[Moving to <wikipedia-l> since Jimmy's pronouncements are of a general nature,
including his reaction to offensive user names.]
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>TMC has argued that
>changing his name is tantamount to the use of force against him. This
>argument is stupid, because he has no property interest in his
>username,
*gag* Right-libertarian ideology! *choke* ^_^
In case anybody else finds the "property interest" angle odd,
let me note that I, a complete nonbeliever in the legitimacy of
any notion of property rights, agree that TMC's argument is stupid,
because his name is not him.
As it happens, I even disagree with the decision to change his name,
but I *still* think that the <force> argument is stupid.
>For ip addresses, anonymous contributions, we should continue our
>policy of banning them for simple vandalism at the slightest
>provocation.
At the slightest provocation?
Note that according to [[en:Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress]],
an isolated instance of text deletion, for instance, is not vandalism.
So the slightest provocation that qualifies as vandalism,
but not the slightest provocation that might be so interpreted
if the interpretation as vandalism is incorrect by our policy.
(This is ultimately just what Jimmy's text above says,
but I wanted to clarify.)
-- Toby
Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on wikipedia. This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia start becoming a democracy and voting on stuff. Atm, wikipedia is pretty totalitarian-basically if mav, larry, vibber, and one of a couple others doesn't agree with something, it doesn't happen. One of the things they don't agree with is the idea that wikipedia, rather than striving to maintain the mistakes of earlier information sources, we should strive to eliminate those mistakes.
Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should always strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is america and if you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the country cuz this is america and this is the american wikipedia and we are gonna use american names here and thats the end of the discussion"
however, as far as I can tell far more people seem to support using native spellings of names, and that includes the use of non-western alphabets, an ability we have due to the power of #REDIRECT. It is also noteworthy that most of the people who speak out against using such "unamerican and inappropriate" naming generally make an argument stating, "Well, I tend to agree that we should use the native names but it's really not a big argument"
This of course is why I urge voting. It would certainly be worthless to have a vote tommorrow and never discuss the issue, rather we should have a permanent poll in which any user can change their mind at any time.
I also urge you to look at http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html which I believe shows that we should use a naming such that satellites are named with roman numerals.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
There's not really much of a rule, except that if you make a change that you KNOW is really big or controversial and mark it as minor, you're going to tick off the NPOV umpires.
The only other thing, which is I think why there's a check box for "minor edit" in the first place, is that a lot of people don't want to see minor edits: the "view minor edits" option is off by default.
If you've merely corrected the spelling of they're to their, or fixed a [[broken link] to a [[good link]] -- I might not want to know about it. (Except for the anti-vandalism squad, who keep "view minor edits" on all the time).
Ed Poor
>===== Original Message From wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org =====
>The french wiki will be running a bot in a couple of
>days. It is meant to automatically create the frame
>for years, from year 0 to year 2000 (except the ones
>that already exist)
BTW, I believe that the calender doesn't actually have a year 0; it went
straight from -1 to 1 the next year. Hence causing all the pointless arguments
over whether to celebrate the new millennium on jan 1 2000 or jan 1 2001.
its interesting how upset people have gotten over this minor changes issue without really making any effort to explain it to me
how about an option to have the minor changes box checked on default?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
It has been said I am blocked for my work on sumer and wealth of nations. Nobody has directed a complaint regarding this to me before. I see no reason why you wouldn't be willing to discuss things.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
That's not why Jimbo banned her. How can you be so obtuse?
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:46 PM
To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] sumer and wealth of nations
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> It has been said I am blocked for my work on sumer and wealth of
> nations. Nobody has directed a complaint regarding this to me before.
> I see no reason why you wouldn't be willing to discuss things.
I just looked at both of these articles and their talk pages, and there
is no apparent cause for this drastic action. These actions against Lir
are reminiscent of sharks on a hysterical feeding frenzy.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>I demand that the authoritarians recognize the value of other cultures
and
>languages and that while a german katze is most certainly a cat,
>Dumkopfmeyerstrasse is never Dumbheadmeyerstreet, no matter how many
americans
>say otherwise, unless the local inhabitants decide that the americans
are
>right and go and change the street signs.
Your authoritarian demand is rejected.
--
Sean Barrett
sean(a)epoptic.com
On Thursday 21 November 2002 06:52 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> Please take that out.
>
> Marking edits minor by default is not the right behavior. We want to see
> clueless newbie edits by default, and for those of us who hide minor edits
> (the only way minor edits are used right now) that would make that not
> possible.
I agree - even though the majority of my edits are minor to moderate I know
the opposite is true for many other people. It would be nice, however, to
have this as a user-selectable option that is off by default (hence, the
default would require the user to explicitly mark an edit as minor).
BTW, why do anonymous IPs have the ability to mark edits as minor? That wasn't
the case for Phase II. The way it is now "hide minor edits" is useless
because most vandals are anonymous and oftentimes mark their vandalisms as
"minor". I therefore don't use the hide minor edits feature.
> What I've seen work is to make summaries mandatory for non-minor edits.
Sound like an interesting idea.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)