from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> SlimVirgin is about to leave, and Essjay has already left.
> And I'm so upset by recent events that I'm poised on the brink,
> too. It seems the only way to deal with breakdowns in
> collegiality is simply to leave - or say you're considering
> it.
>
> The emotional cost - not to mention the time cost - of stopping
> a fellow contributor from directing abusive language at
> another contributor has always been rather high, but it has
> reached a new high of late.
>
> By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded
> was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the
> arbitration committee. I am told that I must say something in
> MY DEFENSE, with dark hints of un-mentioned adverse consequences
> to me if I just leave it alone.
>
> It's just too much trouble to sift through FuelWagon's 2000+
> word statement (which should only be 500, by the way).
>
> He made a personal attack, I blocked his account for 3 hours.
> No one has told me (by email, IRC, or wiki talk page) that I
> have done wrong in this.

I?ve said it before and I will say it again. Admins need more authority to enforce all our
policies. But, and this is important, they should get other admins to do the enforcement in cases
that will likely be challenged. This is especially important when admins are involved in edit
disputes; the involved admin should not enforce policy on their opponents unless the enforcement
was for something that would generally be considered to be obvious vandalism. The admin
noticeboard is a good place to bring cases like this to the attention of other admins. But those
other admins will not do anything unless they feel they have the authority to do so.

I?m sick of the high turnover of good contributors too. We need to fix that if we want to
encourage a productive work environment. This bullshit has got to stop so we can concentrate on
creating the world?s best encyclopedia. Openness is a means to an end. Nothing more. Crackpots,
POV pushers, and trolls are not welcome.

-- mav

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Carl Witty

subject: [Wikitech-l] J2ME Client for Wikipedia

body:
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 02:39 -0500, S. Woodside wrote:
> Wikipedia actually displays pretty well in mobile browsers.

Well, some mobile browsers, perhaps...it's quite broken on my Treo 650
(the entire article text is rendered one-character-per-line,
  l
  i
  k
  e

  t
  h
  i
  s
).

There's an extensive discussion of workarounds (interrupt the download
after the article is downloaded but before the CSS is, change skins, use
custom CSS) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Browser_notes,
but for a naive not-logged-in user, wikipedia is one of the few sites
I've found that would be impossible to use from a Treo 650.

Carl Witty


list: foundation-l

from_name: SJ

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Enforcing WP:CITE the Soi case

body:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Walter van Kalken wrote:

>> section. There are other options we can consider, or new ways of citing
>> content online, that are different from the methods used in printed books.
>
> Like instead of having the references in and under the article have a
> seperate page like a talk page? And we just make "notes" which link to the
> references on that "references"page?

Precisely.  An entire "references" page for each article, and an entire
article for/about each reference.  This will revolutionize collaborative
research and analysis.

SJ


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Enforcing WP:CITE the Soi case


list: wikien-l

from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Google Alert - Wikipedia

body:
News clips including more on Siegenthaler and the new Google piece.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply at google.com>
Date: Dec 2, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Google Alert - Wikipedia
To: keithold at gmail.com

Google Alert for: *Wikipedia*

Complaints Over *Wikipedia* Accountability With
Bios<http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/051201-092150>
Search Engine Watch - USA
Daniel Brandt's been upset over the accuracy and presence of a page about
him at *Wikipedia*, and now John Seigenthaler, the former assistant to US
Attorney *...*

*Wikipedia* slander? <http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-5978359.html>
CNET News.com <http://news.com/> - United States
John Seigenthaler, former administrative assistant to Robert Kennedy, has a
bone to pick with *Wikipedia*. In an op-ed in USAToday *...*

*Wikipedia* Is The Next
Google<http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheNextGoogle.html>
WebProNews - Lexington,KY,USA
*...* fear - anymore. Despite the media's fascination with all things
search, *Wikipedia* is waiting in the wings as the next Google. They *...*

John Seigenthaler Sr. Criticises
*Wikipedia*<http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/12/01/0030200.shtml?tid=99&tid=95&tid=17>
Slashdot - USA
*...* former assistant to Robert Kennedy, has written a commentary in USA
Today expressing outrage at a libelous biography that appeared on *Wikipedia
* that suggested *...*

Shopping Search Innovations + Cyber
Monday<http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2005/12/shopping-search-innovations-cyber.html>
Search Engine Lowdown - USA
Regarding Cyber Monday, *Wikipedia* says "So far this year, the actual
busiest shopping day for online retailers has been November 22, 2005. *...*

 ------------------------------
 This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.

Remove <http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?s=9a4f2425fa5d9963&hl=en> this
alert.
Create <http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en> another alert.
Manage <http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en> your alerts.


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Upcoming edit page layout changes

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> > Several things:
> > 1) The copyright message is moved up, between the main edit area and the
> > summary/checkboxes/buttons. This is to ensure that it is visible;
> > presently on a
> > smallish screen it's possible to make thousands of edits without ever
> > seeing the
> > notice.
> > This should also encourage site admins to keep the message short and
> > legible.
> [snip]
> I've taken this change live now.
> I went ahead and moved the charinsert bits on en.wikipedia; make sure
> other
> wikis using such things do similar. :)

Oddly, this seems to be working everywhere except when you add a new comment
to a talk-page.

Does this make sense?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] More fair use deletion wreckage

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> We need a way to record which articles an image has been on (not the
> other way around) and we also need to see how a category changes.
>

The use of {{tl|fairusein}} will let a user know where the image is
intended to be used.  It might also be worth noting the information on
the image talk page.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/190 - Release Date: 01/12/05


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The difficulty of retaining volunteer writers

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>SlimVirgin is about to leave, and Essjay has already left.
>And I'm so upset by recent events that I'm poised on the brink,
>too. It seems the only way to deal with breakdowns in
>collegiality is simply to leave - or say you're considering
>it.
>
You are highly experienced in the curative effects of Wiki-vacations.

>The emotional cost - not to mention the time cost - of stopping
>a fellow contributor from directing abusive language at
>another contributor has always been rather high, but it has
>reached a new high of late.
>
Wiping does not remove the asshole nor inhibit its normal productive
activities.

>It's just too much trouble to sift through FuelWagon's 2000+
>word statement (which should only be 500, by the way).
>
When rants significantly exceed the limit delete everything in the
argument after the 500th word, even if the 500th is in mid sentence.

>He made a personal attack, I blocked his account for 3 hours.
>No one has told me (by email, IRC, or wiki talk page) that I
>have done wrong in this.
>
>And yet I feel embattled.
>
>I'm labeled the bad guy.
>
I've known that for nearly four years, but I'm still willing to read
your side of the story. ;-)

>This is not an environment conducive to collaboration, and I am
>reminded of what Yogi Berra said: "If people want to stay away
>from the ballpark, you can't make them."
>
>For those unfamiliar with Yogi-isms, this translates to
>thousands of potential contributors simply staying away from
>Wikipedia.
>
>Not because it's hard to edit,
> but because it's hard to defend the edit.
>
>Not because it's hard to discuss topic "whatever",
> but because it's hard to endure the name-calling,
> humiliation and accusation on [[talk:whatever]].
>
>Perhaps I've been too bold in trying to take matters into my own
>hands. So be it. I'm a dinosaur, I'm not scaling with the project.
>
Some might say that diinosaurs had scales to protect them.

>Okay. Fine. I'll do whatever I'm told. Ask mav: if I'm told what
>to do, I do it.
>
It's a tough environment for a person with that temperament.

>So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us?
>
>
I don't know FuelWagon, and after reading your introduction I don't
think that I want to know him,  I can only speak in genralities.

Sometimes I feel that overly agressive admins are as much a part of the
problem as the miscreants that they are trying to deal with.  They
antagonize rather than heal.  Their reactions only inspire a further
round of reaction from the offender, and it escalates from there.  If
someone persists in acting anti-socially after a *patient* effort to
bring him into a culture of civility, swift and decisive action may be
necessary.  With mature approaches from the admins this should be rare.

The other thing that needs to be repaired is the fiction that quick
fixes are good for the pedia.  It's not rocket surgery to see that some
kind of deletion is at the heart of many of these disputes.  What
difference does it make if a problem article is deleted to-day in the
midst of an uproar, or next month when everyone has forgotten about it?
The eventualists among us know that it will happen when its meant to
happen; we've been around here long enough to know that from experience.

Ec


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
> I unexpectedly found myself in Anthere's position today - checked on
> my gallery of fair use postage stamp images today, and as expected,
> images for which I hadn't yet written the article had been deleted,
> but also some images long used in my article about Austrian stamps.
> Turns out that some anon had emptied out half the article, this went
> unnoticed for several weeks (it's on my watchlist, but must not have
> checked it that day), then while I was on vacation and not examining
> watchlist daily, the bot came along, marked the images as orphans,
> and a couple weeks later somebody else deleted. After *that* a nice
> anon quietly restored the article, leaving it unclear why the images
> were deleted in the first place.

