Wikimedia-l December 2005

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

74 participants
99 discussions

RE: [Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales = Sergey Brin = Bill Gates
by Poe, Marshall 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

David wrote: >Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheN extGoogle.html >Good fucking God. Don't get too excited. This article is what we call in the journalism trade "fluff." I might add, in addition, that it is wrong. MS and Google are powerful because they provide value and make billions; we provide value (well, maybe not, ask Mr. Siegenthaler...) Marshall Poe The Atlantic Monthly www.memorywiki.org Marshall Poe, Ph.D. The Atlantic Monthly 600 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 20037 202-266-6511 mpoe(a)theatlantic.com -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:29 PM To: English Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales = Sergey Brin = Bill Gates Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheN extGoogle.html Good fucking God. And dig CBS News' way with a headline: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/01/publiceye/entry1092784.shtml - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 0

[Foundation-l] RE: Wikipedia historical atlas
by Tilstra 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

I'd like to build on an idea first flagged by Ashibaka; see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-July/003618.html . I'm a collector of old atlases, and like the idea of sharing samples of the more aesthetics & interesting maps. There are three 'ingredients' I like; - Wiki's capacity in co-creation, - the University of Texas' way of etaining the beauty of the map itself (see http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/map_sites/hist_sites.html ) - the accessibility of Google Maps? In contrast, I don't seek to replicate Atlapedia, or Encarta. A couple of years a fellow collector of old atlasses and I explored whether the jpeg 2000 format would hold promise, but my impression is that this format (eg. http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg2000 ) is still being worked on by a committee. I too welcome comments. Hans Tilstra

1 0

RE: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia
by Poe, Marshall 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Jean-Baptiste wrote: >Actually I don't really see the difference with a classical newspaper. >They can very well damage reputations... and actually they do ! But just like freedom of >the press, freedom of speech is more important than individuals and Laws allow special >liability regimes for both the press and wikipedia. It's important to be clear here. There is no 'special liability regime' that protects any publisher, editor, or author from charges of liability. The doctrine is clear: if you write something or publish something about someone that is *perceived as libelous* that person can sue you. And such suits occur all the time (especially in the UK). God grant it won't happen to WP, but it is important to consider that it could (and, in some cases, perhaps should). There is a more general consideration, tho: repeated notices in the *trusted* print press to the effect that WP is not trustworthy will drive people away. WP's reputation is on the line. So WP has both good legal and practical reasons to institute some sort of (let me just say it) formal editorial control over quality. This, if I understand, is just what is being discussed now. Best, Marshall Poe The Atlantic Monthly www.memorywiki.org

4 5

RE: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia
by Poe, Marshall 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Mark wrote: >And in this case, I don't see how ethical issues enter into it at all. Like this: deciding what you are going to say and what you aren't going to say is on some level an ethical or moral decision. Similarly, deciding what you are going publish and what you aren't going to publish is an ethical or moral decision. Now, we can deny this, but denial doesn't make it so. In the case of the offended party in USAToday, WP (whoever that is) facilitated the publication of arguably libelous statements. Those statements harmed that individual. I can't speak for you, but this makes me uncomfortable. >If the biography is inaccurate, it should be edited, and in fact anyone (including the >offended person) can do so. The ability to sue whoever first made it inaccurate is >superfluous. Maybe, but as someone said earlier, what if he hadn't found the article? What if it had seriously damaged his reputation? What if this damage extended to his ability to make a living and support his family? The point about slander and libel is that the damage it does is very hard to undo. Would correcting the article get this man his reputation back? I doubt it. The basic problem here is that no one stands behind the factual claims on Wikipedia--no publishers, no editors, no authors, just some amorphous and constantly changing "community." I should add that I say this as a *big fan* of WP. It worries me. Best, Marshall Poe The Atlantic Monthly www.memorywiki.org

5 5

RE: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia
by Poe, Marshall 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Kelly wrote: >I find it ironic that this guy founded the "Freedom Forum First Amendment Center". >Sounds like he doesn't really care that much about the First Amendment. Re the first amendment, and the authors failure to edit his own article, etc. The Wikipedia project itself bears some responsibility here. If you are going to provide a soapbox for folks to stand on and exercise their first amendment rights, you are in part responsible for what they say. This is common sense, and SOP in all "establishment" (read "trusted") print publications. The editors stand behind what the authors say. As Mr. Seigenthaler says, his bio, which was broadcast from our soapbox, was full of errors, some of which (by his accounting, and hopefully not that of any court) were libelous. Alas (and in distinction to traditional print publications with bylines), Mr. Seigenthaler has no recourse, because he can't really find out who wrote the words that he finds offensive so that he might take legal action. These are serious ethical issues, and I don't think we should dismiss them.

