from_name: Larry Sanger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Trolls and other nuisances

body:
I'm just now visiting the recent archive of Wikipedia-L:

http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001879.html

I'd like to add my $0.02 on a number of issues that have been raised.
This is important, I think, because we've got to pull together against
elements who are, to put it nicely, wasting our time.  To pull together,
though, we've got to get very clear on what "trolls" are or might be, and
develop a robust, *well-thought-out*, *reasonable* idea of what to do when
the trolls attack.  (As they will continue to do as long as Wikipedia is
open for business.)  Each of us has to come to his or her own conclusions
on the issue; but the greater degree of consensus we can achieve (*for*
neutrality and productivity and *against* bias and kookiness), the more
effective we will be in showing trolls the door.  (Without, ideally,
actually kicking them out the door.)

First, I really don't like the idea of putting Meta-Wikipedia comments on
the Recent Changes page.  That was the whole point of having the
Meta-Wikipedia, if you'll remember: meta-discussion (partly in the form of
trolling by certain members of the project, along with responses to them),
had become such a serious problem, eating up the resources of the project,
that we wanted to move the wrangling away from the article production.
Please, let's keep it that way.

For historical perspective, see:

http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Moving+commentary+out+of+Wikipedia

Next--I think Manning's post, "Some 24 comments and the cabal," was a
bullseye that said a bunch of stuff that sorely needed to be said:

http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001807.html

To reiterate in my own words: our resident trolls, bless their twisted
hearts, have harped over and over again about issues of the politics of
Wikipedia, either stating or not-so-subtlely implying that some element of
the leadership of the community is pulling the wool over the eyes of the
community, that someone is usurping power.  As Manning says, the main
authority behind the project rests with the community itself, and
particularly with the people who accept the basic defining features of the
community.  Insinuations that a cabal, other than a "cabal" in this sense,
is taking control and foisting its views on the rest of us are only so
much guff, very possibly motivated by a dislike for the neutrality policy,
or so it seems to me.

I agree that "troll" is sometimes falsely used to mean little more
specific than "annoying person," which is way too broad.  Originally (or
so the etymology and received wisdom has it), I think the term referred to
people who were *merely* trying to get a rise out of newbies, with no
deeper agenda than that.  There are relatively few trolls in that sense,
and it's entirely plausible that The Cunctator, 24, and Michael Irwin
aren't trolls in *that* sense.

But I think there *is* a broader and much more useful sense of the term,
that is very often used by perfectly net-savvy people--at least as often
as the original use, and probably more often.  This is how "troll" is used
in this page (#1 result for the "Internet troll" Google search):

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

According to this broader sense, trolls *thrive on being the center and
focus of controversy*.  It is, seemingly, what they live for, at least
when it comes to Internet forums.  Perhaps most importantly, **they do not
respond to reasonable criticism** in the way that most ordinary
intelligent people do; they treat dialectic as *merely* a game.  They
don't seem to realize or care that they are speaking to *people* with all
that that entails.

Reasonable discussants are willing to stop and acknowledge that others can
and do have different points of view.  Trolls, in this slightly broader
sense, almost always take personal offense that other people disagree with
them, so that when others express their disagreement, the trolls lash out
in hostile, abusive, and often strangely cryptic ways (as if they were
mainly speaking to themselves).

Most reasonable people go out of their way not to give offense to others
(except, perhaps, when it's warranted); trolls go out of their way to
think up clever ways to give offense to people who never did them any
harm.

Reasonable people (indeed, this might a basic criterion of being a
reasonable person) recognize and accept that, in a community, there must
be general standards of protocol, and they make a point of discovering
what those standards are and respecting them.  If they criticize basic,
well-accepted community standards, they realize that they are taking what
might be received as a sort of extreme action, and they will word their
criticisms with appropriate delicacy and diplomacy.  Trolls, by contrast
(and here again I'm speaking in the slightly broader sense), seem to take
*delight* in not only flouting basic standards of protocol, but
criticizing them openly and rudely as well.  Any old hand on Usenet or
mailing lists knows this all too well.  When called to task by a moderator
or administrator, the troll often will attack the moderator or
administrator, complain that his feelings are being hurt, and object that
his freedom of speech has been infringed.  No reasonable person would
behave this way; he would instead stop and ask himself, "What have I done
wrong?" or instead say, "Oh, I see; these people aren't playing by the
rules I want to play by.  I'll find a different group of people to play
with."

I can't really put it any better than what the above-referenced URL has:
"Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise).
You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or
compassion; you cannot reason with them.  They cannot be made to feel
remorse.  For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules
of courtesy or social responsibility."

Now, there's a problem in *defining* "troll," even in this broad sense,
for the wiki context.  Trolling up till now has been the abuse of Internet
*discussion*.  But Wikipedia isn't a discussion; it's a content-creation
project.  Of course, part of the trolling we've seen has been on talk page
discussions, but another large part of it (depending on the troll) has
been in article posting, viz., posting biased and kooky stuff in open
defiance of policy.  I think this is a perfectly acceptable, robust
application of the concept to a new sort of context, though.

There's also a special problem in *dealing* with trolls on Wikipedia (or
any wiki): whereas on an ordinary discussion forum, one can simply
killfile the miscreant, on Wikipedia, we can't.  Remember, we're actually
*doing something*.  We're building a resource.  The troll's disruptions
(in the form of totally and consciously biased, kooky, and otherwise
worthless repeated postings) can't be "killfiled."  Somebody has to go
around after the troll and actually clean up.  If nobody does, the biased,
kooky, worthless dross stays put; if it accumulates, Wikipedia's quality
and reputation is under some amount of threat (depending on how prolific
the troll is).

Given this, it might perhaps be better to apply the word "vandal" to
someone who posts really worthless stuff on Wikipedia.  But I would
distinguish vandals from trolls as follows.

Vandals are interested in getting mere infantile jollies in seeing people
temporarily shocked by usually toilet humor.

Trolls actually want to build (hostile) relationships with people in order
to abuse them more satisfyingly.  For more on the relationship between
trolling and abuse, the following is thought-provoking:

http://www.firelily.com/support/depression/trolls.html

I don't know how accurate the psychologizing is, but it's interesting
nonetheless.

So, as you can see, I do think that trolls exist on Wikipedia, and we
would do well to acknowledge this fact and respond appropriately.

Larry


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

body:
I'm just now visiting the recent archive of Wikipedia-L:

http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001879.html

I guess I'll resubscribe at least temporarily in case there are replies to
the following...  :-)

I'd like to add my $0.02 on a number of issues that have been raised.
This is important, I think, because we've got to pull together against
elements who are, to put it nicely, wasting our time.  To pull together,
though, we've got to get very clear on what "trolls" are or might be, and
develop a robust, *well-thought-out*, *reasonable* idea of what to do when
the trolls attack.  (As they will continue to do as long as Wikipedia is
open for business.)  Each of us has to come to his or her own conclusions
on the issue; but the greater degree of consensus we can achieve (*for*
neutrality and productivity and *against* bias and kookiness), the more
effective we will be in showing trolls the door.  (Without, ideally,
actually kicking them out the door.)

First, I really don't like the idea of putting Meta-Wikipedia comments on
the Recent Changes page.  That was the whole point of having the
Meta-Wikipedia, if you'll remember: meta-discussion (partly in the form of
trolling by certain members of the project, along with responses to them),
had become such a serious problem, eating up the resources of the project,
that we wanted to move the wrangling away from the article production.
Please, let's keep it that way.

For historical perspective, see:

http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Moving+commentary+out+of+Wikipedia

Next--I think Manning's post, "Some 24 comments and the cabal," was a
bullseye that said a bunch of stuff that sorely needed to be said:

http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001807.html

To reiterate in my own words: our resident trolls, bless their twisted
hearts, have harped over and over again about issues of the politics of
Wikipedia, either stating or not-so-subtlely implying that some element of
the leadership of the community is pulling the wool over the eyes of the
community, that someone is usurping power.  As Manning says, the main
authority behind the project rests with the community itself, and
particularly with the people who accept the basic defining features of the
community.  Insinuations that a cabal, other than a "cabal" in this sense,
is taking control and foisting its views on the rest of us are only so
much guff, very possibly motivated by a dislike for the neutrality policy,
or so it seems to me.

I agree that "troll" is sometimes falsely used to mean little more
specific than "annoying person," which is way too broad.  Originally (or
so the etymology and received wisdom has it), I think the term referred to
people who were *merely* trying to get a rise out of newbies, with no
deeper agenda than that.  There are relatively few trolls in that sense,
and it's entirely plausible that The Cunctator, 24, and Michael Irwin
aren't trolls in *that* sense.

But I think there *is* a broader and much more useful sense of the term,
that is very often used by perfectly net-savvy people--at least as often
as the original use, and probably more often.  This is how "troll" is used
in this page (#1 result for the "Internet troll" Google search):

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

According to this broader sense, trolls *thrive on being the center and
focus of controversy*.  It is, seemingly, what they live for, at least
when it comes to Internet forums.  Perhaps most importantly, **they do not
respond to reasonable criticism** in the way that most ordinary
intelligent people do; they treat dialectic as *merely* a game.  They
don't seem to realize or care that they are speaking to *people* with all
that that entails.

Reasonable discussants are willing to stop and acknowledge that others can
and do have different points of view.  Trolls, in this slightly broader
sense, almost always take personal offense that other people disagree with
them, so that when others express their disagreement, the trolls lash out
in hostile, abusive, and often strangely cryptic ways (as if they were
mainly speaking to themselves).

