This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
I would like the following addition to either WP:V and\or WP:RS:
"Wikipedia should not be citing outside encyclopedias as source material, other than for information about the encyclopedia itself."
Any objections? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 10:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on Scholasticism, a source is less reliable the less it relies on primary sources. That is, a tertiary source is less reliable than a secondary source and a secondary source is less reliable than a primary source. The reason for this is simple: The process of interpretation by one person to another can be like a game of telephone.
If Wikipedia cites encyclopedias as sources, this makes Wikipedia a tertiary-tertiary source and a "pseudo-encyclopedia" website. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 23:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Do I have to read Wikipedia:Your first article every time I create a new article, or is once sufficient? DuncanHill ( talk) 14:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at Back to the future timeline. Is it a derivative work? If so, it's a copyright violation, and needs to be speedy deleted. The timeline appears to be the presentation of background material for the fictional universe. That is, it seems like Back to the Future content itself - is this timeline itself a work of Back to the Future fiction? The right to derive new works from existing ones is reserved for the copyright owner of the original works. I think we may have stepped on some toes here.
The reason I'm posting this here is because this issue will also affect most if not all of the timelines on the List of fictional timelines, and warrants wider input.
The Transhumanist 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In the United States, "derivative work" is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
I believe Back to the Future timeline may be a "recast" or "adaptation" or "condensation" of Back to the Future background material, as presented in the definition above. I look forward to your opinions. The Transhumanist 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(OD) An atlas of a fictional world would be a derivative work, but not a copyright violation. Copyright law makes no distinction, that I know of, between fictional and non-fictional work by the way. Wjhonson ( talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"Can you see that your interpretation would make copyvios of synopsis of books, episodes, films?"
It isn't a basic synopsis. It's detailed fan analysis based on certain specific facts pulled from the story.
The claims made in Back to the Future timeline are a synthesis of various bits and pieces of the Back to the Future movies.
"So would you delete Powers and abilities of Superman" -- YES.
Wjhonson: You claim that Back to the future timeline is a derivative work, but it is original enough that it is not in violation of copyright. Based on this: How is it not original research?
Why on earth are you defending it, based on the assertion that it's a "new form of artwork," when this is an encyclopedia?! ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 14:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not confusing OR with copyright infringement. I'm saying: Based on Wjhonson's arguments above, he created a logical dilemma whereby the article is either original research or copyright infringement. He argued it is not copyright infringement because it is very original. But because it is original, it should not be in Wikipedia which simplies relies on collecting information from verifiable, reliable sources -- not creative fan analysis. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Initially, an article I contribute to said "Major proponent organization X says Y has never harmed anyone". I found some data that refutes this, and changed it to "While X claims Y has never harmed anyone, this is untrue. It has actually killed this many people ..." The article was then changed to remove the initial claim and just says "It has killed this many people".
I'd prefer stating the claims of proponents and then refuting them, rather than just stating the actual facts, but is this neutral? — Omegatron 03:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Penguin: Symbolic logic of content disputes can be helpful, because if you bring up the specific issue involved then suddenly people, even admins, morph into these heinous political pundits like Jekyll turned into Mr. Hyde. Naming the specific article may be necessary because there may be some outside information we're not aware of, but his question is still relevant and we can still answer it.
Omegatron: What you did appears to be weasel words and a violation of WP:SYNTH, like Sarcasticidealist said above. If both sources are reliable, then you can't invoke one source then say, "But this is untrue," and invoke another source. If source Y contradicts source X, then I suggest bringing up the possibility that source X is prone to having incorrect facts and therefore isn't reliable, and shouldn't be in the article at all. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article in question is actually pretty easy to find.
but he's a dirty filthy stinkin liar
Why are userpages of indefinitely blocked users deleted on the English Wikipedia? See Template:Temporary userpage and Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. Vints ( talk) 08:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Because of how indefinitely blocked users tend to be troublemakers, which tend to post things like, "MR. ADMIN IS A POOPY-HEAD," on their userpages as they go down in flames, falling into a downward spiral of vandalism and trolling that leads them to being indefinitely blocked.
