Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia.
Last Sunday at the wikimeet in London, there was some informal discussion in which David Gerard referred to the new pages patrollers as being very brave people (which they are) standing in front of a firehose of nonsense (which it can be).
If we diagnose what went wrong in the Seigenthaler case, this seems like a very opportune place to try a small change of policy.
1. First, the Seigenthaler article was created by an anon.
2. Then, a patroller simply corrected a spelling error and wikified the entry a bit, but did not recognize the spurious claim. This was a regrettable error, but one which we can understand in retrospect as being a byproduct of the sheer volume of work.
3. Because the entry was never well-linked from related articles, the subject-area sorts who would have spotted the dubious claim likely never saw it.
----
It seems to me that the first thing we can do is try to reduce the workload on the people doing new pages patrol. A fairly extensive monitoring and survey of new pages conducted by me over the past few days, coupled with discussions with several people who keep an eye on such things, suggests that we can have a substantial improvement here by eliminating the ability for anons to make new pages.
There are some potentially negative side-effects, which is why I call this an experiment:
1. Annoying anons may simply decide to create accounts and make annoying nonsense pages anyway. This will certainly be true in some cases, but it is an empirical question as to how many.
2. We will lose good new pages created by anons of good will. This may cause the growth of English Wikipedia (in terms of the number of articles) to slow a little bit. With 800,000+ articles, and ever-increasing traffic to the website, this seems to be a worthwhile cost.
----
Notice that anons can still edit. I am a firm believer in the validity of allowing anons to edit. Most anon edits are good, and done "on impulse". We would most of the good edits from anons if we did not allow anon edits, but we would probably not lose most of the vandalistic anon edits. So the net effect of forbidding anon edits would likely be negative.
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
--Jimbo
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia.
I applaud Jimbo for taking this bold move. Experiments like this can prove to be very useful, and the potential for harm is very small.
[snip]
It seems to me that the first thing we can do is try to reduce the workload on the people doing new pages patrol. A fairly extensive monitoring and survey of new pages conducted by me over the past few days, coupled with discussions with several people who keep an eye on such things, suggests that we can have a substantial improvement here by eliminating the ability for anons to make new pages.
Have you written up a summary of the monitoring and survey you've performed? One thing that's useful in "experiments" is metrics. It'd be nice to see just how this change does affect things, rather than speculating about it.
[snip]
2005/12/5, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia.
I totally disagree with this. Disabling the creation of pages by anonymous contributors will not solve the problems of "nonsense pages" ; those pages will only be more difficult to track and to delete if they are created by registered users. The fact that some of the vandals will be annoyed by the need of creating an account and simply wander away is negligible compared to the increase of the workload created by this. And here, I'm only talking about the bad things ; we will also loose a lot of good new pages.
Simply, the fact is you're not looking at the right place. This is a problem we cannot solve locally ; by doing this, you are only trying to settle the symptoms instead of going directly to the reason of the problem. We should inform people ; we should warn them about the danger of writing lies. Internet users are not stupid. We should put a warning, that, when an anonymous create a new article, will explain that he is entirely responsible for what he writes ; that he can be traced down ; that he may be sued if he writes slanderous content. We're Wikipedia. We do not forbid people to do something. We explain to them why it's bad.
But, as you said, it's an experiment, so we'll see the results. Keep us posted.
Solensean.
-- He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad. And that was all his patrimony. Sabatini, Rafael.
Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. http://fr.wikipedia.org
Mathieu Amo wrote:
2005/12/5, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia.
I totally disagree with this. Disabling the creation of pages by anonymous contributors will not solve the problems of "nonsense pages" ; those pages will only be more difficult to track and to delete if they are created by registered users. The fact that some of the vandals will be annoyed by the need of creating an account and simply wander away is negligible compared to the increase of the workload created by this. And here, I'm only talking about the bad things ; we will also loose a lot of good new pages.
Simply, the fact is you're not looking at the right place. This is a problem we cannot solve locally ; by doing this, you are only trying to settle the symptoms instead of going directly to the reason of the problem. We should inform people ; we should warn them about the danger of writing lies. Internet users are not stupid. We should put a warning, that, when an anonymous create a new article, will explain that he is entirely responsible for what he writes ; that he can be traced down ; that he may be sued if he writes slanderous content. We're Wikipedia. We do not forbid people to do something. We explain to them why it's bad.
But, as you said, it's an experiment, so we'll see the results. Keep us posted.
Solensean.
-- He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad. And that was all his patrimony. Sabatini, Rafael.
Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. http://fr.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am emphatically 100% with you on this one. Make them aware that there are consequences. Unfortunately, most users do not, and will not beleive this (see here: http://www.oxegen.ie/mb/viewtopic.php?t=50261 ) hell, even in our recent scandal dealy, the ISPs refuse to co-operate. I'm not exactly sure what an appropriate responce would be, other than either a show of force, or, attempting to scale our RC patrol appropriately. I'm going to go with the option most suited to my talents. I should be done with a PHP system of tracking, and dealing with vandals within the next week or two. Any PHP gurus, I could use some help ;]
Jimmy Wales wrote:
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
I suppose I'm not really sure what this will buy us. It only takes away the class of problems: "page doesn't exist, anon creats a bad one". These are actually among the easiest to spot. Much harder are: "page exists as a stub, anon adds a sentence to it that is bad". These are harder to spot, and this does not address that; in fact, it will encourage troublesome anons to just find existing articles to put misinformation into, rather than creating new ones. I think, on the whole, that would be *more* of a problem.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
I suppose I'm not really sure what this will buy us. It only takes away the class of problems: "page doesn't exist, anon creats a bad one". These are actually among the easiest to spot. Much harder are: "page exists as a stub, anon adds a sentence to it that is bad". These are harder to spot, and this does not address that; in fact, it will encourage troublesome anons to just find existing articles to put misinformation into, rather than creating new ones. I think, on the whole, that would be *more* of a problem.
To clarify (I should've put this in my initial message), I think the fundamental problem is un-vetted anonymous edits (or edits in general, but most problematic ones are anonymous), and taking away the class of edits that occur at page titles that don't yet exist isn't much of a gain, because there are over 100,000 obscure stubs on the English Wikipedia that provide a vast array of extant page titles to choose from. In this case it just happened that the page didn't yet exist, but it could just as easily have happened that someone created an obscure 1-line stub, and then the anonymous user came by later to edit the stub---it would still be an obscure article that nobody would find, because the person isn't all that notable, and the edits would have a pretty good chance of remaining there.
So, more interesting would be to address the fundamental problem---that is, mark revisions that have been reviewed by [n] people.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
So, more interesting would be to address the fundamental problem---that is, mark revisions that have been reviewed by [n] people.
Totally. I think we'll be experimenting a lot in coming months, especially in en where it seems to me that a lot of time-honored processes are starting to be overwhelmed by sheer volume.
--Jimbo
The scaling problem is classically hairy. A rating system should help; it's a similar response to the one eBay had as it grew from a tiny community to a mob (on the way to becoming a visible slice of the universe) -- feedback. Feedback itself had to be conditioned after a while, too, and I imagine the rating system will need continuous re-evaluation. Likewise, this experiment makes sense, to see if slight tweaks to the essentially no-holds-barred editing-without-accountability paradigm can help produce the best encyclopedia; I'm skeptical as to whether slight tweaks can suffice; it only takes a tiny number of jerks to render such an environment too painful to use. See "usenet".
jpgordon
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Delirium wrote:
So, more interesting would be to address the fundamental problem---that is, mark revisions that have been reviewed by [n] people.
Totally. I think we'll be experimenting a lot in coming months, especially in en where it seems to me that a lot of time-honored processes are starting to be overwhelmed by sheer volume.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Delirium wrote:
So, more interesting would be to address the fundamental problem---that is, mark revisions that have been reviewed by [n] people.
Totally. I think we'll be experimenting a lot in coming months, especially in en where it seems to me that a lot of time-honored processes are starting to be overwhelmed by sheer volume.
That makes sense, although I prefer to view it as incrementally improving what already works, rather than ditching processes and bringing in new stuff. For example, "in the beginning", we just looked at every edit on recent changes by someone we didn't recognize. Now there are far too many edits, so we need some better way of organizing them, and marking which edits have been checked and which still need to be looked at. Not really a fundamental shift in how Wikipedia works, just adding some tools to help us deal with things.
Slightly more fundamental would be displaying to users that a particular revision has a certain level of confidence. This is already implicit for experienced Wikipedians---I think most of us know almost immediately whether a particular article is trustworthy or not, based on patterns like what the prose looks like, how wikified it is, how many people have edited it, what subject area it's in, etc. But formalizing that a bit and making it explicit for newcomers and casual readers can't hurt---we all know that an unwikified page just created by 1 person and not edited by anyone else should be read with a grain of salt, but we can point that out to others in some automated way. Again, just kind of incrementally improving how things work.
For the most part, I think we're doing pretty well, and there are lots of good ways to incrementally improve what's already gong well, it's just that period media frenzies kind of catch us when we're not yet ready.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
That makes sense, although I prefer to view it as incrementally improving what already works, rather than ditching processes and bringing in new stuff. For example, "in the beginning", we just looked at every edit on recent changes by someone we didn't recognize. Now there are far too many edits, so we need some better way of organizing them, and marking which edits have been checked and which still need to be looked at. Not really a fundamental shift in how Wikipedia works, just adding some tools to help us deal with things.
Absolutely. We agree completely on that.
Slightly more fundamental would be displaying to users that a particular revision has a certain level of confidence. This is already implicit for experienced Wikipedians---I think most of us know almost immediately whether a particular article is trustworthy or not, based on patterns like what the prose looks like, how wikified it is, how many people have edited it, what subject area it's in, etc. But formalizing that a bit and making it explicit for newcomers and casual readers can't hurt---we all know that an unwikified page just created by 1 person and not edited by anyone else should be read with a grain of salt, but we can point that out to others in some automated way. Again, just kind of incrementally improving how things work.
The problem with this is figuring out how to do it in a way that doesn't lead to game playing, karma whoring, etc. Any automated tool would embody some a priori assumptions that might not match the rich fabric of our actual experience.
For the most part, I think we're doing pretty well, and there are lots of good ways to incrementally improve what's already gong well, it's just that period media frenzies kind of catch us when we're not yet ready.
David Gerard has a nice way of saying this... we've reached public popularity when we're still barely out of alpha and into beta, if that. With software this seldom happens.
--Jimbo
Heinz wrote:
Jimmy Wales schrieb:
Absolutely. We agree completely on that.
Who is "We"?
Well, you deleted the other person's comments, but generally when speaking to someone, if I agree with them, I will write something like "Yes, we agree about that." The we refers to me and the other person.
--Jimbo
Delirium wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
I suppose I'm not really sure what this will buy us. It only takes away the class of problems: "page doesn't exist, anon creats a bad one". These are actually among the easiest to spot. Much harder are: "page exists as a stub, anon adds a sentence to it that is bad". These are harder to spot, and this does not address that; in fact, it will encourage troublesome anons to just find existing articles to put misinformation into, rather than creating new ones. I think, on the whole, that would be *more* of a problem.
Yes. I think there are many different kinds of troublesome anons. I think a part of what will help in this case is to reduce the overall volume of *noise* that people patrolling have to deal with, which will give them more time to look at those stubs.
But, it's an experiment. We all have a priori views on what will or won't be the consequences, and at least we should proceed experimentally to see if this helps or not. If not, we try something else. Calvinball.
--Jimbo
SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia.
Does this apply to all pages, or just articles? It seems that IPs should still be able to create talk pages, both for articles and for users.
We'll have to ask Brion, but what you say sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia.
Does this apply to all pages, or just articles? It seems that IPs should still be able to create talk pages, both for articles and for users.
We'll have to ask Brion, but what you say sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Talk pages are separately controlled, and anons can indeed still create them.
I've gone ahead and turned on the restriction mode, per Jimmy's order. Notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Anon_pag...
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Should we have a page where anons can request a page be started? Otherwise it might lead to some frustration.
Martin (User:Bluemoose)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brion Vibber" brion@pobox.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 7:13 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Experiment on new pages
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia.
Does this apply to all pages, or just articles? It seems that IPs should still be able to create talk pages, both for articles and for users.
We'll have to ask Brion, but what you say sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Talk pages are separately controlled, and anons can indeed still create them.
I've gone ahead and turned on the restriction mode, per Jimmy's order. Notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Anon_pag...
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/5/05, Martin Richards Martin@velocitymanager.com wrote:
Should we have a page where anons can request a page be started? Otherwise it might lead to some frustration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles
Kelly
Martin Richards wrote:
Should we have a page where anons can request a page be started? Otherwise it might lead to some frustration.
We do, [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]]. I would expect that a link will be included in whatever text shows up when an anon tries to create a page.
On 12/5/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Martin Richards wrote:
Should we have a page where anons can request a page be started? Otherwise it might lead to some frustration.
