subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Ed, I am sure you know there is a blocking policy at
[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. Like most Wikipedia policies, it is
weasely, but even so I think you would have to read between the lines
to find the right for administrators to block people for personal
attacks without a community consensus.

 Administrators are supposed to be there for doing custodial tasks
that require somewhat sensitive privileges that can only be given to
people after they have established their trustworthiness.     They are
supposed to be janitors. They are not cops, and they are certainly not
cops and judges rolled into one, even though blocking people for
violation of the 3RR and for vandalism blurs this somewhat.     For
policy enforcement and disciplinary sanctions, there is the RfC/RfAr
process.  Administrators generally should take their fingers off the
banning button, except in the case of obvious vandalism.  Let the
RfC/RfAr mechanism do what it is supposed to do.   That is the
mechanism by which the community expresses its consensus about the
behaviour of members and administrators should think long and hard
before the short-circuit it.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:16:13 -0500, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I gave Adam Carr a 15-hour block (for abusive language).
>
> But then I read Fred Bauder's remark that:
> * We do not provide for automatic blocking or banning of persons who
> make personal attacks.
> So once again I hereby "place myself on report".
> I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block
> signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the
> rules - such as:
> [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
> If I'm wrong, then I hope the first thing the arbcom will do is unblock
> Adam Carr. In fact, if I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong, than I guess ANY ONE of the
> 415 admins will reverse the block.
> Hmm. This is interesting. Let's see what happens.
> Uncle Ed
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>For example, does creating a Hopi Wikipedia (assuming that we had
>already found committed people to build it) when there are only just
>over 40 monolingual speakers DIRECTLY further the goal of the project,
>or is it a sideline to it since the vast majority of the speakers of
>this language are nearly equally served by an English Wikipedia?
>(although, at least in Arizona, English fluency in Native American
>communities is often exaggerated and when somebody "speaks English",
>at least if they're old, it often means that they know a few words as
>opposed to none at all)
>
>
I obviously speak only for myself here, not Jimbo, but IMO promoting
minority languages is separate from the main goal.  The goal of creating
an *encyclopedia* is to get information to people, in a language-neutral
way.  The only importance of any language in that context is that the
encyclopedia needs to be available in enough languages so that everyone,
or at least as many people as possible, can access information in a
language they feel comfortable using---only creating an English
encyclopedia, for example, would leave out in the cold people who don't
understand English well enough to make good use of it.

For languages where there are few to no people for whom it's the
preferred language (like, say, Latin), creating an encyclopedia in that
language doesn't really get information to people that they couldn't get
otherwise.  Indeed, I'm not sure anybody at all would look first for
information in a Latin encyclopedia rather than their native language.

That doesn't mean I oppose those encyclopedias, because all things
considered, the cost of hosting them is minimal, so if people want to
work on a Latin encyclopedia, there's not much reason to tell them they
can't.  (I might draw the line at conlangs other than Esperanto.)  But I
don't think they really fit into the goal of spreading *information*.

Producing a Hopi encyclopedia would still be interesting, even if there
are few to no Hopi speakers who can't get their information in some
other language, so I see no reason not to do so, and quite a few reasons
why it might be good to do it.  But it's sort of a separate goal---it
doesn't fulfill the goal of getting information to people that they
couldn't otherwise access.

-Mark


list: wikien-l

from_name: Tom Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
> Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> Indeed.  Why dice with death and take the moral low ground in revert
>> wars,
>> when there is the more satisfying approach of the uber-troll: get
>> yourself
>> personally-attacked on the Talk page, and get your opponent (if briefly)
>> thrown off the wiki?
>
Charles, as humor this is fine.  But the serious sentiment behind it
troubles me.  Our unambiguous position at Wikipedia is that personal
violence against trolls is unacceptable.  If editors choose to see this
as an unfair advantage for the trolls, that is their choice.  If they
choose to let it spur them toward greater creativity and diplomacy, that
is a better choice.

Tom Haws


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards

body:
>From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>I would agree that Ec overstates the case.  The point that seems to need
>making is that none of the content policies actually _makes for_ brilliant
>prose, which is one thing we also want.  If clumsily or over-insistently
>applied, any reliability-oriented policy can make for lame writing.
>Academic books don't read like Tom Clancy.
>
>So I say that content policies are also subordinate to the goal of creating
>awesomeness in the encyclopedia.  I like to think in terms of two extremes,
>Blandopedia and Gonzopedia.  The spaced-out stuff has to be squeezed out.
>But playing safe will only tend to accentuate the bias towards WP's
>existing
>strengths.

Do we really want "brilliant prose"?  Is that even possible in an
Encyclopedia?  What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an
Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples?  I would have
thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of things
we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an
adamant point.

Jay.


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wired News reporter would like to interview you

body:
Stacey Greenstein wrote:
> Here's the article:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66814,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
>
> Too bad Daniel didn't research enough to find out I'm not female.....

Has been fixed.

TBSDY


from_name: Theresa Knott

subject: [WikiEN-l] Pulling even with NYT, breaking 100

body:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 03:28:43 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 22:24:59 -0800, Christopher Larberg
> <christopherlarberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 01:02:27 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sad to see that the Main Page has been frozen now for such a long time.
> > > That was not meant to be permanent, and I hope we can unfreeze it again soon.
> > >
> >
> > Are you referring to the English Wikipedia Main Page? If so, why would
> > we unprotect that? So immature kids can put goatse on it?
>
> I am at that.  Not so that kids can put goatse on it.  So that
> non-admins can refresh the content of In the news, or improve on the
> wikification of the featured article blurb, or update the list of
> languages.

Most of these are handled using termplates. We could unprotect
[[Template:In the news]] for example and keep the main page protected.
This would stop the main page being moved but still allow non admins
to make edits. Can templates be moved? it's only page moves that are
too difficult to deal with by reverting.
>
> We should find ways to distract and ward off immature kids that do not
> restrict everyone else -- and we will!

Practical suggestions please!

Theresa


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Peter in Canberra wrote:

>I've just copped the latest in a long line of personal attacks from
>one particular editor who stands out for his attitude in a community
>where tolerance and restraint is generally the norm. I don't think his
>comments are justified, but even if they were, I would still take
>exception to the language:
>
>"Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate
>obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious
>misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and
>egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Government_of_Australia#The_real_issue
>
>To my mind this is no way to conduct any sort of productive debate,
>and as a rather new editor I wonder just how much this sort of thing
>is tolerated.

I think this is a great example of a situation where conflicts over content
intersect with personal attacks.  Since we have been talking about both, I
think that it is worth talking about how the various views expressed by
different people on the list-serve might apply to this case.

For starts, I will present two extreme approaches -- but I hope others will
suggest more nuanced approaches.  I am not suggesting we of the list-serve
formally intervene in this situation.  I am suggesting that if we consider
different hypothetical interventions, it might help us arrive at a clearer
understanding of current policy, or might suggest new policies.

First approach: No personal attacks, period.  In this particular exchange,
Peter in Canberra (Skyring) has not said anything that would constitute a
personal attack.  If this went to arbitration, Adam Carr would certainly be
sanctioned in some way, and Skyring might not be sanctioned at all.

Second approach: We rely on the community to police the quality of the
contents of articles.  Adam Carr tried to, in a reasonable fashion:

 From the article's talk page:

>Skyring has repeatedly accused me of deliberately misquoting the
>Constitution. Here is section 2 of the Constitution, cut-and-pasted from
>the Parliamentary website
>(http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter1.htm).
>2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's
>representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the
>Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this
>Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be
>pleased to assign to him.
>Now: does Skyring dispute that this is indeed the text of the
>Constitution? Does he deny that the Constitution says that (a) the Queen
>appoints the Governor-General and (b) the Governor-General is the Queen's
>representative? Given these two things, in what capacity does the Queen
>appoint the GG? And in what capacity is the Queen represented by the GG?
>If Skyring wants to deny that it is the capacity of head of state, he has
>to tell us what other capacity could it possibly be. Adam 01:11, 9 Mar
>2005 (UTC)

Skyring's response is, in my opinion, bizarre:

>You stated that the Constitution says something it clearly does not. You
>said "the fact is that the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's
>representative". This is not a fact. It is incorrect. (Skyring)

Now, I do not consider myself partisan in this matter -- but yesterday I
did some checking and provided the list-serve with evidence that suggest
that this claim, "the fact is the constitution says the CG is the Queen's
representative."  Skyring did not respond to me; TBSDY did respond, but
only to confirm my sense that Australia is not a republic.

Now, it seems to me that at this juncture the discussion can no longer be
reasonable.  Adam Carr is not doing original research.  He is providing
verifiable information and providing his source, the Australian
constitution.  Skyring is not claiming that Adam Carr has violated our NPOV
policy, nor our NOR, verifiability, or cite sources policies.  Skyring is
simply saying that Adam Carr is wrong -- immediately after Adam Carr
provided evidence.

Michael Snow suggested (at this point) that Adam Carr is giving a
reasonable paraphrase of the constitution; Skyring repeats that the
Australian constitution does not say what Adam Carr says it says.  So there
are two ways to understand Skyring's position: either evidence does not
matter, or paraphrasing is impermissible.  I believe that either one of
these positions does damage to the quality of Wikipedia articles.  Skyring
won't budge, though.

