headers
tarquin | 1 Oct 2002 02:45

the OsmosisTwo pest

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=128.193.88.12

this guy keeps making stupid comments on the OsmosisTwo page (which, as 
far as Mav & I can tell was created in error in the first place)
i've checked his edits: his most contentious seems to be on  [[gun 
politics]] , butI'm not entirely sure about, being a Brit.

it's close to 2 in the morning here so i'm not entirely sure if he's 
harmlessly pratting about, or winding us up on purpose, or practising 
for some real hardcore vandalism.

i'm tempted to ban this person, but I could be prejudiced by the silly 
little edit war on OsmosisTwo.
this is one to keep a watch on, at least

tarquin
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Stephen Gilbert | 1 Oct 2002 02:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: Spanish Wikipedia

--- Khendon <jason@...> wrote:
> I don't know the history, but looking around there a
> bit it seems to
> me that it'd be futile to try and collaborate with a
> project run by
> people so bitter and twisted...

There have been major misunderstandings on both sides.
There are a vocal few who seem to really hate
Wikipedia, but there seem to be others who want to
cooperate.

Stephen G.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Gilbert | 1 Oct 2002 03:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: Spanish Wikipedia

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales@...> wrote:
> Axel Boldt wrote:
> > Administratively, this is very nice. If they want
> a change in software,
> > configuration, or hardware, they have to do it
> themselves. Less work
> > for us, more control for them. I expect that many
> active international
> > Wikipedias will go that route over time.
> 
> I expect and hope for the opposite, a united world
> community, working
> together in peace and harmony for the betterment of
> all.  I oppose
> Balkanization, or the assumption that differences
> are more important
> than similarities.
> 
> There are many benefits to working together -- a
> positive change to
> internationalization features will benefit all
> languages, not just
> one.  Going off into separate groups, with separate
> servers, separate
> software is a step away from harmony.

A world-wide community doesn't have to use the same
server. Part of the tension we've had with the other
language projects is that they feel the people running
the server haven't been responsive to them. If the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Toby Bartels | 1 Oct 2002 03:19
Favicon

Re: Re: Policy

The Cunctator wrote:

>Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the mailing list clearly
>feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy pages, so vive la
>revolution!

Well, *I* certainly don't think that they need to be locked down.
I don't think that even [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]
needs to be locked down -- it's on my watch list, I'll fix it.
We just need to remember to be vigilant for suspicious edits,
like anonymous IDs, new users that we don't recognise, and you
(that is, people that may not know to discuss policy changes).
That should be easy enough; ensure accuracy and NPOV on these pages
just as on encyclopædia articles.

-- Toby
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Stephen Gilbert | 1 Oct 2002 03:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: Policy

--- The Cunctator <cunctator@...> wrote:
> Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the
> mailing list clearly
> feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy
> pages, so vive la
> revolution!

Silly. The rest of me who subscribes to the list
thinks it is:

a) foolish to lock the policy pages for fear of people
changing them, and

b) foolish to advocate changing them whenever you
disagree with what they say.

In the case of a, I've all ready made my arguments;
check the list archives if you're interested.

As for b, it's always been my understanding the the
policy pages are simply descriptive; actual policy
comes from working on the encyclopedia and discussing
things with your fellow Wikipedians. The policy pages
simply describe the results of that process. Directly
editing those pages in order to *change* policy
negates any possible value of the pages. As Brion
said, they don't define policy, they describe it. Your
idea of editing the policy pages to come to a
consensus, rather than coming to a consensus and then
describing it, is similiar to re-writing your
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Stephen Gilbert | 1 Oct 2002 03:41
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: OneLook

--- Andre Engels <engels@...> wrote:
> > I just tried your example, along with other
> multi-word
> > searches, and they worked fine for me. What
> browser
> > are you using?
> 
> As Brion already guessed: Netscape 4 dot something.

I've emailed Doug at OneLook and asked if he could
replace the %20's with plus signs.

Stephen G.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
The Cunctator | 1 Oct 2002 04:40
Favicon

Re: Re: Policy

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 21:19, Toby Bartels wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> 
> >Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the mailing list clearly
> >feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy pages, so vive la
> >revolution!
> 
> Well, *I* certainly don't think that they need to be locked down.
> I don't think that even [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]
> needs to be locked down -- it's on my watch list, I'll fix it.
> We just need to remember to be vigilant for suspicious edits,
> like anonymous IDs, new users that we don't recognise, and you
> (that is, people that may not know to discuss policy changes).
> That should be easy enough; ensure accuracy and NPOV on these pages
> just as on encyclopædia articles.

Well, if people aren't allowed to edit the pages without review from the
mailing list--and pretty much everyone who's on the mailing list can
have (or should have, IMHO) sysop priveleges, then the pages are in
effect locked down. And if they're in effect locked down, then they
should be locked down. Otherwise there's a logical disconnect.

When I said "lock down" I meant "prevent unauthorized edits". It doesn't
matter if that prevention is done through technology or practice--it all
amounts to the same thing.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
The Cunctator | 1 Oct 2002 04:42
Favicon

Re: Re: Policy

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 21:18, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> --- The Cunctator <cunctator@...> wrote:
> > Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the
> > mailing list clearly
> > feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy
> > pages, so vive la
> > revolution!
> 
> Silly. The rest of me who subscribes to the list
> thinks it is:
> 
> a) foolish to lock the policy pages for fear of people
> changing them, and
> 
> b) foolish to advocate changing them whenever you
> disagree with what they say.
> 
> In the case of a, I've all ready made my arguments;
> check the list archives if you're interested.
> 
> As for b, it's always been my understanding the the
> policy pages are simply descriptive; actual policy
> comes from working on the encyclopedia and discussing
> things with your fellow Wikipedians. The policy pages
> simply describe the results of that process. Directly
> editing those pages in order to *change* policy
> negates any possible value of the pages. As Brion
> said, they don't define policy, they describe it. Your
> idea of editing the policy pages to come to a
> consensus, rather than coming to a consensus and then
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
koyaanisqatsi | 1 Oct 2002 05:04

Re: Re: Re: Policy

The Cunctator wrote:
>Well, if people aren't allowed to edit the pages without review from the
>mailing list--and pretty much everyone who's on the mailing list can
>have (or should have, IMHO) sysop priveleges, then the pages are in
>effect locked down. And if they're in effect locked down, then they
>should be locked down. Otherwise there's a logical disconnect.
>
>When I said "lock down" I meant "prevent unauthorized edits". It doesn't
>matter if that prevention is done through technology or practice--it all
>amounts to the same thing.

Locked down against whom?  Where's the fire?  Aside from vandals, you're the only person I can think of who has
changed them to read something which is not policy.

kq
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
The Cunctator | 1 Oct 2002 05:35
Favicon

Re: Re: Re: Policy

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 23:04, koyaanisqatsi@... wrote:.
> 
> Locked down against whom?  Where's the fire?  Aside from vandals,
> you're the only person I can think of who has changed them to read 
> something which is not policy.

And when was that?
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane