On Monday 11 November 2002 07:52 am, wikipedia-l-request@wikipedia.org wrote:
Because of the "Anti". Enlisting as a queer user says nothing about your attitude about non-queer people. Positive categories are fine (ecologists, human right or peace activists, atheist, christian or muslim), negative categories are evil: "anti-christian", "antisemite", because they don't say only something about the self-categorized person but also insult other people.
greetings, elian
Somebody already mentioned the "Pro- Osama" vs "Anti- Osama" dilemma. I therefore renew my call for the moving of the POV wikipedians/foo pages to meta. Anti this and pro that do not serve our goal of creating an NPOV free encyclopedia. These categories only serve to divide the community and community building is means to attaining our goal. Meta was created for POV material and for Wikipedians to "hang out", so lets use it for what it was made for.
Somebody else had the idea of creating different types of /useful/ categories such as Wikipedians who have knowledge of certain subjects. I think this a great idea that should be integrated with the Wikipedia:Help Desk page along with the Wikipedians page. These types of categories are useful because they further goals of the project.
Just because you are a Linux user, or happen to be gay, or a vegetarian doesn't mean that you have the requisite knowledge to write NPOV articles on these subjects. These pages are therefore only of peripheral interest and should be moved to a POV-friendly forum.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Somebody else had the idea of creating different types of /useful/ categories such as Wikipedians who have knowledge of certain subjects. I think this a great idea that should be integrated with the Wikipedia:Help Desk page along with the Wikipedians page. These types of categories are useful because they further goals of the project.
In conjunction with this, I believe it was Larry who wanted some sort of article subject classification. Tying these two ideas together with the recent changes page. Each article could have a few boxes where the writer could enter category codes. The Wikipedians who are interested in that category (i.e. potential editors) could enter themselves on the category list for that code, or perhaps enter a list of these codes in their preferences. Recent changes could as a default function as it does now, but could optionally provide a categorized list based on one or more of the codes in the person's preferences.
Thus if we were to use the Library of Congress letter classifications (which has the benefit of being usable without reinventing the wheel) all articles concerned with mathematics would receive a "QA" code. A person interested in mathematics could add the "QA" code to his preferences, and on request would be able to receive a list of the recent changes in articles about mathematics. Having several boxes associated with an article, allows for the fact that some articles may be relevant to more than one category. An article on mathematical applications in psychology would have both a "QA" and a "BF" code.
Is this technically feasible?
Eclecticology
On 12-11-2002, Ray Saintonge wrote thusly :
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Somebody else had the idea of creating different types of /useful/ categories such as Wikipedians who have knowledge of certain subjects. I think this a great idea that should be integrated with the Wikipedia:Help Desk page along with the Wikipedians page. These types of categories are useful because they further goals of the project.
Ray Saintonge wrote :
In conjunction with this, I believe it was Larry who wanted some sort of article subject classification. Tying these two ideas together with the recent changes page. Each article could have a few boxes where the writer could enter category codes. The Wikipedians who are interested in that category (i.e. potential editors) could enter themselves on the category list for that code, or perhaps enter a list of these codes in their preferences. Recent changes could as a default function as it does now, but could optionally provide a categorized list based on one or more of the codes in the person's preferences.
Thus if we were to use the Library of Congress letter classifications (which has the benefit of being usable without reinventing the wheel) all articles concerned with mathematics would receive a "QA" code. A person interested in mathematics could add the "QA" code to his preferences, and on request would be able to receive a list of the recent changes in articles about mathematics. Having several boxes associated with an article, allows for the fact that some articles may be relevant to more than one category. An article on mathematical applications in psychology would have both a "QA" and a "BF" code.
Good, logical and useful idea. But I think it should not be an in promptu solution but rather a design solution and implemented early on in the project's history.
Funny, I remember similar proposals when we had less than 15000 comma articles.
Regards, Kpjas.
Thus if we were to use the Library of Congress
letter classifications
(which has the benefit of being usable without
reinventing the wheel)
all articles concerned with mathematics would
receive a "QA" code. A
person interested in mathematics could add the
"QA" code to his
preferences, and on request would be able to
receive a list of the
recent changes in articles about mathematics.
