subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
Angela wrote:

>On 3/20/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In a recent posting, Jimbo stated that anything that draws from primary
>>sources is OR.  The section is question was drawn in part from primary
>>sources (San Diego courts case detail, a Superior court judgement).
>>
>>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
>suggests that whether or not primary sources can be used depends on
>how public the figure is. For non-public figures, it says "material
>from primary sources should generally not be used," whereas for public
>figures it says "material from primary sources should be used with
>care" though that is under the heading "Presumption in favor of
>privacy".
>
Court judgements (and, for that matter, court filings by the disputants,
and even trial transcripts) are a matter of public record.  This is an
important component to maintaining the transparency of the judicial
system.  Privacy should not be a factor with this kind of material.

Ec


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool - how to prepare for the onslaught

body:
On 3/20/07, Philippe Beaudette <philippebeaudette at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not available for creation... but not sure if it exists or is just not available to be created.

Yeah I couldn't work out a way of distinguishing between a
non-existent user, and a user who has never done anything.

Steve


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Live mirroring from Portuguese Wikipedia again

body:
www.contestado.com.br and www.gigabusca.com.br are live mirrors, but
www.tiosam.com and www.ebaita.com doesn't seem to be. Data is from January.
They state "Articles are cached copies extracted from Wikipedia, the
Free Encyclopedia". Question is how do they cache it... :P Their use of
~ instead of : (and breaking back link to wikipedia for namespaces != 0)
would suggest static dumps, but they include pages that they don't
include. As theit source include the parser cache key, i think they crawled.

Gives credit to wikipedia and informs about GFDL :-) It also asks to
mention the web on future references ( they add nothing to the wikipedia
content! :-( )


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

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

Sharon, Lois Bram stated for the record:
> That cannot possibly be the case, sir.
>
> Your system is faulty or someone is lying about this.

That's right.  Someone is lying.  For further details, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Enviroknot

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben?
 sean at epoptic.com | Friedrich der Gro?e, Kolin, 18 June 1757

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGAEL//SVOiq2uhHMRAoTzAJ93WxI8Vk+Jpw+sB+22Gf+yihVsBACcDGDj
wgJsrh7RGUumbIrmBJ6I7FI=
=y5oH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ganfyd - an online medical encyclopedia

body:
> Bizarre. Anyone seen any other usage like that?

They're using "wikipedia" as an abbreviation for "wiki encyclopedia",
which is understandable, although completely incorrect. We may have
trouble holding onto the trademark - it could easily become generic.


from_name: Earle Martin

body:
On 20/03/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anybody can edit but anybody never has.

The encyclopedia that Anybody can edit, but Nobody never has. (How's
that for grammar?)

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: John Vandenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: ASINs and ISBNs

body:
On 3/20/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/03/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > But the thing is... why not just say
> >
> > Jean Justice. "Le Crime de la Route A6". Laffont, 1968.
> >
> > Not everything has to have a weblink next to it... why does it need to
> > be "verified"? All that does is confirm the purported source exists;
> > it doesn't actually give us any help in confirming the content of the
> > source.

Why do ISBNs and ISSNs have check digits?  Wikipedia's citations needs
to be verified because there is no other way to visually differentiate
between

  Jean Justice. "Le Crime de la Route A6". Laffont, 1968.

and

  Jean Justic. "Le Crime". Laffont, 1968.

Having the ability to verify works means volunteers can chase down the
ones that look a little sketchy.  And rapidly double check the ones
that do have the linkies.

> > If you want better metadata than the fragment on the Amazon site, you
> > can get it out of the BNF catalogue easily enough - it took me, with
> > my patchy French, two minutes to find...
> >
> > Jean Justice. Le Crime de la route A6 [Texte imprim?][?Murder versus
> > murder?]. Traduction et pr?sentation de Claude Mourth?. - Paris : R.
> > Laffont, 1968. - In-16 (20 cm), 343 p., carte, pl., couv. ill. 19,50
> > F. [D. L. 2867-68].
> >
> > ...but you can't give it a fixed URL, so I guess it may as well not
> > exist. Catalogue number is FRBNF33059758 ;-)

While I do find the link to Amazon useful, my reasoning for using ASIN
for works without another identifier is simply that it is useful to
add catalogue identifiers to every citation and reference work in
order to assist others that use the raw wikipedia data as input to
other projects (e.g. librarything).  The reality is that most people
dont know about WorldCat, wont bother trying to use the LOC search,
and definitely will be confused by our LOC templates. They will on the
other hand add an ISBN or ASIN if it is sitting right in front of
them, and our newer contributors will be mighty chuffed with
themselves when they manage to add an Amazon link correctly.  Learn to
love the bomb.

{{ASIN}} allows all ASINs to be placed into
[[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:ASIN]] or a category if that becomes
necessary.  This allows others who care more for the utility of the
these citations, beyond mere reading pleasure, to replace them with
the an appropriate identifier where possible.

I see the ASIN template primarily as a way of classifying citations
and the articles they sit on.  I would expect that the [[WP:FACT]]
project would endeavour to remove any ASIN from an article before it
hit the front page.  If {{ASIN}} become over-used (its been hovering
between 50-100 for a while), they could plough through them in a
clean-up exercise.

If we end up with a large number of ASINs that cant be replaced with a
better identifier, a repository like WorldCat may come along and
create verified records for them all, simply because they are used on
Wikipedia.

Back to the ASIN B0000DQ7SP; as far as I can tell, there is only one
online catalogue that has this work listed at present. People are far
more likely to click on an ASIN than they are to ask a librarian about
the book.  A bit of babelfish and this ASIN lets me know there is a
good chance that this work has photographs in it.

As an aside, this ASIN entry on amazon.fr is definitely not primarily
for the purpose of generating revenue; it may not be philanthropic,
but it is a public service.

Any call to not link to ASINs because it *may* have incorrect data
should bear in mind that  people link to Wikipedia in spite of the
same possible problem.  WorldCat also has problems.  I don't have much
experience with LOC but I'm sure they have problems too.  By linking
to any/all of these resources discrepancies can be easily spotted, and
enquiring minds will usually do some digging and we can expect that
all of these external resources will become more accurate over time.

> Also, I feel the need to make a slightly odd objection here - why are
> we citing an English work *and* citing its French translation? Does
> the latter contain more information?

My guess is it has been put on the enwiki to ensure all works about
the subject are listed, or perhaps in preparation for a French
translation of the English article.

--
John


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
On 20/03/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > text.
> > <ref>foo</ref>
> >
> > gives "text. [1]".  In other words, a space in between the period and
> > the reference number.
>
> I see. Is that a major concern for you?

Am I alone in finding that more readable? Also, what's up with the
bracketing? I'd expect a reference, if we're trying to make them look
better, to look like the result of 1. Piles
of punctuation are better left to source code, not articles.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] User space needs to be more clearly marked

body:
> I can recall on several occasions starting a quick stub article on
> something based off of general information I already knew and then later
> on came back with more detailed information and sources after I'd
> researched a little. I guess I've just been lucky so far that CSD
> fundamentalists haven't caught me at it.

What's the point of that? It would be better to wait until you've
found the sources before you start writing, otherwise you may be
adding incorrect information.

Citing sources should be easy because they should be the actual source
of the information, which you will already know since it's whatever
you just finished reading.


body:
> The encyclopedia that Anybody can edit, but Nobody never has. (How's
> that for grammar?)

Who cares about the grammer? The actual information is wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nobody

;)


from_name: Bennett Haselton

subject: [WikiEN-l] purpose served by anonymity / unmoderated

body:
I think this idea would indeed get most of the best of both worlds.  People
who needed an article they could rely on could look up the most recent
version approved by a credentialed source, and make up their own minds
about what counts as "credentialed".  I also think that in addition to
distinguishing between users' claimed credentials, there should also be a
flag used to indicate whether someone's credentials have been verified, by
for example sending a confirmation mail to their .edu address.

With regard to people's concerns about a backlog of changes that need to be
approved, hopefully this would only be an issue for articles about current
events where new information is constantly coming out.  I would hope that
the article on Physics wouldn't change much as the laws are thought to be
fairly permanent :)

The only issue this wouldn't resolve would be whether the default article,
the "one that everyone sees", would be the bleeding-edge one or the latest
approved one.  Unfortunately, the instant gratification that people get
from seeing their helpful edits go live immediately, is the same that the
vandals get from seeing *their* edits go live immediately, so it would seem
there's no best-of-both-worlds compromise, because unless the software can
distinguish between helpful edits and vandalism, you can't have one without
the other.  So the question is whether the motivational effect for helpful
editors outweighs the motivational effect for vandals.  It sounds like
George is saying that dealing with vandals is a major time-waster, and
people on the Citizendium boards see the same problem.

Personally I don't know why people would be less motivated to make edits
that would go live after 1 hour, rather than go live immediately.  I
wouldn't look at it that way, especially if I knew that the reason for the
delay was to prevent vandalism and increase the usefulness of the reference
to everybody.  I might actually be more motivated to make edits if I
thought that the article was being edited by someone who was putting their
own credibility on the line, and thus would prevent someone *else* from
frivolously overwriting my changes.