So what is Adam Carr to do now?  From my own experience, mediation would
not help -- when CheeseDream and I went into mediation, the mediator made
it clear that he wasn't judging content but rather trying to help us work
together.  But the problem here is not that Adam Carr and Skyring cannot
get along or work together harmoniously -- that this may appear to be the
case is only a side-effect of the real problem: Skyring is a problem editor
who disregards evidence and flat-out rejects the edits of an editor who is
following all of our policies.

Adam Carr becomes hostile:

>"SHALL BE HER MAJESTY'S REPRESENTATIVE" WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU? CAN'T
>YOU UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH? Adam 02:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, here is a crucial moment in the argument: Skyring does not respond
with anything that would be considered a "personal attack."  But he
continues to misconstrue Adam's position, and continues to insist on absurd
principles:

>Calm down, Adam. Please. You misquoted the constitution, as I pointed out
>above. I've quoted the exact words you used. In the same breath you
>accused me of circular arguments, and I asked you to provide examples,
>none of which have been provided. However, none of this seems to be
>getting us anywhere. Others have provided useful directions on how to
>proceed, and frankly I think you should either keep out of the discussion
>for a while or try to aim for a more professional manner. Skyring 03:18, 9
>Mar 2005 (UTC)

And it is at this point that Adam makes the personal attack of which
Skyring complains.

So here is the second -- admittedly extreme -- position: (1) from the
perspective of "content," what Skyring has written is as offensive, if not
more offensive (since the whole point of Wikipedia is to develop a
high-quality encyclopedia) than any personal attack, and (2) what appears
to be a personal attack on the part of Adam Carr is simply an example of
how members of the community, acting in their anarchic, unregulated way,
try to protect the quality of articles after reasonable, polite efforts
have failed.

I believe that both positions I have hypothesized are extreme.  I hope
members of the list-serve can present alternatives, and discuss this case
as a means for clarifying our ideas about policies and procedures.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of blocking powers (The Recycling Troll)

body:
The Recycling Troll wrote

>It would be like a congressman trying to jail a
> constituent for watching how they vote and writing
> letters. It's low down and smacks of censorship.

How about you just stop digging this hole you are in?  You are going to end
up making a case on the highly virtuous nature of stalking.  This is
unlikely to gain you any friends.  No, admin status at most implies use of
admin powers should be subject to community review - not some piffle about
accountability per edit by vigilantes.

Charles


list: foundation-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Foundation-l] Appaled by Christiaan

body:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 04:50:50 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:47:49 +0700, Walter van Kalken
> <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> > First he tells Gerard to go write down this his comments elsewhere. And
> > now he is censoring the page Gerard wrote his comments. I find this
>
> That C-word again... it's driving me... crazy...
>
> Neither version of the page that was being fought over was
> particularly NPOV; neither the one with the sentence "As the proposers
> of what is now euphemestically called...." nor the one mentioning
> GerardM by name.  And both sides in the dispute make good points.  I
> tried to clarify the discussion and history; please work on wording
> your points more precisely, rather than just reverting.

There is no point on wording one's points more precisely if one is
reverted anyway.

Andre Engels


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Appaled by Christiaan


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Bad Adam.

Don't bite the fuckwits.

(There. Situation resolved.)

-Snowspinner


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
JAY JG wrote:

> Maybe in that case, maybe not.  Armchair quarterbacks have an easy
> time hypothetically solving other people's disputes.  However, in the
> real Wikipedia (the one, by the way, which is also inundated by
> vandals), there are real trolls who are not amenable to any sort of
> reason.
>
"Armchair quarterbacks":  Don't forget we ALL are in the trenches.  I
don't know of any armchair quarterbacks here.
"Real Trolls":  Of course you are right.  Surgery is sometimes required
(hopefully with attendant anesthesia).

Tom Haws


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

>Ed Poor wrote
>
>
>>I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block
>>
>>
>signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the
>rules - such as:
>[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
>
>There is a policy about removing personal attacks.  That there is policy
>about 'removing' those doing the attacking is news to me.  I wouldn't dream
>of using admin powers in this way.
>
>Ed Poor shoots from hip, once more.  Exactly what kind of place would
>Wiki-en be if say, 100 of our sysops took this line, on a daily basis?
>
>I don't want to find out.  Others please support me, in saying that Ed is
>out of line here.  Policy can't just be made on the hoof, any more.  The
>scare quotes round "authorized" tell me just about all I need to know.
>Civility is a big plus on WP, but enforcement of this kind goes way beyond
>what I would accept.  Out of hand bans for vandalism, yes.
>
If I were to judge Ed solely by many of the substantive positions that
he takes, we should be bitter enemies. :'( Ed does indeed shoot from the
hip, but with one big difference.  When he realizes that he has made a
mistake he is quicker than most to admit it.  Yes, Ed was out of line,
but so what?  I do not support making policy on the hoof, there is
already far too much of that.  Ed did not do that; he enforced what he
believed to be policy, and did his best to undo the damage when he found
his mistake.  His actions are perfectly understandable when you see the
unending parade of shifting policies.  Nobody but policy geeks can keep
up with it, and policy geeks are notorious for losing sight of project
goals.

I don't see any need for further action on this.  Ed's repentance tells
me all I need to know.  Unless we take a forgiving attitude towards this
kind of error how can we expect to be forgiven ourselves when the tables
are turned.

Ec


from_name: Jack Lutz

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Searching (MIT?) research paper about Wikipedia

body:
> Has there been contact with IBM about the possibility to use their
> work? For example, I think it would be interesting to create these
> diagrams for a large number of Wikipedia pages, and make those
> available.
>
I emailed  Martin Wattenberg  about using an image in their paper and did
not receive a response.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Recycling Troll said:
> Well, the case that you're making seems to be that
> admins are never wrong, it is an afront to check their
> edits

I don't believe that.  However we have a guideline of "assume good faith"
which your _modus operandi_ of closely shadowing another editor, with your
stated objective, may be violating.  You seem to be playing this thing out
as a game of sociodynamics.  If that's what you're interested in doing,
you might find that other, less focussed communities are more
accommodating.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
>From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
>
>So what is Adam Carr to do now?  From my own experience, mediation would
>not help -- when CheeseDream and I went into mediation, the mediator made
>it clear that he wasn't judging content but rather trying to help us work
>together.

That was actually something I noted about the attempted mediation between
Cheese Dreams and Steven, and found bizarre.  The mediator was quite clear
that article accuracy was not a preferred goal; far more important was that
everyone compromised.  Thus, hypothetically, if Cheese Dreams had said Jesus
was born in 100 BCE, and Steven had insisted it was 4 BCE, the mediator
would have insisted that they should both compromise and say that Jesus was
born in 52 BCE.

Jay.


body:
>Oh wait, yes I do.
> The Recycling Troll

There is obviously a case for not recycling trolls, as well as denying them
nourishment.  I take it they walk out of landfills; perhaps a deep ocean
trench, or one of the less popular moons of Saturn.

Charles


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> >Thus helping to preserve an endangered language by hosting an encyclopedia
> >in it also directly furthers our goal. This would not include non-famous
> >conlangs since those are largely original research.
> >
> This would be an argument for having good articles like [[en:Hopi
> language]] (and the equivalents in de:, ja:, zh:, fr:, etc.) --
> information about languages written in a language that people can read.
> Merely preserving a language that nobody reads by writing an
> encyclopedia that nobody reads in it isn't really furthing the goal of
> disseminating information to people.

A great deal of information and cultural heritage is contained in the language
itself. This goes way beyond what any set of articles in other languages can
ever hope to accomplish.

-- mav

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


body:
Recycling Troll said:
> why are
> people afraid of scrutiny??

All edits on Wikipedia are public and open to scrutiny, so the question is
a non sequitur.  What you seem to be doing goes beyond that, apparently,
and that may be why some people seem to have a problem with your edits.  I
think it's wrong to describe this kind of thing as "stalking", but it's
certainly counter-productive behavior.  If you have a problem with
someone's behavior why not just use the dispute resolution process instead
of your current method?


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

body:
Hello.

I think there was a research paper (from the MIT?), some months/years ago, that analysed how a specific article on Wikipedia was modified, showing the slow modifications over time and a few big changes.

Anyone would have an URL pointing to that article?

Nicolas "Ryo" Weeger

Acc?dez au courrier ?lectronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ;
3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34?/mn) ; t?l : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34?/mn)


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Page move vandal - there is a feature that can
	help with it ...

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> "You have have reached 500,000 edits; you may now hard-ban your
> foes simply by forming the thought." :-)

By that stage, of course, one is a being of such enlightenment that
one assumes good faith for all and thus has no "foes" - only those
one has not worked out how to work with yet ;-)

- d.


body:
David Gerard said:
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>> "You have have reached 500,000 edits; you may now hard-ban your
>> foes simply by forming the thought." :-)
>
>
> By that stage, of course, one is a being of such enlightenment that one
> assumes good faith for all and thus has no "foes" - only those one has
> not worked out how to work with yet ;-)
>
By that time you have (to borrow a usage from Iain Banks' Culture novels)
_sublimed_ and ceased all work, upon the realization that you have become
the encyclopedia you set out to write.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Censorship campaign: Ann Coulter article

body:
[snip]
> You fail to take into account the presence of Canadian troops in the
> International Commission for Supervision and Control (ICCS)  alongside
> those from Poland and Indonesia, from 1954 to 1974.
>
> Ec

Shouldn't this be on the talk page?

