from_name: Alexander Cajcyc

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
>> So where were you all recently?

Na svoj soram, I left the discussion for reasons of laziness and relied on the good will of other wikipedians. I shouldn't have done that ;(

>>We just needed categorization, changes in edit rules and main page in official orthography.

Yes, yes. Maybe a main page with two links to main pages in the relevant orthography

>> I think it's not realistic now too:(

Every solution that would satisfy us all IS realistic, as the technical possibility to implement a segmentation is still there, as far as I understand. So why not doing it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ihar Hrachyshka [mailto:ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:26 PM
To: Alexander Cajcyc
Cc: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org; GerardM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

? ???, 30/03/2007 ? 21:55 +0400, Alexander Cajcyc ????:
> I am bloody serious now!
>
> I remember User:Alexander Gouk planning to introduce some solution, but I don't remember if he really did. Can you give a link to your proposal?
>
> And I personnally was always for splitting into classical and official sectors within one and the same Wikipedia instead of splitting in two separate wikipedias or, especially, deleting the old wiki for the sake of a new one!
>
And by the way, there were much more easier solutions of this conflict
and they were provided on the Main_Page of be-x-old but they were either
blamed or ignored.
We just needed categorization, changes in edit rules and main page in
official orthography. But be-x-old community (especially admins) were
against any "concessions" for official orthography. I think it's not
realistic now too:(
> czalex
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com>
> To: Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:10:10 +0300
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
>
> >
> > ? ???, 30/03/2007 ? 17:13 +0400, Alexander Cajcyc ? ??:
> > > In that case a solution has already been found long ago, and the question is purely a technical one: one and the same Wiki, but with articles separated into "classical" and "official". As far as I know, this has already been implemented in other Wikis (e.g. Serbian?). So why not just doing the same with Belarusian Wikipedia?
> > >
> > As you can remember I've provided such a solution long time ago but
> > there was a one big Ignore on the Main_Page on this solution talk. And
> > now - when all is so bad - you tell us the same words.
> > I don't want to think that you are making compromises only after the
> > power-punch from Wikimedia authority. Are you speaking serious now?
> > >
> > > czalex
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > > To: "Alexander Cajcyc" <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:03:43 +0200
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The standard
> > > > is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
> > > > the label.
> > > >
> > > > Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not bring
> > > > collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together and
> > > > history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> > > > indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in English
> > > > ... all the more reason to insist on collaboration.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi everybody
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould find a
> > > > > solution that would satisfy all of us.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the representation of
> > > > > Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the sake
> > > > > of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical
> > > > > orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some
> > > > > compromise.
> > > > >
> > > > > I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now, OK.
> > > > >
> > > > > But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles to
> > > > > get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in
> > > > > Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical orthography has
> > > > > an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really DO
> > > > > speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that most
> > > > > forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being hold
> > > > > in... Russian [what is not bad itself].
> > > > >
> > > > > So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g.,
> > > > > be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for editing
> > > > > so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > czalex
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > > > > To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel that
> > > > > you
> > > > > > give more than what you get.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space
> > > > > where
> > > > > > such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about "your"
> > > > > > language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
> > > > > > orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
> > > > > > achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate
> > > > > and to
> > > > > > find some coexistence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
> > > > > > created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >     Gerard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > > > > > > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > > > > > > insults and speculations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > > > > > > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> > > > > > > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > > > > > > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> > > > > > > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > > > > > > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
> > > > > > > for yourself by your own hands.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > P.S.
> > > > > > > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> > > > > > > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited
> > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> > > > > > > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> > > > > > > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > > > > > > indexing bots.
> > > > > > > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> > > > > > > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Monk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

body:
On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I don't know Florida Law - but if my knowledge of UK law would say that
> if harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an action, and it is
> reasonable to take steps to prevent it, then a failure to do so is
> culpable negligence. We know the harm, we could do something, but we don't.
>

UK and US law split over 200 years ago. There are significant
differences. Read through Barrett v. Rosenthal.

--
geni


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
On 3/29/07, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The subcommittee recommendation was to rename the alternative or
> 'classical' Belarusian wiki, and use the standard code for the
> standard or 'normative' Belarusian wiki. This recommendation did not
> include the closure of the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia.

Nor is it closed; it lives at
http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
On 3/31/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> His most recent discovery was AfDs on stub articles about episodes of
> Lost that hadn't aired yet (but barring the unexpected destruction of TV
> as we know it soon would) on the basis of Wikipedia not being a crystal
> ball. That's just dumb, the pages will be recreated when the episodes
> air. It makes us look irrationally deletion-happy.

We've had issues with people using wikipedia to distribute information
about unbroadcast episodes obtained by methods other than the normal
means.

--
geni


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: improving quality on enwiki

body:
On 3/30/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/03/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > * A mapping of categories onto Subject Working Groups needs to be
> > > established.  Each Subject Working Group is responsible for the
> > > maintenance of all articles which are categorized within categories
> > > assigned to that SWG.  (If an article is within the scope of multiple
> > > SWGs, an arbitration process, with both automated and deliberative
> > > components, will determine which SWG will be primarily responsible for
> > > it.)
> >
> > And *why* exactly would we need this all-pervading bureaucracy?  Who
> > cares which group is "primarily" responsible for the article?  You're
> > confusing the idea of the SWG as a place to ask for help with the
> > article with that of the SWG as a place to excercise control over it;
> > unless the primary group is to be given some unique function relative
> > to the non-primary ones, knowing which one it happens to be is
> > useless.
> >
> > (You do realize that virtually every article will be in such an
> > intersected scope, if only because subject-oriented groups are
> > orthogonal to country-oriented ones, yes?)
>
> I think bureaucracy is the wrong word. The idea is to impose a
> radically different, prescriptive structure onto Wikipedia to ensure
> that all articles are managed and brought to a particular standard.
> Where bureaucracy suggests evolutionary build up of layers of
> redundancy, this system would, ideally, be technical and streamlined.
> This technicality would eliminate the need for bureaucratic layers.

No, it'd merely make sure that the bureaucratic layers are planned in
advance. ;-)

But the key issue, I think, is simply this: prescriptive collaboration
models do not, as a general rule, work on Wikipedia.  The vast
majority of editors make content contributions on topics of their
choice; if they're told that they *must* work on article X, they'll
simply refuse.  This proposal, basically, assumes that there's a
supply of editors somewhere willing to do work (which happens to be
"not fun" in a major way) according to some central bureaucracy's
dictates; in my experience, there simply isn't such a supply
available.

> > > * SWGs will have the responsibility to ensure that all articles within
> > > their ambit are properly sourced, cleaned up, etc.
> > > * Any article which remains unsourced for one month will be deleted.
> > > A bot will detect unsourced articles and notify the responsible SWG of
> > > the article and the need to source it.
> >
> > So, basically, mass deletions of hundreds of thousands of articles.
> > (The groups will not, in general, have either the manpower or the
> > motivation to really fix any substantial portion of what's unsourced.
> >  The only result you're likely to see is that editors will start
> > pasting in references -- *any* references -- in an attempt to avoid
> > having the articles deleted.)
>
> This hasn't occurred under the organic system where a lot of pressure
> is on to verify with references, why would it occur under this system?

Um, right now, there isn't *any* pressure for anything that's not a
BLP or a controversial topic.  We have enormous numbers of
unreferenced articles on more obscure topics that few people visit;
the vast majority of them will never see anyone trying to remove them
based on being unreferenced, which this proposal would do.

> > > There are already a lot of SWGs on Wikipedia, with varying degrees of
> > > organization; many WikiProjects qualify as such.  However, both the
> > > automation and the sense of group responsibility is not currently
> > > present, and needs to be cultivated.  We need these people to feel
> > > personally responsible for the quality of all of the articles in their
> > > SWG.
> >
> > And how, precisely, are you intending to do that?  Rounding up the
> > WikiProjects and telling them that they're doomed unless they source
> > all their articles is going to be extremely counterproductive; faced
> > with a negative motivational strategy, the volunteer editors will
> > simply leave.
>
> I don't think introducing a new system is equivalent to "rounding up
> WikiProjects and telling them they're doomed unless they source the
> articles". WikiProjects will be identified as existing SWGs and the
> contributors will be asked to join the SWG.

And then what?  The key element of this proposal seems to be that
these SWGs (let us call them "WikiProjects") would somehow magically
start sourcing everything with nary a complaint.  The fundamental
underpinning theory here is that (a) occasional editors can be forced
to join project en masse and (b) project members can be forced to do
sourcing work en masse; in my experience, neither of those reflects
reality.  The more likely reaction is that many of the active projects
will simply move somewhere else, and the rest will fail to actually
accomplish anything substantial.

