from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [WikiEN-l] a spot for WP textbook devel

body:
Hi, I'd like to ask a developer to open up a spot on
Wikipedia to start developing Wiki textbooks. I have a
physics book that is part written and bits of an organic
textbook that I started on Wikipedia before it was deleted
("Wikipedia is not the place for textbooks"). Maveric149
suggested I write to the developers asking for a blank spot
to be opened at http://textbook.wikipedia.org until a
permanant name for the planned Wiki textbook site could be
arranged.

I would be honored and grateful if you could fulfill my
request. Thanks!

Karl Wick (User name:Karlwick)

>When I came accross Wikipedia I thought that its
underlying software and concept would be great for putting
my physics book on the web. If other people have a similar
idea I'd rather be part of the larger effort. Maybe my
organizational or "visionary" ideas are not of use to you
right now but if you can help me have a place to start
getting stuff on the web, I'll do it, and it wont be bad
stuff. (I dont have much IT background so it would probably
take me a real long time to figure out how to do all of the
technical part anyway). BTW I think that hypertext
textbooks will eventually be even better learning tools
than the traditional ones ... and am eager to start proving
it. ---Karlwick

>If you are eager to get to work then ask a developer via
the mailing list to set-up http://textbook.wikipedia.org
with a blank Wiki. We can use what you have already to work
out organizational issues and hopefully in time we can
think of a snappy name that will help draw-in contributors.
The worst thing that would happen is that nobody will be
very interested in the idea and that wiki will be a lonely
place (like our Sep11wiki). --Maveric149

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Menchi Zh-En WP

subject: Your Letter Addy Shows [Wikipedia-l] (Re: Ban: Why Doesn't It Work?)

body:
Stephen, your email address is showing, probably because of the lack of
names in your emailbox settings. I thought if you dislike spam like me, you
might like to know that.

Menchi Zh-En

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


body:
>From: "Menchi Zh-En WP"
>Stephen, your email address is showing

Never mind me.
It only shows in Hotmail to subscribers. Great, now I can starting stalk
you.

Menchi Zh-En

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: Richard Grevers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Ban: Why Doesn't it Work?

body:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:09:26 -0700, Menchi Zh-En WP <ebeins at hotmail.com>
gave utterance to the following:

> I have wondered why is it that profilically obsessive vandals, like M and
> L, can return again, again, and again, and so on for a dozen time or
> something like that with split personalities (sometimes with inverted
> sex...). Some admin gave up, some persisted. And the vandals repeatedly
> defaced some admins' page personally.
>
> For those vandals, are they still given a certain amount of time in hope
> of their possible reforms?  If not, how come their split personalities
> are still so prolific and continue for at least a while before they stop
> (presumably banned, for then)?

Because Wikipedia has no way of telling the true identity of someone
creating an account. Almost uniquely for internet sign-ups you don't even
have to have a verified email address (something that would slow people
down a little).

>
> If their IP is banned. Don't they have to switch to another computer?
>
Only if they are at an institution or workplace with permanent connections
and a large network. If they are on dailup, all they have to do is hang up
their connection and dial in again. They probably will get a new IP number
and a couple of minutes later some innocent person will get the banned one.

--
Richard Grevers
Bureaucrats cut red tape - lengthwise


list: wikien-l

from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] DW back as Joe Canuck

body:
> DW is on many ways an excellent contributor. It is a pity that his
response
> to users is bullying threatening language. We all on occasion use strong
> language in edit wars, etc (I know I have done so) but DW in the past and
> Joe Canuck in the present seems to write nothing but accusations, ''how
dare
> you?'' comments, and bullying hints at recourse to law, etc. I think Jimbo
> should have a word with him. No matter how polite someone is in talking to
> him, his response is to verbally abuse them. Such contact should take
place
> straight away. The more articles he contributes, the more likely people
are
> to contact him about things and the more likely he is to spew bile back at
> them. This needs to be stopped at the very start before it becomes a major
> problem and drives away good users. That is particularly so when one
> considers that there are users on wiki who are quite young or are retired
> people who are doing their best to contribute in a non-aggressive manner
and
> risk getting verbal bollockings from Canuck and being intimidated by him
if
> they simply ask him a question.
> JT

Yes, James -- and just as you eventually lightened up (somewhat :))- so too
may Canuck. ..... bless.


from_name: Julie Kemp

subject: [WikiEN-l] close, but no cigar

body:
Erik -

I think sophistry is the word you're looking for.  Your last on the fact
that there is a disclaimer - if one knows where to look, and certainly
not highly visible on the main page - only proves my point and
objection.   There is a certain mindset that says that doing things that
are clearly unethical or against the spirit of the law (rule, more,
code, standard, etc.) are all right as long as they follow the letter of
the law.  I'm sorry you think that's enough.

Oh - and when did helping people make informed choices stop being a
courtesy and become a form of censorship?

JHK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030616/00c3c6ca/attachment.htm


subject: The Hobbes Quote (was: [Wikipedia-l] Do we need a new logo contest?

body:
>From: The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com>
>So I would say that Erik's claim that the quotation is of a
>controversial nature because of its mistaken anthropocentricism is
>without merit.
I realize that you are in support of a new logo and not trying to stick to
the old one, but I think we should know something potentially controversial
about the old, and therefore why it should be disused.

a) InterpretationThe quote is open to many interpretations in addition to
that of the original author (that which The Cunctator revealed). Both Erik
and I misinterpreted it. I will not claim that people like us are literature
buffs, but our English ain't dat non-standard either, i.e., not that
different from yours, I assume. (Unless of course, you live a secret life as
the Queen or 007.) So the probability of a variant interpretation is high
for many native speakers without a graduate degree as well. (There are some
smarts and dum-dums across that boundary. But that's another story.)
I will not blame it on the literary style it uses, but it is just not modern
(21st-century) common English.

b) Viewpoint
Moreover, having the quote as our logo seems a tad like a statement of
support of Hobbes' political viewpoints, even though this particular quote
does not have noticeable political flavour. His avid support for authority
doesn't sit well with our collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

Menchi Zh-En

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just to throw this out there...

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:

> My point here is not about access to the schools, but is rather a
> simple response to your (insightful!) invitation to think about how
> our actions might impact the wider debates on school filtering.  If
> we
> act irresponsibly and ideologically on this point, then we
> undermine
> the case against filters by showing that even something as
> potentially
> useful as wikipedia may need to be filtered.

I say we have a "School filter", make one for each country, and
invite members of the educational system in each country to "rank"
the articles, by grade (what a 12th grader can see is different than
what a 6th grader can see).

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] FW: Advisories and saying goodbye -- long

body:
See you if come back Julie - WP has lost a good number of concientious
objectors over the last twelve months - notably Isis, who had some sorta GNU
copyleft issue .... Weve lost other professionals as well, - largely due (I
think) to the realization that academics should find non-academic hobbies.

Anyway - for you to characterize everyone that disagrees with you - as
strawmen, Thatcherite, Ayn Rand-types, is kinda low.  We simply raise the
flag that adding protections under the waving flag of protectionism (similar
to the war on terror issue) then that itself smells like a SLIPPERY SLOPE
argument -- and some of us "radical libertarians" must be quick to raise the
issue.

I cant speak for anyone else - but personally the flag that raises with me
is implementation - how would such protocols be implemented, and would they
be in the spirit of the WP true purpose? Does WP have a "true purpose" is it
written down? If not - why?

It was only a natural consequence - that the issue be boiled down to its
essence - apologies if the debate covers unintended ground.

Happy Trails,
Steven MacGrieves

> The initial question/suggestion was to place a visible advisory that the
> wikipedia contains information that some people might find
> objectionable.  From there, there were many straw men raised about the
> POV-ness of "objectionable".  Me, I agree that lots of stuff might be
> objectionable (-- and so what?), but that there are certain (mostly)
> sexually explicit articles that your average surfer might not expect to
> find, and that even a fairly conscientious parent (or child, in Jimmy's
> case) might miss when glancing over the site for age-appropriateness (or
> even some kind of family-imposed moral or religious code -- unless KQ,
> Erik, et al. mean to suggest that parents should not be allowed any say
> in when they want their children intentionally exposed to certain
> information -- religious, political, sexual, whatever, by religious,
> atheist, or just plain
> struggling-through-something-far-too-easy-to-screw-up-and-don't-need-inp
> ut-from-strangers parents, that is).
>

> The entire conversation has been not-very-subtly changed to be one over
> filters and wikipedia-imposed censorship.  It's one that I consider to
> be total bullshit, by the way -- well-calculated deviation that blurs
> any dealing with any type of deeper social responsibility.  Some of you
> have managed to prove that Thatcherism is not dead (you know, the nice
> lady who said "there is no such thing as 'society'"?).  Nor is the
> ridiculous world of Ayn Rand, where one can pretend that one's actions
> have no wider consequences than those other people allow them to have.
> How utterly depressing that so many people who consider it important to
> write very good articles that raise awareness of the global
> interconnections of scientific, political, and religious issues (among
> others) refuse to accept that their own actions (or refusal to act)
> might also have widespread effects.

How very sad that the very people
> who consistently argue for NPOV try to use it as some kind of shield of
> non-censorship, thus forcing their own POV on others.  Please don't say
> you aren't -- there have been all too many "religion and prudery damage
> kids, and they'd learn this stuff anyway, so it might as well be right"
> arguments to deny it.  What is more NPOV than to say clearly on the main
> page that the wikipedia respects the fact that people operate under many
> different value systems, and that there may be information on the site
> that could be objectionable?
>
> Oh -- and BTW, if we stuck to "wikipedia is not a dictionary", most of
> the articles that make a lot of wikipedians squeamish would be deleted
> anyway -- my guess is that no one wants to be seen as less than
> open-minded.  Felching is certainly a dictionary-type definition.
>
> And also -- DW is dangerous in any form.  I'm almost positive he was
> also Triton, and Jacques Delson.  The time he takes from other people's
> efforts is hardly worth any contributions.  HJ also made some very good
> contributions.


subject: [WikiEN-l] close, but no cigar

body:
Julie - speaking of cigars - where do you stand on the Monica issue? Earlier
on, some people (no names) mentioned including Bill Clinton in the context
of "Adult content" - this is what raised the hairs on the back of my head.

