Dear Wikipedians,
I've received the following mail from Jason Harris on my inquiry
about including his GFDLed articles in KStars handbook on astronomy
in Wikipedia.
> Hello,
>
> Sure! I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and the like...I always meant to submit
> the AstroInfo articles myself, but I haven't found the time to do so.
> Thanks for letting me know; will you be adding any other AstroInfo
> articles?
>
> cheers,
> Jason
Though not being an expert in astronomy, I do like his articles on astronomy
and told him that I'll incorporate his articles in Wikipedia :-)
Bye
Tobias
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP 3.0 at http://email.ethz.ch/horde/imp
>
>
>
>Message: 3
>To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24 is driving me nuts
>From: Gareth Owen <wiki(a)gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
>Date: 08 Apr 2002 17:56:48 +0100
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
>
>"Julie Hofmann Kemp" <juleskemp(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Speaking of which, I really do wonder where it lives and if it's loony
>>enough to seek out those of us nearby.
>>
>
>California, it would appear.
>(The IP address is a cable supplier in Burlington, CA)
>
I make it
*whois -h whois.arin.net 24.150.61.63*
Cogeco Cable Systems (NETBLK-CGOC-2BLK) CGOC-2BLK 24.150.0.0 - 24.150.255.255
Cogeco Cable Solutions (NETBLK-CGOC-WERI1-A) CGOC-WERI1-A
24.150.48.0 - 24.150.63.255
To single out one record, look it up with "!xxx", where xxx is the
handle, shown in parenthesis following the name, which comes first.
The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet
Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's.
Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related
Information and whois.nic.mil for NIPRNET Information.
which places the writer in Ontario or Quebec.
See
http://www.cogeco.com/cabletv/local.html
Neil
> No, please do not delete such things as [[NPOV]] that is a
> redirect to [[wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Redirects do not
> skew our statistics because they are listed as so on the
> statistics page. They are also useful in that MANY links would be
> broken is they are gone -- besides I personally don't want to
> write [[wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]] each time I want
> to link to that article.
>
> However, there is much other material that should either be placed
> in the meta or behind a new namespace -- wikipedia commentary: or
> wikipedia forum: perhaps?
I was going to fix the links as well, and there's already wikipedia:
and wikipedia talk: namespaces. But your point about redirects is
well taken--they are frequently useful, especially in Talk pages,
and they don't mess up the stats, so I'll leave most of them alone.
0
Manning Bartlett wrote:
> I've been following the various commentary about 24 with interest, and =
> maybe I can offer some thoughts for consideration.
>
> We have run into at least one character similar to 24 in the past - =
> Cunctator. (Although 24 seems worse). That is - a person who is clearly =
> quite intelligent, capable of making very worthwhile contributions at =
> times, but frequently unable to distinguish between the encyclopedia =
> agenda and their personal agenda.
>
> The solution to 24 is probably the same as with Cunctator - the silent =
> ignore and passive editing approach. Maveric has tried to reason with 24 =
> repeatedly, but when reason is clearly failing there is nothing else to =
> do but protect the project.
I will try this approach -- however, this person contributes at a phenomenal
rate and I'm not sure if I can just sit by and let this person's personal
agenda mare the project.
> As much as people seem to hate admitting it- there is a "cabal" in =
> operation at the Wikipedia. However, rather than being some secretive =
> and exclusive operation, it is a freely admissive assembly: Live by the =
> rules and you're in.=20
Those who contribute often and really care do form a kind of a group -- at
the very least. I never really understood the total aversion against an
administrating body (especially one that is based on meritocracy).
>
> I know of no occasion where someone who accepted the central editorial =
> guidelines was ever made to feel excluded - one's "respect and =
> authority" is purely a measure of one's level of participation and =
> commitment, not a matter of "who you know" or (especially) "how long =
> you've been here". Jimbo retains ultimate control of the project (by =
> virtue of his paying for the damn thing), but the remainder of us are =
> its true authority structure. The Wikipedia Militia was assembled along =
> these lines - some howled with outrage, but most of us understood its =
> purpose.=20
right on.
>
> So this is a time when the "cabal" or "militia" must rise to the =
> occasion - we must simply edit quietly and remove the detritus to either =
> meta or to oblivion, as is appropriate. 24 is chiefly motivated by his =
> ability to engage us - people such as this live for their ability to =
> command the attention of people, and to eliminate his negative behaviour =
> we must remove this incentive. Two things will result - he/she will =
> either learn to play by the rules, or he/she will go away. Either way, =
> the project is better off.