Most reasonable people go out of their way not to give offense to others
(except, perhaps, when it's warranted); trolls go out of their way to
think up clever ways to give offense to people who never did them any
harm.

Reasonable people (indeed, this might a basic criterion of being a
reasonable person) recognize and accept that, in a community, there must
be general standards of protocol, and they make a point of discovering
what those standards are and respecting them.  If they criticize basic,
well-accepted community standards, they realize that they are taking what
might be received as a sort of extreme action, and they will word their
criticisms with appropriate delicacy and diplomacy.  Trolls, by contrast
(and here again I'm speaking in the slightly broader sense), seem to take
*delight* in not only flouting basic standards of protocol, but
criticizing them openly and rudely as well.  Any old hand on Usenet or
mailing lists knows this all too well.  When called to task by a moderator
or administrator, the troll often will attack the moderator or
administrator, complain that his feelings are being hurt, and object that
his freedom of speech has been infringed.  No reasonable person would
behave this way; he would instead stop and ask himself, "What have I done
wrong?" or instead say, "Oh, I see; these people aren't playing by the
rules I want to play by.  I'll find a different group of people to play
with."

I can't really put it any better than what the above-referenced URL has:
"Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise).
You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or
compassion; you cannot reason with them.  They cannot be made to feel
remorse.  For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules
of courtesy or social responsibility."

Now, there's a problem in *defining* "troll," even in this broad sense,
for the wiki context.  Trolling up till now has been the abuse of Internet
*discussion*.  But Wikipedia isn't a discussion; it's a content-creation
project.  Of course, part of the trolling we've seen has been on talk page
discussions, but another large part of it (depending on the troll) has
been in article posting, viz., posting biased and kooky stuff in open
defiance of policy.  I think this is a perfectly acceptable, robust
application of the concept to a new sort of context, though.

There's also a special problem in *dealing* with trolls on Wikipedia (or
any wiki): whereas on an ordinary discussion forum, one can simply
killfile the miscreant, on Wikipedia, we can't.  Remember, we're actually
*doing something*.  We're building a resource.  The troll's disruptions
(in the form of totally and consciously biased, kooky, and otherwise
worthless repeated postings) can't be "killfiled."  Somebody has to go
around after the troll and actually clean up.  If nobody does, the biased,
kooky, worthless dross stays put; if it accumulates, Wikipedia's quality
and reputation is under some amount of threat (depending on how prolific
the troll is).

Given this, it might perhaps be better to apply the word "vandal" to
someone who posts really worthless stuff on Wikipedia.  But I would
distinguish vandals from trolls as follows.

Vandals are interested in getting mere infantile jollies in seeing people
temporarily shocked by usually toilet humor.

Trolls actually want to build (hostile) relationships with people in order
to abuse them more satisfyingly.  For more on the relationship between
trolling and abuse, the following is thought-provoking:

http://www.firelily.com/support/depression/trolls.html

I don't know how accurate the psychologizing is, but it's interesting
nonetheless.

So, as you can see, I do think that trolls exist on Wikipedia, and we
would do well to acknowledge this fact and respond appropriately.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where to read up about trolls and trolling

body:
Here's a good place to start to read some really fascinating stuff about
trolls and how they operate:

	http://www.google.com/search?q=trolls+and+trolling

Frankly, it has been years since I read such stuff.

For me, the obvious question is: why *wouldn't* trolls, in the strict or
looser senses, attack Wikipedia?  And it seems to me the answer is equally
obvious: there's no reason they wouldn't, and they already have.

Larry


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Apology to The Cunctator and the list

in_reply_to: <20020413001104.JWWG1901.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@there>; from maveric149@yahoo.com on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 05:09:10PM -0700

body:
I would like to say that I personally "vouch" for The Cunctator, too.
I think he's a valuable contributor.  And I think he's a valuable
"touchstone" for decisions that are made administratively, because
he's highly skeptical of authority and he highly values openness.

--Jimbo


from_name: Daniel Lee Mayer

body:
I will make this brief since this type of post is not really appropriate for
such a list as this:

My previous statement indicating that The Cunctator had more bias than the
boiled down stuff the 24 is spewing out was a mischaracterization on my part
based upon numerous posts and material left by Larry Sanger. Larry may have
had very good reasons to characterize The Cunctator this way in the past, but
a random sampling of  The Cunctator's current edits does not indicate that
Larry's views are currently valid.

Please do not disregard the rest of the original email in question though. I
apologize to the list and to The Cunctator for my lack of tact in this
regard.

Yours,

-- maveric149


list: wikitech-l

from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Wikitech-l] Middle Earth redux

body:
On 4/12/02 5:09 PM, "lcrocker at nupedia.com" <lcrocker at nupedia.com> wrote:
>
> Here's the proposal: On pages whose titles end with (context) in
> parentheses, [[ |link]] is interpreted as [[link (context)|link]].
> On all pages, [[link (context)| ]] is interpreted that way as well.
> All other uses of [[|link]] or [[|link]] are simply interpreted
> as [[link]].
>
> That will make fixing all the links in the Middle Earth, Poker,
> and other pages much easier, and I don't think it will add any
> temptation to over-categorize or cause other problems.
>
> It is an open question whether these links are interpreted at
> save-time or render-time; the latter makes things easier I think,
> but the former has advantages too.

Let me try to figure out exactly how that would work...

So if we change September_11,_2001_Terrorist Attack/Casualties
to Casualties_(September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack), then to
link to say Missing_(September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack) on the Casualties
page we write [[|Missing]], which is rendered as
Missing.

If we didn't move the page, we could also add this functionality
so that on pages with a / the same thing happens, so that
on September_11,_2001_Terrorist Attack/Casualties, a link to
[[|Missing]] would go to September_11,_2001_Terrorist Attack/Missing.

Any of this would make life easier...


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement

body:
I know, we've spent too much time on this person: but I want to call
everyone's attention to his comments
in http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3APhilosophy_of_body

Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends
with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020412/e1f825be/attachment.diff


from_name: Brion L. VIBBER

subject: [Wikipedia-l] a couple of pages to delete

body:
On ven, 2002-04-12 at 20:03, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
> > > > - Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
> > > > redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their
> > > > browser!]
> > > > - Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
> > > > - Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
> > > > duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
> > >
> > > Personally, I would really, REALLY, prefer that these kinds of pages be
> > > made redirects, *not* deleted outright.
> >
> > I agree.  One of the cardinal rules of good web practice is to try not
> > to break old urls if people may still be using them somehow.
>
> OK... so NOTHING ever gets deleted EVER... I won't bother trying to
> suggest it then. BTW that first page title is the ACTUAL PAGE TITLE...
> nobody's going to search for that or link to that! Are they?????

Maybe, maybe not. That *particular* one might well be a candidate for
deletion, but I would definitely *not* delete [[Harry Potter/Quidditch]]
or [[Harry Potter/broom]].

> What happens when you run out of room for new entries because there are
> a million useless redirects clogging up the database?

We all pitch in a dollar and buy Jimbo a bigger hard drive. :)

> And how about when
> you do a search and you get 100 entries, but 59 of them are merely
> redirects?

(You answer this in your next paragraph.)

> Also how about the redirects that take you to a redirect
> which redirects you some place else? Surely it would be simpler and
> easier to be able to clear away some of the debris and to just have
> ONE... I think that all of these trails of redirects are making the
> project appear less professional and less useful than it might.

Clearly we need better tools for handling redirects; a semi-automated
point-all-redirects-to-the-new-page function would be helpful in this
regard. But I'd rather see a redirect that I have to click on to follow
the rest of the way than "Describe the new page here."

> If you really want to keep all of this useless garbage then I'd suggest
> you need to find a way to keep the redirects OUT of search results
> because it's making them look like a mess, and much harder to actually
> use.

Yes! I agree wholeheartedly. Redirects should only turn up in searches
if they point to a page that didn't come up in the search already, and
probably should go last even then.

> Actually, in an ideal world the search routine would have options - so
> you could search just headers, or just bodies or both, and choose terms
> to include/exclude to help get the result you were looking for.

It would also be nice to have the option to search talk and user pages;
every once in a while that could come in handy.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Karen AKA Kajikit

body:
I'm not sure where to put suggestions for pages to delete - I've been
moving info around all day and I'm leaving a trail of outdated empty
entries behind me.

- Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their
browser!]
- Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
- Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
duplicated in the Quidditch entry]

--

Karen AKA Kajikit

Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating

Love and huggles to all!


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Move function

body:
I just commited a function (sysops only, I hope;) to move a page to a new
title, with complete history. A checkbox is used to create a redirect. Now:

1. Please check for errors.
2. Please make it use variables instead of English text constants (Biron, I
know you wouldn't be happy if you couldn't do that yourself ;]
3. The function doesn't move subpages, as there are no subpages, officially.
Neither does it move talk: pages. Might be worth adding.

Have fun with the coding,
Magnus


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikipedia-l] peace and brainstorms (rant warning)

body:
Peace is cool.  I don't believe The Cunctator, Nirwin
or Larry Sanger are trolls.  I remember our page on
The Wikipedia Militia, but that was more about newbies
than trolls if I remember correctly.  My first
response to combat trolls was to form lots of software
solutions, but going to war really doesn't do any
good.  When we build up things to protect us from
vandals, they just build better software solutions to
vandalize, and we just build... ad nauseum.

