There is a discussion on Meta to disband Wikiquote, or at least consider the problems it faces and how to move forward.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
So far it is mostly people who have doubts about its utility, so broader participation is desirable. I appreciate that this is not going to be a pleasant discussion for regular contributors to Wikiquote, but I see it as a worthwhile discussion, even if it only to re-affirm the community support for having a quote project now that the encyclopedia and library project are rapidly encroaching on its territory.
-- John Vandenberg
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:59 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
There is a discussion on Meta to disband Wikiquote, or at least consider the problems it faces and how to move forward.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
So far it is mostly people who have doubts about its utility, so broader participation is desirable. I appreciate that this is not going to be a pleasant discussion for regular contributors to Wikiquote, but I see it as a worthwhile discussion, even if it only to re-affirm the community support for having a quote project now that the encyclopedia and library project are rapidly encroaching on its territory.
I know this proposal is probably offensive to some people. Nobody wants to see "their project" closed, no matter what problems it may have. I've seen this with projects that are much worse off then en.wikiquote, and I would expect nothing less from the quoters (what do their members call themselves?). However, a little introspection is only dangerous for projects that are truly superfluous. Assuming there is some real merit in keeping wikiquote, and I don't suggest otherwise, then asking these types of questions will help them to identify problems, identify areas of strength, audit their surpluses and shortcomings, and refocus themselves on their core missions and values.
Some questions that I think WQ needs to ask itself, possibly with input from other projects, are:
1) What is the boundary that differentiates a quote from a source? If we have a transcript of length X, at what N is X > N suitable for Wikisource and X < N suitable for wikiquote? Obviously, N is not going to be a firm number, but having a clear answer to this question will help silence some detractors who say WQ should be merged into WS. 2) Is the purpose of WQ to store, source, and organize quotations in an analogous way to how Commons handles media? If so, we should be pursuing technical means through which quotations from WQ can be easily transcluded into works that require them, such as WP, WB, WV, and WN. 3) If a contemporary figure makes an important statement, is that the jurisdiction of WQ, WN, WP, or a combination thereof? That is, is WQ trying to follow current events, or is it focusing on a more historical perspective? 4) Is a GFDL site license really appropriate if the vast majority of content on WQ is not released under that license? If we have quotes that are too old for copyright (and therefore PD) or quotes that are too new (and therefore being used as some kind of fair use), does having a GFDL stamp on the website really make any sense?
I'm not in favor of closing wikiquote, but then again it could turn out to be the correct decision if questions like those above don't have clear and suitable answers. I hope people take this issue seriously because Wikiquote could seriously benefit from some thoughtful introspection.
--Andrew Whitworth
2008/9/8 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
- What is the boundary that differentiates a quote from a source? If
we have a transcript of length X, at what N is X > N suitable for Wikisource and X < N suitable for wikiquote? Obviously, N is not going to be a firm number, but having a clear answer to this question will help silence some detractors who say WQ should be merged into WS.
WS is for complete works. So the complete Shakespeare play goes to WS. Quotes from that play to WQ.
- Is the purpose of WQ to store, source, and organize quotations in
an analogous way to how Commons handles media? If so, we should be pursuing technical means through which quotations from WQ can be easily transcluded into works that require them, such as WP, WB, WV, and WN.
Nope getting the quotes off wikipedia was one of the initial advantages of WQ.
- If a contemporary figure makes an important statement, is that the
jurisdiction of WQ, WN, WP, or a combination thereof? That is, is WQ trying to follow current events, or is it focusing on a more historical perspective?
A combination thereof. WP has answered this many times.
- Is a GFDL site license really appropriate if the vast majority of
content on WQ is not released under that license? If we have quotes that are too old for copyright (and therefore PD) or quotes that are too new (and therefore being used as some kind of fair use), does having a GFDL stamp on the website really make any sense?
It's complicated.
From a completely outside perspective I see the problem with WikiQuote
is sourcing.
From what I have a layperson have seen is that there is pretty much no
sourcing for a large body of the content. To explain how dangerous it is to put words in someone's mouth would require a long diatribe that you all have already heard.
I think WikiQuote needs a WP:BLP (maybe one exists, don't know, writing from a random internet user perspective that doesn't care to investigate). If there is NOT an EXACT, reliable source, it's not fukken on the page, period. Ever. You keep putting the quote there you're banned. No ifs ands or buts. It doesn't matter how innocuous a quote may be.
You're saying someone said something which they may not have, which is dangerous. Quotes are commonly passed through word of mouth. If it gets put on WikiQuote it may be assumed to be true, then put in a reliable source, thus proving the quote. Wikipedia is having that exact problem right now. Our content is being put into reliable sources, oftentimes without reference. Then some lazy reporter comes along and cites it. Thus Wikipedia just made a brand new fact...that isn't a fact at all.
I am being harsh. Feel free to be harsh back at Wikipedia. Tell me I'm wrong (no, seriously, I am known where I work to be extremely receptive to feedback). We all benefit when someone points out what hurts the most.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:04 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/8 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
- What is the boundary that differentiates a quote from a source? If
we have a transcript of length X, at what N is X > N suitable for Wikisource and X < N suitable for wikiquote? Obviously, N is not going to be a firm number, but having a clear answer to this question will help silence some detractors who say WQ should be merged into WS.
WS is for complete works. So the complete Shakespeare play goes to WS. Quotes from that play to WQ.
- Is the purpose of WQ to store, source, and organize quotations in
an analogous way to how Commons handles media? If so, we should be pursuing technical means through which quotations from WQ can be easily transcluded into works that require them, such as WP, WB, WV, and WN.
Nope getting the quotes off wikipedia was one of the initial advantages of WQ.
- If a contemporary figure makes an important statement, is that the
jurisdiction of WQ, WN, WP, or a combination thereof? That is, is WQ trying to follow current events, or is it focusing on a more historical perspective?
A combination thereof. WP has answered this many times.
- Is a GFDL site license really appropriate if the vast majority of
content on WQ is not released under that license? If we have quotes that are too old for copyright (and therefore PD) or quotes that are too new (and therefore being used as some kind of fair use), does having a GFDL stamp on the website really make any sense?
It's complicated.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I messed the last section up: A lazy reporter cites something from Wikipedia that is not cited (and maybe not true). The lazy reporter then reports on it in a reliable source. Then that reliable source gets cited in the article to back up that "fact".
Srry.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, mboverload mboverloadlister@gmail.com wrote:
From a completely outside perspective I see the problem with WikiQuote is sourcing.
From what I have a layperson have seen is that there is pretty much no sourcing for a large body of the content. To explain how dangerous it is to put words in someone's mouth would require a long diatribe that you all have already heard.
I think WikiQuote needs a WP:BLP (maybe one exists, don't know, writing from a random internet user perspective that doesn't care to investigate). If there is NOT an EXACT, reliable source, it's not fukken on the page, period. Ever. You keep putting the quote there you're banned. No ifs ands or buts. It doesn't matter how innocuous a quote may be.
You're saying someone said something which they may not have, which is dangerous. Quotes are commonly passed through word of mouth. If it gets put on WikiQuote it may be assumed to be true, then put in a reliable source, thus proving the quote. Wikipedia is having that exact problem right now. Our content is being put into reliable sources, oftentimes without reference. Then some lazy reporter comes along and cites it. Thus Wikipedia just made a brand new fact...that isn't a fact at all.
