Mailing List Archive

On 01/10/06, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Whether we are talking about companies or fictitious islands, I do not
> believe "block, nuke, and salt the Earth more aggressively!" is the
> answer. That's partially because blocking is a very, very flawed tool
> (it's very easy to circumvent), and "hard" security measures in a
> fundamentally open environment tend to only inspire people to find
> clever ways to circumvent them and to make themselves even more of a
> PITA than they already are. Of course we should block individuals
> where appropriate, but I'm not convinced that increasing the amount of
> blocking and nuking is going to help us much right now.


Yes.

Danny, Brad: please understand that making up a new special rule every
time there's a new problem is a *really bad* thing to do.

Ad hoc rules are where instruction creep comes from. This leads to a
confusing and incoherent thicket of rules that no-one can make sense
of. Special cases make bad law.

I had a press interview with the Daily Telegraph on Friday. A large
chunk of that was him telling me how confusing our bureaucracy already
was to newcomers. Please don't make it even worse.

(Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO )


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 01/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It would be really nice if we had a single
> > recentchanges page that
> > aggregated all the low activity wikis.

> I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set
> up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a
> single RC channel?


There's an RSS feed for RC, isn't there? Aggregating RSS feeds is easy.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is not a problem. The existing pgkbot IRC monitoring framework already
allows each bot to report to multiple channels simultaneously, so a bot
could report to its "home" channel, as well as to a centralized channel, if
needs warrant. This data is already being broadcast on Wikimedia's IRC
server, so there isn't anything to modify server-side. All that you need is
poke a few users on IRC to change their bots' settings.

Titoxd.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Birgitte SB
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:11 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Porchesia



--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>
> In any case, I think this is interesting at a global
> level because the
> Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are
> often the ones with
> the least activity.
>
> After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main
> page changed to
> say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I
> wondered if it would
> be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on
> all the smaller
> wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the
> hope that the worst
> of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate
> languages.
>
> It would be really nice if we had a single
> recentchanges page that
> aggregated all the low activity wikis.

I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set
up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a
single RC channel? If this could be done with the
bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should
be easy to recognize any english which does not
belong.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, October 1, 2006 21:48, David Gerard wrote:
> I had a press interview with the Daily Telegraph on Friday. A large
> chunk of that was him telling me how confusing our bureaucracy already
> was to newcomers. Please don't make it even worse.

I know you've mentioned this a load of times, but you aren't the only one
to have had a long interview with that guy (James has, I have, etc) ...

Alison

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 01/10/06, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com> wrote:
> On Sun, October 1, 2006 21:48, David Gerard wrote:

> > I had a press interview with the Daily Telegraph on Friday. A large
> > chunk of that was him telling me how confusing our bureaucracy already
> > was to newcomers. Please don't make it even worse.

> I know you've mentioned this a load of times, but you aren't the only one
> to have had a long interview with that guy (James has, I have, etc) ...


I mention it as public relations context, concerning the specific
matter we're talking about. Are you saying bureaucracy repelling
newcomers was mentioned in your conversation too? Else the point of
your email is not clear.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote:

> On 01/10/06, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Whether we are talking about companies or fictitious islands, I do not
>> believe "block, nuke, and salt the Earth more aggressively!" is the
>> answer. That's partially because blocking is a very, very flawed tool
>> (it's very easy to circumvent), and "hard" security measures in a
>> fundamentally open environment tend to only inspire people to find
>> clever ways to circumvent them and to make themselves even more of a
>> PITA than they already are. Of course we should block individuals
>> where appropriate, but I'm not convinced that increasing the amount of
>> blocking and nuking is going to help us much right now.
>
> Yes.
>
> Danny, Brad: please understand that making up a new special rule every
> time there's a new problem is a *really bad* thing to do.

Which is why neither Danny nor Brad made up a new special rule, nor did
either of them advocate it. They advocated strengthening and/or changing
our attitudes and culture. An admittedly difficult task, but one we need
to work on.

Part of the problem is the many people who sort of get the message, but
immediately translate these calls into the "new special rule" that will
"solve everything for all time". I understand a new speedy deletion
criterion has already been proposed. With my tongue in my cheek, I'm
somewhat inclined to take a page from Ed Poor's book and speedily delete
the speedy deletion criteria.