Why is this a problem? Do any of their userpages contain encyclopedic content you think is worth keeping? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 08:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, I agree, then, that indef-blocked users' should be able to keep their userpages up. If they're disruptive, they should be blanked and then locked, but not "deleted." ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 09:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel an userpage of an indefblocked user should not be deleted when they are placed in the category for deletion, feel free to add {{ Do not delete}}. — Save_Us † 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
They pretty much run an entire article, and should anything in it be changed without their knowledge, they'll immediately undo the changes. I'm frankly getting sick of them. Anyone else for getting rid of the 'watch' tab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animesouth ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading the article about the current chaos in Chad, I observed that the army chief of staff, Daoud Soumain, was killed in battle. I wanted to read about him, but there's no article; and searching online reveals rather little except current news statements about his death. There are plenty of sources for his being the chief of staff, and so I wondered: could we say that being the army chief of staff is sufficient for notability purposes? There's absolutely nothing about military officers in WP:BIO, and the closest thing to precedent for this is John Doughty, the Commanding General of the United States Army at only a major. Nyttend ( talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
...in violation of policy.
I saw this posted on
WP:ANI. It's worth re-posting here.
[1]
Meanwhile,
WP:ARS continues to be used for
WP:Canvassing. I complained about them doing this, such as their lack of attempts at fixing
Bawls. They ignored me. Later, Benjiboi archived my comments, even though other threads there are several months older.
[2]
☯
Zenwhat (
talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC) See comments below.
☯
Zenwhat (
talk) 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Turns out my speculation about the inclusionist bot cabal was unfounded and also in violation of WP:AGF. See the discussion about this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
On ARS: Overall, I still think that WP:ARS is a bad organization which should be abolished, but a recent discussion with Benjiboi leads me to believe that not all of its supporters, themselves, are necessarily bad. Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit might be able to take care of the fact that WP:ARS doesn't seem to care about actually improving articles, just "rescuing" them from AfD (which yes, generally just means voting). ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was possible to create a policy that discourages more than one of the above proposals being used on an article at the same time. It makes discussion hard as there are usually two/three discussions going on all at once sometimes with the same points being raised twice but in different locations. For example Talk:Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix are two separate discussions on the same article. As you can see discussion started at the talk page then moved to the AfD page but is now back at the talk page. (I might change the title later to one that is a bit more clearer)-- Sin Harvest ( talk) 12:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Back to the Future timeline.
The Transhumanist 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Transhumanist, it appears that the community misunderstands copyright, or perhaps it isn't the community at all, but there's just a "cabal of fanboy editors" preventing fan-fiction on Wikipedia from being removed.
I attempted to simply blank the page until the deletion review was over, but Rogue Penguin reverted me. I e-mailed info-en-c@wikimedia.org. If anybody knows how to directly contact Mike Godwin, that might be a better idea. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a proposal here. Wikipedia:Fan fiction, since there's deadlock over at WP:FICT. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That's false, User:Hiding\T.
That's a scene in Disney's Aladdin that sums up the point:
Aladdin steals a loaf of bread and says, "Stealing is only stealing if you get caught." Then the guard, Razoul, grabs him.
You can't defend yourself in court by saying, "But I didn't EXPECT to be sued! I thought I'd actually get away with this stuff!" ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is the Wiki policy on controversy articles? I have read several things about controversy but in my mind the whole area seems more gray then any other policy section in Wikipedia. Does undo weight still apply to such an article? Must a controversy article be from the viewpoint of a clear and definable minority or is fringe opinion noteworthy enough for a controversy article? Is self-published material and fringe material allowed on a CA? Does a controversy article have a different set of rules from other articles? -- scuro ( talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors—The idea is to centralise debate and consensus-gathering when there are inconsistencies between the pages.
The most straightforward way is to have MOS-central prevail, and to involve expertise from sub-pages on the talk page there, rather than the fragmentary discourse—more usually the absence of discourse and the continuing inconsistency—that characterises WP's style guideline resources now. If consensus has it that MOS-central should bend to the wording of a sub-page, so be it. But until that occurs in each case that might occasionally arise, there needs to be certainty for WPians, especially in the Featured Article process, where nominators and reviewers are sometimes confused by a left- and right-hand that say different things.
