Peter Damian, it turns out has a blog, "Beyond Necessity" and has commented on our banning and moderating activities:
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/free-culture.html
Surely he exaggerates, and mere "negative comments" would not cause his posts to be withheld.
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign, as illustrated at http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Fred Bauder
Funny how Peter's blog complaining about moderation is itself moderated by Peter.
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/18/10 9:37 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Peter Damian, it turns out has a blog, "Beyond Necessity" and has commented on our banning and moderating activities:
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/free-culture.html
Surely he exaggerates, and mere "negative comments" would not cause his posts to be withheld.
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign, as illustrated at http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't think we're in danger of outlawing sharp criticism on Foundation-l. If I had to give a guesstimate of the content breakdown of Foundation-l traffic, it would look something like:
10% news/events/media coverage 10% pointless digressions 10% snarky comments 10% trolling 10% uncritical discussion of WMF 50% sharp criticism
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/18/10 11:56 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Funny how Peter's blog complaining about moderation is itself moderated by Peter.
Ryan Kaldari
That is not significant. The kind of stuff random vandals post has to be moderated. The question is whether sharp criticism is approved for posting.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't think we're in danger of outlawing sharp criticism on Foundation-l. If I had to give a guesstimate of the content breakdown of Foundation-l traffic, it would look something like:
10% news/events/media coverage 10% pointless digressions 10% snarky comments 10% trolling
Only 10% for trolling and pointless digressions?
Sir, you give this list far too much credit.
-Chad
Nice summary/overview...
10% news/events/media coverage 10% pointless digressions 10% snarky comments 10% trolling 10% uncritical discussion of WMF 50% sharp criticism
I wonder what percentage of the sharp criticism gets dealt with? Would it make sense to keep track of that statistic? Using this breakdown as a metric, it seems likely to be a significant of value!
Nice summary/overview...
10% news/events/media coverage 10% pointless digressions 10% snarky comments 10% trolling 10% uncritical discussion of WMF 50% sharp criticism
I wonder what percentage of the sharp criticism gets dealt with? Would it make sense to keep track of that statistic? Using this breakdown as a metric, it seems likely to be a significant of value!
Often, "sharp criticism" relates to some aspect of policy which has been established, sometimes in the earliest history of Wikipedia, by consensus. It does not hurt to occasionally bring up alternatives, but foolish to imagine a new consensus will result from even the most spirited discussion.
Sometimes these discussion resemble an inquiry as to why wheels are not square rather than round, but they serve to re-acquaint readers with basic principles.
Fred
This isn't why Peter was moderated, is it?
Frank
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
Peter Damian, it turns out has a blog, "Beyond Necessity" and has commented on our banning and moderating activities:
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/free-culture.html
Surely he exaggerates, and mere "negative comments" would not cause his posts to be withheld.
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign, as illustrated at http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This isn't why Peter was moderated, is it?
Frank
The folks who control the list:
foundation-l list run by adhair at gmail.com, wiki.ral315 at gmail.com, alexandrdmitriromanov at gmail.com
didn't say much. Kohs has a big anti campaign in progress, but all I can find about Peter Damain is bad talk, which is exaggerated and in my opinion unfair.
Fred
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
Peter Damian, it turns out has a blog, "Beyond Necessity" and has commented on our banning and moderating activities:
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/free-culture.html
Surely he exaggerates, and mere "negative comments" would not cause his posts to be withheld.
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign, as illustrated at http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Fred Bauder
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign, as illustrated at http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Wow, this is very well written and interesting! please share more such information.
On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign, as illustrated at http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Wow, this is very well written and interesting! please share more such information.
</sarcasm>, I hope, given the sheer number of inaccuracies and misportrayals in that document?
Mike P.S. +1 for more explanation on why Peter was put on moderation...
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign, as illustrated at http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Wow, this is very well written and interesting! please share more such information.
</sarcasm>, I hope, given the sheer number of inaccuracies and misportrayals in that document?
