Dear friends,
I have some wikis that will soon host very interesting content, including scientific topics.
You have an Interwiki map at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
I propose to have some form of cooperation by allowing our communities to link to each other via easy interwiki links.
If you like this idea please add my wikis to the Interwiki map and I will update my own interwiki table to allow interwiki linking to the English Wikipedia and perhaps other projects of Wikimedia.
These are my wikis that can be added to your Interwiki map: http://www.nerdypc.org and http://www.adapedia.org and http://jnana.wikinerds.org
In the future Wikinerds.org will host much more wikis on scientific and educational subjects so I think this kind of cooperation can be beneficial for both communities.
This is starting to look a little like spam. Ec
NSK wrote:
Dear friends,
I have some wikis that will soon host very interesting content, including scientific topics.
You have an Interwiki map at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
I propose to have some form of cooperation by allowing our communities to link to each other via easy interwiki links.
If you like this idea please add my wikis to the Interwiki map and I will update my own interwiki table to allow interwiki linking to the English Wikipedia and perhaps other projects of Wikimedia.
These are my wikis that can be added to your Interwiki map: http://www.nerdypc.org and http://www.adapedia.org and http://jnana.wikinerds.org
In the future Wikinerds.org will host much more wikis on scientific and educational subjects so I think this kind of cooperation can be beneficial for both communities.
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 15:49, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is starting to look a little like spam.
So, public relations and cooperation among communities is spam?
Do you want me to stop posting on your mailing lists?
NSK (nsk2@wikinerds.org) [041027 05:17]:
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 15:49, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is starting to look a little like spam.
So, public relations and cooperation among communities is spam? Do you want me to stop posting on your mailing lists?
Ah, you are reading and answering the list. Excellent! Now, what was your Wikipedia username again? I note you didn't answer this simple question previously. Do you in fact edit on Wikipedia at all?
- d.
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:26, David Gerard wrote:
what was your Wikipedia username again?
The reason I have not answered that question is because it was first asked by a person who offended me ("as faulty as your logic", 23 October 2004). Although I have ignored his e-mail address, thanks to your webarchive it came to my attention that he repeats his attacks: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-October/031751.html
Please note that I am a bit touchy and any kind of personal attack is not compatible with my culture and my education. I have no problem with people who disagree with me, but I have zero tolerance for things who engage in personal attacks.
That said, I also don't understand why I need to answer this question. Is it some kind of policy in Wikipedia to say your user names in emails? I notice many people post without mentioning their usernames and I wonder why you picked me specifically.
Do you in fact edit on Wikipedia at all?
Does it matter? I cannot understand why you ask this question. Are your mailing lists restricted only to your members? I don't think so, because it was very easy for me to register (if that's not the intended behaviour, you need to configure your Mailman installation).
You can find me in many mailing lists or fora, including FSF-GNU/GNOME/CC/AMD, and I am lurking on many other mailing lists and communities, while I have also joined projects such as Drupal.org and OpenFormats.org and very soon I will join KDE. Slashdot has published stories written by me (KDE/FSF's WIWO...) and my karma there is Good. My university dissertation is on wikis. I notice some people refer to me as "he/she" and I wonder whether they have noticed who am I.
I was lurking here for some time before I decided to start posting, so I had accumulated many possible suggestions and ideas about Wikipedia. Since I decided to start posting, I started remembering whatever I had thought about all that time, so perhaps some people disliked me because of the initial quantity of my postings. Although I have already asked whether anybody wants me to stop posting, nobody said something like that, so I understand that I should be welcome here - but I still notice that some participants seem to dislike me and I cannot understand why.
I don't really have enough time to edit much on Wikipedia. I have my own projects and soon/hopefully will have my own nonprofit organisation. So, although my community website now is still very new (just opened this August, but already serving more than 65 thousand hits per month), it will certainly become very known and important in the near future. My interests in the Wikipedia community are mostly establishing public relations, helping each other to improve our community policies and sharing software development tips and practices. I mostly want communication with Wikipedia decision makers, the Board and the development team, so that we can find ways to cooperate as independent separate projects. So, I think it should be obvious that I participate in your mailing lists as a representative of a friendly website which seeks to have relations, cooperation and knowledge sharing with Wikimedia. But if WMF does not wish to cooperate or thinks I am a "competitor", then you can just say so and I will leave.
I suspect that some people may dislike me because I have my own wikis. Please try to understand that I am not a "competitor" of Wikipedia. I have written interesting articles under the GFDL that you can copy if you like (by providing proper attribution under all the terms of GFDL - please include the authors' names in the article). See for example this article of NerdyPC.org, my knowledge base wiki on computer hardware and the Information Technology industry: http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/AMD_Opteron - note the most recent version under development is at http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Test:AMD_Opteron
Finally, I would like to know how we can implement interwiki links to each other and whether WMF is interested in this kind of linking.
NSK --
1. You've just written a 694 word-strong reply. You have not however answered the question whether you edit the Wikipedia and whether or not you have an account. You wrote:
I don't really have enough time to edit much on Wikipedia.
Ok, so DO you or DON'T you edit? DO you or DON'T you have an account?
2. Now correct me if I'm wrong: You're not actually contributing to the Wikipedia. You've not submitted any code towards MediaWiki development. You have however downloaded the MediaWiki software which was developed "in this corner of cyberspace" (and you're permitted to do that). You've then set up your own website(s) with MediaWiki which you've talked about, like, A LOT in your posts to our Wikimedia-related lists here. You have BIG PLANS for your website(s) but as of now little has materialized. There don't appear to be much other contributors to your wikis yet, besides yourself, yet you're kinda seeing your efforts as somehow fully equivalent to what has happened "in our corner". Finally, you've ventured to advise us on what we really are and ought to be (and you've persisted even when people made it very clear that they perceived your advice as running counter to the very principles our projects are founded upon).
3. You suspect that people dislike you and that they do so because they somehow don't want you to have your own wikis. Lemme put it like this: Imagine some person travelled to the U.S. Now imagine that it turns out that that person didn't actually come as an immigrant, and didn't come to settle in and become a citizen of the country but rather proceeded to lecture the citizens of the U.S. that the Declaration of Independence and all these old handwritten papers were fundamentally unimportant because all men are not created equal and actually, certain people are per se inferior and not to be trusted and it is ok to rape and murder them and plunder their houses, whereas others are really not to be blamed of anything of any consequence, whatever happens and, err... actually... Ahem. Forget what I said. This last point I cede to you.
Thanks and regards, Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the ones who watch progress bars. http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
On 27 Oct 2004, at 02:14, NSK wrote:
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:26, David Gerard wrote:
what was your Wikipedia username again?
The reason I have not answered that question is because it was first asked by a person who offended me ("as faulty as your logic", 23 October 2004). Although I have ignored his e-mail address, thanks to your webarchive it came to my attention that he repeats his attacks: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-October/031751.html
Please note that I am a bit touchy and any kind of personal attack is not compatible with my culture and my education. I have no problem with people who disagree with me, but I have zero tolerance for things who engage in personal attacks.
