"The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink."
"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
If what I think Florence is saying is true, and the foundation has not stepped in, then how did this string get into the spam filter? Who decided to put it there and for what reason?
Anthony
On 5/2/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Anthony wrote:
Can an employee of the foundation please speak up and clarify whether or not we are allowed to publish this key?
Please don't do this, employee of the Foundation.
David is pretty much right here - the issue right now isn't legality, it's notability. We're not a newspaper. Wait a month, see how this plays out, and then we can write the right article. Any article written right now isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a piece of Internet activism about the right to publish the string "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0." Which, as that last sentence demonstrates, I'm all for.
But Wikipedia isn't the place to do that now.
If the Foundation steps in, the message becomes "the issue here is a legal one," and an important editorial judgment is erased.
-Phil
Agreed :-)
ant
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 5/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
"The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink."
"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
If what I think Florence is saying is true, and the foundation has not stepped in, then how did this string get into the spam filter? Who decided to put it there and for what reason?
There's a location on Meta where these things are decided; I don't think adding something to that blacklist requires authorization from the board.
-Matt
On 5/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
"The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink."
There's a location on Meta where these things are decided; I don't think adding something to that blacklist requires authorization from the board.
This is a different type of blacklist. The spam blacklist which can be edited by any meta admin only applies to URLs. The regex blacklist applies to any text, whether in URL format or not. On Wikimedia, I believe only people with server access could edit that, but that doesn't mean it was an official Wikimedia decision. The majority of people with server access are not Wikimedia employees.
It is possible to open this up to meta admins via Wikia's RegexBlock extension - http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/SpamRegex/
Angela
On 5/2/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
This is a different type of blacklist. The spam blacklist which can be edited by any meta admin only applies to URLs. The regex blacklist applies to any text, whether in URL format or not. On Wikimedia, I believe only people with server access could edit that, but that doesn't mean it was an official Wikimedia decision. The majority of people with server access are not Wikimedia employees.
So who are they accountable to, no one? Isn't obviously problematic that people can unilaterally make such major decisions with neither the request of the foundation nor the community?
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
This is a different type of blacklist. The spam blacklist which can be edited by any meta admin only applies to URLs. The regex blacklist applies to any text, whether in URL format or not. On Wikimedia, I believe only people with server access could edit that, but that doesn't mean it was an official Wikimedia decision. The majority of people with server access are not Wikimedia employees.
So who are they accountable to, no one? Isn't obviously problematic that people can unilaterally make such major decisions with neither the request of the foundation nor the community?
I've long said the power rests in the devs, and admins are merely a larger variety of tick by comparison.
Anyway, the community is on crack. We've even established why this happens.
- d.
On 5/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
This is a different type of blacklist. The spam blacklist which can be edited by any meta admin only applies to URLs. The regex blacklist applies to any text, whether in URL format or not. On Wikimedia, I believe only people with server access could edit that, but that doesn't mean it was an official Wikimedia decision. The majority of people with server access are not Wikimedia employees.
So who are they accountable to, no one? Isn't obviously problematic that people can unilaterally make such major decisions with neither the request of the foundation nor the community?
Yes.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 5/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
This is a different type of blacklist. The spam blacklist which can be edited by any meta admin only applies to URLs. The regex blacklist applies to any text, whether in URL format or not. On Wikimedia, I believe only people with server access could edit that, but that doesn't mean it was an official Wikimedia decision. The majority of people with server access are not Wikimedia employees.
So who are they accountable to, no one? Isn't obviously problematic that people can unilaterally make such major decisions with neither the request of the foundation nor the community?
Yes.
We're accountable to both. This action was taken at the request of the community, and is subject to review by both the community and the Board. We unilaterally edit the spam blacklist in the same way that you unilaterally edit an article. It can be reversed at any time. I have heard arguments in either direction on this mailing list, many seem to be agreeing with this action. I have seen no vote, there has been no demonstration of a majority in favour of removing it, and I've had no request from the Board.
