subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Steve Block wrote:
>
>> geni wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/7/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there any thoughts on private individuals?  Are we open to libel
>>>> suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to
>>>> remove it completely from the edit history?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
>>
>>
>> No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to
>> hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this.
>> Look at it this way:
>>
>> * Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
>> * The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
>> published.
>> * By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
>> * I am called an editor.
>>
>> Also note the [[McLibel case]].
>>
>> Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
>>
>> I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible
>> we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a
>> libellous statement and failed to remove it.
>
>
> Your hypotheseis leads to an absurd result.  If I edit this page
> containing an alleged libel for matters unrelated to that statement how
> am I supposed to know what is libellous in that article?  By your line
> of reasoning, if I want to be safe I might as well delete the entire
> article.  Your reading would make busibodies of us all.

Exactly my point.  Why do you think I asked it?  Does someone with the
neccessary understanding have a better answer than "I don't like the
result, therefoe I will ignore the hypothesis."

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: SJ

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Experiment on new pages and GFDL

body:
On 12/8/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most
> authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's
> authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list
> articles we wrote.

Right.  We surely need a new style guideline for this.  But it is hard
to do properly; this is one of the reasons we need a two-panel
From--->To editing interface, that tracks what you are reading as you
write a new article, and in exchange makes it easier to do such
copying and pasting... else users will always continue to do this
without attribution.

SJ


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On 12/8/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > I think I'll wait to worry about this until I have a big enough
> > presense in the UK that a ruling against me would matter.  The UK
> > can't garnish wages from my US employer, can they?
> >
> > (Actually, at the point where I have significant assets in the UK I'll
> > be able to afford a lawyer to research these issues for me.  I
> > certainly won't ask around on an international mailing list which has
> > pretty much nothing to do with law.)
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the mailing list for the english
> Wikipedia, yes?  So the point of asking is to try to work out what the
> policy is on that Wikipedia regarding libel.  Great, you personally
> aren't affected.  Does that absolve you of responsibility in attempting
> to formulate an understanding of the position to those it does affect
> and also to try and develop a policy on the situation?  If you
> personally are unaffected, I'm very happy for you.  Perhaps you could be
> sympathetic and at least understand the concerns of those that may be.
>
Libel, at least so far as it consists of false information, has no
place in Wikipedia.  This has nothing to do with UK law, though.  If
we're talking about true information, then I'd argue that Wikipedia
*should not* bow down to the UK or any other legal authority if there
is any possible way for it to avoid coming into their jurisdiction.

If use of the seven dirty words is illegal in Pennsylvania, should
Wikipedia develop a policy around that situation?  I think we can all
agree that it absolutely should not.

Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the UK government is
going to give judgements against people simply for editing a page in a
section completely unrelated to libellous content.  But if they do,
what can we do about it?  Well, what can we do about Chinese citizens
who can't legally contribute to the encyclopedia?  We can facilitate
anonymous contributions and make sure we don't put any significant
amount of assets in that country, not much else.

If the country you live in goes nuts, I'd suggest you start
contributing to the encyclopedia anonymously.  There's not much else
you can do.

Let's bring back the ability for at least some of us to contribute to
Wikipedia using the Tor network.  That's at least one policy change we
should make.

Anthony


from_name: Steve Block

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Questions about the "Wikipedia screenshot" category
	of	images

body:
Steve Block wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>
>> Steve Block wrote:
>>
>>> So that means we aren't an encyclopedia about anything then?  We're
>>> actually an encyclopedia about what suits commercial usages?  Fair
>>> play, we have to look out for commercial users, but what is more
>>> important here, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it?
>>
>>
>>
>> We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a
>> *free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia.  The *entire point* of creating
>> Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia, not solely to make an
>> encyclopedia hosted on wikipedia.org and distributed by the Wikimedia
>> Foundation (if that were the goal, there would be no reason to have an
>> open-content license in the first place).  In the case of fair use,
>> this is a tradeoff: We want to make as unencumbered an encyclopedia as
>> possible, with maximal possible reuse by anyone for any purpose,
>> balanced against the fact that we'd like maximal coverage of
>> everything as well.  So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free
>> sources where possible, and only use fair use where it ads something
>> that makes it worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
>
>
> You seem to have misunderstood me, which is entirely my fault, I wasn't
> clear enough.  What I want to know is, if as you say:
>
>  > We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a
>  > *free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia.  The *entire point* of creating
>  > Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia
>
> Then that means we can create an encyclopedia, and as long as all uses
> of information qualify for encyclopedic purposes, there is no problem.
> However, where you say:
>
>  > So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free sources where
>  > possible, and only use fair use where it ads something that makes it
>  > worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
>
> That to me implies there is a potential conflict between creating an
> encyclopedia which is reusable, and making an encyclopedia tailored to
> reusers.  If we are doing the latter, then I for one would rather be
> renumerated for my work, thank you very much.  At what point do we
> censor the encyclopedia for the commercial sensitivities of reusers?
>
> I may be missing something here, and am willing to cede that, and I
> admit my language is rather strong, for which I apologise, but I draw
> your attention to this quote from Jimmy Wales:
> "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a
> free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single
> person on the planet in their own language."
>
> Now to me, "the highest possible quality" doesn't imply that such
> quality is tempered by potential reuse considerations, because, let's be
> frank, what we are arguing about here is commercial reuse, isn't it?
> Now, I do not see why, if the material is useable on the online
> Wikipedia, it should be removed due to reuse considerations.
>
> However, if it is decided that commercial reuse does place limits on the
> material we use, then some mention of that fact should be made quite
> explicitly somewhere.  Unless I have really got the wrong end of the
> stick.  However I see no mention of the fact that Wikipedia tailors its
> material to suit commercial considerations in the article at
> [[Wikipedia]].  If someone can clarify that is the case, I will gladly
> correct that.

Please ignore this, my apologies, I think I may well have over-reacted
ever so slightly.  I wish to humbly retract this statement, since, after
further thought, can quite clearly see the error in my thinking, I
believe. Apologies to one and all for wasting time.
--
http://steveblock.journalspace.com/

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>>>* Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least
>>
>>within the UK.
>>
>>>* The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
>>>       published.
>>>* By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
>>>* I am called an editor.
>>
>>And as long as the page history text is accessible, all prior
>>versions of the page are "published" even if the current edit
>>has deleted the potentially defamatory material. And so not
>>only are the people legally responsible for Wikipedia
>>potentially laible for damages, but so is every Wiki editor
>>who hit the save button on a page that contained the
>>defamatory text, even if it no longer on the current page.
>
>
> I don't think anywhere you have said that you authorise content on a
> page by saving it.  You haven't signed a contract to that effect, and
> you're not paid.  You might as well argue that reading a page without
> changing counts as "authorising" it.
>
> I would be interested to know whether it would be legally acceptable to
> keep the old libellous material in the history, but labelled with some
> {{libel}} tag, that screamed at the user "THIS INFORMATION IS FALSE AND
> DEFAMATORY.  It is only kept here for reference for those doing research
> on this libel case.  A statement from the injured party is here...".
> Would that hold up in court?

I think if the libel is actually being acted upon in a court case, one
can report the nature of the defamation since it forms part of the court
proceedings.  Consider the very recent Robbie Williams trial, in which
the nature of the libel, that two papers called Williams gay, was widely
reported.  Otherwise, I think it would be very unwise to repeat a
libellous comment, and even more so to call attention to it with a big
tag.  However, as ever, IANAL

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05


from_name: Brian

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Next experiment: switch off AFD for a month.
	(wasGuardian in defense of Wikipedia)

body:
>
> Right.  And "trash" is more akin to speedy deletes, which is
> altogether different.  AfD candidates are rarely hurting anyone; just
> out of place or against one or another content policy.

