subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:40 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Western Civilization to me really relates to Western Europe plus key
>> members of its former colonial empires.  It does promote certain
>> ideals, but that does not mean that it has been uniformly successful
>> in implementing those ideals.  This distinction is difficult for the
>> person who has not yet grasped the concept of irony.
>
>
> Actually this distinction was part of my argument. You seem to miss
> the point that the evidence (the millions who have died and suffered)
> suggests these ideals to be not much more than propaganda in a system
> that has historically implemented the opposite of such ideals.

This is a breathtaking oversimplification promoted by various 20th-c.
groups for their own sordid purposes. It's a really lazy approach to
history, because instead of trying to evaluate actions from a
contemporaneous perspective, we evaluate them using our much greater
body of available information and viewpoints.

For instance, it was not possible for 19th-century people to consider
ecological consequences of clearcutting forests, since there was no
science to inform them. Some writers blame Europeans for bringing
diseases to the New World - centuries before anybody even had any
idea how diseases got around.

This is all relevant to Wikipedia because there are more than a few
articles that thoughtlessly apply 20th-century standards to events
of the distant past. Leopold in the Congo can be criticized because
his actions did not conform to the standards of his own society,
but it requires much more care to identify the ideals and realities
of Columbus' time.

Stan


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Michael/User:Mike Garcia

body:
Guanaco is now currently in the process of restoring, without a single word of discussion, the items I deleted which Michael created without authorization.

RickK

Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.

He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He
only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same
thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or
two and then just pick up the pieces.

HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide
that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and
bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss
it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).

-Matt (User:Morven)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:40 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Western Civilization to me really relates to Western Europe plus key
>> members of its former colonial empires.  It does promote certain
>> ideals, but that does not mean that it has been uniformly successful
>> in implementing those ideals.  This distinction is difficult for the
>> person who has not yet grasped the concept of irony.
>
> Actually this distinction was part of my argument. You seem to miss
> the point that the evidence (the millions who have died and suffered)
> suggests these ideals to be not much more than propaganda in a system
> that has historically implemented the opposite of such ideals.

This argument is based on a distorted time scale.  I would give those
who developed the ideals the benefit of the doubt.  You are committing
the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".  Those millions did
not die and suffer because of the ideals, but because of the actions of
people who purported to support them.  Engaging in a propaganda campaign
that claims to be founded on those ideals does not imply that our
propagandists believe and practise them.

Ec


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anent Dartmouth, again

body:
Actually I (currently) have nothing whatsoever to say on this topic...

...but I really wanted to fix the typo in the word "anent."

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anent Dartmouth, Again

body:
Jens Ropers wrote:

>> I guess I've learned that this
>> ideal of pluralism, tolerance, & mutual respect isn't even that
>> strongly
>> held within the Wikipedia community.
>>
>> Geoff
>
> Quite to the contrary, it absolutely is. What makes you think otherwise?

Maybe the constant lecturing and rather hostile attitudes proceeding
forth from both sides of this debate?

Fortunately, although these flare-ups are regrettably common, they also
gradually fade away. Hopefully with a little time for reflection, and
after we all resume a calmer mode of discussion, Geoff will find that
the ideals he cherishes are still alive and well.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> For instance, it was not possible for 19th-century people to consider
> ecological consequences of clearcutting forests, since there was no
> science to inform them.

The Phoenicians were aware of the consequences of denuding the cedar
forests of Lebanon.

> Some writers blame Europeans for bringing
> diseases to the New World - centuries before anybody even had any
> idea how diseases got around.

I'm sure that General Amherst knew what he was doing when he gave
infected blankets to the Indians in 1767.  At the Battle of Kaffa in
1346 the besieging Tartars used catapults to fling plague infected
bodies into the city.  Understanding how infectious diseases worked did
not prevent them from being used for military purposes.

We must indeed avoid blaming past generations for things that they could
not have understood, but this does not absolve them of all responsibility.

Ec


from_name: Dan Drake

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 06:18:26 UTC, Geoff Burling
<llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:

> > A positive purchase maybe:
> > Lies My Teacher Told Me:Everything Your American History Textbook Got
> > Wrong http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html
> >
> > A book for everyone of the American Empire.
>
> Sorry, but my reading time is currently spent on teaching myself the immense
> amount of knowledge that was not covered -- if even alluded to -- in
> my school years.

A good book, though. If you didn't already know the low reliability of US
history as it's taught in US schools, it would be worth reading. But then,
surely *all* the people on this list know the ppor quality of the history
that's taught in *their own country's* schools. I would not for a moment
suggest that the only people who understand that are (a subset of)
Americans.


subject: [WikiEN-l] bla bla

body:
Eric B. Rakim wrote:

> Mr. Burling was referring to the great popular movements of the 18th,
> 19th and 20th century that forced our governments to allow us the
> rights we enjoy today. If it wasn't for the great thinkers and leaders
> like Rosseau, Marx, Lenin, Benjamin Franklin, the leader of the French
> Revolution and MILLIONS of American and Europeian nobodys that
> actually striked and protested and got things done, then we wouldn't
> have the rights that we have today.

The fact that they had to be forced is certainly true.  Those that
benefit from the prevailing system do not give it up without a fight,
and they have access to better resources for sustaining the fight.
Jefferson supported the US right to bear arms because he anticipated
that tyrants would need to be overthrown.

> And THAT, solidarity through organised struggle, IS (historically) a
> trait of Western Culture and something to be proud of.

Organized struggle has not been limited to the West.  Western Culture
was more inclined to be ruthless in its suppression of such things, as
in the massacre of the Cathars.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anet Dartmouth, again

body:
Denni wrote:

>>A good book, though. If you didn't already know the low reliability of US
>>history as it's taught in US schools, it would be worth reading. But then,
>>surely *all* the people on this list know the ppor quality of the history
>>that's taught in *their own country's* schools. I would not for a moment
>>suggest that the only people who understand that are (a subset of)
>>Americans.
>>
>>
>Good point. Canadian schoolchildren, while taught (IMHO) far more American history than necessary, are pathetically unknowledgeable about their own country's.
>Close to half of Canadians are unable to recall the name of our first Prime Minister. Agggh!
>
>
That my very well be true, and I do believe that it's important to know
about key persons so as to give some structure to a knowledge of
history.  One needs to remember who controls the schools, and how they
function to perpetuate the society's received wisdom.  Stories that
glorify governamental structures need to be balanced with tales protest.

Ec


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
In a message dated 8/27/2004 6:57:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
giantsrick13 at yahoo.com writes:
Guanaco is now currently in the process of restoring, without a single word
of discussion, the items I deleted which Michael created without authorization.

RickK
Good. I have posted a lengthy comment on the Village Pump.

Danny


from_name: Guanaco

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
>
>He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work.  He
>only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same
>thing.  It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or
>two and then just pick up the pieces.
>
>HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide
>that this should be our new policy.  He is still officially banned and
>bannable on sight.  If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss
>it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
>
>-Matt (User:Morven)
>
>
I am not unilaterally unblocking him, but I am not prohibited from doing
so. My decision to unblock Michael's accounts is supported by both Danny
and Theresa Knott and falls within the "in other appropriate cases"
guideline for unblocking. The blocks do nothing to prevent him from
logging out, creating a new account, and then editing a different page.
He can be blocked on sight, but it is clear that he shouldn't.

--Guanaco


body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 8/27/2004 6:57:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>giantsrick13 at yahoo.com writes:
>Guanaco is now currently in the process of restoring, without a single word
>of discussion, the items I deleted which Michael created without authorization.
>
>RickK
>Good. I have posted a lengthy comment on the Village Pump.
>
>Danny
>
>
The items RickK is referring to were deleted *extremely* hastily. As of
right now, I've restored one category and one image. Neither of them
were orphaned, so they should not have been deleted.

--Guanaco


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 7:18 am, Geoff Burling wrote:

> My above passage is an example of a rhetorical technique known as
> irony. Unfortunately tone of voice does not always successfully
> transmit across the Internet for some reason, & obviously it failed in
> this case. I apologize for that failure here.

Well actually, I'm guilty, I apologise. I must admit, however, it was
after first reading the end of your message, at which point I had
already developed a low opinion of you, that I read this passage and
simply jumped to conclusions. (more on that in my next email)

On the other hand, not being in front of each other is not usually the
problem with irony via email it seems to me. It's just that people
often try to use irony when the truth of the matter is already staring
you in the face, which is not usually an effective time to use irony.

