body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> ------------- Original message --------------
>
>>actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm not sure what your point is, if you mean admins=police,
>>>apparently, they are running the judicial system too, and
>>>they are loath to cost anyone their "jobs", read sysop privilege.
>>>Do the admins here unite behind their own version of "The thin blue
>
> line"?
>
>>
>>[[WP:AN/I]] and [[WP:AN/3RR]] give me a different picture. I see
>>quite a bit of disagreement between admins (and of course anyone
>>can write there).
>
> Agreed, I overgeneralized.  I meant to refer to a general sense
> among the admins that sysop privileges are not to be revoked
> lightly.  Furthermore, when admins err, I have seen apologias
> to the effect that they are just human and are so busy and
> contributing so much that errors should be expected to occur
> every so often. They are trying their best and should
> be allowed an error every so often.
> I can agree with this if one is referring to errors of
> interpretation or of overlooking certain facts.  But it is
> a different matter when in pique or anger, the admin makes
> personal use of sysop powers. This shows a lack of the
> proper discipline and temperament to be an admin, and not
> simple error.
> It is possible for such a person to learn discipline with
> time, but they should not be allowed to learn it on
> the job.  Such a person should be desysoped.
> When they feel they are ready, they can reapply,
> but if they reapply for adminship too soon they
> are probably the still the wrong temperament.
> Adminship is a burden and a public trust.  Admins are
> to be servants not masters of the community.
> Forgive me, I am a community activist who has worked
> to reduce police abuse, so I am particularly sensitive
> and yes, even outraged (as a matter of principle) at
> those who have the hubris to think they have the perogative
> to abuse the public trust.  I realize that matters
> here are not quite so weighty.  But then "losing" an
> adminship, is also not quite as serious as losing one's
> job.
>           -- Silverback

Those who are not admins would not know how easy it is to make a
mistake. You judge harshly: admins aren't paid, they cop abuse all the
time and they do make mistake in judgement. I know I do. There are
checks and balances: admins will often reverse the decision of other
admins if they see a problem with the decision made. That's one of the
reasons I created [[WP:AN]] - to allow admins to see what other admins
are doing and to fix problems/mistakes.

Maybe if you became an admin you'd understand. Until then, I think it's
fair you critique admins. This helps keep us accountable. However, keep
those facts I just outlined in perspective!

TBSDY


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Zoney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of my images

body:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:03:44 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> For the second time this month, one of my images was deleted on the
> english wikipedia.
>
> I was not warned at all.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anthere/PictInsectes&diff=0&oldid=10140585
>
> I'll be frank, I AM PISSED OFF.
>
> It is written clearly on my talk page, and my user page that all my
> images are gfdl. All my insects pictures listed on my user subpage are
> labelled, but this one.
>
> Just as I already said on the pump less than 2 weeks ago, I think it is
> really pure disrespect to delete an image without asking the author, and
> then only AFTER deletion, to go on this user subpage to remove the link
> to the deleted image. If there is time to go on my user subpage to
> remove a link, then there is time to drop by my user talk page and talk
> to me. Of there is time to read the mention on my user and user talk
> page and to read my warning about the status of my images and to update
> the image status.
>
> I am sorry, but I really find this of the latest rudeness.
>
>  From now quite far away, as I have no more time to edit the english
> wikipedia, I have the horrible feeling the english wikipedia has become
> a very very cold place, where there is no respect for editors except
> those well known possibly. If feels like if one is not among the major
> editors, he does not count, and his feelings are not important at all.
> It looks like a machine. An automate. Not a great human construction.
>
> We are all here because we believe in what we do, but what we do is only
> good because we do it together and because we trust each other.
>
> Well, at least, some people trust other people. And if it is not
> possible to trust someone who spent already 3 years on wikipedia, I
> wonder how newbies are treated.
>
> In case you feel like telling me "yeah, but this is just one case you
> know, not everybody does that", I will then ask why Quadell is trusted
> to delete images. I do not trust him to do so. Not because he does not
> do this according to rules, but because he does not do this while taking
> human feelings into account. And wiki only works thanks to human power.
>
> Anthere
>

I agree, it seems there are *some* ill-mannered people around en:
these days who consider their work, Wikipedia, or administrative rules
more important than individual editors. There are plenty, probably a
majority, of well-balanced nice friendly editors, who unfortunately
possibly are more frequently becoming unhinged on occasion. The bad
tends to make more of an impact than the good.

Worse is the fact that there are some editors who don't seem to
realise they should observe "social nicities" or in fact scoff at the
idea. We aren't robots - exhibiting human behaviour shouldn't be seen
as inconvenient at best.

And the folks that do give a damn (again, the majority of people I
hope) are between a rock and a hard place, as they in fact care about
the ill-mannered editors also. Which results in the complaint that
people pander to problem editors rather than let them go. But then if
people harden themselves and just force people off, that's no solution
either. People saying "Oh look, no-one cares that person X has left."
or "Who cares? Person X only caused problems." is not an ideal
situation to be in.

Damn it! What is the answer to keeping everyone happy (which yes, is
important for  Wikipedia's community, hence its content) yet managing
to deal with bad behaviour (occasional/once off or recurrant) without
antagonising everyone? I for sure don't think we've cracked it yet!

Zoney

--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?

body:
>From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
>
>The arbcom is empowered to make such decisions.  There is no issue that I
>can see here, except for those who want editors to be free to complain
>about other editors without suffereing the consequences of their own
>behavior where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia.

Why should it be only people who have actually brought cases before ArbCom
who must "suffer the consequences for their own behaviour where this has
been deleterious to Wikipedia?"  If you're so keen on the concept that
everyone should suffer consequences for their behaviour, shouldn't you be
promoting the idea that ArbCom should have its own investigative police,
scouring Wikipedia for "deleterious" behaviour, and bringing all suspects
before ArbCom for summary judgement?

>It's all a matter of what you think arbcom is for. Is it to be a catspaw
>with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept
>enemies, or is it (as I believe to be the case) a body elected by the
>editors and delegated by Jimmy Wales to stop editors doing harm to
>Wikipedia by their actions?  If the latter, it should levy penalties to
>all who merit such penalties.  If it only ever penalizes the people
>nominated by the petitioners, then it can only ever be driven by the
>perceptions of, and the prejudices of, the cleverer, more adept, editors.

You've set up a Strawman ArbCom, and then insisted that the current ArbCom
is vastly better.  ArbCom has never been "a catspaw with which adept
procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept enemies", and there
is no indication that it will ever be so.  Rather, it has been a body which
has helped rid Wikipedia of some of its most egregious policy violators,
editors who collectively have done more harm to Wikipedia than 100 "catspaw"
ArbComs could ever do.  The Cheese Dreams et al of Wikipedia were not banned
for being "unadept" at "procedure-manipulation", and it is ridiculous to
even imply as much.

Jay.


body:
>From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
>
>Theresa Knott said:
> >> It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate
> >> complaints for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum
> >> tempbanned from editing an article until the hearing is complete.
> >
> > Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in the past?
> > Certainly requests for arbitration appear to come thick and fast. I am
> > not aware of a legit complaint not having been made out of fear.
>
>I think it is more the case that people have gone to arbcom and not
>obtained quite the result they expected.

Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now that
no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom.

Jay.


body:
>From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
>
>JAY JG said:
> >
> > Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now
> > that  no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom.
>
>Make an evidence page.

LOL!  No thanks, my profile is high enough already.

Jay.


body:
>From: Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com>
>
> > Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now
>that
> > no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom.
> >
> > Jay.
>
>Such as?

Public naming brings too much attention from trolls.

Jay.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
AndyL wrote:
> on 3/6/05 9:32 PM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:

>>Let's get back to the point. You're so far not convincing me that your
>>model works better to get an encyclopedia written than the current one.
>>How does it better achieve that goal?

> It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate complaints
> for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum tempbanned from
> editing an article until the hearing is complete.

I think you greatly underestimate the propensity for gaming the system
amongst our more antisocial editors. You proposal strikes me as more
gameable, not less.

The Arbitration Committee is ultimately the last stage. On small wikis run
by individuals, the owner of the wiki ultimately is the one who can say to
someone, "You're being a dick and I'm who says so." On Wikipedia, that used
to be Jimbo, but the burden of stupid got too stupid so now it's the AC. The
job of the AC is to be the ones who, ultimately say, "You're being a dick.
Here's how you're being a dick. You're off the wiki until we think you can
behave better. And you, who brought this complaint, your behaviour has been
notably dicklike too."

(see [[:meta:Don't be a dick]].)

Ultimately, the AC is the someones who say "You're being a dick" when it's
needed. It's an elected committee because that way there's some balance.
But that's what its purpose is.