Of course, no one owns MOS-central, and we're all just as important to its running as other editors. I ask for your support and feedback HERE. Tony (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know that we have a new NOR noticeboard, where people can ask questions about material they think might be OR, or where they can ask for help if they're accused of engaging in OR but they disagree. The shortcut is WP:NORN, and the talk page is at WT:NORN. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The following statement was recently added to Richard Mentor Johnson: "Johnson, and more prominently his common-law wife Julia Chinn and their daughters, all play visible roles in the Eric Flint alternate history novels 1812: The Rivers of War and 1824: The Arkansas War (particularly the latter)." I don't have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, nor do I have a problem with it being added. However, I am hoping to make a FAC run with the article soon, so I asked the editor who added the information to please cite it. He replied "Johnson, Julia Chinn and their two daughters are mentioned, and appear in person, intermittently in the first of these novels and constantly in the second. I'm not sure just what would be a practical means of citing this, since the books don't have indexes of character appearances."
What is an appropriate way to source this statement? Does it constitute trivia? How should this situation be handled? Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 15:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"Due to a technical problem with one of our servers, some tools and search options may be unavailable. We hope to have this issue resolved soon. Uploading and viewing files remains unaffected."'
Anybody know how long this message has been up?
Again, more evidence of budgetary problems with the Foundation. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I made some substantial edits to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not failing. I suggest anyone involved in policy-making read it.
With that said, here's something to consider: The statistics put forth by Wikimedia at http://stats.wikimedia.org/ do not seem to be reliable or trustworthy, but they are depended upon heavily by people arguing that Wikipedia is either succeeding or failing.
Here is why I make that claim:
There is a correlation between "slowed growth in the userbase" on Wikipedia and the sudden decision by Wikimedia to stop releasing statistics. See the table here.
It's possible it's merely a coincidence (keep in mind: I'm no anti-Jimbo or anti-Wikimedia conspiracy theorist), but why would Wikimedia do this? If it was financial and pragmatic constraints, then why did the largest wikis not stop having their statistics released first? But rather, regardless of the size of the dump involved, as soon as there was a major drop in user growth, the statistics stopped being published.
It's true for Wikipedia in every language and overall, their data collection appears to have been very sloppy, since even small wikis, like the Sundanese Wikipedia have huge gaps in the data. If Wikimedia is not capable of collecting and compiling data dumps, how can we expect Wikipedia to succeed? They can't even self-evaluate their own progress.
As you'll see from the data, as soon as there was a sudden major shortfall in new user growth, the data stopped being published. Furthermore, I have noticed that there are inconsistencies between that page as it is currently and historical archives. I.E., as it is currently, it states that on May 2005, Wikipedia had 6767 new users. That page as it was published on July 2007 states that on May 2005, Wikipedia had 6746 new users. [5] That's just one inconsistency of several. The question is: When did they revise their estimate, why did they do so, and unlike good statisticians, why did they not make a note of their revision? As I said, I'm not a wacko, so I'm open to plausible explanations.
So far, since 2006, the data they have released has been sporadic, at best. [6] (Other newer tables are available elsewhere on their site, but not very much)
Their claim for this on the main page is:
All statistics on this site are extracted from full archive database dumps. Since a year it has become increasingly difficult to produce valid dumps for the largest wikipedias. Until that problem is fixed some figures will be outdated.
This leaves us with four possibilities, none of which is exclusive:
No matter which explanation you choose, it gives support to the claim that WP:Wikipedia is failing. And we shouldn't twiddle our thumbs and do nothing, while that happens.
Based on the data above, it is a plausible hypothesis that the Wikipedia community's growth has either slowed substantially or possibly even shrank since the data stopped being collected. I had this suspicion, myself, because I quit Wikipedia a while back, then made a new account and when I came back I got the distinct feeling that things got a lot "smaller," as I keep seeing the same users from page-to-page.
The reason for this, in my opinion, has been a brain drain, the result of Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. Out of every Wikipedia, German Wikipedia seems to have done fairly well, however, because they are the most "elitist," for obvious cultural reasons and which is clear from how their policy pages are laid out. Apparently, this has empirically led to a far more effective wiki-process than the huggy-feely wikilove and tea-drinking on English Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Zombies)
Finally, if it's true that the statistics aren't being released due to financial contraints, the foundation should hurry up with releasing their financial report for fiscal year 2007 and cut back on unnecessary expenses. Furthermore, if anyone suggests it's the Wikipedia community's job to collect such statistics, well, that's just lazy and stupid. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 08:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Superluser, statistics, like computers, aren't people. They don't make mistakes. It's just as silly to "blame the computer" when something goes wrong as it is to blame the statistics for being "corrupted/worthless" when they're collected and published sloppily. If you are going to personify them, though, then I shall counter that assertion by saying that you should apologize to the statistics for your personal attack because you might have hurt their feelings. Who are you to call them "corrupted" or "worthless"? Meanie.
