I guess the mob is winning, but I don't think they will have any stomach for the struggle.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 07:29 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] HD DVD key mess - OFFICE/Foundation?
>
>I noticed today that the Internets civil war or whatever that is underway
>for this has spread to Wikipedia, to the point it's now on DRV:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_2#09_9_…
>
>Zscout says here:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zscout370#HD_DVD_Key
>
>"Regardless if it is popular or not, we cannot host the key on here and the
>Foundation has asked us to remove it on sight.
>User:Zscout370<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zscout370>
>*(Return Fire)* 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"
>
>Did the WMF take that official stance? Where, if I missed it? The specific
>number/value I don't believe can be even copyrighted in the United States.
>
>Keep in mind that the hex/number itself is now notable.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Joe
>http://www.joeszilagyi.com
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Fascinating read:
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/05/02/what-does-cyber-revolt-look-like/
We've received oversight requests for this key, by the way. Mostly
we're saying "no, it's not personally dangerous information, deletion
is the usual sufficient response for problematic content."
But I wonder. In a few weeks, will there be enough usably reliable (as
reliable as the Internet gets) sources for this one that have stood up
to a DMCA assault and said "no, bugger off" as Digg is doing?
(note: I'd say happily leave it a month at least. We're not a newspaper.)
- d.
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> By allowing even a single
> non-Wikimedia Foundation site to reap any sort of financial benefit, a
> possible conflict of interest now exists.
Wow, that's a breathtakingly broad thesis. Apparently the Wikimedia
Foundation has an ethical obligation to actively prevent remote
downstream commercial activity, because it could be a conflict of
interest for us if completely independent outside parties somehow benefit.
While we're at it, who needs external links in the first place? Let's
just ignore the rest of the internet and be a walled garden, it's the
only way we can be sure nobody will benefit.
Or instead, we could look at this dispassionately. I notice that the
interwiki map includes World66 and Wikitravel, two travel guide wikis
owned by a commercial enterprise called Internet Brands. Thus links to
these sites can avoid the nofollow attribute, even though they would be
direct competition for World Wikia, the travel guide Wikia launched to
some fanfare last year. World66 even carries Google ads just like Wikia.
On the basis of the evidence, what reason is there to think that Wikia
has taken advantage of its founders' relationship with Wikimedia to get
preferential treatment? Maybe somebody will think they can still make
that case, but please look at the full picture instead of leaping to
conclusions from a single piece of information.
--Michael Snow
On 2 May 2007 at 00:52:38 -0600, "C.J. Croy" <cjcroy(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> -I don't find searches for 'Wiki' odd at all. Most of the people
> searching are probably interested in the entymology. It's not like we
> called it 'Quickipedia' or 'Upedia'.
That's "etymology" if you're studying word origins... but maybe if
you're studying the bugs in the wiki program it would be
"entomology".
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Here's why it's a bad idea to ban links to the "attack sites"... then
I wouldn't be able to call y'all's attention to stuff like this:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8582
The person (with a questionable grasp on reality) from American
Biograph and Mutoscope Company is here accusing Wikipedians of
hacking his bank account, in addition to calling it "defamatory" that
they don't accept on his say-so that his company is the legitimate
successor to a company that went defunct back in the 1920s.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Quite a few editors have been taking our requirement to cite sources to an
extreme...whether this is good or bad, I don't know, but at any rate, it's
starting to seep into the public consciousness:
http://bash.org/?757724
<CtrlAltDestroy> Here is my impression of Wikipedia.
<CtrlAltDestroy> "There are five fingers on the human hand [citation
needed]"
Johnleemk
Maybe not news, considering our traffic rankings.... but this is one of the
first "real" studies of Wikipedia use I've seen, conducted by the
prestigious Pew Internet project and released in April 2007 in a "data
memo".
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf
The first few paragraphs:
" More than a third of American adult internet users (36%) consult the
citizen-generated online encyclopedia Wikipedia, according to a new
nationwide survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. And on a
typical day in the winter of 2007, 8% of online Americans consulted
Wikipedia.
There has been ongoing controversy about the reliability of articles on
Wikipedia. Still, the Pew Internet Project survey shows that Wikipedia is
far more popular among the well-educated than it is among those with lower
levels of education. For instance, 50% of those with at least a college
degree consult the site, compared with 22% of those with a high school
diploma.
And 46% of those age 18 and older who are current full- or part-time
students have used Wikipedia, compared with 36% of the overall internet
population.
In addition, young adults and broadband users have been among those who are
earlier adopters of Wikipedia. While 44% of those ages 18-29 use Wikipedia
to look for information, just 29% of users age 50 and older consult the
site. In a similar split, 42% of home broadband users look for information
on Wikipedia, while just 26% of home dial-up users do so."
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 08:35 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator flameout: Naconkantari
>
>Fred Bauder wrote:
>> The warning signs were when the Arbitration Committee decided that continual agitation was just "free speech". We all know the users who have taken the lead. The precipitating event is at:
>>
>> Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4
>>
>
>So after reading that and rummaging, I've got a couple of questions.
>
>It seems like Naconkantari had recently taken some heat for too-vigorous
>blocking. Then he blocked several people on the RFC you link to above,
>shortly before the RFC was deleted. Doc Glasgow, one of the people
>blocked, offers this as an explanation:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic…
>
>Given that, is it fair to think of Naconkantari as one of those people
>who got caught in what I think of as the "overburdened admin spiral",
>where a tired person becomes more short-tempered, causing incidents that
>weary them further? And that this was just the final turn of that spiral?
Yes, best to cut back a bit when you see this happening to yourself. But to know you need to do that, you have to have had the experience of getting into a mess because you didn't. (Assuming one can only learn the hard way, by experience)
>Also, when you refer to ArbCom-blessed continual agitation, is that the
>same thing as the ANI reference to free passes for certain people?
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."
>
>Thanks,
>
>William