- d.


body:
>From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
>
> > >> It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate
> > >> complaints for fear that they too would be penalised <snip>
>Theresa Knott said:
> > > Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in the past? . .
>.
> > >I am not aware of a legit complaint not having been made out of fear.
>
>I was reluctant to bring the case against the LaRouche editor
>Herschelkrustofsky because of uncertainty about arbcom attitudes.
>Herschel was operating a couple of sockpuppets and for months the
>three user accounts engaged in absurd POV editing and original
>research, as well as trying to goad editors into making personal
>attacks. I couldn't prove they were sockpuppets, and twice asked a
>developer for help but got no response, so I couldn't bring a case.
>They started attacking me in November, and I managed to last several
>weeks of daily snide remarks and POV editing, when I finally broke
>down and called one of them a "toxic troll" twice within half an hour,
>the only time I had said anything that could be called a personal
>attack. The context was that, after days of negotiation with Herschel
>to have an NPOV tag taken down, we finally reached an agreement, took
>down the tag, and then one of his sockpuppets put it straight back up
>again. Hence my troll comment. Herschel was pleased as punch that I'd
>finally weakened and he went straight to the arbcom page and asked for
>a penalty against me. Fred Bauder responded by saying that if I ever
>showed up at the arbcom, I'd be banned for a day or two at least.
>This, without having seen any evidence or asking for my side of the
>story. That definitely made me reluctant to bring a case, though I did
>in the end.
>
>In January, I asked David Gerard for help regarding my sockpuppet
>suspicion. He was able to get a developer to check the accounts, and
>it was confirmed that they appeared to be sockpuppets, so I took the
>case to the new, recently elected arbcom. In the course of it,
>Herschel complained about my toxic-troll comment on an arbcom talk
>page. He submitted no evidence on the evidence page, and provided no
>diffs, but the arbcom took his comment as evidence and found the diffs
>for him. I didn't know they would do this, and hadn't prepared a
>defense. I wasn't penalized but I was formally warned.
>
>When the proposed decision against Herschel was being written up, Fred
>also made a couple of remarks about the need to deal with "the POV
>warriors on the other side," and named one editor, but he said
>warriors plural, so I assume he also meant me and/or one of the other
>editors. This meant we had to spend more time submitting defenses for
>ourselves. Fred provided no evidence of POV-pushing on our part, no
>examples, diffs, nothing, so we didn't even know what we were
>defending ourselves against.
>
>These were minor things, but they were annoying, because several
>editors had spent a lot of time dealing with Herschel for eight
>months, and we were doing it for Wikipedia, not for our own benefit.
>None of us had personal POVs that we were pushing, except a desire for
>accuracy. Keeping him and the two other accounts at bay was hard work,
>as was putting up with his constant snide remarks, and then putting
>the arbcom case together; yet it felt as though we were on trial too.
>
>If we'd had an editorial review committee, editors could have gone
>there about his original-research and NPOV violations when he first
>turned up in May, without having to wait for sockpuppet checks or for
>him to violate other conduct-related policies.
>
>I should add to this, however, that I'm grateful to the arbcom for the
>decisions they reached in the end, as they managed to stop his
>activities here completely.
>
>Sarah

I'm glad Sarah was brave enough to speak out; this e-mail perfectly
illustrates the problem.  And Sarah is not a POV warrior with a grudge
against Larouche, but someone who was reluctantly drawn into an obvious mess
created by a Larouch acolyte.

Jay.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Proposal on VFD: enforcement of nomination policy

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>>Bryan Derksen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So why not add non-notability to the deletion policy?
>>>
>>>
>>Mostly because it'll be too damn subjective to fly.
>>
>>
>The times I've cited "non-notable" as a reason for VfD have all been in
>regards to entries about people. It's my shorthand for saying "this person
>hasn't done anything important enough to merit an entry." And it's a judgement
>based on the contents of the first sentence or two of the article -- which
>should give the reader a quick answer of why this person is important. If
>you can't tell me why this person matters in the first paragraph, then
>it's clearly a non-notable entry.
>
>For example, if the entry begins "Joe Blow is a husband of 14 years to Jane
>Blow, has 3 kids & 2 dogs", then it's clearly non-noteable; if the man
>did something that argues he should be included in Wikipedia (say, he
>invented the cursor or patented the Smiley), it should say that in the first
>sentence -- or the second, if the first is devoted to saying he's an
>engineer, computer enthusiast or convicted sex offender. If the article
>begins "Joe Blow is the maintainer of the Open Source project [[Road kill]]"
>then it's not an automatic non-noteable call; even if it turns out that
>you can't find any mention of Road Kill at the usual Open Source/Free Software
>download sites (like Freshmeat), it's still not non-noteable -- I'd label
>it either "vanity" or "hoax" -- especially if that sentence is the entire
>article.
>
>Sadly, even limited to this catagory, this word has a lot of candidates:
>for some reason countless people think Wikipedia needs to have an article
>about themselves, their girlfriends, or their best friend. Even if said
>person's most important achievement in life was survivng birth.
>
>I'd probably use this term for other catagories, but I've lost the battle
>whether public high schools are non-noteable or not. (My own high school is
>non-noteable, yet other editors insisted on creating an article about it.)
>And it's easier to argue that an article about a public high school should
>be deleted because it's unverifiable than non-noteable, whereas with people
>it's the other way around. ("But you can't say [[Joe Blow]] is unverifiable!
>Take a look in the phone book -- his name is there! Call him & you'll see
>that he really exists!")
>
Congratulations!  For once someone has said something sensible in favour
of this deletion criterion.  "Article does not say why this person is
notable," is an objective and easily verifiable criterion.  If the basis
for the person's notability is to be found later in the article, then
it's an easy fix.  All too often the term "not notable" seems to be a
shortcut for, "He's not important because I never heard of him."  That
kind of sloppy remark ends up saying more about the person proposing the
deletion than about the article in question.  A little sensitivity and
understanding on the part of some deletionists would go a long way
toward defusing this issue.

Having established the verifiability of [[Joe Blow]], we need to
consider the fate of the late [[Joe Blow, Sr.]] whom the telephone
company has so rudely omitted since his death.  Obviously his supporters
are unfamiliar with the SSDI (Social Security Death Index).  This
on-line resource is well known by genealogists.  It lists the reported
death of anybody who had a social security number.  Failure to have a
SSN may be an indicator of non-notability.  Access to that list could be
the basis for [[List of notably deceased Americans by Social Security
Number]]. :-)

Ec


list: foundation-l

from_name: Michael Becker

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak

body:
If there is anything I learned from my long wiki-break months ago it is
that Wikipedia will continue to function fine without me. Since then,
I've had a much more laid-back view of Wikipedia. I often go several
days or weeks without doing anything wiki instead of trying to manage
doing EVERYTHING EVERYDAY. I realize things are different for you
Anthere seeing as so much trust has been put on you by the community.
However, I am certain the community would survive if you choose to cut
back on your visible involvement. Do what is best for you. You give a
lot to the community and project which we all appreciate very much.
Don't burn out :).

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 03:03:33 -0800 (PST), Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
 > Okay
 >
 > This has little to do with a supposed "upper circle".
 > I guess everyone has a need for a break from time to time.
 > If I just consider recent times with people around me :
 > Tim has consider entirely giving up Wikipedia for a while, and is
hopefully back though with less activity
 > Elian was on a wikibreak about 3 weeks ago
 > Sannse is currently on wikibreak though I do not know why. I just
heard it was because of my proposal on OTRS. I know nothing more.
 > Ellisllk has decided to quit Wikipedia recently, asking me to unsysop
him on Wikipedia and wikiquote
 > Danny is on wikibreak due to me not telling him what he expected, and
he made at least 3 or 4 wikibreaks in the past months
 > Sj has been on and off since december
 > Yourself, Villy, has been on a big wikibreak in january and part of
february (right ?)
 > Dunno about you, but I do not see a lot of Angela these days. Love is
getting her busy.
 > Aphaia quit participating to some projects
 > Etc...
 > And likely, dozen of wikipedians are everyday on a break
 >
 > We do not always know why they do it.
 > Some people live Wikipedia passionately, others have more of an equal
mood. Not everyone is equal in front of stress and disappointment.
 >
 > Yeah, I thought of explaining more why I am currently tired. But
really, this should be obvious by the past days mails here. The rest of
it is private issues.
 >
 > Perhaps I can only add four points.
 >
 > First, in the past few days, I did not sufficiently listened to
others. I should have listened more. Or I should just have keep my mouth
shut entirely. So perhaps it is more loss of faith in myself than in the
project ?
 >
 > Second, to listen more to others however, it would be helpful that
they talk. When they do not talk, it is really hard to know where to put
feet, and it is hard to represent mute people. Typical example would be
the proposal for OTRS. I may be the one concerned by the amount of mails
to answer, but we might be all concerned by what we want the Foundation
to become, a family kinda stuff, or something a bit more organised. If
so, I would love to hear opinions on this. Please see the amount of
feedback on this. I may have a responsability toward users, but I think
that in a similar sort of way, users have a responsability toward me.
Either one of support, or one of criticism, or suggesting other ideas...
dunno... uh... something... less silent possibly ?
 >
 > Third, I had some bad proprietary thoughts. I still think that images
I uploaded on Wikipedia are mine in a sense. I should not. If someone
delete them, I should just not mind at all. Many of the texts I added to
Wikipedia in three years have disappeared, remix in other people texts.
They never asked me if they could remove my inputs. I think it is okay.
I should not mind either that my images are deleted from Wikipedia (if I
repeat it every morning, I should get convinced perhaps ?)
 >
 > Fourth, I really physically need a break. Aside from all above
considerations. The last week has been very heavy for me at work, very
little sleep. No heat at home for 4 days while outside temperature was
below -10?C. I slept the whole saturday afternoon, which did not prevent
me from falling asleep at 10 pm the same day. As I have already
announced to a couple of wikipedians, I am waiting for a third baby, and
I feel I need rest badly right now. I am tired. At least, I should focus
on what is really important. Perhaps answering the pile of mails left in
my mail box. Oh well. Whatever.
 >
 >
 > ---------------------------------
 > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
 >  Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
 > _______________________________________________
 > foundation-l mailing list
 > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
 > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
 >

--
Michael Becker


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak


from_name: David Sabel

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: upto11.net

body:
Thanks for the quick reply.
<snip>
> 2) One very good approach would be to encourage _your_ user base to do
> useful
> work editing Wikipedia articles, create accounts, and _identify themselves
> as
> upto11.net members on their usage page._
> You can certainly create such a user page yourself. And Google does index
> Wikipedia user pages.
</snip>

1. Do you have an example of the type of user page you are suggesting? Is it
something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsupto11 in structure?

