tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77712679101830573522024-03-13T23:39:27.071-04:00NonNotableNatteringsWhatever I feel like talking about... Wikimedia foundation projects, LEGO, politics, or just why you can't get a good pastrami sandwich in Grand Rapids.Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-67574062742853614992009-02-19T07:00:00.000-05:002009-02-20T02:26:53.768-05:00Dirty Laundry<p class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; float: right; display: block; width: 212px;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Italian_laundry.jpg"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/Italian_laundry.jpg/202px-Italian_laundry.jpg" alt="Italian street, with laundry hung to dry" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" width="202" height="129" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" class="zemanta-img-attribution" >Dirty Laundry, out for all to see... Image via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Italian_laundry.jpg">Wikipedia</a></span></p>There is rather a nasty thread on WR right now, about me. I have been holding back because this whole thread is wrong on many levels. The following doesn't exactly put me in a very favorable light as far as interpersonal relationships go. So be it.<br /><br />When I started editing on WP, my wife and I had been estranged for almost 10 years. We led completely separate lives. I was approached by a female Wikipedian and we had a short relationship. That led to a couple more, none lasting more than a few months. To me, at the time, these were serious, sincere relationships, not casual, and I am still on good terms with these women.<br /><br />After some time, Josette and I started talking again. She decided to look into Wikipedia and LEGO to see if we might find some common ground, and by mid 2007 we had decided to get back together... it's been bumpy, I've made mistakes, and even backslid a couple of times, but we are trying very hard, we are still working at it, and things are getting better. The other women I had relationships with all understand that I have gone back to my wife and they all respect that. One benefit of this statement is <span>to ensure that <wbr>women that don't <wbr>know the situation are now also aware <wbr>of this.</span><br /><br />I had heard vague rumors of stuff being shopped around to ArbCom, but until the last few days, I did not know what this was about, or who the person was that supposedly took offense and later raised a ruckus on WR. She gave me no indication of any problem at the time. Rather, she used phrasing like "mad 4 it" in response to my seeking permission as the conversation progressed.<br /><br />While it is true that I have always been a flirt, this whole thing bothers me because I have always respected the women on WP and women in general. I am sorry if any woman feels I was out of line in my chatting, but I was always, I thought, careful to repeatedly check for permission, to ask if it was OK, and to always remember that "no means no". Even so, I'm sorry anyway, it should not have happened.<br /><br />The important takeaways from this are:<br /><ul><li>None of this has any bearing on my carrying out my duties and responsibilities on the various wikis.</li><li>If you think someone is acting inappropriately and you don't like it, call them on it. Or get a friend to say something. Or just leave. Any of those things are better than engaging in whisper campaigns later.</li><li>The days of my looking for relationships, of having relationships, are in the past, and have been for quite a while, because I am committed to my relationship with my wife.<br /></li></ul><br /> <div style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;" class="zemanta-pixie"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img style="border: medium none ; float: right;" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=2530b0eb-7d9c-4a0c-aad0-2bbb8ab3afb2" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-19220374243360385912008-08-01T07:00:00.002-04:002008-08-02T10:59:07.743-04:00Knol and Wikipedia<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; float: right; display: block;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26286356@N00/2120499342"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2186/2120499342_009872d65a_m.jpg" alt="Wikipedia's Knol Page" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="zemanta-img-attribution" style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/" title="Wikipedia" rel="homepage" class="zem_slink">Wikipedia</a>'s Knol <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>page<br />Image by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26286356@N00/2120499342">dannysullivan</a> via Flickr<br />Fair use claimed for commentary<br /></span></span></span>By now, everyone and their brother has blogged about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol" title="Knol" rel="wikipedia" class="zem_slink">Knol</a>. If you don't know what it is, you've been under a rock, apparently (not that there's anything wrong with that)... follow the link. (which naturally leads to Wikipedia)<br /><br />Probably half of those blogposts have to do with the relationship between Knol and Wikipedia. Again, go find them if you want to read them.<br /><br />Some people are saying it's a new <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_rush" title="Gold rush" rel="wikipedia" class="zem_slink">gold rush</a>. I have an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdSense" title="AdSense" rel="wikipedia" class="zem_slink">AdSense</a> account so I decided to see what if anything in the way of gold there is to be had.<br /><br />I've taken some content from Wikipedia and put it on Knol. The content I took is content I myself authored... I took my DYK articles, at the point of the last edit by me prior to the first edit by someone else, so all content was mine, and Knolised them. (why that edit? Because at that point the content is solely authored by me. That means I can relicense it as I see fit, granting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License" title="GNU Free Documentation License" rel="wikipedia" class="zem_slink">GFDL</a> does not take away the right to license under other terms as well)<br /><br />The actual formatting leaves a lot to be desired, since they are paste jobs, if I see any signs of traffic I'll improve them. But for the most part at least so far, they are the only Knols on those topics. All their links lead straight to Wikipedia, at least for now.<br /><br />I am not going to pimp them by linking... if you want to find them you can.<br /><br />I'm curious as to how this all will play out... will these get any traffic? Will I get improvement suggestions? Will Knol itself complain? Most of these show high correlation to Wikipedia which is not unexpected.<br /><br />What do you think? Have any of you done this? What will the long term effect be?<br /><div style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;" class="zemanta-pixie"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://reblog.zemanta.com/zemified/0c095450-58c7-47e9-8a18-cab7ee33890b/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img style="border: medium none ; float: right;" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=0c095450-58c7-47e9-8a18-cab7ee33890b" alt="Zemanta Pixie" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-79708238346364079372008-07-07T07:46:00.003-04:002008-07-07T07:58:26.349-04:00You got me...<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; float: right; display: block;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:XkcdMunroe.jpg"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/XkcdMunroe.jpg/202px-XkcdMunroe.jpg" alt="Randall Munroe, creator of the webcomic xkcd, ..." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="zemanta-img-attribution" style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">Randall Munroe<br />image via <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:XkcdMunroe.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></span></span>So, <a href="http://xkcd.com/446/">today</a>'s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd" title="Xkcd" rel="wikipedia" class="zem_slink">xkcd</a> consists of a drawing of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_%28surname%29" title="Wood (surname)" rel="wikipedia" class="zem_slink">Wood</a> article in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia" rel="wikipedia" class="zem_slink">Wikipedia</a>, but cut away to show only the lede, and the bottom, which is a large "in popular culture" section, with such gems as "In episode 7 of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly">Firefly</a>, "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynestown">Jaynestown</a>", <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_the_Firefly_universe" title="List of characters in the Firefly universe" rel="wikipedia" class="zem_slink">Jayne</a> is given a wooden <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rain%20stick">rain stick</a> by a villager", among others.<br /><br />Wikipedia is big enough time that it now gets mocked in cartoons on a regular basis (in xkcd's case, lovingly... I think. :) )<br /><br />Random questions:<br /><br />Does anyone not think this is one of the funniest Firefly episodes? :) <span style="font-style: italic;">(it goes without saying that I expect most of my readership (all 3 of you) to have seen all the Firefly episodes)</span><br /><br />Does <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Munroe" title="Randall Munroe" rel="wikipedia" class="zem_slink">Randall Munroe</a> not actually like "in popular culture" sections? Or, is he annoyed that Wood doesn't have one? :) <span style="font-style: italic;">(It goes without saying that it doesn't have one, actually)</span><br /><br />Was I the only xkcd reader to go check if Wood actually had an "In popular culture" section?<span style="font-style: italic;"> (It goes without saying that I did go check)</span><br /><div style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;" class="zemanta-pixie"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://reblog.zemanta.com/zemified/13ddcfb6-5e5b-4919-ad6a-91156501a33f/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img style="border: medium none ; float: right;" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=13ddcfb6-5e5b-4919-ad6a-91156501a33f" alt="Zemanta Pixie" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-17830169610780167192008-05-18T07:00:00.001-04:002008-05-18T10:09:53.033-04:00Her first GA, can FA be far behind?<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ann_Eliza_Bleecker_LibraryCompany_lg.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Ann_Eliza_Bleecker_LibraryCompany_lg.jpg/202px-Ann_Eliza_Bleecker_LibraryCompany_lg.jpg" alt="Engraving of Ann Eliza Bleecker, a socialite and noted poet of New York, United States during the 18th century" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Ann Eliza Bleecker,<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">Image via </span></span><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ann_Eliza_Bleecker_LibraryCompany_lg.jpg" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Wikimedia Commons</span></span><br /></a></span></span><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Forgive me for being a bit proud!