24 is different from everyone so far because no one
else has even denied someone their personhood or
refused to login and participate in the community.
Yes, I did take his comment personally about being a
non-person and I'll admit that... so as far as I'm
concerned he caused me bodily harm.  heh  Of course,
it may eventually come to a point like protecting the
homepage that we have to only allow logged in users to
participate.  It will be sad if it reaches that point,
but the day may come.  :(

I thought about dropping out of the English Wikipedia
project because it was just getting too emotional, but
decided that would just be letting him win his little
game.  Yes, I will call him a him (instead of it)
because he deserves to be treated as a person even if
he's not acting like it.

I think we need to really plan ahead and figure out
how to peacefully defend against this kind of attack
without losing too much of our resources as a result.
Imagine if you will that we have our own world (and in
a way we do, but stick with me here...) and we accept
everybody then what do we do with those who don't
follow the community guidelines?

Sorry for the rambles, but the whole idea of
punishment for crimes seems dreadfully obsolete (and
it wouldn't even work in this case anyway) and I'm
trying to see alternatives, but I can't think of any.
I remember that when I worked for about.com, we had a
conference call at one point and it was really cool,
but I'm not sure if that would really work in this
situation, but it might be worth thinking about.

BTW, this is all complete brainstorm... my uncensored
thoughts, scary, eh?  :)  Remember, we're making
ground-breaking history here, so we're going to
encounter problems that have never been faced
before... and finally, thanks to everybody for all
I've learned working on this project, remember it is
worth all the hard work!  :-)

Chuck

=====
Come to my homepage!  Venu al mia hejmpagxo!
http://amuzulo.babil.komputilo.org/
====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Informaci?n de Estados Unidos y Am?rica Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Vis?tanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com


from_name: kband at www.llamacom.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement

body:
>
> I know, we've spent too much time on this person: but I want to call
> everyone's attention to his comments
> in http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3APhilosophy_of_body
>
> Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends
> with something close to a declaration of hostilities.

I can't say I'm surprised, considering how harshly and snidely he's
been attacked. Everyone in that page seems to be acting like a
petulant child, even though they aren't. I'm reminded of the clinic
Noam Chomsky gave on the radio on how to be annoyingly self-righteous
(actually more than annoying--infuriating might be closer to
actuality) two days ago on the NYC public radio station call-in
show. Yes, 24 is aggravating. Yes, he's silly and stubborn. But then
people call him a troll, and slam him on this mailing list, and say
he's doing a thousand evil things and attacking Wikipedia and sleeping
with sheep and best friends with Osama bin Laden. And then we're
surprised when he falls into the rhetoric of apocalypse?

If you think I'm an arrogant, foolish ass, then it's totally
reasonable to think what I wrote above is arrogant and foolish. But it
seems to me that people are falling over themselves to justify every
unreasonable claim 24 makes.

Yes, Talk:Philosophy of body has heated rhetoric. But that's all it
is. 24 obviously *likes* Wikipedia. If we embraced him, showed him
love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any
contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his
intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.

Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians
think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular
contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking
that he's being ganged up on.

And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs),
Wikipedia is pretty weak.

But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a
while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect
bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.

But then I feel the desire to reconsider all the above words on the
weight of my knowlege of what kind of person Vicki is, and that if she
is troubled, then I should be to.

These are just my thoughts, worth little unless they have value to you.

--tc


from_name: Manning Bartlett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikiwait

body:
Hmmm...just adding my voice to the growing chorus - the site sure has crawled to a near halt lately. I spent 4 mins opening a moderate sized page over a cable link last night (0300, 12 Apr, Server Time) - although the Search was normal speed, go figure.

Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020413/4be662ef/attachment.htm


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The Cunctator email

body:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 kband at www.llamacom.com wrote:

> Getting back on topic, one thing I've noticed which is not a serious
> problem but could become one is that the developer group de facto
> determines what changes are made to the Wikipedia software. More
> specifically, if two people each have a pet bug they think needs to be
> fixed, and one person is a developer and one isn't, the developer's
> pet bug will be fixed.

It's a do-mocracy, that's how free software works.

-- Daniel


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #360 - 6 msgs

body:
> Actually, in an ideal world the search routine would have options - so
> you could search just headers, or just bodies or both, and choose terms
> to include/exclude to help get the result you were looking for.
>
>


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
> > > - Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
> > > redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their
> > > browser!]
> > > - Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
> > > - Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
> > > duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
> >
> > Personally, I would really, REALLY, prefer that these kinds of pages be
> > made redirects, *not* deleted outright.
>
> I agree.  One of the cardinal rules of good web practice is to try not
> to break old urls if people may still be using them somehow.

OK... so NOTHING ever gets deleted EVER... I won't bother trying to
suggest it then. BTW that first page title is the ACTUAL PAGE TITLE...
nobody's going to search for that or link to that! Are they?????

What happens when you run out of room for new entries because there are
a million useless redirects clogging up the database? And how about when
you do a search and you get 100 entries, but 59 of them are merely
redirects? Also how about the redirects that take you to a redirect
which redirects you some place else? Surely it would be simpler and
easier to be able to clear away some of the debris and to just have
ONE... I think that all of these trails of redirects are making the
project appear less professional and less useful than it might.

If you really want to keep all of this useless garbage then I'd suggest
you need to find a way to keep the redirects OUT of search results
because it's making them look like a mess, and much harder to actually
use.

Actually, in an ideal world the search routine would have options - so
you could search just headers, or just bodies or both, and choose terms
to include/exclude to help get the result you were looking for.

--

Karen AKA Kajikit

Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating

Love and huggles to all!


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement

body:
On Saturday 13 April 2002 12:01 pm, tc wrote:
> ........ If we embraced him, showed him
> love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any
> contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his
> intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.

This has been tried to a great extent by myself and several others. 24
doesn't seem to care about our standards and way of doing things and in fact
wants to change the fundamental character of the project. Some of us don't
care for this attitude at all and are now trying to clean up his mess.

With that being said, and since 24's submits are far fewer, I do think if we
tone down our rhetoric, try to politely edit his/her work, and have Jimbo or
maybee yourself continue to try and reach out to this character, maybee, just
maybee he/she will reform. Perhaps this person is a bit aloof and did
overreact after seeing our reaction. But then, I allways tend to give people
more credit than they sometimes deserve after I am able to emotionally detach
myself from this issue a bit.

Cheers!

maveric149


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Further replies

body:
(Sorry, the post from me consisting just of three quoted lines was just a
slip of the fingers!)

Reponses below to Chuck Smith and The Cunctator.

I agree 100% that we should not have to waste our time on issues about
trolls.  Unfortunately, we do--it's only by raising consciousness about the
existence of trolls and their methods that we can respond to them
appropriately and effectively.

Just about the only effective thing you can do in response to trolls is to
name and shame them (i.e., unmask them), and then ignore them and encourage
others to ignore them.  But unmasking them really is an important thing to
do, for those people who continue to encourage them.  Anyway, I'm pretty
much done doing all the unmasking I will be volunteering to do; after this,
I'll shut up and ignore further blathering from the miscreants.

Then, perhaps, we'll have peace, Chuck.

> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Chuck=20Smith?= <msochuck at yahoo.com>
> Peace is cool.  I don't believe The Cunctator, Nirwin
> or Larry Sanger are trolls.

Gee thanks, Chuck.  :-)  I don't think you're a troll either!  :-)

> I thought about dropping out of the English Wikipedia
> project because it was just getting too emotional, but
> decided that would just be letting him win his little
> game.

That's precisely the goal of a troll: get the more valuable members of a
forum (or a project, in this case) to drop out and render the project
useless.  See this, about the old alt.syntax.tactical group:

http://ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html

There is plenty of evidence that this is precisely what Craig is trying to
do.  (24's first name is Craig.  Because Craig corresponded with me in the
past and told me that he wrote "natural point of view," and after I did a
Google search, I was able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what his
name, occupation, etc. are.  We haven't decided how and whether we want to
unmask him; we were hoping that the threat of unmasking him would make him
go away.  Actually, we're hoping that private negotiation will produce some
useful results.)  So, anyway, please don't drop out.

> I think we need to really plan ahead and figure out
> how to peacefully defend against this kind of attack
> without losing too much of our resources as a result.

Well, we can start by encouraging in each other the healthy habit of *not
feeding trolls* (after pointing out that they're trolls).  But, since this
is a content-generation project, we also have to do damage control.  We have
to be bold in undoing the troll's faux submissions.  Do not discuss your
changes with the troll; that will only encourage him.  That's what trolls
live for!

> Imagine if you will that we have our own world (and in
> a way we do, but stick with me here...) and we accept
> everybody then what do we do with those who don't
> follow the community guidelines?

We hope like hell that the trolls will leave when they are treated like
trolls (i.e., ignored).  If they don't, eventually, you'll have to kick them
out on pain of losing the most valuable members of the project.  Sorry,
don't shoot the messenger--that's just how trolls and trolling works.  It's
been happening for a long time now, and old Internet hands know the drill.
It's just that we on Wikipedia have not been thinking of the possibility
that trolls might attack the project, as they do quite consciously attack
mailing lists and newsgroups, because we haven't gotten used to the idea of
applying the concept of troll to Wikipedia.  But it's high time we did.

> Sorry for the rambles, but the whole idea of
> punishment for crimes seems dreadfully obsolete (and
> it wouldn't even work in this case anyway) and I'm
> trying to see alternatives, but I can't think of any.

