subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 2/27/06, VeryVerily <veryverily at gmail.com> wrote:
> Then let it be the past and drop the restrictions on me.

If you can show that the restrictions are now misplaced, I agree.

> It was a major section of my appeal, entitled "Block by Neutrality".  How
> did you miss it?  This incident was the last straw that caused me to walk
> away.

Sorry, it was confusing whether you were referring to a more recent
block.  I think the issue is that we need convincing that you will not
edit war in future.  I fully expect reason to be applied to the
restrictions.

> > I don't think that would really help anything.  I will acknowlegde,
> > though, my belief that errors were made.  I don't know to what extent,
> > but errors were made.
>
>
> Given that the past errors were the grounds for the relevant rulings, yes it
> matters.  And yes it would help.

You seem in misapprehension as to why the restrictions are lifted.  It
is not on account of the previous rulings' being in error, even if
they were.

> I don't understand this.  Why is an edit made in March 2006 easier to
> evaulate than one made in December 2004?  And if my good intentions aren't
> obvious to you after 1 1/2 years of intense editing, I don't see what magic
> you expect in the coming months.

Context.  I don't know the history as well as I know the history of
current conflicts.

> "Causing conflict" is one of these things that mean what people decide it
> does in the moment.  (Like, perhaps, "reverting".)  And anyway I certainly
> *could* make nothing but uncontroversial edits for a time, anyone could, so
> what would that prove?  The relevant material is what happened when I was
> not under these restrictions.  In those days I was struggling to defend
> Wikipedia's credibility and content, as I believe I have shown.

Clearly you did not read the bit where I said "no-one is asking you to
make uncontroversial edits".  We are asking you not to edit war and
not to, by your actions, provoke conflict.  That applies whether or
not the restrictions are in place.

> And the past harassment was not accounted for.

I don't live in the past.

> If you wish to discuss how you foresee handling cases like Ruy Lopez's
> denial of history in the future, we could do that.  But pre-emptively
> tethering me because you're "not sure" is just wrong.  It's benefit of the
> doubt.

Yes.  We are giving you the chance to show that the restrictions *are*
(present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.

> But I suppose it's naive of me to think you would allow yourself to be
> persuaded to change your vote.

You can persuade me by your actions.

--
Sam


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] A total loss of perspective

body:
On 2/27/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
> > Sorry in case my sarcasm was a little too dark (not the first time) --
> > I'm saying that the CIA are incompetant, and always have been!
>
> And, uh, you know that how? I don't expect many British teenagers to
> really be that deep in the loop for knowledge about the CIA's competency
> levels.

And what evidence do YOU have that I'm not a Chinese/North
Korean/Russian/French spy???

--
Sam


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivia and popular culture sections

references:
<ku7302hsr75vvu9rn3vbu45eroudlvm74n@4ax.com>	<20060226164058.JLJA3168.omta02ps.mx.bigpond.com@skyringstudy>
	<iaq302hlqjlf6khmrp2950r6mr72rc1neo@4ax.com>
	<44037424.1090303@telus.net>

body:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:50:28 -0800, you wrote:

>>Discrimination has more than one meaning.
>"Indiscriminate" and "discrimination" do not carry the same connotations.

That which is indiscriminate does not discriminate between the
significant and the insignificant.  But of course I should have said
that *in*discriminate has more than one meaning.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> If the history of webcomics has not yet been written, that would be a
>> good reason to write it on Wikipedia.
>
> That seems directly contrary to the long-established "no original
> research" policy.  When it comes to history articles, Wikipedia is not
> the place to publish novel historical narratives of any sort, whether
> they be on the Cold War or on webcomics, but a place to document
> *existing* historical narratives.

Broadly speaking, there are two possible kinds of historical narratives.
One is to bring together various facts about a subject in reasonably
coherent fashion, without imposing any interpretation on it. Done
Wikipedia-style and well-referenced, I don't see the problem with this.
I think as far as the "no original research" policy is concerned, this
kind of historical narrative "exists", to use your phrasing, no matter
that perhaps nobody has actually written it yet. I'm not sure how else
you can justify having argued so strongly for including the history of
the Brian Peppers phenomenon in Wikipedia. In fact, this is a great deal
of what some of our better articles on obscure topics do. A thorough
history of webcomics may not be possible until the secondary sources are
better developed, but certainly enough primary sources are available to
make a start at it.

The second kind of narrative is one structured to draw some particular
conclusion or advance a theory. In this scenario the history is written
with a specific thesis and attempts to show its validity. That approach
isn't really necessary to writing a history of webcomics, though it's
certainly a pitfall to watch out for.

--Michael Snow


from_name: John Lee

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>The keyword is "indiscriminate". "Unimportant" is nowhere merntioned.
>Organising small but interesting facts into a trivia section, where there
>are enough to warrant doing so, is hardly indiscriminate.
>
>
(This is not a real example; I just made it up off the top of my head.)
If the trivia section opens with a bullet-point stating "Paul McCartney
was introduced to drugs by his dentist", has an entry in the middle
along the lines of "McCartney's fifth house was bought for X pounds
sterling", and ends with "Paul McCartney's dog, Martha, was the basis
for the Beatles' song 'Martha My Dear'", yeah, I'd say that's pretty
indiscriminate.  Of course people will say, "Well, that's useful
information!" Rightly so. But there's no reason for it to stand alone in
the trivia section. The information on McCartney's drug behaviour can
stand in a section on its own (because you know, it's not like that's
the only thing that can be said about him and drugs). So can the real
estate purchase information, perhaps as part of a subsection on
McCartney's wealth and earnings. And the information on the song
inspiration? It doesn't even belong in the article (although the part
about the dog can easily be merged with a section on personal life). The
rest can go in the song article instead.

Information in trivia sections should not be there at all -- it either
belongs elsewhere in the article, or it does not belong there at all.
While I accept that people will just add the trivia section back (with
more indiscriminate information), that doesn't mean the section should
be kept. Ideally the information in it should be merged with another
section of the article (or used as the basis for a new section), or
removed entirely. I've never found a piece of trivia that didn't fall in
either of the latter categories.

John


list: wikitech-l

from_name: admin Yellowikis

subject: [Wikitech-l] MySQL5 uprade

body:
Hi everyone,

We are running:
    *  MediaWiki: 1.5.5
    * PHP: 4.4.2-0.dotdeb.1 (apache)
    * MySQL: 4.1.11-Debian_4sarge2-log

Planning to upgrade to MySQL 5.0.

Any issues/problems that we should be aware of?

(yes, we plan to do a full back up first)

Paul

--
Yellowikis is to Yellow Pages, as Wikipedia is to The Encyclopedia Britannica


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 2/24/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Without sources it is [[wikipedia:original research]] and inadmissible.
>>
>>
>
>That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware
>from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should
>only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
>
>Steve
>
>
But a discussion about a celebrity's wealth extrapolated from a bit of
trivia about how much he paid for a house. or the influence of a song on
culture based on a bit of trivia about one celebrity named after it, is
very prone to original research and/or bias. With that sort of thing,
I've learnt from experience that unless it has sources, it almost always
*is* suspect.

John


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
G'day Steve,
> On 2/23/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>>If people refused to AfD anything they didn't know anything about (who
>>can really say they know anything about my local garage band?), we would
>>be deleting a lot less crap, if less good articles. It's all a question
>>of trading off false positives for false negatives. I have rarely seen
>>an ignorance-based debate that didn't end up getting closed as a keep,
>>or being overturned by DRV.
>
> An excellent argument for why AfD should never be democracy-based (or
> believed to be that way). In these situations, you almost need someone
> to step up, say, "Look, I actually know something about entomology. I
> believe this insect is notable", wipe all the existing votes, and say
> "now, does anyone actually disagree?"
>
> It also seems to me that "ignorance-based debates" are not in
> themselves harmful, provided that there are mechanisms such that they
> don't drown out the informed. Everyone's worst nightmare is the 10
> pokemon fans drowning out the tenured professor in his own field. But
> does it actually happen?

At least half the battle is having a closer who is on their toes.  One
who believes "it's not my place to creatively interpret the discussion",
or "I can't buck consensus" (with "consensus" defined numerically) is
likely to enable votes-cast-out-of-ignorance.  One who knows that AfD is
not a vote and therefore that the ignorant can't cast a single bloody
thing and may as well sit at home nibbling on their own toenails is far
less likely to encourage AfD to do damage.  Admittedly, there's a good
chance we could be *wrong*, and then we look much sillier than Mr
Tally-is-King, but you can't have everything.