I cant think of a better example of how to politicize something that starts
off as a simple issue of filtering out naughtytalk. Do you think [[Bill
Clinton]] should be flagged at all - and if so to what degree?

-Steven


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Categories: An implementation

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

>Filters only work if articles are assigned to categories. Setting aside wether we should use categories in wikipedia itself or only in some sifter project, categories have to be implemented in the software either way. So I hacked a barebone implementation at the test site. A list of current categories can be found at
>
>http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ACategories
>
For a variety of reasons, I've been waiting a few days to jump in on
this one.  Like Erik I have been arguing for some kind of category
system, and have been dismayed when this important initiative gets lost
in a straw man argument over censorship or copyrights.  Yes, a category
system can be used as a tool for such purposes, but it's value for
Wikipedia goes well beyond such narrow confines.

>Currently, anyone can add and delete categories. I suggest that this will be restricted to sysops later, as it will prevent a "category inflation", as well as malicious deletion of a whole category.
>
This aspect has already had a lot of response, particularly from those
concerned about the openness of Wikipedia.  I don't see "category
inflation" as a serious problem.  Of course if the category list were to
remain in its current draft unordered state, its uselessness would
increase with its size.  In applying restricted  access of any kind,
system vulnerability, either to malice or to accident, becomes the
primary criterion.  Even the most trustworthy among us can sometimes
fall prey to an "oops" moment.  I can see a distinction between
integrated and non-integrated categories with only the former being
subject to restricted editing, and even integrated categories could have
their descriptions fully editable.  Altering integrated categories could
have unforseen and often far-reaching consequences that may not easily
be apparent.

>Anyone can assign any article to any category, and remove that assignment as well. Wiki, right? :-)
>
Of course!

>Currently, categories are *not* shown on the article page, although I have written that code (keep getting some weird effect, though, so I turned it off).
>
>To be done:
>* Personal category filters
>* Search for a category combination (in the example online, "Biology" and "Germany" should list "Anton de Bary")
>
All in good time.

>Thoughts? Comments? Bullets? ;-)
>
Seeing the jumbled nature of a category list that is only 19 items long
has only added to my conviction that we should have a codified
hierarchical system.

For a Wikipedia (I have very different approaches for a Wiktionary) I
would argue for a system that '''starts''' with Library of Congress
Classification System.  Before I get back a lot of comments about why
it's not a good system, let it be known that I am perfectly aware of its
shortcomings, notably its American slant on subject classification, and
the fact that its century old structure may not be appropriate to many
modern subjects.  In its favour is the simple fact that it is there and
in the public domain; it is hierarchical and easily subdivided when we
require it; it is well known and accessible at its most fundamental
structure and that gives us a coherent starting point.  An alternative
system would be just as good, but it should have these characteristics
if we want to avoid a reinventing-the-wheel kind of situation.  We need
to rember too that whatever system we choose will be modified as we
progress.

Some people complained before that they don't like the idea of having to
have to learn a long list of different codes.  That's fair enough, but
it's important to remember that most contributors will work within a
limited range of subject areas, and that in itself will limit the codes
that they need to remember.  Of course coding and classification is an
optional task.  If a person feels comfortable writing text, but feels
lost with codification he can leave that to somebody else even as we aim
to make codification as easy as possible.

Any article should be classifiable in several categories.  Thus the
Anton de Bary article can appear in CT for biography, DD for Germany and
QH for biology plus whatever else Wikipedians consider appropriate.
 Unlike printed books there is no need to limit ourselves to a single
classification to enable us to find the book on a shelf somewhere in a
library

A category would have three elements: a code, a title, and a
description.  The codes would be brief and hierarchical; they would also
be sufficient as broad search elements.  The titles would function in a
manner similar to the present article titles.  They could appear after a
code as a dumb descriptor for that code and linked directly only to the
third element.  Like most articles these descriptions would be fully
editable, and if any edit wars were to arise out of the classification
system this is where they would happen.

Magnus's idea of using drop down boxes for putting things into
categories should work well with a hierarchical scheme.  This could be
expanded into a series of nested drop down boxes as required.  For the
most part LC uses only 2 letters in its classifications, and even then
there are many unused classes.  Only 3 letters would give us the
capacity for 17,576 codes.  In the LC system the "E" category is about
the United States, and is not normally further developed into lettered
sub-classes (though it does have numerical subdivision).  We could
choose to use "EL" for United States localities, and that would be one
of our second level drop down choices.  A third level choice might
divide these localities by state, but since the drop down list of all
states is taller than most people's screens it might be limited to
states beginning with each letter, and we could wait until the fourth
level to sort out California, Colorado and Connecticut.  Georgia, as the
only "G" state would have been sufficiently identified at the third
level.  There you have it -- all the RamBot articles have been
classified. :-)   There's a great deal of flexibility there.

Eclecticology


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Lightning

subject: [Wikitech-l] Illustrating the Wikipedia

body:
Up until now, the use of files and pictures in contributions has been a bit
obscure. People don't upload too much compared to how much they edit.
Another problem has been the fact that people, admins, editors, and even
Jimbo don't _completely_ understand fair use, and other applicable laws.
Idealy, we need a lawyer, even better though, we need public domain images.

I want to propose that Wikipedia post a request for ammateur/proffessional
photographers to take pictures and contribute their high resolution versions
to the Wikipedia, placing them underpublic domain. We could run a contest
sort of and have prizes for people who contribute many (valid and useful)
images. I would be willing to host the high quality versions in my server,
as well as the tracking program, upload script and cron'd tarball's of both
the HQ, and lower resolution versions at the end of the night to facilitate
importing into Wikipedia. I would also make a mirror of the images in my
private fotki account, providing free high-bandwidth access to the download
of the originals in case my server is unreachable at any point. I'm also
willing to volunteer write the point system etc. and to a certain extent
sponsor the prizes.

 I have a company, I make novelty t-shirts and stickers, I would be willing
to give away this stuff for free, and donate a small ammount of cash, and
hopefully other people would too. I would leave it to someone who is more
trusted in the Wikipedia community to be a "treasurer" of sorts since I
would not expect people to trust me with money, since my name is not too
prominent in the Wikipedia community. With sufficient support we could
probably get independent thir parties to donate other things for use as
prizes, like for example, we could get a subscription-only website to donate
a 1 month subscription or something similar.

The system in my mind would work sort of like the livejournal "growpot"
system. We try to raise some initial money and prizes and we make a list of
pictures that we would like. Based on different criteria we could assign
them a token ammount of points that they are worth, and have the points be
points be redeamable for the prizes or cash, which could be easily paid via
paypal or such, with an option to donate these credits back to the contest,
for those of us who consider the joy of knowing we contributed a sufficient
reward.

In case Wikipedia does not wish to be involved in this directly, I would
like to propose the idea as sort of a side project, with (hopefully) some of
the more involved members helping out. I really consider this to be a
promising idea for creating a wider base of organized public domain images
suitable for use in projects like Wikipedia.

This seems like a tough task, but the great part about this, is that images
do not need a language, a picture of a horse can be used in any "horse"
article, in any language. So, if I can gather a sufficient ammount of
support from the community, I'd be willing to start on the programing work
needed for this task. so please reply with any ideas, suggestions, problems
I have not forseen, or your support.

Lightning Will


body:
> Believe me, I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint.  But it *is* a
> viewpoint, a viewpoint which we should not let manifest itself in
> ramming our own ideas down other people's throats.

This is precisely the issue - how does WP "ram anything down people's
throats?"
They have a choice - If schools want to use Britannica - because they have
content filtering...( or no content needing filtering....). The last point
raises the issue - in order for Britannica to keep all of its content in
like - it needs a heirachical command structure - entirely antithetical to
WP's purported system of consensus.
This is precisely the reason why I raised the issue of captainship a long
timme ago.

To enforce these kind of constraints on a truly free encyclopedia is
unfeasible - and therefore the WP belongs in a different niche than
Britannica - and it should not concern itself with competing with Britannica
for its marketshare.

The real issue is that to some of us "radical libertarians" - this smacks of
a change in direction of the WP as a whole - from Open content, anyone can
edit, (come on in the waters fine..) to one where "hey, I feel like this a
success, and now I want to mass market this not just to Freewheeling Bob,
but to Cautious Nancy and Self-Righteous Richard, too!  Its like watching a
favorite rock band go sour after winning a grammy.

Respectfully,
Steven MacGrieves


from_name: Axel Boldt

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Axel Boldt wrote:
> > There's one question we haven't investigated yet: would our
> > filtering really lower the likelihood that schools will
> > eventually block us completely?
>
> I have some experience with filtering software.  For sites like ours,
> what is likely is that specific pages will be blocked automatically
> based on keyword analysis, but that the site as a whole will not.

Ok, then let me reformulate my question: if we introduce a category
based optional filtering in Wikipedia, will that in any way affect the
likelihood that some or all pages of Wikipedia will eventually be hard
blocked by schools? ("hard block" means: using some technology
different from Wikipedia's optional filtering.)