>Looking at the huge number of articles on AfD that are unanimously
>deleted, I'm not sure how else to describe them other than "trash". These
>articles may not be as bad as speedy deletes (the decaying food that will
>cause a stench if not quickly removed), but that doesn't mean they should
be
>kept. What we need is a process to efficiently remove articles that
>currently receive 100% support for deletion on AfD. If these articles no
>longer had to go through AfD, I think we probably could scrap the whole
>thing and send the volunteer garbagemen packing.

Carbonite
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I think this has a lot of potential to help with efficiently removing
articles that
currently receive 100% support for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Proposals/Uncontested
_deletions


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On 12/8/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> Given Wikipedia's editing policy, it is unlikely to qualify for the safe
> harbor protection under the CDA. Amazon.com does not edit posts, and thus
> is essentially immune from suit. While the other case found an editor
> liable, that was because it appeared from the complaint that he had
> participated in the libeling. Wikipedia, unfortunately, falls between the
> two extremes.
>
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia edits posts?  Even if you rephrase
that question to whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation edits posts,
I think it's clear that the foundation does not edit posts.
Individuals, who are neither employed by nor controlled by the
foundation, edit posts.

Anthony


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] NYT to forbid use of Wikipedia as a reference?

body:
On 12/8/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:
>
> > I don't understand why people are taking offense to this in the first
> > place.  In my opinion, *of course* the New York Times shouldn't be
> > using Wikipedia to check information.  Is someone here suggesting that
> > they should?  It seems to me like a ridiculous proposition in the
> > first place.
> >
> > Anthony
>
> So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
>
Sure, but not for fact checking.  For getting a broad overview, maybe.
 For pointing you to other sources, sure.  But not for fact checking.

> If so, then why are the editors at the New York Times "of course"
> different from those that should?
>
They're not different.  No one should be using Wikipedia to check facts.

(I suppose if you go through the history and find the exact diff where
the fact was added, and it turns out it was added by a Wikipedian who
you personally trust, then you could make an exception.  But in
general, you shouldn't be assuming something is true simply because
you read it on the Internet.)

Anthony


from_name: Andy Rabagliati

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China

body:
Folks,

  Just so everybody is aware,

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

  has been in force from October 19 until now.

Cheers,     Andy!


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Next experiment: switch off AFD for a month. (was
	Guardian in defense of Wikipedia)

body:
On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Carbonite wrote:
> >On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> By the way, I really hope the experiment of switching off anon page
> >> creation is followed up with an experiment in switching off AFD for a
> >> month.
>
> >Isn't that a bit like experimenting with not taking out your trash for a
> >month? They're both fairly unpleasant experiences that no one really wants
> >to do, but they can't be halted without some other way of getting rid of the
> >refuse.
>
>
> If the volunteer garbagemen are driving people out of the town as hard
> as they can, it would probably be less damaging to the community and
> be a REALLY GOOD incentive to come up with something less socially
> toxic. See evidence in current RFAr.

Right.  And "trash" is more akin to speedy deletes, which is
altogether different.  AfD candidates are rarely hurting anyone; just
out of place or against one or another content policy.

SJ


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 12/8/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to intellectual property laws, no one should claim he is the
> author of a work who someone else authored.
>
> So...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicone_rubber&action=history
>
> and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Silicone_Rubber_Manufacturing_by_adpol.co.uk
>
>
> Who is the author of the article ?
>

If the text that actually ended up on the page was posted on AFC by
the anon, then the anon is the author - the text has essentially been
moved. If the logged-in editor who creates the article modifies this
text, they own those edits in the usual way.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] User ratings

body:
Hi,

> This sounds interesting, but there might be some problems
> with collecting data. Often legitimate edits are reverted by
> vandals, or by POV pushers. Other purely technical data would
> face similar problems of having to distinguish between good
> and bad data.

True, but I'm presuming that you'd have to be pretty lucky to get hit by
vandals more than occasionally.  Probably more likely when two people
get stuck in a revert war, they both suffer (maybe not a bad thing!)

Of course, you could judge the value of someone's contribution by
whether or not it was reverted by a sufficiently "qualified" user.  Ie,
a contribution by a user rating 10 reverted by a 1000 was probably not a
worthwhile contribution.  The reverse is probably a vandalism revert...?

> Formalising runs the risk of creating a process that can be
> gamed. I think that ultimately the best way to measure
> someone's merit is to exercise one's own judgement, and
> encouraging that should be the primary element of any new
> process, rather than something with numbers.

Currently we don't have many tools for "judgment" on users we don't
know.  Someone reverts your change.  Was it in good faith?  They have a
user name.  Now what...check all their other edits, their user page,
their talk page (and check the history on those pages in case they're
hiding something!)?  Data helps to make a good judgement.

Steve


body:
On 12/8/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, in this case, the GFDL is violated.
> As it is violated each time a full portion of article is moved to create
> another article with no mention of the original author or source.
>
The GFDL is pretty much always violated, at least in the sense that
it's never followed, on Wikipedia.

> We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most
> authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's
> authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list
> articles we wrote.
>
We should add an *editable* history section.  Call it the history
namespace.  Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page.
Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at
least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a
username to it when text is copied.  Automatically coalesce multiple
edits by the same person in the same year into a single entry.
Include the title of the page in this section entitled history, this
way if the page is moved you have a history of the previous titles.
Allow people to swap in their real name instead of their username.
Forget the diffs, they aren't important for the purpose of listing
authors.

This would be an attempt at an actual solution to the big mess which
we have now.

Anthony


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Leon Goldovsky

subject: [Wikitech-l] creating pages in batch mode

body:
Hi,

I am just starting using the Mediawiki, I would like to create an
initial website that will contain pre-created pages for users to modify
and expand. Is there an option to create pages in batch mode?
Any help will be extremely apriciated.

Many thanks
Leon


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
Hello,

> > * Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least
> within the UK.
> > * The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
> >        published.
> > * By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
> > * I am called an editor.
>
> And as long as the page history text is accessible, all prior
> versions of the page are "published" even if the current edit
> has deleted the potentially defamatory material. And so not
> only are the people legally responsible for Wikipedia
> potentially laible for damages, but so is every Wiki editor
> who hit the save button on a page that contained the
> defamatory text, even if it no longer on the current page.

I don't think anywhere you have said that you authorise content on a
page by saving it.  You haven't signed a contract to that effect, and
you're not paid.  You might as well argue that reading a page without
changing counts as "authorising" it.

I would be interested to know whether it would be legally acceptable to
keep the old libellous material in the history, but labelled with some
{{libel}} tag, that screamed at the user "THIS INFORMATION IS FALSE AND
DEFAMATORY.  It is only kept here for reference for those doing research
on this libel case.  A statement from the injured party is here...".
Would that hold up in court?

Steve


body:
This is not a cut-and-dried issue, and we should treat it with respect.

Say you're tasked with quickly determining if a fact is true.  You
decide to find at least two reputable sources mentioning the fact --
and moreover, you look briefly at each of their references, if any.
You're under deadline; so shaving 5 minutes off your search time a
dozen times a day is helpful.

Wikipedia offers a fast way to snag one of these sources.  But is it
reputable enough to count?  Or is it only useful as a portal to its
own references -- where you'll have to scour each one to see if it
contains the specific morsel of data you were searching for[1]?

In theory, for some highly-edited articles, it /is/ reputable enough
to count, as are other encyclopedias or reporters -- that is, it
serves as confirmation that one or two reasonably-informed people did
basic background/literature checks and found something to be true.  Of
course primary/secondary sources are far better still than these two
classes of information.

In practice, WP *gives the visual impression* that all articles are
comparably reputable.  As such, it is problematic to include it
alongside the World Book as a tertiary source usable as "one of two"
sources verifying a claim.
    Every active editor knows that not all articles -- not even all
finished-looking articles -- are equally reliable.  Most of us have
our own reflexive "can I trust this revision" routines - scanning for
format quirks, or signs that a true style-guide expert has been here,
checking the talk page, checking the recent history.
    We must find better ways to float this information up to the casual user.