Having several boxes
associated with an article, allows for the fact
that some articles may
be relevant to more than one category. An article
on mathematical
applications in psychology would have both a "QA"
and a "BF" code.
Hum, this made me think over foul langage again, and mostly about "some" of the articles, that might be considered offensive to some (ref eclecticology and kid use at school).
Offensive articles (or thought to be...) could be part of the classification (say, classified XX). Then, it would be possible to disconnect view of these articles.
* either by default (I definitly don't support that) * or possible to disconnect them in the prefs
The second option could be used for "educational" accounts, and relieve educators from the fear to see an article dealing on "fuck" on the screen.
The offensive articles could disappear from the links (is that possible ?), but mostly from the search function (I am sure typing "fuck" in the search box is among the 10 tries of a kid...)
We could put tmc in the offensive xx category ? :-)))
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Anthere wrote:
<snip good discussion>
We could put tmc in the offensive xx category ? :-)))
This would presumably censor his home page.
The issue of his signature scattered through random talk pages, the recent log, other meta pages and mailing lists would remain.
Regards, Mike Irwin
--- "Michael R. Irwin" mri_icboise@surfbest.net wrote:
Anthere wrote:
<snip good discussion>
We could put tmc in the offensive xx category ?
:-)))
This would presumably censor his home page.
The issue of his signature scattered through random talk pages, the recent log, other meta pages and mailing lists would remain.
Hello Micha�l
If user names were to be censored, and in particular tmc one
1) recent changes will only last a couple of days
2) maybe some technical magic can take care of converting his full name in tmc in talk pages and such ?
3) mailing lists and meta pages may have no reason of being censored. It seems that most offended by X issues are concerned by kids looking at the questionable names. Mailing list and meta are for building teams, not encyclopedic articles. So, not supposed to be read by kids.
4) if user can express their political pov on their user page, their is no reason why they could not express other type of pov.
Peace
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Anthere wrote:
--- "Michael R. Irwin" mri_icboise@surfbest.net wrote:
Anthere wrote:
<snip good discussion>
We could put tmc in the offensive xx category ?
:-)))
This would presumably censor his home page.
The issue of his signature scattered through random talk pages, the recent log, other meta pages and mailing lists would remain.
Hello Michaël
If user names were to be censored, and in particular tmc one
- recent changes will only last a couple of days
I am uncertain what you mean here unless you are saying tmc would be censored from the recent changes by correctly selecting the filter criteria. Excellent!
- maybe some technical magic can take care of
converting his full name in tmc in talk pages and such ?
IMO Poor approach. It creates more work for the developers than for a random nit wit. This would leave us vulnerable to standard Denial of Service tactics and possibly exhaust our limited developer resources to the detriment of the project.
- mailing lists and meta pages may have no reason of
being censored. It seems that most offended by X issues are concerned by kids looking at the questionable names. Mailing list and meta are for building teams, not encyclopedic articles. So, not supposed to be read by kids.
This presumes that the only value minors can extract from the Wikipedia site or community is the NPOV articles.
Personally I see no reason that civilized community standards can not be achieved such that minors can participate fully to the extent of their ability. Participating with adult teams and politely yielding to superior knowledge or phrasing would be beneficial (educational for minor, available effort for the team) and is within the skills of most children if consistently predominantly presented examples worthy of emulation.
At the moment I suspect minors would tend to diverge frequently from civilized behavior along with the rest of us. Some adults attempting to pull seniority on misbehaving or impolite minors while ignoring other adults would probably merely accelerate the divergence.
As a result, this is probably a discussion for either:
1. Later. After a means of establishing, documenting and fairly enforcing community standards is available as per Mav and Ed suggestions.
2. Another site with broader educational goals than spoon feeding allegedly authoritative NPOV material to users for non critical consumption or resuse.
I agree that currently minors should probably not be participating here.
However, full participation of minors would provide an educational benefit to them (and others) which may out weigh the value of the actual encyclopedia data ingested here. Team building and participation skills are at an increasing premium in the modern workplace.