We do, [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]]. I would expect that a link will be included in whatever text shows up when an anon tries to create a page.
I've added links to [[Special:Userlogin]] and [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] to [[Mediawiki:Nocreatetext]].
Kelly
Thats not what I mean. If an anon wants to make a article, putting it on that page won't be much help, as that is where people request that someone else makes an article, we need a page where anons can say "I want to write an article about foobar but I need someone to start it off so I can actually make it".
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Martin" kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Experiment on new pages
On 12/5/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Martin Richards wrote:
Should we have a page where anons can request a page be started? Otherwise it might lead to some frustration.
We do, [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]]. I would expect that a link will be included in whatever text shows up when an anon tries to create a page.
I've added links to [[Special:Userlogin]] and [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] to [[Mediawiki:Nocreatetext]].
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Martin Richards wrote:
Thats not what I mean. If an anon wants to make a article, putting it on that page won't be much help, as that is where people request that someone else makes an article, we need a page where anons can say "I want to write an article about foobar but I need someone to start it off so I can actually make it".
Can't they just create an account and then create the article, or am I missing something?
Martin Richards wrote:
Thats not what I mean. If an anon wants to make a article, putting it on that page won't be much help, as that is where people request that someone else makes an article, we need a page where anons can say "I want to write an article about foobar but I need someone to start it off so I can actually make it".
You are correct. I suggest we hire someone to start pages requested by anons.
Anthere
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Martin" kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Experiment on new pages
On 12/5/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Martin Richards wrote:
Should we have a page where anons can request a page be started? Otherwise it might lead to some frustration.
We do, [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]]. I would expect that a link will be included in whatever text shows up when an anon tries to create a page.
I've added links to [[Special:Userlogin]] and [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] to [[Mediawiki:Nocreatetext]].
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/5/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Martin Richards wrote:
Thats not what I mean. If an anon wants to make a article, putting it on that page won't be much help, as that is where people request that someone else makes an article, we need a page where anons can say "I want to write an article about foobar but I need someone to start it off so I can actually make it".
You are correct. I suggest we hire someone to start pages requested by anons.
Anthere
This is why I like the limiting orphans option because:
A) it effects everyone B)if you really want to create an article you can create a link to it.
-- geni
On 12/5/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Martin Richards wrote:
Thats not what I mean. If an anon wants to make a article, putting it on that page won't be much help, as that is where people request that someone else makes an article, we need a page where anons can say "I want to write an article about foobar but I need someone to start it off so I can actually make it".
You are correct. I suggest we hire someone to start pages requested by anons.
This is a great idea. Also someone to create accounts for them once anons aren't allowed to make new accounts.
++SJ
On 12/5/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
This is a great idea. Also someone to create accounts for them once anons aren't allowed to make new accounts.
++SJ
Of course, that facility is already coded into MediaWiki.
-- Sam
On 05/12/05, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Does this apply to all pages, or just articles? It seems that IPs should still be able to create talk pages, both for articles and for users.
We'll have to ask Brion, but what you say sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Talk pages are separately controlled, and anons can indeed still create them.
I've gone ahead and turned on the restriction mode, per Jimmy's order.
This was brought up by [[User:JIP]] on [[WP:HD]] today:
----
Today I've seen a couple of talk pages created for nonexistent templates, created by anon users, which have turned out as vandalism. I seem to remember that although anons can't create articles any more, they can create talk pages. I suggest that anons should be prohibited from creating talk pages for articles, categories, templates or project pages that don't exist yet, to prevent this sort of vandalism.
----
It's pretty sensible; anyone feel modifying the "can create talk pages" system would cause problems? I assume it's simply a matter of setting permissions for various namespaces, but if it's anything more complex it might not be worth implementing...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Hello,
Excellent experiment. This gets to the root of Wikipedia's problem; lack of source, unverifiable material. Fixing this upstream is much easier than downstream. Before starting an article, the verifiable sources should be in hand. By encouraging them to register, it possible for current editors to reach out to new editors and teach them this important Wikipedia value.
Also, there is a difference between starting an article vs. fixing typos or inserting a simple fact into a pre-existing article. This experiment recognizes it.
Regards, Sydney Poore
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia. ______________________________________________
snip
_ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If we diagnose what went wrong in the Seigenthaler case, this seems like a very opportune place to try a small change of policy.
- First, the Seigenthaler article was created by an anon.
What does that have to do with anything? Please assume good faith. The person who wrote the text might have gotten Seigenthaler mixed up with another person who might actually have been suspected of being a Soviet spy etc. A registered user could aswell have made the same mistake. I certainly had no idea who this Seigenthaler dude was and wouldn't have been able to spot the errors in the article. Now I know - he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge. What was written about him on Wikipedia is peanuts compared to how the printed press regularily treats famous persons. He should consider himself lucky if involvement in the Kennedy assassination is the worst be has been accused for.
Don't get me wrong, I like experiments. Experiments are good because you learn something even if you fail. But the arguments for initiating this experiment is totally bullshit. That there is (and will be) false statements in Wikipedia is a direct consequence of it being open. If you want to remove the possibility of cry-babies like Johnny boy coming and whining, the only thing to do is to close down the site for editing for good.
If you want to deal with the spam and random vandalism, there are adequate and unobtrusive technical measures you can use. For example, let a bayesian filter tag each edit. But no. Instead all this panicking and draconian measures that undoubtedly *WILL* make honest contributors life harder.
-- mvh Björn
On 12/6/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
If we diagnose what went wrong in the Seigenthaler case, this seems like a very opportune place to try a small change of policy.
- First, the Seigenthaler article was created by an anon.
What does that have to do with anything? Please assume good faith. The person who wrote the text might have gotten Seigenthaler mixed up with another person who might actually have been suspected of being a Soviet spy etc. A registered user could aswell have made the same mistake.
I think not allowing unreferenced articles would be a great help too. I bet the anon didn't provide any source (or they would've discovered their own mistake if it was one).
Mgm
On 12/6/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
If we diagnose what went wrong in the Seigenthaler case, this seems like a very opportune place to try a small change of policy.
- First, the Seigenthaler article was created by an anon.
What does that have to do with anything? Please assume good faith. The person who wrote the text might have gotten Seigenthaler mixed up with another person who might actually have been suspected of being a Soviet spy etc. A registered user could aswell have made the same mistake.
I think not allowing unreferenced articles would be a great help too. I bet the anon didn't provide any source (or they would've discovered their own mistake if it was one).
Mgm
Did the article even say he was suspected as being a Soviet spy? Is everyone here sure that that isn't true? I'm sure someone somewhere sometime suspected the guy of doing something. I don't see anything remotely approaching libel in the USA Today article. That's probably one of the reasons Seigenthaler hasn't yet proceeded with the John Doe lawsuit.
And by the way, if that user *was* logged in when she created the article, then Seigenthaler would have to get two subpoenas instead of one. First he'd have to get one to obtain the IP address from Wikipedia (hopefully the foundation wouldn't give away private personal information without a court order). Then he'd have to get another one from BellSouth. By not logging in, the author is *less* anonymous, not more.
So it really doesn't make much sense to say "the Seigenthaler article was created by an anon." Might as well say "the Seigenthaler article was created by a BellSouth customer", or "the Seigenthaler article was created by someone using a computer in the United States", or "the Seigenthaler article was created by someone using ADSL".
Anyway, whatever, it's just an experiment, and not really that big of a deal anyway.
Anthony
And by the way, if that user *was* logged in when she created the article, then Seigenthaler would have to get two subpoenas instead of one. First he'd have to get one to obtain the IP address from Wikipedia (hopefully the foundation wouldn't give away private personal information without a court order). Then he'd have to get another one from BellSouth. By not logging in, the author is *less* anonymous, not more.
That's a really good point, especially since, iirc, Wikipedia does not maintain a record of IP addresses used for more than a couple months. Edit once, discard the name - and you're probably out of reach of a John Doe subpoena.
Ian (Guettarda)
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
I certainly had no idea who this Seigenthaler dude was and wouldn't have been able to spot the errors in the article. Now I know
- he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge.
This is absolutely false and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it.
John Seigenthaler, Sr. is a hero. He founded an organization devoted to the defense of the First Amendment. In all my interactions with him, he has been kind and thoughtful.
He is very much *not* litigious. (He never threatened to sue Wikipedia, and he specifically chose not to pursue legal action to force the ISP to cough up the name of the person who libelled him.)
--Jimbo
I would think that calling someone "a hero" is 'unncessarily diplomatic language,' and such a designation would require citation. In this case, the citation is his 'founding of a First Amendment defending organization.'
Its important to remember how trust foundations in general work in the U.S. They largely exist for the purposes of 1) financial self-sustenance 2) lobbying, and 3) public awareness. The last two have relatively low overhead, and the first has no real ties to the cause which it claims to represent. Hence we have various organzations that represent various causes which may or may not have some vague connection with the goals they claim to support.
Bjorn's language was indeed unnecessarily undiplomiac and needing of correction. But an examination of Siegenthaler's language in reference to Wikipedia as a whole likewise shows a lacking of the "kind and thoughful" traits claimed to be in private discourse. More to the point, Seigenthaler's transcripted comments arent evokative of someone who has a deep understanding of the U.S. First Amendment issues in question:
SEIGENTHALER: "...can I just say, where I'm worried about this leading. Next year we go into an election year. Every politician is going to find himself or herself subjected to the same sort of outrageous commentary that hit me, and hits others.
"I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result of that. And I -- I tell you, I think if you can't fix it, both fix the history as well as the biography pages, I think it's going to be in real trouble, and we're going to have to be fighting to keep the government from regulating you."
People can decide for themselves if they think that some "libel" (i.e. 'uncorrected cruft') in one article will equate to a wider climate of presumably dire and draconian "government" regulation. I think the claim is beyond ridiculous, and throwing Kelly's little laundry list of media errors into the equasion, Siegenthaler's comments are almost indistinguishable from an attack on *free media from the point of view of *corporate media.
No doubt he is sincere, but his interests *seem to be in protecting the institutional, and not the emergent. In that context, being diplomatic to Siegenthaler for sake of converting him to understand the free media model is indeed a wise course of action.
Stevertigo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
I certainly had no idea who this Seigenthaler dude
was and
wouldn't have been able to spot the errors in the
article. Now I know
- he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge.
This is absolutely false and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it.
John Seigenthaler, Sr. is a hero. He founded an organization devoted to the defense of the First Amendment. In all my interactions with him, he has been kind and thoughtful.
He is very much *not* litigious. (He never threatened to sue Wikipedia, and he specifically chose not to pursue legal action to force the ISP to cough up the name of the person who libelled him.)
--Jimbo
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
"I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result of that. And I -- I tell you, I think if you can't fix it, both fix the history as well as the biography pages, I think it's going to be in real trouble, and we're going to have to be fighting to keep the government from regulating you."
People can decide for themselves if they think that some "libel" (i.e. 'uncorrected cruft') in one article will equate to a wider climate of presumably dire and draconian "government" regulation. I think the claim is beyond ridiculous, and throwing Kelly's little laundry list of media errors into the equasion, Siegenthaler's comments are almost indistinguishable from an attack on *free media from the point of view of *corporate media.
No doubt he is sincere, but his interests *seem to be in protecting the institutional, and not the emergent. In that context, being diplomatic to Siegenthaler for
Well, I doubt that. His editorial shows that he was able to browse the revision history of his article and found out the user who inserted the incorrect statements. It shows that he has technical skills enough to use the Wikipedia interface and also knows what an "Internet Protocol address" is. Average 78 year old retired journalists doesn't understand stuff like that, Seigenthaler apparently does. That makes me wonder why he didn't correct the errors in his article himself? Maybe his editorial wouldn't have been published had it read "A Wikipedia entry about me as incorrect for 132 days, until I came by and fixed it. Wikipedia rocks!"?
Sorry for the speculation and conspiracy theorizing, but to me it seems that the purpose of his editorial was to raise hell. An example of a journalist not reporting news, but creating it himself.
In the real world, things like that are bound to happen. Name one organisation that hasn't been criticised as harshly as the current printed media attack on Wikipedia. The media makes their living on "scandals" like these. There is no reason to panic! Restricting page creation to only registered users in an attempt to remove possibly libellous statements from Wikipedia sounds like 100% pure and irrational panic to me. It also makes it seem like Wikipedia's rule makers are more concerned with what the media thinks than our own community thinks - since there is no way in hell such a proposal would have gotten a majority in democratically held vote.
-- mvh Björn
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
If we diagnose what went wrong in the Seigenthaler case, this seems like a very opportune place to try a small change of policy.
- First, the Seigenthaler article was created by an anon.