         -Bennett

At 03:02 PM 3/20/2007 -0500, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
>Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > Yeah. Which is also bad: "Welcome to Wikipendium, the encyclopaedia
> > that's being edited in real-time. This article is 92 days out of
> > date." Not as bad as Britannica. Not as good as Wikipedia.
>
>I think there's a way to have most of the Citizendium advantages on
>Wikipedia without losing Wikipedia's advantages.
>
>Wikipedia's advantages are: more inclusive; more editors; articles
>updated more frequently.
>
>Citizendium's advantage is: expert vetting by people with actual
>credentials. (And yes, credentials DO mean something.) A problem,
>though, is that even experts don't always agree, and some people
>value different sorts of expertise.
>
>One way to have the best of both worlds would be to have a public
>version of Wikipedia's watchlists feature, with a couple of
>modifications. Since this feature doesn't currently exist, I'll call
>it "approval lists" for lack of a better name.
>
>Each user would be able create and maintain his/her own "approval
>list," which would work just like watchlists, except for the
>following two changes:
>
>(1) A user's "approval list" would be publicly viewable by everyone,
>not just the user who creates it.
>
>(2) Rather than marking an ARTICLE for inclusion in the approval
>list, users would mark a REVISION VERSION of the article.
>
>This information would then be usable in various ways. For example,
>if user A and B are having an edit dispute, they might prefer to
>simply put different versions on their approval lists rather than
>having a revert war. If other users chime in, the effect would be
>akin to voting on a preferred version between the two. If user A's
>version gets marked for approval by 200 users while user B's version
>gets marked by only 10 users, this would provide evidence that A's
>version is more widely accepted.
>
>Also, the issue of "credentials" could be dealt with by having users
>who possess credentials "bless" versions of articles that meet their
>standards. This would not prevent subsequent editing, but it would
>make it easy to find the latest version that has been vetted and
>approved by someone with credentials relevant to the topic.
>"Credentials" would not have to be defined or standardized. They
>might include "I have a Ph.D in physics" (a credential that I
>personally respect) or "I represent the John Birch Society" (a
>credential that I don't). The result would be that people could
>choose which credentials they personally value and find versions of
>the article that match their values.
>
>If this functionality existed, I assume that most users would
>continue to rely primarily on the latest version of article. They
>would simply find it easier to meaningfully navigate the version
>history.


body:
> Who cares about the grammer? The actual information is wrong:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nobody
>
> ;)

I'm going to reply to myself before anyone beats me to it:

Nobody has editted Wikipedia.


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's rejection of [[WP:ATT]]

body:
I still suspect that this was based on a misunderstanding of WP:ATT,
based on the Langans article. I'm sure he'll change his view once he
realizes that they are unrelated.

Jay.

On 3/20/07, jf_wikipedia <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Slim Virgin wrote:
>
> > The merge was popular, smooth, there were no changes to policy, and
> > ATT has quickly become a widely used page, so I'm assuming this was a
> > misunderstanding that will be sorted out soon enough.
>
>
> I am not so sure, SlimVirgin.
>
> This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What
> needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR
> not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation
> synchronized with one another as well.
>
> -- Jossi
>
> <snip>
> I take virtually no position on the details of WP:ATT. I think that
> it probably was a more or less accurate merger of the three separate
> policies. But merging three separate policies into one, even when
> that change is not intended to make any actual policy change, is not
> trivial and in this particular a monumentally bad idea. All over the
> site are hundreds or thousands of links to these policy pages, and
> the meaning of referring someone to WP:V versus WP:RS versus WP:NOR
> are overwhelmingly important to a coherent understanding of the
> arguments people are making. We must not merge these separate
> concepts, or we have no means of distinguishing them. Not everything
> is the same thing.--Jimbo Wales 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
> </snip>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
On 3/20/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/20/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can an IP address technically be considered a "sock puppet"? If so
> > > then anybody who forgets to log in before editing is "sockpuppeting".
> > > I have done that a few times after failing to notice that my login
> > > cookie has expired.
>
> > No, because sockpuppeting involves intent to appear to be a second person.
>
> So when an IP address is listed in a "sockpuppets of" catagory, it's
> because in somebody's opinion, the user in question is editing
> anonymously to appear as two different users.

And/or that IP address was publically identified as one that the
sockpuppeteer was using.

We can't release Checkuser results in general, but if it turns out
that a sock edited as an anon IP user and we can identify that
(obvious goofs such as editing as anon, then logging in and changing
the signature on an edit, etc) then that's fair game.

Checkuser confidentiality only applies to CU info, not identifying
info that abusers may happen to leave lying around themselves by
accident...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: ASINs and ISBNs

references:
<f3fedb0d0508081341593ed53c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42FA536A.8020200@wikia.com>
	<f3fedb0d0703191506k688d2317yabdd4d5da8014fce@mail.gmail.com>
	<sc4uv21qhd4hjtelkoku6qkpvurb4368j8@4ax.com>
	<42f90dc00703191817t49e9548fnbe561f499e1ea248@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ogvv21jhs897vobmtbj7umcjp7l53020o@4ax.com>

body:
On 3/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Nothing against Amazon as a source, it's the "click to buy" bit that
> causes the problem.  And that not least because it is but a small step
> from that to spammer.com publishing the Betamax release date, as the
> sole site to do so, and then adding itself as a source for this
> "vital" information.

I disagree - accurate sourcing is more important than trying to
prevent spammers from rules-lawyering.  I believe it's impossible to
write an airtight set of rules to prevent those editing in bad faith
from doing bad things that does not also prevent us from doing many
good and worthwhile things.  Instead, we must rely on the overall good
judgment of Wikipedia editors and admins, who ARE sensible enough in
the main to distinguish spam from legitimate sourcing.

Perhaps a sensible step would not be to display such a source as a
link, thus not getting spammers the click-throughs they want?

-Matt


body:
On 20/03/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> They're using "wikipedia" as an abbreviation for "wiki encyclopedia",
> which is understandable, although completely incorrect. We may have
> trouble holding onto the trademark - it could easily become generic.

Well, if people do insist on gluing two existing words together and
claiming them as a trademark...

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


body:
> Or, better yet:
>
> The encyclopedia that Anybody can edit, but Nobody has.

I thought of that, but I don't like it. It should be "and Nobody has"
rather than "but", but then it doesn't work.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: ASINs and ISBNs

body:
On 3/20/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Basically, this is my objection. The Amazon link, or the LoC link, or
> any other link, is *not a source*; I mean, really, what are we
> verifying? That a work by this name and with this metadata appears in
> an online catalogue. Nothing more. It does not verify the assertion
> that this is a relevant work, or that it is one we used. It is simply
> what we use to sanity-check the metadata in our own list of sources.
> Once we've done that check, we've confirmed we've spelled the name
> right and got the year correct, we don't need to keep that link or
> that catalogue code; it's an internal editorial reference, and it can
> be kept on the talk page or junked, but it's unnecessary and somewhat
> misleading to keep it with the citation.

Some of the Amazon ones being discussed here were not as part of a
bibliographic entry but were being used for facts quoted in an
article, e.g. release dates, etc.  In that case, it IS being used as a
source, and that's a different case.

I think it is useful to keep cataloging information around, for the
use of subsequent editors to the article, but I agree that it serves
little purpose for the reader in most cases.  Perhaps in these cases
the entry should be in HTML comment form or be an ignored parameter
passed to a cite template.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
On 3/20/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see. Is that a major concern for you?

Yes.  That it's correct style (IMO) is important, but also there's the
issue of wrapping - I don't think the things should wrap to the next
line, do you?  If there's going to be a space, the least it should be
is non-breaking.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
On 3/20/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> Am I alone in finding that more readable?

It may be, but it's not the way it's normally done.  Footnote/endnote
markers normally go right next to the thing being marked.  Also, as I
just pointed out in reply to Steve, the spaces are breaking spaces,
and word-wrap may end up putting the footnote marker at the start of
the NEXT line.  That's certainly not more readable.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Possible spam]Re: Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:23:43 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well consider "The biaxial nematic phase for this particular compound
> >only occurs at temperatures around 200 ?C and is preceded by as yet
> >unidentified smectic phases."
>
> OK, so we are writing the first-ever secondary source on this subject,
> are we?

Don't laugh, in some cases that is true.

Not in most, but there are some...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] purpose served by anonymity / unmoderated edits

body:
Bennett Haselton wrote

> The disadvantage of making people register under a presumed real name, much
> less following up and trying to verify their identity and credentials, are
> of course that you will have fewer users that way.  On the other hand, the
> advantage is that you can give articles the stamp of reliability if it's
> been signed off on by, say, a professor whose .edu address has been
> verified.
>
> Could you get the best of both worlds by (a) allowing unverified users to
> build up the meat of an article, but then (b) verifying the credentials of
> certain users (Citizendium calls them "editors"), and having those users
> sign off on the contents of a given article once it's reached a stable
> state?  (And then future edits to that article have to go through them?)

One can. One could set up one's own wiki and import any WP articles that one wanted to 'bless' into it.

