How about a more natural approach to the function of the AfD? Many sites, including Netflix.com, allow users to rate the articles of other users, or at least click on whether or not these articles are helpful. At Netflix, this determines placement of the review, with the top placed review becoming the default. Alternate reviews are easily retrievable and could be promoted to the top place if people find them more useful for that subject.
At Wikipedia, we could add a stipulation that if most people find the entire subject of the article not useful, it would be placed on a deletion short-list. Items on the short-list would automatically be removed to a compressed archive if they ever go more than thirty days without being accessed. The system could also automatically add any article to the short-list that goes more than six months would being accessed.
The only significant source of contention at Wikipedia is when people try to unduly influence articles. Yet, it is possible to create a system where unduly influencing articles cannot be achieved. Many sites have done this on a small basis. We can get rid of administrators and do it on a large basis here if we are willing to let our influence be based on the quality of our edits and not on the friends we know in high places.
Zephram Stark zephramstark@yahoo.com 432-224-6991
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" dpbsmith@verizon.net Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 6:03 PM
From: Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com
is there a point in Wikipedia's size where it's current growth will taper off or stop? I don't mean to repeat the old chestnut that knowledge is somehow finite: put in different words, is there a certain point where contributors will find it far easier to work on existing articles than to contribute new ones?
Oddly enough, I wonder about the exact opposite. I fear that people enjoy creating new articles far more than they enjoy editing existing articles, and that people look desperately for topics that do not exist yet so that they can be the first to create them. The Wikipedian equivalent of the Slashdot FIRST POST!!!!
This means that over time a greater proportion of newly created articles will reflect an artificial attempt to find a topic that hasn't been "taken," and a smaller proportion will be reflect a genuine attempt to serve potential readers.
I do not think its growth will stop. The problem is, will the quality of the articles hold up? There's no obvious reason why it shouldn't, and no obvious reason why it should.
One reason why it _might_ not hold up is that when Wikipedia was less famous, contributing to it required a greater interest in the project and a greater commitment to the project's ideals. As it becomes more and more familiar, it is possible that we will see an increasing proportion of new "articles" that are really paragraph-long newbie tests.
To tell the truth, I think many of the "articles" that land on AfD are best not regarded as articles at all, but as elaborate newbie tests OR as badly executed article requests. I'm thinking of substubs that convey no information at all except the fact that someone either a) genuinely wanted an article on that topic, or b) simply wanted to experience the pleasure of creating an article.
I've been casting "votes" recently in AfD that say "delete, and enter a request for the article." So far, nobody but me seems to think this is a good idea.
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: Zephram Stark zephramstark@yahoo.com
The only significant source of contention at Wikipedia is when people try to unduly influence articles.
Exactly.
Yet, it is possible to create a system where unduly influencing articles cannot be achieved.
But how can this benefit you? If such a system actually worked, you'd be completely unable to edit. Oh wait, we must already have such a system, because you are effectively unable to edit now.
if we are willing to let our influence be based on the quality of our edits
We are; that's why you have absolutely no influence.
Jay.
On 9/21/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Zephram Stark zephramstark@yahoo.com
The only significant source of contention at Wikipedia is when people try to unduly influence articles.
Exactly.
Yet, it is possible to create a system where unduly influencing articles cannot be achieved.
But how can this benefit you? If such a system actually worked, you'd be completely unable to edit. Oh wait, we must already have such a system, because you are effectively unable to edit now.
if we are willing to let our influence be based on the quality of our edits
We are; that's why you have absolutely no influence.
Jay.
Even if everything you've written is correct, there's no need to be so antagonistic with someone who is already blocked. This reads as a petty stab at someone who's already ostracized from the Wiki. Admins and arbitrators should rise above such behavior, even when it tests their patience.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 9/21/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Even if everything you've written is correct, there's no need to be so antagonistic with someone who is already blocked. This reads as a petty stab at someone who's already ostracized from the Wiki. Admins and arbitrators should rise above such behavior, even when it tests their patience.
He's not blocked.
Jay.
On 9/21/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
He's not blocked.
