from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Banned

body:
On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:fbad4e140602240531q16f2bbc8m at mail.gmail.com...
> [snip]
> > Do the whois - this is a shaw.ca proxy. Shaw Cable route all their
> > customers' web access through transparent proxies - hence GeekyBroad
> > seeing a different IP for her PC than for the editing: Wikipedia sees
> > only the proxy address.
> > As a wide-ranging ISP proxy, this IP should *never* be blocked for
> > more than very short times.
>
> Should we, as a pre-emptive strike, add {{sharedip}} to all IP talk-pages
> for this ISP?

Yes, and the user accounts too, where possible.

Ryan


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: VeryVerily

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
> > But you did.  I didn't asked to be stalked, and I was even clear about
> what
> > provoked it so I can't even be blamed for being the victim of vandalism.
>
> Sorry for any lack of context.  I don't know enough to comment
> retrospectively.  I am considering the future.  The past is past.

Then let it be the past and drop the restrictions on me.

I provided all that should be needed to comment in my appeal.  The last AC
didn't seem to know enough, either.

> > I believe Geni made some apt comments on this mailing list about how it
> > > > feels to be constantly blocked.
> > >
> > > If people abuse the AC decision to block you spuriously, I expect the
> > > AC will have some very clear things to say on the matter.
> >
> >
> > But you didn't.  I specifically asked you to review such a block, and no
> > comment was made on it by any arbitrator (well, except Fred Bauder in
> his
> > mailing list post, but he was recused).
>
> Sorry, I've lost you.  Which block was this?

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.

> I'm not saying you are personally responsible, but as you now are part of
> > the AC you can take institutional responsibility, like governments
> do.  Or
> > if that's too much, add a "finding of fact" that the past ruling was in
> > error.
>
> 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.

> Well there was already quite a lot of evidence my contributions history.
> > Maybe the third time would be the charm, but why after two
> crash-and-burns
> > should I be hopeful?
>
> The reason that we have been fairly slow in relaxing most of the
> restrictions is that you have hardly been contributing, so we don't
> know how necessary things are.  I wish you luck in showing the
> community your good intentions, and earning trust.

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.

No-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits.  We are only
> asking you not to cause conflict, which is something everyone should
> be doing all the time.  I will take into account any harassment you
> get.
>

"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.

And the past harassment was not accounted for.

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.

Maybe "WikiLove" is just a word people use to make themselves feel good
without actually treating others any better.

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

VV


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> Neutral point of view is a core Wikipedia policy. Harassing users who
> are football fans doesn't logically relate to that policy. It just
> interjects a sour note into our social scene. But you would no doubt
> maintain that having a "social scene" is not "building an
> encyclopedia". I would maintain making users feel at home, putting up
> some pictures of the wife and kids and of their dog on the walls of
> their "cubical" is part of building an encyclopedia. This userbox
> fuss has done absolutely nothing to advance the project. Just wasted
> our time and caused serious conflict, much more conflict than letting
> things take their course would have resulted in.
>
> Fred

Bravo!  Fred hits the nail on the head.  Trying to destroy userboxes has
done the project far more harm than that userboxes ever did.
  - Ian


from_name: Steve Bennett

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

body:
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.

Steve


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
"Guy Chapman aka JzG" <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
wrote in message news:7f6402dt0tnj6b7o6toqdfjrf4h0uq6f76 at 4ax.com...
[snip]
> Still and all, there is (to my mind) an important difference between
> arcana and trivia.  Certainly as far as an encyclopaedia is concerned.

One person's arcana is someone else's trivia.

Think of it from the point of view of someone approaching the subject for
the first time, rather than as someone who has seen it all before...it's
kind of like a "see also" section with go-faster stripes :-)

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
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.

To quote some verbiage from the policy page that's been there nearly
forever:

"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of
knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have
your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news
outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan
manner."

-Mark


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>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?

It has already happened, on webcomics - a dedicated few editors worked
hard to alienate and drive off actual experts (while an actual
academic expert who's a Wikipedian tried to stop it happening), and
tried to force through that an expert could be outvoted by the proudly
ignorant. This led to Comixpedia forking the contributor base. Others
have seen this debacle and declared they want to have nothing to do
with Wikipedia while it perpetrates this sort of jawdropping idiocy,
and I'm having a very hard time convincing them otherwise. They don't
even want to use the GFDL because (2) it's complicated and unobvious
(1) it's too closely associated with Wikipedia. See past discussion on
this very list.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>>"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of
>>knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have
>>your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news
>>outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan
>>manner."
>>
>>
>
>
>    http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/
>
>See what I mean about the dangers of reasoning from personal
>ignorance? Now I eagerly await objections that don't boil down to "but
>webcomics are worse for Wikipedia than Pokemon."
>
>
Assuming that was directed at me, then I'm not sure what you mean about
"the dangers of reasoning from personal ignorance".  I was arguing
against the general principle that we ought to write novel histories in
cases where existing ones don't exist.  If in this particular case one
does exist, then of course that doesn't apply.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Banned

body:
"David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:fbad4e140602240531q16f2bbc8m at mail.gmail.com...
[snip]
> Do the whois - this is a shaw.ca proxy. Shaw Cable route all their
> customers' web access through transparent proxies - hence GeekyBroad
> seeing a different IP for her PC than for the editing: Wikipedia sees
> only the proxy address.
> As a wide-ranging ISP proxy, this IP should *never* be blocked for
> more than very short times.

Should we, as a pre-emptive strike, add {{sharedip}} to all IP talk-pages
for this ISP?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why trivia and popular culture items need sources

body:
"Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:42f90dc00602262204g280315adr4dc3ba2cfd3cd0a6 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 2/26/06, Peter Mackay
> <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>> I hadn't imagined that there'd be a good reason to put such a reference
>> on
>> the SoL page. Obviously we fly along different wavelengths. The place to
>> reference a team mascot is on the *team* page.
> That's often the problem with trivia - misplacement.   People tend to
> want to migrate information to the most "important" article related.

And the answer to the "problem" is to migrate the information to the most
appropriate article.

Unfortunately some of the sentiment expressed up-thread seems to be more of
the "nuke it until it glows then shoot it in the dark" variety.

Newbies will not be nearly so bitten by a polite message saying "thank you
for your information: it has been moved to a more appropriate place" than by
a rude message saying "don't add trivia to articles; it makes them messy".

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
"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

You must be confusing me with someone employing a functional cerebral
cortex. You will have to be more obvious...all I can see is loads of IP
edits, many of which have been reverted, and I can't see any reference to
userboxes.

Have the particular changes to which you refer scrolled down beloew my local
horizon?