Christiaan


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Ingmar Schlecht

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Graph drawing plugin

body:
Hi list,

Jakob wrote:
> In de: we have a lot of articles on graph theory missing example images. Graphs
> are also useful in other articles to visualize information. Editing images of
> graphs with your favorite program and format is a consumption of time and nobody
> can easily alter my images. We do have <math> and <hiero>-section. I'd like
> editable graphs with <graph>...</graph>.
>
> We could easily use the DOT-syntax and
> [http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/ graphviz]
> to create PNG-images or SVG. It's damn powerful and not that complicated!

I just found this old thread in the Newsgroup.

My question is: Has this graph drawing plugin actually been coded or is
it still nothing but an idea?

cheers,
Ingmar


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 7:18 am, Geoff Burling wrote:

>>> And if I may allowed to be chauvanistic for a moment, I think this
>>> ideal is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to be
>>> taught to the rest of the world. We should respect other people's
>>> POV, we should be willing to explain our own POV, & that there
>>> should be a fair & beneficial exchange between them
>>
>> *groan* spare us your offensive ethnocentric colonialist views,
>> please.
>
> I assume that you, too, misunderstood what I meant by "Western
> Civilization".

No, and you see, here's the irony, you're suggesting that "Western
Civilisation," a culture that has butchered millions upon millions
warring amongst itself and against other cultures over the centuries,
and forcing its own point of view on others, has some kind of mortgage
on POV-tolerance and needs to "teach" this concept to "the rest of
world." I couldn't think of many clearer examples of irony.

> If not, then I am puzzled why you reject an ideal that the land you
> appear to be writing from -- the United Kingdom -- has struggled to
> promote. While the struggle may not have always been praiseworthy,
> orderly, or even successful, many people in that land have worked to
> perpetuate the ideal I talked about.

"Tolerant imperialists". The irony thickens.

I do not reject the idea of tolerance. I find it ironic and offensive,
especially in regard to all the cultures and people who have died and
suffered at the hands of Western "Civilisation," that you suggest we
have some kind of mortgage on it and should "teach" it to the "rest of
the world."

> If you inadvertently thought that by "Western Civilization", I merely
> meant the United States of America ...

No, I didn't think that.

>> A positive purchase maybe:
>> Lies My Teacher Told Me:Everything Your American History Textbook Got
>> Wrong
>> http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html
>>
>> A book for everyone of the American Empire.
>
> Sorry, but my reading time is currently spent on teaching myself the
> immense amount of knowledge that was not covered -- if even alluded to
> -- in my school years.

Which is exactly what the book covers. Really it's a good book, don't
be put off by my polemic.

> While I should appreciate your concern for my educational backgruond,
> I find myself somewhat upset that you made sweeping assumptions about
> what I learned in school.

Well I made no such sweeping assumption about your schooling so you
needn't be upset. I made a judgment about your entire upbringing based
on your ethnocentric point of view.

> And in reference to your comment about "the American Empire", not
> everyone in the US agrees with the views of the current President: a
> majority of voters cast ballots for his opponent in the last election,
> & I would be surprised if he received as many votes in this coming
> election. The US has been far more conflicted -- if not schizophrenic
> -- about the its imperial role than other nations.

My comment wasn't a slur on America, it was a slur on Western culture
(which is influenced in no small part by White/European American
culture); a culture that is currently intolerant in the extreme of any
other group that does not conform to a model of capitalist "free"
markets and power-elite government by propaganda.

> Wow. All of this verbage just because I tried to express (& again, I
> admit I did so badly) the hope that despite all of the crimes,
> objectionable behavior & just plain shit that has been done, it would
> nice if there was one positive ideal we in the west could pass on to
> not only the rest of the world, but also those who come after us.

Well I have a suggestion. Stop thinking you have something to "teach"
people and allow others to make such a judgment for themselves. It's
something you might have learnt from American Indian culture had it not
been almost completely wiped out. And here's another irony I guess.
American Indian culture is probably where America's more democratic
traditions evolved from, not Western culture.

> ... let me explain _precisely_ what I mean by the term "Western
> Civilization": it is the common heritage of Europe, the Americas,
> Australia & New Zealand. One tradition that can be found amongst all
> of these people is the struggle towards tolerance, pluralism, &
> unfetered speech; I am unaware of any serious argument that this
> tradition of thought was introduced from Africa, India, or China.

Western culture has many traditions but anarchism really isn't one of
its most prevalent. It has spent most of its existence denying and
squashing it. I'm a white New Zealander and the spreading of anarchy
was certainly not one of the traits of my ancestors when many of them
turned up in Aotearoa to steal from the Maoris.

As John Mohawk has argued, in regard to America for example, American
Indians are directly or indirectly responsible for the public-meeting
tradition, free speech, democracy, and "all those things which got
attached to the Bill of Rights." Without the Native example, "do you
really believe that all those ideas would have found birth among people
who had spent a millennium butchering other people because of
intolerance of questions of religion?"

In fact it was the lack of hierarchy in the Native societies in the
eastern United States that attracted so many Europeans into defecting
to Native societies. According to Benjamin Franklin, "All their
government is by Counsel of the Sages. There is no Force; there are no
Prisons, no officers to compel Obedience, or inflict Punishment."
Although leadership was substantially hereditary in some nations, most
Indian societies north of Mexico were much more democratic than Spain,
France, or even England in the seventeenth century and eighteenth
centuries.

After Col. Henry Bouquet defeated the Ohio Indians at Bushy Run in
1763, he demanded the release of all white captives. Most of them,
especially the children, had to be "bound hand and foot" and forcibly
returned to white society. Meanwhile the Native prisoners, "went back
to their defeated relations with great signs of joy," in the words of
the anthropologist Frederick Turner (in Beyond Geography, 245).
Unsurprisingly Turner calls these scenes "infamous and embarrassing."

Cheers, in peace,
Christiaan


body:
Guanaco listed me on Vandalism in Progress for reverting Mike Garcia's additions:
RickK
   (User:RickK | talk | contributions)

Intentionally reverting edits to factually inaccurate versions. Guanaco 02:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco needs to be dealt with, and my Request for Comment was ignored, so what is my next step?  The arbitration process will do no good, since it will take three or four months to get any thing done, and I don't expect anything profitable to be done anyway, and in that long period of time, Guanaco will have allowed and encouraged Michael to post all kinds of stuff (he had three pages of postings in the last three days), in direct violation of Jimbo's hard ban.

RickK

Guanaco <guanaco at cox.net> wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:

>I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
>
>He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He
>only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same
>thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or
>two and then just pick up the pieces.
>
>HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide
>that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and
>bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss
>it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
>
>-Matt (User:Morven)
>
>
I am not unilaterally unblocking him, but I am not prohibited from doing
so. My decision to unblock Michael's accounts is supported by both Danny
and Theresa Knott and falls within the "in other appropriate cases"
guideline for unblocking. The blocks do nothing to prevent him from
logging out, creating a new account, and then editing a different page.
He can be blocked on sight, but it is clear that he shouldn't.

--Guanaco

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
Good"  It's good that Guanaco doesn't discuss it, or it's good that he's reverting it and listing me as a vandal?  This is is DIRECT contravention of Jimbo's hard ban.

RickK

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/27/2004 6:57:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
giantsrick13 at yahoo.com writes:
Guanaco is now currently in the process of restoring, without a single word
of discussion, the items I deleted which Michael created without authorization.

RickK
Good. I have posted a lengthy comment on the Village Pump.

Danny
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Wikitech-l] better search engine for MediaWiki?

body:
[[de:Benutzer:Joma]] has written a fast search engine for a Wikipedia mirror
which can handle complex search queries. He emphasises that it's meant as a
supplement to an existing SQL database, not a replacement. He is willing to put
the code under GPL if we are interested.

I think this might be useful for us, could one of the German speaking developers
  please take a look at
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Projekte%2C_die_Wikipedia_als_Quelle_benutzen#lexikon.rhein-zeitung.de
and - if we want to give it a try - get in contact with Joma?

Kurt

--
  http://leihnetzwerk.de -- Teile B?cher, Videos und CDs mit anderen!
  http://wikipedia.de    -- Arbeite mit bei der freien Enzyklop?die!
  Kurt Jansson, Wiener Str. 7, 10999 Berlin, http://jansson.de


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mosque as military target

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 7:15 pm, Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> What is the stance of the Islamic community on armies attacking
> militants who take refuge inside mosques?