Then my point is even more important; this isn't some obscure Usenet group we're communicating on. This is the official mailing list of the "flagship project" of a well respected worldwide community with scholarly goals. More courtesy for other editors is warranted.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 9/21/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/21/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
He's not blocked.
Then my point is even more important; this isn't some obscure Usenet group we're communicating on. This is the official mailing list of the "flagship project" of a well respected worldwide community with scholarly goals. More courtesy for other editors is warranted.
Before you decide that more courtesy for Zephram is warranted, please be aware that this is the user who blanked his talk page with the edit summary, "*This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had possibilities before all you fucking Jews came along. The funny thing is, I never had anything against you before this. Now I see what people mean.*" In general, I completely agree with your comment. For Zephram, It's well past the time for assuming good faith or extending courtesy. Carbonite
On 9/21/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/21/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Then my point is even more important; this isn't some obscure Usenet group we're communicating on. This is the official mailing list of the "flagship project" of a well respected worldwide community with scholarly goals. More courtesy for other editors is warranted.
Before you decide that more courtesy for Zephram is warranted, please be aware that this is the user who blanked his talk page with the edit summary, "This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had possibilities before all you fucking Jews came along. The funny thing is, I never had anything against you before this. Now I see what people mean. " In general, I completely agree with your comment. For Zephram, It's well past the time for assuming good faith or extending courtesy.
Carbonite
This is EXACTLY what I meant by "Admins and arbitrators should rise above such behavior, even when it tests their patience."
Based on his message, we may want to make sure to review all of his edits, but that's no excuse to be discourteous to anyone. There is no "well past time" for courtesy. Even as we show someone the exit, we can still be courteous and polite. Even as we lock the door behind them, we can still be courteous and polite. Doing so improves Wikipedia and its image worldwide.
What possible good can come from being discourteous to an editor, especially one who is not blocked or banned?
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
Well, just judging by his comments on the list, I would have said that he was simply your normal average newbie wikian interested in the wiki internalz.
Now that I know that he said that, I now think that he's just plain evil, evil, evil!! (More evil even than those CIA who threw "suspected VC" out of flying helicopers.) All hope of social and spiritual redemption is lost for one who has in the past uttered such words of ethnism.
:-)
SV PS: Has he at least apologised by the way?
--- Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/21/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/21/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
He's not blocked.
Then my point is even more important; this isn't
some obscure Usenet
group we're communicating on. This is the official
mailing list of
the "flagship project" of a well respected
worldwide community with
scholarly goals. More courtesy for other editors
is warranted.
Before you decide that more courtesy for Zephram is warranted, please be aware that this is the user who blanked his talk page with the edit summary, "*This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had possibilities before all you fucking Jews came along. The funny thing is, I never had anything against you before this. Now I see what people mean.*" In general, I completely agree with your comment. For Zephram, It's well past the time for assuming good faith or extending courtesy. Carbonite _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
The below is at [[Image_talk:2UK_soldiers2.jpg]]. Im curious what the "public" thinks of the issue. ----
I have two questions on the public domain status of this image. On what basis is this said to be the work of an Iraqi government employee- it explicitly says "AFP" on the bottom right. Also, is the work of Iraqi government employees actually public domain- this is the situation with the U.S. government, but in most countries it is not.--Pharos 23:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The image was taken while the agents were in custody. No evidence or mention suggests that the photo was itself taken by afp, or any other copyright interested news agency. The photo has been published elsewhere on the web in an uncensored form, where there is no attribution to AFP. It is common practice for news agencies to claim source rights for images, even without modifications, as reproductions of photos which are in fact public domain. For these reasons I believe the photo is not the property of AFP, but instead is the work of an Iraqi police officer, taken in the conduct of official duties. -St|eve 23:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if it's originally from the AFP or not; it's quite possible it's from the Iraqi government, but there is no source for that. More important, there is no source saying Iraqi govenment photos are PD (in fact I don't think they are). BTW, if there is an "uncensored" version (presumably with the faces unblurred?), why shouldn't we have uploaded that one?--Pharos 23:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Why would they not be public domain? They dont even currently have an established system of patents and intellectual property. You're right--I will find a good uncensored version. -St|eve 23:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The intellectual property produced by most governments is not public domain- the U.S. is a real exception. I would guess they're probably operating under the old Saddam-era copyright system- the previous laws have not been repealed en masse, and most are still in operation. We can't just exclude Iraq from the international system of intellectual property and say that nothing produced by an Iraqi can be copyrighted.--Pharos 00:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Thats just speculation. We will have to do some research on Iraqi law. Maybe theres a lawyer we can reach through wikien. A second photo is at Image:2UK soldiers2.jpg, by the way. Still looking. -St|eve 00:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