My personal brush with out-of-control rogueness is at[0], and I note
with some pride (in Wikipedians, not myself) that it hasn't even been
nominated at DRV, let alone overturned.

[0]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Smith_%28games_programmer%29

<snip />

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/2006


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:

>>If people refused to AfD anything they didn't know anything about (who
>>can really say they know anything about my local garage band?), we would
>>be deleting a lot less crap, if less good articles. It's all a question
>>of trading off false positives for false negatives. I have rarely seen
>>
>>
>
>It used to be that way. It was always considered better to keep a
>crappy article than to delete a good one. The deletion policy used to
>read "In case of doubt *don't delete*"
>
>
AFAIK it still does. It doesn't say "In case of doubt don't nominate for
deletion".

>
>
>>an ignorance-based debate that didn't end up getting closed as a keep,
>>or being overturned by DRV.
>>
>>
>
>So you admit the existance of ignorance-based debates on AFD? :)
>Sounds like a good reason to get rid of the whole thing. The ignorance
>is time-consuming, even for those who do not wish to get involved in
>the ignorance debates.
>
>
Wikipedia is full of editors generally ignorant in anything other than a
few fields. Any decision involving community input would necessarily
involve a lot of ignorance. If you can find something that cuts out
community input with creating excessive elitism, or permits community
input but avoids ignorance, feel free to put forth a proposal. Until
then, I'll presume that this is the best we can do. A wiki is about
letting people make mistakes (whether by fucking up an edit or fucking
up a deletion nom), in the knowledge that others will correct them later on.

John


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] A total loss of perspective

body:
On 2/27/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
> > Sorry in case my sarcasm was a little too dark (not the first time) --
> > I'm saying that the CIA are incompetant, and always have been!
>
> And, uh, you know that how? I don't expect many British teenagers to
> really be that deep in the loop for knowledge about the CIA's competency
> levels.
>
Actually, the point isn't that the CIA is incompetent -- it's that it
does things like fund dictators, sabotage democracies, set up secret
torture prisons, kidnap people (and send them to torture prisons), try
to arrange assassinations, spy on Americans, etc.


body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 2/26/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>From: "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>On 2/24/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Without sources it is [[wikipedia:original research]] and
>>>>inadmissible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware
>>>from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should
>>>only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>>
>>In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http://
>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
>>
>>
>>
>I disagree with it strongly. The policy as stated goes way against the
>stronger policy of Assume Good Faith.
>
>
WP:NOT a feel-good social experiment. It's a project to build an
encyclopedia. It's very possible to both AGF and remove the information,
anyhow. Or shall we just AGF and remove all sources because it might
reflect badly on the credibility of our editors?

John


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] EN:WP: One Meeeeellion Articles

body:
On 2/27/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The English Wikipedia is approaching its millionth article this week.
> A tidy milestone.
> We are working on a press release for the event:
>   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PR/1M-en
>
> If you are interested in helping identify the millionth article,
> please leave a note on the talk page.

Wouldn't it be nice if our press release talks about how meaningless
this statistic is, and notes, for example, how the patent office
recently cheated in its identification of the 7 millionth patent?

Or we could just keep on encouraging innumeracy to get the cute little CNN spot.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Josh,
>
> > I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the
> > encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking
> > (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five
> > days*.
> >
> > As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine.
> > Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
> >
> > Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's
> > personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
> > The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
>
> We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the
> free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much abuse, too
> much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by
> that tagline.
>
> I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are
> always welcome".

Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom
Wikipedia speaks.

(Because you're not.)


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 2/27/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Information in trivia sections should not be there at all -- it either
>>belongs elsewhere in the article, or it does not belong there at all.
>>While I accept that people will just add the trivia section back (with
>>more indiscriminate information), that doesn't mean the section should
>>be kept. Ideally the information in it should be merged with another
>>section of the article (or used as the basis for a new section), or
>>removed entirely. I've never found a piece of trivia that didn't fall in
>>either of the latter categories.
>>
>>
>>
>
>You are effectively arguing for Trivia sections to be treated as
>temporary unsorted collections of information in search of a home.
>This is quite a nice idea, but perhaps a different name rather than
>"trivia" woul capture it better?
>
>PS is there any momentum yet behind the idea of renaming the classic
>sections "references" and "external links" as "sources" and "further
>reading", respectively?
>
>Steve
>
>
Nah, I think the naming is fine as it is (for all the stuff you
mentioned). :)

John


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Trivia" sections in articles

body:
On 2/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful.  If you don't
> > like trivia sections, don't read them.
>
> Your comment is a bit misplaced - we're editors on this list, but
> you're giving advice to readers. Ultimately Wikipedia is about a small
> number of people producing text for the rest of the world to read. So
> ignoring a problem isn't really helping.

Ultimately Wikipedia is about a large number of people producing text
for each other to read.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Updating rev_deleted as a bitfield

body:
Tietew wrote:
> * Copyvio with username or page title.
>   -- user creation log, deletion log, and block log.
> * (Accidently) copyvio in deletion log comment (autofill content).
>   -- deletion log.

I suspect we can consider short quotes of content in the deletion log to be fair
use. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060228/ed05f0cf/attachment.pgp>


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-28

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 271 of 288 tests (94.1%) FAILED!


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 2/27/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and
> > encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's
> > contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
>
> Agreed.  This is policy wording driven through on the basis of
> controversial, edit-warred articles.
>
Actually, it was The Cunctator who was trying to introduce a major
change to [[WP:V]]. The page says: "The obligation to provide a
reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the
material, not on those seeking to remove it."

He tried to change it to:

""If an editor adds something controversial, the obligation to provide
a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the
material . . ."

That would be a major policy change.

WP:V is supported by WP:NOR, a longstanding, established policy. The
only way to show you're not doing OR is to produce a reliable source.
If you can't produce one, your edit may be removed, because OR is
never allowed.

If we ever get into a situation where lots of editors are using NOR
and V as an excuse to run around removing unsourced edits, where the
material has been published elsewhere and isn't controversial, but
those wanting to retain it are mysteriously unable to cite a source,
then we can revisit the issue. But currently, that isn't happening
(and how could it?) so it looks as though you're trying to create a
problem where none exists.

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > > That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware
> > > from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should
> > > only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
>
> >
> > In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http://
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
>
> You may see comments from me on the talk page there. I actually think
> people reworded it more strongly than they meant to. Verifiability was
> never, IMHO, intended to mean "delete everything that isn't sourced",
> or else 95% of the encyclopaedia would be wiped tonight. It should be
> a way of resolving disputes about accuracy, and improving the quality
> of our material.
>
> If the verifiability policy currently says (I can't check it right
> now) that all unsourced material should be removed - end of story -
> then yes, I disagree with it.

That is very nearly exactly what it says:

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable
source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors
wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

(It doesn't say "should" yet.)

I added "3. If an editor adds something controversial, the obligation
to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include
the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

I can't stand "reputable" either, but that's another discussion.

What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and
encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's
contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.


subject: [WikiEN-l] A total loss of perspective

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>On 2/27/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>History tells us that the only thing that maintains the quality of
>>institutions is accountability and transparency. Please read [[The
>>Transparent Society]].
>>
>>
>
>Look at the CIA.  They aren't very accountable, nor very transparent,
>but they've maintained a consisitent level of quality.
>
>--
>Sam
>
>
Certain conspiracy theorists beg to differ. :p

John


from_name: Vitaly Volkov

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Approved requests for new languages - appeal to
	developers

body:
Dear developers, please have a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Approved_requests_for_new_languages.

There are 13 languages waiting for their wikis to be created, some of them for THREE MOTNS. It's no wonder that people, who would like to work for wikis in these langiages get frustrated and angry. I've already asked developers to pay attention to this sad fact in meta wiki babel, but it seems not to have any effect.

Please, don't forget the aim of wikipedia - create encyclopedia in EVERY langiage!

Vitaly Volkov aka Kneiphof, admin and bureaucrat of Russian wikipedia.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>I think we need to adopt standards of what is an acceptable source
>which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it
>is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press,
>blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative
>is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of
>the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and
>unscholarly.
>
Agreed, but I think some of our colleauges would be much happier with a
one model suits all solution.  Obviously we need a stricter standard
when it come to information about living people.  Pop culture in some
respects really doesn't matter; at the same time I'm convinced that we
have Wikipedians who are undocumented bona fide experts on these topic.

One cannot predict what will be authoritative, though I think that our
credibility is much improved over what it was a year ago.  Pop culture
may be undignified for some, but we must never forget the attraction
that many people have for the trivial.  Many of these people will also
fall for the most ridiculous urban myths, but it would be nice if "I
read it in Wikipedia" could a mark of authority when people repeat thes
useless fact to their friends.

