This page on a prominent alternate global media event is being called "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios To my mind, it is a listing of themes at the conference, and participants, together with some background (including past conferences) that led to the growth of the network. Could others please give their inputs on this? FN
On 4/20/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
This page on a prominent alternate global media event is being called "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios
I removed content on this from [[Ourmedia]] a year ago since the group had only 279 members and probably didn't deserve an article.
Angela
Numbers are important. But I don't think everything can be judged by numbers alone.
(Someone was asking on a journalism mailing list how 30+ US lives match up with 190+ in Iraq as far as the mainstream media goes! Then, if everything went by numbers alone, one-seventh of the Wikipedia's content should have focussed on India, and about one-sixth on China. But we know that doesn't happen! So, we seem to be facing the pinch both ways! When it comes to non-inclusion, and when it comes to deletion.)
Also, what happens when a network is based outside of the "cities that matter"? Visibility is going to be a further issue, specially when communication is in, say, Spanish! It's hard for me to imagine how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemencia_Rodriguez gets tagged for 'non-notability'. Either someone is misunderstanding things here, or the criteria is really bizarre. Take a look at the comment by BineMaya at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clemencia_Rodriguez in response to this.
These are issues that those building alternatives have to face up to. We seem to be failing in reflecting diversity at a global scale. Are we even trying? FN
On 20/04/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
This page on a prominent alternate global media event is being called "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios
I removed content on this from [[Ourmedia]] a year ago since the group had only 279 members and probably didn't deserve an article.
Angela
On 20/04/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Also, what happens when a network is based outside of the "cities that matter"? Visibility is going to be a further issue, specially when communication is in, say, Spanish! It's hard for me to imagine how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemencia_Rodriguez gets tagged for 'non-notability'. Either someone is misunderstanding things here, or the criteria is really bizarre. Take a look at the comment by BineMaya at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clemencia_Rodriguez in response to this.
If you want some visibility to this problem, I would (once again) suggest emailing wikien-l as well - that is, the list specifically for English Wikipedia.
- d.
Is systemic bias (due to poor judgements of notability) a problem unique to the English edition of Wikipedia?
2007/4/20, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 20/04/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Also, what happens when a network is based outside of the "cities that matter"? Visibility is going to be a further issue, specially when communication is in, say, Spanish! It's hard for me to imagine how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemencia_Rodriguez gets tagged for 'non-notability'. Either someone is misunderstanding things here, or the criteria is really bizarre. Take a look at the comment by BineMaya at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clemencia_Rodriguez in response to this.
If you want some visibility to this problem, I would (once again) suggest emailing wikien-l as well - that is, the list specifically for English Wikipedia.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 4/20/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Is systemic bias (due to poor judgements of notability) a problem unique to the English edition of Wikipedia?
I am not familiar with the systemic biases of Wikipedia editions I don't edit, but I'd suggest that while wider concerns about systemic bias are appropriate for this list, discussion about a specific incident might get a wider response on the list associated with the Wikipedia edition in question.
So it really depends on whether Frederick Noronha wishes to talk about the problem in general or wants to address that specific deletion.
-Matt
Well, I've faced issues with deletion of pages which deserve to be in the Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fredericknoronha It might be that editors unfamiliar with a subject decide over the same. Also groups working in non-English languages seem to be having a more difficult time to stay on the Wikipedia. Likewise, those from smaller groups on the "periphery" and outside the bigger centres. --FN
On 21/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Is systemic bias (due to poor judgements of notability) a problem unique to the English edition of Wikipedia?
I am not familiar with the systemic biases of Wikipedia editions I don't edit, but I'd suggest that while wider concerns about systemic bias are appropriate for this list, discussion about a specific incident might get a wider response on the list associated with the Wikipedia edition in question.
So it really depends on whether Frederick Noronha wishes to talk about the problem in general or wants to address that specific deletion.
-Matt
What we're talking about here is the fact that there is not just one monolithic "the Wikipedia".
There are over one hundred (is it 200 yet?).
I'm sure notability is an issue in all Wikis.
I, for one, have heard of certain smaller Wikis which say "This topic is something our readers would never care about, we should delete it", knowing full well that it would be kept on the English Wikipedia because it is notable in _some_ sector of the world, just not their own.
Mark
On 20/04/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Well, I've faced issues with deletion of pages which deserve to be in the Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fredericknoronha It might be that editors unfamiliar with a subject decide over the same. Also groups working in non-English languages seem to be having a more difficult time to stay on the Wikipedia. Likewise, those from smaller groups on the "periphery" and outside the bigger centres. --FN
On 21/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
Is systemic bias (due to poor judgements of notability) a problem unique to the English edition of Wikipedia?
I am not familiar with the systemic biases of Wikipedia editions I don't edit, but I'd suggest that while wider concerns about systemic bias are appropriate for this list, discussion about a specific incident might get a wider response on the list associated with the Wikipedia edition in question.
So it really depends on whether Frederick Noronha wishes to talk about the problem in general or wants to address that specific deletion.
-Matt
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help! http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2007/4/21, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
What we're talking about here is the fact that there is not just one monolithic "the Wikipedia".