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] re: close but no cigar

body:
Hi Steve -

Funny you should mention the Bill and Monica thing.  First, I'd like to
point out that I'm not in favor of any tags or wiki-imposed filtering.
Just looked at the article in question and, although I'd phrase some of
it differently (since part of the moral outrage of the vast right-wing
conspirators was based on the fact that he'd committed adultery), it's
nothing one couldn't find in the mainstream news media.  On the other
hand, if tags *were* to be employed, I suppose one might flag the oral
sex article accessible from the Monica page.  And I'm iffy on the sexual
intercourse page, because it gives a bit more detail than your average
reader might be expecting - e.g., I might be fine with my 8-year-old (no
longer exists) to look up sexual intercourse, but I wouldn't be
comfortable with her knowing details of how it's done until she's a bit
older - unless she asks.  The reality is, most kids that age don't ask
till they hear or read about it, and then don't quite get the attraction
and say, "eeew, gross."  But sometimes the images can disturb them.  And
I am personally not comfortable that we link to a site with "graphic
explicit animations."  However, that's me.  And that's why I like a
clear disclaimer, rather than trying to tag things for filtering.  The
value of the preponderance of the information found on the pedia far
outweighs the "objectionable" stuff.  That's why I don't think tags for
filtering are really feasible.

JHK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030616/ee2a0784/attachment.htm


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
>....
>Someone at TiVo might have argued thusly: "People should
>watch a variety of shows, and not be such prudes, or such
>anti-capitalists, or such anti-religionists.  They should keep
>all channels accessible at all times.  So we must not build into
>the system any tools to allow people to "filter".  If they want
>filters, they can build their own device for doing it.  But we
>aren't going to help."
>
>That'd be silly.  And it's just as silly for us to not flag content
>with some meta-data, even if we think people are silly
>(and I don't) for using it.
>
>--Jimbo

For the sake of having a sane discussion can we avoid the use of the "f-word"
please? "Filtering" has a bad name and is almost always something that is
done to "protect" impressionable eyes by excluding only certain types of
material (and often blocks legit things such as websites on brest cancer and
safe sex). I for one get a bad taste in my mouth each time I hear the word.

"Sorting", however, is a database thing and doesn't have the negative
connotations of the "f-word." I would like to sort Wikipedia based on a wide
range of categories and have a Recent Changes that only displayed certain
article categories and had the option to explicity not show others. This is
needed anyway to prevent information overload.

The default should always be to show /everything/ though - it is not our place
to make a value judgment on what a user would include or exclude in their
*own* preferences. It should be up to them, not us, to make choices that suit
their own likes and dislikes.

But disabling links in articles based on category sorting preferences may be
too much of a strain on the database so there may be technical reasons
limiting just how far we can go with this - at least in the near term before
donation and grant money starts to flow-in from the Wikimedia Foundation
(hint, hint on getting this set-up ;). Which is fine by me because I want to
do this in a slow managed and thoughtful fashion if we are going to do it at
all.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Julie Kemp wrote:
> Nor is the ridiculous world of Ayn Rand, where one can pretend that
> one's actions have no wider consequences than those other people
> allow them to have.

The odd thing about this bizarre and ill-educated slur is that the
person who has been pushing hardest that we need to do something to
deal with these particular issues is himself a 100% hardcore devotee
of Ayn Rand.  (That's me, in case anyone didn't know.)

I'm sure the rest of what you had to say, Julie, was relevant and
important and interesting and I probably agreed with it.  But you
really don't know jack about Ayn Rand, so best not to say such
nonsense about her in public.  It's unscholarly at best, to issue
snippy proclamations on a subject about which you apparently know
nothing.

--Jimbo


from_name: koyaanis qatsi

subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
Two points: one purely logical, the other political.

1) the logical:

Our goal is, and let me reiterate this for those of
you who have forgotten, to make a complete, factual,
NPOV encyclopedia.  The only viable, though tedious
and laborious, option in implementing filters on
wikipedia would be to cite who believes what about
which article--e.g. "George W. Bush believes this
article was written by an anti-capitalist scumbag."
"Osama bin Laden says Allah will strike down the
infidel who gave voice to these words." "Robert
Mapplethorpe says this article is less explicit than
the dreams he had when he was 12."  Otherwise, when we
decide what is "explicit" or "controversial," we will
be labeling the articles with a POV.  It may be a
common POV, or an uncommon POV, but it will be a POV.
It will, furthermore, be the "official" wikipedia POV.
 Wikipedia is not supposed to voice a POV.  Voicing a
POV = bad.  Contrary to mission.  Not voicing a POV =
good.  In keeping with mission.

Wikipedia is not your mother, or your thoughtful
well-intentioned son.  It is an encyclopedia.  In
keeping with the general purpose of encyclopedias, it
presents information.  Some of you will not like
information.  Those of you who do not like information
will be at the wrong site.  Don't complain to
Firestone because they sell tires and not pizza.

2) the political:

And, since you've brought the children into it when
they're not relevant, let me bring *you* into it when
you are:  There are people throughout the world dying
of starvation, some of them so desperate for food that
they look through feces for undigested kernels of
corn.  Already I hear you saying "Whoa!  Hey!  the
details of your miserable life are too 'explicit' for
me and my 200-pound 8 year-old son, driving down the
street in an SUV eating a McRibs Deluxe."  I say to
you, you are the posterchilds for miseducation, for
fear, for censorship and everything wikipedia doesn't
stand for:  you've so come to love the weight of your
own ignorance, that yoke on your shoulders, that you
miss its caress when it's gone.  Go in peace, but
please do go.

kq

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
> Ok, then let me reformulate my question: if we introduce a category
> based optional filtering in Wikipedia, will that in any way affect the
> likelihood that some or all pages of Wikipedia will eventually be hard
> blocked by schools? ("hard block" means: using some technology
> different from Wikipedia's optional filtering.)

I don't know.  But I do know that many people will find it useful at
home, and if they don't, they won't use it.  Right?

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] close, but no cigar

in_reply_to: <8o0tMmoCpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 12:20:00AM +0200

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Would you really find it tasteful for our main page to contain a "here
> there be dragons" notice? Don't you think that would blow the perceived
> problem a little bit out of proportion?

I don't think we should have any form of 'here there be dragons'
notice on the front page.  If anything, such a disclaimer should
appear on a case by case basis before particular pages, but even that
is a lot more problematic in terms of generating pointless quarrels
than what I'm proposing.

--Jimbo


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [WikiEN-l] Taking a week off from Wikipedia

body:
I've got a pileup of work to get through on other projects, so I'm going
to take a week off from Wikipedia. (If I can -- wikipediholism runs strong
in my veins! ;)

If anyone really really needs to contact me for some technical emergency,
mail or IM me directly, as I won't be watching the wikis or the mailing
lists.

(If I finish up other things sooner than I think maybe I'll have time to
finish that conversion script for the old wikis, but don't bet on it.)

Don't go censoring everything and locking it all down to sysops while I'm
away, now. ;)

I'll return around June 23.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Taking a week off from Wikipedia


subject: [Wikitech-l] Taking a week off from Wikipedia


body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

>> Wikipedians have certain workflows. They write articles, revert to
>> prior  revisions, do comparions over 10 past revisions and so forth.
>> By creating  a completely separate scheme, you require them to add
>> another workflow to  their routine. The system becomes more complex
>> and the user is  increasingly confused. This should be avoided when
>> implementing the same  feature within the existing workflows is
>> reasonably possible. I believe  this to be the case with categories
>> (but not necessarily with  interlanguage links).
>
>
> IMHO categories don't change the way articles do. An article about a
> city will be about a city as long as the article exists. I could add a
> date field to the connection category-article to make a diff, but I
> don't see the point.

Most articles are probably very stable.  Only a small minority become
the subject of wild edit wars.  I tend to agree that once a particular
category is established it will not change very much.

People can adapt their personal workflows if the change is not too
complicated.  The ability to add a simple code of a few letters to a
page without needing to chase to another page should not significantly
affect work flow.  Compare this to going to a list on a separate page to
make sure that the item is on that list.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Major new thread: Looking for consensus on content metadata

body:
(At least, I hope it is a major new thread!)

Well, we've argued for a few days, and a lot of ideas have been thrown
around, and the tension between various competing principles and/or
ideals has been explored fairly effectively.

So I wonder if we could work towards some consensus that we can all
(or nearly all) agree on.  What steps might we take that all parties
to the discussion might agree on?

Can everyone chip into this thread with accomodative ideas that you
think everyone might agree with?

By way of example, in the "fair use" debate, the one thing that all
parties could agree on is the importance of prioritizing the _tagging_
of images with their status.  Whatever might end up being done, even
if -nothing much- is the answer, that tagging is something that no one
has objected to.

So what might we do in the content metadata arena that no one (or
nearly no one) would object to?

I think that there is broad support for a categorization system which
is broad and flexible, and not necessarily aimed at content
advisories, but which might, in part, be used to address that issue as
well.

Here's what I propose -- and I'm talking at the level of policy, not
at the level of technical implementation, because there's a lot more
to be thought about and said in that regard -- is that we move towards
the implementation of a content metadata or categorization system with
the following features:

1.  Categories should be non-normative in nature.  That is, "mature
content" is an invalid category, because it suggests a value judgment
that we want to leave to the end user.  "Explicit sexual content",
while still perhaps vague in some respects, is at least
non-normative... it might be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on
your purpose.

2.  Categories should be infinitely wiki-editable, especially in the
beginning, because "a priori" categorization is impossible and likely
to lead to a lot of problems.  Ideas that only sysops can create new
categories should be avoided until we actually determine empirically
that it's necessary.  (One thing we know from our wiki experience is
that something as obviously insane as letting anyone in the world edit
works amazingly well!)

3.  We should quite possibly accept _as an editing principle_, a sort
of Ockham's razor for categories -- not multiplying them needlessly,
while at the same time, not hesitating to let people experiment with
categories as they see fit.  But, we'll try not to fight about it too
much, especially at first.

