Mathieu Amo wrote: I am emphatically 100% with you on this one. Make them aware that there are consequences. Unfortunately, most users do not, and will not beleive this (see here: http://www.oxegen.ie/mb/viewtopic.php?t=50261 ) hell, even in our recent scandal dealy, the ISPs refuse to co-operate. I'm not exactly sure what an appropriate responce would be, other than either a show of force, or, attempting to scale our RC patrol appropriately. I'm going to go with the option most suited to my talents. I should be done with a PHP system of tracking, and dealing with vandals within the next week or two. Any PHP gurus, I could use some help ;]

Delirium wrote: To clarify (I should've put this in my initial message), I think the fundamental problem is un-vetted anonymous edits (or edits in general, but most problematic ones are anonymous), and taking away the class of edits that occur at page titles that don't yet exist isn't much of a gain, because there are over 100,000 obscure stubs on the English Wikipedia that provide a vast array of extant page titles to choose from. In this case it just happened that the page didn't yet exist, but it could just as easily have happened that someone created an obscure 1-line stub, and then the anonymous user came by later to edit the stub---it would still be an obscure article that nobody would find, because the person isn't all that notable, and the edits would have a pretty good chance of remaining there. So, more interesting would be to address the fundamental problem---that is, mark revisions that have been reviewed by [n] people. -Mark

The scaling problem is classically hairy. A rating system should help; it's a similar response to the one eBay had as it grew from a tiny community to a mob (on the way to becoming a visible slice of the universe) -- feedback. Feedback itself had to be conditioned after a while, too, and I imagine the rating system will need continuous re-evaluation. Likewise, this experiment makes sense, to see if slight tweaks to the essentially no-holds-barred editing-without-accountability paradigm can help produce the best encyclopedia; I'm skeptical as to whether slight tweaks can suffice; it only takes a tiny number of jerks to render such an environment too painful to use. See "usenet". jpgordon On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

Delirium wrote: Absolutely. We agree completely on that. The problem with this is figuring out how to do it in a way that doesn't lead to game playing, karma whoring, etc. Any automated tool would embody some a priori assumptions that might not match the rich fabric of our actual experience. David Gerard has a nice way of saying this... we've reached public popularity when we're still barely out of alpha and into beta, if that. With software this seldom happens. --Jimbo

Heinz wrote: Well, you deleted the other person's comments, but generally when speaking to someone, if I agree with them, I will write something like "Yes, we agree about that." The we refers to me and the other person. --Jimbo

Jimmy Wales wrote: Talk pages are separately controlled, and anons can indeed still create them. I've gone ahead and turned on the restriction mode, per Jimmy's order. Notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Anon_pa… -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On 12/5/05, Martin Richards <Martin(a)velocitymanager.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles Kelly

On 12/5/05, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: I've added links to [[Special:Userlogin]] and [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] to [[Mediawiki:Nocreatetext]]. Kelly

Martin Richards wrote: Can't they just create an account and then create the article, or am I missing something? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 02/12/05

On 12/5/05, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: This is why I like the limiting orphans option because: A) it effects everyone B)if you really want to create an article you can create a link to it. -- geni

On 12/5/05, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote: Of course, that facility is already coded into MediaWiki. -- Sam

On 12/6/05, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think not allowing unreferenced articles would be a great help too. I bet the anon didn't provide any source (or they would've discovered their own mistake if it was one). Mgm

That's a really good point, especially since, iirc, Wikipedia does not maintain a record of IP addresses used for more than a couple months. Edit once, discard the name - and you're probably out of reach of a John Doe subpoena. Ian (Guettarda)

I would think that calling someone "a hero" is 'unncessarily diplomatic language,' and such a designation would require citation. In this case, the citation is his 'founding of a First Amendment defending organization.' Its important to remember how trust foundations in general work in the U.S. They largely exist for the purposes of 1) financial self-sustenance 2) lobbying, and 3) public awareness. The last two have relatively low overhead, and the first has no real ties to the cause which it claims to represent. Hence we have various organzations that represent various causes which may or may not have some vague connection with the goals they claim to support. Bjorn's language was indeed unnecessarily undiplomiac and needing of correction. But an examination of Siegenthaler's language in reference to Wikipedia as a whole likewise shows a lacking of the "kind and thoughful" traits claimed to be in private discourse. More to the point, Seigenthaler's transcripted comments arent evokative of someone who has a deep understanding of the U.S. First Amendment issues in question: SEIGENTHALER: "...can I just say, where I'm worried about this leading. Next year we go into an election year. Every politician is going to find himself or herself subjected to the same sort of outrageous commentary that hit me, and hits others. "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result of that. And I -- I tell you, I think if you can't fix it, both fix the history as well as the biography pages, I think it's going to be in real trouble, and we're going to have to be fighting to keep the government from regulating you." People can decide for themselves if they think that some "libel" (i.e. 'uncorrected cruft') in one article will equate to a wider climate of presumably dire and draconian "government" regulation. I think the claim is beyond ridiculous, and throwing Kelly's little laundry list of media errors into the equasion, Siegenthaler's comments are almost indistinguishable from an attack on *free media from the point of view of *corporate media. No doubt he is sincere, but his interests *seem to be in protecting the institutional, and not the emergent. In that context, being diplomatic to Siegenthaler for sake of converting him to understand the free media model is indeed a wise course of action. Stevertigo --- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com