That said, I also don't understand why I need to answer this question. Is it some kind of policy in Wikipedia to say your user names in emails? I notice many people post without mentioning their usernames and I wonder why you picked me specifically.
Do you in fact edit on Wikipedia at all?
Does it matter? I cannot understand why you ask this question. Are your mailing lists restricted only to your members? I don't think so, because it was very easy for me to register (if that's not the intended behaviour, you need to configure your Mailman installation).
You can find me in many mailing lists or fora, including FSF-GNU/GNOME/CC/AMD, and I am lurking on many other mailing lists and communities, while I have also joined projects such as Drupal.org and OpenFormats.org and very soon I will join KDE. Slashdot has published stories written by me (KDE/FSF's WIWO...) and my karma there is Good. My university dissertation is on wikis. I notice some people refer to me as "he/she" and I wonder whether they have noticed who am I.
I was lurking here for some time before I decided to start posting, so I had accumulated many possible suggestions and ideas about Wikipedia. Since I decided to start posting, I started remembering whatever I had thought about all that time, so perhaps some people disliked me because of the initial quantity of my postings. Although I have already asked whether anybody wants me to stop posting, nobody said something like that, so I understand that I should be welcome here - but I still notice that some participants seem to dislike me and I cannot understand why.
I don't really have enough time to edit much on Wikipedia. I have my own projects and soon/hopefully will have my own nonprofit organisation. So, although my community website now is still very new (just opened this August, but already serving more than 65 thousand hits per month), it will certainly become very known and important in the near future. My interests in the Wikipedia community are mostly establishing public relations, helping each other to improve our community policies and sharing software development tips and practices. I mostly want communication with Wikipedia decision makers, the Board and the development team, so that we can find ways to cooperate as independent separate projects. So, I think it should be obvious that I participate in your mailing lists as a representative of a friendly website which seeks to have relations, cooperation and knowledge sharing with Wikimedia. But if WMF does not wish to cooperate or thinks I am a "competitor", then you can just say so and I will leave.
I suspect that some people may dislike me because I have my own wikis. Please try to understand that I am not a "competitor" of Wikipedia. I have written interesting articles under the GFDL that you can copy if you like (by providing proper attribution under all the terms of GFDL - please include the authors' names in the article). See for example this article of NerdyPC.org, my knowledge base wiki on computer hardware and the Information Technology industry: http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/AMD_Opteron - note the most recent version under development is at http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Test:AMD_Opteron
Finally, I would like to know how we can implement interwiki links to each other and whether WMF is interested in this kind of linking.
-- NSK Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jens Ropers a écrit:
NSK --
- You've just written a 694 word-strong reply. You have not however
answered the question whether you edit the Wikipedia and whether or not you have an account. You wrote:
I don't really have enough time to edit much on Wikipedia.
Ok, so DO you or DON'T you edit? DO you or DON'T you have an account?
- Now correct me if I'm wrong:
You're not actually contributing to the Wikipedia. You've not submitted any code towards MediaWiki development. You have however downloaded the MediaWiki software which was developed "in this corner of cyberspace" (and you're permitted to do that). You've then set up your own website(s) with MediaWiki which you've talked about, like, A LOT in your posts to our Wikimedia-related lists here. You have BIG PLANS for your website(s) but as of now little has materialized. There don't appear to be much other contributors to your wikis yet, besides yourself, yet you're kinda seeing your efforts as somehow fully equivalent to what has happened "in our corner". Finally, you've ventured to advise us on what we really are and ought to be (and you've persisted even when people made it very clear that they perceived your advice as running counter to the very principles our projects are founded upon).
- You suspect that people dislike you and that they do so because they
somehow don't want you to have your own wikis. Lemme put it like this: Imagine some person travelled to the U.S. Now imagine that it turns out that that person didn't actually come as an immigrant, and didn't come to settle in and become a citizen of the country but rather proceeded to lecture the citizens of the U.S. that the Declaration of Independence and all these old handwritten papers were fundamentally unimportant because all men are not created equal and actually, certain people are per se inferior and not to be trusted and it is ok to rape and murder them and plunder their houses, whereas others are really not to be blamed of anything of any consequence, whatever happens and, err... actually... Ahem. Forget what I said. This last point I cede to you.
Thanks and regards, Jens Ropers
:-)))))
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 04:26, Jens Ropers wrote:
DO you or DON'T you edit?
Define edit.
DO you or DON'T you have an account?
Define account.
You're not actually contributing to the Wikipedia.
Define contributing.
You've not submitted any code towards MediaWiki development.
No, I haven't. I would be willing to do that, though.
You have however downloaded the MediaWiki software
Yes. Thank you for making available this software.
You've then set up your own website(s) with MediaWiki
Yes. They are NerdyPC.org (Information Technology), Adapedia.org (Computer Science), Jnana.Wikinerds.org (a playground), MaatWorks.Wikinerds.org (software engineering). In the future I will set up wikis on Science Fiction, Biology, Law, OpenSource et cetera.
I have paid money for all that. I can use 80GB of monthly traffic (to be upgraded today).
talked about, like, A LOT in your posts to our Wikimedia-related lists
If you like you can ask me to not talk about my wikis here.
Wikipedia is the largest wiki and I think its mailing lists are useful for general discussion and not only just WP.
You could open a discussion@wikipedia.org mailing list for general wiki discussion.
You have BIG PLANS for your website(s)
Yes.
but as of now little has materialized.
The Wikinerds.org endeavour was started this August. I think I am building it pretty fast!
There don't appear to be much other contributors
There are some people who are interested and some people have user accounts in the Wikinerds Portal (drupal), Jnana and NerdyPC.
Not counting myself:
3 users in portal.wikinerds.org 1 user in nerdypc.org 1 user in jnana.wikinerds.org (plus 1 anon) 1 user in forum.wikinerds.org 0 users in adapedia.org 0 users in maatworks.wikinerds.org 0 users in collab.wikinerds.org 0 ftp users (which means no userpages) 0 email users (we can give free POP emails @wikinerds.org)
Well, as I said, Wikinerds started in August! It's a new site.
besides yourself
I am currently the only person who contributes content to the Wikinerds Community.
yet you're kinda seeing your efforts as somehow fully equivalent to what has happened "in our corner".
Well, perhaps I need some more sleep (sometimes I don't have sleep for >24h). I checked some of my previous posts and I think I was a bit wrong in some occasions. Perhaps it would be a good idea to develop an e-mail protocol with a "CANCEL MSG" command.
Certainly, Wikinerds is not as successful as Wikipedia, yet, although it will soon be very successful.
Finally, you've ventured to advise us on what we really are and ought to be
Just sharing ideas. You are free to send me your ideas about my projects, too. I will read them all and reply. I love sharing ideas, even if I disagree with some of them!
(and you've persisted even when people made it very clear that they perceived your advice as running counter to the very principles our projects are founded upon).
I am sorry; my mistake.
Imagine some person travelled to the U.S.
