Wikipedia

User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2013/January

< User talk:Jayen466
Latest comment: 11 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 28 January 2013


The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talkback

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 00:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reliable Sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I see that you are a member of Wikiproject Venezuela and I had some questions about sources. I posted this on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and I haven't gotten any responses. Can you help? Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to bug you again, but I've been looking to add information to Venezuela-related pages and I'm having trouble distinguishing between government-run and free media sources. I noticed that you're on Wikiproject Venezuela and that you speak Spanish. Is there any chance you can help me with this? This will be the last time I bug you, I swear! Thank you! Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I had a little involvement in the topic area a while ago, because it was in serious difficulty, with editors very much in conflict, but I am not an expert, and haven't followed the topic since then, and don't know the media landscape in Venezuela well enough either. Have you tried User:SandyGeorgia and User:Rd232? They were two of the protagonists then – both good editors, but with different personal viewpoints on this. Note that there is a BBC article on the Media in Venezuela here. Best wishes, Andreas JN466 03:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

SOPA

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I had decided to give up on this conversation since it didn't seem like anything I was saying was having any affect on your opinion. However, the suicide of Aaron Swartz has left me deeply upset and I feel compelled to make one more statement. While I have acknowledged that some WMF folks made overly emotional claims about SOPA, and perhaps exaggerated the direct impact it would have on Wikipedia, I ask you to seriously consider the possibility that there were 3 sides to the SOPA debate: media corporate interests, search engine corporate interests, and grassroots internet activists (of which Aaron Swartz was an important part). Yes, there was overlap and cooperation between the two anti-SOPA factions, but Google did not control the fight against SOPA (as the media companies would like for you to believe). Whether you agree with it or not, there are many people who believe that SOPA was bad legislation that did not balance corporate and public interests, did not provide adequate protections against misuse, and created a dangerous precedent for internet censorship (regardless of its effects on search engines or media companies). I'm proud of the work that I did on the issue, and hope that it will be remembered as something other than the bidding of Google. Personally, I believe that Google long ago abandoned it's motto of "Do no evil", but adversity makes strange bedfellows. Even though Aaron is gone, the fight to keep the internet free will go on without him, and I hope that you will consider being part of that fight (on the side of public interest). We need people like you that call bullshit on misinformation (from either side) and keep the dialog honest. When the next fight happens, Google might not be on our side, so we need all the help we can get. Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaldari. I have no doubt there were three sides (or potentially, four sides, if you count non-corporate people broadly in favour of copyright protections), and do not doubt that there was a grassroots movement against SOPA. Of course, it is always possible that propaganda and misinformation played a role in starting that movement, and that some joined because they fell prey to propaganda, but I will not denigrate everyone who took a well-informed stand against SOPA as a Google shill or someone who was duped. Of course it is possible to take a principled stand against SOPA. Like Seth, I think that quite probably SOPA was a bad law, and would have needed amendments. On the other hand, I really have no sympathy for people who feel it is their God-given right to watch Hollywood films or listen to music for free on the Internet, any more than I have sympathy for shop looters who feel it is their God-given right to walk out of a shop with a free TV. There are economic realities underlying the production of content that those who are only concerned with (free) consumption do not seem to want to acknowledge. If looters clean out shops repeatedly, and nothing is done to stop them, the shops will go bust; and what will people loot then? It's the same with content producers.
There is a dialogue to be had for sure, and even though I would not agree with all his positions, the work people like Aaron did is important in getting that dialogue going.
I didn't know Aaron, but I had read some of his writings on Wikipedia, which struck me as intelligent and perceptive. He seemed like a very bright chap, and I too am sad he is gone. I too think the DoJ went after him too hard, trying to make an example of him. Well, people are people, not examples, and the DoJ surely bear some of the responsibility.
And if you come across what you believe to be misinformation in discussions like this, from either side (and especially from me) then please let me know. Andreas JN466 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that means a lot. I suspect our personal stances on copyright aren't as divergent as it seems once the rhetoric is cleared away. Believe it or not, I strongly support intellectual property and its protection (for example, I'm a strong proponent of going after sites that don't respect Wikipedia's licensing terms). I also acknowledge that a law like SOPA may be needed (although I would prefer that we pursue better law enforcement treaties like the one used to shut down megaupload.com). Regardless, there is definitely a dialog to have. I'm sad that Aaron won't be a part of it any more, but I hope other smart people will rise to take his place. Kaldari (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kaldari, I'm quite aware of grassroots internet activists, having been one myself, at quite bitter personal cost. More specifically, I know just how seriously grassroots internet activism is taken on its own terms (i.e. without corporate sponsors). I sympathize, greatly, with your personal beliefs. But factually, while I don't doubt you believe what you say, the truth of it sadly just hinges on semantics of phrases like "control the fight". You, both personally and Wikipedia in general, were manipulated by Google, for its business interests. Did those business interests coincide here with civil-liberties interests? Yes, that's why there's a end-vs-means problem, and personally why I'm torn over it. But still, that's what happened, and it's very disturbing. Civil-liberties which is only effective in alliance with corporations is just being a catspaw for "corporate liberties". I think there may be an issue in that being manipulated is taken as an insult to one's intelligence, or an accusation of weakness. I don't claim that. It's precisely because people believe deeply in things that they are vulnerable to con-men, and this is simply an aspect of being human. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there! I invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

    • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
    • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
    • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
    • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
  • If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi t | c 21:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Bicholim conflict

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Greetings, I was reading your draft piece covering the Bicholim conflict hoax on Wikipedia and found it fascinating. Too bad there is no evidence that any individual was ever actually "hoaxed" by the article, which makes it pretty poor as a hoax! I am sure there are many more "hoaxes" like this out there, I've found a few over the years and never really saw a reason to worry much. Now, if someone could create something like Sideways vagina and make it stick on Wikipedia, that would be what I actually deem to be a hoax, and would be impressive. Well, I guess my 2 cents doesn't change anything in your good article, good work.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! A few people did get hoaxed – among them the GA reviewer, everyone who read the article (more than a thousand a year), the New World Encyclopedia and various other Wikipedia mirrors that copied it, and a few tourism sites like this one which are difficult to find now because the entire Internet is swamped with stories about the hoax. And let's not forget the various books about the Bicholim conflict you can buy to this day ... Best, Andreas JN466 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, true, the GA reviewer did, and that travel site. Both most everything else is computer-generated, such as those books, wiki copies, etc., and probably many of those views. I tried to figure out if the author put links to the page on other pages, but didn't spend much time on that.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
How do you know that everyone who read the article was hoaxed? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466/Archives/2013/January&oldid=1086440791"