I often drift in and out of attention when the radio is playing in the
background.  Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention.  It was
interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some
recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed
journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer
review than the existing system.  Many of these journals operate on  a
tight budget.  They may require their authors to maintain raw
experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these
journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions.
Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his
institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would
not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his
investment.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and
> > encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's
> > contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
>
> Agreed.  This is policy wording driven through on the basis of
> controversial, edit-warred articles.

Here's some further thoughts:

I have only mild disagreements with the "policy in a nutshell":

{{Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints,
theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have
already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles
should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material
may be challenged and removed.}}

However "The Policy" is a different matter.

a) The Policy says nothing about controversiality.
b) The Policy says nothing about making challenges.
c) The Policy says nothing about asking for a verifiable source.

Instead, the policy as stands says that unsourced entries can be
immediately and officially deleted. The policy should reflect the
"policy in a nutshell" that *all* editors have a responsibility to
cite a source whether or not they were the one adding material.
Removing valid information just because it wasn't sourced smacks of
distrust of fellow editors and paranoia. I think that both neutrality
and full sourcing are critical ultimate goals--that is, the Platonic
Wikipedia is one which is perfectly comprehensive, perfectly written,
and perfectly sourced. But the Wikipedia in actuality is only an
imperfect approximation, but as long as the statistical effect of all
edits is in the right direction, we can be happy (if not satisfied).
We don't expect that *every edit* improves the encyclopedia, but we
expect that most will. And our policies should reflect that approach.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:605709b90602270833m677b8f47w4d9a5b664859a91c at mail.gmail.com...
> > On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett
> > <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Am I way of base with believing that uncontroversial information
> >> should just be left? Sources are nice, but if everyone agrees that the
> >> information is correct, what is to be gained by removing it, or
> >> bickering over the quality of the source?
> > This seems to ignore the observable fact that, for some Wikipedians,
> > deletion of articles on popular culture, or in common parlance,
> > "cruft", is seen as an end in itself.  The strategy being followed
> > seems to be to systematically raise the verifiability standards to
> > exclude online sources, then denude the article of such sources, then
> > move to delete the article on the grounds that it is unverifiable.
> > Another technique is to browbeat those with whom one disagrees,
> > repeating false claims that their opinion may be ignored.
> [snip]
> > In short, the deletion process continues to be a disgrace and breed
> > the worst kind of incivility.
>
> Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have
> driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow
> them...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNeglected_Mario_Characters&diff=41115907&oldid=41110586
> is a fine example.
>
> I find the nominator's habit of jumping all over every single keep vote (bar
> one AFAICT) rather offensive also.

The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has
precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template).
Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an
article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he
has made some 30 edits to the AfD.

Something stinks.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] A total loss of perspective

body:
On 2/28/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
> > And what evidence do YOU have that I'm not a Chinese/North
> > Korean/Russian/French spy???
> Very impressive if true. I've never heard of a quintuple agent before,
> even in fiction. Must pay well. :)

Generaly they are not conected to any goverment. Cheack out the people
mossad operatives brought information from when they were trying to
track down those responcible for the 1972 Olympic incerdent.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has
> > precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template).
> > Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an
> > article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he
> > has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
> >
> > Something stinks.
>
> I don't see any obvious connection with another user, though, and
> don't think sockpuppet witch-hunts are generally productive.

Nor I.  But is this the caliber of editor we're attracting these days?
 This is a perfectly good, encyclopedic article about  verifiable,
referenced webcomic.  What on earth is it doing on AfD in the first
place? When  did Wikimedia start putting up signs saying "we've run
out of paper, please delete some articles to make more room?"


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nor I.  But is this the caliber of editor we're attracting these days?
>  This is a perfectly good, encyclopedic article about  verifiable,
> referenced webcomic.  What on earth is it doing on AfD in the first
> place? When  did Wikimedia start putting up signs saying "we've run
> out of paper, please delete some articles to make more room?"

Well it is a logical extension of "We have run out of paper please
take stuff out of the template namspace".
--
geni


from_name: VeryVerily

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
> There _are_ people who, if all they could edit were articles on flowers
> and bunnies, would get into an edit war on flowers and bunnies.  Now
> _you_ may be certain that you're not one of those people, but others may
> not know you as intimately as you know yourself.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting this.  All noted cases
follow a pretty obvious theme, e.g., me preventing an attempt to deny
the almost inconceivable scale of murder and death created by a
communist regime.  Again, if this were a Nazi denying the Holocaust I
had fought, I'd be being feted as a hero on the mailing list right
now, and everyone would look the other way if any "rules" were broken.

> As you say yourself, proving the fact would take nothing but patience
> and self-control.  The fact that you took a one-year Wikibreak suggests
> you have some of those.  So why not go do that?  If you start doing it

I think I've addressed this point several times.  (a) The arbitrators
still refuse to specify what *isn't* grounds for a block.  (b) I'd be
a second-class editor, and everyone I tried to work with would know
it.  (c) I didn't leave for a year then come back with this appeal so
that nothing would change, and there remains no justification for it.

> Besides, those uncontroversial copyedits also improve the encyclopedia.
>   That's something you seem to care deeply about.  We don't want to have
> an encyclopedia that's full of misspellings, do we?

Actually, though I did much copyediting in my day, I honestly don't
care that much.  It's misinformation that bothers me much more.
Indeed, misspellings have an upside, as they remind the casual reader
that those articles are amateurish and not credible, so when they read
on Wikipedia that Pol Pot was a kindly old man cruelly smeared by the
corporate media, they won't take it too seriously.

VV


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Yeah.

On 27/02/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > The English Wikipedia is approaching its millionth article this week.
> > A tidy milestone.
> > We are working on a press release for the event:
> >   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PR/1M-en
> >
> > If you are interested in helping identify the millionth article,
> > please leave a note on the talk page.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if our press release talks about how meaningless
> this statistic is, and notes, for example, how the patent office
> recently cheated in its identification of the 7 millionth patent?
>
> Or we could just keep on encouraging innumeracy to get the cute little CNN spot.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
> I'd just like to point out that "edit uncontroversially" turned into
> "uncontroversial copyedits" here - two totally different things. The

It didn't "turn into" that.  I gave the latter as an example of the former.

But there is a point here, that maybe they're not so different, to wit:

> vast majority of Wikipedians spend most of their time making
> uncontroversial edits on subjects far more interesting and varied than

(Actually, so did I, but this is overlooked.)

> bunnies and flowers. And they don't have to just be "copyedits" (ie,
> spelling and punctuation) either...

Don't be so sure.  I've been amazed by what people are willing to
fight over around here.  The most seemingly innocuous edit may be
deemed provocative by someone.  I'm reminded of [[User:Ark30inf]] and
Arkansas, or that [[DNA]] mess, and a few experiences of my own.

With conflicting, vague, and possible out-of-my-control requirements -
no "interpersonal disputes", no "causing conflict", etc. - copyediting
may be all that's safe.

Or not even that.  Last time I was being stalked, my simple attempt to
fix the capitalization in an article "provoked" an edit war, as the
user was simply reverting all my edits (my restoring of such edits was
then offered by the AC as proof of my bad behavior).

VV


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 2/28/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> These facts are never going to go away, whether or not Wikipedia includes
> them. There are enough people who care about trivia (and whole books have
> been written about the manner in which the songs of the Beatles were
> composed) that they will feel that an article on Paul McCartney is
> incomplete without their favorite fact being included. It may well be a
> piece of pop philosophy upon which they have founded their life. All you
> need is love, you know, and though you may not agree, just how much of a
> zealot should one be in making a bonfire of these little factoids?

Your point is apt - whole books have been written on the subject, and
they probably weren't called "Paul McCartney". It's not about being a
zealot, it's just being tidy, and part of the whole process of
reorganising and categorising information that is, after all, what
Wikipedia is about.

> It seems to me that many of the "Death to Trivia" crusaders are perpetuating
> a small deception here (one of which you yourself are not guilty), by
> deliberately including boring and useless information under the category of
> trivia, portraying ALL such information as similar. Of course we don't want
> to include every known, sourced, indisputable but minor fact about a person
> or subject in an article. But not every minor fact is uninteresting or
> useless. We should see ourselves as plucking out the diamonds from the

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. But there are certainly
completely trivial facts that are uninteresting, and there are
interesting trivial facts that are simply irrelevant to the article at
hand

Not that I'm saying anything original there.