Well you probably won't get to know the opinions of those Muslims who
are there. It seems most journalists are been rounded up to make way
for a little bit of US-taxpayer-funded massacre.

> Who is the desecrator:
>
> * the armed men who take refuge inside the mosque and use it as a base
> to attack enemies; or,
> * those who attack the armed men inside the mosque?

In terms of established law it seems you already have your answer. In
terms of morality, when you're the armed men and women of a government
that has committed the supreme international war crime (according to
the Nuremberg Tribunal), a war of aggression, and illegally occupies
that nation on spurious justification I think those attacking the men
inside the mosque could be regarded as the desecrators.

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 9:55 pm, Stan Shebs wrote:

> Um, some guy claiming this doesn't make it an undisputed fact.

Um, I know, that's why I said "he argued."

> Reflexive condemnation of Western civilization is no more rational
> than uncritical praise.

Well, luckily for me, my response was nether reflexive nor condemning
of Western culture.

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 9:55 pm, Stan Shebs wrote:

> Um, some guy claiming this doesn't make it an undisputed fact.

> Ben Franklin's admiration of the natives was considered just another
> one of his charming eccentricities.

Irony seems to get a lot of airing on this list.

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mosque as military target

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:17 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:

> In your loathing of all things "Western"

Please don't patronise me. I have neither stated nor hinted at any
loathing of all things Western.

> you are ignoring nearly a century of international law declaring the
> exact opposite of what you think.

I'm hardly ignoring it, I started my sentence with it. I'm certainly
disputing its morality however. If you'd like to respond to my argument
you're welcome.

Christiaan


from_name: Eric B. Rakim

subject: [WikiEN-l] bla bla

body:
Mr. Burling was referring to the great popular movements of the 18th, 19th
and 20th century that forced our governments to allow us the rights we enjoy
today. If it wasn't for the great thinkers and leaders like Rosseau, Marx,
Lenin, Benjamin Franklin, the leader of the French Revolution and MILLIONS
of American and Europeian nobodys that actually striked and protested and
got things done, then we wouldn't have the rights that we have today.

And THAT, solidarity through organised struggle, IS (historically) a trait
of Western Culture and something to be proud of.  So stop hitting on Mr.
Burling just cause he didn't explain it as good.

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
I just wrote him and told him we're interested. Apparently, his software
is in FreePascal and scans a complete SQL dump, then generates an index
(for de in ~30min). Might have to tweaked to support changes up-to-the
minute. Oh, good ol' Pascal days... :-)

I suggested for him to put the software up at sourceforge as its own
project. If its holds up the promises (of which I have little doubt),
other projects might want to use it as well. A simple, free, fast
full-text search with powerful syntax like "(Gravitation* near (Newton
or Cassini)) not Einstein" seems to be hard to find so far (pardon the pun).

Magnus

Kurt Jansson wrote:

> [[de:Benutzer:Joma]] has written a fast search engine for a Wikipedia
> mirror which can handle complex search queries. He emphasises that
> it's meant as a supplement to an existing SQL database, not a
> replacement. He is willing to put the code under GPL if we are
> interested.
>
> I think this might be useful for us, could one of the German speaking
> developers  please take a look at
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Projekte%2C_die_Wikipedia_als_Quelle_benutzen#lexikon.rhein-zeitung.de
>
> and - if we want to give it a try - get in contact with Joma?
>
>
> Kurt
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mosque as military target

body:
You are talking of legal justification, not moral justification. This
is not a response to my arguments of morality.

Christiaan

On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:38 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs stated for the record:
>
>> On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:17 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:
>>> you are ignoring nearly a century of international law declaring the
>>> exact opposite of what you think.
>> I'm hardly ignoring it, I started my sentence with it. I'm certainly
>> disputing its morality however. If you'd like to respond to my
>> argument you're welcome.
>
> I -- or rather, the signatories of the Hague Convention of 1907 --
> have already responded to your argument.  To repeat: mosques, like all
> other religious edifices, are to be spared by any attacker "provided
> they are not being used at the time for military purposes."  The
> moment the Iraqis -- however noble their cause -- took weapons into
> their mosque the Americans -- however despicable their cause -- became
> justified in attacking it.  The decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal has
> no bearing on this principle.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:30 pm, Stan Shebs wrote:

> Trotting out the "millions of deaths" argument is a standard tactic
> for blanket condemnation; we're supposed to be so horrified and
> guilt-ridden that we'll just go along with whatever is said next.

Actually it was a juxtaposition, to point out the absurdity in which a
culture with such a record might have a mortgage on the concept of
tolerance.

> This all started with the comment (I paraphrase) that principles of
> Western civilization are a better guide for encyclopedizing;

I believe it started with the comment we "need" to "teach" "the rest of
the world" the value of something. Such thought is the basis of many
justifications for imperialism. Something I find abhorrent.

Christiaan


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
Kurt Jansson schrieb:

> [[de:Benutzer:Joma]] has written a fast search engine for a Wikipedia
> mirror which can handle complex search queries. He emphasises that it's
> meant as a supplement to an existing SQL database, not a replacement. He
> is willing to put the code under GPL if we are interested.
>

Even better, this software is already in a productive environment:

http://rhein-zeitung.de/

Just take a page at random:

http://rhein-zeitung.de/a/tt/t/rzo83007.html

and doubleclick on a random noun (capital letter), such as "Irak".

select "Lexikon"

and voila.

http://lexikon.rhein-zeitung.de/?Irak

I consider this combination between a newspaper and wikipedia great...


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mosque as military target

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:54 pm, Matt Brown wrote:

> Or are you arguing simply that nothing the US does in Iraq can be
> right, because they are already in the wrong for being the aggressor?

Yes I think that's probably a fair assessment of my position.

Christiaan


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>> For instance, it was not possible for 19th-century people to consider
>> ecological consequences of clearcutting forests, since there was no
>> science to inform them.
>
>
> The Phoenicians were aware of the consequences of denuding the cedar
> forests of Lebanon.
>
Can't speak to that one, but in any case they were the exception
not the rule.

>> Some writers blame Europeans for bringing
>> diseases to the New World - centuries before anybody even had any
>> idea how diseases got around.
>
>
> I'm sure that General Amherst knew what he was doing when he gave
> infected blankets to the Indians in 1767.  At the Battle of Kaffa in
> 1346 the besieging Tartars used catapults to fling plague infected
> bodies into the city.  Understanding how infectious diseases worked
> did not prevent them from being used for military purposes.
>
Yes, plague was known to be infectious early on, and by the 18th century
the generalized theory was in the air. The oversimplified version in books
mixes up centuries of history though, leaving the impression that Columbus
genocided the Indians by coughing into their faces. :-)

> We must indeed avoid blaming past generations for things that they
> could not have understood, but this does not absolve them of all
> responsibility.

Exactly. I think if one were to be careful in the analysis, that
Western civilizations would come out about the same as the others,\
in terms of realities falling short of their ideals.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mosque as military target

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:58 pm, Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:54 pm, Matt Brown wrote:
>
>> Or are you arguing simply that nothing the US does in Iraq can be
>> right, because they are already in the wrong for being the aggressor?
>
> Yes I think that's probably a fair assessment of my position.

... forgot to add, and occupies that nation on spurious justification.

Christiaan


from_name: N.T. Riche

body:
I have a suggestion if ever one doesn't mind...I have spoke to Mike off site and he told he will seriously try to be a good boy. I think that arb committee should at least grant mike Parole and if in certain amount of time he doesn't edit in good faith perma-block him. I seriously have faith in Mike as a person, and I have faith that the arb committee and jimbo could grant him some Clemency. Thank you

User:Plato

Guanaco <guanaco at cox.net> wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:

>I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
>
>He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He
>only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same
>thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or
>two and then just pick up the pieces.
>
>HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide
>that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and
>bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss
>it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
>
>-Matt (User:Morven)
>
>
I am not unilaterally unblocking him, but I am not prohibited from doing
so. My decision to unblock Michael's accounts is supported by both Danny
and Theresa Knott and falls within the "in other appropriate cases"
guideline for unblocking. The blocks do nothing to prevent him from
logging out, creating a new account, and then editing a different page.
He can be blocked on sight, but it is clear that he shouldn't.

--Guanaco

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anet Dartmouth, again

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:54 pm, Denni wrote:

> Good point. Canadian schoolchildren, while taught (IMHO) far more
> American history than necessary, are pathetically unknowledgeable
> about their own country's.
> Close to half of Canadians are unable to recall the name of our first
> Prime Minister. Agggh!