I am being harsh. Feel free to be harsh back at Wikipedia. Tell me I'm wrong (no, seriously, I am known where I work to be extremely receptive to feedback). We all benefit when someone points out what hurts the most.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:04 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/8 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
- What is the boundary that differentiates a quote from a source? If
we have a transcript of length X, at what N is X > N suitable for Wikisource and X < N suitable for wikiquote? Obviously, N is not going to be a firm number, but having a clear answer to this question will help silence some detractors who say WQ should be merged into WS.
WS is for complete works. So the complete Shakespeare play goes to WS. Quotes from that play to WQ.
- Is the purpose of WQ to store, source, and organize quotations in
an analogous way to how Commons handles media? If so, we should be pursuing technical means through which quotations from WQ can be easily transcluded into works that require them, such as WP, WB, WV, and WN.
Nope getting the quotes off wikipedia was one of the initial advantages of WQ.
- If a contemporary figure makes an important statement, is that the
jurisdiction of WQ, WN, WP, or a combination thereof? That is, is WQ trying to follow current events, or is it focusing on a more historical perspective?
A combination thereof. WP has answered this many times.
- Is a GFDL site license really appropriate if the vast majority of
content on WQ is not released under that license? If we have quotes that are too old for copyright (and therefore PD) or quotes that are too new (and therefore being used as some kind of fair use), does having a GFDL stamp on the website really make any sense?
It's complicated.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
mboverload wrote:
I messed the last section up: A lazy reporter cites something from Wikipedia that is not cited (and maybe not true). The lazy reporter then reports on it in a reliable source. Then that reliable source gets cited in the article to back up that "fact".
A reliable source doing that is not reliable anymore, i.e. this source is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia.
Well, eh, just my 0.02 €.
Yann
2008/9/11 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net:
mboverload wrote:
I messed the last section up: A lazy reporter cites something from Wikipedia that is not cited (and maybe not true). The lazy reporter then reports on it in a reliable source. Then that reliable source gets cited in the article to back up that "fact".
A reliable source doing that is not reliable anymore, i.e. this source is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia.
There are no reliable sources in that sense. All sources have less than 100% reliability because they're written by fallible humans.
Reference loops happen every now and then on en:wp. It's usually faintly embarrassing to all involved and a note goes on the talk page. It's not that big a deal in the wider scheme of things as long as someone catches it. As lazy journalists who quote Wikipedia without naming it get caught out, less lazy journalists learn to name it and keep it to casual stuff, so the problem should stay generally manageable.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/9/11 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net:
mboverload wrote:
I messed the last section up: A lazy reporter cites something from Wikipedia that is not cited (and maybe not true). The lazy reporter then reports on it in a reliable source. Then that reliable source gets cited in the article to back up that "fact".
A reliable source doing that is not reliable anymore, i.e. this source is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia.
There are no reliable sources in that sense. All sources have less than 100% reliability because they're written by fallible humans.
Reference loops happen every now and then on en:wp. It's usually faintly embarrassing to all involved and a note goes on the talk page. It's not that big a deal in the wider scheme of things as long as someone catches it. As lazy journalists who quote Wikipedia without naming it get caught out, less lazy journalists learn to name it and keep it to casual stuff, so the problem should stay generally manageable.
Here is a very recent (((and simply brilliant))) article by the inimitable Bruce Sterling, which talks about not just facts but even the language, and the meaning of words in the language, behind them - and yes, Wikipedia gets more than a nod in the intro, with Bruce being remarkably gentle with us...
http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/09/web-semantics-w.html
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2008/9/11 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net:
mboverload wrote:
I messed the last section up: A lazy reporter cites something from Wikipedia that is not cited (and maybe not true). The lazy reporter then reports on it in a reliable source. Then that reliable source gets cited in the article to back up that "fact".
A reliable source doing that is not reliable anymore, i.e. this source is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia.
People do tend to remove these sort of loops, but only once they've found out they exist. If the reporter doesn't mention where they got the information, then it can be tricky...
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:59 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
There is a discussion on Meta to disband Wikiquote, or at least consider the problems it faces and how to move forward.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
So far it is mostly people who have doubts about its utility, so broader participation is desirable. I appreciate that this is not going to be a pleasant discussion for regular contributors to Wikiquote, but I see it as a worthwhile discussion, even if it only to re-affirm the community support for having a quote project now that the encyclopedia and library project are rapidly encroaching on its territory.
I know this proposal is probably offensive to some people. Nobody wants to see "their project" closed, no matter what problems it may have. I've seen this with projects that are much worse off then en.wikiquote, and I would expect nothing less from the quoters (what do their members call themselves?).
<snip>
I'm not in favor of closing wikiquote, but then again it could turn out to be the correct decision if questions like those above don't have clear and suitable answers. I hope people take this issue seriously because Wikiquote could seriously benefit from some thoughtful introspection.
--Andrew Whitworth
I guess this might be another potentially offensive proposal, but I think Wikiquote, given that it is in some ways the least successful of the projects, might be a good test case for a remerge, "wikicompendium"-style, back to Wikipedia.
I feel that the separation of the projects (and the consequent fracturing of the community) may have been a historic mistake, and that we should consider whether or not something like Wikiquote might work better as a "Quote:" namespace on Wikipedia (while retaining the conventions particular to Wikiquote). I feel this is an experiment that might be worth pursuing.
Thanks, Pharos
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:59 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
There is a discussion on Meta to disband Wikiquote, or at least consider the problems it faces and how to move forward.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
So far it is mostly people who have doubts about its utility, so broader participation is desirable. I appreciate that this is not going to be a pleasant discussion for regular contributors to Wikiquote, but I see it as a worthwhile discussion, even if it only to re-affirm the community support for having a quote project now that the encyclopedia and library project are rapidly encroaching on its territory.
I know this proposal is probably offensive to some people. Nobody wants to see "their project" closed, no matter what problems it may have. I've seen this with projects that are much worse off then en.wikiquote, and I would expect nothing less from the quoters (what do their members call themselves?).
<snip>
I'm not in favor of closing wikiquote, but then again it could turn out to be the correct decision if questions like those above don't have clear and suitable answers. I hope people take this issue seriously because Wikiquote could seriously benefit from some thoughtful introspection.
--Andrew Whitworth
I guess this might be another potentially offensive proposal, but I think Wikiquote, given that it is in some ways the least successful of the projects, might be a good test case for a remerge, "wikicompendium"-style, back to Wikipedia.
I feel that the separation of the projects (and the consequent fracturing of the community) may have been a historic mistake, and that we should consider whether or not something like Wikiquote might work better as a "Quote:" namespace on Wikipedia (while retaining the conventions particular to Wikiquote). I feel this is an experiment that might be worth pursuing.
I was earlier thinking of a Quote: namespace for Wikisource, as a way to ensure that the source is provided in full first, before the quotes are attached, or at least concurrently developed. I hadnt thought of a Quote namespace being part of Wikipedia - that could help allow the fair-use quotes to be better managed.