Steve


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 27 Feb 2006 at 09:04, VeryVerily <veryverily at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anyway, I feel like you're asking me to make a bunch of uncontroversial
> (frivolous?) edits (what did I say, on bunnies and flowers).  Anyone can do
> that and it proves nothing, so yes it seems you're just telling me off for
> another length of time.

If there are certain contentious topics that you find you can't edit
without it turning into a nasty edit-war (no matter whose fault this
is), then perhaps it *would* be a good idea to get away from those
topics and do some more-productive and less-contentious edits on
different topics.  I, for one, rarely even try to edit [[Anarchism]];
it's not worth it, given that anything anybody does there is likely
to be wiped out in the next round of the eternal edit war.  It's much
more useful to find areas of interest that are under-covered and
improve them.  I haven't tried to edit [[bunnies]] or [[flowers]],
however.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and
> > encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's
> > contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
>
> Agreed.  This is policy wording driven through on the basis of
> controversial, edit-warred articles.

I just wish we'd go back to the pre-February 2006 version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=37552229


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Michael Snow wrote:

>Broadly speaking, there are two possible kinds of historical narratives.
>One is to bring together various facts about a subject in reasonably
>coherent fashion, without imposing any interpretation on it. Done
>Wikipedia-style and well-referenced, I don't see the problem with this.
>I think as far as the "no original research" policy is concerned, this
>kind of historical narrative "exists", to use your phrasing, no matter
>that perhaps nobody has actually written it yet. I'm not sure how else
>you can justify having argued so strongly for including the history of
>the Brian Peppers phenomenon in Wikipedia. In fact, this is a great deal
>of what some of our better articles on obscure topics do. A thorough
>history of webcomics may not be possible until the secondary sources are
>better developed, but certainly enough primary sources are available to
>make a start at it.
>
>
That sounds somewhat reasonable to me, but without any authoritative (or
even semi-authoritative) sources to fall back on, we do have to be very
careful that we're only documenting non-controversial things with a
minimum of interpretation.  Some of my wariness of novel historical
narratives stems from some argument on [[en:neofolk]], which has become
an idiosyncratic history of the music genre completely out of keeping
with its actual history, but one that's hard to refute conclusively
because there are no good widely-available and widely-accepted histories
of the genre.  In those cases, POV-pushers are left free to make up a
history that fits their particular sensibilities and promotes their
favorite artists.

I could see webcomics turning into that, as fans try to jockey to place
their favorite comic into a more prominent role in the history of
webcomics than it really deserves, and that's something we should watch
out for.  I do agree that simply listing whatever facts can be
conclusively established is fine though.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/27/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and
> > > encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's
> > > contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
> >
> > Agreed.  This is policy wording driven through on the basis of
> > controversial, edit-warred articles.
>
> I just wish we'd go back to the pre-February 2006 version.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=37552229
>
Or even take a look at some old-school versions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=11928530

What a huge difference in tone. Talk about the creep of formalism and distrust.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/27/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and
> > > > encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's
> > > > contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
> > >
> > > Agreed.  This is policy wording driven through on the basis of
> > > controversial, edit-warred articles.
> >
> > I just wish we'd go back to the pre-February 2006 version.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=37552229
> >
> Or even take a look at some old-school versions:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=11928530
>
> What a huge difference in tone. Talk about the creep of formalism and distrust.
>
Actually, I think MyRedDice's earliest version is about right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=1230684

The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete, accurate encyclopedia.
We can't be sure of our accuracy if we include information which
cannot be verified.
Therefore, include nothing that you cannot verify.
If you try to verify some information in an article, and cannot, raise
the problem on the talk page (you may wish to temporarilly remove the
information). Someone else may have additional resources and be able
to verify it.
You should make it easy for people to verify your information by
citing your sources. They don't have to be online - books, newspapers,
etc - all good.
Verifiability is one problem with articles on obscure subjects. By
concentrating onf verifiable subjects, we also concentrate on
important subjects.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> >> We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be
> >> "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much
> >> abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of
> >> self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
> >>
> >> I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors
> >> are always welcome".
> > Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom
> > Wikipedia speaks.
> >
> > (Because you're not.)
>
> That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our
> view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to
> attempt to interpret the will of "the community".

You're right. I'm sorry.

But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong.
Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of Animal-Farm-esque
groupthink.

That attitude gives "our enemies" way too much attention and credit.

It creates way too much of an us-vs.-them paradigm which I've fought
against from day one.

And Wikipedia doesn't like that.


body:
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ultimately Wikipedia is about a large number of people producing text
> > for each other to read.
>
> You think? I thought we were operating under some kind of assumption
> of 1 in every 10 or so readers of each page becoming an editor. Not
> that we have any actual stats or anything...

Oh, I'm talking long term, when Wikipedia is a sentient entity that
takes every single thing every person writes online and incorporates
it into its own knowledge base.

Okay, I guess I'm talking about a few stages before that.

A little more seriously, I mean that our *goal*, I think, should be to
have everyone edit and read, whereas our expectations are that a much
smaller percentage are much more active.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom
> Wikipedia speaks.
>
> (Because you're not.)

That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our
view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to
attempt to interpret the will of "the community".

Steve


body:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ultimately Wikipedia is about a large number of people producing text
> for each other to read.

You think? I thought we were operating under some kind of assumption
of 1 in every 10 or so readers of each page becoming an editor. Not
that we have any actual stats or anything...

Steve


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
"Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:605709b90602271712j5cb553dcrd6f035fb65683268 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell
> <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:605709b90602270833m677b8f47w4d9a5b664859a91c at mail.gmail.com...
[snip]
>> Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have
>> driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow
>> them...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNeglected_Mario_Characters&diff=41115907&oldid=41110586
>> is a fine example.
>> I find the nominator's habit of jumping all over every single keep vote
>> (bar
>> one AFAICT) rather offensive also.
> The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has
> precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template).
> Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an
> article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he
> has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
> Something stinks.

Certainly does.

In this edit
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=40951840&title=Talk%3AList_of_cultural_references_to_Neglected_Mario_Characters)
the nominator admits that NMC, the web-comic involved, was the first "sprite
comic".

Oddly enough, his nomination is based upon no proof of such an assertion
being available...
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
> I don't think anyone engaged in an edit war is ever feted as a hero.

I've seen it.  You're wrong.

And, in fact, many editors did compliment me on my persistence in
keeping our articles from being ruined.

> Also, I don't believe anyone is suggesting you are not acting in good
> faith. It just sounds like your way of going about your business is
> possibly a little confrontational...

That is a false impression created by the way these arguments were
portrayed.  I was dealing with this "editor" for almost a year, and
went through every community channel available to try to deal with his
patterns of destruction.  This is all explained in my appeal.  People
(many more than just me) resorted to reverting him because he was
immune to argument and further discussion, and would just create new
sockpuppet accounts to continue it.

> People who don't revert others' changes without discussing them on the
> talk pages are second-class editors? I wish we could banish first
> class.

Again, this is ripping it out of context.  An editor who is following
me around and reverting all my edits does not to be talked with on
every page he reverts, to explain in detail why I made each edit he
probably hadn't even looked at.  That is obvious.

I clearly was always responsible in using the talk pages.  This too is
well-documented.  But there are obvious cases such as vandalism where
no one bothers to go to talk, for again obvious reasons.  And when a
person goes on a rampage blanking large sections of articles and
making the same discredited edit to a dozen articles that we've
already discussed twenty times over the last year, it's clear the
option of dialogue has been exhausted.  Look at how many archived talk
pages there are on [[Khmer Rouge]] going in circles with someone who
is clearly just here to push an agenda and not interested in the
facts.

> At the end of the day, anyone with a particular agenda they're trying
> to push (whether valid or not), has to tread carefully. If there are
> people bent on denying that particular agenda, then doubly so. Being
> right isn't all that matters, after all. What else needs to be said?

It's not just a matter of being "right".  There are legitimate content
disputes and illegitimate ones.  Writing, "bobby is gay", on the
George Bush article is not legitimate and does not warrant a
discussion.  Call that an "agenda" if you wish.  Similarly, erasing
volumes of sourced material is not legitimate.  If one's agenda is a
devotion to accuracy and neutrality, there is no issue.

VV


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
> If there are certain contentious topics that you find you can't edit
> without it turning into a nasty edit-war (no matter whose fault this
> is), then perhaps it *would* be a good idea to get away from those
> topics and do some more-productive and less-contentious edits on
> different topics.

Perhaps I haven't emphasized enough that this was the vast majority of my edits.

But even if it were all please refer to my comments as to why the
restriction is not acceptable.