Kirill


from_name: doc

body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I don't know Florida Law - but if my knowledge of UK law would say that
>> if harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an action, and it is
>> reasonable to take steps to prevent it, then a failure to do so is
>> culpable negligence. We know the harm, we could do something, but we don't.
>>
>
> UK and US law split over 200 years ago. There are significant
> differences. Read through Barrett v. Rosenthal.
>
As I said, legal concerns should not here be paramount. The civil law
only exists to punish those who are not doing the Right Thing, and
compensate those who are their victims. So the paramount question is not
legality, it is are we doing the Right Thing? Is this responsible?

Doc


from_name: Florence Devouard

subject: [Foundation-l] Report on board meeting in Florida

body:
Florence Devouard wrote:
  * approval to have Rob work full time rather than full time, to help in
> the office

yeah. I know.

Sigh


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked
the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/

As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such a
site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon
Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was closed.
As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it
would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.

The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which
was hidden away where I never saw it until today:
http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER

It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate
purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be better
hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended up?

If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could
hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGDe96wRnhpk1wk44RApOyAKCCfGg5T8QbmIplUpZt8rfixdza6gCcClGT
iaxAkmqlLd+T6/tBUXoY4s8=
=Fuk4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] check user...

body:
On 3/30/07, christophe.henner at wikimedia.fr <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
> And reveal there identity publicly.

I don't know that publicly is important. I think that revealing it to
the foundation is very important.  I think that being over 18 is also
important.

-Greg  (Checkuser, over 18, and identity known by the public)


subject: [Foundation-l] check user...


body:
On 3/31/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > I don't know Florida Law - but if my knowledge of UK law would say that
> > > if harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an action, and it is
> > > reasonable to take steps to prevent it, then a failure to do so is
> > > culpable negligence. We know the harm, we could do something, but we don't.
> > >
> >
> > UK and US law split over 200 years ago. There are significant
> > differences. Read through Barrett v. Rosenthal.
> >
> And how would that decision help us, Geni? ~~~~

The foundation appears to me to be pretty safe. There are a number of
court rulings that I believe support that position. Additional the
foundation is in a better position than us to judge it's legal
situation and until it says otherwise I believe we should assume that
they are fine. However one long term worry that isn't often considered
is the situation of editors who edit articles with problem claims and
don't spot and remove them.

Barrett v. Rosenthal is the case that I know of that appears to come
closest to addressing their situation under US law and thus should be
of interest.

--
geni


body:
On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> As I said, legal concerns should not here be paramount.

Given that they are a fairly direct way people might be legally able
to take rapid action against us they should be.

>The civil law
> only exists to punish those who are not doing the Right Thing, and
> compensate those who are their victims.

I haven't really studied jurisprudence.

> So the paramount question is not
> legality, it is are we doing the Right Thing? Is this responsible?

Unless you define your terms the question is impossible to answer.

--
geni


body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> As I said, legal concerns should not here be paramount.
>
> Given that they are a fairly direct way people might be legally able
> to take rapid action against us they should be.
>

I humbly suggest that the code "do no harm" is older and more virtuous
than any statue book. I obviously do not share your belief in legal
positivism. Some things are wrong, even if we can't be sued.


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
On 3/31/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nor is it closed; it lives at
> > http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/
>
> Living in a vegetative, comatose fashio, though. The database is locked.

It shouldn't be. I'll try to figure out what's going on there.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


body:
On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I humbly suggest that the code "do no harm" is older and more virtuous
> than any statue book.

However it conflicts with things like NPOV and "wikipedia is an encyclopedia".

Information is almost always harmful to someone

> I obviously do not share your belief in legal
> positivism. Some things are wrong, even if we can't be sued.

I don't recall signing up to a system of ethics when editing wikipedia.

--
geni


body:
On 3/31/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> So far as I can see, it addresses only one aspect of the issues we
> might face. What are the issues it deals with, Geni, that are relevant
> to us?

Being sued for libel under US law for the content of articles you have
edited over information that was placed in the article by someone
else.

It's useful as an extreme case since it shows how far courts may
interpret section 230.

--
geni


body:
On 3/31/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't recall signing up to a system of ethics when editing wikipedia.
> >
> Wow, Geni.  :-(

There is no code of ethics mentioned in the registration form.

Which  system of ethics would you have me adopt?

Those of the APA:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rorschach1.jpg

those of Islam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

those of Catholicism I don't know if we have any of the works listed
in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum on wikisource but...

I've already delt with the Wicca do no harm approach so what is it to be?

In a situation where a universally agreed system of ethics is likely
to be impossible we must to an extent fall back on other more
pragmatic approaches. The law is one. Preventing inaccuracy is
another.

--
geni


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 31/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/31/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't recall signing up to a system of ethics when editing wikipedia.
> > >
> > Wow, Geni.  :-(
>
> There is no code of ethics mentioned in the registration form.
>
> Which  system of ethics would you have me adopt?
>
> Those of the APA:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rorschach1.jpg
>
> those of Islam:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
>
> those of Catholicism I don't know if we have any of the works listed
> in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum on wikisource but...
>
> I've already delt with the Wicca do no harm approach so what is it to be?
>
> In a situation where a universally agreed system of ethics is likely
> to be impossible we must to an extent fall back on other more
> pragmatic approaches. The law is one. Preventing inaccuracy is
> another.

Perhaps one could think of our NPOV policies as necessitating a
rationalist morality based on observable and measurable parameters.
Anything outside this relies on belief and is POV.

In this manner, the kind of morality produced is indeed pragmatic and
could be seen as quite similar to that employed by much of science
today.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/31/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't recall signing up to a system of ethics when editing wikipedia.
>>>
>> Wow, Geni.  :-(
>
> There is no code of ethics mentioned in the registration form.
>
> Which  system of ethics would you have me adopt?
>
> Those of the APA:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rorschach1.jpg
>
> those of Islam:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
>
> those of Catholicism I don't know if we have any of the works listed
> in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum on wikisource but...
>
> I've already delt with the Wicca do no harm approach so what is it to be?
>
> In a situation where a universally agreed system of ethics is likely
> to be impossible we must to an extent fall back on other more
> pragmatic approaches. The law is one. Preventing inaccuracy is
> another.
>
WTF? That we can't set ethics down in a nice tidy process for you with
no shaggy edges is an excuse to say "well we can just bugger everyone,
unless we might get sued"?

Let's do all we possibly can to ensure that Wikipedia contains as few
articles that are biased, untrue or privacy-violating isn't that
difficult to comprehend no matter your religious affiliation or ethical
code! We are under an ethical obligation to do that - and all process
and policy should be reflecting that. Imaging that, it isn't hard if you
try.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good <s>men</s>
Wikipedians do nothing."


subject: [Foundation-l] check user...

body:
to my opinion, should be over 18 of age.

Anthere


subject: [Foundation-l] check user...


from_name: Gwern Branwen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Question for copyright savvy folks

in_reply_to:
<m5vq03p32cchut1ri175vuuehh3dcd1oo3@4ax.com> (Guy Chapman aka
	JzG's message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:47:06 +0100")

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> writes:

....
>
> What of scores from ChoralWiki?  That is public domain, I guess
  we can
> borrow at will?  Or should we restrict ourselves to the same
  level of
> caution?  Note that some of the stuff on ChoralWiki is actually
> copyright, it's externally hosted, so I would have to watch that
  of
> course.  Most of them are in PDF format.

I've always felt that, unless the materials are being actively
developed/modified/improved (and it cannot be done better on
Wikipedia), we should always seek to mirror as much Free content
as possible - even if the metadata is degraded - simply because it
adds redundancy and reliability to the Free culture community as a
whole (not to mention the direct utility for WMF projects). If you
have the spare time, I'd encourage to copy over what you can.

> Finally, does anyone have a good, cheap or free converter from
  jpeg /
> tiff to a more efficient format?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Guy (JzG)

I generally use [[ImageMagick]] for such tasks - the command line
"convert" program is particularly useful and scriptable for such
tasks (ie, $ convert foobar.jpg foobar.png), and then use
[[OptiPNG]] to compress the PNGs. They're both in the Debian
repositories, so are easily gotten, free, and easy to use. Works
for me, anyway.

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


subject: [Foundation-l] check user...

body:
On 31/03/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> to my opinion, should be over 18 of age.
>
> Anthere
>
>
And reveal there identity publicly.

--
schiste


subject: [Foundation-l] check user...


body:
On 3/31/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> I humbly suggest that the code "do no harm" is older and more virtuous
> >> than any statue book.
>
> on 3/30/07 8:57 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > However it conflicts with things like NPOV and "wikipedia is an encyclopedia".
>
> "Do no harm" is not a "point of view" - it is a standard of behavior, and
> must prevail. And, if Wikipedia's identity as an encyclopedia does not
> include "do no harm", it needs to rethink that identity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide as it stands harms
turkey. If we were to change it to reduce this harm we could
potentially harm the Armenians as well as producing an article that
would be against the law in France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)

Harms Scientology but not publishing it could harm people if
Scientology were ever to reactivate that policy.