What does that have to do with anything? Please assume good faith. The person who wrote the text might have gotten Seigenthaler mixed up with another person who might actually have been suspected of being a Soviet spy etc. A registered user could aswell have made the same mistake. I certainly had no idea who this Seigenthaler dude was and wouldn't have been able to spot the errors in the article. Now I know
- he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge. What was written about
him on Wikipedia is peanuts compared to how the printed press regularily treats famous persons. He should consider himself lucky if involvement in the Kennedy assassination is the worst be has been accused for.
It seems to me that these comments are far more libellous than what was in the article. At least the article stated that the charges were found to be in error. Do you have any proof at all for your statement that "he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge." A truly litigious person would have fun with that comment, and the fact that it was made on the mailing list would be no excuse.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
It seems to me that these comments are far more libellous than what was in the article. At least the article stated that the charges were found to be in error. Do you have any proof at all for your statement that "he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge." A truly litigious person would have fun with that comment, and the fact that it was made on the mailing list would be no excuse.
How about this statement, then:
"Based on the available evidence, particularly his tone and comments in public discussions, Mr. Seigenthaler appears to be a litigious asshole looking for revenge. In particular, his singleminded focus on the inability of Wikipedia to provide him with a name he can sue suggests that he is more interested in lawsuits and revenge than in constructive criticism or improving anything."
(There is, of course, nothing libelous about expressing an opinion.)
-Mark
On 12/6/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
It seems to me that these comments are far more libellous than what was in the article. At least the article stated that the charges were found to be in error. Do you have any proof at all for your statement that "he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge." A truly litigious person would have fun with that comment, and the fact that it was made on the mailing list would be no excuse.
How about this statement, then:
"Based on the available evidence, particularly his tone and comments in public discussions, Mr. Seigenthaler appears to be a litigious asshole looking for revenge. In particular, his singleminded focus on the inability of Wikipedia to provide him with a name he can sue suggests that he is more interested in lawsuits and revenge than in constructive criticism or improving anything."
(There is, of course, nothing libelous about expressing an opinion.)
-Mark
You do relise that it would to our advantage if he was "litigious asshole looking for revenge". Two reasons in fact:
1. He would be hastleing the ISP rather than commenting on us 2. The idea that putting false info on wikipedia can get you sued is one I would not object to being spread.
-- geni
geni wrote:
- The idea that putting false info on wikipedia can get you sued is
one I would not object to being spread.
I certainly would! To be more specific, his call for us to make it easier to trace Wikipedia contributors, and therefore to enable people to sue them, is *directly* contrary to a lot of our goals. If we make it so that nobody can be anonymous enough to avoid U.S. libel lawsuits, it also means nobody is anonymous enough to avoid getting hauled before courts authoritarian countries who might want to trace who wrote an article they disapprove of.
-Mark
On 12/6/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I certainly would! To be more specific, his call for us to make it easier to trace Wikipedia contributors, and therefore to enable people to sue them, is *directly* contrary to a lot of our goals. If we make it so that nobody can be anonymous enough to avoid U.S. libel lawsuits, it also means nobody is anonymous enough to avoid getting hauled before courts authoritarian countries who might want to trace who wrote an article they disapprove of.
-Mark
If you post something libilus under US law (which is the only law that matters) and the person finds it fast enough they can get a court order and get the relivant server logs from wikipedia. If you don't log in then I'm afaraid we can't protect you from being stupid. You can't expect the foundation not to respect a US court order. As a result the fact is that under certian conditions posting something false on wikipedia could get you into legal trouble. It is important people understand this.
The reference to authoritarian countries is a red herring. Assumeing you avoid local monitoring it is only US law you have to worry about because only US law affects the foundation.
-- geni
On 12/6/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If you post something libilus under US law (which is the only law that matters) and the person finds it fast enough they can get a court order and get the relivant server logs from wikipedia. If you don't log in then I'm afaraid we can't protect you from being stupid. You can't expect the foundation not to respect a US court order. As a result the fact is that under certian conditions posting something false on wikipedia could get you into legal trouble. It is important people understand this.
The reference to authoritarian countries is a red herring. Assumeing you avoid local monitoring it is only US law you have to worry about because only US law affects the foundation.
Presumably the servers in Paris, Amsterdam and Korea would pose a problem here...
-- Sam
On 12/6/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If you post something libilus under US law (which is the only law that matters) and the person finds it fast enough they can get a court order and get the relivant server logs from wikipedia. If you don't log in then I'm afaraid we can't protect you from being stupid. You can't expect the foundation not to respect a US court order. As a result the fact is that under certian conditions posting something false on wikipedia could get you into legal trouble. It is important people understand this.
The reference to authoritarian countries is a red herring. Assumeing you avoid local monitoring it is only US law you have to worry about because only US law affects the foundation.
Presumably the servers in Paris, Amsterdam and Korea would pose a problem here...
-- Sam
They are not database servers only squids so we are probably safe. We could also drop them if it became a problem.
-- geni
On 12/6/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
They are not database servers only squids so we are probably safe. We could also drop them if it became a problem.
Those servers constitute a "legal presence" in those jurisdictions. The WMF's investment in those servers is at risk in the event of an unfavorable legal finding in one of those jurisdictions or in any jurisdiction from which one of those jurisdictions will grant execution of an adverse judgment. I don't know enough about EU law and the enforceability of foreign judgments within the EU to know whether a UK judgment could be enforced in France in such a situation.
Kelly
On 12/6/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Those servers constitute a "legal presence" in those jurisdictions. The WMF's investment in those servers is at risk in the event of an unfavorable legal finding in one of those jurisdictions or in any jurisdiction from which one of those jurisdictions will grant execution of an adverse judgment. I don't know enough about EU law and the enforceability of foreign judgments within the EU to know whether a UK judgment could be enforced in France in such a situation.
The only possible parallel I have is that summons can be served anywhere in the European Union (except, I think, Denmark, though I can't remember why) and have effect. This might extend to the execution of a verdict, though it might well not.
-- Sam
On 12/6/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
They are not database servers only squids so we are probably safe. We could also drop them if it became a problem.
Those servers constitute a "legal presence" in those jurisdictions. The WMF's investment in those servers is at risk in the event of an unfavorable legal finding in one of those jurisdictions or in any jurisdiction from which one of those jurisdictions will grant execution of an adverse judgment. I don't know enough about EU law and the enforceability of foreign judgments within the EU to know whether a UK judgment could be enforced in France in such a situation.
Kelly
doubtful. Legal systems in europe tend to be fairly seperate (just to confuse thing further there are two diffent legal systems in the UK, Scotish and everyone else). The European arrrest warrent is criminal cases only and even then doesn't cover everything. After that you are looking at extradition treaties and things get really complex. -- geni
geni wrote:
If you post something libilus under US law (which is the only law that matters) and the person finds it fast enough they can get a court order and get the relivant server logs from wikipedia. If you don't log in then I'm afaraid we can't protect you from being stupid. You can't expect the foundation not to respect a US court order. As a result the fact is that under certian conditions posting something false on wikipedia could get you into legal trouble. It is important people understand this.
The reference to authoritarian countries is a red herring. Assumeing you avoid local monitoring it is only US law you have to worry about because only US law affects the foundation.
It isn't a red herring, because I'm not talking about the possibility that a court order could be made for our current logs. I'm talking specifically about Mr. Seigenthaler's calls for us to add additional logging facility specifically for the purpose of making it easier to trace anonymous contributors, which would be a very bad idea. We can't guarantee people's anonymity, but we shouldn't---contrary to his suggestion---go out of our way to make contributors more easily traceable back to their real identities.
-Mark
On 12/6/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
geni wrote:
If you post something libilus under US law (which is the only law that matters) and the person finds it fast enough they can get a court order and get the relivant server logs from wikipedia. If you don't log in then I'm afaraid we can't protect you from being stupid. You can't expect the foundation not to respect a US court order. As a result the fact is that under certian conditions posting something false on wikipedia could get you into legal trouble. It is important people understand this.
The reference to authoritarian countries is a red herring. Assumeing you avoid local monitoring it is only US law you have to worry about because only US law affects the foundation.
It isn't a red herring, because I'm not talking about the possibility that a court order could be made for our current logs. I'm talking specifically about Mr. Seigenthaler's calls for us to add additional logging facility specifically for the purpose of making it easier to trace anonymous contributors, which would be a very bad idea. We can't guarantee people's anonymity, but we shouldn't---contrary to his suggestion---go out of our way to make contributors more easily traceable back to their real identities.
-Mark
Exactly. As Seigenthaler has already alluded to in his rant in USA Today, he already has the ability to file a John Doe lawsuit and, if his lawyers can convince the judge that there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, get a subpoena to force BellSouth to give the identity of the ADSL customer. For whatever reason, he's chosen not to do that but instead to publically complain about the system.
As I said in my other post, though, I can't figure out what it is that he's actually suggesting be done. I find it hard to believe that he's lived such a long life and just figured out that allowing free speech is sometimes going to lead to gossip.
Anthony
On 12/6/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
If we diagnose what went wrong in the Seigenthaler case, this seems like a very opportune place to try a small change of policy.
- First, the Seigenthaler article was created by an anon.
What does that have to do with anything? Please assume good faith. The person who wrote the text might have gotten Seigenthaler mixed up with another person who might actually have been suspected of being a Soviet spy etc. A registered user could aswell have made the same mistake. I certainly had no idea who this Seigenthaler dude was and wouldn't have been able to spot the errors in the article. Now I know
- he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge. What was written about
him on Wikipedia is peanuts compared to how the printed press regularily treats famous persons. He should consider himself lucky if involvement in the Kennedy assassination is the worst be has been accused for.
It seems to me that these comments are far more libellous than what was in the article. At least the article stated that the charges were found to be in error. Do you have any proof at all for your statement that "he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge." A truly litigious person would have fun with that comment, and the fact that it was made on the mailing list would be no excuse.
Ec
From what I can gather, neither the article nor these comments were
libellous (but the fact that I don't have a copy of the article limits my ability to speak with regard to it). Since you think these comments are "more libellous" than what was in the article, maybe Siegenthaler should write another article blasting Wikipedia and whinging about how he isn't able to sue BJörn or anyone else (he leave out the paragraph on anonymity this time). And then Jimbo can go on CNN and say that he is wiping, this post and all the others that contain the allegedly libellous statement, from the archive website.
I suppose you could say Siegenthaler isn't litigious, because he hasn't sued anyone, at least not yet (there's still time and he's left it open whether or not he's going to). But frankly that seems to be more because he is smart (and hired smart lawyers to consult with him) than that he doesn't want to sue anyone. The last paragraph of his rant in USA Today (and part of the middle one) is about how he has "little legal recourse". His lawyers already told him he can't sue Wikipedia, he can't sue the ISP, and though he hasn't admitted it they probably told him he can't successfully sue John Doe either (not that it matters, as John Doe likely doesn't have the kind of deep pockets that could pay for just Siegenthaler's lawyers anyway). As Siegenthaler said, "Congress effectively has barred defamation in cyberspace." Now why complain about that if you're not interested in suing someone?
Frankly, I really don't get it. Siegenthaler is supposedly a defender of free speech rights. Doesn't he realize that making ISPs liable for content spoken by others would stifle free speech? Doesn't he agree that the ability to speak anonymously is absolutely critical to free speech?
"Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name." Is Siegenthaler really so dense to have unintentionally left out the word "allegedly" before "defame online". Federal privacy laws *don't* protect the identity of those who defame online. But you've got to convince a judge that the person *actually defamed online* before she's going to allow you to force the ISP to name names. Unless you happen to be George W. Bush, a mere allegation of something isn't enough to violate privacy rights, you have to actually convince a judge that your allegation is correct.
What does Siegenthaler want? Does he want Wikipedia to stop allowing volunteer contributors? Does he want Congress to remove the protections given to ISPs for merely carrying content produced by others? Does he want to take away the ability of Internet speakers to be anonymous? Does he want to start licensing or bonding people who produce content to distribute over the Internet?
Maybe he just wants Wikipedia to get it right 100% of the time. Or maybe he just wants Wikipedia to stop calling itself an encyclopedia (because it's really just a common carrier - an ISP). I could actually see his point there, though I'm not sure if I agree and it's almost definitely not going to happen anyway. Either way, if his only beef is with Wikipedia then why include the other two paragraphs about anonymity and lack of legal recourse.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Or maybe he just wants Wikipedia to stop calling itself an encyclopedia (because it's really just a common carrier - an ISP). I could actually see his point there, though I'm not sure if I agree and it's almost definitely not going to happen anyway. Either way, if his only beef is with Wikipedia then why include the other two paragraphs about anonymity and lack of legal recourse.
Anthony
Because he is a big thinker. As he points out laws can change. Also new legal precedents are possible. Is an Internet wiki encyclopedia different enough from other types of media or publishers to require new laws or interpretation?
This man is not a Wikipedia enemy. Did he overreact? Maybe. Very likely it was a case of the straw that broke the camels back. A generational issue, too.