In addition, your claim isn't an "alternative explanation" because incompetence is #2 on the list of possible explanations. And Wikimedia incompetence is a sign of Wikipedia failure, is it not? Wikipedia is edited by the community, but it is facilitated by Wikimedia. Without an efficiently managed Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia cannot succeed.
TheDJ: It's not 2012...yet. (dun dun dun) Still, your claim appears to be an appeal to ridicule. My assertions are quite logical and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe Bush did 9/11, that Jimbo's secretly running Wikipedia as a tax-shelter, Google is a CIA front, etc.. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 13:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
John, about that University of Minnesota study -- strange. You said they concluded Wikipedia was getting better, but as it seems to me they actually acknowledged Wikipedia was getting worse. I dug up their study [7] and their abstract reads:
Wikipedia’s brilliance and curse is that any user can edit any of the encyclopedia entries. We introduce the notion of the impact of an edit, measured by the number of times the edited version is viewed. Using several datasets, including recent logs of all article views, we show that frequent editors dominate what people see when they visit Wikipedia, and that this domination is increasing.
Similarly, using the same impact measure, we show that the probability of a typical article view being damaged is small but increasing, and we present empirically grounded classes of damage.
If somewhere buried in that study is an assertion that contradicts that abstract then, it's a flawed study. Their abstract, however, supports WP:FAIL and as such, it has been added. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Technicians tend to make pithy statements All statistics on this site are extracted from full archive database dumps. Since a year it has become increasingly difficult to produce valid dumps for the largest wikipedias. Until that problem is fixed some figures will be outdated.
Good, so the problem is not that there's no machine to do statistics, or that they are paying too much to someone else; could it possibly be <gasp> the trouble of making full-size archive database dumps.</gasp>? ... Naaaaah.... it's really because the illuminati have been taken over by aliens, and the wikipedia statistics would have revealed their evil plans! That's a much more logical explanation. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) There's a stack of problems making db dumps off of huge db's, many of them apparently to do with software.
The "trouble of making full-size archive database dumps.".
Kim, you're "blaming the computer," just like superluser. It's not the database's fault that it's difficult to collect and compile database dumps, because machines have ZERO responsibility. It's somebody's fault, somewhere, for not addressing the problem. And again, your are making appeals to ridicule. Please, consider the rationality behind my argument instead of just personal attacks, thanks. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia growth" means more users and a larger database, but it also meant MORE MONEY, something you can see if you read the financial reports for FY 2004, 2005, and 2006. This meant that they had a greater capability to invest in technology, something they claim is where most of the money is supposed to go. See Planned Spending Distribution 2007-2008. That doesn't appear to have happened, however, because of how they've been unable to set up the server resources to collect database dumps despite hiring several new employees and the expensive task of moving their offices from Florida to San Francisco.
I.E., if Wikimedia is being crushed under the weight of its own popularity, as you claim, then resources should be shifted away from Wikipedia events where they aren't needed and towards server resources and technology where they desperately are needed. Devoting resources in the wrong places (as you suggest) is incompetent.
And that's what I'm trying to say: Unlike Finley, I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, "The evil Wikimedia board is spending your donations on champagne and caviar, mwahahahahaha!!!" No, it's just simple mismanagement stemming from incompetence, which has led to waste of resources. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 06:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Collecting statistics would not require a "potentially large sum of resources," given the size of the Wikimedia budget. Statistics are the only way for credible self-analysis of how Wikipedia is doing. Spending funds on "developing the community" while relying on subjective and outside evaluations of Wikipedia's progress seems absurd.
Wikipedia's server load is not the only criteria in defining the "technology" aspect of the Wikimedia budget.
I did not highlight that we can't highlight statistics just on large projects -- even on small projects. Note above how even some of the smallest wikis have huge gaps in statistical data.
I'm convinced that the Wikimedia budget is being devoted in the wrong place given the fact that their increase in net assets for 2006 was $736,132. As noted above, it would only cost about $20 or $30k to purchase the servers necessary for the statistical analysis suggested. If their donations were roughly the same (or higher) in 2007 and 40% of their budget was spent on "technology," as they claim, then it's not clear why they'd be having trouble collecting database dumps or why Wikipedia servers would be donated by their tech guy. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
I would like the following addition to either WP:V and\or WP:RS:
"Wikipedia should not be citing outside encyclopedias as source material, other than for information about the encyclopedia itself."