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

Harms the subject of the article. But if we change it so it did not
the article would be in error

> And, therefore??

Do no harm is not useful as an ethical foundation for wikipedia.

> Did you not have your own? And if you did, what was it? And, if not, why
> not?

I'm not going to explain my entire system of ethics here. It isn't
really relevant in any case.

--
geni


body:
On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> WTF? That we can't set ethics down in a nice tidy process for you with
> no shaggy edges is an excuse to say "well we can just bugger everyone,
> unless we might get sued"?
>

I suggests that ethics are a poor base to build from.

> Let's do all we possibly can to ensure that Wikipedia contains as few
> articles that are biased, untrue or privacy-violating isn't that
> difficult to comprehend no matter your religious affiliation or ethical
> code! We are under an ethical obligation to do that - and all process
> and policy should be reflecting that. Imaging that, it isn't hard if you
> try.

No. There is no need to introduce ethics into the system thus we
should not do so. We have certian shared values yes (first tell no
lies) but that does not translate into a system of ethics.

--
geni


body:
On 3/31/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> The only science who's ethic does not include "do no harm" is the science of
> warfare.
>

Every chemist have released dangerous substances into the atmosphere
at some point or another. Physicists have exposed people to radiation.
Every time a new medicine is tested on humans for the first time there
is a chance you will kill them. Deaths do indeed result from time to
time.

--
geni


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [WikiEN-l] The liability argument (was: Getting hammered ...)

body:
On 3/30/07, Seth Finkelstein <sethf at sethf.com> wrote:
>        The wild card in the legal theorizing is whether Wikipedia's
> effect might finally be enough to get the law *changed* by Congress, to
> clarify that liability. It won't happen from the trashing of some
> activists, or even minor celebrities. But if someone with enough
> political influence decides to pursue the matter, I do think there
> would be a base of support. There's certainly enough of a "parade of
> horribles" to fuel an issue.

I should be careful not to say too much, but I feel it's important to
emphasize this. Wikipedia has friends and enemies in Washington.

For example, some here will remember Senator [[Norm Coleman]] and
then-Congressman [[Gil Gutknecht]]'s staffers messing with their
Wikipedia entries- what you might not know is that in Gutknecht's
case, this was a significant campaign issue, analyzed in the local
media, mentioned in a few campaign speeches, etc. Gutknecht's
opponents[1] used it as example of dishonesty, some of his supporters
wrote us off with descriptions like "a bunch of left-wing nuts making
stuff up on the Internet"[2] and said things like '"We're concerned
when anyone looks to Wikipedia for factual information," said
Gutknecht spokesman Jon Yarian. "This is the same source that called
former Assistant Attorney General John Seigenthaler a murderer in his
official Wikipedia entry ... I would encourage people to find a more
trustworthy place to do their research."'[3]. Further, Gutknecht's
opponent (and later successor), Congressman [[Tim Walz]], is more
knowledgeable about Wikipedia than some admins, is a definite fan, and
has spoken in praise of it on multiple occasions, in campaign
speeches[4] and in conversation[5].

(Coleman's stunt hit the media here too, and expect it to come up when
he runs for re-election next year.)

The increasing use of MediaWiki by political groups is going to be a
factor in the future, as well (see the very different in content as
well as politics dKosopedia and Conservapedia as early examples).

We're yet again in the realm of changing what we observe, and being
changed by it in turn. Awareness of attitudes about us in Congress is
going to be very important in the near future.

-- Jake Nelson
[[en:User:Jake Nelson]]

[1] - In the interest of disclosure, I note: myself included.
[2] - Quote is from someone whom I believe to be a local unit officer
of the MN Republican Party (whose name I don't know) who described
Wikipedia as this while in the same room as me.
[3] - See Star Tribune/AP article "Gutknecht joins Wikipedia tweakers".
[4] - At least once that I know of firsthand, at the Minnesota State
Fair, and I believe other times as well.
[5] - In conversation with me, anyway. Can't say I know how much he
talks about it with other people.


body:
On 3/31/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> But, the prevailing ethic is still - do no harm.

If there was a prevailing ethic we wouldn't need ethics committees.
Minimise the amount of harm you do would be somewhat closer to the
approach adopted but even that isn't quite correct.

Still if you want to follow that principle on wikipedia try listing

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

for deletion. Generally providing information on how to build nuclear
weapons is considered harmful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)

is likely damaging. Are you going to list that for deletion?

--
geni


body:
On 31/03/07, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a message I wrote in another mailing list.  I'm forwarding it
> to enwiki-l at Jimbo's suggestion.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 30, 2007 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Otrs-en-l] [SPAM] info-en vs info-fr
> To: English OTRS discussion list <otrs-en-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> (Comments from another contributor redacted; the discussion was
> related to how inclusionist tendencies tend to lead to large numbers
> of unmaintained articles.)
>
> This was the gist of my recent blogpost on maintainability as the
> proper criterion for inclusion.  I freely admit to being an
> inclusionist -- I would love to see proper articles on all rysorts of
> random topics of even marginal interest -- but I temper that with the
> understanding that having unmaintainable articles harms the
> encyclopedia as a whole, and the recognition that the Wikipedia
> community is not currently capable of maintaining even the articles it
> has, let alone all the articles it could possibly have.
>
> My attitude on such people is that the content should be sequestered
> in a nonpublic place and reviewed upon notice that the individual in
> question has died.  If we never receive notice, then that's probably
> because the person was not interesting enough in life to justify an
> article anyway.  Yes, we might sequester an article for decades under
> this policy, but I'm an eventualist as well.
>
> However, don't mistake my eventualism for being support for the idea
> that we should leave crap articles sitting out there in public view
> (which is a point of view commonly attributed to eventualists).  I am
> firmly opposed to leaving low-quality articles on the public wiki when
> doing so will bring disrepute onto the subjects of those articles or
> bring harm to Wikipedia as a project.  I am therefore very much in
> favor of deletion of any article for which there is no established,
> committed process for maintenance.
>
> The problem with this is that there is no established, committed
> process for maintaining ANY article on Wikipedia.  All article
> maintenance on Wikipedia, and in fact virtually all process on
> Wikipedia, is haphazard.  We are just starting to get comprehensive
> vandalism management using centralized tools, or so I am told.  We
> still have no mechanisms for coordinating even so much as article
> categorization or article sourcing, both of which are crucial aspects
> of article maintenance.
>
> The infrastructure to maintain over a million and a half articles has
> never existed on Wikipedia.  Until it does, every new article is
> another paper cut, bleeding us a bit more each day.
>
> As I see it, the following absolutely must be done:
>
> * All articles must be categorized.  A bot can be used to generate
> lists of uncategorized articles, and the articles found in this way
> presented to volunteer categorizers using a workflow approach.
> Articles not categorized within a reasonable time (say, seven days for
> new articles, and three months for existing articles) will be deleted.
>  My understanding is that there are bots that are capable of making
> "good guesses" at categorization, so this may be less painful than it
> seems.
>
> * A mapping of categories onto Subject Working Groups needs to be
> established.  Each Subject Working Group is responsible for the
> maintenance of all articles which are categorized within categories
> assigned to that SWG.  (If an article is within the scope of multiple
> SWGs, an arbitration process, with both automated and deliberative
> components, will determine which SWG will be primarily responsible for
> it.)
>
> * Editors, most of whose edits are made to articles categorized within
> a specific SWG, will be identified and asked to form a SWG (or
> formalize an existing informal one).
>
> * SWGs will have the responsibility to ensure that all articles within
> their ambit are properly sourced, cleaned up, etc.
>
> * Any article which remains unsourced for one month will be deleted.
> A bot will detect unsourced articles and notify the responsible SWG of
> the article and the need to source it.
>
> This is all entirely orthogonal to vandalism management.
>
> There are already a lot of SWGs on Wikipedia, with varying degrees of
> organization; many WikiProjects qualify as such.  However, both the
> automation and the sense of group responsibility is not currently
> present, and needs to be cultivated.  We need these people to feel
> personally responsible for the quality of all of the articles in their
> SWG.
>
> This is a response to the scaling problem.  The English Wikipedia's
> community has grown too large to function organically the way it used
> to three years ago.  It is my belief that breaking it up into multiple
> subject-oriented communities will help to combat the scaling problem:
> the members of the SWG will all know one another and are far more
> likely to remain collegial and productive with one another.  A SWG
> that gets too large can be subdivided further, which means this
> provides an ongoing solution to the scaling problem, not just a
> one-time fix.
>
> Please feel free to refine this idea or just tell me it's a load of hooey.

Certainly grandiose thinking that could revolutionise Wikipedia. Your
outline seems, to me, to be, on the surface of it, workable.

