I don't find it particularly abnormal that people sometimes avoid DR. Even
Arbs.
DR can be very time and soul consuming. And every tiny thing can't go
through it.
So instead of making a big issue about it, why not just create the redirect
in the way I suggested?
Seems like a much simpler resolution.
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080516/0916211136.shtml
"HMS Britannic Optimistic About Deck-Chair Re-Arrangement"
(I've also posted a comment. Precis: we "compete" by owning a niche we
weren't ever aiming for, amongst readers who haven't cracked open a
paper encyclopedia since high school.)
- d.
On 5/18/08, Simon Walker <stwalkerster(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> It's the same with me - anyone who receives an email from me, including the
> mailing list will know my real name. However, I don't want it being linked
> to me on-wiki.
Although "semi-pseudonymity" is a poorly defined concept and "open
secret" is an oxymoron, most people will try to respect your wishes if
they are aware of them. Of course a "please do not address me by my
real name" request at the top of your talk page would almost certainly
backfire by inspiring various shit-disturbers (who wouldn't otherwise
have known that your real name is easily discoverable) to do exactly
what they believe will upset you.
> While this is a public list, to some extent it's still private, because I doubt
> many people who aren't wikipedians themselves have signed up to this list.
That doesn't mean that they are more trustworthy than, say... the
general public (who can also read every message without having to "log
in" to anything).
> Still, back to the point, I feel that [her] identity should be kept quiet. If
> [she] wants to reveal her identity, then she can do it herself - she is quite
> capable of that. She does not need someone else to publicise it for her.
True but continuing to discuss it will only increase the incidence of
knife-twisting and harassment.
—C.W.
>
> If my intention was to run around that decision...
>
> - Wouldn't it be easier for me to let time do its job and allow the case
> to be forgotten?
> - Would it not be easier for me to get a new account to avoid the
> remedies?
> - This is something Davenbelle done several times with four large
> accounts.
>
> Please answer those two questions above. And then consider the ones below.
>
> Do you realize how non-plausible your argument is? Why do you work so hard
> to assume bad faith?
>
> - White Cat
>
>
It seems like you want this for personal use, White Cat. If this is the
case, couldn't you just put a link on your userpage? This overall would be
an easier solution and would cause less trouble. Cheers.
[[w:User:Lifebaka]]
If someone uninvolved with Wikipedia was following the news on Wikipedia, what kind of headlines on the news articles about Wikipedia would he see? More or less, he would see: "Jimbo Wales Financial Troubles/Philandering" (and...sexual exploits, and some troubling issues with his ex's article), "Village in Englad falls to Vandalism (about vandalism, which was immediately reverted after the story came out, to a page, which is now significantly improved, about an English village) "Parents of High Schoolers Criticize Wikipedia" (relative to the threats posted to the HS in California's page), "How Wikipedia Can Rip You Off" (based on a completely uninformed blog post, but it was on the front page of Yahoo), "Pro-Israel group slanting Wikipedia"...on and on the list goes. It's amazing how much bad news get around about Wikipedia.
(A footnote: It doesn't help that the reporters can't even get their facts right. The LA Times article about the threats on the HS page got fact wrong. The article quoting J.B Murray about WP:MMM was egregiously inaccurate. It is extremely ironic that Wikipedia is viewed in the public eye and lambasted in academic circles as inaccurate, yet the very article about it (from websites that are supposed to be accurate) sometimes contain numerous errors.)
I really think that the PR problems have to do with the public's fundamental misconceptions about Wikipedia. If you can stretch your memory to remember yourself as a newbie, then you will remember the confusion you faced. There were all sorts acronyms being used (AGF, COI, ANI, etc.), names of prominent Wikipedians being tossed around, and you were confused. Wikipedia definitely has a very steep learning curve.
Most new users attempt to write something they know about, and they don't know the first thing about formatting, referencing (don't even talk about the MOS), and usually their articles or contributions get speedy deleted or flagged, and they get warned. The official policy is WP:BITE (another abbreviation), but in practice, we "Dracula" the newbies all the time, even if we are patient and polite (and a lot of veterans aren't).
