Nabble - English Wikipedia

Re: Wikipedia fundraising slogans from identi.ca and Twitter

2009-11-09T02:02:54Z

>
>"Wikipedia fundraiser: time to put coins in >your factual jukebox."

{{cn}}

LOL!

On 11/9/09, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
>> http://identi.ca/tag/wikipediafundraisingslogans
>> http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23wikipediafundraisingslogans
>>
>> Mine: "Give us the money or your homework gets it"
>>
>>
> "Wikipedia fundraiser: time to put coins in your factual jukebox."
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P ⚕
אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
elipongo@...
http://elipongo.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Wikipedia fundraising slogans from identi.ca and Twitter

2009-11-09T00:49:44Z

David Gerard wrote:
> http://identi.ca/tag/wikipediafundraisingslogans
> http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23wikipediafundraisingslogans
>
> Mine: "Give us the money or your homework gets it"
>
>
"Wikipedia fundraiser: time to put coins in your factual jukebox."

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Wikipedia fundraising slogans from identi.ca and Twitter

2009-11-08T11:26:25Z

Isabell Long wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 06:13:14PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> http://identi.ca/tag/wikipediafundraisingslogans
>> http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23wikipediafundraisingslogans
>>
>
> Some of those are very funny and inventive, though I don't think the majority of them would really work to be honest, especially not yours David, I'm sorry to say. :P
>

You never know. If some of the slogans are cheekily engaging, some would
like that. And even if they don't drive donations on their own, they may
reduce ad blindness and so raise the effectiveness of the campaign.

People are doing some interesting work with auto-optimized ad runs that
we could look at adapting for next year. Given our massive amounts of
traffic, we could accept a pretty broad range of slogans, and let the
system sort out which are the most effective combinations. Money aside,
there's something appealing about maximizing community involvement
everywhere we can.

William

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Wikipedia fundraising slogans from identi.ca and Twitter

2009-11-08T10:48:28Z

On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 06:13:14PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> http://identi.ca/tag/wikipediafundraisingslogans
> http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23wikipediafundraisingslogans

Some of those are very funny and inventive, though I don't think the majority of them would really work to be honest, especially not yours David, I'm sorry to say. :P

Isabell

--
Regards,
Isabell Long <isabell121@...>
[[User:Isabell121]] on all public Wikimedia projects
Freenode Community Co-Ordinator - issyl0 on irc.freenode.net
PGP Key ID: 0xEB83C2BD

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment

Wikipedia fundraising slogans from identi.ca and Twitter

2009-11-08T10:13:14Z

http://identi.ca/tag/wikipediafundraisingslogans
http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23wikipediafundraisingslogans

Mine: "Give us the money or your homework gets it"

- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-08T01:22:41Z

Bod Notbod wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>
>
>> patching up a given Wikipedia article is
>> just a form of do-gooding,
>>
>
> Oh, sorry. Perhaps we should all go back to punching kittens in the face.
>
>

Or quoting completely out of context - same thing really.

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-07T15:24:39Z

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> patching up a given Wikipedia article is
> just a form of do-gooding,

Oh, sorry. Perhaps we should all go back to punching kittens in the face.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-07T11:30:07Z

Ken Arromdee wrote:

> Telling someone to just fix it tells them to fix the symptoms of a problem.
> It rarely fixes the actual problem. And hoping that many people, all fixing
> one mistake each, will fix the problem together isn't going to work; the
> problem is not just that we have a lot of mistakes, it's that the mistakes
> have an underlying cause. Fixing the mistakes doesn't fix the underlying
> cause.
>
> And the complainer can't fix the underlying cause. That's for us to do, and
> we need to listen when someone complains, not tell him to just fix it.
>
>

Interesting to compare this with something else Morozov has apparently
argued (http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/tag/evgeny-morozov/)
"The Internet can actually inhibit rather than empower civil society".
Those unreliable folk on Wikipedia define civil society as follows:
"Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social
organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning
society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless
of that state's political system) and commercial institutions of the
market." Sounds a bit to me as if "sofixit" is a snappy way of defining
participation from the side of civil society, without the guns or cash
to fix underlying causes. Sure, patching up a given Wikipedia article is
just a form of do-gooding, not changing the reasons it was flawed
(ignorance or bias being a couple that might be involved).

Since Wikipedia in fact contradicts Morozov's thesis, perhaps it is not
so surprising he advances the criticisms he does.

Charkes

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-07T10:46:06Z

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:

>> But since the complaint isn't just "Wikipedia has one error", fixing the error
>> doesn't actually resolve the complaint. it only resolves the most visible
>> sign of the complaint, without resolving the underlying problem that's
>> really what's being complained about.
> I had thought the argument had moved on and I was responding to a point
> you had made, but if you want to drag it back to the initial subject,
> I'll just trot out the old maxim about how Rome wasn't built in a day.
> You can't build a brick wall in one go, you start with one brick and a
> bit of muck. Unless you're worried about footings, of course... So, how
> do you fix the underlying problems? You roll your sleeves up and fix
> them. Sofixit.

If the problem is that you have a leak which is causing the floorboards to rot,
you cannot solve the problem just by replacing a floorboard. In fact, you
can't solve the problem by getting a lot of people together and replacing a
lot of flooorboards.

Telling someone to just fix it tells them to fix the symptoms of a problem.
It rarely fixes the actual problem. And hoping that many people, all fixing
one mistake each, will fix the problem together isn't going to work; the
problem is not just that we have a lot of mistakes, it's that the mistakes
have an underlying cause. Fixing the mistakes doesn't fix the underlying
cause.

And the complainer can't fix the underlying cause. That's for us to do, and
we need to listen when someone complains, not tell him to just fix it.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-07T10:06:09Z

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Ryan Delaney wrote:
> > The main changes, as explained on [[WP:PWD]] are: blank pages should show
> up
> > as redlinks, blanked pages should not show up in search results, blanked
> > pages must have noindex so they aren't caught by search engines. PWD
> doesn't
> > function otherwise: without these changes, it would be more confusing
> than
> > beneficial.
> >
> Can you point to any wikipedia, or even any wiki, where this system is
> implemented?
>
> Charles
>

There are none of which I'm aware, though I only edit on en.wikipedia so I
might not be the best person to ask.

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...> wrote:

> On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:
> >> > That's usually a worthwhile suggestion. The reason that won't work
> here,
> >> > though, is that PWD requires edits to the software to work. In other
> >> words,
> >> > this is an all-or-nothing enterprise-- we'd probably have to get the
> >> whole
> >> > project behind the complete overhaul before anything could be done.
> >> > Obviously, this is a major barrier to implementation.
> >>
> >> I don't see any changes to the software are necessary, just the
> >> creation of some templates and some policy. What change is supposed to
> >> be needed?
> >>
> >>
> > The main changes, as explained on [[WP:PWD]] are: blank pages should show
> up
> > as redlinks, blanked pages should not show up in search results, blanked
> > pages must have noindex so they aren't caught by search engines. PWD
> doesn't
> > function otherwise: without these changes, it would be more confusing
> than
> > beneficial.
>
> 'Blank pages' can be noindexed by using a blank page template, and
> will not show up in search results in most cases because they are
> blank. Redlinks you could deal with by having a bot fiddle with the
> links:
>
> blzh blah [[deletedArticle (deleted)|deletedArticle]] blah blah
>
> This has the unfortunate side-effect that clicking on the redlink to
> create the article will tend to create [[deletedArticle (delete)]] but
> you could always bot-move it back if that got created and deal with
> the links at the same time.
>
> Or you could just ignore red links for the time being since other
> processes also fill them in, like wiktionary softlinks.
>

Hmm, this is interesting. I like the idea of using a noindex template. The
idea with the bot altering the page names could be problematic in the event
of edit wars over deletion though. The idea of the original PWD proposal, as
I understand it, was that PWD would function for most deletions and AFD
would be the a kind of new RFC category where people comment on contested
deletions. That makes sense to me, since we will inevitably have contested
deletions where the parties aren't mature enough to talk it out. If you are
constantly changing the names of the pages, you will have to move them back
and forth, and I don't know if that's going to be feasible.

Still, these are interesting ideas... keep them coming.

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-07T06:12:37Z

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>> So, how
>> do you fix the underlying problems? You roll your sleeves up and fix
>> them. Sofixit. The underlying problem is actually that Wikipedia
>> suffers from some sort of bias towards pop culture. Now where I sit, the
>> people who make this complaint are the sort of people who could actually
>> correct that bias, so I'm always thinking to myself, "sofixit". But
>> that's me.
>>
>>
> "Sofixit" is a good enough baseline for encouraging participation. It
> happens that when COI is involved it may not be the best advice (you are
> advised, I suppose, to remove only defamatory statements about your own
> biography, and leave things that you'd prefer not to be there or are
> somewhat inaccurate, participating on the talk page and/or using an OTRS
> complaint to draw attention). I think it is worthy saying this: people
> who object only to weaknesses in WP that have a direct personal impact
> on themselves are not really the ideal recruits: they are natural users
> of OTRS, not natural encyclopedists. Since many readers of WP fall
> somewhere between classic Wikipedians, and people having a particular
> beef where they are in some way vested, "sofixit" still has a definite
> role to play. I wonder how best to put "sofixit thoughtfully" which is
> what we really require.