It is speculation, but we must presume a photo is copyrighted unless there is actual evidence it is not. We can't speculate in the other direction. I'm looking into the copyright law now; I'm sure it would be useful to know and not just in this instance.--Pharos 00:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree, and to act within your bounds would be to completely submit to transitional and subjective interpretations of law which is equally transitional. There is a good case to make that the ip of nations in transition is in the PD, and not the copyright of any entity. -St|eve 16:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
* Here's a PDF [1] of a 2004 ammendment by Bremer to the 1971 law. I'm not sure if it may have been superceded since then by the Iraqi Interim Government or the Iraqi Transitional Government, but probably not. No special mention is made of government works, so we should presume they are copyrighted. Moreover, look at the official government website, which says "© 2004 Iraqi Transitional Government - All rights reserved." at the bottom.--Pharos 00:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I would be reluctant to assume that a decree by a corporate appointee to the leadership position of a colonial government should be considered the basis for any laws by which we must abide. Your suggestion of "probably not" may be true, but only by the most cynical of rationales. And the notion that a disclaimer on a government website should be an indicator of the entirety of ip law in an entire country is likewise flacid. -St|eve 16:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
steve v wrote:
The below is at [[Image_talk:2UK_soldiers2.jpg]]. Im curious what the "public" thinks of the issue.
I have two questions on the public domain status of this image. On what basis is this said to be the work of an Iraqi government employee- it explicitly says "AFP" on the bottom right. Also, is the work of Iraqi government employees actually public domain- this is the situation with the U.S. government, but in most countries it is not.--Pharos 23:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
One needs to approach such issues in the spirit of common sense. 1. I don't think that AFP should be recognized as a copyright holder, and that French law should be thus brought into the back door. I think that it is safe to say that the got the picture from someon else who would have a stronger claims to copyright. No evidence has been provided that this other person would have somehow transferred those rights to AFP.
2. Iraq did have a copyright law before it was invaded and occupied. That law was based on the old Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), and had never been updated to conform with the Berne Convention.
3. The US occupation forces purported to amend Iraqi copyright law to conform to the Berne Convention standards. It is not unusual for an occupying power to leave the laws of a hated regime in place when there is no need to change the specific law in question. It is also unclear whether the purported changes would apply to all of Iraq or only those parts of Iraq under US rather than other foreign occupation. Basra is under British occupation, and the US change should not apply there.
4. Inasmuch as the pre-existing Iraqi protection is weaker than the Berne Convention protection it should continue to be recognized, and only those parts of the changes which extend that law should be brought into question.
5. The policy of putting all government publications into the public domain is unique to the United States. For that to be applied in an occupied country the least that one would expect is that the US edict would include a specific mention of that change. Failing this, any question of whether it had the right to make the change becomes moot.
6. Although the presence of the servers in the United States implies that US copyright law will be prima facie applicable, it does not imply that it is the only applicable law. Some respect needs to be shown for the laws of other countries whether or not they have copyright relations with the United States.
7. If pre-occupation Iraqi law would provide protection for this photograph, it should be recognized for a period of at least 25 years after the date of first publication. There is ample time before we need to determine whether that period of time should be longer.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
- If pre-occupation Iraqi law would provide
protection for this photograph, it should be recognized for a period of at least 25 years after the date of first publication. There is ample time before we need to determine whether that period of time should be longer.
Really? This is interesting, because Saddam law might have ruled it illegal to drive tanks over his statues, and take pictures of him in his underwear. Current "law" in Iraq doesnt seem to hold those "rights" inviolate. Theres a similar issue with Nazi-era photographs, etc. Does Germany claim Deutchland™ for anything Fuhrer™?