Many of this comes because people don't understand the really, really complex rules of Wikipedia. To illustrate, take a look at the (very few) web pages that are more visited than Wikipedia. You've got search engines, with extra features (Google, Yahoo, MSN), an auction site (Ebay), and other site. Basically, they are websites that are quite simple to use. Meanwhile Wikipedia just blows new users away, almost literally. It is definitely not what you would call "user-friendly".
However, beyond the complex rules (which, by the way, I'm not complaining about; they are usually great, and necessary; however, they are undeniably hard to learn quickly for new users), there are the news stories, as I said above. It really amazes me that Wikipedia can have so much bad press, yet everything goes on as usual.
(Another footnote: One of the latest of bad reports is that Wikipedia is a "porn-peddler". One of the main images they mentioned was the "Virgin Killer". The image was nominated for deletion, and it the result was an overwhelming keep, per policy. I'm not going to argue with the policies, but I think that if it is true that the FBI is investigating if Wikipedia is violating child-porn law, then the image should be taken down. It really doesn't matter what the policy is, keeping it gives the impression that Wikipedia consists of a bunch of pedophilists and stubborn law-breakers who won't listen to common sense. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be an EDUCATIONAL tool (and the Wikimedia spokesman said that they were Wikipedia "target group"), and Virgin Killer.jpg cannot even be defined as being educational.)
So, what am I saying? I don't know; perhaps this means that all the bad news is an indicator that Wikipedia is now too big for any one event or person (even the omnipotent Jimbo Wales) to affect. However, I think it may prove the opposite: I really don't think that Wikipedia can get so much bad press and continue as usual.
Durova, in an interview, posted on YouTube, states her own real full name.
The identification of Durova, is now strewn widely across the internet.
Can we not repeat her own real full name in-Wiki ?
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/18/2008 9:33:50 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
Actually, having just re-read White Cat's 3rd email to this thread, it
seems the deleted redirect WAS of the form [[Wikipedia:Requests for
arbitration/XXX]]. So what makes you think anyone has a problem with
WP:RFAR/ redirects?
-------------------------
Asked and answered :)
Do it already.
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/18/2008 1:19:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
stwalkerster(a)googlemail.com writes:
Still, back to the point, I feel that Durova's
identity should be kept quiet. If Durova wants to reveal her identity, then
she can do it herself - she is quite capable of that. She does not need
someone else to publicise it for her.>>
-----
She has revealed her identity.
Just not on-wiki.
In an interview, speaking as a Wikipedian, she identifies with her on-wiki
name and her off-wiki name.
That's the point of this thread. Not that someone *found out* who she was
surrepticiously, but that she herself revealed it.
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
--
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
http://formonelane.net/
"Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula
On Sat 17/05/08 04:30 , "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/05/2008, Christiano Moreschi wrote:
> >
> > That's true, but in general I think we get a lot of bad press
> that we simply don't deserve.
> So does anything in the public eye. There might be something we can
> do
> to reduce it, but we certainly can't eliminate it. My point was that
> it isn't actually harming us in any significant way, so why bother
> doing anything about it at all?
> > Obviously, we do many things wrong at Wikipedia, some of which we
> are justly censured for.
> Yes, such cases do arise and then we do need to do something about
> it,
> absolutely.
> > But so often I read some hit job in the press and think "Oh,
> that's just a misunderstanding. These people don't get quite how wiki
> works. If only I'd been able to explain at the time..."
> Often the reason no-one was able to explain it at the time was
> because
> the journalist in question didn't want to understand, they just
> wanted
> a sensational story, so they didn't ask anyone about it (at least,
> not
> anyone that could actually help).
> > Quite often, of course, there's no response from WMF (not
> asked?), or no coordinated one, so this doesn't help.
> There often is a response, though. Take a look at Sue's latest
> monthly
> report on foundation-l, under the communication section it lists who
> they've spoken to in the press, and it's a decent length list. I
> imagine when they don't respond it's a concious decision and not a
> lack of co-ordination.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
In a message dated 5/18/2008 11:12:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com writes:
I do have to say that I appreciate you not using her real name in this
post, but I have no idea why you spammed it to so many (some
off-topic) mailing lists.>>
-----------------------------------------
That was a mistake. I pulled up an old email and just responded to it,
changing the subject line, without noticing that it had so many cc's.
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)