1) Do you have any suggestions as to how we implement this?
2)a Is existing software adequate to achieving this?
    b Is the development effort to implementing this realistic?
3) How much of the process would be automated (identification of SWGs
and those who should be in them) and would an infrastructure be
offered so that selected users could quickly and easily assume these
roles?
4) Are you suggesting the articles which don't meet the deadlines at
each stage be deleted in existing Wikipedia fashion or simply made
unviewable to readers?
5) How would non-essential editing (eg. expansion, adding of media)
gel with this system?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 31/03/07, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> present, and needs to be cultivated.  We need these people to feel
> personally responsible for the quality of all of the articles in their
> SWG.

6) Do you think the system itself create this sense of personal
responsibility in the mind of the editor? If not, how do you suggest
this could be done?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 31/03/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> WTF? That we can't set ethics down in a nice tidy process for you with
> >> no shaggy edges is an excuse to say "well we can just bugger everyone,
> >> unless we might get sued"?
> >>
> >
> on 3/30/07 10:14 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I suggests that ethics are a poor base to build from.
>
> Incredible! :-(
> >
> >> Let's do all we possibly can to ensure that Wikipedia contains as few
> >> articles that are biased, untrue or privacy-violating isn't that
> >> difficult to comprehend no matter your religious affiliation or ethical
> >> code! We are under an ethical obligation to do that - and all process
> >> and policy should be reflecting that. Imaging that, it isn't hard if you
> >> try.
> >
> > No. There is no need to introduce ethics into the system thus we
> > should not do so. We have certian shared values yes (first tell no
> > lies) but that does not translate into a system of ethics.
>
> "Tell no lies" (like "do no harm") is a system of ethics.

Not quite. I suppose you could say that science aims to limit harm but
harm is acceptable to achieving certain ends (a form of
utilitarianism, perhaps). It is acceptable, according to some, to
perform pain testing on monkeys to learn about treating chronic pain
in humans. This is starting to go off-topic though.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Angela

body:
> Can you please provide  a summary of what the advisory board has done or been
> asked to do to date.

Of about 400 emails to, from, or related to the advisory board mailing
list or individual members of it, here's an example of some of the
topics covered in our first two months of existence (most recent
first):

Fundraising committee
Legal coordinator candidates
Foundation Licensing Policy
Board Member suggestions
?Wikimedia staffing and other positions
New members
Advisory board meeting
Planet Wikimedia
Assignment Zero
Credentials
Brand strategy
Virtual museum initiative
CC interoperability
iC Summit
Quality / stable versions
Wikimania
Readings about Wikipedia
Textbook projects
Wikipedia CD
Improving collaboration technology
CollNG workgroup
Content donations
SWOT analyses
Open access

Angela

--
Angela Beesley
Wikimedia Advisory Board
WikimediaFoundation.org


body:
On 31/03/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * A mapping of categories onto Subject Working Groups needs to be
> > established.  Each Subject Working Group is responsible for the
> > maintenance of all articles which are categorized within categories
> > assigned to that SWG.  (If an article is within the scope of multiple
> > SWGs, an arbitration process, with both automated and deliberative
> > components, will determine which SWG will be primarily responsible for
> > it.)
>
> And *why* exactly would we need this all-pervading bureaucracy?  Who
> cares which group is "primarily" responsible for the article?  You're
> confusing the idea of the SWG as a place to ask for help with the
> article with that of the SWG as a place to excercise control over it;
> unless the primary group is to be given some unique function relative
> to the non-primary ones, knowing which one it happens to be is
> useless.
>
> (You do realize that virtually every article will be in such an
> intersected scope, if only because subject-oriented groups are
> orthogonal to country-oriented ones, yes?)

I think bureaucracy is the wrong word. The idea is to impose a
radically different, prescriptive structure onto Wikipedia to ensure
that all articles are managed and brought to a particular standard.
Where bureaucracy suggests evolutionary build up of layers of
redundancy, this system would, ideally, be technical and streamlined.
This technicality would eliminate the need for bureaucratic layers.

Take a look at [[OTRS]] if you aren't familiar with how this system
could work. I think the demonstration that such formalised, technical
collaboration models work is demonstrated by [[Distributed
Proofreaders]]. Contributors are given small, finite tasks to perform
(eg. proofreading is broken down into a series of tasks - each task
being to proof read a single page. Contributors, are asked to compare
a page of text which has been processed by OCR to the original scan.
There are three layers of proofreading, so each page is proofread
three times by different users. Users are free to contribute as much
or as little as they like. Compare this to hypothetical WikiProofread
where users are presented with large pages of text and are expected to
proofread this text in no formalised fashion. Since the task is not
broken down and fed to contributors, it seems insurmountable and very
little work gets done.

The SWG would not see a list of articles which need to be fixed up in
a number of ways as they currently do (making the task seem
insurmountable and the achievements seem minimal). What needs to be
done would be broken down into easily-manageable discrete tasks which
will effectively be ticked off as each is fulfilled. This system would
ensure an observable progress and give the contributors a sense of
achievement. The SWG would therefore have a series of discrete tasks
to perform.

> > * Editors, most of whose edits are made to articles categorized within
> > a specific SWG, will be identified and asked to form a SWG (or
> > formalize an existing informal one).
>
> Who would be doing the asking, and what would they do if the editors
> refuse?   Keep in mind that they *are* volunteers.

Bots and scripts could associate particular users with SWGs based on
their recent edit history and send them a request to join.

> > * SWGs will have the responsibility to ensure that all articles within
> > their ambit are properly sourced, cleaned up, etc.
> > * Any article which remains unsourced for one month will be deleted.
> > A bot will detect unsourced articles and notify the responsible SWG of
> > the article and the need to source it.
>
> So, basically, mass deletions of hundreds of thousands of articles.
> (The groups will not, in general, have either the manpower or the
> motivation to really fix any substantial portion of what's unsourced.
>  The only result you're likely to see is that editors will start
> pasting in references -- *any* references -- in an attempt to avoid
> having the articles deleted.)

This hasn't occurred under the organic system where a lot of pressure
is on to verify with references, why would it occur under this system?

> > There are already a lot of SWGs on Wikipedia, with varying degrees of
> > organization; many WikiProjects qualify as such.  However, both the
> > automation and the sense of group responsibility is not currently
> > present, and needs to be cultivated.  We need these people to feel
> > personally responsible for the quality of all of the articles in their
> > SWG.
>
> And how, precisely, are you intending to do that?  Rounding up the
> WikiProjects and telling them that they're doomed unless they source
> all their articles is going to be extremely counterproductive; faced
> with a negative motivational strategy, the volunteer editors will
> simply leave.

I don't think introducing a new system is equivalent to "rounding up
WikiProjects and telling them they're doomed unless they source the
articles". WikiProjects will be identified as existing SWGs and the
contributors will be asked to join the SWG.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 31/03/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> Inherent in this whole thing is the belief that Wikipedia is getting
> worse.  Is it?  Really?  I have my doubts.  Wikipedia is getting
> bigger, and thus the absolute NUMBER of problems increases, but I am
> yet to be convinced that the project as a whole is any more
> problematic than it ever was.

In my opinion, Wikipedia is *better* now than it ever has been and
Wikipedia tends towards self-improvement. Under the organic system,
our quality and control mechanisms have increased and the number of
articles which meet these higher standards have increased. If we
retain the current system, this will continue to happen.

The problem is that the rate of improval of Wikipedia currently
doesn't match the rate at which we need to improve. Our growth in
popularity, usability and use, accountability (legal and ethical)..
all demand quality and control standards that exceed the ones
currently in place. As these factors continue to grow--as our moral
and legal accountability continues to grow--we will fall farther and
farther behind (despite our general trend towards self-improvement).
In the long term we risk becoming bankrupt in more than one sense.

As Slim Virgin commented on a thread entitled "Getting hammered in a
tv interview is not fun" at [WikiEN-l] (I hope she doesn't mind me
quoting her): "All I'm arguing is that it's irresponsible to continue
year after year on the same course knowing that these are real
possibilities [legal harm to us and personal harm to others] and
relying only on luck to see us through." The current organic system
results in us relying on luck. This proposed system effectively
eliminates it.

> I also agree that all articles should be categorized - though that's
> not enough, unless we have some idea where it fits into the project,
> the right people will not find it and fix it.

Perhaps we should have a call to effort in categorising uncategorised
articles. Often I'm stuck on Wikipedia deciding what the most
important thing for the project I could be spending my time doing. If
I knew that categorisation was the most important task I could be
doing (an easy, though tiring task), I would happily engage in it.
Such a call to effort would alert many users to the need for
categorisation.

This is something practical we could be implementing right now (while
we continue to discuss theoretical possibilities here and slowly get
them implemented). Such a project would benefit Wikipedia whether we
stay as we are or whether we determine to change.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Oh noes, Wikimedia is selling me meds

body:
Will wrote:

> Something humourous I've found in my spam inbox - an email from
> "trademark
> Wikimedia" offering me "top quality medicine". I know about exotic
> names
> used in spam emails, but I'd never thought "Wikimedia" would be
> one. The
> scary thing is, I think this has happened before.