BJörn Lindqvist wrote: It seems to me that these comments are far more libellous than what was in the article. At least the article stated that the charges were found to be in error. Do you have any proof at all for your statement that "he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge." A truly litigious person would have fun with that comment, and the fact that it was made on the mailing list would be no excuse. Ec

On 12/6/05, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: You do relise that it would to our advantage if he was "litigious asshole looking for revenge". Two reasons in fact: 1. He would be hastleing the ISP rather than commenting on us 2. The idea that putting false info on wikipedia can get you sued is one I would not object to being spread. -- geni

On 12/6/05, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: If you post something libilus under US law (which is the only law that matters) and the person finds it fast enough they can get a court order and get the relivant server logs from wikipedia. If you don't log in then I'm afaraid we can't protect you from being stupid. You can't expect the foundation not to respect a US court order. As a result the fact is that under certian conditions posting something false on wikipedia could get you into legal trouble. It is important people understand this. The reference to authoritarian countries is a red herring. Assumeing you avoid local monitoring it is only US law you have to worry about because only US law affects the foundation. -- geni

On 12/6/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: They are not database servers only squids so we are probably safe. We could also drop them if it became a problem. -- geni

On 12/6/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote: The only possible parallel I have is that summons can be served anywhere in the European Union (except, I think, Denmark, though I can't remember why) and have effect. This might extend to the execution of a verdict, though it might well not. -- Sam

geni wrote: It isn't a red herring, because I'm not talking about the possibility that a court order could be made for our current logs. I'm talking specifically about Mr. Seigenthaler's calls for us to add additional logging facility specifically for the purpose of making it easier to trace anonymous contributors, which would be a very bad idea. We can't guarantee people's anonymity, but we shouldn't---contrary to his suggestion---go out of our way to make contributors more easily traceable back to their real identities. -Mark

On 12/6/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: libellous (but the fact that I don't have a copy of the article limits my ability to speak with regard to it). Since you think these comments are "more libellous" than what was in the article, maybe Siegenthaler should write another article blasting Wikipedia and whinging about how he isn't able to sue BJörn or anyone else (he leave out the paragraph on anonymity this time). And then Jimbo can go on CNN and say that he is wiping, this post and all the others that contain the allegedly libellous statement, from the archive website. I suppose you could say Siegenthaler isn't litigious, because he hasn't sued anyone, at least not yet (there's still time and he's left it open whether or not he's going to). But frankly that seems to be more because he is smart (and hired smart lawyers to consult with him) than that he doesn't want to sue anyone. The last paragraph of his rant in USA Today (and part of the middle one) is about how he has "little legal recourse". His lawyers already told him he can't sue Wikipedia, he can't sue the ISP, and though he hasn't admitted it they probably told him he can't successfully sue John Doe either (not that it matters, as John Doe likely doesn't have the kind of deep pockets that could pay for just Siegenthaler's lawyers anyway). As Siegenthaler said, "Congress effectively has barred defamation in cyberspace." Now why complain about that if you're not interested in suing someone? Frankly, I really don't get it. Siegenthaler is supposedly a defender of free speech rights. Doesn't he realize that making ISPs liable for content spoken by others would stifle free speech? Doesn't he agree that the ability to speak anonymously is absolutely critical to free speech? "Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name." Is Siegenthaler really so dense to have unintentionally left out the word "allegedly" before "defame online". Federal privacy laws *don't* protect the identity of those who defame online. But you've got to convince a judge that the person *actually defamed online* before she's going to allow you to force the ISP to name names. Unless you happen to be George W. Bush, a mere allegation of something isn't enough to violate privacy rights, you have to actually convince a judge that your allegation is correct. What does Siegenthaler want? Does he want Wikipedia to stop allowing volunteer contributors? Does he want Congress to remove the protections given to ISPs for merely carrying content produced by others? Does he want to take away the ability of Internet speakers to be anonymous? Does he want to start licensing or bonding people who produce content to distribute over the Internet? Maybe he just wants Wikipedia to get it right 100% of the time. Or maybe he just wants Wikipedia to stop calling itself an encyclopedia (because it's really just a common carrier - an ISP). I could actually see his point there, though I'm not sure if I agree and it's almost definitely not going to happen anyway. Either way, if his only beef is with Wikipedia then why include the other two paragraphs about anonymity and lack of legal recourse. Anthony