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On Feb 27, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Steve Block wrote:
>
> ImageText isn't a webcomics specific journal, and isn't the only
> comics
> journal out there, there's a lot of comics theory published in the
> Journal of Popular Culture and more importantly The International
> Journal of Comic Art, as well as The Comics Journal, which covers web
> comics.  I fail to see what your point is David, and how it relates to
> the comments it purports to respond to.  It seems to support them
> entirley, by arguing that such sources do exist which allow
> articles to
> be written.

Personally, I consider Journal of Popular Culture to be the limit
case when I say that all peer-reviewed articles should have a
Wikipedia article either on them or their author. It's just... not
very good.

Comics Journal is miles from peer reviewed.

IJOCA is worth noting as a comics journal, though to my knowledge
they've never touched webcomics, have they? I confess, I don't pick
them up, though I have a review coming out in them that I should
probably grab one of these days.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On Feb 27, 2006, at 11:17 AM, David Gerard wrote:

>
> I meant the implication that there was not and could not be an actual
> academic peer-reviewed journal of webcomics, which has come up a bit
> in this thread - that's definitely arguing from personal ignorance.

To be fair, ImageTexT not a journal of webcomics - it's a journal of
comics and animation in general, broadly construed, that has
published what is, to my knowledge, the only peer-reviewed piece on
webcomics.

The journal on webcomics is the Webcomics Examiner, which is not peer
reviewed, though it is run by Joe Zabel, an artist who has worked
with Harvey Pekar on American Splendor,

I've worked on both, as it happens.

Another note is that I just got done with the 4th annual comics
conference here at UF, and though no papers were presented on
webcomics (Which is in part, I suspect, because the topic - Comics
and Childhood - didn't really lend itself to those papers), I can
tell you that webcomics and digital distribution were on a LOT of
people's minds in Q&A, and there's a strong push for the 2008
conference to be on digital comics.

What it comes down to is this:

Is there a systematic peer-reviewed academic study and classification
of webcomics at present? No.

Is there a systematic popular academic study and classification of
webcomics at present? Yes.

Is it any good? Yes.

Are webcomics something of concern to comics scholarship? Yes, though
few people in the (fairly small) field of comic studies have them as
a primary focus. That said, few people have post-war newspaper strips
as a primary focus. So we should get right on deleting [[Calvin and
Hobbes]].

None of which is the real question. The real question is:

Has the webcomics community developed a sufficient non-promotional
body of thought to be taken seriously in its self-assessment of what
its important parts are?

Between the Examiner, the academic attention, the division of the
community into profitable syndicates, and people like Eric Burns, the
answer is, frankly, an unequivocal yes.

-Phil


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> It has already happened, on webcomics - a dedicated few editors worked
> hard to alienate and drive off actual experts (while an actual
> academic expert who's a Wikipedian tried to stop it happening), and
> tried to force through that an expert could be outvoted by the proudly
> ignorant.

I think they were advocates rather than experts, weren't they?
Webcomics haven't really been around long enough to have established
academic roots.  I think I'd bow to Scott McCloud if he deemed something
notable, but webcomics is such a new medium that it's impossible to
determine scholarly worth: there are few academic papers on the subject.
  It's a different field to etymology; we're not comparing like for
like.  Wikipedia isn't the place to be asserting the notability of
things, it's where we record the notability granted by other sources.
That was an aspect of the forking too.  I also think it's rather mean of
you to discuss people as ignorant.

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Strange message recieved

body:
Hans Schroder wrote:

>Your IP address is 64.136.26.235. Please include this address, along with
>your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make.  ?."

This is the proxy address for Juno LA, and is used by 32,768 different
addresses ... I've unblocked as collateral damage, and left a
{{sharedip}} tag on the address's user page. You should be free to
edit now. Sorry about that.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Steve Block wrote:

>I think they were advocates rather than experts, weren't they?

This is not the case and does them a great injustice. Though it's
possible such an assumption of bad faith from outsiders was behind the
dedicated attempts to drive them off.

>Webcomics haven't really been around long enough to have established
>academic roots.

This is not the case either. Try a websearch on "webcomics academic".

You should read up on the arbitration case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics

- d.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

references:
<um31029482o09jmo77ng8kf5oa92kp32sl@4ax.com>
	<723F292F-BCDF-4D1F-B7B3-2AEFCF1358CA@ctelco.net>
	<605709b90602251844m45dd7f2btbcc9107f42160fac@mail.gmail.com>
	<dtuno9$qvn$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
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.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Steve Block wrote:
>
>> I think they were advocates rather than experts, weren't they?
>
>
> This is not the case and does them a great injustice. Though it's
> possible such an assumption of bad faith from outsiders was behind the
> dedicated attempts to drive them off.

That's not a bad faith assumption.  Eric Burns is, on one level, a
blogger who writes about webcomics.  Are we suggesting any blogger is a
reputable expert on a given field?  There's a real problem with deciding
the reliability and reputability of online content.  Eric Burns is also
still an advocate on wikipedia.  The history of webcomics has not yet
been written, so how can he be anything but?  And given his involvement
in the webcomics field, how does one determine whether he is a partisan
source?

>> Webcomics haven't really been around long enough to have established
>> academic roots.
>
>
> This is not the case either. Try a websearch on "webcomics academic".

I get two hits.
http://www.google.com/search?hs=5Z1&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22webcomics+academic%22&btnG=Search

> You should read up on the arbitration case:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics

I have.  I agree with the result.  Things were handled badly, but
there's no ruling on the notability of anything.  Part of the rationale
behind the rewrite of WP:WEB on my part was to move it away from the
problems that caused that situation.  The arguments should be about the
reliability of sources, not the people writing the articles.  If Eric
Burns believes something is worth keeping, he should be able to source
that belief, otherwise explain to me why it isn't original research?

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/27/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> It has already happened, on webcomics - a dedicated few editors worked
> hard to alienate and drive off actual experts (while an actual
> academic expert who's a Wikipedian tried to stop it happening), and
> tried to force through that an expert could be outvoted by the proudly
> ignorant. This led to Comixpedia forking the contributor base. Others

Ah, is *that* what the repeated hushed murmurs about webcomics being
evil is all about. Is there any kind of public "We're sorry, it won't
happen again"?

> have seen this debacle and declared they want to have nothing to do
> with Wikipedia while it perpetrates this sort of jawdropping idiocy,
> and I'm having a very hard time convincing them otherwise. They don't

What are the possible solutions? Can we give people cluestars when
they have formal expertise on a subject?

(on that note...I'm just thinking if I would deserve any cluestars. I
can think of one tiny area of human knowledge on which I'm an expert,
but that's it...very humbling)

Steve


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 27/02/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> But a constellation of related articles covering every detail of
> Hooke's life won't happen all at once -- we'll have to wait for the
> facts to accumulate before they can be organized comprehesibly.
> Removing what you consider trivia because it doesn't fit perfectly
> with the rest of the article short-circuits this process.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means it covers everything, yes -
but it means it covers every topic, not every piece of information.