Isn't it more beautiful to write US ? I mean, is the point really necessary?
to settle in and become a citizen of the country but rather proceeded to lecture the citizens of the U.S. that the Declaration of Independence and all these old handwritten papers were fundamentally
Is Wikipedia a big Imperium?
to be blamed of anything of any consequence, whatever happens and, err... actually... Ahem. Forget what I said. This last point I cede to you.
[CENSORED]. I cannot answer to that, sorry!
On 27 Oct 2004, at 09:05, NSK wrote:
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 04:26, Jens Ropers wrote:
DO you or DON'T you edit?
Define edit.
DO you or DON'T you have an account?
Define account.
You're not actually contributing to the Wikipedia.
Define contributing.
Oh come on. I don't have time* for this.
(* patience, actually)
You've not submitted any code towards MediaWiki development.
No, I haven't. I would be willing to do that, though.
You have however downloaded the MediaWiki software
Yes. Thank you for making available this software.
You've then set up your own website(s) with MediaWiki
Yes. They are NerdyPC.org (Information Technology), Adapedia.org (Computer Science), Jnana.Wikinerds.org (a playground), MaatWorks.Wikinerds.org (software engineering). In the future I will set up wikis on Science Fiction, Biology, Law, OpenSource et cetera.
I have paid money for all that. I can use 80GB of monthly traffic (to be upgraded today).
talked about, like, A LOT in your posts to our Wikimedia-related lists
If you like you can ask me to not talk about my wikis here.
Wikipedia is the largest wiki and I think its mailing lists are useful for general discussion and not only just WP.
You could open a discussion@wikipedia.org mailing list for general wiki discussion.
You have BIG PLANS for your website(s)
Yes.
but as of now little has materialized.
The Wikinerds.org endeavour was started this August. I think I am building it pretty fast!
There don't appear to be much other contributors
There are some people who are interested and some people have user accounts in the Wikinerds Portal (drupal), Jnana and NerdyPC.
Not counting myself:
3 users in portal.wikinerds.org 1 user in nerdypc.org 1 user in jnana.wikinerds.org (plus 1 anon) 1 user in forum.wikinerds.org 0 users in adapedia.org 0 users in maatworks.wikinerds.org 0 users in collab.wikinerds.org 0 ftp users (which means no userpages) 0 email users (we can give free POP emails @wikinerds.org)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansContributors.htm
Well, as I said, Wikinerds started in August! It's a new site.
Hm. Lemme think... In Wikipedia's first three months it had gotten 37 contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediansContributors.htm
besides yourself
I am currently the only person who contributes content to the Wikinerds Community.
yet you're kinda seeing your efforts as somehow fully equivalent to what has happened "in our corner".
Well, perhaps I need some more sleep (sometimes I don't have sleep for
24h).
I checked some of my previous posts and I think I was a bit wrong in some occasions. Perhaps it would be a good idea to develop an e-mail protocol with a "CANCEL MSG" command.
Certainly, Wikinerds is not as successful as Wikipedia, yet, although it will soon be very successful.
Finally, you've ventured to advise us on what we really are and ought to be
Just sharing ideas. You are free to send me your ideas about my projects, too. I will read them all and reply. I love sharing ideas, even if I disagree with some of them!
(and you've persisted even when people made it very clear that they perceived your advice as running counter to the very principles our projects are founded upon).
I am sorry; my mistake.
Apology accepted. It takes guts to apologize, so that IS respectable. I rest my case.
Imagine some person travelled to the U.S.
Isn't it more beautiful to write US ? I mean, is the point really necessary?
These and other related issues have been, and probably are being discussed ad nauseam in the perpetual British/International English vs. American English face-off. I'm not getting into it here. <flamebait><troll>I mean. We all know the British way is <em>much</em> better. The language is called "English" after all.</troll></flamebait>
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 11:17, Jens Ropers wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansContributors.htm
All I can say is that you *really* have *many* contributors.
Hm. Lemme think... In Wikipedia's first three months it had gotten 37 contributors:
Where did you find them and how (where) you announced your site?
NSK a écrit:
Wikipedia is the largest wiki and I think its mailing lists are useful for general discussion and not only just WP.
Apology to interfere here. But no. This mailing list is meant to discuss Wikimedia Foundation issues.
If you wish to discuss using mediawiki for your site, head to wikitech-l@wikimedia.org
If you wish to discuss links with wikipedia, please discuss on wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org
If you wish to discuss your wiki projects only, please create your own mailing lists.
We wish that lists are used according to what they are meant for.
Thanks for this.
Anthere
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:57:16 +0200 Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
NSK a écrit:
Wikipedia is the largest wiki and I think its mailing
lists are useful for
general discussion and not only just WP.
Apology to interfere here. But no. This mailing list is meant to discuss Wikimedia Foundation issues.
If you wish to discuss using mediawiki for your site, head to wikitech-l@wikimedia.org
If you wish to discuss links with wikipedia, please discuss on wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org
If you wish to discuss your wiki projects only, please create your own mailing lists.
We wish that lists are used according to what they are meant for.
Thanks for this.
Anthere thanks for the advice.will do.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
______________________________________________________________ http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service
Jens Ropers wrote:
- You suspect that people dislike you and that they do so because
they somehow don't want you to have your own wikis. Lemme put it like this: Imagine some person travelled to the U.S. Now imagine that it turns out that that person didn't actually come as an immigrant, and didn't come to settle in and become a citizen of the country but rather proceeded to lecture the citizens of the U.S. that the Declaration of Independence and all these old handwritten papers were fundamentally unimportant because all men are not created equal and actually, certain people are per se inferior and not to be trusted and it is ok to rape and murder them and plunder their houses, whereas others are really not to be blamed of anything of any consequence, whatever happens and, err... actually...
To put this more starkly: Imagine visiting a country that has a known reputation for human rights violation. You meet with a small group of people and the conversation turns to the human rights situation where you have tremendous ideas about what THEY can do to improve things. Some of the group show a great deal of enthusiasm about your proposals. After the conversation ends you go to the airport and home. You later receive a message that one of the people in the group was an incognito agent for the government who subsequently arranged for the arrest and re-education of some of the group. What responsibility would you accept for that situation?
Ec
On 27 Oct 2004, at 20:26, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
- You suspect that people dislike you and that they do so because
they somehow don't want you to have your own wikis. Lemme put it like this: Imagine some person travelled to the U.S. Now imagine that it turns out that that person didn't actually come as an immigrant, and didn't come to settle in and become a citizen of the country but rather proceeded to lecture the citizens of the U.S. that the Declaration of Independence and all these old handwritten papers were fundamentally unimportant because all men are not created equal and actually, certain people are per se inferior and not to be trusted and it is ok to rape and murder them and plunder their houses, whereas others are really not to be blamed of anything of any consequence, whatever happens and, err... actually...
To put this more starkly: Imagine visiting a country that has a known reputation for human rights violation. You meet with a small group of people and the conversation turns to the human rights situation where you have tremendous ideas about what THEY can do to improve things. Some of the group show a great deal of enthusiasm about your proposals. After the conversation ends you go to the airport and home. You later receive a message that one of the people in the group was an incognito agent for the government who subsequently arranged for the arrest and re-education of some of the group. What responsibility would you accept for that situation?