-- Tim Starling
On 5/5/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 5/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
This is a different type of blacklist. The spam blacklist which can be edited by any meta admin only applies to URLs. The regex blacklist applies to any text, whether in URL format or not. On Wikimedia, I believe only people with server access could edit that, but that doesn't mean it was an official Wikimedia decision. The majority of people with server access are not Wikimedia employees.
So who are they accountable to, no one? Isn't obviously problematic that people can unilaterally make such major decisions with neither the request of the foundation nor the community?
Yes.
We're accountable to both. This action was taken at the request of the community, and is subject to review by both the community and the Board. We unilaterally edit the spam blacklist in the same way that you unilaterally edit an article. It can be reversed at any time. I have heard arguments in either direction on this mailing list, many seem to be agreeing with this action. I have seen no vote, there has been no demonstration of a majority in favour of removing it, and I've had no request from the Board.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Shouldn't it kind of work the other way, that a blacklist entry goes unless there's unambiguous consensus that it stays? I can understand saying "Okay, in an emergency, we act first and discuss later", but it hardly seems right that if there's then no consensus to keep it that way it stays anyway.
On 5/5/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 5/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
This is a different type of blacklist. The spam blacklist which can be edited by any meta admin only applies to URLs. The regex blacklist applies to any text, whether in URL format or not. On Wikimedia, I believe only people with server access could edit that, but that doesn't mean it was an official Wikimedia decision. The majority of people with server access are not Wikimedia employees.
So who are they accountable to, no one? Isn't obviously problematic that people can unilaterally make such major decisions with neither the request of the foundation nor the community?
Yes.
We're accountable to both. This action was taken at the request of the community, and is subject to review by both the community and the Board.
In what way was the action taken at the request of the community? Are you saying this because some members of the community want it?
We unilaterally edit the spam blacklist in the same way that you unilaterally edit an article. It can be reversed at any time.
The spam blacklist can be reversed at any time by what, 5 people, maybe 10? When I "unilaterally edit an article" it can be reversed by anyone.
I have heard arguments in either direction on this mailing list, many seem to be agreeing with this action. I have seen no vote, there has been no demonstration of a majority in favour of removing it, and I've had no request from the Board.
There has likewise been no demonstration of a majority in favor of adding it, and supposedly no request from the board to add it. I think it's quite obvious that the default position should be to *not* have something in the spam blacklist.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 5/5/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
We're accountable to both. This action was taken at the request of the community, and is subject to review by both the community and the Board.
In what way was the action taken at the request of the community? Are you saying this because some members of the community want it?
Yes, some members of the community requested it.
-- Tim Starling
On 5/5/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, some members of the community requested it.
It has long been the practice that if multiple people were persistently hitting multiple pages (i.e. blocking and protection won't fix it) with a predictable string and we could block it, we have.
This was the case here. (thanks Digg)
On 5/5/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, some members of the community requested it.
It has long been the practice that if multiple people were persistently hitting multiple pages (i.e. blocking and protection won't fix it) with a predictable string and we could block it, we have.
I'm sure there are plenty of "four letter words" which multiple people are persistently hitting (and vandalizing) multiple pages with. Yet they have not been blocked.
Anthony
On 5/5/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 5/5/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
We're accountable to both. This action was taken at the request of the community, and is subject to review by both the community and the Board.
In what way was the action taken at the request of the community? Are you saying this because some members of the community want it?
Yes, some members of the community requested it.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Alright, so at what point will you be removing it from such blacklist? It seems the Digg spammers have moved along. (Jf not, I presume it's easy enough to put back?) If they were still interested in spamming the key, there are a thousand ways to do that ("oh-nine eff-nine"), I can think of a million more but I won't spill the BEANS for right now. They've left and moved on, this isn't about spam anymore.
There's no overwhelming consensus -not- to have it at all, and I doubt it's really stopping very much spam now. It's probably more stopping standard editorial processes, or making an end-run around a decision that Jimbo and the Foundation have, by making their position an emphatic No Comment, apparently chosen to leave up to us.
On 5/6/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Alright, so at what point will you be removing it from such blacklist?