SJ

[1] NB: if we fix our referencing system, this will no longer be true.

On 12/7/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> If true, oh crap:
>
> From: [New York Times business editor] Larry Ingrassia
> To: [Business staff]
> Subject: wiki-whatdia?
>
> Colleagues,
>
> You probably saw Kit Seelye's smart Week-in-Review story about inaccurate information in
> Wikipedia. In case you didn't, please take a look. Since the story ran, she has received a number
> of e-mail messages about other inaccurate information on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be using it to
> check any information that goes into the newspaper.
>
> Larry
>
> From: http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10748
>
> -- mav
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
++SJ


from_name: Carbonite

body:
On 12/8/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Carbonite wrote:
> > >On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> By the way, I really hope the experiment of switching off anon page
> > >> creation is followed up with an experiment in switching off AFD for a
> > >> month.
> >
> > >Isn't that a bit like experimenting with not taking out your trash for
> a
> > >month? They're both fairly unpleasant experiences that no one really
> wants
> > >to do, but they can't be halted without some other way of getting rid
> of the
> > >refuse.
> >
> >
> > If the volunteer garbagemen are driving people out of the town as hard
> > as they can, it would probably be less damaging to the community and
> > be a REALLY GOOD incentive to come up with something less socially
> > toxic. See evidence in current RFAr.
>
> Right.  And "trash" is more akin to speedy deletes, which is
> altogether different.  AfD candidates are rarely hurting anyone; just
> out of place or against one or another content policy.

Looking at the huge number of articles on AfD that are unanimously
deleted, I'm not sure how else to describe them other than "trash". These
articles may not be as bad as speedy deletes (the decaying food that will
cause a stench if not quickly removed), but that doesn't mean they should be
kept. What we need is a process to efficiently remove articles that
currently receive 100% support for deletion on AfD. If these articles no
longer had to go through AfD, I think we probably could scrap the whole
thing and send the volunteer garbagemen packing.

Carbonite


from_name: Nyenyec N

subject: [WikiEN-l] User ratings

body:
I missed this email, but I just suggested a poor man's substitute for this
here:

http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4221

Simply display the number of edits the user made in the article namespace
next to their name. Don't change the permissions based on this number, just
display it.

I believe that this is very easy to implement doesn't require endless
debates on policy and would help RC patrollers a lot.

I'd also support the eBay-like user rating system, but I believe that it
would take much longer to design and implement.

-- nyenyec

On 12/8/05, Steve Bennett <wiki at stevage.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > This sounds interesting, but there might be some problems
> > with collecting data. Often legitimate edits are reverted by
> > vandals, or by POV pushers. Other purely technical data would
> > face similar problems of having to distinguish between good
> > and bad data.
>
> True, but I'm presuming that you'd have to be pretty lucky to get hit by
> vandals more than occasionally.  Probably more likely when two people
> get stuck in a revert war, they both suffer (maybe not a bad thing!)
>
> Of course, you could judge the value of someone's contribution by
> whether or not it was reverted by a sufficiently "qualified" user.  Ie,
> a contribution by a user rating 10 reverted by a 1000 was probably not a
> worthwhile contribution.  The reverse is probably a vandalism revert...?
>
> > Formalising runs the risk of creating a process that can be
> > gamed. I think that ultimately the best way to measure
> > someone's merit is to exercise one's own judgement, and
> > encouraging that should be the primary element of any new
> > process, rather than something with numbers.
>
> Currently we don't have many tools for "judgment" on users we don't
> know.  Someone reverts your change.  Was it in good faith?  They have a
> user name.  Now what...check all their other edits, their user page,
> their talk page (and check the history on those pages in case they're
> hiding something!)?  Data helps to make a good judgement.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On 12/8/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the UK government is
> > going to give judgements against people simply for editing a page in a
> > section completely unrelated to libellous content
> I may be confused here, but I was under the impression we were
> discussing being sued _in a UK court_, not _by the UK government_.
> Very different things; HMG really doesn't give a damn about us and is
> very unlikely to unless we do something insanely stupid like publish
> Vanguard patrol details.
>
Read what I said again, noting the word "judgements".  Judgements are
given by courts, and courts are part of the government.


from_name: Field Nothing

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

body:
So it seems everyone agrees that the current mo.wikipedia.org should be
moved to mo-cyr.wikipedia.org giving the control over mo.wikipedia.org to
people from Moldova, we will explain on the main page that Romanian and
Moldovan are the same language (with reference to wiki article on Moldovan
language) and will offer the user to continue with ro.wikipedia.org. And the
title of mo-cyr should be renamed from "Moldoveneasca" to "Moldoveneasca in
chirilica" so it wouldn't clash with the real language.

Thus the question: is there an admin here who can do this ?

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >On 12/7/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>geni wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 12/7/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Is there any thoughts on private individuals?  Are we open to libel
> >>>>suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to
> >>>>remove it completely from the edit history?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to
> >>hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this.
> >>Look at it this way:
> >>
> >>
> >Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made
> >by other people.  UK law might differ, but to the extent it does
> >that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list -
> >the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no
> >legal presense in the UK).
> >
> It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not
> Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive.  It may
> be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be
> interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own
> country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant.  This is
> precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the
> "Ugly American".
>
> The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States
> naturally caries certain legal implications.  We all know that.  That
> the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those
> implications.  Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and
> more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the
> same world as the rest of us.
>
> Ec
>

The UK situation is pretty simple. Don't try and use truth as a
defence except as a last resort and watch out for inciteing racial
hatred laws.

--
geni


body:
On 12/8/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not a cut-and-dried issue, and we should treat it with respect.
>
> Say you're tasked with quickly determining if a fact is true.  You
> decide to find at least two reputable sources mentioning the fact --
> and moreover, you look briefly at each of their references, if any.
> You're under deadline; so shaving 5 minutes off your search time a
> dozen times a day is helpful.
>
> Wikipedia offers a fast way to snag one of these sources.  But is it
> reputable enough to count?  Or is it only useful as a portal to its
> own references -- where you'll have to scour each one to see if it
> contains the specific morsel of data you were searching for[1]?
>
And what if Wikipedia got the information from your first source?  No,
I don't think this is ever a good thing to do.  It might work most of
the time, but it's not a good idea.

> In theory, for some highly-edited articles, it /is/ reputable enough
> to count, as are other encyclopedias or reporters -- that is, it
> serves as confirmation that one or two reasonably-informed people did
> basic background/literature checks and found something to be true.  Of
> course primary/secondary sources are far better still than these two
> classes of information.
>
It works at least some of the time, but I wouldn't say that makes it
reputable.  Our reputation is that we'll allow anyone to publish
anything without even verifying the identity of that person, let alone
verifying the information.  We're not reputable by any stretch of the
imagination.

If you want to start digging into the history and seeing how long a
fact has been there, and this fact is somehow prominent enough that it
probably would have been caught...well, by the time you do that you
might as well have just used a better source.

> In practice, WP *gives the visual impression* that all articles are
> comparably reputable.  As such, it is problematic to include it
> alongside the World Book as a tertiary source usable as "one of two"
> sources verifying a claim.

The World Book wouldn't be *as* problematic, since at least that is
fact checked before being published, but I still don't see how you can
count an encyclopedia as one of two sources unless you know what the
source was that encyclopedia used (since it might be the same source).

>    Every active editor knows that not all articles -- not even all
> finished-looking articles -- are equally reliable.  Most of us have
> our own reflexive "can I trust this revision" routines - scanning for
> format quirks, or signs that a true style-guide expert has been here,
> checking the talk page, checking the recent history.
>    We must find better ways to float this information up to the casual user.
>
> SJ
>
> [1] NB: if we fix our referencing system, this will no longer be true.
>

I'm not sure that it's a *must*, because I think Wikipedia serves an
important niche even without fact-checked information.  I think it's
acceptable to let someone else worry about this, someone who's willing
to stand behind the encyclopedia as a *publisher*, not just a service
provider.  But it would be nice to offer a trusted revision for a lot
of articles if not all of them.