Our article (or even articles) on Hooke are never going to be a
five-volume biography, and two major features governing this are that
our editorial processes are not equipped to deal with a five-volume
biography, and our readers don't want one. The vanishingly small
number of people who go to our page on Hooke looking for a book-length
study can find one easily; we've got (or should have) references to
the major works on him. Think of what we're aiming for as an
intelligent pr?cis of the five best books written on the topic...

We're not going to compile notes for the five-volume biography in
order to trim it down to ten or fifteen thousand words over a handful
of articles. There are going to be pieces of information which are
verifiable, and possibly even of interest, which are simply of too
fine a level of detail to include in an encyclopedia article. And, a
lot of the time, we can tell that the information is below that
threshold simply by looking at it.

(The "does it assert notability" test on WP:CSD is surprisingly
appropiate here - Grafton might have been a very influential man who
got angry, or Hooke's reply might have been a vitriolic spew which got
reprinted in twelve different newspapers... but it doesn't say so. It
doesn't tell us that it's important.)

It's not that it doesn't fit perfectly with the rest of the article -
I'm all for disjointed articles with "(...1973-1988 goes here...)"
stuck in the middle, so awkward sentences hanging at the end are fine.
It's just... unimportant. The normal editorial process, if we were
working from a comprehensive study and summarising it, would lead us
to leave these minor details out; why should we feel compelled to keep
them because someone explicitly added it?

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


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:45:18 -0000, you wrote:

>Think of it from the point of view of someone approaching the subject for
>the first time, rather than as someone who has seen it all before...it's
>kind of like a "see also" section with go-faster stripes :-)

Oh yes, I always try to think of it from that point of view.  Which is
why I think it's important to keep the level of detail appropriate to
the significance of individual elements.  Otherwise you could go away
believing that the most important thing X did was to use the same
barber as Y.  Or something.

Ah well, I wrote a genuine article again yesterday.  I'm trying to
create at least one non-stub article a week, to keep my sense of
perspective after all the admin stuff I get sucked into.  Who knows,
if it works I might even shoot for two a week :-)
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

>We're the Borg of Encyclopedias - assimilate everything
>we can get our hands on. :)
>
>:o  Fantastic analogy!

Ec


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 2/25/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What makes Wikipedia great is that it doesn't make the arbitrary and
>>elitist distinction between high and low culture, but democratically
>>includes information that its audience thinks is of interest.
>>
>>
>Great according to whom?
>
How about the same audience that made [[Guinness World Records]] the
greatest in-copyright best seller of all time, or that followed
[[Ripley's Believe It or Not!]]  in the early part of the century, or
that led to repeated editions of Haydn's ''Dictionary of Dates" in the
19th century.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
"Steve Block" <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote in
message news:4402F3B8.8090100 at myrealbox.com...
> David Gerard wrote:
>> Steve Block wrote:
>>> I think they were advocates rather than experts, weren't they?
>> This is not the case and does them a great injustice. Though it's
>> possible such an assumption of bad faith from outsiders was behind the
>> dedicated attempts to drive them off.
> That's not a bad faith assumption.  Eric Burns is, on one level, a
> blogger who writes about webcomics.  Are we suggesting any blogger is a
> reputable expert on a given field?

Not necessarily, but we are in danger of declaring that an Expert with a
Blog is no longer to be considered an Expert.

Which croggles the mind...

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
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.

Languages are much more contiversal

Turkey has this objection to people speaking kurdish

The english did their best to wipe out welsh

Langauge is a key part of culture. As a result it a rather extream
source of factionalism.
--
geni


body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:40:53 +1100, you wrote:
>
>
>>>My view is that when they wrote "Wikipedia is not an
>>>indiscriminate collection of information" they had in mind
>>>keeping the focus on what is actually important, rather than
>>>running off after red herrings.
>>>
>>>
>>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.
>>
>>
>Discrimination has more than one meaning.
>
"Indiscriminate" and "discrimination" do not carry the same connotations.

Ec


body:
Daniel P. B. Smith 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
>
>
Evidently only in its "trivial" aspects.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

references:
<fbad4e140602270419s5195fa10q@mail.gmail.com>	<4402F3B8.8090100@myrealbox.com>
	<dtuvg1$lp8$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> "Steve Block" <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote in
> message news:4402F3B8.8090100 at myrealbox.com...
>>Are we suggesting any blogger is a
>> reputable expert on a given field?
>
> Not necessarily, but we are in danger of declaring that an Expert with a
> Blog is no longer to be considered an Expert.
>
> Which croggles the mind...
>
> HTH HAND

I don't intend any such thing.  But given Burns' writing on webcomics is
online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted
claim to expertness.  I have no problem with established experts having
blogs, as long as guidance at [[WP:RS]] is noted.  I have a problem with
someone who is cited as an expert because they have a blog on a topic.
Burns falls between the two stools, having also written for Comixpedia,
an online magazine which whilst I am happy to entertain as a source
others have indicated a refusal to do so.  I would not describe Burns as
an expert in the field anymore than I would describe Andrew Johnson of
ninth art an expert in the comics field.  I would describe them as
advocates.  Their position is in advocating their particular field of
interest to respectability.

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


body:
Steve Bennett 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.
>
>
I'm sure you have valid reasons for not being able to "check it right
now".  This is for something which we know exists somewhere in
Wikipedia.  Many other things are more difficult to properly research,
and may involve travel to a library.  Cutting these people some slack is
preferable to being a rule robot.

Ec


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
"Fred Bauder" wrote

>. Arbitrators who feel
> that a strong conservative point of view ought not to be expressed
> should have recused themselves.

Indeed, they clearly have a difficulty with NPOV, and probably should recuse
themselves from many cases.  If not leave the project.

But fortunately the ArbCom is not subject to any sort of jury-selection
process, in which opinions held are taken to be disabling.  I hope I never
see the day.

Charles


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

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>On 2/27/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Sam Korn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Look at the CIA.  They aren't very accountable, nor very transparent,
>>>but they've maintained a consisitent level of quality.
>>>
>>>
>>Certain conspiracy theorists beg to differ. :p
>>
>>
>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!
>
>
So if they advised GWB not to attack Iraq what he thought of their
competence was clearly reflected by his actions. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
I don't know about all that, but it does seem like awful powerful proof
that Elvis is still alive. :-)
Ec

Baba Jobu wrote:

>Oh, you're just showing off! ;-)
>
>But well, yes, because both you and Elvis Presley are hugely notable.
>161,000 doesn't put you at the Olympian heights of a Wales or a Presley, but
>it's solid memedom, I'd say.
>
>On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew Lih wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
>>>
>>>Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
>>>
>>>Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
>>>
>>>
>>"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
>>"elvis presley" - 14,400,000
>>
>>it's pretty silly
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> So someone who is the fan of a football club is not allowed to have a
> userbox saying so.