Lately spammers have started using current news headlines as the
subject lines in their emails as a way of getting people to open
them. I actually got a Viagra ad a few days ago with the subject
line, "Wikipedia founder plans search engine."

--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans
|     The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
|  Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
|  http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
|  Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|  https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] deleting unsourced articles ..... gradually

body:
On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> You hit the nail on the head. Everyone is so worried that if we change
> things we may end up deleting some things that *could* be sourced or
> otherwise fixed.
>
> The fact is, with regard to biographies at very least, we are now tfar
> too high profile for the eventualism that says we must keep awful, pov,
> unsourced stuff, because in theory we could fix most of it. That's now
> simply unacceptable.

Not every article is a biography of a living person.  I am therefore
unwilling to delete large amounts of EXISTING WORK simply because
biographical articles are problematic.

I am quite happy with a process whereby all articles on living people
MUST be sourced by a certain date, or within X days of being tagged.
Perhaps we should identify other categories of article that need to be
sourced to a deadline as well.

I am also happy with a process that says that all new articles after a
specified date must be sourced within X days - although I fear that
the process-happy will turn that into 'all new articles must be
sourced FA-style with inline references for every three words'.

I'm also happy with turning on some kind of stable versions feature
that makes all unsourced articles default-invisible to browsing
readers - but even then, I would wish a 'We have no stable article on
this topic, but we do have an unchecked work-in-progress.  Do you want
to see it?' thing for those articles.  Remember, the vast majority are
not libellous or harmful, just incomplete or unsourced.  In fact, the
attack article many times WILL be sourced.

I am not happy with any process that sends OK articles on
non-contentious subjects to the trash without a conscientious attempt
to find sources.

-Matt


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
On 31/03/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > On 3/31/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Nor is it closed; it lives at
> > > > http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/
> > >
> > > Living in a vegetative, comatose fashio, though. The database is locked.
> >
> > It shouldn't be. I'll try to figure out what's going on there.
>
> Ah, apparently a misunderstanding; Brion thought a move to "be-x-old"
> was meant to imply that it is an archive of the existing Wikipedia.
> The "old" refers to the orthography, not the wiki.
>
> I have asked him to remove the lockfile; both wikis should be editable
> now. Mind you, it might be a good idea to merge them, to kill one of
> them, or whatever. This is for the community to work out, and I'm not
> going to have us impose a preference for any solution.
>
> For now, the only thing we have authorized the LangCom to decide is
> what the language codes for the respective versions should be if they
> are to be separate. *Not* to close or lock wikis. That is not within
> the authority of the LangCom.

Thanks for clearing this up. I think the unannounced lock was one of
the main points of confusion and contention among the community.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


body:
On 3/31/07, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the core, underlying attitude that dooms Wikipedia to
> mediocrity.  Thousands of volunteer projects exist worldwide that
> places often quite strenuous obligations on their volunteers.  (Think
> Habitat for Humanity.)  And yet these projects survive, even thrive.
> Wikipedia already has a good core of volunteers who are willing to do
> as requested.  We need to stop pandering to the self-centered lazy
> "volunteers" who will "only do what is fun" and instead target the
> committed volunteer who is willing to do the hard stuff that needs to
> be done.

I'm fine with extra responsibilities and obligations on those that
choose to take them on.  Look how many people are willing to jump
through the stupid hoops for RFA; now if only that energy was expended
more usefully.

We also have the expectations required to be even minimally involved
with Wikipedia.  Those can also be raised, but less strenuously.

-Matt


body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
> Florence,
> Thank you for your  email. I will try to clarify exactly what you are saying?
> the best way to do that  is to read your email from bottom to top. You wrote:
> " As I was explaining, we  have no ED. Which means that the points listed
> above as ED issues will either be  left unfixed until we have one, or will have to
> be dealt with by someone else  (undefined). We might make an  exception and
> hire a legal coordinator,  because this is a critical issue."
> So let us look at the  critical issues. I can safely assume that "Do it soon
> and is important" is most  critical
> * Coordinate legal activities (ED)
> * Job description for all  (ED)
> * Personnel needs (ED)
> Note that they are all  ED. Am I too assume that, except for the coordination
> of legal activities, these  will all be left unfixed until there is an ED, or
> will they be dealt with by  some undefined else. It seems the former is the
> answer, with the exception  of a legal coordinator. In other words, are you
> leaving the most pressing issues  unfixed? If it is the latter "undefined else,"
> how will the "else" be  selected?

Note that all those tasks are not necessarily DONE by the ED, but under
the responsability of the ED. Which makes a difference.

The general answer is "unfixed". Practically, we will depend on the good
will of volunteer board members, and on the good will of staff who
prefer helping than quitting. Eh !

> Next came, " Do it  soon (but not necessarily very important)"
> * Data Gathering (ED)
> *  Fundraising Planning (ED)
> * Board Skills and Expansion and Election  (board)
> * Short term budget (COO)
> * Wikimania Finances (ED)
> * Tech  stuff in office (ED)
> 4 out of 6 are  ED-related. Am I too assume here that this "do it soon
> category" is delayed as  well? (Wiktionary defined "soon" as "Within a short time;
> _quickly_ (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quickly) .") In fact, the  only
> Board-related one involves the upcoming election for community  representatives.
> That will be soon, even though it is "not necessarily very  important").

I have spent the whole week trying to work on wikimania finances,
sponsorship and fundraising. As a volunteer. And largely because the
staff member who was in charge of these topics choose to quit without a
warning nor an explanation.

The good news is that simply in a week, several volunteers showed up to
help. For example, Pyb and Schiste are helping on the sponsorship.

As for the budget, it requires receiving financial information from the
COO. Once received, we'll work on the budget.

Tech stuff has been fixed with hiring Rob full time.

As for Data Gathering, though mentionned urgent, there was a biais in
the vote as it was mostly supported by ONE board member. I take it that
if this board member consider the task important, he will take care of it.

Elections are planned in june, so there is ample time.

> Finally, you had "  Important (but not necessarily to do immediately)"
> * Brand Strategy  (board)
> * Business Development Strategy (board)
> * Technical Management  (ED)
> What professional  expertise does the Board bring to the first two? When
> talking about a brand  worth billions of dollars--and that means billions of
> dollars for free culture  and knowledge--I would assume that the Board would
> consider some professional  advice and assistance.

Yes, a company proposed its assistance. It is called Landor.
(www.landor.com). Plenty of impressing customers.
The fact you did not hear about something does not mean it does not exist.

As for the last point, Technical
> Management, I assume you  mean managing Brion, Tim, Domas, Mark, and the other
> developers. Wouldn?t the  last be the job a CTO, and not the board?

Please read again. It is not written board, it is written ED. A CTO (or
a project leader) is under the responsability of the ED)

> As for some of the  other topics discussed, you wrote "What can be mentioned
> probably is this:"
> *  work on a travel policy (nothing very fancy to report)
> I ask: what is the  current travel policy which is being amended?

A policy was set up in 2004. It allowed 1000 dollars per trimester per
board member, 3000 dollars for the chair. This is the last "validated one".

> * work on a policy for  reimbursement (nothing very fancy to report)
> I ask: what is the  current reimbursement policy, which is being amended. If
> there is no  reimbursement policy, how are reimbursements made? What is
> eligible for  reimbursement and what is not?

No written policy being amended. We agreed on reimbursement of travel
costs (2nd class), food and hotel, as indicated on the reimbursement
sheet done by Mav many months ago. Additionally, last summer, there was
an agreement to reimburse me nanny costs when I was travelling on the
board behalf.
Receipts must be provided.

> * study of some  collaboration propositions (details confidential)
> I hope you don?t mean  the collaboration proposals with three major
> organizations in DC that I brought  to the table. If you do, why was I not asked about
> them?

No, I am talking about other propositions which are confidential and
which you were not involved in.

> * study around  brand licensing (not surprisingly since we are in the top
> of most recognised  brands, we get some propositions from branding
> companies. Brand licensing is  probably one of our best assets to collect
> money for the development of the  projects in the future, so we should be
> careful about what we do on the  topic. Brand licensing has also various
> ramifications, in particular in our  relationships with chapters).
> Blah blah blah?who on  the Board is actually qualified to discuss this on a
> professional level?

No one, which is why we created an advisory board, and ask help from
companies, especially those who accept to work on a pro bono basis.
But you are welcome to tell future voters that they should elect a
community member being a specialist of brand licensing.
Note that you are not a specialist of brands either.

> *  approval of two new advisory board members
> Can you please provide  a summary of what the advisory board has done or been
> asked to do to date. Not  who is on it, but what they actually do.

See Angela answer. As far as the issues I am involved in are concerned,
Trevor, Mitch and Melissa have helped for the ED search. Debbie and
Ethan on the fundraising. Ward and Peter have helped on the legal
research. Other board members may have different experiences.
We certainly could involve them more, but we have already built some
relationships with them and worked on several issues. There is only so
much we can do.