In the long run, his feedback will help us more than hurt us.
Sydney
According to intellectual property laws, no one should claim he is the author of a work who someone else authored.
So...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicone_rubber&action=history
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Silicone_Rubber...
Who is the author of the article ?
Anthere
Anthere wrote:
According to intellectual property laws, no one should claim he is the author of a work who someone else authored.
So...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicone_rubber&action=history
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Silicone_Rubber...
Who is the author of the article ?
Someone not reading instructions. From [[WP:AFC]]:
"If you fulfil any of these requests using content posted on this page, please note the requesting IP in the edit summary for GFDL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL compliance."
Also, assuming authorship just because someone created the database row in MediaWiki is dubious anyway, since there are merges, copying from other sources, etc... Yes, that should always be noted in the edit summary. Yes, some people don't. But it's not a /new/ problem.
grm_wnr
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
According to intellectual property laws, no one should claim he is the author of a work who someone else authored.
So...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicone_rubber&action=history
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Silicone_Rubber...
Who is the author of the article ?
If the text that actually ended up on the page was posted on AFC by the anon, then the anon is the author - the text has essentially been moved. If the logged-in editor who creates the article modifies this text, they own those edits in the usual way.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
According to intellectual property laws, no one should claim he is the author of a work who someone else authored.
So...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicone_rubber&action=history
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Silicone_Rubber...
Who is the author of the article ?
If the text that actually ended up on the page was posted on AFC by the anon, then the anon is the author - the text has essentially been moved. If the logged-in editor who creates the article modifies this text, they own those edits in the usual way.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
So, in this case, the GFDL is violated. As it is violated each time a full portion of article is moved to create another article with no mention of the original author or source.
I remember once I worked many hours on an article about the GMO. It was quite long, I authored it at about 95%. I was quite proud of it. Then someone thought it could be divided for some reasons. He mentionned it in the talk page. I said I disagreed. The next day, that author took 75% of the text and created a new article with it. He changed nothing, did not even fixed the introduction which he left standing quite stupidely with no change to reflect the article had been divided.
But he became the author of it.
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
Under GFDL, It is also illegal. Incidently, if I was guilty of copyright violation, the one who appropriated the work will also be facing legal issues. Not I :-)
Ant
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
Right. We surely need a new style guideline for this. But it is hard to do properly; this is one of the reasons we need a two-panel From--->To editing interface, that tracks what you are reading as you write a new article, and in exchange makes it easier to do such copying and pasting... else users will always continue to do this without attribution.
SJ
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
So, in this case, the GFDL is violated. As it is violated each time a full portion of article is moved to create another article with no mention of the original author or source.
The GFDL is pretty much always violated, at least in the sense that it's never followed, on Wikipedia.
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
We should add an *editable* history section. Call it the history namespace. Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page. Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a username to it when text is copied. Automatically coalesce multiple edits by the same person in the same year into a single entry. Include the title of the page in this section entitled history, this way if the page is moved you have a history of the previous titles. Allow people to swap in their real name instead of their username. Forget the diffs, they aren't important for the purpose of listing authors.
This would be an attempt at an actual solution to the big mess which we have now.
Anthony
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
We should add an *editable* history section. Call it the history namespace. Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page. Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a username to it when text is copied.
It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.
This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the authors that created the source article up until then.
-- Jim (trodel@gmail.com) "Our love may not always be reciprocated, or even appreciated, but love is never wasted" - Neal A Maxwell ---Intersted in Gmail - let me know I have invites---
On 12/8/05, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
We should add an *editable* history section. Call it the history namespace. Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page. Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a username to it when text is copied.
It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.
This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the authors that created the source article up until then.
This would work relatively OK if everyone did it correctly and consistently 100% of the time. Which is to say, we've already tried this, it doesn't work.
As for Ant's particular problem, one could suggest that she simply make some minor edit to the text, and thus her name will then show up as an author. But that's kind of a kludge, and someone looking at the actual diffs would get the wrong impression as to what she was the author of. It also doesn't address the GFDL requirement to include the title of the work (the title at the time it was edited), if a page is moved, and it makes the list of authors way too long and awkward (we don't need to list the same author more than once per year, in fact in my opinion there should only be one line in the history section per year, listing all the authors, unless the title changes or there is a merger from a different work in which case you'd want one line per title).
Anthony
We have the same problem with merges. Some people don't seem to think it's neccesary to attribute material to the original article and author when merging something. I'm not even sure of a majority of them actually say it's a merge in the summary.
That really needs to change.
Mgm
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
We should add an *editable* history section. Call it the history namespace. Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page. Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a username to it when text is copied.
It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.
This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the authors that created the source article up until then.
This would work relatively OK if everyone did it correctly and consistently 100% of the time. Which is to say, we've already tried this, it doesn't work.
As for Ant's particular problem, one could suggest that she simply make some minor edit to the text, and thus her name will then show up as an author. But that's kind of a kludge, and someone looking at the actual diffs would get the wrong impression as to what she was the author of. It also doesn't address the GFDL requirement to include the title of the work (the title at the time it was edited), if a page is moved, and it makes the list of authors way too long and awkward (we don't need to list the same author more than once per year, in fact in my opinion there should only be one line in the history section per year, listing all the authors, unless the title changes or there is a merger from a different work in which case you'd want one line per title).
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
We have the same problem with merges. Some people don't seem to think it's neccesary to attribute material to the original article and author when merging something. I'm not even sure of a majority of them actually say it's a merge in the summary.
That really needs to change.
Mgm
It certainly won't change until there's a solution which actually makes sense, such as an editable history section like I suggested. Putting authorship information in the comment column, and not in the authorship column? I can see why people don't do that, it doesn't make any sense.
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
We should add an *editable* history section. Call it the history namespace. Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page. Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a username to it when text is copied.
It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.
This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the authors that created the source article up until then.
This would work relatively OK if everyone did it correctly and consistently 100% of the time. Which is to say, we've already tried this, it doesn't work.
As for Ant's particular problem, one could suggest that she simply make some minor edit to the text, and thus her name will then show up as an author. But that's kind of a kludge, and someone looking at the actual diffs would get the wrong impression as to what she was the author of. It also doesn't address the GFDL requirement to include the title of the work (the title at the time it was edited), if a page is moved, and it makes the list of authors way too long and awkward (we don't need to list the same author more than once per year, in fact in my opinion there should only be one line in the history section per year, listing all the authors, unless the title changes or there is a merger from a different work in which case you'd want one line per title).
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Being able to change the author column would help, but I could still see problems. How would you avoid people crediting others for edits they didn't make or suggest? Also, some people are inherently lazy and still won't proper attribute something even if there's an easy way to do so. Proof is in the fact people fail to listen to multiple clear instructions on both the help- and reference desk which are explained and should make sense.
Any idea on how to avoid such problems. Re-educating users would safe coders a lot of work, not to mention another scheduled downtime to upgrade databases like when the current id was being changed so diffs to the latest version could remain static.
Mgfm
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
We have the same problem with merges. Some people don't seem to think it's neccesary to attribute material to the original article and author when merging something. I'm not even sure of a majority of them actually say it's a merge in the summary.
That really needs to change.
Mgm
It certainly won't change until there's a solution which actually makes sense, such as an editable history section like I suggested. Putting authorship information in the comment column, and not in the authorship column? I can see why people don't do that, it doesn't make any sense.
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
We should add an *editable* history section. Call it the history namespace. Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page. Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a username to it when text is copied.
It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.
This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the authors that created the source article up until then.
This would work relatively OK if everyone did it correctly and consistently 100% of the time. Which is to say, we've already tried this, it doesn't work.
As for Ant's particular problem, one could suggest that she simply make some minor edit to the text, and thus her name will then show up as an author. But that's kind of a kludge, and someone looking at the actual diffs would get the wrong impression as to what she was the author of. It also doesn't address the GFDL requirement to include the title of the work (the title at the time it was edited), if a page is moved, and it makes the list of authors way too long and awkward (we don't need to list the same author more than once per year, in fact in my opinion there should only be one line in the history section per year, listing all the authors, unless the title changes or there is a merger from a different work in which case you'd want one line per title).
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Being able to change the author column would help, but I could still see problems. How would you avoid people crediting others for edits they didn't make or suggest?
It's not really that horrible to have a few spurious authorship lines here and there. I'd much rather have a few extra than a few missing. Anyway, you'd avoid it by reverting the edits which do so.
I don't say the system is magic, but I think it's a lot better than what we have now (and it'd be in addition to what we have now anyway).
Also, some people are inherently lazy and still won't proper attribute something even if there's an easy way to do so. Proof is in the fact people fail to listen to multiple clear instructions on both the help- and reference desk which are explained and should make sense.
Right. It's not perfect. Just better. At least if someone is lazy and doesn't attribute something and then someone else catches them, it can be fixed.
If we added a "references" field to the edit page, even if it was optional, the number of attributions would probably increase even more. The field would be unformatted, so someone could of course type "I just knew it" or "copied from some website" or even "poop" for their reference, but it'd be one more thing to look into if someone put their reference as "Wikipedia". Remember, one of the reasons academics and publishers are so tough on references is to avoid plagiarism. If someone can check your reference and see that the information you added is in that source, then there's much less of a chance you just copy-pasted it (to use the electronic version) from some other place.
Any idea on how to avoid such problems. Re-educating users would safe coders a lot of work, not to mention another scheduled downtime to upgrade databases like when the current id was being changed so diffs to the latest version could remain static.
Mgfm
Hmm, the way I see it it'd be a relatively simple feature, and wouldn't require any changes to the database. Just add a namespace called History, put a link to it next to Talk, and put some code in the software to automatically edit the History page whenever the article gets edited. The database wouldn't change at all.
Now, adding a references section would preferably add a column to a database table. Whether or not that would require scheduled downtime, I don't know. The last version of MySQL I used was pretty crappy when it comes to altering tables on the fly. There are ways to do it in MySQL, but it takes a little bit of thinking and good design. Scheduled downtime should be unacceptable on a site this big; unfortunately it isn't. (BTW, it's trivial to alter tables, on a live database, without downtime, in PostgreSQL. And I say this as someone who personally prefers MySQL, so it's not just advocacy.)
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
We have the same problem with merges. Some people don't seem to think it's neccesary to attribute material to the original article and author when merging something. I'm not even sure of a majority of them actually say it's a merge in the summary.
That really needs to change.
Mgm
It certainly won't change until there's a solution which actually makes sense, such as an editable history section like I suggested. Putting authorship information in the comment column, and not in the authorship column? I can see why people don't do that, it doesn't make any sense.
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote: > We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most > authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's > authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list > articles we wrote. > We should add an *editable* history section. Call it the history namespace. Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page. Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a username to it when text is copied.
It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.
This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the authors that created the source article up until then.
This would work relatively OK if everyone did it correctly and consistently 100% of the time. Which is to say, we've already tried this, it doesn't work.
As for Ant's particular problem, one could suggest that she simply make some minor edit to the text, and thus her name will then show up as an author. But that's kind of a kludge, and someone looking at the actual diffs would get the wrong impression as to what she was the author of. It also doesn't address the GFDL requirement to include the title of the work (the title at the time it was edited), if a page is moved, and it makes the list of authors way too long and awkward (we don't need to list the same author more than once per year, in fact in my opinion there should only be one line in the history section per year, listing all the authors, unless the title changes or there is a merger from a different work in which case you'd want one line per title).
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Right. It's not perfect. Just better. At least if someone is lazy and doesn't attribute something and then someone else catches them, it can be fixed. If we added a "references" field to the edit page, even if it was optional, the number of attributions would probably increase even more. The field would be unformatted, so someone could of course type "I just knew it" or "copied from some website" or even "poop" for their reference, but it'd be one more thing to look into if someone put their reference as "Wikipedia".
I put forward an idea a while ago which people weren't too keen on, but I think it's time for it to be presented again: when a new article is created, prefill it with text. e.g.
A '''pagetitle''' is ... (say what the article is about, with a bit of introductory detail)
==More detail==
(If there's more to say about it, put in sections with == == on the name of each section)
==See also==
==References== * (List the sources you used in writing this article) * *
==External links== * (List the few most relevant external web pages on the subject (home pages, etc) that you know of)
While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me to type?"
I'm not sure if Mediawiki has new article prefill as yet, but it can't be that hard. The prefill wikitext could even be a Mediawiki: space message.
(Example of a new article I created today: [[XCB]]. I have something like the above template in my head when I write an article.)
Now, adding a references section would preferably add a column to a database table. Whether or not that would require scheduled downtime, I don't know.
Sounds like much more work than the above. The above would set out that we do expect references and so on. Ultimately, I think guiding new editors in how to do the right thing would work better than trying to force a given article format in the database.
- d.