Nobody has suggested that  A userbox is just a bit of wikicode, and
someone can put any wikicode he liked onto his userpage, within
reason.  Should Wikipedia provide an official-looking template?  I
don't think so.

>
> Deleting all the userboxes is totally disproportionate to any actual
> harm. Just petty.
>

So it would be.  This isn't what anyone has suggested.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at AfD, because if it
> >is this far broken, there's something seriously seriously worse about it
> >than I thought.
>
>
> Well, uh, yeah, that's what I've been saying for a year ;-)
>
> I suggest first going to and participating in [[WT:AFD]], outlining
> the problems and asking for AFD regulars to come up with in-house
> solutions.

I was going to suggest some text like the following at the top of
deletion policy:

The priorities for participants in Articles for Deletion are as
follows, '''in this order''':
#Removing articles harmful to Wikipedia and its goals, such as
copyright violations and libellous material.
#Improving badly-written articles on suitable topics, to produce
articles worthy of inclusion.
#Keeping all articles on suitable topics
#Removing articles whose topics are not notable enough or otherwise
suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
#Following deletion process with good faith and civility.

...followed by some examples of conflicting priorities, and how it's
ok to occasionally violate policy when it is clear what the best end
result would be.

Steve


from_name: Theresa Knott

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
VeryVerily ought to be able to edit provided he is
> reasonably courteous, offers information from reliable references and
> does not engage in sterile edit warring.

No one is stopping him from editing. All that is being required is
that he discuss reverts on the talk page.

 > He ought to be judged by his current
> behavior, not events which occurred in 2004.

How can we do that? He left Wikipedia for a year. His current edits
are mostly to AC pages.

Arbitrators who feel
> that a strong conservative point of view ought not to be expressed
> should have recused themselves.

I don't believe there are any arbitrators who feel that.

Theresa


body:
John Lee 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.

[[Mitchell Baker]]. Her fondness for the trapeze is in "Trivia"
because it is (it's a hobby, and it's completely irrelevant to why she
has an article). But it's trivia that keeps getting into press
articles about her. You could kludge it somewhere else, but leaving
trivia pending such kludging is IMO a much better option than just
trashing it.

On popular culture sections, I suggest a look at [[Lilith]] and
[[Lilith (disambiguation)]]. I shoved the popular culture into the
latter and, when people kept adding it to the article, I placed an
explicit pointer there ;-)

People are going to keep adding this stuff. I don't think it detracts
horribly from the encyclopedia, providing it's kept stylistically
readable within the article. Much as [[List of Pok?mon by National
Pok?dex number]] makes me lose the will to live, but I can tolerate
its existence in Wikipedia.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR block of User:Striver

body:
robert bloom wrote:

>Hi. I belive i have become the vicitm of a admin abuse. I would appreciate
>if someone could take a look:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Striver#Three_revert_rule_violation
>I request to be unblocked, and i aim to go report the admin for admin
>abuser, possibly going further. Comments are welcomed, i rather have them on
>my talk page, since i rarly logg in here,

This is a current topic on [[WP:ANI]]:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3AANI#Block_of_Striver

So far opinion seems to be that MONGO blew his top and blocked in a
dispute he was involved in, but the user has been so odious no-one is
getting very upset about it. This edit in particular was enlightening:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muawiyah_I&diff=39724519&oldid=39715229

- d.


from_name: robert bloom

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Hi. I belive i have become the vicitm of a admin abuse. I would appreciate
if someone could take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Striver#Three_revert_rule_violation

I request to be unblocked, and i aim to go report the admin for admin
abuser, possibly going further. Comments are welcomed, i rather have them on
my talk page, since i rarly logg in here,

Thanks, and peace.

_________________________________________________________________
Nyhet! MSN Messenger i Mobiltelefonen! http://mobile.msn.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
Perhaps we could move away from issues of deletion and being "allowed"
to have userboxes, and more asking userboxes advocates to appreciate
the dim view that others take of their behaviour. That is, let's
assume you're allowed to keep any userbox you like. Under what
circumstances would you concede that exercising that right is not in
the interests of the community and the project as a whole?

Steve

On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> So someone who is the fan of a football club is not allowed to have a
> userbox saying so.
>
> Deleting all the userboxes is totally disproportionate to any actual
> harm. Just petty.
>
> Fred
>
> On Feb 27, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Tony Sidaway 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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...

The user you're referencing has only been on the site since Feb 1 and
has under 50 edits, almost all of which are attempts to get the
webcomics article in question deleted.  If genuinely a new user, that
shows the problem of newbies jumping into *FD.

I'd rather new users worked on articles.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2006, at 7:41 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> > Should Wikipedia provide an official-looking template?  I
> > don't think so.
>
> And just what is the basis for that crabbed view?
>

I'd hardly call it "crabbed".  Wikipedia isn't a football site and it
isn't really intended to be used to promote rivalry between football
fans, nor would it be in our interests to do so.  Templates used in
this manner give the false impression that it is, and also draw focus
away from the encyclopedia and onto external issues.

As there is nothing that can be included on a template that an editor
cannot say much better in his own words, the *only* reasons for using
a template instead would be for social networking on the basis of
shared interests.  Such shared interests should be justifiable on the
basis of utility to Wikipedia.  Where knowledge of a language and
interest in football may be justifiable, partisanship such as football
teams, political parties and beliefs, don't serve that purpose at all.
 All that a "Manchester United fan" template tells you is that its
owner prefer that team to others.

Would we permit a WikiProject with membership restricted to Manchester
United fans, socialists, vegetarians, muslims or Roman Catholics?
Looking at WikiProject Islam and its associated projects I see that
they are very careful not to exclude non-Muslims from membership.  The
Judaism and Christianity projects are the same.

Using userbox templates, people with partisan interests can bypass
this restriction, and the Catholic Alliance deletion debate showed
just how effectively this can be used to disrupt Wikipedia.  Nearly
every single person in that debate who voted to keep the page did so
after the page's creator spammed his talk page with a plea to vote to
keep the page.

If the neutrality policy is to remain our cornerstone, we must avoid
giving the impression that it doesn't really mean anything.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
>"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of
>knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have
>your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news
>outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan
>manner."

    http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/

See what I mean about the dangers of reasoning from personal
ignorance? Now I eagerly await objections that don't boil down to "but
webcomics are worse for Wikipedia than Pokemon."