4.  The categorization system should be simple -- i.e., articles can
be tagged with as many categories as we like, and that's that.  They
are not required, and if people want to work on them, they can, and if
they don't want to work on them, they don't have to do so.

5.  Especially initially, website impacts of categories should be very
minimal... i.e. we don't try anything radical regarding filtered
searches or automatic index pages or anything too exciting like that.

--------------

If we did that, we'd be introducing nothing harmful, and doing something
positive for *multiple* purposes, not just the "content advisory" purpose.
(See below...)

And we'd get to find out, in an experimental environment, whether
categorization prompts massive flamewars, etc.

And then in a while, we can revisit the issue, and see what we think
could be done with these categories.

--Jimbo

p.s. Examples of useful categories that are non-normative:

biography
math
statistics
graphic sexual content
advanced mathematical content
gay and lesbian studies
European history
American history
U.S. Presidents
sports
tennis

All of these might be useful for content re-users who might like to
extract a subset of our data.  For example, an "Encyclopedia of Sexual
Practices" might want to extract just those articles flagged with
'graphic sexual content' or 'sexual content'. A "edupedia" project
could automatically extract articles that avoid certain topics, or
focus on certain other topics.

----- End forwarded message -----


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo

body:
I just wanted to weigh in and say that I don't much care.  I would
support any change to the logo that had broad support, and I would
also support the status quo.

I might get excited, though, if we could have a logo that would be a
picture of me in overalls with a shotgun saying "No fussin' an'
fightin', dammit!"

But, that's just me. ;-)

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lee Pilich wrote:
> >...
> >This is perhaps a little off-topic, but is there a
> >quick and easy explanation of why the Wikipedia
> >is released under the GFDL and not into the public
> >domain? Somebody asked me the other day, and I
> >realised that I didn't actually know.
>
> So that Britannica, Encarta or another proprietary encyclopedia
> doesn't cannibalize the project by incorporating our material and
> not making their modifications available under a free license. That
> would break the chain of positive feedback that has gotten us so far.

...or so the story goes. EB could in fact take Wikipedia, make some
improvements (or not), and slap an invariant section on every article,
such as "Improvements by Encyclopedia Britannica (tm), the best
encyclopedia in the world, available from www.eb.com."

Axel

>
> Who would read or continue to contribute to Wikipedia if a
> proprietary version
> was always snatching up the best parts? I wouldn't - what would be
> the point?
> Any time we do something better than a proprietary encyclopedia all
> they have
> to do is copy what we did. Then there is a proprietary fork. Forks
> are bad
> and proprietary ones are really bad because they tend to tear appart
> the
> non-proprietary communities. We would never be able to rise above the
>
> proprietary crowd in quality and contributors will drift away. We
> would never
> be able to beat Britannica because we would be assimilated into
> Britannica,
> piece by piece.
>
> Short answer: The GNU FDL encourages people to share and discourages
> people to
> be selfish.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

> "Category inflation" will be counter-productive. The whole *point* of
> categories is to group large number of articles into them. If we had
> 130000 categories for 130000 articles, it would not really do any
> good, would it?

This may not be as much of a problem as it at first appears.  Categories
will be subdivided or split off as the need arises.  Developing a nice
bell curve in a statistical analysis can depend on choosing the right
group sizes.

> And how should filtering be done if we have categories "adult", "sex",
> "sexual content", "sexually explicit", etc. all for the same thing? If
> we want to make it an option to block "sex stuff", it has to be one
> option (maybe two at max), not a dozen or more.

Using some kind of codification helps here.  A single code could
incorporate all the items listed above.  I'd be inclined to have a range
of possible categories for this.

>> And non sysops can quietly go on creating lists as
>> they are currently doing. We don't really need
>> categories anyway. Lists are fine.
>
> Today, someone talked on one of the mailing lists about one of your
> lists that took five minutes to save and slowed down the whole 'pedia
> significantly.

Whether something gets put onto a list is pretty hit and miss, and
completely uncontrolable.  If we look at any list on Wikipedia we can
never be certain that it in fact includes avery relevant article.

> Categories are my implementation of the filtering issue, something
> that would be quite difficult with lists. It could also work to tag
> images as "GFDL", "public domain" or "fair use". It can also replace
> the lists. So, if we implement a filtering option anyway, why not use
> the opportunity?

It can be used to flag a very wide range of "impaired" articles.

Ec


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Magnus-
>
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>>See, because we have to make the wiki principles (reversion, watchlists,
>>>rc, diffs, attribution, protection, deletion, undeletion ...) work for any
>>>solution that is outside the article space, I prefer one that is simply
>>>part of the article space.
>>>
>>You have removed the part of my answer where I talked about undeleting...
>>
>True, because we can always add such functionality later. That's not the
>point. The point is that we should avoid reinventing the wiki whenever
>possible.
>
Idon't see the issue as about reinventing wikis.  Becoming the largest
wiki puts this project into a unique position of confronting scaling
issues that have been meaningless on a smaller project.

Ec.


body:
>I'm sure the rest of what you had to say, Julie, was
>relevant and important and interesting and I probably
>agreed with it.  But you really don't know jack about Ayn
>Rand, so best not to say such nonsense about her in
>public.  It's unscholarly at best, to issue snippy
>proclamations on a subject about which you apparently
>know nothing.
>
>--Jimbo

Whoa Jimmy - that wasn't exactly following the principle of WikiLove (or did
you just forget to place in a bunch of smilies? ;). At the very least I don't
think it was too appropriate for a public list. JHK deserves much more
respect than that - even if she was way off base with Ayn Rand.

Again avoiding the "f-word" (filtering) and using the "s-word" (sorting)
should help tone down the rhetoric on both sides since sorting is far more
general and /is/ something we need to do before RC becomes useless.

KQs last post on this got me thinking again that this will be very difficult
since a tag is an on/off thing that /cannot/ be NPOVd like article text
can....

I guess our only recourse is to tag things based on what they are instead of
the type of emotions they may evoke in certain people. So "objectionable,"
"explicit  content," PG-13" would /not/ be a valid categories. But "sexual
practice," or maybe even "obscure sexual practice" (for felching, golden
showers, fisting etc) would.

There still will be a great deal of conflict over this; would oral or anal sex
get the tag of "obscure sexual practice"? Perhaps another tag in between
"sexual practice" and "obscure sexual practice" would be needed to give
parents the ability to sort out oral and anal sex if they so choose (but I
wouldn't tag these as "obscure"). But that is just my POV which is based on
my culture - thus the main problem KQ is talking about.

And there should /not/ be any sorting by default. Let each logged-in user
should set their own preferences.

Sorting IMO is going to be absolutely essential in the future to prevent
information overload for searches and for special pages like RC. But the
devil comes out in the details when we deal with controversial subjects - or
even conflicts between lumpers and dividers.

Peace be with you. :)

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] apologies to Jimbo re Ms. Rand

body:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030616/dae73040/attachment.htm


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Joe Canuck

body:
By conseding to him what I don't believe, I've gotten
on Joe Canuck's good side. I think it'll only be a
little bit longer until I can get him to stop
uploading pictures, since that seems to be the
ultimate root of all of the problems with him. As long
as we don't talk to him much, he can be a great
contributer.
--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] I was looking at revisions to the [[theory of relativity]]

body:
--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
> look at this one:
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Theory_of_relativity&oldid=1044538
>
> :-P :-)

Ha ha ha... not to be rude, but I thinkthat type of
thing belongs on village pump, not the list.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:01:17AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > Jimmy-
> > > On the other hand, I'm also absolutely not comfortable with some of
> > > the images that we currently have on the server, even though I think
> > > it is fairly clear that *we* can use them under fair use.
> >
> > Please cite examples.
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Dafoe
>
> There's no clue as to where that image came from, but it seems
> unlikely that it's use is appropriate under fair use, except *perhaps*
> for us, under an aggressive interpretation of fair use.
>
> Certainly, if someone wanted to take our content and use it as a
> foundation for a highly commercialized celebrity database, or let's
> say a "50 greatest actors" magazine special, they'd not be able to use
> this photo.
>
> It has no attribution of any kind, we have no idea where it came from,
> we have no idea what justification we might or might not have for
> using it.  It is a clip from a movie?  Is it a publicity still that
> was circulated freely by the studio?  Is it a famous artwork by a
> litigious photographer of repute?
>
> We just don't know, and that makes me uncomfortable.

Don't we have "when in doubt, remove" policy when it comes to copyrights ?
If some unknown (usually ip) user posts something that looks suspitious, and doesn't
answer questions about that in about a week, then it's best to remove it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] close, but no cigar

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > Would you really find it tasteful for our main
> page to contain a "here
> > there be dragons" notice? Don't you think that
> would blow the perceived
> > problem a little bit out of proportion?
>
> I don't think we should have any form of 'here there
> be dragons'
> notice on the front page.  If anything, such a
> disclaimer should
> appear on a case by case basis before particular
> pages, but even that
> is a lot more problematic in terms of generating
> pointless quarrels
> than what I'm proposing.
>
> --Jimbo

Well, that works, but only to a certain degree. When I
encounter a page on a book or movie that says it has
spoilers in it, it's still hard for me not to read it
because I'm already there. But I guess a notice on the
main page wouldn't really help that either...