I think there's certainly a germ of an idea here.  If we start tagging
images with {{tl|fairusein}}, we could move that all images so tagged
are not speedyable under the orphan rule, but rather must be taken to
ifd.  That would not, however, help if the uploader was on holiday, as
ifd lasts five days, but the uploader would at least be notified, as
that is part of the ifd process.  It puts another obstacle in the way of
the above circumstance.

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/190 - Release Date: 01/12/05


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Openness is a means to an end. Nothing more

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>-- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I strongly disagree with that---that may be your goal (and perhaps
>>Jimbo's), but a goal of a lot of people here is to create a Free (as in
>>Freedom) encyclopedia as the primary end.  The fact that this increases
>>its availability is quite nice, but the Freedom aspect is not merely a
>>means to the end of increasing availability, but the end itself.
>>
>>
>You say that, but then you explain why that is so in terms of increasing use and availability
>(bringing us back into means-to-an end territory). Also, freedom to use Wikipedia would be
>pointless if its quality was so bad that nobody would bother.
>
>I'm here to create something that people will find useful. If it ain't useful, then who cares if
>it is free? Wikipedia's free qualities are very, very important to be sure. But that aspect is
>only part of the picture.
>
>
Usefulness is another one of those subjective terms that varies with the
user.

Ec


from_name: Jim

body:
On 12/2/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> We do need to look at what happened. We have the same problem Ed has,
> a lengthy and confusing complaint. Our practice is to assume good
> faith and try to figure out if there was anything to it.

I understand that - I am not saying to not be careful - I know that the
committee is and am glad that they are. However, after looking at what
Fuelwagon has written, and assuming that the facts (not the lengthy
persuasive arguments - but the actual changes and actions by Ed and
Fuelwagon) that he has cited, the arbcomm could determine if there is a
pattern that warrants even a closer look from the arb committee,  and, if
not, rule against him immediately without Ed having to respond.

We may have
> an automatic reaction but Ed good, FuelWagon bad is no good.

I agree, but I do think that:
Ed: exciteable with occasional mistakes but well intentioned,
FuelWagon: (don't know him well enough to summarize),
evaluating the person's credibility based on prior experience before the
arbcom or in mediation is not bad.

Jim


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 14:36 +0000, Steve Block wrote:

> I think there's certainly a germ of an idea here.  If we start tagging
> images with {{tl|fairusein}}, we could move that all images so tagged
> are not speedyable under the orphan rule, but rather must be taken to
> ifd.  That would not, however, help if the uploader was on holiday, as
> ifd lasts five days, but the uploader would at least be notified, as
> that is part of the ifd process.  It puts another obstacle in the way of
> the above circumstance.

fairusein is essentially now a requirement, just in the process of
being implemented. I will suggest that these are left out of the bot
assisted orphaned fu trawl (which isnt running at the moment as tools
has lost a drive apparently).

But free images on commons are worth a thousand fair uses.

Justinc


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 14:36 +0000, Steve Block wrote:
>
>
>>I think there's certainly a germ of an idea here.  If we start tagging
>>images with {{tl|fairusein}}, we could move that all images so tagged
>>are not speedyable under the orphan rule, but rather must be taken to
>>ifd.  That would not, however, help if the uploader was on holiday, as
>>ifd lasts five days, but the uploader would at least be notified, as
>>that is part of the ifd process.  It puts another obstacle in the way of
>>the above circumstance.
>
>
> fairusein is essentially now a requirement, just in the process of
> being implemented.

Gosh, when are we to be notified of that fact?

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/190 - Release Date: 01/12/05


body:
Steve Block wrote:
> Justin Cormack wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 14:36 +0000, Steve Block wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think there's certainly a germ of an idea here.  If we start
>>> tagging images with {{tl|fairusein}}, we could move that all images
>>> so tagged are not speedyable under the orphan rule, but rather must
>>> be taken to ifd.  That would not, however, help if the uploader was
>>> on holiday, as ifd lasts five days, but the uploader would at least
>>> be notified, as that is part of the ifd process.  It puts another
>>> obstacle in the way of the above circumstance.
>>
>>
>>
>> fairusein is essentially now a requirement, just in the process of
>> being implemented.
>
>
> Gosh, when are we to be notified of that fact?
>
>

Sorry, that's rather unfair of me.  It's just I can't remember much
debate on this, and it feels like if it is presented as a requirement
woithout any discussion, it will kick up a bit of dust.  I for one would
be more than happy to support it in a discussion, but having it imposed
makes me bristle.  Apologies.

--
http://steveblock.journalspace.com/

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/190 - Release Date: 01/12/05


from_name: Diane Hutchinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body: i have meen blocked by drini and i dont deserve it. i  was just getting use to the capabilites that wikipedia offers. Please give me another chance and i am sorry for any promblems


subject: [Foundation-l] Enforcing WP:CITE the Soi case

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

> Brian wrote:
>
>> As Danny has repeatedly mentioned, normal published textbooks,
>> including encyclopedias, have every single fact cited and checked
>> before the publisher will go on with printing the book. These
>> citations aren't made public, but they are done, nonetheless. Why
>> should we be any different? This doesn't necessarily mean putting
>> 1000 sources in the reference section. There are other options we can
>> consider, or new ways of citing content online, that are different
>> from the methods used in printed books.
>
> Like instead of having the references in and under the article have a
> seperate page like a talk page? And we just make "notes" which link to
> the references on that "references"page?

The page on which one chooses to put the quotes is only an aesthetic
function.  The important thing is that they are findable and public.
The purpose of citations is to give the reader the opportunity to verify
the data for himself.  He can't do that if the citations are not public.

Ec


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
SJ wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>> The Soi case.
>>
>> On the Dutch wikipedia I wrote the article [[soi]]. It was also written
>> on the english wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi)
>>
>> According to the CITE principal this article should be deleted right now
>>
>
> Actually, a quick google search turned up a few relevant citations
> (one from Wikitravel, in fact).  I added them to the English article.
> It is very very hard to find articles which are at once encyclopedic
> and verifiable, but have no suitable reference either online or in
> print.  I cannot think of an example atm.
>
> ++SJ
Hoi,
I find it remarkable that this CITE thing may break one of our
fundamental reasons for success. It will drive people away when it is
used as a tool to justify deletions. Why will it drive people away,
because it raises the entry level to a point where many people will just
no longer bother to do something. Yes, there may be an EDIT button, but
without a citation it will be gone.

Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best used
when controversies arise. It is then part of the instrumentarium to come
to a NPOV. When it used on its own I expect it to prove disastrous for
the influx of new people into our community. Certainly if this is deemed
to be necessary to be  followed by all the projects that do not have the
maturity of the English language wikipedia.

So, when you in the en.wikipedia decide to have this new deletion
policy, consider the fallout it may have elsewhere.

Thanks,
   GerardM


body:
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:02 +0000, Steve Block wrote:

> Sorry, that's rather unfair of me.  It's just I can't remember much
> debate on this, and it feels like if it is presented as a requirement
> woithout any discussion, it will kick up a bit of dust.  I for one would
> be more than happy to support it in a discussion, but having it imposed
> makes me bristle.  Apologies.

Its not imposed, and there are probably only several hundred images
tagged so far. But no one has objected. Jimbo hath decreed that the
fair use image situation is a mess and must become organised and
justifiable. As fair use law is about the usage not the image its
the usage that has to be justified, so its just a label to say which
usage(s) are under consideration, so there is something to discuss.
They could be autogenerated from the current (article space) links,
the manual process is just to allow some review (although a seperate
review process was proposed that I think is better).

[[WP:FU]] is where things get discussed. I find it all too depressing
now. Does anyone know if any of the mirrors have produced anything
to scrub wikipedia of non free images (including the Image: links)?

Justinc


body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> I will tell you why we are different. We are different because we are
> not a professionally produced publication. We do not have the pretence
> that we know it all. We invite everyone to contribute and these other
> publications do not. When you, and here I repeat myself, do not care
> for the people who have never cited anything and make them out to be
> wrong as a consequence, you do not understand why we are different.

This is absolutely fundamental to what we are doing!

> Again, citations have their place but do not quote your sources
> relating subjects like religion because they are all hopelessly point
> of view. The only thing you can achieve there is that you show that
> someone published a point of view. Citations and sources are a double
> edged sword, they either allow you to clear up disputes or they allow
> you to destroy what differentiates Wikipedia from these "normal
> published textbooks, including encyclopaedias".

In other words citations should be used to help the reader make up his
own mind, not as tools for making up his mind for him.