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
steve v wrote:
Theres a similar issue with Nazi-era photographs, etc. Does Germany claim Deutchlandâ„¢ for anything Fuhrerâ„¢?
This is actually not that different a situation, surprisingly. The current Bavarian state government claims copyright on Hitler's _Mein Kampf_, and uses that authority to prevent reprintings within Germany, except in specifically authorized/edited/commented historical research editions. However, this copyright is not generally recognized outside Germany. (For example, Sweden's supreme court ruled that Bavaria's copyright claims were spurious because the modern state of Bavaria is not the same legal entity as the pre-WW2 one; see [[en:Mein Kampf]] for details.)
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
steve v wrote:
Theres a similar issue with Nazi-era photographs, etc. Does Germany claim Deutchlandâ„¢ for anything Fuhrerâ„¢?
This is actually not that different a situation, surprisingly. The current Bavarian state government claims copyright on Hitler's _Mein Kampf_, and uses that authority to prevent reprintings within Germany, except in specifically authorized/edited/commented historical research editions. However, this copyright is not generally recognized outside Germany. (For example, Sweden's supreme court ruled that Bavaria's copyright claims were spurious because the modern state of Bavaria is not the same legal entity as the pre-WW2 one; see [[en:Mein Kampf]] for details.)
I've heard of that case. It determined that the book was still copyright protected, but did not recognize Bavaria as the owner.
Ec
Again, because Bavaria doesnt have any nukes, we dont really have to listen to it's griping about what it owns and what it doesn't.
;) SV
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I've heard of that case. It determined that the book (Mein Kampf) was still copyright protected, but did not recognize Bavaria as the owner.
Ec
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Respect for the laws of others has nothing to do with who has nukes. This type of fatuous comment projects an image of Americans that would leave many American Wikipedians ashamed.
Ec
steve v wrote:
Again, because Bavaria doesnt have any nukes, we dont really have to listen to it's griping about what it owns and what it doesn't.
;) SV
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I've heard of that case. It determined that the book (Mein Kampf) was still copyright protected, but did not recognize Bavaria as the owner.
One thing that we can say with certainty. Wikipedia should not take risks on copyright. An unattributed, and therefore unlicensed, photograph of recent provenance should not normally be used. To assume public domain could be extremely dangerous.
steve v wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
- If pre-occupation Iraqi law would provide
protection for this photograph, it should be recognized for a period of at least 25 years after the date of first publication. There is ample time before we need to determine whether that period of time should be longer.
Really? This is interesting, because Saddam law might have ruled it illegal to drive tanks over his statues, and take pictures of him in his underwear. Current "law" in Iraq doesnt seem to hold those "rights" inviolate. Theres a similar issue with Nazi-era photographs, etc. Does Germany claim Deutchlandâ„¢ for anything Fuhrerâ„¢?
I don't know whether this is better characterized as irrational or incoherent. There is no suggestion that President Hussein was the personal copyright holder for the photograph. Your ramblings have nothing to do with copyright. It doesn't seem right to want to punish all the citixens of a country just because you don't like its former president.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't know whether this is better characterized as irrational or incoherent. There is no suggestion that President Hussein was the personal copyright holder for the photograph. Your ramblings have nothing to do with copyright. It doesn't seem right to want to punish all the citixens of a country just because you don't like its former president.
Well, whats not to like? Its odd that you raise the issue of "punishment" when I was simply alluding to a major discrepancy in your claimed notion of what Iraqi law actually is.
According to the current Coalition-instituted "Iraqi law," Coalition soldiers can shoot whomever they please and by law must be released from custody. An "irrational" argument would be to claim (as you do) that a military occupied country that has essentially instituted extremely low value thresholds for the protection of its own people, should somehow be regarded for its IP "rights." *That* seems rather irrational to me. In a case where no doubt the photographer might want to remain anonymous, and yet have their photograph published anyway (presumably just to 'get the word out').
If we really wanted to be nutty about IP law we could have taken down all the Abu Ghraib photos, as they were put up only on a prima fascia claim of public domain -- which assumed that the models/photographer's claim of "official duties" would stand in court. AIUI, according to military law rulings, those soldiers were not performing "official" duties. :) Would we need to go visit the photographers in prison to inquire if they want to release them under PD-GNU-CC?
