[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 89
Earthhope Action Network
contact at earthhopenetwork.net
Wed May 10 01:43:36 UTC 2006
*Hey,*
*Can one of you good folk give me a hand? I am blocked indefinitely and
believe it is time for me to be unblocked and given another chance to show I
can be a normal and friendly editor on Wikipedia. Can someone help me
please?*
**
*Maggie User:thewolfstar*
**
*Margie Laupheimer*
On 5/9/06, wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org <wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org>
wrote:
>
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: NPOV majorities/minorities (Ray Saintonge)
> 2. Re: NPOV majorities/minorities (maru dubshinki)
> 3. Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 88 (Nicholas Moreau)
> 4. Re: The lovely world of celebrities (Anthony DiPierro)
> 5. Re: The lovely world of celebrities (Rob Church)
> 6. Re: Research request (David Gerard)
> 7. Re: The lovely world of celebrities (Guettarda)
> 8. Re: Verifiability equating to notability (Ilmari Karonen)
> 9. Re: NPOV majorities/minorities (Cheney Shill)
> 10. Admins without validated e-mail addresses (was: RfAs)
> (Ilmari Karonen)
> 11. Re: Admins without validated e-mail addresses (was: RfAs)
> (Cheney Shill)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 12:05:26 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4460E7F6.60708 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Cheney Shill wrote:
>
> >Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the ambiguity is necessary -- 10 fringe sources do not
> > outweigh 2 sources from recognized authorities. But there's no easy
> >
> >I agree about the 10 fringe vs. 2 authorities. But that has nothing to
> do with this scenario, in which the sources are of equal authority. In
> fact, the very fact that you turned a non-ambiguous scenario into an
> ambiguous scenario is evidence that the process itself is far too
> ambiguous. It's not just you; I have not gotten 1 straight answer on
> this. Are we not supposed to be judging and reporting on the facts as they
> are, not as we think they should be?~~~~Pro-Lick
> >
> Reporting yes; judging no.
>
> Ambiguity is a fact of life; learn to live with it!
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:42:03 -0400
> From: "maru dubshinki" <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <f5238c30605091242s749c491ehd29a8ad309a37494 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/9/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Reporting yes; judging no.
> >
> > Ambiguity is a fact of life; learn to live with it!
> >
> > Ec
>
> Maybe I will, then!
>
>
> ~maru
>
> "If I don't survive, tell my wife: Hello." -Futurama
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:46:35 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Nicholas Moreau <beaubeaver at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 88
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20060509194635.17709.qmail at web26915.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> They and their staff // shouldn't // under the autobio rules, except in
> the limited cases listed, regarding pure factual errors. However, the IP
> addresses of FOX News aren't blocked, so they could, and just not admit who
> they were.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20060509154409.63253.qmail at web35201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> It's Fox's entertainment gossip. They aren't held to the same
> "reporting" standards as the "news". Equally ironic, the entertainment
> "reporters" apparently lack an actual sense of humor.
>
> This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters blocked
> from Wiki like congress? Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit their
> entries with the aid of their staff?
>
> Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How is it that Fox can get "Wikipedians" right, when even articles
> *about* Wikipedia came up with "Wikitopians"?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:54:54 -0400
> From: "Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <71cd4dd90605091254u66aadfe7p3aaad8507bfd2721 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/9/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It's Fox's entertainment gossip. They aren't held to the same
> "reporting" standards as the "news". Equally ironic, the entertainment
> "reporters" apparently lack an actual sense of humor.
> >
> > This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters blocked
> from Wiki like congress? Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit their
> entries with the aid of their staff?
> >
>
> Is Jimbo and/or Danny (his staff) blocked from editing [[Jimmy Wales]]?
>
> Anthony
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 20:57:22 +0100
> From: "Rob Church" <robchur at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <e92136380605091257s521adc07mdbdfdc9b0e1a84e1 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 09/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 5/9/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It's Fox's entertainment gossip. They aren't held to the same
> "reporting" standards as the "news". Equally ironic, the entertainment
> "reporters" apparently lack an actual sense of humor.
> > >
> > > This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters
> blocked from Wiki like congress? Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit
> their entries with the aid of their staff?
> > >
> >
> > Is Jimbo and/or Danny (his staff) blocked from editing [[Jimmy Wales]]?