TBSDY


from_name: Angela

body:
On Wed,  9 Mar 2005 12:25:53 +0100, Nicolas Weeger
<nicolas.weeger at laposte.net> wrote:
> I think there was a research paper (from the MIT?), some months/years ago, that analysed how a specific article on Wikipedia was modified, showing the slow modifications over time and a few big changes.

This was the " history flow" study, and can be seen at
http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/history/

Other studies are listed at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_academic_studies>
and <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Wikipedia-Forschung/Bibliographie>

Angela.


body:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:32:59 +0100, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed,  9 Mar 2005 12:25:53 +0100, Nicolas Weeger
> <nicolas.weeger at laposte.net> wrote:
> > I think there was a research paper (from the MIT?), some months/years ago, that analysed how a specific article on Wikipedia was modified, showing the slow modifications over time and a few big changes.
>
> This was the " history flow" study, and can be seen at
> http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/history/

Has there been contact with IBM about the possibility to use their
work? For example, I think it would be interesting to create these
diagrams for a large number of Wikipedia pages, and make those
available.

Andre Engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

>Indeed.  Why dice with death and take the moral low ground in revert wars,
>when there is the more satisfying approach of the uber-troll: get yourself
>personally-attacked on the Talk page, and get your opponent (if briefly)
>thrown off the wiki?

Perhaps Charles is being facetious.  But if this is a serious position that
anyone holds, I must express my profound opposition to this approach.

I do not believe that those editors who care about the quality of the
content of articles -- that is, all editors -- should have to wait, or
stoop to manipulating another editor, until the other editor makes a
personal attack, to then get that editor thrown off Wikipedia.

We should not be relying on the no personal attack policy as a way of
enforcing quality content.

If an editor is obstructing improvement of the article, or is damaging the
article, we need an effective mechanism to deal with that problem, directly.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


body:
Recycling Troll said:
> What makes you think that I have a problem with
> anyones behavior?

[...]

> The only thing that is counter-productive is
> the continual insistence by some people to block me
> because I want to review someone's edits.

Both of the above statements cannot be true.


body:
Recycling Troll wrote:

> Please. Follow policy, common sense, and natural
> justice

We are.

- d.


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- Recycling Troll <recyclingtroll at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What makes you think that I have a problem with
> anyones behavior? Why do you think it is
> counter-productive to make a focussed review of
> someone's edits?
> Honestly. The only thing that is counter-productive is
> the continual insistence by some people to block me
> because I want to review someone's edits.
> If all edits are open to scrutiny, then there
> shouldn't be an issue.
> The Recycling Troll

Why are we feeding the recycling, erm..., er..., well, you know...?

Matt

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admins and senior admins

body:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:47:47PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
>>Karl A. Krueger wrote:

>>>It seems to me it should be _standard procedure_ that if the Arbitration
>>>Committee accepts a case in which wrongdoing by an administrator is a
>>>central issue, that the administrator step down (accept removal of
>>>administrative powers) for the duration of the arbitration.

>>I think the arbitrators are quite capable of discerning in which cases
>>emergency measures are necessary and issuing an appropriate temporary
>>injunction.

> Fair enough.  I just wanted to put it on the table.
> Call it a different approach to what it might mean to enjoy the trust of
> the community whilst under review for possible betrayal of that trust.

For a practical example, consider the recent case of Everyking, who was
an admin. He came up before the AC and was duly restricted in his editing on
certain subjects. But he kept his ops before, during and after, and has them
now. Some people said they should be removed, but there was no evidence that
they had been abused, so there wasn't any reason to.

- d.


from_name: geni

body:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 04:27:41 -0800 (PST), Recycling Troll
<recyclingtroll at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What makes you think that I have a problem with
> anyones behavior? Why do you think it is
> counter-productive to make a focussed review of
> someone's edits?

Explain exactly how it helps us build an encyolpedia

> Honestly. The only thing that is counter-productive is
> the continual insistence by some people to block me
> because I want to review someone's edits.
> If all edits are open to scrutiny, then there
> shouldn't be an issue.

You don't need to edit to that do you?

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Silverback wrote:

>In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases,
>new words, or reason.

This is plain wrong.  Paraphrasing is not "research" so it cannot be
"original research."  There is nothing in the NOR policy that requires this
position, and I am pretty confident that most editors do not consider
paraphrasing to violate NOR policy.

Either you really misunderstand the NOR policy, or you have some agenda for
misrepresenting it.  I am not judging your motives because whatever they
are, I cannot understand them.  But whatever your motives, this statement
is false, unnecessary, and unhelpful.

This claim is also wrong:
>Probably both sides are quite right as long as they keep their own
>definitions in mind, and they know this for a fact, so why should they
>give an inch, because it becomes a matter of principle.  Austrailia is a
>"republic", to the extent that American overtones of republic have some
>validity in Austrailia, and is NOT a republic in the predominate (but not
>exclusive) non-technical sense in which it is used in Austrailia

Here you actually do violate NOR as well as NPOV.  Articles are simply not
the place for advocating our own views.  So it doesn't matter how the two
sides personally, subjectively, define their terms, and it is not for us to
invent an argument for why Australia is or is not a republic.  Period.  The
only way to handle this is to say something like this (consider this a
model, not a real proposal):
Australian nationals, politicians, and political theorists are divided over
the nature of the Australian state.
The dominant view, held by a, b, and c, is that Australia is an "X,"
defining X as ...
A major competing view, held by d, e, and f, is that Australia is a "Y,"
defining Y as ...
Some (such as g and h) argue that Australia is an "X" but they define X as ...
Some (such as i and j) argue that Australia is a "Y," but define Y as ...
And of course have verifiable sources for each claim ("Australia is X" and
"X is ...")

Steve

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Skyring wrote:

> I've just copped the latest in a long line of personal attacks from
> one particular editor who stands out for his attitude in a community
> where tolerance and restraint is generally the norm. I don't think his
> comments are justified, but even if they were, I would still take
> exception to the language:
> "Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate
> obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious
> misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and
> egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Government_of_Australia#The_real_issue
> To my mind this is no way to conduct any sort of productive debate,
> and as a rather new editor I wonder just how much this sort of thing
> is tolerated.

That comes under "response to severe provocation", which the AC does
not support. Probably the first thing for you do, though, would be to stop
insisting on your original research going in.

- d.


from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
Stirling Newberry wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2005-08-03 at 11:16 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>>
>>> PhDs are valuable evidence of that, and attracting and
>>> retraining academic specialists is a valid goal.
>>
>>
>> I hope you mean "retaining" and not "retraining" here, Jimbo. B-)
>>
>> ~Evan
>>
>
> Both Wikipedia is different from academic writing. The point of an
> academic paper is to drive to a point, the purpose of a wiki article is
> to describe the points made in notable and documentable sources.
>

good point

I'm pretty sure Jimbo meant "retaining", but that doesn't make
"retraining" any less accurate (and amusing) in that context.

--
Chad
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


from_name: Felix Wan

body:
On Wed, March 9, 2005 10:21 am, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales said:
>
> Yes.  I think a lot of difficulty has been caused by high emotions
> surrounding a type of case which is significantly different from Hopi.
> Dialects are much more difficult to decide about, as are cases where
> the written language is the same but the spoken language different.
>
> In cases such as these, it is very hard to know where to draw the
> lines.
>
I must comment on this in case people may misunderstand the current
state of discussion about Chinese regional varieties.

On Mon, February 21, 2005 1:13 am, Sheng Jiong said:
>
> 1. The current Chinese Wikipedia is purely written in Baihuawen, which
>    is largely based on Mandarin.
>
> 2. Baihuawen is unversially understood by all literate Chinese,
>    regardless of the dialects they speak.
>
> 3. Although written Cantonese is used, especially in informal
>    writings, it is still uncommon for people to use Cantonese as a
>    formal writing (eg. newspaper articles/books/academic works)

Although there is always dispute whether Cantonese is a language or a
dialect, at least after some discussions, everyone agrees that written
Cantonese is distinct from Baihuawen (standard written Chinese largely
based on Mandarin).  So this is not the case of same written language,
different spoken language.

My experience with Wikipedia had been generally good before I got
involved in the Cantonese Wikipedia request.  It was extremely
frustrating to debate when someone appealled to his contributions to
Wikipedia, and some other people seemed to acknowledge that previous
contribution is important and that because some unwelcomed people
support a project, it will be rejected by the community.  Someone
determined to ignore the facts, no matter how hard I tried to present
the case.

While I set up the test site in good faith to test support and to test
a valid concern that written Cantonese could be too similar to Baihuawen,
the response of the opposition was simply frustrating.  Someone kept on
complaining on the rate of growth, ignoring the fact that there are some
significant contributions despite the lack of advertisement.  Someone
said that because most of the article titles were the same, the two
writing systems are the same, and the difference was only a matter of
writing style.