-- John
I would like only to point the fact:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:59 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
There is a discussion on Meta to disband Wikiquote, or at least consider the problems it faces and how to move forward.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
So far it is mostly people who have doubts about its utility, so broader participation is desirable. I appreciate that this is not going to be a pleasant discussion for regular contributors to Wikiquote, but I see it as a worthwhile discussion, even if it only to re-affirm the community support for having a quote project now that the encyclopedia and library project are rapidly encroaching on its territory.
I know this proposal is probably offensive to some people. Nobody wants to see "their project" closed, no matter what problems it may have. I've seen this with projects that are much worse off then en.wikiquote, and I would expect nothing less from the quoters (what do their members call themselves?).
<snip>
I'm not in favor of closing wikiquote, but then again it could turn out to be the correct decision if questions like those above don't have clear and suitable answers. I hope people take this issue seriously because Wikiquote could seriously benefit from some thoughtful introspection.
--Andrew Whitworth
I guess this might be another potentially offensive proposal, but I think Wikiquote, given that it is in some ways the least successful of the projects, might be a good test case for a remerge, "wikicompendium"-style, back to Wikipedia.
Statistics suggest Wikiquote have more visitors than Wikibooks and Wikisource. Never to say on Wikinews which started much later. It is meaningless to label a fairly visited project "least successful" without providing what is your criterion of "success".
Hoi, Wikipedia is our encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is also 250+ different projects. There are many more projects beside Wikipedia, some in the WMF and some not. When you think that our community is fractured, you do not have to look at anything but Wikipedia and you may notice all these different projects some doing well, some doing abysmally bad all with more or less of their *own * community.
When you consider Wikiquote to be one of our least successful projects, you will find that many Wikipedias are doing much worse. The notion that we are one community is in my opinion based on wishful thinking. We are not one community, we are many communities sharing a dream. If we were a community the reputation of a user of one community would be known in other communities, it is not.
We do share a dream and this dream is in providing information to people. The information that is provided is not the same for the different brands of projects the WMF hosts.
My question would be, do you really think the people at Wikiquote would be happy to be part of Wikipedia? My question would be, do you really think the people at Wikinews would be happy to be part of Wikipedia? I doubt it as they have their own community, their own sense of purpose, their own sense on how to bring the best information given their projects aim. Their aim is not Wikipedias aim, their rules are not shared in Wikipedia. It would be like translating a penguin to the Amazon. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:59 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
There is a discussion on Meta to disband Wikiquote, or at least consider the problems it faces and how to move forward.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
So far it is mostly people who have doubts about its utility, so broader participation is desirable. I appreciate that this is not going to be a pleasant discussion for regular contributors to Wikiquote, but I see it as a worthwhile discussion, even if it only to re-affirm the community support for having a quote project now that the encyclopedia and library project are rapidly encroaching on its territory.
I know this proposal is probably offensive to some people. Nobody wants to see "their project" closed, no matter what problems it may have. I've seen this with projects that are much worse off then en.wikiquote, and I would expect nothing less from the quoters (what do their members call themselves?).
<snip>
I'm not in favor of closing wikiquote, but then again it could turn out to be the correct decision if questions like those above don't have clear and suitable answers. I hope people take this issue seriously because Wikiquote could seriously benefit from some thoughtful introspection.
--Andrew Whitworth
I guess this might be another potentially offensive proposal, but I think Wikiquote, given that it is in some ways the least successful of the projects, might be a good test case for a remerge, "wikicompendium"-style, back to Wikipedia.
I feel that the separation of the projects (and the consequent fracturing of the community) may have been a historic mistake, and that we should consider whether or not something like Wikiquote might work better as a "Quote:" namespace on Wikipedia (while retaining the conventions particular to Wikiquote). I feel this is an experiment that might be worth pursuing.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Oh well, let me treat "penguin" as sign of respect (having in mind Linux logo etc.) and it's up to you to compare WP with Amazon jungles :-D
Let me stress that there is many people who contribute both to WP and WQ and that is separate story whether someone of fellow WP-ians :) is ready to respect contribution of some WQ-in ;) at same level as his own (say thousand of editions for thousand or any other way).
My position (being more serious): WP and WQ are strong together and "synergy" is written on their flag. Apparently WS, WN and all other respectful segments contribute to synergy same way. It means (IMHO) that communities are not so separate (they overlaps as a matter of fact) and they are sharing not only said 'dream' and far not just Mediawiki as high-tech platform. Concepts, communication 'language' and a lot of things are in common as well.
Pavlo Shevelo
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Wikipedia is our encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is also 250+ different projects. There are many more projects beside Wikipedia, some in the WMF and some not. When you think that our community is fractured, you do not have to look at anything but Wikipedia and you may notice all these different projects some doing well, some doing abysmally bad all with more or less of their *own * community.
When you consider Wikiquote to be one of our least successful projects, you will find that many Wikipedias are doing much worse. The notion that we are one community is in my opinion based on wishful thinking. We are not one community, we are many communities sharing a dream. If we were a community the reputation of a user of one community would be known in other communities, it is not.
We do share a dream and this dream is in providing information to people. The information that is provided is not the same for the different brands of projects the WMF hosts.
My question would be, do you really think the people at Wikiquote would be happy to be part of Wikipedia? My question would be, do you really think the people at Wikinews would be happy to be part of Wikipedia? I doubt it as they have their own community, their own sense of purpose, their own sense on how to bring the best information given their projects aim. Their aim is not Wikipedias aim, their rules are not shared in Wikipedia. It would be like translating a penguin to the Amazon. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:59 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
There is a discussion on Meta to disband Wikiquote, or at least consider the problems it faces and how to move forward.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
So far it is mostly people who have doubts about its utility, so broader participation is desirable. I appreciate that this is not going to be a pleasant discussion for regular contributors to Wikiquote, but I see it as a worthwhile discussion, even if it only to re-affirm the community support for having a quote project now that the encyclopedia and library project are rapidly encroaching on its territory.
I know this proposal is probably offensive to some people. Nobody wants to see "their project" closed, no matter what problems it may have. I've seen this with projects that are much worse off then en.wikiquote, and I would expect nothing less from the quoters (what do their members call themselves?).
<snip>
I'm not in favor of closing wikiquote, but then again it could turn out to be the correct decision if questions like those above don't have clear and suitable answers. I hope people take this issue seriously because Wikiquote could seriously benefit from some thoughtful introspection.
--Andrew Whitworth
I guess this might be another potentially offensive proposal, but I think Wikiquote, given that it is in some ways the least successful of the projects, might be a good test case for a remerge, "wikicompendium"-style, back to Wikipedia.
I feel that the separation of the projects (and the consequent fracturing of the community) may have been a historic mistake, and that we should consider whether or not something like Wikiquote might work better as a "Quote:" namespace on Wikipedia (while retaining the conventions particular to Wikiquote). I feel this is an experiment that might be worth pursuing.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
First about proper tone of discussion:
I'm pretty much surprised (I mean that) to see "we & them" attitude combined with things which seems like BIGbrotherhood. See how many words like "them", "their" etc. are used and isn't it (pardon me) too snobbish to talk about "inspections"?
Now to the questions:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
... Some questions that I think WQ needs to ask itself, possibly with input from other projects, are:
- What is the boundary that differentiates a quote from a source? If
we have a transcript of length X, at what N is X > N suitable for Wikisource and X < N suitable for wikiquote? Obviously, N is not going to be a firm number, but having a clear answer to this question will help silence some detractors who say WQ should be merged into WS.
