headers
Aphaia | 1 Oct 2006 01:16
Picon

Requests for comments: Board Election 2006

Hello all,
thank you for helping Results translation. Today I post our (possible)
last notice as Election Official 2006 for the community.

You Wikimedia editors are now invited to submit your comments about
this Election on meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Board_Election_2006

Thanks for all your input, either positive or negative, in advance
Cheers,
--

-- 
Kizu Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * vox populi, vox dei *
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Birgitte SB | 1 Oct 2006 01:58
Picon
Favicon

Re: Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007


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

> On 30/09/06, effe iets anders
> <effeietsanders@...> wrote:
> 
> > Please... Why are we having these fights?
> 
> 
> Because this is the sort of thing that can come from
> setting it up as
> a competitive process.
> 
> 
> > Taipei has been chosen now,
> > and we can i think do two things: Accept that or
> not. If we do the
> > second, we will be fighting over this for weeks,
> months and maybe
> > longer.
> 
> 
> I suspect at least some of those not chosen question
> the transparency
> of the selection criteria and process. Saying "stop
> talking about
> this" doesn't stop them thinking about it.
> 
> 
> > Please stop fighting over who copied something
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Birgitte SB | 1 Oct 2006 02:07
Picon
Favicon

Re: Porchesia

I do agree with Gerad's ideas, but I also think this
is not the place to be discussing what en.WP speedy
deletion criteria should or should not be.  I have
heard en.WP has an entire mailing list all to itself. 

Birgitte SB

--Gerad's message--
Hoi,
We should before we want to even consider policies
whereby sources are 
required consider what it would do to other projects.
Many of the other 
projects do not have the maturity to follow the lead
of the English 
Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and
burdening the content 
creation with this zeal would put a damper on the
creation of new 
content. The idea that the English language sources
are universally 
good 
is problematic as well.

We should also consider how much work it is to source
all the unsourced 
articles. I assume that the amount of time involved is
such that it is 
not even feasible to source all English articles that
do not have
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
James Hare | 1 Oct 2006 02:09
Picon

Re: Porchesia

Yeah... I was wondering meself why Danny posted this English Wikipedia info
on the Foundation List.

On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@...> wrote:
>
> I do agree with Gerad's ideas, but I also think this
> is not the place to be discussing what en.WP speedy
> deletion criteria should or should not be.  I have
> heard en.WP has an entire mailing list all to itself.
>
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> --Gerad's message--
> Hoi,
> We should before we want to even consider policies
> whereby sources are
> required consider what it would do to other projects.
> Many of the other
> projects do not have the maturity to follow the lead
> of the English
> Wikipedia they do not have sufficient content and
> burdening the content
> creation with this zeal would put a damper on the
> creation of new
> content. The idea that the English language sources
> are universally
> good
> is problematic as well.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Birgitte SB | 1 Oct 2006 02:39
Picon
Favicon

Re: Porchesia

Does it matter?  Can we just end the thread without
pinning the blame on anyone.  It is not just this one
thread, I had just noticed the en.WP conversations on
a major increase lately.

Birgitte SB

--- James Hare <messedrocker@...> wrote:

> Yeah... I was wondering meself why Danny posted this
> English Wikipedia info
> on the Foundation List.
> 
> On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I do agree with Gerad's ideas, but I also think
> this
> > is not the place to be discussing what en.WP
> speedy
> > deletion criteria should or should not be.  I have
> > heard en.WP has an entire mailing list all to
> itself.
> >
> >
> > Birgitte SB
> >
> > --Gerad's message--
> > Hoi,
> > We should before we want to even consider policies
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Anthony | 1 Oct 2006 03:16

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

On 9/30/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf@...> wrote:
> > In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch.  Create a verifiable
> > neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
> >
>
> True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia, Anthony.  I disagree.
>
In a perfect world "everything" should be in Wikipedia, I suppose, but
I don't believe we live in such a perfect world.  Please don't
misrepresent my position.

> > Wikipedia gets what it wants.  The companies get what they want.
> > Everyone is happy, except I suppose some people who calculate the
> > value of the encyclopedia based on the popularity of the article
> > titles.
>
> You have it backward.  Whether we like it or not, people in the world
> perceive they aren't somebody unless they are in Wikipedia.  Companies
> especially so.