<br /></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Background: While I tend to get involved in the meta aspects of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation" title="Wikimedia Foundation" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Wikimedia Foundation</a> projects (sometimes perhaps too much so) as well as write articles, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Epousesquecido">my wife</a> has instead concentrated on editing.<br /></p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">She has stated that she has no interest in becoming an administrator at any of the wikis she frequents. Can't say as I blame her, although she would be a good administrator, I am sure.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Except for occasionally voting in support or (rarely) opposition of various candidates, she stays out of the internal political discussions and controversies of Wikipedia (and other wikis), editing is all she does. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And when she edits, she's rather good. (I admit bias, mind you) I consider myself lucky to have a wife who enjoys many of the same hobbies I do (she's a skilled LEGO builder as well). She has built up a solid record of contributions.</span><br /><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">She focuses on relatively obscure female historical figures, primarily Americans of the 18th and 19th centuries, who have been underserved by Wikipedia articles. It's not as glamorous as writing about major contemporary figures, and not nearly as easy, the sources can be hard to track down. But she writes good stuff! Her articles usually make "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Did_you_know">Did You Know</a>" after they are created.<br /></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Case in point, her first <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles">Good Article</a> (GA), which I used in <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/05/evaluating-britannica.html">my Britannica comparison</a>, and then nominated for GA a few days ago. Yesterday it got reviewed, put on hold, and then, in a flurry of cooperative editing by her, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dihydrogen_Monoxide">Giggy</a> (the reviewer), and myself, (all coordinated on IRC) had all the faults Giggy identified corrected in under 2 hours (maybe not a record, but quite rapid time for an article to come off hold) and was promoted. Here's an excerpt from the lede:<br /></p><span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Burgoyne_1777.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Burgoyne_1777.jpg/202px-Burgoyne_1777.jpg" alt="Saratoga campaign, Tomhannock is just north of Albany and south of Saratoga, New York" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Saratoga campaign,<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">Image via </span></span><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Burgoyne_1777.jpg" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Wikimedia Commons</span></span><br /></a></span></span><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Eliza_Bleecker" title="Ann Eliza Bleecker" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Ann Eliza Bleecker</a></b> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1752" title="1752">1752</a> – <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_23" title="November 23">November 23</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1783" title="1783">1783</a>) was an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States">American</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry_of_the_United_States" title="Poetry of the United States">poet</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondent" title="Correspondent">correspondent</a>. Following a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City" title="New York City">New York</a> upbringing, Bleecker married John James Bleecker, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rochelle" class="mw-redirect" title="New Rochelle">New Rochelle</a> lawyer, in 1769. He encouraged her writings, and helped her publish a periodical containing her works.</p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution" title="">American Revolution</a> saw John join the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Continental_Army_units" title="List of Continental Army units">New York Militia</a>, while Ann fled with their two daughters. She continued to write, and what remained of the family returned to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomhannock" class="mw-redirect" title="Tomhannock">Tomhannock</a> following <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burgoyne" title="John Burgoyne">Burgoyne</a>'s surrender. She was saddened and affected by the deaths of numerous family members over the years, and died in 1783.</p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Bleecker's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_poetry" class="mw-redirect" title="Pastoral poetry">pastoral poetry</a> is studied by historians to gain perspective of life on the front lines of the revolution, and her novel Maria Kittle, the first known <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_narrative" title="">Captivity narrative</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-Master_plot_0-0" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Eliza_Bleecker#cite_note-Master_plot-0" title="">[1]</a></sup> set the form for subsequent Indian Capture novels which saw great popularity after her death.</p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Bleecker was an important, if somewhat obscure figure in the American Revolution, and Wikipedia now has a good article about her, where previously it had none at all, thanks to the efforts of one editor. Wikisource also has<a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Ann_Eliza_Bleecker"> a considerable portion</a> of Bleecker's existing writings, mostly again thanks to my wife.<br /></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And she had fun doing the work. That's the idea. When Wikipedia fosters this sort of thing, it works, and works well. Reading about the issues and things that need fixing can leave you with the impression of a complete disaster, but that's not the case. Imperfect, yes? but darn good. Remember that, please. And go write something!<br /></p><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=f718f684-e189-4abd-8810-651c0299cc9e" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-78011818738629697532008-05-17T07:00:00.000-04:002008-05-17T15:25:51.679-04:00The Wikback, RIP?<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/59138825@N00/2500126494/" target="_blank"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2410/2500126494_2a70f20ab1_m.jpg" alt="A Quieter Time" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">Things are quieter at<br />Wikback these days<br />Image from <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/59138825@N00/2500126494/" target="_blank">Flickr</a></span></span></span>One of my<a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/wikbak.html"> earliest postings</a> was about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UninvitedCompany">UninvitedCompany</a>'s <a href="http://www.wikback.com/forums/">Wikback</a> which is a forum designed to be a place where folk with an interest in Wikipedia and WMF projects could discuss things. (and one that would be run somewhat differently than Wikipedia Review)<br /><br />At the time, I opined that there might be some inhibitory effects from some of the actions taken and rules in place, and that sparked 11 comments from various folk. I think that may have been my all time high, or pretty close! (Hi to all 3 of you readers still with me!) Some predicted it would fail, while others defended the idea.<br /><br />Well, two months have went by since then, and it would appear that the activity levels at the Wikback have died down to very low levels. Apparently, in the past 7 days, there have been just 4 active topics, if <a href="http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=activetopics&range=7&page=1&type=type">this list</a> is to be believed.<br /><br />Not every forum that is started ends up a success. Sometimes it's just random chance as to whether something clicks. But sometimes it's the rules, the people or whatever. Is that the case here?<br /><br />Could Wikback still spring to lively life? Or is the current activity level likely to be where things stay indefinitely? Or is it over? What do you think?Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-45090692756856526962008-05-15T07:00:00.009-04:002008-05-16T19:22:25.184-04:00Anatomy of a BLP<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michigan_state_seal.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Michigan_state_seal.png/202px-Michigan_state_seal.png" alt="The Michigan state seal." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">Seal of Michigan,<br />NOT a seal of approval!<br />Image via <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michigan_state_seal.png" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></span></span>Two days ago, I <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/05/be-careful-what-you-ask-for-you-might.html">wrote</a> about the recent Supreme Court case involving the "Defense of Marriage" amendment. I mentioned our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General" title="Attorney General" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Attorney General</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Cox" title="Mike Cox" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Mike Cox</a>. On a whim, I decided to go actually look at the Wikipedia article that my post linked.<br /><br />What a mess I found!<br /><br />This article is a textbook definition of an unacceptable <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP">Biography of a Living Person</a> (BLP) article. Take a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Cox&oldid=210428143">this</a> revision. It contains word for word text taken from <a href="http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-19441-58507--,00.html">his biography</a> on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Attorney_General" title="Michigan Attorney General" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">State of Michigan Attorney General</a> site, text which is quite flatteringly written (no doubt lifted from his campaign 2006 site, which although now a bad link, is still linked from the article), and which is copyrighted by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan" title="Michigan" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">State of Michigan</a>.<br /><br />To "balance" this it also contains text from an attack site, again lifted in large part without change.