When one of the various people who have the power to do so feels like it. tuesday look good to you? Might have some idea what the MPAA is going to do by then.
On 5/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Alright, so at what point will you be removing it from such blacklist?
When one of the various people who have the power to do so feels like it. tuesday look good to you? Might have some idea what the MPAA is going to do by then.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tuesday would be great by me, though I can speak only for myself of course.
Anthony wrote:
"The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink."
"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
If what I think Florence is saying is true, and the foundation has not stepped in, then how did this string get into the spam filter? Who decided to put it there and for what reason?
I believe River put it in, but I would have done the same if I was around when the requests for this action came flooding in. The reason was that it was being used in spam.
-- Tim Starling
On 5/2/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
"The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink."
"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
If what I think Florence is saying is true, and the foundation has not stepped in, then how did this string get into the spam filter? Who decided to put it there and for what reason?
I believe River put it in, but I would have done the same if I was around when the requests for this action came flooding in. The reason was that it was being used in spam.
So, if I start spamming "George Bush" all over the wiki that string will get blocked by the regex filter too?
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
I believe River put it in, but I would have done the same if I was around when the requests for this action came flooding in. The reason was that it was being used in spam.
So, if I start spamming "George Bush" all over the wiki that string will get blocked by the regex filter too?
You know, sometimes I think [[WP:POINT]] *should* have been written about you.
- d.
On 5/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
I believe River put it in, but I would have done the same if I was around when the requests for this action came flooding in. The reason was that it was being used in spam.
So, if I start spamming "George Bush" all over the wiki that string will get blocked by the regex filter too?
You know, sometimes I think [[WP:POINT]] *should* have been written about you.
The initial version of it was, wasn't it?
On 5/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So, if I start spamming "George Bush" all over the wiki that string will get blocked by the regex filter too?
You know, sometimes I think [[WP:POINT]] *should* have been written about you.
It wasn't?
-Matt
Generally, it's not POINTy to ask "Well if this happened...?", it's POINTy to go -make- it happen to view the results. That aside, any regex filtering would be ineffective. Hell, even a court verdict couldn't stop publication of the DeCSS code, it ended up getting put in everything from images to T-shirts to a ROT13'd version that was floating around for a while. Now, I'm not saying we should allow spam, or just post this thing at random all over the place. But we ought not be afraid to have it at all, when it's part of a highly-notable incident.
On 5/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So, if I start spamming "George Bush" all over the wiki that string will get blocked by the regex filter too?
You know, sometimes I think [[WP:POINT]] *should* have been written about you.
It wasn't?
-Matt
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 Wed, 2 May 2007 18:02:19 -0700, "Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
But we ought not be afraid to have it at all, when it's part of a highly-notable incident.
Just like we ought not to be afraid to have actual pictures of child pornography in the article on that subject, right? Or maybe it's possible to cover the topic without the keyspam.
Guy (JzG)
There's a -tremendous- difference between tolerating spam and leaving it in an article where it's appropriate. I'm 100% for stopping any spamming campaign. But if someone were spamming a link to the NYT with "SUBSCRIBE TO THE NYT TODAY!", we wouldn't spam-blacklist it, because there are legitimate uses. In this case, there's a legitimate use. And the last I checked, child porn wasn't being printed in everything from Wired to the New York Times.
And yes, we -can- cover the topic without using the number, in the same way we -could- cover the speed of light without putting what it is. But either one would be incomplete. Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
On 5/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007 18:02:19 -0700, "Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
But we ought not be afraid to have it at all, when it's part of a highly-notable incident.
Just like we ought not to be afraid to have actual pictures of child pornography in the article on that subject, right? Or maybe it's possible to cover the topic without the keyspam.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
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 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
Would you knock this off?
The bullies got the law changed in their favor, about eight years ago. That changes the situation to the point that the analogy is not accurate, and insulting.
On 5/4/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
Would you knock this off?
The bullies got the law changed in their favor, about eight years ago. That changes the situation to the point that the analogy is not accurate, and insulting.
Yes, and the law has been upheld by the courts.. this isn't vague speculative stuff.