Erik's message cautions about how we shouldn't misuse the tools we have
in achieving this cultural change. That's a perceptive observation as
well. He went on to advocate working on a better annotation feature,
which might be of some help with this problem. (Though it must be noted
that new features lend themselves particularly well to this problem of
"new special rules".) But the thing is, we can't really wait around for
all these promised, or merely even conceived-of, features. We need to
address problems when they come to our attention, not simply say we'll
get around to dealing with them later.

--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

pgkbot doesn't read individual edits though, it only reports one that fail a
filter of the rc channel feed. We'd need to change it if we want to flag
content of edits, and it would use a lot of bandwidth (though a couple on
the smallest WPs wouldnt be too bad).

On 10/1/06, Titoxd@Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is not a problem. The existing pgkbot IRC monitoring framework
> already
> allows each bot to report to multiple channels simultaneously, so a bot
> could report to its "home" channel, as well as to a centralized channel,
> if
> needs warrant. This data is already being broadcast on Wikimedia's IRC
> server, so there isn't anything to modify server-side. All that you need
> is
> poke a few users on IRC to change their bots' settings.
>
> Titoxd.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Birgitte SB
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:11 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Porchesia
>
>
>
> --- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> > In any case, I think this is interesting at a global
> > level because the
> > Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are
> > often the ones with
> > the least activity.
> >
> > After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main
> > page changed to
> > say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I
> > wondered if it would
> > be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on
> > all the smaller
> > wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the
> > hope that the worst
> > of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate
> > languages.
> >
> > It would be really nice if we had a single
> > recentchanges page that
> > aggregated all the low activity wikis.
>
> I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set
> up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a
> single RC channel? If this could be done with the
> bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should
> be easy to recognize any english which does not
> belong.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik's point here is completely valid.

The problem in this case is not really "no sources". The problem should
be viewed as more general. "It is possible to hoax wikipedia by writing
something that sounds plausible."

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 9/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With
>> fire.
>
> '''Porchesia''' is an island off the coast of [[Syria]] and
> [[Lebanon]]. It is ruled by Lebanese government. [1]
>
> [1] Cassidy, Daniel. Porchesia: History of a Little-Known Island. Los
> Angeles: Cambridge and Boston Press, 2005.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/1/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
> WikiMedia isn't only WikiPedia. I'm on wikibreak in anothers wikis and now
> edit only in Wikisource. I can't find any problem with encyclopedic articles
> because my home wiki is intended to host only primary sources.
> English Wikipedia have your on mailing list and wikipedia-l is intended to
> be a mailing list for global issues on Wikipedia projects. The
> question of credibility
> is relevant to all Wikimedia projects, but attempts in talk about
> encyclopedia credibility is not relevant to all Wikimedia projects.

It's funny that you'd effectively accuse the person who is probably
the #1 human contributor to enWiksource (Danny) of having project
tunnel vision.

The fact of the matter is that the problems discussed in this thread
are a real concern for all of our projects, including Wikisource.

Any solution which would help us keep imaginary islands out of
Wikisource would also likely help us keep imaginary primary sources
out of Wikisource.

Collectively we need to figure out how to work together better across
the project and linguistic barriers that divide us. Simply putting
our heads in the sand and pretending that the difficulties of openness
are limited to enwiki is counterproductive.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Quick clarification. I am certainly not the most active editor on en
wikisource. There are plenty of great people there with more edits than me, with
special shoutouts to Pathoschild, BirgitteSB, Jude, Zhaladshar, Shanel, and many
others to numerous to mention.

In a message dated 10/1/2006 9:10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gmaxwell@gmail.com writes:

On 10/1/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
> WikiMedia isn't only WikiPedia. I'm on wikibreak in anothers wikis and now
> edit only in Wikisource. I can't find any problem with encyclopedic
articles
> because my home wiki is intended to host only primary sources.
> English Wikipedia have your on mailing list and wikipedia-l is intended to
> be a mailing list for global issues on Wikipedia projects. The
> question of credibility
> is relevant to all Wikimedia projects, but attempts in talk about
> encyclopedia credibility is not relevant to all Wikimedia projects.