I think that it's most important that whatever is done is done without
disturbing the process we have in place now.

> On 12/7/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If true, oh crap:
> >
> > From: [New York Times business editor] Larry Ingrassia
> > To: [Business staff]
> > Subject: wiki-whatdia?
> >
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > You probably saw Kit Seelye's smart Week-in-Review story about inaccurate information in
> > Wikipedia. In case you didn't, please take a look. Since the story ran, she has received a number
> > of e-mail messages about other inaccurate information on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be using it to
> > check any information that goes into the newspaper.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > From: http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10748
> >
> > -- mav
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> ++SJ
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request management

body:
On 12/8/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> We have been using templates for various management tasks for quite some
> time now. Cleanup, wikifikation, deletion, all done through templates
> and, sometimes, categories.
>
> While some of these work out OK, AfD seems to be a mess, and Articles
> for Creation (for anons on en.wikipedia) seems to be heading that way.
> Handling of these task-tags requires editing of pages, making the page
> history grow and generally being a pain (what was that template name?
> did it have parameters?).
>
> I hereby suggest a mechanism for "request management". Each article
> would have a "Request" (or "task") tab, and there would be a
> Special:Requests page. Through these, requests of all kind could be
> handeled (added, listed, removed). Each request would get its own
> "Request:" page for discussion.
>
> A request would consist of:
> * Article name (automatically filled in)
> * Request type (chosen from a list)
> * Comment/reason/explanation text
> * Status (from a list, similar to bugzilla; "open", "solved", "wontfix")
> * Other automatically filled-in information (who requested it, time of
> request)
>
> Requests would be shown in the sidebar of the page (like "Requests:
> cleanup, wikify"). Details would be shown of the Special:Request page
> *for that article*. All requests, sorted and filtered, would be shown on
> Special:Request (*not* for a specific page).
>
> Optionally, a filter could be applied for the categories an article is
> in. This would allow me too see all articles in "Biochemitry" that need
> a cleanup, for example.
>
>
> Quick, tell me what you think, while I'm in a coding mood ;-)
>
> Magnus

I've wanted something like this for ages.  There's no way our current
management approach will scale much further; it's too hard to keep
track of what's on what action queue.

Please provide a means to display each action queue in the order in
which they were added to that queue so that we can prioritize.

Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Libel law

body:
On 12/8/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Read what I said again, noting the word "judgements".  Judgements are
> > given by courts, and courts are part of the government.
>
> Not in the UK. Great care is (or at least should be) taken to ensure that
> the Judiciary is independent of the Government.

Ah.  Thanks for pointing that out.  It's really just a
miscommunication.  Here in the US our Judiciary is largely independent
of the Legislature and the Executive, but the three collectively are
referred to as the "government".


from_name: Travis Derouin

body:
Hey Brion,

Thanks. It does look like the code that adds the category links takes
place in Parser::replaceInternalLinks, which appears to be only called
if Parser::parse is invoked on the article being saved. We are
actually using a Special page to create request articles, so visitors
can come and submit a request for how-to article to be written about,
so the newly created articles are not necessarily parsed
automatically. It's a slightly different approach we've been using to
reduce the amount of wiki-knowledge that's required to participate in
our community.

http://wiki.ehow.com/Special:RequestTopic

So it looks like the hack-workaround for this is to parse the article
after inserting it into the database, that seems to do the trick for
now.

 $article = new Article($title);
 $ret = $article->insertNewArticle($details, "", false, false, false, $user);
 $options = ParserOptions::newFromUser( $wgUser );
 $wgParser->parse($details, $title, $options);

Thanks!
Travis

> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:59:53 -0800
> From: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Article->insertNewArticle and category links
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4395EDB9.7000907 at pobox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Travis Derouin wrote:
> > Is there any reason why when inserting a new article from outside
> > EditPage.php doesn't update the category links?
>
> Shitty coding practices. ;) This stuff needs more refactoring still.
>
> > $title = Title::newFromText("Hellos");
> > $article = new Article($title);
> > $ret = $article->insertNewArticle("hi there![[Category:Greetings]]",
> > "", false, false, false)
> >
> > The article is successfully created and links to the Greetings
> > category. However, the "Greetings" category does not show the new
> > article in the list of articles in that category.
>
> At the moment you'll have to manually run the post-save updates; you should find
> several examples of this in the code.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK libel law and reusers

body:
On 12/8/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Okay then, let me try another tack which has occurred to me given the
> Wikipedia stance on "fair use".
>
> How is a commercial reuser going to feel when it is issued with a writ?

Probably not very good.  What do you suggest we do about this?


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request management

body:
On 12/8/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:

> Quick, tell me what you think, while I'm in a coding mood ;-)
>
> Magnus

Ooooh, I like this idea. Easier to do and to explain to others.

-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]

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


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
Steve Block wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the mailing list for the english
> Wikipedia, yes?  So the point of asking is to try to work out what the
> policy is on that Wikipedia regarding libel.  Great, you personally
> aren't affected.  Does that absolve you of responsibility in attempting
> to formulate an understanding of the position to those it does affect
> and also to try and develop a policy on the situation?  If you
> personally are unaffected, I'm very happy for you.  Perhaps you could be
> sympathetic and at least understand the concerns of those that may be.

The problem is that we cannot base sensible policies by starting with
the most restrictive cases, even in the English-speaking world, if our
goal is maximal openness.  Singapore is largely English-speaking too,
for example, and I don't see anybody suggesting we ought to pay more
attention to their laws on publishing (which are fairly extensive).

-Mark


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] road to stability,
	formatted. last kick-off posting.

body:
On 12/7/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
 > Don't get me wrong, this is possible, no doubt; but I'm still struggling
> with the logging system (my attempt is half-broken, could someone take a
> look there?).

Look at my Renameuser and Newuserlog extensions to see how to add new
logs via hooks.


body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
>
>If so, then why are the editors at the New York Times "of course"
>different from those that should?
>
>
I use it to find facts, not to verify them.  I've used many of our
mathematical articles, for example, to get an overview of various areas,
explanations of concepts I'm only vaguely familiar with, and so on.  I
have never used those articles, or articles in any other encyclopedia,
to actually verify statements that any of my work depends on,
though---my papers would get rejected pretty quickly if I started
sourcing my facts to encyclopedias rather than to articles in
peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] disputing block: 69.108.172.162, lysdexia

body:
She's emailed me now about this block three times. The first time (please note, I am paraphrasing) it was "Please help a poor, abused Wikipedian out", the second time it was "Where does it say I need to have a good attitude?", the third time she out-and-out called me a liar. After the second email, I asked her to cease emailing me, as I wasn't going to do anything about her block; she did so anyway. I guess that's one of the perks of being an admin, is I get to receive messages from irate people demanding to be unblocked. Yippee.

  -Hermione1980

Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
  And Lysdexia retorted to this by sending all the list admins a message
saying "Some obvious admin banned me for no reason, and is trying to
suppress my last message to my thread, and will have hell to pay for
corruption when I report his corrupt arse to the rest of Wikipedia."
Riight.

~Mark Ryan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Articles for Creation vs. Requested Articles

body:
On 12/8/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/8/05, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > > From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working
> > > > quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
> > > >
> > > > --Jimbo
> > >
> > >
> > > [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> >
> > The "Requested Articles" pages are longer.
> >
> > Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently
> > a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so
> > medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
> >
> > So, what's your point?
>
> [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being
> unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent
> elsewhere.
>
>
> --
> geni

What articles are sitting there?  Are they ones we really need?  If
not, maybe the problem is that we have an "articles for creation" in
the first place.

As for the indication that this change is working, I'd like to see
some more details.  How is it working?  How is it failing?  One place
it is probably working well is with those one liners that non-logged
in users create when they click on a red link and wind up with a text
box.  This probably isn't even malicious in many cases.  Maybe we
could try addressing this but still allowing people to create new
articles without logging in if they do so explicitly.