[cc: to wikitech-l]
On 12/9/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Right. It's not perfect. Just better. At least if someone is lazy and doesn't attribute something and then someone else catches them, it can be fixed. If we added a "references" field to the edit page, even if it was optional, the number of attributions would probably increase even more. The field would be unformatted, so someone could of course type "I just knew it" or "copied from some website" or even "poop" for their reference, but it'd be one more thing to look into if someone put their reference as "Wikipedia".
I put forward an idea a while ago which people weren't too keen on, but I think it's time for it to be presented again: when a new article is created, prefill it with text. e.g.
A '''pagetitle''' is ... (say what the article is about, with a bit of introductory detail)
==More detail==
(If there's more to say about it, put in sections with == == on the name of each section)
==See also==
==References==
- (List the sources you used in writing this article)
==External links==
- (List the few most relevant external web pages on the subject (home
pages, etc) that you know of)
While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me to type?"
I'm not sure if Mediawiki has new article prefill as yet, but it can't be that hard. The prefill wikitext could even be a Mediawiki: space message.
(Example of a new article I created today: [[XCB]]. I have something like the above template in my head when I write an article.)
Now, adding a references section would preferably add a column to a database table. Whether or not that would require scheduled downtime, I don't know.
Sounds like much more work than the above. The above would set out that we do expect references and so on. Ultimately, I think guiding new editors in how to do the right thing would work better than trying to force a given article format in the database.
- d.
[cc: to wikitech-l]
Hmm, you're really talking about something completely different from me, though. First of all, this would be for all edits, not just new articles. But secondly, whatever you put in that field wouldn't go into the article at all, it'd go into the article history (next to the comments field or something). Unlike references in the article itself: 1) we'd encourage people to put their reference for *every edit*, not just major references, 2) the edit would be forever tied to the reference, 3) you could include sources which wouldn't go in the references section (from another article, from memory), 4) there'd be no complaints about spamming (I've seen references to web pages removed because they were considered ads), 5) In cases where the source you use is already in the references section, you'd be able to note that you used that source for *this edit* too.
I guess there is an argument that this would be redundant work for those who already put references in the ==References== section, but in my experience that represents a very small portion of edits, whereas the vast majority of edits should mention a source somewhere. Of course the best argument is that this should just go in the comments section, which is why I'm somewhat hesitant about whether or not it's a good idea.
I think educating editors should be tried before be try any sort of technical solution, so I'm all for a template. At least, that way people can't claim they didn't know how to include the references we require (which is now clearly said on edit pages by the way as well)
Mgm
On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/9/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Right. It's not perfect. Just better. At least if someone is lazy and doesn't attribute something and then someone else catches them, it can be fixed. If we added a "references" field to the edit page, even if it was optional, the number of attributions would probably increase even more. The field would be unformatted, so someone could of course type "I just knew it" or "copied from some website" or even "poop" for their reference, but it'd be one more thing to look into if someone put their reference as "Wikipedia".
I put forward an idea a while ago which people weren't too keen on, but I think it's time for it to be presented again: when a new article is created, prefill it with text. e.g.
A '''pagetitle''' is ... (say what the article is about, with a bit of introductory detail)
==More detail==
(If there's more to say about it, put in sections with == == on the name of each section)
==See also==
==References==
- (List the sources you used in writing this article)
==External links==
- (List the few most relevant external web pages on the subject (home
pages, etc) that you know of)
While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me to type?"
I'm not sure if Mediawiki has new article prefill as yet, but it can't be that hard. The prefill wikitext could even be a Mediawiki: space message.
(Example of a new article I created today: [[XCB]]. I have something like the above template in my head when I write an article.)
Now, adding a references section would preferably add a column to a database table. Whether or not that would require scheduled downtime, I don't know.
Sounds like much more work than the above. The above would set out that we do expect references and so on. Ultimately, I think guiding new editors in how to do the right thing would work better than trying to force a given article format in the database.
- d.
[cc: to wikitech-l]
Hmm, you're really talking about something completely different from me, though. First of all, this would be for all edits, not just new articles. But secondly, whatever you put in that field wouldn't go into the article at all, it'd go into the article history (next to the comments field or something). Unlike references in the article itself: 1) we'd encourage people to put their reference for *every edit*, not just major references, 2) the edit would be forever tied to the reference, 3) you could include sources which wouldn't go in the references section (from another article, from memory), 4) there'd be no complaints about spamming (I've seen references to web pages removed because they were considered ads), 5) In cases where the source you use is already in the references section, you'd be able to note that you used that source for *this edit* too.
I guess there is an argument that this would be redundant work for those who already put references in the ==References== section, but in my experience that represents a very small portion of edits, whereas the vast majority of edits should mention a source somewhere. Of course the best argument is that this should just go in the comments section, which is why I'm somewhat hesitant about whether or not it's a good idea. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I think educating editors should be tried before be try any sort of technical solution, so I'm all for a template. At least, that way people can't claim they didn't know how to include the references we require (which is now clearly said on edit pages by the way as well)
Mgm
I guess if the template is kept to the article namespace only it's not such a bad thing. I wouldn't oppose at least trying it out. But I do think it's a different idea.
In the other thread I propose requiring comments for every edit, but only for users that aren't logged in. Let's test it out on them first, and see how it goes :). One tweak I just thought of now though is we'd probably be better off limiting this to only the article namespace.
(Now, how to handle a top post...do I delete the rest or keep it? ohwell)
Anthony
On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/9/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Right. It's not perfect. Just better. At least if someone is lazy and doesn't attribute something and then someone else catches them, it can be fixed. If we added a "references" field to the edit page, even if it was optional, the number of attributions would probably increase even more. The field would be unformatted, so someone could of course type "I just knew it" or "copied from some website" or even "poop" for their reference, but it'd be one more thing to look into if someone put their reference as "Wikipedia".
I put forward an idea a while ago which people weren't too keen on, but I think it's time for it to be presented again: when a new article is created, prefill it with text. e.g.
A '''pagetitle''' is ... (say what the article is about, with a bit of introductory detail)
==More detail==
(If there's more to say about it, put in sections with == == on the name of each section)
==See also==
==References==
- (List the sources you used in writing this article)
==External links==
- (List the few most relevant external web pages on the subject (home
pages, etc) that you know of)
While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me to type?"
I'm not sure if Mediawiki has new article prefill as yet, but it can't be that hard. The prefill wikitext could even be a Mediawiki: space message.
(Example of a new article I created today: [[XCB]]. I have something like the above template in my head when I write an article.)
Now, adding a references section would preferably add a column to a database table. Whether or not that would require scheduled downtime, I don't know.
Sounds like much more work than the above. The above would set out that we do expect references and so on. Ultimately, I think guiding new editors in how to do the right thing would work better than trying to force a given article format in the database.
- d.
[cc: to wikitech-l]
Hmm, you're really talking about something completely different from me, though. First of all, this would be for all edits, not just new articles. But secondly, whatever you put in that field wouldn't go into the article at all, it'd go into the article history (next to the comments field or something). Unlike references in the article itself: 1) we'd encourage people to put their reference for *every edit*, not just major references, 2) the edit would be forever tied to the reference, 3) you could include sources which wouldn't go in the references section (from another article, from memory), 4) there'd be no complaints about spamming (I've seen references to web pages removed because they were considered ads), 5) In cases where the source you use is already in the references section, you'd be able to note that you used that source for *this edit* too.
I guess there is an argument that this would be redundant work for those who already put references in the ==References== section, but in my experience that represents a very small portion of edits, whereas the vast majority of edits should mention a source somewhere. Of course the best argument is that this should just go in the comments section, which is why I'm somewhat hesitant about whether or not it's a good idea. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In the other thread I propose requiring comments for every edit, but only for users that aren't logged in. Let's test it out on them first, and see how it goes :). One tweak I just thought of now though is we'd probably be better off limiting this to only the article namespace.
(Now, how to handle a top post...do I delete the rest or keep it? ohwell)
Anthony
I don't see why we should limit that to anons there's enough newbies and regulars who fail to cite sources on a regular basis. Anyone should be encouraged (if not forced) to do so. I don't see the advantage of just doing that to anons.
Obvious spelling errors shouldn't really need a source, so there's a few crinks to iron out.
Mgm
On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
In the other thread I propose requiring comments for every edit, but only for users that aren't logged in. Let's test it out on them first, and see how it goes :). One tweak I just thought of now though is we'd probably be better off limiting this to only the article namespace.
(Now, how to handle a top post...do I delete the rest or keep it? ohwell)
Anthony
I don't see why we should limit that to anons there's enough newbies and regulars who fail to cite sources on a regular basis. Anyone should be encouraged (if not forced) to do so. I don't see the advantage of just doing that to anons.
Obvious spelling errors shouldn't really need a source, so there's a few crinks to iron out.
Mgm
Well, spelling fixes and other mass changes would be severely slowed down if you had to add a comment every time. I think we'd be better off testing it on "anons" (who aren't really anonymous) first. Of course, if we were going to turn it on for all users, we could exempt minor edits - and "anons" can't mark edits as minor, which is kind of what made me think to restrict it to anons first.
The comment wouldn't have to be used to cite sources. You could use it for anything, such as saying "fix spelling" or "move a paragraph". But the idea is you couldn't just leave it blank. Hopefully this would make edit patrolling easier by putting a lot more information on the recent changes page (and the watch lists).
I really can't think of much reason anyone would oppose it, especially just limited to "anon" editing of the article namespace.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Moin,
On Friday 09 December 2005 20:05, David Gerard wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Right. It's not perfect. Just better. At least if someone is lazy and doesn't attribute something and then someone else catches them, it can be fixed. If we added a "references" field to the edit page, even if it was optional, the number of attributions would probably increase even more. The field would be unformatted, so someone could of course type "I just knew it" or "copied from some website" or even "poop" for their reference, but it'd be one more thing to look into if someone put their reference as "Wikipedia".
I put forward an idea a while ago which people weren't too keen on, but I think it's time for it to be presented again: when a new article is created, prefill it with text. e.g.
[snipa bit]
- From my experience with people very new to wikis, I also set up a new link in the menu ala "Create new article". When clicked it asks about the title, and then bounces them back to the wiki, the edit box open and a text similar to yours already filled in.
People view this as _much_ easier than mucking about with the URL, putting a link in somewhere else, and/or starting with an empty edit box.
The most FAQ was "How do I start a new article?" followed by "And why is this so complicated?", closely followed by "How do I add a headline again?"
Especially in-frequent contributors tend to forget these things very quick and since the computer should help the humans and not vice versa, I finally patched my local Mediawiki installation to fix this issue. Everyone's been happy since :)
Best wishes,
Tels
- -- Signed on Fri Dec 9 21:09:24 2005 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
This email violates U.S. patent #6,756,999 http://tinyurl.com/2vuqm:
[ [ Konsoles* ] [ Mozilla ] [ KMail ]]
Tels wrote:
- From my experience with people very new to wikis, I also set up a new link
in the menu ala "Create new article". When clicked it asks about the title, and then bounces them back to the wiki, the edit box open and a text similar to yours already filled in. People view this as _much_ easier than mucking about with the URL, putting a link in somewhere else, and/or starting with an empty edit box.
Yep!
The most FAQ was "How do I start a new article?" followed by "And why is this so complicated?", closely followed by "How do I add a headline again?"
That's specifically why I put how to make a section in that in the example ;-)
I did a radio interview on Wikipedia yesterday. I actually tried to lure casual editors to feel free to edit.
It'd be nice if anon contributors could start articles again. If regulars don't like getting a template, perhaps it could be on just for anon editors.
Especially in-frequent contributors tend to forget these things very quick and since the computer should help the humans and not vice versa, I finally patched my local Mediawiki installation to fix this issue. Everyone's been happy since :)
Please submit the patch! (Is there a bug for this yet?)
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Moin David,
On Friday 09 December 2005 21:58, David Gerard wrote:
Tels wrote:
[snipabit]
Yep!
The most FAQ was "How do I start a new article?" followed by "And why is this so complicated?", closely followed by "How do I add a headline again?"
That's specifically why I put how to make a section in that in the example ;-)
I did a radio interview on Wikipedia yesterday. I actually tried to lure casual editors to feel free to edit.
It'd be nice if anon contributors could start articles again. If regulars don't like getting a template, perhaps it could be on just for anon editors.
I think anon users rights have nothing to do with this issue of whether the edit box should be pre-filled or not, and whether it should be easier to create new articles :)
(IMHO anon edits should be disallowed entirely, but this is just my private opinion which doesn't carry much weight and/or might be wrong/impractical/impolite etc :)
Especially in-frequent contributors tend to forget these things very quick and since the computer should help the humans and not vice versa, I finally patched my local Mediawiki installation to fix this issue. Everyone's been happy since :)
Please submit the patch! (Is there a bug for this yet?)
Actually, I just added one new link to the toolbox on the left, which goes to a HTML page with a form entry on a webserver, which bounces the user back to the wiki. I am sure it is possible to create a specialpage (Specialpages:NewArticle?) that does the same, but the external form was easier for me.
