On 28/08/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> At 13:50 +0800 28/8/06, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >The journalist is typical of bad journalists. Running with only the
> >slimmest of understanding, he pukes out his biases about how the world
> >works with little concern for underlying facts.
> >Fortunately for us all, there are also good journalists.
> That is an "ad hominem" attack.
> Have you read the article? Which parts are you unhappy with?
I'd have called it an expression of long exasperation with Bill
Thompson, myself. The best thing you can say about Bill Thompson's
writing is that he isn't malicious.
- d.
On 8/28/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> I have another reason to speak against this. As an editor, I
> sometimes create an article that is very small, a few words. At the
> point, I discover a few pages that link to this article and so I know
> that article has some importance.
>
> Also, stubs are great for attracting attention(!). Sometimes, stubs
> attract a request for deletion, but in fact the article will grow a
> reasonable state (see reference below). If deleted, nobody will see
> it. If hidden from general view, then it will only be seen by the
> upper class of editors, who may not be aware of the (potential)
> significance of the article.
This seems to be entirely a question of implementation. Consider, for
example, this approach:
When a non-logged-in reader requests a page:
A. If a revision in the article's history has a "not-vandalism" flag
set, show that revision as the default (with an option to see the
current revision)
B. Otherwise, show the current revision.
In this variation, stubs/new articles/obscure articles that a few
people read each year all get shown at the latest version, because
nobody will have bothered to mark a particular revision with the flag;
it's only on higher-traffic pages -- which, for the most part, would
be the ones where vandalism is more prevalent -- that the use of the
flag would come into play.
(This quite aside from the fact that de: hasn't yet decided how the
ability to set this flag would be assigned; but one of the options
Kurt mentioned at Wikimania would be something like the current
semi-protection limit on the account's age. The vast majority of
active contributors would, in such a scenario, be able to simply set
the flag -- perhaps automatically -- on any article they work on.)
--
Kirill Lokshin
On 27/08/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> http://news.com.com/Can+German+engineering+fix+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-610849…
> A related source.... not the BBC.
> "We want to let anybody edit," Wales said, "but we don't want to show
> vandalized versions."
Yeah. When did Jimbo first ask for this, early 2005? People pretty
much concurred it was a fantastic idea (logged-in editors get the live
version, anon readers get the last-non-vandal-edit version), but it
was considered technically rather painful indeed in the then-current
structure of Mediawiki.
If it looks workable now, that's fantastic, and should help make it a
better no. 17 website in the world *and* a good perpetual working
draft.
- d.
At 10:01 +0930 28/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
> protocol="application/pgp-signature";
> boundary="------------enig9154D8908F4E4A5B0799924A"
>
>Gordon Joly wrote:
>> At 13:45 -0400 27/8/06, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> On 8/27/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Anonymous readers of an article will be displayed the most recent
>>>> revision of that article which has been marked by a trusted user as
>>> > being free of vandalism.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Of course, 'Trusted user' is a complicated issue in and of itself.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Web of trust is the basis of PGP, surely?
>>
>>
> > http://www.rubin.ch/pgp/weboftrust.en.html
>>
>> http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/F.AbdulRahman/docs/pgptrust.html
>>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
>>
>> Good enough then?
>>
>
>Someone will shoot me for suggesting it, but there's an
>"attack-resistant" trust metric available (primarily used by Advogato).
>We have an article at
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_resistant_trust_metric>.
>
>--
>Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
>Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
>"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
>Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
Had a look at the system, and found it was based on this observation:
<quot>
Levien observed that Google's PageRank algorithm can be understood to
be an attack resistant trust metric rather similar to that behind
Advogato.
</quot>
I then recalled Tim Ireland's work on Google Bombs.
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2005/03/googlebombs_and.asp
And then I wondered how resistant to attack Google PageRank really was.
Any ideas?
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///
At 01:42 -0400 28/8/06, Delirium wrote:
>[...]
>
>I have the same opinion. Most of the improvements to Wikipedia that
>have been ongoing, like requiring citations, improve the average quality
>of articles. At any given second, though, the quality can always be
>quite abysmal. A system like this one essentially smooths out the
>presented version, so the average reader sees something more like the
>average recent state of the article, rather than its instantaneous
>state. That doesn't magically make articles good, but it reduces the
>number of times people see really bad articles.
>
>-Mark
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Peter_Palumbo
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///
What would you do across a page that only said:
----------
Elizabeth Welch is an Australian-born resident of Rockwall County,
Texas. She attends school at Rockwall High School, where she is
involved in the American Sign Language Club and Academic Decathalon.
Elizabeth was raised in Alice Springs, Australia by her parents Sue
and Larry Welch. She has two older brothers, Danny and Robby Welch.
Eliabeth also has 3 dogs and 1 cat.
Elizabeth Welch has family scattered all around America. She has one
set of grandparents living in Benbrook, Texas, one in Dialville,
Texas, and one in Redlands, California. Elizabeth is directly related
to the famous American poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
--------
Would you think "this is nonsense"? Maybe "someone writing about their
best friend"? Time to speedy?
Or, you could stick all of the following tags on it:
{{userfy}} {{uncat}} {{unref}} {{linkless}} {{wikify-date|August 2006}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Welch
Steve
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:15:24 -0500
From: "Kelly Martin"
I, personally, see this as a great benefit to the vast bulk of our
customers: the chances that Joe Q. Public will go to an article he
found by a Google search and be confronted by unexpected penis go WAY
down with this approach.
Yes, but it would require a brain cell to know about and check the primary version, something many Internet users simply don't have...
I think we would end with situations where an article was marked by a trusted editor and then someone would forget to do so: this would lead to a sitiation where the average user could be looking at seriously out-date information, which is never good.
Dev920
---------------------------------
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.
On 25 Aug 2006 at 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT), stevertigo wrote:
> Slogan: "Wikipedia: Leave your baggage at home
> (or else be prepared to deal with it)"
Are carry-ons allowed?
> wasted energy. If Jimbo doesnt step up, Im going to have to appoint an
> editorial board. You should be on it of course, SlimV.
Are you leaving out apostrophes, or is software somewhere along the
line stripping them out (perhaps because you're using nonstandard
characters instead of standard ASCII)?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Greetings,
Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]] that involves
[[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] surrounding an image and neutral
point of view.
The article is prominently displaying an image with a caption that does not
establish the relevance of the image to the article.
I have tried to include in the caption that the image's source believes it
to be an example of Anti-Semitism but my edit have been reverted.
Due to text in the image being small and difficult to read, at first glance
the image does appear anti-Semitic but upon further analysis it is arguably
sooner an example of anti-Zionism. My edits to establish what the image's
source has said about the image (and thereby establish it's relevance to the
article) were removed with the reasoning that we should, "let the reader
decide".
I've explained that in accord with NPOV, text saying that "Source X says Y
about Z" needs to be added to the caption but Jayjg has Wikilawyerly asked
me to show specific NPOV text that applies to images. I pointed out that
WP:NOR states as much and yet I'm still rebuffed. Since, another editor has
joined the discussion and agreed that the image should have a caption
establishing it's relevance to the article but he too has been rebuffed.
Some additional eyes on this would be very helpful. See this talk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg and
this talk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Question_about_top_post…
Thanks,
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good
> > enough to be useful*."
> >
>
> That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"
"Wikipedia: Useful enough to be dangerous."
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