>
> No. Wales has controversially done so before, and has been accused of
> attempting to play down Sanger's involvement with founding the
> Wikipedia project.
>
>
> Rob Church
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 20:19:09 +0000
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Research request
> To: "Michael P. Tomaszewski" <mpt28 at cam.ac.uk>, "English Wikipedia"
> <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Cc: wikien-l-owner at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140605091319i6c433fe1s2a3b7b3a06296fd4 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 09/05/06, Michael P. Tomaszewski <mpt28 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > I would like to ask your permission to post a mail to the mailing list
> > containing a link towards an online survey. I am really dependent on
> > obtaining information empirically, and wikien-l seems to be the best way
> to
> > do that.
> > I didn't want to spam to the list, before discussing it with the admins
> in
> > charge. Do you think that would be feasible?
>
>
> A few people have run surveys on wikien-l. They're not in plague
> proportions as yet, so I don't see a problem myself. (I'm cc'ing this
> reply to wikien-l in case anyone wants to say something either way.) I
> assume you are aware of the hazards of self-selecting samples!
>
> Do please give us a link to your research afterwards!
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:52:22 -0500
> From: Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <47683e960605091352r24cc1fb4l623e7e3a7cd3e858 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/9/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters blocked
> > from Wiki like congress? Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit their
> > entries with the aid of their staff?
>
>
> See WP:AUTO. Editing your own article is strongly discouraged, as is
> editing any topic which you are too close to. If one of them edited their
> own article they would probably get a warning from the other editors. If
> they edited their own articles they way the write/speak, it would get
> reverted anyway, even if no one knew it was them. But most celebrities
> have
> too big egos to edit anonymously.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 01:00:15 +0300
> From: Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <446110EF.3050208 at vyznev.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 5/9/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> >>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >>>On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>'''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton,
> Michigan.
> >>>>Next year they are going to take over the world.
> >>>
> >>>So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert
> >>>notability. It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to
> >>>assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts
> >>>notability but doesn't establish it.
> >>
> >>No, it does assert notability -- it's just that the assertion is pretty
> >>weak. Per [[WP:VAIN]], patently absurd assertions (such as "Joe Smith
> >>is the King of the United States") do not need to be considered. The
> >>assertion given above, being an unsubstantiated claim about the future,
> >>might perhaps be considered such.
> >
> > But the claim that they are a rock band hailing from Houghton,
> > Michigan is not about the future, and is not patently absurd.
>
> Yes, but being a rock band does not make them notable, since there are
> millions of rock bands and we're not interested in covering them all.
> As for being from Houghton, Michigan, there doesn't seem to be any
> reason to suspect that bands from that town would, as a class, somehow
> be statistically different from bands from any other town.
>
>
> >>For example, an article that only said "John Doe is a chemist" would
> >>technically be speediable.
> >
> > Only if you assume that being a chemist is not a claim to notability.
>
> Right. I don't consider being a chemist a claim to notability, since,
> again, there are millions of chemists and we (Wikipedia editors) don't
> generally feel they should all have Wikipedia articles merely because
> they are chemists.
>
> Of course, the line can be fuzzy. We don't try to have articles on all
> humans, so being a human is not an assertion of notability per se. On
> the other hand, we do try to have articles on all presidents of major
> countries, so being a president does make one notable. But does being a
> cabinet minister make one notable? How about a member of parliament?
> Member of a town council? Those are judgement calls, and in such cases
> other issues may ultimately outweigh notability.
>
> Similarly, it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should have articles on
> all Nobel laureates, so being one automatically makes one notable. It's
> equally obvious that Wikipedia should not have articles on all students,
> -- probably not even on all grad students -- so being a student does not
> make one notable. But is a Ph.D. enough to make one notable? Some feel
> it is, some don't.
>
>
> >>A typical article with no claim to notability might be something like:
> >>
> >>"Joe Smith (b. 1989) is a student at the Whateverville high school. He
> >>plays football and listens to Red Hot Chili Peppers. He's a really
> >>great guy."
> >
> > I'd say that has plenty of claims to notability, but is patently absurd.
>
> You seem to be using curious definitions of notability and absurdity.