I've tried to keep an open mind about this experiment because I agree
with Jimbo that it doesn't really change the openness of the site.
Pretty much anyone can create an account if they want to.  It also
doesn't disallow anonymity, since in fact the only way to really be
anonymous (to those without CheckUser) would be to create a new
account with each edit anyway.  (Note that these points wouldn't apply
to other changes like not allowing new accounts to create new
articles.)  The way I see it, this is basically a question of
efficiency, what policy best facilitates the creation of good articles
but hinders the creation of bad ones.  I still haven't seen enough
data to make up my mind though.

Oh yeah, I'd like to point out the one data point which I found most
persuasive.  In the statistics that were given, the number of new
articles went down by nearly exactly the same as the number of
deletions.  If that holds up over a long period of time, damn that's a
good statistic.

Anthony


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
> But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live
> in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?

Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably
the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you
can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans
sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few
copies reached the UK. For many years the UK was the only place any
major libel cases were heard (in the days of [[Peter Carter-Ruck]]),
as you could get serious damages and it was very much slanted in
your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt
have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional
(often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss
of reputation.

Justinc


from_name: Chip Berlet

subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
Hi,

I am not saying that, a law student suggested that we look at the complexity and consider the potentials.  I do not think there is actual settled case law that would clearly answer the question of whether or not the Wikipedia Foundation can be held liable for defamation for material posted on the site.  I rather suspect that a good case could be argued that it was. An equally good case could be argued that it was not. The case would be stronger against Wikipedia if it failed to post clear guidelines regarding defamation and the obligation of every editor to alert admins to potential defamatory text, remove material likely to be defamatory, and to edit with some knowledge as to what generally is considered defamatory. Some of this is already being done. It should be expanded.

Please read these posts more carefully, they are complicated.  Please do not bite my head off.

-Chip

________________________________

From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org on behalf of Anthony DiPierro
Sent: Thu 12/8/2005 10:17 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

On 12/8/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> Given Wikipedia's editing policy, it is unlikely to qualify for the safe
> harbor protection under the CDA. Amazon.com does not edit posts, and thus
> is essentially immune from suit. While the other case found an editor
> liable, that was because it appeared from the complaint that he had
> participated in the libeling. Wikipedia, unfortunately, falls between the
> two extremes.
>
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia edits posts?  Even if you rephrase
that question to whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation edits posts,
I think it's clear that the foundation does not edit posts.
Individuals, who are neither employed by nor controlled by the
foundation, edit posts.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A note on how the list moderation works

body:
"A. Nony Mouse" wrote:
[snip]
> Then again, this message will never see the list. He'll see to that.
> Unless
> the only decent mod of the lot gets to it first, that is.

So who do you mean, and is that who let your latest message through?

> Your local voice for common sense,
> A. Nony Mouse

Local to where? 'cos that's got a be an interesting locality :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On 12/8/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The case would be stronger against Wikipedia if it failed to post clear guidelines regarding defamation and the obligation of every editor to alert admins to potential defamatory text, remove material likely to be defamatory, and to edit with some knowledge as to what generally is considered defamatory.

Actually, posting such guidelines could actually make the case stronger.

Kelly


from_name: Caroline Ford

body:
Is there are admin here who hasn't read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language and knows that this is
contested?

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Field Nothing
Sent: 08 December 2005 11:06
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Why MO.wikipedia. - Moldovan,are written in
cyrillic ?

So it seems everyone agrees that the current mo.wikipedia.org should be
moved to mo-cyr.wikipedia.org giving the control over mo.wikipedia.org to
people from Moldova, we will explain on the main page that Romanian and
Moldovan are the same language (with reference to wiki article on Moldovan
language) and will offer the user to continue with ro.wikipedia.org. And the
title of mo-cyr should be renamed from "Moldoveneasca" to "Moldoveneasca in
chirilica" so it wouldn't clash with the real language.

Thus the question: is there an admin here who can do this ?

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/2005


subject: [WikiEN-l] User ratings

body:
On 12/8/05, Steve Bennett <wiki at stevage.com> wrote:
> ***delurk***
> Hi all,
>   There have been sporadic mentions of the idea of rating users to more
> easily detect vandalism.  Has there been any serious discussion of this
> idea?  The obvious example to follow is eBay, where the more activities
> you carry out in the system without negative criticism, the higher your
> rating.  Perhaps the Wikipedia example would be counting unreverted
> edits.

This sounds interesting, but there might be some problems with
collecting data. Often legitimate edits are reverted by vandals, or by
POV pushers. Other purely technical data would face similar problems
of having to distinguish between good and bad data.

A system whereby users could rate each other, or at least just a place
where users could leave feedback about each other, might be useful.

<snip>

> This follows on from the discussion of meritocracies recently.  If
> Wikipedia is becoming a meritocracy, why not formalise the idea?  Give
> privileges to users with ratings >100, >1000 etc.  Restrict voting on
> admins to users with certain ratings etc.

Formalising runs the risk of creating a process that can be gamed. I
think that ultimately the best way to measure someone's merit is to
exercise one's own judgement, and encouraging that should be the
primary element of any new process, rather than something with
numbers.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The downside to requiring account creation. See also:
	[[Slippery slope]]

body:
Brian schrieb:
> I'm still officially on wikibreak (can that be official? =) but I just wanted to
> drop a note here on my take on these new restrictions.
>
> Many feel that the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] was only passed on the basis of it being
> a highly emotional, gut reaction. Pretty much everyone was OK with it at first,
> but over time a lot of Americans have come to wonder if it violates some of our
> very basic principles. That's just a surface analogy - don't read into it too
> far. The point is that, whether or not it is a perennial suggestion, and whether
> or not an article existed for several months and displayed a prominent person as
> an assassin, we should absolutely not go against the principles that got us
> here.

[...]

Thank you for putting this into such clear words. There are a lot of
ideas floating around how to improve article control without giving up
our essential principle of openness. I think it is worth exploring these
first.

greetings,
elian


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Steve Block wrote:
>
>> geni wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/7/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there any thoughts on private individuals?  Are we open to libel
>>>> suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to
>>>> remove it completely from the edit history?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
>>
>>
>> No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to
>> hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this.
>> Look at it this way:
>>
>> * Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
>> * The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
>> published.
>> * By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
>> * I am called an editor.
>>
>> Also note the [[McLibel case]].
>>
>> Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
>>
>> I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible
>> we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a
>> libellous statement and failed to remove it.
>
>
> Your hypotheseis leads to an absurd result.  If I edit this page
> containing an alleged libel for matters unrelated to that statement how
> am I supposed to know what is libellous in that article?  By your line
> of reasoning, if I want to be safe I might as well delete the entire
> article.  Your reading would make busibodies of us all.

Picking up on this again, are you refuting [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]
as policy?  We are already supposed to delete information that isn't
verified.  Isn't there an RFC regarding someone who added unverified
information all over Wikipedia that wasn't removed.  The sooner editors
start realising that actually, yes, they do have a duty to remove
material they do not believe is verified, the better Wikipedia will become.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
>
> On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>>>
>> But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live
>> in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
>
>
> Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably
> the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you
> can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans
> sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few
> copies reached the UK.

This is one of the points I'm trying to make.  Since Don King sued a US
lawyer in the UK courts, what is to stop someone suing a US editor in
the UK courts?  I believe the foundation has satisfied itself Wikipedia
is immune from Englandf and Wales libel law, but I think it is important
to establish the position to individual editors.

I mean, taking it a step further, although Wikimedia may be exempt from
a writ in the UK courts, if one was to aimed at Wikimedia from the UK
courts with editors named on the suit, the best recourse from my reading
of the law is that courts allow a full apology, retraction and some sort
of small financial settlement rather than have a lawsuit.  Would
Wikimedia be happy to comply with that even though it is likely exempt
from the suit itself?