Perhaps we are merely a free encyclopedia project and not an educational process or opportunity. If this is the case then I think we are wasting a lot of economic potential and actually slowing down the improvement of our processes and our material.
As Axel has pointed out elsewhere, more crap is not what our quality goals should be about if we are serious about providing even just a free encyclopedia.
- if user can express their political pov on their
user page, their is no reason why they could not express other type of pov.
I agree but I think I am missing your point. If you mean that there is no reason that "tmc" should be deleted as an account name if it can be filtered I am wishy washy. I think it is fine for his personal page. If someone is offended by his page they can leave and easily stay away. Currently the account name is spread throughout Wikipedia anytime he used a signature, thus difficult to avoid. That seems to me to be a problem.
Moving away from sex for a change:
Does the debate change if someone moves on to account names such as:
"Einstein was an idiot because e=cm^2"
(factual distortion from e=mc^2 while diverting the victim with an opinion "Einstein was an idiot")
or
"VANDALISM IN PROGRESS" (potentially disruptive to other editors if they stop to go check only to find it was a diversion)
or
"Kill all Lawyers" (offensive to some, and we need experts in law)
or something similarly disruptive to our purpose of providing NPOV material, a pleasant educational environment, an effective review log, etc.?
Regards, Mike Irwin
--- "Michael R. Irwin" mri_icboise@surfbest.net
Anthere wrote:
We could put tmc in the offensive xx category ?
This would presumably censor his home page. The issue of his signature scattered through random talk pages, the recent log, other meta pages and mailing lists would remain.
If user names were to be censored, and in particular tmc one
- recent changes will only last a couple of days
I am uncertain what you mean here unless you are saying tmc would be censored from the recent changes by correctly selecting the filter criteria. Excellent!
- maybe some technical magic can take care of
converting his full name in tmc in talk pages and such ?
IMO Poor approach. It creates more work for the developers than for a random nit wit. This would leave us vulnerable to standard Denial of Service tactics and possibly exhaust our limited developer resources to the detriment of the project.
It is a poor approach if done on a real time basis, as a filtering tool. But not to clean up a database "spoiled" by an offending name (in article and page history (contributions), and in user and talk pages).
Hence, a one shot query on tables and conversion might be a good option. Of course, this requires tmc agreement, and of course, that is changing *History*. Big brother/sister Wikipedia and Thought Police. Brrrr.
- mailing lists and meta pages may have no reason of
being censored. It seems that most offended by X issues are concerned by kids looking at the questionable names. Mailing list and meta are for building teams, not encyclopedic articles. So, not supposed to be read by kids.
This presumes that the only value minors can extract from the Wikipedia site or community is the NPOV articles.
Hum. How would you define minors ?
Is it juridical minority you are thinking of ? If so, juridical minority is not set at the same age in every country. I am still abashed by the usa situation where kids are big enough to elect ...whoever, but not big enough to have a beer. Not talking of african countries where girls are head of a family of three before the american boy can vote, and could potentially nearly be grandmothers by the time he is legally allowed to drink that beer.
If you are talking in term of maturity, we all here sometimes behave with less maturity than a 16 year old girl/boy.
Personally I see no reason that civilized community standards can not be achieved such that minors can participate fully to the extent of their ability.
Sure. But, how are "adults" supposed to know the minors are minors ? And why would "minors" accept "adult" guiding on the account that these "adults" are pretending themselves "adults" ? We are not going to ask people their age before contributing, are we ?
Participating with adult teams and politely yielding to superior knowledge or phrasing would be beneficial (educational for minor, available effort for the team) and is within the skills of most children if consistently predominantly presented examples worthy of emulation. At the moment I suspect minors would tend to diverge frequently from civilized behavior along with the rest of us. Some adults attempting to pull seniority on misbehaving or impolite minors while ignoring other adults would probably merely accelerate the divergence.
True. But, again, that is not a question of age. That's a question of maturity and tolerance.
Politely yielding to superior knowledge is not only age-related, it's recognition of another one superior knowledge, without knowing the extent of his expertise really. Tough!