<serious> This page about wikipedias faults points to some concrete places to help improve the quality of wikiepedia. of course you have to take it all with a grain of salt,
I am just reviewing the wikia links right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&...
For example, who added a link to wiki http://water.wikia.com/wiki/Oil_sands is linked from How to Boil a Frog ? It is a link that is not obvious as how to value is added to wikipedia.
* David Dodge, Dan Woynillowicz & Chris Severson-Baker [http://water.wikia.com/wiki/Oil_sands],
That page on wikia has some reference to an article from Woynillowicz but does not justify the link, doe it?
mike
On 19 Oct 2010, at 19:06, Mike Dupont wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign, as illustrated at http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Wow, this is very well written and interesting! please share more such information.
</sarcasm>, I hope, given the sheer number of inaccuracies and misportrayals in that document?
<serious> This page about wikipedias faults points to some concrete places to help improve the quality of wikiepedia. of course you have to take it all with a grain of salt,
I am just reviewing the wikia links right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&...
For example, who added a link to wiki http://water.wikia.com/wiki/Oil_sands is linked from How to Boil a Frog ? It is a link that is not obvious as how to value is added to wikipedia.
- David Dodge, Dan Woynillowicz & Chris Severson-Baker
[http://water.wikia.com/wiki/Oil_sands],
That page on wikia has some reference to an article from Woynillowicz but does not justify the link, doe it?
Those sound like typical problems with external links on Wikipedia, not anything specific to Wikia. It's a shame that there isn't an easy way to only see the links in the article namespace, though, as that might make this list of links somewhat more useful (and a lot smaller)...
Mike Peel
Those sound like typical problems with external links on Wikipedia, not anything specific to Wikia. It's a shame that there isn't an easy way to only see the links in the article namespace, though, as that might make this list of links somewhat more useful (and a lot smaller)...
Is this what you're looking for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redir...
Here is a wonderful example: an article with 39 in-text links to http://piratesonline.wikia.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_Online&am...
A.
That page is so full of misinformation, it hardly warrants commentary, but just to point out some more annoying examples:
The part about how "Your non-profit donation will ultimately line the for-profit pockets of Jimmy Wales, Amazon, Google" is absurd and very misleading. Sure, Wikipedia external links financially benefit those companies, and The New York Times, and every other website on the internet. The money comes from advertising companies though, not WMF donations. Implying otherwise is disingenuous. Plus, external links are a content issue and not the responsibility of the Foundation.
And that's just one of many sections erroneously blaming the WMF for content issues. For example, "A WikiProject of topic lists has existed since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished" and "the 100 articles about the hundred United States Senators have been shown to render erroneous, if not libelous, information". Obviously, the Foundation is not responsible for these issues.
In some parts, the page is simultaneously arguing two sides of an issue. For example, it complains that the Foundation refused to censor the Virgin Killers album cover image and "pollutes the minds of children", but then also criticizes the Foundation for doing the controversial content study. Which way does he want it? It also complains about the Foundation not addressing content problems but then says that the Foundation is risking it's Section 230 protection by being too involved in content issues. Again, which way does he want it?
Other parts are just flat out false or outdated. For example, "We are still waiting for Flagged Revisions" or "Wikipedia and all its sister projects could probably operate on a budget of $1.6 million including salaries for several IT developers". (The current hosting cost is $2 million, not including salaries.)
Anyway, this probably constitutes feeding the trolls, so -1 for me.
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/19/10 11:06 AM, Mike Dupont wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Michael Peelemail@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign, as illustrated at http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Wow, this is very well written and interesting! please share more such information.
</sarcasm>, I hope, given the sheer number of inaccuracies and misportrayals in that document?
<serious> This page about wikipedias faults points to some concrete places to help improve the quality of wikiepedia. of course you have to take it all with a grain of salt,
I am just reviewing the wikia links right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&...
For example, who added a link to wiki http://water.wikia.com/wiki/Oil_sands is linked from How to Boil a Frog ? It is a link that is not obvious as how to value is added to wikipedia.
