>>I was thinking of another non-English semifork of Wikipedia which has
>>way more articles than the Wikipedia version, and whose owner is
>>deeply involved in Wikipedia but while bragging in private e-mails and
>>on-list about how much work he/she does compared to others to put more
>>free content online, does not consider allowing the corresponding
>>language version of Wikipedia to share content.
>
>If they are GFDL, they cannot disallow that. If they are not GFDL, they
>are using material originally from Wikipedia illegally.
The GFDL doesn't require that everything on the site must be released under
the GFDL, only derivative works. Even Wikipiedia itself uses non-GFDL
content in its site.
Besides, even if the content is GFDLed, Wikipedia would be required to start
following the GFDL in order to use that content. That can go from easy to
nearly impossible depending on whether or not there are invariant sections
in the text.
Anthony
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>Some can be tagged correctly without the original uploader:
>* fair use
>* where a suitable source is given
>* images that are obviously PD because of age
>and probably some other cases.
Well, the fair use tag can actually never be used correctly by anyone,
because fair use is a description of the use, not the image itself.
Anthony
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Mav wrote,
>Going into the realm of deciding content disputes is something that the
>community and Jimbo will need to sign off on. It is not just a matter of the
>ArbCom ruling it so to make it so. We don't have that authority.
>Nor is such a small body of people competent in the number of areas of
>knowledge needed to make this workable. I, for example, know very little
>about
>advanced mathematics so I would be unable to judge a content dispute in that
>area without spending a very, very long time on research.
I agree completely
> > And if ArbCom will not or cannot handle content-based disputes, we need to
> > develop another committee or mechanism.
>This is not an either/or situation. My plan is for the ArbCom to consult
>various content specialist subcommittees when content issues arise.
>See
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC#Alterna…
>
>Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree about babies and bathwater. I also like Mav's proposal. And I
like Jguks. I see them as complementary -- Jguk's focusing on enforcing
existing policies that are specifically content-related (NPOV, NOR, Cite
Sources, Verifiability) and Mav's focusing on ensuring the high quality of
our articles, in general. Right now it would probably be too unwieldy to
enact both proposals, but I bet that as this community grows larger (say,
in a year, possibly two) both proposals, with very clearly defined briefs,
would be useful and practical.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Mav wrote: "Going into the realm of deciding content disputes is something that the
community and Jimbo will need to sign off on. It is not just a matter of the
ArbCom ruling it so to make it so. We don't have that authority."
Actually, Snowspinner made a comment on the RFC saying (correctly, I believe) that we
are allowed to do that under the arbitration rules, as ratified by the community. On
the other hand, (as I described *in detail* in my problem description) we have avoided
doing that for fear of concentrating too much power in a single group of users. Also,
we're not comptent to do it, either (although, again as I said in my lengthy problem
description, in many of these cases it is obvious even to a lay man which side is
advocating crackpottery)
I agree with Mav's comment that this isn't a black or white thing, though, and I am
keeping an open mind as to possible solutions (although I remain unconvinced by
arguments put forth by Tony Sideaway-et-al in favor of more-of-the-same -- keeping the
status quo and/or reforming the mediation commitee). Tony's arguement is a sort of optomistic
eventualism (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism). In other words, ignore the problem,
let the users fight it out, come back in a year, and the article will have improved...
probably. I find this to be a trite and downright lazy response to a real problem. Yes, it is
true that in a year, the article will have probably improved. In the meantime, however, good
users become frustrated from tangling with POV pushers (Think of Adam Carr as the
canonical example, although lesser disputes like this arise on AIDS (with HIV deniars) and
Evolution (fucking creationists), and the people there too become burned out). What
do you tell someone who edits these articles when a new user comes along, and obviously starts
pushing an agenda? It's very easy to view Wikipedia from 2,000 miles high and say everything
is fine and getting better, but it's a bit less rosy when you actually come down to earth
and actually have to deal with someone like this. In such a case, I don't think Tony's plan
for strategic do-nothingness is the best solution -- I certainly think we can do better.
On the other hand, I think having the arbcom bring in content advisors is an idea with
potential. It's got all the makings of a workable solution -- it's simple, and it avoids
the problem we are most trying to avoid (the excess concentration of power I mentioned).
--Mark
The list mods' mailboxes will now be flooded with crap in the cause of
unsubscribed posters getting straight through to the list. Nazi spam or no
Nazi spam. w00t :-) List info also updated accordingly.
- d.
>I'd like to know what my options are after Ambi called
>me a jerk:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Everyk…
>
>Now, before I make a fool of myself making an
>inappropiate fuss on the wiki, maybe someone could
>tell me if there are any proper channels of redress
>for this kind of thing, whether or not Ambi is
>'untouchable' and therefore it's not worth me
>defending myself.
Here's the best option in such cases, in my opinion:
"Ambi, I am really very sorry about all this. I did not mean to be a
jerk. My comment about 'Perry Mason' was rude and uncalled for, and I
regret it. I also think that you should not have called me a jerk, but
since I hope you will forgive me for my behavior, I have already
forgiven you for calling me a jerk. Here's hoping we can be friends
soon, and again, I apologize for causing you any trouble."