According to intellectual property laws, no one should claim he is the author of a work who someone else authored. So... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicone_rubber&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Silicone_Rubbe… Who is the author of the article ? Anthere

On 12/8/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: If the text that actually ended up on the page was posted on AFC by the anon, then the anon is the author - the text has essentially been moved. If the logged-in editor who creates the article modifies this text, they own those edits in the usual way. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

On 12/8/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Right. We surely need a new style guideline for this. But it is hard to do properly; this is one of the reasons we need a two-panel From--->To editing interface, that tracks what you are reading as you write a new article, and in exchange makes it easier to do such copying and pasting... else users will always continue to do this without attribution. SJ

On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary. This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the authors that created the source article up until then. -- Jim (trodel(a)gmail.com) "Our love may not always be reciprocated, or even appreciated, but love is never wasted" - Neal A Maxwell ---Intersted in Gmail - let me know I have invites---

We have the same problem with merges. Some people don't seem to think it's neccesary to attribute material to the original article and author when merging something. I'm not even sure of a majority of them actually say it's a merge in the summary. That really needs to change. Mgm On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Being able to change the author column would help, but I could still see problems. How would you avoid people crediting others for edits they didn't make or suggest? Also, some people are inherently lazy and still won't proper attribute something even if there's an easy way to do so. Proof is in the fact people fail to listen to multiple clear instructions on both the help- and reference desk which are explained and should make sense. Any idea on how to avoid such problems. Re-educating users would safe coders a lot of work, not to mention another scheduled downtime to upgrade databases like when the current id was being changed so diffs to the latest version could remain static. Mgfm On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Anthony DiPierro wrote: I put forward an idea a while ago which people weren't too keen on, but I think it's time for it to be presented again: when a new article is created, prefill it with text. e.g. A '''pagetitle''' is ... (say what the article is about, with a bit of introductory detail) ==More detail== (If there's more to say about it, put in sections with == == on the name of each section) ==See also== ==References== * (List the sources you used in writing this article) * * ==External links== * (List the few most relevant external web pages on the subject (home pages, etc) that you know of) While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be presented clearly with what we expect from a new article. With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me to type?" I'm not sure if Mediawiki has new article prefill as yet, but it can't be that hard. The prefill wikitext could even be a Mediawiki: space message. (Example of a new article I created today: [[XCB]]. I have something like the above template in my head when I write an article.) Sounds like much more work than the above. The above would set out that we do expect references and so on. Ultimately, I think guiding new editors in how to do the right thing would work better than trying to force a given article format in the database. - d. [cc: to wikitech-l]

I think educating editors should be tried before be try any sort of technical solution, so I'm all for a template. At least, that way people can't claim they didn't know how to include the references we require (which is now clearly said on edit pages by the way as well) Mgm On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

