---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com Date: May 8, 2006 8:23 PM Subject: Wikimania registration opens To: Wikipedia general list wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Translators translators-l@wikimedia.org Cc: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" wikimania-l@wikipedia.org
Dear all,
Registration is now open for this summer's Wikimania, which will run from August 4-6 at Harvard Law School, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
http://wm06reg.wikimedia.org/ http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
We are hoping to limit registration to community members this week, before opening registration to the rest of the world.
The registration rate for community members is $70 for all three days of the conference; housing is available in the law school dorms right next to the venue. Register soon if you want this on-campus housing; as space in the dorms is limited.
Cheers, Sj
PS - Please help translate and distribute a short notice to your favorite projects: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/Wikimania/Announcements ...and note where you've sent it : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Translation_requests/Wikimania/Announcem...
-- ++SJ
I would like to hear your opinion on these categories and their compliance with [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people)
My concern is that people are using Category:Criminals // Category:American Criminals as a way to push negative POVs aginst such persons (regardless if the person is alive or dead). The reason for my concern is that it indiscriminately group people as diverse as person that was convicted from stealing a pair of jeans at Wal- Mart with serial killers, rapists and the like.
See for example the bio of [[Ron_Karenga]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Ron_Karenga). In his biography it is described that "in 1965, and in 1971 was convicted of felony assault of two of the group's female members, for which he spent time in prison", so he was added to the Category:Criminals. That IMO, is not acceptable.
One possibility would be to restrict the addition to people to the main category "Criminals" and request that people are added to a specific sub-category of[[:Category:Criminals]]. And if such sub- category does not exists, either to create a new subcat, or simply not adding a category.
I am interested to hear what other editors think on this matter, and what can be done to curtail abuse of this category.
-- Jossi
On 5/10/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
I would like to hear your opinion on these categories and their compliance with [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people)
My concern is that people are using Category:Criminals // Category:American Criminals as a way to push negative POVs aginst such persons (regardless if the person is alive or dead). The reason for my concern is that it indiscriminately group people as diverse as person that was convicted from stealing a pair of jeans at Wal- Mart with serial killers, rapists and the like.
See for example the bio of [[Ron_Karenga]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Ron_Karenga). In his biography it is described that "in 1965, and in 1971 was convicted of felony assault of two of the group's female members, for which he spent time in prison", so he was added to the Category:Criminals. That IMO, is not acceptable.
One possibility would be to restrict the addition to people to the main category "Criminals" and request that people are added to a specific sub-category of[[:Category:Criminals]]. And if such sub- category does not exists, either to create a new subcat, or simply not adding a category.
I am interested to hear what other editors think on this matter, and what can be done to curtail abuse of this category.
There has already been a discussion on this topic on the list. These Categories are problematic at best; perhaps they should be changed to "Americans convicted of a crime" or something similar.
Jay.
On 5/10/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
I would like to hear your opinion on these categories and their compliance with [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people)
My concern is that people are using Category:Criminals // Category:American Criminals as a way to push negative POVs aginst such persons (regardless if the person is alive or dead). The reason for my concern is that it indiscriminately group people as diverse as person that was convicted from stealing a pair of jeans at Wal- Mart with serial killers, rapists and the like.
It's a high level category, so it doesn't group the different types of criminals directly together (and in that sense isn't much different from Mother Theresa and Hitler both being grouped under the category "People").
As for it being a negative POV, I was going to comment about some seeing the category as more of a badge of honor, but then I realised Thoreau *wasn't* in the category, even indirectly.
One possibility would be to restrict the addition to people to the main category "Criminals" and request that people are added to a specific sub-category of[[:Category:Criminals]]. And if such sub- category does not exists, either to create a new subcat, or simply not adding a category.
Hmm, did you go ahead and implement that? Because it seems to be the case right now.
Anthony
On May 10, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
One possibility would be to restrict the addition to people to the main category "Criminals" and request that people are added to a specific sub-category of[[:Category:Criminals]]. And if such sub- category does not exists, either to create a new subcat, or simply not adding a category.
Hmm, did you go ahead and implement that? Because it seems to be the case right now.
I removed all people from the main category, and added these to the appropriate sub-cat.
I started a thread on this issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Category_talk:Criminals#Use_of_this_category
-- Jossi
On 5/10/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On May 10, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
One possibility would be to restrict the addition to people to the main category "Criminals" and request that people are added to a specific sub-category of[[:Category:Criminals]]. And if such sub- category does not exists, either to create a new subcat, or simply not adding a category.
Hmm, did you go ahead and implement that? Because it seems to be the case right now.
I removed all people from the main category, and added these to the appropriate sub-cat.
Seems like a good interim solution, if not a permanent one. Thanks.
Now what sub-category would Thoreau go under? Tax evaders? Or is that the same as tax resisters, a category Thoreau is already in?
Anthony
On 5/10/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
My concern is that people are using Category:Criminals // Category:American Criminals as a way to push negative POVs aginst such persons (regardless if the person is alive or dead). The reason for my concern is that it indiscriminately group people as diverse as person that was convicted from stealing a pair of jeans at Wal- Mart with serial killers, rapists and the like.
I believe there's already a guideline on this, or at least on the use of lists of such things. I think we actually have a guideline against the creation of vilification lists - vilification categories should probably go with it.
Now, how about "notorious criminals"? Hmm. "Famous criminals"? Might be different - at least you're saying the person's crime has to be famous.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/10/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
My concern is that people are using Category:Criminals // Category:American Criminals as a way to push negative POVs aginst such persons (regardless if the person is alive or dead). The reason for my concern is that it indiscriminately group people as diverse as person that was convicted from stealing a pair of jeans at Wal- Mart with serial killers, rapists and the like.
I believe there's already a guideline on this, or at least on the use of lists of such things. I think we actually have a guideline against the creation of vilification lists - vilification categories should probably go with it.
Now, how about "notorious criminals"? Hmm. "Famous criminals"? Might be different - at least you're saying the person's crime has to be famous.
You can't do those, they introduce POV to the category, and categories should be unambiguous. I personally feel the category and all sub-cats meed to be renamed "convicted of a crime", "served a prison sentence" or deleted. If vilification applies to lists, it should apply to categories and that might be the best place to move this on. There's been deletion debates on these categories before, I seem to remember participating in them, but I can't remember what stance I took then.
Steve block
On 5/11/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Now, how about "notorious criminals"? Hmm. "Famous criminals"? Might be different - at least you're saying the person's crime has to be famous.
You can't do those, they introduce POV to the category, and categories should be unambiguous. I personally feel the category and all sub-cats meed to be renamed "convicted of a crime", "served a prison sentence" or deleted. If vilification applies to lists, it should apply to categories and that might be the best place to move this on. There's been deletion debates on these categories before, I seem to remember participating in them, but I can't remember what stance I took then.
"Notorious" introduces POV, but "famous" does not. It is not hard to establish that something attracted a large amount of fame. Even "controversial" is not POV, in my mind, since it is easy to see if something attracted significant controversy. But others have disagreed with me on the last point in the past.
Yes, the line between "significantly famous" and "not significantly famous" is fuzzy and requires a little judgment but it is not idiosyncratic and there are metrics one can use for it (whether it is in multiple national newspapers, etc.).
FF