It's funny that you'd effectively accuse the person who is probably
the #1 human contributor to enWiksource (Danny) of having project
tunnel vision.

The fact of the matter is that the problems discussed in this thread
are a real concern for all of our projects, including Wikisource.

Any solution which would help us keep imaginary islands out of
Wikisource would also likely help us keep imaginary primary sources
out of Wikisource.

Collectively we need to figure out how to work together better across
the project and linguistic barriers that divide us. Simply putting
our heads in the sand and pretending that the difficulties of openness
are limited to enwiki is counterproductive.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/1/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quick clarification. I am certainly not the most active editor on en
> wikisource. There are plenty of great people there with more edits than me, with
> special shoutouts to Pathoschild, BirgitteSB, Jude, Zhaladshar, Shanel, and many
> others to numerous to mention.

Zhaladshar is the only non-bot account with more edits than you on
enwikisource, Danny.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/1/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
> > WikiMedia isn't only WikiPedia. I'm on wikibreak
> in anothers wikis and now
> > edit only in Wikisource. I can't find any problem
> with encyclopedic articles
> > because my home wiki is intended to host only
> primary sources.
> > English Wikipedia have your on mailing list and
> wikipedia-l is intended to
> > be a mailing list for global issues on Wikipedia
> projects. The
> > question of credibility
> > is relevant to all Wikimedia projects, but
> attempts in talk about
> > encyclopedia credibility is not relevant to all
> Wikimedia projects.
>


> It's funny that you'd effectively accuse the person
> who is probably
> the #1 human contributor to enWiksource (Danny) of
> having project
> tunnel vision.


Danny is a huge contributor at Wikisource. I don't
see why a person stating they dislike something or the
way something is handled should be taken as a knock on
the person who brought it up. Danny bringing this
sort of thing is up is not suddenly new or something
particular to Danny. However the fact that something
has been done in the past does not mean it can never
be objected to now or in the future.

>
> The fact of the matter is that the problems
> discussed in this thread
> are a real concern for all of our projects,
> including Wikisource.
>
> Any solution which would help us keep imaginary
> islands out of
> Wikisource would also likely help us keep imaginary
> primary sources
> out of Wikisource.
>
> Collectively we need to figure out how to work
> together better across
> the project and linguistic barriers that divide us.
> Simply putting
> our heads in the sand and pretending that the
> difficulties of openness
> are limited to enwiki is counterproductive.

I don't disagree with this but you are missing the
point of the criticism. People from all sorts of
projects come here when they have hit a brick wall
When they have a problem or a question they *cannot*
handle within their own community. When they can find
no solution, no answer, on their own someone suggests
asking foundation-l and they do. They often get very
little help. They may get a large response, but
generally very little help.

Now en.WP has an amazing amount of resources.
REsources which are very focused on en.WP. To remind
you of this I will quote what I was told by david
gerard when pointing out the unbalenced amount of
development resources at en.WP

"That is: if your project doesn't get its favourite
bugs fixed, it's
not favouritism to en:wp - it's your project not
contributing to the
development. These are volunteers, if you recall."

So en.WP has many, many of "their" volunteers.
Manpower that is unbelievable to the wider Wikimedia
community. But now, and this just not about
Porchesia, when en.WP has a problem. When en.WP has
this problem it is brought straight to this list to
ask the attention and help of this wider Wikimedia
community. Now any other project, tries their hardest
to solve a problem themselves before coming here. But
en.WP with their massive resources and manpower.
en.WP skips the step of working on the problem within
the project and comes straight here to use the
resources of the wider Wikimedia community. And the
wider Wikimedia community is supposed to work on this
with the hope there might be some carryover to their
own home project. Still when the home project has a
problem, they are not given answers and solutions. I
was told to "adjust my expectations to reality". Many
others are told that they must figure it out "within
the community". But no one except en.WP comes here
until they exhausted the ability of thier home
community. I am just asking that en.WP approach this
list as every other project in the wider Wikimedia
community does.


Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik also made a good point when he pointed out that bullshit and some real
quality are mixed together... I move for implementation of that long-awaited
revision labelling feature.

On 10/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Erik's point here is completely valid.
>
> The problem in this case is not really "no sources". The problem should
> be viewed as more general. "It is possible to hoax wikipedia by writing
> something that sounds plausible."
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 9/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With
> >> fire.
> >
> > '''Porchesia''' is an island off the coast of [[Syria]] and
> > [[Lebanon]]. It is ruled by Lebanese government. [1]
> >
> > [1] Cassidy, Daniel. Porchesia: History of a Little-Known Island. Los
> > Angeles: Cambridge and Boston Press, 2005.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Considering that you think tiny equals pathetic, I would not trust it
near any of them.
Thanks,
GerardM


James Hare wrote:
> Another thing we could do is get something like Tawkerbot2 (for those who
> don't know, Tawkerbot2 is the most prolific anti-vandal bot) and have it set
> up for all those tiny, pathetic wikis.
>
> On 10/1/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> --- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In any case, I think this is interesting at a global
>>> level because the
>>> Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are
>>> often the ones with
>>> the least activity.
>>>
>>> After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main
>>> page changed to
>>> say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I
>>> wondered if it would
>>> be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on
>>> all the smaller
>>> wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the
>>> hope that the worst
>>> of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate
>>> languages.
>>>
>>> It would be really nice if we had a single
>>> recentchanges page that
>>> aggregated all the low activity wikis.
>>>
>> I think this is a great idea. Is it possible to set
>> up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a
>> single RC channel? If this could be done with the
>> bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should
>> be easy to recognize any english which does not
>> belong.
>>
>> Birgitte SB

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 02/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So en.WP has many, many of "their" volunteers.
> Manpower that is unbelievable to the wider Wikimedia
> community. But now, and this just not about
> Porchesia, when en.WP has a problem. When en.WP has
> this problem it is brought straight to this list to
> ask the attention and help of this wider Wikimedia
> community. Now any other project, tries their hardest
> to solve a problem themselves before coming here. But
> en.WP with their massive resources and manpower.
> en.WP skips the step of working on the problem within
> the project and comes straight here to use the
> resources of the wider Wikimedia community. And the
> wider Wikimedia community is supposed to work on this
> with the hope there might be some carryover to their
> own home project. Still when the home project has a
> problem, they are not given answers and solutions. I
> was told to "adjust my expectations to reality". Many
> others are told that they must figure it out "within
> the community". But no one except en.WP comes here
> until they exhausted the ability of thier home
> community. I am just asking that en.WP approach this
> list as every other project in the wider Wikimedia
> community does.


You speak as if Danny's message going here was anything to do with
some implied collective laziness on the part of en:wp as an amorphous
mass, rather than entirely Danny's own personal decision. Me, I'm
somewhat surprised he didn't send it to wikien-l at all.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, October 2, 2006 02:30, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Zhaladshar is the only non-bot account with more edits than you on
> enwikisource, Danny.

Anything which counts edits is generally a waste of time anyway - good
editors use [preview] a lot until they are happy with what they are about
to commit, bad editors commit every bit of punctuation separately ...

and Danny is a good editor ;-P

Alison Wheeler
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So en.WP has many, many of "their" volunteers.
> > Manpower that is unbelievable to the wider
> Wikimedia
> > community. But now, and this just not about
> > Porchesia, when en.WP has a problem. When en.WP
> has
> > this problem it is brought straight to this list
> to
> > ask the attention and help of this wider Wikimedia
> > community. Now any other project, tries their
> hardest
> > to solve a problem themselves before coming here.
> But
> > en.WP with their massive resources and manpower.
> > en.WP skips the step of working on the problem
> within
> > the project and comes straight here to use the
> > resources of the wider Wikimedia community. And
> the
> > wider Wikimedia community is supposed to work on
> this
> > with the hope there might be some carryover to
> their
> > own home project. Still when the home project has
> a
> > problem, they are not given answers and solutions.
> I
> > was told to "adjust my expectations to reality".
> Many
> > others are told that they must figure it out
> "within
> > the community". But no one except en.WP comes
> here
> > until they exhausted the ability of thier home
> > community. I am just asking that en.WP approach
> this
> > list as every other project in the wider Wikimedia
> > community does.
>
>
> You speak as if Danny's message going here was
> anything to do with
> some implied collective laziness on the part of
> en:wp as an amorphous
> mass, rather than entirely Danny's own personal
> decision. Me, I'm
> somewhat surprised he didn't send it to wikien-l at
> all.
>
>
> - d.