<snip>
> 3) DO caution your user base _against_ inserting links to your site on any
> pages that are in the "main" name space--that is, in actual encyclopedia
> articles. This will raise hackles unless the link provides useful
> information
> that is very clearly pertinent to the article and is not easily found
> elsewhere.
</snip>

2. We definitely will discourage folks from linking, within a Wikipedia
article, to upto11.net, as that would be really confusing for users - the
link might go to the page they are on! We want our users to add to the main
encyclopedia articles, not promote upto11.

>From our FAQ

Q. What is Wikipedia?
A. It's an open-content encyclopedia that has been created by thousands of
people. The project's aim is to create a free encyclopedia, in fact, the
largest encylcopedia in history. Information about artists, albums and songs
that is presented on upto11.net is provided, in part, from the Wikipedia.
Q. What can I do to help make Wikipedia more successful?

A. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that anyone can contribute to. Even
you. All you need to know is how to edit a page, and have some encyclopedic
knowledge you want to share. Visit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page to learn more
about how to contribute.

Q. What does the link "add to or edit this information" do?
A. Upto11.net encourages its users to become active contributors to the
Wikipedia project. If, in the course of your use of the upto11.net site, you
encounter a page with little or no content about a band, album or song that
you are familiar with, please click on the "add to or edit" link to share
that knowledge. Over time, the encyclopedia will grow and become more useful
to all users, especially to you, the music fan who enjoys using upto11.net.


body:
>From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>
>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>JAY JG said:
>
>>>Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now
>>>that  no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom.
>
>>Make an evidence page.
>
>
>Or rather, make it a Request For Comment.

I've done one user-related Request for Comment.  The evidence for placed in
it for violations of policy (particularly around personal attacks) were so
obvious that if they had been used in a RfAR, they would have undoubtedly
warranted at least a month block.  Yet the RfC was itself turned into a
two-way trial, with partisans on his side, and his buddies, lining up and
complaining about me ("e.g. true, he called you an asshole etc. but you
provoked him by reverting his edit, so you're both equally guilty").  This
of course is not how RfCs are supposed to be used, but it was justified on
the basis that other people had done it in other RfCs.  In the end nothing
came of it, and the effort was mostly wasted, because the person in question
did not modify his behaviour in the slightest, and when it came to the
inevitable RfAR months later (after which the person in question was banned
for over a year), none of the evidence presented in the RfC was even
considered.

In my experience (and as I've said before on this list) people-related RfCs
do no good whatsoever, and are simply a necessary bit of bureaucracy one
must slog though in order to prepare for the real event, ArbCom.

Jay.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Nofollow vote results on en.wikipedi

body:
We want nofollow to be a succesful and useful initiative, which in at
least some small place makes the Internet a better place to
live. Nofollow will work so long as most search engines find the
information contained in the nofollow tag to be generally useful on
average.

If nofollows are sprinkled all over the web indiscriminately, then
search engines which choose to ignore them will be at a competitive
disadvantage to that which choose to respect them.

Therefore, what we can do to help ensure the success of the nofollow
iniative is try to be sure that nofollow tags encode useful
information for search engines.  That is to say, links which are
deemed *good* by *humans* do not tend to contain the nofollow tag, and
links which are *suspicious* tend to contain the nofollow tag.

Therefore, it seems best to me if nofollow is on by default in the
software distribution (since most small wikis are victimized by spam)
and that nofollow is turned off in all the busy wikipedia sites.

Wikipedia provides an enormously high value set of hints to search
engines to help them find sites that don't suck.  We should not lower
the value of the nofollow tag by labelling all of our high-value links
as being suspect when they really aren't.  Doing so reduces the value
of the nofollow link for search engines.

--Jimbo


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

body:
>From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>
>JAY JG wrote
>
> > Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be updated
>with
> > examples which make that point that if it really is that simple, someone
> > else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do is
> > quote them.
>
>Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius
>would fall foul of this.  And numerous other things: such as conversion of
>dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency
>conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...

No, that's a strawman argument.  "Deductive reasoning" becomes original
research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an
article, not when used to do unit conversions.  Now if you were to assert
that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were
more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be
original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.

Jay.


list: commons-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Commons-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion of my images

body:
(CC to commons-l)

Ant-

> * wikimedia projects do not respect the license by not always
> displaying clearly that images uploaded on wikicommons are under gfdl
> nor by mentionning authorship on the local projects

In MediaWiki 1.5, a backlink to the Commons is automatically inserted.
In 1.4, this was not the case, and it had to be manually put into the
MediaWiki: message - some wikis therefore still lack the backlink. This
will be fixed once 1.5 goes live, but can also be fixed by any sysop on
the project in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sharedupload is a good example to
use for this.

You are correct that image license information should be displayed
directly on the image description page. This is likely to happen soon.

> * wikicommons does not provide a link to where the images are used, so
> do not allow editors to check whether the way images are used are
> following legal requirements or not

Unfortunately, that is correct. Alongside automatic transclusion of
image information pages, an EXTLINKS table on the Wikicommons might be
used to store usage information. A quick hack using absolute URLs might
be sufficient for now.

> * uploading images unfortunately takes time, even more on wikicommons
> where issues of duplicate in names begin to appear

It is generally a good idea to make a name unique, for example, by
adding your username at the end. No matter how large a wiki is, a
filename like [[Image:Flower.jpg]] is simply not unique enough. Still,
there are ways to improve the handling of the situation, for example, by
providing an "Alternative filename" input box when a filename already
exists.

> * wikicommons is in english only, hence limiting access to those non
> english speaking

That is not a fair comment. The Main Page alone has been translated into
over 30 languages. For gallery page titles, a carefully thought out
policy is used (e.g., use native names for specialty foods, use latin
binomial for animals and plants). The interface language of the wiki can
be selected in the user preferences. Templates have been created to show
what languages a user speaks and are actively used.  Filenames are
accepted in all languages. The main problem is with categories, which
are, unfortunately, not easily internationalizable due to redirects from
one cat to another not working -- a technological problem.

> * wikinews does not allow uploading images, hence preventing the easy
> use of images to non english speakers (since they can not easily
> manage wikicommons)

I do not see how limiting Wikinews to the Commons excludes non-English
speakers, see above, though certainly it is a little more difficult. As
you know, this is strictly for legal reasons until the fair use
situation has been sorted out:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-February/002217.html

This procedure has been directly approved by Jimmy.

> The more time goes by, the less motivating it is to provide images imho.

Personally, I find it more motivating to upload images now, because
thanks to the Wikimedia Commons, I know that anyone on any project can
easily use them. I agree with you that certain functionality would be
useful and fun. I've only ever pledged to implement the baseline
functionality for the Commons, which I have done. I'll try to find time
to add some of the above discussed features, but frankly, coding and
testing a new feature is not a lot of fun, and as I've said before,
until the WMF goes into the habit of handing out development contracts,
projects like Wikinews and Wikicommons will stagnate technologically.
All of the above, plus more, could be fixed with a few strategic
investments in developer resources. Single login alone would greatly
increase cross-project usability, as language preferences could be
persistent, and you could easily upload files directly from a local wiki
to the Commons.

As an elected Board member, you have the power to speed up the pace of
innovation. I have offered many times to help with that. A handful of
active developers will *NOT* be able to keep up with the needs of
thousands of users.

All best,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion of my images


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Note to all bringing RFArs: if you've done an RFC, list it on the
> Evidence page *and* explicitly reuse the evidence!

Exactly. My original idea for RfA was that they could be used for arbitration
evidence and to show arbcom members community opinion on the issues raised in
the RfC.

Unfortunately, the format of RfA evidence pages and the format for RfCs is no
longer the same. These should be re-synced to make re-use as easy as possible.

-- mav

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


from_name: sannse

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Sannse is currently on wikibreak though I do not know why. I just heard
 > it was because of my proposal on OTRS. I know nothing more.

No, no... I don't want this to be thought of as the reason I'm away.  I
am not well at the moment, and need to take a step back for a while.  At
my level of addiction, that's not going to be easy of course... this
morning I've already checked the mailing lists, looked over OTRS, had a
quick look at the current arbitration cases and logged in to IRC... but
I need to know at least that I'm not /expected/ to be doing anything for
a while.  I'm not sure how long I'll be away, or how away I'll be, that
depends on my health.

