaud the reasonable compromise on the part of the maintainers who removed it.
On Jan 30, 2008 10:38 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Any comments from the participators here about it?
I personally felt it was inappropriate, but didn't think I should draw attention to it.
Now that we're soliciting comments, I would say that the concern itself is legitimate but should probably be divorced from anything that could be taken as a personal jab -- removing or rephrasing the second sentence ("utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that") would probably remove the potential for gut emotional offense. People could still read into it, but they'd have to try harder. I think you can safely apologize for the unintended offense without suddenly reversing your overall position on pictures of children, if you're in a mood to do so.
In retrospect, I agree we would have done well to notify the people under discussion; I was remiss not to make sure this had been done.
I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net. I am passionate about keeping all possible avenues for exploiting children closed. It is illegal to post pictures of someone elses child on the net in Australia, and I naturally assumed that they saw the risks I guess, mostly because of the emphasis on bathrobes I think.
I would appreciate even simple comments about how badly things could be taken, as I had not noticed the veracity of the statement until I was brought back to it again. The crux of the statement shouldn't be attacked though even if I expressed it in a bad way.
Peter
Peter Ansell wrote:
I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
Laura made a good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
I am passionate about keeping all possible avenues for exploiting children closed. It is illegal to post pictures of someone elses child on the net in Australia, and I naturally assumed that they saw the risks I guess, mostly because of the emphasis on bathrobes I think.
Wikimedia falls under a different jurisdiction, fortunately, or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Children would be a lot more sparsely populated. And those photos are of their own kids so that law wouldn't apply here anyway.
I would appreciate even simple comments about how badly things could be taken, as I had not noticed the veracity of the statement until I was brought back to it again. The crux of the statement shouldn't be attacked though even if I expressed it in a bad way.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
On 31/01/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
Laura made a good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
If the pictures were never posted to a public place then there would be zero risk of them being vandalised by a paedophile. That was the real issue. Is a child not worth zero risk? From the sounds of the posts it seems like the complaint was about her and not the child. Wikipedia editors should understand the GFDL as a prerequisite though, including the revocation of any right to sue a person who modifies a photo in any way as long as they attribute its authors correctly.
I am passionate about keeping all possible avenues for exploiting children closed. It is illegal to post pictures of someone elses child on the net in Australia, and I naturally assumed that they saw the risks I guess, mostly because of the emphasis on bathrobes I think.
Wikimedia falls under a different jurisdiction, fortunately, or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Children would be a lot more sparsely populated. And those photos are of their own kids so that law wouldn't apply here anyway.
Still, given the wikipedia review topic about the recent issue with commons having a "Category:Lolita" and the vandalism of scout photos, there is an issue. Its a shame that freedom of speech outweighs child safety in Florida, US.
I would appreciate even simple comments about how badly things could be taken, as I had not noticed the veracity of the statement until I was brought back to it again. The crux of the statement shouldn't be attacked though even if I expressed it in a bad way.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
It is a completely different culture in which people both get annoyed quickly and try to make scandals out of a few words, and in which parents are ultra-sensitive about their parenting styles. Thats the Australian part I was trying to get at. If someone here had thought to tell me that it could be offensive then I would have retracted the comment then and there. Now that I have thought about it I think the point of the comment, child safety considerations, is relevant still. If Florida doesn't give a stuff then I hope Wikipedia has a conscience to care outside of what is explicitly needed by law.
Peter
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 31/01/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
Laura made a good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
If the pictures were never posted to a public place then there would be zero risk of them being vandalised by a paedophile. That was the real issue.
No, it's not. Look at the title of this thread again. This is increasingly farther afield off down an irrelevant tangent that was quite properly ignored when you first tried to take us here.
Wikipedia editors should understand the GFDL as a prerequisite though, including the revocation of any right to sue a person who modifies a photo in any way as long as they attribute its authors correctly.
I'm no lawyer, but I've just read through the relevant sections of the GFDL (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) and I don't see anything that could be interpreted that way. The licence only deals with legalities regarding copyright, it doesn't remove liabilities relating to any other law breaking that occurs in the process (and I don't imagine it'd be _able_ to). If someone were to use a GFDLed document to commit libel, for example, I don't see how one could claim that one couldn't sue for libel.
Still, given the wikipedia review topic about the recent issue with commons having a "Category:Lolita" and the vandalism of scout photos, there is an issue. Its a shame that freedom of speech outweighs child safety in Florida, US.
We're not talking about child safety. We're talking about the safety of _photographs_ of children.
No, we're talking about web hosting and redirects. Never mind.
On 01/02/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
If the pictures were never posted to a public place then there would be zero risk of them being vandalised by a paedophile. That was the real issue.
No, it's not. Look at the title of this thread again. This is increasingly farther afield off down an irrelevant tangent that was quite properly ignored when you first tried to take us here.
It is almost a coincidence that this thread still has the old subject header, sorry for not correcting that. I *didn't* first try to take the thread there, it was a clear aside comment which was purposefully not trying to take the thread there!
Wikipedia editors should understand the GFDL as a prerequisite though, including the revocation of any right to sue a person who modifies a photo in any way as long as they attribute its authors correctly.
I'm no lawyer, but I've just read through the relevant sections of the GFDL (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) and I don't see anything that could be interpreted that way. The licence only deals with legalities regarding copyright, it doesn't remove liabilities relating to any other law breaking that occurs in the process (and I don't imagine it'd be _able_ to). If someone were to use a GFDLed document to commit libel, for example, I don't see how one could claim that one couldn't sue for libel.
