On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
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
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
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.
--mav
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
(shocked silence!).
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".
Pros:
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
data-mining.
Cons:
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
*little* complicated.
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
birth_place='London' death_month=.....>")
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;-)
Magnus
hello,
from time to time I would like to use <span> tag for inline element
styling, but it's not supported, so I have to use <div> and dirty tricks to
get it done, but it's not the same: since DIV is not an inherent inline
element, it's very hard to use it for blending something into the normal
text flow (like math for example, see my hack on meta/mediawiki user
guide/math using div instead of span).
maybe i'm wrong and there shouldn't be such styling on wikipedia pages
(people against tags would say "it makes wikitext harder to read for nontech
people"), so please share your opinion. I would like to use span, and would
like to have it enabled in mediawiki pages. As far as I know it does not
present cross-scripting or other vulnerabilities (I didn't explore this topic
too deep though).
if nobody objects or convinces me that I'm on the road to hell I'll try to
convince brion (which is probably the hardest part :)).
thanks,
peter
IANAL, but IMHO:
* We already list *all* contributors for the page, in the page history.
I'd say that the single click required to see it is comparable to
turning a page in a printed version, which is not too much to ask, under
any legal system I know of.
* If you want to find the main contributors, go ahead and use the diff
function. By listing them all, we also listed the main editors.
* The fact that noone *ever* demanded to see his/her name on the article
page itself indicates to me that there is strong community
(=contributor) consensus regarding our current practice in that matter.
* Everybody's free to use their real name as user name, or to write it
on their user page. The additional click required should be tolerable,
for reasons stated above.
If the GFDL really requires that list *on the same document* (can't be
really the same page, think printed version again), can't we declare the
whole wikipedia as one giant document in itself? [Translation to
legalese would be required]
Magnus
Anthere wrote:
> I was just made aware of this thread, and I realise that potentially a
> legal issue is discussed on wikitech. I would like the opinion of our
> lawyers on this specific point.
>
> So, tel me if I understand well, to comply with the gfdl the best we can
> (and we already know it is problematic), what you suggest is to list
> first the real name contributors, followed by pseudonymes, then by ips.
> Of course, the number of names is limited. We can expect that on many
> articles, the number of names will be over 50 or more.
>
> I understood the gfdl "normal" requirement is to list the 5 main
> contributors. We probably know that we can define who the 5 main
> contributors are. Indeed, unless the number of contributors is below 5,
> there is no way to report with honesty the legal requirements.
>
> This said, if we can't report reality, why would we report a group of
> contributors more than another ? If a pseudonyme wrote 95% of an
> article, and 5% officially real names corrected typos, is that really
> correct to indicate these 5 real names and not the pseudonyme ?
>
> I would say it is not. Legally, that is incorrect. From a community view
> point, that is setting a case which I am not sure is really positive.
> It think that it would be more correct to make random choice among
> pseudo or real names, or to choose among the last ones.
>
> I will forward this to wikipedia-l and foundation-l, since I believe
> this is more than a technical issue.
>
> Evan Prodromou a écrit:
>
>> So, I'd like to add a little block of attribution data to each page
>> (optional, per-installation; I'm guessing Wikipedia wouldn't use
>> this). Something along the lines of:
>>
>> This article last edited on April 21, 2004 by Evan Prodromou.
>> Based on work by Alice Notaperson, Bob Alsonotaperson, users
>> Crankshaft, Deckchair and Eggplant, and anonymous editors.
>>
>> For each (distinct) person who's listed in the old table, it'd show
>> their real name if it's set, or their user name if not. All anonymous
>> edits would be lumped under "anonymous editors". Contributors would be
>> listed with real-named folks first, then pseudo'd folks, then
>> anonymous. There's no particular reason for that; it could be any
>> other way (although I don't see a big point making it configurable).
>>
>> The goal here is to make it easy for redistributors to comply with
>> license provisions that require author attribution (such as some
>> Creative Commons licenses), without having to dig through a whole
>> bunch of history pages.
>>
>> Anyhoo, the Metadata.php code already does most of this logic, albeit
>> for output in RDF format. I'd like to take that stuff and put it in
>> the Article class, in a method like "getContributors". The method
>> could then be used both from the attribution code and from the RDF
>> metadata code.
>>
>> getContributors would return an array of arrays, each of which would
>> contain:
>>
>> 0. User ID
>> 1. User account name
>> 2. User real name, if set
>>
>> Another option would be to create User objects for each entry in the
>> returned array, but a) I don't think that most of the User object
>> fields (email, preferences) are needed, and b) I'd be worried about
>> slingin' around incomplete User objects. So, I think the arrays are
>> the best bet.
>>
>> Does returning an array of arrays seem insane? Would it be wrong to
>> add this method to Article? If so, where else would it go?
>>
>> ~ESP
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I was just made aware of this thread, and I realise
that potentially a legal issue is discussed on
wikitech. I would like the opinion of our lawyers on
this specific point.
So, tel me if I understand well, to comply with the
gfdl the best we can (and we already know it is
problematic), what you suggest is to list first the
real name contributors, followed by pseudonymes, then
by ips. Of course, the number of names is limited. We
can expect that on many articles, the number of names
will be over 50 or more.
I understood the gfdl "normal" requirement is to list
the 5 main contributors. We probably know that we can
define who the 5 main contributors are. Indeed, unless
the number of contributors is below 5, there is no way
to report with honesty the legal requirements.
This said, if we can't report reality, why would we
report a group of contributors more than another ? If
a pseudonyme wrote 95% of an article, and 5%
officially real names corrected typos, is that really
correct to indicate these 5 real names and not the
pseudonyme ?
I would say it is not. Legally, that is incorrect.
