http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitesupport
We've been getting donations through with text like "For the flood
victims" - i.e., the donor thinks it's a donation to the subject of
the article; and there's no reliable way to tell just who they were
actually talking about. I changed it to "Donate to Wikipedia" to make
it clear who a donation would be to.
I assume that's the right place to make the change, once it percolates
through all the layers of caching, and it isn't actually supposed to
be somewhere else ...
(I considered making it "Donate to Wikimedia", which is more correct,
but I'd hope the page the link goes to would make that clear ... at
least for those donors who read, if not those who've been thinking
they could donate to the page subject on that link ...)
- d.
Mike, trust me: this is a very big deal and a very good thing.
Two problems arise at this point.
*First, almost nobody who's using this tool knows how to analyze its data
dumps. They're pointing to single edits and missing the big stories.
*Second, a lot of the people who've been perpetrating this IP abuse will now
switch to Plan B.
I know what Plan B is. There are a limited number of Plan Bs out there and
I've foiled them (along with Plan C, Plan D, etc.) many times. The further
they stroll down the alphabet the worse it looks for them because the
excuses wear out: they can't claim ignorance anymore.
-Durova
Anyone unconvinced that Wikipedia is run on a "some animals are more
equal than others" basis should look at MONGO's ongoing efforts to
pin something on SevenOfDiamonds, as seen in its latest stage here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/A
rbitration_enforcement
Having tried and failed multiple times to get SevenOfDiamonds labeled
as one or another of various banned users of the past, he had yet
another try here, still failing to prove his point even though he had
the support and sympathy of various admins.
The great irony in all of this is that MONGO and his friends love to
attack and ridicule everybody who keeps trying to bring actions
against MONGO; the fact that almost all of them have failed (except
for the one that led to his desysopping) is given as evidence that
they're all frivolous and laughable, and that the people who bring
them should be sanctioned for harassment.
By those standards, MONGO is certainly guilty of harrassment for his
repeated unsuccessful attempts to bring action against this user.
--
Dan
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other
reason but because they are not already common." - John Locke
Wikipedia is a major shift in the way information is collected and
dispersed. It's ranked ninth on Alexa; there's no way to ignore its
impact. Most of the people who write about Wikipedia for the mainstream
media have a limited and flawed understanding of the site. Someone I
respect who does understand it has described Wikipedia as an organization
committed to reinventing the wheel. That's the site's greatest asset and,
sometimes, its greatest liability.
On several levels the site represents a significant paradigm shift. It's
exciting to people who are attracted to that sort of thing, but we're a
self-selecting group. Very few of us publish much outside Wikipedia and
that results in problems that confront any insular group. To most people in
the broader public Wikipedia doesn't behave in intuitive ways. There's a
very understandable impulse - when something is frustrating - to raise one's
voice and call it stupid.
I look for the metamessage when that happens. Because even if I can parse
the literal message on its own terms and refute every part of it, I doubt
I'll win the other person's trust if I address it on that level.
Metamessages are tricky things; I'm still chewing on this one. I think
there's something in there that deserves our attention.
-Durova
People who don't understand our project say all sorts of things. So far as I
can tell, there is no evidence that "Diebold" edited any articles. Now, of
course there is evidence that someone from the Diebold IP range did. We
shouldn't attribute actions to a group when the group is not likely the
responsible party. I mean, do you guys really think that some guy is getting
paid by Diebold to edit entries, from their location no less? C'mon, anyone
that Diebold hired to do such a thing would almost certainly be working
off-site. My guess is that it was just some guy at Diebold doing something
that his superiors didn't even know about.
I would remind my fellow Wikipedians about this passage from WP:COI
COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the
encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to
accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who
were being promoted.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#_note-0> Merely
participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by
itself, a conflict of interest.
Editors who may have a conflict of
interest<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_inte…>are
not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles
where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in
mainspace.
There is no policy against Diebold employees editing the Diebold article.
There are policies requiring NPOV, RS, etc. Let's not complicate things by
introducing a competing COI standard now. The existing policies work just
fine.
DC
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:37:36 -0600
> From: Daniel Cannon <cannon.danielc(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tracking ranges of anons
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <46C428F0.7010207(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> > I wouldn't bother with a block myself. They haven't edited as the IP
> > in a while, so there's probably no imminent danger ... and you can bet
> > people will be watching like hawks.
> >
> > We may need to start stressing that we have no problem with people
> > editing from the CIA, DIebold or the DNC ... what is problematic is a
> > conflict of interest. A Diebold IP editing well is most welcome; a CIA
> > IP fixing up Buffy The Vampire Slayer is fine.
>
> Most definitely. The concern with Diebold is that they were editing in a
> manner that showed an obvious conflict of interest. While a block isn't
> really going to do anything to stop this in the future--the IP has been
> inactive for months, and after all of this, Diebold will probably block
> all its employees from Wikipedia--yet it gives the impression that we're
> doing something about it :) As you said, they'll be watching like
> hawks--and it's our credibility, moreso than Diebold's reputation, that
> is on the line (at least from where I'm sitting). A block shows that we
> are watching out for our 'pedia and that we don't condone such actions
> taken by corporations. (You've gotta keep in mind that a lot of people
> in the press haven't wrapped their head around this whole
> anybody-can-edit mentality, and assume that if Diebold is editing
> articles about itself, it's because we explicitly allowed them to do so.)
>
> - --
> Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
geni wrote
> "It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with
> the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "
> I'm not sure how trying to create an encyclopedia fits in with
> anti-intellectualism.
Even so, that slap is probably worth the rest of the column put together. Of course it is no more than the basic truism of 'teachers, leave those kids alone'.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
I just added an RFC tag to the Talk:Guitar page and it appears to have
added some type of spam from China. How it managed to get on there is
anyones guess. Any ideas on how to remove it?
Meg