If someone releases text under the computer-program-documentation-focused-GFDL then they had better know what they are doing because there are a lot of complicated provisions that must be adhered to. If it is not illegal to modify photographs in the US then they are not lawfully doing anything wrong.
Still, given the wikipedia review topic about the recent issue with commons having a "Category:Lolita" and the vandalism of scout photos, there is an issue. Its a shame that freedom of speech outweighs child safety in Florida, US.
We're not talking about child safety. We're talking about the safety of _photographs_ of children.
There is no difference between the safety of children and the safety of the photographs. Otherwise a paedophile could use this defence for swapping images that they did not take.
No, we're talking about web hosting and redirects. Never mind.
We were talking about that... I brought the issue of the angry AN/I posting about me up again here as a basically separate thread. It just had the same subject header for ease of reference back to the disputed statement.
Peter
Explain to me how putting my kid's images on the internet is irresponsible? Exactly what do you see happening? I have submitted both my kids photos for magazines, which would publish their photos for national exposure... how are their images on a joke page on an encyclopedia making me irresponsible? This better be good.
Lara
On 31/01/2008, LaraLove laralove@bathrobecabal.org wrote:
Explain to me how putting my kid's images on the internet is irresponsible? Exactly what do you see happening? I have submitted both my kids photos for magazines, which would publish their photos for national exposure... how are their images on a joke page on an encyclopedia making me irresponsible? This better be good.
Lara
You must have missed this in your hurry to get me assassinated at AN/I .
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15438
Peter Ansell
I know you keep mentioning that it shouldn't be a problem because no one here pointed it out - I noticed it, didn't think it was appropriate, and didn't comment because it seemed better just to ignore it completely. That said, I don't know that it is really a subject for AN/I to discuss.
Nathan
On Jan 31, 2008 6:43 AM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/01/2008, LaraLove laralove@bathrobecabal.org wrote:
Explain to me how putting my kid's images on the internet is irresponsible? Exactly what do you see happening? I have submitted both my kids photos for magazines, which would publish their photos for national exposure... how are their images on a joke page on an encyclopedia making me irresponsible? This better be good.
Lara
You must have missed this in your hurry to get me assassinated at AN/I .
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15438
Peter Ansell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 31, 2008 7:48 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I know you keep mentioning that it shouldn't be a problem because no one here pointed it out - I noticed it, didn't think it was appropriate, and didn't comment because it seemed better just to ignore it completely. That said, I don't know that it is really a subject for AN/I to discuss.
Completely seconded. My first thought when I read Peter's comment was, "Hey, that sounds ridiculous. No point blowing up about it, though - it's not exactly earthshaking that someone else has a completely different opinion from my own." The ANI clusterfuck was completely pointless.
In other news, if we're going to continue on this subject on the mailing list, some restraint with regard to personal attacks/assumptions of bad faith would be nice. Explicit accusations of character assassination, if continued without more than vague evidence will probably be grounds for moderation.
Johnleemk
Reckon the AN/I is done an' dusted - for our friends who read AN/I in different time zones here is a tinyurl to that days AN/I * http://tinyurl.com/32ym5a .* The boy did bad - making external links to wikipedia isn't bad, it's shorthand and funny - Moms and Dads who are aware and nuturing new wikikids (mmmmm admin at 9yr might be a problem in my cabal book) probably isn't a problem. (Unless they get a new cabal). Dunno its funny and I certainly can't see why any shorthand URL to a user page can't be fully protected.
Please let it finish on a cool note ;-)
On 01/02/2008, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008 7:48 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I know you keep mentioning that it shouldn't be a problem because no one here pointed it out - I noticed it, didn't think it was appropriate, and didn't comment because it seemed better just to ignore it completely. That said, I don't know that it is really a subject for AN/I to discuss.
Completely seconded. My first thought when I read Peter's comment was, "Hey, that sounds ridiculous. No point blowing up about it, though - it's not exactly earthshaking that someone else has a completely different opinion from my own." The ANI clusterfuck was completely pointless.
I would have retracted the comment straight away if I thought it would offend a specific person, but everyone thought the same thing I guess and didn't want to provoke further discussion about it. Oh well.
In other news, if we're going to continue on this subject on the mailing list, some restraint with regard to personal attacks/assumptions of bad faith would be nice. Explicit accusations of character assassination, if continued without more than vague evidence will probably be grounds for moderation.
Sorry, I am prone to rash statements such as that and the original statement that caused this fiasco. The character assasination reference basically comes from their lack of restraint in not asking me first (and waiting for a response) before telling the community what a bad person I have been.
Won't happen again.
Peter
On 29/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Some time ago I ran into a case where a small airline managed to purchase a domain name with redirection service, pointed it to the Wikipedia article about them, and then later angrily contacted the foundation enraged that we were 'hacking' their website simply because users were editing the article normally.
I didn't think that I'd run into another one as weird as that, but I think this comes close:
If admins are allowed to hide parts of the wikipedia interface why do they stop others doing it on their own pages?
Peter Ansell
Whats being hidden?
On Jan 28, 2008 5:55 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Some time ago I ran into a case where a small airline managed to purchase a domain name with redirection service, pointed it to the Wikipedia article about them, and then later angrily contacted the foundation enraged that we were 'hacking' their website simply because users were editing the article normally.
I didn't think that I'd run into another one as weird as that, but I think this comes close:
If admins are allowed to hide parts of the wikipedia interface why do they stop others doing it on their own pages?
Peter Ansell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l