Any objections? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 10:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on Scholasticism, a source is less reliable the less it relies on primary sources. That is, a tertiary source is less reliable than a secondary source and a secondary source is less reliable than a primary source. The reason for this is simple: The process of interpretation by one person to another can be like a game of telephone.
If Wikipedia cites encyclopedias as sources, this makes Wikipedia a tertiary-tertiary source and a "pseudo-encyclopedia" website. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 23:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Do I have to read Wikipedia:Your first article every time I create a new article, or is once sufficient? DuncanHill ( talk) 14:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at Back to the future timeline. Is it a derivative work? If so, it's a copyright violation, and needs to be speedy deleted. The timeline appears to be the presentation of background material for the fictional universe. That is, it seems like Back to the Future content itself - is this timeline itself a work of Back to the Future fiction? The right to derive new works from existing ones is reserved for the copyright owner of the original works. I think we may have stepped on some toes here.
The reason I'm posting this here is because this issue will also affect most if not all of the timelines on the List of fictional timelines, and warrants wider input.
The Transhumanist 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In the United States, "derivative work" is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
I believe Back to the Future timeline may be a "recast" or "adaptation" or "condensation" of Back to the Future background material, as presented in the definition above. I look forward to your opinions. The Transhumanist 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(OD) An atlas of a fictional world would be a derivative work, but not a copyright violation. Copyright law makes no distinction, that I know of, between fictional and non-fictional work by the way. Wjhonson ( talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"Can you see that your interpretation would make copyvios of synopsis of books, episodes, films?"
It isn't a basic synopsis. It's detailed fan analysis based on certain specific facts pulled from the story.
The claims made in Back to the Future timeline are a synthesis of various bits and pieces of the Back to the Future movies.
"So would you delete Powers and abilities of Superman" -- YES.
Wjhonson: You claim that Back to the future timeline is a derivative work, but it is original enough that it is not in violation of copyright. Based on this: How is it not original research?
Why on earth are you defending it, based on the assertion that it's a "new form of artwork," when this is an encyclopedia?! ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 14:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not confusing OR with copyright infringement. I'm saying: Based on Wjhonson's arguments above, he created a logical dilemma whereby the article is either original research or copyright infringement. He argued it is not copyright infringement because it is very original. But because it is original, it should not be in Wikipedia which simplies relies on collecting information from verifiable, reliable sources -- not creative fan analysis. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Initially, an article I contribute to said "Major proponent organization X says Y has never harmed anyone". I found some data that refutes this, and changed it to "While X claims Y has never harmed anyone, this is untrue. It has actually killed this many people ..." The article was then changed to remove the initial claim and just says "It has killed this many people".
I'd prefer stating the claims of proponents and then refuting them, rather than just stating the actual facts, but is this neutral? — Omegatron 03:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Penguin: Symbolic logic of content disputes can be helpful, because if you bring up the specific issue involved then suddenly people, even admins, morph into these heinous political pundits like Jekyll turned into Mr. Hyde. Naming the specific article may be necessary because there may be some outside information we're not aware of, but his question is still relevant and we can still answer it.
Omegatron: What you did appears to be weasel words and a violation of WP:SYNTH, like Sarcasticidealist said above. If both sources are reliable, then you can't invoke one source then say, "But this is untrue," and invoke another source. If source Y contradicts source X, then I suggest bringing up the possibility that source X is prone to having incorrect facts and therefore isn't reliable, and shouldn't be in the article at all. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article in question is actually pretty easy to find.
but he's a dirty filthy stinkin liar
Why are userpages of indefinitely blocked users deleted on the English Wikipedia? See Template:Temporary userpage and Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. Vints ( talk) 08:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Because of how indefinitely blocked users tend to be troublemakers, which tend to post things like, "MR. ADMIN IS A POOPY-HEAD," on their userpages as they go down in flames, falling into a downward spiral of vandalism and trolling that leads them to being indefinitely blocked.
