-----Original Message----- From: Gary Kirk [mailto:gary.kirk@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 01:25 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wicked-pedia" in today's Daily Mail
So really, why write a story about it in <s>newspaper</s> the Daily Mail? A friend vandalises my userpage. Do I use this as a stage to attack him? No. I move on.
And Jerry Sanger, I ask you... ;-)
On 23/04/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/23/07, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Here's the url
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=...
Quite a well written, amusing little piece, not at all the hack job I'd been led to expect. Petronella Wyatt was apparently vandalised by the insertion of all kinds of lurid allegations. She complained and apparently it was fixed. She thinks she knows who did it.
-- Gary Kirk
What caused this is writing an article about someone who is not notable enough that the article would be read or watched. If it were not autobiographical, at least the creator of the article might have it on their watchlist. But as it is, who knew or cared? Our process depends on articles getting enough attention that errors are noticed.
Fred
On 4/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Gary Kirk [mailto:gary.kirk@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 01:25 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wicked-pedia" in today's Daily Mail
So really, why write a story about it in <s>newspaper</s> the Daily Mail? A friend vandalises my userpage. Do I use this as a stage to attack him? No. I move on.
And Jerry Sanger, I ask you... ;-)
On 23/04/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/23/07, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Here's the url
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=...
Quite a well written, amusing little piece, not at all the hack job I'd been led to expect. Petronella Wyatt was apparently vandalised by the insertion of all kinds of lurid allegations. She complained and apparently it was fixed. She thinks she knows who did it.
-- Gary Kirk
What caused this is writing an article about someone who is not notable enough that the article would be read or watched. If it were not autobiographical, at least the creator of the article might have it on their watchlist. But as it is, who knew or cared? Our process depends on articles getting enough attention that errors are noticed.
Fred
How much an article is watched is not necessarily related to how notable it is. That said, it may be a relevant part of this case, but I haven't checked the article yet, so I couldn't tell if it was the case.
Mgm
On 4/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
What caused this is writing an article about someone who is not notable enough that the article would be read or watched. If it were not autobiographical, at least the creator of the article might have it on their watchlist. But as it is, who knew or cared? Our process depends on articles getting enough attention that errors are noticed.
Fred
I agree with you, pointing out what I think you acknowledged but wasn't made clear. She created this article on herself. Someone else came along and vandalized it. Maybe it was someone else, anyway. I don't think we can rule out the possibility that she did it herself to create a news story.
It's sad that this stuff lasted so long. We desperately need a more organized system for policing articles, especially ones about living people. But I don't think Wikipedia or the foundation is to blame for any of this.
We have enough eyes to catch this sort of thing much faster. Can we please have some effort put into designing a system to utilize those eyes efficiently? I'm not really talking about stable versions - a simple system to list the "least examined edits" would be enough. Defining which users count as valid "examiners" would be the hardest part of the implementation, but *any* half-assed definition of who qualifies would improve the system drastically.
C'mon, this could be implemented in a couple weeks by a single person working a few hours a day. I'm forwarding this to foundation-l.
Anthony
On 4/24/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I agree with you, pointing out what I think you acknowledged but wasn't made clear. She created this article on herself. Someone else came along and vandalized it. Maybe it was someone else, anyway. I don't think we can rule out the possibility that she did it herself to create a news story.
Doubtful IP traces to University of Virginia.
On 4/24/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/24/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I agree with you, pointing out what I think you acknowledged but wasn't made clear. She created this article on herself. Someone else came along and vandalized it. Maybe it was someone else, anyway. I don't think we can rule out the possibility that she did it herself to create a news story.
Doubtful IP traces to University of Virginia.
If that's true, then I withdraw my statement and apologize.
Anthony
On 4/24/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
We have enough eyes to catch this sort of thing much faster. Can we please have some effort put into designing a system to utilize those eyes efficiently? I'm not really talking about stable versions - a simple system to list the "least examined edits" would be enough. Defining which users count as valid "examiners" would be the hardest part of the implementation, but *any* half-assed definition of who qualifies would improve the system drastically.
C'mon, this could be implemented in a couple weeks by a single person working a few hours a day. I'm forwarding this to foundation-l.
You are so, so right on the money here.
SJ
On 4/25/07, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/24/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
We have enough eyes to catch this sort of thing much faster. Can we please have some effort put into designing a system to utilize those eyes efficiently? I'm not really talking about stable versions - a simple system to list the "least examined edits" would be enough. Defining which users count as valid "examiners" would be the hardest part of the implementation, but *any* half-assed definition of who qualifies would improve the system drastically.
C'mon, this could be implemented in a couple weeks by a single person working a few hours a day. I'm forwarding this to foundation-l.
You are so, so right on the money here.
SJ
Which is to say, a proper solution might take an order of magnitude longer than you suggest. But something could be done very very quickly.
a) an interface could come first (a "help keep the wiki clean" link that took you alternately to 1. the last diff for a randompage and 2. the diff for the last non-whitelisted edit from recentchanges). just adding a "randomlastdiff" link next to "randompage" would be a great start. b) if I had a link I could follow to "do my 5 minutes a day" to track least-reviewed changes, I would do it. probably every day. probably on days when I felt I didn't have enough time to even respond to my talk page comments.
SJ