> * discussion about a future CTO or a  tech project leader. No conclusion at
> the moment.
> Does that mean that there  is no direction in technical development as of
> now?

I will let current developers appreciate that comment.

Considering the size of the  website and the amount of money poured into
> tech development, a basic roadmap  should be the least one should come to expect.

Most of the money is poured in hardware. Very little is poured in
development proper.
But yes, we need a road map. Which is why we are looking for someone to
help. However, this person should fit with the current team to ensure
jewels will born from the relationship. I really wanted us to take a
decision on this issue at the board meeting, but the tech guys did not
seem fully decided, so better take a bit more time and explore all the
options. I do not think there is a reason to hurry here to the point of
making a decision in 2 days. Sometimes, it is good to take the time to
take a decision.

> You also  wrote:
> "During that week, the  office was really populated, as it also hosted two
> other meetings, one  dedicated to Quality (might be worthwhile to ask
> Greg to make a report on  this one...), "
> While Greg is  extremely qualified to report on that, you might also ask the
> person who  organized it. Oh, and how much time did the Board take discussing
> its  recommendations.

Oh good point. Since you were the organiser of that meeting, can you
provide me the budget where we approved the expenses related to that
meeting ?

As for the time spent discussing the recommandations, I would say that
given that the recommandations were presented 2 hours before the end of
the board meeting and that the issue was not on the agenda... of course,
it was not further discussed. Not everyone is a workalcoholic :-)

> You wrote: "Delphine  was also in Florida for several  days."
> It is always very nice  to see Delphine. What was her role in these meetings?

I was not the organiser of the tech meeting. I am still wondering who
organised it really.
I was not the organiser of the quality meeting. You were.
I was the organiser of the board meeting, and I did not invite her.

However, contrariwise to you, Delphine has an approved travel budget,
and by default, I consider staff is not "dumb" and if she thought she
needed travel, then she did need travel.
The board is not the police.
She knows pretty well that if she does not do her job and abuse things,
she can be fired. It is not your place to judge her work and the way she
organises herself. That goes for every employee.

> Or does that go under the  discussed Travel Policy (to quote you, "nothing
> very fancy to report.")

The travel policy is the one related to the board. Not the travel policy
of the employees.
The travel policy of the employees is set up by the ED, not the board.

> It would also be nice  to hear some more elaboration from you about the
> "difference of opinion" between  the Board and the Search Firm regarding the role
> of an ED. How does the Board  see the role? How does the Search Firm see the
> role? What efforts are being made  to bridge this difference?

I would prefer that you be blunt and say your word rather than turning
around the pot Danny.

> All in all, it  sounds like a fascinating meeting. I look forward to reading
> the minutes.

Ah, confidential :-) Too bad. But they were written Danny, be reassured.

> Danny

You know Danny... I like you. But here, I think what you are doing is
wrong. Really wrong.

There is a big difference between having an opinion and voicing it, and
attacking someone who is trying in good faith to do the best she can for
the organisation.
There is no one and nothing preventing you to speak and give your
opinion. However, please drop the nastiness. That is not correct.

anthere


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
On 3/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/31/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nor is it closed; it lives at
> > > http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/
> >
> > Living in a vegetative, comatose fashio, though. The database is locked.
>
> It shouldn't be. I'll try to figure out what's going on there.

Ah, apparently a misunderstanding; Brion thought a move to "be-x-old"
was meant to imply that it is an archive of the existing Wikipedia.
The "old" refers to the orthography, not the wiki.

I have asked him to remove the lockfile; both wikis should be editable
now. Mind you, it might be a good idea to merge them, to kill one of
them, or whatever. This is for the community to work out, and I'm not
going to have us impose a preference for any solution.

For now, the only thing we have authorized the LangCom to decide is
what the language codes for the respective versions should be if they
are to be separate. *Not* to close or lock wikis. That is not within
the authority of the LangCom.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


from_name: Ken Arromdee

body:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Kelly Martin wrote:
> * Any article which remains unsourced for one month will be deleted.
> A bot will detect unsourced articles and notify the responsible SWG of
> the article and the need to source it.

The problem with this is the same as always.  While sourcing everything is an
ideal, articles generally don't get created fully sourced, let alone with
every sentence sourced, and Wikipedia is very much a work in progress and
will remain so.  Removing all unsourced articles will remove a vast amount
of useful information, most of which is accurate, and when it is inaccurate
is generally no more so than a typical non-Wikipedia reference anyway.


body:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I would like to know exactly what kind of lunatic would look up Angela's
> birth date in a hometown hospital register, and why we should let them
> edit Wikipedia rather than having a quiet debate about whether Angela's
> safety would be enhanced by reporting the person to the authorities.

Some lunatic who believes what he has been told about Wikipedia rules, and
thus goes out and searches for a source?

Jimbo, this same argument can be applied in spades to the free images argument.
It's been pointed out many timesthat saying that it's "possible to get a free
image of" a person simply because they are alive encourages behavior that in
other contexts would be seen as stalking.

"I'd want to know what kind of lunatic would follow a person and
surreptitiously take a free picture of them, and why we should let them edit
Wikipedia rather than have them arrested".


body:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Marc Riddell wrote:
> This is in response to several recent posts. For the record, the concept of
> "do no harm" I was presenting to in WP was related to what information we,
> as editors, choose to include in biographies of persons. My point was that
> to consciously include gratuitous, tabloid-like junk in a biographical
> article is unnecessarily harmful to the person.

"Do no harm" and "do no unnecessary harm" are *vastly* different.


from_name: Seraphim Blade

body:
This sounds quite a lot like the WP:PRODUS proposal I made some time
ago (which, in turn, came from some of the discussion that took place
at WP:CSDUA). It was rejected at the time, but maybe it's time to
restart the discussion? Also, I was considering a process where new
unsourced articles would be userfied to their creator after a period
of time with no sources, and placed in a category, with the resulting
redirect speedied as cross-namespace. This way, anyone could userfy
content after time's up, and tag the redirect (though an admin would
eventually be needed to delete it), and those wishing to work on
sourcing articles could look through that category and move it back
into mainspace once it's got some sourcing behind it.

Seraphimblade

On 3/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We either do that by
> >
> > 1) drastically lifting notability thresholds to reduce the number of
> > biographies to a level we can manage to maintain and monitor.
> >
> > OR
> >
> > 2) introducing a strong quality threshold, where we don't include, or
> > swiftly delete, articles that aren't currently up to it. Yes, in theory
> > they can be fixed, and if someone is actually willing to do it, then
> > fine; but most wont be fixed and should not hang around 'because in an
> > ideal wiki we'd fix them'
>
>
> Both options rely on removing content. Option 1 would lead to deletion of
> perfectly sourced content that needs little maintainance just to make things
> manageable which would greatly affect our coverage and not neccesarily get
> rid of problem material.
>
> Option 2 focuses on removing material instead of fixing it. We shouldn't let
> stuff lie around for years waiting for fixes, but a certain amount of
> eventualism is certainly desireable.
>
> There's plenty of less drastic solutions that will move towards the goal at
> a slower pace without disrupting the current encyclopedia. If quality
> control isn't scaling, quality control in a short time period isn't going to
> work any better. I believe the solution to be improving quality control in
> Wikipedia through targetted WikiProjects, bots and anti-vandalism type
> programs like VandalProof aimed at fixing new articles as they come in.
>
> I offer you:
> Option 3) Stem the tide of new unsourced material by monitoring new articles
> and organizing a long term effort to cite all existing articles.
>
> And I also offer a question. How much time would it take to give all
> currently tagged articles sources? Long articles require more research and
> more time and articles about old subjects may require hard to get sources
> and library trips to dusty archived books. I don't think it's realistic to
> expect all this to get cleaned up in anything less than a year unless every
> active Wikipedian pitches in. We need to answer this question before we can
> build any kind of realistic time plan.
>
> Mgm
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Just a quick couple additional comments.
> * Brand Strategy  (board)
> * Business Development Strategy (board)
> * Technical Management  (ED)

> What professional  expertise does the Board bring to the first two?

Michael is the COO of a multi-million dollar corporation with a strong
branding strategy. Jan-Bart is product manager for a large
international educational organization. In general, I believe it is
best to have a diverse Board from many cultural and intellectual
backgrounds, and to seek expert advice wherever possible, especially
on such narrow issues.

It would be foolish to specifically appoint a branding expert to the
Board, for example, if they do not also share our values, a basic
understanding of our activities, and a strong commitment to turn
expertise into action. The focus for future appointments ought to be
on skills that are critical to running a 501(c)(3) organization. The
primary missing skills within that spectrum that I can identify are
accounting, fundraising, and possibly legal (though the diversity of
law that affects us is such that we may be best served by focusing on
building a good network of advisors).