This pro-anarchism-stick-it-to-the-man stuff is really harmful. ... it will be used to justify further encroachments on freedom... and it will be used used to attack the character of people who try to defend against those encroachments.
On 05/05/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
Would you knock this off?
The bullies got the law changed in their favor, about eight years ago. That changes the situation to the point that the analogy is not accurate, and insulting.
Yes, and the law has been upheld by the courts.. this isn't vague speculative stuff.
This pro-anarchism-stick-it-to-the-man stuff is really harmful. ... it will be used to justify further encroachments on freedom... and it will be used used to attack the character of people who try to defend against those encroachments.
Its ironic that whatever way you read that you are accepting that some restrictions prevent more restrictions, effectively saying that human freedom is ultimately limited by what its government says it can be without a thought for actual freedom. Too bad more people don't feel like that.... It would make this "peoples democracy" thing so much easier if they blindly accepted any decision you made.
Peter
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
And the last I checked, child porn wasn't being printed in everything from Wired to the New York Times.
Even ignoring all other factors, the penalties for willful violation probably aren't great enough to stop them. Even without factoring in the (im)probability that they'd get nailed for it, it's probably cheap enough to do it.. just another cost of doing business.
And yes, we -can- cover the topic without using the number, in the same way we -could- cover the speed of light without putting what it is. But either one would be incomplete.
There is *tons* of useful things you can not do without an accurate figure of the speed of light. Tons of things you can't understand without at least a good approximate figure for the speed of light.
There is one thing you can't do without the exact AACS key, and that one thing is not legal in the US.
Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
I might attack your character and your motivations for taking the position you've taken... but I believe that you have done a fine job of that yourself.
On 5/4/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
And the last I checked, child porn wasn't being printed in everything from Wired to the New York Times.
Even ignoring all other factors, the penalties for willful violation probably aren't great enough to stop them. Even without factoring in the (im)probability that they'd get nailed for it, it's probably cheap enough to do it.. just another cost of doing business.
And yes, we -can- cover the topic without using the number, in the same way we -could- cover the speed of light without putting what it is. But either one would be incomplete.
There is *tons* of useful things you can not do without an accurate figure of the speed of light. Tons of things you can't understand without at least a good approximate figure for the speed of light.
There is one thing you can't do without the exact AACS key, and that one thing is not legal in the US.
Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
I might attack your character and your motivations for taking the position you've taken... but I believe that you have done a fine job of that yourself.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Really, you can call me whatever you like. Chances are I've been called far worse, so fire away.
My position was, "Our use is academic and educational." That use actually -is- legal, even if we were publishing a full circumvention tool. (You'll notice an image of the DeCSS code has been in that article for years.) They've -threatened- academics before, but to my knowledge, they've never actually tested that one. 2600 got in trouble for their clearly non-academic use (basically, "Here's DeCSS, go rip a DVD and send it to all your friends!"). That's not our stance or mission whatsoever.
Also, there are a lot of things you couldn't do without the exact AACS key, but are perfectly legitimate. Someone may want to study their crypto. (And that person is just as likely to be the person who's working for them and improving it in the future as it is to be someone cracking the next round, or just curious.) Someone may want to look to see if there were any inherent weaknesses in using that key rather than another one. (And again, this may just as well be for improvement or curiosity.) Someone else yet may run across that odd-looking string of digits on some website somewhere, wonder what the hell it means, and punch it into our search box. Don't know of anyone who could even possibly make the case that any of those uses are harmful or malicious.
Knowing how to do something that's widely used to do bad doesn't mean you will use it that way. I know how to make several different types of explosive, but I never have and never would use that to do harm. (Unless you count the occasional basement firecracker in a soda can when I was younger. Think of the poor soda cans!) Our foundational purpose was that there is always a good use for knowledge, and that such knowledge should be available to all. There are many good uses for this knowledge, well beyond cracking a DVD. And it should be available to all.