>  I, for one, rarely even try to edit [[Anarchism]];
> it's not worth it, given that anything anybody does there is likely
> to be wiped out in the next round of the eternal edit war.

Perhaps, but I think sometimes it's important to try to get such
articles right.  Also, if the issue is merely a single problem user,
then it's not that hard for a handful of dedicated editors to keep him
from ruining the article.

> It's much
> more useful to find areas of interest that are under-covered and
> improve them.  I haven't tried to edit [[bunnies]] or [[flowers]],
> however.

And were I permitted to, I would, as before, do most of my editing in
such areas (well, not literally those two).  But again there I can't
even be sure I won't be blocked or stalked.

VV


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 2/28/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I often drift in and out of attention when the radio is playing in the
>>background.  Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention.  It was
>>interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some
>>recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed
>>journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer
>>review than the existing system.  Many of these journals operate on  a
>>tight budget.  They may require their authors to maintain raw
>>experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these
>>journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions.
>>Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his
>>institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would
>>not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his
>>investment.
>>
>>
>Meanwhile, my girlfriend was recently told by the third different
>lecturer at university "please do not use Wikipedia as a source" :)
>Apparently these days a large number of students are citing Wikipedia,
>because it's there, and it's so easy.
>
To an extent they are right for the wrong reasons.  Would the lecturers
have told her not to use Britannica?  What students should learn right
away in a short course at the beginning of a university career is how to
evaluate resources.  Better still such a course should reiinforce things
that are better learned much earlier.  How much she can push the
boundary may depend on her personality, and how open-minded the
lecturers are.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
> > With conflicting, vague, and possible out-of-my-control requirements -
> > no "interpersonal disputes", no "causing conflict", etc. - copyediting
> > may be all that's safe.
>
> That's a pretty pessimistic view of life. I avoid conflicts on
> Wikipedia, and yet I've tackled some pretty contentious tasks, like
> rewording most policy documents, deleting some policies, and edited on
> a couple of controversial articles.

The point is I can run afoul of these "rules" despite my best efforts.
 I can't speak to your edit history.

> Sometimes, you have to accept that
> to avoid a dispute, you just have to let someone else have their way
> for a while. Or wait two weeks and try again :)

Given that community norms have changed in the last two years, I'd be
likely to do a lot more of that were I allowed to stay under
acceptable conditions.

> > Or not even that.  Last time I was being stalked, my simple attempt to
> > fix the capitalization in an article "provoked" an edit war, as the
> > user was simply reverting all my edits (my restoring of such edits was
> > then offered by the AC as proof of my bad behavior).
>
> What do you want us to say? Edit wars are bad. If someone acts like a
> [[WP:DICK]], then get help - don't risk being mistaken for one.

Read my appeal.  I went to the ArbComm asking for help.  They diddled
and dawdled, and then ignored me, and eventually at least seemed to
decide that I was at fault, presumably because they never really
looked at the case.

I wasn't worried about being mistaken for anything, as it was a fairly
simple situation to explain.  Persistent vandals have been around
almost from the beginning.

VV


body:
"Ilmari Karonen" <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote in
message news:44040F85.8040508 at vyznev.net...
> Rob wrote:
>> On 2/27/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>* "In White Wolf Game Studio's World of Darkness role-playing universe,
>>>Turing
>>>was a leading member of the mage faction known as the Virtual Adepts." --
>>>[[Alan Turing]]
>> The latter two are obvious dumps, but I'm going to quibble about the
>> first
>> one.  If a real historical figure plays a significant role in a fictional
>> work, that's probably worth at least a small note.  Not the more
>> important/famous figures (Hitler, Einstein, Lincoln) who show up in
>> fiction
>> with regularity, but less famous people like Turing probably have only
>> popped up a few times.
> However, I feel that really depends on what the appearance is like.  If
> the character in the game was patterned on the real person, even to the
> extent that reading about the character might shed light on what the
> real person was like, then it might well merit a mention.  But the way I
> read that note, it sounds like the character shares little more than a
> name and a loose historical analogy with the real Alan Turing.

A very quick trip to Clusty reveals that it was indeed the real Alan Turing
in an alternate history:
http://blogs.kwc.org/memorylane/symposium/resources/time.html -- see the
entry for "2/17/1945 A.D."
http://www.sunflower.com/~taraqual/mcgod/factbook/digitalweb.html

Alas I am having difficulty figuring out where to place these references: in
[[Alan Turing]] or some sub-article of [[Mage: The Ascension]]?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia on iPod (Encyclopodia) available now

body:
On 2/28/06, Robert Bamler <Robert.Bamler at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post announcements. Please
> don't blame me if it isn't.
>
> I just wanted to say that version 0.9 of "Wikipedia on iPod" (Encyclopodia) is
> now available for download at:
>
>     http://encyclopodia.sourceforge.net
>
> Encyclopodia comes with a setup wizard for Windows. Installation from Linux
> and Mac is also possible, but it's still a bit tricky as there isn't any easy
> to use setup wizard for Linux and Mac yet.
>
> Currently, the English, German and Italian Wikipedia can be loaded on your
> iPod. If you're interested in another language, please send me an e-mail.

This is great. Would you please add a copyright notice about Wikipedia
to the copyright notice on your page? E.g.

Copyright (c) 2006 - Robert Bamler (Robert.Bamler.epodia at gmx.de).

Wikipedia content  (c) 2001-2006 Wikipedia Contributors
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A
copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
 Free Documentation License".


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Copyright (c) 2006 - Robert Bamler (Robert.Bamler.epodia at gmx.de).
>
> Wikipedia content  (c) 2001-2006 Wikipedia Contributors
A list of which is provided with each article including the user names
of those who have contributed.
> Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
> any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
> Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A
> copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
>  Free Documentation License".

There is no excuse not to fully comply with the GFDL: Encyclopodia is
not made of paper.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/28/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> >On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>>We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be
> >>>>"the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much
> >>>>abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of
> >>>>self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
> >>>>
> >>>>I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors
> >>>>are always welcome".
> >>>Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom
> >>>Wikipedia speaks.
> >>>
> >>>(Because you're not.)
> >>That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our
> >>view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to
> >>attempt to interpret the will of "the community".
> >You're right. I'm sorry.
> >
> >But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong.
> >Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of Animal-Farm-esque
> >groupthink.
> >
> >That attitude gives "our enemies" way too much attention and credit.
> >
> >It creates way too much of an us-vs.-them paradigm which I've fought
> >against from day one.
> >
> >And Wikipedia doesn't like that.
> >
> >
> [[WP:NOT]] a social experiment. We're not here to see if trolls or "bad"
> people can be rehabilitated. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and
> anyone more interested in doing "bad" things can go busy themselves on
> any of the millions of other websites on the internet. While I dislike
> us vs them dichotomies as much as the next fellow, I can certainly bear
> those acting in good faith vs those acting in bad faith.

Technically, Wikipedia is a social experiment. It's not the goal of
the project, but the project is certainly an experiement in
Internet-based collaboration.

We're not here to define "bad" people, either.

Our welcome message should not assume bad faith, is my only point.


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
VeryVerily wrote:
> if this were a Nazi denying the Holocaust I had fought, I'd be
> being feted as a hero on the mailing list right now, and everyone
> would look the other way if any "rules" were broken.

Hmm.  Does Godwin's Law apply now? :-)

I'm going to make some observations.  VeryVerily, please
understand it is *not* *you* I am talking about here.
(I've never interacted with you; I haven't looked at your
edit history; I don't know what kind of editor you are.)

There are some editors who are: (1) extremely knowledgeable about
a significant subject area, (2) passionate about that subject
and about improving the Encyclopedia, but (3) in the end, sadly,
unable to participate in the project.  Their participation is
impossible because they are simply incapable of working within
the structure which Wikipedia has set up, where partisans on
opposite sides of a contentious issue (partisans who, in real
life, might well want to be killing each other), work together
cooperatively to craft an NPOV article.  You need more than just
knowledge and passion to conduct that mission: you also need
things like diplomacy and humility and patience, and not everyone
possesses all of those skills.

It takes two to make an edit war.  If you are engaged in an edit
war, no matter how Right your cause is, no matter how True your
facts are, no matter how Wrong your opponents are, you are
partially at fault.

Wikipedia *can* *not* afford too many edit wars.  They are
ridiculously expensive and destructive and timeconsuming.
They take up everybody's time (especially the beleaguered
arbitrators), they discourage other editors from participating,
they leave the contested articles unreadable for long periods of
time.  Even after the cases are arbitrated, the toll continues,
because the aggrieved parties can never accept the results, and
continue to appeal their cases by posting long, overwrought
messages to Jimbo's talk page and the like.