It's not a punishment for a crime; it's self-preservation against attack.
That's a very important distinction.

> From: kband at www.llamacom.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement

I'd like to reply to this for the sake of those who might find what
Cunctator has to say plausible.  Cunctator seems to maintain, puzzlingly (or
not), that 24 is not a troll.

> > Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends
> > with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
>
> I can't say I'm surprised, considering how harshly and snidely he's
> been attacked.

I find it interesting that you and Michael Irwin are the only people to
defend him, Cunctator.

I think he has been treated with far more respect than he deserves.

> Everyone in that page seems to be acting like a
> petulant child,

Well, that's how people become when they are being trolled and don't realize
it.  It's what trolls live for.  Surely you know that, Cunctator; everybody
with much experience on the Internet does.

> Yes, 24 is aggravating. Yes, he's silly and stubborn. But then
> people call him a troll, and slam him on this mailing list, and say
> he's doing a thousand evil things and attacking Wikipedia and sleeping
> with sheep and best friends with Osama bin Laden. And then we're
> surprised when he falls into the rhetoric of apocalypse?

Actually, I agree with this.  This sort of troll will fall into the rhetoric
of apocalypse  if people calling him a troll.  That's how this sort of troll
operates.

> Yes, Talk:Philosophy of body has heated rhetoric. But that's all it
> is. 24 obviously *likes* Wikipedia.

Strange.  It seems obvious to me that he really hates Wikipedia: he hates
the neutral point of view policy that defines it, he hates the fact that
there are a lot of academics on board who can speak authoritatively on
subjects that he can't, he hates the "ontology" behind the selection of
topics, and on and on.  That's why, as you would know if you were paying
attention, people keep suggesting that we give him his own wiki.  But he
doesn't want his own wiki.  He wants to change Wikipedia so radically that
it would be destroyed.  Given all this, it is ludicrous to claim that he
"obviously *likes* Wikipedia."

> If we embraced him, showed him
> love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any
> contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his
> intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.

This comment is amazing, and in the game you're playing, Cunctator, a false
move.  It reduces your "I am not a troll, just a misunderstood softie"
credibility greatly.

So let's analyze this a bit.  Craig's stated his intentions; there's no need
to guess at or interpret them.  He wants to get rid of the neutral point of
view, academics, me, and seemingly everyone who disagrees with his "natural
point of view" nonsense.  That is tantamount to destroying the project as we
know it.  Now explain to me, Cunctator (sure would be nice to know your real
name): how is it that by "embracing him" and "showing him love" we would
accomplish *anything* of use?  Since he is a troll (or do you *actually*
need proof of that, Cunctator?), it would only delight him and encourage him
in his trollishness.

Do you perhaps have the notion that, by embracing and showing love to people
who, to most savvy Internet users, appear to be trolls, they will stop
behaving trollishly?  Do you think, in Craig's case, that he will become a
non-troll if we love and respect him?

What your comment above seems to imply is that he, in fact, *isn't* a troll,
and perhaps even that there is no such thing as a troll.  Let us know,
Cunctator: do you think there are trolls on the Internet?  I doubt I'll get
an answer out of you on that one.  If I do, it should be very interesting to
read.

No, it's clear enough.  Cunctator may be many things, but he isn't an idiot.
He knows very well that trolls exist; he knows very well that 24 is a troll
in one quite ordinary accepted sense of the term; and, as an experienced
Internet user, he knows very well that one cannot deal effectively with
trolls by showing them love and respect.  Cunctator might protest that he
does not know all these things.  I'll let you draw your own conclusions from
such protestations.

> Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians
> think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular
> contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking
> that he's being ganged up on.
>
> And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs),
> Wikipedia is pretty weak.

Here, you are trying to win sympathy for Craig, it seems, as well as for
yourself.  We are "ganging up" on poor "24," just as we ganged up on you.
So you have sympathy for him.  Isn't that nice.

> But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a
> while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect
> bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.

I'd certainly like to know if it's not obvious to anyone other than you and
Michael Irwin.  You imply, in your usual way (which is not as subtle as you
seem to think it is), that all of the *many* people who think that Craig is
a troll are just being defensive!  Indeed they're "intrinsically defensive,"
whatever that means.  In short, their concerns are overblown and generally
unreasonable, and are mainly due to defensiveness.  What a bizarre and
ridiculous thing to say.

> These are just my thoughts, worth little unless they have value to you.

How good of you, Cunctator.  How could anyone who is willing to recognize
publicly that others might regard his thoughts as worth little, who is
willing to laughingly and sheepishly acknowledge that others *might* think
he himself is a troll, fail to be a respectable, valuable, important member
of the project?--Indeed, how?

Cunctator, you have my permission to place this entire reply to you on your
own delightfully trollish hall of fame page, here:

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/user:The+Cunctator/Bias+Talk

I know you'll want to.  But don't post parts of it.  Post the *whole* thing.
I insist.  Supply *context*, Cunctator, it helps readers to understand
events fully.

--Larry


subject: [Wikitech-l] German text file

body:
I just commited a completely translated wikiText file in German. As German as
only a few "unusual" characters (???????), it should be pretty easy to set
up. Can anyone try a German tarball with the conversion script? Remember:
* "diskussion" instead of "talk"
* "benutzer" instead of "user"

Thanks,
Magnus


from_name: D Fisher

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Redirects

body:
I'd just like to say that, to me (and I'm speaking as a qualified librarian), redirects are - more or less - what, in a printed encyclopedia, would be called "cross-references".  In fact, because there is room for more of them in wikipedia, they are potentially even more helpful than the printed variety.

Regards
Deb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020413/e536196c/attachment.htm


from_name: Guardian Tor

subject: Fw: Re: [Wikipedia-l] peace and brainstorms (rant warning)

body:
I accidently sent this to Chuck, rather than the whole list. Oops.

- Stephen G.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guardian Tor " <guardian-tor at operamail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 00:57:46 +0900
To:  <msochuck at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] peace and brainstorms (rant warning)

> > I think we need to really plan ahead and figure out
> > how to peacefully defend against this kind of attack
> > without losing too much of our resources as a result.
> > Imagine if you will that we have our own world (and in
> > a way we do, but stick with me here...) and we accept
> > everybody then what do we do with those who don't
> > follow the community guidelines?
>
> I popped over to MeatBallWiki (an active wiki devoted to online communities) and solicted some advice. Sunir Shah's response, which is a good one, can be read here: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiPedia.
>
> Also, once again I'll suggest this: Ignore him as much as possible. If he wants to get worked up governence, natural point of view and worst cases, let him... on the meta. If others want to contribute to his projects, grand. I think most of his concerns are simply based on a lack of (and an unwillingness to acquire) understanding of what we're doing here.
>
> If he insults you, keep in mind that it is an attempt to get you to respond. So don't do it. Don't try to engage him in reasonable debate; it's already been attempted. Don't make jokes or sarcastic comments about him. Don't post warnings all over the place that he's a troll. If you really, REALLY feel the urge to respond to some insult, misunderstanding or threat, fire up your word processor, compose your response... and then delete it. It might make you feel better. :)
>
> The only thing we really need to respond to are his contributions to the encyclopedia articles. If he writes anything that is inconsistant with a good, NPOV encyclopedia article, make the necessary changes, and put a brief explanation on the talk page.
>
> Finally, let's stop discussing 24 on the mailing list and on the wikis.
>
> If we can do this, I think we'll find that there is no problem at all. 24 can rage all he likes, call us all sorts of vulgar names ("clique", "censors", "non-persons", "Extropians"... ;-). Eventually, he'll either find a less hostile way to participate, or he'll leave.
>
> -- Stephen Gilbert
> --
>
>
> ________________________________
> Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
>    http://www.wikipedia.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/
>
> Powered by Outblaze
>

--

________________________________
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
   http://www.wikipedia.com

_______________________________________________
Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/

Powered by Outblaze


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Further replies

body:
> LMS wrote:
> > The Cunctator wrote:
>
> Do you perhaps have the notion that, by embracing and showing love to people
> who, to most savvy Internet users, appear to be trolls, they will stop
> behaving trollishly?  Do you think, in Craig's case, that he will become a
> non-troll if we love and respect him?

Under certain conditions. Yes.
>
> Let us know, Cunctator: do you think there are trolls on the Internet?

Yes.

> No, it's clear enough.  Cunctator may be many things, but he isn't an idiot.
> He knows very well that trolls exist; he knows very well that 24 is a troll
> in one quite ordinary accepted sense of the term; and, as an experienced
> Internet user, he knows very well that one cannot deal effectively with
> trolls by showing them love and respect.  Cunctator might protest that he
> does not know all these things.  I'll let you draw your own conclusions from
> such protestations.

LMS's surmisals about my knowledge are correct in the first two cases,
but wrong in the third. Moreover, 24 isn't acting like a troll, he's
acting like a defensively intelligent and somewhat socially inept but
honest person, which is quite different, I believe, though many of the
symptoms are similar. Just as viral and bacterial infections often
present many of the same symptoms, the treatments need be different.

>
> > Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians
> > think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular
> > contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking
> > that he's being ganged up on.
> >
> > And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs),
> > Wikipedia is pretty weak.
>
> Here, you are trying to win sympathy for Craig, it seems, as well as for
> yourself.  We are "ganging up" on poor "24," just as we ganged up on you.

I was trying to say that 24's belief that he's being ganged up on is a
misjudgment of the situation. I wasn't trying to win sympathy for
anyone.