<br /><br />No <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_citation" title="Inline citation" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">inline citations</a>, just a lot of text. And the article has a long <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Cox&action=history">history</a> of (mostly IP user) edits warring over various aspects of the content. You may want to look at the Wikiscanner <a href="http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=mike+cox">results</a> too, they are interesting.<br /><br />Sorry, you don't write a neutral balanced well sourced article by lifting text from puff and attack sites in about equal measure. That gives undue weight to the wrong things. Two <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COATRACK">coatracks </a>don't make a good article.<br /><br />So I stubbed it out. This <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Cox&oldid=212244052">revision</a> shows what it looks like now. Mike Cox deserves a better article than that, but at least it wasn't the mess it was before.<br /><br />How many other articles like this one on second rank politicians, midsized company CEOs, B list movie stars and the like are there? Those that say there is no BLP problem miss the point.<br /><br />What do you think? Any horrors you've seen that really need stubbing?<br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=43191006-546c-48cc-905a-dc804797d17e" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-63104015759740718472008-04-24T19:00:00.001-04:002008-04-24T19:39:14.471-04:00Doc quits<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Farmed_Ostrich.JPG" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Farmed_Ostrich.JPG/202px-Farmed_Ostrich.JPG" alt="The Ostrich Struthio camelus is now farmed, primarily for the low fat meat. The Ostrichs are contained by a 2m high fence with an electrified wire running along the top - perhaps contributing to this bird's contemplation of the fence." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">An Ostrich, although not one<br />with its head in the sand. Image<br />via <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Farmed_Ostrich.JPG" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></span></span>Doc Glasgow, one of the leading voices in the effort to improve Wikipedia's handling of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP">Biographies of Living Persons</a> (BLPs) has<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Doc_glasgow&oldid=207689143"> apparently</a> quit the project. (his goodbye statement, ironically enough, was first posted at Wikipedia Review!)<br /><br />This is unfortunate. It's tempting to just dismiss this departure as one of many, point to <a href="http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?MeatballWiki">UseMod</a>'s <a href="http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye">GoodBye</a> essay, and say it doesn't matter, the project has thousands of contributors. And in fact that's what I usually do. But Doc's voice was a good one and an important one.<br /><br />Consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem">this page</a> on the BLP problem and why it's important, and the outpouring of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem">discussion</a> around it.<br /><br />Or consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographical_optout">this proposal</a>, for allowing marginally notable biography subjects to "opt out", now marked as rejected, and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographical_optout">discussion</a> around it.<br /><br />Or consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Borderline_biographies">this proposal</a>, for reversing the default outcome of BLP <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD">Article for Deletion</a> (AfD) discussions to delete. It has led to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reversing_the_AFD_default_for_BLPs">this thread </a>at the BLP page itself, in which SlimVirgin proposes adoption. (the straw poll shows it running at least 65% in favor of adopting it so that's something anyway)<br /><br />Every one of those is from Doc or had Doc pushing hard for it. And those are just the ones I thought of offhand, there are others. Doc was one of the hardest workers on the BLP mess for quite some time.<br /><br />Perhaps he just got disheartened at the apparent unwillingness of some in the community to admit that there is a BLP problem and that the current approach isn't handling it. Can't say as I blame him, the level of ostrich in the sand -ism seems quite high there.<br /><br />If you agree maybe you would consider taking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Responsible_Editing_Pledge">Responsible Editing</a> pledge? Those undersigned are either:<br />* already using accounts identifying their real identity (and will not use sock puppets on BLPs)<br />* OR pledging not to add content concerning living people<br />* OR intending creating separate accounts, linked to their real identities, for this purpose<br />I signed it. If you edit Wikipedia, you should consider doing so too.Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-84383343689351547892008-04-21T19:00:00.002-04:002008-04-24T14:26:14.750-04:00Britannica free access?<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Enyclopedia_Britannica_International_Chinese_Edition.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Enyclopedia_Britannica_International_Chinese_Edition.jpg/202px-Enyclopedia_Britannica_International_Chinese_Edition.jpg" alt="Encyclopædia Britannica International Chinese Edition, of 20 volumes of which the 19th and 20th volume are index, is published by Encyclopedia of China Publishing House." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">A print Encyclopaedia Britannica<br />Image via <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Enyclopedia_Britannica_International_Chinese_Edition.jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica" title="Encyclopædia Britannica" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">The Encyclopaedia Britannica</a> <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9923867-7.html">recently announced</a> "free" access to some of their content. The basic scheme is that if you are one of the "people who publish with some regularity on the Internet, be they bloggers, Webmasters, or writers," you can <a href="http://britannicanet.com/?page_id=15">register</a> for the ability to share access. Their reason?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Britannica covers a wide range of topics with thousands of articles and multimedia features. They’re relevant and useful, and we’d like more people to be able to take advantage of them."</span> (quoted for review purposes)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/18/encyclopedia-britannica-now-free-for-bloggers/">Many</a> have said the real reason is more obviously commercial... that Wikipedia is eating into their online market share (and the web in general eating into print encylopedia share, c.f. the recent announcement by a German print encyclopedia that they were publishing their last edition) and that this was an attempt to win market and mind share (as well as Google ranking because there would be more inbound links to their content) TechCrunch <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/18/encyclopedia-britannica-now-free-for-bloggers/">observed</a> something somewhat similar.<br /><br />What's on offer are <a href="http://britannicanet.com/?page_id=17">widgets</a> as well as direct links.<br /><br />I decided to sign up and see for myself. The <a href="http://britannicanet.com/?page_id=15">sign up process</a> was simple enough, fill out a form, give a link to your blog, and wait. Shortly thereafter I received a mail with another link, I filled that out and now I have access to content. Here's an example widget:<br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.britannica.com/bcom/ig/topic/gadget.html?id=100&skin=3" frameborder="no" height="300" scrolling="no" width="100%"></iframe><br /><br />(I haven't sussed out how exactly to specify what I want to display so gosh knows what topic you're seeing.... the help page wants me to watch a video... I'd rather just read directions) and here's <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1192818/Wikipedia">an example link</a> (to the Britannia article on Wikipedia).<br /><br />I think it's instructive to compare that article (go read it, I'll wait) with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica">Wikipedia article</a> on Britannica... (again, go read it, I'll wait)<br /><br />While it is true that Britannica has been around longer... and therefore there is more to say, I find it odd how much of the Britannica article seems to focus on Wikipedia's flaws. While I do not fool myself that Wikipedia is perfect, and I have criticised the project for its flaws, it's not quite as dire as EB seems to paint matters. Perhaps they have fallen into the trap of not exactly having a neutral point of view about their competition?<br /><br />I'll no doubt have more to say about this later but it's an intereesting development. What do you think? Why did EB do this? Will it be useful to folk? Will this experiment work for EB?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=6dc10bc1-75e1-4929-aa30-5cd0d842180a" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-69707748254419036952008-04-20T07:00:00.006-04:002008-04-20T13:34:23.122-04:00House Flags<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MerrittChapman_1938_ad.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/25/MerrittChapman_1938_ad.jpg/202px-MerrittChapman_1938_ad.jpg" alt="Merritt-Chapman & Scott corporate ad, 1938" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >The trigger: MC&S ad<br />Image via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MerrittChapman_1938_ad.jpg" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a><br />(fair use to illustrate blog)<br /></span></span>In one of those chains of odd connections, it turns out I want to write an article about "house flags"... these are the flags that civil shipping companies fly on their ships to show what line the ship belongs to. The same scheme is often used to decorate the smokestack(s) on more modern ships, which can be seen from farther away<br /><br />Why do I want to write that article? Well you can thank <a href="user:Rettetast">Rettetast</a>, I guess. He, or his bot, left me <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar&oldid=206774468#Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:MerrittChapman_1938_ad.jpg">a message</a> that a magazine ad <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MerrittChapman_1938_ad.jpg">image</a> I uploaded (conforming to the then current <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" title="Fair use" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Fair Use</a> standards) long long ago (mid May 2006, and 2 years is a long time in wiki time) to illustrate the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt-Chapman_%26_Scott">Merritt-Chapman & Scott</a> article was no longer in compliance with current practice, and I needed to write a better justification. Perfectly legitimate and an important thing to fix, since the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki" title="Wiki" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">WMF</a> has mandated all wikis be in compliance with fair use.