Are you serious about proposing such metrics? Isn't it obvious that neither 100% of the text source, nor 99%, ... nor 50%, ... nor 10% (!!!) etc. of the source text con't be the quotation? Perhaps the problem is in confusing the notions "quotation" and "citation"? Seemingly anyone can take, for example, Oxford dictionary of quotations to get the idea of what quotation is.
For everybody convenience let me use the example:
"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."
is a quotation no matter what the context was. There are 18 words (if I'm not mistaken). And there is great difference between this qoutation and any 18 words long citation from any text written/spoken by same author. [I'm not saying that citations should be prohibited in WQ, but quotations are IMHO the main "mission" of WQ and the name of the project is WQ and not WC ;) ]
By the way, talking about metrics - perhaps that 18 words might be the 100% of some 'source', it doesn't matter.
- Is the purpose of WQ to store, source, and organize quotations in
an analogous way to how Commons handles media? If so, we should be pursuing technical means through which quotations from WQ can be easily transcluded into works that require them, such as WP, WB, WV, and WN.
Yes, it's good point (if I understood it well). There is (in WP as well as in WQ) group of templates to provide cross-references between WP and WQ but they are just workaround, no more.
- If a contemporary figure makes an important statement, is that the
jurisdiction of WQ, WN, WP, or a combination thereof? That is, is WQ trying to follow current events, or is it focusing on a more historical perspective?
Regarding following/focusing: same as WP (IMHO)
Regarding 'jurisdiction': apparently combination, that's all synergy (!!!) of WMF projects are all about!
Let me make the statement (sort of teasing if not provocation ;) ): all statements made by Winston Churchill and well known as his quotations contains much more "statement" than all details of his biography. Looking from this point WP provides just (pardon me) second-level service, answering the question: who was that guy, who made such clever statements, and, for example, what education should I have to be at least half as clever :)
- Is a GFDL site license really appropriate if the vast majority of
content on WQ is not released under that license? If we have quotes that are too old for copyright (and therefore PD) or quotes that are too new (and therefore being used as some kind of fair use), does having a GFDL stamp on the website really make any sense?
That's complicate (as gini noted already)
I'm not in favor of closing wikiquote, but then again it could turn out to be the correct decision if questions like those above don't have clear and suitable answers. I hope people take this issue seriously because Wikiquote could seriously benefit from some thoughtful introspection.
If you are not in favor of closing what is the motivation (reason?) to talk about closing from your very first posting?
--Andrew Whitworth
Pavlo Shevelo
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
First about proper tone of discussion:
I'm pretty much surprised (I mean that) to see "we & them" attitude combined with things which seems like BIGbrotherhood. See how many words like "them", "their" etc. are used and isn't it (pardon me) too snobbish to talk about "inspections"?
I'm a Wikibookian, and I've been on the receiving end of the "us and them" discussions on many occasions. The difference was that we listened to criticisms and used them to improve our project in such a way that suggestions about "merging wikibooks into wikipedia" are rarely raised anymore. So don't talk about me being snobbish as if I'm some faceless member of the Wikimedia bourgeoisie, I'm a member of a small sister project that (if Aphaia's statistics are true) has a lower hitcount then wikiquote does.
Are you serious about proposing such metrics? Isn't it obvious that neither 100% of the text source, nor 99%, ... nor 50%, ... nor 10% (!!!) etc. of the source text con't be the quotation? Perhaps the problem is in confusing the notions "quotation" and "citation"? Seemingly anyone can take, for example, Oxford dictionary of quotations to get the idea of what quotation is.
No, I'm not seriously proposing anything. I'm asking where the dividing line is located. We've had a number of questions in the past about what exactly is the difference between Wikibooks and Wikisource, or Wikibooks and Wikiversity. We've taken the time to precisely define the criteria where a piece of content should appear on one or the other. I'm asking if there is such a firm criteria between WS and WQ? If there isn't yet, there definitely should be so you can put discussions like this to rest.
is a quotation no matter what the context was. There are 18 words (if I'm not mistaken). And there is great difference between this qoutation and any 18 words long citation from any text written/spoken by same author.
By the way, talking about metrics - perhaps that 18 words might be the 100% of some 'source', it doesn't matter.
It does matter. Consider an example of the Gettysburg Address (I know it's an american-centric example, sorry for that). It's a particularly short speech which, in it's entirety is not much longer then some of the quotes I've seen on Wikiquote. Now, is the full text of this address the domain of WS or WQ? Both? What about other such short speeches or press releases made by important persons that are both complete sources and are short enough to be easily quotable.
Unless there is a clear separation between WS and WQ (or WQ and WN in the case of recently-made quotations) there are going to be endless discussions about project closures and mergers. Overlapping magisteria indicates duplicated effort and division of community, things that wikimedians have historically tried to avoid.
Yes, it's good point (if I understood it well). There is (in WP as well as in WQ) group of templates to provide cross-references between WP and WQ but they are just workaround, no more.
If WQ is going to stay a separate project (and there clearly isn't much support to pursue any other course of action) then it should be pursuing ways to increase it's utility and relevance in relation to other projects. Creating a technical method to do inter-project text transclusions seems like it would be a major benefit to WQ. I can tell you that WB would make good use of such quotes if they were readily available, and I'm sure WP would also.
Let me make the statement (sort of teasing if not provocation ;) ): all statements made by Winston Churchill and well known as his quotations contains much more "statement" than all details of his biography. Looking from this point WP provides just (pardon me) second-level service, answering the question: who was that guy, who made such clever statements, and, for example, what education should I have to be at least half as clever :)
This may be true. WB has long used the shortcoming of WP articles to "explain and teach" material as strong justifications for our own existence (especially back when people were still arguing that we should be merged). Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia has a {{quote}} template that it can use to embed the most poignant quotes directly in the article itself. Why go to a different website to read a duplicate list of quotes? Wikipedia has the manpower and the will to include all the necessary information into an article. And if all the quotes don't fit in [[w:Winston Churchill]], then maybe they will fit into [[w:Foreign policies of Winston Churchill]] or [[w:Political beliefs of Winston Churchill]] or any other number of related articles that might be created about the man's politics. If you're hedging your bets about WQ's long term efficacy on the hope that WP stops short of including all possible information at some point, you're not making a smart decision. Information that WP can include, it WILL include eventually. Don't underestimate that.
- Is a GFDL site license really appropriate if the vast majority of
content on WQ is not released under that license?
That's complicate (as gini noted already)
How complicated? And why don't you see that as being a problem? The harder it is to explain your copyright minefield, the more difficult it is going to be for content contributors and content reusers. I've been around the wiki block a few times, and if you can't explain your copyright situation to me then maybe it needs to be rethought from the ground up.
If you are not in favor of closing what is the motivation (reason?) to talk about closing from your very first posting?
That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger. A while back people talked about closing Wikibooks or merging it into Wikipedia, or any other number of bad outcomes. In response, we took a long hard look at ourselves and made a number of changes, some of which were very painful. We split off WV to be separate project, we deleted or relocated dozens of video game strategy guides, we reformulated policies on naming conventions and inclusion criteria and we reevaluated all the policies and notions that had previous defined us. We abandoned all the lines in the sand and replaced them with firm demarcations that explicitly state what our relationship was with the rest of the WMF. We were able to focus more on our core mission and spend less energy writing "macropedias" that would have overlapped with WP in a way that wasn't mutually beneficial. I'd be surprised if the members at WQ aren't interested in a similar renaissance.