I don't think the new OTRS set up is wise or helpful, but it's certainly
not the reason I'm taking a break.

--sannse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 02/03/05


subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak


from_name: Arno M

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of my images

body:
I suspect there was an administrative error here, and anthere has
complained to Quadell directly about this.

Hopefully this will gets sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.

Arno
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of my images
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:03:44 +0100

>
> For the second time this month, one of my images was deleted on the
> english wikipedia.
>
> I was not warned at all.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anthere/PictInsectes&diff=0&oldid=10140585
>
> I'll be frank, I AM PISSED OFF.
>
> It is written clearly on my talk page, and my user page that all my
> images are gfdl. All my insects pictures listed on my user subpage
> are labelled, but this one.
>
> Just as I already said on the pump less than 2 weeks ago, I think
> it is really pure disrespect to delete an image without asking the
> author, and then only AFTER deletion, to go on this user subpage to
> remove the link to the deleted image. If there is time to go on my
> user subpage to remove a link, then there is time to drop by my
> user talk page and talk to me. Of there is time to read the mention
> on my user and user talk page and to read my warning about the
> status of my images and to update the image status.
>
> I am sorry, but I really find this of the latest rudeness.
>
>  From now quite far away, as I have no more time to edit the
> english wikipedia, I have the horrible feeling the english
> wikipedia has become a very very cold place, where there is no
> respect for editors except those well known possibly. If feels like
> if one is not among the major editors, he does not count, and his
> feelings are not important at all. It looks like a machine. An
> automate. Not a great human construction.
>
> We are all here because we believe in what we do, but what we do is
> only good because we do it together and because we trust each other.
>
> Well, at least, some people trust other people. And if it is not
> possible to trust someone who spent already 3 years on wikipedia, I
> wonder how newbies are treated.
>
> In case you feel like telling me "yeah, but this is just one case
> you know, not everybody does that", I will then ask why Quadell is
> trusted to delete images. I do not trust him to do so. Not because
> he does not do this according to rules, but because he does not do
> this while taking human feelings into account. And wiki only works
> thanks to human power.
>
> Anthere
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com


from_name: Jean-Christophe Chazalette

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak

body:
Thank you for your answer Ant. As to my *wikibreak*, you know
its cause and how deeply personal it was. But there's another
difference. I'm not the vice-president of Foundation in a 3
member board, so my own wikibreak was totally meaningless as
to the projects. Wikibreak is a vague word and I'm concerned
when it applies to one of the 3 persons directing the project.
Now, I understand you're tired, I do repeat my congratulations
on your future baby and kiss you love.

~~villy

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)


subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak


subject: [WikiEN-l] Antiwikipedia site - are there any solutions?

body:
Arno M wrote:

>There seems to be nothing we can do about it, either, unless some
>mediation for this guy can somehow be arranged. (Are there any alternate ideas?)
>
>If some had been arranged for this fellow earlier, this anti-wikipedia
>site MAY have been avoided.
>
>
I think that one way of reading this suggests a typo on Arno's part.  He
may have just missed typing a "c" in the middle of "mediation" :-)

Ec


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
Here is the URL:

http://www.sdmagazine.com/articles/2005/0504/

Sorry, but they require registration to see it.

Uncle Ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poor, Edmund W [mailto:Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:56 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] SD Magazine article: The Wiki Way
>
>
> The April 2005 edition of Software Development Magazine has
> an article Rick Wayne wrote about wiki software, and
> MediaWiki has BY FAR the nicest screen shots. You'll
> recognize the yellow flower and the puzzle-world right away.
> It's in the April 2005 edition, which just arrived in my
> snail mailbox today at work. (The online version lags a few
> days behind, but I'll send in the URL once it's up.


body:
I already have looked at the Sollog wikipedia article, and I commented
on it later.

All in all, the "wikipedia sucks" site is a hate site, in which some
aspects of Jimbo's Bomis site that I had not been aware of
have been highlighted, together with a lot of hysteria about
a 10 million dollar fine (that seems to have no legal validity
at all).

There seems to be nothing we can do about it, either, unless some
mediation for this guy can somehow be arranged. (Are there any alternate ideas?)

If some had been arranged for this fellow earlier, this anti-wikipedia
site MAY have been avoided.

On-the-spot mediation/arbitration is something that could also be applied
for other edit wars, for which the 3R rule is not a solution.

Arno

----- Original Message -----
From: "csherlock at ljh.com.au" <csherlock at ljh.com.au>
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A nasty and weird site
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:55:50 +1100

>
> Arno M wrote:
> > Here's a site that is rather critical of wikipedia. In fact, its
> > very critical. http://www.wikipediasucks.com/
> >
> > Some interesting popups appear when you leave the site which
> > perhaps indicate what its worth.
> > Its claim that "There are now thousands of pages if you search
> > for 'wikipedia sucks' in any search engine." is wrong - the
> > supplied does a google search for pages with the words wikipedia
> > or sucks, which not surprisingly does yield thousands of results.
> > But a search for the phrase brings out 149 instead. And whats all
> > this about Sollog, the Temple of 'Hayah, and a $10 million fine
> > for
> > "religious hate crimes"? Bizarre! However, I do feel compelled to
> > ask : who are those cute young friends on the yacht with Jimbo?
>
> As noone seems to have answered this to any degree of satisfaction
> (except for the answer about the babe), I recommend that Arno check
> out [[Sollog]]. That's who runs the site.
>
> TBSDY
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Refusing to cite sources

body:
Steve writes:
> This may sound like a little thing, but I think it is
> vitally needed.  When I was in conflict with CheeseDreams
> about the Cultural and Historical background of Jesus,
> one of my major problems was that she seemed not to
> have done any research whatsoever.

I too have come across this. It is frustrating to read over
a dozen technical papers on science, philosophy or global
warming, many published in peer-reviewed journals...yet
find that my edits being reverted by someone who knows
little about the topic.

Sadly, anarchy-loving Wikipedians value nice words and
avoidance of three reverts in a day, but it places little
value on sourced facts.  We are doomed to fail in our
effort to build a reliable, referenced and accurate
encyclopedia unless the people contributing to articles can
source their contributions.

Some claims, obviously, need no sourcing. "Most Christians
do not worship Satan, and most Christians do not believe
that the Sun orbits the Earth."  When making statements of
obvious and well-known fact, one does not need a source.
But when someone claims "Most Christians today believe that
Jesus has already arrived on Earth..." one must provide
proper sources!

Yet as long as one behaves "nicely" people continue to
shove nonsense into articles, even when they are unable and
unwilling to back up their own claim, and even when their
own position is refuted by articles published by well-known
scholars.

The position of ten physicists with peer-reviewed
publications falls away when confronted with one person who
says "Nope, these papers don't claim what you say they
claim. Physicists don't really believe that gravity exists
on the moon."  Well, the papers do make clear that
physicists hold this view, but how do we counter someone
who just replies "No, they don't"...and offers no sources.

In such a situation the person who offers quotes from
published, and ofter peer-reviewed sources, should be
allowed to make the edit, and the person who offers no
sources should not be able to delete it.  Is this not
sensible?

Yet this is not happening, and we have no enforcement
procedures in place.  Larry Sanger's recent comments are
thus well deserved.

> But what if there is a user who strictly adheres to all
> behavior policies, but who nevertheless thinks of an
> article as if it were his/her own blog?...

> The thing is, CD never answered my simple question, what
> was her source -- and I could not compel her to answer,
> and there was no sanction for her not answering.
>
> Here is one place where I see the value of a committee
> that is empowered to ask "what are your sources" or
> "what kind of research did you do" and, if the answer is
> silence or something that just doesn't hold up, can
> impose a sanction.

Sounds reasonable.

Robert

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


body:
>From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>JAY JG wrote:
>
>>and when it came to the inevitable RfAR months later (after which the
>>person in question was banned for over a year), none of the evidence
>>presented in the RfC was even considered.
>
>
>Er, why not? It would likely have been an excellent start
>to arbitration evidence. Which case do you mean?

As far as I know none of the evidence in my RfC re: Alberuni was used in the
actual findings against him.

Jay.


body:
AndyL wrote:

>on 3/6/05 9:32 PM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>AndyL wrote:
>>
>>
>>>on 3/6/05 5:25 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Countersuits are a normal part of the civil judicial process, but not of
>>>>the criminal process.  They provide for the limited right of the
>>>>respondent to raise issues against his accuser.  It does not operate to
>>>>allow the court to initiate new complaints, nor does it allow for third
>>>>party meddling.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>But it is not the court that initiates countersuits but the respondent.
>>>That's where we're getting it wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>Let's get back to the point. You're so far not convincing me that your
>>model works better to get an encyclopedia written than the current one.
>>How does it better achieve that goal?
>>
>>
>It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate complaints
>for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum tempbanned from
>editing an article until the hearing is complete.
>
>
The issue is a couple of steps removed from the ultimate goal of a great
encyclopedia.  Badly behaved people of any kind are an impediment to
achieving that.  Article material that is contrary to key rules is only
one form of bad behaviour; persistent complaining about colleagues is
another.