Basically, I am asking whether the policy is shoot libel on sight.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> On 12/8/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>>But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live
>>>in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
>>
>>Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably
>>the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you
>>can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans
>>sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few
>>copies reached the UK. For many years the UK was the only place any
>>major libel cases were heard (in the days of [[Peter Carter-Ruck]]),
>>as you could get serious damages and it was very much slanted in
>>your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt
>>have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional
>>(often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss
>>of reputation.
>>
>>Justinc
>
>
> I think I'll wait to worry about this until I have a big enough
> presense in the UK that a ruling against me would matter.  The UK
> can't garnish wages from my US employer, can they?
>
> (Actually, at the point where I have significant assets in the UK I'll
> be able to afford a lawyer to research these issues for me.  I
> certainly won't ask around on an international mailing list which has
> pretty much nothing to do with law.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the mailing list for the english
Wikipedia, yes?  So the point of asking is to try to work out what the
policy is on that Wikipedia regarding libel.  Great, you personally
aren't affected.  Does that absolve you of responsibility in attempting
to formulate an understanding of the position to those it does affect
and also to try and develop a policy on the situation?  If you
personally are unaffected, I'm very happy for you.  Perhaps you could be
sympathetic and at least understand the concerns of those that may be.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guardian in defense of Wikipedia

body:
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1661567,00.html

"It is true of the Wikipedia, as it is of the rest of the internet,
that information should not be regarded as sacrosanct. Everything
should be double checked."

Well, quite.

By the way, I really hope the experiment of switching off anon page
creation is followed up with an experiment in switching off AFD for a
month.

- d.


from_name: henna

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fosdem (Brussels, 27-28 februari)

body:
Hallo,

Fosdem is the free and open source european developpers meeting, it's
the conference in Brussels where jimbo gave one of the keynote
speeches last year :)

Last year there was a wikipedia-stand there. Are there ppl interested
in setting something up this year as well?

(from the FOSDEM site (http://www.fosdem.org), devrooms are already sold out)
To help the community, FOSDEM sets up 'DevRooms' (Developer Rooms)
where teams can meet and showcase their projects.
It is also a place where a team can discuss, code (hacking sessions),
publicly present latest directions, tutorials, news and decisions.
The FOSDEM Team thinks it is very important that developers from
around the world can meet 'in real life' and we believe projects can
benefit from these meetings.
Common facilities such as network/internet connectivity and projectors
are provided by us.

henna

--
"Maybe you knew early on that your track went from point A to B, but
unlike you I wasn't given a map at birth!" Alyssa, "Chasing Amy"
http://hekla.rave.org/cookbook.html - my crossplatform dieet/recipe app


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On 08/12/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >>
> > But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live
> > in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
>
> Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably
> the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you
> can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans
> sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few
> copies reached the UK.

Basically, in the eyes of the UK court system, what needs to happen is
that something is published in the UK, and that it can be defaming to
someone with standing in the UK.

"Published" has been construed to mean "made available to be read by a
third party" - the classic example is that sending a letter in an
envelope isn't publishing, since there's one recipient, but sending a
postcard is, since the postman can read it... the logical extension of
this is that something published on a server in Thailand by a guy in
Kenya can be grounds for someone in Cuba to sue, if someone in London
reads it even once, but this (thankfully) has not been ruled on by a
court as yet. At least, I don't *think* it has, but IIRC there's an
Australian court that did something similar.

Standing means that someone has to, basically, have a public status
which can be damaged by the defamation. This is tricky for J. Random
Crank, but - for example - the Norwegian politician who we were
discussing a week ago, he'd have ground to sue, since people have
presumably heard of him and have some respect for him.

> For many years the UK was the only place any
> major libel cases were heard (in the days of [[Peter Carter-Ruck]]),
> as you could get serious damages and it was very much slanted in
> your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt
> have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional
> (often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss
> of reputation.

Of course, the problem is that people like Carter-Ruck came very
expensive, so the costs the defendant would have to pay were
*immense*. (This is not helped by the recent spate of "conditional fee
arrangements", where they add on another 50% charge for winning)

At this point, stop and meditate on the remarkable fact that Private
Eye still exists.

It's not something to horribly worry about, but it's not something
that can be assumed to be irrelevant either. At least, not yet...

(This is from memory, but I can drag out /Law for Journalists/ and
start summarising if people want)

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On 08/12/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/8/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:

> > your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt
> > have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional
> > (often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss
> > of reputation.
>
> This is tempered by the fact that UK libel law is so bad that most
> other countries will not enforce a UK libel judgment.

[shrug] Our editor who lost still has a ?250,000 outstanding judgement
preventing them from ever entering the UK on pain of Nasty Legal
Consequences. If the Foundation gets hit, well, there might be fun
problems if we happen to have set up squids in London, being as they
would be seizable property...

It may not be a killer to anything, but it's not going to be pleasant
nor is it going to be the sort of thing the Foundation's PR will do
well out of.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Anthere

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 12/8/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>According to intellectual property laws, no one should claim he is the
>>author of a work who someone else authored.
>>
>>So...
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicone_rubber&action=history
>>
>>and
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Silicone_Rubber_Manufacturing_by_adpol.co.uk
>>
>>
>>Who is the author of the article ?
>>
>
>
> If the text that actually ended up on the page was posted on AFC by
> the anon, then the anon is the author - the text has essentially been
> moved. If the logged-in editor who creates the article modifies this
> text, they own those edits in the usual way.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com

So, in this case, the GFDL is violated.
As it is violated each time a full portion of article is moved to create
another article with no mention of the original author or source.

I remember once I worked many hours on an article about the GMO. It was
quite long, I authored it at about 95%. I was quite proud of it.
Then someone thought it could be divided for some reasons. He mentionned
it in the talk page. I said I disagreed. The next day, that author took
75% of the text and created a new article with it. He changed nothing,
did not even fixed the introduction which he left standing quite
stupidely with no change to reflect the article had been divided.

But he became the author of it.

We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most
authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's
authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list
articles we wrote.

Under GFDL, It is also illegal. Incidently, if I was guilty of copyright
violation, the one who appropriated the work will also be facing legal
issues. Not I :-)

Ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 08/12/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>>But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live
>>>in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
>>
>>Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably
>>the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you
>>can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans
>>sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few
>>copies reached the UK.
>
>
> Basically, in the eyes of the UK court system, what needs to happen is
> that something is published in the UK, and that it can be defaming to
> someone with standing in the UK.
>
> "Published" has been construed to mean "made available to be read by a
> third party" - the classic example is that sending a letter in an
> envelope isn't publishing, since there's one recipient, but sending a
> postcard is, since the postman can read it... the logical extension of
> this is that something published on a server in Thailand by a guy in
> Kenya can be grounds for someone in Cuba to sue, if someone in London
> reads it even once, but this (thankfully) has not been ruled on by a
> court as yet. At least, I don't *think* it has, but IIRC there's an
> Australian court that did something similar.

Didn't the Lennox Lewis & ors v. Don King make exactly this point?  That
even though the comments were made on American websites, they were
downloadable in the UK, and so had been published here.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05


body:
Carbonite wrote:
>On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>> By the way, I really hope the experiment of switching off anon page
>> creation is followed up with an experiment in switching off AFD for a
>> month.

>Isn't that a bit like experimenting with not taking out your trash for a
>month? They're both fairly unpleasant experiences that no one really wants
>to do, but they can't be halted without some other way of getting rid of the
>refuse.

If the volunteer garbagemen are driving people out of the town as hard
as they can, it would probably be less damaging to the community and
be a REALLY GOOD incentive to come up with something less socially
toxic. See evidence in current RFAr.