<br /><br />In reviewing the article I thought to myself it would be nice, since the MC&S house flag featured in the logo (and in the bottom of the ad) if I could find a house flag image to use that was better than the very grainy one in the ad. So I searched, only to find <a href="http://flagspot.net/flags/us%7Ehfmc.html#mcs">this</a> page. It has a better house flag all right, drawn by Eugene Ipavec... but the irony of it alll! It's a recreation, based on the very Wikipedia article and image I myself uploaded!<br /><br />This spurred me to search, and I found that the term "house flag" is used over 30 times in articles but has no article of its own. Doing the research is problematic though, as the term is very common and thus you get a lot of false returns. But I thing I may have found some few tidbits and if i can tear myself away from drama I will take a crack at changing the redirect I put in to become a real article. It may not end up very large but it would be better than the tidbit in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_flags#House_flag">Maritime flags</a> article (which itself is better than nothing)<br /><br />What serendipitous connections, or even self referential ones, have you found that spurred you? And do you have any leads for good sources for a House flag article? (grin)<br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=b125c092-f9e9-4a03-aade-6608c3247462" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-64321605337055230032008-04-19T11:00:00.003-04:002008-04-20T23:18:30.060-04:00Getting off HivemindIf you're on Hivemind (the site, not the <a href="http://jakarta.apache.org/hivemind/" title="Hivemind (software)" rel="homepage" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Hivemind</a> OS software) and you want to get off, all you have to do is publish your real name on your <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Wikipedia</a> page... simple right?<br /><br />Except my real name's been there all along. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lar&oldid=19034630">Very first edit</a> to the page, in fact.<br /><br />But I got added to Hivemind recently. No. I'm not giving you the link to Hivemind, it gets enough inbound links as it is. Trying to ask Brandt why gets zero reply.<br /><br />Maybe it's more like you have to also not annoy <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Information_Research" title="Public Information Research" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Daniel Brandt</a> by calling him a weenie (or worse, see <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/losing-my-temper.html">this</a> blog post). Or maybe you have to get behind whatever his latest hobby horse is... delete whatever he is hot about, sign whatever petition he is keen on, etc. Or <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17414&view=findpost&p=94395">maybe</a> ??? Who knows?<br /><br />Point is, if you want to be seen as acting on principle, as Brandt claims to be doing, you have to actually act on principle, and not act based on personal grudges.<br /><br />That's what I try to stick to, and "acting on principle" is precisely what I was arguing in defending the redirect deletions... the principle of deleting them was correct even if Daniel Brandt himself was not a nice person.<br /><br />Else, if you consistently don't act on principle, you're just a bully. As Moulton <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17382&view=findpost&p=94041">pointed out</a>, Brandt's actions fit the description.<br /><br />Kato justified Brandt's tactics <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17382&view=findpost&p=94070">here</a>. I suspect that there is some validity to the claim that you have to fight unfairly if you have been treated unfairly. But on the other hand, is attacking those who most want to help the most reasonable way to effect change?<br /><br />I don't think so. Do you?<br /><br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=d97961f4-06ed-4d36-a3c5-8e163e9470dc" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-57847807572002455982008-04-17T07:00:00.002-04:002008-04-17T07:00:00.398-04:00Money can't buy happiness?<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block;"></span></span>Sometimes following tangents finds you interesting things. Danny's "White Fathers" <a href="http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/white-fathers-of-silicon-valley.html">blog</a> post yesterday on what really would help folk in Africa, whether the WMF's mission of knowledge sharing was the most needful thing started the wheels turning for me.<br /><br />Those wheels got a push from <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17408">this</a> thread on Wikipedia Review, and from Danny's "Congo" response to it <a href="http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/congo.html">here</a>. I think maybe sometimes we lose track, in our situations, of how things really are and aren't, and what we can do about them. What I'm about to say should in no way be taken as diminishing how tough things are in places like the sub Sahara, the Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe and the like. They're tough, make no mistake, way tougher than in the rich world...<br /><br />So when I hear people saying "Money can't buy happiness?" I want to call BS. First, take a look at this classic essay by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scalzi" title="John Scalzi" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">John Scalzi</a>, "<a href="http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003704.html">Being Poor</a>" It's a rich world essay to be sure, but it drives home the point... being poor really really sucks.<br /><br />Then take a look at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/business/16leonhardt.html">this</a> New York Times article... <span style="font-style: italic;">Maybe Money Does Buy Happiness After All </span>... Granted, its a study of the rich world, and of the well off people within it, but (quoting) <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;"> The fact remains that economic growth doesn’t just make countries richer in superficially materialistic ways. </span><p><span style="font-style: italic;">Economic growth can also pay for investments in scientific research that lead to longer, healthier lives. It can allow trips to see relatives not seen in years or places never visited. When you’re richer, you can decide to work less — and spend more time with your friends.</span> </p>That's rich world stuff... but the same thing is true in the less rich world. As Ben Yates cited in a "White Fathers" reply, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/magazine/13anthropology-t.html">cellphones can make a difference</a>, and that says to me that aid isn't the solution. Changing society is the solution. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth" title="Economic growth" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Economic growth</a> is the solution. Knowledge is the solution. Danny's right when he says an encyclopedia per se isn't the answer, that more thought is required, it has to deliver the things that are needed. But those who decry encyclopedias and economic and societal change in favour of direct aid? They miss the mark.<br /><br />Money can't buy happiness? Tell it the the lady in Alabama with the 800 dollar car. Tell it to the mother in Gambia without the money to buy a sack of maize.<br /><br />Money CAN buy happiness.... but the best kind of money is money you control because you earned it, because your society enabled it, not money that dropped in your lap.<br /><br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=02ce65f1-caa2-42e8-9fb4-36fdae7c67d6" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-14650430643280527052008-04-15T07:00:00.005-04:002008-04-16T11:01:41.979-04:00More on the BLP policy<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JThorlbio.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/JThorlbio.jpg/202px-JThorlbio.jpg" alt="Cover of Gissurarson’s biography of Prime Minister Jón Þorláksson (1992)" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">A biography, although<br />not of a living person :)<br />Image via <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JThorlbio.jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></span></span>Yes, this is the 4th time I've written about the topic of <a href="http://writingwithintherules.blogspot.com/">Biographies of Living Persons</a> (or BLP for short) , and unfortunately, I expect it won't be the last. (here are screeds <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/notability-and-blp-policy.html">one</a>, <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-notability-and-blp.html">two</a>, and <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-on-anonymity.html">three</a>)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/" title="Wikipedia" rel="homepage" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Wikipedia</a> user <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_glasgow">Doc Glasgow</a> has written an excellent summation of the problem on a user subpage <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem">The_BLP_problem.</a> It also includes analysis of several of the possible solutions that have been offered in various places lately. Those who say there is no problem really really need to read this page, it's very well done.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia" title="Criticism of Wikipedia" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Wikipedia Review</a> folk thought so highly of it that they reproduced it, verbatim (as of when it was copied) as one of their <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080415/the-biographies-of-living-people-problem/">editorials</a>. This topic is now getting more and more attention so I'm hopeful that some progress will be made. As I've said before, the stakes are too high, and the injuries possible to those affected by BLP too risky, not to do something.