G'day Todd,
There's a -tremendous- difference between tolerating spam and leaving it in an article where it's appropriate. I'm 100% for stopping any spamming campaign. But if someone were spamming a link to the NYT with "SUBSCRIBE TO THE NYT TODAY!", we wouldn't spam-blacklist it, because there are legitimate uses. In this case, there's a legitimate use. And
No, we wouldn't spam-blacklist it because there are better alternatives available to us --- like blocking the spammer (singular). If a mass effort occurred, I'm sure the /New York Times/ website *would* be added to the blacklist. This would mean that the /New York Times/ could not be referred to in the future, and we could not make changes to existing articles containing links to the website unless we removed the link as part of our edit.
That would be a Bad Thing, but bearable for a brief period. We have the capacity, and I think the will, to do it, if spammers became enough of a nuisance to make it necessary (not that I want to encourage you to stuff beans up your nose). By comparison, we could go a week or month without publishing the HD-DVD key, while standing on our collective heads.
the last I checked, child porn wasn't being printed in everything from Wired to the New York Times.
You seem to be saying that it would be okay to print child porn if the /New York Times/ included a sample in a series on the topic.
And yes, we -can- cover the topic without using the number, in the same way we -could- cover the speed of light without putting what it is. But either one would be incomplete. Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
Fuck "caving to the bullies". That is not, and should not be, a factor in our editorial process: "Let's see, can we stick it to The Man by doing this? Cool, discussion over, we'll do it."
I've seen that too often on Wikipedia. If we include the string it must be *only* because it improves the article to have it there --- as David has argued --- and not because The Man wants us to remove it --- as you have argued. I should have thought this obvious to anyone interested in seeing this encyclopaedia flourish.
On 5/5/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Todd,
There's a -tremendous- difference between tolerating spam and leaving it in an article where it's appropriate. I'm 100% for stopping any spamming campaign. But if someone were spamming a link to the NYT with "SUBSCRIBE TO THE NYT TODAY!", we wouldn't spam-blacklist it, because there are legitimate uses. In this case, there's a legitimate use. And
No, we wouldn't spam-blacklist it because there are better alternatives available to us --- like blocking the spammer (singular). If a mass effort occurred, I'm sure the /New York Times/ website *would* be added to the blacklist. This would mean that the /New York Times/ could not be referred to in the future, and we could not make changes to existing articles containing links to the website unless we removed the link as part of our edit.
That would be a Bad Thing, but bearable for a brief period. We have the capacity, and I think the will, to do it, if spammers became enough of a nuisance to make it necessary (not that I want to encourage you to stuff beans up your nose). By comparison, we could go a week or month without publishing the HD-DVD key, while standing on our collective heads.
the last I checked, child porn wasn't being printed in everything from Wired to the New York Times.
You seem to be saying that it would be okay to print child porn if the /New York Times/ included a sample in a series on the topic.
And yes, we -can- cover the topic without using the number, in the same way we -could- cover the speed of light without putting what it is. But either one would be incomplete. Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
Fuck "caving to the bullies". That is not, and should not be, a factor in our editorial process: "Let's see, can we stick it to The Man by doing this? Cool, discussion over, we'll do it."
I've seen that too often on Wikipedia. If we include the string it must be *only* because it improves the article to have it there --- as David has argued --- and not because The Man wants us to remove it --- as you have argued. I should have thought this obvious to anyone interested in seeing this encyclopaedia flourish.
-- Mark Gallagher "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If you'll look farther up, I've argued the exact same thing. However, specificity is always an improvement. In any other case, when a numeric value is germane to an article's subject, be that the population of a country at its last census, the number of atoms in one mole, or the memory capacity of the original Commodore 64, we specify that numeric value. There's nothing about "sticking it to the Man" here. If anyone wants to try that, why? It's already been done. "The Man" can't get any more stuck as it is, so to speak.
That being said, there -is- a very legitimate issue of maintaining editorial and academic integrity, by being unafraid to publish specifics, even if someone really, really doesn't like thse specifics, so long as the specifics they don't like can indeed be well-sourced.
Don't straw man me. I've never argued that the string should be there -only- because someone wants it removed. I've argued that the string should be there -despite the fact- that someone wants it removed. That's a critical distinction.