Ec


from_name: Tom Haws

body:
I don't think it would hurt our process for certain talk pages to say,

"The content of this article is subject to the following binding
editorial decisions of the Content Arbitration Committee:"

Each decision could include an expiration date.

Tom


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: wikibreak

body:
It will just be for a couple of days so that I sleep, think and recover.
So, do not worry. Won't make much of a difference dearie.

Jean-Christophe Chazalette a ?crit:
> Thank you for your answer Ant. As to my *wikibreak*, you know
> its cause and how deeply personal it was. But there's another
> difference. I'm not the vice-president of Foundation in a 3
> member board, so my own wikibreak was totally meaningless as
> to the projects. Wikibreak is a vague word and I'm concerned
> when it applies to one of the 3 persons directing the project.
> Now, I understand you're tired, I do repeat my congratulations
> on your future baby and kiss you love.
>
> ~~villy
> 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)
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: wikibreak


subject: [Foundation-l] Offial registration of Wikimedia France

body:
--- Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wikimedia France is now official registred as a non profit association.
>
> Thanks to all who helped to do that.

Congratulations!

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


from_name: Joel Wiesmann

subject: [Wikitech-l] (kein Betreff)

body:
Hi there

There seems to be a problem with custom namespaces and the SpecialAllpages.php
(tested: mediawiki 1.4rc1). Custom namespaces will not show up in the selectbox.

This problem seems not to be reported on bugzilla, but it can also be found on:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace

Under the section "custom namespaces":
Special:Allpages does not show custom namespaces (this seems to be a bug), but
the URLs work, e.g.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allpages&namespace=100

Here's the patch for a working dropdown list:
# Patch for SpecialAllpages.php to show custom namespaces.
# By Joel Wiesmann aka tr0nix - www.secuserv.ch
38a39
>
40,41c41,43
<       for ( $i = 0; $i < 14; $i++ ) {
<               $namespacename = str_replace ( "_", " ", $arr[$i] );
---
>       foreach( $arr as $i => $name )
>       {
>               $namespacename = str_replace ( "_", " ", $name );

usage:
patch -i <patchfile> ./includes/SpecialAllpages.php

Hope this helps and gets accepted :). For me it works fine! Unfortunately I'm
not very familliar with CVS, so this is _maybe_ already fixed.

Regards
Joel Wiesmann, www.secuserv.ch (patch can also be found on my homepage)


body:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
> As long as it is seen as a dispute resolving mechanism, rather than as
> police, I think it would work for both (indeed, one of the problems with
> the ArbCom right now is that it is both dispute-resolving, and
> police.  Maybe we need both functions, but they call for different
> mechanisms -- a dispute-resolution process does require, as Fred has
> insisted, that the committee look at the behavior of "both" parties.  But
> this is possible only because there are two or more parties.  I think the
> policing function requires a committee that can talk to users who violate
> policies even when no one has filed a formal complaint).

Police are enforcers. The ArbCom does not enforce its rulings - non-ArbCom
admins and developers who are interested in that type of thing do. Thus there
is already a separation.

I'm all for giving admins broader police powers, but this needs to be
implemented in a slow and well thought-out way. I'm not for adding yet another
committee since that will not scale nearly as well as using existing admins.

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I think you should just start doing those things. The questions and answers
will be on the record and will be evidence which we can consider especially
when we look at remedies.

Fred

> From: Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:10:32 +0000
> To: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
>
> I agree. I came to the AC after it was formed and it's way of working
> was set. But personally i hate the jargon and the quasilegalistic way
> of working. I would like to go to the people concerned and ask
> questions "Why did you remove that chunk of text" "Do you regret
> calling him a shithead and have you said or done anything by way of an
> aplogy" "If you had to to it again, would you have handled it
> differently?" that sort of thing. I'd like things to be far more
> informal than they are at the moment, but i don't know how the
> community feel about that, and i don't want to break a process, that
> basically works (even though it has its faults)
>
> Theresa


body:
--- Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. I came to the AC after it was formed and it's way of working
> was set. But personally i hate the jargon and the quasilegalistic way
> of working. I would like to go to the people concerned and ask
> questions "Why did you remove that chunk of text" "Do you regret
> calling him a shithead and have you said or done anything by way of an
> aplogy" "If you had to to it again, would you have handled it
> differently?" that sort of thing. I'd like things to be far more
> informal than they are at the moment, but i don't know how the
> community feel about that, and i don't want to break a process, that
> basically works (even though it has its faults)

That is a role that mediation should play.

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


body:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
> You know, a new committee with clear procedural rules will itself begin
> generating clearer ideas about how to deal with disagreements over what
> constitutes original research, too,

There is no need for a new committee. The existing ArbCom just needs to be more
aggressive at enforcing content policies and guidelines. We did not tackle
these issues at first due to the fact that we did not have clear community
support and many feared giving us that power. The mood now has changed and I
think the community has a great deal more trust in the ArbCom and the ArbCom
itself is better-prepared to deal with this type of issue.

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: wikibreak

body:
sannse a ?crit:
>
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Sannse is currently on wikibreak though I do not know why. I just heard
>
>  > it was because of my proposal on OTRS. I know nothing more.
>
> No, no... I don't want this to be thought of as the reason I'm away.  I
> am not well at the moment, and need to take a step back for a while.

Thanks for the comment and chat on irc Sannse

  At
> my level of addiction, that's not going to be easy of course... this
> morning I've already checked the mailing lists, looked over OTRS, had a
> quick look at the current arbitration cases and logged in to IRC... but
> I need to know at least that I'm not /expected/ to be doing anything for
> a while.

That might be how I feel.

   I'm not sure how long I'll be away, or how away I'll be, that
> depends on my health.
>
> I don't think the new OTRS set up is wise or helpful, but it's certainly
> not the reason I'm taking a break.

No problem for your opinion. Will let it stand for now, and wait for
other suggestions. Sj suggestion is a start.

> --sannse


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: wikibreak


body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> I think you should just start doing those things. The questions and answers
> will be on the record and will be evidence which we can consider especially
> when we look at remedies.

Yep - no reason why this can't also happen at the ArbCom level (even if it was
already tried and failed on the MedCom level - at least the ArbCom version
would be public).

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak

body:
sannse wrote:
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Sannse is currently on wikibreak though I do not know why. I just heard
>> it was because of my proposal on OTRS. I know nothing more.
>
> No, no... I don't want this to be thought of as the reason I'm away.  I
> am not well at the moment, and need to take a step back for a while.  At
> my level of addiction, that's not going to be easy of course... this
> morning I've already checked the mailing lists, looked over OTRS, had a
> quick look at the current arbitration cases and logged in to IRC... but
> I need to know at least that I'm not /expected/ to be doing anything for
> a while.  I'm not sure how long I'll be away, or how away I'll be, that
> depends on my health.

To both of you: take your time you need to recover and don't feel bad or
worry to much about who or which caused what, what is going wrong, what
work needs to be done and isn't done and anything, okay?

*hugs to Anthere and sannse*
elian


subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak

body:
I would like to offer my apologies for the tone of my previous mail, which may have been slightly too rough :)

Congratulations for the baby!

As Jean-Christophe, I'm slightly concerned, because of the 3 board members you seem to me the more "visible" on the mailing lists, often launching new ideas, explaining things, and such.
Therefore I'm afraid your wikibreak will make the board less visible - but i hope to be totally wrong on that point :)

Enjoy your wikibreak, Anthere. You deserve it, as much as anyone having invested as much time you did in Wikimedia. And we'll manage, somehow, to survive even without you ^_- So don't worry about us.

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)


subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Stephen Forrest

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Saterlandic Frisian Wikipedia

body:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 17:40:38 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wasn't trying to put you down. Were you trying to put me down? If so, why?

Gentlemen, please.  If you want to put each other down, or argue about
whether you're doing so, please take things off list.  Very few of us
care.

In general, I would suggest that before posting a single-line message,
to really think about whether all of us need to read it.  I don't
think this was one of those cases.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Refusing to cite sources

body:
--- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In such a situation the person who offers quotes from
> published, and ofter peer-reviewed sources, should be
> allowed to make the edit, and the person who offers no
> sources should not be able to delete it.  Is this not
> sensible?

I would certainly support enforcement of the no-original research and cite
sources guidelines are strict policies. But that brings me to this very
important point: We need to to readjust our focus very, *very* clearly back to
this basic premise, which I will call our prime directive (which I'm astonished
some newer users don?t get);

We are here to create the biggest, best, and most respected encyclopedia on the
planet and provide those contents to as many people as possible.
*Wiki is a means to *that* end.
*Our openness is a means to *that* end.
*The community itself is a means to *that* end.

Everything else can be compromised but our prime directive cannot. That said,
wiki, our openness and the community certainly *has* brought us far toward
attaining our prime directive. So we must not do anything that would negatively
affect the positive aspects of wiki, openness, and the community (meaning those
aspects that help us get closer to attaining our prime directive).

Therefore we must not be hasty and instead move cautiously and deliberatively
by using the systems that are already in place (at first), and only scraping or
augmenting those systems (such as adding more bureaucracy in the form of
yet-another-committee) if they cannot be modified enough to get the desired
effect.

The ArbCom is already moving in the direction of stronger enforcement of the
content policies. This momentum only needs a push in the form of developing
well-reasoned ways to maximize the positive aspects of doing this and
minimizing the negative.