Fortunately, that issue has not been extended to a full scale POV war
on the Wikipedia articles in any version.  Interested people may still
read related articles to get a fuller picture.  I can only hope that such
a POV war will never happen, just to prevent the Cantonese Wikipedia from
being created.

I am very disappointed.

Can someone tell me what is the proper way to have this issue discussed
by more people?  What is the proper procedure to open a project page in
Meta?  Should I just open a page and hope that it will survive VfD?

Long time Wikimedians, do not know how frustrating it is for new comers
to know how we should do things?  We were encourage to be bold, but not
told of the real community taboos, not warned that we must respond to
messages, or someone may put us on RfC, say that we are incooperative
and ban us forever.  I spent a lot of time to help one user out of that.

Can the community be more friendly to new comers who may not understand
the tricks and have not contributed much yet?

Felix Wan


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
>In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases,
>new words, or reason.

Why do you think so?  I see nothing in the policy which indicates that.

Jay.


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
Skyring wrote:
>>>>Also, a republic is a "a form of government whose head of state is not a
>>>>monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president".
>>>>Despite what you've said, our head of state is the Queen.
>>>
>>>
>>>And it says that where...?
>>
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=republic
>
>
> Ummm, that merely gives the definition of republic you've already
> quoted. I wasn't disputing that. What''s your definitive source for
> saying the Queen is the head of state?
>

Sorry, when you wrote "and it says that where...?" I thought you wanted
my source. I've already given you sources for the head of state issue on
the talk page of [[Government of Australia]]. And with that, Ta bu shi
da yu FLIES to the talk page in eager anticipation of a hotly debated
issue of "Is Australia a republic?"!


from_name: hiro nakazawa

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sorry I'm not good at English

body:
I an Japanese. I'm not good at English so I hope someone transport it.

??????????
???Wikipedia??????????????????????????????
???????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
?????????

?????????????????????????????????????
??
???????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
???????????????

????????????????????????????????????
???Wikipedia??????????????????????????????
?????????????????????
??????Wikipedia???????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????

??????????????????????????


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:

> So look, I am not a constitutional lawyer.  But these few quotes give me
> the impression that the Queen has some role in that polity called
> Australia.  I am not sure that the Queen is head of state, maybe the
> Governor-General is the head of state -- but it seems pretty clear that
> s/he derives this status from the Queen.
>
> Soooo ... can someone explain to me why there seems to be some
> controversy over this matter?
>
> Curiously yours,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> Steven L. Rubenstein
> Associate Professor
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bentley Annex
> Ohio University
> Athens, Ohio 45701

We're not a republic, and have never been one. The fact that we needed
to have a debate over whether we should become a republic would tend to
indicate that we are NOT a republic.

If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Age, in Melbourne, with an
assertion that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that
publication again.

If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Australia, with an assertion
that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that publication again.

If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Daily Telegraph, in New
South Wales, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be
quoted in that publication again.

If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Sydney Morning Herald, in
Sydney e, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be
quoted in that publication again.

The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of
state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of
what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his
sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.

There is only one person of all the Australians on Wikipedia who states
we are a republic. One! And we have a locked [[Government of Australia]]
page to prove it because of the revert war that was ongoing.

Gah!

TBSDY


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Google search and textbox

body:
Alison Russell wrote:
> I want to add a Google search to my Wiki system, similar to the Google
> link displayed by http://creatures.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page

You can add it to the MonoBook template file. In 1.3 this is
templates/xhtml_slim.pt; in 1.4 it's skins/MonoBook.php.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050309/3b695036/attachment.pgp>


body:
Recycling Troll wrote:

I've just blocked this querulous troll from wikien-l. Smelling
way too much like a reincarnation of 142, or trying to be one.
If anyone seriously objects, email me.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
>From: Tom Haws <hawstom at sprintmail.com>
>
>JAY JG wrote:
>
>>Thus, hypothetically, if Cheese Dreams had said Jesus was born in 100 BCE,
>>and Steven had insisted it was 4 BCE, the mediator would have insisted
>>that they should both compromise and say that Jesus was born in 52 BCE.
>>
>More often than not, a root of the problem is the POV-pusher (and often the
>valiant defender) has not read [[WP:NPOV]] at all, or maybe has only read
>it quickly once.  In your example above, both editors could be sentenced to
>read it twice and do a report on it.  Then they might com up with the
>singularly NPOV idea that P-ists says P and Q-ists say Q.

Well, in this case the problem was compounded by the fact that Cheese Dreams
refused to bring any sources for her claims, and the arbitrator didn't think
that sources were important anyway, just compromise.

>These disputes are usually not all that difficult; the combatants simply
>lack a common framework, and they spend all their time digging in against
>each other instead of finding common ground.  Adam Carr in this case could
>have done much better at winning over Peter as a true Wikipedia ally.

Maybe in that case, maybe not.  Armchair quarterbacks have an easy time
hypothetically solving other people's disputes.  However, in the real
Wikipedia (the one, by the way, which is also inundated by vandals), there
are real trolls who are not amenable to any sort of reason.

Jay.


body:
--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> I might agree, but disagree that a Wikipedia-produced encyclopedia in
> the language effectively captures it.  Does the Latin Wikipedia properly
> capture the cultural heritage of Latin, for example, or merely the
> perspective of English, German, French and other speakers writing Latin
> as a second language?  More importantly, does having a new article on
> quantum mechanics written in Latin contribute anything that the extant
> corpus of Latin writing doesn't?

No - but writing about Virgil in Latin will be. As would writing about any
number of other works in Latin. Some things (esp humor and meter) simply do not
translate well.

-- mav

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
>From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
>
>Silverback wrote:
>
>>In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases,
>>new words, or reason.
>
>This is plain wrong.  Paraphrasing is not "research" so it cannot be
>"original research."  There is nothing in the NOR policy that requires this
>position, and I am pretty confident that most editors do not consider
>paraphrasing to violate NOR policy.
>
>Either you really misunderstand the NOR policy, or you have some agenda for
>misrepresenting it.  I am not judging your motives because whatever they
>are, I cannot understand them.  But whatever your motives, this statement
>is false, unnecessary, and unhelpful.

Exactly so.

Jay.


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] German law and wikiquote

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Does this mean that printed collections of quotes, like the equivalent
> of the English world's ubiquitous _Bartlett's Book of Quotations_, are
> not commonly available in German bookstores?

Answering my own question, it appears that such books of quotations
*are* readily available in Germany.  Amazon.de, for example, sells all
the standard English-language books of quotations, from the _Oxford
Concise Dictionary of Quotations_ to the _Random House Webster's
Quotationary_, and most of them include unlicensed quotations from
20th-century figures like Einstein.

See:
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/11902/ref=br_dp_bl_2/028-0024331-1137322

Since these publishers haven't been prohibited from selling their books
in Germany, it seems that whatever prohibitions might exist aren't being
enforced.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] German law and wikiquote


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Appaled by Christiaan

body:
First he tells Gerard to go write down this his comments elsewhere. And
now he is censoring the page Gerard wrote his comments. I find this
extremely distastefull.

Waerth/Walter van Kalken


subject: [Foundation-l] Appaled by Christiaan


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Let?s not forget that language is not only a means by which information is
>presented, it is also part of the human experience we are documenting. One of
>the main reasons why many schools require students to learn a second language
>is to expose students to a different culture and way of codifying thought (this
>contrast is often very instructive in showing the student how their own
>language works).
>
>Thus helping to preserve an endangered language by hosting an encyclopedia in
>it also directly furthers our goal. This would not include non-famous conlangs
>since those are largely original research.
>
>
This would be an argument for having good articles like [[en:Hopi
language]] (and the equivalents in de:, ja:, zh:, fr:, etc.) --
information about languages written in a language that people can read.
Merely preserving a language that nobody reads by writing an
encyclopedia that nobody reads in it isn't really furthing the goal of
disseminating information to people.

-Mark


body:
Nicolas Weeger wrote:

> I think there was a research paper (from the MIT?), some months/years ago, that analysed how a specific article on Wikipedia was modified, showing the slow modifications over time and a few big changes.
> Anyone would have an URL pointing to that article?

For a less formal but very accessible illustration:

http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2005/01/22.html

Heavy metal umlaut: the movie.

- d.


body:
Many thanks Angela for the quick reply :)

That's why i so love Wikip?dia: so many people that you always find someone having the information you search *g*

Nicolas

Acc?dez au courrier ?lectronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ;
3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34?/mn) ; t?l : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34?/mn)


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Tom Haws wrote:

>More often than not, a root of the problem is the POV-pusher (and often
>the valiant defender) has not read [[WP:NPOV]] at all, or maybe has only
>read it quickly once.

Tom, you are missing the point (mine and JAYJG's)  This case has nothing to
do with the NPOV policy.  The issue here (such as it is, it is a
hypothetical reenactment) is that I did research and was providing a date
held by many historians, and CheeseDreams had done no research.  In this
hypothetical case, CheeseDreams' claim that Jesus was born 100 BCE is not a
legitimate view to which NPOV can apply -- because it is solely her view,
and not held by anyone else.  My claim is not that Jesus was born 4BCE
(because my view of when Jesus was born is as irrelevant as
CheeseDreams).  My claim is that several historians claim that Jesus was
born 4 BCE and I am providing verifiable sources.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:05:26 +1100, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
Adam is a good and well-respected editor, and I did not
> think that he would be blocked. I merely want to be able to explore
> opposing views without being subjected to personal attacks which are
> upsetting and distracting. I guess I want him to be aware of the
> community view on such things, as my own requests for him to moderate
> his behaviour seem only to enrage him further.