I still think there should be a general disclamers
page, saying, in addition to the mature content
warning, that we don't give medical advice, do give
spoilers, etc. There should be a link to this from the
main page.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
--- koyaanis qatsi <obchodnakorze at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Two points: one purely logical, the other political.
>
> 1) the logical:
>
> Our goal is, and let me reiterate this for those of
> you who have forgotten, to make a complete, factual,
> NPOV encyclopedia.  The only viable, though tedious
> and laborious, option in implementing filters on
> wikipedia would be to cite who believes what about
> which article--e.g. "George W. Bush believes this
> article was written by an anti-capitalist scumbag."
> "Osama bin Laden says Allah will strike down the
> infidel who gave voice to these words." "Robert
> Mapplethorpe says this article is less explicit than
> the dreams he had when he was 12."  Otherwise, when
> we
> decide what is "explicit" or "controversial," we
> will
> be labeling the articles with a POV.  It may be a
> common POV, or an uncommon POV, but it will be a
> POV.
> It will, furthermore, be the "official" wikipedia
> POV.
>  Wikipedia is not supposed to voice a POV.  Voicing
> a
> POV = bad.  Contrary to mission.  Not voicing a POV
> =
> good.  In keeping with mission.
>
> Wikipedia is not your mother, or your thoughtful
> well-intentioned son.  It is an encyclopedia.  In
> keeping with the general purpose of encyclopedias,
> it
> presents information.  Some of you will not like
> information.  Those of you who do not like
> information
> will be at the wrong site.  Don't complain to
> Firestone because they sell tires and not pizza.

Wikipedia may not be out to protect you, and it is
certainly not its mission, but there are other reasons
for categorisation on wikipedia.

One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to
everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free
food and free speech. If we want to get it to
everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I
think optional censorship (necessary at some domain
names) is the easiest way to do this.

> 2) the political:
>
> And, since you've brought the children into it when
> they're not relevant, let me bring *you* into it
> when
> you are:  There are people throughout the world
> dying
> of starvation, some of them so desperate for food
> that
> they look through feces for undigested kernels of
> corn.  Already I hear you saying "Whoa!  Hey!  the
> details of your miserable life are too 'explicit'
> for
> me and my 200-pound 8 year-old son, driving down the
> street in an SUV eating a McRibs Deluxe."  I say to
> you, you are the posterchilds for miseducation, for
> fear, for censorship and everything wikipedia
> doesn't
> stand for:  you've so come to love the weight of
> your
> own ignorance, that yoke on your shoulders, that you
> miss its caress when it's gone.  Go in peace, but
> please do go.
>
> kq

Learning about sexual practices is not necessary for a
complete education. I think that is really the only
thing, along with swear words, that would need to be
censored at edupedia. Plus, this censorship is
optional at Wikipedia.

-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Zoe

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
--- Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw at users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> Don't we have "when in doubt, remove" policy when it
> comes to copyrights ?
> If some unknown (usually ip) user posts something
> that looks suspitious, and doesn't
> answer questions about that in about a week, then
> it's best to remove it.

Hardly.  Please see my talk page at
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe where I am
currently being excoriated for doing just that.  But
then it seems that, whatever *I* do is wrong, when in
other users, it is not only acceptable, but applauded.

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here I am, under attack again.

body:
Please view my Talk page at
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where
information has been moved from the Votes for Deletion
page.  Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as saying
"I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a vandal
he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have
problems with users on every Wiki she works on) are
attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they are
demanding my syspo status be taken away.

Hey, it seems like whatever I do is wrong.  If
something gets done by any other sysop, it's perfectly
fine, but if it's me, I'm being considered a vandal
and someone who's plotting a coup to take over
Wikipedia (I'm not exagerrating--that's what's being
said on my talk page.)

Well, so, if you want to remove my sysop status,
please do.  Apparently I'm not a trustworthy person
who gives nothing of use to the Wikipedia.  It seems
like all I do is go around making these outrageous
decisions.  We might want to question some of the
people making these accusations, but then, why should
I do that, since I'm so untrustworthy.

Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere?  I
don't like you, either.  And if anyone proposes you
for sysophood, I will vote no.

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] re: close but no cigar

body:
--- Julie Kemp <juleskemp at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve -
>
> Funny you should mention the Bill and Monica thing.
> First, I'd like to
> point out that I'm not in favor of any tags or
> wiki-imposed filtering.
> Just looked at the article in question and, although
> I'd phrase some of
> it differently (since part of the moral outrage of
> the vast right-wing
> conspirators was based on the fact that he'd
> committed adultery), it's
> nothing one couldn't find in the mainstream news
> media.  On the other
> hand, if tags *were* to be employed, I suppose one
> might flag the oral
> sex article accessible from the Monica page.  And
> I'm iffy on the sexual
> intercourse page, because it gives a bit more detail
> than your average
> reader might be expecting - e.g., I might be fine
> with my 8-year-old (no
> longer exists) to look up sexual intercourse, but I
> wouldn't be
> comfortable with her knowing details of how it's
> done until she's a bit
> older - unless she asks.  The reality is, most kids
> that age don't ask
> till they hear or read about it, and then don't
> quite get the attraction
> and say, "eeew, gross."  But sometimes the images
> can disturb them.  And
> I am personally not comfortable that we link to a
> site with "graphic
> explicit animations."  However, that's me.  And
> that's why I like a
> clear disclaimer, rather than trying to tag things
> for filtering.  The
> value of the preponderance of the information found
> on the pedia far
> outweighs the "objectionable" stuff.  That's why I
> don't think tags for
> filtering are really feasible.
>
> JHK
>

That is the point of forking certain articles: to
allow for kids to read articles that don't have
offensive or disturbing content while still allowing
full content to other readers.
--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> Magnus,
>
> My comments were not meant to criticise categories, or your attempts
> to make an implementation.  I'm a proponent of categories: I think
> they can serve useful purposes. I'm also grateful you are actually
> exploring the problem space, instead of just talking about it like the
> rest of us.

Ditto!  But I can plead technical incompetence :-)

> I think the [[List of XXX topics]] categories are very useful, and
> having a pointer from the category list to the article is the natural
> way to do it: it also handles the case of making a category for a
> non-existent article.

Categories can be assigned to lists as well.  I also see no way that we
will ever do away with lists completely.  They still serve a useful
function for highlighting what articles are still wanted.

Ec


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Do we need a new logo contest?

body:
On 6/16/03 1:42 PM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> Cunc-
>> In other words, it's not curiosity, its knowledge generation.
>
> What is knowledge? Hobbes does not refer to written knowledge
> specifically. I'm sure you will find plenty of people (including myself)
> who would argue for quite a bit of "knowledge generation" in the animal
> kingdom.
>
> This discussions leads us nowhere, though -- I'm not trying to make a
> substantial point regarding whether Hobbes is right or wrong, I'm trying
> to show that people may disagree with what he had to say, and that it is
> therefore POV.

Ack! That POV acronym is so wretched. I understand what you're trying to do,
but misrepresenting what Hobbes said is not the right way to go about it.
That's all I was saying.

I had written a more useful response which I accidentally deleted, about how
a more useful discussion of the logo question would not center on
aesthetics, but on what message we want the logo to portray--e.g., the
current one says "Wikipedia is serious, dense, textual, highminded,
comprehensive, global, and perhaps arrogant, dull, confusing, and
Anglocentric."

The flower one says "Wikipedia is fun and involves life/growth/the sun". So
it's unsurprising it looks like a logo for a biotech/agritech corporation or
organization, like Monsanto or the EU Eco-label.


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
--- koyaanis qatsi <obchodnakorze at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Two points: one purely logical, the other political.
>
> 1) the logical:
>
> Our goal is, and let me reiterate this for those of
> you who have forgotten, to make a complete, factual,
> NPOV encyclopedia.  The only viable, though tedious
> and laborious, option in implementing filters on
> wikipedia would be to cite who believes what about
> which article--e.g. "George W. Bush believes this
> article was written by an anti-capitalist scumbag."
> "Osama bin Laden says Allah will strike down the
> infidel who gave voice to these words." "Robert
> Mapplethorpe says this article is less explicit than
> the dreams he had when he was 12."  Otherwise, when
> we
> decide what is "explicit" or "controversial," we
> will
> be labeling the articles with a POV.  It may be a
> common POV, or an uncommon POV, but it will be a
> POV.
> It will, furthermore, be the "official" wikipedia
> POV.
>  Wikipedia is not supposed to voice a POV.  Voicing
> a
> POV = bad.  Contrary to mission.  Not voicing a POV
> =
> good.  In keeping with mission.
>
> Wikipedia is not your mother, or your thoughtful
> well-intentioned son.  It is an encyclopedia.  In
> keeping with the general purpose of encyclopedias,
> it
> presents information.  Some of you will not like
> information.  Those of you who do not like
> information
> will be at the wrong site.  Don't complain to
> Firestone because they sell tires and not pizza.
>
> 2) the political:
>
> And, since you've brought the children into it when
> they're not relevant, let me bring *you* into it
> when
> you are:  There are people throughout the world
> dying
> of starvation, some of them so desperate for food
> that
> they look through feces for undigested kernels of
> corn.  Already I hear you saying "Whoa!  Hey!  the
> details of your miserable life are too 'explicit'
> for
> me and my 200-pound 8 year-old son, driving down the
> street in an SUV eating a McRibs Deluxe."  I say to
> you, you are the posterchilds for miseducation, for
> fear, for censorship and everything wikipedia
> doesn't
> stand for:  you've so come to love the weight of
> your
> own ignorance, that yoke on your shoulders, that you
> miss its caress when it's gone.  Go in peace, but
> please do go.
>
> kq

Bravo.  This entire "filtering" discussion is making
me ill.  I intend to have no part in it.  But then,
there are those who don't want me to have any part in
Wikipedia at all ...

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Dante Alighieri

body:
At 01:47 PM 6/16/2003, Jimbo wrote:
>Dante Alighieri wrote:
> > Jimbo, I'm puzzled. Where is it written that Wikipedia contains content
> > that needs filtering?
>
>Right here, by me: "Wikipedia contains content that would be widely
>regarded as thoroughly objectionable by reasonable people, and this is
>a problem for the project."