I don't see why we should limit that to anons there's enough newbies and regulars who fail to cite sources on a regular basis. Anyone should be encouraged (if not forced) to do so. I don't see the advantage of just doing that to anons. Obvious spelling errors shouldn't really need a source, so there's a few crinks to iron out. Mgm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Moin, On Friday 09 December 2005 20:05, David Gerard wrote: [snipa bit] - From my experience with people very new to wikis, I also set up a new link in the menu ala "Create new article". When clicked it asks about the title, and then bounces them back to the wiki, the edit box open and a text similar to yours already filled in. People view this as _much_ easier than mucking about with the URL, putting a link in somewhere else, and/or starting with an empty edit box. The most FAQ was "How do I start a new article?" followed by "And why is this so complicated?", closely followed by "How do I add a headline again?" Especially in-frequent contributors tend to forget these things very quick and since the computer should help the humans and not vice versa, I finally patched my local Mediawiki installation to fix this issue. Everyone's been happy since :) Best wishes, Tels - -- Signed on Fri Dec 9 21:09:24 2005 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email. This email violates U.S. patent #6,756,999 <http://tinyurl.com/2vuqm>: [ [ Konsoles* ] [ Mozilla ] [ KMail ]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Moin David, On Friday 09 December 2005 21:58, David Gerard wrote: [snipabit] I think anon users rights have nothing to do with this issue of whether the edit box should be pre-filled or not, and whether it should be easier to create new articles :) (IMHO anon edits should be disallowed entirely, but this is just my private opinion which doesn't carry much weight and/or might be wrong/impractical/impolite etc :) Actually, I just added one new link to the toolbox on the left, which goes to a HTML page with a form entry on a webserver, which bounces the user back to the wiki. I am sure it is possible to create a specialpage (Specialpages:NewArticle?) that does the same, but the external form was easier for me. The disadvantage of my solution is that you need to be already logged in for the form to work, otherwise you get the "please login first" message, and since clicking "log me in" on that page loses the "where you came from" (which is a bug), the user will then be on the main page. Best wishes, Tels - -- Signed on Fri Dec 9 23:46:06 2005 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email. 'Wie Ludger Lügenboldt, Sprecher der Interessengemeinschaft Förderer der Prostitution International (I.F.P.I.) jetzt bekannt gab, entstehen der Zuhälterbrache jährlich Milliardenverluste durch kostenfreien Sex. "Bestimmt hätten unsere Mädels im Jahr 2003 alleine in Deutschland 2000 Millionen Quickies mehr verkaufen können, wenn die Leute nicht immer mehr privat rumvögeln würden. Der uns entstandene Schaden beläuft sich auf mindestens 100000000000 Euro." Schuld sei nach Angaben Lügenboldts das Internet: "Flirtportale und Singlewebsites mit Kontaktbörsen machen unser Geschäft kaputt. Amateure rauben uns unserer Geschäftsgrundlagen." Zehntausende von Arbeitsplätzen in Deutschland seien gefährdet, die überdies gerade geringer qualifizieren jungen Frauen ein Einkommen sicherten. Die I.F.P.I. fordert den Gesetzgeber auf, diesem Treiben umgehend Schranken zu setzen.' MI-Boykotteur at 2004-05-07 at http://tinyurl.com/35qjo

Andrew Gray wrote: Brilliant! - d.

On 10/12/05, Brian Haws &lt;brian(a)bhaws.com&gt; wrote: (...) 1 - Find out if MediaWiki can handle automatically filling a new edit box with boilerplate text, preferably able to restrict the function to the main namespace. 2 - If it can't, find a developer and [whine/beg/give them beer] until MediaWiki can. 3 - Persuade someone it's a good idea to give it a shot. This person is, for the moment, likely to be called Jimbo. 4 - Give it a shot. 5 - Wait for screams of outrage. 6 - Profit! (Thinking about it, would it also be a good idea to add a {{stub}} tag as default? 95% of them will be, and the stub-sorting people are pretty good at routing those stubs to where they need to go... and at removing the ones that obviously aren't) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 12/10/05, Andrew Gray &lt;shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: It used to insert the contents of $newarticletext (which is now specified by [[mediawiki:newarticletext]]) into the edit box for the new article. This was changed so it inserts this text above the edit box. I assume it wouldn't be hard to add a new variable ($newarticleeditbox?) and put this in the edit box. Here's the relevant code from February 2005: if ( 'edit' == $action ) { wfProfileOut( $fname ); return ''; # was "newarticletext", now moved above the box) } I don't think this checks whether or not this is in the article namespace though, that'd have to be added. It'd likely be a really easy feature to add, and by default newarticleeditbox (or newarticleboilerplate, or whatever) would be blank, and it'd be up to the individual projects to decide whether or not to fill it. Anthony

I found out what preload is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noarticlehere&action=edit&… So, in pseudocode (I don't know mediawiki), all that'd need to be done is change: return $text; to: if ($text!='') { return $text; } else if (namespace is article namespace) { return $newarticleboilerplate; } else { return ''; } On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote:

David Gerard wrote: If the developers need time for this, we could hack up a [[MediaWiki:monobook.js]] patch in the meantime that checks if a <div> with the id "newarticletext" is present, and enters the article template into the editbox if so. Of course, that would only work for user with JavaScript-enabled browsers, but I guess the majority of regular internet users use one (Yes, I'm going to get a lot of "Hey, I'm using Lynx you insensitive clod!" replies to this). It would only be a stopgap solution until a server-sided patch is ready anyway. I'm going to give this a try in my user js now, just for kicks. grm_wnr

I suspect most Lynx users are sufficiently clued not to need this anyway - or sufficiently stubborn not to be helped ... -Matt

On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: I'm wondering how many US copyright lawyers are participating in this discussion. While we're all speaking out of our butts, let me add that simply explicating that by submitting to Wikipedia you're willing to accept authorship credit under the collective name of "Wikipedia contributors" would likely handle any legal considerations. But IANAL. And it's not like lawyers actually know anything. It's all whistling Dixie until a court rules.