Why is this a problem? Do any of their userpages contain encyclopedic content you think is worth keeping? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 08:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, I agree, then, that indef-blocked users' should be able to keep their userpages up. If they're disruptive, they should be blanked and then locked, but not "deleted." ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 09:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel an userpage of an indefblocked user should not be deleted when they are placed in the category for deletion, feel free to add {{ Do not delete}}. — Save_Us † 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
They pretty much run an entire article, and should anything in it be changed without their knowledge, they'll immediately undo the changes. I'm frankly getting sick of them. Anyone else for getting rid of the 'watch' tab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animesouth ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading the article about the current chaos in Chad, I observed that the army chief of staff, Daoud Soumain, was killed in battle. I wanted to read about him, but there's no article; and searching online reveals rather little except current news statements about his death. There are plenty of sources for his being the chief of staff, and so I wondered: could we say that being the army chief of staff is sufficient for notability purposes? There's absolutely nothing about military officers in WP:BIO, and the closest thing to precedent for this is John Doughty, the Commanding General of the United States Army at only a major. Nyttend ( talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
...in violation of policy.
I saw this posted on
WP:ANI. It's worth re-posting here.
[1]
Meanwhile,
WP:ARS continues to be used for
WP:Canvassing. I complained about them doing this, such as their lack of attempts at fixing
Bawls. They ignored me. Later, Benjiboi archived my comments, even though other threads there are several months older.
[2]
☯
Zenwhat (
talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC) See comments below.
☯
Zenwhat (
talk) 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Turns out my speculation about the inclusionist bot cabal was unfounded and also in violation of WP:AGF. See the discussion about this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
On ARS: Overall, I still think that WP:ARS is a bad organization which should be abolished, but a recent discussion with Benjiboi leads me to believe that not all of its supporters, themselves, are necessarily bad. Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit might be able to take care of the fact that WP:ARS doesn't seem to care about actually improving articles, just "rescuing" them from AfD (which yes, generally just means voting). ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was possible to create a policy that discourages more than one of the above proposals being used on an article at the same time. It makes discussion hard as there are usually two/three discussions going on all at once sometimes with the same points being raised twice but in different locations. For example Talk:Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix are two separate discussions on the same article. As you can see discussion started at the talk page then moved to the AfD page but is now back at the talk page. (I might change the title later to one that is a bit more clearer)-- Sin Harvest ( talk) 12:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Back to the Future timeline.
The Transhumanist 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Transhumanist, it appears that the community misunderstands copyright, or perhaps it isn't the community at all, but there's just a "cabal of fanboy editors" preventing fan-fiction on Wikipedia from being removed.
I attempted to simply blank the page until the deletion review was over, but Rogue Penguin reverted me. I e-mailed info-en-c@wikimedia.org. If anybody knows how to directly contact Mike Godwin, that might be a better idea. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a proposal here. Wikipedia:Fan fiction, since there's deadlock over at WP:FICT. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That's false, User:Hiding\T.
That's a scene in Disney's Aladdin that sums up the point:
Aladdin steals a loaf of bread and says, "Stealing is only stealing if you get caught." Then the guard, Razoul, grabs him.
You can't defend yourself in court by saying, "But I didn't EXPECT to be sued! I thought I'd actually get away with this stuff!" ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is the Wiki policy on controversy articles? I have read several things about controversy but in my mind the whole area seems more gray then any other policy section in Wikipedia. Does undo weight still apply to such an article? Must a controversy article be from the viewpoint of a clear and definable minority or is fringe opinion noteworthy enough for a controversy article? Is self-published material and fringe material allowed on a CA? Does a controversy article have a different set of rules from other articles? -- scuro ( talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors—The idea is to centralise debate and consensus-gathering when there are inconsistencies between the pages.
The most straightforward way is to have MOS-central prevail, and to involve expertise from sub-pages on the talk page there, rather than the fragmentary discourse—more usually the absence of discourse and the continuing inconsistency—that characterises WP's style guideline resources now. If consensus has it that MOS-central should bend to the wording of a sub-page, so be it. But until that occurs in each case that might occasionally arise, there needs to be certainty for WPians, especially in the Featured Article process, where nominators and reviewers are sometimes confused by a left- and right-hand that say different things.