Peter, your comments cannot be allowed to stand. I can't get inside
your head, but judging by your behavior, you goaded Adam into
attacking you. He shouldn't have let you, it's true. Nevertheless, as
he has to take responsibility for his actions, so should you for
yours. You have gone round and round in circles with him and several
others, using sophistry in place of argument; attempting to replace
fact with your personal opinion; and replying to each question with a
question of your own, rather than an answer. You have accused Adam of
misrepresenting the constitution, when he was paraphrasing it very
precisely. (Your subsequent claim that "shall be" and "is" have
different meanings in this context is false, and you have offered no
reason for your view.) You've been told repeatedly what the community
consensus is on the issue, both here and on the talk page of the
article. The page has had to be protected because of the dispute.
Slrubenstein and Ta bu shi da yu have both written excellent e-mails
to this list refuting or questioning your position, yet you haven't
addressed their concerns, offered additional source material, or
withdrawn your argument.

As for your claim that you didn't wish to see Adam blocked, you have,
I believe, reported him twice on the admin noticeboard, and also, I
believe, twice on this list. That's an odd way to behave if you harbor
no desire to see him blocked.

Sarah


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Foundation-l] German law and wikiquote

body:
Just FYI :-)

The German Verein has just received a legal opinion they ordered some
time ago, concerning various legal issues for wikipedia and German law.

It turns out that, according to the legal opinion, German law prohibits
the collection of quotes, or quotes as such, if they are not used in a
context.

That would mean the German wikiquote project's legal status is shaky at
best. (IANAL)

The German PDF with the legal opinion is at [1], and as wiki code at [2].

Magnus

[1] http://www.wikimedia.de/files/Rechtsfragen_Maerz_2005.pdf
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rechtsfragen_M%C3%A4rz_2005


subject: [Foundation-l] German law and wikiquote


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Now you open up the question, "What is novel?"  I absolutely agree
> that we are ill-equipped to judge novel thinking, Too many look at
> this from the distorted extremist lenses.  If the dozens of sources
> that I use for a historical argument are all "peer reviewed" sources
> my argument is no longer novel.  If we follow the severely restrictive
> approach to "original research" that some people are proposing our
> encyclopedia would be full of nothing but dumbed-down pap.

I suppose I'd define "novel" as "making a substantial claim that hasn't
been made before", which is obviously subjective, but I don't think it's
possible to make a clear-cut definition.

For example, one of the culinary articles (which I forget at the moment)
had a section on the etymology of a word that was essentially a
reconstruction of the word's history personally done by a Wikipedian,
through a combination of primary and secondary sources.  That, to me, is
original etymological research and not appropriate for first publication
in Wikipedia.  We instead should cite only published etymologies, such
as "the OED claims this, but some other guy in his book _Blah_ claims
this other thing."

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
>Sliverback wrote:
>
>People paraphrase  for a reason, the paraphrase most likely has some
>difference in meaning or more likely emphasis.

People paraphrase for purposes of concision (at least when doing it
properly), not to change meaning or emphasis.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: New policy

body:
Allow me be the first to call you on this one: which users think this?
Please point to specific comments.

Thanks.
TBSDY

Recycling Troll wrote:
> Some users believe that we should have a new policy of
> blocking users if they try to scrutinize the actions
> of admins. I would encourage these people to try to
> create new policy based on these ideas, rather than
> blatantly abusing current rules, which do not support
> this notion.
> The Recycling Troll


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Page move vandal - there is a
 feature that can help with it ...

body:
Neil Harris wrote:
<snip>
> * one-click page-move reverting for admins
> * a page move log, working on the same principles as the deletion log

Hello,

The Mediawiki development version already log moves in Special:Log ,
still have to implement a one click revert though.

Note: you can move a page over an existing redirect poiting to it
without deleting the redirect given there is no history:

 [[Foo]] contains : #REDIRECT [[bar]]
 Move [[bar]] as [[Foo]].

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Censorship campaign: Ann Coulter article

body:
Poor, Edmund W said:
> There are three points of view on this
> sub-point:
>
> 1. No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian
> government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
>
> 2. Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and the
> "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
>
> 3. The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with
> weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North
> Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters.
>
> 4. Canada's *government* sent large numbers of combat troops to Vietnam
> (at least one battalion, i.e., 500 men), and they engaged the enemy.
>
> Option one definitely implies that Coulter was 100% wrong.
>
> Option two makes Coulter partially wrong, and McKeown partially wrong
> (but McKeown wins the "gotcha" game).
>
> Option three makes Coulter partially right, and McKeown partially wrong
> (i.e., they both were somewhat mixed up; gotcha game ends in a draw!).
>
> Option four makes Coulter 100% right, and McKeown and Moore 100% wrong.
>

I'm sure that Canada sent troops as part of the force that was sent to
monitor the South Vietnam agreed in the Paris Peace Accord.  I'm sure they
were armed and almost certain that they occasionally used those arms.
Here's a VA-Canada page about the service medal they received.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group06/icmvn

However this is clearly not the force that Coulter was talking about
(unless she wrongly believed it to be a force sent in aid of the United
States) and that McKeown denied existed.  Coulter said:
"Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean
Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a
threat than Saddam Hussein?"
Note that Coulter specifically was talking about military support for one
side (the USA) in a conflict with another country, and asking why this
wasn't forthcoming in the current conflict in Iraq.
That Coulter misspoke, and McKeown's denial was correct, should be made
clear on the Coulter article by those who are editing it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
>From: actionforum at comcast.net
> > >In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow
>paraphrases,
> > >new words, or reason.
> >
> > Why do you think so? I see nothing in the policy which indicates that.
>
>I agree, I said  "in practice".   Look how many disputes are over single
>words or phrases.   If  you use
>exacly the same words, then it isn't a paraphrase, if you use different
>words, it is a paraphrase, but it
>is banned by NOR, unless a cite can be provided where someone else has used
>those very same
>words in subject at hand.

Word debates are usually about POV, not Original research.  A paraphrase is
typically a way of briefly summarizing something lengthy; if done correctly,
it exactly reflects the original.  Accurate summaries are not considered
original research, either in theory or in practice.

Jay.


from_name: Christopher Larberg

body:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:17:28 +0000, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Most of these are handled using termplates. We could unprotect
> [[Template:In the news]] for example and keep the main page protected.
> This would stop the main page being moved but still allow non admins
> to make edits. Can templates be moved? it's only page moves that are
> too difficult to deal with by reverting.
>

That's how the situation was, until the goatse vandal struck a month
or so ago. He inserted the image into one of the templates and used
XHTML to force it to display over the whole Main Page. This occurred
during a server slowdown, to boot, so the image was in the Squids for
almost a half-hour before an admin's revert got through. Afterwards,
Raul654 protected all the templates and images linked on the Main
Page.

--Slowking Man


subject: [Wikitech-l] Sockpuppet / Reincarnation?

body:
Richard Holton wrote:
> On en.wikipedia, [[user:The Recycling Troll]] has recently been banned
> (indefinitely blocked). The reason provided is that he is a
> reincarnation of 142. However, the evidence so far presented is
> subjective, and a sort of 'debate' has arisen, the user being blocked
> and unblocked a few times.
>
> It seems to me that a developer could at least establish if this user
> is 142 or not. If it turns out to be 142, it would almost certainly
> end the matter. If not, then the debate could focus on the remaining
> issue(s).
>
> So, could a developer please look into this? Thanks.

It's not really possible to "establish" someone's identity given the
information at our disposal.

What I can clearly say is that recent edits by The Recycling Troll on
en.wikipedia.org have not come from an IP address in the 142.177.*
range. Note that this is merely an absence of evidence for a purported
claim of identity, and has no bearing on whether the account should be
blocked for any actual behavior.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050309/1b218040/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I gave Adam Carr a 15-hour block (for abusive language).
...
> I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block
> signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the
> rules - such as: [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
> If I'm wrong, then I hope the first thing the arbcom will do is unblock
> Adam Carr. In fact, if I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong, than I guess ANY ONE of the
> 415 admins will reverse the block.
> Hmm. This is interesting. Let's see what happens.

As far as I know, we don't have any policy to justify blocking over personal
attacks. I would suggest unblocking Adam Carr, even though his abusive remarks
in this instance are uncalled for and inconsistent with his reputation as a
fine editor. I guess everyone blows a fuse now and again.

Any chance of making [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] enforceable?

-- Matt

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Ed Poor wrote

>I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block
signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the
rules - such as:
[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]

There is a policy about removing personal attacks.  That there is policy
about 'removing' those doing the attacking is news to me.  I wouldn't dream
of using admin powers in this way.

Ed Poor shoots from hip, once more.  Exactly what kind of place would
Wiki-en be if say, 100 of our sysops took this line, on a daily basis?