4 3

Re: [Foundation-l] Enforcing WP:CITE - reacting and overreacting
by daniwo59＠aol.com 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

In a message dated 11/30/2005 7:09:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, chris(a)starglade.org writes: I wasn't talking about the article in question, I was talking in general about the kinds of pages on my watchlist where this happens (which are mainly politics/philosophy-related). Sorry for the misunderstanding. Chris I still contend that we should not just be randomly removing material that isnt sourced. We should not be working on the assumption that the material is inaccurate. Rather than removing material, ask for sources or find people to help source it. I want us to start with the assumption that the material is good, unless proven otherwise, not that it is bad, unless proven good. Just removing people's good-faith edits is not improving wikipedia either. Danny

3 2

[Foundation-l] Re: Enforcing WP:CITE
by Jonathan Leybovich 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

There was a discussion a while back about introducing new citation markup as part of the Wikicite project. Yet today there is still no specialized mark-up for defining citations within an article. At best there is the footnote feature, which replicates the typographic conventions of citation in the print world down to its fundamental limitations, such as its inability to clearly delimit its own scope (i.e. which parts of the text make use of a particular citation). This problem is compounded in a wiki content-creation environment; an editor can- in complete good faith- insert new content in the middle of a footnote'd sentence that hides the fact the new material is completely uncited. My proposal back then was to use an enclosing citation markup, something like: [[cite:ISBN:000000001X:p215|"cited text"|"paraphrase"]] Though this was meant as a stepping-stone to other projects, in the near-term it can be used to catch "citation holes" within an article by having the renderer flag those areas of text that are unsourced. Not only will this warn readers which sections of an article are unreliable, it will also direct editors to those parts of it most in need of their attention. Here is my mock-up of the idea: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WikiTextrose_article_citations.png Outside of a few exceptions, an article should ideally have a citation for EVERY factual assertion. Walter's example of the Soi article actually only confirms my point. There may be no books on the subject, but there are probably lots of other "texts", such as maps, guide books, civil engineering manuals, etc. > 5) Almost all sois also have a name. > > I first wanted to be bolder as I have never seen a > soi that doesn't also > have a name. But I decided to be a bit less sure > about it By encouraging editors to prove every assertion with evidence, we confront one of the most prevalent, if lesser, evils on Wikipedia (which I've certainly been guilty of before)- the resort to "obvious" off-the-top-of-the-head knowledge which may not quite be true, is probably remembered less than accurately, and so must be couched in many qualifiers to hide these two facts. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia
by daniwo59＠aol.com 30 Nov '05

30 Nov '05

In a message dated 11/30/2005 6:00:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, brion(a)pobox.com writes: This'll be a complete waste; no one will ever look at the "frozen" wiki and it'll be ignored. (Being 'wiki' or not is not relevant; it'll simply never ever been seen. To be useful, the stable versions need to be right out front and fully integrated into *.wikipedia.org where people are already looking.) What we need is a tagging system within the wiki, for a review team to use to mark certain revisions in certain states. Articles with verified revisions will show those by default to the public, with a notice at the top of the screen about their status and if there are newer edits available. Articles without verified revisions will have a notice at the top that they haven't been reviewed, making clear the 'in-progress' state of the system. I suggested a validation scheme like this about two years ago on meta. Danny

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Enforcing WP:CITE - reacting and overreacting
by daniwo59＠aol.com 30 Nov '05

30 Nov '05

In a message dated 11/30/2005 1:07:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, chris(a)starglade.org writes: I've now started removing any additions to pages I have on my watchlist which I do not think are common knowledge and have no source for the claims, and I have asked contributors to cite where they are getting this information from. I didnt want to get into this debate, but this kind of reaction worries me no less than the problematic article itself. Yes, the article was problematic, but it was one in 850,000. Yes, there may be other problematic articles out there (in fact, I am convinced that there are), but their number is miniscule as compared to most articles. The problem article, and the ensuing press coverage, should be an eye-opener to everyone. Rather than just worry about quantity (the number of articles, or the number of edits), we should be worrying to the same degree, if not more, about quality (how comprehensive, how accurate). Of course, this is much more difficult to measure, but that is what will ensure that Wikipedia is a high quality reference work. Deleting material because it is not yet sourced will not ensure that. Let's take advantage of this challenge to really improve our quality. Let's not use it to take apart the efforts of many thousands of well-intentioned volunteers who added what they knew. If we do that, the vandals have won. Danny

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l December 2005