It's a good suggestion, and the point about those making complaints
not being ideal recruits is a good one, as is the frequent element of
a vested interest in the article. What makes *me* queasy is the
feeling that sometimes those pseudonymous Wikipedia editors who are
otherwise standard Wikipedians, edit heavily in one area without
disclosing their real-world involvement. The only way to discern that
is to assess the sources someone is using. If they are using sources
from one side of a debate only, they either hold strong views on the
subject, or are promoting one side of the argument. You absolutely
have to engage with all views to have any hope of writing anything
approaching a good article.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-07T05:20:07Z

On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...> wrote:
>
>> On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:
>> > That's usually a worthwhile suggestion. The reason that won't work here,
>> > though, is that PWD requires edits to the software to work. In other
>> words,
>> > this is an all-or-nothing enterprise-- we'd probably have to get the
>> whole
>> > project behind the complete overhaul before anything could be done.
>> > Obviously, this is a major barrier to implementation.
>>
>> I don't see any changes to the software are necessary, just the
>> creation of some templates and some policy. What change is supposed to
>> be needed?
>>
>>
> The main changes, as explained on [[WP:PWD]] are: blank pages should show up
> as redlinks, blanked pages should not show up in search results, blanked
> pages must have noindex so they aren't caught by search engines. PWD doesn't
> function otherwise: without these changes, it would be more confusing than
> beneficial.

'Blank pages' can be noindexed by using a blank page template, and
will not show up in search results in most cases because they are
blank. Redlinks you could deal with by having a bot fiddle with the
links:

blzh blah [[deletedArticle (deleted)|deletedArticle]] blah blah

This has the unfortunate side-effect that clicking on the redlink to
create the article will tend to create [[deletedArticle (delete)]] but
you could always bot-move it back if that got created and deal with
the links at the same time.

Or you could just ignore red links for the time being since other
processes also fill them in, like wiktionary softlinks.

> - causa sui

--
-Ian Woollard

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-07T02:57:59Z

Ryan Delaney wrote:
> The main changes, as explained on [[WP:PWD]] are: blank pages should show up
> as redlinks, blanked pages should not show up in search results, blanked
> pages must have noindex so they aren't caught by search engines. PWD doesn't
> function otherwise: without these changes, it would be more confusing than
> beneficial.
>
Can you point to any wikipedia, or even any wiki, where this system is
implemented?

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-07T02:56:38Z

Surreptitiousness wrote:
> So, how
> do you fix the underlying problems? You roll your sleeves up and fix
> them. Sofixit. The underlying problem is actually that Wikipedia
> suffers from some sort of bias towards pop culture. Now where I sit, the
> people who make this complaint are the sort of people who could actually
> correct that bias, so I'm always thinking to myself, "sofixit". But
> that's me.
>
>
"Sofixit" is a good enough baseline for encouraging participation. It
happens that when COI is involved it may not be the best advice (you are
advised, I suppose, to remove only defamatory statements about your own
biography, and leave things that you'd prefer not to be there or are
somewhat inaccurate, participating on the talk page and/or using an OTRS
complaint to draw attention). I think it is worthy saying this: people
who object only to weaknesses in WP that have a direct personal impact
on themselves are not really the ideal recruits: they are natural users
of OTRS, not natural encyclopedists. Since many readers of WP fall
somewhere between classic Wikipedians, and people having a particular
beef where they are in some way vested, "sofixit" still has a definite
role to play. I wonder how best to put "sofixit thoughtfully" which is
what we really require.

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-06T19:08:36Z

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...> wrote:

> On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:
> > That's usually a worthwhile suggestion. The reason that won't work here,
> > though, is that PWD requires edits to the software to work. In other
> words,
> > this is an all-or-nothing enterprise-- we'd probably have to get the
> whole
> > project behind the complete overhaul before anything could be done.
> > Obviously, this is a major barrier to implementation.
>
> I don't see any changes to the software are necessary, just the
> creation of some templates and some policy. What change is supposed to
> be needed?
>
>

The main changes, as explained on [[WP:PWD]] are: blank pages should show up
as redlinks, blanked pages should not show up in search results, blanked
pages must have noindex so they aren't caught by search engines. PWD doesn't
function otherwise: without these changes, it would be more confusing than
beneficial.