SV "Do you have a model release for that photo?"
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:> 7. If pre-occupation Iraqi law would provide
protection for this photograph, it should be recognized for a period
of
at least 25 years after the date of first publication. There is
ample
time before we need to determine whether that period of time should be longer.
steve v wrote: Really? This is interesting, because Saddam law
might
have ruled it illegal to drive tanks over his
statues,
and take pictures of him in his underwear. Current "law" in Iraq doesnt seem to hold those "rights" inviolate. Theres a similar issue with Nazi-era photographs, etc. Does Germany claim Deutchland™
for
anything Fuhrer™?
I don't know whether this is better characterized as irrational or incoherent. There is no suggestion that President Hussein was the personal copyright holder for the photograph. Your ramblings have nothing to do with copyright. It doesn't seem right to want to punish all the citixens of a country just because you don't like its former president.
Ec
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 10/3/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
If we really wanted to be nutty about IP law we could have taken down all the Abu Ghraib photos, as they were put up only on a prima fascia claim of public domain -- which assumed that the models/photographer's claim of "official duties" would stand in court.
They probably weren't public domain. However there may be a strong public interest argument for displaying those photographs. I'm not sure whether it would be wise to have an official policy on that (it would almost certainly be abused) but it's a good thing to bear in mind when considering the appropriateness of important photographs from unknown sources.
The public interest argument might work better for wikinews. I'm not sure whether it would fly as well on the Wikipedia site. However Wikipedia has recently become noted for the speed and reliability of its coverage of current events, so it's obviously not in the same position that, say, Britannica might be if it carried Abu Ghraib photographs without permission.
I'm not a lawyer, so the above is purely speculative.
At least yours is a reasonable view, and not merely a ninnyish fear of being sued.
SV
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/3/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
If we really wanted to be nutty about IP law we
could
have taken down all the Abu Ghraib photos, as they were put up only on a prima fascia claim of public domain -- which assumed that the
models/photographer's
claim of "official duties" would stand in court.
They probably weren't public domain. However there may be a strong public interest argument for displaying those photographs. I'm not sure whether it would be wise to have an official policy on that (it would almost certainly be abused) but it's a good thing to bear in mind when considering the appropriateness of important photographs from unknown sources.
The public interest argument might work better for wikinews. I'm not sure whether it would fly as well on the Wikipedia site. However Wikipedia has recently become noted for the speed and reliability of its coverage of current events, so it's obviously not in the same position that, say, Britannica might be if it carried Abu Ghraib photographs without permission.
I'm not a lawyer, so the above is purely speculative. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
steve v wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't know whether this is better characterized as irrational or incoherent. There is no suggestion that President Hussein was the personal copyright holder for the photograph. Your ramblings have nothing to do with copyright. It doesn't seem right to want to punish all the citixens of a country just because you don't like its former president.
Well, whats not to like? Its odd that you raise the issue of "punishment" when I was simply alluding to a major discrepancy in your claimed notion of what Iraqi law actually is.
According to the current Coalition-instituted "Iraqi law," Coalition soldiers can shoot whomever they please and by law must be released from custody. An "irrational" argument would be to claim (as you do) that a military occupied country that has essentially instituted extremely low value thresholds for the protection of its own people, should somehow be regarded for its IP "rights." *That* seems rather irrational to me. In a case where no doubt the photographer might want to remain anonymous, and yet have their photograph published anyway (presumably just to 'get the word out').
Copyright law is what has a direct bearing on what we do as Wikipedians. I have no more facts about whether the photographer wanted to remain anonymous than you, but I prefer not to engage in speculation about it. In the absence of personal knowledge about an anonymous photographer how can you possibly justify having "no doubt".
What does the fact that you condone murder by occupation troops have to do with IP law? All I'm saying is that the military occupiers have no business imposing their IP values on the Iraqi people.