>> Jim wrote:
>>
>>> The policy says: "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and
>>> reliable
>>> encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable
>>> resource, so
>>> editors should cite credible
>>> sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources>so that
>>> their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors."
>>
Sometimes this kind of debate seems to be between those who understand
rules without reading them and those who read rules without
understanding them.

Ec


body:
SJ wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Walter van Kalken wrote:
>
>>> section. There are other options we can consider, or new ways of
>>> citing content online, that are different from the methods used in
>>> printed books.
>>
>> Like instead of having the references in and under the article have a
>> seperate page like a talk page? And we just make "notes" which link
>> to the references on that "references"page?
>
> Precisely.  An entire "references" page for each article, and an
> entire article for/about each reference.  This will revolutionize
> collaborative research and analysis.

Radical!

Ec


from_name: Tilstra

subject: [Foundation-l] RE: Wikipedia historical atlas

body:
I'd like to build on an idea first flagged by Ashibaka; see
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-July/003618.html .

I'm a collector of old atlases, and like the idea of sharing samples of
the more aesthetics & interesting maps.

There are three 'ingredients' I like;
- Wiki's capacity in co-creation,
- the University of Texas' way of etaining the beauty of the map itself
(see http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/map_sites/hist_sites.html )
- the accessibility of Google Maps?

In contrast, I don't seek to replicate Atlapedia, or Encarta.

A couple of years a fellow collector of old atlasses and I explored
whether the jpeg 2000 format would hold promise, but my impression is
that this format (eg. http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg2000 ) is still being
worked on by a committee.

I too welcome comments.

Hans Tilstra


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] J2ME Client for Wikipedia

body:
Carl Witty wrote:
> There's an extensive discussion of workarounds (interrupt the download
> after the article is downloaded but before the CSS is, change skins, use
> custom CSS) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Browser_notes,
> but for a naive not-logged-in user, wikipedia is one of the few sites
> I've found that would be impossible to use from a Treo 650.

Somebody with access to these kinds of devices needs to test style sheet
modifications and provide us with a patch.

A standards-compliant handheld browser should accept special markers in the CSS
for handheld devices, which can be used to provide a more legible presentation.

Some googling shows that the Treo 650 is not a team player in this area, but
that it does do some JavaScript; in that case it may be possible to slip in a JS
hack for it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051202/7c31e907/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Adrenalin

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Why MO.wikipedia. - Moldovan,
	are written in cyrillic ?

body:
>From ISO-639 to MO code are assigned the Moldovan language.
In constitution of Republic of Moldova are written what the official
alphabet are latin.

http://xiv.parlament.md/en/legalfoundation/constitution/t1/
"Article 13
The National Language, Use of Other Languages

(1) The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and
its writing is based on the Latin alphabet."

How is that possible what the moldovian language what are officially
based on the Latin alphabet, is writted ussing cyrillic alphabet ?


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Salut Adrenalin,

Wikipedia is not about what is official and what is not. It's about
what is really happening.

Yes, it's the truth that most Moldovans use the latin alphabet. That's
why the sitenotice for mo.wiki says "Daka preferatzi sa vizualizatzi
Wikipedia yn alfabetul latin, alfabetul oficial din riepublika
maldova, vizitatzi wikipedia yn romyna."

But it is undenyable that some people rather write in Cyrillic.

M.

On 02/12/05, Adrenalin <adrenalinup at gmail.com> wrote:
> >From ISO-639 to MO code are assigned the Moldovan language.
> In constitution of Republic of Moldova are written what the official
> alphabet are latin.
>
> http://xiv.parlament.md/en/legalfoundation/constitution/t1/
> "Article 13
> The National Language, Use of Other Languages
>
> (1) The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and
> its writing is based on the Latin alphabet."
>
> How is that possible what the moldovian language what are officially
> based on the Latin alphabet, is writted ussing cyrillic alphabet ?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
Hoi,
Re-iterating what has been said does not make for understanding. By
being inflexible and apparently not understanding what concerns there
are on the other end of an issue. You entrench your position.

I will tell you why we are different. We are different because we are
not a professionally produced publication. We do not have the pretence
that we know it all. We invite everyone to contribute and these other
publications do not. When you, and here I repeat myself, do not care for
the people who have never cited anything and make them out to be wrong
as a consequence, you do not understand why we are different.

Again, citations have their place but do not quote your sources relating
subjects like religion because they are all hopelessly point of view.
The only thing you can achieve there is that you show that someone
published a point of view. Citations and sources are a double edged
sword, they either allow you to clear up disputes or they allow you to
destroy what differentiates Wikipedia from these "normal published
textbooks, including encyclopaedias".

So "obviously" you must be right because you quotes your source.. Then
again if this is the case, what did you add to the discussion ? And what
makes your source the authority that makes the difference ?

Thanks,
    GerardM

Brian wrote:
> As Danny has repeatedly mentioned, normal published textbooks,
> including encyclopedias, have every single fact cited and checked
> before the publisher will go on with printing the book. These
> citations aren't made public, but they are done, nonetheless. Why
> should we be any different? This doesn't necessarily mean putting 1000
> sources in the reference section. There are other options we can
> consider, or new ways of citing content online, that are different
> from the methods used in printed books.
>
> Jim wrote:
>
>> On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>>>> Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best
>>>>>> used when controversies arise.
>>>>>>
>>>>> SJ wrote:
>>>>> Having citations is fundamental to being a good reference work.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is *not* ( I say it again ) related to deletion policy.
>>>>>
>>> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes SJ you will be able to handle it in a correct matter and so will
>>>> many other wikipedians.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> The policy says: "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and
>> reliable
>> encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable
>> resource, so
>> editors should cite credible
>> sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources>so that
>> their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors."
>>
>> I see no problem with citing to "the experience of anyone in the
>> society."
>> And although a controversy may arise - usually something so common
>> will have
>> citations available somewhere and smart people will be able to find
>> them -
>> as they did here. If not, as someone else said - appeal to common sense.
>>
>> Jim


from_name: Brian

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>
>> Brian wrote:
>>
>>> As Danny has repeatedly mentioned, normal published textbooks,
>>> including encyclopedias, have every single fact cited and checked
>>> before the publisher will go on with printing the book. These
>>> citations aren't made public, but they are done, nonetheless. Why
>>> should we be any different? This doesn't necessarily mean putting
>>> 1000 sources in the reference section. There are other options we
>>> can consider, or new ways of citing content online, that are
>>> different from the methods used in printed books.
>>
>>
>> Like instead of having the references in and under the article have a
>> seperate page like a talk page? And we just make "notes" which link
>> to the references on that "references"page?
>
Well, I think there are better options to consider. One post that was
made here that has been pretty much ignored is linked below. I talked
with brion about this, and he said that he thought it would be a big
step in the right direction, although we should consider this option as
more of a starting point for branching off ideas, rather than the final
way it should be:

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-December/005312.html

I especially like the option to include "cited text" and "paraphrase".
So, as his sample image shows, we can essentially cite every bit of an
article, thus becoming as sourced as any published book or encyclopedia,
but better!.. because our sources are public, whereas with Britannica,
you have to trust the word of the contributers (and the
typing/proofreading abilities of their staff). I'm not sure if I like
his "red box enclosing uncited text" scheme. Another possibility using
this method would be to lightly highlight text that is not sourced in
this way.

> The page on which one chooses to put the quotes is only an aesthetic
> function.  The important thing is that they are findable and public.
> The purpose of citations is to give the reader the opportunity to
> verify the data for himself.  He can't do that if the citations are
> not public.
>
> Ec

Agreed completely. By working to have every bit of our text not only
cited, but to have their sources public, we would be moving beyond the
verifiability of other encyclopedias.

brian0918


from_name: Sam Spade

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV trainwreck

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision

The appointed arbiters don't seem to be working out, place have a look
at their handiwork. Note the lack of recusals, and near perpetual
conflicts of interest. Note the political railroading of a handful of
"rightwingers" on trumped up conspiracy charges. Look at the ability
of an editor who barely warrants an article to cite himself, and
enforce his blatantly biased POV w impunity, due to friends in the
right places. It is a caricature of wikipedia at its worst.

Sam Spade


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

body:
On 12/2/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded
> > was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the
> > arbitration committee.
>
> For what its worth, FuelWagon has now turned Jayjg's ArbCom candidate
> question page into his own personal battleground. FuelWagon's
> "questions" span five sub-sections, have dozens of diffs and are filled with
> endless rhetorical statements. However, this doesn't even begin to compare
> with the 16 section response to his RfC a while back: (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2).
>
> Ed's right, the system's not working here.
>
I want to describe some of what FuelWagon has been doing so that
people can see how hard it is to deal with this within the existing
dispute-resolution structure.