(Part of the webcomics debacle was an attempt to get Snowspinner
excluded from webcomics deletion discussions because as an expert he
was obviously biased on the subject. Not in any particular direction,
but *by being an expert*.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/27/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>  But given Burns' writing on webcomics is
> online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted
> claim to expertness.

This is what the arbitration committee had to say about Eric Burns in
a finding of fact in the Webcomics case:

"Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of
published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games,
magazines, and poetry. He is a columnist for Comixpedia and an
occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own
comic-oriented blog, Websnark."

I note from his Wikipedia article that he holds a BA Cum Laude in
English Literature.  He worked on games and publications for Steve
Jackson Games.  So he has a lot more qualifications to write about
writing than just being a blogger.


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.

Yes. Hard policy for this sort of thing would produce ridiculous
results;  we can't formulate more than guidelines, to be applied
according to editorial judgement. If an editor has that judgement,
they can reasonably judge if a given source is rubbish or not; if they
don't, no amount of guidelines can give it to them. You can't
Taylorise clue.

Are John Lee's featured articles on Beatles songs entirely written
using peer-reviewed academic journals as sources? Of course not.

(And in my experience as what sociologists use as a primary source
[music journalism], peer-reviewed academia on pop music is an
incredibly low-quality source of information or indeed clue.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>On 2/27/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:

>>  But given Burns' writing on webcomics is
>> online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted
>> claim to expertness.

>"Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of
>published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games,
>magazines, and poetry. He is a columnist for Comixpedia and an
>occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own
>comic-oriented blog, Websnark."
>I note from his Wikipedia article that he holds a BA Cum Laude in
>English Literature.  He worked on games and publications for Steve
>Jackson Games.  So he has a lot more qualifications to write about
>writing than just being a blogger.

* d, nn, never heard of him myself, webcomics aren't encyclopedic,
here's some tortured justifications that I think sound better - ~~~~

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Delirium wrote:

>>    http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/
>>See what I mean about the dangers of reasoning from personal
>>ignorance? Now I eagerly await objections that don't boil down to "but
>>webcomics are worse for Wikipedia than Pokemon."

>Assuming that was directed at me, then I'm not sure what you mean about
>"the dangers of reasoning from personal ignorance".

I meant the implication that there was not and could not be an actual
academic peer-reviewed journal of webcomics, which has come up a bit
in this thread - that's definitely arguing from personal ignorance.

>I was arguing
>against the general principle that we ought to write novel histories in
>cases where existing ones don't exist.  If in this particular case one
>does exist, then of course that doesn't apply.

Of course. Every crank has fifty references for their original
research stitched together in a novel fashion, but that doesn't make
it not original research.

- d.


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- 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.

I agree, and we might be at the stage where formalising this as a
policy/guideline has become necessary. Moving things to a [[Harry Potter
trivia]] or [[The Lord of the Rings in popular culture]] article works just as
well for me instead of removing it outright. We're meant to be producing a
concise summary of the important aspects of a topic, so we have to be
selective. If something is genuinely trivial with respect to its topic, then it
has no business inside the article. We certainly shouldn't be including things
like the following:

* "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]]
* "His favorite fast food chain is [[Taco Bell]]" -- formerly [[Eminem]]
* "In the 1999 Highlander: The Raven episode The Rogue, Bert Myers claims to be
from the NSA." -- formerly in [[NSA]], now [[NSA in fiction]]
(etc etc)

I think this is a somewhat different problem to deleting articles. Personally,
I find the inclusionist argument that "if you don't think a topic is worth
having an encyclopedia article about, but some others do, then simply ignore
the article; it's not hurting you" to be quite convincing much of the time.
It's much harder to simply ignore the trivia/in popular culture section of an
article, however.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
David Gerard wrote:
>> "If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of
>> knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have
>> your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news
>> outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan
>> manner."
>
>
>     http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/
>
> See what I mean about the dangers of reasoning from personal
> ignorance? Now I eagerly await objections that don't boil down to "but
> webcomics are worse for Wikipedia than Pokemon."
>
> (Part of the webcomics debacle was an attempt to get Snowspinner
> excluded from webcomics deletion discussions because as an expert he
> was obviously biased on the subject. Not in any particular direction,
> but *by being an expert*.)

ImageText isn't a webcomics specific journal, and isn't the only comics
journal out there, there's a lot of comics theory published in the
Journal of Popular Culture and more importantly The International
Journal of Comic Art, as well as The Comics Journal, which covers web
comics.  I fail to see what your point is David, and how it relates to
the comments it purports to respond to.  It seems to support them
entirley, by arguing that such sources do exist which allow articles to
be written.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


list: foundation-l

from_name: MHart

subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"

body:
> Acronyms are jargon, and should mostly not be a part of simple English.

I wasn't clear - it's not about acronyms, but rather about a translation
widget (adapted from one I wrote for acronyms). I got it working - you
highlight words you don't understand and the translation pops up (in
Spanish, French, Portuguese, Latin, Italian, German - whichever you pick).

- MHart


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> 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.
>
> Isn't "novel" the key word here? There is nothing particularly novel
> about compiling a list of brief, sourced,  synopses of every work by a
> major author, for example. Stating that increasingly frequent
> references to the devil were caused by the author's impotence might
> well be "novel".
>
> A measure of "novelness" might be how likely another editor is to
> dispute the accuracy of your compilation. It seems quite likely to me
> that one can compile an undisputed history of webcomics. And should.

I don't think one could compile an undisputed history of webcomics, but
I do think a disputed one would be even more worthwhile.  The problems
come in deciding which is the first webcomic, defining what a webcomic
is, and in deciding on which strips are of merit to include.  But those
are disputes which will help build a better article, as long as all
inclusions are built on reliable sources.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neglected_Mario_Characters&diff=40975904&oldid=40974390

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neglected_Mario_Characters&diff=41164075&oldid=41160901

In short, the deletion process continues to be a disgrace and breed
the worst kind of incivility.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
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


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 2/27/06, VeryVerily <veryverily at gmail.com> wrote:
> Or forever.  Anyway, hey just added the 4 month thing.  But there's no
> guarantee
> they'll go through with that.  Last time, they asked me to wait six months,
> and I
> voluntarily left for a year.  The escape clause that I be in no
> "interpersonal
> conflicts" is of course one I may be unable to meet, given how prone
> users are to pick fights here.

I don't imagine the current AC (I cannot speak for past committees,
though I fully expect they would say the same) will penalise you for
other people causing conflict with you.

> Anyway, one main issue is that they refuse to say what a revert *isn't*,
> though
> I specifically asked for them to clarify this, and I was already (wrongly)
> blocked twice for supposedly "reverting".  In the absence of such clarity, I
> feel, probably correctly, that I can be blocked at any time because
> an edit I make resembles in the page history, with or without my knowledge.
> I believe Geni made some apt comments on this mailing list about how it
> feels to be constantly blocked.

