Jimbo wrote:
Be glad, if my proposal worries you, that I am not proposing that we automatically semi-protect all living bios. :)
Can I propose it then?
1. Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it. 2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.
This is a [[SMOP]], of course.
(We had a Wikimedia UK meeting on Saturday. A few of us came up with this precise policy independently. Great cabals think alike and all that.)
- d.
On 5/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Be glad, if my proposal worries you, that I am not proposing that we automatically semi-protect all living bios. :)
Can I propose it then?
- Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it. 2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.
IMHO, this is something that would be very well combined with (my conception of) stable versions, allowing anons to contribute material that is not "published", and allowing established editors to publish material that does not appear to be libellous.
Or at least establishing some effective channel whereby anons can still contribute to such articles.
Do we perhaps also need to create the subcategory [[Category:Living persons liable to sue]]?
Steve
On 5/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it. 2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.
Semi-protection works because it's applied only to a few articles. Once you start mass-using it, gaming will become common. Don't go there.
Erik
David Gerard wrote:
Can I propose it then?
- Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it. 2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.
This rests on the assumption that living people are uniquely problematic. I disagree. It is true that incorrect (especially libelous) information about a living person generally will cause more harm than the same about a dead person. However, there are many articles in which incorrect information will cause much more harm than incorrect information in most of our living-person articles will (most of the latter are obscure and rarely, if ever, actually read).
For example: -- Articles on nations -- Articles on ethnicities -- Articles on religions -- Articles on controversial topics in history -- Medicine-related articles
Do you really think libel about some obscure living person is worse than, say, incorrect information in [[suicide]], [[cocaine]], or [[Basque country]], so much so that it's worth taking special measures for the category of living people that aren't taken for any other category of article?
-Mark
On 24/05/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Do you really think libel about some obscure living person is worse than, say, incorrect information in [[suicide]], [[cocaine]], or [[Basque country]], so much so that it's worth taking special measures for the category of living people that aren't taken for any other category of article?
...and, indeed, you can say Bill Gates eats the babies of his staff just as libellously in [[Microsoft]] as you can in [[Bill Gates]].
(Um, not that he does. Hello to the Microsoft lawyer with a very odd search string)
David Gerard-2 wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Be glad, if my proposal worries you, that I am not proposing that we automatically semi-protect all living bios. :)
Can I propose it then?
- Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it. 2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected. ...at which point an astonishing number of articles on Pokémon, Sexual Positions, Porn Stars and Large Japanese Cartoon Robots suddenly seem to be about living people and various admins have to run around with their mops removing them all...
This is a [[SMOP]], of course.
It almost always is :-)
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
--Jimbo
On 5/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768
To be fair I think he reacting to the proposal to extend it.
is the end of open editing.
We have open editing? Is the block button there for decoration?
On 5/24/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Of course we do. Does the fact that, for example, felons can't vote in the U.S. mean it's not a democracy?
The US generaly claims it is a republic.
On 5/24/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
We have open editing?
Of course we do. Does the fact that, for example, felons can't vote in the U.S. mean it's not a democracy?
Many serious people have made that argument in all seriousness.
To be more precise, only certain states prevent felons from voting.
The practice, one can more easily argue, is one of the reasons the US isn't a very good democracy.
On 5/25/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
We have open editing?
Of course we do. Does the fact that, for example, felons can't vote in the U.S. mean it's not a democracy?
Many serious people have made that argument in all seriousness.
To be more precise, only certain states prevent felons from voting.
The practice, one can more easily argue, is one of the reasons the US isn't a very good democracy.
Well, really, the U.S. is a Republic, and not a true democracy, but maybe I'm just being a stickler. Back to the topic at hand...
The Cunctator wrote:
On 5/24/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
We have open editing?
Of course we do. Does the fact that, for example, felons can't vote in the U.S. mean it's not a democracy?
Many serious people have made that argument in all seriousness.
To be more precise, only certain states prevent felons from voting.
The practice, one can more easily argue, is one of the reasons the US isn't a very good democracy.
When people believe they live in a democracy it doesn't matter how that term is defined.
