Hello folks,
Im proposing we come up with a system by which people can make well-formed
topic-based archives of talk pages. This is because some talk pages are
fairly busy, and the archives are often hard to read. Date based bot
archiving is of no help here.
This would be a redudant archive - not to replace standard ordered archives,
and ideally there would be some template that would make it easy to link
between the two, particularly in the direction from Topical -> Ordered. The
ordered one is to be the "reliable" base archive, and the topical one will
permit some level of editing: header renaming, structural reformatting,
excising or hiding superfluous comments.
I need help figuring out how to best link Topical and Ordered sections and
so on. The process needs to be solid enough that any criticism would be
minimal. I think its usefulness will be demonstrated quickly enough.
-SV
G'day folks,
Please see attached a Miami Herald article about golfer Fuzzy Zoeller
launching a legal action against a law firm for a defamatory edit to his
Wikipedia article.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/golf/16752834.htm
Regards
Keith Old
A thought came over me last night -- it seems that all Gregory Kohs does is
complain about Wikipedia, namely the actions of certain admins, and their
treatment of his organizations MyWikiBiz and International Communications
Research within the Wikipedia space. Has anyone thought about what would
satisfy this persistant level of complaint? Well, who better to ask that
question than the complainant himself?
I would love to move forward as a renewed supporter of Wikipedia and hone my
skills as a NPOV contributor to the encyclopedia (on topics like dogs, board
games, waterfalls, etc.) if the following terms could be met by the
Wikipedia community. I'll leave it to this list to discuss (hopefully
fairly) as to whether these requests are reasonable or not.
(1) Gregory Kohs and MyWikiBiz have both expressed that they are no longer
interested in creating or editing articles within Wikipedia in exchange for
payment or favor of any kind. They are working for payment in the
development of another wiki directory site called
Centiare.com<http://centiare.com/>.
Properly used, Centiare (in a vein similar to Wikia.com <http://wikia.com/>)
might even be an attractive alternative to Wikipedia to lure away
self-promoting POV-pushers whose content is not welcome on Wikipedia.
Nonetheless, Kohs promises that he will not attempt to use or exploit
Wikipedia as an advertising platform for Centiare or any other of his
business affiliations. If other independent editors choose to discuss these
business affiliations, that's their decision.
(2) With that being said, it would seem only fair for Wikipedia's
administrators to commit to the following remedies:
(a) Encourage either the OTRS, ArbCom, or Jimmy Wales that the current
statement posted by Wales on the User:MyWikiBiz page is now irrelevant, and
it is somewhat damaging to the reputation of MyWikiBiz as a business. It
would be like saying "Never buy an armored tank from the Ford Motor
Company!" Ford built tanks during WWII, but no longer does so; therefore,
why would anyone need to warn customers of Ford not to buy their tanks,
unless its sole purpose was to malign the current Ford company?
(b) Allow Kohs to regain "membership" in the Wikipedia editing
community by lifting the ban on either User:Thekohser or User:MyWikiBiz, and
salting/vanishing the other account. Granted, his edits will be VERY
closely monitored for months and months to come; but if he wishes to
demonstrate that he can be a productive member of the Wikipedia community,
that too should become apparent, perhaps even to some of his former
detractors.
(c) There are a number of editors (User:WAS 4.250, User:JzG,
User:Calton, etc.) who have characterized MyWikiBiz as a "spammer" and a
company that "broke the rules" of Wikipedia. Kohs has repeatedly tried to
correct these characterizations, because he feels that when he founded
MyWikiBiz, "spam" was certainly not the company's purpose, and no rules
existed on Wikipedia that would prohibit his activity. Indeed, Jimmy Wales
himself drew up an agreement whereby MyWikiBiz could fairly practice under
the GFDL license on its own site, and independent editors could scrape the
site for useful Wikipedia-worthy content. That's exactly what happened
regarding the [[Arch Coal]] article, but Wales tried to delete that
article. He said it was because the article was corporate "fluff". Kohs
maintains that Wales deleted the article out of spite over Kohs' handling of
the [[WP:COI]] discussion that was evolving at the time. At least five
other independent editors in good standing felt that the original Arch Coal
article presented content that was beneficial to Wikipedia, not
harmful. And, thus, the article was DRV'd and re-written with some minor
changes to the original content.
Considering all of that, let's just say that User:WAS 4.250,
User:JzG, User:Calton, and the like are probably never going to change their
minds about how they characterize MyWikiBiz. And likewise, Kohs is unlikely
to change his mind. However, could we agree that any claims made by these
parties within Wikipedia about the actual history of the User:MyWikiBiz
account should be backed up with factual diffs that would support the
characterizations made by either side? I maintain that I was trying to
provide such diffs in various places on Wikipedia Talk pages (admittedly
coupled with a snitty tone), but these diffs were consistently reverted by
the users listed above (bringing us to the whole "abusive admins" debate
about how admins can advantageously alter their arguments with blocked
users).