If people abuse the AC decision to block you spuriously, I expect the
AC will have some very clear things to say on the matter.

> Also, this restriction prevents me from doing RC patrol, counter-vandalism,
> or defending myself against the next stalker that attacks me (and there's no
> reason to think one won't).  Moreover, the AC ruling puts me in a bad light,
> in
> essence depriving me of legitimacy in the eyes of the community, with no
> justification.  It implies that I'm an unreasonable user, which I am not and
> never
> have been.

I believe we are giving you the chance to show yourself to be a
legitimate user.  That is my intention.  I am certain that none of the
AC considers reversions of vandalism to count in your ruling.  I
personally undertake to unblock you if anyone blocks you for reverting
vandalism.

> Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that no one has told me what I've done
> wrong or,
> rather, no one has told me why my account of the edit histories in question
> is
> not adequate for them.  Many of the cases where they accused me of
> misbehaving are so clearcut that really the AC should apologize for
> attacking
> me on those points.  But not a peep has been uttered about what I raised.

Visit not the sins of the father on the son.  I was myself not a
member of that committee, and do not consider myself responsible for
the decisions, whether they were right or wrong.

> In essence, they ignored every point I made.  I wasted my time preparing a
> solid
> case thinking I would get a fair hearing from the current committee, and
> have been
> basically told to get stuffed.  How would that make you feel?

We have undertaken to look at your case again when we have some more
evidence to base our actions on.  If you can manage four months of
good editing (and I see no reason why you cannot), your restrictions
will likely be lifted.  That doesn't fulfill my description of "get
stuffed".

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
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.

Who is trying to destroy userboxes?  I haven't met them.

--
Sam


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

body:
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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> (And in my experience as what sociologists use as a primary source
> [music journalism], peer-reviewed academia on pop music is an
> incredibly low-quality source of information or indeed clue.)

That rings true.  I don't particularly want to wade through yards of
well-footnoted stuff on Jimi Hendrix or Captain Beefheart, which is all
drivel and wrong and written by someone who couldn't hum a twelve-bar to
save their life.

You could look at it this way, though.  If WP manages to evolve a credible,
principles model of how to document and categorise and calibrate popular
culture, and exhibitis it in action on its (certainly wide) range of
included topics, then that could be a huge achievement in itself.  One does
have to bear in mind the basic principles: Sturgeon's Law on 90% of
everything; Simon Frith on popular culture being defined by anyone being
allowed their taste in the matter; objections to canon-formation; original
research being the inevitable condition of the author; ephemerality of much
of the interest.

Charles


from_name: Death Phoenix

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

body:
On 2/27/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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???
>

You are? Okay, I guess it's time for me to come out of retirement and...
take care of business.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>  But given Burns' writing on webcomics is
>> online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted
>> claim to expertness.
>
> This is what the arbitration committee had to say about Eric Burns in
> a finding of fact in the Webcomics case:
>
> "Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of
> published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games,
> magazines, and poetry. He is a columnist for Comixpedia and an
> occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own
> comic-oriented blog, Websnark."
>
> I note from his Wikipedia article that he holds a BA Cum Laude in
> English Literature.  He worked on games and publications for Steve
> Jackson Games.  So he has a lot more qualifications to write about
> writing than just being a blogger.

Tony, you're arguing across me.  As per my comments above, they make no
claim as to his degree of expertness.  Actually, nothing there
contradicts what I said above, since Comixpedia and the Webcomics
Examiner are online magazines.  As webcomics is a form of comics, which
is a separate art-form from writing, where-in it has been argued the
writing is subservient to the art; to quote Samuel R. Delaney for
example, "the writer works for the artist, in the same that the writer
in a movie works for the director."  Delaney also notes that comics
shouldn't be read, they should be looked at, again making the point that
the art is primary.  Now like I say, it's hard to quantify Burns'
qualifications; he majored in English Lit, not comics.  He's also an
advocate.  I have no problem sourcing Burns' opinion from his blog;  I
have a problem sourcing it as fact, or in accepting Burns' statements as
an arbitrary ruling.

That's not to say that I disagree with the arbcom ruling.  That said, I
have to ask, am I not afforded the same opportunity as Snowspinner to
stand up and claim myself as an expert in the field?

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
"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.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> I don't think one could compile an undisputed history of webcomics, but
>> I do think a disputed one would be even more worthwhile.  The problems
>> come in deciding which is the first webcomic, defining what a webcomic
>
> That's not really a problem: "The first webcomic is disputed, but most
> sources agree that it is one of the following three..."
>
>> is, and in deciding on which strips are of merit to include.  But those
>
> Sure, but deciding what to include is hardly unique to this particular
> problem. Nor is defining what *is* and *isn't* anything.
>
>> are disputes which will help build a better article, as long as all
>> inclusions are built on reliable sources.

Exactly.  See my last statement above.  You're not disagreeing with or
arguing against anything I wrote.  You're agreeing with it.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Snowspinner wrote:

> Has the webcomics community developed a sufficient non-promotional
> body of thought to be taken seriously in its self-assessment of what
> its important parts are?
>
> Between the Examiner, the academic attention, the division of the
> community into profitable syndicates, and people like Eric Burns, the
> answer is, frankly, an unequivocal yes.

See, I agree with the above.  Each is a source that can be utilised in
it's own way.  I'd add the published comics press, like The Journal,
which reviews webcomics to the list, and note that newspapers reprint
and review some of the strips too.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/27/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> 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.

Isn't "novel" the key word here? There is nothing particularly novel
about compiling a list of brief, sourced,  synopses of every work by a
major author, for example. Stating that increasingly frequent
references to the devil were caused by the author's impotence might
well be "novel".

A measure of "novelness" might be how likely another editor is to
dispute the accuracy of your compilation. It seems quite likely to me
that one can compile an undisputed history of webcomics. And should.

> "If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of
> knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have
> your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news
> outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan
> manner."

That's consistent with my view. If you wish to contribute unpublished
information about the history of any webcomic, Wikipedia is not the
place. But if you just want to compile published information from
various places into one complete record, then within various
constraints, Wikipedia is a great place for that.

IMHO.

Steve


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.

There's actually enough sources out there on webcomics that we shouldn't
need to go to blogs to source statements.  There's ImageText for
starters, The Comics Jouanal, IJOCA, Journal of Popular Culture should
have stuff in them, check the comics research bibliography,
http://rpi.edu/~bulloj/comxbib.html - Sabin's written on comics on the
web for example, or a quick ask on the comics scholars mailing list
could probably turn you up quite a few more sources.

