96.227.32.219 (talk) |
Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
::::::As I pointed out on the page where this is being discussed (see first post in this thread), it is not even clear that the list (or the full list) is even available. All the links given so far appear to be ''about'' the list but not the list itself, and a vaguely-worded statement in a BBC article suggests that at least some of the details have been removed from the published version. But assuming that the list is available, what would the corresponding article actually be about? Would it be the "secret list" itself? If so, see Jimbo's comment above about Wikisource. Wikipedia itself generally does not republish primary sources even when it is allowed under copyright law. Conversely, if the article is simply a list of "sites considered vital to the U.S.", to which editors could add other locations (based on reliable secondary sources), then it would probably become just another opportunity for an edit war. I think we have too many "list" articles with vaguely defined criteria already. [[User:Neutron|Neutron]] ([[User talk:Neutron|talk]]) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
::::::As I pointed out on the page where this is being discussed (see first post in this thread), it is not even clear that the list (or the full list) is even available. All the links given so far appear to be ''about'' the list but not the list itself, and a vaguely-worded statement in a BBC article suggests that at least some of the details have been removed from the published version. But assuming that the list is available, what would the corresponding article actually be about? Would it be the "secret list" itself? If so, see Jimbo's comment above about Wikisource. Wikipedia itself generally does not republish primary sources even when it is allowed under copyright law. Conversely, if the article is simply a list of "sites considered vital to the U.S.", to which editors could add other locations (based on reliable secondary sources), then it would probably become just another opportunity for an edit war. I think we have too many "list" articles with vaguely defined criteria already. [[User:Neutron|Neutron]] ([[User talk:Neutron|talk]]) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::::I'm objecting to Jimbo's generalisation of the usefulness of list articles. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::I'm objecting to Jimbo's generalisation of the usefulness of list articles. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::That it is possible to have great list articles doesn't change the fact that very often, they are lame.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'll <s>vote</s> !vote for banning list articles. But, while we have them, this not-lame list should be among them. [[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 19:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
::::I'll <s>vote</s> !vote for banning list articles. But, while we have them, this not-lame list should be among them. [[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 19:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Voting is evil, remember? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
:::::Voting is evil, remember? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 61: | Line 62: | ||
:::::::::<small>Yeah. Or find a more exciting outlet?</small> --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::::<small>Yeah. Or find a more exciting outlet?</small> --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::Thanks for the answers. It [http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/06/holder-significant-actions-taken-in-wikileaks-investigation/ looks like] they're gonna get real legal about this one, probably best for WP (and wikisource...)to wait it out (per eg. [[WP:NOTNEWS]]?) as much as possible. [[User:WikiDao|<span style="font-family: Segoe print;color:#700;">'''Wiki'''</span><span style="font-family: Segoe print;color:#007;">'''Dao'''</span>]] ☯ [[User talk:WikiDao|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;color:#070;">(talk)</span>]] 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
::::::::::Thanks for the answers. It [http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/06/holder-significant-actions-taken-in-wikileaks-investigation/ looks like] they're gonna get real legal about this one, probably best for WP (and wikisource...)to wait it out (per eg. [[WP:NOTNEWS]]?) as much as possible. [[User:WikiDao|<span style="font-family: Segoe print;color:#700;">'''Wiki'''</span><span style="font-family: Segoe print;color:#007;">'''Dao'''</span>]] ☯ [[User talk:WikiDao|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;color:#070;">(talk)</span>]] 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I think it is important to note that my reasons for wanting us not to publish it has very little to do with whether the original source was secret/classified/whatever. Indeed, the only reason I would take note of that at all is to note that it gives some people a thrill to stick it to the man by publishing such stuff, an impulse we should resist as having nothing to do with the core question which is: is this an encyclopedia article (and it is not). We don't publish the text of Hamlet. We don't publish original sources generally. There is no extra motive of public service at stake here, since the list (if released fully, which is not clear to me at the moment) is going to be mirrored on thousands of sites all over the world instantly. I also agree with the point about [[WP:NOTNEWS]] in the sense that we can wait awhile - we are not a news site, we are an encyclopedia. If it is encyclopedic, it will be so in a week, a month, a year. There's no hurry.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== A tiny suggestion == |
== A tiny suggestion == |
Revision as of 23:00, 7 December 2010
(Manual archive list) |
You inspire me...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocha2007 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, goodsir.
