The screenshot at:
shows the first page seen by anyone using a computer in a library in my home city, Birmingham.
There are a lot of popular websites listed - but Wikipedia isn't there!
Maybe we could all check out our local libraries, for similar pages, and ask the staff to include Wikipedia, if they don't already?
I think they are getting value and price confused. I see they have quite a few paid for services.
On 7 June 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The screenshot at:
shows the first page seen by anyone using a computer in a library in my home city, Birmingham.
There are a lot of popular websites listed - but Wikipedia isn't there!
Maybe we could all check out our local libraries, for similar pages, and ask the staff to include Wikipedia, if they don't already?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 20:08, Andy Mabbett wrote:
The screenshot at:
shows the first page seen by anyone using a computer in a library in my home city, Birmingham.
There are a lot of popular websites listed - but Wikipedia isn't there!
Maybe we could all check out our local libraries, for similar pages, and ask the staff to include Wikipedia, if they don't already?
Those sites look like things which the library have paid for (Oxford Reference, Credo). It's actually quite a useful page for experienced library users: I know how to get to Wikipedia, but knowing what particular subset of paid reference works my library has access to isn't actually as easy to work out.
On 7 June 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
There are a lot of popular websites listed - but Wikipedia isn't there!
Maybe we could all check out our local libraries, for similar pages, and ask the staff to include Wikipedia, if they don't already?
After my experience on Saturday, when my daughter went to the featured article of the day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II) and was greeted by large pornographic images injected into the article through unprotected templates, if I were were in charge of a library or a school I would be very hesitant about linking to Wikipedia from my institute's main page. I know that episodes like this are an unavoidable consequence of the Wikipedia editing model, and that you can never entirely eliminate the possibility of offensive vandalism reaching high profile pages, but it always makes me feel a little uneasy that we are so keen to promote Wikipedia that we sometimes forget that Wikipedia is a potentially risky site.
Of the 200,000+ visitors to the Elizabeth II page on Saturday, when it was targetted with pornographic template vandalism multiple times, I wonder how many of those were accessing the site from public computers in libraries, and what the librarians thought about Wikipedia when library users notified them of the porn on the Elizabeth II page. And if this had happened on a schoolday, I wonder how many schools (those which don't already block Wikipedia) would rethink their policy on allowing access to Wikipedia. I'm not sure that there is anything that WMUK can do to make Wikipedia a safer and more trustworthy place, but we should bear in mind that promoting or even linking to Wikipedia may not be an acceptable risk for some institutions.
Andrew [[User:BabelStone]]
Just looking into this now: Do you know what template was vandalised?
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 8 June 2012 12:38, Andrew West andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 June 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
There are a lot of popular websites listed - but Wikipedia isn't there!
Maybe we could all check out our local libraries, for similar pages, and ask the staff to include Wikipedia, if they don't already?
After my experience on Saturday, when my daughter went to the featured article of the day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II) and was greeted by large pornographic images injected into the article through unprotected templates, if I were were in charge of a library or a school I would be very hesitant about linking to Wikipedia from my institute's main page. I know that episodes like this are an unavoidable consequence of the Wikipedia editing model, and that you can never entirely eliminate the possibility of offensive vandalism reaching high profile pages, but it always makes me feel a little uneasy that we are so keen to promote Wikipedia that we sometimes forget that Wikipedia is a potentially risky site.
Of the 200,000+ visitors to the Elizabeth II page on Saturday, when it was targetted with pornographic template vandalism multiple times, I wonder how many of those were accessing the site from public computers in libraries, and what the librarians thought about Wikipedia when library users notified them of the porn on the Elizabeth II page. And if this had happened on a schoolday, I wonder how many schools (those which don't already block Wikipedia) would rethink their policy on allowing access to Wikipedia. I'm not sure that there is anything that WMUK can do to make Wikipedia a safer and more trustworthy place, but we should bear in mind that promoting or even linking to Wikipedia may not be an acceptable risk for some institutions.
Andrew [[User:BabelStone]]
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 8 June 2012 12:46, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Just looking into this now: Do you know what template was vandalised?
There is some discussion at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II#Porn_images_on_Elizabeth_II_p...
On 8 June 2012 12:38, Andrew West andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 June 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
There are a lot of popular websites listed - but Wikipedia isn't there!
Maybe we could all check out our local libraries, for similar pages, and ask the staff to include Wikipedia, if they don't already?
After my experience on Saturday, when my daughter went to the featured article of the day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II) and was greeted by large pornographic images injected into the article through unprotected templates, if I were were in charge of a library or a school I would be very hesitant about linking to Wikipedia from my institute's main page.
That must have been very unpleasant for both of you. However, I would counter with the observation that it's also possible for someone to slip an image cut from a pornographic magazine between the pages of a library book; if that were to happen, we would neither expect nor encourage librarians to stop recommending books.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
That must have been very unpleasant for both of you. However, I would counter with the observation that it's also possible for someone to slip an image cut from a pornographic magazine between the pages of a library book; if that were to happen, we would neither expect nor encourage librarians to stop recommending books.
Possible, yes, though somewhat rarer.
On 08/06/12 12:48, Andy Mabbett wrote:
That must have been very unpleasant for both of you. However, I would counter with the observation that it's also possible for someone to slip an image cut from a pornographic magazine between the pages of a library book; if that were to happen, we would neither expect nor encourage librarians to stop recommending books.
Like Joe Orton?
Gordo
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Andrew West andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 June 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
There are a lot of popular websites listed - but Wikipedia isn't there!