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> On 2/27/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>>>  But given Burns' writing on webcomics is
>>> online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted
>>> claim to expertness.
>
>> "Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of
>> published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games,
>> magazines, and poetry. He is a columnist for Comixpedia and an
>> occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own
>> comic-oriented blog, Websnark."
>> I note from his Wikipedia article that he holds a BA Cum Laude in
>> English Literature.  He worked on games and publications for Steve
>> Jackson Games.  So he has a lot more qualifications to write about
>> writing than just being a blogger.
>
>
> * d, nn, never heard of him myself, webcomics aren't encyclopedic,
> here's some tortured justifications that I think sound better - ~~~~

Assuming that's directed at me, then I'm not sure what the statement
"webcomics aren't encyclopedic" is meant to mean.  I've never argued
such, in fact I've argued the exact opposite.  I've even cited sources
which I hold to be better than Burns' blog, either peer reviewed
journals or reputable print based publications which employ fact
checkers and publish corrections and retractions.  Still, I'm interested
in hearing the tortured justifications you present for continuing to
attack me.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> 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.

Rather than having fixed standards, let's just use common sense:

Factually correct, unsourced information is better than no information.
Information sourced to a blog is better than unsourced information.
Information sourced to paper is better than info sourced to a blog.
Information sourced to a peer-reviewed journal is even better...

If a blog on webcomics is the best we have, it's the best we have.
It's not like someone was saying "That guy is wrong, there's another
blog which completely contradicts him".

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?

Steve


body:
On 2/27/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'd be tempted to do this in a 'see also' style, though - not much
descriptive text, just links.  The detail belongs in the article on
the fictional work, not on the historical figure.  Something like an
==Appearances in fiction== section, with simply a bulleted list with
little detail.  I think that looks better and puts the detail where it
belongs.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
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.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
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?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/27/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> I don't think one could compile an undisputed history of webcomics, but
> I do think a disputed one would be even more worthwhile.  The problems
> come in deciding which is the first webcomic, defining what a webcomic

That's not really a problem: "The first webcomic is disputed, but most
sources agree that it is one of the following three..."

> is, and in deciding on which strips are of merit to include.  But those

Sure, but deciding what to include is hardly unique to this particular
problem. Nor is defining what *is* and *isn't* anything.

> are disputes which will help build a better article, as long as all
> inclusions are built on reliable sources.

Steve


from_name: Bryan Derksen

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

body:
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. :)


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
It looks to me like you were gaming the system in a multi-user content
dispute. No evidence of admin abuse here. I strongly suggest that you review
[[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]], especially the part that says the 3RR does
*not* entitle you to three reverts per article per day. Users who game the
system in this way may be blocked as disruptive just like anyone else.

Ryan

On 2/27/06, robert bloom <bloom456123 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi. I belive i have become the vicitm of a admin abuse. I would appreciate
> if someone could take a look:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Striver#Three_revert_rule_violation
>
>
> I request to be unblocked, and i aim to go report the admin for admin
> abuser, possibly going further. Comments are welcomed, i rather have them
> on
> my talk page, since i rarly logg in here,
>
> Thanks, and peace.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Nyhet! MSN Messenger i Mobiltelefonen! http://mobile.msn.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 2/27/06, VeryVerily <veryverily at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't imagine the current AC (I cannot speak for past committees,
> > though I fully expect they would say the same) will penalise you for
> > other people causing conflict with you.
>
>
> But you did.  I didn't asked to be stalked, and I was even clear about what
> provoked it so I can't even be blamed for being the victim of vandalism.

Sorry for any lack of context.  I don't know enough to comment
retrospectively.  I am considering the future.  The past is past.

>
> > I believe Geni made some apt comments on this mailing list about how it
> > > feels to be constantly blocked.
> >
> > If people abuse the AC decision to block you spuriously, I expect the
> > AC will have some very clear things to say on the matter.
>
>
> But you didn't.  I specifically asked you to review such a block, and no
> comment was made on it by any arbitrator (well, except Fred Bauder in his
> mailing list post, but he was recused).

Sorry, I've lost you.  Which block was this?

> > me on those points.  But not a peep has been uttered about what I raised.
> >
> > Visit not the sins of the father on the son.  I was myself not a
> > member of that committee, and do not consider myself responsible for
> > the decisions, whether they were right or wrong.
>
>
> I'm not saying you are personally responsible, but as you now are part of
> the AC you can take institutional responsibility, like governments do.  Or
> if that's too much, add a "finding of fact" that the past ruling was in
> error.

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.

> Well there was already quite a lot of evidence my contributions history.
> Maybe the third time would be the charm, but why after two crash-and-burns
> should I be hopeful?

The reason that we have been fairly slow in relaxing most of the
restrictions is that you have hardly been contributing, so we don't
know how necessary things are.  I wish you luck in showing the
community your good intentions, and earning trust.

> 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.

No-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits.  We are only
asking you not to cause conflict, which is something everyone should
be doing all the time.  I will take into account any harassment you
get.

--
Sam


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

body:
On 2/27/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
> >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

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!

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Striver

body:
Hi. I read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3AANI#Block_of_Striver

MONGO is giving his spin of it, and i have no chance of defending myself,
since im blocked.

He is also missrepresenting me, for example with this:

"He has solicited other users in their talk pages to vote keep"

I did not ask people in talk pages to vote keep, I cite
Georgewilliamherbert:

-----
vote solicitation - complaint bogus, IMHO

I, for one, am insulted by the suggestion Striver was soliciting. I voted on
and have a strong opinion about the last AfD on the 9/11 group. Bringing the
new one to my attention was entirely appropriate; I am an interested party.
I also would probably have found it by my daily AfD scans in any case. A
second AfD so soon after the first is also very unusual (not against policy
per se, but...). People are legitimately going to want to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron&diff=prev&oldid=41247250
------

Also, regarding "fuck you": Me and Zora have a long history, Zereshk is
invloved, and also several other Shi'a editors. All Shi'a editor dislike her
more or less.

There is a long history between me, Zereshk, other Shi'a editors  and Zora.

See what she wrote about Me and Zereshk:

Zora: "It feels to me like a grotesque waste of time and energy to negotiate
with the mentally deficient and psychologically impaired."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historical_Shi%27a-Sunni_relations

------
Zora: The consensus of everyone but the Shi'a editors is that this article
is an embarrassment to Wikipedia (and to the Shi'a) and that it should be
merged, and any salvageable bits salvaged

Anonymous editor (a admin): Don't say that. I don't think the article is an
embarrassment at all and saying so could hurt many editor's feelings.

Me: : Fuck you you fucking Shi'a hatign bigot. I dont care. Ban me. I Ban
myself.