If we really wanted to be nutty about IP law we could have taken down all the Abu Ghraib photos, as they were put up only on a prima fascia claim of public domain -- which assumed that the models/photographer's claim of "official duties" would stand in court. AIUI, according to military law rulings, those soldiers were not performing "official" duties. :) Would we need to go visit the photographers in prison to inquire if they want to release them under PD-GNU-CC?
The Abu Ghraig photos were taken by Americans who, as individuals, have not established any permanent residence in Iraq, so American copyright law should be applicable.
"Do you have a model release for that photo?"
Releases from the "models" in the picture is not a matter of copyright law, but of the privacy of those people in the photos. Ec
If we really wanted to be nutty about IP law we could have taken down all the Abu Ghraib photos, as they were put up only on a prima fascia claim of public domain -- which assumed that the models/photographer's claim of "official duties" would stand in court. AIUI, according to military law rulings, those soldiers were not performing "official" duties. :) Would we need to go visit the photographers in prison to inquire if they want to release them under PD-GNU-CC?
I thought the doctrine of equitable estoppel prevented a party from making one claim in one court case and then making the opposite claim in another court case.
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Zephram Stark zephramstark@yahoo.com
The only significant source of contention at
Wikipedia is when people try
to unduly influence articles.
Exactly.
Yet, it is possible to create a system where unduly
influencing articles
cannot be achieved.
But how can this benefit you? If such a system actually worked, you'd be completely unable to edit. Oh wait, we must already have such a system, because you are effectively unable to edit now.
if we are willing to let our influence be based on
the quality of our edits
We are; that's why you have absolutely no influence.
Jay.
You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity when we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite, and as a valve to allow "decent wikipedians" (our clique) to trump "trolls, vandals" (undesirables, etc.).
To my mind there is less ambiguity when a recent appointee to WP:AC forgets to mind WP:DBAD.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com
To my mind there is less ambiguity when a recent appointee to WP:AC forgets to mind WP:DBAD.
SV
Steve, it would be interesting to see exactly how you react had you been subjected to the personal attacks, sockpuppetry, and trolling to which Zephram has subjected many others, but with a particular focus on me. You might find your equanimous mien slipping just the tiniest bit, particularly given the evidence of your own e-mail, which appears to be an unambiguous violation of WP:NPA, without any provocation whatsoever.
Jay.
I was simply commenting on how one particular leg of the "Trifecta" may naturally be more popular with egomaniacs than the other two.
SV
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com
To my mind there is less ambiguity when a recent appointee to WP:AC forgets to mind WP:DBAD.
SV
Steve, it would be interesting to see exactly how you react had you been subjected to the personal attacks, sockpuppetry, and trolling to which Zephram has subjected many others, but with a particular focus on me. You might find your equanimous mien slipping just the tiniest bit, particularly given the evidence of your own e-mail, which appears to be an unambiguous violation of WP:NPA, without any provocation whatsoever.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, steve v wrote:
You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity when we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite, and as a valve to allow "decent wikipedians" (our clique) to trump "trolls, vandals" (undesirables, etc.).
Steve, you just lost a large chunk of credibility with me by using the word "clique".
TINC. It's a case of thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence: because some people do more work, or are more persuasive in their arguments, other people think that they are part of some ruling clique, complete with a secret Masonic handshake [*] & Get Out of Jail cards.
I've been on Wikipedia as long as you, & I don't see any special favors here. I have met only one person here in Real Life, & only know one other person from previous usenet contact -- & I doubt that I have any special clout with them because of it. (Sometimes I doubt anyone even reads my emails to this list -- but that's another subject entirely.)
And if there was a clique, they'd either moderate this list entirely ("Hey, that ligwitch guy's trying to post again! Silly rabbit, hasn't he learned that he's Not Allowed?"), or ignore it & communicate on their own list or IRC channel.
And it's an easier idea to accept than that Wikipedia has grown so much that unless you spend a good chunk of time looking for conversations & disputes, things will happen & decisions will be made that will surprise you. And even if you do extend the effort, these surprises will still happen.