For example, there's an article [[Palestinian exodus]] describing
the flight of Palestinians from what is now Israel after the 1948
war.  It appears to have been edited primarily by people
sympathetic to the Palestinian side of that conflict, and reads
(to me, at least) with a pretty significant POV bias.  There's an
editor by the name of Zeq who has been trying to fix it, which
ought to be a laudable cause, because it (probably) does need
fixing.  But he hasn't been able to do it dispassionately, and
he ended up getting banned from editing that article.

On several counts, I believe he is in the right.  The article
is biased, and his opponents have worked to keep it that way.
But the difference is that his opponents appear to have done
better at playing by Wikipedia's rules than he has, which is
why he has been banned and they haven't, and their view (for
now) prevails.  This is very sad, very wrong, and not how the
Encyclopedia is supposed to work.  But until an editor comes
along who is knowledgeable and passionate about the Israeli
side of that conflict, *and* who is able to edit a contentious
Wikipedia article dispassionately and diplomatically, the
lopsidedness is likely to remain.

And of course that's hardly the only example; this pattern recurs
all the time.  There's ample documentation of the problem;
there's ample help available in the form of lists of suggestions
for editors who want to learn how to work more effectively within
Wikipedia's environment; I'm certainly not the first to be
pointing any of this out.  But, of course, one of the traits
of the problematic editors is that they don't have enough
self-reflection to realize that they're the ones those lists of
suggestions are aimed at, and they don't have the disposition
necessary to actually adopt and apply the suggestions.

It's all too easy for outside observers to recognize when one of
these disputative situations has cropped up, which is one reason
that the aggrieved parties often feel they're being discriminated
or conspired against.  The same hallmarks ought to make it easy
for the participants to recognize themselves as well -- if only
they could.  I was going to describe some of the hallmarks here,
but they'd break the flow of an already too-long message, and
VeryVerily would think I was talking about him, so I'll list them
somewhere else.

The bottom line, however, is that *it is possible to edit a
Wikipedia article on even a highly contentious subject without
having all these horrible problems*.  If you are having these
problems, *you are doing something wrong*.  You can't blame it on
your opponents or on "the system"; *you are part of the problem*.
You are going to have to change your attitude and the way you
work on Wikipedia.

It's too bad when a passionate and knowledgeable but disputative
editor can't be perfectly accommodated.  But the process of trying
to accommodate disputative editors does not scale -- Arbcon is
under increasing amounts of pressure as more and more aggrieved
editors demand their right to be heard, and it's only going to
get worse as the numbers of editors increase.

					Steve Summit
					[[en:User:Ummit]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 2/28/06, VeryVerily <veryverily at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since you *could* do it then why don't you just do it?  What it would
> > prove is that you *can* edit uncontroversially.  I would love to be
> > proved wrong on this.
> >
>
> Huh?  Any idiot can make a thousand uncontroversial copyedits.  What would
> you be wrong about in that case?

I'd just like to point out that "edit uncontroversially" turned into
"uncontroversial copyedits" here - two totally different things. The
vast majority of Wikipedians spend most of their time making
uncontroversial edits on subjects far more interesting and varied than
bunnies and flowers. And they don't have to just be "copyedits" (ie,
spelling and punctuation) either...

Steve


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
VeryVerily wrote:
> Huh?  Any idiot can make a thousand uncontroversial copyedits.  What would
> you be wrong about in that case?

There _are_ people who, if all they could edit were articles on flowers
and bunnies, would get into an edit war on flowers and bunnies.  Now
_you_ may be certain that you're not one of those people, but others may
not know you as intimately as you know yourself.

As you say yourself, proving the fact would take nothing but patience
and self-control.  The fact that you took a one-year Wikibreak suggests
you have some of those.  So why not go do that?  If you start doing it
right now, you'll get quite a few uncontroversial copyedits done even
before this thread here is over.

Besides, those uncontroversial copyedits also improve the encyclopedia.
  That's something you seem to care deeply about.  We don't want to have
an encyclopedia that's full of misspellings, do we?

--
Ilmari Karonen, not pretending to speak for the ArbCom at all


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
> > if this were a Nazi denying the Holocaust I had fought, I'd be
> > being feted as a hero on the mailing list right now, and everyone
> > would look the other way if any "rules" were broken.
>
> Hmm.  Does Godwin's Law apply now? :-)

Well not in the current form, as I'm not comparing anyone to Nazis.
There have, however, been several high-profile cases of admitted Nazis
editing here, and the rules were generally suspended in favor of
simply getting rid of them and reverting all their edits.  Stalinists
don't get that treatment, though.

> unable to participate in the project.  Their participation is
> impossible because they are simply incapable of working within
> the structure which Wikipedia has set up, where partisans on
> opposite sides of a contentious issue (partisans who, in real
> life, might well want to be killing each other), work together
> cooperatively to craft an NPOV article.  You need more than just

When dealing with others in a contentious issue who are cooperative,
I've never had a problem.  There are those such as Ruy Lopez who are
not interested in cooperating or NPOV and just wreck articles.  I
spent many hours trying to talk to him until realizing that doesn't
work.

In point of fact, this ideal is not very common.  Most partisans in a
contentious issue have trouble cooperating.  But as long as they're
somewhat reasonable, we can usually slog through anyway.  (There may
even a flurry of edit warring in the middle.)

> It takes two to make an edit war.  If you are engaged in an edit
> war, no matter how Right your cause is, no matter how True your
> facts are, no matter how Wrong your opponents are, you are
> partially at fault.

My point is that the denial of murder of millions is emotional enough
in the case of Nazism that people will overlook this and regard what
they think as Right and True (that the Holocaust happened) as Right
and True enough to not require observation of norms of cooperation and
compromise, but when it comes to communist regimes deniers are treated
like just another editor.

I never said that I did break any community rules in dealing with
these deniers of history.  Rather, I noted that, even if I skirted
them, there is a double standard.

> Wikipedia *can* *not* afford too many edit wars.  They are
> ridiculously expensive and destructive and timeconsuming.
> They take up everybody's time (especially the beleaguered
> arbitrators), they discourage other editors from participating,
> they leave the contested articles unreadable for long periods of
> time.

I'm not sure it's that dire.  I've seen edit wars go on, and then
things get sorted out and the article is better than it was before.
You can still argue that edit wars are bad, but dragging on for months
is pretty uncommon.

> The bottom line, however, is that *it is possible to edit a
> Wikipedia article on even a highly contentious subject without
> having all these horrible problems*.  If you are having these
> problems, *you are doing something wrong*.

I don't think so.  Anyone's who's gotten involved in the [[Khmer
Rouge]] article can see what's up.  He's been a problem for ALL of us.

Some people have a note on their user page such as, "This page has
been vandalized 56 times."  Are both parties equally to blame?  Is
this a confession of what a bad user he or she must be?  I think
almost everyone would say no, some are here up to no good.

In general, I believe the ArbComm needs to come down a lot harder on
those who are not here with good intentions, not putting valid content
into articles, and not contributing to the encyclopedia than they do,
and much softer on those who are dealing with such people and tick
over some revert count now and then out of sheer frustration.

The Palestinian Exodus case sounds like a bad and sad one.  I expect
your prognosis is a bit too optimistic and utopian, but I can't say
for sure.

> It's too bad when a passionate and knowledgeable but disputative
> editor can't be perfectly accommodated.  But the process of trying
> to accommodate disputative editors does not scale -- Arbcon is
> under increasing amounts of pressure as more and more aggrieved
> editors demand their right to be heard, and it's only going to
> get worse as the numbers of editors increase.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  But I don't think it's quite the
way you've spun it.  Ruy Lopez was allowed to function here for two
years with no administrative sanction to speak of.    If anyone is
disputative, he was.  The ArbComm should have distinguished better
between attackers and defenders, and have no excuse not to have.  I
think you need to too.

(One more comment:  I may well have stayed if my only restriction was,
say, a 1RR with a timeout in a few months.  Then I would at least be
able to guess when I might be blocked and could still do
counter-vandalism and the like.  This approach makes some sense if
they really think a user reverts too much.  But they took the road
they did, despite all my explanations, which, in the end, were for
nothing.  Maybe it's my fault for having misplaced faith in the users
on the committee  and wasting my time appealing to them.)

VV


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 2/28/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Context.  I don't know the history as well as I know the history of
> > > current conflicts.
> >
> > Why not?  In both cases all you have is the presented edit histories
> > in front of you.
>
> I happen to look at matters through my first hand appreciation of
> them.  It is clearly impossible to do this here.