FuelWagon has been harassing Ed and myself, and a couple of others to
a lesser extent, since July. It started because I blocked him for 3RR
and then because I made a copy edit he didn't like of an article he
had edited a lot. He responded with a stream of invective and
talk-page disruptive, which Ed blocked him for, and that made Ed his
victim too.

I hate to think how many personal comments he has posted about Ed and
me since then, but it amounts to thousands of words. He filed an RfC
against me, which was deleted because he failed to show prior efforts
at dispute resolution. He promptly copied and pasted it into his user
subspace, so that he can still link to his various claims. He also
created an "attack page" on me, where he makes a note of anything I do
that he feels he can use against me. Carbonite opened an RfC against
him, but he hijacked it and turned it into another attack page. He
tried to intervene in the arbcom case against Ed, writing to Jimbo to
have it re-opened when it had closed, then tried to have some kind of
black mark put on Ed's mediation record.

It has been very upsetting to be on the receiving end of it. I tried
ignoring him, responding with reason, responding firmly. I stayed away
from pages he edits, but he stalked me to pages I edit and began to
revert me, so that I had to either let him have his own way, or get
into a revert war with him and look as bad as he is.

It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found
myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been,
because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having
someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it
will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to
correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as
him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.

Several editors and admins have intervened and tried to persuade him
to stop, including Ed Poor, Ann Heneghan, El C, Carbonite, Jayjg,
Bishonen, Willmcw, Marskell, Aaron Brenneman, Mel Etitis, and
Viriditas.

FuelWagon's response was that he would leave me alone if I did 12
things that he listed on his talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&oldid=25272763#ideal
including that I make, in the "first-person narative [sic] form" an
unqualified and unconditional apology in relation to the copy edit he
didn't like, and he listed the various talk pages that the apology had
to be posted on. He had a similar list of apologies that Ed had to
make before he'd be satisfied.

He also teamed up with other known trolls like Zephram Stark, Marsden,
and Vizcarra, so that a gang of people began to pursue his various
victims.

I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a
circus, and also because I couldn't face going through all the diffs
and having the whole thing repeated yet again. I've been on the verge
a couple of times of writing to Jimbo for help, but didn't because
that puts him on the spot. I've also been on the verge of leaving, but
I don't want to let someone like that drive me away.

Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a
personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken
Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps
several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to.
The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not
been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a
week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full
force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the
arbitrators.

There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For
example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a
subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction,
whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or
harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there
and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I
know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the
benefits would greatly outweigh them.

Sarah


body:
On 12/2/05, Brian <brian0918 at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-December/005312.html
>
> I especially like the option to include "cited text" and "paraphrase".
> So, as his sample image shows, we can essentially cite every bit of an
> article, thus becoming as sourced as any published book or encyclopedia,
> but better!.. because our sources are public, whereas with Britannica,

That would be more sourced than most published books or encyclos.

We can also track and show (as mouseover text?) the contributed-date
and contributing-user for every word/set of words in an article.
There are a few nuances in getting the attribution right, but we can
at least offer a first-approximation without much work.  Figuring out
how to effectively store and render that information, is another
question...

++SJ


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
>
>> Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best
>> used when controversies arise.
>
>
> Having citations is fundamental to being a good reference work.
>
> This is *not* ( I say it again ) related to deletion policy.
>
> SJ

Yes SJ you will be able to handle it in a correct matter and so will
many other wikipedians. But you must admit we have a group of users who
will read this and take it as a golden rule and start upsetting people.
There are lots of wikipedians who simply do not read something as a
whole. They just read MUST CITE and that is what they'll remember and
they go on causing havoc. And it will be worse in other languages. More
than once I had to stop somebody who was citing english wikipedia rules
which are not applicable to nl.wikipedia.

Now you and me unfortunately do not have the time to watch the
respective wikis we work on 24 hours a day. So before you start writing
this down please thank about it.

Waerth/Walter


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>
>>>> Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best
>>>> used when controversies arise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Having citations is fundamental to being a good reference work.
>>>
>>> This is *not* ( I say it again ) related to deletion policy.
>>>
>>> SJ
>>
>>
>> Yes SJ you will be able to handle it in a correct matter and so will
>> many other wikipedians. But you must admit we have a group of users
>> who will read this and take it as a golden rule and start upsetting
>> people. There are lots of wikipedians who simply do not read
>> something as a whole. They just read MUST CITE and that is what
>> they'll remember and they go on causing havoc. And it will be worse
>> in other languages. More than once I had to stop somebody who was
>> citing english wikipedia rules which are not applicable to nl.wikipedia.
>>
>> Now you and me unfortunately do not have the time to watch the
>> respective wikis we work on 24 hours a day. So before you start
>> writing this down please thank about it.
>
>
> It's always comforting to hear voices of reason. :-)
>
> Unfortunately those who fixate on "MUST CITE" are also prone to ignore
> <big><bold>MUST USE COMMON SENSE</bold></big>.  Sigh!  Is a four word
> rule so much more difficult than a two word rule?  ... even when you
> point out that there is an identical word in both?
>
> Ec

My experience is that we have a group of users for whom using common
sense unfortunately is beyond their grasp. You should know that by now.
Many people want security in life and rules give security to them so
they unfortunately fixate more on the rule part than common sense part :(

Waerth/Walter


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Requiring a References section
	(was	Re: Enforcing WP:CITE)

body:
New articles are certainly a good place to start.  It's much more
sensible than trying to fix five years of mistakes in a short time..

Ec

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>It may cause some different problems (like verifying the existence and
>reliability of mentioned sources, but requiring sources on new
>articles isn't at all unreasonable.
>
>Mgm
>
>On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 12/1/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why not?  Requiring a 'references' section for every article (thanking the
>>>>>heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new
>>>>>article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing
>>>>>to do.  Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I meant that more than that is hard to automate.  You're right that
>>>>the bare minimals can be easily checked.  However, I can't see that we
>>>>can automate much beyond that with ease.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.
>>>
>>>
>>For the article in question it would have accomplished nothing.  A
>>malicious person could have added a totally fictious reference to the
>>"Atlantic Monthly" for December 1964, and no-one would have been wiser.
>>Marshall may have had easy access to that issue to verify the fact or
>>not, but unless he had occasion to look at the Seigenthaler article it
>>would never occur to him to check it out.
>>
>>A precondition to fixing the article would be to read it critically in
>>the first place.  The spelling error could have been caught by a bot,
>>and corrected by a person focused only on correcting spelling errors
>>without needing to read the article.
>>
>>The statement in the article was certainly offensive, but not likely
>>libellous.  It stated that there were claims that Seigenthaler was
>>involved in the assassinations, and that those claims were shown to be
>>wrong.  It did not say that he was in fact involved.  Early claims about
>>the Oklahoma City bombing were that it was the work of terrorists from
>>the Middle East.   The simple fact that such claims were being made is a
>>credible one, just as much as the comment that they were soon shown to
>>be false.
>>
>>What needed checking and referencing was the specific claim about his
>>involvement in the assassinations.  A bibliographic note at the end
>>would not have sufficed.  If it turns out that some reasonably reputable
>>publication did run these comments (including mention of exonoration) in
>>1964 where would that put us?
>>
>>The media are not always kind to those whom they perceive to be guilty.
>>A dramatic takedown and arrest is good for the TV ratings.  The
>>meticulous evidence that exculpates someone has the show stopping impact
>>of drying paint.  (Now that golf is popular on television, and even has
>>its own channel, maybe times are changing. ;-) )  Unfortunately, even
>>false rumours become part of the historical weave.
>>
>>


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wikidata on Rails [was: Re: Possible
	Wikidata	component: JSONwidget]

body:
Gregory Maxwell:
> For every wikidata table there are actually two tables in the
> database, a item table and a revision table.  In item, the key will be
> constrained to be unique and non-null, in the revision table it will
> be just non-null.
>
> Generally just follow mediawiki for the fields, but rather than text
> have your data fields.

The scenario of having a basically flat table that is versioned is a
simple one. It gets tricky when you have 20 tables which are in complex
relations with each other, and you want to revert or view a particular
revision. Note that even our current MediaWiki is broken in this respect
- when you view an old version of a page, you see it with the latest
versions of the templates it uses, which can lead to very funny results.

Example: In Ultimate Wiktionary, you have an expression ("dog") which
can be associated with multiple words of different types and genders,
which can be associated with multiple defined meanings (each of which
can be associated with a meaning text), synonyms and translations. This
is a powerful concept, because it allows you to "magically" find all
translations and synonyms when you know what meaning you refer to for a
particular expression. The possible applications are endless.

The problem with relations of that complexity is that, if you don't want
to balloon your tables, (I think) you need a lot of revision pointers
between them. I'm going to try to model this with a simpler example. If
you want to model something, feel free to help - it is sometimes good if
multiple heads work on the same problem and come up with different
solutions.