Thinking about "defending" oneself is already going down a path to
further conflict.
WikiLove...
--Jimbo
MacGynerMagic wrote ...
>Don't judge the content, but the user conduct. If people keep editing
>without discussing it and trying to reach common ground, you can take
>the case because of conduct.
But there are indeed cases where people keep editing while discussing it ad
infinitum, and discussions may take up over 100 kbs, and still the dispute
is not resolved. These are disputes where it is simply not enough to judge
behavior; we need to judge the content.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and an on-line community
second. Personal behavior is very important and it is good that we have
mechanisms to deal with conflicts over user conduct. But content is more
important, and we need mechanisms to deal with conflicts over content.
sannse wrote...
>I have mixed feelings on all this - I see that there are problems, but
>am not fully convinced that the majority of them won't be fixed with a
>little time and a little faith in the good will of editors. I'm not
>saying we ignore things until they go away, just that a proactive
>solution may give disputes an emphasis that might be harmful - maybe
>without intervention the eventualist approach will work in a lot of cases.
>
>
>But that said, I realise we are in a whole new situation with the
>growing Wikipedia, and maybe what worked a year ago won't do so
>nowadays. And content does seem to be the key issue in many disputes
>that we have looked at recently.
I agree completely. I do think most disputes can be and are resolved
through time and good faith. But the fact remains that some disputes over
content do not get resolved. In my experience (biased, I acknowledge) this
is usually because the two people have different ideas about what
constitutes research or appropriate sources. NPOV and NOR may enter into
it, and in some cases these policies alone are sufficient to resolve the
case -- but in some cases, they are not. In such cases, someone needs to
determine what kind of research has been done, what kinds of sources are
being used, and decide on that basis. This is the kind of thing ArbCom has
traditionally stayed away from. At one point (around the time of my
conflict with RJII), some suggested that ArbCom can deal with content
disputes -- but,ultimately, they did not.
We need either a firm commitment that ArbCom will deal with content
disputes, pure and simple, or we need another mechanism.
Steve
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
"We have talk pages and email addresses. There is the RFC process. If
content disputes get out of hand it's because "good" people cannot bring themselves
to act like good people."
This is demonstrably not true. I can see you have never dealt with the
likes of Plautus before.
-Mark
>From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Name sounds familiar
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <fb7fdd9c05060313284a91202f(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>I don't care what he's a member of. If he can abide by Wikipedia
>policies and keep his edits NPOV, I welcome SPUI to continue editing.
>--Mgm
>On 6/3/05, David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> [[Gay Nigger Association of America]]. A trolling group.
>>
>> > SPUI's involved in this? and what's the GNAA?
Agreed.
Hi "Noitall",
I'm sorry that my response to you is delayed; I access Wikipedia from
a dial-up account, & I only read your email about half an hour ago.
From examining the history logs at [[Islamic Terrorism]], you violated the
[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]. In brief, when any contributor --
& that applies to me as much as to you to Mustafaa or Yuber -- to Wikipedia
makes more than three reversions to an article within 24 hours, that
contributor can be banned from editing Wikipedia for up to 24 hours.
The intent of this rule is to get people to talk & listen to each other
over contentious edits -- & to prevent articles from being locked from
anyone editing them.
I do think that Mustafaa should have asked another Administrator who
had not been involved in this article to have done the ban so in
tandem with this & the fact that it took so long for me to look into the
matter, I'm ending your ban. I hope you take the time to first look at
the article above about the 3-revert rule, & to talk to Mustafaa & Yuber
about this article on the Talk page before making further changes to
that article. I also suggest that you look at the articles listed at
[[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]], in the event you feel you are not getting
a fair hearing about your edits.
I am also forwarding your email to Wikipedia-EN, where you can ask for
help & receive it much quicker.
Geoff
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 02:48:11 GMT
From: Noitall <scottc0034(a)yahoo.com>
To: Llywrch <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
I am requesting both information and assistance.
I made an edit to [[Islamic Terrorism]] on Wiki. I believe my edit was a balanced description of the term and significantly improved it. I did not insert any POV.
However, this is apparently a highly monitored page with two Muslim editors (or more). They teamed up to do a reactionary vandalism, reverting the page. I believe they broke several of Wiki policies:
1. Most important is that they have an obvious POV.
2. Second, they rv instead of simply making one simple correction, the only correction that they disagreed with.
3. Unlike what they stated, there has been no previous discussion of this issue. The only previous discussion concerned their own sensitivity to the term. The term �Islamic Terrorism� is the term used by the West and it is the term being described. I provided a source (and there would be tens of thousands of sources, because this is the proper term in the West. I accurately described the dispute that some Muslims have over a term used in the West.
But the biggest problem is they somehow shut me out of the system. I believe that I have made significant contributions to Wiki and I very greatly object to 2 people teaming up to shut me out of the system so that they can insert their POV.
These people are doing a real disservice to Wiki, and I can think of no worse vandalism than they have done:
Mustafaa and Yuber
So, I would appreciate any information and assistance you can provide to Noitall. Thank you.
Noitall