At the end of the day, after contributing hours of labor on the dull, unexciting parts of Wikipedia, one might wish there was a cabal or clique when some pissant resurrects the same trivial argument for the upteenth time that her/his POV is not being heard, & that not only could he/she be banned from Wikipedia, but someone sent to the person's home & have their modem & hard drive smashed. But one doesn't, because the other members of this alleged clique would be just as angry at you for high-handedness as the pissant in question.
In short, if there was a real ruling clique on Wikipedia, we'd all know it. For one thing, we'd have at least one mediocrity here who would be rubbing the fact that she/he belongs in our faces.
</rant>
Geoff
* For the record, I've been shown a Real Masonic Handshake. It's not as interesting as the Monty Python sketch makes it out to be.
The use of clique should not be considered a pejorative, and may refer just as much to a "web of trust" as to a "cabal." I dont make any judgements, but rather chose a term which is neutral, and which critics as well as core members of the "cabal" (you and I ;)) may find agreeable.
TINC, true, but WIND (democracy) is also true. Whether one prefers the term "core" or "cabal" is a matter of where one is on the map. SV
--- Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, steve v wrote:
You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity
when
we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite, and
as a
valve to allow "decent wikipedians" (our clique)
to
trump "trolls, vandals" (undesirables, etc.).
Steve, you just lost a large chunk of credibility with me by using the word "clique".
TINC. It's a case of thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence: because some people do more work, or are more persuasive in their arguments, other people think that they are part of some ruling clique, complete with a secret Masonic handshake [*] & Get Out of Jail cards.
I've been on Wikipedia as long as you, & I don't see any special favors here. I have met only one person here in Real Life, & only know one other person from previous usenet contact -- & I doubt that I have any special clout with them because of it. (Sometimes I doubt anyone even reads my emails to this list -- but that's another subject entirely.)
And if there was a clique, they'd either moderate this list entirely ("Hey, that ligwitch guy's trying to post again! Silly rabbit, hasn't he learned that he's Not Allowed?"), or ignore it & communicate on their own list or IRC channel.
And it's an easier idea to accept than that Wikipedia has grown so much that unless you spend a good chunk of time looking for conversations & disputes, things will happen & decisions will be made that will surprise you. And even if you do extend the effort, these surprises will still happen.
At the end of the day, after contributing hours of labor on the dull, unexciting parts of Wikipedia, one might wish there was a cabal or clique when some pissant resurrects the same trivial argument for the upteenth time that her/his POV is not being heard, & that not only could he/she be banned from Wikipedia, but someone sent to the person's home & have their modem & hard drive smashed. But one doesn't, because the other members of this alleged clique would be just as angry at you for high-handedness as the pissant in question.
In short, if there was a real ruling clique on Wikipedia, we'd all know it. For one thing, we'd have at least one mediocrity here who would be rubbing the fact that she/he belongs in our faces.
</rant>
Geoff
- For the record, I've been shown a Real Masonic
Handshake. It's not as interesting as the Monty Python sketch makes it out to be.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
TINC, but there are many mini-cabals. :P
On 9/21/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
The use of clique should not be considered a pejorative, and may refer just as much to a "web of trust" as to a "cabal." I dont make any judgements, but rather chose a term which is neutral, and which critics as well as core members of the "cabal" (you and I ;)) may find agreeable.
TINC, true, but WIND (democracy) is also true. Whether one prefers the term "core" or "cabal" is a matter of where one is on the map. SV
--- Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, steve v wrote:
You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity
when
we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite, and
as a
valve to allow "decent wikipedians" (our clique)
to
trump "trolls, vandals" (undesirables, etc.).
Steve, you just lost a large chunk of credibility with me by using the word "clique".
TINC. It's a case of thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence: because some people do more work, or are more persuasive in their arguments, other people think that they are part of some ruling clique, complete with a secret Masonic handshake [*] & Get Out of Jail cards.
I've been on Wikipedia as long as you, & I don't see any special favors here. I have met only one person here in Real Life, & only know one other person from previous usenet contact -- & I doubt that I have any special clout with them because of it. (Sometimes I doubt anyone even reads my emails to this list -- but that's another subject entirely.)
And if there was a clique, they'd either moderate this list entirely ("Hey, that ligwitch guy's trying to post again! Silly rabbit, hasn't he learned that he's Not Allowed?"), or ignore it & communicate on their own list or IRC channel.
