> I think it's a good idea for the question of "what's an acceptable
> source" to be distinct to the rule of verifiability. The latter is
> central to Wikipedia; the former is a much more contentious and fuzzy
> issue.
>
> People need to understand that primary sources are always acceptable.
> E.g. if you're referring to a mailing list archive to discuss the
> mailing list archive, or (for example) the text of someone's post to a
> mailing list, that's totally fine and what historians and journalists
> of computer history do all the time.
Absolutely.
Also, _almost_ any source is better than no source.
The most important thing is that the reader know where the
information came from--traceability.
The second most important thing is that the reader should be able to
make a rough _judgement_ about the reliability of the source. Some
people may not feel that The New York Times is reliable (too left-
wing or too reliant on Jayson Blair or whatever), but they know what
The New York Times _is_. Similarly, if someone cites the University
of Pennsylvania's website as an authority for Penn having been
founded in 1740, the reader knows that a) it wasn't made up, b) there
is quite likely a good argument to be made for that date, but c) Penn
is not a disinterested party and universities have a motivation to
exaggerate their antiquity.
The reliability of the source is relatively less important. The only
real problem occurs when the "source" is, in fact, another entity
like Wikipedia--one in which the identity and credentials of the
contributor are not easy to assess.
username : Let's Get High And Edit Wikipedia
IP : 69.60.118.148
Reason given "stoner..." by
"*Freakofnurture<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture>
"*
My name isn't "Let's Get High And Vandalize Wikipedia". "Freakofnurture" is
about as dubious a name as mine is. I was going to edit anonymously, but
decided to create a login, as the website suggests. I was blocked before I
got a chance to do anything. What I had intended to do was add a link to
420 Cannabis Culture to the Cannabis article somewhere, probably the See
Also. Ok, so maybe I wanted to do my edit at 4:20 AM, but you know it is
isn't a crime to get high in many places. This seems an awful lot like
prejudice.
yours truly,
Let's Get High And Edit Wikipedia
The reason I ask is that an image was deleted on Wikipedia as lacking
source/copyright information, but the offender just linked to the article
from an identical image on Commons (the article is Katharine Hepburn). The
image has been tagged on commons as lacking source info since Feb. 10.
k
Is it possible to feed weka with variable attribute length. I mean one time i
may have attribute that has 5 item, the next time i may have 13 or 17 items
for the smae attribute.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Variable-Length-of-Attribute-t1226709.html#a3244501
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
Hello fellow Wikipedians and administrators,
I would like to invite all the subcribers to the list to know about an
on-going disputes which have
resulted to me getting blocked.
Problems have started by a conflict of opinions and ideologies between
Iranian Wikipedians and
some few Kurd contributers.
The problems were reported to the incident board, and can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
These users have tried to push their POV and creating much hassel for
Iranian Wikipedians as they
have put up dispute tags on many Iranian articles, as mentioned on the
incident board, most importantly
on the "Iranian peoples" and "Persian people" articles.
After user Aucaman's motives were questioned in the pretty much one-sided
mediation, which can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Per…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman
Other users (the other two mentioned in the incident report beside Aucaman),
have decided to follow the same
agenda on the Iranian peoples article.
Now lets get down to the point: No admin seems to have taken part to do
anything on these issues, and instead I was blocked
because I tried to organise the disputes on the Iranian peoples' talk page.
The opposition (three Kurd (?) contributers) are trying their best to keep
these disputes up, even after clear arguments
by Iranian and non-Iranians have taken place in the Mediation link posted
above.
I think an admin should have warned me, and it was unfair of them to Block
me from Wikipedia for apparently 'blanking' the talk page.
The action referred to as blanking the talk page, can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iranian_peoples&oldid=421376…
To conclude:
1- I would like an admin (or more admins) to look at the issue, and bring
about an end to the pointless mediation and disputes
2- I would like the admin to have a look at the articles mentioned, most
importantly Iranian peoples and Persian people and find out
the real motivation behind such disputes, which are on-going even though
hundreds of academic evidence have been provided by
both sides.
3- I would like to be un-blocked, I think me being blocked was unfair.
Although an apology would not be necessary, as I understand
my doing was perhaps wrong, but I was only warned by a user - after - I did
it (on my talk page), not by an admin, and I did not repeat
the offence. The admin blocking me could have checked the times, looked at
the situation, and could have made a better decision in
my opinion.
4- I would like admins to issue warnings to anyone they believe is doing
wrong, because if this is not sorted I think it will (and already has)
made many contributers quit Wikipedia because of huge amount of stress.
Which is not in the interest of Wikipedia, as we are all contributers
with a lot of knowledge to contribute.
I have a lot of other wiki pages as evidence to support for what I believe
is 'Anti-Iranian' action, and if you do look at the case properly
I believe you would understand that most Iranian and non-Iranian
contributers feel the same.
Thanks for your attention and have a lovely (wiki) day!
--
Kash Karimi
User:Khashayar Karimi
Hi,
My user name is Emir Arven, IP address 85.158.32.92.
I think that user DragonflySixtyseven blocked me for no reason for 3 days.
Before that I had an argument with Serb users who put false information in the article called Stephen II Kotromanic (see talk page of that article).
I asked Serb user: HolyRomanEmperor to show me the refernece for his thesis.
He said it was a book which he put in the article.
When I checked, there was nothing there (it was not the first time that he gave false info). I asked him again to show me the section of the book. He said he was not able to do that.
So, I started to revert that article, but he asked his friend user:Latinus (admin) to help him. And Latinus reported me for 3RR. I was blocked for 24h.
So I said to him that he was not neutral.
But after that user:DragonflySixtyseven came and give me another block for 3 days. And I didnt even edit any article.
So, my question is:
Why did he block me? (According to what rule).
Best regards,
Emir Arven
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Philip is correct. The only way to escape the GDFL is to rewrite the
entire encyclopedia under a different license - or get every single
contributor to agree to reassign the content. Good luck with that.
The first approach actually seems viable to me - see
http://www.panopedia.org :-)
With respect,
Steven
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenZenithhttp://www.panopedia.org/index.php/User:Steven
>Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:14:57 -0800
>From: Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Escaping the GFDL -- can it be done?
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <2261314F-E239-4F32-BC27-801E8EDFF942(a)philwelch.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>On Mar 2, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Fastfission wrote:
>
>
>
>>> It is just a thought I had -- the only one I could come up with which
>>> seems really plausible, aside from the possibility of the FSF being
>>> convinced to make updates to the GFDL (which I suspect they would be
>>> very dubious about, especially if the edits were primarily to benefit
>>> Wikipedia).
>>
>>
>
>A revised version of the GFDL wouldn't help us because Wikipedia
>would still be licensed under the old version.
>
> -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>