New Zealand is much the same, although we didn't do much American
history. I haven't been to one in a long time but most of our colonial
history was swept under the carpet when I was at school, in much the
same way as in the US; ethnocentric textbooks.

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
Jens Ropers wrote:

> It should be noted that Hinduism and Islam are RELIGIONS. Mentioning
> these religions when we were talking about western civilization is
> rather conspicuous: Do we equalize western civilization with
> Christianity or are we /so/ unknowing that we even fail to distinguish
> between Indian and Arabic civilizations and their respective religions?

Speak for yourself - Arabs are an ethnic group, and not even all
Muslim. "Islamic civilization" is likely not the perfect term,
but in my daily reading of various Middle Eastern newspapers over
the past several years, I don't think I've seen a better one.

But this is exactly what I mean about pointless berating; you're
trying to tell me to devalue the ideals of Western civilization
in favor of ... of ... well, you don't seem to know. When you find
out, get back to me with the details and I'll take a look.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:40 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Western Civilization to me really relates to Western Europe plus key
> members of its former colonial empires.  It does promote certain
> ideals, but that does not mean that it has been uniformly successful
> in implementing those ideals.  This distinction is difficult for the
> person who has not yet grasped the concept of irony.

Actually this distinction was part of my argument. You seem to miss the
point that the evidence (the millions who have died and suffered)
suggests these ideals to be not much more than propaganda in a system
that has historically implemented the opposite of such ideals.

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] bla bla

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 11:33 pm, Eric B. Rakim wrote:

> Mr. Burling was referring to the great popular movements of the 18th,
> 19th and 20th century that forced our governments to allow us the
> rights we enjoy today. If it wasn't for the great thinkers and leaders
> like Rosseau, Marx, Lenin, Benjamin Franklin, the leader of the French
> Revolution and MILLIONS of American and Europeian nobodys that
> actually striked and protested and got things done, then we wouldn't
> have the rights that we have today.
>
> And THAT, solidarity through organised struggle, IS (historically) a
> trait of Western Culture and something to be proud of.  So stop
> hitting on Mr. Burling just cause he didn't explain it as good.

Why are you misrepresenting the discussion? What you mention certainly
is a part of Western Culture, and a part that I am proud of myself. But
this isn't the argument I was disputing. Why you think I should
telepathically know what Geoff "really" meant is beyond me.

Christiaan


list: foundation-l

from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Foundation-l] photo from the meeting in Paris

body:
Hi,

A photo from the meeting in Paris:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wp_4juillet.jpg

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
see below

On 27 Aug 2004, at 22:05, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again
>
> If you cannot
> accept that there is at least one or two redeeming things to Western
> Civilization, then I don't know what I could say that you'd care to
> hear.

Oh, I can /easily/ accept that there are "at least one or two redeeming
things to Western Civilization".
You just picked a subject where we're hardly an example to the world.

If I don't misread your original email
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030035.html)
then you seemed to say that a
"willing[ness] to engage in a conversation about [one's
views/contributions]"
was an
"ideal [which] is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to
be taught to the
rest of the world."

You also appeared to say that "respect[ing] other people's POV" and
being "willing to explain our own POV" and seeking a "fair & beneficial
exchange between [our own POV and other people's POV]" was part of that
same ideal which you perceived as an occidental contribution that
should be taught to the world.

- I would question the overall willingness of "Western Civilization" to
engage in a conversation about its own ideals/views, both historically
and on balance also today. Famous quote: "You're either with us or
against us."
- I would also question whether "Western Civilization" ever sought, or
is seeking now, a "fair & beneficial exchange" of ideals. Beneficial to
us, maybe. Fair, I doubt it.
- In essence: Meaningful multilateral discourse and compromise is
hardly an occidental invention. We have a lot to learn in that area and
are no way near being teachers on the subject. To the contrary, we're
the bleeding school yard bullies who for all their mistaken self-esteem
and deluded overbearing pride /just won't bloody listen/.

> And because it seems to be a point of anger here,

Anger? Hm. Immediately perceiving a strong objection as "anger" isn't a
good example your aforementioned ideals, now is it?

> let me explain _precisely_
> what I mean by the term "Western Civilization": it is the common
> heritage
> of Europe, the Americas, Australia & New Zealand. One tradition that
> can
> be found amongst all of these people is the struggle towards tolerance,
> pluralism, & unfetered speech;

EXACTLY.
Our tradition is to STRUGGLE with these issues.
That's not quite the same as HAVING high standards of "tolerance,
pluralism, & unfettered speech".

I'm not saying that other cultures don't struggle with them, but we're
HARDLY the sole inventors or champions of these ideals.

> I am unaware of any serious argument
> that this tradition of thought was introduced from Africa, India, or
> China.

Let me put it like this: I believe "Western" history (incl. present
politics) as regards freedom of thought and free interchange of ideas
is flawed at best.
Yes there are good and noble attempts. But we have consistently
destroyed more such attempts than fostered them (and still do).

There are many examples. Let me give you just two:

1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/165363.stm
Quick aside: Which country /backed/ the coup (that unseated the
democratically elected Chilean president) in connection with which Jara
was killed?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/hob/prog_11.shtml
This is the companion website to a TV production -- you can also get
the DVD:
http://video.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp?
sourceid=00395996645644787198&btob=Y&ean=733961704464&VIEW=MNU

> And from my long reading of history, I know that Western Civilization
> hardly has a monopoly on violence, oppression, ignorance & hatred.

Not a monopoly, no. Far from it. But we still manage to clearly
dominate the market.

> Wow. All of this verbage just because I tried to express (& again, I
> admit
> I did so badly) the hope that despite all of the crimes, objectionable
> behavior & just plain shit that has been done, it would nice if there
> was
> one positive ideal we in the west could pass on to not only the rest of
> the world, but also those who come after us.

We can TOGETHER with all other cultures try to pass on the better
ideals OF THE WORLD.
But we should cut our omphaloskepsis and not claim to have invented
them alone.
And before we try to "teach" other cultures anything, we should maybe
try and mend our own ways. And I DO NOT say that we should "lead by
example". Because there really isn't any reason why we always have to
"lead". What's wrong with cooperation under equal terms?

> And the means this could be
> passed on is thru how we run Wikipedia.

Could be. The Wikipedia could become a noble instrument for together
passing on the better ideals of the world. However, in the meantime,
there is a digital divide. And a food divide. A senior US diplomat once
said that 3000-odd people perished in the 9/11 attacks and we still
mourn them, but we should not forget that 10,000 people die of hunger
EVERY DAY. (His words, not mine. But in case you're not counting, that
is more than three 9/11's a day.)

> I guess I've learned that this
> ideal of pluralism, tolerance, & mutual respect isn't even that
> strongly
> held within the Wikipedia community.
>
> Geoff

Quite to the contrary, it absolutely is. What makes you think otherwise?

Thanks and regards,

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Graceful restart (was: Using 404 to redirect /bla to
	/wiki/bla)

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Also, is there a way to quickly,
> gracefully restart all our Apaches?

apache-graceful-all

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040828/c6a4d967/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
That the arbitration committee could do nothing quickly is false, provided a
real emergency exists. What is striking is that Jimbo is not weighing in,
but perhaps he is on a brief vacation.

Fred

> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User:Michael/User:Mike Garcia
>
> Guanaco needs to be dealt with, and my Request for Comment was ignored, so
> what is my next step?  The arbitration process will do no good, since it will
> take three or four months to get any thing done, and I don't expect anything
> profitable to be done anyway, and in that long period of time, Guanaco will
> have allowed and encouraged Michael to post all kinds of stuff (he had three
> pages of postings in the last three days), in direct violation of Jimbo's hard
> ban.
>
> RickK


subject:
[WikiEN-l] in response to your article "Librarian: Don't use
	Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard

body:
Dear Mr. Fasoldt, dear Ms. Stagnitta,

I am writing in response to your article "Librarian: Don't use
Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard.

I.

I would like to strongly second what fellow Wikipedia contributor
Mathias Schindler recently wrote to you (see his email below). Mathias
observed that the Wikipedia is not alone in having a disclaimer as
regards the accuracy and validity of our content. He pointed out that
the Encyclopaedia Britannica also has a legal disclaimer. To that I
would also like to add what fellow contributor Pcb21 has found:
Practically ALL encyclopaedias have such disclaimers:

>> Columbia : http://www.bartleby.com/sv/terms.html , section 3
>> Encarta  : http://privacy.msn.com/tou/ , section 9
>> Encyclopedia.com : http://www.encyclopedia.com/terms.asp, section 5

II.