> > But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a
> > while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect
> > bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.
>
> I'd certainly like to know if it's not obvious to anyone other than you and
> Michael Irwin.  You imply, in your usual way (which is not as subtle as you
> seem to think it is), that all of the *many* people who think that Craig is
> a troll are just being defensive!  Indeed they're "intrinsically defensive,"
> whatever that means.  In short, their concerns are overblown and generally
> unreasonable, and are mainly due to defensiveness.  What a bizarre and
> ridiculous thing to say.

When I wrote "intrinsically defensive", I was referring to people such
as 24, not to "people who think that Craig is a troll". I apologize if
that was unclear.

I hope that clears up any confusion.

--tc


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I'll leave you alone now  :-)

body:
I just wanted to let you know that I am now officially done writing about
trolls--I've said pretty much what I wanted to say.  I sincerely hope that
it has been helpful rather than harmful.  I've got to get back to my own
stuff now, so I'm signing off the list.

Also, fair warning--I'm also done helping to maintain Meta-Wikipedia and
Wikipedia in response to this issue.

Good luck!

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Banning 24

body:
For the following writings, I am considering to ban 24 for 48 hours,
starting Monday afternoon and going until Wednesday afternoon.  This
will be a warning, to be followed by our first-ever permanent ban if
he doesn't behave.

Disagreements on meta.wikipedia.com, and about the content of
articles, if restrained to the appropriate /talk page and appropriate
normal struggle over the text of an article, are annoying but part of
the process.  Personal attacks, though, have no place in our
community, particularly personal attacks which hint strongly at
*physical* attacks.

>Larry deserves the most profound and abusive forms of maltreatment
>imaginable, and not just here online, where he seems to live, but on
>the street.  He is one of those "Stupid White Men" who thinks he can
>ignore the world to death, profiting from its demise.

Also, to Chuck Smith,
>I don't consider you a person,

I base this decision in part on my research which leads me to believe
that 24 is Craig Hubley, whose writings you may see here:

http://poetpiet.tripod.com/2001/CraigHubley2.htm
http://poetpiet.tripod.com/2001/CraigHubley_greenethic_prntvrsn.htm
http://poetpiet.tripod.com/2001/six-styles-of-capital.htm

I am open to alternative points of view, which is why I'm not taking the
banning action right now, but instead waiting until more than 24 hours from
now.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Further replies

body:
Just as I was about to sign off, I see this from Mark Christensen.
Apologies, but I can't let this go unanswered: I certainly do not want it
to be thought generally that I am willing to abuse the list for irrational
personal reasons.

> From: Mark Christensen <mchristensen at HTEC.com>
> I for one don't appreciate this list being used to make personal attacks.

I disagree that it was properly characterizable as "a personal attack."
*Trolls* would certainly want to call the naming and shaming of trolls
"personal attacks" of course; but that implies that the purpose of the
post would be *merely* to vent spleen, and not naming and shaming.  That
is not the case here.  I am motivated by a *very* strong desire to see
that trolls be treated properly, viz., as trolls; I know, from long
experience (before Wikipedia was ever thought of), that if given proper
attention and respect, trolls can inflict considerable damage to a
community.  The first step is to name and shame the trolls.  If you
disagree that a person in question is a troll, that is your prerogative;
but you should not accuse *me* of engaging in mere personal attacks,
because that implies that *we could all agree* there were no more to it
than that.  Obviously, we cannot all agree that there is more to it than
that.

> I don't know what exactly you are trying to do by making accusations
> about Cunctator, and frankly I don't care.  I just don't want to see
> this stuff on the list.

I respect your right to give your opinion on that subject.  Given my
position, I obviously must think you are misled, however.

OK, as I said, I'm done here.  Mark, if you want, please have the last
word.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Further replies

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020414/b71bba4c/attachment.diff


from_name: Mark Christensen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Further replies

body:
I for one don't appreciate this list being used to make personal attacks.

I don't know what exactly you are trying to do by making accusations about
Cunctator, and frankly I don't care.  I just don't want to see this stuff on
the list.

Because I am very impressed with the way you formed a community behind the
objective of the NPOV encyclopedia, I am hesitant to say anything be misused
by those who seem to have something against you.  But, since this is not the
first time you've lashed out on this list...

Please, use this list for the discussion of the wikipedia project, including
of course specific problems with specific things people have actually done
on the wikipedia, but not for inuendo and personal attacks.

Obviously it is just my personal desire not to see this list used as a
vehicle for attacking people, and you are free to do what you please.  But,
I want to state my public support for something Manning Bartlett said in
regards to your previous interactions with Cunctator on the list:

> If you want to criticise a decision, or an action, or an article, or
> discuss a policy, count me in. But I find expressing contempt for any
> individual, for any reason, to be unacceptable in this forum.
See : http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-December/000980.html

Another expample of the problem can be found at:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-March/001598.html

Yours
Mark Christensen

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 5:08 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Further replies

(Sorry, the post from me consisting just of three quoted lines was just a
slip of the fingers!)

Reponses below to Chuck Smith and The Cunctator.

I agree 100% that we should not have to waste our time on issues about
trolls.  Unfortunately, we do--it's only by raising consciousness about the
existence of trolls and their methods that we can respond to them
appropriately and effectively.

Just about the only effective thing you can do in response to trolls is to
name and shame them (i.e., unmask them), and then ignore them and encourage
others to ignore them.  But unmasking them really is an important thing to
do, for those people who continue to encourage them.  Anyway, I'm pretty
much done doing all the unmasking I will be volunteering to do; after this,
I'll shut up and ignore further blathering from the miscreants.

Then, perhaps, we'll have peace, Chuck.

> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Chuck=20Smith?= <msochuck at yahoo.com>
> Peace is cool.  I don't believe The Cunctator, Nirwin
> or Larry Sanger are trolls.

Gee thanks, Chuck.  :-)  I don't think you're a troll either!  :-)

> I thought about dropping out of the English Wikipedia
> project because it was just getting too emotional, but
> decided that would just be letting him win his little
> game.

That's precisely the goal of a troll: get the more valuable members of a
forum (or a project, in this case) to drop out and render the project
useless.  See this, about the old alt.syntax.tactical group:

http://ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html

There is plenty of evidence that this is precisely what Craig is trying to
do.  (24's first name is Craig.  Because Craig corresponded with me in the
past and told me that he wrote "natural point of view," and after I did a
Google search, I was able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what his
name, occupation, etc. are.  We haven't decided how and whether we want to
unmask him; we were hoping that the threat of unmasking him would make him
go away.  Actually, we're hoping that private negotiation will produce some
useful results.)  So, anyway, please don't drop out.

> I think we need to really plan ahead and figure out
> how to peacefully defend against this kind of attack
> without losing too much of our resources as a result.

Well, we can start by encouraging in each other the healthy habit of *not
feeding trolls* (after pointing out that they're trolls).  But, since this
is a content-generation project, we also have to do damage control.  We have
to be bold in undoing the troll's faux submissions.  Do not discuss your
changes with the troll; that will only encourage him.  That's what trolls
live for!

> Imagine if you will that we have our own world (and in
> a way we do, but stick with me here...) and we accept
> everybody then what do we do with those who don't
> follow the community guidelines?

We hope like hell that the trolls will leave when they are treated like
trolls (i.e., ignored).  If they don't, eventually, you'll have to kick them
out on pain of losing the most valuable members of the project.  Sorry,
don't shoot the messenger--that's just how trolls and trolling works.  It's
been happening for a long time now, and old Internet hands know the drill.
It's just that we on Wikipedia have not been thinking of the possibility
that trolls might attack the project, as they do quite consciously attack
mailing lists and newsgroups, because we haven't gotten used to the idea of
applying the concept of troll to Wikipedia.  But it's high time we did.

> Sorry for the rambles, but the whole idea of
> punishment for crimes seems dreadfully obsolete (and
> it wouldn't even work in this case anyway) and I'm
> trying to see alternatives, but I can't think of any.

It's not a punishment for a crime; it's self-preservation against attack.
That's a very important distinction.

> From: kband at www.llamacom.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24's latest statement

I'd like to reply to this for the sake of those who might find what
Cunctator has to say plausible.  Cunctator seems to maintain, puzzlingly (or
not), that 24 is not a troll.

> > Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends
> > with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
>
> I can't say I'm surprised, considering how harshly and snidely he's
> been attacked.

I find it interesting that you and Michael Irwin are the only people to
defend him, Cunctator.

I think he has been treated with far more respect than he deserves.

> Everyone in that page seems to be acting like a
> petulant child,

Well, that's how people become when they are being trolled and don't realize
it.  It's what trolls live for.  Surely you know that, Cunctator; everybody
with much experience on the Internet does.

> Yes, 24 is aggravating. Yes, he's silly and stubborn. But then
> people call him a troll, and slam him on this mailing list, and say
> he's doing a thousand evil things and attacking Wikipedia and sleeping
> with sheep and best friends with Osama bin Laden. And then we're
> surprised when he falls into the rhetoric of apocalypse?

Actually, I agree with this.  This sort of troll will fall into the rhetoric
of apocalypse  if people calling him a troll.  That's how this sort of troll
operates.

> Yes, Talk:Philosophy of body has heated rhetoric. But that's all it
> is. 24 obviously *likes* Wikipedia.