The WP way has been to be free-wheeling and pick up the pieces afterwards. That's obvious. Something less obvious to most people, apparently, is that _discussing WP article by article_ misses the basic point that we write hypertext, not self-enclosed essays. You don't really 'improve' a knowledge network by stabilising it. I hear almost nothing from this angle.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: James Farrar

body:
On 20/03/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or, better yet:
> >
> > The encyclopedia that Anybody can edit, but Nobody has.
>
> I thought of that, but I don't like it. It should be "and Nobody has"
> rather than "but", but then it doesn't work.

I'll settle for a semi-colon, I think.

The encyclopaedia that Anybody can edit; Nobody has.


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah I couldn't work out a way of distinguishing between a
> non-existent user, and a user who has never done anything.

The only definitive method for determining whether an account exists
is [[Special:Listusers]].

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

> Yeah. Which is also bad: "Welcome to Wikipendium, the encyclopaedia
> that's being edited in real-time. This article is 92 days out of
> date." Not as bad as Britannica. Not as good as Wikipedia.

I think there's a way to have most of the Citizendium advantages on
Wikipedia without losing Wikipedia's advantages.

Wikipedia's advantages are: more inclusive; more editors; articles
updated more frequently.

Citizendium's advantage is: expert vetting by people with actual
credentials. (And yes, credentials DO mean something.) A problem,
though, is that even experts don't always agree, and some people
value different sorts of expertise.

One way to have the best of both worlds would be to have a public
version of Wikipedia's watchlists feature, with a couple of
modifications. Since this feature doesn't currently exist, I'll call
it "approval lists" for lack of a better name.

Each user would be able create and maintain his/her own "approval
list," which would work just like watchlists, except for the
following two changes:

(1) A user's "approval list" would be publicly viewable by everyone,
not just the user who creates it.

(2) Rather than marking an ARTICLE for inclusion in the approval
list, users would mark a REVISION VERSION of the article.

This information would then be usable in various ways. For example,
if user A and B are having an edit dispute, they might prefer to
simply put different versions on their approval lists rather than
having a revert war. If other users chime in, the effect would be
akin to voting on a preferred version between the two. If user A's
version gets marked for approval by 200 users while user B's version
gets marked by only 10 users, this would provide evidence that A's
version is more widely accepted.

Also, the issue of "credentials" could be dealt with by having users
who possess credentials "bless" versions of articles that meet their
standards. This would not prevent subsequent editing, but it would
make it easy to find the latest version that has been vetted and
approved by someone with credentials relevant to the topic.
"Credentials" would not have to be defined or standardized. They
might include "I have a Ph.D in physics" (a credential that I
personally respect) or "I represent the John Birch Society" (a
credential that I don't). The result would be that people could
choose which credentials they personally value and find versions of
the article that match their values.

If this functionality existed, I assume that most users would
continue to rely primarily on the latest version of article. They
would simply find it easier to meaningfully navigate the version
history.

--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans
|     The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
|  Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
|  http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
|  Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|  https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------


from_name: John Lee

body:
On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton <bennett at peacefire.org> wrote:
>
> >- Can we really present this in a useful way to the public? "This
> >article is unverified. However, 3 months and 280 revisions ago, an
> >expert from a university you've never heard of verified it as
> >accurate." Um...
>
> In the Citizendium model, once an article is approved, that's the version
> that people see by default, and the next one in the pipeline only replaces
> the current version after the assigned editor has signed off on that too.

This strikes me as a major disincentive to have articles verified, since
then it would mean all future edits have to go through an expert who may or
may not be free to review the edits on a timely basis.

Johnleemk


body:
> I'll settle for a semi-colon, I think.
>
> The encyclopaedia that Anybody can edit; Nobody has.

No, I think the bit after a semi-colon has to be a full sentence...


from_name: lmth at deakin.edu.au

subject: [Wikitech-l] A request for your input.

body:
Hello

My name is Lara Thynne and I am a PhD candidate at Deakin University
Australia.  I am currently researching the boundary between work and
leisure activities directly related to the open source community and
open source program development.

As part of this I am running a survey at the following address.

https://dcarf.deakin.edu.au/surveys/oss/

The survey is completely confidential and looks at your views and
motivations to use Open Source software and to participate in the
community.

It will only take a five to ten minutes to complete and your contact
details will not be recorded. You can withdraw your participation at
any stage.

I sincerely apologize for the spammish nature of this e-mail - I
don't mean to abuse this list.  I am trying to collect responses
from as many open source developers and users as possible and a
mailing list like can be the only way to reach many developers.

Thanks again

Lara

P.S The program that I am using is open source, of course
(www.phpsurveyor.org)!


body:
> As I said, in some cases (usually where I already know a lot about the
> subject) I start the stub _before_ I go reading stuff. So that would be
> impossible.

That's exactly what people are meant to be not doing. You shouldn't be
writing based on your own knowledge, you should be writing based on
reliable sources. What's the points of writing from your own knowledge
if you have to go and check a reliable source anyway? Just check the
source first...


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Messages message

body:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:09:07 -0400, Marc Riddell
> <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't know who else to ask about this so I thought I'd ask here. For the
>> last several days I have been getting a "You have new messages" indicator,
>> but when I click on it, and go to my Talk Page, there are no new messages
>> listed. Am I somehow missing them? Is anyone else experiencing this, and
>> what could be the problem?

on 3/20/07 3:22 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG at guy.chapman at spamcop.net wrote:
>
> When I had this I put it down to session cookies.  Logging off and
> checking "remember me on this computer" fixed it.

I did this today, and it hasn't happened since.

Thanks,

Marc


from_name: Pilotguy

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Messages message

body:
Is this in any way possibly related to certain prior revisions disappearing?
I had heard people seeing that bar, looking at the talk page history, and
finding it to be all wonky. This happened to be not recently, but probably
about a week or so ago...

On 3/20/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:09:07 -0400, Marc Riddell
> > <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know who else to ask about this so I thought I'd ask here. For
> the
> >> last several days I have been getting a "You have new messages"
> indicator,
> >> but when I click on it, and go to my Talk Page, there are no new
> messages
> >> listed. Am I somehow missing them? Is anyone else experiencing this,
> and
> >> what could be the problem?
>
> on 3/20/07 3:22 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG at guy.chapman at spamcop.net wrote:
> >
> > When I had this I put it down to session cookies.  Logging off and
> > checking "remember me on this computer" fixed it.
>
> I did this today, and it hasn't happened since.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Pilotguy
pilotguy.wikipedia at gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy

http://pilotguy.wordpress.com


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

body:
On 3/20/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The first rule of the Internet is that any post correcting a typo must
> itself contain a typo :)

I thought the first rule of the Internet is to not talk about the Internet. :o)

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


from_name: phoebe ayers

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: ASINs and ISBNs

body:
On 3/20/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [This is mostly me blowing off steam, but there's an actual serious
> proposal in here too...]
>
> On 20/03/07, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>

> Having the ability to verify works means volunteers can chase down the
> > ones that look a little sketchy.  And rapidly double check the ones
> > that do have the linkies.
>
> But the thing is, once we've verified the bibliographic data is
> correct, we're done. End of story. We no longer need the catalogue
> reference, in the same way we wouldn't need a note saying "this book
> is borrowed by Sally, remember to add the publication details when she
> brings it back".
>
> Basically, this is my objection. The Amazon link, or the LoC link, or
> any other link, is *not a source*; I mean, really, what are we
> verifying? That a work by this name and with this metadata appears in
> an online catalogue. Nothing more. It does not verify the assertion
> that this is a relevant work, or that it is one we used. It is simply
> what we use to sanity-check the metadata in our own list of sources.
> Once we've done that check, we've confirmed we've spelled the name
> right and got the year correct, we don't need to keep that link or
> that catalogue code; it's an internal editorial reference, and it can
> be kept on the talk page or junked, but it's unneccesary and somewhat
> misleading to keep it with the citation.
>
> ISBNs are a special case - we keep them around because MediaWiki can
> do cunning magic with them, and we faintly hope we can hack something
> similar together later for LCCNs. But it would not materially harm the
> intellectual integrity of our listed references to quietly lose every
> ISBN overnight, because they're icing and not cake.

Hmm. I strongly disagree with this; keeping the ISBNs around means that it's
easier for other people to find the work in question. In a variety of ways,
yes, through mediawiki magic; but even without the link, people could search
for the book with an ISBN manually in all the places listed on
special:booksources.

The point of listing sources is *not just* to verify facts in an article.
It's also to give readers a list of other places to look for more
information on a topic. ISBNs, or any other unique identifier, help
tremendously with that. They help you verify that the edition or translation
of the work that was meant in the article is, in fact, the one that is
likely to be found by readers. It is often very difficult to search online
library catalogs properly and find what you're looking for, especially when
you don't have familiarity with the work in question; ISBNs help.

In addition, listing the ISBN makes it easier to verify and re-verify a
reference if you suspect vandalism. It is, in fact, important to continue to
have the quick sanity check available that a work was cataloged somewhere,
that it actually exists under the title claimed, etc., and that the subject
headings match what the topic claims. Library catalogs can also tell you fun
things like the promising-sounding work quoted is actually a work of
fiction. Thus I'd argue that being able to find a work in a library catalog
is important; and ISBNs help with finding. Unfortunately, of course, they
also don't exist for all works.