You wrote that there was no editorial review at the Wikipedia.

This is incorrect. Our articles DO undergo substantial editorial
review. However, contrary to how paper-based encyclopedias operate,
editorial review at the Wikipedia takes place AFTER publication.

Our system works as follows:

- A user makes a submission, for instance he or she edits an article or
creates a new one.
- EVERY submission (to any article) automatically causes the article in
question to be added to this machine-generated list:
  	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
- EVERY article change is tracked in the article's history.
- By clicking an article's "diff" link on the Recent changes page, it
can be seen precisely WHAT was changed.
- A large number of users regularly patrol the Recent changes page.
Considering the 24/7, worldwide nature of our encyclopedia, there is
hardly ever an article that would pass through Recent changes
unchecked. If there is a mistake, it is very likely to get spotted and
it can be changed instantly once spotted (our readers don't have to
write a letter to the publisher).

There also is a separate page for newly created articles (also
auto-generated):
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages

These are not the only tools we use for editorial review of our
articles:
This template (which is included in many of our procedural and
administrative pages) lists but a few:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Resources_for_collaboration

As you can see, there are a large number of ways in which we conduct
editorial review, even if errors get past Recent changes.

III.

You also questioned the authority of our site and whether our content
is well-researched. I am going to tell you something I am not really
supposed to:

If you doubt the standards of our editorial review mechanisms, go try
and introduce some decidedly un-encyclopaedic (unproven, contentious
and/or unacademic, etc.) information into an article of your choice.
Then check back and see how long your contribution will remain in the
article. My confidence is high that -- depending on how much this
contribution falls short of encyclopedic standards -- you will find
your contribution challenged on the respective article's discussion
page (where you will likely be asked to provide references for your
claims) or outright removed.

Your concerns over the quality of our content are however justified in
one respect:
At any given point in time, it is possible that a mistake (or
vandalism) has just been introduced to an article you're retrieving.
Users are thus encouraged to check any article's history -- a
tremendous tool for readers and contributors alike:

	As an example, let's look at the CGA article:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Graphics_Adapter
	You will note the "history" tab. Clicking it takes you to this page:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
title=Color_Graphics_Adapter&action=history
	On this page, you can see and compare every previous version of the
article.
	You can compare these versions and easily see precisely WHAT was
changed. As an example:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
title=Color_Graphics_Adapter&diff=5388826&oldid=5388760

If someone eg. vandalizes an article, it will almost certainly be
quickly caught and reverted
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert).
Especially popular and contentious articles do regularly get
vandalized. But never for long. Look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush&action=history
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry&action=history
Note how little time typically elapses until vandalism is corrected.

IV.

Many of us believe that it is beneficial to make it as EASY as possible
to contribute to our encyclopedia.

The traditional approach to writing encyclopedias, to aggregating human
knowledge, has been to make it as DIFFICULT as possible to contribute.
You have to obtain formal certifications and undergo formal training to
be even allowed to contribute. This is done in the hope of  reaching
and maintaining high standards.

Many of us believe that this however stifles progress as it excludes
all knowledge and knowledge-based skills obtained in any other way
(than formal accreditation).

We put a process in place that will accept all comers in the first
instance -- and combine and distill these collective contributions to
reach high standards.
Our daily growth and quality improvement shows that the traditional
approach -- only allowing very few select individuals to contribute --
wastes enormous talent, potential and opportunity for progress in all
fields of human knowledge. Thus, one of our core operating principles
is to lower any bars to entry as much as possible, if not to outright
abolish them. Anyone can contribute. You don't need to provide
certifications. You don't need to show ID or a credit card. You don't
need to give an email address. You don't even need to log in or create
an account. You can edit. Because you have UNIQUE knowledge skills. Dr.
Pyotr Anokhin calculated that the number of possible combinations in
the human brain was 10 to the power of 799 (seven hundred ninety nine).
In short, NO ONE on this planet will ever have the same thoughts as
you. It thus makes sense for us to be as inclusive as possible. We
would be honored to welcome your contribution to our modest but growing
record of human knowledge.

If you have any remaining doubts about our potential to deliver the the
most comprehensive, comprehensible and correct encyclopedia on the
planet, please refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#lang

The irony of course is that you will probably now find yourself doing
the exact same thing we do all of the time:
Review and correct your Post-Standard article AFTER publication. That
doesn't necessarily make your publication a worse information source --
as long as you DO correct inaccuracies where found.

Yours sincerely,

-- Jens Ropers
     Wikipedia contributor
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ropers
     www.ropersonline.com

PS: Oh, and as for "accredited scientists", "academics" and
"intellectuals"? We're "building it" -- and they are coming.

> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:14:24 +0200
> From: Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] another supposedly authoritative web sites
> To: technology at syracuse.com
> Cc: wikien-l at wikipedia.org, wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org,
> 	sue_stagnitta at liverpool.k12.ny.us
> Message-ID: <412D9BE0.6010902 at presroi.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Dear Mr. Fasoldt, Dear Ms Stagnitta,
>
> I read your article in the Post-Standard "Librarian: Don't use
> Wikipedia
> as source" at
> http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/
> 1093338972139211.xml,
> where you wrote:
> 	I was amazed at how little I knew about Wikipedia.
> 	If you know of other supposedly authoritative Web
> 	sites that are untrustworthy, send a note to
> 	technology at syracuse.com and let me know about them.
>
> Have you visited britannica.com?
>
> http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html
>> Disclaimer of Warranties
>>
>> Neither Britannica, its affiliates, nor any third-party content
>> providers or licensors makes any warranty whatsoever, including
>> without limitation: that the operation of the Site will be
>> uninterrupted or error-free; that defects will be corrected; that
>> this Site, including the server that makes it available, is free of
>> infection, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses, or other harmful components
>> or other code that manifest contaminating or destructive properties;
>> as to the results that may be obtained from use of the materials on
>> the Site; or as to the accuracy, reliability, availability,
>> suitability, quality, or operation of any information, software, or
>> service provided on or accessible from the Site or as to any
>> information, products, or services on the Internet in any way. In
>> addition, Britannica does not assume any responsibility or risk for
>> your use of the Internet.
>
>> THE SITE AND ALL INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND OTHER CONTENT (INCLUDING
>> THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND CONTENT) INCLUDED IN OR
>> ACCESSIBLE FROM THIS SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES
>>  OF ANY KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED, AND STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT
>> LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF TITLE AND NONINFRINGEMENT AND THE
>> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>> PURPOSE), ALL OF WHICH BRITANNICA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS TO THE FULLEST
>> EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE
>> RISK.
>
> Information at britannica.com can be edited by anyone who was given
> permission from the company. It might be a PhD who hasn't done anything
> else than writing about this specific topic. It might be someone else
> who feels competent. You never know.
>
> Just compare
> http://www.britannica.com/eb/dailycontent?eu=422756#e%0Avent  "	Haile
> Selassie" with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie
>
> At wikipedia, you can see a) who wrote b) when c) which part of the
> text, who changed it, who altered the order who removed parts.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
> title=Haile+Selassie+of+Ethiopia&action=history&limit=500&offset=0
>
> The authors, such as David Parker can be emailed or asked for
> clearification in doubt.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Parker
>
>
> You and Susan Stagnitta are perfectly right to advise people never to
> "trust" unreliable sources but I can't see a difference in this case
> between a "black box" company and a group of academics and skilled
> laymen who make the process of encyclopedic writing transparent.
>
>
> Several wikipedians have created a document called "Making fun of
> Britannica" http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Making_fun_of_Britannica,
> which contains a list of "errors" (in a broader sense). This does not
> change the level of trust towards Britannica.
>
> If you spot a mistake in Britannica, what are the consequences? If it
> was in a book, there is no chance to correct it and the risk might be
> that a student relies on wrong information. She/He will not be able to
> get a refund from Britannica or even a discount on the new and
> (hopefully) corrected version.
>
> Ms. Stagnitta said  "Anyone can change the content of an article in the
> Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content." Even if
> the
> first part of that sentence is correct, the second part does not
> describe the reality.
>
> Just have a look at the procedures at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. It
> might be hard to get used to the fact that editorial review might be
> ad-hoc or it might be a constant effort. If an article was found fit
> for
> being a "Featured article", the process of improving that article does
> not stop.
>
> I would like you to encourage you to ask Britannica if they feel that
> their content is "authoritative" in a sense that they will guarantee
> any
> given fact in their Encyclopedia. Ask them if they are able to
> attribute
> every sense to a specific author who can be contacted. Ask them if they
> will make their decision transparent, which lemma does get into the EB
> and which lemma does not get into it.
>
> Yours,
> Mathias Schindler
> neubau at presroi.de
>
> Ringelstr.50
> 60385 Frankfurt am Main
> Germany
>


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] in response to your article "Librarian: Don't use
	Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 13,
	Issue 65 (was Wikipedia must change with Googling)

body:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 22:05, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:02:00 +0100
> From: Pete/Pcb21 <pete_pcb21_wpmail at pcbartlett.com>
>
> Google recently got valued at about $20bn.
> I guess some people must think its search results are ok.