Ec
"Jimmy Wales" wrote
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
Fewer that 9999 out of 10000 open to the unregistered to edit. The man has a point (but not a percentage point).
Charles
Jimmy Wales wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
Hasn't he trolled us before?
On May 24, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
Hasn't he trolled us before?
The more important question is: does Netcraft confirm it?
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 24, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
Hasn't he trolled us before?
The more important question is: does Netcraft confirm it?
If you find his ideas interesting/intriguing you could subscribe to his newsletter/journal...
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
Hasn't he trolled us before?
I don't think so. He has generally seemed to me to be a reasonable critic. Wrong on some issues, but reasonable. This one is just plain trolling, though.
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
Hasn't he trolled us before?
I don't think so. He has generally seemed to me to be a reasonable critic. Wrong on some issues, but reasonable. This one is just plain trolling, though.
Or maybe he's just wrong. What's definitely trolling is calling such a statement notable.
Anthony
Redvers and Jimbo made the claim that "Restrictions on editing - specifically the ability to prevent an article from being edited - have always existed and have always been used. Semi-protection actually *increased* the number of people able to edit, by doing away with the need to completely lock many articles."
So far as I remember, during the UseModWiki days there were no restrictions on editing for a good while. Only after extended debate did Larry lock the front page.
I believe it is false to claim that restrictions on editing have always been used.
On 5/25/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com
So far as I remember, during the UseModWiki days there were no restrictions on editing for a good while. Only after extended debate did Larry lock the front page.
I believe it is false to claim that restrictions on editing have always been used.
In those days you had to send an email to someone (I forget who) with an image attached to add an image to a page. That's a restriction isn't it?
On 5/25/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/25/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com
So far as I remember, during the UseModWiki days there were no
restrictions
on editing for a good while. Only after extended debate did Larry lock
the
front page.
I believe it is false to claim that restrictions on editing have always
been
used.
In those days you had to send an email to someone (I forget who) with an image attached to add an image to a page. That's a restriction isn't it?
Not really, inasmuch as the same procedure applied to everyone. We can argue semantics (e.g. Wikipedia has always had the restrictions of the GNU FDL) but it's incorrect, if memory serves (and I could be wrong) to claim "specifically the ability to prevent an article from being edited" has always been used.
The Cunctator wrote:
Redvers and Jimbo made the claim that "Restrictions on editing - specifically the ability to prevent an article from being edited - have always existed and have always been used. Semi-protection actually *increased* the number of people able to edit, by doing away with the need to completely lock many articles."
So far as I remember, during the UseModWiki days there were no restrictions on editing for a good while. Only after extended debate did Larry lock the front page.
I believe it is false to claim that restrictions on editing have always been used.
No, we locked some troll pages very early on. Speedy deleted a ton, as well. And blocked ip numbers regularly. All of those are editing restrictions.
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Redvers and Jimbo made the claim that "Restrictions on editing - specifically the ability to prevent an article from being edited - have always existed and have always been used. Semi-protection actually *increased* the number of people able to edit, by doing away with the
need
to completely lock many articles."
So far as I remember, during the UseModWiki days there were no
restrictions
on editing for a good while. Only after extended debate did Larry lock
the
front page.
I believe it is false to claim that restrictions on editing have always
been
used.
No, we locked some troll pages very early on. Speedy deleted a ton, as well. And blocked ip numbers regularly. All of those are editing restrictions.
How early on?
The Cunctator wrote:
No, we locked some troll pages very early on. Speedy deleted a ton, as well. And blocked ip numbers regularly. All of those are editing restrictions.
How early on?
I remember blocking an ip number within the first few days. Speedy deleted stuff, too. We did not call it speedy deletion back then, of course, it was just deletion. As for locking pages, hmmm.... I do not remember well. We had the ability, and we used it temporarily.
--Jimbo
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
No, we locked some troll pages very early on. Speedy deleted a ton, as well. And blocked ip numbers regularly. All of those are editing restrictions.
How early on?
I remember blocking an ip number within the first few days. Speedy deleted stuff, too. We did not call it speedy deletion back then, of course, it was just deletion. As for locking pages, hmmm.... I do not remember well. We had the ability, and we used it temporarily.