<snip>

>
> ...which prompts a thought. Could we expand the citation templates and
> have default-non-displaying fields, like the hack we have with
> persondata? This would allow us to silently include all the catalogue
> identifiers we could wish for, BNB codes or BNF references or LCCNs or
> OCLC codes or, hell, even LibraryThing work IDs - without the
> objectionable issues of including and displaying unhelpful links (or
> the limitation of only including one ID number). We could then fiddle
> it with different div IDs so that people can select in CSS to display
> ISBNs or ESTC numbers or whatever their little heart desires...
>
> (ESTC is probably one of the rare counterexamples to "no comprehensive
> identifiers before 1960s", but I don't see us citing too many of its
> works...)

An interesting idea... it'd be nice to improve the citation templates; but
it would also be nice to get them in wider use. They're pretty complicated
as it is.

<snip>

> If we end up with a large number of ASINs that cant be replaced with a
> > better identifier, a repository like WorldCat may come along and
> > create verified records for them all, simply because they are used on
> > Wikipedia.
>
> This isn't how cataloguing works, sad to say. You can't create a
> verified record without the book in your hand; if they had the book in
> their hand (well, stock), it would have been catalogued eventually
> regardless...
>
> (WorldCat isn't a repository. It's a union catalogue of thousands of
> libraries. I suspect none of them are the Institute for Philanthropic
> Bibliography...)

Indeed. WorldCat is a merged catalog of most [not all] of the works in its
member libraries, which are worldwide, but in general the consortium is
prettily heavily US-biased.

> WorldCat also has problems.
>
> I have strong views against WorldCat as well, but that's another rant
> - vast quanties of very sloppy cataloguing, and a misleading
> presentation as being substantially more comprehensive than it is.
> (Remember, you have to pay to join the consortium...) I would argue
> (almost) as strongly against arguing we should routinely include OCLC
> id codes, or whatever it is they use; I got very het up recently when
> someone wanted to spam the Worldcat "author pages" across Wikipedia.

Now... also as a librarian, I am actually strongly in favor of using
WorldCat links and OCLC numbers, when available, *especially* as a
substitute for ASINs and other commercial unique identifiers. It's only
recently that the entire WorldCat database was made freely available at
www.worldcat.org, but we should take advantage of it. True, member libraries
still have to pay to join OCLC, and it does appear more comprehensive than
it is, but it's also, to my knowledge, the best free source of global
cataloging data we have -- and the motives behind the OCLC projects are far
more in line with our own that those of commercial booksellers.

And while the cataloging may be sloppy, for older books the cataloging is
still tons better than what you'll find on most commercial sites, including
Amazon. For non-ISBN books, the OCLC record will at least a) tell you what
the book is; b) show you where it's held in the world; and c) link you to
the LCCN, for an extra bonus -- all of which is better than you'd get with
no number at all, if you are a regular reader who doesn't know that worldcat
exists. And for all of the books with OCLC records, worldcat will tell you
the nearest free place that has a copy of the work -- in other words, your
public library. Even if it's not perfect, this seems to me a tremendous
service that we should promote, in line with distributing knowledge to all
people and all that.

<snip>

I would discourage calling it a "source", then... "further reading"

> can cover a multitude of sins.

I'm in favor of strict source sections and liberal further reading sections,
myself... and I worry when the two get confused :P

-- phoebe


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/20/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> In a recent posting, Jimbo stated that anything that draws from primary
> sources is OR.  The section is question was drawn in part from primary
> sources (San Diego courts case detail, a Superior court judgement).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
suggests that whether or not primary sources can be used depends on
how public the figure is. For non-public figures, it says "material
from primary sources should generally not be used," whereas for public
figures it says "material from primary sources should be used with
care" though that is under the heading "Presumption in favor of
privacy".

Angela


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 20/03/07, SonOfYoungwood at aol.com <SonOfYoungwood at aol.com> wrote:

> Plus, stating the facts of primary sources - like citing a script example
> that Darth Vader is killed at the end of Return of the Jedi, or citing an
> interview with a developer when stating that he was influenced by Japanese
> paintings - are not the same as OR.

I had always been under the impression that the point of WP:NOR was to
eliminate the adding of material to the encyclopaedia on the grounds
that "I know it's true from my own experience".

On 20/03/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:

> At WP:ATT he has said the the issue was not the use of primary sources, but
> the generation of novel conclusions based on the sources.

That would be a violation of WP:SYNT, which I think after examining
the source (it's not totally clear from the page WP:ATT itself) is a
subdivision of WP:NOR.


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: ASINs and ISBNs

body:
[This is mostly me blowing off steam, but there's an actual serious
proposal in here too...]

On 20/03/07, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why do ISBNs and ISSNs have check digits?  Wikipedia's citations needs
> to be verified because there is no other way to visually differentiate
> between
>
>  Jean Justice. "Le Crime de la Route A6". Laffont, 1968.
>
> and
>
>  Jean Justic. "Le Crime". Laffont, 1968.
>
> Having the ability to verify works means volunteers can chase down the
> ones that look a little sketchy.  And rapidly double check the ones
> that do have the linkies.

But the thing is, once we've verified the bibliographic data is
correct, we're done. End of story. We no longer need the catalogue
reference, in the same way we wouldn't need a note saying "this book
is borrowed by Sally, remember to add the publication details when she
brings it back".

Basically, this is my objection. The Amazon link, or the LoC link, or
any other link, is *not a source*; I mean, really, what are we
verifying? That a work by this name and with this metadata appears in
an online catalogue. Nothing more. It does not verify the assertion
that this is a relevant work, or that it is one we used. It is simply
what we use to sanity-check the metadata in our own list of sources.
Once we've done that check, we've confirmed we've spelled the name
right and got the year correct, we don't need to keep that link or
that catalogue code; it's an internal editorial reference, and it can
be kept on the talk page or junked, but it's unneccesary and somewhat
misleading to keep it with the citation.

ISBNs are a special case - we keep them around because MediaWiki can
do cunning magic with them, and we faintly hope we can hack something
similar together later for LCCNs. But it would not materially harm the
intellectual integrity of our listed references to quietly lose every
ISBN overnight, because they're icing and not cake.

> While I do find the link to Amazon useful, my reasoning for using ASIN
> for works without another identifier is simply that it is useful to
> add catalogue identifiers to every citation and reference work in
> order to assist others that use the raw wikipedia data as input to
> other projects (e.g. librarything).  The reality is that most people
> dont know about WorldCat, wont bother trying to use the LOC search,
> and definitely will be confused by our LOC templates. They will on the
> other hand add an ISBN or ASIN if it is sitting right in front of
> them, and our newer contributors will be mighty chuffed with
> themselves when they manage to add an Amazon link correctly.  Learn to
> love the bomb.

But *what does it matter*? As above, once we have the bibliographic
data, we don't need a link or a code to another place listing that
data - it just seems futile. Our readers are going to follow that link
and find, er, nothing of any use to them.

As for reuse, I think a much more effective solution would be to start
writing something to parse {{cite book}} templates for their bib
data...

...which prompts a thought. Could we expand the citation templates and
have default-non-displaying fields, like the hack we have with
persondata? This would allow us to silently include all the catalogue
identifiers we could wish for, BNB codes or BNF references or LCCNs or
OCLC codes or, hell, even LibraryThing work IDs - without the
objectionable issues of including and displaying unhelpful links (or
the limitation of only including one ID number). We could then fiddle
it with different div IDs so that people can select in CSS to display
ISBNs or ESTC numbers or whatever their little heart desires...

(ESTC is probably one of the rare counterexamples to "no comprehensive
identifiers before 1960s", but I don't see us citing too many of its
works...)

> I see the ASIN template primarily as a way of classifying citations
> and the articles they sit on.  I would expect that the [[WP:FACT]]
> project would endeavour to remove any ASIN from an article before it
> hit the front page.  If {{ASIN}} become over-used (its been hovering
> between 50-100 for a while), they could plough through them in a
> clean-up exercise.

I did :-) About August 2005 I killed almost every ASIN listed on
Wikipedia, as unneccesary and unhelpful. I am utterly astonished to
find people encouraging their use, as may be apparent...

> If we end up with a large number of ASINs that cant be replaced with a
> better identifier, a repository like WorldCat may come along and
> create verified records for them all, simply because they are used on
> Wikipedia.

This isn't how cataloguing works, sad to say. You can't create a
verified record without the book in your hand; if they had the book in
their hand (well, stock), it would have been catalogued eventually
regardless...

(WorldCat isn't a repository. It's a union catalogue of thousands of
libraries. I suspect none of them are the Institute for Philanthropic
Bibliography...)

> As an aside, this ASIN entry on amazon.fr is definitely not primarily
> for the purpose of generating revenue; it may not be philanthropic,
> but it is a public service.

I fear you jest! It's there because someone wanted to sell a copy and
has now sold it, or because amazon.fr picked up the details from one
of their databases and put it up in the hope someone would list one...
Amazon.com certainly prune old ASIN pages; I've known them vanish.
There's no guarantee the code will ever be reused; if the same work
reappears it may well get a new code, or the old code may be recycled
for a different work. There is no "standard" to it, no published
information on how it works or guidance on using it; it's not intended
for external use.