Too many people see Wikidata as being about infoboxes. I saw it that way
when I first came up with the idea, but it's really more interesting to
see it as a wiki engine for arbitrary database-driven applications. The
goal is, to steal a Perl proverb, to make simple things simple and
complex things possible. For apps like UW, a lot of custom code will
have to be written, but the basic table structures can be the same as
for any other WD application.

Best,

Erik


body:
Brian wrote:

> As Danny has repeatedly mentioned, normal published textbooks,
> including encyclopedias, have every single fact cited and checked
> before the publisher will go on with printing the book. These
> citations aren't made public, but they are done, nonetheless. Why
> should we be any different? This doesn't necessarily mean putting 1000
> sources in the reference section. There are other options we can
> consider, or new ways of citing content online, that are different
> from the methods used in printed books.

Like instead of having the references in and under the article have a
seperate page like a talk page? And we just make "notes" which link to
the references on that "references"page?

Waerth/Walter


list: textbook-l

from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [Textbook-l] video classes, video textbooks

body:
This idea has me pretty excited: what about students filming or audio
recording lectures and uploading them as supplementary material for
textbooks? The audio/video material will itself not be immediately wiki-able
but could be available on the site for reference and future editing. Anyone
out there know of intellectual property questions? Is there any problem
taping a lecture and uploading it? Does it depend on whether the
teacher/prof gives permission, or the school, or what?

My mind is positively busting with the possibilities of science lectures
available on wikibooks. Some people learn best by reading, others by
listening, others by seeing ... If we can get audio or video of lectures
online that will be like having a downloadable classroom, where you can get
all of the classroom experience except the immediate opportunity to ask
questions.

Karl


body:
On 03/12/05, Adrenalin <adrenalinup at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a shame for us to see our language written in cyrillic, our
> language have a latin provenance and even if USSR/Russia have tried to
> taught our latin based language to be written using cyrillic alphabet
> after get the independence in 1991 we have switch back to the Latin
> alphabet !

I've heard this before, and I must say, it's just plain wrong. Before
switching back to Cyrillic, Moldovan had only used Latin for a period
of approximately 80 years (compared to centuries of writing in
Cyrillic including many great literary works), and Latin wasn't
universal until the very end of that period.

Also, the Soviets switched Moldovan to being written in Latin for
about a decade.

Now, as I noted earlier, Wikipedia does not care about what language
is official and such. We have an Occitan WP, for example, even though
Occitan is the official language of no country.

> And after so many years(14 years i think is enough) we see on the
> worlds biggest free encyclopedia what some one thought what moldovian
> language are still written ussing cyrillic alphabet ?

I've already explained it to you, and you seem to've ignored it. As
any Moldovan should know, there are still people who use Cyrillic.
Besides being the official script of Transnistria where it is in daily
use, it is still the only script understandable by thousands of
Moldovan rural peasants who were educated in the Soviet era.

> If you'll take the ip of the ppl who have doing mo.. you'll see what
> no one are from Moldova, they must be from Russian and maybe from the
> separatist Transnistria.

It's quite clear where the more prolific contributors are from. 1 from
Russia, one from Belarus, one from Romania, _two from Moldova_... etc.

> And who the hell on the main wikipedia page(http://www.wikipedia.org/)
> have written OUR name language using cyrillic ? "????????????" ? I
> just can't believe !

When the mo.wiki reached 100 articles, it was added to that page. The
Interwiki name is in Cyrillic because the content of that WP is in
Cyrillic.

Anybody who wants content in Latin will click on "Rom?na" which is
listed much earlier, or they will see the notice at Moldovan Wikipedia
-- on the top of every page, in bold letters! -- which tells them that
if they want to see Wikipedia in Latin alphabet, the official alphabet
of Rep. Moldova, to go to the Romanian WP, and it has a link.

> Or you on wikipedia don't have any rules ? Anyone can come to you and
> write the name of some language in whatever mode he want ?

Wikipedia is not ruled by the government of any nation. For this
reason, Kurds in Turkey are free to write pages in Kurdish, even
though it's not allowed according to Turkish government. Tatar WP is
written in Latin alphabet, even though the Russian government says it
has to be written in Cyrillic. The Chinese WP has many articles the
government doesn't like.

The reason for the existance of such a Wikipedia is that it is helpful
to some population. Do you advocate that we ignore these people just
because they'd rather read Cyrillic than Latin??

> I'm sure I'm not the last one who will complain about this, you'll
> have more and more protests.

There've already been many protests. But nearly all of them came from
Romanians. I posted to Planetamoldova about it a while back, and the
response was mixed. Some people were angry, some people thought it was
funny, but there were people there who thought it was a good thing,
and even one person who said that it makes sense to write Moldovan in
Cyrillic for historical reasons.

> Moldovian language are written using latin alphabet. If you want to

If that's the case, why is mo.wp written in Cyrillic? When I write
articles there, I use Cyrillic. So don't tell me that Moldovan is
written in Latin. Maybe you write Moldovan in Latin, but there are
some people who don't.

> create a new language, DON'T USE MO INITIALS ! DON'T USE OUR NAME !

Do you presume to speak for all citizens of Republica Moldova,
including people living east of the Nistru?

If you honestly believe that every man, woman, and child in Moldova is
against Cyrillic for Moldovan, please, be my guest, comission a
national census and ask all of the people.

But it's very clear what you'll find -- there are many people who
would rather write in Cyrillic, and there are even some people who
can't read Latin at all. What about them? Don't they have a right to
be able to read Wikipedia??

> Don't misinform the international community about our language.

The "international community" doesn't seem to care a lot about
mo.wiki. Most of the people who have taken any interest are Romanians
and Moldovans.

> (and i don't care who first start mo.wikipedia, if you use mo initials
> then respect the language rules, that's all.)

The Moldovan Academy of Sciences says this language is written in
Latin. But as I noted before, Wikipedia does not serve at the pleasure
of any national government or even regulatory institutions.

Cu respect,
M

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
I'm not exactly sure anymore that you're really from Rep. Moldova.
Nearly half of the population of Moldova declared their official
language to be "Moldovan". Clearly, they must believe in some capacity
that it's different, or they'dve written "Romanian".

Now, I acknowledge that Moldovan and Romanian (at least in the
official form) are for all practical purposes the same. That's why
mo.wiki used to redirect to ro.wiki. The reason it no longer redirects
is because ro.wiki won't host Cyrillic content.

Mark

On 03/12/05, Adrenalin <adrenalinup at gmail.com> wrote:
> And if you'll ask why we(moldovian ppl) don't start mo for ourself,
> it's because it doesn't make sens, moldovian language is the same as
> romanian language, it would be just ridiculous to copy content from
> ro.wikipedia.
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Tom Cadden

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: yet another image lost for posterity

body:
This screwing up of articles has been bugging me for weeks, as has deletions without any notifications. I hear all the complaints about how time consuming it is contacting people and how few reply and how time consuming it is cleaning up articles. My response is simple: tough. If you want to delete images, you make sure you don't screw up things in the way you do it.

 Bertie's article is just one of many that has been thoroughly turned into a mess. The only bigger mess is the whole deletion process. Good images are being lost with the bad, as Anthere highlighted. Fixable images are being lost with the unfixable ones. I recently lost one image that I myself took because there was a minor error in categorisation, all because it was downloaded when I joined WP in 2003 and I put the wrong tag on it because I didn't know there was a better one. If the deleter had bothered to inform me about the problem I could have fixed it. (And checked other images to make sure there were no problems.) They didn't, just deleted it, and left a featured article missing its primary image. The image was also used elsewhere and all other articles were left with ruddy great holes in them. As I no longer had the photograph I had to go on a journey and take another one.

 I've seen images deleted that were described as 'no source' even though the source was explicitly stated in detail on the page. I recently uploaded an image (not a great one, but a temporary holding one until a better version could be prepared, for an infobox). A new one was found by another user and installed. In fact the new image wouldn't work. When I discovered the new one was corrupted I went back to get the old one to find that it had been proposed for deletion and deleted. Again no-one informed me. At this stage, having spent so long cleaning up the deleters screw-ups I can't be bothered doing any more. So that article has no image and will have no image from me. And I'm not spending another week patching up articles that have been torn to shreds by wholescale deletion of images without fixing what is left.

 And why the hell when people delete images now that a version is in commons, can't they bother to check to make sure the commons image is linking to the articles the original one was. I've had to trawl through commons four times recently to trace images that had been deleted without the commons images being linked. That sort of incompetent amateurism is making WP a joke, and annoying the hell out of me, Anthere, Adam and a host of others because we are the ones left cleaning up other people's mess, or worse undo damage where images that should never have been deleted have been.

Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
That's all very well, but the links I was referring to are from
principal articles - I first noticed it when the picture disappeared
from the infobox in [[Bertie Ahern]] leaving a damned great broken link
prominently at the top of the article. But then, he's only the Irish
Prime Minister, so no-one would notice....

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos


body:
On 12/3/05, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is a "better way" to deal with this not to allow arbitrators to
> proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to
> them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like
> believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages), then
> the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the
> process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases
> that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and
> delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to
> the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate,
> without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned
> into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I
> should make it.
>
Cormac, I agree with the idea of the arbitration committee being
allowed to be more pro-active, though it becomes a question of extra
workload, and I doubt they would want any. This is why I was thinking
of an extra group of editors set up specifically to deal with trolling
and harassment as an extension of the arbcom, reporting to them and
operating under their jurisdiction: a subcommittee. But the point you
make is dead right: FuelWagon will turn the arbcom case into another
platform for his harassment, which he did with the two RfCs. On the
upside, it'll be concentrated on one spot instead of being spread
throughout the project, but it would be good if there were a way of
dealing with it that didn't involve all the nonsense being reproduced
yet again.

Sarah


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
And is being expert necessarily a bad thing?
.

In a message dated 12/3/2005 3:14:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com writes:

And  indeed, we would drive many people . I understand a wish for sources
but  by putting red boxes and what have you around  what has not been
sourced  you make us into something what we are not. We would   be as
expert as what Larry Sanger wants in his new project.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia ... but where are you going ...
	(was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...)

body:
--- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> Fine ... wonderful .... so just go ahead restricting contributors - go
> into your dead-end position and you will see that Wikipedia will follow
> Nupedia - and that someone considered a bit mad will just take over the
> contents and allow people to edit like it was done up to now.

Requiring people to add references does not needlessly restrict them. It improves the content. We
are here to serve a goal; create the world's largest and best free encyclopedia. Adding references
helps us toward that goal.

Nupedia was on one end of the spectrum and Wikipedia is on the other. Nupedia died because it was
too restrictive. Wikipedia needed to be very open in order to encourage growth. That was fine when
we were small and hardly anybody knew of us or used our content. Now things have changed; millions
of people use Wikipedia every month and expect it to be accurate. Requiring references helps us
attain higher quality.

> Come on: let them talk - let's just go ahead working without listening
> to them doing our best. The day is not far and they will need to stop
> because Wikipedia will show them that liberty and democracy survives any
> attack.

We are already famous, so bad press is simply bad (esp right before a fund drive). But beyond
that, this particular incident showed a place where our review system failed and failed badly.

If we required references, then somebody from RC patrol would have tagged the the offending
article as unsourced and subject to eventual deletion. That tells readers to not at all trust what
is in that article and encourages editors to check the article and add references. I see nothing
wrong with that.

Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers rely on us to be accurate.
Adding references helps us do that.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Please place some, but not a whole lot, of evidence on the evidence page

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Evidence

I don't think "all the allegations will have to be responded to"

Fred

On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:41 PM, <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a
> personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken
> Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps
> several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to.
> The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not
> been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a
> week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full
> force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the
> arbitrators.


body:
--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now here is the rub, when you insist that all our articles need to
> provide sources, you will lose our stubs. You will make the composition
> of the content different. When you only consider only the English or the
> German language wikipedia you may be of the opinion that it has enough
> content. For projects that are in its infancy like the Swahili Wikipedia
> it would be a killer. It would be a killer because we do not have the
> vibrant community that we wish for it.

Smaller language versions of Wikipedia need to emphasize growth over quality, true. But larger
language version (not projects! Wikipedia itself is a project) do not and would be greatly
improved by requiring sources.

> It is indeed great to strive to be better than other encyclopaedias.
> There biggest achievement is in the relevancy that they had in the past.
> Encyclopaedias were the embodiment of knowledge. Many people grew up
> with them and acquired knowledge that way. Wikipedia is young and its
> relevancy is something that can only be judged in the future.

And yet many millions of people are using the larger language versions of Wikipedia as reference
sources RIGHT NOW. We have a responsibility to do what we can to increase the chances of actually
serving them accurate content. Creating a culture of sourcing material to good references in the
larger language versions of Wikipedia will help a great deal in that regard.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


body:
--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now here is the rub, when you insist that all our articles need to
> provide sources, you will lose our stubs. You will make the composition
> of the content different. When you only consider only the English or the
> German language wikipedia you may be of the opinion that it has enough
> content. For projects that are in its infancy like the Swahili Wikipedia
> it would be a killer. It would be a killer because we do not have the
> vibrant community that we wish for it.

Smaller language versions of Wikipedia need to emphasize growth over quality, true. But larger
language version (not projects! Wikipedia itself is a project) do not and would be greatly
improved by requiring sources.

> It is indeed great to strive to be better than other encyclopaedias.
> There biggest achievement is in the relevancy that they had in the past.
> Encyclopaedias were the embodiment of knowledge. Many people grew up
> with them and acquired knowledge that way. Wikipedia is young and its
> relevancy is something that can only be judged in the future.

And yet many millions of people are using the larger language versions of Wikipedia as reference
sources RIGHT NOW. We have a responsibility to do what we can to increase the chances of actually
serving them accurate content. Creating a culture of sourcing material to good references in the
larger language versions of Wikipedia will help a great deal in that regard.

-- mav

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


body:
We are talking about some kind of summary procedure in this case. Any
suggestions? Also, although FuelWagon has harassed me some. I haven't
really followed what else he has been doing. Could there be some
short summaries at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed
Poor (Make a statement).

Fred

On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:01 AM, <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/3/05, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is a "better way" to deal with this not to allow arbitrators to
>> proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to
>> them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like
>> believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages),
>> then
>> the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the
>> process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases
>> that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and
>> delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to
>> the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate,
>> without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned
>> into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I
>> should make it.
>>
>>
> Cormac, I agree with the idea of the arbitration committee being
> allowed to be more pro-active, though it becomes a question of extra
> workload, and I doubt they would want any. This is why I was thinking
> of an extra group of editors set up specifically to deal with trolling
> and harassment as an extension of the arbcom, reporting to them and
> operating under their jurisdiction: a subcommittee. But the point you
> make is dead right: FuelWagon will turn the arbcom case into another
> platform for his harassment, which he did with the two RfCs. On the
> upside, it'll be concentrated on one spot instead of being spread
> throughout the project, but it would be good if there were a way of
> dealing with it that didn't involve all the nonsense being reproduced
> yet again.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/3/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For
> example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a
> subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction,
> whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or
> harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there
> and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I
> know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the
> benefits would greatly outweigh them.
>
> Sarah

Makeing new policy over a single case is a bad idea. What happened to
the old wikistalking proposal BTW?

--
geni


body:
--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> When you start *requiring *references, you will move from one side of
> the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum.

Encyclopedias are secondary sources, thus they require primary and other secondary sources for
their information. If the person adding the content used, as they should have, another source for
their information, then asking them to add that piece of meta-data is not much to ask for. It is
in fact good academic practice that should be encouraged.

Saying that that moves us from what we are to something like Nupedia, is, well, completely absurd.
Nupedia pretty much required article authors to have PhDs in the area they were writing for. On
top of that was a 7 step very rigorous peer and copyedit review process. How in the *world* does
requiring references make us like that?

> Having a blind belief in
> references is as bad as not referencing at all.

Evaluating references is also very important, yes. Nobody here is advocating a blind belief in
anything.

> Your ideas about Wikipedia are about the English
> Wikipedia. This is the Foundation mailing list and as a consequence I
> take it that you want to have references on all Wikipedia projects.

See my other email. This requirement would only apply to larger Wikipedias going forward and would
be decided by each wiki's community anyway.

> When we are so famous, why is it that maybe 3% of the Italians know
> Wikipedia ..

And it is OK for the other 97% of Italians to first hear about Wikipedia while reading a very
negative review of it?

> I am sorry but in my opinion this whole thing is too inward looking. You
> do not appreciate the potential fallout of all this.

And fallout from hosing libelous and inaccurate content is OK?

Adding references is not a panacea. But it is a very important part of checking the accuracy of
content.

-- mav

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


body:
This matter is different from our usual case, as we have all
encountered FuelWagon doing his thing.

It is only that general familiarity which could support  proactive or
summary action.

Often the first we hear about someone is when it shows up on Requests
for arbitration and we are truly clueless about what is going on. We
don't want the endless pile of evidence we are usually presented with
(No one could actually read it all). What we need is a few examples
which nicely illustrate the problem. This is not too much to ask for.
You are writers. You are editors.