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-06T18:28:50Z

On 07/11/2009, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:
> That's usually a worthwhile suggestion. The reason that won't work here,
> though, is that PWD requires edits to the software to work. In other words,
> this is an all-or-nothing enterprise-- we'd probably have to get the whole
> project behind the complete overhaul before anything could be done.
> Obviously, this is a major barrier to implementation.

I don't see any changes to the software are necessary, just the
creation of some templates and some policy. What change is supposed to
be needed?

> - causa sui
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...> wrote:
>
>> The best thing to do with this kind of thing is just to try it on a
>> random subset of AFDs. If it works, scale it up, if it doesn't, kill
>> it.
>>
>> On 06/11/2009, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Surreptitiousness <
>> > surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ryan Delaney wrote:
>> >> > imes, as with fast-developing current events, there are eyewitness
>> >> > accounts that get added to the article before they appear in printed
>> >> > news
>> >> > sources. In these cases, it's better to remove the content and wait
>> for
>> >> the
>> >> > verifiable source. Pure Wiki Deletion allows us to do that easily --
>> we
>> >> can
>> >> > blank the page, and then restore it when citations become available.
>> >> >
>> >> Pure wiki deletion would need a culture shift though, wouldn't it? I
>> >> mean, you'd have to get that bot turned off which reverts page
>> >> blanking,
>> >> for starters. But I'd definitely be willing to give it a go.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I think it definitely would require a massive cultural shift, and it
>> would
>> > be best to "feel out" the climate before diving headfirst into making
>> > proposals. Frankly, deletion process is so entrenched at this point
>> > that
>> > serious reform will always be a long shot, and that's why my intuition
>> > is
>> > that we should be prepared for this to take months- or years. There are
>> > a
>> > lot of people who don't read this mailing list who will get hives when
>> they
>> > find out that someone wants to take away their precious rules. If and
>> when
>> > we do move forward with this, we should prepare the ground for these
>> folks
>> > before we go live with proposals and RFCs. I'm all ears if there are any
>> > suggestions for a gameplan of getting this done.
>> >
>> > - causa sui
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > WikiEN-l@...
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Ian Woollard
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
-Ian Woollard

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-06T16:23:52Z

That's usually a worthwhile suggestion. The reason that won't work here,
though, is that PWD requires edits to the software to work. In other words,
this is an all-or-nothing enterprise-- we'd probably have to get the whole
project behind the complete overhaul before anything could be done.
Obviously, this is a major barrier to implementation.

- causa sui

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...> wrote:

> The best thing to do with this kind of thing is just to try it on a
> random subset of AFDs. If it works, scale it up, if it doesn't, kill
> it.
>
> On 06/11/2009, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Surreptitiousness <
> > surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Ryan Delaney wrote:
> >> > imes, as with fast-developing current events, there are eyewitness
> >> > accounts that get added to the article before they appear in printed
> >> > news
> >> > sources. In these cases, it's better to remove the content and wait
> for
> >> the
> >> > verifiable source. Pure Wiki Deletion allows us to do that easily --
> we
> >> can
> >> > blank the page, and then restore it when citations become available.
> >> >
> >> Pure wiki deletion would need a culture shift though, wouldn't it? I
> >> mean, you'd have to get that bot turned off which reverts page blanking,
> >> for starters. But I'd definitely be willing to give it a go.
> >>
> >>
> > I think it definitely would require a massive cultural shift, and it
> would
> > be best to "feel out" the climate before diving headfirst into making
> > proposals. Frankly, deletion process is so entrenched at this point that
> > serious reform will always be a long shot, and that's why my intuition is
> > that we should be prepared for this to take months- or years. There are a
> > lot of people who don't read this mailing list who will get hives when
> they
> > find out that someone wants to take away their precious rules. If and
> when
> > we do move forward with this, we should prepare the ground for these
> folks
> > before we go live with proposals and RFCs. I'm all ears if there are any
> > suggestions for a gameplan of getting this done.
> >
> > - causa sui
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@...
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-06T16:19:17Z

The best thing to do with this kind of thing is just to try it on a
random subset of AFDs. If it works, scale it up, if it doesn't, kill
it.