- d.


from_name: Gordon Joly

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is "gold dust" (Guardian article and leader)

body:
There's gold in them there hills!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1661693,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1661567,00.html

--
Gordo (aka LoopZilla)
gordon.joly at pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
http://www.loopzilla.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 09:35 -0500, Chip Berlet wrote:

(snip lots of interesting stuff)

> Given Wikipedia's editing policy, it is unlikely to qualify for the safe
> harbor protection under the CDA. Amazon.com does not edit posts, and thus
> is essentially immune from suit. While the other case found an editor
> liable, that was because it appeared from the complaint that he had
> participated in the libeling. Wikipedia, unfortunately, falls between the
> two extremes.

Technically Wikipedia (or the Wikimedia foundation) doesnt edit,
individuals do, and therefore might have grounds for being a carrier
only (provider of a wiki space for contributions). It might be necessary
to stop Jimbo editing though for this to be the case.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK libel law and reusers

body:
Okay then, let me try another tack which has occurred to me given the
Wikipedia stance on "fair use".

How is a commercial reuser going to feel when it is issued with a writ?

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05


body:
What about using more than one source - common sense surely?

Anyway sod the NYT - the Guardian leader loves us ;)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1661567,00.html

Caroline/Secretlondon

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sean Barrett
Sent: 08 December 2005 14:51
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] NYT to forbid use of Wikipedia as a reference?

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

Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:

> I don't understand why people are taking offense to this in the first
> place.  In my opinion, *of course* the New York Times shouldn't be
> using Wikipedia to check information.  Is someone here suggesting that
> they should?  It seems to me like a ridiculous proposition in the
> first place.
>
> Anthony

So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?

If so, then why are the editors at the New York Times "of course"
different from those that should?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Damned shame about Scrooge -- a shrewd
 sean at epoptic.org | businessman before this lunacy.
                  | I'm afraid he's for Bedlam now.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDmEhAMAt1wyd9d+URAiSoAJ48Gc3wyCZP2kexe2FrtFIbST4ecgCePfC/
grua24Wu6qZLHR4gANbmm1o=
=ZVks
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/2005


subject: [WikiEN-l] BBC Radio 4 "PM" interview 17:40ish UTC

body:
I've been grabbed to be a last-second plug-in media whore for
Wikipedia this afternoon - BBC Radio 4 PM, around 5:40pm or so. (I'll
be taking one late lunch!)

It'll be on the subject of recent changes to Wikipedia and the current
storm in a teacup. I just chatted to someone there setting up the
technical details and mentioned the planned UK organization, so that
might get mentioned too.

If you miss it, you can get RealAudio or WMA from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/pm

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] BBC Radio 4 "PM" interview 17:40ish UTC


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the UK government is
> going to give judgements against people simply for editing a page in a
> section completely unrelated to libellous content

I may be confused here, but I was under the impression we were
discussing being sued _in a UK court_, not _by the UK government_.
Very different things; HMG really doesn't give a damn about us and is
very unlikely to unless we do something insanely stupid like publish
Vanguard patrol details.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] road to stability,	formatted.
	last kick-off posting.

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:

>On 12/7/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, this is possible, no doubt; but I'm still struggling
>
>
>>with the logging system (my attempt is half-broken, could someone take a
>>look there?).
>>
>>
>
>Look at my Renameuser and Newuserlog extensions to see how to add new
>logs via hooks.
>
>
Thanks, I'm figuring it out now. What I can't figure out was who had the
bright idea to limit the log type and action to varchar(10) fields,
having me wonder why the action is always "stablevers" instead of
"stableversion", and why the log doesn't display them :-(

Magnus


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Admins - another experiment in relation to a
	Seigenthaler-style incident

body:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Dershowitz

Now, this one will be interesting ...

- d.


from_name: Jim

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Experiment on new pages and GFDL

body:
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/8/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most
> > authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's
> > authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list
> > articles we wrote.
> >
> We should add an *editable* history section.  Call it the history
> namespace.  Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page.
> Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at
> least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a
> username to it when text is copied.

It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the
source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC
request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when
copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the
source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.

This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the
authors that created the source article up until then.

--
Jim (trodel at gmail.com)
"Our love may not always be reciprocated, or
even appreciated, but love is never wasted"
- Neal A Maxwell
---Intersted in Gmail - let me know I have invites---


from_name: sydney poore

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: BBC R4,	now at 17:35 UTC (was BBC Radio 4 "PM"
	interview17:40ish UTC )

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Well, that was surprisingly fluffy, and I actually managed to correct
>the common factual errors - (a) we're not blocking all anonymous
>contribution, only creating new articles and (b) it wasn't because of
>Siegenthaler. Also said we were working on how to polish up this raw
>material and pointed out there's no substitute for thought. So far, so
>good. Anyone who gets a transcript, send it in and I'll put it up on
>my LiveJournal (http://reddragdiva.livejournal.com/).- d.
>
        Well done!

        Sydney
        *Go Bengals!*


list: commons-l

from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [Commons-l] Return of the FlickrLickrs

body:
On 12/8/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> If you would like to become a FlickrLickr, drop me a private message.

I'd like to.  As a Flickr user, I'm aware of the mass of stuff
available.  I also understand image copyright issues pretty well.

Thanks,

-Matt


from_name: charles matthews

body:
 "Gordon Joly" wrote

> There's gold in them there hills!
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1661693,00.html

One golden quote from that, anyway: 'cynics are concerned'.  WP changes the
world - up to now, cynics through history have cultivated disdain and a
total lack of concern in relation to human striving , but a whiff of false
data on our pet wiki, and we see a radical upset.

Of course it is possible our reporter is getting his cynics and his sceptics
in a twist ...

Charles


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 12/8/05, Jim <trodel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 12/8/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most
> > > authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's
> > > authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list
> > > articles we wrote.
> > >
> > We should add an *editable* history section.  Call it the history
> > namespace.  Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page.
> > Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at
> > least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a
> > username to it when text is copied.
>
>
> It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the
> source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC
> request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when
> copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the
> source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.
>
> This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the
> authors that created the source article up until then.

This would work relatively OK if everyone did it correctly and
consistently 100% of the time.  Which is to say, we've already tried
this, it doesn't work.

As for Ant's particular problem, one could suggest that she simply
make some minor edit to the text, and thus her name will then show up
as an author.  But that's kind of a kludge, and someone looking at the
actual diffs would get the wrong impression as to what she was the
author of.  It also doesn't address the GFDL requirement to include
the title of the work (the title at the time it was edited), if a page
is moved, and it makes the list of authors way too long and awkward
(we don't need to list the same author more than once per year, in
fact in my opinion there should only be one line in the history
section per year, listing all the authors, unless the title changes or
there is a merger from a different work in which case you'd want one
line per title).

Anthony


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Dershowitz
>
> Now, this one will be interesting ...
>
>
> - d.

As if admins didn't have enough to do already.

--
geni


body:
On 12/8/05, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working
> > > quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
> > >
> > > --Jimbo
> >
> >
> > [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> The "Requested Articles" pages are longer.
>
> Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently
> a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so
> medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
>
> So, what's your point?

[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being
unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent
elsewhere.

--
geni


body:
geni wrote:
>On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Dershowitz

>As if admins didn't have enough to do already.

A bit of research and writing will keep you in practice ;-)

- d.


body:
On 08/12/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently
> > a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so
> > medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
> >
> > So, what's your point?
>
> [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being
> unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent
> elsewhere.

Killing a lot of the content there as unuseful would probably help. At
a glance, much of it is being left as replies to people who'll never
see the page again...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikipedia-l] NYT to forbid use of Wikipedia as a reference?

body:
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
> >
> Sure, but not for fact checking.  For getting a broad overview, maybe.
>  For pointing you to other sources, sure.  But not for fact checking.

I think this is a very good point - WIkipedia can *provide* facts, but
it definitely can't *verify* them, on it's own. After all, we reject
original research, so we are only ever a secondary source, by policy.