I really don't think this person will learn -- 24 has most certainely been
told about our policies and refusses to abide by them. The only supprissing
thing is that I have yet really to get into an edit-war with him/her --
maybe he/she does not know how to REVERT an article yet. God help us...
>
> There is no shame is using our "collective authority" - we do not need =
> any special measures. We edit, delete, and watch each other. If Maveric, =
> Vibber, JHK, Jimbo, KQ or someone similarly respected elects to delete =
> content of 24, I'm probably going to be fairly accepting of their =
> judgment. This is motivated by my trust of them as rational beings who =
> understand the purpose of Wikipedia. This trust is not absolute, but =
> certainly substantial (and I mean no disrespect - absolute trust is not =
> possible as we are all fallible)=20
I will remove content, but I will not delete an article made by 24 unless it
is missnamed. I am too emotionally involved now and can't trust myself enough
to do that. That doens't mean I wont place articles in [[wikipedia:page
titles to be deleted]] though.
>
> If the "Militia" were an exclusive operation, then there would be shame =
> to it, but that has never been the case, nor could it ever be (without =
> some seriously fundamental changes to the structure of Wikipedia, which =
> I suspect would never happen.)=20
>
There is no shame to reversing the work of crakpots.
>[.......]
> However, entire articles which usurp recognised terms for personal dogma =
> are not controversial at all - they have to go, and that's that. =
> Collectively it is our responsibility to get rid of them.
>
> Warm regards
> Manning
> Sydney, Australia
The 'pedia will be a much nicer place after you return.
maveric149
I'm exhausted with him too, and I am generally patient (If you saw
where I work, you'd understand). :-) I've held off blocking the IP
though, because there's not agreement that s/he is a vandal. S/he is,
however, certainly an impediment. The willful dismissal of community
standards that JHK points out does exist & does disturb me. Still I
try to give the benefit of the doubt (foolishly?)
kq
>I really hate to say it, but I think it is time to at least consider
voting
>24 off the island. Maybe give him/her one more chance to reform.
>
>maveric149
0
lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
> I think I have a reasonable method of cleaning up many of
> the leftover pages in the main namespace that should be moved
> to wikipedia: or meta (most of which have already been moved,
> but still exist). But before I do this I want to give the
> group some warning and ask if anyone has concerns.
>
> I think it's important to actually delete these for
> several reasons. One, they distort our statistics; they
> make it appear as though we have more real articles than
> we do. They show up in searches. They also make the
> utilities of the new software like orphan pages less useful.
> Second, their existence is confusing to new users and might
> encourage the creation of more such articles in the wrong
> namespace. Finally, having the articles in the right
> namespace should make it easier to update and consolidate
> them, as many of them are badly out of date.
>
> I'm looking at things like "Wikipedia commentary/*", most
> of which have been moved to meta but still hang around,
> and things like "Wikipedia Announcements", "Wikipedia FAQ",
> etc.
>
> But before I go about removing these and fixing links to
> them, I want to hear if anyone has reasons to keep some of
> them in the primary namespace, or other concerns.
> 0
> ------------=_1018292717-19285-0--
No, please do not delete such things as [[NPOV]] that is a redirect to
[[wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Redirects do not skew our statistics
because they are listed as so on the statistics page. They are also useful in
that MANY links would be broken is they are gone -- besides I personally
don't want to write [[wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]] each time I want
to link to that article.
However, there is much other material that should either be placed in the
meta or behind a new namespace -- wikipedia commentary: or wikipedia forum:
perhaps?
maveric149
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 09:56:32 +1000
From: Karen AKA Kajikit <kaji(a)labyrinth.net.au>
Organization: What? Me Organised...
To: wikipedia mailing list <wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com>
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] A language question
Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
I am Australian, and so I write my articles using Australian English,
which is pretty much the same as British English... somebody just came
along and re-edited one of my articles, changing most of the terms over
to US English and removing the Australianisms. I know that most
Americans wouldn't have a clue what a 'milk bar' was, but does that mean
that I should NOT use the term in any of my writing? Australians use the
internet too!
What is the policy on language?