I hate to argue semantics (actually, no I don't, I love it, but you get my
point), but that's not relevant. Saying that there is stuff that some
people might find objectionable is not the same as saying there is stuff
that needs filtering... oh, excuse me, "sorting". ;)

Also, I am not totally certain that I agree that there are things that
"reasonable people" would consider "thoroughly objectionable" on Wikipedia.

> > Who, exactly, is it that should be choosing which content on our
> > site is "objectionable"... and objectionable to whom?
>
>End users should be able to choose the view of our content that is
>appropriate for their circumstances.

They are able to do so now. It's called "free will" and "choice". Anyone
who doesn't want to look at an article on anal sex probably shouldn't click
on a link to it. I wasn't aware that people ran into objectionable content
accidently. Call me crazy, but I don't see how people are going to be
blindsided by the felching article. No one is going to go there unless they
either know what it is and want to read about it, or DON'T know what it is
and want to know what it is... and they shortly WILL know when they read
the article.

> > How are we irresponsible?
>
>We currently provide parents and children absolutely no tools by which
>they might seek to provide age-appropriate views of our content.

It's not our responsibility. If it were, we might be viewed as
irresponsible. But, just as we are not irresponsible for not providing food
to the poor in Afghanistan (since it's not our job to do so) neither are we
irresponsible here. People have free will. I have no sympathy for people
who get offended by what they read here. If you don't like it, DON'T READ
IT. As for children, if you are SO terribly concerned about what their
fragile minds might encounter on the DANGEROUS and pornographic Wikipedia,
how about you sit down with your child and supervise them? Hmmm? Obviously,
"you" is used here rhertorically, not to refer to Jimbo.

> > I am of the opinion that Wikipedia does NOT contain content that
> > needs filtering. Ideas are both MORE dangerous and LESS dangerous
> > than most people realize. Of course, the proponents of filtering
> > universally want to filter the less dangerous stuff and let the more
> > dangerous stuff through.  (i.e., sexuality is not dangerous, but
> > ideas like freedom/rationality/logic ARE dangerous... at least to
> > people who think sexuality IS dangerous....)
>
>Believe me, I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint.  But it *is* a
>viewpoint, a viewpoint which we should not let manifest itself in
>ramming our own ideas down other people's throats.

Let me get this straight... a lack of meta-data on content is ramming our
ideas down other peoples' throats? So... since the Wikipedia has NEVER had
that content, we've been ramming our ideas down peoples' throats for HOW
long now? Wow, I'm surprised we haven't heard more complaints....

>Consider this -- if I let all my personal preferences rule what goes
>into Wikipedia, it would be far different from what it is now.  I
>couldn't be trusted to write articles on religion, for example,
>because if it was "up to me" in the relevant sense, they would all end
>up hostile to religion generally.

Well, in my personal opinion, that wouldn't be too terrible... I wouldn't
mind seeing some hostile articles on religion... done NPOV of course. ;)

>But we have a higher principle than that, the NPOV principle, and we
>need to apply it carefully and conscientiously *even at the level of
>policy*.  Which means: giving our editors the means to introduce NPOV
>metadata, *even if we don't approve* of what some readers might do
>with it.

I'm sorry Jimbo, I just don't agree. I don't see why we need to bend over
backwards (and regardless of how "simple" such a plan could possibly be, it
would take COUNTLESS man-hours [no offense, ladies] to flag all the
articles) to please people. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I don't see
how it is OUR job to create such a system.

> > Lastly, I find the assertion that we're being somehow irresponsible,
> > or refusing to handle the issue responsibly insulting. Holding the
> > view that censorship is unnecessary or undesirable is not
> > irresponsible.
>
>"Censorship" is a complete red herring here.  I hold that censorship
>is unnecessary and undesirable.  I do not advocate censorship or
>anything resembling it.

Call it what you want. All I know is that "offensive content" and
"censorship" go hand in hand. I'm sure you've seen those CDs sold with
"Offensive Lyrics" right on the cover. Any censorship there? I'll make the
slippery slope argument again, a move on our part to classify THIS or THAT
article as POTENTIALLY objectionable is the first step towards censorship.
We would be tacitly admitting (or use some other word here) that is content
on the 'pedia that ought to be censored.

>At the same time, on my home television system, I have my cable box
>programmed so that I don't surf across the shopping channels or the
>religious channels.  I don't like those channels, and I don't want my
>TiVo to waste disk space recording them.
>
>Since there are only 300 or so channels to choose from, it wasn't hard
>to customize my system for my own preferences.
>
>Someone at TiVo might have argued thusly: "People should watch a
>variety of shows, and not be such prudes, or such anti-capitalists, or
>such anti-religionists.  They should keep all channels accessible at
>all times.  So we must not build into the system any tools to allow
>people to "filter".  If they want filters, they can build their own
>device for doing it.  But we aren't going to help."

This is not a good example. While TiVo is a proprietary hardware system
that would be PROHIBITIVELY difficult to engage an after-market "sorter"
for, Wikipedia is open-source software on the internet. Apples and oranges.

>That'd be silly.  And it's just as silly for us to not flag content
>with some meta-data, even if we think people are silly (and I don't)
>for using it.

It's not silly to not flag content. It's been mentioned before that it
would be difficult, or even impossible, to flag content in an NPOV manner.
This is still open to debate.

>--Jimbo

All the rest aside, I agree that we're just having a friendly debate, and I
do respect your position. Also, I think we need to get cracking on some
juicy anti-religion articles... anything to piss of the squares. So...
let's keep up the lively debate and remember, it's all in good fun. That
being said.... *pbbbbbbbt* ;p

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [WikiEN-l] Joe Canuck

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> By conseding to him what I don't believe, I've
> gotten
> on Joe Canuck's good side. I think it'll only be a
> little bit longer until I can get him to stop
> uploading pictures, since that seems to be the
> ultimate root of all of the problems with him. As
> long
> as we don't talk to him much, he can be a great
> contributer.
> --LDan

Hardly.  Try editing one of his "masterpieces" and see
how he reacts.  And by the way, he does refer to them
as masterpieces.

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Brad Johnson

body:
On 6/16/03 6:52 PM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> Cunc-
>> I had written a more useful response which I accidentally deleted, about how
>> a more useful discussion of the logo question would not center on
>> aesthetics, but on what message we want the logo to portray--e.g., the
>> current one says "Wikipedia is serious, dense, textual, highminded,
>> comprehensive, global, and perhaps arrogant, dull, confusing, and
>> Anglocentric."
>
> That's a lot. A lot to disagree with and argue about. And you don't even
> talk about Hobbes' message, which, as I said, is certain to be
> controversial.

Well, yeah. One thing to remember is that logo != articles. The content of
the entries should aspire to a neutral point of view, not Wikipedia itself.
Lots of people disagree with the GFDL, etc. Wikipedia does have a particular
set of goals.

There's nothing wrong with having a logo that doesn't please everyone, for
the simple reason that it's impossible to make one that does.

>> The flower one says "Wikipedia is fun and involves life/growth/the sun". So
>> it's unsurprising it looks like a logo for a biotech/agritech corporation or
>> organization, like Monsanto or the EU Eco-label.
>
> Monsanto? These folks would disagree:
> http://www.gp.org/
> http://www.gruene.de/
> http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/
> http://www.nhgreens.org/
>
> The Greens have pretty much monopolized the sunflower, that's why I
> wouldn't really want to use it, it was just a quick hack.

Yeah. That the logo makes sense for the Green Party supports my point about
its connotations.


from_name: Ilya N.

body:
look at this one:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Theory_of_relativity&oldid=1044538

:-P :-)


body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Zoe-
> > Please view my Talk page at
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where
> > information has been moved from the Votes for
> Deletion
> > page.  Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as
> saying
> > "I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a
> vandal
> > he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have
> > problems with users on every Wiki she works on)
> are
> > attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they
> are
> > demanding my syspo status be taken away.
>
> You are mischaracterizing what has been said.
>
> Anthere: "I will not support removing sysop status
> to Zoe, because she is
> making very good work and I globally trust us, and
> certainly trust to do
> what she thinks is the best for Wikipedia. But to be
> honest, I don't trust
> very much her on the spot decision of deletions."
>
> Martin: "Personally, I'd have just reinstated the
> copyvio notice, and
> possibly left a note on Gorged's page, rather than
> deleting the article.
> Others here have suggested additionally protecting
> the page. I hope that
> Zoe will follow one of those suggested approaches in
> the future."
>
> GrahamN: "So Zoe deleted it off her own bat without
> nominating it to be
> deleted, and without even discussing it with
> anybody? Isn't that a blatant
> abuse of her sysop status? What's going on? Has she
> been given some
> special dispensation to ignore all the rules she
> doesn't like, or what?"
>
> I think Graham's comments can be characterized as
> attacks, but Anthere &
> Martin seem to be trying to understand what
> happened. Graham seems to have
> some personal problems with you, which is
> unfortunate. I suggest ignoring
> him.
>
> I think that it was a mistake to delete the page and
> that it should have
> been protected instead, and/or that the user should
> have been warned. I do
> not think that your sysop status should be revoked
> because of a single
> mistake. I do believe that you are overreacting.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

GrahamN:
Yeah, we trust them to follow the rules. And to be
honest, open and straightforward in what they are
doing. If they demonstrate they can't be trusted act
like that, they should lose their sysop status

GrahamN:
I am astounded at the casual attitude that is
displayed in so many of the comments that have been
posted in this discussion. If this place is to remain
truly free and democratic then it is vital that all
sysops are accountable to the rest of us, and that
real consensus is always demonstrated before any
deletion or ban is enacted. If there were a Wikipedia
Constitution, these two principles should be in big
capital letters in first paragraph. This is a very
serious matter indeed. Why are so many people trying
to play it down? If I was prone to paranoia I would
point out that if a group of people wanted to stage a
coup and gain complete control of Wikipedia, then a
good way to start would be to spread exactly the kind
of complacency that so many users are demonstrating
here.