Going forward, Kohs would be willing to let bygones be bygones,
but when someone mischaracterizes the history of the User:MyWikiBiz account,
Kohs should have at least the right to notate an appropriate diff under the
perceived mischaracterization, so that other users can draw their own
conclusions. Continued removal of these diffs only contributes to the
claims of censorship and a cabal at work.
(3) With these principles in place, Kohs would like to return to Wikipedia,
to help the project with its primary mission, and only that mission: to
become the world's best and largest free encyclopedia that contains
properly-cited, neutral point-of-view information about every encyclopedic
topic under the sun. Kohs would even consider resumption of his earlier
financial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Would the admin community consent to any or all of these terms?
I realize that some may/will respond -- "Gregory Kohs gave us nothing but
grief, why should we help him now?" To which I would answer, look at all
the time and effort we have each expended on this particular battle alone.
Imagine the productive improvements that could have been made to Wikipedia
in that time. Do you want Gregory Kohs as an ally, or would you prefer that
he remain a perpetual critic of the project?
In fact, as a gesture of my willingness to cooperate, I would even consent
to being allowed to edit for a period of 1 month, AFTER which the admin
community could make the determination of whether to address any or all of
the other remedial concerns outlined above. I'm a reasonable enough adult
to see that I may have the onus of proving my worth to the community before
the community takes strides to patch things up with me.
Kindly,
Greg
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
Seeing the wide variety of welcome templates used and some recent
interactions with new IP editors have me thinking about this as an option.
The basics:
1. Would post a welcome message the first time an IP address or registered
account is used to edit.
2. Would explain key policies.
3. Would encourage the IP editors to register a username.
4. Would indicate a place where any questions could be directed.
This automated message would have a few benefits:
1. It would reach people immediately after they make their first edit.
2. It might help some editors avoid common issues with first edits: original
research, copyright issues, POV, verifiability.
3. It might cut down on some of the other misunderstandings novice editors
have.
Interested editors could sign on when they are available to take questions
from novices, or the new editors could be sent to a page where they could
ask any questions and get a fairly quick response.
If it seems it might be more personal, maybe the bot could randomly assign
an experienced editor to each welcome message, someone signed up on the
welcoming committee.
It seems that this might cut down on much of the back and forth experienced
editors have with new editors, and it might encourage more people to
register. Sometimes editors get welcomed immediately, and other times it
takes months.
Thoughts?
Dear Mr. Wales,
My apologies for bugging you on this. I am a new Wiki contributor
(fizbin) and am a bit confused by requirements for uploading photo
images. Below is an email conversation between myself and the owners
(New York Road Runners) of an online photograph I'd like to insert in
the Wiki entry for Jordan Hasay. Yet even though they clearly give
permission to use the photo in the Wiki entry, the Wiki rules you posted
have me confused as to whether you folks will allow its use. It almost
seems by what I've read that the only photos allowed will be ones that
contributors take with their own cameras!
Please advise. Thank you.
Jon Martin
Oakland, CA
________________________________
From: Jillian Haber [mailto:jhaber@nyrr.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:45 AM
To: Shannon Martin; Martin, Jon
Subject: Re: Fast Women Photos On Wikipedia
Hi Jon,
You have permission to post that photo of Jordan Hasay from the 2005
Foot Locker Nationals. Please include the follow photo credit with the
photo
Photo Credit: Courtesy of New York Road Runners
Thanks,
Jillian
On 2/20/07 10:52 AM, "Shannon Martin" <smartin(a)nyrr.org> wrote:
Hello Jon,
I am copying this message to our photo editor, Jillian. 2005 is the last
year that NYRR shot photos of the Foot Locker Nationals, so that is
probably the most up-to-date photo of Jordan that we have. Jillian
should be in touch with you soon as to the possibility of using this
photo.
Thank you!
Shannon
Shannon Martin
Editor
Fast-women.comMensracing.com
smartin(a)nyrr.org
New York Road Runners
9 East 89th Street
New York, NY 10128
212 860 4455
Extension 324
________________________________
From: Martin, Jon [mailto:jmartin@ebmud.com]
<mailto:jmartin@ebmud.com%5d>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 4:04 PM
To: Shannon Martin
Subject: Fast Women Photos On Wikipedia
Dear Ms. Martin,
While looking up some info I came across the Wikipedia entry for Jordan
Hasay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Hasay). The entry was poorly
written, and so I spent a little time today cleaning up the beginning of
it. I was thinking of adding a photo, but got buried in Wiki's fair use
policy which appears to prohibit linking to pretty much any online
photos without express consent of the owners, which sounds fair to me. I
also note that your web site also has similar language.
So this is a request to add one of your site's photos of Jordan Hasay to
her Wiki entry. This one from the 2005 Footlocker would be good
(http://www.fast-women.com/photos/2005/footlockerxc05/footlockerxc120.jp
g), but your site has many pictures and you may have others you feel are
better for this purpose. If so, please let me know.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Jon Martin
Oakland, CA
Jillian Haber
Photo Editor
New York Road Runners
(212) 423-2237
jhaber(a)nyrr.org
There has been a request to "count" the admins that we have encountered at
Wikipedia, who may at one time or another have chaffed non-admin editors.