--Andrew Whitworth
Andrew,
It's a real pity for me that you seemingly missed main point (or bottomline) of my message - please calm down and let's speak as "we" and as really equals.
No matter whether you're of the Wikipedian race or representative of smaller project, proud of withstanding aggressive critics some time ago IMHO (!) you have no right to speak to other in such a tone, which is snobbish in my perception (forgive my lack of synonyms which might be more precise). I mean you're talking like professor with dummies (or lazy or…). Would you please stop that? I'm asking as your tone distracts me (and I presume not only me) from discussion of what is really meaningful in your words.
Let me use several words from your posting as an example:
"That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger" (as to me I prefer "it is the north wind that made the vikings" ;) –the author is different) Was you aware that it's quotation when you wrote that? (I'm not going to drill now neither the level of rephrasing of the original "What does not kill me, makes me stronger" nor how close or far are that words in English to original text of Friedrich Nietzsche).
So let's face several questions (whaich are no more than examples, so list of questions is far nor complete): - Are quotations a valuable part (kind?) of knowledge that WMF is taking care about, believing that it's WMF mission? - Should WMF projects provide people with text of quotations (to give a chance to use them for expressing their thoughts as Andrew Whitworth does, if not better ;) )? - Should we put all quotations of some person to same place where biography of that author is placed? - what is the right (meaning thoughtfully proposed) name for that place – WP or WQ? - If it will be two different projects how sharp should be the boundaries? Is it a problem that author' photo and 1 sentence long info about him will be placed atop his quotations in WQ (with reference to WP for more details)? - How deep should we wikify the quotation text? - should we place said quotation somewhere very near whole text of "Twilight of the Idols" (1888) and to name that place WS (oh, or WB?)? - do we need metrics (in words quantity or percentage of source text length) to differentiate said quotation from whole text of "Twilight of the Idols"? - is placement of whole text of "Twilight of the Idols" the mandatory pre-condition to placement of said quotation (see John Vandenberg' suggestion above in same thread); - what about usable means to make cross-references between quotations on same topic (like couple above)? Should we serve the person who is (while preparing to February the 14th) is looking for all quotations about love? - …
I'm saying that we in WQ are asking all these and many other questions (most of which are much more complicate) several times a day so there is no reason to push us to them or call us to face them.
Your example with "Gettysburg Address" is piece of cake IMHO – this speech goes to WS.
Through you emotions I see all the issues and problems that you ask me to face. But, once again, please change the tone and just share with us valuable experience that your Wikibookians … khm, khm… tribe :) seems to have. And criticism is one thing while… (I feel shortage in vocabulary again) is different. And your words "I've been on the receiving end of the "us and them" discussions on many occasions" reminds me another quotations of same author
"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one"
We are ready to face all and every questions that you rose up as there is nothing new in them – we faced them looong time ago. We are ready to discuss all that (and many other) issues with you (if and when you will be ready to change the tone) and with everybody else. I even can't imagine that on some/any stage of said "renaissance" of "your" project you proposed the seppuku/hara-kiri for that project (as cure for bunch of problems which then existed) as well as I never appreciate proposals to cut me a head no matter how strong headache is at the moment. So don't be surprised that project closure in the thing (perhaps the only one) that we don't accept. Period. And please don't (pardon me) speculate around our strong negative emotions toward project closure (as well as caused by your tone) treating them as lack of will to (i) face (ii) thoroughly discuss (iii) properly solve real problems.
Sapienti sat (oh, one more quotation ;) )
I put myself into your entire disposal to discuss all essential (emotionless) things in proper tone. I presume that your ideas toward "creating a technical method to do inter-project text transclusions" might became my loveliest [sub]topic. ;)
Pavlo Shevelo
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
First about proper tone of discussion:
I'm pretty much surprised (I mean that) to see "we & them" attitude combined with things which seems like BIGbrotherhood. See how many words like "them", "their" etc. are used and isn't it (pardon me) too snobbish to talk about "inspections"?
I'm a Wikibookian, and I've been on the receiving end of the "us and them" discussions on many occasions. The difference was that we listened to criticisms and used them to improve our project in such a way that suggestions about "merging wikibooks into wikipedia" are rarely raised anymore. So don't talk about me being snobbish as if I'm some faceless member of the Wikimedia bourgeoisie, I'm a member of a small sister project that (if Aphaia's statistics are true) has a lower hitcount then wikiquote does.
Are you serious about proposing such metrics? Isn't it obvious that neither 100% of the text source, nor 99%, ... nor 50%, ... nor 10% (!!!) etc. of the source text con't be the quotation? Perhaps the problem is in confusing the notions "quotation" and "citation"? Seemingly anyone can take, for example, Oxford dictionary of quotations to get the idea of what quotation is.
No, I'm not seriously proposing anything. I'm asking where the dividing line is located. We've had a number of questions in the past about what exactly is the difference between Wikibooks and Wikisource, or Wikibooks and Wikiversity. We've taken the time to precisely define the criteria where a piece of content should appear on one or the other. I'm asking if there is such a firm criteria between WS and WQ? If there isn't yet, there definitely should be so you can put discussions like this to rest.
is a quotation no matter what the context was. There are 18 words (if I'm not mistaken). And there is great difference between this qoutation and any 18 words long citation from any text written/spoken by same author.
By the way, talking about metrics - perhaps that 18 words might be the 100% of some 'source', it doesn't matter.
It does matter. Consider an example of the Gettysburg Address (I know it's an american-centric example, sorry for that). It's a particularly short speech which, in it's entirety is not much longer then some of the quotes I've seen on Wikiquote. Now, is the full text of this address the domain of WS or WQ? Both? What about other such short speeches or press releases made by important persons that are both complete sources and are short enough to be easily quotable.
Unless there is a clear separation between WS and WQ (or WQ and WN in the case of recently-made quotations) there are going to be endless discussions about project closures and mergers. Overlapping magisteria indicates duplicated effort and division of community, things that wikimedians have historically tried to avoid.
Yes, it's good point (if I understood it well). There is (in WP as well as in WQ) group of templates to provide cross-references between WP and WQ but they are just workaround, no more.
If WQ is going to stay a separate project (and there clearly isn't much support to pursue any other course of action) then it should be pursuing ways to increase it's utility and relevance in relation to other projects. Creating a technical method to do inter-project text transclusions seems like it would be a major benefit to WQ. I can tell you that WB would make good use of such quotes if they were readily available, and I'm sure WP would also.
Let me make the statement (sort of teasing if not provocation ;) ): all statements made by Winston Churchill and well known as his quotations contains much more "statement" than all details of his biography. Looking from this point WP provides just (pardon me) second-level service, answering the question: who was that guy, who made such clever statements, and, for example, what education should I have to be at least half as clever :)
This may be true. WB has long used the shortcoming of WP articles to "explain and teach" material as strong justifications for our own existence (especially back when people were still arguing that we should be merged). Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia has a {{quote}} template that it can use to embed the most poignant quotes directly in the article itself. Why go to a different website to read a duplicate list of quotes? Wikipedia has the manpower and the will to include all the necessary information into an article. And if all the quotes don't fit in [[w:Winston Churchill]], then maybe they will fit into [[w:Foreign policies of Winston Churchill]] or [[w:Political beliefs of Winston Churchill]] or any other number of related articles that might be created about the man's politics. If you're hedging your bets about WQ's long term efficacy on the hope that WP stops short of including all possible information at some point, you're not making a smart decision. Information that WP can include, it WILL include eventually. Don't underestimate that.
