In a message dated 11/12/2008 12:47:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, charlottethewebb@gmail.com writes:
In what way is the history tab unusable? Are you saying you would prefer an alternate view which lists users in descending order by number of edits to the page (rather than listing edits by user and timestamp)? There's something on the toolserver which does just that..>>
------------------- That could fit the bill. If WP would make something like that an official part of the system. Then we could see at a glance, that an article was 90% by myself or only 2% or whatever.
There could be a cutoff like "only list a person if they've contributed 10% or more to the article" That way it could only list 10 people maximum, and most likely would only be ever listing four or less.
Will Johnson **************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=htt p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:38 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/12/2008 12:47:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, charlottethewebb@gmail.com writes:
In what way is the history tab unusable? Are you saying you would prefer an alternate view which lists users in descending order by number of edits to the page (rather than listing edits by user and timestamp)? There's something on the toolserver which does just that..>>
That could fit the bill. If WP would make something like that an official part of the system.
It's a start (see below). But it's not usable by print media.
Then we could see at a glance, that an article was 90% by myself or only 2%
or whatever.
Well, not really. This only lists number of edits. Something like wikiblame (http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/) would be better, to show what portions of the actual article were written by which people. I haven't given wikiblame a detailed examination though - I suspect it gets the answer wrong quite a lot of the time. But something like that, which actually worked, would be ideal.
I'm not sure if that could easily be incorporated into print media, though. And for ideological reasons (and altruistic ones, what about all the poor homeless people without computers!) that particular obsolete format is considered sacred.
Will Johnson wrote:
In a message dated 11/12/2008 12:47:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, charlottethewebb@gmail.com writes:
In what way is the history tab unusable? Are you saying you would prefer an alternate view which lists users in descending order by number of edits to the page (rather than listing edits by user and timestamp)? There's something on the toolserver which does just that..
That could fit the bill. If WP would make something like that an official part of the system. Then we could see at a glance, that an article was 90% by myself or only 2% or whatever.
I'm late to this thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating, but I'm *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article. I like to think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me. Even asking whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever -- to me, that sounds perilously close to WP:OWN.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Will Johnson wrote:
In a message dated 11/12/2008 12:47:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, charlottethewebb@gmail.com writes:
In what way is the history tab unusable? Are you saying you would prefer an alternate view which lists users in descending order by number of edits to the page (rather than listing edits by user and timestamp)? There's something on the toolserver which does just that..
That could fit the bill. If WP would make something like that an
official
part of the system. Then we could see at a glance, that an article was 90% by myself or only 2% or whatever.
I'm late to this thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating, but I'm *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article. I like to think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me. Even asking whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever -- to me, that sounds perilously close to WP:OWN.
Thanks. I think that proves my point. Wikipedia has been taken over by altruists.
Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article. I like to think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me.
Thanks. I think that proves my point. Wikipedia has been taken over by altruists.
"Taken over by"? When was it ever not? I certainly don't sense any change on this score over the 3+ years I've been contributing.
It doesn't bother me that you've branded me as an altruist, although it's mildly interesting to ponder which definition of that odious term you had in mind. I can think of at least three:
1. To be altruistic, you can't get any money for what you do. 2. To be altruistic, you can't get anything in return for what you do. 3. To be altruistic, you must make significant sacrifices (it must significantly cost you) to do what you do.
I'm not interested in arguing about these, but before you go thinking I'm all number-two-altruistic for not wanting my name on articles I've contributed to, I should say that I nevertheless do get a *lot* in return -- mostly in the form of inner satisfaction. (And I know I'm far from alone in this attitude.)
2008/11/12 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Thanks. I think that proves my point. Wikipedia has been taken over by altruists.
1. This is evidently some special jargon usage of the word "altruist", rather than one recognised by most English speakers using the word.
2. I question the "taken over". Who was running it before it was "taken over"? Evidence?
- d.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/12 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Thanks. I think that proves my point. Wikipedia has been taken over by altruists.
- This is evidently some special jargon usage of the word "altruist",
rather than one recognised by most English speakers using the word.