> WorldCat also has problems.

I have strong views against WorldCat as well, but that's another rant
- vast quanties of very sloppy cataloguing, and a misleading
presentation as being substantially more comprehensive than it is.
(Remember, you have to pay to join the consortium...) I would argue
(almost) as strongly against arguing we should routinely include OCLC
id codes, or whatever it is they use; I got very het up recently when
someone wanted to spam the Worldcat "author pages" across Wikipedia.

> > Also, I feel the need to make a slightly odd objection here - why are
> > we citing an English work *and* citing its French translation? Does
> > the latter contain more information?
>
> My guess is it has been put on the enwiki to ensure all works about
> the subject are listed, or perhaps in preparation for a French
> translation of the English article.

I would discourage calling it a "source", then... "further reading"
can cover a multitude of sins.

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


from_name: stevertigo

body:
On 3/20/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What
> > needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR
> > not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation
> > synchronized with one another as well.
> >
> Exactly, and I hope when he realizes that he'll reconsider what he did
> today. I do think it was based on a misunderstanding prompted by the
> discussion on the list about the Langan article.

Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website. It doesnt
matter if he is right or wrong on any particular issue. What matters
is that we follow his leadership and do so promptly, simply because
the project would likely fall to pieces without him.

Who after is all is in a better position to formulate and implement
policy changes? It is his job alone to tell the community what policy
stands on Wikipedia, and how best to implement such.
He after all is not just Wikipedia's founder, but its Editor in Chief,
Chairman of the Board, and spokesperson.

-Stevertigo


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Looking to interview Wikipedians

body:
Hoi,
It sounds good only when the bias towards Wikipedia and the US is
intentional. It sounds good when it will be explicitly mentioned it the
paper that is to be produced as a result. This paper will not reflect
Wikipedia not even the English version of it.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Steve schreef:
> Sounds good.
>
> Stephen Yeago
> 312 279 6769
>
> On 3/20/07, Benjamin Keith Johnson <john2429 at msu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and all
>> levels of experience and involvement.  In-depth, one hour interviews will be
>> conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27.  Compensation for your
>> time will be provided ? a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com.  Must be 18+
>> and U.S. resident.  Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of
>> Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State University,
>> by email at john2429 at msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Benjamin


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: ASINs and ISBNs

body:
Matthew Brown wrote:

> Some of the Amazon ones being discussed here were not as part of a
> bibliographic entry but were being used for facts quoted in an
> article, e.g. release dates, etc.  In that case, it IS being used as a
> source, and that's a different case.

I think this is an important distinction.  Often, the Amazon link is the
easiest, best, most reliable source for a certain fact in an article.
Should it be replaced ''if possible''?  Sure, and no one would object to
such a replacement.  To simply try and remove the references without
replacing is a problem.

The ASIN?  Not helpful.  ISBNs are more standard and useful, and I can't
imagine a worthwhile defense of using ASINs when we're able to use ISBNs
so well.  But there are two discussions at work here, and it's important
to separate the two.

-Jeff


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton <bennett at peacefire.org> wrote:
> balance, independently of which system is actually better -- such as,
> Wikipedia having gotten there first, or having more users.)

Why do you think Wikipedia has more users? I know that's kind of a
cheap shot, but it's true: unfettered ability to edit and publish is a
major drawcard for people wanting to contribute. And, of course,
vandals.

Your idea is interesting, and I agree with your "more bang for your
buck" theory: 100 hours of community-provided work followed by 20
minutes of expert work could easily double or triple the value of the
work provided by the community. However:
- Where would we find experts?
- Who would want to verify our really boring articles, lists, etc...
- Would an expert really "stake their reputation" on an article?
What's in it for them?
- Can we really present this in a useful way to the public? "This
article is unverified. However, 3 months and 280 revisions ago, an
expert from a university you've never heard of verified it as
accurate." Um...

Steve


body:
On 3/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> No, it is not "Jimbo's website"; please do not continue to spread this
> misinformation. And Jimmy is not Chair of the Board, Florence Devouard
> is.

Well I may be wrong about a couple minor points - it's not as if
anyone can keep up on all the various discussions and events.  Jimbo
is the "BDFL" of Wikipedia and as such WP is indeed "his" (in a
certain sense).  And he was "Chair of the Board" until recently was he
not? (When was Anthere promoted? - Congratulations!)  Hence your
characterization of "misinformation" appears to be highly exaggerated.
Certainly it was not my intent to misinform people.

-Stevertigo


from_name: William Pietri

body:
stevertigo wrote:
> Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website. It doesnt
> matter if he is right or wrong on any particular issue.

Wow, I disagree greatly. I'm a big fan of the benevolent dictatorship
system we work under, but my feeling is more like [[Carl_Schurz]]:

"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong,
to be put right."

I think it's his website mostly in the sense that the Linux kernel is
Linus's. It's really everybody's kernel, but everybody follows Linus's
lead because he leads pretty well.

William


body:
On 3/20/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> This sounds impractical to me. Most people will forget to do that. Rather
> than making this opt-in, let's make it opt-out. Apply the tag to all user
> subpages by default. People who don't like the tag appearing at the top of
> the subpage can opt out by applying another tag that would hide the default
> "THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE" tag.

I agree, but to avoid community revolt, shouldn't we start opt-in? I
mean, while the confusion is bad, it's obviously not critical.

A stern rule that all user subpages which could be mistaken for
wikipedia pages must have this tag is actually fairly enforceable.
It's easy to scan for such pages by looking in non-Wikipedia
categories, seeing what links to templates etc.

Who would like to volunteer to create a template that says that A)
this is a rough draft of {{{1}}} and that B) this is *not* Wikipedia
content, and must not be confused as such?

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] A request for your input.

body:
On 3/20/07, lmth at deakin.edu.au <lmth at deakin.edu.au> wrote:
> The survey is completely confidential and looks at your views and
> motivations to use Open Source software and to participate in the
> community.

What does this mean:
>On average, how much time per week do you spend working on Open
Source projects?

Is Wikipedia an Open Source project? Is writing it "working"? Or are
you just talking about MediaWiki development.

Steve
(yes, I meant to send this to the list)


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
On 3/20/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:

> That's right.  Someone is lying.  For further details, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Enviroknot

Can an IP address technically be considered a "sock puppet"? If so
then anybody who forgets to log in before editing is "sockpuppeting".
I have done that a few times after failing to notice that my login
cookie has expired.


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
The text that Jimbo removed was OR. Using lots of different primary
sources to support what you are saying is generally OR. Primary
sources should only be used to state simple facts. While each
individual sentence of that text may have been a simple fact, when you
put them together like that it becomes more than just a collection of
uncontroversial facts (as Jimbo says: "by drawing selectively on
sources, the section gave an impression that is significantly at odds
with the views of relevant parties to the dispute").

Using primary sources makes it difficult to ensure that you haven't
missed something. When using secondary sources you simply have to
determine what bias exists in the source, and if there is no
significant bias (for example, it's an independent newspaper article
about the case), you can trust that nothing significant has been
missed out. In this particular example there was something very
serious missed out - it made no mention of what the other side in the
dispute had said in their defence. That clearly violated NPOV.


body:
On 3/20/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, that won't do anything because if the account was created from
> another account it won't show up in the new account log for that user.

Created from another account? What do you mean?

Steve


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> The text that Jimbo removed was OR. Using lots of different primary
> sources to support what you are saying is generally OR.

That is going to come as a bit of a shock to the authors of [[Biaxial nematic]].

--
geni


body:
> I've already explained what the point is, sometimes I find it convenient
> to throw down a framework before I start digging into sources. If I'm
> "not supposed to do it" and yet it still results in good articles being
> written, perhaps there's something wrong with having a rule against it
> (assuming we actually do)? And I certainly have no intention of changing
> my approach just because you personally don't prefer to do it that way.

What do you mean by framework? A framework shouldn't contain anything
that needs sourcing - to me a framework of an article would be just a
list of section headings.


body:
On 3/20/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> Try a Google News search on their names. It's a fun game - you get
> about 750 hits for Jimmy and about 8 for Anthere.

Google searches are not reliable sources - for anything.

> This really is just worthless nitpicking on your point. In terms of
> policy on en, Jimbo does have a special role as, to use a phrase we
> haven't in a while, God King.

I would not regard Eriks comments in any way as "worthless
nitpicking".  The "God King" term is way exaggerated, and besides the
point, which is simply that Jimbo should simply be trusted.

> On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > There is no legal basis to any role Jimmy has in the English Wikipedia
> > (and which the community, not the Board, permits him to exercise).
> > Wikipedia is not "Jimmy's website" by any measure, be it ownership,
> > representation, or legal control. That is misinformation.

Im sorry if my comments were misunderstood. There seems to be a lot of
misunderstanding in not just this thread but in this policy discussion
in general.

Regards,

-Stevertigo


subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
On 3/20/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Can an IP address technically be considered a "sock puppet"? If so
> > then anybody who forgets to log in before editing is "sockpuppeting".
> > I have done that a few times after failing to notice that my login
> > cookie has expired.