The disadvantage of my solution is that you need to be already logged in for the form to work, otherwise you get the "please login first" message, and since clicking "log me in" on that page loses the "where you came from" (which is a bug), the user will then be on the main page.
Best wishes,
Tels
- -- Signed on Fri Dec 9 23:46:06 2005 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
'Wie Ludger Lügenboldt, Sprecher der Interessengemeinschaft Förderer der Prostitution International (I.F.P.I.) jetzt bekannt gab, entstehen der Zuhälterbrache jährlich Milliardenverluste durch kostenfreien Sex. "Bestimmt hätten unsere Mädels im Jahr 2003 alleine in Deutschland 2000 Millionen Quickies mehr verkaufen können, wenn die Leute nicht immer mehr privat rumvögeln würden. Der uns entstandene Schaden beläuft sich auf mindestens 100000000000 Euro." Schuld sei nach Angaben Lügenboldts das Internet: "Flirtportale und Singlewebsites mit Kontaktbörsen machen unser Geschäft kaputt. Amateure rauben uns unserer Geschäftsgrundlagen." Zehntausende von Arbeitsplätzen in Deutschland seien gefährdet, die überdies gerade geringer qualifizieren jungen Frauen ein Einkommen sicherten. Die I.F.P.I. fordert den Gesetzgeber auf, diesem Treiben umgehend Schranken zu setzen.' MI-Boykotteur at 2004-05-07 at http://tinyurl.com/35qjo
On 09/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me to type?"
Another benefit: stick in [[Category:New articles]] as prefilled text at the bottom. We end up with a cleanup category, where articles will go until someone hacks them about a bit and (eg) categorises them. A nice corrolary to Newpages, in that you can see an experienced editor *hasn't* been at the page yet...
It's worth a shot.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 09/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be presented clearly with what we expect from a new article. With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me to type?"
Another benefit: stick in [[Category:New articles]] as prefilled text at the bottom. We end up with a cleanup category, where articles will go until someone hacks them about a bit and (eg) categorises them. A nice corrolary to Newpages, in that you can see an experienced editor *hasn't* been at the page yet...
Brilliant!
- d.
Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote: On 09/12/05, David Gerard wrote:
While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me to type?"
Another benefit: stick in [[Category:New articles]] as prefilled text at the bottom. We end up with a cleanup category, where articles will go until someone hacks them about a bit and (eg) categorises them. A nice corrolary to Newpages, in that you can see an experienced editor *hasn't* been at the page yet...
It's worth a shot.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Writing from the peanut gallery, I think this is a great idea, it plants the seed in new editors heads that those components are an intergral part of a well formatted article. Where does it go from here?
On 10/12/05, Brian Haws brian@bhaws.com wrote:
(...)
Writing from the peanut gallery, I think this is a great idea, it plants the seed in new editors heads that those components are an intergral part of a well formatted article. Where does it go from here?
1 - Find out if MediaWiki can handle automatically filling a new edit box with boilerplate text, preferably able to restrict the function to the main namespace. 2 - If it can't, find a developer and [whine/beg/give them beer] until MediaWiki can. 3 - Persuade someone it's a good idea to give it a shot. This person is, for the moment, likely to be called Jimbo. 4 - Give it a shot. 5 - Wait for screams of outrage. 6 - Profit!
(Thinking about it, would it also be a good idea to add a {{stub}} tag as default? 95% of them will be, and the stub-sorting people are pretty good at routing those stubs to where they need to go... and at removing the ones that obviously aren't)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Pre-categorizing new articles assumes the newbies won't touch the code. If that indeed happens I prefer a "New article" category over new articles automatically being tagged as stub. They may not be stubby, though I must admit the chance is pretty high.
Mgm
On 12/10/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/05, Brian Haws brian@bhaws.com wrote:
(...)
Writing from the peanut gallery, I think this is a great idea, it plants the seed in new editors heads that those components are an intergral part of a well formatted article. Where does it go from here?
1 - Find out if MediaWiki can handle automatically filling a new edit box with boilerplate text, preferably able to restrict the function to the main namespace.
It used to insert the contents of $newarticletext (which is now specified by [[mediawiki:newarticletext]]) into the edit box for the new article. This was changed so it inserts this text above the edit box. I assume it wouldn't be hard to add a new variable ($newarticleeditbox?) and put this in the edit box. Here's the relevant code from February 2005:
if ( 'edit' == $action ) { wfProfileOut( $fname ); return ''; # was "newarticletext", now moved above the box) }
I don't think this checks whether or not this is in the article namespace though, that'd have to be added.
It'd likely be a really easy feature to add, and by default newarticleeditbox (or newarticleboilerplate, or whatever) would be blank, and it'd be up to the individual projects to decide whether or not to fill it.
Anthony
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Here's the relevant code from February 2005:
if ( 'edit' == $action ) { wfProfileOut( $fname ); return ''; # was "newarticletext", nowmoved above the box) }
Oh yeah, that'd be phase3/includes/Article.php. I just cvs updated, and it's changed:
if ( 'edit' == $action ) { wfProfileOut( $fname );
# If requested, preload some text. $text=$this->getPreloadedText($preload);
# We used to put MediaWiki:Newarticletext here if # $text was empty at this point. # This is now shown above the edit box instead. return $text; }
Not sure what getPreloadedText is. Maybe this feature is already in there. Still doesn't seem to check namespace, though.
If not, I could make a patch if the developers want, but it's been a while since I've hacked mediawiki code and it's such a simple change, so it's probably better if they did it themselves.
Anthony
I found out what preload is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noarticlehere&action=edit&...
So, in pseudocode (I don't know mediawiki), all that'd need to be done is change:
return $text;
to:
if ($text!='') { return $text; } else if (namespace is article namespace) { return $newarticleboilerplate; } else { return ''; }
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Here's the relevant code from February 2005:
if ( 'edit' == $action ) { wfProfileOut( $fname ); return ''; # was "newarticletext", nowmoved above the box) }
Oh yeah, that'd be phase3/includes/Article.php. I just cvs updated, and it's changed:
if ( 'edit' == $action ) { wfProfileOut( $fname ); # If requested, preload some text. $text=$this->getPreloadedText($preload); # We used to putMediaWiki:Newarticletext here if # $text was empty at this point. # This is now shown above the edit box instead. return $text; }
Not sure what getPreloadedText is. Maybe this feature is already in there. Still doesn't seem to check namespace, though.
If not, I could make a patch if the developers want, but it's been a while since I've hacked mediawiki code and it's such a simple change, so it's probably better if they did it themselves.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I found out what preload is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noarticlehere&action=edit&... So, in pseudocode (I don't know mediawiki), all that'd need to be done is change: return $text; to: if ($text!='') { return $text; } else if (namespace is article namespace) { return $newarticleboilerplate; } else { return ''; }
Fabulous! Preloading a blank article form should be not terribly traumatic ... How hard would it be to make the preload an option that a regular editor can switch off when it gets annoying? (Though I for one would probably keep mine on.)
[cc to wikitech-l]
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I found out what preload is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noarticlehere&action=edit&... So, in pseudocode (I don't know mediawiki), all that'd need to be done is change: return $text; to: if ($text!='') { return $text; } else if (namespace is article namespace) { return $newarticleboilerplate; } else { return ''; }
Fabulous! Preloading a blank article form should be not terribly traumatic ... How hard would it be to make the preload an option that a regular editor can switch off when it gets annoying? (Though I for one would probably keep mine on.)
[cc to wikitech-l]
- d.
If the developers need time for this, we could hack up a [[MediaWiki:monobook.js]] patch in the meantime that checks if a <div> with the id "newarticletext" is present, and enters the article template into the editbox if so. Of course, that would only work for user with JavaScript-enabled browsers, but I guess the majority of regular internet users use one (Yes, I'm going to get a lot of "Hey, I'm using Lynx you insensitive clod!" replies to this). It would only be a stopgap solution until a server-sided patch is ready anyway. I'm going to give this a try in my user js now, just for kicks.
grm_wnr
grm_wnr wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I found out what preload is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noarticlehere&action=edit&...
So, in pseudocode (I don't know mediawiki), all that'd need to be done is change: return $text; to: if ($text!='') { return $text; } else if (namespace is article namespace) { return $newarticleboilerplate; } else { return ''; }
Fabulous! Preloading a blank article form should be not terribly traumatic ... How hard would it be to make the preload an option that a regular editor can switch off when it gets annoying? (Though I for one would probably keep mine on.)
[cc to wikitech-l]
- d.
If the developers need time for this, we could hack up a [[MediaWiki:monobook.js]] patch in the meantime that checks if a
<div> with the id "newarticletext" is present, and enters the article template into the editbox if so. Of course, that would only work for user with JavaScript-enabled browsers, but I guess the majority of regular internet users use one (Yes, I'm going to get a lot of "Hey, I'm using Lynx you insensitive clod!" replies to this). It would only be a stopgap solution until a server-sided patch is ready anyway. I'm going to give this a try in my user js now, just for kicks.
grm_wnr
function ArticleSkeletonPreload() { if (document.getElementById("wpTextbox1") && document.getElementById("newarticletext") && document.getElementById("ca-nstab-main") && !noarticleskeleton) { document.getElementById("wpTextbox1").value="A '''pagetitle''' is ... (say what the article is about, with a bit of introductory detail)\n\n==More detail==\n\n(If there's more to say about it, put in sections with == == on the name of each section)\n\n==See also==\n\n==References==\n*List the sources you used in writing this article)\n*\n*\n\n==External links==\n* (List the few most relevant external web pages on the subject (home pages, etc) that you know of)\n\n[[Category:Newly created pages]]"; } } noarticleskeleton = false; addLoadEvent(ArticleSkeletonPreload);
That was simpler than I thought - the above works for me on Firefox, Opera and IE6. It only acts in the article namespace. Users can add "noarticleskeleton=true;" in their monobook.js to turn it off (that last part is not fully tested, since I'd have to put the script live on MediaWiki:monobook.js for that - I'm not bold enough to do this, but feel free to use it/abuse it/edit it mercilessly)
grm_wnr
Of course, that would only work for user with JavaScript-enabled browsers, but I guess the majority of regular internet users use one (Yes, I'm going to get a lot of "Hey, I'm using Lynx you insensitive clod!" replies to this).
I suspect most Lynx users are sufficiently clued not to need this anyway - or sufficiently stubborn not to be helped ...
-Matt
G'day Andrew,
On 09/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me to type?"
Another benefit: stick in [[Category:New articles]] as prefilled text at the bottom. We end up with a cleanup category, where articles will go until someone hacks them about a bit and (eg) categorises them. A nice corrolary to Newpages, in that you can see an experienced editor *hasn't* been at the page yet...
It's worth a shot.
Good ideas all-around. So ... who wants to write it?
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
We have the same problem with merges. Some people don't seem to think it's neccesary to attribute material to the original article and author when merging something. I'm not even sure of a majority of them actually say it's a merge in the summary.
That really needs to change.
Mgm
It certainly won't change until there's a solution which actually makes sense, such as an editable history section like I suggested. Putting authorship information in the comment column, and not in the authorship column? I can see why people don't do that, it doesn't make any sense.
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
We should add an *editable* history section. Call it the history namespace. Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page. Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a username to it when text is copied.
It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.
This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the authors that created the source article up until then.
This would work relatively OK if everyone did it correctly and consistently 100% of the time. Which is to say, we've already tried this, it doesn't work.
As for Ant's particular problem, one could suggest that she simply make some minor edit to the text, and thus her name will then show up as an author. But that's kind of a kludge, and someone looking at the actual diffs would get the wrong impression as to what she was the author of. It also doesn't address the GFDL requirement to include the title of the work (the title at the time it was edited), if a page is moved, and it makes the list of authors way too long and awkward (we don't need to list the same author more than once per year, in fact in my opinion there should only be one line in the history section per year, listing all the authors, unless the title changes or there is a merger from a different work in which case you'd want one line per title).
I'm wondering how many US copyright lawyers are participating in this discussion.
While we're all speaking out of our butts, let me add that simply explicating that by submitting to Wikipedia you're willing to accept authorship credit under the collective name of "Wikipedia contributors" would likely handle any legal considerations.
But IANAL. And it's not like lawyers actually know anything. It's all whistling Dixie until a court rules.
On 12/8/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
While we're all speaking out of our butts, let me add that simply explicating that by submitting to Wikipedia you're willing to accept authorship credit under the collective name of "Wikipedia contributors" would likely handle any legal considerations.
The legal consideration is about the license Wikipedia uses, the GFDL, and is a question about what sorts of requirements it puts upon uses of the text. It is not a terribly difficult document to understand for the most part even without legal training.
Personally I think most of the discussions here are in relation to the fact that the GFDL was really designed to work with software manuals more than anything else, if I recall. I don't think it really works perfectly for a wiki encyclopedia, much less all of the different formats of media we have on it (sound, images, etc.).