> To me there's nothing absurd about the description; such a description
> is quite likely to be true (and even mostly verifiable), except maybe
> for the subjective assertion in the end.
>
> On the other hand, the description places Joe Smith in a number of
> categories (people born in 1989, students of Whateverville high school,
> football players, people who listen to RHCP, really great guys), none of
> which we believe Wikipedia should be a comprehensive index of. So none
> of them count as claims of notability. The same, also, goes for any
> intersections of the categories: we don't aim to have articles on all
> football players who listen to RHCP either.
>
> Of course, failing to assert notability does not mean an article *must*
> be deleted. But let's face it, the article I gave as an example has
> nothing else going for it either. As Wikipedia generally operates on
> the presumption that biographies of random people should _not_ be
> included unless there is a particular reason for it, the default for
> such articles, in the absence of any generally accepted reason for
> keeping, is to delete.
>
> (In other fields it's different: for example, articles on animal or
> plant species are considered worth keeping by default, even if they make
> no claims of notability. One might say that species are consider
> notable per se, but that's perhaps not _quite_ correct either, since we
> don't really aim to catalog all species known to man in Wikipedia, at
> least not in the near future. It might be more accurate to say that, in
> the case of species -- and most other non-biographical topics -- the
> default presumption is inclusion rather than exclusion. In any case,
> the distinction is hairline thin, and might not even exist outside my
> own head. But that's pretty much how I see it.)
>
> --
> Ilmari Karonen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20060509225235.90043.qmail at web35207.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Cheney Shill wrote:
>
> very fact that you turned a non-ambiguous scenario into an ambiguous
> scenario is evidence that the process itself is far too ambiguous. It's not
> just you; I have not gotten 1 straight answer on this. Are we not supposed
> to be judging and reporting on the facts as they are, not as we think they
> should be?~~~~Pro-Lick
> >
> Reporting yes; judging no.
>
> So we should "report" the facts as we think they should be, not as they
> are?
>
> Ambiguity is a fact of life; learn to live with it!
>
> So is bias. Yet we have something called NPOV. So is rumor and hoax, yet
> we have verifiability. It appears there are contributors having learning
> issues living with policy.~~~~Pro-Lick
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just
> 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 02:02:22 +0300
> From: Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins without validated e-mail addresses (was:
> RfAs)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <44611F7E.5050904 at vyznev.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> > And opposing admins for silly things like not yet having
> > validated their email is totally inappropriate.
>
> I believe it says in some guideline (if not policy) or other that admins
> should be contactable by e-mail. Even if it's not mandatory, it's still
> a damn good idea for a number of reasons.
>
> If you're on RfA and haven't validated your address, go do it. It'll
> take you less then five minutes. If you're lazy or stubborn enough not
> to do it after you've been told about it, I'd say that in itself sends a
> rather strong signal about your suitability for adminship.
>
> (Of course, having a valid e-mail address does not guarantee that an
> admin can actually contacted by e-mail, or by any other means, or that
> they'll respond to contact attempts. But it sure makes it more likely.)
>
> (Can you tell I've had more than one encounter with current or former
> admins who don't seem to read their talk page and either have no e-mail
> address or don't read their e-mail -- while actively editing? *grmbl*)
>
> --
> Ilmari Karonen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins without validated e-mail addresses
> (was: RfAs)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20060509231335.12512.qmail at web35210.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
> I believe it says in some guideline (if not policy) or other that
> admins
> should be contactable by e-mail. Even if it's not mandatory, it's still
> a damn good idea for a number of reasons.
>
> If you're on RfA and haven't validated your address, go do it. It'll
> take you less then five minutes. If you're lazy or stubborn enough not
> to do it after you've been told about it, I'd say that in itself sends
> a
> rather strong signal about your suitability for adminship.
>
> I agree. It should be policy. Nothing difficult about setting up a
> separate email for Wiki if you're concerned about acquiring stalkers. I've
> had admin stalkers, but that doesn't scare me from setting up a contact,
> mailing this list, or even using IRC. To me, it shows paranoia and
> ignorance in the admin that needs to be questioned at the very
> least.~~~Pro-Lick
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 89
> ****************************************
>
--
in peace and justice for the wildthings,
Margie Laupheimer
http://earthhopenetwork.net/
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list