<br /><br />To see the magnitude of the problem, take a look at the Some Statistics <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080415/the-biographies-of-living-people-problem/">section</a> in the WR editorial (reproduced from somewhere else I can't find at the moment):<br /><br /><table style="width: 334px; height: 356px;" class="wikitable"><tbody><tr> <th>Maintenance category</th> <th>Articles</th> <th> Percent</th> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;">Total BLP articles<br />(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people" title="Category:Living people">Category:Living people</a>)</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">259210</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">100.00%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources" title="Category:Articles lacking sources">Cat:Articles lacking sources</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">13908</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">5.37%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements" title="Category:Articles with unsourced statements">Cat:Articles with unsourced statements</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">13740</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">5.30%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_needing_additional_references" title="Category:Articles needing additional references">Cat:Articles needing additional references</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">5475</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">2.11%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Orphaned_articles" title="Category:Orphaned articles">Cat:Orphaned articles</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">3157</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">1.22%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_to_be_expanded" title="Category:Articles to be expanded">Cat:Articles to be expanded</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">2511</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">0.97%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_topics_of_unclear_notability" title="Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability">Cat:Articles with topics of unclear notability</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">1971</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">0.76%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_reliable_references" title="Category:Articles lacking reliable references">Cat:Articles lacking reliable references</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">1918</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">0.74%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_trivia_sections" title="Category:Articles with trivia sections">Cat:Articles with trivia sections</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">1510</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">0.58%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_style_editing" title="Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing">Cat:Wikipedia articles needing style editing</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">1420</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">0.55%</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_in-text_citations" title="Category:Articles lacking in-text citations">Cat:Articles lacking in-text citations</a></span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">860</span></td> <td align="right"><span style="font-size:85%;">0.33%</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Data from March 12 2008<br /><br />5% lacking sources, 5% unsourced statements, 2% needing references (some overlap there to be sure)... that doesn't even track the articles that are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COATRACK">coatracks</a> or hatchet jobs. 5% isn't bad, you say??? except that is 13 THOUSAND articles that may well have problems.<br /><br />There have been a fair few proposals to address this recently... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BLP#Semi-protecting_all_BLPs">semi-protection</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock">BLP-Lock</a>, (by SirFozzie, et al) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OptOut">Opt Out</a> (by PrivateMusings, et al) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem#Doc.27s_solution">AfD rejiggering</a> (by Doc Glasgow) , dead tree standard, (by many folk) and some I've forgotten.<br /><br />Some ideas are more radical than others of course... perhaps one of the more interesting offers related to this was Daniel Brandt <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17286&view=findpost&p=92038">wagering</a> Hivemind. Probably nothing will come of it. (I made Hivemind myself recently, but that's probably the topic for another posting)<br /><br />So what do you think? Has the tide turned and we are going to see change in this area at last? Or do you think there's no problem at all?<br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=3d24035b-d352-4100-a972-1eeb6fb81c57" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-35112314739760194142008-04-09T06:05:00.001-04:002008-08-02T10:59:52.237-04:00Blog till you drop?<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20317015@N00/2315099331" target="_blank"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/2315099331_efd4b2c705_m.jpg" alt="wikipedia pencils" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">I've got to get me some of these pencils!<br />Image by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20317015@N00/2315099331" target="_blank">kaurjmeb</a> via Flickr</span></span></span>I know that people <a href="http://www.successful-blog.com/1/where-are-you-in-the-blogging-gold-rush/">make money</a> from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog" title="Blog" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">blogging</a>. (not me, unless you count the 34 cents in <a href="http://www.google.com/adsense" title="AdSense" rel="homepage" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">AdSense</a> revenue (or whatever it is, I try not to look) I've gotten so far) But I had no idea that there were "blogger sweatshops"...<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">The New York Times</a> <a href="http:///">reports</a> that people are burning out, and other outlets are also <a href="http://performancing.com/pro-blogging/whats-wrong-blogosphere">talking</a> about how some blogges have actually died.<br /><br />That seems messed up to me. While I've gotten <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/04/planet-wikimedia.html#comments">some comments</a> about my update frequency and about the quality of my posts... I'm doing this blogging thing for me, not for pay. As soon as it's not fun any more, I will stop. That's as it should be I would think.<br /><br />Does this frenzy to work, to make money at blogging have anything to do with WMF projects or with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Content" title="Free Content" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">free content</a> in general? Well, I'm not sure. Money? not so much... people shouldn't be creating content for the money... but obsession? I've talked about <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/04/xkcd-and-obsession.html">obsession</a> before and how it ties into doing what we like to do. I am sure I'm not the only Wikipedia editor who has looked at the time in shock, wondering how it got so late! It is easy to lose track during a good work session on an article, a policy page, or what have you, but it's important to keep a sense of perspective. As with anything else, some rotation is good as well... don't JUST hang out at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFA">Requests for Adminship</a>, or the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AFD">Articles for Deletion</a> pages or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FAC">Featured Article Candidates</a> or whatever... take some breaks.<br /><br />That's one of the reasons I'm glad I have multiple hats to wear within <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation" title="Wikimedia Foundation" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Wikimedia Foundation</a> projects... when I tired of the hurly burly of the English Wikipedia, there are always pictures to categorise or upload (after all, I've got plenty of <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/rooting-around-in-old-pictures.html">old pictures</a>!) over at<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page"> Commons</a>, or things to do at <a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page">Meta</a>, or the like. But I also have my other obsessions too. Oh, and a real life and a job and a family and bills to pay. That sharpens the perspective I think.<br /><br />How about you? How do you keep a sense of perspective?<br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=131a6d4b-f2fb-43f4-ba82-191881f11119" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-59007463147028269012008-04-07T07:00:00.003-04:002008-04-07T04:23:36.436-04:00Information wants to be free<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pantone_Universe_products.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Pantone_Universe_products.jpg/202px-Pantone_Universe_products.jpg" alt="Some Pantone Universe products. Pantone Universe is a brand of everyday items featured in Pantone colors." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">Pantone colored products,<br />Image from <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pantone_Universe_products.jpg">Commons</a></span></span></span><br />So what is the nature of a copyright? What can be protected and what cannot? Consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone">Pantone</a>... The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone" title="Pantone" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Pantone Matching System</a> is a proprietary color space used for specifying pigments and colors precisely. Pantone holds that the numbers given to particular shades are "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property" title="Intellectual property" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">intellectual property</a>" and cannot be reproduced without permission.<br /><br />So if you want to discuss colors using the Pantone scheme, you have to comply with the requirements. There are many examples elsewhere.<br /><br />Consider chemical compounds. The nomenclature is very confusing, since there is such a great profusion of them, discovered by many many researchers over several centuries in many countries. Not having a standard will impede progress. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Abstracts_Service">Chemical Abstracts Service</a>, part of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Chemical_Society" title="American Chemical Society" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">ACS</a>, provides standardized compound identification and nomenclature. But the ACS doesn't want Wikipedia using <span class="rss:item"><a href="http://www.cas.org/expertise/cascontent/registry/regsys.html">CAS Registry Numbers</a></span> for licensing reasons as discussed <a href="http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/2008/03/acs-blocks-use-of-industry-standard.html">here</a>. The basic argument is that<br /><br />"<span class="rss:item"><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Abstracts_Service">SciFinder </a>and STN are provided to researchers under formal license agreements, under which the researchers agree to refrain from using these tools to build databases</em></span>"<br /><br />and that Wikipedia is a kind of database.<br /><span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CASHQ.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/CASHQ.jpg/202px-CASHQ.jpg" alt="Chemical Abstracts Service headquarters in Columbus. Self made photo." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">CAS Headquarters,<br />Image from <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CASHQ.jpg">Commons</a></span></span></span><br />But, and this is a bigger problem here than it is with colors, these numbers are very standard. You'll find them in many contexts in academia and industry and you can't practically escape their use. Since chemical compounds are a sometime matter of life and death (few people have died from getting slightly the wrong shade of pink, but many have died from getting the wrong drug) standardization theoretically is a good thing to avoid confusion.