- Is a GFDL site license really appropriate if the vast majority of
content on WQ is not released under that license?
That's complicate (as gini noted already)
How complicated? And why don't you see that as being a problem? The harder it is to explain your copyright minefield, the more difficult it is going to be for content contributors and content reusers. I've been around the wiki block a few times, and if you can't explain your copyright situation to me then maybe it needs to be rethought from the ground up.
If you are not in favor of closing what is the motivation (reason?) to talk about closing from your very first posting?
That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger. A while back people talked about closing Wikibooks or merging it into Wikipedia, or any other number of bad outcomes. In response, we took a long hard look at ourselves and made a number of changes, some of which were very painful. We split off WV to be separate project, we deleted or relocated dozens of video game strategy guides, we reformulated policies on naming conventions and inclusion criteria and we reevaluated all the policies and notions that had previous defined us. We abandoned all the lines in the sand and replaced them with firm demarcations that explicitly state what our relationship was with the rest of the WMF. We were able to focus more on our core mission and spend less energy writing "macropedias" that would have overlapped with WP in a way that wasn't mutually beneficial. I'd be surprised if the members at WQ aren't interested in a similar renaissance.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew,
It's a real pity for me that you seemingly missed main point (or bottomline) of my message - please calm down and let's speak as "we" and as really equals.
I am perfectly calm, and I am working to calm down those from WQ who are becoming angry and frustrated by this discussion. My point (which is obviously not the same as yours is) is that this discussion is a good thing and WQ stands to benefit from it if people take it seriously. My summary: don't be upset that people want to close your project, use it as an excuse to find the right reasons to not be closed.
No matter whether you're of the Wikipedian race or representative of smaller project, proud of withstanding aggressive critics some time ago IMHO (!) you have no right to speak to other in such a tone, which is snobbish in my perception
I'm sorry that you perceive me as being snobbish, that's not my intention.
"That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger" (as to me I prefer "it is the north wind that made the vikings" ;) –the author is different) Was you aware that it's quotation when you wrote that? (I'm not going to drill now neither the level of rephrasing of the original "What does not kill me, makes me stronger" nor how close or far are that words in English to original text of Friedrich Nietzsche).
I am aware of Nietzsche's comment, although I'm also aware that it's hard to get an accurate quotation in english. The phrase "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" is a common phrase (at least in America) derived from Nietzsche's comment.
I'm saying that we in WQ are asking all these and many other questions (most of which are much more complicate) several times a day so there is no reason to push us to them or call us to face them.
This may very well be, and I was not aware that all of these issues have been raised already on WQ. I'm also not talking directly to that. I don't really care what you talk about at WQ, I care what people are trying to talk about outside of WQ. My concern is the people who look at this discussion with disgust and claim that these discussions are made in bad faith, or that we should "speedy close" this discussion because it's some kind of hate mongering. I'm trying to show that these discussions are valuable to WQ and to the wider community, and that the wider community should take it seriously.
Your example with "Gettysburg Address" is piece of cake IMHO – this speech goes to WS.
To push the issue, may I ask why? What exactly is the criteria that you use to say that one thing goes to WS and one thing goes to WQ? Saying that it's a "piece of cake" only means the answer is obvious to you.
And criticism is one thing while… (I feel shortage in vocabulary again) is different. And your words "I've been on the receiving end of the "us and them" discussions on many occasions" reminds me another quotations of same author
"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one"
I think you are attributing to my email more emotions, passions and "tones" then I wrote it with. If what I said has any connection to your monsters quote, I suggest it is in grammatical form only. I was using my experience at Wikibooks as a way to relate to you and your project, since we've been through similar discussions. Saying that you respond only to particular forms of criticism isn't helpful, because your most serious detractors are not going to offer you constructive and civil criticisms. That doesn't mean that complaints you receive are to be ignored.
So don't be surprised that project closure in the thing (perhaps the only one) that we don't accept. Period. And please don't (pardon me) speculate around our strong negative emotions toward project closure (as well as caused by your tone) treating them as lack of will to (i) face (ii) thoroughly discuss (iii) properly solve real problems.
I haven't really said anything about project closure, and I waste no emotions on it. If it's determined to be the right thing to do in a pragmatic sense, then it's the path to be followed. If not, no worries. I understand first hand the feelings of ownership that members of a project experience. I also realize that those feelings might cloud a person from making a reasonable decision on topics like these.
My interest in this issue only extends so far as my general preference for all WMF projects to succeed. I was hoping I could convince some people that discussions like this about the worth of a project are a necessary part of growth and maturation. Beyond that I really am not able to be involved with the details of this particular discussion. I wish you good luck with it.
--Andrew Whitworth
I received a request by email to allow a user to edit en.WS because of be on a globally hard-blocked IP. It was forwarded with previous discussion from the blocking account DerHexter about how the stewards are unable/uninterested making a account IP block exempt on a global level. Equally there is no ability to make an account IP block exempt on en.WS and likely countless other wikis. Since I am fortunate enough to be involved in a English project I can go look at en.WP and understand what I am lacking at en.WS. Some wikis are probably completely clueless as to why some accounts can no longer edit.
The current message on being globally blocked is ==================================================You do not have permission to edit pages, for the following reason: Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis by DerHexer (meta.wikimedia.org).The reason given was "massive crosswiki vandalism; grawp IP range". The block expires 12:06, 24 November 2008.You can view and copy the source of this page: ==================================================
Until this message is updated to contain a linked message of "to apply for your account to be exempt from this IP block make a request here" and there is a process in place to handle these requests global blocking of IP addresses needs to be put on hold.
Birgitte SB
--- On Sun, 9/14/08, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, September 14, 2008, 9:32 AM I received a request by email to allow a user to edit en.WS because of be on a globally hard-blocked IP. It was forwarded with previous discussion from the blocking account DerHexter about how the stewards are unable/uninterested making a account IP block exempt on a global level. Equally there is no ability to make an account IP block exempt on en.WS and likely countless other wikis. Since I am fortunate enough to be involved in a English project I can go look at en.WP and understand what I am lacking at en.WS. Some wikis are probably completely clueless as to why some accounts can no longer edit.
The current message on being globally blocked is ==================================================You do not have permission to edit pages, for the following reason: Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis by DerHexer (meta.wikimedia.org).The reason given was "massive crosswiki vandalism; grawp IP range". The block expires 12:06, 24 November 2008.You can view and copy the source of this page: ==================================================
Until this message is updated to contain a linked message of "to apply for your account to be exempt from this IP block make a request here" and there is a process in place to handle these requests global blocking of IP addresses needs to be put on hold.
BTW I love how looking at the global block list all the reasons are in english shorthand with no links. Wasn't it said during the discussion of enabling this feature that the block reason would have links to a help page in multiple languages for all the non-english speakers that are being blocked.