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


body:
Jimbo did spend a lot of time going through the edits so he could figure out
what is going on. That is what takes the time. And discussing what is really
the right thing to do.

Fred

> From: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:45:33 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
>
> The Arbitrators should become "moderators".  When a moderator becomes
> aware of an issue, he should try to resolve it by communicating with
> the party or parties concerned.    If he cannot, he should simply go
> to the other moderators and say (in effect): "The facts are such and
> such.   Here is what I have tried to resolve it; but it hasn't worked.
> I propose that we impose such-and-such sanction.   The other
> moderators should then just vote over the course of a few days, and
> the decision should be implemented.   There is no need for the
> deliberation to be formal, long, or even public.   Decisions should
> just be announced on the Administrator noticeboard, which is also
> where people might go to get the Moderators attention for problems.
> There would probably need to be some system so that several Moderators
> didn't work the same problems and get in each other's way.   The
> process should be very fast with a minimum of nonsense.   The AC
> replaces Jimmy and I am sure that Jimmy didn't go through all of this
> laughable legaiistic claptrap when he was making his decisions.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
--- Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no idea of the AC history, but somewhere back when the arbcom
> was getting rolling it took a wrong turn and now we have this
> tremendously heavy process.  The basic need is simply to be able to
> get  an experienced and level-headed Wikipedian who is respected and
> trusted by the community involved in various situations who can (1)
> warn people that they are out of line and try to nudge them towards
> correcting their behaviour; and/or (2) impose a sanction if the
> misbehaviour continues, with the easily-obtained backing of a
> committee that represents the community consensus,

And yet we get through cases just fine and since 1 January rather fast.

So where is it broke again?

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


body:
The problem was that Hershchelkrustovsky had gone through an arbitration.
The proposal to ban him from LaRouche related articles had been defeated by
a vote of the arbitration committee, so he was an editor in good standing.
There are people who believe in good faith that the the LaRouche movement
can be accurately described as fascist. There were a few who insisted that
that characterization could be applied on Wikipedia both to LaRouche and to
Hershchelkrustovsky and his colleagues (I am still not sure how many edited,
although more than one "user" was editing from the same ip). In that context
personal attacks on him were inappropriate despite the obvious fact he was
here only to push LaRouche.

Provided his ban is not extended indefinitely he will be back in a year and
under our policies entitled to the same respectful treatment as any other
editor. It can be anticipated he will simply go back to the same stuff.

Any suggestions?

Fred

> From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:34:29 -0500
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
>
> Theresa wrote:
>> But as Sarah said "These were minor things, but they were annoying"
>>
>>
>> Let's keep things in perspective. Should we really change the way the
>> AC works to avoid annoying minor gripes.
>
>
> Sarah's nature (at least here) is to self-effacing and gentle.  However
> "minor" she characterizes her experience, I think it is the perfect example
> of the kind of thing that should be avoided as best possible.
>
> I understand that many members of the ArbCom have serious problems with the
> various proposals floating around.  So I ask a question to the ArbCom:
> forget about those proposals.  Just looking at Sarah's experience, can you
> propose any reforms, either to the ArbCom m.o., or to the dispute
> resolution process as a whole, that would make it very unlikely for an
> editor in good standing to go through something like this in the future?
>
> There are so many proposals because people have slightly differing notions
> of what is wrong.  I hope the ArbCom will take this sense that something is
> wrong seriously, even if the proposals thus far fall short.  Maybe if
> instead of proposing solutions based on general notions of what is wrong,
> we focus on one or two actual cases and ask how things could have gone
> better, we will come up with some workable solutions.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> Steven L. Rubenstein
> Associate Professor
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bentley Annex
> Ohio University
> Athens, Ohio 45701
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] (kein Betreff)

body:
Perfect, should learn to use search function (and setting an email subject,
sorry for that, stupid webmail), didn't found this one.

Regards
Joel

Quoting Zigger <zigger at gmail.com>:

> Coincidentally, a patch for this previously reported issue was
> supplied and applied to CVS for both HEAD and REL1_4 a few days ago.
> See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1618
>
> -- Zigger
>
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:23:05 +0100 (CET), Joel Wiesmann wrote:
> > ...
> > There seems to be a problem with custom namespaces and the
> SpecialAllpages.php
> > (tested: mediawiki 1.4rc1). Custom namespaces will not show up in the
> selectbox.
> > ...
> > Here's the patch for a working dropdown list:
> > ...
> > Hope this helps and gets accepted :). For me it works fine!
> Unfortunately I'm
> > not very familliar with CVS, so this is _maybe_ already fixed.
> > ...
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

Wenn du bist zum Hals im Wasser steckst, solltest du den Kopf nicht haengen lassen.


body:
--- Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why separate "mediation" from "arbitration"?   Why such complicated
> dispute resolution procedures?    It is almost as if we want to make
> it hard and complicated to resolve disputes, something you can only do
> if you are determined.   What is the logic behind that?

One-size-fits-all solutions are rarely effective. The dispute resolution
process is soft at first and then gets harsher and harsher as one moves through
it. This gives people with good intentions plenty of time to reform before even
the possibility of harsh sanctions are imposable.

> Wouldn't mediation work better if the parties knew that the mediator
> seeking a resolution to a dispute/behaviour problem had the ready
> means to impose a sanction on any parties deemed not to be
> cooperating?     Iron fist in the velvet glove.   At present, in the
> case of real a behaviour problem (as opposed to a good-faith
> difference of opinion) mediation is a hoop people have to jump through
> to get to arbitration, and anyway it is broken.

I've already proposed that anything agreed to in mediation should be strictly
enforceable. There was a good deal of support for that idea - but I have not
had time to check back on the progress toward that (it could simply be done by
fiat by the ArbCom, but gaining community support first is a good idea).

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>
>JAY JG wrote:
>>From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>>>JAY JG wrote:
>
>>>>and when it came to the inevitable RfAR months later (after which the
>>>>person in question was banned for over a year), none of the evidence
>>>>presented in the RfC was even considered.
>
>>>Er, why not? It would likely have been an excellent start
>>>to arbitration evidence. Which case do you mean?
>
>>As far as I know none of the evidence in my RfC re: Alberuni was used in
>>the actual findings against him.
>
>
>Ah, okay. Apology on my part for not going looking, that was one of the
>earliest cases I looked at.
>
>Note to all bringing RFArs: if you've done an RFC, list it on the
>Evidence page *and* explicitly reuse the evidence!

Just to be clear, I was not a complainant in the RfAR against Alberuni.  I
explicitly avoided that case for a number of reasons, including ones
mentioned earlier on this list.

Jay.


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
> It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate complaints
> for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum tempbanned from
> editing an article until the hearing is complete.

Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in the past?
Certainly requests for arbitration appear to come thick and fast. I am
not aware of a legit complaint not having been made out of fear.

Theresa


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

body:
Delerium wrote,

>The current hope is that the community can deal with this, if people who
>behave badly are taken out of the system.  That is, the community will
>spot and remove original research, and if someone keeps readding it
>despite a consensus that it should be removed, the person will
>eventually be banned.

I understand this.  And, as I hope I have made very clear, I do believe
that the unregulated community must and can be the first, and major, way of
dealing with such problems.

Two big buts (and, as we all know, everyone has big buts):

First, many other people have pointed out that the way that the community
deals with such issues often escalates to a point where vigilant members of
the community violate personal behavior rules in the process of trying to
control an editor who is damaging the content of an article.  I am not
excusing violation of personal behavior rules, I am just making what I
think is a factual observation.  Since the only official dispute-resolution
mechanism we currently have is concerned exclusively with behavioral
violations, and not content, vigilant members of the community are punished
along with those damaging content.  As many have pointed out, the 3RR
actually favors editors who damage content, against vigilant members.  I am
NOT saying that the ArbCom should stop dealing with violations of behavior
policies.  I Am saying that this situation calls for a second
mechanism.  (I share Mav's concern about extending the ArbCom's powers -- I
think that such a second mechanism should involve a second committee.

Second, let's remember that there was a time when we similarly expected the
"community" to deal with all problems, including personal conflicts
involving violations of behavioral policies.  Mediation and ArbCom
developed as we realized that the anarchic community processes simply were
not sufficient.  I think it is clear now that anarchic community processes
are not always sufficient to deal with violations of content policies.

Believe me, I sometimes miss the days when there was no formal mechanism
for dealing with problems, and editors just had to argue it out -- even
vituperatively! -- until someone gave up.  This is why I still think that
the community should try to resolve all disputes, concerning content and
behavioral policies.  But I understand the need for the ArbCom -- as
Wikipedia grows, and becomes even more heterogeneous, I don't see an
alternative.  But similarly, as Wikipedia grows, I think we now need a
second committee.  Two committees to handle different kinds of disputes may
seem like a lot compared to the old days.  But really, I don't think two
committees is too much.

>I'd be open to a committee policing for original research at some point,
>if that turns out to be necessary.  Policing for NPOV is a lot more
>complicated.