> No, because sockpuppeting involves intent to appear to be a second person.

So when an IP address is listed in a "sockpuppets of" catagory, it's
because in somebody's opinion, the user in question is editing
anonymously to appear as two different users.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
> > The text that Jimbo removed was OR. Using lots of different primary
> > sources to support what you are saying is generally OR.
>
> That is going to come as a bit of a shock to the authors of [[Biaxial nematic]].

It's generally OR, it's not always OR. Using a collection of
scientific papers isn't too bad - it's not great though, the
translation from the technical terminology the papers use to layman's
terms suitable for an encyclopedia is bordering on OR (I haven't read
the papers in this case - it's possible the introduction is written in
close enough to layman's terms and contains everything used in the
article, they aren't always, though). It would be better to find a
secondary source aimed at a more appropriate audience and use that.


body:
On 3/20/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > No, it is not "Jimbo's website"; please do not continue to spread this
> > misinformation. And Jimmy is not Chair of the Board, Florence Devouard
> > is.
>
> Well I may be wrong about a couple minor points - it's not as if
> anyone can keep up on all the various discussions and events.  Jimbo
> is the "BDFL" of Wikipedia and as such WP is indeed "his" (in a
> certain sense).  And he was "Chair of the Board" until recently was he
> not? (When was Anthere promoted? - Congratulations!)  Hence your
> characterization of "misinformation" appears to be highly exaggerated.
> Certainly it was not my intent to misinform people.
>
> -Stevertigo

Well... let's put it this way. As far as I can tell, Anthere's becoming
Board chair was much more widely promoted within the community than, say,
the move on the English Wikipedia to merge a few fundamental content
inclusion policies into one (WP:ATT). What one sees happening on the site
often depends on what one pays attention to.

And not to continue overstating the obvious, but let's not confuse the
issues of who is influential in making English Wikipedia policy and who is
influential in the running of Wikipedia's parent organization. Jimbo, as
ever, has special status in both arenas, in large part since he played a big
role in getting them both up and running in the first place.

-- phoebe


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
> That article isn't based on primary sources that I can see.

Scientific papers are primary sources.


body:
> It sounds good only when the bias towards Wikipedia and the US is
> intentional.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bias towards Wikipedia". The apparent
US bias is unfortunate, though. He doesn't say what he's doing the
interviews for - if the subject matter is specific to the US, then it
would make sense to only interview US Wikipedians.


body:
> Woops.

I think that about sums it up...


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Messages message

body:
I haven't had that problem. Perhaps someone responded to an old thread?
Mgm

On 3/20/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Marc Riddell wrote:
> >> To any and all,
> >>
> >> I don't know who else to ask about this so I thought I'd ask here. For
> the
> >> last several days I have been getting a "You have new messages"
> indicator,
> >> but when I click on it, and go to my Talk Page, there are no new
> messages
> >> listed. Am I somehow missing them? Is anyone else experiencing this,
> and
> >> what could be the problem?
>
> on 3/20/07 11:41 AM, Jeff Raymond at
> jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
> >
> > It happened to me the other day, even after I purged.  I can't recall
> how
> > I fixed it, though.
>
> Thanks, Jeff. So far I have tried logging off and unwatching my Talk Page;
> we'll see if this works. I was beginning to suspect an alien spirit
> trapped
> within trying to get a message out :-).
>
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

body:
On 3/20/07, jf_wikipedia <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
>
> I would like to know the reason for the belated rejection of WP:ATT
> by Jimbo. Mainly I would like to understand why did he not engage
> during the last five months during which the proposal was debated, or
> made any comments in this mailing list when it was raised here.
>
> The proposal was first proposed on October 2006 and  was upgraded to
> policy on February 17.
>
> See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#This_merger_is_a_really_bad_idea
>
> TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/2exosx
>
>
>
>
> -- Jossi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

He did not reject it. He still says it's policy. He says it does not
supercede the other ones. It's an independent one.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
> I'm still trying to track down all of what Jimbo said, but my input on
> this would be that extending guidelines about OR from one field to
> another completely unrelated one is always a bad idea, and that
> appears to be what you're doing here.

It wasn't my example. However, it's not practical to have different
guidelines for each field, so there has to be at least some
generalisation.


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT

body:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> As far as I can tell, merging RS and the *examples* from NOR and V
> into an attribution policy would have real merit, but merging OR
> dilutes NOR by implying that we can perform original research as long
> as we cite the primary sources properly - it dilutes the prohibition
> on original syntheses and on having articles for which no secondary
> sources exist.  Under the attribution policy we would, I think, have
> much less of a defence against a lot of pseudoscience pushers.

Have your read [[WP:ATT]], Guy?

Take the WP:ATT#No_original_research
and the section WP:ATT#Reliable_sources

and tell me what we have "lost" in WP:ATT.

I'll tell you: Absolutely nothing. The defense is still there as
strong as ever.

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?

body:
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't attribute any malice to Jimbo, or anyone else for that matter.
> But clearly, there is widespread confusion about Jimbo's role in
> Wikipedia that needs resolving. Perhaps I could pose some questions
> for the audience:

I don't think this line of questioning is helpful.  Jimbo's role in
the community is based not just on his early leadership but his
respect and trust by the community *at large.  His position is one of
*trust, and In order for his role to have meaning, this role needs to
remain largely undefined and unconstrained by any set boundaries or
constitutional delineations. He can negate consensus, simply because
he can, as he has in the past, and as he will continue to for as long
as he is active.

-Stevertigo


body:
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> "His authority is based on trust" is a perfectly acceptable answer, if
> that's what it is. But how does that help all the newbies who haven't
> even heard of him? Surely we can define this a bit more precisely.

If newbies haven't yet heard of him, they will soon enough.

> I realise that in my original post it perhaps sounded like I was
> challenging his authority. I'm not. I'm just trying to understand it,
> and understand what is different now from, say, 2 years ago. We hear
> from him much less frequently, but when we do, it seems to be more
> disruptive.

I don't have answers to all these questions, but if I were actually interested,
I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion belongs.

-Stevertigo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
> According to [[primary source]], the term is specific to historical
> scholarship, which doesn't include science. I don't know of any
> Wikipedian who seriously challenges the validity of published
> peer-reviewed scientific papers as sources for articles.

In which case, [[primary source]] is wrong. A source is primary if it
isn't based on any other source - that definition holds for any field.

There aren't many Wikipedians that challenge the validity of any
primary source as a source for an article - you simply have to be very
careful with how you use them.


body:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I undid this merger of policy not because I think it is a bad idea but
> because there was not really a proper process.

Jimy, I may be missing something here, so maybe you can help me
understand.

Here are some facts:

1. The proposal for the merger started circa mid October 2006 6. The
effort was announced in this very mailing list on October 10, 2006:
2. More that 2,000 edits to the WP:ATT page itself
3. More than 5,000 edits to the talk page
4. Hundreds of editors involved
5. ATT was promoted to policy on February 15, 2007, and remained
uncontested until your intervention of today three months later.

What I would want to understand related to "proper process" is:

(a) What was done that we should not have done;
(b) What was not done that we should have done;
(c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes.
(d) Do we need to involve you in the final determination so this does
not happen again?

(What I mean by "we" are those editors that put a considerable effort
in this initiative.)

-- Jossi


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I don't see how a private discusson can resolve a public confusion,
> unless I was to report the results of that "private" discussion
> afterwards.

Privacy is an outward indication of respect. Jimbo of course deserves
respect just like any other community member. Moreso even. Hence these
public discussions about a good person and outstanding leader have the
appearance of being personal attacks. Though thats probably not your
intent, people in the core community cannot rule that out.

On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> At English Wikipedia level, he has an informal status as a leader
> among the community. Historically - as a leader in the community - he
> exercised various functions (arbitration, for example) until those
> functions were delegated down (to the ArbCom, for example).

Its important to understand that Jimbo has a well defined
discretionary powers over the ArbCom. He has never used them though,
just as the Queen of England has never "disbanded Parliament".

-Stevertigo


body:
On 3/20/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 3/20/07 9:36 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion belongs.
>
> Doesn't a discussion that involves everyone belong where everyone can
> participate?

Noone has a "right" to edit Wikipedia. So I dont see how his decisions
involve "everyone".

-Stevertigo


body:
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Its important to understand that Jimbo has a well defined
> > discretionary powers over the ArbCom. He has never used them though,
> > just as the Queen of England has never "disbanded Parliament".
>
> Ok, we're getting somewhere. Can we make a list of Jimbo's
> well-defined extraordinary powers?

He can void the ArbCom, in whole and in part, including the status of
its members and its rulings.
I don't see how a list can make that any more explicit.

-Stevertigo


body:
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does he have any other explicit extraordinary powers?

Again, I find this public discussion to be improper. You would have to ask him.

-Stevertigo


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Messages message

body:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:09:07 -0400, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

>I don't know who else to ask about this so I thought I'd ask here. For the
>last several days I have been getting a "You have new messages" indicator,
>but when I click on it, and go to my Talk Page, there are no new messages
>listed. Am I somehow missing them? Is anyone else experiencing this, and
>what could be the problem?