<br /><br />Wikipedia has a giant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer">disclaimer</a> that it's not to be relied upon, use at your own risk, etc... but people do rely on it anyway. So not being able to use these numbers will be a great hindrance<br /><br />But there's hope, in this particular case, the ACS appears to be relenting. See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/CAS_validation#CAS_Discourages_Using_SciFinder_for_curating_3rd_party_databases_.28e.g._Wikipedia.29">discussion</a> at the WikiProject for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry">Chemistry</a> ... (as well as in the <a href="http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=1005">blogosphere</a>) It now appears that the ACS has reversed position and will work with the project to enable accurate use of information.<br /><br />Maybe it all will work out in the end. But I wonder if there are general principles to be had here. Is it possible to work with organizations that have proprietary, but vital, information and get to a good outcome in most cases? Have you seen this in other fields?<br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=091d8dca-337a-42ba-8ad9-759d741048da" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-73772362323089093662008-04-06T06:00:00.000-04:002008-04-05T23:59:36.612-04:00More on Anonymity<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_Seigenthaler_Sr._speaking.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._speaking.jpg/202px-John_Seigenthaler_Sr._speaking.jpg" alt="John Seigenthaler Sr. has described Wikipedia as " a="" flawed="" and="" irresponsible="" research="" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.">John Siegenthaler Sr</a>. an early<br />victim of bad biographical data.<br />Image from <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_Seigenthaler_Sr._speaking.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></span></span>Recall that I've spoken about anonymity <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/anonymity.html">before</a> ... I've also talked about biographies and notability, <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/notability-and-blp-policy.html">twice</a> <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-notability-and-blp.html">before</a>.<br /><br />I made a rather loud <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=203078348">statement</a> of no longer being in favor of anonymity at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons">Biographies of Living Persons</a> policy discussion page, as part of discussion on a proposal to limit editing on all such articles using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SEMI#Semi-protection">semi protection</a>. This was one of a number of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock">ideas</a> that have been advanced recently to try to deal with the perceived growing problem in this area.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kim_Bruning">Kim Bruning</a> asked why I felt that a fundamental principle ("anyone can edit") should perhaps change to one in which only those willing to reveal their real name (verified as well as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com" title="Amazon.com" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Amazon</a> verifies <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279641&qid=1207441916&sr=1-1">real names</a>, that is, not a perfect scheme, but not trivial to fake) would be allowed to edit at all. Clearly it goes against the early spirit. And I'm not happy about the idea, to be sure.<br /><br />Simply put, the reason is that Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation have become too big. As the projects become more and more important, higher and higher ranked, more and more turned to, the stakes for accuracy are higher than ever before, with no end to this growth in significance in sight. The project participants, and the projects, have a greater responsibility than when this was a toy site.<br /><br />Merely wishing to do no harm is insufficient. Merely saying that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230">section 230</a> provides protection because the projects are "not publishers" is insufficient.<br /><br />Sooner or later, someone with a biography that is seriously damaging (and make no mistake, with 250,000 odd biographies out there, there are sure to be some that are) will be mad enough and well off enough to sue. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Murphy">Don Murphy</a> certainly threatens to. And moreover, with the recent <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2008/03/wikipedia_nabs.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_blogspotting">success</a> at securing large donations (a very good thing, make no mistake) the WMF is now a more attractive target.<br /><br />So what's to be done? More than is being done, I say.<br /><br />Just as with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark" title="Trademark" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">trademark law</a>, where the holder must show <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_care">reasonable care</a> in defending against infringment, just as with trespass law, where the owner of a property hosting an "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine" title="Attractive nuisance doctrine" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">attractive nuisance</a>" must show reasonable care in preventing entry, the projects must show reasonable care at preventing malicious editing of biographies. Tightening of the BLP policy, making OTRS more effective, hiring paid staff, whatever it takes.<br /><br />But more importantly, the model of anonymous editing, or pseudonymous editing, means that the lawsuit cannot be laid off onto the individual editor that did the bad edit, despite statements that under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License" title="GNU Free Documentation License" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">GFDL</a> the individual contributors are responsible. Server logs and IP addresses are insufficient ties of responsibility. Too easily evaded, too easily used for other things, so deliberately not retained indefinitely anyway.<br /><br />So... it pains me to say it, but I think the only answer is real names. Real names allow the reasonable care defense, and allow transfer of liability. That has two positive effects, one that it protects the foundation, somewhat, but a bigger positive effect? It makes people actually take responsibility for what they write.<br /><br />What do you think? Is the project too big for anonymity? Or is there another way out?<br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=651236f4-b707-429a-bd67-be6a3e05288e" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-1364204024506287882008-04-05T12:39:00.005-04:002008-04-05T19:02:02.860-04:00Planet WikimediaSo I just put in a <a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planet_Wikimedia&diff=946415&oldid=937051">request</a> to be added to <a href="http://en.planet.wikimedia.org/">Planet Wikimedia</a>. This feed aggregation collects blogs from various wikimedians and is designed either for blogs that are primarily about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation">Wikimedia Foundation</a> related projects, or else that use filtered feeds to restrict the topics.<br /><br />I had been holding off for a few reasons...<br /><ol><li>I wasn't sure I would be able to stick with this for very long, but I've been hitting an average of one post a day for over a month now (with a little <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/cheating.html">fudging</a>, note I said an average!)<br /></li><li>I wasn't sure what I would be doing, I thought I'd be talking more LEGO and less WMF, but that hasn't been the case. (I have a few things I want to say about LEGO and I will )</li><li>I wasn't sure how to do filtered feeds. But <a href="http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=53336">this</a> help explains it. Hopefully I did it right, we'll see. I filtered on Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, and Commons. I (ha!) left out Wikipedia Review as a filter tag.<br /><span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ouroboros.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Ouroboros.png/202px-Ouroboros.png" alt="The Ouroboros, a dragon that bites its tail, is a symbol for self-reference." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Ouroboros.<br /><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ouroboros.png">Image</a> from <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main%20Page">Commons</a> </span></span><br /></li></ol>So what do you think dear (4, is it now?) readers? Worth reading and adding or just vanity on my part?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(By the way, this may be the most self referential post I've done yet!)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(Also by the way, see that "Zemified" logo? That's a nifty little addon for Firefox I found from </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.zemanta.com/">Zemanta</a><span style="font-style: italic;">, it will suggest links and pictures for you. The </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros">Ouroboros</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> image at right was suggested by it when I put 'self referential' into the text)</span><br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=6a9dbcb2-978b-4780-8317-d9de7d0c8772" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-43149800463479119412008-04-04T07:00:00.003-04:002008-04-04T18:18:15.432-04:00Ok, seriously... are you TRYING to make Wikidefender's work easier???Let me get this straight...<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings">Privatemusings</a> has been having podcasts. He's had <a href="http://allswool.blogspot.com/">Danny Wool</a>, he's had <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner">Sue Gardner</a>, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, he's had Michael Snow, he's had <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FA">Featured Article </a>director <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654">Raul654</a>. He solicits guests and whoever turns up, turns up. He's not afraid of controversial subjects and the casts (despite his tendency to go on a bit instead of letting his guests talk... hmm... who do I know like that!) have been well received, considered interesting and fun.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6">Number 6</a> features some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton">folk</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyWikiBiz">not</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WordBomb">known</a> <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=275">for</a> their high regard for Wikipedia as it stands.<br /><br />The podcasts themselves are<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Not_The_Wikipedia_Weekly_podcast"> hosted</a> on Commons.