As long as it is seen as a dispute resolving mechanism, rather than as
police, I think it would work for both (indeed, one of the problems with
the ArbCom right now is that it is both dispute-resolving, and
police.  Maybe we need both functions, but they call for different
mechanisms -- a dispute-resolution process does require, as Fred has
insisted, that the committee look at the behavior of "both" parties.  But
this is possible only because there are two or more parties.  I think the
policing function requires a committee that can talk to users who violate
policies even when no one has filed a formal complaint).

Steve

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


body:
>From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>
>Jay JG wrote
>
> >  "Deductive reasoning" becomes original
> > research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in
>an
> > article, not when used to do unit conversions.
>
>I have to say that I'm not comfortable with 'content policy' being made
>into
>something slightly different in this way.

It's not being made into anything different at all; rather, it has been that
all along, but people often fail to abide by it.  Quoting from
[[Wikipedia:No original research]]

"A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original
research if it proposes ideas, that is... it purports to refute another
idea."

It couldn't be simpler, really, which is why it is astonishing that even
some long time editors seem unable to understand and/or accept it.

>Policy on content fundamentally
>is there to help sort out what content is encyclopedic in nature.

Right.  And, at least for Wikipedia, it has been decided that "original
reasearch" is not "encyclopedic in nature".   And one of the things defined
as "original research" is material that "purports to refute another idea."

>It is not
>really there - though clearly will be used by some - to tell you when you
>may or may not argue a certain way (as if the process was inherently
>adversarial).

But of course it is there to do just that (among other things).  For
example, Wikipedia clearly insists (via the NPOV policy) that you may not
argue only one position on a subject, but must bring countering views citing
various holders of positions, inevitably introducing an adversarial element
to articles.  And the original research policy insists that one cannot argue
one's own views, but rather must present other's views, and that tempered
with the caveat that extreme minority views need not be presented at all.

Jay.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
zero 0000 wrote:

>Fred wrote:
>
>
>>A full investigation will improve the quality of our decisions. A
>>partial or
>>poor investigation restricted by artificial rules will reduce their
>>quality.
>>It's pretty much summed up by "The more you know..."
>>
>>
>
>I think you are missing the point.  I don't see anyone wanting to
>limit the AC's ability to look wherever they like.  The issue is of
>who they have the right to impose penalties on.
>
>Again:  if someone is accused by a RfA listing, they have the
>opportunity to write in their own defence and to have their
>fellows write in their defence.  Then the AC imposes a penalty
>on a different person who had no such opportunity since they
>didn't know it was necessary.  It is fundamentally unfair.
>
>The accuser is treated worse than the accused.
>
>The solution: except perhaps in emergencies, the AC should
>only be able to impose penalties on someone who has had an
>opportunity to mount a defence.  There should be a rule on
>how much opportunity must be given.
>
>
Turning an acusation around and looking at the activities of the accuser
does not imply that the accuser would be deprived of the right to defend
himself.  If the AC determines that the accuser's activities need
examining they would bring the matter to his attention at that time for
comment.

Ec


from_name: Brian M

body:
It would seem that reasonable "due process" would require that if the
arbcom is contemplating imposing a sanction on a user as a result of
evidence of his misbehaviour presented in the course of a case, he
should be notified of this and invited to present his own evidence in
the case.

These procedural rights are accorded to the original "respondent" in
an arbcom case. If anyone else becomes a "respondent" in course of a
case, either as a result of a counter-charge by the original
respondent, or through any other evidence presented in the case, he or
should be accorded the same privileges.

If the arbcom believes that it is necessary to proceed in the
quasi-judicial manner that it has adopted, with "cases",
"respondents", "petitioners", "evidence", "injunctions", etc, then it
should afford all users the same procedural protections.

But personally, I think the arbcom should abandon its current
quasi-judial, excessively legalistic procedure and proceed more
informally as the implementors of the community consensus when
individuals misbehave according to the policies.  I would prefer to
see the Arbitration Committee change its name to the Moderation
Committee and operate more informally, imposing sanctions where
appropriate on any member deemed to have violated policy in an
egregious manner.    They should not wait for "complaints" and "cases"
to do this, although of course members should be able to bring
problems to their attention via complaints.

The reality is that (1)  the current procedure is not an arbitration;
(2) the process of collecting "evidence", etc, simply slows down the
meting out of appropriate sanctions, and can be gamed by trolls; (3)
all the legalistic posturing by wannabe lawyers makes Wikipedia look
childish and silly; and (4) the arbcom is not in any case an impartial
panel of judges but are members themselves of the affected community
sharing its project (whether they recuse themselves or not), and most
probably the sanctions imposed by the Arbitrators are not made solely
on the basis of the evidence presented, but also on their personal
knowledge or investigation of the facts, and their own assessment of
what sanctions the community consensus will favor or support.

--Brian (BM)


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Theresa Knott said:
>
>
>>>It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate
>>>complaints for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum
>>>tempbanned from editing an article until the hearing is complete.
>>>
>>>
>>Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in the past?
>>Certainly requests for arbitration appear to come thick and fast. I am
>>not aware of a legit complaint not having been made out of fear.
>>
>>
>I think it is more the case that people have gone to arbcom and not
>obtained quite the result they expected.
>
>
Yep.  How does that compare with the probability of success in a small
claims court?

Ec


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
zero 0000 said:
> Fred wrote:
>> A full investigation will improve the quality of our decisions. A
>> partial or
>> poor investigation restricted by artificial rules will reduce their
>> quality.
>> It's pretty much summed up by "The more you know..."
>
> I think you are missing the point.  I don't see anyone wanting to
> limit the AC's ability to look wherever they like.  The issue is of who
> they have the right to impose penalties on.

The arbcom is empowered to make such decisions.  There is no issue that I
can see here, except for those who want editors to be free to complain
about other editors without suffereing the consequences of their own
behavior where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia.
It's all a matter of what you think arbcom is for. Is it to be a catspaw
with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept
enemies, or is it (as I believe to be the case) a body elected by the
editors and delegated by Jimmy Wales to stop editors doing harm to
Wikipedia by their actions?  If the latter, it should levy penalties to
all who merit such penalties.  If it only ever penalizes the people
nominated by the petitioners, then it can only ever be driven by the
perceptions of, and the prejudices of, the cleverer, more adept, editors.


from_name: Boris Lohnzweiger

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Saterlandic Frisian Wikipedia + thoughts on small
	language wikipedias in general

body:
Hi Wouter !

Thank you for taking the time to consider my arguments and for your comprehensive response. I agree with most of what you are writing and I am well aware that your request for Saterlandic is far more mature then many other pending Wikipedia language requests.

You're right, we might have slightly different ideas on what Wikipedia is all about. Let me briefly explain what it is to me.

You wrote:
> Its main goal is, of course, providing freely editable and downloadable
> information. A second aim is to create encyclopaedias in as many languages
> as possible.

I certainly agree with you there. And so does Wikipedia's claim "The Free Encyclopia".

But what is an encyclopia supposed to be? Me, I think any encyclopedia - printed or online - should serve as a  _comprehensive_and_reliable_  source of information. Otherwhise it's useless. Imagine you go about looking up something in a printed encyclopedia only to find out it lacks some article it definetly ought to contain. I'd probably throw that book into the nearest trash can. Now how many articles does an encyclopedia need to be useful for the reader? I suppose the world's most renowned encyclopedias all contain 100,000+ articles. More compact versions do exist, but I seriously doubt that any book with less than 10,000 articles could ever provide a useful amount of information from all fields of knowledge. Moreover, I guess it could not even be called an encyclopedia in that case. My point is that when we set up a new language edition of Wikipedia, it should at least have a chance to became a "real encyclopia" one day. But then again, other people might have different !
 ideas of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. That's perfectly fine.

As you might have noticed already my concerns are not so much about your Saterlandic proposal in particular but rather about wikipedias for lesser used languages and their pros and cons in general. You correctly emphasize - and so did Mark - that the number of speakers is not the only and maybe not even the key factor in a Wikipedia's success or failure. If that was the case, Bengali with more than 100 million native speakers would be a huge thing, which obviously isn't so. No, it's far more complex than that (think about literacy, social prestige of the language, national/regional identity, literary tradition as opposed to mere oral usage, internet access, and so forth).

Still I think you just need minimum number of people with knowledge in various fields of knowledge to asure quality as well as quantity. Printed encyclopedias usually are the work of hundreds of editors. Paid, professional, full-time editors, nota bene! Can we really expect to succeed with far _fewer_ editors when they contribute on a volunteer basis in their short free time?

Boris
______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193


body:
Theresa Knott said:
>> It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate
>> complaints for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum
>> tempbanned from editing an article until the hearing is complete.
>
> Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in the past?
> Certainly requests for arbitration appear to come thick and fast. I am
> not aware of a legit complaint not having been made out of fear.

I think it is more the case that people have gone to arbcom and not
obtained quite the result they expected.


body:
JAYJG wrote:
>Well, as I noted on the list a couple of days ago, policing for original
>research seems equally difficult, when even long time editors consider
>original research to be "simple facts" or "simple deductive reasoning."
>Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be updated with
>examples which make that point that if it really is that simple, someone
>else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do is
>quote them.

Are you talking about situations where such a committee might have to
police the quality of the research?  Okay, I grant that sometimes this can
be difficult.  But it isn't insurmountable.  If the committee works, like
ArbCom, by attending to a complaint and giving people opportunities to
provide evidence, I think in most cases they will then be able to see the
difference between an appropriate and inappropriate source, or a reputable
or disreputable source.