Generally arbitrators recuse themselves in cases they experience
firsthand.  I think the default is that they *haven't* seen the case
before, in any detail.

> > > I don't live in the past.
> >
> > But your job is to judge it.
>
> No.  My job is to decide what is in Wikipedia's best interests.

By looking at the evidence, which consists of what occured in the
past.  Don't play word games.

> > > Yes.  We are giving you the chance to show that the restrictions *are*
> > > (present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.
> >
> > If the past is irrelevant, why I am I assumed guilty until proven
> > innocent?  New users are not put through this meat grinder, so why me?
>
> To be fair, you have been found "guilty", whether that was right or
> wrong.  We're looking at the future.

But that's the past.  If you're unwilling to consider how appropriate
the last decision was, why rely on it to make me prima facie deserving
of restriction?

Indeed, I have been very, very patient with all of you.  Many users
would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause.  I
was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause.
You might do me the courtesy of cutting me some slack now on account
of this.

> > If you want to change your vote, you'd better hurry.  Not much time
> > for my actions.
>
> I believe we said four months.

Not the vote I was referring to.  Obviously.

VV


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation between Wikipedia and Wikibooks

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>Special:Booksources on en:wikipedia has an Errata option, which takes you to
>a special section on en:wikibooks where---obviously enough---errata
>corresponding to various ISBNs are collected.
>
Were they asked in the first place whether they wanted this?

>I am not aware of the history of this cooperative venture, but I am somewhat
>disturbed by the fact that a group of people at Wikibooks are trying to have
>this feature removed without apparently letting anybody at Wikipedia know.
>This seems to be ostensibly on the grounds that whilst it is to do with
>books, it's not to do with **wiki**books.
>
If they don't want this feature why can't it stay in Wikipedia when it's
the Wikipedia people that want it?

>The bit that disturbs me is the impression I get from the discussion that
>cooperation with Wikipedia is somehow distasteful to some Wikibookians, and
>that they shouldn't have to help out just because we share a four-letter
>prefix.
>
There's an underlying arrogance to this paragraph.  "Co-operation" and
"help" are not ideas that are on the same level.  "Co-operation" allows
for working together as equals; "help" implies functioning in a junior
capacity.  If any kind of helping relationship were to exist you should
be helping them to achieve their goals on their own project.  Assuming
that there was adequate discussion on Wikipedia before a decision was
made, you can't expect an other project to accept that decision when
they were never a part of the discussion.

>Where should this be discussed, and what is the official status of the
>"Errata on Wikibooks" feature?
>
>
Maybe the foundation list would be a better place since this involves
interproject relations.  My guess about the "official status" is that it
is whatever the Wikibooks people decide.

I very strangly believe in the autonomy of the sister projects.  There
are important underlying principles such as NPOV that underlie all of
them, but each became separate because it wanted to explore one
principle contrary to what would be acceptable in Wikipedia.  For
Wikibooks it was because Wikipedia was not set up for whole books;
Wiktionary responded to the maxim that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Just because the contributors to project A feel that certain materials
belong in project B does not imply that the contributors to project B
will feel the same way.  To maintain harmony between projects the
contributors to project B need to control what contents will be
acceptable to that project, and how it will be formatted.  Once their
decisions have been made links to the material on project B should
reflect that.  If the information is so vital to project A that it
cannot accept the will of project B on this, maybe that's a sign that
the information should not be so transferred.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/28/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I often drift in and out of attention when the radio is playing in the
> background.  Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention.  It was
> interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some
> recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed
> journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer
> review than the existing system.  Many of these journals operate on  a
> tight budget.  They may require their authors to maintain raw
> experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these
> journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions.
> Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his
> institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would
> not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his
> investment.

Meanwhile, my girlfriend was recently told by the third different
lecturer at university "please do not use Wikipedia as a source" :)
Apparently these days a large number of students are citing Wikipedia,
because it's there, and it's so easy.

Steve


body:
Rob wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>* "In White Wolf Game Studio's World of Darkness role-playing universe,
>>Turing
>>was a leading member of the mage faction known as the Virtual Adepts." --
>>[[Alan Turing]]
>
> The latter two are obvious dumps, but I'm going to quibble about the first
> one.  If a real historical figure plays a significant role in a fictional
> work, that's probably worth at least a small note.  Not the more
> important/famous figures (Hitler, Einstein, Lincoln) who show up in fiction
> with regularity, but less famous people like Turing probably have only
> popped up a few times.

However, I feel that really depends on what the appearance is like.  If
the character in the game was patterned on the real person, even to the
extent that reading about the character might shed light on what the
real person was like, then it might well merit a mention.  But the way I
read that note, it sounds like the character shares little more than a
name and a loose historical analogy with the real Alan Turing.

The issue also comes up at [[Darwin]].  There's a riduculous number of
things named after Charles Darwin; many of them notable, but even more
utterly trivial.  Knowing that [[Darwin (dolphin)]] is a fictional
crewmember in the television series seaQuest DSV sheds little light on
his more notable namesake, especially since that article has remained a
redlink for a whole year.  I'm rather tempted to go and remove that and
[[Darwin (album)]] from the list now.

Even the asterisks used to tag "confirmed namesakes of Charles Darwin"
in the list suffer from a related problem, since _any_ use of the name
Darwin these days is generally assumed to allude to Charles Darwin.
There's little doubt, for example, that both the [[Darwin fish]] and
[[Darwin (programming game)]] are named after him; but just try to find
an authoritative source explicitly saying so.

But I'm digressing...

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
On 2/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 2/27/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>message news:605709b90602251844m45dd7f2btbcc9107f42160fac at mail.gmail.com...
> >>>
> >>>>On 2/26/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Nonsense expected if any administrator can tag as divisive.
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't see any sense in encouraging this:
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rangers_F.C.&action=history
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_City_F.C.&action=history
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&action=history
> >>>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>>Have the particular changes to which you refer scrolled down beloew my local
> >>>horizon?
> >>
> >>No.  The nature and quantity of the edits visible in the history are
> >>simply intended to demonstrate that football is a ready source of
> >>factionalism.
> >
> >
> > Last I cheacked there had been a total of 1 war over football.
> >
>
> Really? Do we have an article on it?
>

[[Football War]]

--
geni


from_name: Leif Knutsen

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
>From time to time, I come across complaints about the "admin subculture" at
Wikipedia, and there are times when I've been struck by the fact that while
som/most admins make a sincere effort at applying policy, guidelines and
their judgment consistently, others seem to have absolutely no difficulty
abandoning any semblance of fairness if other considerations are more
weighty.

People who raise the issue in this forum are typically frustrated - they are
told that either being an admin is "no big deal," or that "the system works
pretty well," or "stop being a malcontent," all in so many words.

At the same time, there is an ongoing debate about the various trends
(userboxes, lawsuits, editors with inferior intellects) that threaten the
existence of Wikipedia.

I have my own opinion about what threatens Wikipedia most (a decay of
intellectual integrity for the sake of conventional wisdom, SPOV, and
appeals to authority that in turn breed slovenly thinking), but I really do
want to weigh in on an appeal that the admin community - whether it is a
subculture or not - give some serious thought to how the reinforce
accountability around the WP core standards.

Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins
have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside
from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions
on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity
against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that
anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or
troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are
softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.

I think that the open source philosophy should be preserved, so I'm
reluctant to add more rules and processes than absolutely necessary.
However, I do think that some principles should apply, whether they are
instituted formally or not:

* Admins should be able to defend their actions in light of Wikipedia
policy, guidelines, or accepted practice. In other words, if an editor
protests a decision made by an admin, it should be incumbent upon (and easy
for) the admin to point to a clear precedence for his/her decision. And
these precedents should be developed by some level of consensus that at
least meets the standard applied for everything else.
* Admins should strive to be role models in their roles as editors. There
will be people who are better suited as admins than editors, and we all have
content issues we're passionate about; but I believe there is plenty of room
within policy and guidelines to expresss passion without being uncivil,
dishonest, flip, or offensive.
* Admins should strive for transparency in their workings. Backchannel
communications should be an exception limited to very specific problems.

I could think of more, but this is plenty for now.

Leif


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 2/28/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Indeed, I have been very, very patient with all of you.  Many users
> > would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause.  I
> > was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause.
> > You might do me the courtesy of cutting me some slack now on account
> > of this.
> >
>
> I was going to wait for the case to actually wrap up to comment,
> since I clerked it, but this is frankly beyond the pale, and since
> the case is going to go to closed any time now, I'll comment.