>From a community view point, that is setting a case
which I am not sure is really positive.
It think that it would be more correct to make random
choice among pseudo or real names, or to choose among
the last ones.
I will forward this to wikipedia-l and foundation-l,
since I believe this is more than a technical issue.
Evan Prodromou a �crit:
> So, I'd like to add a little block of attribution
data to each page
> (optional, per-installation; I'm guessing Wikipedia
wouldn't use
> this). Something along the lines of:
>
> This article last edited on April 21, 2004 by
Evan Prodromou.
> Based on work by Alice Notaperson, Bob
Alsonotaperson, users
> Crankshaft, Deckchair and Eggplant, and
anonymous editors.
>
> For each (distinct) person who's listed in the old
table, it'd show
> their real name if it's set, or their user name if
not. All anonymous
> edits would be lumped under "anonymous editors".
Contributors would be
> listed with real-named folks first, then pseudo'd
folks, then
> anonymous. There's no particular reason for that; it
could be any
> other way (although I don't see a big point making
it configurable).
>
> The goal here is to make it easy for redistributors
to comply with
> license provisions that require author attribution
(such as some
> Creative Commons licenses), without having to dig
through a whole
> bunch of history pages.
>
> Anyhoo, the Metadata.php code already does most of
this logic, albeit
> for output in RDF format. I'd like to take that
stuff and put it in
> the Article class, in a method like
"getContributors". The method
> could then be used both from the attribution code
and from the RDF
> metadata code.
>
> getContributors would return an array of arrays,
each of which would
> contain:
>
> 0. User ID
> 1. User account name
> 2. User real name, if set
>
> Another option would be to create User objects for
each entry in the
> returned array, but a) I don't think that most of
the User object
> fields (email, preferences) are needed, and b) I'd
be worried about
> slingin' around incomplete User objects. So, I think
the arrays are
> the best bet.
>
> Does returning an array of arrays seem insane? Would
it be wrong to
> add this method to Article? If so, where else would
it go?
>
> ~ESP
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Of course, typo, I meant "of course, we know we
*can't* define the 5 main contributors" :-)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
I have a hypothetical question, and wikipedia-l seems the best place to
ask it, so I have temporarily subscribed.
Suppose a group of people wanted to build a specialized encyclopedia
for their own purposes, and decided to create it on Wikipedia so they
don't have to worry about hosting or software issues. Suppose they saw
Wikipedia as a free collaboration tool, and although they didn't mind
releasing their work under the GFDL, they weren't specifically
interested in creating a _general purpose_ encyclopedia.
Would this group of people and their project be welcome?
Specifically, suppose that the Mennonite Historical Society of Canada
http://www.mhsc.ca/
decided that their 2000-article On-line Canadian Mennonite Encyclopedia
was significantly out of date, and that an efficient way to collaborate
on getting it updated would be to pipe it into Wikipedia and work on it
from there. As an added bonus to them, their articles would start
getting high rankings from Google.
I must stress the hypothetical nature of this question. I have no
reason to believe that MHSC is willing to release their work under the
GFDL, or that they are interested in collaborating by using Wikipedia
as a free platform. But supposing they were willing and interested,
would we want them to?
* Would we want lengthy and expert contributions to current articles on
Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, and Mennonite theology?
* Would we want short biographies of notable modern Canadian
Mennonites?
* Would it be a nuisance and a waste of space to have a separate
article for every Mennonite congregation in Canada?
* Would we be embarrassed if there were more information in Wikipedia
about the Mennonite faith than about any other religion?
Reatreating from the specific question into generalities, I can imagine
several cases where groups have a set of information, objective and
encyclopedic in nature, which they want to disseminate for reasons of
their own. I can imagine those groups looking to Wikipedia as a free
tool towards their ends, and seeing the GFDL as a reasonable license to
sign off on in exchange for the privilege.
* Have there already been cases of piggybacking?
* Has the community reached any sort of consensus opinion towards
piggybackers?
* If not, does anyone else anticipate that this will become an issue in
the future?
Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity on this point.
Peace,
-Karl
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25�
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The Marxists don't go away, they just delete any information they
>> don't like
>> and argue endlessly. Although occasionally they will conceed that
>> some major
>> issue deserves a small mention in an article, down at the bottom, if you
>> have extensive references for the point.
>
> Is this why it's so hard to tell them apart from some of your right
> wing friends?
Regardless of the people and ideologies involved, it's typically hard to
tell edit warriors apart from each other, let alone identify what value
systems they are promoting (other than anti-Wikiquette, of course). Most
of the time, the only way I know who's "Marxist" and who's "right wing"
is based on the furious labeling of users by their opponents. You
certainly wouldn't be able to tell based on the progress being made in
adding actual content to the encyclopedia.
--Michael Snow
What is the future of music articles on Wikipedia? I notice under the
heading "Pushing to 1.0" that Musical group/artist articles and Musical
album articles may be excluded.
_________________________________________________________________
Personalise your phone with chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ringtones.com.au/ninemsn/control?page=/ninemsn/main.jsp
"Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske(a)web.de> schrieb:
> IIRC, we have already limited additions to "encyclopedic contents",
> which would separate between amateur volleyball players and religous
> figures ;-)
It's certainly not a criticism at the specific example. I know too
little about it to make a judgement. It was more the general principle
that I was commenting on. Basically, we want much, we want more, but
we do not want everything.
Still, "encyclopedic content" is too vague to work on, and conflicts
will remain. My own principle is the "compound encyclopedia" idea -
take all encyclopedia-similar books, that is encyclopedias on a single
subject and such. What I'd like Wikipedia to be, is the 'merge' of
all those.
Andre Engels