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." a quote. by you.
this quote gives me the imagination that anyone can create and edit an article on wikipedia from their knowledge, and others will share in this aswell. however, i have seen that his is a farce, the moderators and other people who control wikipedia knowingly restrict the sharing of knowledge simply because one thing may lack 'notability' but who can really define or say something is notable or not? an article, about a gaming website, game engine, a programming language, and a community, has been deleted numerous times for not having notability. yet, there are articles out there, with no sources at all, nothing besides one external link (A+) yet, this article, about a big part of many people's lives is not allowed to flourish and grow on this place you claim to be the sum of all human knowledge due to people thinking it's simply not important...but that's the exact opposite of what you claim wikipedia to be. 96.227.32.219 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific about what topic you think there should be an article about, but which got deleted? I find that, like anyone, I don't agree with all the decisions that get made in the deletion process, but I also think that we get it right more often than not by a wide margin. The key, for me, is generally verifiability as opposed to notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the IP: it's really disingenuous to describe the Wikipedia project as trying to be a "sum of all human knowledge". That's not what we do here. We collect knowledge that we consider to be "encyclopedic", a very much restricted set from the "sum of all human knowledge". Even if you include information in the other Wikimedia projects, there is just some stuff that's not appropriate for any project. I admire what you are trying to do in your little stump speech, but I think that by describing Wikipedia (and related projects) as you do, you set up unrealistic expectations of what their true goals are. Buddy431 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The word "knowledge", like almost any nontrivial word, means different things to different people and in different contexts. For instance, it does not mean the same as "information" or we would not need two words. Whether "encyclopedic knowledge" is a proper subset of "knowledge" depends essentially on what is meant by "knowledge" and what is meant by "encyclopedic". Indeed, it is such a difficult task to pin down exactly what we want "knowledge" to mean on Wikipedia, that we only attempt to define it by what is not included. Most of the exclusions are covered by "indiscriminate information", although several instances are discussed separately.
- The aspiration itself, to give everyone on the planet free access to the sum of all human knowledge, provides a context for what we might mean by "knowledge". What do we aspire to disseminate freely and widely via Wikipedia? Geometry guy 21:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the IP: it's really disingenuous to describe the Wikipedia project as trying to be a "sum of all human knowledge". That's not what we do here. We collect knowledge that we consider to be "encyclopedic", a very much restricted set from the "sum of all human knowledge". Even if you include information in the other Wikimedia projects, there is just some stuff that's not appropriate for any project. I admire what you are trying to do in your little stump speech, but I think that by describing Wikipedia (and related projects) as you do, you set up unrealistic expectations of what their true goals are. Buddy431 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
List of US vital sites
Would you/WMF oppose the creation of a list article of US vital sites based on wikileaks "vital" sites for the US be created? There is sufficient mainstream media coverage. (Early discussion here.) Smallman12q (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt if WMF have an opinion. I would vote against, because list articles are very often lame, and this one would be lame. Wikisource?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I favor the list. This one would not be lame. If the relevant article about this incident doesn't carry the full list, then a separate list would be very appropriate. It would be weird for us not to host the list. Anthony (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- How is that an encyclopedia article? It is not. There is no need for is to host it. Other sites will do a fine job of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- "because list articles are very often lame"? WTF? Sorry, we have a featured list process here by the way. List articles can be very useful, encyclopedic, well sourced, well written, elegantly illustrated, and you're saying you'd deny a list article should be written because "list articles are very often lame"? Bad call. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I pointed out on the page where this is being discussed (see first post in this thread), it is not even clear that the list (or the full list) is even available. All the links given so far appear to be about the list but not the list itself, and a vaguely-worded statement in a BBC article suggests that at least some of the details have been removed from the published version. But assuming that the list is available, what would the corresponding article actually be about? Would it be the "secret list" itself? If so, see Jimbo's comment above about Wikisource. Wikipedia itself generally does not republish primary sources even when it is allowed under copyright law. Conversely, if the article is simply a list of "sites considered vital to the U.S.", to which editors could add other locations (based on reliable secondary sources), then it would probably become just another opportunity for an edit war. I think we have too many "list" articles with vaguely defined criteria already. Neutron (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm objecting to Jimbo's generalisation of the usefulness of list articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- That it is possible to have great list articles doesn't change the fact that very often, they are lame.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm objecting to Jimbo's generalisation of the usefulness of list articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I pointed out on the page where this is being discussed (see first post in this thread), it is not even clear that the list (or the full list) is even available. All the links given so far appear to be about the list but not the list itself, and a vaguely-worded statement in a BBC article suggests that at least some of the details have been removed from the published version. But assuming that the list is available, what would the corresponding article actually be about? Would it be the "secret list" itself? If so, see Jimbo's comment above about Wikisource. Wikipedia itself generally does not republish primary sources even when it is allowed under copyright law. Conversely, if the article is simply a list of "sites considered vital to the U.S.", to which editors could add other locations (based on reliable secondary sources), then it would probably become just another opportunity for an edit war. I think we have too many "list" articles with vaguely defined criteria already. Neutron (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- "because list articles are very often lame"? WTF? Sorry, we have a featured list process here by the way. List articles can be very useful, encyclopedic, well sourced, well written, elegantly illustrated, and you're saying you'd deny a list article should be written because "list articles are very often lame"? Bad call. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll
vote!vote for banning list articles. But, while we have them, this not-lame list should be among them. Anthony (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)- Voting is evil, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- How is that an encyclopedia article? It is not. There is no need for is to host it. Other sites will do a fine job of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I favor the list. This one would not be lame. If the relevant article about this incident doesn't carry the full list, then a separate list would be very appropriate. It would be weird for us not to host the list. Anthony (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a WP policy on sourcing articles to material marked "Secret" or similarly classified by the US or other governments? I'm not sure there are secondary sources yet for the list (ie., for the full set of specific sites in the list). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. WP:NOTCENSORED. That said, in this particular instance I don't see the point. Listing all sites is pointless and boring. Listing selected ones without secondary sources is WP:OR. Summarizing secondary sources in an article (not a list) would be fine, however, and such an article could and should link to the primary sources as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note however the Wikipedia's servers are located in the USA, and therefore are subject to US law concerning publication of classified information. Wikipedia policy can't trump US law. Looie496 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, in the US only the original release of classified data is illegal. Later redistribution is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct. Once another source releases the information to the public, which is the only way we'd really get a hold of it anyways, it becomes publically distributable with no possible penalty under the law. Otherwise, the US government would end up having to also go after all of the newspapers that published the information. SilverserenC 21:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Silver seren, I would recommend against making pronouncements on the legality or illegality of things as there is the danger that readers may mistakenly think that your opinion represents some kind of informed authority on your part. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- He might have added a brief disclaimer, but let's face it, people don't normally consider a brief comment on a Wikipedia argument page as legal advice. Cool it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cool it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. Or find a more exciting outlet? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answers. It looks like they're gonna get real legal about this one, probably best for WP (and wikisource...)to wait it out (per eg. WP:NOTNEWS?) as much as possible. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. Or find a more exciting outlet? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cool it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- He might have added a brief disclaimer, but let's face it, people don't normally consider a brief comment on a Wikipedia argument page as legal advice. Cool it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Silver seren, I would recommend against making pronouncements on the legality or illegality of things as there is the danger that readers may mistakenly think that your opinion represents some kind of informed authority on your part. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct. Once another source releases the information to the public, which is the only way we'd really get a hold of it anyways, it becomes publically distributable with no possible penalty under the law. Otherwise, the US government would end up having to also go after all of the newspapers that published the information. SilverserenC 21:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, in the US only the original release of classified data is illegal. Later redistribution is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note however the Wikipedia's servers are located in the USA, and therefore are subject to US law concerning publication of classified information. Wikipedia policy can't trump US law. Looie496 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. WP:NOTCENSORED. That said, in this particular instance I don't see the point. Listing all sites is pointless and boring. Listing selected ones without secondary sources is WP:OR. Summarizing secondary sources in an article (not a list) would be fine, however, and such an article could and should link to the primary sources as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is important to note that my reasons for wanting us not to publish it has very little to do with whether the original source was secret/classified/whatever. Indeed, the only reason I would take note of that at all is to note that it gives some people a thrill to stick it to the man by publishing such stuff, an impulse we should resist as having nothing to do with the core question which is: is this an encyclopedia article (and it is not). We don't publish the text of Hamlet. We don't publish original sources generally. There is no extra motive of public service at stake here, since the list (if released fully, which is not clear to me at the moment) is going to be mirrored on thousands of sites all over the world instantly. I also agree with the point about WP:NOTNEWS in the sense that we can wait awhile - we are not a news site, we are an encyclopedia. If it is encyclopedic, it will be so in a week, a month, a year. There's no hurry.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
A tiny suggestion
Can Wikipedia have a general community/discussion page where users can discuss general aspects of Wikipedia, its structure, talk among users and so on.....you know some sort of a forum to discuss general topics. 117.199.156.60 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Go to WP:Village pump. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Quick question, seemed a bit odd...
Why does Wikia hold the registration for wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net? (whois links) Is there a relationship between the two organizations, or is it just domain-squatting? Throwaway85 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is this question pertinent to Wikipedia? NickCT (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is neither a relationship nor domain squatting. :). Wikipedia:Wikileaks is not part of Wikipedia has a quote from me about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The judge in Julian Assange's hearing got the two confused.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If the registration is stuck with wikia's email address, so that suggests some level of control even if Wikia doesn't own it anymore. Can you update the registration email addresses? If yes, make two new email aliases for "domains@wikia.com"...
- Administrative contact: wikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_wikipedia_but_owned_by_assange@wikia.com
- Technical contact: this_contact_info_was_not_updated_when_transferred@wikia.com
- :) DMahalko (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If the registration is stuck with wikia's email address, so that suggests some level of control even if Wikia doesn't own it anymore. Can you update the registration email addresses? If yes, make two new email aliases for "domains@wikia.com"...
- Jimbo: Thanks for clearing that up. I'm still curious as to why Wikia held the registration in the first place, however, if you wouldn't mind shedding some light on that. NickCT: I'm aware it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but Jimbo did start Wikia, so it obviously involves him. I asked him here as it's the first place that came to mind. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The judge in Julian Assange's hearing got the two confused.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is neither a relationship nor domain squatting. :). Wikipedia:Wikileaks is not part of Wikipedia has a quote from me about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)