My crystal-ball prediction is that someday we'll end up with a modified (though GFDL-compatible) license, WFDL or something like that, more tailored to our needs. But of course we don't know all of our current much less future needs, so it would be hasty to worry about that too much now, I think.
As an aside, I'm not sure trying to make MediaWiki bend backwards to accommodate the GFDL's more intricate interpretations is the right way to go either.
FF
I'm wondering how many US copyright lawyers are participating in this discussion.
While we're all speaking out of our butts, let me add that simply explicating that by submitting to Wikipedia you're willing to accept authorship credit under the collective name of "Wikipedia contributors" would likely handle any legal considerations.
But IANAL. And it's not like lawyers actually know anything. It's all whistling Dixie until a court rules.
It's less about authorship and more about accountablility. We need those names so we know who to hold responsible if the info is wrong.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It's less about authorship and more about accountablility. We need those names so we know who to hold responsible if the info is wrong.
Yep, knowing who to ask. The thing that *really* gets Wikipedia editors upset about things like the Siegenthaler article is not the possibility of a libel case - it's that the article was *wrong*. THAT gets people into action.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It's less about authorship and more about accountablility. We need those names so we know who to hold responsible if the info is wrong.
Yep, knowing who to ask. The thing that *really* gets Wikipedia editors upset about things like the Siegenthaler article is not the possibility of a libel case - it's that the article was *wrong*. THAT gets people into action.
Absolutely, and yet so many people get themselves all in tangles over the legal aspects.
Ec
On 12/8/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My crystal-ball prediction is that someday we'll end up with a modified (though GFDL-compatible) license, WFDL or something like that, more tailored to our needs. But of course we don't know all of our current much less future needs, so it would be hasty to worry about that too much now, I think.
Lawrence Lessig, working through Creative Commons, annouced on cc-lessigletter that he is "launching a project to facilitate interoperability among sufficiently compatible license types." I'd strongly recommend the newsletter to anyone interested in these sorts of things. It's a once a week letter so it's low traffic and usually fairly interesting. The last edition talked about how "Erik Möller argues against the use of a Creative Commons NonCommercial (NC) license" and how "content licensed under a NC license can't be included within Wikipedia."
As an aside, I'm not sure trying to make MediaWiki bend backwards to accommodate the GFDL's more intricate interpretations is the right way to go either.
FF
I don't really think so either. I was more responding to Ant's concern that about being "strip[p]ed of one's authorship". Forgetting the GFDL completely, there should *still* be a place where people can go to see a list of the authors of an article (without sifting through 10,000 lines of history just to see the 200 authors, or writing a bot to do so). If we're going to make this, we might as well add in the years and the titles and make it GFDL compatible to boot.
Anthony
On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I don't really think so either. I was more responding to Ant's concern that about being "strip[p]ed of one's authorship". Forgetting the GFDL completely, there should *still* be a place where people can go to see a list of the authors of an article (without sifting through 10,000 lines of history just to see the 200 authors, or writing a bot to do so). If we're going to make this, we might as well add in the years and the titles and make it GFDL compatible to boot.
Let me give an example of what I'm thinking:
*'''Bill Gates''', copyright (c) 2005, written, and published by Wikipedia users Psy guy, JJman69, Adam Bishop, Sceptre, Bluemoose, Everyking, Anetode, FireFox, Idont havaname, GraemeL, Android79, Rebroad, Thatdog, Y0u, Fredrik, Bwithh, Esprit15d, JoanneB, Greenmind, Throup, [blah blah blah], and various anonymous contributors to Wikipedia *'''Bill Gates''', copyright (c) 2004, written, and published by PeregrineAY, SeventyThree, Henrygb, OoberMick, Wimt, Veemonkamiya, Phoenix2, Alex.tan, MrGALL, Merovingian, Chealer, Krystyn Dominik, WikiED, Jpers36, Adoniscik, Ric man, Sarg, R3m0t, [blah blah blah], and various anonymous contributors to Wikipedia *'''Bill_GateS''', copyright (c) 2004, written, and published by [blah blah blah, let's pretend this was an old title] *[[Melinda Gates]], copyright (c) 2005, written and published by [blah blah blah, let's pretend this was a merge and redirect] *[http://blah Taking Over the World], an article in the [[Free On-line Dictionary of Computing]], copyright (c) 2005, written by whoever, published by Denis Howe, used with permission under the GFDL. [pretending this was an article from an outside source used under the GFDL] *[http://blah Bill Gates], an article in the [http://blah German Wikipedia], written and published by [blah blah blah] and various anonymous contributors to the German Wikipedia, translated with permission under the GFDL.
Anyway, there are a few questions as to exactly what format to use, etc., but that's my basic idea. I think it'd be a lot easier to read than http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Gates&limit=500&actio... , and I think it'd make it a lot easier for answers.com and other reusers to actually give credit to the people who have written the work that they're using. Being more GFDL compliant is a bonus - this should be done regardless of the GFDL.
Anthony
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It certainly won't change until there's a solution which actually makes sense, such as an editable history section like I suggested. Putting authorship information in the comment column, and not in the authorship column? I can see why people don't do that, it doesn't make any sense.
There is no "author" column. That column indicates the "editor" of the article. The editor of an article need not be, and quite probably is not, its author.
Kelly
On 12/7/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Frankly, I really don't get it. Siegenthaler is supposedly a defender of free speech rights. Doesn't he realize that making ISPs liable for content spoken by others would stifle free speech? Doesn't he agree that the ability to speak anonymously is absolutely critical to free speech?
I think, like a lot of people who grew up in an age when free speech was something only accredited journalists and their sources exercised, he preferred that system. Today's "everyone can be a journalist" Internet bothers a lot of people.
-Matt
On 12/7/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/7/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Frankly, I really don't get it. Siegenthaler is supposedly a defender of free speech rights. Doesn't he realize that making ISPs liable for content spoken by others would stifle free speech? Doesn't he agree that the ability to speak anonymously is absolutely critical to free speech?
I think, like a lot of people who grew up in an age when free speech was something only accredited journalists and their sources exercised, he preferred that system. Today's "everyone can be a journalist" Internet bothers a lot of people.
-Matt
I usually don't reply just to say "yeah", but yeah, that actually makes sense (which is not to say it's necessarily the right reason, but at least it's a reasonable guess).
I think we need to be careful not to give in to that thinking. In fact I see it as almost the antithesis of what we're trying to do. (Yes, some will argue that we're trying to create an encyclopedia, and that's it, but we will only succeed at this if we reach a consensus on *how* to create an encyclopedia.)
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
From what I can gather, neither the article nor these comments were
libellous (but the fact that I don't have a copy of the article limits my ability to speak with regard to it). Since you think these comments are "more libellous" than what was in the article, maybe Siegenthaler should write another article blasting Wikipedia and whinging about how he isn't able to sue BJörn or anyone else (he leave out the paragraph on anonymity this time). And then Jimbo can go on CNN and say that he is wiping, this post and all the others that contain the allegedly libellous statement, from the archive website.
We don't know what Seigenthaler would have done with the information if he had been able to track down the writer. His promary complaint was the incredibly high hurdles he would have had to jump in order to find out. We have no basis to speculate about what he would have done had he succeeded in identifying his "biographer."
Frankly, I really don't get it. Siegenthaler is supposedly a defender of free speech rights. Doesn't he realize that making ISPs liable for content spoken by others would stifle free speech? Doesn't he agree that the ability to speak anonymously is absolutely critical to free speech?
I'm not an expert in US constitutional law; it's not my country. Sometimes it does happen though that one right can interferes with others. Reconciling those rights may lead to limitations on one or the other. I don't think that it would be fair to conclude that free speech condones defamation. Whether actual defamation could be proven cannot be established unless the person has the right to face his accuser.
What does Siegenthaler want? Does he want Wikipedia to stop allowing volunteer contributors? Does he want Congress to remove the protections given to ISPs for merely carrying content produced by others? Does he want to take away the ability of Internet speakers to be anonymous? Does he want to start licensing or bonding people who produce content to distribute over the Internet?
Maybe he just wants more awareness around the problem, which certainly more complex than Wikipedia's involvement in the issue.
Ec
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I'm not an expert in US constitutional law; it's not my country. Sometimes it does happen though that one right can interferes with others. Reconciling those rights may lead to limitations on one or the other. I don't think that it would be fair to conclude that free speech condones defamation. Whether actual defamation could be proven cannot be established unless the person has the right to face his accuser.
The point they were trying to make is that this is a fellow who supports various civil liberties but seems to desire that it would be extremely easy for people to get intricate personal information based only on an IP address, without having the desire to actually file charges for that information. That's an attitude frowned upon by most privacy advocates, and S.'s advocacy of it sounds suspiciously like something he would not want applied as a general rule, but just in his situation, but I don't know.
Should I be granted access to anybody's personal information just because I didn't like something they wrote on an internet forum? That sort of power could be easily abused and I'm sure we've all had situations where we can recognize that it was a good thing that the nut on the other end of an electronic exchange didn't have access to our phone number much less our home address. Of course, if that nut was filing legal proceedings, that would give them standing for such information. But if they just want to casually complain -- hard to justify.
FF
Ray Saintonge wrote:
What does Siegenthaler want? Does he want Wikipedia to stop allowing volunteer contributors? Does he want Congress to remove the protections given to ISPs for merely carrying content produced by others? Does he want to take away the ability of Internet speakers to be anonymous? Does he want to start licensing or bonding people who produce content to distribute over the Internet?
Maybe he just wants more awareness around the problem, which certainly more complex than Wikipedia's involvement in the issue.
My read is that his reaction was fundamentally "OMG, I had no idea all this was going on". The allegations would have been just as problematic had they appeared on a random blog - freepers and stormfronters would have been perfectly happy to have them posted on their sites - so his complaints apply to most of the net, have little to do with WP specifically (but of course we want to be a much better reference than the average website).
People that are just now discovering the Internet are simply not going to have any idea how deep it goes. WP is simply one novel project among millions, even the experts have trouble keeping up with the weird stuff that's being tried out every day (the dot com bust has become a dot star boom...)
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
What does Siegenthaler want? Does he want Wikipedia to stop allowing volunteer contributors? Does he want Congress to remove the protections given to ISPs for merely carrying content produced by others? Does he want to take away the ability of Internet speakers to be anonymous? Does he want to start licensing or bonding people who produce content to distribute over the Internet?
Maybe he just wants more awareness around the problem, which is certainly more complex than Wikipedia's involvement in the issue.
My read is that his reaction was fundamentally "OMG, I had no idea all this was going on". The allegations would have been just as problematic had they appeared on a random blog - freepers and stormfronters would have been perfectly happy to have them posted on their sites - so his complaints apply to most of the net, have little to do with WP specifically (but of course we want to be a much better reference than the average website).
People that are just now discovering the Internet are simply not going to have any idea how deep it goes. WP is simply one novel project among millions, even the experts have trouble keeping up with the weird stuff that's being tried out every day (the dot com bust has become a dot star boom...)
That's about it, which is why I feel that those who are questioning Seigenthaler's motives are being a little unfair. There are any number of people and groups who are not happy with the lack of control over the internet. They would much rather that it reflect their view of the world It all comes down to a question of how we minimize the credibility of the bad actors. They aren't going to stop their vandalism; we just need to make sure that the cure is not worse than the disease.
Ec
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for anonymous users in the English Wikipedia.
It seems to me that the first thing we can do is try to reduce the workload on the people doing new pages patrol. A fairly extensive monitoring and survey of new pages conducted by me over the past few days, coupled with discussions with several people who keep an eye on such things, suggests that we can have a substantial improvement here by eliminating the ability for anons to make new pages.
Who are these people?
There are some potentially negative side-effects, which is why I call this an experiment:
- Annoying anons may simply decide to create accounts and make annoying
nonsense pages anyway. This will certainly be true in some cases, but it is an empirical question as to how many.
- We will lose good new pages created by anons of good will. This may
cause the growth of English Wikipedia (in terms of the number of articles) to slow a little bit. With 800,000+ articles, and ever-increasing traffic to the website, this seems to be a worthwhile cost.
3. We continue to move farther from openness and freedom, increasing a culture of controls and limits and access.
4. We discourage people of good will from participating in Wikipedia.
5. The other consequences of increased barriers to access (forcing participants to spend more time and energy, more of an us-vs-them mentality, increased suspicion of strangers, the creation of a "challenge" to be "defeated").
And so on.
Notice that anons can still edit. I am a firm believer in the validity of allowing anons to edit. Most anon edits are good, and done "on impulse". We would most of the good edits from anons if we did not allow anon edits, but we would probably not lose most of the vandalistic anon edits. So the net effect of forbidding anon edits would likely be negative.
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy change and move on.
Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum* start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy change and move on.
Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum* start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
I think these comments are way over the top. Jimmy *is* interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better. You may not agree with the methods, but to call into question his motives is inappropriate.