That's a joke is it?
You don't /really/ believe that software-service companies, once
evaluated above a certain market value, somehow get their (merely very
good) algorithms transmogrified so they attain absolute perfection??

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>>> Some writers blame Europeans for bringing
>>> diseases to the New World - centuries before anybody even had any
>>> idea how diseases got around.
>>
>> I'm sure that General Amherst knew what he was doing when he gave
>> infected blankets to the Indians in 1767.  At the Battle of Kaffa in
>> 1346 the besieging Tartars used catapults to fling plague infected
>> bodies into the city.  Understanding how infectious diseases worked
>> did not prevent them from being used for military purposes.
>
> Yes, plague was known to be infectious early on, and by the 18th century
> the generalized theory was in the air. The oversimplified version in
> books
> mixes up centuries of history though, leaving the impression that
> Columbus
> genocided the Indians by coughing into their faces. :-)

Columbus gets it going both ways.  There is still some dispute about
whether he brought yellow fever to the new world, and he is linked to an
outbreak nf that disease in Hispanola in 1495-6.  That disease is
transmitted by a mosquito rather than by coughing.

He was also blamed for the outbreak of syphilis in the French army in
1404-5.  It was the first major outbreak of the disease in Europe.  The
army that besieged Naples also included a number of Spanish soldiers who
had been with Columbus suring his first voyage.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
On 28 Aug 2004, at 00:13, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:30:55 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
>
> let's see a sample article developed according to
> the principles of Islamic or Hindu civilization. Dunno about other
> people, but I'm tremendously curious about how that would go.
>
> Stan

Me too, but let's face it guys:
Most of use don't really know ANYTHING about Islamic or Hindu
civilization or their cultural principles. How much do you know about
Islamic scholarship? See? We should thus never make the mistake of
denying or belittling their cultural achievements when we don't even
KNOW them. Because doing so would say more about our ability to
monopolize most channels of communication with our views and
achievements than about the worth or lack thereof of theirs.

NB:
It should be noted that Hinduism and Islam are RELIGIONS. Mentioning
these religions when we were talking about western civilization is
rather conspicuous: Do we equalize western civilization with
Christianity or are we /so/ unknowing that we even fail to distinguish
between Indian and Arabic civilizations and their respective religions?

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


body:
On the page [[User:Mike Garcia]] this question is answered,

"==Note from Jimbo==

This user is not unbanned.  I have no idea why he says that he is unbanned.

All that is happening is that he and I are talking.  [[User:Jimbo
Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 20:51, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Fred

> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 05:46:25 -0600
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User:Michael/User:Mike Garcia
>
> What is striking is that Jimbo is not weighing in,
> but perhaps he is on a brief vacation.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anent Dartmouth, Again

body:
On 28 Aug 2004, at 06:21, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:34:16 -0700
> From: Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anent Dartmouth, Again
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>>> I guess I've learned that this
>>> ideal of pluralism, tolerance, & mutual respect isn't even that
>>> strongly
>>> held within the Wikipedia community.
>>>
>>> Geoff
>>
>> Quite to the contrary, it absolutely is. What makes you think
>> otherwise?
>
> Maybe the constant lecturing and rather hostile attitudes proceeding
> forth from both sides of this debate?

Admittedly I'm not perfect and whether someone feels attacked or
lectured to depends on a message's recipient as well.
However, I do feel that I did not lecture but plead and also feel that
I did not engage in hostile behaviour.

> Fortunately, although these flare-ups are regrettably common, they also
> gradually fade away. Hopefully with a little time for reflection, and
> after we all resume a calmer mode of discussion, Geoff will find that
> the ideals he cherishes are still alive and well.
>
> --Michael Snow

SUPPORT. ~~~~

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

body:
On 28 Aug 2004, at 08:22, Stan Shebs wrote:

> you're
> trying to tell me to devalue the ideals of Western civilization
> in favor of ... of ... well, you don't seem to know.

No I didn't.
I wrote:

>> Islamic or Hindu civilization (...) We should thus never make the
>> mistake of denying or belittling their cultural achievements

I spoke out against us belittling other cultures' achievements.
I did not belittle ours.

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anent Dartmouth, Again

body:
> However, I do feel that I did not lecture but plead and also feel that
> I did not engage in hostile behaviour.

> -- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]

Considering you called the professor who did nothing wrong stupid and
arrogant I'd say you were hostile.

Anthony


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] spammers and idiots

body:
One thing that I would think would solve this, is a multi-language
recentchanges. One recentchanges page where the changes are shown for all
Wikipedias without a regular contributor (or maybe those with less than two
regular contributors).

Andre Engels

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:54:32 +0200 Peter Gervai <grin at tolna.net> wrote:
>Just an embryo of idea: seems some idiots/spammers spam their URL to
>wikipedias they guess unmaintaned, and I suspect that they usually do it to
>more than one: maybe one of them are is not maintaned, and thus raise their
>ranks on google (cos' that's what it's all about).
>
>Would be maybe useful to be able to put an IP (and its approximate
>modification
>date) into the SpamExaminer queue, which could cehck every wikipedia for
>the
>same IP (only not logged in IP's as it's unlikely that they log in to
>several wikipedias they don't even get the language in) modifications, and
>make it easier to rollback them (or even help non-maintaned wikipedias to
>get rid of them, I don't yet know how).
>
>Maybe a link somewhere on the contribs of a not logged in IP page could
>help. Or when watching their diffs (it turns out to be spam in the diffs
>usually, except when the moron creates a new article just for the spam).
>
>I guess this could work effectively since not many non-logged-in people
>makes changes to several wikipedias at once, and even if they would, sysops
>probably wouldn't flag them as spammers.
>
>Or maybe we already have such checks. Dunno. If there is, sorry for wasting
>your time.
>
>http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Speci%C3%A1lis:Contributions&target=67.9.96.162


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stamps, wiki and copyright

body:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:49:48 -0600 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

>If you take a photograph or scan a postage stamp that image is not
>copyrighted even though the underlying design may be. Sometimes a nice
>image, for example of a butterfly or bird or even a person can be included
>in Wikipedia in that way. The Japanese stamp you reference is just a
>photograph or scan of a stamp which anyone can make and publish, although
>perhaps, in Japan, there might be some restriction as it is a Japanese
>stamp.

Anyone _can_ make and publish it. But that does not mean that it's legal.
Making a photograph of something and copying that photograph is a way of
copying, and disallowed just like all other methods of copying copyrighted
works.

>It occurs to me that there is a sort of disconnect here. If you take a
>photograph of painting in an museum or someone's home that is copyright
>free
>but if you scan a reproduction of a painting in a book it is not, yet there
>is very little difference in what you have done.

Indeed, there's little difference, and your statement is wrong.

Andre Engels


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Using 404 to redirect /bla to /wiki/bla

body:
This script:

http://scireview.de/temp/404.php.txt

when used as an ErrorHandler 404 in httpd.conf will try to redirect URLs
like

        http://en.wikipedia.org/Engine

to

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine

(It skips over /wiki, /style and /upload and uses the standard 404 instead
for those.)

Any objections to putting it in use? Also, is there a way to quickly,
gracefully restart all our Apaches?

Regards,

Erik


body:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:01:48 -0400 Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:

>I think detailed coverage of stamps, coins, bills, &c is well within
>the scope of
>Wikipedia; to the extent of eventually having one article per item for
>items that look
>significantly different from one another.  Although the list of
>misprints or misstrikes
>for a given stamp/coin should be listed uner a single aticle.