Anyone who thinks they know something and reads Wikipedia to check it
is going about things the wrong way round. They should be using
Wikipedia either because they don't know the facts at all (and want a
starting point), or because they want to see what brilliant
authoritative sources Wikipedians have cited. ;)

[I guess that last use could be classed as "using it to check
information", but more accurately it's using it as a tool to find
resources which can be used to check the information.]

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> >On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Dershowitz
>
> >As if admins didn't have enough to do already.
>
>
> A bit of research and writing will keep you in practice ;-)
>
>
> - d.

If I was any good at that I wouldn't be an admin.

--
geni


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Libel law

body:
"Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal at inbox.org>
wrote:
[snip]
> Read what I said again, noting the word "judgements".  Judgements are
> given by courts, and courts are part of the government.

Not in the UK. Great care is (or at least should be) taken to ensure that
the Judiciary is independent of the Government.

Sometimes this works a treat, like when the Judges tell Ministers that their
latest publicity-seeking policy is cobblers.

Sometimes it's not so great, like when a Judge gets a bee in his (usually,
although there are some mad female Judges also :-) bonnet about something
and goes on a bit of a rampage.

It'll all balance out in the end, I expect...
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] End of year fund drive

body:
Sorry for the late notice on this.

The start of the fund drive has been delayed for at least a few days. The reason is to give us
time to prepare more translations, a press release, donor feedback mechanisms (such as
automatically listing new PayPal donations), and work on next quarter's budget.

I will update the translation coordination page on meta with the finalized start and end dates
after the board decides that on their Friday 9 December meeting. I'll also repost to these lists.

See:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fund_drives/2005/Q4_planning/Translations
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fund_drives/2005/Q4_planning
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_budget/2006/Q1

Daniel Mayer,
Wikimedia CFO

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


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] End of year fund drive


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] End of year fund drive


subject: [Wikipedia-l] End of year fund drive


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Next experiment: switch off AFD for a month. (was
	Guardian in defense of Wikipedia)

body:
On 12/8/05, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> Carbonite wrote:
>
> >On 12/8/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Carbonite wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>By the way, I really hope the experiment of switching off anon page
> >>>>>creation is followed up with an experiment in switching off AFD for a
> >>>>>month.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Isn't that a bit like experimenting with not taking out your trash for
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>a
> >>
> >>
> >>>>month? They're both fairly unpleasant experiences that no one really
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>wants
> >>
> >>
> >>>>to do, but they can't be halted without some other way of getting rid
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>of the
> >>
> >>
> >>>>refuse.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>If the volunteer garbagemen are driving people out of the town as hard
> >>>as they can, it would probably be less damaging to the community and
> >>>be a REALLY GOOD incentive to come up with something less socially
> >>>toxic. See evidence in current RFAr.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Right.  And "trash" is more akin to speedy deletes, which is
> >>altogether different.  AfD candidates are rarely hurting anyone; just
> >>out of place or against one or another content policy.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Looking at the huge number of articles on AfD that are unanimously
> >deleted, I'm not sure how else to describe them other than "trash". These
> >articles may not be as bad as speedy deletes (the decaying food that will
> >cause a stench if not quickly removed), but that doesn't mean they should be
> >kept. What we need is a process to efficiently remove articles that
> >currently receive 100% support for deletion on AfD. If these articles no
> >longer had to go through AfD, I think we probably could scrap the whole
> >thing and send the volunteer garbagemen packing.
> >
> >Carbonite
> >
> >
>
> This might be a good time to plug my year-old proposal,
> [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]] (the only one to have ever received
> support from a majority of Wikipedians). Of course I'm not saying we
> should put up for yet another vote. It might be a good idea to review it
> and cull some material for the ongoing process of deletion reform
> (that's as slow as ever, I might add). For the umpteenth time, AFD isn't
> scaling. It works, but it's not scaling. Plain and simple. We're already
> seeing almost 200 article debates in one day. If we're 10 times smaller
> than Google or MSN, what happens when we reach that size? 2000 debates
> in a day. We'll have to break it down by hour! This simply ain't gonna'
> scale, folks. We need to come up with something. It's alright to proceed
> slowly, but from what I can see, deletion reform is as slow and as
> stalled as it was a year ago when I mooted Preliminary Deletion.
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])

We managed to expand speedy a bit.

--
geni


body:
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've already seen Articles for creation being useful and weeding out
> suggestions for which people provided no basic info to include. Those
> would've ended up as eternal stubs if the anon in question was free to
> create it.
>
> Mgm

You mean if there was no "Articles for creation" the anon would have
created an account and then created the stub?

What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway?  I thought by definition a
stub was able to be expanded.

Anthony

> On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 12/8/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/8/05, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > > > > From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working
> > > > > > quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Jimbo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > geni
> > > >
> > > > The "Requested Articles" pages are longer.
> > > >
> > > > Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently
> > > > a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so
> > > > medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
> > > >
> > > > So, what's your point?
> > >
> > > [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being
> > > unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent
> > > elsewhere.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> >
> > What articles are sitting there?  Are they ones we really need?  If
> > not, maybe the problem is that we have an "articles for creation" in
> > the first place.
> >
> > As for the indication that this change is working, I'd like to see
> > some more details.  How is it working?  How is it failing?  One place
> > it is probably working well is with those one liners that non-logged
> > in users create when they click on a red link and wind up with a text
> > box.  This probably isn't even malicious in many cases.  Maybe we
> > could try addressing this but still allowing people to create new
> > articles without logging in if they do so explicitly.
> >
> > I've tried to keep an open mind about this experiment because I agree
> > with Jimbo that it doesn't really change the openness of the site.
> > Pretty much anyone can create an account if they want to.  It also
> > doesn't disallow anonymity, since in fact the only way to really be
> > anonymous (to those without CheckUser) would be to create a new
> > account with each edit anyway.  (Note that these points wouldn't apply
> > to other changes like not allowing new accounts to create new
> > articles.)  The way I see it, this is basically a question of
> > efficiency, what policy best facilitates the creation of good articles
> > but hinders the creation of bad ones.  I still haven't seen enough
> > data to make up my mind though.
> >
> > Oh yeah, I'd like to point out the one data point which I found most
> > persuasive.  In the statistics that were given, the number of new
> > articles went down by nearly exactly the same as the number of
> > deletions.  If that holds up over a long period of time, damn that's a
> > good statistic.
> >
> > Anthony
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Will Sohn

subject: [WikiEN-l] I'm requesting to be unblocked

body:
My account, Silver Marmot, was blocked from editing pages. The reason given
was that my account was too similar to a user named "Marmot." I looked him
up and saw that he must have done a lot of vandalism and stuff. At any rate,
I am not the user "Marmot" and would like to be allowed to edit articles
again. Thanks.


body:
On 12/8/05, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/8/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way, I really hope the experiment of switching off anon page
> > > creation is followed up with an experiment in switching off AFD for a
> > > month.
> >
> > Isn't that a bit like experimenting with not taking out your trash for a
> > month? They're both fairly unpleasant experiences that no one really
> wants
> > to do, but they can't be halted without some other way of getting rid of
> the
> > refuse.
>
> Turn off AfD, let all editors delete articles.

I don't want to know how many times [[George Bush]] would be deleted. :)

Garion


body:
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/8/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > > What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway?  I thought by definition a
> > > stub was able to be expanded.
> >
> > An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but
> > no-one ever does.
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> I was referring to anons creating these substubs before the anon
> article creation was blocked. Eternal stubs can refer to either the
> type Andrew mentioned or substubs which some people say are
> expandable, but actually aren't.
>
> Articles at least need a solid base on which to build: a definition
> and slightly more info. If no one is willing to submit that, I don't
> see the point in keeping it.
>
> Mgm

Your theories on eternal stubs are interesting.  I'll leave it at
that.  But anyway, if "Articles for creation" is wasting a lot of time
and not much good is coming out of it, then we should get rid of it,
regardless of whether or not we turn back on new article creation for
users that aren't logged in.

Anthony