I don't want to find out.  Others please support me, in saying that Ed is
out of line here.  Policy can't just be made on the hoof, any more.  The
scare quotes round "authorized" tell me just about all I need to know.
Civility is a big plus on WP, but enforcement of this kind goes way beyond
what I would accept.  Out of hand bans for vandalism, yes.

Charles


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
>>csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head
>>>of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition
>>>of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of
>>>his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
>>>
>>>
>>Before something can be Original research it must first be research.
>>Please learn the difference between research and wishful thinking.
>>
>>
>It certainly is wishful thinking.  If only everyone could have a head of state that  did as little as the queen does, what a wonderful world this would be.
>
>Now if only the debate could be conducted in American english, the debate becomes more clear.  The issue all along has been not whether Austrailia is a republic, but whether it is a democracy.   In American english, no it is not a democracy, it has a constitutionally limited form a government, a republic.  Therefore, since Austailia is not a democracy, when we translate back to Austrailian english, Austrailia is not a republic.  The queen has been irrelevant to the whole issue, just as she is to nearly anything in Austrailia.
>
>Now if only, the Austrailian's had used the perfectly good word "democracy", the debate could have been conducted in their english.  Somehow, despite "republics" duplication of the meaning of "democracy" in their language, it carries so kind of emotional baggage that does not allow it to be viewed objectively, perhaps because of some meaning bleed, from the other form of english.
>
Strange comments.  The best analysis of the situation so far on this
mailing list has been Steven's.  He is by all appearances an American,
and in this issue citizens of non-Commonwealth countries are in a better
position to look at the issue dispassionately.  Bringing questions of
"American English" or "democracy" only serve to create confusion.  When
it comes to playing in words I'm sure that there are some who consider
"Democratic Republics" as anything but democratic.  I wonder if I'm just
feeding a troll. :-)

Ec


body:
>  The notion that it will somehow create an
> encyclopedia filled with " nothing but dumbed-down pap" is a bald
assertion
> which has no basis in reality.

> Jay

I would agree that Ec overstates the case.  The point that seems to need
making is that none of the content policies actually _makes for_ brilliant
prose, which is one thing we also want.  If clumsily or over-insistently
applied, any reliability-oriented policy can make for lame writing.
Academic books don't read like Tom Clancy.

So I say that content policies are also subordinate to the goal of creating
awesomeness in the encyclopedia.  I like to think in terms of two extremes,
Blandopedia and Gonzopedia.  The spaced-out stuff has to be squeezed out.
But playing safe will only tend to accentuate the bias towards WP's existing
strengths.

Charles


body:
JAY JG wrote:

>> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>> I would agree that Ec overstates the case.  The point that seems to need
>> making is that none of the content policies actually _makes for_
>> brilliant
>> prose, which is one thing we also want.  If clumsily or over-insistently
>> applied, any reliability-oriented policy can make for lame writing.
>> Academic books don't read like Tom Clancy.
>>
>> So I say that content policies are also subordinate to the goal of
>> creating
>> awesomeness in the encyclopedia.  I like to think in terms of two
>> extremes,
>> Blandopedia and Gonzopedia.  The spaced-out stuff has to be squeezed
>> out.
>> But playing safe will only tend to accentuate the bias towards WP's
>> existing
>> strengths.
>
> Do we really want "brilliant prose"?  Is that even possible in an
> Encyclopedia?  What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context
> of an Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples?  I
> would have thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of
> the kind of things we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not
> stating that as an adamant point.

I'm sure that a lot of authors of software manuals live with the
illusion that their writing is clear and concise.

Brilliant prose keeps the reader engaged.  When a writing needs to deal
with opposing views on a subject coherent narative prose is even more
important.  If each sentence must immediately be followed by a sentence
expressing the alternate POV it will be much less readable than if the
pros and cons can be expressed in two separate paragraphs.  Awkward
prose chases readers away.

Ec


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
-------------- Original message --------------
> csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
>
> > The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head
> > of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition
> > of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of
> > his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
>
> Before something can be Original research it must first be research.
> Please learn the difference between research and wishful thinking.

It certainly is wishful thinking.  If only everyone could have a head of state that  did as little as the queen does, what a wonderful world this would be.

Now if only the debate could be conducted in American english, the debate becomes more clear.  The issue all along has been not whether Austrailia is a republic, but whether it is a democracy.   In American english, no it is not a democracy, it has a constitutionally limited form a government, a republic.  Therefore, since Austailia is not a democracy, when we translate back to Austrailian english, Austrailia is not a republic.  The queen has been irrelevant to the whole issue, just as she is to nearly anything in Austrailia.

Now if only, the Austrailian's had used the perfectly good word "democracy", the debate could have been conducted in their english.  Somehow, despite "republics" duplication of the meaning of "democracy" in their language, it carries so kind of emotional baggage that does not allow it to be viewed objectively, perhaps because of some meaning bleed, from the other form of english.

                            -- Silverback


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Silverback wrote:

>but it is banned by NOR, unless a cite can be provided where someone else
>has used those very same words in subject at hand.

This is still completely wrong.  There is no requirement that someone else
has used the very same words.  To follow this understanding of NOR would
mean that editors can't write anything, but can only edit together collages
of quotes -- this makes a mockery of the NOR policy.  Paraphrasing does not
violate NOR.  Period.  Your position here will have only one consequence:
to make it harder to write good articles.  Why would you want to do that?

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:48:44 -0500, Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>   Our
> policies are formulated in terms of behaviours, and we shouldn't be
> banning people who comply with the policies and norms of the project
> because we don't like the motivation behind their behaviour.

I disagree. Let's not forget that we are here to write an encylopedia.
Our policies are a means to that end. Anyone here who is not trying to
write an encylopedia shouldn't be put up with. We are not an
experiment in social anarchy. I'm all for not biting newbies, I'm all
for not allowing admins to block people for emotional reasons, or to
win an edit war. I'm all for bending over backwards to accomodate
anyone who is here in good faith even if they are a complete jerk,
idiot, or a combination of both. But if they are not here in good
faith. if they are not trying to write an encylopedia, then let's deal
with 'em.

   If a
> troll finds away to get attention and to be provocative without
> violating our policies, then we should reconsider our policies. We
> shouldn't be banning people simply because they are thought to be
> trolls.

Why not? I mean I know there is a danger of someone being blocked who
is not trolling, but there are plenty of admins around to undo an
overzelous block. We should of  course try to educate editors before
blocking them, we should be very careful not to block people who have
a different view than us, but in cases like this, where there is no
doubt that a user is a troll, then why not block them?
>
> Concerning, RT's behaviours in this instance, what is wrong with them.
> In fact, members of Wikipedia are routinely monitored by
> administrators and other members.   There is nothing wrong with it.
> If A is working on an article and notices that B's edits are
> questionable (by A's lights), it seems fine with me if A checks other
> articles that B has worked on, or is working on, to see if he is
> propagating his supposed errors into other articles.   I don't see
> anything wrong with that, although no doubt B might find it quite
> annoying to have someone following him around.

I agree. There's nothing wrong with checking other people's edits.
I've checked plenty of people's edits in the past. I'm sure we all
have, and I'm sure plenty of people have checked mine. What I haven't
done, is stalk people. I haven't edited every article they edit, just
after them, to let them know I am watching them. He said he noticed
the articles needed improving. He's lying. We all know he's lying.
He's trying to provoke RickK into doing something stupid.

>As long as A's edits
> are within policy, I don't see that there is any Wikipedia policy that
> is being violated.  Indeed, if B is indeed a "POV-warrior", then A's
> behaviour might well be hailed as a service to the community.

That's not what is happening here. The user was stalking, not checking edits.

 Who
> decides who can monitor whom?   Are administrators immune from being
> monitored?

Nope. But he wasn't monitoring, he was stalking. He was not acting in
good faith.

>
> The solution, as with all trolls is "Do not feed the trolls".  In
> other words, ignore him.

If we did that, we would be saying "it's ok to stalk people"

>An administrator, above all, must be able to
> do this, because trolls will try to provoke administrators as a
> favorite target, knowing that provoking an over-reaction from an
> administrator is the best way to cause dissension and get attention.

So let's not argue. Let's all agree that TRT is a troll, is not acting
in good faith, is not valuable to wikipedia and block him.
>
> So, I repeat: ignore him.

What do we do in the meantime if RickK loses it and decides to leave?
We can't ignore him. SDo let's block him instead.

 Theresa


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>As far as I know, we don't have any policy to justify blocking over personal
>>attacks. I would suggest unblocking Adam Carr, even though his abusive
>>remarks in this instance are uncalled for and inconsistent with his reputation as a
>>fine editor. I guess everyone blows a fuse now and again.

> All polices are enforceable. Just because a certain one does not specify a
> specific punishment for violating it, does not mean it is not enforceable. The
> ArbCom has banned a bunch of users for regularly violating the no personal
> attacks policy. ASAIK, admins can and should enforce this policy when they see
> it violated after a warning is given.

There is the fact that a specific vote on whether admins could block people
for personal attacks failed to achieve consensus a few months ago (a real
pity, in my opinion). As such, it's dicey ground.