<br /><br />So <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NonvocalScream">NonvocalScream</a> decides that to put the page describing podcast number 6 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6#Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly.2FEpisode_6">up for deletion</a> at Miscellany for Deletion. Rationale? "banned users are not permitted to edit" as given <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users">here</a>. The fact that the files themselves are hosted on commons, and that this is one of a series, seems lost on some... but aside from a few folk, this is almost a snowball keep. It's got the usual folk saying the usual things but it strikes me as a huge waste of time, sorry...<br /><br />For those that don't get the title reference, Wikidefender runs a <a href="http://wikidefender.blogspot.com/">blog</a> that many consider to be a bit of a pastiche of the stuff trotted out by those who think everything with Wikipedia is perfect, and may or may not have been the person behind <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&diff=203240885&oldid=203016753">this</a> funny edit to my talk page. Not that he singled me out, NewYorkBrad got one too...<br /><br />Is it just me or is this sort of nomination actually playing into the hands of those that say that some editors can't help but do silly things?Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-68384748847785823892008-04-03T07:00:00.002-04:002008-04-06T00:10:12.766-04:00xkcd and obsession<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xkcd_philosophy.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Xkcd_philosophy.png" alt="Last panel of the xkcd webcomic " philosophy="" on="" xkcd="" displays="" tooltip="" it="" s="" like="" squirt="" bottle="" we="" use="" with="" the="" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">Sample xkcd comic.<br />Image from <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xkcd_philosophy.png">Commons</a></span></span></span>OK, so <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd">xkcd</a> is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcomic">webcomic</a>. If you don't know what that means, follow the links.<br /><br />Anyway, the author of xkcd understands Wikipedia. Consider <a href="http://www.xkcd.com/285/">this</a> comic. (Is there anyone reading this blog who hasn't seen it yet? Oh please! <a href="http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/25944">Cap</a> <a href="http://www.classic-space.com/plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?60486">yourself</a> <a href="http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/635">immediately</a>) Consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=202102228#Do_they_mean_us.3F">this</a> reference to xkcd from Wikipedia's Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents... clearly Wikipedia administrators understand where he's coming from too.<br /><br />The xkcd author surely understands obsession. Consider <a href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/wikiboard_huge.jpg">this</a> image... how long did it take someone (him) to draw that? Any why? On a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteboard">whiteboard</a>, no less. Sure, it's a great joke, but was the time spent worth the laughs? To him it was.<br /><br />Some of you may know that webcomics got me more involved in Wikipedia than just a drive by fixer-upper... reading webcomics used to be one of my obsessions. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego" title="Lego" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">LEGO</a> still is. But over time, it seems that obsessions change and shift. What drives obsessions? What causes them to change? These are good questions. And important ones to many hobbies...<br /><br />Wikipedia would not survive without a core of people who were not at least slightly obsessed with it. The same is true of many other hobbies... the <a href="http://www.nmra.org/">NMRA</a> relies on a core of folk who give their time and energy to an organization that ultimately, is all about something not essential to survival. But ultimately, that's a tribute to the success of our civilization. Instead of being obsessed with gathering food and staying alive, that can take up only part of our time and attention, allowing most of it to focus on what really interests us.<br /><br />What are your obsessions?<br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=9c36e57f-f960-4b5f-87eb-77228b37d8c4" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-34310385702725115042008-04-01T07:20:00.007-04:002008-04-06T00:12:53.708-04:00Happy April Fool's day<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ima_large.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Ima_large.jpg/202px-Ima_large.jpg" alt="Ima Hogg, circa 1910" style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">Ima Hogg ca. 1910<br />Image from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ima_large.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></span></span>It's becoming a yearly tradition at Wikipedia to have an, ahem, special main page on the first... and this year is no different. (some of the content is dynamic, here are<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page/2008_%281%29"> start of day</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page/2008_%282%29">end of day</a> versions) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page">This </a>page, more or less, is the page from 2007, and this page, more or less, is the page from<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page/2006"> 2006</a>.<br /><br />The joke within a joke is... everything on the main page is true. It just doesn't SEEM that way. when you read it A dedicated cadre of volunteers (with too much time on their hands) works at this for quite some time in advance... bringing an article to Featured Article status through the normal process, identifying appropriate "on this day" entries, selecting a special Featured Picture, and so forth. The rules for DYK are bent a bit so that articles older than 5 days are eligible but otherwise, they have to comply with the expansion, referencing, and other requirements.<br /><br />This years' Featured Article, Ima Hogg ( with the lead of the summary reading <span style="font-style: italic;">"<b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ima_Hogg" title="">Ima Hogg</a></b> was an enterprising <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus" title="Circus">circus</a> emcee who brought culture and class to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston%2C_Texas" title="">Houston, Texas</a>. A storied <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich" title="Ostrich">ostrich</a> jockey, she once rode to Hawaii to visit the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liliuokalani" title="">Queen</a>."</span> and yes, that really was her name) was brought from nothing to FA status in extremely short order, and yet, it meets all the normal standards.<br /><br />You can read more about the process at some of the discussion archives: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page/2006">2006</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page/Archive_2007">2007</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page&oldid=202512898">this</a> years. It wasn't always this way. In early years the main page would be subject to what can only be called vandalism (adding complete nonsense, like, oh, that Wikipedia might carry ads, or was bought by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google" title="Google" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" class="zem_slink">Google</a>, or that Google was launching a competitor to Wikipedia, among other things mooted) by established editors, followed by bouts of edit warring as various factions tried to restore normalcy, or restore Foolishness.<br /><br />With the advent of the enforcement of policy that even on 1 April, everything has to be true, and everything has to work as a normal page (no messing with the links to helps or the page layout or the sidebar) relative peace has come... although some editors still don't even like the use of silly articles, it's hard to argue against a process that remains true to the spirit of truth (although perhaps NPOV is bent a little in writing the gag tag lines).<br /><br />Do you know of other organizations that do only the truth in their prankery? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google">Google</a>, for example,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_hoaxes"> does not</a>. It has shared such novel new innovations as <a href="http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html">pigeon ranking</a>, <a href="http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html">moon bases</a> and this years gem, <a href="http://www.google.com/virgle/index.html">Virgle Pioneers</a>, with us. (the sad thing is that except for pigeon ranking, these are all things I wish were true.)<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >(edits: fixed links to 2008 pages. Also note that this tradition is now a big enough deal that it gets media attention, such as <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-13577_3-9907582-36.html?part=rss&subj=news">this</a> article. ) </span><br /><div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=5b30323b-7b2e-4da7-9a72-ea3bcd6005e3" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-13713362445320934482008-03-31T09:01:00.003-04:002008-04-06T00:14:44.314-04:00Attacking the noise...<span class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Screenshot-XChat-_Moniker42_%40_FreeNode_-_-ubuntuforums_%28%2Btn%29-1.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d4/Screenshot-XChat-_Moniker42_%40_FreeNode_-_-ubuntuforums_%28%2Btn%29-1.png/202px-Screenshot-XChat-_Moniker42_%40_FreeNode_-_-ubuntuforums_%28%2Btn%29-1.png" alt="A Screenshot of Xchat, an IRC client." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="margin: 1em 0pt 0pt; display: block; font-style: italic;">Xchat IRC client<br />Image from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Screenshot-XChat-_Moniker42_%40_FreeNode_-_-ubuntuforums_%28%2Btn%29-1.png">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></span></span>...in signal to noise ratio.<br /><br />I forgot about this, and I'm glad I remembered. It seems that there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRC">IRC</a> channels where fans of <a href="http://www.xkcd.com/">xkcd</a> hang out and chat. ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd">xkcd</a> is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcomic">webcomic</a>. If you don't know what that means, follow the links.) Oddly enough, (or maybe not, see my post about obsession) this is popular enough that the channels were suffering from a surfeit of inane comments. Channel regulars were apparently not amused.<br /><br />Turns out my fellow LEGO fan Dan Boger, alias zigdon (I have no idea why) a wizard Perl coder, and creator of the boffo <a href="http://peeron.com/">Peeron.com</a> LEGO set database coded up a bot... what sort of a bot, you say? Well, go read the <a href="http://media.peeron.com/tmp/ROBOT9000.html">source code</a> and figure it out!