When I had this I put it down to session cookies.  Logging off and
checking "remember me on this computer" fixed it.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
stevertigo wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does he have any other explicit extraordinary powers?
>>
>
> Again, I find this public discussion to be improper. You would have to ask him.
>

Why would it be improper to ask how Wikipedia is run? It seems like a
pretty reasonable question.

Thanks,

William


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
Is this an accurate simplification as to what's going on and Jimbo's position?

There's an WP article about "Joe Foo".

Somebody sues Joe Foo.

A WP editor just happens to find a copy of the original suit and
writes about it in Joe Foo's article. Nobody anywhere else is writing
about Joe Foo getting sued.

Since nobody else has written about Joe Foo getting sued, the suit
itself is non notable and therefore the information in Joe Foo's
article about the suit is removed by Jimbo.

If this is accurate then I assume that this is what has to happen for
the suit to be proper for Joe Foo's article...

There's an WP article about "Joe Foo".

Somebody sues Joe Foo.

A reporter for the New York Times just happens to find a copy of the
original suit and reports about it in an article. A reporter for the
Boston Globe does likewise.

The suit then becomes "news" and therefore "notable". It can now be
added to Joe Foo's WP article.


body:
> Please quote correctly; what I wrote was "bias towards Wikipedia and the
> US". For the rest you repeat after me.

Ah, I put the pauses in the wrong place. I read it as "bias towards
Wikipedia and bias towards the US", you meant "bias towards (Wikipedia
and the US)". Makes more sense now, thanks.


body:
On 3/20/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
> > Again, I find this public discussion to be improper. You would have to ask him.

> Why would it be improper to ask how Wikipedia is run? It seems like a
> pretty reasonable question.

Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control
are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting
the project than helping it.

-Stevertigo


from_name: Jossi Fresco

body:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 6:36 PM, stevertigo wrote:
>  but if I were actually interested,
> I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion
> belongs.

Why?

Transparency is paramount. The intervention at WP:ATT has left me
quite confused about his role. And by the look of it, I am not alone.
An unambiguous response to these questions would be very much
appreciated as it will dispel the confusion that clearly exists.

-- Jossi


body:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 6:48 PM, stevertigo wrote:

> Hence these
> public discussions about a good person and outstanding leader have the
> appearance of being personal attacks.

I can only speak for myself, but I respect him highly and that
respect has not changed a bit since his intervention at WP:ATT. I
just want some clarifications, and I am certain he will oblige.

-- Jossi


body:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 6:41 PM, jf_wikipedia wrote:

> 5. ATT was promoted to policy on February 15, 2007, and remained
> uncontested until your intervention of today <s>three months
> later.</s>

one month later.

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Since nobody else has written about Joe Foo getting sued, the suit
> > itself is non notable and therefore the information in Joe Foo's
> > article about the suit is removed by Jimbo.
>
> No. Jimbo never mentioned notability. He removed it on OR and NPOV
> grounds. (Mainly NPOV, I think, the comments about OR were just to
> explain where the writer had gone wrong.)

No he didn't, but I found this comment on the Langen talk page before
Jimbo jumped in..

"This is critical. The lawsuit in question is exactly like the
situation of a messy divorce. In fact, it is a messy divorce between
two parties. The divorce in question is not notable, and no grounds
for its notability have been provided. It is not important to the
article. No attempt whatsoever has been made to demonstrate it is
notable to the article. No claim has been made about why this case is
supposed to be interesting or relevant. It is purely a way of trying
to get at the subject of the entry. The official policy could not be
more clear about what to do with such a non-notable, unimportant
event: leave it out."

This may or may not be what Jimbo was thinking of but this makes
sense. "Joe Foo" may be notable but a lawsuit against him isn't
necessarily notable. If, for example, an editor just happens to find
the docs on the web or goes to find them after hearing about the suit
in a non notable "Joe Foo sucks" blog, then it's OR and to add it to
Joe Foo's article would be using Wikipedia to establish the suit's
notability which is a big no no. Once a notable news source reports
about it, then we can write about it.

Then again I might be completely wrong.


body:
Hoi,
Please quote correctly; what I wrote was "bias towards Wikipedia and the
US". For the rest you repeat after me.

US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language
Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated with
small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover all
subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done for
does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be
missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
Thanks,
     GerardM

Thomas Dalton schreef:
>> It sounds good only when the bias towards Wikipedia and the US is
>> intentional.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "bias towards Wikipedia". The apparent
> US bias is unfortunate, though. He doesn't say what he's doing the
> interviews for - if the subject matter is specific to the US, then it
> would make sense to only interview US Wikipedians.


body:
stevertigo wrote:
>> Why would it be improper to ask how Wikipedia is run? It seems like a
>> pretty reasonable question.
>>
>
> Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control
> are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting
> the project than helping it.
>

Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't talk about anything that's
interesting to trolls, even if it's also interesting to non-trolls? That
seems like it would restrict our discussions quite a bit.

William


body:
On 3/20/07, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought the first rule of the Internet is to not talk about the Internet. :o)

No that's the second rule. The first rule of the Internet is to not
talk about the Internet :o)


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:

> On 3/21/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website.
>
> No, it is not "Jimbo's website"; please do not continue to spread this
> misinformation. And Jimmy is not Chair of the Board, Florence Devouard
> is.

And Jimbo has reserved a role as boss, including the power to make
decrees like "this is unacceptable." While the overall Wikimedia
duties have shifted away from Jimbo, he is still the public face of
Wikipedia.

Stevertigo's comments were not spreading of misinformation - they
were a poorly phrased and, on a single detail that has not been
trumpeted that loudly (namely the shift of chairman), inaccurate.
Please do assume good faith.

-Phil


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
on 3/20/07 8:18 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg at gmail.com wrote:

> Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website. It doesnt
> matter if he is right or wrong on any particular issue. What matters
> is that we follow his leadership and do so promptly

WOW! As history will attest - Kool Aide really can be toxic!

, simply because
> the project would likely fall to pieces without him.

WOW!! That says a hell of a lot about the people who actually write it, edit
it, and maintain it every day 24/7!
>
> Who after is all is in a better position to formulate and implement
> policy changes? It is his job alone to tell the community what policy
> stands on Wikipedia, and how best to implement such.
> He after all is not just Wikipedia's founder, but its Editor in Chief,
> Chairman of the Board, and spokesperson.

WOW!!!

Astounded,

Marc Riddell


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:50:28 -0600, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com>
wrote:

>At WP:ATT he has said the the issue was not the use of primary sources, but
>the generation of novel conclusions based on the sources.  Of course, that
>totally contradicts his original posting, where he says that the material
>should not be reintroduced unless it is supported by secondary sources.  In
>addition, as far as I can tell, the material fairly reflects the sources in
>the article, and no attempt was made to explain how it is that the material
>did not.

Um.  What I see here is a statement that selectively reporting
directly from primary sources is Bad, whereas reporting what the
secondary sources report as the balance of opinion is fine; I don't
see it as a prohibition on sourcing quotes from the primary source,
only on distilling the article /directly/ from that source without the
filter of independent discussions.

This is precisely the kind of problem that led to the recent Barrett
v. Rosenthal arbitration case, in fact.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:

> On 3/21/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> And Jimbo has reserved a role as boss, including the power to make
>> decrees like "this is unacceptable."
>
> There is no legal basis to any role Jimmy has in the English Wikipedia
> (and which the community, not the Board, permits him to exercise).
> Wikipedia is not "Jimmy's website" by any measure, be it ownership,
> representation, or legal control. That is misinformation.
>>

Yes, because this discussion was clearly taking place in the realm of
the legal, so that was obviously the most sensible direction to take
it in.
>
> This may be true in the United States; it is certainly not true in the
> European Union, for example, where Florence and chapter
> representatives are increasingly the first point of contact.

Try a Google News search on their names. It's a fun game - you get
about 750 hits for Jimmy and about 8 for Anthere. Most of those 8 are
about her screw-up in telling people that we were going to go tits up
financially. Even if you do the search entirely in French news you
get twice as many for Jimmy as Florence. German is 52/2. Were there
any other languages you'd prefer to pick here?

This really is just worthless nitpicking on your point. In terms of
policy on en, Jimbo does have a special role as, to use a phrase we
haven't in a while, God King. That's just a statement of fact. You
can quibble with the wording all you want, but that remains all
anybody has said.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: ASINs and ISBNs

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:23:05 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond"
> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this is an important distinction.  Often, the Amazon link is the
>> easiest, best, most reliable source for a certain fact in an article.
>
> Um, except that in the particular case at issue, it also turned out to
> be wrong...

Well, at least inconsistent with other, less-reliable sources.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
	because you kind of get the impression she
	sang every song either about or to her cats.
	They seem to be the driving force in most of
	her creative process."     - Chuck Klosterman


body:
On 3/20/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:

> Transparency is paramount. The intervention at WP:ATT has left me
> quite confused about his role. And by the look of it, I am not alone.
> An unambiguous response to these questions would be very much
> appreciated as it will dispel the confusion that clearly exists.

If people are confused, that is their problem.  Responses can come in
many forms, in the form
of no response for example.