Maybe we could all check out our local libraries, for similar pages, and ask the staff to include Wikipedia, if they don't already?
After my experience on Saturday, when my daughter went to the featured article of the day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II) and was greeted by large pornographic images injected into the article through unprotected templates, if I were were in charge of a library or a school I would be very hesitant about linking to Wikipedia from my institute's main page. I know that episodes like this are an unavoidable consequence of the Wikipedia editing model, and that you can never entirely eliminate the possibility of offensive vandalism reaching high profile pages, but it always makes me feel a little uneasy that we are so keen to promote Wikipedia that we sometimes forget that Wikipedia is a potentially risky site.
Of the 200,000+ visitors to the Elizabeth II page on Saturday, when it was targetted with pornographic template vandalism multiple times, I wonder how many of those were accessing the site from public computers in libraries, and what the librarians thought about Wikipedia when library users notified them of the porn on the Elizabeth II page. And if this had happened on a schoolday, I wonder how many schools (those which don't already block Wikipedia) would rethink their policy on allowing access to Wikipedia. I'm not sure that there is anything that WMUK can do to make Wikipedia a safer and more trustworthy place, but we should bear in mind that promoting or even linking to Wikipedia may not be an acceptable risk for some institutions.
Cough... flagged revisions ... cough ...
Andreas
On 8 June 2012 12:38, Andrew West andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 June 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I wonder how many of those were accessing the site from public computers in libraries, and what the librarians thought about Wikipedia when library users notified them of the porn on the Elizabeth II page.
Get the IP (I gather it's an IP user who vandalised the template), reverse WHOIS it, report the issue to ISP / library / school / wherever that IP user belongs.
Last year I had fun kicking up some fuss when an IP editor from Oxford University vandalised an article about my Cambridge college ;)
Deryck
All I know is that it's from the 188. range, which is used by a few people with a grudge against Wikipedia. I really need to know what template was vandalised to be able to give the checkusers the info they need to track it all down.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 8 June 2012 13:45, Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2012 12:38, Andrew West andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 June 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I wonder how many of those were accessing the site from public computers in libraries, and what the librarians thought about Wikipedia when library users notified them of the porn on the Elizabeth II page.
Get the IP (I gather it's an IP user who vandalised the template), reverse WHOIS it, report the issue to ISP / library / school / wherever that IP user belongs.
Last year I had fun kicking up some fuss when an IP editor from Oxford University vandalised an article about my Cambridge college ;)
Deryck
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 8 June 2012 13:59, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
All I know is that it's from the 188. range, which is used by a few people with a grudge against Wikipedia. I really need to know what template was vandalised to be able to give the checkusers the info they need to track it all down.
Sorry, I was out for lunch. These are the templates I noticed had been affected:
Template:British Royal Family Template:Charles, Prince of Wales Template:Elizabeth II Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs Template:NPG name Template:Npg name (separately from above)
Andrew
Well if you've got the patience, you could go through the recent changes, isolate it to the template namespace, and look for recent reverts and protections. But tracking it down the day after it's happened strikes as a bit like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Harry
________________________________ From: Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 8 June 2012, 13:59 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Main page seen by library users - where is Wikipedia?
All I know is that it's from the 188. range, which is used by a few people with a grudge against Wikipedia. I really need to know what template was vandalised to be able to give the checkusers the info they need to track it all down.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer%C2%A0 Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/%C2%A0and @wikimediauk
On 8 June 2012 13:45, Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2012 12:38, Andrew West andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 June 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I
wonder how many of those were accessing the site from public computers
in libraries, and what the librarians thought about Wikipedia when library users notified them of the porn on the Elizabeth II page.
Get the IP (I gather it's an IP user who vandalised the template), reverse WHOIS it, report the issue to ISP / library / school / wherever that IP user belongs.
Last year I had fun kicking up some fuss when an IP editor from Oxford University vandalised an article about my Cambridge college ;)
Deryck
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 8 June 2012 14:18, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Well if you've got the patience, you could go through the recent changes, isolate it to the template namespace, and look for recent reverts and protections. But tracking it down the day after it's happened strikes as a bit like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Given that WP:HRT is explicitly case-by-case, someone needs to make a case.
Charles
On 8 June 2012 14:18, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Well if you've got the patience, you could go through the recent changes, isolate it to the template namespace, and look for recent reverts and protections. But tracking it down the day after it's happened strikes as a bit like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Well, whoever he is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.28.8.132) it's not just drive-by vandalism. He's got a grudge, and I'm sure someone will easily recognise who's sock he is.
Andrew
On 8 June 2012 12:38, Andrew West andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
After my experience on Saturday, when my daughter went to the featured article of the day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II) and was greeted by large pornographic images injected into the article through unprotected templates, if I were were in charge of a library or a school I would be very hesitant about linking to Wikipedia from my institute's main page. I know that episodes like this are an unavoidable consequence of the Wikipedia editing model, and that you can never entirely eliminate the possibility of offensive vandalism reaching high profile pages, but it always makes me feel a little uneasy that we are so keen to promote Wikipedia that we sometimes forget that Wikipedia is a potentially risky site.
A while back, I proposed semi-protection of low-use redirects. Redirect and template vandalism is one of those things where (if we don't have pending changes/flagged revs), there's a real potential for someone to change it and nobody to notice for months. I fixed a redirect that someone had vandalised and which had been left for months.
The argument against either semi-pp or pending changes on those kinds of pages is "but, anyone can edit, anyone should be able to edit!"
Which is fine, but when we're talking about obscure templates and redirects, I can't quite see any great loss when they aren't available for editing by IPs.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org