Deleting vandalism is very different from locking pages from editing.
Maybe it's inappropriate to make such strong claims about features always being used --in an attack on someone else -- if you don't actually remember.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
No, we locked some troll pages very early on. Speedy deleted a ton, as well. And blocked ip numbers regularly. All of those are editing restrictions.
How early on?
I remember blocking an ip number within the first few days. Speedy deleted stuff, too. We did not call it speedy deletion back then, of course, it was just deletion. As for locking pages, hmmm.... I do not remember well. We had the ability, and we used it temporarily.
Deleting vandalism is very different from locking pages from editing.
Maybe it's inappropriate to make such strong claims about features always being used --in an attack on someone else -- if you don't actually remember.
Well, the features were always used. You asked how early on, and that I do not remember exactly. Within the first month, though.
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
No, we locked some troll pages very early on. Speedy deleted a ton,
as
well. And blocked ip numbers regularly. All of those are editing restrictions.
How early on?
I remember blocking an ip number within the first few days. Speedy deleted stuff, too. We did not call it speedy deletion back then, of course, it was just deletion. As for locking pages, hmmm.... I do not remember well. We had the ability, and we used it temporarily.
Deleting vandalism is very different from locking pages from editing.
Maybe it's inappropriate to make such strong claims about features
always
being used --in an attack on someone else -- if you don't actually
remember.
Well, the features were always used. You asked how early on, and that I do not remember exactly. Within the first month, though.
Eh. I remember how explosively a big deal it was to lock the front page, and I don't remember locking being used before that. Maybe my memory's faulty, but I get the feeling I'm witnessing some minor rewriting (or let's just say "changing the emphasis") of history here.
On 5/25/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Eh. I remember how explosively a big deal it was to lock the front page, and I don't remember locking being used before that. Maybe my memory's faulty, but I get the feeling I'm witnessing some minor rewriting (or let's just say "changing the emphasis") of history here.
Internet Archive shows when the main page was locked (made "read-only"). It can't really be used to prove that nothing else was locked before that, though (hard to prove a negative).
Of course, I think it's pretty clear that things have gotten more locked-down over the years, regardless of whether or not things were ever 100% completely open.
Anthony
On 5/26/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Internet Archive shows when the main page was locked (made "read-only"). It can't really be used to prove that nothing else was locked before that, though (hard to prove a negative).
Of course, I think it's pretty clear that things have gotten more locked-down over the years, regardless of whether or not things were ever 100% completely open.
On the other hand, it's very easy to demonstrate that there are far more unlocked pages than there used to be. More than a million more, in fact.
Steve
The Cunctator wrote:
Eh. I remember how explosively a big deal it was to lock the front page, and I don't remember locking being used before that. Maybe my memory's faulty, but I get the feeling I'm witnessing some minor rewriting (or let's just say "changing the emphasis") of history here.
Interesting question. I will try to look into the mailing list archives to see if I can find anything.
True, but much preferable to endless wack a mole.
Fred
On May 25, 2006, at 8:56 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
Redvers and Jimbo made the claim that "Restrictions on editing - specifically the ability to prevent an article from being edited - have always existed and have always been used. Semi-protection actually *increased* the number of people able to edit, by doing away with the need to completely lock many articles."
So far as I remember, during the UseModWiki days there were no restrictions on editing for a good while. Only after extended debate did Larry lock the front page.
I believe it is false to claim that restrictions on editing have always been used. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
I just posted a comment. As it was the first thing i posted is was being held in a moderation queue so that he can review it to make sure i am not a troll i suppose.
Of course his blog is not wikipedia, and he has never made a claim that anyone can comment but it made me smile anyway.
Theresa
On 5/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
Not that your argument through statistics is in any way meaningful. 154 /1,151,768 is more than 100 ppm; 100 ppm of carbon monoxide, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, vinyl chloride, formaldehyde, benzene, ammonia, etc. would kill you dead. Or at least give you any number of horrible cancers.
Water is fluoridated to 1 ppm.
Motorcycles cause 0.22 deaths per million vehicle miles. New Zealand has 100 maternal deaths per million births. Drugs kill about 100 per million people in US urban areas.
