In a message dated 3/17/2008 1:00:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
Will, chill. This isn't that big a deal; in fact, it isn't a
deal at all.>>
-------------------
Anytime the principles of equality and egalitarianism are challenged I will
speak.
No one deserves to be put into a caste that segregates one group from
another, no matter how minor that would appear to be superficially.
Seperating some, with the rule of law, into special classes is exactly what
Ayn spoke against, and much more vocally than I. It is what Orwell spoke
against as well. Once you create a power-based for one class of people, they
tend to accumulate more power over time without restriction.
And yes there is a very simple method of countering this. Whether it takes
10 times the CPU cycles should be irrelevant. If CPU cycles are put ahead of
human beings in our projects, then we've already lost.
So yes, it's a big deal. Just the idea that people can contemplate that it
isn't... that is also a big deal.
Each human participant is far more important than any computer system.
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
In a message dated 3/17/2008 11:32:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
In practice "admin" is as close to an approximation of "long standing
wikipedian" that can be done with little use of server resources,>>
----------------------
False.
We have histories that will show who is long-standing and who is not.
The admin bit has nothing to do with establishing whether someone is
long-standing or not.
W.J.
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
In a message dated 3/17/2008 11:32:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Interesting claim. The counter would be that admins are the better
engineers and a man may indeed profit by the sweat of his brow.>>
---------------------
{{Fact}}
Since when are admins better engineers?
They are merely more persistent beauracrats.
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
On Friday 07 March 2008 01:50, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 06/03/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will repeat my conviction that our notability guidelines are the
> > biggest PR blunder we engage in.
> >
> > Which is all the more frustrating given that the problem with most of
> > these trivia sections seems to be an interface problem rather than a
> > fundamental content problem. Because we've adopted too many artifacts
> > of print like purely linear article design and spatial arrangement on
> > a single page we're stuck with masses of data and side notes being a
> > distraction to the articles. As a result we steadily delete valuable
> > content that is not reproduced elsewhere and will not be reproduced
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > Go us?
>
> An encyclopedia can't be about absolutely anything that anyone wants
> to add
Why not?
> it would rapidly descend into farce.
No, it wouldn't.
> It's not about space, it's
> about reputation,
Who cares about reputation? We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to make
the rest of the world fall in love with us.
> quality
I fail to see how having an article on my neighbor's cat will diminish the
quality of an article on the city of Indianapolis. It's a red herring.
> and scope.
Which should be "everything that exists."
>
> If notability did not exist we would be forced to create it.
Why?
--
Kurt Weber
<kmw(a)armory.com>
> On 3/17/08, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:
>> Complete anonymity is a very high standard. This is honor system anonymity.
>> He told you it's anonymous because he's going to protect your anonymity in
>> the data analysis.
>
> Hmm, maybe. I distinguish between:
>
> 1) We will attempt not to collect personally identifying information about you
>
> and
>
> 2) We will collect personally identifying information, but attempt to
> protect it.
>
> If it's 1), I simply need to trust that the information gatherer is
> not malicious. If it's 2) I need to trust that they are competent.
>
> Not that it's really important - my editing record is public, my user
> name is not a secret, etc. It just gave me pause...long enough to lose
> interest.
Sorry to hear that you lost your interest, Steve, but I do understand
your concern for sure.
My first and foremost concern to keep you all anonymous from all third
parties both when it comes to the data I collect and how I report it. A
total anonymity is rather problematic as I know that I might be
collecting personally identifying information in the open ended
questions with information sources in them. On specific topics the
information someone is using can easily reveal the article and same time
the contributor.
I am going to use the information on information sources and article
together (to understand better your answers) and separately (from this
survey) profile Wikipedia on the basis of their public profiles, but I
am not going to actually track down any individual respondents. I could
have skipped the question about naming the articles in question, but
then I would have needed to ask you to describe the article
(anonymously) in detail. I chose however not to make any question
compulsory, so you do not have to tell me the name of the article you
are describing, if you absolutely don't like to do that. I can use that
data too, even if it is a lot less informative.
The bottomline is still that I sincerely hope that you can think that
you can trust me and my ethical integrity.
The survey can be found still at
http://survey-3.istohuvila.fi/index.php?sid=62924&lang=en
Best Wishes,
Isto Huvila
--
Ph.D., research fellow, lecturer
Information Studies :: Åbo Akademi University
(w) +358-2-2153467 (m) +358-40-5726259
(e) isto.huvila(a)abo.fi (w3) www.istohuvila.fi
Dear All,
I am currently engaged in conducting research on Wikipedia users'
information behaviour and especially the information sources and
services used in contributions.
The purpose of this survey is to map information sources used in writing
and editing Wikipedia articles. The survey is a part of the research
project "Information service 2.0" conducted by myself (Department of
Information Studies, Åbo Akademi University, Finland) as a part of the
Academy of Finland research project "Library 2.0 - a new participatory
context".
The individual answers will be processed strictly confidential, the data
will not be handed over to any third parties or to non-academic use and
all informants will remain strictly anynomous.
Survey URL
http://survey-3.istohuvila.fi/index.php?sid=62924&lang=en
More information about the project may be found at
http://www.istohuvila.fi/library-20http://www.library2pointoh.fi
Best Regards,
Isto Huvila
--
Ph.D., research fellow, lecturer
Information Studies :: Åbo Akademi University
(w) +358-2-2153467 (m) +358-40-5726259
(e) isto.huvila(a)abo.fi (w3) www.istohuvila.fi
Seriously, I mean specially trained individuals with a rolodex of emergency contacts/and who are peace officers.
----- Original Message ----
From: Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:44:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] threats of violence
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> We should have a special unit to deal with these.
Some people call it the FBI. :)
--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Whatever we do, let's not get hung up on those two terms
"inclusionist" and "deletionist". They're pretty nearly
meaningless. I'm reminded of an old joke: a nymphomaniac
is anyone who's having more sex than you are. Similarly, a
deletionist is merely someone who wants to delete more articles
than you personally do (and vice versa for inclusionists).