It's less about authorship and more about accountablility. We need those names so we know who to hold responsible if the info is wrong.

David Gerard wrote: Absolutely, and yet so many people get themselves all in tangles over the legal aspects. Ec

On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Let me give an example of what I'm thinking: *'''Bill Gates''', copyright (c) 2005, written, and published by Wikipedia users Psy guy, JJman69, Adam Bishop, Sceptre, Bluemoose, Everyking, Anetode, FireFox, Idont havaname, GraemeL, Android79, Rebroad, Thatdog, Y0u, Fredrik, Bwithh, Esprit15d, JoanneB, Greenmind, Throup, [blah blah blah], and various anonymous contributors to Wikipedia *'''Bill Gates''', copyright (c) 2004, written, and published by PeregrineAY, SeventyThree, Henrygb, OoberMick, Wimt, Veemonkamiya, Phoenix2, Alex.tan, MrGALL, Merovingian, Chealer, Krystyn Dominik, WikiED, Jpers36, Adoniscik, Ric man, Sarg, R3m0t, [blah blah blah], and various anonymous contributors to Wikipedia *'''Bill_GateS''', copyright (c) 2004, written, and published by [blah blah blah, let's pretend this was an old title] *[[Melinda Gates]], copyright (c) 2005, written and published by [blah blah blah, let's pretend this was a merge and redirect] *[http://blah Taking Over the World], an article in the [[Free On-line Dictionary of Computing]], copyright (c) 2005, written by whoever, published by Denis Howe, used with permission under the GFDL. [pretending this was an article from an outside source used under the GFDL] *[http://blah Bill Gates], an article in the [http://blah German Wikipedia], written and published by [blah blah blah] and various anonymous contributors to the German Wikipedia, translated with permission under the GFDL. Anyway, there are a few questions as to exactly what format to use, etc., but that's my basic idea. I think it'd be a lot easier to read than http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Gates&limit=500&acti… , and I think it'd make it a lot easier for answers.com and other reusers to actually give credit to the people who have written the work that they're using. Being more GFDL compliant is a bonus - this should be done regardless of the GFDL. Anthony

On 12/7/05, Anthony DiPierro &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: I think, like a lot of people who grew up in an age when free speech was something only accredited journalists and their sources exercised, he preferred that system. Today's "everyone can be a journalist" Internet bothers a lot of people. -Matt

Anthony DiPierro wrote: We don't know what Seigenthaler would have done with the information if he had been able to track down the writer. His promary complaint was the incredibly high hurdles he would have had to jump in order to find out. We have no basis to speculate about what he would have done had he succeeded in identifying his "biographer." I'm not an expert in US constitutional law; it's not my country. Sometimes it does happen though that one right can interferes with others. Reconciling those rights may lead to limitations on one or the other. I don't think that it would be fair to conclude that free speech condones defamation. Whether actual defamation could be proven cannot be established unless the person has the right to face his accuser. Maybe he just wants more awareness around the problem, which certainly more complex than Wikipedia's involvement in the issue. Ec

Ray Saintonge wrote: My read is that his reaction was fundamentally "OMG, I had no idea all this was going on". The allegations would have been just as problematic had they appeared on a random blog - freepers and stormfronters would have been perfectly happy to have them posted on their sites - so his complaints apply to most of the net, have little to do with WP specifically (but of course we want to be a much better reference than the average website). People that are just now discovering the Internet are simply not going to have any idea how deep it goes. WP is simply one novel project among millions, even the experts have trouble keeping up with the weird stuff that's being tried out every day (the dot com bust has become a dot star boom...) Stan

On 12/6/05, Anthony DiPierro &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me to question his motives. In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which questioning authority is considered inappropriate.