And notice that politely yielding to superior phrasing is something most non-english speakers have to accept on the en.wiki also, 'even' when the superiority is from a 20 years younger american teenager. Also tough!
Polite retreat is not a kid "privilege".
In another message, you mentionned the possibility to set up a kiddie wiki.
If it's a read-only wiki, I see very little difference between a carefully censored (by who?) kidipedia, and a "censored-able" wikipedia. It is just another name, but it is has to do with censorship. If only, that's worse, for WE would choose what they should see, rather than their educators, who might know more of what is fit for them to read.
If it's a read&write wiki, it is unlikely the kids will learn from adults, for there won't be many adults, or few adults representative of the real world. Maybe not the best choice in terms of education.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
Anthere wrote:
Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
--- "Michael R. Irwin" mri_icboise@surfbest.net
Anthere wrote:
We could put tmc in the offensive xx category ?
This would presumably censor his home page. The issue of his signature scattered through random talk pages, the recent log, other meta pages and mailing lists would remain.
If user names were to be censored, and in particular tmc one
- recent changes will only last a couple of days
I am uncertain what you mean here unless you are saying tmc would be censored from the recent changes by correctly selecting the filter criteria. Excellent!
- maybe some technical magic can take care of
converting his full name in tmc in talk pages and such ?
IMO Poor approach. It creates more work for the developers than for a random nit wit. This would leave us vulnerable to standard Denial of Service tactics and possibly exhaust our limited developer resources to the detriment of the project.
It is a poor approach if done on a real time basis, as a filtering tool. But not to clean up a database "spoiled" by an offending name (in article and page history (contributions), and in user and talk pages).
Agreed.
Hence, a one shot query on tables and conversion might be a good option. Of course, this requires tmc agreement, and of course, that is changing *History*. Big brother/sister Wikipedia and Thought Police. Brrrr.
Apparently not. A "Jimmy says" flash has removed this specific thorn. The discussion can now move on to the best way to avoid future rose bushes or be discontinued until next time a wild rose patch appears in our garden.
- mailing lists and meta pages may have no reason of
being censored. It seems that most offended by X issues are concerned by kids looking at the questionable names. Mailing list and meta are for building teams, not encyclopedic articles. So, not supposed to be read by kids.
This presumes that the only value minors can extract from the Wikipedia site or community is the NPOV articles.
Hum. How would you define minors ?
Is it juridical minority you are thinking of ? If so, juridical minority is not set at the same age in every country. I am still abashed by the usa situation where kids are big enough to elect ...whoever, but not big enough to have a beer. Not talking of african countries where girls are head of a family of three before the american boy can vote, and could potentially nearly be grandmothers by the time he is legally allowed to drink that beer.
Yes exactly. The point where a new citizen responsible for their own actions emerges. In the U.S. it has indeed been getting murkier and murkier.
I am aware that substantial variance exists within various societies.
If you are talking in term of maturity, we all here sometimes behave with less maturity than a 16 year old girl/boy.
This is consistent with my personal observations as well.
Personally I see no reason that civilized community standards can not be achieved such that minors can participate fully to the extent of their ability.
Sure. But, how are "adults" supposed to know the minors are minors ? And why would "minors" accept "adult" guiding on the account that these "adults" are pretending themselves "adults" ? We are not going to ask people their age before contributing, are we ?
Responses in sequence:
By observed behavior I suppose.
Good question .... perhaps we should discourage appeals to authority and simply explain ourselves to each other. It may appear to take some extra time initially (and we are not an educational institution are we ???? are we a learning organization ???? How do our contributors improve their editing skills .... or do they? Do we want them too?) beyond that necessary to dictate the correct answer, but it may actually be more efficient overall.
I hope not. Although sometimes it can be useful, if someone volunteers the information, to help establish an initial starting point for the dialogue. Certainly the information can be abused or misused in a variety of ways.
Participating with adult teams and politely yielding to superior knowledge or phrasing would be beneficial (educational for minor, available effort for the team) and is within the skills of most children if consistently predominantly presented examples worthy of emulation. At the moment I suspect minors would tend to diverge frequently from civilized behavior along with the rest of us. Some adults attempting to pull seniority on misbehaving or impolite minors while ignoring other adults would probably merely accelerate the divergence.