<br /><br />OK done? Figured it out? Your <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl">perl</a>-foo is strong.<br /><br />Everyone else: It's a bot to enforce originality. Say something in the channel that has been said before, and you get devoiced for 4 seconds. Say another something that has been said before, and the devoice quadruples. Not just something that YOU said before, something that ANYONE said before.<br />)<br />Read more about <a href="http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/14/robot9000-and-xkcd-signal-attacking-noise-in-chat/">how</a> this came to pass, and then laugh with me. Note, <a href="http://www.yenga.com/2008/01/15/sorry-someone-already-said-that/">others</a> have blogged about this as well...<br /><br />I actually got to try this out, and it's surprisingly difficult to not get zapped by the bot. Think you can do better (warning, theoretically, it gets harder as time goes by, all the obvious things to say have been used up)? <a href="irc://irc.xkcd.com/#xkcd-signal">Try</a> it and see, assuming you have an IRC nickname set up.<br /><br />Wikimedia IRC channels need this! Well, some of them do. Maybe not all of them :) I suspect that the stewards channel needs people to be able to say !steward more than just the one time. But <a href="irc://irc.freenode.com/#wikipedia">#wikipedia</a> REALLY needs this! You know it does.<div id="zemanta-pixie" style="margin: 5px 0pt; width: 100%;"><a id="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Zemified by Zemanta"><img id="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixie.png?x-id=10c88de5-fdfb-4166-a8c0-57eff800c52a" style="border: medium none ; float: right;" /></a></div>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-12889624153150321132008-03-27T23:55:00.001-04:002008-03-28T16:20:24.219-04:00Enough about the darn boat, already...By now all (3 of) my readers must be thoroughly sick of hearing about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Christopher_Columbus">SS <span style="font-style: italic;">Christopher Columbus</span></a> and her adventures as a Featured Article Candidate. After all, I wrote about this topic not <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/throwing-myself-to-wolves.html">once</a> before, but <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/well-well.html">twice</a>...<br /><br />Never fear, this is the last post on that article for a while, I would think, because the article has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2008&diff=prev&oldid=201455117">made it</a> to Featured Article status... Yaay!<br /><br />I had thought that every comment had to be resolved, but as it turns out, she was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Christopher_Columbus&oldid=201460192">promoted</a> with some remaining unresolved minor comments. Still, the article never actually got an oppose, and in a great display of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SS_Christopher_Columbus&action=history">collaborativeness</a>, many of the commenters pitched in and fixed their own or other people's comments.<br /><br />In fact the article even made the Wikirage <a href="http://www.wikirage.com/wiki/SS_Christopher_Columbus/">top 100 list</a> by edits over a 3 day period.. check out the graph of activity.<br /><br />So I guess I don't know what all the whining is about? Or did I get lucky? The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FA">Featured Article</a> process was exacting and demanding, yes, but ultimately the article's a lot tighter now than it was when we started. (and it was a lot smoother than getting the article to<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GA"> Good Article</a> status, that took two tries!) And now I am trying to decide what other articles I should think about nominating! But why aren't I on<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations"> this list</a> yet? I demand answers. (obviously an evil <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rick_Bot">bot</a>!) Oh well, a topic for another blog post. What, you thought I was done with this topic???Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-46880943076563622552008-03-26T21:35:00.006-04:002008-03-26T21:50:54.318-04:00well well...Hmph... maybe this <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/throwing-myself-to-wolves.html">FA thing</a> isn't so bad after all. Hopefully I won't jinx things by saying that I think maybe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SS_Christopher_Columbus">the old girl</a> is going to make it!<br /><br />I can't really take all the credit, or even much of it, frankly. The collaborative editing on this article is nothing short of remarkable. Compare the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SS_Christopher_Columbus&diff=201213117&oldid=195967146">difference</a> (121 edits so far, and counting) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SS_Christopher_Columbus&oldid=195969601">before</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SS_Christopher_Columbus&oldid=195969601">after</a> and see the edits by everyone using this <a href="http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl">nifty</a> tool. (1)<br /><br />So, no question for you today. Just happiness. The old girl deserves a great article. She got a raw deal, scrapped after 44 years of faithful service and nothing much saved from her.<br /><br />-------------------------<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">1 - Another great tool is the external link <a href="http://tools.wikimedia.de/%7Edispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=SS_Christopher_Columbus#view=0">checker</a>, which is a very sophisticated tool, good for spotting and fixing all sorts of problems!</span>Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-39861386708748263932008-03-24T22:44:00.004-04:002008-03-24T23:01:29.072-04:00Losing my temper.Well, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=200634928">this edit</a> in the Daniel Brandt redirect deletion review was not my finest hour, It actually got me a<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA"> No Personal Attacks</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar&action=history">warning</a> from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2">FT2</a>... I stand behind what I said, and I <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=200650178">said so</a>... I think FT2 and I are square <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&diff=200654863&oldid=200652824">now</a>. More or less anyway. I surprised myself at my vehemence. I hardly ever swear on Wikipedia.<br /><br />Subsequently Daniel himself <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16914&view=findpost&p=88120">opined</a> I'm a bad person. ... well, <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16914&view=findpost&p=88164">so's your old man</a>.<br /><br />I'd give you a link to our article on Daniel Brandt, but we don't have one. :)<br /><br />Like I said, not my finest hour, I can't recall the last time I was warned like that.<br /><br />So, over the top or justified? What do you think?Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-80036859497788818762008-03-22T17:54:00.006-04:002008-03-28T16:17:17.286-04:00Throwing myself to the wolves?Some time ago Giano opined that any Wikipedia administrator worth listening to should have at least one <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FA">Featured Article</a> (FA ... "Wikipedia's Best Work" ) under his or her belt, if not actually produce one per year. That suggestion was not met with universal acclaim. :) But there's some merit to it, nonetheless... or at least to the notion that everyone seeking any extra permissions, should have at least some experience with actually writing the encyclopedia.<br /><br />While I have written some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar/DYK">25+</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:DYK">DYK</a>s 3 of which are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GA">Good Articles</a>, I don't yet have a Featured Article to my credit, and I've been maneuvering to get one to the state where it might be a candidate for some time.<br /><br />So, armed with a lot of help, including the sage advice given <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giano/A_fool%27s_guide_to_writing_a_featured_article">here</a>, I've launched a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Christopher_Columbus#SS_Christopher_Columbus">Featured Article Candidacy</a> for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS%20Christopher%20Columbus">SS Christopher Columbus</a>, which is of all the articles I've written, perhaps my all time favorite. There are those that deride the FA process as overly "fussy" or bureaucratic, but I am not sure that's so... so far the suggestions I've gotten have almost all been actionable and were, for the most part, things I'd missed that really did need sorting. Extra eyes do wonders at spotting things needing fixing.<br /><br />We shall see how it goes. I'm hoping for smooth sailing. Wish me luck!Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771267910183057352.post-44220876543673979512008-03-20T20:52:00.006-04:002008-03-20T21:07:16.462-04:00More on notability and the BLP<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Winer">Dave Winer</a>, in his blog piece "<a href="http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/03/20/whatsWrongWithWikipedia.html">Whats Wrong with Wikipedia</a>" opines (after pointing out what is good about the project) that his bio entry on Wikipedia is in bad shape. His thesis is that it doesn't give him enough credit for things he was involved in, and moreover, that articles which should mention him, don't.<br /><br />This is, of course, kind of the opposite of the beef <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Murphy">Don Murphy</a> has, as I described in <a href="http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/notability-and-blp-policy.html">Notability and the BLP policy</a>... Don wants less said about him, not more.<br /><br />It is easy to dismiss both of these complaints as meaningless, or to say that they balance each other out. But the WikBack threads (among them <a href="http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=572#Post572">"removing marginally notable BLPs"</a> and others), the discussions elsewhere, the activity on new proposals (among them SirFozzie's latest, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock">"BLP-Lock"</a>) suggest that while the project may have come a ways from Siegenthaler, it still has farther to go. Consider the biographies of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Alexandra_Dupr%C3%A9">Ashley Alexandra Dupré</a> (of client #9 fame... hopefully that won't mean anything in 3 months), or of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_and_Brittany_Hensel">Abigail and Brittany Hensel</a>... Does Wikipedia have too much detail in those?<br /><br />I won't be so full of hubris to say that I know the answer. Heck, I am not sure I even know the right question... But my unease that Wikipedia is not doing right by living persons remains.<br /><br />What do you think?Larhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10988249900130732281noreply@blogger.com2