Ec
I guess I see what you're saying there "having a stake in the outcome". And morally, yea, I maybe should accept some responsibility then but the stark reality there is that it really wouldn't matter whether or not I felt bad in the said scenario, because my attitude would pretty much have zilch impact on the other's predicament. Again, the question of having or not having a stake in the outcome is what it runs down to. Anyway, I don't really want to pursue this particular thread further, because it concerns point (3) of this email: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-October/ 001375.html -- which was really just something that veered off into an ironic aside.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:26:57 -0700 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
- You suspect that people dislike you and that they do
so because
they somehow don't want you to have your own wikis. Lemme put it like this: Imagine some person travelled to the U.S. Now imagine
that it turns
out that that person didn't actually come as an
immigrant, and didn't
come to settle in and become a citizen of the country
but rather
proceeded to lecture the citizens of the U.S. that the
Declaration of
Independence and all these old handwritten papers were
fundamentally
unimportant because all men are not created equal and
actually,
certain people are per se inferior and not to be
trusted and it is ok
to rape and murder them and plunder their houses,
whereas others are
really not to be blamed of anything of any consequence,
whatever
happens and, err... actually...
To put this more starkly: Imagine visiting a country that has a known reputation for human rights violation. You meet with a small group of people and the conversation turns to the human rights situation where you have tremendous ideas about what THEY can do to improve things. Some of the group show a great deal of enthusiasm about your proposals. After the conversation ends you go to the airport and home. You later receive a message that one of the people in the group was an incognito agent for the government who subsequently arranged for the arrest and re-education of some of the group. What responsibility would you accept for that situation?
Ec ok ok point taken _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
______________________________________________________________ http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service
NSK wrote:
Slashdot has published stories written by me (KDE/FSF's WIWO...) and my karma there is Good.
And I'm a Level 3 Wizard in Knights of Kulthor, bow before my holy name.
My university dissertation is on wikis.
Please publish it online.
I notice some people refer to me as "he/she" and I wonder whether they have noticed who am I.
It doesn't matter who you are, you have a responsibility not to annoy everyone regardless of your position.
I was lurking here for some time before I decided to start posting, so I had accumulated many possible suggestions and ideas about Wikipedia. Since I decided to start posting, I started remembering whatever I had thought about all that time, so perhaps some people disliked me because of the initial quantity of my postings. Although I have already asked whether anybody wants me to stop posting, nobody said something like that, so I understand that I should be welcome here - but I still notice that some participants seem to dislike me and I cannot understand why.
That's understandable. You're not picking up the hints people are giving you, so when you get attacked for ignoring them it seems as if the attack comes from nowhere. People don't like to spell out social rules, they're learned in other ways. But unfortunately some people are incapable of learning them in other ways, so let me spell out a couple of things
1. Post less 2. Earn respect, don't expect your reputation to carry over from other communities 3. Be tactful when offerring suggestions. Have respect for the other people on the list who have spent a great deal of time thinking about the same issues. Don't tell them they are wrong, ask if they think your idea is better. Ask in a way that suggests you expect them to say no. 4. Before you post, search for similar suggestions made by other people in the past, and read the replies.
I don't really have enough time to edit much on Wikipedia. I have my own projects and soon/hopefully will have my own nonprofit organisation. So, although my community website now is still very new (just opened this August, but already serving more than 65 thousand hits per month), it will certainly become very known and important in the near future. My interests in the Wikipedia community are mostly establishing public relations, helping each other to improve our community policies and sharing software development tips and practices. I mostly want communication with Wikipedia decision makers, the Board and the development team, so that we can find ways to cooperate as independent separate projects. So, I think it should be obvious that I participate in your mailing lists as a representative of a friendly website which seeks to have relations, cooperation and knowledge sharing with Wikimedia. But if WMF does not wish to cooperate or thinks I am a "competitor", then you can just say so and I will leave.
Wikimedia has thousands of users, you are just one person. You're not representing anyone. You have nothing special to offer. Wikimedia needs help from Yahoo, Google and BBC, not some guy who wants to start his own wiki and thinks he knows everything. If you just asked if you could add an interwiki link from Wikipedia to your site without offerring anything in return, you would have received a rapid response in the affirmative. But by calling it cooperation or link exchange, you appear conceited, which puts people off.
I suspect that some people may dislike me because I have my own wikis. Please try to understand that I am not a "competitor" of Wikipedia.
Many contributors to this list have their own wikis, and they're not disliked. For example, Fred Bauder founded a fork of Wikipedia called Wikinfo, which aims to be a direct competitor, and he's highly respected. The real problem is simply the tone of your posts, see above.
-- Tim Starling
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 05:51, Tim Starling wrote:
let me spell out a couple of things
Thanks. I appreciate your time and your effort.
Don't tell them they are wrong
I never intented to say that; if I did, it was accidental.
you are just one person.
All great things were created by single persons. Never underestimate the power and the will of one person.
and thinks he knows everything.
I haven't earned my B.Sc./M.Sc./Ph.D.'s yet and I do not know everything.
If you just asked if you could add an interwiki link from Wikipedia to your
site
Well, let me ask it again in the right way:
Dear Sir, would you be able to add interwiki links from Wikipedia to nerdypc.wikinerds.org, jnana.wikinerds.org and adapedia.wikinerds.org ? Thank you very much.
without offerring anything in return
Hey, I want to be able to offer something in return for any good thing I receive.
link exchange
I see. Okay... forget the "link exchange".
NSK wrote:
Well, let me ask it again in the right way:
Dear Sir, would you be able to add interwiki links from Wikipedia to nerdypc.wikinerds.org, jnana.wikinerds.org and adapedia.wikinerds.org ? Thank you very much.
Close enough. Just edit the page on meta and the interwiki table will be updated automatically next time a wiki is created. If anyone disagrees with you they will revert you. It's not necessary to obtain permission from Wikimedia.
-- Tim Starling
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 09:13, Tim Starling wrote:
Close enough. Just edit the page on meta and the interwiki table will be
Thank you very much.
French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the arbitration rules.
Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
The current poll is expected to last until nov. 7 and could lead to enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing. So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village pump, I'd like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation, especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
Thanks.
villy
What happens in practice during arbitration on the English Wikipedia is that disputes over content are handled by treating those who insist on putting a certain point of view across as violating [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], the section on propaganda and advocacy. As POV warriors often engage in frantic reverting and personal attacks, policies which address those problems are also often involved.
NPOV policy theoretically permits both sides of a controversy to be included in an article, disputes over content are usually encountered in situations where a POV warrior insists on both his side being included and the other viewpoint excluded.
There is the viewpoint perhaps best represented by Larry Sanger, but by a few others that views on a subject currently held by academic professionals trumps other viewpoints. We have never resolved that issue.
Fred, Arbitration Committee
From: "Jean-Christophe Chazalette" jean-christophe.chazalette@laposte.net Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200 To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content
French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the arbitration rules.
Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
The current poll is expected to last until nov. 7 and could lead to enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing. So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village pump, I'd like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation, especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
Thanks.
villy
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As the english committee ever given as one of the arbitration decision "revert this article to this person version which is the neutral one" or "delete this article as being inaccurate and irrelevant".