Anonymous editor (a admin): Striver you really shouldn't leave over
something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron&diff=prev&oldid=41247250
------

Read then this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStriver&diff=39780799&oldid=39747450

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jersey_Devil&diff=prev&oldid=41252677

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymous_editor&diff=prev&oldid=39800939

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jersey_Devil&curid=1922342&diff=41420696&oldid=41420135

As you see, both me and Zora have been at eachothers necks, she hase called
me for mentally defincient, i once got so fedd upp with her that i cursed
her, delted my talk and user page and left Weikipedia. Sure, it wasnt civil
to curse her, just as it wasnt civil of her to call me and Zereshk for
menataly deficient, and the saying that i have asperrandom cyndrom.... But
neither fo use went to any admin and demanded the other to be blocked.

As i said, i left, untill the Admin Anomymos user asked me to return, as
well as this guy gave  a award and urged me to come back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Striver&diff=prev&oldid=40147598

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Striver&diff=prev&oldid=40148639

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Striver&oldid=40349906

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATPW&diff=40356786&oldid=40340232

MONGO was just fishing, he found that, and brought the part i cursed, and
used it as "evidence" out of context.

I find it blameworthy of him to block me, using 3RR as an excuse, a bad one
since i did not vioalte it, and since he was involved in it. And what is
even worst, another admin had already contacted me on that very issue, and
came to the conclusion that i did not break any rules. MONGO, on the other
hand, did break a rule by baning someone that he was personaly involved in,
and to make it worst, baned me over a revert he was a part of.

As for the Guild, read my talk page.

I have now decided to do everything in my power to see that MONGO loses his
admin rights, on this incident. Peace.

_________________________________________________________________
L?ttare att hitta dr?mresan med MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Neutral point of view is a core Wikipedia policy. Harassing users who
> are football fans doesn't logically relate to that policy.

That isn't a fair statement of what the userbox argument is about.  It
isn't about stopping people saying what they want (or even saying it
with wikicode).  The currently forming consensus for the new userbox
policy shows that there is a very strong middle ground that affirms
free expression on userpages but accepts that:

"Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted
where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia, and are
general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a
reasonable number of editors. Userboxes existing as templates should
be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing
interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV
declaring are specifically excluded."

Continually casting it as a matter of harassing users or disrupting
Wikipedia is both unhelpful to this forming consensus, and quite
incorrect on the facts.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: SJ

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

body:
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.

--
++SJ


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
>
> I don't understand this.  Why is an edit made in March 2006 easier to
> evaulate than one made in December 2004?

Because the people with whome you were edit warring with are under AC
restrictions now.

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.

During those 1 1/2 years you were edit warring. No one is doubtimg
your good intentions anyway. What we doubt is your ability to not edit
war.

> No-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits.  We are only
> > asking you not to cause conflict, which is something everyone should
> > be doing all the time.  I will take into account any harassment you
> > get.
> >
>
> "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.

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.

Theresa


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>This userbox
> fuss has done absolutely nothing to advance the project.

It has kept large number of people away from places where they can
fiddle with anything critical.

Other than that depending on how you feel about deletion the anti
process drive appears to have given the deletionists a solid upper
hand.

--
geni


from_name: Rob

body:
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]]
> * "His favorite fast food chain is [[Taco Bell]]" -- formerly [[Eminem]]
> * "In the 1999 Highlander: The Raven episode The Rogue, Bert Myers claims
> to be
> from the NSA." -- formerly in [[NSA]], now [[NSA in fiction]]

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.


from_name: VeryVerily

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
> 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.
>
> During those 1 1/2 years you were edit warring. No one is doubtimg
> your good intentions anyway. What we doubt is your ability to not edit
> war.

You'll note I was replying to Sam Korn, who did refer to such doubts.  In
fact, every arbitrator seems to be telling something different, and treating
it like an absolute, self-evident truth.

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?

VV


subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
> 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.

But reason wasn't in the past, which is why you should take advantage
of the opportunity to clarify them.  And I specifically asked the
ArbComm to, and they did not.  So prima facie it seems it will be as
it was, and not reasonable.

> 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.

Then tell me why, because everyone gives a different answer.  Raul
says it's because the 3RR would do the job.  TK says it's because she
was partly persuaded by my reasoning.

And as I've made clear the lifting of this restriction was irrelevant.

> > 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.

Why not?  In both cases all you have is the presented edit histories
in front of you.

> > "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.

You are wrong about what I read.  You clearly did not understand my
comment, which is that regardless of your intent one could trivially
satisfy your requirement by making dumb edits.  This would prove
nothing but my willingness to play along with your game.

> > And the past harassment was not accounted for.
>
> I don't live in the past.

But your job is to judge it.

> 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?

> > 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.

If you want to change your vote, you'd better hurry.  Not much time
for my actions.

VV


from_name: Michael Martinez

subject: [WikiEN-l] Violation of blocking policy by BorgHunter

body:
I reported multiple reverts in three areas of Middle-earth articles by user
CBDunkerson.  Another user, TCC, immediately followed up by reporting
me.  Borghunter blocked me but said that CBDunkerson had not been blocked.

Wiki Blocking policy clearly states that is inappropriate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy

Sysops may block users who violate the three revert rule. Where multiple
parties violate the rule, sysops will treat all sides equally.

I documented the multiple reverts by Mr. Dunkerson, who has been violating
Wikipedia policy by inserting false and misleading information into the
articles.  He specifically targeted edits I made last year.

Since I am blocked, I cannot use the email form to ask BorgHunter for an
appropriate explanation of why the violations of Wikipedia policy by Conrad
Dunkerson -- who has repeatedly refused my requests to post specific change
proposals to the TALK pages for the articles -- have not been dealt with in
the same way as my reverts of his reverts.

--
Michael Martinez
"Cuando Maria canta, canta para m?"
http://www.michael-martinez.com/
http://michael-martinez.blogspot.com/


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

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

body:
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.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jim

subject: [Wikitech-l] One installation - Many sub-directories

body:
Sorry if you saw this on theMediawiki list but I am trying again:

Is there anyway to install Mediawiki once and have it use the directory
structure of the operating system so I can control rights to even see the
text using permissions on the directories.

For example install to:
mydomain.com/wiki

but have different sections of the wiki exist in different subdirectories
mydomain.com/public/
mydomain.com/private/
mydomain.com/sports/
mydomain.com/work/
etc.

I was trying to figure out a way to do this using the languages type stuff
public.mydomain.com redirect to mydomain.com/public/
private.mydomain.com redirect to mydomain.com/private/
sports.mydomain.com redirect to mydomain.com/sports/
work.mydomain.com redirect to mydomain.com/work/

Or must I install mediawiki multiple times to each of the subdirectories?

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

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
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.

-Matt