- I question the "taken over". Who was running it before it was
"taken over"? Evidence?
Jimmy Wales was. I don't think I need to provide any evidence of that.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:49 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/13 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article? What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position? I'll grant that in some situations it might be rational to give away your work for free and without attribution, but to be *glad* specifically *because* you are not attributed, I don't see how that can possibly be considered a moral position within the framework of Objectivism.
I suspect the difficulty here is that you're speaking Objectivist jargon, but those you're conversing with are speaking more conventional English.
The topic of the thread is Ayn Rand and Wikipedia. If you want to participate in it, it certainly helps to know what you're talking about. There are plenty of resources available online and offline to learn more. If you're not interested, there's always the "delete" key.
I think the twisted mental state which would cause someone to be *glad* that no one can figure out that they created something (something which presumably they consider good), is fairly self-evident, though.
(Are you sure Kurt Weber isn't posting using your email address in the
From: line?)
Kurt Weber is a Libertarian. Not being familiar with Ayn Rand you might not get the significance of that. But if you don't understand these things you shouldn't be commenting on them.
On Friday 14 November 2008 08:24, Anthony wrote:
Kurt Weber is a Libertarian. Not being familiar with Ayn Rand you might not get the significance of that. But if you don't understand these things you shouldn't be commenting on them.
I am both a Libertarian and an Objectivist.
I'm aware of the Anti-Reason Institute's position on that.
But the Peikoffites aren't Objectivists.
On Nov 15, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Friday 14 November 2008 08:24, Anthony wrote:
Kurt Weber is a Libertarian. Not being familiar with Ayn Rand you might not get the significance of that. But if you don't understand these things you shouldn't be commenting on them.
I am both a Libertarian and an Objectivist.
I'm aware of the Anti-Reason Institute's position on that.
But the Peikoffites aren't Objectivists.
And people accuse legitimate academia of being a battle to the death for no stakes whatsoever.
-Phil
I really see no reason that people will be happy with not getting credit for their work. They'd be either indifferent or unhappy. But to see someone plagarize annoys.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/12 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Thanks. I think that proves my point. Wikipedia has been taken over
by
altruists.
- This is evidently some special jargon usage of the word "altruist",
rather than one recognised by most English speakers using the word.
- I question the "taken over". Who was running it before it was
"taken over"? Evidence?
Jimmy Wales was. I don't think I need to provide any evidence of that.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:49 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/13 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article? What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position? I'll grant that in some situations it might be rational to give away your
work
for free and without attribution, but to be *glad* specifically
*because*
you are not attributed, I don't see how that can possibly be considered
a
moral position within the framework of Objectivism.
I suspect the difficulty here is that you're speaking Objectivist jargon, but those you're conversing with are speaking more conventional English.
The topic of the thread is Ayn Rand and Wikipedia. If you want to participate in it, it certainly helps to know what you're talking about. There are plenty of resources available online and offline to learn more. If you're not interested, there's always the "delete" key.
I think the twisted mental state which would cause someone to be *glad* that no one can figure out that they created something (something which presumably they consider good), is fairly self-evident, though.
(Are you sure Kurt Weber isn't posting using your email address in the
From: line?)
Kurt Weber is a Libertarian. Not being familiar with Ayn Rand you might not get the significance of that. But if you don't understand these things you shouldn't be commenting on them. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/12/08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm late to this thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating, but I'm *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article. I like to think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me. Even asking whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever -- to me, that sounds perilously close to WP:OWN.
I agree entirely. But I respect the opinions of those who do care about this information, and mentioned a way in which it can be determined at a glance.
Unfortunately the way in which it presented lends itself to editcountitis, and it is more difficult to determine how many words or sentences or paragraphs of the current version were added by User:X.
If I add three paragraphs to an article, they will over time most likely keep a similar or nearly meaning, despite undergoing enough changes to no longer be machine-recognizable as the same content.
This is partly because the machine doesn't really understand English (or whatever language is being used—English is a good example as there will usually be over a dozen ways to say exactly the same thing without re-using any major words) and it is but one point of failure for known methods of estimating users' contribution share for a given article.
—C.W.