GrahamN:
What you are telling me is that there is some terrible
external threat to us, and the only way to protect
ourselves from it is to suspend democracy and give
absolute power to an unnacountable clique. This
argument seems curiously familiar from somewhere

Yep, I'm overreacting, all right.

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: cprompt

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

>--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>My point here is not about access to the schools, but is rather a
>>simple response to your (insightful!) invitation to think about how
>>our actions might impact the wider debates on school filtering.  If
>>we
>>act irresponsibly and ideologically on this point, then we
>>undermine
>>the case against filters by showing that even something as
>>potentially
>>useful as wikipedia may need to be filtered.
>>
>>
>
>I say we have a "School filter", make one for each country, and
>invite members of the educational system in each country to "rank"
>the articles, by grade (what a 12th grader can see is different than
>what a 6th grader can see).
>
>
>=====
>Christopher Mahan
>chris_mahan at yahoo.com
>818.943.1850 cell
>http://www.christophermahan.com/
>
>
That's interesting. It reminds me of Fred Bauder's
www.internet-encyclopedia.info, where articles are written from multiple
points of view, rather than a neutral point of view.

--

--cprompt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Etiquette

body:
I'd just like to say that I am extremely surprised by some of the harsh
tone and language used by a number of users on the mailing list in the past
24 hours. I will not name names, but a number of people, on different
topics, have been being downright rude. I understand that everyone get's a
bit huffy now and again, but I don't think that it serves anyone's best
interest if we start insulting each other. Let's reserve invective for
vandals and trolls, not for people who care about the Wikipedia and
Wikipedians. Anyone see any great problem with that?

Also, before I take it with both barrels about how people are just
responding to what OTHERS have done, blah, blah, blah... Bullshit. I've
done that too, in the past. It still doesn't make it right, or a good idea.
Let's all take a deep breath, shall we?

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Cunc-
> In other words, it's not curiosity, its knowledge generation.

What is knowledge? Hobbes does not refer to written knowledge
specifically. I'm sure you will find plenty of people (including myself)
who would argue for quite a bit of "knowledge generation" in the animal
kingdom.

This discussions leads us nowhere, though -- I'm not trying to make a
substantial point regarding whether Hobbes is right or wrong, I'm trying
to show that people may disagree with what he had to say, and that it is
therefore POV.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Julie Kemp

subject: [WikiEN-l] apologies to Jimbo re Ms. Rand with text

body:
Sorry about that Jimbo - I clearly have not made a study of Ayn Rand,
and my analysis was based entirely on my reading of Atlas Shrugged in
college.  If I've got her entirely wrong, I'm sorry, but I don't think
that I am the only one who sees her writing being used to support  a
social construct that, while certainly forcing people to take the blame
for their own actions, it also seemed that there was a lot of "not my
problem" in it.   Maybe I'll give it another try.

JHK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030616/7d5480be/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Etiquette

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
>I'd just like to say that I am extremely surprised by some of
>the harsh tone and language used by a number of users on
>the mailing list in the past  24 hours. I will not name names,
>but a number of people, on different  topics, have been being
>downright rude. I understand that everyone get's a bit huffy
>now and again, but I don't think that it serves anyone's best
>interest if we start insulting each other. Let's reserve invective
>for vandals and trolls, not for people who care about the
>Wikipedia and Wikipedians....

I agree. Can we all just get along?

--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Jimmy-
> Erik argued the other day that if anyone tries to filter wikipedia,
> they will just look stupid, and that our power can do a lot to
> discredit the idea of filtering.  That argument gave me pause.

> But here's the counterargument -- if Wikipedia has no protection at
> all for some things that the majority of people would find, not just
> mildly offensive, but shocking, *for children*, then we become the
> perfect poster-child for the pro-filtering crowd.

I can see it now: "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WE NEED FILTERS TO HIDE
WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA, FROM THEM!"

Oh yeah. That sounds reaaaally dangerous. Parents will run in terror when
they hear our name. Just think - our frontpage even features Martha
Stewart. And monkeypox.

> They can put forward the argument: "Yes, it would be wonderful if we
> lived in the kind of world where filtering the Internet for schools is
> unnecessary.  But here's a good example: a site that appears to be
> innocent and harmless but which actually has graphic and explicit
> depictions of highly unusual sex practices.   We even found one photo
> of female genetalia that was lifted directly from a porn site."

> And many people will quite reasonably buy that argument.

What *is* the argument here? That all 130,000 articles of Wikipedia have
to be blocked because there are a dozen that describe "highly unusual sex
practices"? Do you really think that is convincing?

I believe that you overestimate the prudery of the average American
because you are so used to feeling like a radical ;-). CNN just had a
frontpage poll about whether the state should get involved in consensual
sex among adults. 90% were against it. Sure, there's a lot of panic
regarding sex and children. But often it's really just the well organized
religious right screaming at the top of their lungs and the rest keeping
their mouth shut. And I think if these 10-20% started screaming about the
dangers of Wikipedia, the remaining 80-90% might actually have something
to say.

But if we are just complacent, if we just blindly accept the so-called
power of these pressure groups, then *we* contribute to giving them that
power. We are among those who shut up and not among those who speak up. If
you are such a radical, Jimbo, why are you so eager to give them what they
want?

Have you ever actually shown your mother Wikipedia? I think she would like
it. Mine certainly did.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Jimmy-
>> What *is* the argument here? That all 130,000 articles of Wikipedia
>> have to be blocked because there are a dozen that describe "highly
>> unusual sex practices"? Do you really think that is convincing?

> No, that is *not* the argument, not even close.

> The argument is "We need filtering software installed in the schools
> because even a superb site such as Wikipedia, which should be
> available to children, contains explicit sexual content about obscure
> sexual practices.  It would be nice if such sites took a responsible
> approach to things, but they don't, and so we have to do it."

Once again, do what? Filter Wikipedia entirely? Do you really think they
can get away with that? And if they just want to filter the respective
pages, what do we care?

Regards,

Erik


from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] DW back as Joe Canuck

body:
>on the isue of Joe Canuck possibly being DW, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote,  I'll
>go talk to him.

To Dan's message, which read
Hi, Joe. I've realised that you seem to be threatening people with lawsuits
at least twice, and I wonder why you're doing it. While I understand you're
a lawyer,  I don't think you'll get very far on Wikipedia threatening
people. Since you're threatening them, some people think you're an other
user who has since been banned from Wikipedia, named DW, but I know that's
not true. But if you lighten up on the threats, I think they will stop with
these false accusations. LittleDan 18:39 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Joe Canuck replied
Re your comment: I never have, and never do, under any circumstances, make
threats to anybody. Please retract your false accusation. Nor have I ever
said I am a lawyer, sanitation worker, truck driver, horse manure hauler, or
any other occupation. In fact, I go about my business making worthwhile,
detailed, accurate, valuable and needed contributions to Wikipedia, in my
humble opinion. But, if my work is not EXACTLY what Wikipedia is all about
(and there are those who play without really contributing anything here),
then please advise and I will leave immediately. Note, I never bother
anybody, ever. I only respond when I am targeted for discriminatory action.
Are you suggesting that discrimination is an acceptable policy at Wikipedia
and that anyone being discriminated against should shut up?  Joe Canuck
18:54 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

DW is on many ways an excellent contributor. It is a pity that his response
to users is bullying threatening language. We all on occasion use strong
language in edit wars, etc (I know I have done so) but DW in the past and
Joe Canuck in the present seems to write nothing but accusations, ''how dare
you?'' comments, and bullying hints at recourse to law, etc. I think Jimbo
should have a word with him. No matter how polite someone is in talking to
him, his response is to verbally abuse them. Such contact should take place
straight away. The more articles he contributes, the more likely people are
to contact him about things and the more likely he is to spew bile back at
them. This needs to be stopped at the very start before it becomes a major
problem and drives away good users. That is particularly so when one
considers that there are users on wiki who are quite young or are retired
people who are doing their best to contribute in a non-aggressive manner and
risk getting verbal bollockings from Canuck and being intimidated by him if
they simply ask him a question.
JT

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>>Suggestion: We could easily import the existing
>>lists into my implementation.
>>
>>Magnus
>>
>Only the major ones please. Many of the lists in WikiEn are really obscure and
>special purpose.
>
Agreed.  The obscure ones could be fit in at a later stage when we have
a better grasp of how things are going.

>IMO there should be very few categories (at least at first); One for each
>major category that is already on, for example, the en.wiki's main page
>(science, mathematics, physics, Linguistics, etc - the whole lot) along with
>type categories like "biography", "city/town/village", "country/nation",
>"subnational entitiy", "stub" etc.
>
That's consistent with my approach, but not necessarily with the
categories mentioned.  Top level categories need to be comprehensive to
insure that '''every''' article can be placed in at least one of these.
 If these top level categories are given single letter codes that means
a maximum of 26   Some of the more obvious 2nd level codes could be
implemented fairly early on.

>Keep it simple please (at least at first). If /that/ works then we can slowly
>expand the system in a measured and thoughtful way - voting for new
>categories may be a good solution here in order to prevent a rapid expansion
>of categories that would render the whole system useless.
>
Good!  I have a lot of these to propose, but always following principles
of comprehensive and inclusion.  This would give a place for all
subcategories, and would ensure that even articles which do not yet have
a subcategory can be found in the broader category.  I would likely
propose categories in related batches.