Strange.  It seems obvious to me that he really hates Wikipedia: he hates
the neutral point of view policy that defines it, he hates the fact that
there are a lot of academics on board who can speak authoritatively on
subjects that he can't, he hates the "ontology" behind the selection of
topics, and on and on.  That's why, as you would know if you were paying
attention, people keep suggesting that we give him his own wiki.  But he
doesn't want his own wiki.  He wants to change Wikipedia so radically that
it would be destroyed.  Given all this, it is ludicrous to claim that he
"obviously *likes* Wikipedia."

> If we embraced him, showed him
> love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any
> contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his
> intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.

This comment is amazing, and in the game you're playing, Cunctator, a false
move.  It reduces your "I am not a troll, just a misunderstood softie"
credibility greatly.

So let's analyze this a bit.  Craig's stated his intentions; there's no need
to guess at or interpret them.  He wants to get rid of the neutral point of
view, academics, me, and seemingly everyone who disagrees with his "natural
point of view" nonsense.  That is tantamount to destroying the project as we
know it.  Now explain to me, Cunctator (sure would be nice to know your real
name): how is it that by "embracing him" and "showing him love" we would
accomplish *anything* of use?  Since he is a troll (or do you *actually*
need proof of that, Cunctator?), it would only delight him and encourage him
in his trollishness.

Do you perhaps have the notion that, by embracing and showing love to people
who, to most savvy Internet users, appear to be trolls, they will stop
behaving trollishly?  Do you think, in Craig's case, that he will become a
non-troll if we love and respect him?

What your comment above seems to imply is that he, in fact, *isn't* a troll,
and perhaps even that there is no such thing as a troll.  Let us know,
Cunctator: do you think there are trolls on the Internet?  I doubt I'll get
an answer out of you on that one.  If I do, it should be very interesting to
read.

No, it's clear enough.  Cunctator may be many things, but he isn't an idiot.
He knows very well that trolls exist; he knows very well that 24 is a troll
in one quite ordinary accepted sense of the term; and, as an experienced
Internet user, he knows very well that one cannot deal effectively with
trolls by showing them love and respect.  Cunctator might protest that he
does not know all these things.  I'll let you draw your own conclusions from
such protestations.

> Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians
> think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular
> contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking
> that he's being ganged up on.
>
> And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs),
> Wikipedia is pretty weak.

Here, you are trying to win sympathy for Craig, it seems, as well as for
yourself.  We are "ganging up" on poor "24," just as we ganged up on you.
So you have sympathy for him.  Isn't that nice.

> But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a
> while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect
> bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.

I'd certainly like to know if it's not obvious to anyone other than you and
Michael Irwin.  You imply, in your usual way (which is not as subtle as you
seem to think it is), that all of the *many* people who think that Craig is
a troll are just being defensive!  Indeed they're "intrinsically defensive,"
whatever that means.  In short, their concerns are overblown and generally
unreasonable, and are mainly due to defensiveness.  What a bizarre and
ridiculous thing to say.

> These are just my thoughts, worth little unless they have value to you.

How good of you, Cunctator.  How could anyone who is willing to recognize
publicly that others might regard his thoughts as worth little, who is
willing to laughingly and sheepishly acknowledge that others *might* think
he himself is a troll, fail to be a respectable, valuable, important member
of the project?--Indeed, how?

Cunctator, you have my permission to place this entire reply to you on your
own delightfully trollish hall of fame page, here:

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/user:The+Cunctator/Bias+Talk

I know you'll want to.  But don't post parts of it.  Post the *whole* thing.
I insist.  Supply *context*, Cunctator, it helps readers to understand
events fully.

--Larry

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Banning 24

body:
> For the following writings, I am considering to ban 24 for 48 hours,
> starting Monday afternoon and going until Wednesday afternoon.  This
> will be a warning, to be followed by our first-ever permanent ban if
> he doesn't behave.
>
> Disagreements on meta.wikipedia.com, and about the content of
> articles, if restrained to the appropriate /talk page and appropriate
> normal struggle over the text of an article, are annoying but part of
> the process.  Personal attacks, though, have no place in our
> community, particularly personal attacks which hint strongly at
> *physical* attacks.

I agree.

I think that one thing to do that's important, especially if
24 is banned, even temporarily, is that his meta-commentary get
restored to the main page of meta. I can't think of any justification
for moving everything he wrote in meta off the main page.

Is there one? Because it seems like those writings are being singled
out without any clear explication of policy.

The below is preaching to the choir, I suspect, but I think it's
important that this point be reiterated:
The most important thing to do in the application and enforcement of
policy and norms (from edits all the way to IP banning) is that the
reasons for those actions are clearly delineated, so that even if
mistakes are made, it's clear what they were, and if mistakes weren't
made, false claims can be refuted.

--tc
cunctator at kband.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Banning 24

body:
On dim, 2002-04-14 at 18:48, Joao M?rio Miranda wrote:
> Another interesting solution is to artificially slow down his connection
> by introduction of random delays to his IP number in the code.

Oh, we have that in place already! Unfortunately, we haven't figured out
how to narrow it down to just him, so to be on the safe side it affects
all users. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Ban on 24

body:
On Sunday 14 April 2002 12:01 pm, Jimbo wrote:
> >Larry deserves the most profound and abusive forms of maltreatment
> >imaginable, and not just here online, where he seems to live, but on
> >the street. ?He is one of those "Stupid White Men" who thinks he can
> >ignore the world to death, profiting from its demise.
>
> Also, to Chuck Smith,
>
> >I don't consider you a person,

Yes, this is not at all acceptable -- in fact I've heard of people getting
sued and slapped with withstraining orders for this type of rhetoric. The
offending material also needs to be permanently removed. I think you are the
only one that can do that if it is on the meta though Jimbo.

maveric149


from_name: Ian

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Banning 24

body:
I disagree. Wishing harm on people is not something that needs to be
spelled out as unreasonable beforehand. I think suspension is a good idea.

Ian Monroe
http://ian.webhop.org

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Axel Boldt axel at uni-paderborn.de XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:

> While childish threats and attacks affect me personally much less than
> substantial criticism, I do recognize that others feel differently. I
> think a policy of banning users for threats and abuse is therefore
> reasonable. However, seeing that the relevant "Rule to Consider" was
> added today on 12:51, and the violations of that rule occurred before
> that date, I would prefer to warn 24 via email first and start the ban
> after the next violation.
>
> Axel
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Further replies

in_reply_to: lcrocker@nupedia.com's message of "Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:51:36 -0700"

body:
lcrocker at nupedia.com writes:

> None of us ever denied that he's intelligent,

For the record: I did.  I conceded that he was informed, though.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


from_name: Joao Mário Miranda

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Banning 24

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> For the following writings, I am considering to ban 24 for 48 hours,
> starting Monday afternoon and going until Wednesday afternoon.  This
> will be a warning, to be followed by our first-ever permanent ban if
> he doesn't behave.

I suggest the redirection of 24 to an exact wikipedia clone. 24 can have
his own database. His database can be updated with changes from the real
wikipedia and with 24's changes. The real database should ignore 24.

:)

Another interesting solution is to artificially slow down his connection
by introduction of random delays to his IP number in the code.

Joao
http://www.nonio.com


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Banning 24

body:
While childish threats and attacks affect me personally much less than
substantial criticism, I do recognize that others feel differently. I
think a policy of banning users for threats and abuse is therefore
reasonable. However, seeing that the relevant "Rule to Consider" was
added today on 12:51, and the violations of that rule occurred before
that date, I would prefer to warn 24 via email first and start the ban
after the next violation.

Axel


from_name: Julie Hofmann Kemp

subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #362 - 4 msgs

body:
Hi all --

Larry, I liked your rule for ad hominem attacks -- and agree with you on
trolls (but also think Lee might be right about outing the trolls).  One
thing though...(and I know I should be a grown-up and consider the
source and not be bothered by it...) where do we fit comments like Ed's
-- he agrees with the rule, with the exception that he can continue to
refer to me as his "dear lab rat" ?  And yes, I know I probably brought
it on myself for feeding his occasionally troll-like behavior , but
REALLY!!!!    <whingeing session over now>

Julie

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Jimmy Wales

in_reply_to: <3CB7A013.70F7796B@labyrinth.net.au>; from kaji@labyrinth.net.au on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 01:03:47PM +1000

body:
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> > Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
> > > > - Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
> > > > redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their
> > > > browser!]
> > > > - Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
> > > > - Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
> > > > duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
> > >
> > > Personally, I would really, REALLY, prefer that these kinds of pages be
> > > made redirects, *not* deleted outright.
> >
> > I agree.  One of the cardinal rules of good web practice is to try not
> > to break old urls if people may still be using them somehow.
>
> OK... so NOTHING ever gets deleted EVER...

Well, I wouldn't go quite _that_ far. :-)

> I won't bother trying to
> suggest it then. BTW that first page title is the ACTUAL PAGE TITLE...
> nobody's going to search for that or link to that! Are they?????

No, but some of those pages are already in the search engines, and receiving traffic.

> What happens when you run out of room for new entries because there are
> a million useless redirects clogging up the database?

Well, we'll never "run out of room" for new entries... disk space is
cheap and getting cheaper.

> And how about when
> you do a search and you get 100 entries, but 59 of them are merely
> redirects? Also how about the redirects that take you to a redirect
> which redirects you some place else? Surely it would be simpler and
> easier to be able to clear away some of the debris and to just have
> ONE... I think that all of these trails of redirects are making the
> project appear less professional and less useful than it might.