I speak as if it is part of a pattern, this thread had
been a prime example of the pattern when I first
commented. I think this is sign of how much all the
political stuff has consumed us, that so many people
can only see this thread as an attack on Danny,
instead of an honest disscussion on an issue. I don't
know. I suppose all the board elections talk had me
into believing many people were sincerely interested
in en.WP dominance issues. I suppose that was really
all just politics. I will say no more on this issue,
and instead simply remain silent on threads I believe
belong elsewere. I am truly sorry for causing all the
drama here, I misread the situation.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/2/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I speak as if it is part of a pattern, this thread had
> been a prime example of the pattern when I first
> commented. I think this is sign of how much all the
> political stuff has consumed us, that so many people
> can only see this thread as an attack on Danny,
> instead of an honest disscussion on an issue. I don't
> know. I suppose all the board elections talk had me
> into believing many people were sincerely interested
> in en.WP dominance issues. I suppose that was really
> all just politics. I will say no more on this issue,
> and instead simply remain silent on threads I believe
> belong elsewere. I am truly sorry for causing all the
> drama here, I misread the situation.

What I see is a pattern of paranoia about enwiki dominance.

It' is insulting that you'd believe my interpretation of events was
based on a misguided belief that there was any political assault on
Danny. I said exactly what I meant: it's foolish for anyone to claim
that the thread arose out of an over emphasis on enwiki because the
person who started it is one of the top contributors on a non enwiki
project.

In any case, I pointed out how I sincerely believe that this example
is important for all our projects, although it happened to be one that
happened on our largest project.

It seems to me that we can best address issues of "en.WP dominance" by
communicating and being sensitive to and aware of the challenges that
participants in each project face... I don't see how silencing
discussion is going to further that goal.

In any case, I welcome you to configure your mail client to ignore my
messages ... Although I have no intention of doing the same to you: I
have a real interest in hearing about the problems you faced and the
solutions you use to address them.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/2/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I speak as if it is part of a pattern, this thread
> had
> > been a prime example of the pattern when I first
> > commented. I think this is sign of how much all
> the
> > political stuff has consumed us, that so many
> people
> > can only see this thread as an attack on Danny,
> > instead of an honest disscussion on an issue. I
> don't
> > know. I suppose all the board elections talk had
> me
> > into believing many people were sincerely
> interested
> > in en.WP dominance issues. I suppose that was
> really
> > all just politics. I will say no more on this
> issue,
> > and instead simply remain silent on threads I
> believe
> > belong elsewere. I am truly sorry for causing all
> the
> > drama here, I misread the situation.
>
> What I see is a pattern of paranoia about enwiki
> dominance.
>
> It' is insulting that you'd believe my
> interpretation of events was
> based on a misguided belief that there was any
> political assault on
> Danny. I said exactly what I meant: it's foolish
> for anyone to claim
> that the thread arose out of an over emphasis on
> enwiki because the
> person who started it is one of the top contributors
> on a non enwiki
> project.
>
> In any case, I pointed out how I sincerely believe
> that this example
> is important for all our projects, although it
> happened to be one that
> happened on our largest project.
>
> It seems to me that we can best address issues of
> "en.WP dominance" by
> communicating and being sensitive to and aware of
> the challenges that
> participants in each project face... I don't see how
> silencing
> discussion is going to further that goal.
>
> In any case, I welcome you to configure your mail
> client to ignore my
> messages ... Although I have no intention of doing
> the same to you: I
> have a real interest in hearing about the problems
> you faced and the
> solutions you use to address them.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I believe you must be badly misinterpreting me to
think I would wish to ignore your messages. However I
replied off-list as I don't think evryone else wants
to read another long email from me.

