A recent recycling of Aaron Swartz's analysis of the difference
between who-makes-the-most-edits, versus who-contributes-the-most-content:
<http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway>
I think we all know the real story, but it's fascinating how much
traction the "bulk of Wikipedia is written by 1400 obsessed
freaks" meme still gets (including, for example, the referenced
blog post <http://www.collegeotr.com/college_otr/734_percent_of_all_
wikipedia_edits_are_made_by_roughly_1400_people_17499> from last week).
Yet another reason to Shun Any Reliance On Raw Edit Counts.
(But boy, is it easy to depend on them, since they're so easy
to get your hands on. And did Jimbo really once assert that
"Wikipedia was actually written by 'a community ... a dedicated
group of a few hundred volunteers' where 'I know all of them and
they all know each other'"?)
<<In a message dated 1/3/2009 6:38:10 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net writes:
The idea is that we do the right thing regardless of what anyone else
does.>>
And who sets this incredibly high bar of "morality" ? And whose morals? And
who chooses?
And who decides that we must be archangels and views the rest of journalism
and publishing as moral demons?
That isn't the project for which I volunteered. The project for which I
volunteered is the one Jimmy Wales stated that we will document the world. We
will include everything. That was the original scope and intent.
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
In a message dated 1/2/2009 2:51:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> But, we do not *want* primary sources to be summarized unless they have
> already been commented upon in secondary sources.
"Summarizing" isn't the same thing as "commented on", so this is a
non-sequitur.>>
--------------------
I'm not saying they are the same. I'm saying that first a secondary source
must remark upon, refer to, quote from, comment upon, a primary source or
it's information *in some fashion* (not necessarily summarizing it), *before* we
wish to also do the same.
If no one mentions where Barack Obama lived his childhood, then we cannot
use school records to show it either. If someone cites a secondary source
showing that he lived in Michigan, then we can cite a primary source showing that
he didn't.
That's the point I was making.
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
But, we do not *want* primary sources to be summarized unless they have
already been commented upon in secondary sources. That *is* the point. So that
seems to be working fine.
**************
New year...new news. Be the first to
know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
For those who may not have seen this on the foundation-l or
wikimania-l lists... here's the official dates for this summer's
Wikimania :) Stay tuned for the call for papers and calls for
volunteers. Want to help? Send a message to the Wikimania-l list.
-- phoebe
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricio Lorente <patricio.lorente(a)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Subject: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania official announcement
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
<wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Dear all,
Wikimedia Argentina, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation,
is pleased to announce that Wikimania 2009 will take place in Buenos
Aires on August 26th, 27th and 28th. We invite the worldwide Wikimedia
and free-knowledge community to attend to the event in which we will
be discussing the present and future of our projects, other wikis,
open-source software and free content.
The conference will run for 3 days, with an optional welcome dinner on
August 25th, and the special closing Wikimania party on Augusts 28th.
Besides the exciting conferences, we are planning a set of activities
for those who also want to enjoy Buenos Aires renowned nightlife. So
don't forget to polish your shoes to dance tango and reading your eyes
for a lot of sightseeing!
We will be opening the call for speakers and scholarship applications
during the following weeks, and the assistance registration in March.
News about the event will be published in the Wikimania 2009 web site
[wikimania2009.wikimedia.org]
See you in Buenos Aires!
On behalf of the organizing team,
Patricio Lorente
--
Patricio Lorente
Mensajería Instantánea: patricio_lorente(a)jabber.org
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
In a message dated 1/2/2009 5:43:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ian.woollard(a)gmail.com writes:
> including your social security number, bank
> account number, telephone number, mothers maiden name, address, entire
> sexual history, provided all of this can be said to be correct by a
> notable source and referenced correctly?<>>>
>
You are being silly. No one knows Todd's entire sexual history including
himself.
**************
New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
In a message dated 12/31/2008 7:53:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
crustybush(a)gmail.com writes:
If I'm right, Phil is complaining that NOR contradicts NPOV because someone
won't necessarily be able to defend themselves in their article because what
they say (eg through a letter) will be OR, and therefore the article won't
have NPOV?>>
---------------------------
No. What Phil is stating is that NOR contradicts NPOV because of a line
which states that primary sources may only be used for descriptive clauses (not
interpretive ones). Therefore, since what an author writes is a primary
source, they cannot defend themselves from perceived false interpretations of
others, which are secondary sources.
My counters included an attack on whether an op-ed is really secondary. And
also an attack on whether a self-review is really primary.
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
I'm still trying to figure out why semi-protection is more widely
supported than flaggedrevs, especially after seeing the example given
here:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22088 [warning: badsite]
What would be a reasonable timetable for closing this discussion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey
...with the acknowledgment that there is at least majority support for
flaggedrevs on BLP articles, and turn the bloody thing on already
(preferably without any technical or social restrictions against using
it on other pages as needed, and on all pages eventually).
It's a few hours till 2009 here, and I'm about to go get shit-faced
drunk. If anyone is reading this I'd like nothing better than to come
back tomorrow <s>morning</s> afternoon and see that actual progress
has been made.
For this new year it's time to try something different. Please.
—C.W.