On 06/11/2009, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Surreptitiousness <
> surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Delaney wrote:
>> > imes, as with fast-developing current events, there are eyewitness
>> > accounts that get added to the article before they appear in printed
>> > news
>> > sources. In these cases, it's better to remove the content and wait for
>> the
>> > verifiable source. Pure Wiki Deletion allows us to do that easily -- we
>> can
>> > blank the page, and then restore it when citations become available.
>> >
>> Pure wiki deletion would need a culture shift though, wouldn't it? I
>> mean, you'd have to get that bot turned off which reverts page blanking,
>> for starters. But I'd definitely be willing to give it a go.
>>
>>
> I think it definitely would require a massive cultural shift, and it would
> be best to "feel out" the climate before diving headfirst into making
> proposals. Frankly, deletion process is so entrenched at this point that
> serious reform will always be a long shot, and that's why my intuition is
> that we should be prepared for this to take months- or years. There are a
> lot of people who don't read this mailing list who will get hives when they
> find out that someone wants to take away their precious rules. If and when
> we do move forward with this, we should prepare the ground for these folks
> before we go live with proposals and RFCs. I'm all ears if there are any
> suggestions for a gameplan of getting this done.
>
> - causa sui
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-06T13:57:15Z

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:

> Ryan Delaney wrote:
> > imes, as with fast-developing current events, there are eyewitness
> > accounts that get added to the article before they appear in printed news
> > sources. In these cases, it's better to remove the content and wait for
> the
> > verifiable source. Pure Wiki Deletion allows us to do that easily -- we
> can
> > blank the page, and then restore it when citations become available.
> >
> Pure wiki deletion would need a culture shift though, wouldn't it? I
> mean, you'd have to get that bot turned off which reverts page blanking,
> for starters. But I'd definitely be willing to give it a go.
>
>

I think it definitely would require a massive cultural shift, and it would
be best to "feel out" the climate before diving headfirst into making
proposals. Frankly, deletion process is so entrenched at this point that
serious reform will always be a long shot, and that's why my intuition is
that we should be prepared for this to take months- or years. There are a
lot of people who don't read this mailing list who will get hives when they
find out that someone wants to take away their precious rules. If and when
we do move forward with this, we should prepare the ground for these folks
before we go live with proposals and RFCs. I'm all ears if there are any
suggestions for a gameplan of getting this done.

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-06T09:38:25Z

Ken Arromdee wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
>
>> Regardless of whether
>> an error is just an error or also a representation of something, it
>> still needs fixing. So fix it.
>>
>
> But since the complaint isn't just "Wikipedia has one error", fixing the error
> doesn't actually resolve the complaint. it only resolves the most visible
> sign of the complaint, without resolving the underlying problem that's
> really what's being complained about.
>

I had thought the argument had moved on and I was responding to a point
you had made, but if you want to drag it back to the initial subject,
I'll just trot out the old maxim about how Rome wasn't built in a day.
You can't build a brick wall in one go, you start with one brick and a
bit of muck. Unless you're worried about footings, of course... So, how
do you fix the underlying problems? You roll your sleeves up and fix
them. Sofixit. The underlying problem is actually that Wikipedia
suffers from some sort of bias towards pop culture. Now where I sit, the
people who make this complaint are the sort of people who could actually
correct that bias, so I'm always thinking to myself, "sofixit". But
that's me.

>> I also hadn't realised
>> the idea of BLP was to constantly watch the article to make sure the
>> "fix" stays.
>>
>
> It's not the idea of BLP, it's a problem related to BLP. If you tell someone
> with a bad BLP to fix the article themselves, they have to watch it for the
> rest of their life to make sure it stays fixed. That's one reason why the
> answer to a BLP problem is *not* "fix it yourself".
>

Bloody hell. I'll have to re-read BLP, I hadn't realised we had editors
glued to the screen being drip-fed so they could constantly refresh
their watchlist. I seriously doubt that the point or even a symptom of
BLP is that someone has to watch a page until they die. I think there's
a problem here though, since I've already stated I don't believe
articles are ever fixed, and you do.

>
>> The fastest way to beat a rules lawyer
>> is to point out their mistake, check with a couple of other people and
>> carry on as normal.
>>
>
> An outside who just tries to correct an error in a Wikipedia article and
> runs into a rules lawyer is not going to know enough to be able to point out
> their mistake. Despite claims otherwise, Wikipedia is a bureaucracy.
> Beating the rules lawyer is *hard*. It takes *experience*. You can't just
> casually do it.
>

That's why you should always help out where you can by pointing out to
people they shouldn't bite newcomers. But heck, I managed to outwit
rules lawyers in my first week. It can be done. I used to create stubs
without permission! Imagine that! Mind, it might not be a bad idea to
hardcode IAR onto every page, to undercut the idea that rules lawyers
actually have a point.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-06T08:05:25Z

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
> Regardless of whether
> an error is just an error or also a representation of something, it
> still needs fixing. So fix it.