Fred

On Dec 3, 2005, at 4:49 AM, Cormac Lawler wrote:

> Is a "better way" to deal with this not to allow arbitrators to
> proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to
> them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like
> believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages), then
> the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the
> process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases
> that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and
> delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to
> the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate,
> without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned
> into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I
> should make it.
>
> Cormac


body:
--- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> not here ... up to now in a place with 6000 people not one knew
> Wikipedia - I am NOT kidding.

Wikipedia is a top 40 website and the number 1 reference website on the Internet. 13 million
unique visitors used Wikipedia in September of this year. That does not at all include the many
millions more people who use Wikipedia content from hundreds of mirrors. By any measure that makes
Wikipedia famous.

> It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was
> seen ... well, where's the problem?

The libelous statements remained uncorrected for 4 months and were spread to hundreds of Wikipedia
mirrors. We not only failed to correct the error, but our license allowed it to be spread all over
the Internet.

> The best answer to such an article
> would have been: well if you knew that it was wrong, and you know what
> Wikipedia is, why do you make such a huge problem out of this: simply
> correct things - you could have done this - so it is not us who are
> wrong, but the person who "did not correct" knowing how Wikipedia works
> and "officially" believes in equal chances and whatever ... use these
> critics in the right way - that's all.

SoFixIt is no longer a valid retort for the larger language versions where readers outnumber
editors by over 200 to 1 and the vast, vast, majority of people who use those Wikipedias will
never edit. Again, a sourcing requirement would only be enacted by each wiki community when it
thinks that it is needed. I think it is needed for at least the English Wikipedia.

> So now I write about the "Chiesa del Carmine" (Church of the Carmine)
> here in Maiori - where there is no official documentation - all I know
> is from what people of Maiori told me.

That may or may not be original research. If it is, then it already is not allowed, if it is just
observation or common knowledge in that village, then citing personal correspondence and
unpublished records is perfectly valid when there are no other alternatives. In other words, if a
phone call or visit could confirm the information, then that may in fact be a valid reference.

> Readers who rely on only one source are not good readers ...
> they are blind readers.

I agree and find it odd at how indigent some people get when they find out that any source they
use is wrong. But at the same time we do have a responsibility to make sure we try our best. Good
referencing is a part of that. We also have to take the world as it is, not as we think it should
be. The world is filled with lots of blind readers.

> And what if the references already contain that
> error? The reference of the reference?

Each reference is going to have its own errors. That is why any article written should ideally
have multiple references; common facts between them can be more trusted than facts that disagree.
A good researcher needs to use good references, compare their facts, and find out the truth when
the references disagree.

But none of that work can be done if there are no references to check.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


body:
On 12/3/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> We are talking about some kind of summary procedure in this case. Any
> suggestions? Also, although FuelWagon has harassed me some. I haven't
> really followed what else he has been doing. Could there be some
> short summaries at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed
> Poor (Make a statement).
>
Fred, do you mean people should make a very short statement about his
behavior without a  lot of diffs and details?

Sarah


body:
--- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> Well: so who likes to check things can go and add references -

And how are the people who add references going to know what sources were used to add the content
in the first place? I can't read the mind of others and I don't think many other people can do
that either.

> requiring it from anyone will have very negative results ... and this
> will mean that many of the people I was just getting on becoming
> interested in giving their expertise to Wikipedia will not be there ...
> months of work for nothing ...

I assume you want them to work on the Italian Wikipedia, no? Any referencing requirement would be
decided on a per wiki basis and start with the very largest wikis. Other wikis may still need to
encourage growth in any way they can. So adding such a requirement prematurely may do more harm
than good.

And such a requirement would not prevent anybody from adding unsourced material. It would just
allow people who like to tag things - and boy does at least the English Wikipedia have plenty of
those folks - to tag those articles as needing sources. The tag would serve two roles:
1) Tell readers to treat the article very critically,
2) Tell editors that the article needs references (hopefully the original author will see that and
add the referenes; if not, then others would need to check each fact).
It would also help to encourage a culture of sourcing material that will only help us attain and
retain more accurate content.

Again ; language versions at different stages of development need to follow different policies on
this type of thing. The great majority of wikis will be better served by encouraging growth more
than quality, but the ones that are already huge can afford to be a bit more picky. Once the other
wikis get huge, then they could start to be more picky as well.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


body:
Brian wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>>
>>> Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>> As Danny has repeatedly mentioned, normal published textbooks,
>>>> including encyclopedias, have every single fact cited and checked
>>>> before the publisher will go on with printing the book. These
>>>> citations aren't made public, but they are done, nonetheless. Why
>>>> should we be any different? This doesn't necessarily mean putting
>>>> 1000 sources in the reference section. There are other options we
>>>> can consider, or new ways of citing content online, that are
>>>> different from the methods used in printed books.
>>>
>>>
>>> Like instead of having the references in and under the article have
>>> a seperate page like a talk page? And we just make "notes" which
>>> link to the references on that "references"page?
>>
> Well, I think there are better options to consider. One post that was
> made here that has been pretty much ignored is linked below. I talked
> with brion about this, and he said that he thought it would be a big
> step in the right direction, although we should consider this option
> as more of a starting point for branching off ideas, rather than the
> final way it should be:
>
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-December/005312.html
>
>
> I especially like the option to include "cited text" and "paraphrase".
> So, as his sample image shows, we can essentially cite every bit of an
> article, thus becoming as sourced as any published book or
> encyclopedia, but better!.. because our sources are public, whereas
> with Britannica, you have to trust the word of the contributers (and
> the typing/proofreading abilities of their staff). I'm not sure if I
> like his "red box enclosing uncited text" scheme. Another possibility
> using this method would be to lightly highlight text that is not
> sourced in this way.
>
>> The page on which one chooses to put the quotes is only an aesthetic
>> function.  The important thing is that they are findable and public.
>> The purpose of citations is to give the reader the opportunity to
>> verify the data for himself.  He can't do that if the citations are
>> not public.
>>
>> Ec
>
> Agreed completely. By working to have every bit of our text not only
> cited, but to have their sources public, we would be moving beyond the
> verifiability of other encyclopedias.
>
> brian0918
>
Hoi,
And indeed, we would drive many people . I understand a wish for sources
but by putting red boxes and what have you around  what has not been
sourced  you make us into something what we are not. We would  be as
expert as what Larry Sanger wants in his new project. Where is the
difference  between Nupedia and Wikipedia ?

Have a separate page for your sources, have a talk page for discussion
but leave the text proper alone. If you want to keep Wikipedia
accessible this is the entry level where people are to be welcome. When
something is not sourced, it does not give you the right to delete
without prior verification. That is; you have to prove what is wrong as
in you have to assume the good faith of the contributor. When you do you
have the sources to prove your point you can change it like you always
could but you now do it with the conviction of having sources to back it
up.

At some stage there was a BIG row in the Dutch wikipedia; there was a
guy, who got banned and everything, who pushed a particular point of
view. He quoted sources. His sources were in a language where he was the
only one who could read it, it was in Tamazingh. His sources were
refused because of it and because of being extremely different from
accepted knowledge. Now given that history is written by the victor, and
given that this is particularly POV, having sources written by the
victor make many historical sources suspect. So how are you going to
square what you think you know about history an what can be "proven" by
English language sources and what can be "proven" by sources of a
different origin? By the way the Tamazingh POV was certainly not a
victors POV.

This blind rush into trusting sources.. Please think what you try to do
and be aware of the fall out. The attitude that only sourced information
is good
and reliable assumes no good faith. It assumes that a professional
approach is best. It makes us into a Nupedia where we were once open and
free.

Thanks,
   GerardM


body:
Gerard,

No one is saying that only experts should contribute. We are saying that  the
quality of our contributions should be excellent. They should be
unchallengable. They should be of the highest possible quality. They should be  better
than other encyclopedias. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a
bulletin board or dumping ground. As a collaborative effort, we can achieve  that. X
can add a fact, Y can provide a source, If there are a lot of sources,  we
can even create separate source pages, and even have articles about those
sources, as has been suggested. The sky is the limit. But under no circumstances
should we compromise on our quality.

Danny

In a message dated 12/3/2005 7:46:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com writes:

Being  expert is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a bad thing when it
makes you  think that you


subject: [Foundation-l] Sources and sourceability

body:
I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding,  as
there seems to be.

1. I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or  removed.
2. I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
3. I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they  edit.
4. I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or
categorize stubs.
5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from
editing.
6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their
own work and for other's work as well.
7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we  should
find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively
with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they
must always be verified).
7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can  compromise.

Danny


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Sources and sourceability

body:
SJ wrote:

>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection
>> to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something
>> separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves
>> they will combine and make something different out of all this.
>
> What does this mean?  How can citations be separate from adding content?
> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other
> people can do nothing but guess.

Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're
dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the original,
the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the content. If I
add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the source does not need
to stay in the article even if it happens to be right (if it happens to
be wrong and represents a significant point of view might be another
matter). Other people can find other and often better sources even if
they're unable to determine what the initial source was, and if the case
involves a primary source then the information inherently points to
where you need to look.

Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind of
rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an article, it
must be cited or preserved in a References section for all time. Even
normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else probably most
Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia articles as
references), and we in particular should be able to get past such
limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our collaborative system
is that there is very little need to try and divine the intent of an
original author, and we needn't be beholden to that person in terms of
choosing sources either.

--Michael Snow


from_name: SJ

body:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Sabine Cretella wrote:

> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection to
> people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something separate -
> many people are not able to "separate" things themselves they will combine
> and make something different out of all this.

What does this mean?  How can citations be separate from adding content?
Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other
people can do nothing but guess.

SJ


body:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Walter van Kalken wrote:

> SJ wrote:
>>
>> We can also track and show (as mouseover text?) the contributed-date
>> and contributing-user for every word/set of words in an article. There are
>> a few nuances in getting the attribution right, but we can
>> at least offer a first-approximation without much work.  Figuring out
>> how to effectively store and render that information, is another
>> question...
>>
>>
> This idea is way way overdoing it in my opinion and would surely chase people
> away. I feel for having citations moved elsewhere. I do not feel every letter
> needs to be referenced only the most important facts.

It's not a matter of 'chasing people away' - leave such a feature off by
default; it wil reduce the processing problems.  But tracking who added
particular chunks of text is quite literally providing the latest
reference (and the only reference we can automatically guarantee to be
accurate within the site).

> On the "references" for the soi article. I read them, both pages. And the
> article on wikitravel is : written by people like ourselves so how can we use
> it as a reference? And second the article on wikitravel definately contains
> wrong info. So I am going to remove that source.

"People like ourselvs" -- I love it.  And what other kind of people are
there?  So you're going to remove the source because you disagree with it?
Even though you have no other source?

The Wikitravel page is another world-readable source discussing the same
topic in English -- by people who may be just as 'qualified' to opine
about Sois as you are.  If you disagree with that source, you should at
least note that people are talking about this subject on other sites.

> The other source just shows how the word SOI is written in Thai. I do not

It helps demonstrate that the word exists; which is a start (since we
don't have a wiktionary entry about it yet).

SJ


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 12/3/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding,  as
> there seems to be.
>
> 1. I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or  removed.
> 2. I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
> 3. I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they  edit.
> 4. I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
> sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or
> categorize stubs.
> 5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from
> editing.
> 6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their
> own work and for other's work as well.
> 7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we  should
> find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively
> with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they
> must always be verified).
> 7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can  compromise.
>
> Danny

This seems like a reasonable approach... Actually, strike that, it
seems like what we already should be doing, in theory -- isn't it
already true that every fact must be sourceable? We (myself included)
just aren't so good at enforcing it by catching questionable
statements and trying to source them.

-Kat
[[en:User:Mindspillage]]

--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams


body:
Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That is
news to me.

Danny

In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:04:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com writes:

It is  too high
because you insist on contributions to be unchallengeable.


body:
If that is the attitude, then I really have nothing more to say here.

Danny

In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:34:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com writes:

Hoi,
Yes it is. Other sources can be wrong as well and as I  mentioned before
you would kill the goose that lays the golden  eggs.
Thanks,
GerardM

daniwo59 at aol.com  wrote:
>
> Is it too much to ask that contributions to  Wikipedia be correct? That is
> news to  me.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Requiring a References section (was
	Re: Enforcing WP:CITE)

body:
It may cause some different problems (like verifying the existence and
reliability of mentioned sources, but requiring sources on new
articles isn't at all unreasonable.

Mgm

On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
> >Matt Brown wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 12/1/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Why not?  Requiring a 'references' section for every article (thanking the
> >>>heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new
> >>>article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing
> >>>to do.  Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I meant that more than that is hard to automate.  You're right that
> >>the bare minimals can be easily checked.  However, I can't see that we
> >>can automate much beyond that with ease.
> >>
> >>
> >On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.
> >
> >
> For the article in question it would have accomplished nothing.  A
> malicious person could have added a totally fictious reference to the
> "Atlantic Monthly" for December 1964, and no-one would have been wiser.
> Marshall may have had easy access to that issue to verify the fact or
> not, but unless he had occasion to look at the Seigenthaler article it
> would never occur to him to check it out.
>
> A precondition to fixing the article would be to read it critically in
> the first place.  The spelling error could have been caught by a bot,
> and corrected by a person focused only on correcting spelling errors
> without needing to read the article.
>
> The statement in the article was certainly offensive, but not likely
> libellous.  It stated that there were claims that Seigenthaler was
> involved in the assassinations, and that those claims were shown to be
> wrong.  It did not say that he was in fact involved.  Early claims about
> the Oklahoma City bombing were that it was the work of terrorists from
> the Middle East.   The simple fact that such claims were being made is a
> credible one, just as much as the comment that they were soon shown to
> be false.
>
> What needed checking and referencing was the specific claim about his
> involvement in the assassinations.  A bibliographic note at the end
> would not have sufficed.  If it turns out that some reasonably reputable
> publication did run these comments (including mention of exonoration) in
> 1964 where would that put us?
>
> The media are not always kind to those whom they perceive to be guilty.
> A dramatic takedown and arrest is good for the TV ratings.  The
> meticulous evidence that exculpates someone has the show stopping impact
> of drying paint.  (Now that golf is popular on television, and even has
> its own channel, maybe times are changing. ;-) )  Unfortunately, even
> false rumours become part of the historical weave.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Angela

body:
On 12/3/05, Karl Wick <karlwick at gmail.com> wrote:
> This idea has me pretty excited: what about students filming or audio
> recording lectures and uploading them as supplementary material for
> textbooks? The audio/video material will itself not be immediately wiki-able
> but could be available on the site for reference and future editing. Anyone
> out there know of intellectual property questions? Is there any problem
> taping a lecture and uploading it? Does it depend on whether the
> teacher/prof gives permission, or the school, or what?

I'd love to see a free resource like this within Wikimedia. It may fit
in better with Wikisource than Wikibooks, since, like source texts,
the main aim wouldn't necessarily be to edit the videos (though there
would some advantage in being able to merge parts of different lessons
together). There again, if the upload limit at Commons doesn't get in
the way, storing them there could also work. I'm not sure what the
best place for the transcriptions would be if people were keen to make
those (it would help in making the videos searchable).

In terms of copyright, you'd need either permission of the lecturer or
of the school, depending on their employment contract and whether
their work is regarded a "work for hire" where the school claims the
copyright. If you're recording student's questions during the lesson,
you'd also need their permission.

Angela.


body:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Kat Walsh wrote:

> This seems like a reasonable approach... Actually, strike that, it
> seems like what we already should be doing, in theory -- isn't it
> already true that every fact must be sourceable? We (myself included)
> just aren't so good at enforcing it by catching questionable
> statements and trying to source them.

I would say yes, this is what we should be doing... but it is only in theory
because it is so laborious to do right atm.

There's no simple visual/textual way to densely-source an article (though there
have been various attempts); serious footnoting is unsupported in software and
non-trivial to hack.  And there's not yet a culture of footnoting / citing the
way there is a culture of stub-sorting -- the style guidelines for referencing
exists, but should be more popular.

Finally, there is currently no way to maintain information *about* references,
nor to maintain a single best-citation for each work. Every author has to
figure out the proper full cite for a work, and cannot simply find the other
pages/articles which used the same work.

A layered suggestion:

Step 1 : Strongly promote the current recommended footnote system:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes

Step 2 : Strongly encourage the use of proper full cites:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations

Step 3 : Add software features making each of these easier : add localizable
strings for each field-name for cites and footnotes; then add 'footnote' and
'cite' buttons to the edit toolbar; provide "footnote" markup that handles
autonumbering; add a keyboard-shortcut for footnoting; add footnote- and
citation-aware menu options to WP browser plugins.

Step 4 : Work on unifying "References"/ "Citations"/ "Sources"/ "Bibliography"/
"External link[s]"/ "Further reading" style at the end of each article.

Step 5 : Add separate 'references' pages for every article.  These pages should
include: the date the article was created; the date of the last non-minor edit;
the list of users, ips, and flagged-bots that have edited the article; a list
of sources and other references that had been added at some point to the
article; even a clear list of metadata about the article
(protection/pov/cleanup/quality- assessment status).

Step 6 : Add a namespace/project to store the best-known information about
every source used on any project, including user comments and trackbacks to
articles referencing each source.  (Optionally: seed this project with OpenCat
content.)

Step 6.5:  Add a wikitext feature like "{{cite:ISBN 0518274822|pp 12-23}}"
which would subst: in the details of that work in proper citation format.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite

SJ