However, there is another way the committee could work.  It could simply
ask a user, "what research did you do?  What are your sources?"  Anyone who
has done any amount of research can answer this easily, and then the
committee might just recommend that the sources used by cited more clearly,
end of problem.

This may sound like a little thing, but I think it is vitally needed.  When
I was in conflict with CheeseDreams about the Cultural and Historical
background of Jesus, one of my major problems was that she seemed not to
have done any research whatsoever.  I asked her, many, many times, what her
sources were and she ignored me.  Now, in that particular case Wikipedia
was lucky enough that CD's own behavior consistently undermined her, until
she was banned.  But what if there is a user who strictly adheres to all
behavior policies, but who nevertheless thinks of an article as if it were
his/her own blog?  The thing is, CD never answered my simple question, what
was her source -- and I could not compel her to answer, and there was no
sanction for her not answering.  What if someone very well-behaved acts
just as recklessly in their contributions?  Here is one place where I see
the value of a committee that is empowered to ask "what are your sources"
or "what kind of research did you do" and, if the answer is silence or
something that just doesn't hold up, can impose a sanction.

I do of course agree that the NOR policy needs improvement.  There has been
work on a new draft, which perhaps you can help, and which I think should
be merged with the current policy soon.

You know, a new committee with clear procedural rules will itself begin
generating clearer ideas about how to deal with disagreements over what
constitutes original research, too,

Steve

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


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> The arbcom is empowered to make such decisions.  There is no issue that I
> can see here, except for those who want editors to be free to complain
> about other editors without suffereing the consequences of their own
> behavior where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia.
> It's all a matter of what you think arbcom is for. Is it to be a catspaw
> with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept
> enemies, or is it (as I believe to be the case) a body elected by the
> editors and delegated by Jimmy Wales to stop editors doing harm to
> Wikipedia by their actions?  If the latter, it should levy penalties to
> all who merit such penalties.  If it only ever penalizes the people
> nominated by the petitioners, then it can only ever be driven by the
> perceptions of, and the prejudices of, the cleverer, more adept, editors.

I believe that's the longer form of what I meant when I said "you greatly
underestimate the propensity of our more antisocial editors for gaming
the system" ;-)

- d.


from_name: Viajero

subject: [WikiEN-l] Stange fetishes

body:
Abe Sokolov wrote:

> Michael Becker wikimb at gmail.com wrote:
>
> "Wikipedia is a wiki community foremost and an encyclopedia second."
>
> I'm certain that Michael has the means mixed up with the ends. Just
> consider the role of the person who established Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales.

[snip]

wow, great post.

V.


from_name: Jack Lutz

subject: [WikiEN-l] Grown-ups and children

body:
Uncle Ed, while your plan for guiding Wikipedia by a few trusted users which
just so happens to include you is very exciting to me, a largely unknown
contributor (i.e., child) who contributes hours a day to Wikipedia, I think
Jimbo's Statement of principles may prove thorny:

2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must
be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way
of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to
protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who
are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of
"strict scrutiny".
"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must
address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to
achieve that objective and no other.

For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we
must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are
automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community
for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible
for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing
to the community.


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Grown-ups and children

body:
> >>A much better analogy is of a school headmaster sorting out who did
what
> >>after a playground fight. We want to know who hit first, who hit
most,
> >>and who chucked in a sly boot from the side-lines.
> >>
> >>
> >That's quite an insulting example actually and elevates the ArbComm
to
> >headmaster while denigrating the rest of us to the status of
children.
> >School is the closest most of us get to being in a dictatorship - I
don't
> >think that's really a great model to emulate. The difference between
the
> >quasi-judicial model and the "headmaster" model is that the former
puts
> >limits on the ArbComm. While I can see why the ArbComm would prefer
to have
> >no limits and be able to do what they wish, including initiate
> >investigations, I don't think that would be healthy for Wikipedia.
> >
> It also denigrates children, who rarely behave as badly as adults.
> (e.g. sports parents shouting obscenities from the stands)  A
comparison
> to a bar fight might have been closer to reality.

There's nothing wrong with providing elevated status to a headmaster.
One of the purposes of a school is to teach children the right way to
behave. Respecting school property and the rights of other pupils are
non-negotiable. That is, the headmaster is not going to stoop to the
kid's level and debate the rules each time a teacher brings a violator
to his attention. He's the "head" because he controls the student
"body".

Sure, a well-run school will consider changes to the rules, and there's
always the liberality (or magnanimity) of making exceptions, but the
headmaster's *job* is to enforce the rules, in a decidedly asymmetric
way. He's nobody's equal.

At Wikipedia, we all defer to others who have gained our respect. I
always listen to mav and snott rake and Saint Anthere (to name just a
few: the rest know who they are!) because (a) they've shown that they
care and (b) they are right when I'm wrong so often that it's not even
worth double-checking any more.

And kids do not "rarely" behave as badly as adults. The school one block
away from my workplace has countless incidents of kids threatening or
mugging each other, even assaulting teachers (two years ago, a student
was murdered). That sort of thing is exceedingly rare *my* workplace.
(It does not denigrate children, rather it reassures them, to know that
grown-ups are in charge and will protect them.

Okay, maybe a few people feel I lord it over them here. But I make quite
a bit of effort to set a good example myself. Shouldn't those of us who
follow the rules be entitled to take the moral high road occasionally?

We must reform our system so that a cadre of well-trusted SENIOR members
may exercise a bit of authority over those who cannot or will not
contribute to this project. We are not all equal here, and there's no
need to pretend otherwise. Those of us with a proven track record of
solid contributions and good social skills SHOULD have a greater say on
how this project is managed.

Uncle Ed


body:
Theresa wrote:
>But as Sarah said "These were minor things, but they were annoying"
>
>
>Let's keep things in perspective. Should we really change the way the
>AC works to avoid annoying minor gripes.

Sarah's nature (at least here) is to self-effacing and gentle.  However
"minor" she characterizes her experience, I think it is the perfect example
of the kind of thing that should be avoided as best possible.

I understand that many members of the ArbCom have serious problems with the
various proposals floating around.  So I ask a question to the ArbCom:
forget about those proposals.  Just looking at Sarah's experience, can you
propose any reforms, either to the ArbCom m.o., or to the dispute
resolution process as a whole, that would make it very unlikely for an
editor in good standing to go through something like this in the future?

There are so many proposals because people have slightly differing notions
of what is wrong.  I hope the ArbCom will take this sense that something is
wrong seriously, even if the proposals thus far fall short.  Maybe if
instead of proposing solutions based on general notions of what is wrong,
we focus on one or two actual cases and ask how things could have gone
better, we will come up with some workable solutions.

Steve

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


body:
David Gerard said:
>
> I believe that's the longer form of what I meant when I said "you
> greatly underestimate the propensity of our more antisocial editors for
> gaming the system" ;-)
>
Indeed. Having said that, I think arbcom must take great care to afford
all involved in a case an opportunity to give evidence in their defense.
Towards the end of the recent Robert the Bruce case, it emerged that one
innocent third party named by Robert the Bruce as a sock puppet only heard
of this accusation by accident.  He had not been involved in the
arbitration case at all except by being named, unknown to him, by one of
the parties.  A sock puppet check was ordered on him without his
knowledge.
In cases of sock puppet accusations sometimes the accused may be able to,
and certainly should always be given the opportunity to, convince the
arbitrators that he is not a sock puppet.  Many people use AOL which I
understand uses a round-robin web proxy system, so it would be quite easy
for two people with ostensible similarities in their patterns of Wiki
usage to be mistaken for sock puppets.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Abe Sokolov <abesokolov at hotmail.com> wrote:
> It would be great if the arbcom would become more aggressive at enforcing
> content policies and guidelines. However, there is no evidence that it has
> the capacity to give equal weight to content and behavioral policies,
> especially considering the slow (but at least increasingly rapid) pace at
> which it still handles cases on behavior-- its traditional sphere. A second
> committee would mean more capacity and more expertise to handle the policies
> that always been difficult for the arbcom to address (No original research,
> Cite sources, NPOV, Verifiability, et. al.).

Policy is policy but some policies take more thought to enforce than others.
The arbcom is already ruling on NPOV infractions - something we would not touch
at first due to it being too closely related to content. Expanding into the
other content policies would not be a big deal, if done is a deliberate and
well-measured way (as was the move into enforcing NPOV). The current ArbCom
already has experience in this type of thing. Let's build on that.

Danny and I were playing with the idea of having the ArbCom convene special
panels of non-involved people for certain cases (not necessarily English
Wikipedia users), who could inform the ArbCom on the particulars of content
(whether or not a particular idea is mainstream, alternative but valid to
include in some way, or idiosyncratic/original research).

Such info could be used in ArbCom proceedings to better inform the arbcom in
cases that involve accusation of breaking content-related policies (just as
developers inform the arbcom on the likelyhood that two or more users are
socks). IMO, such an idea deserves some thought and refinement.

But having a separate standing committee would be redundant, especially due to
the fact that any one case will likely involve accusations of breaking both
content and behavioral policies and guidelines.

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/