(Note that we do have IPs being blocked for personal attacks, and
accounts evidently created just for personal attacks being blocked
indefinitely. But those aren't the same as a logged-in proper editor.)

- d.


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>A great deal of information and cultural heritage is contained in the language
>itself. This goes way beyond what any set of articles in other languages can
>ever hope to accomplish.
>
>
I might agree, but disagree that a Wikipedia-produced encyclopedia in
the language effectively captures it.  Does the Latin Wikipedia properly
capture the cultural heritage of Latin, for example, or merely the
perspective of English, German, French and other speakers writing Latin
as a second language?  More importantly, does having a new article on
quantum mechanics written in Latin contribute anything that the extant
corpus of Latin writing doesn't?

I think preserving languages is an interesting aim, but something
separate from writing an encyclopedia.  Even in cases like Hopi where
the extant writing is much less extensive than Latin, it's not clear to
me that writing an encyclopedia in Hopi is the best way to preserve
it---is translating [[en:Milwaukee, Wisconsin]] to Hopi more useful
than, say, writing original literature or poetry in the language in
terms of preserving the language?  It's clearly not very useful in terms
of communicating information about Milwaukee itself to anyone, because
nobody who wanted to know about Milwaukee would look there first...

-Mark


body:
David Gerard wrote:

> Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> Jay JG wrote
>
> >  In current affairs it is
>
>> far from useless (cf. The Economist); we can't use the Economist's style
>> book unrevised, but there is a lot in having it crisp and articulate.
>
> I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style,
> though they
> happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine
> for what
> they do rather than what we do). I consciously emulate their tightness
> when
> writing for Wikipedia.

What this proves is that we are talking about two mutually independent
characteristics.

Ec


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is the fact that a specific vote on whether admins could block people
> for personal attacks failed to achieve consensus a few months ago (a real
> pity, in my opinion). As such, it's dicey ground.

(Do you know where I could find the page where this vote took place?)

I think something like a 24-hour block for clear outbursts of of personal abuse
would be a very sensible policy for Wikipedia to adopt. When users become
stressed out enough to lash out at others, it's probably as good for them as
for the project to take a time-out.

-- Matt

[[User:Matt Crypto]]

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


body:
Jay JG wrote

> Do we really want "brilliant prose"?

Used to.

> Is that even possible in an
> Encyclopedia?  What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an
> Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples?  I would
have
> thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of
things
> we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an
> adamant point.

I don't want brilliant prose in an article on heart disease.  Decent writing
always helps popular science (cf. New Scientist).  In current affairs it is
far from useless (cf. The Economist); we can't use the Economist's style
book unrevised, but there is a lot in having it crisp and articulate.
''Clear and concise" is more the idealised civil servant's style - pretty
good if the point is to get succinct versions of arguments written without
distortion.

I think most of the style books make points about keeping vitality in the
prose, not just conforming to 'rules'.

Charles


body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

>David Gerard wrote
>
>
>>I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though
>>
>>
>they happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for
>
>
>what they do rather than what we do).
>
>
>
>Me too.  The content can be rubbish (classic example: surrogate motherhood
>treated effectively as free market in babies).
>
That sounds like a reasonable position on their part to be criticizing
this kind of prostitution.

Ec


from_name: Richard Holton

body:
On en.wikipedia, [[user:The Recycling Troll]] has recently been banned
(indefinitely blocked). The reason provided is that he is a
reincarnation of 142. However, the evidence so far presented is
subjective, and a sort of 'debate' has arisen, the user being blocked
and unblocked a few times.

It seems to me that a developer could at least establish if this user
is 142 or not. If it turns out to be 142, it would almost certainly
end the matter. If not, then the debate could focus on the remaining
issue(s).

So, could a developer please look into this? Thanks.
--
Rich Holton
en.wikipedia:User:Rholton


from_name: Stephen Forrest

body:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:32:56 -0800, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Whether or not _government_ of Canada sent "troops in Canadian uniform"
> to Vietnam is a another thing. There are three points of view on this
> sub-point:
>
> 1. No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian
> government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
>
> 2. Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and the
> "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
>
> 3. The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with
> weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North
> Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters.

I agree with your breakdown of the various interpretations on this
matter.  I also agree that 1) and 4) appear to be false.

I don't think 3) is true either, since the only deployment I know of,
from web searches anyway, is this ICCS thing (Operation Gallant),
which Tony Sidaway has also commented on.  But these were non-aligned
peacekeepers, which I presume is exclusive from active duty soldiers.

To me, Coulter's context unambiguously suggests that the troops
provided were provided to fight alongside the Americans.

So, as far as I can tell, there seem to have been no troops sent by
the Canadian government to Vietnam to assist the American side.  To
me, this makes Coulter's claim unambiguously wrong.

The article should note this.  However, it should also mention the
possible charitable explanations for her false claim, by mentioning
Canadians who enlisted in the U.S. army and the peacekeeping Operation
Gallant, or possibly just providing a link to the relevant section of
[[Canada and the Vietnam War]], since much of the content would be the
same.  We should of course also mention how this claim is interpreted
by her critics.

> Coulter's slant is that she was wrong (but she seems to regard it as a
> misstatement more akin to a slip of the tongue or choosing the wrong
> word.

Yes, that seems to be her take on things.

> Moore's slant is that she was dead wrong (probably even *knowingly*
> wrong, i.e., lied on purpose; or possibly just ignorantly wrong, i.e.,
> thought it was the government sending active duty personnel).

I do not this incident or any of the facts about Vietnam and Canada
suffice to prove that Coulter is or is not a deliberate liar.  (My
personal conclusion is that, like many claims she has made before, she
was simply pulling facts from memory and hoping they were right, or at
least not challenged.)

Steve


body:
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Jay JG wrote

>>Do we really want "brilliant prose"?

> Used to.

Specifically, [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]] was the old name for what is now
[[Wikipedia:Featured articles]].

>>Is that even possible in an
>>Encyclopedia?  What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an
>>Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples?  I would have
>>thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of things
>>we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an
>>adamant point.

> I don't want brilliant prose in an article on heart disease.  Decent writing
> always helps popular science (cf. New Scientist).

I think "clear and concise" probably constitutes "brilliant prose" for our
purposes.

 >  In current affairs it is
> far from useless (cf. The Economist); we can't use the Economist's style
> book unrevised, but there is a lot in having it crisp and articulate.

I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though they
happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for what
they do rather than what we do). I consciously emulate their tightness when
writing for Wikipedia.

> ''Clear and concise" is more the idealised civil servant's style - pretty
> good if the point is to get succinct versions of arguments written without
> distortion.

Yep.

> I think most of the style books make points about keeping vitality in the
> prose, not just conforming to 'rules'.

Indeed. Excellence in writing should not be a focal point for suspicion.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Matt R wrote:
> --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>>There is the fact that a specific vote on whether admins could block people
>>for personal attacks failed to achieve consensus a few months ago (a real
>>pity, in my opinion). As such, it's dicey ground.

> (Do you know where I could find the page where this vote took place?)

[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old)]] has the vote. The vote
came out 36 for, 26 against, 5 neutral - simple majority, but not enough of
one to indicate consensus. As far as I can tell, the objections are that
it's too subjective.

The instructive recent case of Skyring versus Adam Carr (a coupla messages
ago) shows one obvious hole: Skyring belittling or ignoring all attempts at
reason until the editor attempting to reason with him blows his top at the
intransigent POV-pusher.

(In recent cases like this, the ArbCom has tended to admonish to
caution the editor in question not to respond in kind even to severe
provocation, rather than giving blocks per se, and the provocative editor
has typically been strongly sanctioned. Note however the AC uses precedent
as a guide, not a bounding.)

- d.


from_name: Alison Russell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Google search and textbox

body:
Hi,

I want to add a Google search to my Wiki system, similar to the Google link
displayed by http://creatures.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page

What code do I need to do this?

Your help is very much appreciated,
Alison


body:
David Gerard wrote

> I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though
they
> happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for
what
> they do rather than what we do).

Me too.  The content can be rubbish (classic example: surrogate motherhood
treated effectively as free market in babies).

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
David Gerard said:
>
> [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old)]] has the vote. The
> vote came out 36 for, 26 against, 5 neutral - simple majority, but not
> enough of one to indicate consensus. As far as I can tell, the
> objections are that it's too subjective.
>
> The instructive recent case of Skyring versus Adam Carr (a coupla
> messages ago) shows one obvious hole: Skyring belittling or ignoring
> all attempts at reason until the editor attempting to reason with him
> blows his top at the intransigent POV-pusher.

This is the killer for me.  Some people have lower boiling points than
others and can easily be provoked.  Enforcing "No personal attacks" by
blocking throws those, relatively vulnerable people into the firing line
of the subtler trolls.  I support "Remove personal attacks" as a
reasonable way of dealing with personal attacks. Although it's equally
subjective, it's open and accountable and throws the onus on the person
perceiving a personal attack while making it hard for such attacks to
derail discussion.


subject: [Foundation-l] Appaled by Christiaan

body:
>
>That C-word again... it's driving me... crazy...
>
>
Censorship?