I think you have a very valid point.  OUR search engine should not
return links to redirects.  If redirects have an impact on our search
results at all, it should be to return pages that are the _object_ of
the redirect.  The redirects are ugly.

> If you really want to keep all of this useless garbage then I'd suggest
> you need to find a way to keep the redirects OUT of search results
> because it's making them look like a mess, and much harder to actually
> use.

I agree.

> Actually, in an ideal world the search routine would have options - so
> you could search just headers, or just bodies or both, and choose terms
> to include/exclude to help get the result you were looking for.

Yes, I agree with this, too.


from_name: Pierre Abbat

subject: [Wikitech-l] Timeouts on wikipedia

body:
I'm getting timeouts on wikipedia again, and I even got a timeout on
ross.bomis.com, though I did get a connect. Anyone know what's wrong?

phma


subject: [Wikitech-l] Causes for Slowdown?

in_reply_to: <3CBC5243.6080607@tonal.clara.co.uk>; from usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:33:07PM +0100

body:
At the end of this month, I am planning to buy a new server for some
of the other stuff that's on the wikipedia server
(jimmywales.com/timshell.com/kirawales.com/ and various other odds and
ends).  Once I get that stuff off of this machine, I plan to isolate
this machine from the rest of my network (which sounds fancy but just
involves making sure there are no stray ssh keys around) and give
login accounts to active developers, including root access to anyone
who REALLY needs it.

This will help to remove *me* as the bottleneck to improvements, which I
am right now.

In the meantime, here's the latest log of slow queries -- this should be helpful
in diagnosing our current problems.

Should I install the latest from the cvs?

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Latest slow log

body:
http://www.wikipedia.com/tarballs/ross-slow.log.bz2

2.2 megabytes.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Manning's off again...

body:
Hi All

Just a note to bid you all yet another temporary farewell. I'm off to Hong Kong, London, Glasgow, London, Bombay, Hyderabad, London, Glasgow and then Singapore, before finally getting home to Sydney around June 15. This is my last big trip, so after that I'll be able to contribute to the 'pedia with something resembling consistency.

Look forward to seeing you all then - feel free to drop me an email anytime.

Cheers
Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020416/256caf0a/attachment.htm


from_name: Brion L. VIBBER

subject: [Wikitech-l] Causes for Slowdown?

body:
On mar, 2002-04-16 at 12:12, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> At the end of this month, I am planning to buy a new server for some
> of the other stuff that's on the wikipedia server
> (jimmywales.com/timshell.com/kirawales.com/ and various other odds and
> ends).  Once I get that stuff off of this machine, I plan to isolate
> this machine from the rest of my network (which sounds fancy but just
> involves making sure there are no stray ssh keys around) and give
> login accounts to active developers, including root access to anyone
> who REALLY needs it.
>
> This will help to remove *me* as the bottleneck to improvements, which I
> am right now.
>
> In the meantime, here's the latest log of slow queries -- this should be helpful
> in diagnosing our current problems.
>
> Should I install the latest from the cvs?

Probably a good idea -- there are a number of bugs fixed there that
we've been getting multiple bug reports on (including the 'bad link
causes following text on same line to disappear' and 'edit links for
articles with non-ascii characters in title are mysteriously converted
to UTF-8 by certain versions of Internet Explorer, resulting in the
wrong page being edited' bugs).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why the site might be slow...

body:
Traffic is WAY WAY up.

Yesterday, we saw 88,393 after excluding robots, which I define as anyone who sees more
than 1000 pages, or anyone whose browser reports a 'http agent' that I know to be a robot.

That's a record.  By way of comparison, we averaged just under 48,000 pageviews last month.

Perhaps more interestingly, the number of unique visitors per day hit 20,000+ for the first
time yesterday, up from typical days of 6,000-9,000 earlier this month, and an average of
8181 last month.

Unique editors also hit a record yesterday of 351 unique ip numbers
doing editing.  This typically has hovered around 150-250.

I am not sure what the cause is, if any.  It could just be a highly
favorable update at Google, which is our primary source of traffic on
a day to day basis.  (More even than Bomis, hmph, some supporters THEY turn
out to be, ha ha.)

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Why the site might be slow...


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24, possums, and is the site really slow lately??

body:
Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote on Wikipedia-l:

>
>And is the site really slow lately??  It seems to take forever for pages
>to load, and I'm not getting that at other sites....
>
I agree -- load times are often around 15s or more, suggesting that the
system is close to congestion collapse.
I wrote earlier about caching -- does anyone have any logging
information that might reveal the hot spot?
(My guess is concurrency problems in the database).

-- Neil


subject: [Wikitech-l] Causes for Slowdown?

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:

>Does anybody have any guesses why the site has slowed down recently?
>What did we change? Is it possible that the new diff engine eats too
>many resources?
>
>I think it would be good to have a user account on wikipedia.com so
>that we can monitor the load status and the SQL queries in order to
>diagnose these problems better.
>
>Axel
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at ross.bomis.com
>http://ross.bomis.com/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

I agree. What would be useful would be a server logfile with some
timing/load figures (a real logfile, not in the database).
This could be made available at a static URL, and we could run crunching
scripts on it to try to analyze what the problem might be related to.

-- Neil


subject: [Wikitech-l] Causes for Slowdown?

body:
Does anybody have any guesses why the site has slowed down recently?
What did we change? Is it possible that the new diff engine eats too
many resources?

I think it would be good to have a user account on wikipedia.com so
that we can monitor the load status and the SQL queries in order to
diagnose these problems better.

Axel


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Unable to CVS anonymous login

body:
When I follow the directions from here
http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=34373 meaning I do the command
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous at cvs.wikipedia.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/wikipedia
login

and enter 'anonymous' as the password I recieve this:
cvs [login aborted]: authorization failed: server cvs.wikipedia.sourceforge.net rejected access

I'm using Debian Potato Linux and CVS version 1.10.7

I'm just trying to download the php Wikipedia script.

Thanks,
Ian Monroe
http://ian.webhop.org


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Meta links?

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020416/89ecef5a/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Meta links?

body:
On mar, 2002-04-16 at 22:21, lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> I started cleaning up some of the old stuff that need to be (or
> already has been) moved to wikipedia: namespace or meta, and I've run
> into the need to make links to meta.  Is there a quick inter-wiki-like
> way to do that without having to type the whole URL?  I can't find it
> (and if there is, I'll document it better).


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020417/c839e347/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts

in_reply_to: <200204171649.g3HGnTn16741@ross.bomis.com>; from lcrocker@nupedia.com on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:49:29AM -0700

body:
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> I don't know that we ever agreed on a single policy.  Clearly,
> there is sentiment against mere "data dumping".   Just using
> Wikipedia as yet another host for old online texts doesn't
> really accomplish anything.  But there's not really any reason
> to /not/ include full texts along with articles about them,
> especially if they are short things like poems, essays, etc.

I think this is as close to the consensus as we've ever come.  It's a really
good statement.  "Yes, Virginia" and similar short famous texts should be included
only with a cross-reference from an article.

In this case, for example, there's historical interest in the New York
Sun, where this was originally published.  There's the famous line "If
it says it in the Sun, it's so."  I think the New York Sun was just
recently (or will be soon) relaunched, so interest in the Sun might
lead people to this famous historical essay.  I see no reason not to
include it as a sidebar, in this context.

But, with Lee, I think that "mere 'data dumping'" isn't so useful.  I
mean, we could auto-import all of the Gutenberg texts... but to what
purpose?  We aren't a text repository, but an encyclopedia.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020417/dd2a5bf2/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Vandalism?

body:
Dear All

Having been involved with wikipedia for only a few weeks, I have just had my first "personal" experience of vandalism, ie. someone deleted the bulk of an article I had written, leaving an unintelligible stub.  Fortunately I have been able to pick up the original text and put it back. I know that there are set procedures for dealing with this, but I would like to ask:  How often does this kind of thing happen?  And can I assume that this is vandalism rather than a simple error (bearing in mind that the perpetrator doesn't have a proper ID?

Deb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020417/53ffbae7/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> but the basic summary of my position is that we shouldn't be attributing
> world-editable text to other people. For an ordinary Wikipedia article,
> there's an implicit "The various random yahoos who edit Wikipedia say" at
> the beginning, whereas at the beginning of (for example) A Modest Proposal
> there's an explicit "Jonathan Swift himself, and Jonathan Swift alone,
> said."

I think this is a valid concern.  Perhaps it could be alleviated by
agreeing that it's o.k. for sysops to protect pages that aren't
'community' pages.

I smiled at your characterization of the implicit disclaimer.
Following my own personal interests, I often end up corresponding with
professors.  Sometimes they assume incorrectly that I'm also a scholar
and suggest that I might be interested in submitting something to this
or that journal.  I have to say "Oh, I'm sorry I wasn't clear.  I'm
just some random idjit from the Internet with lots of questions."

--Jimbo


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts

body:
At 06:57 PM 4/17/02 +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
>I think we should avoid storing *any* texts like these, including the
>"Origin of Species" book which is still online at the pedia (and I say so
>even though I am a biologist! ;)

Actually, I've already removed Origin of Species from wikipedia. :) There's
a link to it elsewhere on the web on that page now, along with whatever
discussion there was of the book itself.