I disagree. As stated by the person who started this, there are a few stamps
that would have their place in Wikipedia, but most I would not want to
include, just like I don't want to include every road in every city (but for
most cities there would be some that would warrant inclusion). If someone
does want to include stamps 'because they are there', I would say that a
sister project would be the better place.

Andre Engels


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
> we just had someone on the de mailinglist who purposely modified
> four articles
> and introduced a mistake in each of them.

That's nice.

> He also told us which
> articles he
> modified and claimed that none of the mistakes was detected by now.

Could it perhaps be that he was trusted to not do that (misplaced
trust if you ask me).

> I checked
> three of the articles he was right with his claim.

That's nice too.

> In the german article about "consumer surplus" the error was there
> for about 9
> (!) days before I removed the nonesense. In other articles the
> errors were
> there for more than 9 days.

A whole nine days? Woa, that's like incredible. I would not believe
it. Now, a year would be a real challenge.

> I agree with most of what you wrote, but I think it is a mistake to
> believe
> that we have any kind of review system which is on par (wrt error
> elimination) with a real peer review.

A real peer review is done by people who are paid. We are volunteers,
and while some people might think our work worthless, we don't.

> At least my experience is
> that the
> probability for finding a mistake in Wikipedia is by far higher
> than for
> Britannica.

And britannica has been around what, 100+ years?

>
> best regards,
>   Marco

Marco, tell your friend next time he wants to experiment, to use the
sandbox.

And if you like Britannica so much, then, it's there for you to use.
Oh, and I forgot, you have to pay to read Britannica articles. (look
up Blade Runner, the movie)

Now, granted, the review on W takes more time, but we don't release
every year, we release constantly.

There is a program afoot to make a printed wikipedia, and I am sure
tht your attention to detail and factual accuracy would be extremely
valuable in reaching the completion of the project.

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

body:
this would be very useful.

On 28 Aug 2004 09:32:00 +0200, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> This script:
>
> http://scireview.de/temp/404.php.txt
>
> when used as an ErrorHandler 404 in httpd.conf will try to redirect URLs
> like
>
>         http://en.wikipedia.org/Engine
>
> to
>
>         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine
>
> (It skips over /wiki, /style and /upload and uses the standard 404 instead
> for those.)
>
> Any objections to putting it in use? Also, is there a way to quickly,
> gracefully restart all our Apaches?
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: How to get a list of authors for each article

body:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:50:01AM +0200, Jakob Voss wrote:
> Hi,
>
> seems like nobody is interested in providing the users of a offline CD
> version with a list of authors for each article like required by GFDL?
>
> I wrote
>
> >All users should be listed - but not the IP-numbers of anonymous posts!
> > ...
> >INSERT INTO has_edited
> >  SELECT DISTINCT old_user_text AS user, old_title AS article
> >  FROM old WHERE old_namespace=0
>
> INSERT INTO has_edited
>    SELECT cur_user_text AS user, cur_title AS article
>    FROM cur WHERE cur_namespace=0
>
> SELECT DISTINCT user FROM has_edited WHERE
> article='ArticleYouWantTheAuthorListFor'
>
> Should work, but IPs need to be filtered out. I still do not know how to
> count the number of edits by anonymous users.

Why do you need an extra table?

SELECT DISTINCT old_user_text FROM old
 WHERE old_namespace=0
   AND old_title='ArticleYouWantTheAuthorListFor'
   AND old_user_id != 0;

should do the job. (IP's have old_user_id=0)

Regards,

	jens


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] in response to your article
	"Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard

body:
FYI, the latest chapter of this exchange, from Techdirt...

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040827/0132238_F.shtml

Who Do You Trust, The Wiki Or The Reporter?
Ramblings Contributed by Mike on Friday, August 27th, 2004 @ 01:36AM
from the questions,-questions... dept.

On Wednesday I posted a story linking to an article suggesting
Wikipedia was somehow untrustworthy. While I can understand why, at
first, the concept of Wikipedia seemed a little scary to those who
hadn't seen it in action, I figured the reporter in question might
want to know a few more details about it, and perhaps correct some of
his misperceptions. My main problem was that he seemed to write off
Wikipedia based solely on how it was created and maintained, and not
at all on the actual content. Along with my post, I sent an email to
the writer, Al Fasoldt, giving him some additional information about
Wikipedia, and wondering why, after telling us how you can't trust any
random info online, he trusted the email from a random librarian
claiming Wikipedia was somehow untrustworthy. The ongoing discussion
with Mr. Fasoldt has been quite a lesson in watching how a journalist
(a) continues to make unsubstantiated allegations (b) seems to prefer
insulting me and putting words in my mouth to actually responding to
my points or questions and (c) sticks steadfastly to his belief that
only "experts" can be trusted with information -- and, in his case,
only experts that he chooses. Yet, somehow, we're supposed to find him
more trustworthy than a self-correcting community. Figuring he might
appreciate the views of others in his profession (you know,
"experts"), I sent him links to Dan Gillmor's article on Wikipedia and
Steve Yelvington's recent realization of the power of Wikipedia.
However, rather than actually look at that information, Mr. Fasoldt
accused me of wanting "students to trust a source that's not
trustworthy." After some back and forth of this nature, where Mr.
Fasoldt responded to my request that he do a little more research by
saying: "I'm glad you're not the publisher of a newspaper"
(apparently, his publisher lets him do no research at all) and then
telling me that anyone who wrote for Wikipedia obviously knew nothing
(his phrase was: "100 times zero is still zero"), I suggested an
experiment. I pointed to the Wikipedia page on Syracuse, NY where he
apparently lives, and suggested he change something on the page, to
make it provably, factually incorrect -- and see how long it lasted.
Rather than take me up on the experiment, or suggest an alternative,
he complained simply that the whole idea of Wikipedia was
"outrageous," "repugnant" and finally (in another email) "dangerous,"
and therefore he refused to take part in my experiment. He told me
that asking him to take part of an experiment that would show how
Wikipedia corrected errors "wouldn't change the danger" of Wikipedia
-- and mentioned how important it was that teachers everywhere knew
what a dangerous tool this was. After this email exchange, he came to
Techdirt himself, and commented that, based on what he read here, he
was disappointed in our educational system -- and proceeded to
misquote a poem. Apparently, he was unwilling to trust information
displayed in Wikipedia, but finds random comments on a blog as a
representative sample of our education system. Thankfully, someone
else corrected his misquote, pointing out that a group editing system
might have helped out in such a situation. It's true that you
shouldn't trust anything you read online, by itself. However, most of
us know how to look at information, find other, supporting information
to back it up or disprove it before writing it off, and not to judge a
wiki by its disclaimer. However, by refusing to back up his claims, by
mis-stating or ignoring nearly everything I said to him and by
resorting to misdirection in his arguments, personally, I find Mr.
Fasoldt to be untrustworthy -- but I suggest you make your own
judgment call on that one.


from_name: David Friedland

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Rebranding VfD

body:
The real task of VFD is to decide for any article listed there whether
or not it should be included in Wikipedia. If it is decided that an
article shouldn't be included, it gets deleted.

To me, then the most sensible name for the page where review of whether
or not an article should be included in Wikipedia would be [[Article
inclusion review]] (abbreviation AIR).

This has the added benefit of reflecting the fact that most articles
listed on VFD don't in fact get deleted.

This suggestion has been made on [[Talk:Votes for deletion]] and I think
is the suggestion that has the most merit, least of all because it
doesn't imply any actual change to the way VFD works.

- David


subject: [Wikitech-l] Using code from MediaWiki - the GPL

body:
Eckhart W?rner wrote:
[snip]
> The Problem is the Licence: the function is licenced under the GPL, this
> means, that my 'derivative work' has to be licenced under the GPL, too.

That's right -- it's a "share-alike" license.

> Well, I thought of publishing the source code, too, but I'm more a fan
> of the Creative Commons licences
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/de/ in this case, to be
> precise). But this creates trouble with the GPL, which makes it
> impossible to use the CC licence.

Creative Commons licenses aren't really meant for code. Please see the
FAQ: http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3646

   "Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?

   In theory, yes, but it is not in your best interest. We strongly
   encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available
   today. (The Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative
   stand out as resources for such licenses.) Unlike our licenses --
   which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing
   licenses were designed specifically for use with software."

CC has a license discussion list which might be a better place to ask
these kinds of licensing questions: http://creativecommons.org/discuss

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040828/99ceed68/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] edit page and robots="noindex" meta tag

body:
Jens Ropers wrote:
> Can we add a robots="noindex" meta tag to the respective HTML source,
> so that that tag will be included with EVERY article's edit page?