>Neither version of the page that was being fought over was
>particularly NPOV; neither the one with the sentence "As the proposers
>of what is now euphemestically called...." nor the one mentioning
>GerardM by name.  And both sides in the dispute make good points.  I
>tried to clarify the discussion and history; please work on wording
>your points more precisely, rather than just reverting.
>
>
>
You do not understand, Christiaan tells Gerard to move his arguments.
Gerard puts them somewhere else and Christiaan is still chasing and
editing Gerards comments on the other page he told Gerard to move to.
Same like Christiaan has edited out comments made by Oscar multiple
times, Andre Engels and me. This is unacceptable behaviour. The only
comments he seems to accept are his own. It is against the wiki spirit.

When brought up in Village Pump on Dutch wikipedia the concensus was
clear. Everybody is against this idea of Image tagging. So we will not
tolerate if this is being brought upon us by english wikipedia.

>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Desirability_of_end-user_image_suppression
>This article will become feature-quality yet.
>
>
>
Be my guest and good luck.

Walter van Kalken


subject: [Foundation-l] Appaled by Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
David Gerard wrote

> The instructive recent case of Skyring versus Adam Carr (a coupla messages
> ago) shows one obvious hole [ ... ]

Indeed.  Why dice with death and take the moral low ground in revert wars,
when there is the more satisfying approach of the uber-troll: get yourself
personally-attacked on the Talk page, and get your opponent (if briefly)
thrown off the wiki?

Chales


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
-------------- Original message --------------
Steven I. Rubinstein wrote:
> Michael Snow suggested (at this point) that Adam Carr is giving a
> reasonable paraphrase of the constitution; Skyring repeats that the
> Australian constitution does not say what Adam Carr says it says. So there
> are two ways to understand Skyring's position: either evidence does not
> matter, or paraphrasing is impermissible. I believe that either one of
> these positions does damage to the quality of Wikipedia articles. Skyring
> won't budge, though.

In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, new words, or reason.  Yes, we have a lot of these on wikipedia, but it required a community that was tolerant.  I am currently in a dispute with an editor, who wants to include a quite logical (and I think arguably correct) refutation of a statement that an outside authority has made.  I don't think it belongs in there because it refutes a minor peripheral point, so it is making more of a credibility attack upon the outside source, than contributing to the substance of the article.   Frankly, I think I can easily "win" this editing conflict, by insisting on the NOR standards, but I have not pressed this point, because that is not my actual objection to text.

In the case at hand, there is no excuse for the personal attacks.  However, the source of their problem is that they have not agreed to a definition of terms and then applied them to the situation.  A possible reason for that, is that the NOR clause would preclude them from applying their agreed upon definitions and including them in the article.  Probably both sides are quite right as long as they keep their own definitions in mind, and they know this for a fact, so why should they give an inch, because it becomes a matter of principle.  Austrailia is a "republic", to the extent that American overtones of republic have some validity in Austrailia, and is NOT a republic in the predominate (but not exclusive) non-technical sense in which it is used in Austrailia.  Of course in an encyclopedia, where one is trying to be precise, it is natural to prefer the more technical sense, because words are being chosen for the information or distinctions they provide.
                    -- Silverback


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
Tom Haws said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>>Some people have lower boiling points than
>>others and can easily be provoked.
>>
> This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse.  We
> can all learn to boil slowly and gently.  The message of the policy is
> clear.  "Take responsibility for your own temper."
>

Absolutely. I completely agree with this.

However I was pointing out that an undesired side-effect of enforcing "no
personal attacks" with blocking could be, paradoxically, to give some
people an incentive to provoke _more_ personal attacks.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Creating premium encyclopedias and/or promoting
	and preserving languages

body:
> From: "Boris Lohnzweiger" <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de>
> Organization: http://freemail.web.de/
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:22:55 +0100
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creating premium encyclopedias and/or promoting and
> preserving languages
>
> I would therefore recommend that:
>
> 1. Whenever we evaluate new language proposals we should assess if they have
> the potential to yield a 5-digit number of articles.

Seems too high for many desirable projects. Also we need to take a longer
view, a ten year take off period might be appropriate for the near-dead.

> 2. We should require every new language proposal to be supported by at least
> two or three native speakers in order to assure there is some demand within
> that language community (instead of first setting up a new Wikipedia and then
> trying to convince native speakers).

I'd much rather just see some support by a few people who are part of the
culture.

> 3. We should require people interested in setting up a new Wikipedia to
> provide 20 basic encyclopedia articles before we establish that edition in
> order to have some start-up basis and to avoid "zero" article Wikipedias.

20 is not many, perhaps total of 20 with at least 3 people doing at least 5.

> 4. New constructed and extinct languages should not be allowed except
> proponents provide sufficient arguments that their language has a special
> potential for an extensive high quality online encyclopedia.
>
> 5. We should discuss new avenues for the advancement of small languages
> (minority, extinct, constructed) within Wikimedia, apart from Wikipedia.

Of course, a dictionary and usage guide might be appropriate even if there
is no interest by a local community.

> Boris

Fred


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Appaled by Christiaan

body:
>There is no point on wording one's points more precisely if one is
>reverted anyway.
>
>
>
Christiaan had edited out comments made by 4 users at least. That is not
a good way to go over things. I liked Sj's version but Christiaan is
doing his hardest to even get that POV

Walter


subject: [Foundation-l] Appaled by Christiaan


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
What about people who speak Hopi as their first language and would
like to read about Milwaukee?

Hopi speakers make up 0.002% of the population of the US. This isn't
very big, but it's not very small, either.

If you consider it at a state level, just over 0.1% of the population
of Arizona speaks Hopi.

Over 5800 people total speak Hopi (about 1000 of them living outside
of Arizona), including a number of monolinguals. In one generation,
this number is expected to increase rather than decrease, although
with the deaths of "baby boomers" while the number will go down, the
percentage is expected to go up.

Nearly all 5800 people speak Hopi "better" than they speak English,
and literacy in Hopi is high (especially when compared with, say,
Navajo). This is not to say that none of these people have advanced
English skills, just that for almost all of them speak English as
their second language.

This is a language that people still use regularly, it is a language
with radio broadcasts and publications in it, it is a language which
some people still use more than they use English and which for
thousands is a collection of the words which come before all else.

In the case of a language such as Winnebago (no, it's not the language
of people who live in trailers), which has been extinct for a while,
the prospect of an encyclopedia is much more questionable. That's not
the question I'm asking here. We aren't talking about a language which
is no longer used or spoken.

Also please keep in mind that "minority language" includes any
language not spoken by the majority - thus, Catalan is a minority
language in Spain although it has over 8 million speakers, Telugu is a
minority language in India although it has over 20 million speakers,
but in the same vein Hopi is a minority language in Arizona with just
under 6 thousand speakers, and Havasupai is a minority language in
Arizona with 580 speakers (550 in Arizona, or 0.012% of Arizonans),
although Havasupai is spoken by every single member of the Havasupai
nation.

Thus we are not talking about language preservation exactly, but
rather building an encyclopaedia in a minority language as an aid to
the continued existance of the language - Havasupai is used in
schools, as is Hopi, and with Wikipedias in these languages there
would be a vast body of written knowledge available to educators and
to learners alike, and people would have access to information in
their first language.

What some people seem to be thinking of is a Wikipedia in a language
with barely any or no remaining speakers as a sort of work of art.
This is also an important concept, but there are obviously many more
differing viewpoints here and the exact situation would differ from
language to language. However that isn't exactly what I'm talking
about.

Mark

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:13:22 -0500, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >A great deal of information and cultural heritage is contained in the language
> >itself. This goes way beyond what any set of articles in other languages can
> >ever hope to accomplish.
> >
> >
> I might agree, but disagree that a Wikipedia-produced encyclopedia in
> the language effectively captures it.  Does the Latin Wikipedia properly
> capture the cultural heritage of Latin, for example, or merely the
> perspective of English, German, French and other speakers writing Latin
> as a second language?  More importantly, does having a new article on
> quantum mechanics written in Latin contribute anything that the extant
> corpus of Latin writing doesn't?
>
> I think preserving languages is an interesting aim, but something
> separate from writing an encyclopedia.  Even in cases like Hopi where
> the extant writing is much less extensive than Latin, it's not clear to
> me that writing an encyclopedia in Hopi is the best way to preserve
> it---is translating [[en:Milwaukee, Wisconsin]] to Hopi more useful
> than, say, writing original literature or poetry in the language in
> terms of preserving the language?  It's clearly not very useful in terms
> of communicating information about Milwaukee itself to anyone, because
> nobody who wanted to know about Milwaukee would look there first...
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
>From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>That was actually something I noted about the attempted mediation between
>Cheese Dreams and Steven, and found bizarre.  The mediator was quite clear
>that article accuracy was not a preferred goal; far more important was that
>everyone compromised.  Thus, hypothetically, if Cheese Dreams had said
>Jesus was born in 100 BCE, and Steven had insisted it was 4 BCE, the
>mediator would have insisted that they should both compromise and say that
>Jesus was born in 52 BCE.
>
>Jay.

It has come to my attention that in this case I have confused someone who
was attempting to act as an unofficial mediator with someone who was acting
as an official mediator.  I apologize for any insult that might have
resulted to the official mediator.

Jay.