On 12/7/05, The Cunctator &lt;cunctator(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Your comment at the end wasn't even just questioning, it was accusing. But anyway, I'm not sure I agree with you that a functional society must constantly question the motives of everyone voluntarily given any power. I'd even question just how much "authority" Jimmy does have. He has authority over how to spend the money donated to the foundation (so long as he does so for charitable purposes), and not a whole lot more. I don't think society can function without some basic level of trust. To question whether or not Jimmy Wales is "actually trying things to make Wikipedia better" seems to me to be way over the top. Anyway, since you're the one who suggested it, maybe you can tell us just what you think Jimmy *is* trying to do. Anthony

Anthony DiPierro wrote: I don't see Anthere's comments as being an accusation of any sort. I do see her comments as representing a significant philosophical and ethical perspective. If a functional society depends on questioning there can be no exclusions. When we exclude someone from questioning we begin a process of deification; we hand to that person the power to game our ethics. Cunc has a track record of questioning, and he's not afraid to ask the hard questions. Yes, some level of trust remains necessary. There is no usually need to question every little action, or to take on a confrontational stand to every possible issue. Sometimes one needs to consider the alternative to criticising; there is, after all, the risk that you you may have to face the consequences of being right. If, in my own mind, I question Jimbo's commitment to a fully democratic wiki then I need to be prepared for the possibility that he might say, "Yes, you're right, the lunatics should have more control over the asylum." Invariably, the lunatics put us in a position where we need to put strings on our democracy. Ec

The Cunctator wrote: Plesae share your ideas. And please Assume Good Faith in that essentially everyone here is interested in "actually trying things to make Wikipedia better". --Jimbo

Jimmy Wales wrote: I think, unless I read english improperly today, that here, tc only says he has ideas to make things better. And would share them with anyone interested. I do not read that he implies other ideas than his are bad. Nor does he imply that others are NOT trying to make things better themselves. But I suppose a linguistic misunderstanding between the two of you is the root of the mail exchange ? Ant

The Cunctator wrote: Then, I read English improperly today :-) (not that it is the first time...sigh) Yeah. Well, I guess we are learning that media can be a wonderful tool to get famous... as well as a great amplificator of problems. Any famous actor or politician face that one day or another. Yesterday, I answered a couple of journalists as well, after Jimbo's talk, who were wondering if the restriction over anonymous were valid in all languages. And the first generation articles published afterward contained several mistakes. The second generation articles contained even more mistakes. I fear now looking at the third generation :-) As our leader and public figure, Jimbo directly benefits of many approvals and cheers from our external supporters, but also has to directly face the criticisms and the pain of having to defend the whole community choices. This is also his job, right ? This is not easy for him. It is important that we help him the best we can, so that the project suffers the least from this public relations crisis. So, that he stays powerful and convincing and strong in front of journalists clearly here to make an audience :-) There are many ways we can help him. And these ones are not necessarily (or only) those which consist in approving after the crisis, all what he does so that he appears 100% supported. Journalists care little about that. We can receive councelling from professionals, such as PR agencies, who have a certain experience in handling PR crisis and could make good suggestions. We can set up strategic teams to discuss beforehand which answers we should give in such cases, who should give them, by which means... So that when we have a crisis to handle, we are all united and ready to speak with one voice. In the past few weeks, we have seen increasingly criticism in the english-speaking press (and recently, issues in the german-press as well). Having bad press is bad for Wikipedia. Since we have a fundraiser starting in a couple of days, I'll give only one example. Bad press --> less money --> less new servers --> site stuck --> bad press. Any attempt/experiment to decrease bad press (and Jimbo going to CNN definitly stands here) is meant to improve Wikipedia. Any attempt/experiment to increase quality is meant to improve Wikipedia as well. I think some of the answers we could have had in front of the journalist would have been to talk about the quality tool or citation rules. But.... the fact is... we have *already* annonced the quality tool... and it still does not exist live, so it is hard to use that argument over again. So, what it teaches us is really that we have three different areas to work on * improve the quality of the content * improve the perception of the quality of our content ---> make promotion of new independant studies or new quality tools or rules. * improve management of PR crisis Some of this having to be discussed and worked upon publicly, some privately. Some by the full community and some by a smaller team. Not *questionning* what is being done is no way for improvement. no chance :-) I also derailed from the issue experiment/QualityPlan versus experiment/PR :-) Sorry about that...

Kelly Martin wrote: Articles needing Verification? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/193 - Release Date: 06/12/05

On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 10:25 -0600, Kelly Martin wrote: Will you stop whingeing about this. Design a process that merges AfD with the other article improving tagging (maybe an unsalvageable tag or a nocontent tag on a scale that includes unverified and needs wikifying, and has the general improvement tags in) and a process that examines a queue of all these articles. Or shut up. Justinc