- David Dodge, Dan Woynillowicz& Chris Severson-Baker
[http://water.wikia.com/wiki/Oil_sands],
That page on wikia has some reference to an article from Woynillowicz but does not justify the link, doe it?
mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
And that's just one of many sections erroneously blaming the WMF for content issues. For example, "A WikiProject of topic lists has existed since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished" and "the 100 articles about the hundred United States Senators have been shown to render erroneous, if not libelous, information". Obviously, the Foundation is not responsible for these issues.
Just to point out...saying "it's a content issue, not a Foundation issue" means absolutely *nothing* to the vast majority of people out there.
-Chad
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
And that's just one of many sections erroneously blaming the WMF for content issues. For example, "A WikiProject of topic lists has existed since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished" and "the 100 articles about the hundred United States Senators have been shown to render erroneous, if not libelous, information". Obviously, the Foundation is not responsible for these issues.
Just to point out...saying "it's a content issue, not a Foundation issue" means absolutely *nothing* to the vast majority of people out there.
-Chad
Yes, definitely Inside Baseball: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_baseball_%28metaphor%29 Common sense tells anyone that an organization that publishes an encyclopedia is responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness of its content.
A disclaimer, however legally adequate, that few are likely to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer has little purchase.
Fred
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Just to point out...saying "it's a content issue, not a Foundation issue" means absolutely *nothing* to the vast majority of people out there.
-Chad
Yes, definitely Inside Baseball: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_baseball_%28metaphor%29 Common sense tells anyone that an organization that publishes an encyclopedia is responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness of its content.
A disclaimer, however legally adequate, that few are likely to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer has little purchase.
The problem is that, the person making the criticisms, does know. As some one with minimal knowledge of the applicable American case law, my understanding is that the Foundation cannot be too involved in the actual editing of content. At the moment, they are treated legally as a host and are not responsible for the content that it put up because they do not provide that content: Users do. Given that the person making these criticisms is aware of this distinction (I could be wrong. Perhaps his whole argument premises on the point that the WMF should be a content provider, rather than a host), his continual attacks on the content don't appear to consistent and give the appearance (to me based on my view) of attacking the WMF because he has a personal axe to grind.
I can't see that reality changing: WMF is not a content provider. It won't change. Posting long screeds attacking the content providing nature while ignoring the fact that WMF is legally a host? This doesn't appear to me to be a productive method for encouraging positive change.
I also see Wikipedia as being dually defined: It isn't just AN encyclopedia. It is a wiki and an encylopedia. Given the name, I'd put the emphasis on the wiki part over the encyclopediaic part. The arguments regarding content seem to ignore the issue of the fact that anyone can theoretically edit and improve the content that is problematic. See a problem? Fix the problem. That's the do-acracy that's a wiki. See a problem? Don't think it is fixable? Vote with your feet and fork. A number of other projects have started because of their issues with Wikipedia. Conservapedia is one example of that. My own project is another.
A lot of the issues that appear to be brought up look to me to be specific cases where they could be taken care of in the wiki community by commenting on the appropriate talk pages or editing the article. More of them seem like they could be fixed by contributing to the community to specifically address those cases. Continually railing on and on about these cases of pornography, plagiarism and libel just are ignoring. He doesn't feel like he's addressing systematic problems with the user created culture but attacking to attack. And if he's faulting the community (which it feels like) for not dealing with these problems on specific pages, then he's attacking your average contributor. It feels like he's not attacking .the WMF but the base of people like you and me.
Personally, I'm tired of that sort of thing. I've dealt with it in my own project. There are ways to enact positive change. There are ways to get your own needs and goals positively fulfilled. And if some one can't try to make positive change and some one won't fork, and some one gives the appearance of trying to take down a project, then the you just don't work with them.
Given that the person making these criticisms is aware of this distinction (I could be wrong. Perhaps his whole argument premises on the point that the WMF should be a content provider, rather than a host), his continual attacks on the content don't appear to consistent and give the appearance (to me based on my view) of attacking the WMF because he has a personal axe to grind.
-- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
You've defined disingenuous and bad faith, which seem to apply.
Fred
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org