Birgitte SB
2008/9/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
BTW I love how looking at the global block list all the reasons are in english shorthand with no links. Wasn't it said during the discussion of enabling this feature that the block reason would have links to a help page in multiple languages for all the non-english speakers that are being blocked.
{{sofixit}}
The answer to the original question is, of course, ipblockexempt on a per-user basis - this is precisely what ipblockexempt is for. This is achieved by filing a bug on bugzilla.mediawiki.org with a link to community discussion supporting it, and pinging the devs as needed. i.e., it's another {{sofixit}}
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/9/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
BTW I love how looking at the global block list all the reasons are in english shorthand with no links. Wasn't it said during the discussion of enabling this feature that the block reason would have links to a help page in multiple languages for all the non-english speakers that are being blocked.
{{sofixit}}
The answer to the original question is, of course, ipblockexempt on a per-user basis - this is precisely what ipblockexempt is for. This is achieved by filing a bug on bugzilla.mediawiki.org with a link to community discussion supporting it, and pinging the devs as needed. i.e., it's another {{sofixit}}
- d.
Isn't this what [[Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist]] is for? If a global block is causing problems on one project, it can be locally disabled and more targeted blocks, or softblocks, put in place if necessary.
--- On Sun, 9/14/08, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
From: Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, September 14, 2008, 11:32 AM David Gerard wrote:
2008/9/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
BTW I love how looking at the global block list
all the reasons are in english shorthand with no links. Wasn't it said during the discussion of enabling this feature that the block reason would have links to a help page in multiple languages for all the non-english speakers that are being blocked.
{{sofixit}}
The answer to the original question is, of course,
ipblockexempt on a
per-user basis - this is precisely what ipblockexempt
is for. This is
achieved by filing a bug on bugzilla.mediawiki.org
with a link to
community discussion supporting it, and pinging the
devs as needed.
i.e., it's another {{sofixit}}
- d.
I could fix the issue for en.WS, but that is a bit shortsighted don't you think? This is an issue affecting all wikis not just en.WS. And I doubt many people blocked elsewhere can give admins information on how the issue was fixed for them on en.WP like this guy did for me. Why was this feature rolled out without sending information on how to handle such problems to the village pumps?
And how can I fix what other people choose to put in their block logs?? There should be a link to a help page that is helpful to non-English people in the blocking reason. The blocking reason and blocking admin name are the only unique information on the "You do not have permission page".
Isn't this what [[Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist]] is for? If a global block is causing problems on one project, it can be locally disabled and more targeted blocks, or softblocks, put in place if necessary.
DerHexter forwarded this problem to the stewards mailing list. They did nothing to help this guy so he asked me to unblock him locally. I unblocked the IP locally as that was all I could do. If there is a global solution people are denying it in practice for some reason that I don't know.
Birgitte SB
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- On Sun, 9/14/08, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
From: Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, September 14, 2008, 11:32 AM David Gerard wrote:
2008/9/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
BTW I love how looking at the global block list
all the reasons are in english shorthand with no links. Wasn't it said during the discussion of enabling this feature that the block reason would have links to a help page in multiple languages for all the non-english speakers that are being blocked.
{{sofixit}}
The answer to the original question is, of course,
ipblockexempt on a
per-user basis - this is precisely what ipblockexempt
is for. This is
achieved by filing a bug on bugzilla.mediawiki.org
with a link to
community discussion supporting it, and pinging the
devs as needed.
i.e., it's another {{sofixit}}
- d.
I could fix the issue for en.WS, but that is a bit shortsighted don't you think? This is an issue affecting all wikis not just en.WS. And I doubt many people blocked elsewhere can give admins information on how the issue was fixed for them on en.WP like this guy did for me. Why was this feature rolled out without sending information on how to handle such problems to the village pumps?
And how can I fix what other people choose to put in their block logs?? There should be a link to a help page that is helpful to non-English people in the blocking reason. The blocking reason and blocking admin name are the only unique information on the "You do not have permission page".
Isn't this what [[Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist]] is for? If a global block is causing problems on one project, it can be locally disabled and more targeted blocks, or softblocks, put in place if necessary.
DerHexter forwarded this problem to the stewards mailing list. They did nothing to help this guy so he asked me to unblock him locally. I unblocked the IP locally as that was all I could do. If there is a global solution people are denying it in practice for some reason that I don't know.
Birgitte SB
Its a local problem, so global solutions are limited. Better explanation of what to do, localized into every language would help, but its not a solution. A global ipblockexempt group could be created, or ipblockexempt could be made a usergroup on every project, assignable by admins, or by stewards until a local policy is made.
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
DerHexter forwarded this problem to the stewards mailing list.
It's DerHexer, just FYI.
Hello, such claims "they did nothing" should have a ground, imho...
DerHexer blocked that range after it had been used for massive cross-wiki vandalism, it had been blocked on en.wiki before and after sul was available the user abused it to vandalize from other projects. The other user had a block exemption on en.wiki, which did not work after a global block and contacted DerHexer, we opened a requesthttps://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15288at bugzilla that it should work for global blocks too, which was fixed the next day.
@global group IP-block-exemption, that should _not_ be decided by stewards, but by the community, who should assign it, should it overwrite a local block too, etc. I suggest You better open a discussion for that on Meta instead on the mailinglist, because then the group might actually be created. Thanks.
E.
2008/9/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
DerHexter forwarded this problem to the stewards mailing list. They did nothing to help this guy so he asked me to unblock him locally. I unblocked the IP locally as that was all I could do. If there is a global solution people are denying it in practice for some reason that I don't know.
Birgitte SB
Re: Steward-l email doing nothing to resolve problem
From the email forwarded to me asking for help that is the gist of was was reported to the person unable to edit. If that is not true I don't have any other information of what was done to help the editor. And the fact that _he_ emailed me, still unable to edit is a good reason to take the report that nothing was done for him at face value.
Frankly how to handle these anticipated problems _should_ have been decided in concert with the decision to implement of this feature. I had thought they had been. Obvoiusly the feature was rolled out without addressing the concerns that people expressed over this during the intial discussion of such a feature. That should not have happened but here we are.
Birgitte SB
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Elisabeth Anderl spacebirdy@gmail.com wrote:
From: Elisabeth Anderl spacebirdy@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:17 AM Hello, such claims "they did nothing" should have a ground, imho...
DerHexer blocked that range after it had been used for massive cross-wiki vandalism, it had been blocked on en.wiki before and after sul was available the user abused it to vandalize from other projects. The other user had a block exemption on en.wiki, which did not work after a global block and contacted DerHexer, we opened a requesthttps://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15288at bugzilla that it should work for global blocks too, which was fixed the next day.
@global group IP-block-exemption, that should _not_ be decided by stewards, but by the community, who should assign it, should it overwrite a local block too, etc. I suggest You better open a discussion for that on Meta instead on the mailinglist, because then the group might actually be created. Thanks.
E.
2008/9/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
DerHexter forwarded this problem to the stewards
mailing list. They did
nothing to help this guy so he asked me to unblock him
locally. I unblocked
the IP locally as that was all I could do. If there
is a global solution
people are denying it in practice for some reason that
I don't know.
Birgitte SB
From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com]
Frankly how to handle these anticipated problems _should_ have been decided in concert with the decision to implement of this feature. I had thought they had been. Obvoiusly the feature was rolled out without addressing the concerns that people expressed over this during the intial discussion of such a feature. That should not have happened but here we are.