If you did so, how does the community feel with the AC deciding alone what is correct from what is not, and what is done afterwards if another unrelated editors revert back to the version you considered incorrect.
If you did not do so, do you think you might do it one day ? And how are things handled for now ?
ant
Fred Bauder a écrit:
What happens in practice during arbitration on the English Wikipedia is that disputes over content are handled by treating those who insist on putting a certain point of view across as violating [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], the section on propaganda and advocacy. As POV warriors often engage in frantic reverting and personal attacks, policies which address those problems are also often involved.
NPOV policy theoretically permits both sides of a controversy to be included in an article, disputes over content are usually encountered in situations where a POV warrior insists on both his side being included and the other viewpoint excluded.
There is the viewpoint perhaps best represented by Larry Sanger, but by a few others that views on a subject currently held by academic professionals trumps other viewpoints. We have never resolved that issue.
Fred, Arbitration Committee
From: "Jean-Christophe Chazalette" jean-christophe.chazalette@laposte.net Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200 To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content
French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the arbitration rules.
Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
The current poll is expected to last until nov. 7 and could lead to enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing. So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village pump, I'd like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation, especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
Thanks.
villy
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthere wrote:
As the english committee ever given as one of the arbitration decision "revert this article to this person version which is the neutral one" or "delete this article as being inaccurate and irrelevant".
I don't believe we have, and probably aren't likely to, although some of the decisions indirectly have that effect. When problematic people are banned, their articles are of course usually reverted or deleted if the banned person was the only one supporting that revision or article. If other people who aren't problematic advocate whatever position the banned person held, we don't interfere with that.
-Mark
What we do is ban the POV warrior from the area they are focusing on. And invite them to edit other areas. We don't get into the content of the article. We let that take care of itself. Often we don't even seriously look at it. What we look at the the POV warrior's edits as he deletes others points of view and continually inserts his own.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:21:04 +0200 To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
As the english committee ever given as one of the arbitration decision "revert this article to this person version which is the neutral one" or "delete this article as being inaccurate and irrelevant".
If you did so, how does the community feel with the AC deciding alone what is correct from what is not, and what is done afterwards if another unrelated editors revert back to the version you considered incorrect.
If you did not do so, do you think you might do it one day ? And how are things handled for now ?
ant
Fred Bauder a écrit:
What happens in practice during arbitration on the English Wikipedia is that disputes over content are handled by treating those who insist on putting a certain point of view across as violating [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], the section on propaganda and advocacy. As POV warriors often engage in frantic reverting and personal attacks, policies which address those problems are also often involved.
NPOV policy theoretically permits both sides of a controversy to be included in an article, disputes over content are usually encountered in situations where a POV warrior insists on both his side being included and the other viewpoint excluded.
There is the viewpoint perhaps best represented by Larry Sanger, but by a few others that views on a subject currently held by academic professionals trumps other viewpoints. We have never resolved that issue.
Fred, Arbitration Committee
From: "Jean-Christophe Chazalette" jean-christophe.chazalette@laposte.net Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200 To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content
French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the arbitration rules.
Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
The current poll is expected to last until nov. 7 and could lead to enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing. So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village pump, I'd like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation, especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
Thanks.
villy
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nod, to me, what delirium and you describe seem fair.
Fred Bauder a écrit:
What we do is ban the POV warrior from the area they are focusing on. And invite them to edit other areas. We don't get into the content of the article. We let that take care of itself. Often we don't even seriously look at it. What we look at the the POV warrior's edits as he deletes others points of view and continually inserts his own.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:21:04 +0200 To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
As the english committee ever given as one of the arbitration decision "revert this article to this person version which is the neutral one" or "delete this article as being inaccurate and irrelevant".
If you did so, how does the community feel with the AC deciding alone what is correct from what is not, and what is done afterwards if another unrelated editors revert back to the version you considered incorrect.
If you did not do so, do you think you might do it one day ? And how are things handled for now ?
ant
Fred Bauder a écrit:
What happens in practice during arbitration on the English Wikipedia is that disputes over content are handled by treating those who insist on putting a certain point of view across as violating [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], the section on propaganda and advocacy. As POV warriors often engage in frantic reverting and personal attacks, policies which address those problems are also often involved.
NPOV policy theoretically permits both sides of a controversy to be included in an article, disputes over content are usually encountered in situations where a POV warrior insists on both his side being included and the other viewpoint excluded.
There is the viewpoint perhaps best represented by Larry Sanger, but by a few others that views on a subject currently held by academic professionals trumps other viewpoints. We have never resolved that issue.
Fred, Arbitration Committee
From: "Jean-Christophe Chazalette" jean-christophe.chazalette@laposte.net Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200 To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content
French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the arbitration rules.
Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
The current poll is expected to last until nov. 7 and could lead to enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing. So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village pump, I'd like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation, especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
Thanks.
villy
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-
l
Jean-Christophe Chazalette a écrit:
Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
The translation is not very good villy. The word relate does not translate well the french term.
the originals are
10.A. L'arbitrage n'est applicable qu'aux conflits entre éditeurs sans jamais porter directement sur la pertinence des contenus encyclopédiques ni sur leur neutralité. Les arbitres examinent des comportements individuels sans être les juges de la validité des contenus.
10.B. l'arbitrage s'applique à tous les conflits sans distinction et peut porter directement sur la pertinence ou la validité des articles
Translation of 10A is this :
Arbitration will apply only to conflict between editors, without being related to accuracy or neutrality of encyclopedic content. The arbitrators will look at individual behavior without being judges of content validity.
----- Translation of 10B is this :
Arbitration will apply to all type of conflicts, without distinction and arbitration decisions may directly be applied to relevance/accuracy or validity of contents.
-----
Arbitration applied directly to validity of articles may be interpretated by "arbitration comittee will have the authority to do anything it will decide to ensure neutrality or accuracy of articles. Anything might be reverting to a specific version or deletion."
In short, I claim that the sentence as written is allowing arbitration committee to become a sort of super-editor which has authority to decide over the community what is correct from what is not.
I do not recognise this as being acceptable within wikipedia rules, and I do not see that as being helpful in any way in our theoretical goal of reaching NPOV. Quite the opposite.
This said, there are two different groups of people, and each group is giving a different interpretation of the sentence. I proposed a new sentence to replace, but this does not hide the fact that some users indeed *want* an arbitration committee to decide for the community what is neutral and accurate in case of dispute, rather than the community itself.
I approve of this idea but it has been rejected by the users of the English Wikipedia. It was not included in the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Commitee. There was very little support for it.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:17:28 +0200 To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
Translation of 10B is this :
Arbitration will apply to all type of conflicts, without distinction and arbitration decisions may directly be applied to relevance/accuracy or validity of contents.
Arbitration applied directly to validity of articles may be interpretated by "arbitration comittee will have the authority to do anything it will decide to ensure neutrality or accuracy of articles. Anything might be reverting to a specific version or deletion."