The Advisory Board, chaired by Angela and comprising 20 members with a
diversity of backgrounds and professional experience, has already
proven to be extremely helpful, and we have discussed the possibility
of inviting an interested subset to a Retreat to lay out the elements
of a multi-year plan for the Foundation.

> Considering the size of the  website and the amount of money poured into
> tech development, a basic roadmap  should be the least one should come to
> expect.

The "amount of money poured into tech development" is actually
ridiculously small for a top 10 website; we have two full-time
developers for the software, who also help out with general
administration issues, as well as one network manager and one computer
technician. Nevertheless, there is a roadmap at least for short term
software development:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_roadmap

> It would also be nice  to hear some more elaboration from you about the
> "difference of opinion" between  the Board and the Search Firm regarding the
> role  of an ED. How does the Board  see the role? How does the Search Firm see
> the role? What efforts are being made  to bridge this difference?

As far as I know (I am not on the SearchCom), there are no serious
differences of opinion. I believe that the main question is whether an
ED who comes completely from the outside can build trust reasonably
quickly, and act in accordance with the core values of the
organization; if this is not the case, it might narrow down the field
of candidates, as some of the more impressive EDs with a large amount
of prior non-profit experience might feel that being an ED in a
community-driven organization like the WMF places too many restraints
on their actions.

There are countless business development opportunities that many EDs
with prior non-profit experience would jump on, for example. We, on
the other hand, have some unusual practices and beliefs, including a
strong commitment to free content and free software. These practices
and beliefs are not shared within the "professional non-profit world".
Most non-profits have a commitment to _neither_ of them (they _may_
evaluate open source software primarily for cost reasons). The
aversion to advertising is shared more widely, but we have
accommodated it to an unusual extent.

A gung-ho ED with plenty of prior experience might still act in
complete contradiction with core values of the organization and the
community. Orientation can serve to avoid this, but again, a long
orientation & trust building period makes the position less
attractive.

Setting an example is not easy and has implications for our search process.
I think our ED search should therefore focus on individuals who at
least have some background in or connection to the field of Free
Culture (not necessarily Wikimedians). We must also avoid seeing the
ED position as a sort of "miracle worker" who can see lightyears ahead
of everyone else; most importantly, they need to be able to delegate
and network.

> All in all, it  sounds like a fascinating meeting. I look forward to reading
> the minutes.

I am the keeper of the minutes. Minutes & resolutions were written in
the course of the meeting, edited, and published to the BoardWiki a
few days later. They contain a full account of all Board decisions
that were taken, and internal agreements which were reached. As such,
they remain confidential (unlike the specific resolutions which were
published); however, the extent to which this needs to be so is open
to debate. You will certainly receive access to them if you are
elected to the Board, if that is what you meant to imply.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> Anthony wrote:
> >>> On 3/30/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>>> With that in mind, I do think we have the resources, and accomplishing
> >>>> it would be really simple.  Just set a hard and fast rule that
> >>>> everything in an article must be sourced, and then make it clear that
> >>>> removal of unsourced statements is exempt from the three revert rule.
> >>>>
> >>> OK, apparently this is already the case, at least for biographies of
> >>> living people, according to wp:3rr.
> >>>
> >>> So I guess I'm wrong.
> >> And also in this particular instance the false information _was_ sourced. :)
> >>
> > Which instance, the one about Ellen Fanning?
> >
>
> The one about Mugabe's daughter.
>
Ah, I see.  I was still replying on the original incident pointed out
by Jimbo.  I guess I was behind on this discussion :).

Sourcing seems to be necessary but not sufficient.  So it's not a
complete rule.  And the other parts are much more tricky.  If the
source is completely unreliable, then it's best to leave the fact out
completely.  If the source is somewhat reliable, then you can state
the fact with attribution to the source.  But where do you draw the
line between what should be left out, what should be attributed, and
what should be simply stated as fact?

NPOV and consensus are good principles to strive for in this regard,
but I'd argue that they're unachievable goals.  In this respect I
think Larry Sanger has a great theory - let anyone contribute and try
to reach consensus, then let the experts settle the disputes which
inevitably arise.

Of course, I've already admitted that I'm dead wrong in my thinking on
this matter.  So best to just ignore my thoughts here, I suppose.

Anthony


body:
On 3/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> What we should be asking is whether what we're doing is reasonable. Is
> it reasonable to host pages about living persons that can be edited by
> any anonymous person of any age in the world, when we have no clear
> way of patrolling those pages to make sure anything negative or unfair
> is removed immediately?

I'd say yes, it is reasonable.  Every free webhosting site on the
Internet does exactly what you described.  And I'd note that the only
way *not* to have the situation which you describe would be to
disallow anonymous editing or to run every edit through a review
board.

> And when, even when such pages are spotted,
> getting rid of the bad stuff often involves a giant fuss, with admins
> unsure of what action they're allowed to take, because if they go too
> far they risk being desysopped?

That's unreasonable, but I think you'd have a hard time blaming the
WMF for such a situation.

Anthony


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
on 3/31/07 2:23 AM, Bryan Derksen at bryan.derksen at shaw.ca wrote:

> Doesn't seem that way to me. Geni is taking a relativist position,
> basically saying (if I interpret him correctly) that if we pick one of
> the many different ethical systems out there and make it an official
> policy we're going to bias Wikipedia and add lots of considerations that
> aren't directly related to our goal. For example, "do no harm" could
> require us to take out or modify articles about homeopathy, or
> marijuana, or maybe even certain political or religious ideologies - and
> "harm" is subjective so different editors would want to take these
> things in different ways. It's a huge and unnecessary kettle of fish to
> open.

This is in response to several recent posts. For the record, the concept of
"do no harm" I was presenting to in WP was related to what information we,
as editors, choose to include in biographies of persons. My point was that
to consciously include gratuitous, tabloid-like junk in a biographical
article is unnecessarily harmful to the person.

And, as far as "choosing a system of ethics" for WP: I don't believe it is
something you shop around for. But, rather, it develops, and is agreed upon,
by the Community of persons in WP itself.

Marc Riddell


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 3/31/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> This actually fits well with how wikiprojects have evolved, from loose
> groups with shared interests to well-organized collaborations - so in a
> sense it's just blessing what so many people are doing already.

Yes.  The idea came about from talking to people who mainly edit
content, oddly enough.  Something which the people who play at running
Wikipedia do not do enough of, I am afraid.

> I like
> the idea that *every* article should be associated with one or more
> projects. As always, we can't *make* anybody do anything, but project
> people usually want to know about new articles in their areas, and right
> now the discovery process is haphazard - always disconcerting to find a
> duplicate article created several months earlier.

The haphazardness is the problem that I really think needs to be dealt
with more than anything else.  It's always the article that we've
overlooked (e.g. [[John Siegenthaler]]) that rises up to bite us.

Kelly


body:
On 3/31/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
> I agree... What I find peculiar about this proposal is that it seems
> disassociated from the reality of day-to-day editing and the current
> culture in en.wiki. One thing has become clear to me: as Wikipedia
> becomes bigger and bigger, the ability to make any major changes will
> be greatly diminished, in particular in issues related to the social
> structure of the project.

What's interesting about your statement is that I developed the idea
out of suggestions from people who are involved in day-to-day editing
in Wikipedia.

I do admit that it is not well associated with the current culture in
enwiki, but that's because the current culture in enwiki is defective
and problematic and needs to be changed.

Kelly


body:
On 3/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> People work on Wikipedia because they enjoy it. As soon as you start forcing
> responsibilities the fun factor is gone.

Yes.  Absolutely, it is totally unreasonable to expect our volunteers
to do anything at all.

This is the core, underlying attitude that dooms Wikipedia to
mediocrity.  Thousands of volunteer projects exist worldwide that
places often quite strenuous obligations on their volunteers.  (Think
Habitat for Humanity.)  And yet these projects survive, even thrive.
Wikipedia already has a good core of volunteers who are willing to do
as requested.  We need to stop pandering to the self-centered lazy
"volunteers" who will "only do what is fun" and instead target the
committed volunteer who is willing to do the hard stuff that needs to
be done.

Kelly


body:
On 3/30/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I don't know Florida Law - but if my knowledge of UK law would say that
> if harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an action, and it is
> reasonable to take steps to prevent it, then a failure to do so is
> culpable negligence. We know the harm, we could do something, but we don't.
>
In the US a negligence requires a [[duty of care]] in addition to the
conditions you outline.

It's also unclear what reasonable steps could be taken to prevent
these things from happening.  I guess biographies of living people
could be banned, but that doesn't seem reasonable.

On the other hand, it could be argued that it would be reasonable to
delete the article about Brandt, for instance.  So in some instances
of specific individuals that have complained to the Foundation about
their article, maybe you have a point.  But you'd still have to show a
[[duty of care]], and I'm not well versed enough in tort law to
discuss that part further.