You should also consider that maybe there *are* clear conditions for the start and finish of this experiment, and maybe there *are* clear methods for taking measurements from it. Maybe this information just wasn't made public yet, as to do so would seriously skew the experiment (there are a lot of factors skewing it already, though, I'm reminded of the company that found out that productivity was increased by any experiment, regardless of what it was, simply because the process of performing experiments was causing the increased productivity).
Anyway, I think it's great that Wikipedia is finally getting some real leadership. I don't really have high hopes for this particular decision, but the fact that someone is finally standing up and making decisions is enough to outweigh that.
Anthony
On 12/6/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy change and move on.
Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum* start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
I think these comments are way over the top. Jimmy *is* interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better. You may not agree with the methods, but to call into question his motives is inappropriate.
I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me to question his motives.
In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which questioning authority is considered inappropriate.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/6/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy change and move on.
Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum* start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
I think these comments are way over the top. Jimmy *is* interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better. You may not agree with the methods, but to call into question his motives is inappropriate.
I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me to question his motives.
In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which questioning authority is considered inappropriate.
Much apologies Anthony, but you are incorrect here. Tc is not only fully empowered to question Jimbo's motives and actions, but it *important* that he does so. Not only because the points he makes may be valid, but even more because he reminds everyone that we must not feel we are in an organisation where our input is discouraged. It is not healthy to rely only on one person to make all the good decisions and have all the good ideas.
And Jimbo understands that.
I think you can understand that as well, being yourself most of the time on the questioning side :-)
Besides, tc is very civil. So politely making valid points and hinting that there might be "other solutions" than the path chosen is absolutely not "way over the top".
It is healthy.
Ant
On 12/7/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy change and move on.
Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum* start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
I think these comments are way over the top. Jimmy *is* interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better. You may not agree with the methods, but to call into question his motives is inappropriate.
I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me to question his motives.
In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which questioning authority is considered inappropriate.
Your comment at the end wasn't even just questioning, it was accusing. But anyway, I'm not sure I agree with you that a functional society must constantly question the motives of everyone voluntarily given any power. I'd even question just how much "authority" Jimmy does have. He has authority over how to spend the money donated to the foundation (so long as he does so for charitable purposes), and not a whole lot more.
I don't think society can function without some basic level of trust. To question whether or not Jimmy Wales is "actually trying things to make Wikipedia better" seems to me to be way over the top. Anyway, since you're the one who suggested it, maybe you can tell us just what you think Jimmy *is* trying to do.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy change and move on.
Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum* start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
I think these comments are way over the top. Jimmy *is* interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better. You may not agree with the methods, but to call into question his motives is inappropriate.
I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me to question his motives.
In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which questioning authority is considered inappropriate.
Your comment at the end wasn't even just questioning, it was accusing. But anyway, I'm not sure I agree with you that a functional society must constantly question the motives of everyone voluntarily given any power. I'd even question just how much "authority" Jimmy does have. He has authority over how to spend the money donated to the foundation (so long as he does so for charitable purposes), and not a whole lot more.
Actually... not willing to play on words here, but since the topic has been discussed a lot amongst ourselves, I will more exactly say :
Jimbo has the authority over how to spend the money donated to the foundation, within the budget voted by the board (and a certain percentage of excess to allow smooth management).
In short, to take an example : Jimbo can decide to hire someone to say... take care of seeking grants... but only IF a budget including the salary and charges amounts for the employee has previously been agreed upon by the board in the budget.
As a matter of urgency, he could naturally take the decision to hire that person and use the funds in the "reserve" to do so... but may have to break the contract if the spending is not approved at the next budget by the board.
Ant
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy change and move on.
Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum* start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
I think these comments are way over the top. Jimmy *is* interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better. You may not agree with the methods, but to call into question his motives is inappropriate.
I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me to question his motives.
In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which questioning authority is considered inappropriate.
Your comment at the end wasn't even just questioning, it was accusing. But anyway, I'm not sure I agree with you that a functional society must constantly question the motives of everyone voluntarily given any power. I'd even question just how much "authority" Jimmy does have. He has authority over how to spend the money donated to the foundation (so long as he does so for charitable purposes), and not a whole lot more.
I don't see Anthere's comments as being an accusation of any sort. I do see her comments as representing a significant philosophical and ethical perspective. If a functional society depends on questioning there can be no exclusions. When we exclude someone from questioning we begin a process of deification; we hand to that person the power to game our ethics.
Cunc has a track record of questioning, and he's not afraid to ask the hard questions.
I don't think society can function without some basic level of trust. To question whether or not Jimmy Wales is "actually trying things to make Wikipedia better" seems to me to be way over the top. Anyway, since you're the one who suggested it, maybe you can tell us just what you think Jimmy *is* trying to do.
Yes, some level of trust remains necessary. There is no usually need to question every little action, or to take on a confrontational stand to every possible issue. Sometimes one needs to consider the alternative to criticising; there is, after all, the risk that you you may have to face the consequences of being right. If, in my own mind, I question Jimbo's commitment to a fully democratic wiki then I need to be prepared for the possibility that he might say, "Yes, you're right, the lunatics should have more control over the asylum." Invariably, the lunatics put us in a position where we need to put strings on our democracy.
Ec
The Cunctator wrote:
I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me to question his motives.
In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which questioning authority is considered inappropriate.
Questioning authority is perfectly appropriate, but we should all try not to question each other with hints about _motives_ other than a sincere desire to help Wikipedia be better. Such questioning of motives tends to poison debate about practical matters.
--Jimbo
The Cunctator wrote:
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
Plesae share your ideas. And please Assume Good Faith in that essentially everyone here is interested in "actually trying things to make Wikipedia better".
--Jimbo
On 12/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
Plesae share your ideas. And please Assume Good Faith in that essentially everyone here is interested in "actually trying things to make Wikipedia better".
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
Plesae share your ideas. And please Assume Good Faith in that essentially everyone here is interested in "actually trying things to make Wikipedia better".
--Jimbo
I think, unless I read english improperly today, that here, tc only says he has ideas to make things better. And would share them with anyone interested.
I do not read that he implies other ideas than his are bad. Nor does he imply that others are NOT trying to make things better themselves.
But I suppose a linguistic misunderstanding between the two of you is the root of the mail exchange ?
Ant
On 12/7/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
Plesae share your ideas. And please Assume Good Faith in that essentially everyone here is interested in "actually trying things to make Wikipedia better".
--Jimbo
I think, unless I read english improperly today, that here, tc only says he has ideas to make things better. And would share them with anyone interested.
I do not read that he implies other ideas than his are bad. Nor does he imply that others are NOT trying to make things better themselves.
The key phrase is "if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better". The phrase "if anyone's interested in actually trying to make Wikipedia better" clearly would imply that I don't think Jimbo is interested in making Wikipedia better.
What I meant is that I'm skeptical that Jimbo is interested in doing experiments; admittedly, I don't think this is a deeply thought through plan to improve Wikipedia; it seems like a relatively hasty response to a major tantrum--after all, I wouldn't want to be hauled before Kyra Phillips and the like and be unable to say I'm not doing anything to protect people from having their lives ruined. The primary motive seems to be able to say "Look at the change we're making in direct response to this wonderfully valid complaint--look at how responsive and responsible Wikipedia is. When people point out problems, by gosh, we fix them. It's the Wiki Way."
Sorry for the derailing. To make a suggestion of a real experiment, try getting rid of ArticlesForDeletion.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/7/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
Plesae share your ideas. And please Assume Good Faith in that essentially everyone here is interested in "actually trying things to make Wikipedia better".
--Jimbo
I think, unless I read english improperly today, that here, tc only says he has ideas to make things better. And would share them with anyone interested.
I do not read that he implies other ideas than his are bad. Nor does he imply that others are NOT trying to make things better themselves.
The key phrase is "if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better". The phrase "if anyone's interested in actually trying to make Wikipedia better" clearly would imply that I don't think Jimbo is interested in making Wikipedia better.
Then, I read English improperly today :-) (not that it is the first time...sigh)
What I meant is that I'm skeptical that Jimbo is interested in doing experiments; admittedly, I don't think this is a deeply thought through plan to improve Wikipedia; it seems like a relatively hasty response to a major tantrum--after all, I wouldn't want to be hauled before Kyra Phillips and the like and be unable to say I'm not doing anything to protect people from having their lives ruined. The primary motive seems to be able to say "Look at the change we're making in direct response to this wonderfully valid complaint--look at how responsive and responsible Wikipedia is. When people point out problems by gosh, we fix them. It's the Wiki Way."
Yeah. Well, I guess we are learning that media can be a wonderful tool to get famous... as well as a great amplificator of problems. Any famous actor or politician face that one day or another. Yesterday, I answered a couple of journalists as well, after Jimbo's talk, who were wondering if the restriction over anonymous were valid in all languages. And the first generation articles published afterward contained several mistakes. The second generation articles contained even more mistakes. I fear now looking at the third generation :-)
As our leader and public figure, Jimbo directly benefits of many approvals and cheers from our external supporters, but also has to directly face the criticisms and the pain of having to defend the whole community choices. This is also his job, right ? This is not easy for him.
It is important that we help him the best we can, so that the project suffers the least from this public relations crisis. So, that he stays powerful and convincing and strong in front of journalists clearly here to make an audience :-)
There are many ways we can help him. And these ones are not necessarily (or only) those which consist in approving after the crisis, all what he does so that he appears 100% supported. Journalists care little about that. We can receive councelling from professionals, such as PR agencies, who have a certain experience in handling PR crisis and could make good suggestions. We can set up strategic teams to discuss beforehand which answers we should give in such cases, who should give them, by which means... So that when we have a crisis to handle, we are all united and ready to speak with one voice.
In the past few weeks, we have seen increasingly criticism in the english-speaking press (and recently, issues in the german-press as well). Having bad press is bad for Wikipedia. Since we have a fundraiser starting in a couple of days, I'll give only one example. Bad press --> less money --> less new servers --> site stuck --> bad press. Any attempt/experiment to decrease bad press (and Jimbo going to CNN definitly stands here) is meant to improve Wikipedia. Any attempt/experiment to increase quality is meant to improve Wikipedia as well.
I think some of the answers we could have had in front of the journalist would have been to talk about the quality tool or citation rules. But.... the fact is... we have *already* annonced the quality tool... and it still does not exist live, so it is hard to use that argument over again.
So, what it teaches us is really that we have three different areas to work on
* improve the quality of the content
* improve the perception of the quality of our content ---> make promotion of new independant studies or new quality tools or rules.
* improve management of PR crisis
Some of this having to be discussed and worked upon publicly, some privately. Some by the full community and some by a smaller team.
Not *questionning* what is being done is no way for improvement.
Sorry for the derailing. To make a suggestion of a real experiment, try getting rid of ArticlesForDeletion.
no chance :-)
I also derailed from the issue experiment/QualityPlan versus experiment/PR :-) Sorry about that...
On 12/7/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the derailing. To make a suggestion of a real experiment, try getting rid of ArticlesForDeletion.
I still want to change AfD to explicitly be a "quality assurance" function. Right now it's slanted toward deletion by its very name, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/7/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the derailing. To make a suggestion of a real experiment, try getting rid of ArticlesForDeletion.
I still want to change AfD to explicitly be a "quality assurance" function. Right now it's slanted toward deletion by its very name, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Articles needing Verification?
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I still want to change AfD to explicitly be a "quality assurance" function. Right now it's slanted toward deletion by its very name, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Articles needing Verification?
Any serious problem, be it a lack of verification or referencing, needing major cleanup, or just not suitable for inclusion. The problem right now is that AfD is being used for all of these things, but it's *called* "articles for deletion" and so the process is prejudiced toward deletion when it really needs to be about ensuring quality.
Kelly
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 10:25 -0600, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I still want to change AfD to explicitly be a "quality assurance" function. Right now it's slanted toward deletion by its very name, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Articles needing Verification?
Any serious problem, be it a lack of verification or referencing, needing major cleanup, or just not suitable for inclusion. The problem right now is that AfD is being used for all of these things, but it's *called* "articles for deletion" and so the process is prejudiced toward deletion when it really needs to be about ensuring quality.
Will you stop whingeing about this.
Design a process that merges AfD with the other article improving tagging (maybe an unsalvageable tag or a nocontent tag on a scale that includes unverified and needs wikifying, and has the general improvement tags in) and a process that examines a queue of all these articles.
Or shut up.
Justinc
On 07/12/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Articles needing Verification?
Any serious problem, be it a lack of verification or referencing, needing major cleanup, or just not suitable for inclusion. The problem right now is that AfD is being used for all of these things, but it's *called* "articles for deletion" and so the process is prejudiced toward deletion when it really needs to be about ensuring quality.
"Articles for Kicking". I'd follow it.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Does there exist a page within the en-wp discribing the first results and observations on this experiment?
Heinz