In short, I claim that the sentence as written is allowing arbitration committee to become a sort of super-editor which has authority to decide over the community what is correct from what is not.
I do not recognise this as being acceptable within wikipedia rules, and I do not see that as being helpful in any way in our theoretical goal of reaching NPOV. Quite the opposite.
This said, there are two different groups of people, and each group is giving a different interpretation of the sentence. I proposed a new sentence to replace, but this does not hide the fact that some users indeed *want* an arbitration committee to decide for the community what is neutral and accurate in case of dispute, rather than the community itself.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:17:28 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Arbitration applied directly to validity of articles may be interpretated by "arbitration comittee will have the authority to do anything it will decide to ensure neutrality or accuracy of articles. Anything might be reverting to a specific version or deletion."
In short, I claim that the sentence as written is allowing arbitration committee to become a sort of super-editor which has authority to decide over the community what is correct from what is not.
I do not recognise this as being acceptable within wikipedia rules, and I do not see that as being helpful in any way in our theoretical goal of reaching NPOV. Quite the opposite.
Well, very simply speaking, we have to have _some_ way to decide what an article is going to look like in the case of conflict. There are various possibilities for that: * We take the POV of the one who shouts loudest * We take the POV of the majority of editor * We take the POV of the person with the longest breath * We take the POV of the most civil person * We take the POV of a group of selected editors not involved in the conflict * and perhaps a number more
Your statement implies that #4 is not a good way to go. I was wondering which one you _do_ agree with then?
This said, there are two different groups of people, and each group is giving a different interpretation of the sentence. I proposed a new sentence to replace, but this does not hide the fact that some users indeed *want* an arbitration committee to decide for the community what is neutral and accurate in case of dispute, rather than the community itself.
The problem with letting 'the community' decide is that 'the community' does not have an opinion. To get a community decision, you need to have discussion until everyone agrees, or you have to have a vote. Voting is considered not a good idea, and getting everyone to agree is often undoable. So unless you have someone with the authority to say "The discussion is over, and this is the outcome", community decision means that the person with the longest breath gets to decide, or if there is enough breath on both sides, the issue is never going to be decided.
Andre Engels
We do have a way to decide using [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. All significant points or view are to be included in the article. There are fine points to be decided, such at how much proportional space viewpoints are to be alloted but our policy is quite clear on the main point. Most POV disputes are centered around censoring opposing viewpoints and almost all POV warriors are in the wrong.
The loudest and most determined?
Sometimes in default of anyone doing anything about it, yes, but not policy.
Majority?
On many subjects majority decisions return faulty decisions simply because there is almost always knowledge most people either don't or won't grasp.
Most civil?
Being polite is not rationally related to command of knowledge.
Selected, non-involved editors?
If they were interested or competent with respect to the subject they would be involved.
Fred
From: Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com Reply-To: Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:50:14 +0200 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
Well, very simply speaking, we have to have _some_ way to decide what an article is going to look like in the case of conflict. There are various possibilities for that:
- We take the POV of the one who shouts loudest
- We take the POV of the majority of editor
- We take the POV of the person with the longest breath
- We take the POV of the most civil person
- We take the POV of a group of selected editors not involved in the conflict
- and perhaps a number more
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:15:31 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We do have a way to decide using [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. All significant points or view are to be included in the article. There are fine points to be decided, such at how much proportional space viewpoints are to be alloted but our policy is quite clear on the main point. Most POV disputes are centered around censoring opposing viewpoints and almost all POV warriors are in the wrong.
Still, this begs the question of what is a 'significant' point of view. Also, as you say, there are those finer points. Do we show the points of view as equals, or do we say "this is what most experts think, but others say that"? Which is given first, or do we first state the part that both agree on and only then the opinions? How much should be written on a certain POV?
And then there are the arguments that aren't about POV at all, but about inclusion (whether inclusing in Wikipedia as a whole or in a particular article) or about the way Wikipedia is to look like.
Every day Wikipedia has many of those decisions. In many cases there is just someone editing the way s/he likes it, and nobody who cares noticing. In many other cases a short discussion gets to an agreeable answer. But there still isn't anything to get to answer when it is not.
Andre Engels
Believe it or not, we still don't enough active involved editors in many areas. I think many things will work out when we have more input from a broader base. For example about 4 people regularly edit the Tibet article, they fight a bit, but a few dozen actual Tibetans would change the mix. Likewise the half dozen who edit in the communist area would face a new dynamic if a few dozen who actually lived under communism weighed in.
This is true of our administrative and policy areas too, a very thin group in terms of numbers and diversity of viewpoint.
Fred
From: Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com Reply-To: Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:30:01 +0200 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:15:31 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We do have a way to decide using [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. All significant points or view are to be included in the article. There are fine points to be decided, such at how much proportional space viewpoints are to be alloted but our policy is quite clear on the main point. Most POV disputes are centered around censoring opposing viewpoints and almost all POV warriors are in the wrong.
Still, this begs the question of what is a 'significant' point of view. Also, as you say, there are those finer points. Do we show the points of view as equals, or do we say "this is what most experts think, but others say that"? Which is given first, or do we first state the part that both agree on and only then the opinions? How much should be written on a certain POV?
And then there are the arguments that aren't about POV at all, but about inclusion (whether inclusing in Wikipedia as a whole or in a particular article) or about the way Wikipedia is to look like.
Every day Wikipedia has many of those decisions. In many cases there is just someone editing the way s/he likes it, and nobody who cares noticing. In many other cases a short discussion gets to an agreeable answer. But there still isn't anything to get to answer when it is not.
Andre Engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:57:41 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Believe it or not, we still don't enough active involved editors in many areas. I think many things will work out when we have more input from a broader base. For example about 4 people regularly edit the Tibet article, they fight a bit, but a few dozen actual Tibetans would change the mix. Likewise the half dozen who edit in the communist area would face a new dynamic if a few dozen who actually lived under communism weighed in.
This is true of our administrative and policy areas too, a very thin group in terms of numbers and diversity of viewpoint.
Still, it's a mixed blessing. Getting more editors from different POVs helps getting towards good, balanced and extensive articles if they want it - but it also increases the likelihood of conflicts between them. And it's not easy to sort out the mess afterward.
Andre Engels
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200 "Jean-Christophe Chazalette" jean-christophe.chazalette@laposte.net wrote:
French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the arbitration rules.
Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
The current poll is expected to last until nov. 7 and could lead to enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing. So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village pump, I'd like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation, especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
Thanks.
villy although i am new to the site and cnnot call myself a
wikipedian yet i agree with what you say and think it is a very good idea.all the luck.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
______________________________________________________________ http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service
Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote:
So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village pump, I'd like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation, especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
Of course I am sympathetic to the desires that would underlie a "yes" vote to having the Arbitration Committee allowed to make some decisions about the content of articles in some cases. It is tempting and in *some* cases would be very helpful.
But in my experience and estimation, it would cause more problems than it solves. The problems are at least these:
1. Arbitration can gain the support of the entire community if it is focussed on behaviors. Good people of all sides of all issues can agree that working together in a kind and thoughtful manner is worthwhile. But good people may not agree about the exact content of an article, and it seems unwise to have an ArbCom vote which is binding on such things.