Personally, I'm against the inclusion of even relatively small source texts
in Wikipedia. I've put my reasons in a variety of talk pages, you can find
links to most of them from
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3AYes%2C_Virginia%2C_there_is_a_Santa_Claus
but the basic summary of my position is that we shouldn't be attributing
world-editable text to other people. For an ordinary Wikipedia article,
there's an implicit "The various random yahoos who edit Wikipedia say" at
the beginning, whereas at the beginning of (for example) A Modest Proposal
there's an explicit "Jonathan Swift himself, and Jonathan Swift alone,
said." It's a lot worse if the latter gets modified than the former, since
for the former it's expected as a normal part of how Wikipedia works but
for the latter it turns the article into an outright lie.

Copied from the talk page in question, under the GFDL. :)

--
"Let there be light." - Last words of Bomb #20, "Dark Star"


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Wikitech-l] umlauts for everybody

body:
Hello everybody!

At the German Wikipedia someone asked how to make umlauts with his
non-German keybord - it seems we need some kind of x-system like the
Esperanto-WP already has. But with small changes:
*Of cause we can't use the x-system. But there seems to be a standard:
In LaTeX you can use \"a for ? (same for ? and ?, don't know for ?). If
nobody has a better idea I think we should use this, too. But maybe
someone really wants to write \"a (is this possible?), so I think a
checkbox where the writer can choose the \"a-system would be good (above
the article and in the user settings).
*The \"a should be converted to ? in the database/editbox for better
readability

Does someone have better solution for this problem? I think the other
Wikipedias with umlauts could use this, too.

Bye,
Kurt

P.S.: On http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l it says:
To post a message to all the list members, send email to
wikitech-l at ross.bomis.com.

That should be changed to wikitech-l at nupedia.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] umlauts for everybody

body:
Hi Tomasz!

> > Does someone have better solution for this problem? I think the
other
> > Wikipedias with umlauts could use this, too.
>
> Solution is trivial: HTML entities &oumlaut; &aumlaut; &Oumlaut;
> &Aumlaut; and whatever else do you use.

Okay, some keystrokes more, is everybody happy with this?

But more important: They should be converted to real umlauts in the
database.

Bye,
Kurt


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:53:06PM +0200, Kurt Jansson wrote:
> Hi Tomasz!
>
> > > Does someone have better solution for this problem? I think the
> other
> > > Wikipedias with umlauts could use this, too.
> >
> > Solution is trivial: HTML entities &oumlaut; &aumlaut; &Oumlaut;
> > &Aumlaut; and whatever else do you use.
>
> Okay, some keystrokes more, is everybody happy with this?
>
> But more important: They should be converted to real umlauts in the
> database.

This *will* be done, as part of bigger unicode + "easy" entities
system, but only after wikipedias go to php and utf8.

It makes no sense to code it on usemod, because it won't be used for
long time, and little sense to do it for php *now*, because php + utf8
isn't used yet.


body:
Hi Tomasz!

>>> Solution is trivial: HTML entities &oumlaut; &aumlaut; &Oumlaut;
>>> &Aumlaut; and whatever else do you use.
>>
>> Okay, some keystrokes more, is everybody happy with this?
>>
>> But more important: They should be converted to real umlauts in the
>> database.
>
> This *will* be done, as part of bigger unicode + "easy" entities
> system, but only after wikipedias go to php and utf8.

Okay, that's cool!

> It makes no sense to code it on usemod, because it won't be used for
> long time,

I know, can't wait for the German WP to change to php.

Bye,
Kurt


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts

body:
What (if anything) is the present consensus on including (short) PD texts in
the 'pedia.  I'm thinking of
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

(Oh, and allowing all those extra characters, and using brackets for
 disambiguation makes ugly URLs)
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Vandalism?

body:
D Fisher wrote:
> Having been involved with wikipedia for only a few weeks, I have
>just had my first "personal" experience of vandalism, ie. someone
>deleted the bulk of an article I had written, leaving an
>unintelligible stub.  Fortunately I have been able to pick up the
>original text and put it back. I know that there are set procedures
>for dealing with this, but I would like to ask: How often does this
>kind of thing happen?  And can I assume that this is vandalism rather
>than a simple error (bearing in mind that the perpetrator doesn't have
>a proper ID?

It happens less often than I could have ever guessed -- I mean, it's
pretty insane to have a website up where people can freely edit the
pages, eh?

I think that it *might* be vandalism, or it *might* be an accident.
Or it might be a combination of the two.  Maybe someone saw the link
saying they could edit the page, couldn't _believe_ that this was
true, and tried it by deleting the whole page, assuming that there
must be some "trick".  Then, to their horror, they found that it
worked, and fled in terror.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Vandalism?

body:
On mer, 2002-04-17 at 18:02, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> D Fisher wrote:
> > Having been involved with wikipedia for only a few weeks, I have
> >just had my first "personal" experience of vandalism, ie. someone
> >deleted the bulk of an article I had written, leaving an
> >unintelligible stub.  Fortunately I have been able to pick up the
> >original text and put it back. I know that there are set procedures
> >for dealing with this, but I would like to ask: How often does this
> >kind of thing happen?  And can I assume that this is vandalism rather
> >than a simple error (bearing in mind that the perpetrator doesn't have
> >a proper ID?
>
> It happens less often than I could have ever guessed -- I mean, it's
> pretty insane to have a website up where people can freely edit the
> pages, eh?
>
> I think that it *might* be vandalism, or it *might* be an accident.
> Or it might be a combination of the two.  Maybe someone saw the link
> saying they could edit the page, couldn't _believe_ that this was
> true, and tried it by deleting the whole page, assuming that there
> must be some "trick".  Then, to their horror, they found that it
> worked, and fled in terror.

Occasionally on the Esperanto wiki we've had new people visit and,
deciding to add an article, find the "How to edit a page" page (which
describes how easy it is to edit, just by clicking the "Edit this page!"
link). Naturally, they click the "edit this page" link... and replace
"How to edit a page" with their new article.

We have since made the documentation a little more explicit. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts

body:
I think we should avoid storing *any* texts like these, including the
"Origin of Species" book which is still online at the pedia (and I say so
even though I am a biologist! ;)

Instead, there should be a link to another web page that has the original
text (like Project Gutenberg), and that is to be expected to be around for a
while.

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of lcrocker at nupedia.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 6:49 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts
>
>
>
> >What (if anything) is the present consensus on including (short) PD
> texts in
> >the 'pedia.  I'm thinking of
> >http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus
> >http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
>
> I don't know that we ever agreed on a single policy.  Clearly,
> there is sentiment against mere "data dumping".   Just using
> Wikipedia as yet another host for old online texts doesn't
> really accomplish anything.  But there's not really any reason
> to /not/ include full texts along with articles about them,
> especially if they are short things like poems, essays, etc.
> 0


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Source texts

body:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, lcrocker at nupedia.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
[snip]
> Why would we be doing this project at all if we didn't think
> that Wikipedia will be around longer than other sites, and that
> we will be able to present texts in a superior way?  Project
> Gutenberg, for example, suffers from the problem that its texts
> are ancient ASCII. We can already do a bit better, because we
> can include images from the original, original italics, etc.
> Ours are also searchable, and we can include links to commentary.

While I agree that Gutenberg could use some updating, I disagree on
Wikipedia involvment. This is really for another project, and one that
probably doesn't use wiki but some other system such as Zend which
is more easily regulated.

> I do, however, strongly feel that we shouldn't include texts
> unless they are in fact annotated.  So I think the right thing
> to do in this case is for "Yes, Virginia,..." to be an article
> about the essay, at the end of which is a large subhead
> "Full Text" or something, then an introductory paragraph (offset
> somehow--perhaps intented and italic) that explains that the
> original text appears below, possibly with links or notes added.

I do agree with all this. For instance, having the United States
Constitution is very apporiate because we can annote various articles and
amendments, and other articles can easily refer to them.

But I think we should remember that Wikipedia is being constantly edited,
so I don't think we should worry too much about just linking to various
documents, since dead links can be easily fixed. There should be some
reason to actually bring the text in - such as already existing
commentary with large quotes.

> I'd really love to see, for example, "Origin of Species" with
> links to notes about modern research confirming or rejecting
> specific passages, or providing background for readers.
> 0

The fact this really hasn't happened make me dubious of the ability of
this idea to work, at least with entire books.

Ian Monroe
http://ian.webhop.org


from_name: magnus.manske at epost.de

subject: [Wikipedia-l] AW: Re:  [Wikipedia-l] Source texts

body:
>> Why would we be doing this project at all if we didn't think
>> that Wikipedia will be around longer than other sites, and that
>> we will be able to present texts in a superior way?  Project
>> Gutenberg, for example, suffers from the problem that its texts
>> are ancient ASCII. We can already do a bit better, because we
>> can include images from the original, original italics, etc.
>> Ours are also searchable, and we can include links to commentary.
>
>While I agree that Gutenberg could use some updating, I disagree on
>Wikipedia involvment. This is really for another project, and one that
>probably doesn't use wiki but some other system such as Zend which
>is more easily regulated.

IMHO such a project *could* work with the wiki system, especially for OCRed
pages that need manual work. This could be done by a community rather than
by a single person, especially if, e.g., a book is broken into chapters
taht can be edited seperately.
There would have to be some special features, though, like subpages for
the chapters (back to square one;) , a better diff system maybe, and access
for logged-in users only to cut down troll activity.
Another advantage would be that it could be easily interlinked with wikipedia
([[source:The Origin of Species]]...)

Magnus

________________________________________
Zeitschriftenabos online bestellen - jetzt neu im Infoboten! http://www.epost.de