But since the complaint isn't just "Wikipedia has one error", fixing the error
doesn't actually resolve the complaint. it only resolves the most visible
sign of the complaint, without resolving the underlying problem that's
really what's being complained about.

> I also hadn't realised
> the idea of BLP was to constantly watch the article to make sure the
> "fix" stays.

It's not the idea of BLP, it's a problem related to BLP. If you tell someone
with a bad BLP to fix the article themselves, they have to watch it for the
rest of their life to make sure it stays fixed. That's one reason why the
answer to a BLP problem is *not* "fix it yourself".

> The fastest way to beat a rules lawyer
> is to point out their mistake, check with a couple of other people and
> carry on as normal.

An outside who just tries to correct an error in a Wikipedia article and
runs into a rules lawyer is not going to know enough to be able to point out
their mistake. Despite claims otherwise, Wikipedia is a bureaucracy.
Beating the rules lawyer is *hard*. It takes *experience*. You can't just
casually do it.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-06T06:50:47Z

Steve Bennett wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Surreptitiousness
> <surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:
>
>> I really don't get this at all. If everyone took that approach, there
>> would be no Wikipedia.
>>
>
> Almost everyone *does* take this approach. Do you have any idea what
> fraction of the world's population contributes to Wikipedia? It's
> negligeable. Don't be offended that some internet blowhard is not
> helping our mission. Neither is your mother.
>

You have my mother mistaken for someone else's then. I'm not offended in
any way that someone has chosen to criticise. What I am astounded at is
the abject negativity which greets the idea that people should have a go
at fixing problems. We're supposed to be the people trying to get
others to engage with the project. If even we, when discussing the
idea, are abjectly negative, don't you think that's discouraging rather
than encouraging? Don't you think that's going to convey entirely the
wrong idea? Are you challenging the meme or reinforcing it? Are you
part of the problem or part of the solution? As to the idea that I have
no idea what fraction of the world's population contributes to
Wikipedia, can I point you to the portions of my message you snipped,
since given that statement it is entirely possible you may not have read
them. As I said, most of the people I know can't get their head around
editing Wikipedia. My response is gentle encouragement or comedic
rebuttal. "Ah, go on, you know you want to" or "I bet you do edit it
really though". Some you win, some you lose. Some people eventually
come back to you with some story or another, but you can show them where
they go wong, and what matters and what doesn't. The idea from where I
sit is empowerment.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-06T06:39:10Z

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Surreptitiousness
<surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:
> I really don't get this at all. If everyone took that approach, there
> would be no Wikipedia.

Almost everyone *does* take this approach. Do you have any idea what
fraction of the world's population contributes to Wikipedia? It's
negligeable. Don't be offended that some internet blowhard is not
helping our mission. Neither is your mother.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-06T06:22:30Z

Steve Bennett wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Surreptitiousness
>
>> Okay. I'm unsure why the sofixit couldn't have applied to the
>> complainant fleshing out the Claude Chabrol entry in the first place.
>>
>
> Because he's not a complainant. Because he's a commentator. Because
> it's just one example amongst millions. Because it's an example of a
> bigger problem, it's not the problem itself. Because fixing it doesn't
> really fix anything.
>

I really don't get this at all. If everyone took that approach, there
would be no Wikipedia. This isn't about fixing everything, since you
can't actually fix everything. See the laws of physics. This is about
fixing something, and you can't fix something without actually fixing
it. Hence, sofixit. Great, it's one problem amongst millions. But
given there are millions of people, these problems are not
insurmountable. Describing the problems as insurmountable is actually
another problem, and one that needs to be challenged. Sure, there are
huge arguments against fixing it, but they are just arguments. There's
no real reason not to actually fix it rather than comment on it or
complain about it, depending upon your point of view. Sorry, but maybe
I'm too much of a doer today, but I really don't see why this is hard.
Unless people are starting to believe the hype? Come on people, don't
believe the hype. We're an encyclopedia project written by encyclopedia
nerds that has huge flaws yet works regardless and that has become
rather popular in spite of it all. If we start taking it all too
seriously... delusions of grandeur? I'm still amazed at the responses I
get from people when they moan about Wikipedia and I tell them to just
edit it. Because, obviously, as this thread is demonstrating, much to
my dismay and lack of comprehension, apparently it isn't really that
simple. Except, whisper it, it is.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-06T06:05:27Z

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Surreptitiousness
> Okay. I'm unsure why the sofixit couldn't have applied to the
> complainant fleshing out the Claude Chabrol entry in the first place.