Birgitte SB


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/1/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/1/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
> > WikiMedia isn't only WikiPedia. I'm on wikibreak in anothers wikis and
> now
> > edit only in Wikisource. I can't find any problem with encyclopedic
> articles
> > because my home wiki is intended to host only primary sources.
> > English Wikipedia have your on mailing list and wikipedia-l is intended
> to
> > be a mailing list for global issues on Wikipedia projects. The
> > question of credibility
> > is relevant to all Wikimedia projects, but attempts in talk about
> > encyclopedia credibility is not relevant to all Wikimedia projects.
>
> It's funny that you'd effectively accuse the person who is probably
> the #1 human contributor to enWiksource (Danny) of having project
> tunnel vision.


I didn't accused, my reply is original placed at the top of message. This
reply, in a small piece of your message, Gregory, is a vestige of a reply to
your specific message.

This list have lots and lots and lots and lots of subjects not directly
related to Foundation, but lots and lots and lots and lots of subjects
related to English Wikipedia or Wikipedia in general. This is the point. If
I need to read/write something related to a Wikipedia project, I do it in
another mailing list.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 10/1/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>WikiMedia isn't only WikiPedia. I'm on wikibreak in anothers wikis and now
>>edit only in Wikisource. I can't find any problem with encyclopedic articles
>>because my home wiki is intended to host only primary sources.
>>English Wikipedia have your on mailing list and wikipedia-l is intended to
>>be a mailing list for global issues on Wikipedia projects. The
>>question of credibility
>>is relevant to all Wikimedia projects, but attempts in talk about
>>encyclopedia credibility is not relevant to all Wikimedia projects.
>>
>>
>
>It's funny that you'd effectively accuse the person who is probably
>the #1 human contributor to enWiksource (Danny) of having project
>tunnel vision.
>
Get off it! I see no implicit accusation of anybody in Luiz's
comments. There are valid arguments for and against, in deciding the
list on which this thread belongs. For one person to disagree with
another on this kind of thing does not imply accusation. Assume good faith.

>The fact of the matter is that the problems discussed in this thread
>are a real concern for all of our projects, including Wikisource.
>
>Any solution which would help us keep imaginary islands out of
>Wikisource would also likely help us keep imaginary primary sources
>out of Wikisource.
>
Sources of any kind, not just primary ones. Erik's "source" for
[[Porchesia]] might have kept the island there even longer than no
source at all. Too bad for our hoaxer that he didn't think of that.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 10/1/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Quick clarification. I am certainly not the most active editor on en
>>wikisource. There are plenty of great people there with more edits than me, with
>>special shoutouts to Pathoschild, BirgitteSB, Jude, Zhaladshar, Shanel, and many
>>others to numerous to mention.
>>
>>
>Zhaladshar is the only non-bot account with more edits than you on
>enwikisource, Danny.
>
I can't be bothered to look at the statistics for this. I guess Danny
is more interested in the substance of his edits than his edit count.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> Erik's point here is completely valid.
>
> The problem in this case is not really "no sources". The problem should
> be viewed as more general. "It is possible to hoax wikipedia by writing
> something that sounds plausible."
>
Solving that problem, without decimating the encyclopedia, would be
such an enormous undertaking. Given a reasonably literal
interpretation it's talking about not just matching the accuracy of
the New York Times or Britannica (for instance), but blowing it away.

In other words, I love it. And I see now how it *is* a Foundation
issue. Not just because it potentially affects multiple projects,
which it does, but also because it requires a different type of
thinking from that of making incremental changes to something that
already works fairly well.

I hope the members of the Foundation are aware of how big of an
undertaking this is. I hope that the planning can be conducted in a
very open fashion, and not just thrust upon the community in an
announcment that X was decided/created/whatever. I hope this because
if it isn't conducted in this manner, it probably isn't going to work.

Anthony

> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 9/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With
> >> fire.
> >
> > '''Porchesia''' is an island off the coast of [[Syria]] and
> > [[Lebanon]]. It is ruled by Lebanese government. [1]
> >
> > [1] Cassidy, Daniel. Porchesia: History of a Little-Known Island. Los
> > Angeles: Cambridge and Boston Press, 2005.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l