Here's a hard-line rule that might satisfy the more risk-averse among
us, but still answer the question of "what if George Bush asks for his
article to be deleted".  Any article about a living person is removed
upon request unless that person has a biography in a major
encyclopedia.  ????

Anthony


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Oh noes, Wikimedia is selling me meds.

body:
On 3/30/07, Will <sceptre at tintower.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Something humourous I've found in my spam inbox - an email from "trademark
> Wikimedia" offering me "top quality medicine". I know about exotic names
> used in spam emails, but I'd never thought "Wikimedia" would be one. The
> scary thing is, I think this has happened before.
>
> Oh well, now we're truly famous.
>
> Sceptre

Since they can't sell ads in Wikipedia, the Foundation has to do something
to raise funds for the project.  Selling meds is a good sideline business.
Do your bit to keep Wikipedia free and buy their Cialis :)


body:
On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> I wonder if we could start this by simply saying "Any article that
> >> remains unsourced after being marked as such for 7 days is deleted". It
> >> sounds draconian, but we now do it for images, why not articles? No, it
> >> will not solve all out problems, but it would be a workable step
> towards
> >> saying that it may be better to have no article for the moment than a
> >> crap one.
> >
> > "No sources" != "crap". I disagree with speedy deletion. However,
> > making the text of the various "no references" tags a bit more stern
> > and adding a warning sign might be a good idea. For example, instead
> > of:
> >
> > "This article or section does not adequately cite its references or
> sources."
> >
> > It could say:
> >
> > "(!) This article lacks citations. This is is an article written by
> > volunteers, and you should not rely on it unless and until sources are
> > provided for all key statements.
> > Please improve this article by adding references and removing
> > questionable statements."
> >
> > For obvious crap, we have existing deletion procedures.
>
> Utterly inadequate. We've got real quality problems and just stiffening
> tags without any teeth, isn't going to make any difference.
>
> No unsourced != crap. But if it isn't crap, it should at least be able
> to be given a rudimentary source.

There are excellent articles that lack sources, and utter crap with hundreds
of sources.  If you say "this will be deleted if not sourced in 7 days"
people will google the topic and add a few random sources.  This will create
a sourced article...whose sources don't actually support the content.  Since
a sourced article looks more authoritative than an unsourced one, sticking
in sources for the sake of sticking in sources can actually make an article
look more misleading.  Sources need to support the statements made in the
article, not simply show that a topic exists.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?
	-	"nofollow"decision

body:
on 3/22/07 10:24 AM, Zoney at zoney.ie at gmail.com wrote:

> On 22/03/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>>
>> We have a group of friends working under "rough
>> consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed
>> and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of
>> respect and thoughtfulness.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>>
>>
> In my three years on Wikipedia, the latter two and a half as an Admin, I've
> seen this more often than not (and getting to be more so) devolve into the
> most vocal and participating contributors deciding things as they see fit
> (even if say, they see something as NPOV, it may not be). The most vocal and
> participating members may or may not be in the right, and where there are
> differences of opinion, those who are right will not necessarily be the
> majority (or even large/medium majority; "consensus" as that seems to be
> termed on Wikipedia).
>
> Being right is not a subjective thing. As an encyclopaedia we are supposed
> to be in the business of truthful content.
>
> It's a whole other world of messiness then when we aren't talking merely
> about Wikipedia's content, but formulating the principles and guidelines on
> which the content and project is created and managed.
>
> Zoney

Catching up on some past posts.

Zoney,

This is an excellent message, and one I agree with completely. The
"principles and guidelines" we develop within WP make up a part of an
"ethic" we must develop and staunchly maintain.

This ethic is not something you choose from a list. Personally, our own set
of ethics evolve over time as our learning, beliefs, experiences and sense
of self reconcile and eventually merge. On a group level, the ethic is
established by the core individuals creating that group. Then, this ethic
becomes a part of the motivation for others to join the group.

As for Wikipedia, I came to it because of the work it was doing, but I came
too late to the group to really grasp what the core ethic was that helped
form it. I have since, by way of this List, been trying to grasp a sense of
what that ethic is.

I'm learning.

Marc Riddell


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:21:11 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>Well, last I checked the information was still excluded from the article
>on that basis, so I'm reassured to find at least one spot where we're on
>the same side here. Makes it less likely that one of us has simply gone
>loony.

What, you mean Angela freely states that she was born on X date in X
hospital, and we have the record, and they still won't let it in?  Or
is it that someone has gone looking based on their own research?

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 3/31/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> Removing all unsourced articles will remove a vast amount
> of useful information, most of which is accurate, and when it is inaccurate
> is generally no more so than a typical non-Wikipedia reference anyway.

Furthermore, most of the inaccuracy in Wikipedia, I suspect, was not
cut from whole cloth by the contributor writing the article - but
rather, it comes from an outside source.  After all, people get their
facts from somewhere.  Sourcing articles doesn't magically make them
accurate.  It does perform the useful task of helping someone track
down the source of inaccurate info, however.

Sourcing also makes people actually re-check the place they got the
facts from, sometimes encouraging further reading of it.

-Matt


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I like Jimbo's notion of a prod system that says "this is crap, if it is
> still crap in 7 days I will delete it"
>
> I wonder if we could start this by simply saying "Any article that
> remains unsourced after being marked as such for 7 days is deleted". It
> sounds draconian, but we now do it for images, why not articles? No, it
> will not solve all out problems, but it would be a workable step towards
> saying that it may be better to have no article for the moment than a
> crap one.
>
7 days is draconian, but hey, I figured Wikipedia would start to be a
mostly unfriendly project for contributors in 7 years from its
conception, so we're right on schedule.

If we are to have such a policy, 6 months seems like a reasonable time to me.

If we are to have such a policy, we should also grandfather in articles.

Also, if we were to have some kind of policy like this, the sourcing
requirements should be light. In other words, it should not be the
case that someone can litter an article with [needs attribution] and
then delete it the next week.

If we are to have some sort of policy, these certainly should be
totally undeletable by just about anyone (not just admins) without any
need for review.


body:
As a followup, doc's suggestion presupposes that unsourced == crap
most of the time, which is not true.

On 3/31/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > I like Jimbo's notion of a prod system that says "this is crap, if it is
> > still crap in 7 days I will delete it"
> >
> > I wonder if we could start this by simply saying "Any article that
> > remains unsourced after being marked as such for 7 days is deleted". It
> > sounds draconian, but we now do it for images, why not articles? No, it
> > will not solve all out problems, but it would be a workable step towards
> > saying that it may be better to have no article for the moment than a
> > crap one.
> >
> 7 days is draconian, but hey, I figured Wikipedia would start to be a
> mostly unfriendly project for contributors in 7 years from its
> conception, so we're right on schedule.
>
> If we are to have such a policy, 6 months seems like a reasonable time to me.
>
> If we are to have such a policy, we should also grandfather in articles.
>
> Also, if we were to have some kind of policy like this, the sourcing
> requirements should be light. In other words, it should not be the
> case that someone can litter an article with [needs attribution] and
> then delete it the next week.
>
> If we are to have some sort of policy, these certainly should be
> totally undeletable by just about anyone (not just admins) without any
> need for review.
>


body:
On 3/31/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> doc wrote:
> > The fact is, with regard to biographies at very least, we are now tfar
> > too high profile for the eventualism that says we must keep awful, pov,
> > unsourced stuff, because in theory we could fix most of it. That's now
> > simply unacceptable.
>
> And there is a different form of eventualism which works quite well.
> It's ok to delete a horribly crappy unsourced article, OR ANY PART of
> such an article, because EVENTUALLY we will be able to add more
> information, with sources, in the right way.
>
> For a small wikipedia it can be ok to say: we are desperate for
> volunteers, we are desperate for growth, and so it is best to put up
> with a fair amount of unsourced stuff that is mostly right, just to
> build up a base of work for the future.
>
> In en.wikipedia, we have a base of work for the future.  And therefore
> it is natural and proper that we should over time get more and more and
> more serious about quality.

Any proper measure of quality for Wikipedia also includes comprehensiveness.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 31 Mar 2007 at 18:16, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> geni wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >> geni wrote:
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28news%29#Robert_Mugabe.27s_daughter_-_news_story_originating_from_Wikipedia.3F
> >> So that's the best example I have seen in a while.
> >
> > BLP won't solve that problem.
>
> This is exactly the kind of negative information without valid sources
> that I am strongly encouraging people to remove on sight.  So, except
> for unrealistic definitions of the word "solve", I think BLP does in
> fact help a great deal.

Saying that somebody's daughter is attending a prestigious
educational institution isn't obviously, intrinsically, negative,
without more context about the complex political issues involved in
this case.  And determining that the sources given here are invalid
takes a bit of (unoriginal?) research.  Thus, this is the sort of
thing that can easily survive a superficial look, even under a regime
requiring strict sourcing of negative information on living persons.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/