Of course, no one owns MOS-central, and we're all just as important to its running as other editors. I ask for your support and feedback HERE. Tony (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know that we have a new NOR noticeboard, where people can ask questions about material they think might be OR, or where they can ask for help if they're accused of engaging in OR but they disagree. The shortcut is WP:NORN, and the talk page is at WT:NORN. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The following statement was recently added to Richard Mentor Johnson: "Johnson, and more prominently his common-law wife Julia Chinn and their daughters, all play visible roles in the Eric Flint alternate history novels 1812: The Rivers of War and 1824: The Arkansas War (particularly the latter)." I don't have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, nor do I have a problem with it being added. However, I am hoping to make a FAC run with the article soon, so I asked the editor who added the information to please cite it. He replied "Johnson, Julia Chinn and their two daughters are mentioned, and appear in person, intermittently in the first of these novels and constantly in the second. I'm not sure just what would be a practical means of citing this, since the books don't have indexes of character appearances."
What is an appropriate way to source this statement? Does it constitute trivia? How should this situation be handled? Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 15:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"Due to a technical problem with one of our servers, some tools and search options may be unavailable. We hope to have this issue resolved soon. Uploading and viewing files remains unaffected."'
Anybody know how long this message has been up?
Again, more evidence of budgetary problems with the Foundation. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I made some substantial edits to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not failing. I suggest anyone involved in policy-making read it.
With that said, here's something to consider: The statistics put forth by Wikimedia at http://stats.wikimedia.org/ do not seem to be reliable or trustworthy, but they are depended upon heavily by people arguing that Wikipedia is either succeeding or failing.
Here is why I make that claim:
There is a correlation between "slowed growth in the userbase" on Wikipedia and the sudden decision by Wikimedia to stop releasing statistics. See the table here.
It's possible it's merely a coincidence (keep in mind: I'm no anti-Jimbo or anti-Wikimedia conspiracy theorist), but why would Wikimedia do this? If it was financial and pragmatic constraints, then why did the largest wikis not stop having their statistics released first? But rather, regardless of the size of the dump involved, as soon as there was a major drop in user growth, the statistics stopped being published.
It's true for Wikipedia in every language and overall, their data collection appears to have been very sloppy, since even small wikis, like the Sundanese Wikipedia have huge gaps in the data. If Wikimedia is not capable of collecting and compiling data dumps, how can we expect Wikipedia to succeed? They can't even self-evaluate their own progress.
As you'll see from the data, as soon as there was a sudden major shortfall in new user growth, the data stopped being published. Furthermore, I have noticed that there are inconsistencies between that page as it is currently and historical archives. I.E., as it is currently, it states that on May 2005, Wikipedia had 6767 new users. That page as it was published on July 2007 states that on May 2005, Wikipedia had 6746 new users. [5] That's just one inconsistency of several. The question is: When did they revise their estimate, why did they do so, and unlike good statisticians, why did they not make a note of their revision? As I said, I'm not a wacko, so I'm open to plausible explanations.
So far, since 2006, the data they have released has been sporadic, at best. [6] (Other newer tables are available elsewhere on their site, but not very much)
Their claim for this on the main page is:
All statistics on this site are extracted from full archive database dumps. Since a year it has become increasingly difficult to produce valid dumps for the largest wikipedias. Until that problem is fixed some figures will be outdated.
This leaves us with four possibilities, none of which is exclusive:
No matter which explanation you choose, it gives support to the claim that WP:Wikipedia is failing. And we shouldn't twiddle our thumbs and do nothing, while that happens.
Based on the data above, it is a plausible hypothesis that the Wikipedia community's growth has either slowed substantially or possibly even shrank since the data stopped being collected. I had this suspicion, myself, because I quit Wikipedia a while back, then made a new account and when I came back I got the distinct feeling that things got a lot "smaller," as I keep seeing the same users from page-to-page.
The reason for this, in my opinion, has been a brain drain, the result of Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. Out of every Wikipedia, German Wikipedia seems to have done fairly well, however, because they are the most "elitist," for obvious cultural reasons and which is clear from how their policy pages are laid out. Apparently, this has empirically led to a far more effective wiki-process than the huggy-feely wikilove and tea-drinking on English Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Zombies)
Finally, if it's true that the statistics aren't being released due to financial contraints, the foundation should hurry up with releasing their financial report for fiscal year 2007 and cut back on unnecessary expenses. Furthermore, if anyone suggests it's the Wikipedia community's job to collect such statistics, well, that's just lazy and stupid. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 08:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Superluser, statistics, like computers, aren't people. They don't make mistakes. It's just as silly to "blame the computer" when something goes wrong as it is to blame the statistics for being "corrupted/worthless" when they're collected and published sloppily. If you are going to personify them, though, then I shall counter that assertion by saying that you should apologize to the statistics for your personal attack because you might have hurt their feelings. Who are you to call them "corrupted" or "worthless"? Meanie.