In other words, that 154 articles are semiprotected out of a population of 1.2 million could be insignificant, great, or terrible.
But on its own it's just a factoid, not a counterargument.
On 5/25/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
Not that your argument through statistics is in any way meaningful. 154 /1,151,768 is more than 100 ppm; 100 ppm of carbon monoxide, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, vinyl chloride, formaldehyde, benzene, ammonia, etc. would kill you dead. Or at least give you any number of horrible cancers.
Water is fluoridated to 1 ppm.
Motorcycles cause 0.22 deaths per million vehicle miles. New Zealand has 100 maternal deaths per million births. Drugs kill about 100 per million people in US urban areas.
In other words, that 154 articles are semiprotected out of a population of 1.2 million could be insignificant, great, or terrible.
But on its own it's just a factoid, not a counterargument.
This is pretty rich coming from someone who just complained that we shouldn't argue with appeals to emotion. If comparing semi-protection to mothers dying while giving birth to babies isn't an appeal to emotion, I don't know what is.
All your analogies are useless. The chemistry ones are just ridiculous, there is no analogy between how poisons damage the body to how semi-protection damages the encyclopedia. There's to much science you're ignoring, the way chemicals work.
The deaths per millions analogies are not only pretty cheap shots, they are also just as flawed. The reason why 100 maternal deaths per 1 million births is not a tragedy because it's such a high number (because it isn't), it's a tradgedy because people are *actually* dying. 1 death per million would be tragic. 1 death per billion would be tragic. The numbers are meaningless.
The fact is, the numbers do provide a good argument in this case. Calling for the death of wikipedia as a wiki because of semi-protection *is* ridiculous when there is only a vanishingly small fraction of articles that are semi-protected (and lets remind everyone that any user that is actually dedicated to the project can edit any semi-protected article. It's not that horrible, semi-protection.)
So no, the numbers are not just a factiod, they're a very good counterargument.
--Oskar
On 5/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
This is pretty rich coming from someone who just complained that we shouldn't argue with appeals to emotion. If comparing semi-protection to mothers dying while giving birth to babies isn't an appeal to emotion, I don't know what is.
Um, he was arguing that the comparison was pointless and arbitrary. Not even close to an appeal to emotion.
Steve
On 5/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/25/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php
It is worth noting that Nicholas Carr has taken note of this thread to announce the death of Wikipedia. Apparently, 154 articles semi-protected out of 1,151,768 is the end of open editing.
Not that your argument through statistics is in any way meaningful. 154 /1,151,768 is more than 100 ppm; 100 ppm of carbon monoxide,
mercury,
arsenic, sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, vinyl chloride, formaldehyde, benzene, ammonia, etc. would kill you dead. Or at least give you any
number
of horrible cancers.
Water is fluoridated to 1 ppm.
Motorcycles cause 0.22 deaths per million vehicle miles. New Zealand has
100
maternal deaths per million births. Drugs kill about 100 per million
people
in US urban areas.
In other words, that 154 articles are semiprotected out of a population
of
1.2 million could be insignificant, great, or terrible.
But on its own it's just a factoid, not a counterargument.
This is pretty rich coming from someone who just complained that we shouldn't argue with appeals to emotion. If comparing semi-protection to mothers dying while giving birth to babies isn't an appeal to emotion, I don't know what is.
All your analogies are useless. The chemistry ones are just ridiculous, there is no analogy between how poisons damage the body to how semi-protection damages the encyclopedia. There's to much science you're ignoring, the way chemicals work.
The deaths per millions analogies are not only pretty cheap shots, they are also just as flawed. The reason why 100 maternal deaths per 1 million births is not a tragedy because it's such a high number (because it isn't), it's a tradgedy because people are *actually* dying. 1 death per million would be tragic. 1 death per billion would be tragic. The numbers are meaningless.
I was only pulling out death statistics because they're easy to find and because death is the topic. I stuck in the floridation example. I could have (and probably should have) put in more random stats, say of how much zinc we need.
I wasn't attempting to make any analogies between semi-protection in floridation or motorcycle crashes. I don't think there's any equivalency. I was merely pointing out that being "vanishingly small" is dependent on the situation.