A global portal is a fine idea; has been for many moons. But why in
the world did this change happen with such little notice?
I've been largely offline for the past week, and didn't see the
initial conversation; afaict the idea of a portal seems to have gone
from suggestion on wikipedia-l to reality in the span of a day,
without notice on the en wikipedia.
It was not at all urgent, and the sudden change breaks the usability
of existing links and shortcuts [though I'd heard a portal was being
set up, this is how I found out just now that the portal is still
English-centric, hard to navigate, and slow to load].
I wish everyone had waited to implement this until the portal were
more usable and better announced, and redirection policy better
discussed. But perhaps noone else noticed...
+sj+
(For instance, I think anyone coming form a US or UK IP with
browser-lang set to English should still get redirected to the en:
main page, perhaps with a visible line atop the current page-layout
with links to the portal and a language dropdown... this will help a
vast # of visitors who hit [www.]wikipedia.org)
Someone on this list said that legal threats are just another type of, or
another name for, or a euphemism for, personal attacks.
You are incorrect. There is a humongous difference, even though it's easy
to draw a parallel.
The difference between personal attacks and legal threats is the difference
between "I hate you because you're an evil idiot who eats babies" and "I am
going to break your leg and stab you in the arm tomorrow behind the
supermarket."
I do not believe there should be any tolerance whatsoever for legal
threats. Personal attacks and other mere arguments may be offencive, but
that's all just a part of the debate of Wikipedia, even if it's a rough
part of debate and one to avoid.
Legal threats are an entirely different thing. If the policy does not
provide for it now, any user making a serious legal threat should be
blocked on the spot, I believe. Forever.
--
DOMINGO GALDóS
Hi,
I am studying the wikipedia phenomenon in detail.
I need some more information about wikipedia growth.
Number of registered users at the end of every year:
At the end of 2001 :
At the end of 2002 :
At the end of 2003 :
At the end of 2004 : 165,000
I got the last (approx) figure from the page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
Please let me know the statistics for the other 3 years.
Thanks,
Shantanu Oak
One assumes that Arwel Parry was acting in good faith when he blocked IP 198.54.202.242. Sadly that is the IP of a server and thus will affect a large number of people if they happen to be members of Wikipedia. Surely there is a more technically precise manner in which to block vandals without blocking members who actually login to edit Wikipedia?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I have a doubt : What if I invent something, like a word, and someone
outside my country dosn't know it and changes it from the wikipedia ?
I want to create something, and put it in Wikipedia so the people can
create the idea with me.
Jay wrote:
>What if someone does 3 reverts, waits a >full 24 hours, then does his "edit"
>again, and reverts to it 3 times - has he >violated the 3RR or not? Does the
>clock always start ticking *after* the first >edit?
Surely, if the first "edit" reverted to eir POV, then it's a revert?
Let's say that there is an editor called Mystery SnuffEr, who has eir
own version of an article, and each day they replace what's their with
their version. Well, it's a revert, isn't it? If they made a
progressive edit, that's different.
Zen
> One point to remember about 3RR: if you get as far as *three* reverts
> in 24
> hours, something's badly wrong. Allowing three reverts in 24 hours is
> one
> of the things Wikipedia allows but does not condone.
Hear, hear!
I revert once, with a terse edit comment.
XYZ reverts.
I revert again, with a careful edit comment saying "see Talk" and a
good reason in the talk page.
If, at this point, XYZ reverts again, I don't know what the most
effective thing to do is. But I do know one thing for sure: reverting a
third time is not it.
Now if--and the thing is possible--goaded beyond endurance, I were to
continue with further reverts at various points in time... well, jeez,
I'm skating on thin ice. I know it, everyone knows it. And suppose an
admin _did_ block me, why would I even bother to complain? Why not just
accept the slap on the wrist and wait out the 24 hours?
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:58:20 -0500 "JAY JG" wrote:
> >David Gerard replied:
> >
> >If it's 24h 5 min and they do it consistently, they're pretty obviously
> >gaming the system. I don't see how they could stay on a reverting quest
> >like this without violating other policies along the way.
>
> I don't think that fully answers the question. Yes, they're gaming the
> system, but apparently fully within the rules as being proposed by some
> editors here. And some editors are smart enough to do these things without
> violating other rules. Can they be blocked for doing this alone? And
> finally, I must point out that many admins have been viewing any 4 identical
> edits in a 24 hour period as being violations of th 3RR; rightfully, in my
> view.
We've encountered this situation before, & there is ample precedent: the
matter would go before the ArbCom for resolution. Take a look at Wik's
entry at [[RfRA]].
Geoff
Hi folks
On the 5th of Jan, I was blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR breach. No argument
with that, but it was due to expire at 01:14, 6 Jan 2005, and hasn't done so
yet (a day and a half later). My IP is dynamic & shared with others, but
usually seems to be 82.38.130.7.
Thanks in advance
User: Jakew