>I'm very wary of allowing just anybody to create any category since from a
>database management perspective it would be easy for people to create many
>different variants for the same intended category ([[category:biology]],
>[[category:life sciences]], [[category:life science]], [[category:living
>things]], [[category:the study of living things]] etc). And having too many
>categories will be very difficult for people to remember and very unwieldy
>for people to choose from in a category search. Let the lists stay for the
>obscure stuff.
>
These are real risks.  There may be a way of dealing with this within
the distinction of integrated and non-integrated categories.  The latter
would be far more flexible in what they would allow,  but they could be
more easily culled as their uselessness and duplication became apparent.

>We also need to devise guidelines for when to assign labels. Again from a
>database design perspective: If this is not done consistently then the output
>or any sort will be suspect and perhaps complete garbage. As KQ pointed out
>we could assign the category 'crime' to [[Jesus Christ]] along with the
>category of 'biography' so that JC shows up in a list of criminals. But is JC
>most famous for being a crime figure? No! He is famous for being a religious
>figure so the category 'religion' would be there but not 'crime.' Same for
>[[Bill Clinton]] ([[category:biography]] and [[category:politics]] apply
>there).
>
I don't think we'll ever ever be able to prevent people from assigning
goofy categories to things, any more than we can completely prevent
goofy edits and vandalism.  Doing this would require becoming a closed
projec, and that would defeat Wikipedia's prime directive.

>With categories in place then one day we could have our special pages use
>these tags for things like Recent Changes. RC in the English Wikipedia often
>has 10 or more edits a minute now! It would be nice to have the option to
>only see articles that may interest the user (well for me that would be
>everything but one of my biology professors may want a recent changes that
>only displays articles relating to mathematics, the sciences and economics).
>
Certainly, but this addresses how it might be used rather than how it
might be set up.

>This will become absolutely necessary if we continue our quasi-exponential
>growth pattern for WikiEn; one day in not too many years (fewer than most
>people probably think) there will be an average of hundreds of edits a
>minute! We need to sort that out somehow or no human will bother looking at
>RC anymore and will only revert vandalism to articles on their watchlists
>(even with sorting, bots would probably have to help with automatic 'probable
>vandalism/copyvio detection' - outputting results on a separate RC for that
>type of stuff - maybe even by assigning those categories to articles...).
>
Only 867,440 articles to Mega-Wiki! :-)   Watching everything is already
impossible for a single person.

> Alas it looks like Wikipedia is growing up. This time next year WikiEn
>Wikipedians may start to specialize their edits based on which categories
>they choose RC to output and several other language Wikis may follow the year
>after. Our small town is beginning to show signs of emerging cityhood (or has
>WikiEn at least already become a small city?).
>
>We are going where no wiki has gone before. There is both danger and
>opportunity in that.
>
Exactly


body:
Jimmy-
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> Once again, do what? Filter Wikipedia entirely? Do you really think
>> they can get away with that? And if they just want to filter the
>> respective pages, what do we care?

...

> After a lot of thought, I don't think that's right.  If Wikipedia
> contains content that should be filtered, then the proponents of
> filtering can use us as an example of why filters are a Good Thing.

I still don't follow your argument. Do you, or do you not think that the
proponents of filtering could plausibly argue that all of Wikipedia, all
130,000 articles, need to be filtered in libraries because we have some
articles about "highly unusual sex practices"?

If the proponents of filtering manage to come up with a filtering solution
that only filters the articles they find so offensive, something which I
doubt given the nature of Wikipedia, then all the better for them -- less
work for us. And if they don't, we can say that they

1) ask us to do the impossible (a lot of purely technical objections
against filtering have already been raised)

2) violate the First Amendment by hiding 129,500 perfectly valid articles
from pupils because of 500 ones which they consider objectionable.

Oh, and by the way -- the Yahoo! message boards contain a lot more
objectionable and offensive material than Wikipedia.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
In a message dated 6/16/2003 8:48:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
zoecomnena at yahoo.com writes:

> --- koyaanis qatsi <obchodnakorze at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Two points: one purely logical, the other political.
> >
> >1) the logical:
> >
> >Our goal is, and let me reiterate this for those of
> >you who have forgotten, to make a complete, factual,
> >NPOV encyclopedia.  The only viable, though tedious
> >and laborious, option in implementing filters on
> >wikipedia would be to cite who believes what about
> >which article--e.g. "George W. Bush believes this
> >article was written by an anti-capitalist scumbag."
> >"Osama bin Laden says Allah will strike down the
> >infidel who gave voice to these words." "Robert
> >Mapplethorpe says this article is less explicit than
> >the dreams he had when he was 12."  Otherwise, when
> >we
> >decide what is "explicit" or "controversial," we
> >will
> >be labeling the articles with a POV.  It may be a
> >common POV, or an uncommon POV, but it will be a
> >POV.
> >It will, furthermore, be the "official" wikipedia
> >POV.
> > Wikipedia is not supposed to voice a POV.  Voicing
> >a
> >POV = bad.  Contrary to mission.  Not voicing a POV
> >=
> >good.  In keeping with mission.
> >
> >Wikipedia is not your mother, or your thoughtful
> >well-intentioned son.  It is an encyclopedia.  In
> >keeping with the general purpose of encyclopedias,
> >it
> >presents information.  Some of you will not like
> >information.  Those of you who do not like
> >information
> >will be at the wrong site.  Don't complain to
> >Firestone because they sell tires and not pizza.
> >
> >2) the political:
> >
> >And, since you've brought the children into it when
> >they're not relevant, let me bring *you* into it
> >when
> >you are:  There are people throughout the world
> >dying
> >of starvation, some of them so desperate for food
> >that
> >they look through feces for undigested kernels of
> >corn.  Already I hear you saying "Whoa!  Hey!  the
> >details of your miserable life are too 'explicit'
> >for
> >me and my 200-pound 8 year-old son, driving down the
> >street in an SUV eating a McRibs Deluxe."  I say to
> >you, you are the posterchilds for miseducation, for
> >fear, for censorship and everything wikipedia
> >doesn't
> >stand for:  you've so come to love the weight of
> >your
> >own ignorance, that yoke on your shoulders, that you
> >miss its caress when it's gone.  Go in peace, but
> >please do go.
> >
> >kq
>

Thanks, KQ. Well said!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030616/76f22435/attachment.htm


from_name: Anthere

body:
--- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please view my Talk page at
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where
> information has been moved from the Votes for
> Deletion
> page.  Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as
> saying
> "I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a
> vandal
> he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have
> problems with users on every Wiki she works on)

Ah ?
Where did you pick that please ?
Could you give Names when you offer such a comment ?

are
> attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they
> are
> demanding my syspo status be taken away.

I certainly demanded *no* such thing. See Erik
comment.
I said on the contrary I would *not* support removing
your sysophood as I am convinced you do what you think
is best for Wikipedia. Just said you were quite often
in a grey area, that's all.

> Hey, it seems like whatever I do is wrong.  If
> something gets done by any other sysop, it's
> perfectly
> fine, but if it's me, I'm being considered a vandal
> and someone who's plotting a coup to take over
> Wikipedia (I'm not exagerrating--that's what's being
> said on my talk page.)
>
> Well, so, if you want to remove my sysop status,
> please do.  Apparently I'm not a trustworthy person
> who gives nothing of use to the Wikipedia.  It seems
> like all I do is go around making these outrageous
> decisions.  We might want to question some of the
> people making these accusations, but then, why
> should
> I do that, since I'm so untrustworthy.
>
> Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere?  I
> don't like you, either.  And if anyone proposes you
> for sysophood, I will vote no.

???

I think an old sysop like you should know what is
going on around herself. And should know when people
are already sysops or not.
If you want me to be removed from the sysop list,
please start a page [[Wikipedia:Votes for
unsysoping]]. Then list me there and provide arguments
to justify I did "bad" things.

That would be really "unWikiLove" though.
Sysops are not supposed to love or like each other.
But to work together in respect for the best. Hence to
discuss together little issues spoiling the mood. To
discuss them honestly. Nothing wrong there.

Now, not to be a pain, but...you removed an
explanation to Mav I put on your talk page. He
misunderstood something I said yesterday.
Unfortunately, your talk page is too long, so I
apparently cut the bottom of it, and once I realised
it, it was too late, and I can't clean the mess
myself.

You chose to revert the page, but so doing you removed
my comment to Mav. This is embarassing me, I would
prefer that my comment is restored, rather than my
yesterday comment staying unclear in the discussion.
Could you do that for me please ?

Cheers

Anthere

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here I am, under attack again. poor dear me

body:
It's also entirely possible Zoe - that youre overreacting (It sure is hot
here in California) and that you may have made a decision that was poor,
not-well thought out, and hasty --- while still having no bearing on your
qualifications to be sysop, which I think are fantastic, generally.

I say all of the above knowing no specifics about the case in question -
only knowing some of the people in question - and that its inappropriate for
you to characterize them the way you did.  If I may comment - you DO get
defensive sometimes about your judgements and views.  But then again, who
doesnt? Were all human here.

-Stevertigo

P.S. Dont mess with Ayn Rand.


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Category redirects would help here but before that we would have to establish
>naming conventions to minimize duplicates in the first place and maybe a flag
>on RC to indicate that somebody just categorized an article. Then there needs
>to be a centralized place for all categories to reside so they can be
>mangaged there.
>
A simple "C" flag on RC could do that

>How such a system would work needs to be made clear and we need people who are
>familiar with how the system works so that they can effectively manage such a
>system. A phased approach is needed - that is all.
>
It will naturally require a few people who can think in terms of an
overall structure, rather than just ones who are thinking of a
specialized area within the system.

Ec