And it's an easier idea to accept than that Wikipedia has grown so much that unless you spend a good chunk of time looking for conversations & disputes, things will happen & decisions will be made that will surprise you. And even if you do extend the effort, these surprises will still happen.
At the end of the day, after contributing hours of labor on the dull, unexciting parts of Wikipedia, one might wish there was a cabal or clique when some pissant resurrects the same trivial argument for the upteenth time that her/his POV is not being heard, & that not only could he/she be banned from Wikipedia, but someone sent to the person's home & have their modem & hard drive smashed. But one doesn't, because the other members of this alleged clique would be just as angry at you for high-handedness as the pissant in question.
In short, if there was a real ruling clique on Wikipedia, we'd all know it. For one thing, we'd have at least one mediocrity here who would be rubbing the fact that she/he belongs in our faces.
</rant>
Geoff
- For the record, I've been shown a Real Masonic
Handshake. It's not as interesting as the Monty Python sketch makes it out to be.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And LOTS of cliques.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 9/22/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
TINC, but there are many mini-cabals. :P
Jack Lynch wrote:
On 9/22/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
TINC, but there are many mini-cabals. :P
And LOTS of cliques.
Inclusionists and Deletionists are the two biggest, and they have the power to tear Wikipedia apart.
(I'm only half joking)
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, steve v wrote:
The use of clique should not be considered a pejorative, and may refer just as much to a "web of trust" as to a "cabal." I dont make any judgements, but rather chose a term which is neutral, and which critics as well as core members of the "cabal" (you and I ;)) may find agreeable.
TINC, true, but WIND (democracy) is also true. Whether one prefers the term "core" or "cabal" is a matter of where one is on the map.
You're right about that: Wikipedia does have a number of cliques in the neutral sense. I posted in haste & confused "clique" & "cabal".
I apologize for my comments to you, Steve, & have restored the chunk of respect I deducted -- for whatever that is worth.
Geoff
This distinction between Clique and Cabal is an important one. While I suppose one could imagine a "developers clique", or a "old hands clique" which might be synonymous w some peoples conception of a cabal, I really don't see those as being a problem on the wiki. Rather the problem I see are users and admins which act as one, creating partisan voting blocks on areas of mutual interest, and coordinating efforts to shout down criticism and attempts to NPOV their POV.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 9/22/05, Geoff Burling geoff@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, steve v wrote:
The use of clique should not be considered a pejorative, and may refer just as much to a "web of trust" as to a "cabal." I dont make any judgements, but rather chose a term which is neutral, and which critics as well as core members of the "cabal" (you and I ;)) may find agreeable.
TINC, true, but WIND (democracy) is also true. Whether one prefers the term "core" or "cabal" is a matter of where one is on the map.
You're right about that: Wikipedia does have a number of cliques in the neutral sense. I posted in haste & confused "clique" & "cabal".
I apologize for my comments to you, Steve, & have restored the chunk of respect I deducted -- for whatever that is worth.
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
This distinction between Clique and Cabal is an important one. While I suppose one could imagine a "developers clique", or a "old hands clique" which might be synonymous w some peoples conception of a cabal, I really don't see those as being a problem on the wiki. Rather the problem I see are users and admins which act as one, creating partisan voting blocks on areas of mutual interest, and coordinating efforts to shout down criticism and attempts to NPOV their POV.
Jack (Sam Spade)
You might have a case if anyone had ever managed to get the admins to agree on anything. -- geni
Geoff Burling wrote: <snip>
(Sometimes I doubt anyone even reads my emails to this list -- but that's another subject entirely.)
I know exactly how you feel :)
(pretends to read email)
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Alphax wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
<snip> > (Sometimes I doubt anyone even reads my emails to this list -- but > that's another subject entirely.) >
I know exactly how you feel :)
(pretends to read email)
One of the features of Wikipedia once had that I miss was the counter on every page. It was a definite ego boost to create a new article, then return a day or two later & see how many people had rerad it.
I understand why this feature was disabled, but it was a nice thing while it lasted. (And probably something suitable for the Wikiholic test.)
Geoff