That's actually false - the discussion regarding global blocking addressed these concerns explicitly and extensively, as you can well see for yourself: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_blocking and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_blocking/Archive_1
Ipblock-exempt and a local whitelist on the IP are both options you are free to use to help legitimate users caught in global blocks.
Mike
I think it is very unfortunate that we allow individuals (vandals) to have such a huge impact on both the administrative volunteers and the general contributing public. This whole global IP block issue is a result of yet another attempt we have made to stem prolific vandals, and yet another attempt which causes more collateral damage than it prevents vandalism. Why is it that we can't take legal recourse against individuals who persistently vandalize Wikimedia projects? It doesn't seem like it would be hard to claim damages, we spend thousands of hours cleaning up after these people, we have the means to identify them to some extent to authorities. More than once in my experience vandals have been made to account for their actions either legally or through an academic institution, I think that it is long since time that we say enough is enough and put some procedure in place to stop the persistent vandals through legal action.
-Dave Ross
the dave ross wrote:
More than once in my experience vandals have been made to account for their actions either legally or through an academic institution, I think that it is long since time that we say enough is enough and put some procedure in place to stop the persistent vandals through legal action.
I can recall cases where the community has dealt with vandals through contacts with an academic institution, but can you fill me in on what cases of legal action you're referring to?
--Michael Snow
the dave ross wrote:
I think it is very unfortunate that we allow individuals (vandals) to have such a huge impact on both the administrative volunteers and the general contributing public. This whole global IP block issue is a result of yet another attempt we have made to stem prolific vandals, and yet another attempt which causes more collateral damage than it prevents vandalism.
[citation needed] Is there any data behind that? Or is it just based on the fact that there have been more complaints about collateral damage than there has praise for stopping vandals?
Why is it that we can't take legal recourse against individuals who persistently vandalize Wikimedia projects? It doesn't seem like it would be hard to claim damages, we spend thousands of hours cleaning up after these people, we have the means to identify them to some extent to authorities. More than once in my experience vandals have been made to account for their actions either legally or through an academic institution, I think that it is long since time that we say enough is enough and put some procedure in place to stop the persistent vandals through legal action.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
the dave ross wrote:
I think it is very unfortunate that we allow individuals (vandals) to have such a huge impact on both the administrative volunteers and the general contributing public. This whole global IP block issue is a result of yet another attempt we have made to stem prolific vandals, and yet another attempt which causes more collateral damage than it prevents vandalism.
[citation needed] Is there any data behind that? Or is it just based on the fact that there have been more complaints about collateral damage than there has praise for stopping vandals?
From what I've seen, it's been more useful than not.
The few collateral damage pales in comparison with the amount of crosswiki vandalbots we've been able to stop.
But that's taken for granted (it's done, and because of it being done, nobody sees the vandalism and therefore the usefulness of global block is not apparent to the observer)
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
From: Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:36 PM On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
the dave ross wrote:
I think it is very unfortunate that we allow
individuals (vandals) to have
such a huge impact on both the administrative
volunteers and the general
contributing public. This whole global IP block
issue is a result of yet
another attempt we have made to stem prolific
vandals, and yet another
attempt which causes more collateral damage than
it prevents vandalism.
[citation needed] Is there any data behind that? Or is it just based on
the fact that
there have been more complaints about collateral
damage than there has
praise for stopping vandals?
From what I've seen, it's been more useful than not. The few collateral damage pales in comparison with the amount of crosswiki vandalbots we've been able to stop.
But that's taken for granted (it's done, and because of it being done, nobody sees the vandalism and therefore the usefulness of global block is not apparent to the observer)
I agree that it a useful and needed tool. It is however frustrating to find out that it was not implemented as advertised. The original discussion had also been frustrating for me as it seemed everyone misunderstood my proposal and misattributed positions to me which I did not hold. But even when I left that discussion in frustration, I was certain that while they would not agree with my proposal they would do _something_ to handle the discussed problems. I never imagined we would have blocks in the range of months with the majority of logs that would be meaningless even if someone thinks to put in and English translation machine and no process able to sucessfully help a blocked editor when they do manage to email the blocking steward in a common language. Back then I was thinking the people having problems with this feature would one that didn't speak a very common language. And the reaction to this is "file a bug for en.WS and then pester a dev" and "not our decision" and "we already addressed these problems extensively in implementation".
And that of all people in Wikmedia I had to be the one emailed by someone caught in one of these blocks boggles my mind. I guess other people just don't see the problem here. Maybe when ten editors or fifty have caught in blocks it will be seen as an issue worth addresesing. Or maybe everyone just wants to wait for each WMF wiki to come asking about this so they can all be told individually to file a bug and find a dev who will respond to it.
Birgitte SB
Alex wrote:
the dave ross wrote:
I think it is very unfortunate that we allow individuals (vandals) to have such a huge impact on both the administrative volunteers and the general contributing public. This whole global IP block issue is a result of yet another attempt we have made to stem prolific vandals, and yet another attempt which causes more collateral damage than it prevents vandalism.
Is there any data behind that? Or is it just based on the fact that there have been more complaints about collateral damage than there has praise for stopping vandals?
In all likelihood those who are complaining about collateral damage are not the ones seriously affected by vandalism. Maybe it's just a reflection that more people are affected by friendly fire than by vandals.
Ec
mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm wrote:
From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com]
Frankly how to handle these anticipated problems _should_ have been decided in concert with the decision to implement of this feature. I had thought they had been. Obvoiusly the feature was rolled out without addressing the concerns that people expressed over this during the intial discussion of such a feature. That should not have happened but here we are.
That's actually false - the discussion regarding global blocking addressed these concerns explicitly and extensively, as you can well see for yourself: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_blocking and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_blocking/Archive_1
Ipblock-exempt and a local whitelist on the IP are both options you are free to use to help legitimate users caught in global blocks.
Those are talk pages, and the fact that there had to be an archive is clear evidence that the discussion was a lengthy one. But wading through endless talk pages is no way to find an answer to an immediate problem.
Documentation for how to deal with the kinds of problems that Birgitte has encountered should be easily available on each site. The Village Pump is probably not the best place since that is mostly for current discussions, and it will not be easily found after the notice has been archived. To expect non-technical people to resort to Bugzilla is expecting too much.
Ec
Another thing I found is this: When doing a normal block on an ip address, the default behaviour is to *not* block logged-in users. I have to uncheck a box if I do want to block them. When doing an interwiki block, the default is that logged-in users *are* blocked. I have to check a box if I do not want to block them. I think the amount of collateral damage might well be diminished quite a bit if for interwiki blocks the same default was used to not block logged in users.
You may also whitelist an IP for your wiki only at [[Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist]]
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: September 14, 2008 11:52 AM To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now
2008/9/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
BTW I love how looking at the global block list all the reasons are in
english shorthand with no links. Wasn't it said during the discussion of enabling this feature that the block reason would have links to a help page in multiple languages for all the non-english speakers that are being blocked.
{{sofixit}}
The answer to the original question is, of course, ipblockexempt on a per-user basis - this is precisely what ipblockexempt is for. This is achieved by filing a bug on bugzilla.mediawiki.org with a link to community discussion supporting it, and pinging the devs as needed. i.e., it's another {{sofixit}}
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org