There are over one hundred (is it 200 yet?).
250 even.
Hoi!
Can anyone tell me whether using images from commons like this http://bargewiki.i-iter.org/vecht-0 is okay with the GNU license?
If not, what do we need to do to be allright?
Bèrto d Sèra Personagi dlann 2006 për larvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
On 4/22/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Hoi!
Can anyone tell me whether using images from commons like this http://bargewiki.i-iter.org/vecht-0 is okay with the GNU license?
I'd say that, since that particular image is PD, your use is 100% correct.
Cruccone
Hoi!
What for a more general rule?
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marco Chiesa Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 4:45 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Can anyone tell me
On 4/22/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Hoi!
Can anyone tell me whether using images from commons like this http://bargewiki.i-iter.org/vecht-0 is okay with the GNU license?
I'd say that, since that particular image is PD, your use is 100% correct.
Cruccone _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 4/22/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Hoi!
What for a more general rule?
I think it depends on the license of the image. If attribution is
required, than you have to indicate the author(s), and same for the license (for double licensing you can choose the one you prefer). I don't know if linking back to commons is necessary.
Cruccone
On 22/04/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
What for a more general rule?
Image by image. See:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse
Does this answer your question in general? It's meant for just this sort of question.
- d.
Yes thanks :) exactly what I needed :)
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 5:17 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Can anyone tell me
On 22/04/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
What for a more general rule?
Image by image. See:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse
Does this answer your question in general? It's meant for just this sort of question.
- d.
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Angela beesley wrote
I removed content on this from [[Ourmedia]] a year ago since the group had only 279 members and probably didn't deserve an article.
I support your decision
----- Original Message ----- From: "Angela" beesley@gmail.com To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] More on page deletions...
On 4/20/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
This page on a prominent alternate global media event is being called "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios
I> Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________ Información de NOD32, revisión 2211 (20070423) __________
Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system http://www.nod32.com
On what grounds? That smaller groups are necessarily non-notable? Or that only large groups can do positive work? FN
On 24/04/07, Miguel Bravo-Ferrer miguel.bravoferrer@abg-abogados.es wrote:
Angela beesley wrote
I removed content on this from [[Ourmedia]] a year ago since the group had only 279 members and probably didn't deserve an article.
I support your decision
----- Original Message ----- From: "Angela" beesley@gmail.com To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] More on page deletions...
On 4/20/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
This page on a prominent alternate global media event is being called "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios
I> Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________ Información de NOD32, revisión 2211 (20070423) __________
Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system http://www.nod32.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Sorry Fred, probably I had misunderstood the focus of the debate and I had omitted in my e-mail your decisive intervention that was for me the reason why I supported the removing made by Angela, not for the number of affected people. If I have well understood, the problem was the "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person". Sorry I have wrongly situated ny supporting. Frederick Noronha wrote 4-20-2007
Numbers are important. But I don't think everything can be judged by numbers alone.
(Someone was asking on a journalism mailing list how 30+ US lives match up with 190+ in Iraq as far as the mainstream media goes! Then, if everything went by numbers alone, one-seventh of the Wikipedia's content should have focussed on India, and about one-sixth on China. But we know that doesn't happen! So, we seem to be facing the pinch both ways! When it comes to non-inclusion, and when it comes to deletion.)
Also, what happens when a network is based outside of the "cities that matter"? Visibility is going to be a further issue, specially when communication is in, say, Spanish! It's hard for me to imagine how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemencia_Rodriguez gets tagged for 'non-notability'. Either someone is misunderstanding things here, or the criteria is really bizarre. Take a look at the comment by BineMaya at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clemencia_Rodriguez in response to this.
These are issues that those building alternatives have to face up to. We seem to be failing in reflecting diversity at a global scale. Are we even trying? FN
On 20/04/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote: This page on a prominent alternate global media event is being called "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios
I removed content on this from [[Ourmedia]] a year ago since the group had only 279 members and probably didn't deserve an article.
Angela
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Noronha" fred@bytesforall.org To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] More on page deletions...
On what grounds? That smaller groups are necessarily non-notable? Or that only large groups can do positive work? FN
On 24/04/07, Miguel Bravo-Ferrer miguel.bravoferrer@abg-abogados.es wrote:
Angela beesley wrote
I removed content on this from [[Ourmedia]] a year ago since the group had only 279 members and probably didn't deserve an article.
I support your decision
----- Original Message ----- From: "Angela" beesley@gmail.com To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] More on page deletions...
On 4/20/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
This page on a prominent alternate global media event is being called "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios
I> Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________ Información de NOD32, revisión 2211 (20070423) __________
Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system http://www.nod32.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2007/4/20, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org:
This page on a prominent alternate global media event is being called "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios To my mind, it is a listing of themes at the conference, and participants, together with some background (including past conferences) that led to the growth of the network. Could others please give their inputs on this? FN
Really, why are the participants, themes etcetera of a conference things to put on Wikipedia? As far as I can see, 90% of the page would do better to be put on their own website. Speedy deletion seems rather crude indeed, but it still indeeds reeks of advertising.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org