So what?  Is the purpose of Wikipedia to tell people whether or not
"they are somebody"?  Of course it isn't.  Moreover, is the purpose of
Wikipedia to tell society whether or not a company is deemed notable
by a self-selected group of admins/AfDers/whatever?  I'd suggest this
isn't the purpose either.

> Nobody would argue publicly traded companies, Fortune
> 500, etc. count, I don't believe.  But walk a mile in our shoes for a
> moment.  Every numbskull with letterhead on the planet believing they
> have a "right" to have their brother-in-law marketing partner spam us
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anthony | 1 Oct 2006 03:33

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

On 9/29/06, daniwo59@... <daniwo59@...> wrote:
>  What Gerard suggests is NOT a solution. There are reasons people are spamming Wikipedia and not adding
content to Yellowiki. We are the fourteenth largest website in the world, while Yellowiki does not count
in the top one hundred thousand. We have a consistently high google rating and our links ensure that they
will have a high google rating, Yellowiki does not. We can offer some modicum of respectability, while
they cannot Compare these two statements: "Look at me! I'm in the encyclopedia!" v. "Look at me! I'm in the
phonebook! "
>
Doesn't this statement about google rating misrepresent how google
ratings work?  http://en.wikipedia.org/ has a pagerank of 9.
http://www.myspace.com/ has a pagerank of 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedding_Network has a pagerank of 0.
http://www.theweddingnetwork.co.uk/ has a pagerank of 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdgeBOX has a pagerank of 0.
http://www.edgebox.net/ has a pagerank of 2.  The fact that the main
page of the English Wikipedia has a high pagerank seems to me to have
absolutely no relevance to the fact that people want their companies
in it.

I think you come the closest to an explanation of why people want
their companies in Wikipedia when you talk about offering "some
modicum of respectability".  People want their companies in Wikipedia
because it's relatively hard to get a company in Wikipedia.

Anthony
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
geni | 1 Oct 2006 03:52
Picon

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

On 10/1/06, Anthony <wikilegal@...> wrote:
> I think you come the closest to an explanation of why people want
> their companies in Wikipedia when you talk about offering "some
> modicum of respectability".  People want their companies in Wikipedia
> because it's relatively hard to get a company in Wikipedia.
>

Not so. Firstly a free link is always worth while. Secondly links from
wikipedia will take traffic to your website. Reading SEO forums can be
somewhat worrying.

--

-- 
geni
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Anthony | 1 Oct 2006 04:06

Six criteria for Wikipedia inclusion

On 9/30/06, Anthony <wikilegal@...> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf@...> wrote:
> > > In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch.  Create a verifiable
> > > neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
> > >
> >
> > True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia, Anthony.  I disagree.
> >
> In a perfect world "everything" should be in Wikipedia, I suppose, but
> I don't believe we live in such a perfect world.  Please don't
> misrepresent my position.
>
I thought I'd expand a little bit on what my position is.  I can think
of six criteria off the top of my head for Wikipedia articles.  They
must be:

1) based on verifiable sources - anything which can not be written
about using verifiable sources shouldn't be in Wikipedia - this
criterion includes the concept of "no original research" - this is a
big part of what I mean by "in a perfect world...", as in a perfect
world we'd be able to verify anything.
2) NPOV - if an article is not written from a neutral point of view it
should generally be rewritten - however, in some cases perhaps it
makes more sense to simply remove the article - this criterion
includes the concept of barring autobiographies.
3) encyclopedic - this is perhaps the fuzziest criterion, but it would
exclude things like essays, lists of quotes, articles about words,
fiction, etc.
4) legal - due to various laws, including but not limited to privacy
laws and so called "intellectual property" laws, there are some things
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Gregory Maxwell | 1 Oct 2006 04:19
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Porchesia

On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@...> wrote:
> Does it matter?  Can we just end the thread without
> pinning the blame on anyone.  It is not just this one
> thread, I had just noticed the en.WP conversations on
> a major increase lately.

Rather than dismissing the discussion why not tell those of us less
connected with the other language wikis how this problem has been
completely solved [1] on those subprojects.

(1) I must assume that this is totally solved everywhere except enwiki
for you to be claiming that this thread is an offtopic enwiki only
matter.
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |

Gmane