Some of the most difficult actions that I've seen from admins are those who
get into a conflict with a non-admin editor, then block the non-admin
editor, then erase or censor the history of the discussion, then chastise
the non-admin editor in private or off-Wikipedia correspondence.
Some of the admins I have seen fulfill all or most of these distasteful
actions are:
User:Pschemp
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Travb&diff=next&oldid=104576…)
-- this admin has been very active in the past with blocking IP addresses
and such. But, I feel a line was crossed when discussion between two OTHER
users was censored because it posed a situation whose implications Pschemp
didn't like.
User:JzG
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=107…
) -- my interpretation is that this admin was dishonest in his edit summary
when he deleted an article from Wikipedia, by saying "article created by a
banned user while banned". The date of article creation was June 2005,
about 15 months before any banning related to this company took place. So,
there is an untruth in the public record (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=ICR/Inter…),
but when attention is called to it, that comment gets deleted by a "Troll B
Gon" device with unlimited comedic value and an equally boundless disdain
for civility.
User:Lucky 6.9
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User_talk…)
-- this guy was quite famous for making edits and dishing out User blocks,
then when properly-formatted complaints would be leveled to the
administrative heirarchy, he would try to censor out the complaints before
anyone was able to take action. It looks like he self-destructed before the
ArbCom or anyone higher could desysop him.
Now, those are merely three off the top of my head, just from my
experience. I will venture a guess that the WikiEN-l list will now work to
discredit me personally, because I brought these examples to the group's
attention. What will THAT process then say about the cultural health of the
admin community?
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
With all this hubbub about admins and making more admins with no
criteria and why shouldn't we just bump everyone up a level! and all
that jazz, I think it is high time we evaluate what admins need to be
or do to be successful. Then from there, in my opinion, we can lower
the bar, leave things as they are, or continue to pursue this
everyone's an admin!!! deal. (Sorry if I've inserted my POV too much
into the preceding paragraph)
So. This is how I see it.
Admins must:
be neutral, above all else.
when they block
when they protect
when they delete
recuse when they are unable to be neutral
have the understanding of policy to know when it is objectively okay
to block/protect/delete
be able to judge consensus
not be a timebomb
Therefore, admin candidates must:
demonstrate they can participate in discussions in which they have
no personal invested interest, with positive effect to those who do
have personal invested interest
demonstrate they know the difference between their opinion,
consensus, and the Truth (which doesn't exist on wiki)
demonstrate they recognize their own bias and will refuse to act
upon it
To be honest, I have no idea how they would demonstrate this. But
perhaps if we switched to a system of vouching, whereby different
people would say "I have worked with this user and they have always
been neutral in disputes and blahblahblah." like the nomination,
except more of them. And no edit counts and no FAs and no namespace
distribution. If one is cautious enough to always work within policy,
one will always check unknown policies before doing anything one has
never done before. And then perhaps once the candidate has enough
people vouching for them, they're promoted.
Or maybe something completely different. But in my opinion, adminship
is not edit counts and vandal fighting; it's dealing with things as a
neutral agent of the 'pedia. Well, at least when one has one's admin
hat on.
--keitei
Agreed. That particular idea is overly bureaucratic and instruction creepy
for my liking.
Besides, the load on AfD isn't that bad. Most articles get enough eyes.
Cheers,
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com
Just an idea I have been bouncing around for deletion nominations.
If a user, any user either with an account or anonymous wants to
nominate an article for deletion. Instead of posting directly to AFD,
he instead enters the name of the article and the reason he thinks it
needs to be deleted into a web form. The nomination then goes to a
"deletion preview" team who can take one of several actions...
1. Speedy delete. Only for obvious no doubt speedy deletion
candidates, nonsense pages and troll pages. Example "Jimbo Wales is a
bonehead" or "list of glups that glip".
2. Speedy keep. Article is definitely not a candidate for deletion ie
some bozo nominates "George W. Bush" or "Star Wars". Also could be
used to keep articles with a strong keep consensus from being
constantly renominated by a troll.
3. Bounce back. The nominator (if a registered user) will be asked to
resubmit the nom. ie "please be more specific then "fancruft" or
"unencyclopedic""
4.Pass to ADF. Only then does the nomination go to AFD and only then
does the article get tagged.
5. Rewrite by previewer. The nomination as written is invalid but the
previewer notices something else about the article that bugs him.
I think such a system would reduce the load on AFD but still allow us
to deal with problem articles promptly.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 07:22 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list
>
>on 2/20/07 9:10 AM, Jimmy Wales at jwales(a)wikia.com wrote:
>
>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>> When someone else decides that what I have written isn't suitable for
>>> someone else's eyes - what else do you call it but censorship.
>>
>> Editorial judgment.
>>
>> It's what we do.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>
>Fine literary editing requires a great deal of talent, and even the finest
>writer needs an equally fine editor. But, do all of the persons editing
>(moderating) this list have that degree of talent?
>
>Marc
No, but that is the school they are attending, as are all Wikipedia editors.
Fred