In addition, your claim isn't an "alternative explanation" because incompetence is #2 on the list of possible explanations. And Wikimedia incompetence is a sign of Wikipedia failure, is it not? Wikipedia is edited by the community, but it is facilitated by Wikimedia. Without an efficiently managed Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia cannot succeed.
TheDJ: It's not 2012...yet. (dun dun dun) Still, your claim appears to be an appeal to ridicule. My assertions are quite logical and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe Bush did 9/11, that Jimbo's secretly running Wikipedia as a tax-shelter, Google is a CIA front, etc.. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 13:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
John, about that University of Minnesota study -- strange. You said they concluded Wikipedia was getting better, but as it seems to me they actually acknowledged Wikipedia was getting worse. I dug up their study [7] and their abstract reads:
Wikipedia’s brilliance and curse is that any user can edit any of the encyclopedia entries. We introduce the notion of the impact of an edit, measured by the number of times the edited version is viewed. Using several datasets, including recent logs of all article views, we show that frequent editors dominate what people see when they visit Wikipedia, and that this domination is increasing.
Similarly, using the same impact measure, we show that the probability of a typical article view being damaged is small but increasing, and we present empirically grounded classes of damage.
If somewhere buried in that study is an assertion that contradicts that abstract then, it's a flawed study. Their abstract, however, supports WP:FAIL and as such, it has been added. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Technicians tend to make pithy statements All statistics on this site are extracted from full archive database dumps. Since a year it has become increasingly difficult to produce valid dumps for the largest wikipedias. Until that problem is fixed some figures will be outdated.
Good, so the problem is not that there's no machine to do statistics, or that they are paying too much to someone else; could it possibly be <gasp> the trouble of making full-size archive database dumps.</gasp>? ... Naaaaah.... it's really because the illuminati have been taken over by aliens, and the wikipedia statistics would have revealed their evil plans! That's a much more logical explanation. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) There's a stack of problems making db dumps off of huge db's, many of them apparently to do with software.
The "trouble of making full-size archive database dumps.".
Kim, you're "blaming the computer," just like superluser. It's not the database's fault that it's difficult to collect and compile database dumps, because machines have ZERO responsibility. It's somebody's fault, somewhere, for not addressing the problem. And again, your are making appeals to ridicule. Please, consider the rationality behind my argument instead of just personal attacks, thanks. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia growth" means more users and a larger database, but it also meant MORE MONEY, something you can see if you read the financial reports for FY 2004, 2005, and 2006. This meant that they had a greater capability to invest in technology, something they claim is where most of the money is supposed to go. See Planned Spending Distribution 2007-2008. That doesn't appear to have happened, however, because of how they've been unable to set up the server resources to collect database dumps despite hiring several new employees and the expensive task of moving their offices from Florida to San Francisco.
I.E., if Wikimedia is being crushed under the weight of its own popularity, as you claim, then resources should be shifted away from Wikipedia events where they aren't needed and towards server resources and technology where they desperately are needed. Devoting resources in the wrong places (as you suggest) is incompetent.
And that's what I'm trying to say: Unlike Finley, I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, "The evil Wikimedia board is spending your donations on champagne and caviar, mwahahahahaha!!!" No, it's just simple mismanagement stemming from incompetence, which has led to waste of resources. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 06:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Collecting statistics would not require a "potentially large sum of resources," given the size of the Wikimedia budget. Statistics are the only way for credible self-analysis of how Wikipedia is doing. Spending funds on "developing the community" while relying on subjective and outside evaluations of Wikipedia's progress seems absurd.
Wikipedia's server load is not the only criteria in defining the "technology" aspect of the Wikimedia budget.
I did not highlight that we can't highlight statistics just on large projects -- even on small projects. Note above how even some of the smallest wikis have huge gaps in statistical data.
I'm convinced that the Wikimedia budget is being devoted in the wrong place given the fact that their increase in net assets for 2006 was $736,132. As noted above, it would only cost about $20 or $30k to purchase the servers necessary for the statistical analysis suggested. If their donations were roughly the same (or higher) in 2007 and 40% of their budget was spent on "technology," as they claim, then it's not clear why they'd be having trouble collecting database dumps or why Wikipedia servers would be donated by their tech guy. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)