True. But, again, that is not a question of age. That's a question of maturity and tolerance.
I would tend to agree with the reservation that many people expect a loose correlation.
Politely yielding to superior knowledge is not only age-related, it's recognition of another one superior knowledge, without knowing the extent of his expertise really. Tough!
One approach would be that in order for the superior knowledge to recognized by someone who does not know it, it must be demonstrated or laid out in detail for scrutiny for the less educated or informed.
Of course some pedagogical value might accrue while wasting the subject expert's time ....
If the debate were preserved somehow so that additional future waves of ignorant masses might inform themselves ...
Bah! We are not an educational institution or a debate club.
And notice that politely yielding to superior phrasing is something most non-english speakers have to accept on the en.wiki also, 'even' when the superiority is from a 20 years younger american teenager. Also tough!
Good point. I am not multi-lingual so I am not exposed to attempting to reason with non English teenagers regarding the few subjects I actually know quite a bit about.
I do not envy our multi-lingual contributors this challenge but I admire and respect their community contribution when they undertake it.
Polite retreat is not a kid "privilege".
True. It seems to be non instinctive learned behavior displayed grudgingly in the face of superior force. It seems sometimes friendship, love, or respect for another makes it an easier behavior for homo sapiens but I often wonder how this relates to "stockholm syndrome". Is this simply another brain chemistry situation or is free will involved. Can one simply decide one day to enjoy be polite to others?
In another message, you mentionned the possibility to set up a kiddie wiki.
If it's a read-only wiki, I see very little difference between a carefully censored (by who?) kidipedia, and a "censored-able" wikipedia. It is just another name, but it is has to do with censorship. If only, that's worse, for WE would choose what they should see, rather than their educators, who might know more of what is fit for them to read.
Agreed. I would think such a kiddypedia would be structured around highly leveraged participation of parents and educational authorities. The advantage might be the opportunity to expose your kids to community screened adults and educators. If a thousand parents and a hundred educations spent a few hours a month participating there (after the initial community fabric is knit) maintaining the tone and lubricating the machinery .... how many kids could be served or exposed to civilized discourse from which to learn by example?
Current U.S. babysitting methods average 18 to 30 students per adult and produce poorly motivated instructors and poorly prepared graduates.
A properly written grant should be able to attract some capital investment from the United States government to explore this concept. It has the potential to be quite cost effective, provide quantitative proof of its efficacy, and address several political issues that have been growing in the U.S. for the last twenty years.
It could also easily be setup within the budget of a few parents, a PTA group, or a local U.S. school.
If it's a read&write wiki, it is unlikely the kids will learn from adults, for there won't be many adults, or few adults representative of the real world. Maybe not the best choice in terms of education.
I do not follow this conclusion. Everybody lives in the real world. Perhaps the kiddypedia's would have to be structured around specific categories of interest to parent/kid teams. We (the community or the site owner?) might even require/allow them to use the same account handles or interchange them occasionally. Lots of gimmicks and approaches could be incrementally experimented with.
Different techniques might be required for success for sites specializing in musical interests vs. sites committed to incubating entrepreneurial space tech teams.
Funding sources might also have to vary. The musical sites might support themselves by taking a small cut of properly licensed music distributed by the site (Say this music may be freely downloaded and given away in any media whatsoever but there can be no charge of any kind, no handling charge, no media fee. Professionally packaged version are available at this site and the musicians receive 50% gross revenue and the site receives 50% gross revenue.) while the space tech sites might sell advertising or solicit sponsorship by U.S. defense behomeths and/or U.S. military recruiters.
Further regarding funding ... big brothers and big sisters of America organizations seem to spend a lot of money in the U.S. soliciting funds and volunteers via television advertising. A proper business plan and some ecommunication with them might develop adequate funding to experiment with this type of mentoring site. They seem seriously interested in getting some mentoring into ghettos where kids (and immature adults) often lack a variety of role models to observe.
Regards, Mike Irwin
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org