2. If the ArbCom can settle issues of content, then the elections for ArbCom may end up being about voting to make sure that a certain POV is represented. This might be unpleasant and unhelpful. ArbCom members should be kind and thoughtful judges, not politicians.
---
At the same time, I think that the advantages would be minimal. If the problem users are got out of the way, then good users can find the right answer for an article. Almost never is the *content* the problem, the problem is *people* with poor social skills, poor editing skills, etc. So if the ArbCom resolves the behavior issue, then the article content can be taken care of by other others acting in the normal wiki way.
--Jimbo
Jimbo Wales:
At the same time, I think that the advantages would be minimal. If the problem users are got out of the way, then good users can find the right answer for an article. Almost never is the *content* the problem, the problem is *people* with poor social skills, poor editing skills, etc. So if the ArbCom resolves the behavior issue, then the article content can be taken care of by other others acting in the normal wiki way.
I disagree. In many cases the *content* is the big problem, the poor social skills etcetera just happen to surface because there is a conflict. Perhaps not in the cases going to the arbitration committee, but I think it is such in most of the cases that don't go to the arbitration committee, but do not get resolved either except by one party giving up hope and putting the page on their list of "pages that I prefer not looking at above improving".
There must be some way to decide that certain POVs are simply so far out that they are not going to be mentioned, or at least if they are going to be mentioned then not on the main page. Theories about the pyramids having been built by aliens do not belong on [[Egyptian pyramid]] (not that I remember anyone putting it there, but...) and telling both parties to stop yelling will not resolve that.
Wiki-editing _often_ gets us out of conflicts. But to think it _always_ does so, other than by tiring one party to dead, is hopelessly naive. Ten times more naive than thinking that Wikipedia could actually work.
Andre Engels
Tim Starling wrote:
NSK wrote:
My university dissertation is on wikis.
Please publish it online.
Wikisource has agreed to accept dissertations, but for the protection of the GFDL we do ask that those people identify themselves.
Ec
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:33, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Wikisource has agreed to accept dissertations, but for the protection of the GFDL we do ask that those people identify themselves.
I do support GFDL but I doubt I would allow commercial exploitation and modification of my dissertation, unless you can offer me very good arguments in support of this.
BTW most of my wikis allow every author to choose any licensing they like and I have received good comments about this. For example: http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php?title=User_talk:MattisManzel&curi...
Has Wikimedia examined other licensing options? I know there are many people who mostly support CC et cetera.
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:33, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Wikisource has agreed to accept dissertations, but for the protection of the GFDL we do ask that those people identify themselves.
I do support GFDL but I doubt I would allow commercial exploitation and modification of my dissertation, unless you can offer me very good arguments in support of this.
BTW most of my wikis allow every author to choose any licensing they like and I have received good comments about this. For example: http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php?title=User_talk:MattisManzel&curi...
Has Wikimedia examined other licensing options? I know there are many people who mostly support CC et cetera.
Yes
NSK wrote:
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:33, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Wikisource has agreed to accept dissertations, but for the protection of the GFDL we do ask that those people identify themselves.
I do support GFDL but I doubt I would allow commercial exploitation and modification of my dissertation, unless you can offer me very good arguments in support of this.
I was only pointing out that the option was available. Although Wikisource documents are open to be edited, very little substantive editing of texts actually happens. Commercial exploitation can happen, but the exploiters also have to follow the GFDL rules. They have no right to claim that they have the copyright on your dissertation.
Has Wikimedia examined other licensing options? I know there are many people who mostly support CC et cetera.
The subject comes up from time to time, but the difficulty is obtaining permissions to change the licensing for existing articles. Many of the contributors are no longer available, or anonymous.
On Thursday 28 October 2004 11:16, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Wikisource documents are open to be edited, very little substantive
If Wikisource is a repository of source texts, why it isn't a section of Wikipedia? Well, I know it isn't encyclopedic... But Wikipedia is also an almanac full of articles on years and dates, so it would be a possibility to have a Sources section too, which could attract more contributors.
but the exploiters also have to follow the GFDL rules. They have no right to claim that they have the copyright on your dissertation.
I wonder how I will be able to track an exploiter in Madagascar or in Siberia who would claim the copyright :/
The subject comes up from time to time, but the difficulty is obtaining permissions to change the licensing for existing articles. Many of the contributors are no longer available, or anonymous.
Another reason why I don't allow anons in most of my wikis and I require contact information.
Anyway, a possible solution would be to keep Wikipedia as it is and open a Wikipedia2 with other licensing options (probable a per-page model, with GFDL and CC options).
NSK (nsk2@wikinerds.org) [041027 10:11]:
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:26, David Gerard wrote:
what was your Wikipedia username again?
The reason I have not answered that question is because it was first asked by a person who offended me ("as faulty as your logic", 23 October 2004).
Therefore it can never be asked again by anyone else ever? I used to have a girlfriend like that. Used to.
That said, I also don't understand why I need to answer this question. Is it some kind of policy in Wikipedia to say your user names in emails? I notice many people post without mentioning their usernames and I wonder why you picked me specifically.
Because I'm trying to work out how much credibility to assign to your radical and jarring ideas for the project.
Do you in fact edit on Wikipedia at all?
Does it matter? I cannot understand why you ask this question. Are your mailing lists restricted only to your members? I don't think so, because it was very easy for me to register (if that's not the intended behaviour, you need to configure your Mailman installation).
It matters in terms of how seriously your suggestions are going to be taken. The reason I ask is to know whether you have *any* experience of this wiki, the one you're advancing the ideas for. Your messages so far seem to indicate you don't actually understand much of Wikipedia culture; with a username, it would be possible to see what your edits are like, what you do and so on and get more of a handle on where you're coming from.
You can find me in many mailing lists or fora, including FSF-GNU/GNOME/CC/AMD,
It's not a True Name thing (that being no secret), but your persona within Wikipedia - if any.
The essential point I'm trying to get across is that you're starting from a position of no credibility. If that's fine by you, then continue as you are; however, if you wish to be taken seriously and (as I tried to explain before) your ideas gain traction, I suspect it won't be adequate.
and I am lurking on many other mailing lists and communities, while I have also joined projects such as Drupal.org and OpenFormats.org and very soon I will join KDE. Slashdot has published stories written by me (KDE/FSF's WIWO...) and my karma there is Good. My university dissertation is on wikis. I notice some people refer to me as "he/she" and I wonder whether they have noticed who am I.
Then surely you see what I meant about the phenomenon that although an outside perspective is good, you need to be able to explain it in insider terms for traction. Per project. This being not just any wiki, but the biggest by a long shot. Ask [[User:Kate Turner]] about the difference in feel between a small wiki and Wikipedia.
participate in your mailing lists as a representative of a friendly website which seeks to have relations, cooperation and knowledge sharing with Wikimedia. But if WMF does not wish to cooperate or thinks I am a "competitor", then you can just say so and I will leave.
I wouln't say that at all (speaking only for myself).
Finally, I would like to know how we can implement interwiki links to each other and whether WMF is interested in this kind of linking.
