On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
So, it seems (if I interpret Jimbo's mail on wikitech and the discussion
here correctly) that most of us would like *some kind* of category
scheme in wikipedia. I do, too! But, we seem to differ on the details
So far, I saw three concepts:
1. Simple categories like "Person", "Event", etc.; about a dozen total.
2. Categories and subcategories, like
"Science/Biology/Biochemistry/Proteomics", which can be "scaled down" to
#1 as well ("Humankind/Person" or something)
3. Complex object structures with machine-readable meta-knowledge
encoded into the articles, which would allow for quite complex
queries/summaries, like "biologists born after 1860".
1. Easy to edit (the wiki way!)
2. Still easy to edit, but making wikipedia browseable by category,
fine-tune Recent Changes, etc.
3. Strong improvement in search functions, meta-knowledge available for
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
For a wikipedia I'd have to write myself, I'd choose #3, but with
respect to the wiki way, #2 seems more likely to achieve consensus (if
there is such a thing;-)
A user of the German Wikipedia, Ulrich Fuchs, has threatened to take legal
action against any third party who makes commercial use of their material
without following a very narrow interpretation of the FDL "five author"
requirement, which reads as follows:
"B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version,
together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all
of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release
you from this requirement."
Our recommendation for third parties using Wikipedia material so far has
been that it is completely sufficient in the spirit of the FDL to point to
the original Wikipedia article on which the copy is based, because that
page contains the history and therefore the list of *all* authors. Ulrich
claims that this is not sufficient because it does not meet the conditions
of modification set forth in the FDL.
This is not just theoretical. There is a new commercial German project
called "Flexicon" which uses Wikipedia material. Currently they don't give
any credit whatsoever, but since Flexicon itself is a wiki, some
Wikipedians have added links to the original Wikipedia articles in order
to meet the conditions of the FDL. Ulrich now threatens anyone with legal
action who copies material to Flexicon from the German Wikipedia which he
has worked on without having the unworkable "list of five principal
authors" on the target page.
This would place an unacceptable burden on third parties as they would
have to carry along the complete history of every page thtey use (since
there is no automated way to determine who is a principal author), a
history which on the English Wikipedia is now so large that we can't even
store it in a single file anymore (over 2 gigabytes). Not to mention that
having such a list in articles is cumbersome and annoying.
In my opinion, legal threats like these are dangerous to this project and
to the very idea of open content. They also show once again that the FDL
is a fundamentally flawed, overly complex license with lots of loopholes
for pedants who want to get their way instead of working with the
There may be a solution to prevent this problem from escalating. We could
amend the edit notice on Wikipedia to require the author to release third
parties from the need to maintain a list of five "principal authors" per
page, since such a release is explicitly provided for in the FDL..
I'll be away from tomorrow morning early and returning Tuesday. I'll
be available by cellphone 24x7, so those of you who have that number
could reach me in an emergency. I will also have net access, although
I don't intend to be online much.
Remember when I had people volunteer for mediation and arbitration
committees? I haven't forgotten. Expect initial appointments to
those committees on December 2nd, when I get back.
If anyone still wants to volunteer, let me know.
Remember -- mediation in this context means "attempting to resolve a
problem without resort to bans or restrictions of any kind, by helping
two parties to a conflict find a mutually satisfactory solution", and
arbitration in this context means "more mediation, but this time with
ultimate resort to bans or restrictions if absolutely necessary".
The idea here is to start working towards a scalable governance
solution that preserves and extends our culture of helpfulness,
openness, and WikiLove.
>>Please, would you accept my apologies to have been
>>tough on you ?
>All is well. :) I accept your apology and hope you
will >accept mine.
I most certainly do Mav. I thank you for accepting
mine, and hope we can work constructively in the near
That is now.
I put a rough draft on meta, much inspired of Martin's
and others work, which I think is good, simplified as
meta does not requires so much detail, and beginning
to take into consideration the different policies that
begins to apply on our wikipedias. Waiting for your
input, especially as regards what is in the discussion
page. Will insist again that it should be exceptional.
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
>Please, would you accept my apologies to have been tough on you ?
All is well. :) I accept your apology and hope you will accept mine. Once
again we were not communicating until after regretable things were said and
done on both sides.
Hmmm. As I understood it, a ban was just that, a ban. No wiggle room.
Doesn't that imply that any contributions from a banned individual
should be deleted on the spot, and not reinstated?
If people want to argue that a particular user should be unbanned,
that's another issue.
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
>Tu me parles d'un temps, que les moins de 20 ans, ne
>peuvent pas connai-tre. tididadidadaaaa,
>>"Quand au hasard des jours
>>Je m'en vais faire un tour
>>A mon ancienne adresse
>>Je ne reconnais plus"
J'ai passe quelques mois a habiter a la Place
Blanche. (La Place
Blanche est assez proche a Montmartre.) Quand
plusieurs annees plus
tard j'ai visite le musee Van Gogh a Amsterdam j'ai
sur un de ses toiles. Quelques semaines plus tard
nous nous sommes
rendu a Paris et a la Place Blanche. Une fois la
sur le point
j'ai remarque que c'etait precisement la ou Van Gogh
aurait du se
pour peindre son toile, et qu'un immeuble a l'autre
bord de la Place
etait toujours le meme. Mais pour une personne qui
la , ce n'etait pas la.
Yes. It was not there. It was no more there.
And if Van Gogh had tried to put his easel in the
middle of the place, he would have been run over by a
Because the young ones living there do not walk any
more; they are different.
Even if some would pay millions for the painting, the
place can not welcome the painter any more.
>Ok, I usually forget that feature as well. I thought
>it was part of the initial package. When did you
>arrive Ec ?
In February 2002. Does it show that much?
I read my first article on Wikipedia that very month,
Our memories will be the museum in Amsterdam.
Andr� Engels will already be at the proper location
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> > Doesn't that imply that any contributions from a banned individual
> > should be deleted on the spot, and not reinstated?
> > If people want to argue that a particular user should be unbanned,
> > that's another issue.
> I would personally consider that at least disturbing, but more like
> appalling, if, say, there was a contributor that /contributed/ some nice
> articles, say, to things related to early quantum physics, Wolfgang
> Pauli etc. on the, say, Hungarian wikipedia, but for other
> ?contributions? that were inappropriate ? and the warnings about those
> being ignored ? they had got banned, then even the actually useful and
> worthwile articles would have to be deleted, just because the person is
> incapable of, say, keep themselves on the NPOV fence in regards of
> religion or something.
Maybe you misunderstood. I wasn't implything that past contributions
should be removed automatically, I was saying that once they are banned
they are *banned*, full stop.