Put yourself in my shoes and try to imagine how frustrating this
experience must be for me.

> I was FLOORED to see that your sole grounds of appeal was that year-
> old evidence and decisions were a great travesty, and wrote a summary
> that was an unsubtle hint that providing some of the evidence that
> the arbcom was asking for would be a good idea. I left a note on your
> talk page to that effect. You basically told me to go fuck myself,
> though to your credit you were somewhat more civil than that.

I told you that your summary completely missed the points I was trying
to make.  Which it did. And you put words in my mouth I never said,
and seemed to deny that a vandal was a vandal.  I don't even know what
clerking was supposed to be for, but you didn't really do much in the
end.  I feel it was you who was attacking me, and I was not uncivil at
all.

> Here's the problem - regardless of the previous case, you were, when
> you edited Wikipedia, one of the most committed revert warriors in
> existence. You and 172 still have an all-time record for the size of
> a revert war. And how were you sanctioned for your 40RR violation?

This has been brought up before.  That happend on *one* article, after
months of frustration, and a long time ago when Wikipedia was much
more of an anarchy.  The enforcement then in existence was quickpolls,
which voted against sanctioning me.  The situation was resolved and
over, community rules evolved, and nothing like that has happened
since.  I didn't expect double jeopardy.

I could have raised all these points had the AC actually brought them
up.  But instead they listed cases involving clear stalking and the
like.

Remember their allegation was not just reverting but reverting
*without adequate discussion*.  And that was not the case in the May
2004 conflict anymore than it was in the later disputes.  So it
*can't* be relevant to the current case.

> So basically you're splitting year-old hairs and ignoring the fact
> that if that case wasn't the one that brought you down, another case
> would have, because there were easily a dozen that could have been made.

A dozen?  Pretty much anyone with a beef with me tried to use
adminstrative sanctions against me.  One conflict went to mediation
(which was favorable to me), one was brought to arbitration but then
resolved, one was the one in questin, and, well, that may be about it.

> telling you that again right now. And instead you presented yourself
> as the same old vicious bulldog ready to attack anything and anybody
> that stood in his way.

?  This is an absurd characterization.

> You bungled the evidence presentation in this
> case in an epic manner, and turned sympathetic people against you in
> doing it.

Now you're way off base.

VV


from_name: Peter Mackay

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of John Lee

> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >The keyword is "indiscriminate". "Unimportant" is nowhere merntioned.
> >Organising small but interesting facts into a trivia section, where
> >there are enough to warrant doing so, is hardly indiscriminate.
> >
> (This is not a real example; I just made it up off the top of
> my head.) If the trivia section opens with a bullet-point
> stating "Paul McCartney was introduced to drugs by his
> dentist", has an entry in the middle along the lines of
> "McCartney's fifth house was bought for X pounds sterling",
> and ends with "Paul McCartney's dog, Martha, was the basis
> for the Beatles' song 'Martha My Dear'", yeah, I'd say that's
> pretty indiscriminate.  Of course people will say, "Well,
> that's useful information!" Rightly so. But there's no reason
> for it to stand alone in the trivia section. The information
> on McCartney's drug behaviour can stand in a section on its
> own (because you know, it's not like that's the only thing
> that can be said about him and drugs). So can the real estate
> purchase information, perhaps as part of a subsection on
> McCartney's wealth and earnings. And the information on the
> song inspiration? It doesn't even belong in the article
> (although the part about the dog can easily be merged with a
> section on personal life). The rest can go in the song
> article instead.
>
> Information in trivia sections should not be there at all --
> it either belongs elsewhere in the article, or it does not
> belong there at all.
> While I accept that people will just add the trivia section
> back (with more indiscriminate information), that doesn't
> mean the section should be kept. Ideally the information in
> it should be merged with another section of the article (or
> used as the basis for a new section), or removed entirely.
> I've never found a piece of trivia that didn't fall in either
> of the latter categories.

I take your point, but it seems to me that it is more organised and
discriminating to put minor but interesting facts into a distinct trivia
section than to wedge them in to other parts of an article. One might well
spend two or three sentences tying these facts in smoothly so that the text
flows naturally.

Or, as articles evolve, a trivia section can be seen as a temporary
repository for details which are yet to be incorporated.

These facts are never going to go away, whether or not Wikipedia includes
them. There are enough people who care about trivia (and whole books have
been written about the manner in which the songs of the Beatles were
composed) that they will feel that an article on Paul McCartney is
incomplete without their favorite fact being included. It may well be a
piece of pop philosophy upon which they have founded their life. All you
need is love, you know, and though you may not agree, just how much of a
zealot should one be in making a bonfire of these little factoids?

It seems to me that many of the "Death to Trivia" crusaders are perpetuating
a small deception here (one of which you yourself are not guilty), by
deliberately including boring and useless information under the category of
trivia, portraying ALL such information as similar. Of course we don't want
to include every known, sourced, indisputable but minor fact about a person
or subject in an article. But not every minor fact is uninteresting or
useless. We should see ourselves as plucking out the diamonds from the
pebbles. We are an encyclopaedia, after all, trying to present a concise but
comprehensible picture, and while we are happy to direct students to the
mountain of pebbles in our sources, we need not cast every small rock aside.

Pete, student of [[pataphysics]]


list: commons-l

from_name: Jorge S�nchez Seijo

subject: [Commons-l] Different skins for pages within the same Wiki

body:
Hi all,

Is there a way to use different skins for pages within the same Wiki?

Best

Jorge


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
>
> On 2/27/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bravo!  Fred hits the nail on the head.  Trying to destroy
> userboxes
> > has done the project far more harm than that userboxes ever did.
>
> What about the potential harm that userboxes may/will cause
> to the project?

I would rather have a whole forest full of remote potential harm than a bear
rampaging through my living room. This whole userbox thing has been grossly
mishandled in a manner which must be familiar to every Wikipedian of more
than a few weeks standing. We have a few damfool admins throwing their
weight around and escalating the conflict, when they should have stood back,
tucked their manhood away and realised that they were being goaded into
thundering and trumpeting over absolute trivia. Who cares if an editor
breaks his morning egg at the big end or the little and displays his
preference in a userbox?

Pete, recognising that while it is a great deal of fun to goad an arrogant
admin into making a fool of himself, it doesn't get the encyclopaedia
written


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 2/28/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>>To an extent they are right for the wrong reasons.  Would the lecturers
>>have told her not to use Britannica?  What students should learn right
>>away in a short course at the beginning of a university career is how to
>>evaluate resources.  Better still such a course should reiinforce things
>>that are better learned much earlier.  How much she can push the
>>boundary may depend on her personality, and how open-minded the
>>lecturers are.
>>
>
>I think I would have been shot if I had ever referred to Britannica.
>I had a whole university library available to me, and no excuse to
>skimp.
>
I suppose it's a comment on the sad state of education that the instructor
even felt the need to tell students that encyclopedias are not appropriate
sources. That was made clear to me in the first semester of high school -
refer to an encyclopedia for background if you want, but never ever cite
it in papers.

Stan


from_name: Robert Bamler

body:
Hi,

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post announcements. Please
don't blame me if it isn't.

I just wanted to say that version 0.9 of "Wikipedia on iPod" (Encyclopodia) is
now available for download at:

    http://encyclopodia.sourceforge.net

Encyclopodia comes with a setup wizard for Windows. Installation from Linux
and Mac is also possible, but it's still a bit tricky as there isn't any easy
to use setup wizard for Linux and Mac yet.

Currently, the English, German and Italian Wikipedia can be loaded on your
iPod. If you're interested in another language, please send me an e-mail.

Have fun,
Robert Bamler

Disclaimer: Use this software at your own risk. It might damage your iPod,
void your warranty or blow up your golden hamster.


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] A request on my Talk page

body:
"What links here" for images is already known-unreliable.  A note on
the image description page should suffice.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 2/28/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "VeryVerily" wrote
>
> > Indeed, I have been very, very patient with all of you.  Many users
> > would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause.  I
> > was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause.

I admit that last comment of mine, which is no doubt going to be
quoted back to me again and again, was a bit drastic.  But it does
reflect that I feel I've been trying to do things the way everyone
wants and working very hard and for naught.

> Well, your approach to the case has been both original and
> counter-productive.  I suppose originality has something going for it.

You never liked me anyway.  My comment about Wikipedia referencing
itself on [[Talk:Local ring]] was sound though.

> With any luck, the rest of this thread will indicate how mistreated you have
> been. It seems to be going that way.

I don't think treating people well gets enough weight in the ArbComm.
They too much prioritize expediency over the human virtues.

VV