That would be a nice thing. At present it's largely hackable through templates in the 'External links' section of articles.
- d.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:18:51 +1000 David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
NSK (nsk2@wikinerds.org) [041027 10:11]:
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:26, David Gerard wrote:
what was your Wikipedia username again?
The reason I have not answered that question is because
it was first asked by
a person who offended me ("as faulty as your logic", 23
October 2004).
Therefore it can never be asked again by anyone else ever? I used to have a girlfriend like that. Used to.
That said, I also don't understand why I need to answer
this question. Is it
some kind of policy in Wikipedia to say your user names
in emails? I notice
many people post without mentioning their usernames and
I wonder why you
picked me specifically.
Because I'm trying to work out how much credibility to assign to your radical and jarring ideas for the project.
Do you in fact edit on Wikipedia at all?
Does it matter? I cannot understand why you ask this
question. Are your
mailing lists restricted only to your members? I don't
think so, because it
was very easy for me to register (if that's not the
intended behaviour, you
need to configure your Mailman installation).
It matters in terms of how seriously your suggestions are going to be taken. The reason I ask is to know whether you have *any* experience of this wiki, the one you're advancing the ideas for. Your messages so far seem to indicate you don't actually understand much of Wikipedia culture; with a username, it would be possible to see what your edits are like, what you do and so on and get more of a handle on where you're coming from.
You can find me in many mailing lists or fora,
including FSF-GNU/GNOME/CC/AMD,
It's not a True Name thing (that being no secret), but your persona within Wikipedia - if any.
The essential point I'm trying to get across is that you're starting from a position of no credibility. If that's fine by you, then continue as you are; however, if you wish to be taken seriously and (as I tried to explain before) your ideas gain traction, I suspect it won't be adequate.
and I am lurking on many other mailing lists and
communities, while I have
also joined projects such as Drupal.org and
OpenFormats.org and very soon I
will join KDE. Slashdot has published stories written
by me (KDE/FSF's
WIWO...) and my karma there is Good. My university
dissertation is on wikis.
I notice some people refer to me as "he/she" and I
wonder whether they have
noticed who am I.
Then surely you see what I meant about the phenomenon that although an outside perspective is good, you need to be able to explain it in insider terms for traction. Per project. This being not just any wiki, but the biggest by a long shot. Ask [[User:Kate Turner]] about the difference in feel between a small wiki and Wikipedia.
participate in your mailing lists as a representative
of a friendly website
which seeks to have relations, cooperation and
knowledge sharing with
Wikimedia. But if WMF does not wish to cooperate or
thinks I am a
"competitor", then you can just say so and I will
leave.
I wouln't say that at all (speaking only for myself).
Finally, I would like to know how we can implement
interwiki links to each
other and whether WMF is interested in this kind of
linking.
That would be a nice thing. At present it's largely hackable through templates in the 'External links' section of articles. you go brother,fight the good fight
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
______________________________________________________________ http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service
byron gamildien,
Hello,
Would you consider clarifying what you write in your name and where.
I am unable to deciphar what your message is in your 4 mails.
Anthere
byron gamildien a écrit:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:18:51 +1000 David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
NSK (nsk2@wikinerds.org) [041027 10:11]:
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:26, David Gerard wrote:
what was your Wikipedia username again?
The reason I have not answered that question is because
it was first asked by
a person who offended me ("as faulty as your logic", 23
October 2004).
Therefore it can never be asked again by anyone else ever? I used to have a girlfriend like that. Used to.
That said, I also don't understand why I need to answer
this question. Is it
some kind of policy in Wikipedia to say your user names
in emails? I notice
many people post without mentioning their usernames and
I wonder why you
picked me specifically.
Because I'm trying to work out how much credibility to assign to your radical and jarring ideas for the project.
Do you in fact edit on Wikipedia at all?
Does it matter? I cannot understand why you ask this
question. Are your
mailing lists restricted only to your members? I don't
think so, because it
was very easy for me to register (if that's not the
intended behaviour, you
need to configure your Mailman installation).
It matters in terms of how seriously your suggestions are going to be taken. The reason I ask is to know whether you have *any* experience of this wiki, the one you're advancing the ideas for. Your messages so far seem to indicate you don't actually understand much of Wikipedia culture; with a username, it would be possible to see what your edits are like, what you do and so on and get more of a handle on where you're coming from.
You can find me in many mailing lists or fora,
including FSF-GNU/GNOME/CC/AMD,
It's not a True Name thing (that being no secret), but your persona within Wikipedia - if any.
The essential point I'm trying to get across is that you're starting from a position of no credibility. If that's fine by you, then continue as you are; however, if you wish to be taken seriously and (as I tried to explain before) your ideas gain traction, I suspect it won't be adequate.
and I am lurking on many other mailing lists and
communities, while I have
also joined projects such as Drupal.org and
OpenFormats.org and very soon I
will join KDE. Slashdot has published stories written
by me (KDE/FSF's
WIWO...) and my karma there is Good. My university
dissertation is on wikis.
I notice some people refer to me as "he/she" and I
wonder whether they have
noticed who am I.
Then surely you see what I meant about the phenomenon that although an outside perspective is good, you need to be able to explain it in insider terms for traction. Per project. This being not just any wiki, but the biggest by a long shot. Ask [[User:Kate Turner]] about the difference in feel between a small wiki and Wikipedia.
participate in your mailing lists as a representative
of a friendly website
which seeks to have relations, cooperation and
knowledge sharing with
Wikimedia. But if WMF does not wish to cooperate or
thinks I am a
"competitor", then you can just say so and I will
leave.
I wouln't say that at all (speaking only for myself).
Finally, I would like to know how we can implement
interwiki links to each
other and whether WMF is interested in this kind of
linking.
That would be a nice thing. At present it's largely hackable through templates in the 'External links' section of articles. you go brother,fight the good fight
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service
Well, NSK still hasn't responded to several people's queries as regards his Wikipedia user identity. http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-October/031627.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-October/031640.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-October/031642.html
I don't think there's malice involved anywhere -- HOWEVER, strictly PERSONALLY speaking, some of these posts rather oddly remind me of some [[Ryan Lackey]] interview I read ages ago. (And no, I'm NOT claiming to be an old pro myself -- I kinda consider meself still a fairly new Wikipedian. Anyway. Let others be the judge of my seniority.)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 26 Oct 2004, at 14:49, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is starting to look a little like spam. Ec
NSK wrote:
Dear friends,
I have some wikis that will soon host very interesting content, including scientific topics.
You have an Interwiki map at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
I propose to have some form of cooperation by allowing our communities to link to each other via easy interwiki links.
If you like this idea please add my wikis to the Interwiki map and I will update my own interwiki table to allow interwiki linking to the English Wikipedia and perhaps other projects of Wikimedia.
These are my wikis that can be added to your Interwiki map: http://www.nerdypc.org and http://www.adapedia.org and http://jnana.wikinerds.org
In the future Wikinerds.org will host much more wikis on scientific and educational subjects so I think this kind of cooperation can be beneficial for both communities.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org