Because he's not a complainant. Because he's a commentator. Because
it's just one example amongst millions. Because it's an example of a
bigger problem, it's not the problem itself. Because fixing it doesn't
really fix anything.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: The Cat Cat, was Re: fictional categories

2009-11-06T05:17:06Z

Heh, this just turned up on reddit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cats_with_fraudulent_diplomas

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-06T05:02:49Z

Ryan Delaney wrote:
> imes, as with fast-developing current events, there are eyewitness
> accounts that get added to the article before they appear in printed news
> sources. In these cases, it's better to remove the content and wait for the
> verifiable source. Pure Wiki Deletion allows us to do that easily -- we can
> blank the page, and then restore it when citations become available.
>
Pure wiki deletion would need a culture shift though, wouldn't it? I
mean, you'd have to get that bot turned off which reverts page blanking,
for starters. But I'd definitely be willing to give it a go.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-06T05:01:22Z

Ken Arromdee wrote:

> Perhaps I should write an essay SODONTFIXIT about why "so fix it" is a bad
> idea. For one thing, most people pointing to errors don't claim that
> Wikipedia is bad because it contains one particular error. Rather, they
> claim that that error is representative of other errors (which they may
> not even be able to find, let alone fix). Sometimes, they may even be using
> the error to point to a systematic problem; obviously fixing the single error
> won't fix the systematic problem.
>
> It also leads to some problems we're already familiar with with BLPs, such as
> having to constantly watch the article for the rest of your life to make sure
> the fix stays.
>
> Also, learning how to edit articles without being reverted can take an
> incredible amount of time and bureaucracy-navigating if the user is unlucky
> enough to have picked articles that people are watching. (Can you describe
> the conflict of interest rules without looking them up? What about
> notability? And how can a new person defend against rules lawyers anyway?)
>

Looks to me like you might have the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
Although I'm baffled as to how you fix a systemic problem without
tackling it head on. But then perhaps I see the value in a "lead by
example and encouragement" approach and you don't. Regardless of whether
an error is just an error or also a representation of something, it
still needs fixing. So fix it. There's an argument that deliberately
leaving an error so that you can make waves about it is disruptive to
the encyclopedia. Sometimes I think it has legs. I also hadn't realised
the idea of BLP was to constantly watch the article to make sure the
"fix" stays. I always thought that a fix was more like a hack, and
eventually someone would come up with a better hack. So I don't watch
BLP's like a hawk. I instead do the best I can, relying on the fact
that if everyone does the best they can, it will all work out. I kind
of think of Wikipedia as like an internal combustion engine. When it
starts over-heating we try air-cooling, until we work out water-cooling
works better, and so on and so forth. And I hadn't realised Wikipedia
was a game where we need to work out how to avoid being reverted. Being
reverted is an important pasrt of teh system. It makes it clear that
you haven't got consensus, so you'd better work to get a consensus. As
to reading the rules, don't worry, you don't have to. Even when
confronted with a rules lawyer. The fastest way to beat a rules lawyer
is to point out their mistake, check with a couple of other people and
carry on as normal. When you argue with a rules lawyer, you legitimise
their behaviour. That's why we get so many kicking about, because they
are encouraged by the response they get. Or I may be wrong. Who knows.
Time will tell.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-06T04:48:20Z

The Cunctator wrote:
> but that kind of change requires long, tedious engagement with the lessons
> of history pointing toward failure. A little different from fleshing out the
> Claude Chabrol entry.
>
Okay. I'm unsure why the sofixit couldn't have applied to the
complainant fleshing out the Claude Chabrol entry in the first place. I
still can't quite understand how difficult it is to understand that if
there is a problem on Wikipedia, it can be fixed by the person who spots
it, but perhaps on that we differ.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-05T15:07:52Z

Yep, pretty soon the only free repository of facts from care bears to
benzene will probably become obsolete. In the future people just won't
need information as much as now. This decline will happen because, of
course, people aren't paying attention to the sort of topics they
*ought* to be paying attention to... If only someone was in charge...

I don't even think the bureaucracy is that bad honestly, but it's
encouraging that people do.

Wikipedia will surely change, as all things do, but the repository
will remain in some form, probably for a *very* long time.

Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-05T11:24:47Z

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:

>> This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
>> book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:
>>
>> http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php
>>
>> -Sage
>>
>>
> I've long puzzled over why journalists constantly post editorials
> criticizing Wikipedia and proclaiming that it will never take off. I thought
> that eventually we'd win them over.
>
> Then I realized why this will never happen.
>
> News media is a business. We are a threat to their model. Therefore, it's
> important to them to convince their readers that Wikipedia is unreliable,
> whether it is or not. They will never stop criticizing and attacking us as
> long as we undermine their bottom line.
>
> As such I have no interest in news print or journalist opinions of
> Wikipedia. Their paychecks depend on our failure. Pay them no heed.
>
> - causa sui
> _____________

I'm not sure about that; journalists are no more a monolith than are
Wikipedians. I think its just human nature; I don't have the citations
handy, but quite a few studies have shown that we focus much more
intently on the negative elements of anything than we do their
positive counterparts, regardless of relative weight.

Just as much, we can't refuse to acknowledge the fact that Wikipedia
does have its problems - journalists may miss the scope, and some lose
the plot entirely, but by and large the issues they identify are real:
we do place a high bar on new contributions, we do have a problem with
battlefield editing, we are vulnerable to interest groups and
individuals and companies can be harmed by inaccurate information
about them that we host. The only problem we are currently addressing
in any coordinated way is usability - on the other problems, progress
proceeds at geologic speed. This is a function of leadership - the
Foundation has it, and the projects do not.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-05T11:06:08Z

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Sage Ross
<ragesoss+wikipedia@...<ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@...>
> wrote:

> This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
> book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:
>
> http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php
>
> -Sage
>
>
I've long puzzled over why journalists constantly post editorials
criticizing Wikipedia and proclaiming that it will never take off. I thought
that eventually we'd win them over.

Then I realized why this will never happen.

News media is a business. We are a threat to their model. Therefore, it's
important to them to convince their readers that Wikipedia is unreliable,
whether it is or not. They will never stop criticizing and attacking us as
long as we undermine their bottom line.

As such I have no interest in news print or journalist opinions of
Wikipedia. Their paychecks depend on our failure. Pay them no heed.

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-05T09:55:56Z

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:09 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:

> If the topic had been referenceable, initially, it is misusing a
> feature to delete the article, rather than source it. The proper use
> of the feature is to delete articles that cannot be sourced at the
> time.
>
> Articles partially sourced are more likely to be sourced further if
> they remain visible. The best way to discourage work on a potentially
> sourceable topic is to delete it.
>
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>

Sometimes, as with fast-developing current events, there are eyewitness
accounts that get added to the article before they appear in printed news
sources. In these cases, it's better to remove the content and wait for the
verifiable source. Pure Wiki Deletion allows us to do that easily -- we can
blank the page, and then restore it when citations become available.

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: deletionism in popular culture

2009-11-05T08:55:54Z

David Goodman wrote:
> If the topic had been referenceable, initially, it is misusing a
> feature to delete the article, rather than source it. The proper use
> of the feature is to delete articles that cannot be sourced at the
> time.
>
>
I think this belongs with the discussion of WP:BEFORE, as raised
previously by you. At that time my attention was called to [[User:Uncle
G/Wikipedia triage]]. In the light of what is said there, certainly, a
nomination for deletion on the grounds of inadequate referencing, before
the nominator has done due diligence, is misuse of the process. I would
say that the ideas on the page, or perhaps the presentation of what are
basically standard ideas, should be given wider circulation.

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Is Wikipedia dying?

2009-11-05T08:47:07Z

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
>> Well, two things people can do is improve [[Evgeny Morozov]] and [[Claude
>> Chabrol]].
> Or send a {{sofixit}} to the author of the review.
>
> I think what annoys me about Wikipedia critics is that they hold the
> very solution to all their criticisms in their power. Get in and change it.

Perhaps I should write an essay SODONTFIXIT about why "so fix it" is a bad
idea. For one thing, most people pointing to errors don't claim that
Wikipedia is bad because it contains one particular error. Rather, they
claim that that error is representative of other errors (which they may
not even be able to find, let alone fix). Sometimes, they may even be using
the error to point to a systematic problem; obviously fixing the single error
won't fix the systematic problem.

It also leads to some problems we're already familiar with with BLPs, such as
having to constantly watch the article for the rest of your life to make sure
the fix stays.

Also, learning how to edit articles without being reverted can take an
incredible amount of time and bureaucracy-navigating if the user is unlucky
enough to have picked articles that people are watching. (Can you describe
the conflict of interest rules without looking them up? What about
notability? And how can a new person defend against rules lawyers anyway?)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l