IIRC, the policy on language is that anything's correct as long as it's
consistent usage -- it's the English-language wikipedia, not the
American one. I'm appalled, frankly. My personal opinion (as an
American) is that, (since we can't reach out and slap someone), a
comment should be put on the "corrector's" page and also on the
relevant talk page, gently pointing out that this is a breach of good
manners and that the spellings are perfectly correct. *I* would also go
back and revert it to the original spelling, just because. But then I'm
a bit sensitive to Amero-centrism , since I have to spend so much time
in class explaining that there's a whole world outside the US ;-)
Cheers!
JHK
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Love and huggles to all!
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
End of Wikipedia-l Digest
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
I am Australian, and so I write my articles using Australian English,
which is pretty much the same as British English... somebody just came
along and re-edited one of my articles, changing most of the terms over
to US English and removing the Australianisms. I know that most
Americans wouldn't have a clue what a 'milk bar' was, but does that mean
that I should NOT use the term in any of my writing? Australians use the
internet too!
What is the policy on language?
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Love and huggles to all!
This 66.219.221.xxx character is another to watch for - I seem to be getting into an edit war with it over its "Orthodox Baha'i Faith" issues. I researched this group a few months back when I was working on the original Baha'i faith article, and my evidence suggested that they are a tiny splinter group (a few hundred members) of a religion with 5 million members.
Anyway, I'd be grateful if you could watch out for this character - I know Brian Vibber has already run into its ideological agenda. I'm leaving for India again in a week or two so I won't be able to watch it closely enough.
Manning
I've been following the various commentary about 24 with interest, and maybe I can offer some thoughts for consideration.
We have run into at least one character similar to 24 in the past - Cunctator. (Although 24 seems worse). That is - a person who is clearly quite intelligent, capable of making very worthwhile contributions at times, but frequently unable to distinguish between the encyclopedia agenda and their personal agenda.
The solution to 24 is probably the same as with Cunctator - the silent ignore and passive editing approach. Maveric has tried to reason with 24 repeatedly, but when reason is clearly failing there is nothing else to do but protect the project.
As much as people seem to hate admitting it- there is a "cabal" in operation at the Wikipedia. However, rather than being some secretive and exclusive operation, it is a freely admissive assembly: Live by the rules and you're in.
I know of no occasion where someone who accepted the central editorial guidelines was ever made to feel excluded - one's "respect and authority" is purely a measure of one's level of participation and commitment, not a matter of "who you know" or (especially) "how long you've been here". Jimbo retains ultimate control of the project (by virtue of his paying for the damn thing), but the remainder of us are its true authority structure. The Wikipedia Militia was assembled along these lines - some howled with outrage, but most of us understood its purpose.
So this is a time when the "cabal" or "militia" must rise to the occasion - we must simply edit quietly and remove the detritus to either meta or to oblivion, as is appropriate. 24 is chiefly motivated by his ability to engage us - people such as this live for their ability to command the attention of people, and to eliminate his negative behaviour we must remove this incentive. Two things will result - he/she will either learn to play by the rules, or he/she will go away. Either way, the project is better off.
There is no shame is using our "collective authority" - we do not need any special measures. We edit, delete, and watch each other. If Maveric, Vibber, JHK, Jimbo, KQ or someone similarly respected elects to delete content of 24, I'm probably going to be fairly accepting of their judgment. This is motivated by my trust of them as rational beings who understand the purpose of Wikipedia. This trust is not absolute, but certainly substantial (and I mean no disrespect - absolute trust is not possible as we are all fallible)
If the "Militia" were an exclusive operation, then there would be shame to it, but that has never been the case, nor could it ever be (without some seriously fundamental changes to the structure of Wikipedia, which I suspect would never happen.)
Why do people like 24 appear? Well the 'pedia is growing in stature. Everyone wants to have their voice heard (including us), and when you have an agenda, it is a lot easier to try and usurp the audience of an existing structure rather than build your own. The difference is - we have elected to live within the rules of Wikipedia while getting our voice heard.
So I do not think there is any reason to be afraid to exercise our collective authority. The day will come when entire teams of people will attempt to attack or hijack the project - as Wikipedia grows in stature its prominence will be too enticing to resist for certain "agenda-driven" elements of the cyber-community. There will be marginal areas, where some of us feel the content is appropriate and others don't. But it's always been like that. We've always managed to sort those problems out.
However, entire articles which usurp recognised terms for personal dogma are not controversial at all - they have to go, and that's that. Collectively it is our responsibility to get rid of them.
Warm regards
Manning
Sydney, Australia