-Stevertigo


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Possible spam]Re:  Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:51:40 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>> The text that Jimbo removed was OR. Using lots of different primary
>> sources to support what you are saying is generally OR.

>That is going to come as a bit of a shock to the authors of [[Biaxial nematic]].

In what way is writing an article directly from primary sources not
original research, then?

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 3/20/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
> > Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control
> > are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting
> > the project than helping it.
> >
>
> Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't talk about anything that's
> interesting to trolls, even if it's also interesting to non-trolls? That
> seems like it would restrict our discussions quite a bit.

Yes, but unsolicited discussion of private governance matters is one
of the identifying marks of a troll.

-Stevertigo


body:
On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> And indeed, a constitutional monarchy is the best analogy for the
> English Wikipedia at the moment.

Exactly. And what obligation does a monarch have to explain
themselves, or to document exactly what they can or cannot do. That
would violate the very definition of a monarchy.

-Stevertigo


body:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:54 PM, stevertigo wrote:

> On 3/20/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Try a Google News search on their names. It's a fun game - you get
>> about 750 hits for Jimmy and about 8 for Anthere.
>
> Google searches are not reliable sources - for anything.
>

I was unaware that the mailing list had a reliable sourcing policy.

Suffice it to say that, short of a Lexis-Nexis search (which is going
to be inferior for content related to electronic resources anyway),
Google News searches are in fact pretty good.
>

> I would not regard Eriks comments in any way as "worthless
> nitpicking".  The "God King" term is way exaggerated, and besides the
> point, which is simply that Jimbo should simply be trusted.
>
The term has always been used as a rather serious joke.

-Phil


body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 05:46:39 +0900, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
wrote:

>The reason, though, that I think this is a bad idea is quite simple.
>WP:RS (which has never been fully fleshed out as I think it could be)
>and WP:V and WP:NOR are separate ideas, not the same idea.  They need
>separate policy pages so they can be explained separately, even when
>there is overlap.  A combined page will tend to cause confusion as
>editors being to think that "attribution" (the word) is more important
>than verifiability, avoiding original research, etc.

I agree, and I'd further note that I thought this had died months back
and was amazed to see it had not just resurfaced but replaced two of
our main policies.  Of course, I am notoriously inactive on Wikipedia
and the mailing list, right?

As far as I can tell, merging RS and the *examples* from NOR and V
into an attribution policy would have real merit, but merging OR
dilutes NOR by implying that we can perform original research as long
as we cite the primary sources properly - it dilutes the prohibition
on original syntheses and on having articles for which no secondary
sources exist.  Under the attribution policy we would, I think, have
much less of a defence against a lot of pseudoscience pushers.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 3/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:51:40 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The text that Jimbo removed was OR. Using lots of different primary
> >> sources to support what you are saying is generally OR.
>
> >That is going to come as a bit of a shock to the authors of [[Biaxial nematic]].
>
> In what way is writing an article directly from primary sources not
> original research, then?
>

Well consider "The biaxial nematic phase for this particular compound
only occurs at temperatures around 200 ?C and is preceded by as yet
unidentified smectic phases."

That is a statement dirrectly supported by the paper and involves no
original research (may be a little outdated but I don't know).

Given the way the popular media tends to mangel science the original
papers are aften the best sources around.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: ASINs and ISBNs

body:
On 20/03/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:

[sorry for duplicate]

> Some of the Amazon ones being discussed here were not as part of a
> bibliographic entry but were being used for facts quoted in an
> article, e.g. release dates, etc.  In that case, it IS being used as a
> source, and that's a different case.

It's an unrelated issue that came up at the same time, that. I'm all
for using Amazon as a source for (eg) reviews or other data only
available through them, but not for using Amazon as though it were a
standard bibliographic source.

> I think it is useful to keep cataloging information around, for the
> use of subsequent editors to the article, but I agree that it serves
> little purpose for the reader in most cases.  Perhaps in these cases
> the entry should be in HTML comment form or be an ignored parameter
> passed to a cite template.

I'm beginning to feel there's actually something to this nondisplaying
parameter trick. Do we use it for anything else?

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


body:
on 3/20/07 9:12 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp at gmail.com wrote:

> According to Erik, he has no legal power. According to Phil, he has
> reserved a role that includes the power to make decrees like "this is
> unacceptable". What is going on? What can he and can't he do? Why does
> he ignore the merge of WP:V and WP:OR into WP:ATT (and I thought I was
> slow for missing it...), then appear and not only criticise it, but
> actually act on it: "As a first step, I am removing the claim on this
> page that is supercedes the other two, and restoring the other two to
> their rightful place in the pantheon of Wikipedia."
>
> I don't attribute any malice to Jimbo, or anyone else for that matter.
> But clearly, there is widespread confusion about Jimbo's role in
> Wikipedia that needs resolving. Perhaps I could pose some questions
> for the audience:
>
> 1) What is Jimbo's financial position with respect to Wikipedia? Does
> he own any part of servers, software, intellectual property? In what
> way, if any, does he profit from it?
>
> 2) What is Jimbo's legal position with respect to Wikipedia?
>
> 3) What is Jimbo's position as an editor on Wikipedia? Does he have
> the right to ignore consensus? What happens if people disregard his
> right? Can he confer this right on others? How do we distinguish
> between Jimbo as normal editor and Jimbo as editor with godlike
> powers?
>
> 4) Does Jimbo have a leadership position, and if so, of what? Whom
> does he lead? In what way? Is that leadership contestable?
>
> 5) What concrete changes have taken place as a result of Jimbo being
> succeeded by Anthere as chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board?
> What is the day-to-day effect of these changes?
>
> 6) What is Jimbo's position as a spokesperson for Wikipedia or the
> Wikimedia Foundation? What does it mean when Jimbo tells the press
> that some change "will probably be going ahead"? Are we to interpret
> that as an order to be obeyed?
>
> 7) Are the answers to any of these questions different for the
> different language Wikipedias, or other Wikimedia projects?
>
> Thanks in advance for answers and positive discussion.
>
> Steve

Great questions. And the beginning of what I hope will be a great and honest
discussion. Every successful organization that has had a strong, charismatic
founder has had to eventually come to terms with many of these same
questions. Unless they are confronted, wrestled with, and answered honestly,
that organization may grow in size - but not stature.

Marc Riddell


body:
stevertigo wrote:

> I don't think this line of questioning is helpful.  Jimbo's role in
> the community is based not just on his early leadership but his
> respect and trust by the community *at large.  His position is one of
> *trust, and In order for his role to have meaning, this role needs to
> remain largely undefined and unconstrained by any set boundaries or
> constitutional delineations. He can negate consensus, simply because
> he can, as he has in the past, and as he will continue to for as long
> as he is active.

To semi-play devil's advocate, how much of that is because he always has
been as opposed to a perhaps mistaken belief that he ultimately runs the
show?  It's not like anyone really bothers to question him, not that
such questioning is likely to garner a response given how busy he ends
up being.

I mean, part of me wonders whether his "God-king" status is supported
simply because he's Jimbo and always has been, or because people
honestly think that's best for the project.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
	because you kind of get the impression she
	sang every song either about or to her cats.
	They seem to be the driving force in most of
	her creative process."     - Chuck Klosterman


body:
On 3/20/07, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the user page link is red or blue, they exist. It if it gray, they do not.
>
> Compare these two:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anybodyx
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anybody

Woot, the authoritative answer.

Out of curiosity, if it's possible to show a grey link, you'd think it
would be possible to show something more explicit like "There is no
user with this name."..

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
On 3/20/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see. Is that a major concern for you?

It's annoying if there is a tradeoff between readable wikitext and
precise control over formatting.

Someone should file a bug/wish requesting the change. It might be easy.

Steve


body:
On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton <bennett at peacefire.org> wrote:
> Well Citizendium also builds up articles by having them go through an
> initial growth period, before they are "approved" and signed off on by
> editors, and any future changes also have to be approved by editors.
>
> If the difference were only due to the fun of real-time editing, then there
> would be just as many Citizendium users participating in the
> real-time-editing process during the growth period of an article, as there
> are on Wikipedia.  I think it's safe to say that Wikipedia's first-mover
> advantage and name recognition is the main reason this is not the case :)

Hmm. If someone told me that any change I made to Wikipedia would have
to be "approved" by someone, or that the change would be somehow
"provisional" or "second-rate', I would be less motivated to work on
it.

>If the person's name is not right there on the article (even if it can be
>looked up in the history), then the reward associated with signing off on
>it, decreases.

"Article approved by Professor John Smith. And written by 190 nameless
contributors." Hmm. I'm not against...but I guess I would have to see
it in action.

Steve
[whoops, wrote this earlier, forgot to send it]


body:
on 3/20/07 9:25 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg at gmail.com wrote:

> I don't think this line of questioning is helpful.  Jimbo's role in
> the community is based not just on his early leadership but his
> respect and trust by the community *at large.  His position is one of
> *trust, and In order for his role to have meaning, this role needs to
> remain largely undefined and unconstrained by any set boundaries or
> constitutional delineations. He can negate consensus, simply because
> he can, as he has in the past, and as he will continue to for as long
> as he is active.

This is not answering a question - it is avoiding one.

Marc Riddell