We already do:

     <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040828/1db504b7/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Rick

body:
But he's posting without having been given that parole by either Jimbo or the arbcom.  Until such a time, he should not be allowed to post.  And I still think he needs to apologize to Hephaestos and Zoe.

RickK

"N.T. Riche" <vonriche at yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a suggestion if ever one doesn't mind...I have spoke to Mike off site and he told he will seriously try to be a good boy. I think that arb committee should at least grant mike Parole and if in certain amount of time he doesn't edit in good faith perma-block him. I seriously have faith in Mike as a person, and I have faith that the arb committee and jimbo could grant him some Clemency. Thank you

User:Plato

Guanaco wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:

>I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
>
>He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He
>only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same
>thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or
>two and then just pick up the pieces.
>
>HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide
>that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and
>bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss
>it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
>
>-Matt (User:Morven)
>
>
I am not unilaterally unblocking him, but I am not prohibited from doing
so. My decision to unblock Michael's accounts is supported by both Danny
and Theresa Knott and falls within the "in other appropriate cases"
guideline for unblocking. The blocks do nothing to prevent him from
logging out, creating a new account, and then editing a different page.
He can be blocked on sight, but it is clear that he shouldn't.

--Guanaco

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.


from_name: phil hunt

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: in response to your article "Librarian: Don't use
	Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard

body:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:59:59 +0800, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Rather than take me up on the experiment, or suggest an alternative,
>he complained simply that the whole idea of Wikipedia was
>"outrageous," "repugnant" and finally (in another email) "dangerous,"
>and therefore he refused to take part in my experiment.

Some people evidently find the whole idea of Wikipedia deeply
unsettling, presuambly because it overturns their deeply-held
convictions.

Others believe that anything they can get without payment just can't
be any good (these people aren't as bad as the first lot, and can
usually be persuaded by evidence).

Meanwhile, Wikipedia continues to grow, doubling every 9 months or
so, gets more and more readers, and is approaching a million
articles.

By the time we approach 10 million articles (some time in 2007?) I
expect the majority of the nay-sayers will have learned better.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)


body:
What do you think of the arguement that blocking Michael blocks AOL users?

Fred

> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User:Michael/User:Mike Garcia
>
> But he's posting without having been given that parole by either Jimbo or the
> arbcom.  Until such a time, he should not be allowed to post.  And I still
> think he needs to apologize to Hephaestos and Zoe.
>
> RickK


body:
> This script:

> http://scireview.de/temp/404.php.txt

> when used as an ErrorHandler 404 in httpd.conf will try to redirect URLs
> like

>         http://en.wikipedia.org/Engine

This should work now on all Wikimedia wikis. Please report any issues.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Marco Krohn

body:
On Saturday 28 August 2004 06:06, Jens Ropers wrote:

Hi,

> If you doubt the standards of our editorial review mechanisms, go try
> and introduce some decidedly un-encyclopaedic (unproven, contentious
> and/or unacademic, etc.) information into an article of your choice.
> Then check back and see how long your contribution will remain in the
> article. My confidence is high that -- depending on how much this
> contribution falls short of encyclopedic standards -- you will find
> your contribution challenged on the respective article's discussion
> page (where you will likely be asked to provide references for your
> claims) or outright removed.

we just had someone on the de mailinglist who purposely modified four articles
and introduced a mistake in each of them. He also told us which articles he
modified and claimed that none of the mistakes was detected by now. I checked
three of the articles he was right with his claim.

In the german article about "consumer surplus" the error was there for about 9
(!) days before I removed the nonesense. In other articles the errors were
there for more than 9 days.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I think it is a mistake to believe
that we have any kind of review system which is on par (wrt error
elimination) with a real peer review. At least my experience is that the
probability for finding a mistake in Wikipedia is by far higher than for
Britannica.

best regards,
  Marco


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia RC is broken

body:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 04:16:43PM +0200, Marco Krohn wrote:
> On Saturday 28 August 2004 06:06, Jens Ropers wrote:
> > If you doubt the standards of our editorial review mechanisms, go try
> > and introduce some decidedly un-encyclopaedic (unproven, contentious
> > and/or unacademic, etc.) information into an article of your choice.
> > Then check back and see how long your contribution will remain in the
> > article. My confidence is high that -- depending on how much this
> > contribution falls short of encyclopedic standards -- you will find
> > your contribution challenged on the respective article's discussion
> > page (where you will likely be asked to provide references for your
> > claims) or outright removed.
>
> we just had someone on the de mailinglist who purposely modified four articles
> and introduced a mistake in each of them. He also told us which articles he
> modified and claimed that none of the mistakes was detected by now. I checked
> three of the articles he was right with his claim.
>
> In the german article about "consumer surplus" the error was there for about 9
> (!) days before I removed the nonesense. In other articles the errors were
> there for more than 9 days.
>
> I agree with most of what you wrote, but I think it is a mistake to believe
> that we have any kind of review system which is on par (wrt error
> elimination) with a real peer review. At least my experience is that the
> probability for finding a mistake in Wikipedia is by far higher than for
> Britannica.

I'm seeing a lot of mistakes in Wikipedia too. It seems to be have a lot more
mistakes than it used to.

Imagine a wiki without a Recent Changes page - the error can stay in it for
days or even weeks before it gets corrected. Such a wiki wouldn't work well.
But that's almost the situation in Wikipedia today - because the Recent Changes
is so huge, very few people will check all articles, and as the topics of articles
become more specialized, chances that non-trivial error will be spotted in RC
are getting lower and lower.

Articles monitoring helps, but not that much.

I think we just have to divide RC into reasonably-sized parts.
We should group categories into some related standarized sets (without standarization
some of the categories would be much more likely to end underchecked), provide RC
for each of those sets, and a huge RC for articles without categories,
from which the edits in the articles would be categorized for later review
by people competent in given area. RC in all categories could stay,
but it would probably be only used for things like obvious vandalism
and newbie experiments (not like it's much different today).


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia RC is broken


body:
Works perfectly except for /style and such which it is not supposed to work for.

Great feature, saves alot of time typing.

On 28 Aug 2004 16:09:00 +0200, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> > This script:
>
> > http://scireview.de/temp/404.php.txt
>
> > when used as an ErrorHandler 404 in httpd.conf will try to redirect URLs
> > like
>
> >         http://en.wikipedia.org/Engine
>
> This should work now on all Wikimedia wikis. Please report any issues.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia RC is broken

body:
At 11:44 PM 8/28/2004 +0200, Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
>Yesterday I dreamt of a "review queue". There's a common situation: I
>check an edit on RC, okay, it's not vandalism, but it smells somehow
>fishy. The problem is, I have no knowledge of the subject (say, it is
>biology). Currently the only, very stony solution is to leave someone I
>know who knows about biology a message on his talk page to please have a
>look at the article. But most people don't do that.
>
>Instead, I could - RC patrol mode switched on in my user pref - select in
>the diff view the biology-queue, and the edit would go in the review queue
>of the biologists where someone checks the edit and removes it from the
>queue (and takes the appropriate measures).
>
>Dunno if that's too complicated, sounds like.

A few days back I proposed something similar to Recentchanges, in which
every article would have a link or button that would cause the article to
get placed there as a way of drawing attention to dubious content. Clicking
the link wouldn't actually change the article, it would just put a link to
it out in a prominent position for a little while. Sort of a one-click
cleanup queue. I'm hoping that if something like it were implemented it
would be used by readers who otherwise wouldn't go to the effort of
correcting errors they saw themselves, and so wouldn't otherwise contribute
to the project at all.


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia RC is broken

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski schrieb:

> We should group categories into some related standarized sets (without
> standarization some of the categories would be much more likely to end
> underchecked), provide RC for each of those sets, and a huge RC for articles
> without categories, from which the edits in the articles would be categorized
> for later review by people competent in given area.

For me the possibility to split RC was the best argument for the introduction of
categories, much more important than the navigational aid. Yes, we should do this.

I think "Bug 144: Special:Rencentchangeslinked for particular categories"
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144
is the corresponding feature request. I've attributed 400 of my "votes" to it -
any higher bids?

Kurt

--
  http://leihnetzwerk.de -- Teile B?cher, Videos und CDs mit anderen!
  http://wikipedia.de    -- Arbeite mit bei der freien Enzyklop?die!
  Kurt Jansson, Wiener Str. 7, 10999 Berlin, http://jansson.de