User talk:Binadot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Sep 2004 to Mar 2005)
• Archive 2 (Mar 2005 to Jul 2005)

[edit] Comment/Questions on Wiki-ethos

Hi Binadot,

I've been reading up on Wikipedia as well as browsing the various articles and realized I have a question about the general ethos. Why are the editors essentially anonymous unless they self-identify? Yes, there is some utility to having a level structure in which only logic is the determinant, but some issues are subtle enough that they could be better served by knowing whether the contents were carefuly vetted by experts or not. This is where traditional encylopedias have something like Wikipedia beat -- uniform vetting.

Of course, then there's the issue of drawing experts into the mix deliberately and some form of compensation (intellectual/academic as opposed to monetary). That is, I'd be hard-pressed to browse Wikipedia to check articles in my areas of expertise since it would be a time-consuming labor of love for which there is no credit given. And then there's the issue of self-interest which I innocently blundered into with my various linked posts. As an "expert" I felt that some mention of the "matter channel" work in the Nature paper was indicated in the SETI article and I'm certain that other experts in the field (even those with different viewpoints) would feel the same. However, any suggestion that the ideas be included is in some sense self-dealing "vanity." (I do understand the personal citation issue and would not have done it had I RTFM first :) .)

So, since I'm sure these notions have been mulled over quite a bit by folks associated with Wikipedia, I'd love to get the inside scoop. At some point, Wikipedia has to grow up and provide some indication of the veracity of articles. The old way is to close down open submissions and empower a panel of experts -- this seems stultifying and prone to certain types of censorship. Perhaps there's a different way which vets without restricting participation -- simply allowing identification of editor qualifications? Note, the use of "allowing" as opposed to "enforcing" -- you could choose to identify or not.

Cheers,

Chris 03:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Rose

This article was previously VfD'd due to lack of notability when User:Cnmirose created it about himself. Although I agree that Wikipedia users should not edit articles about themselves, I believe Dr. Rose has a sufficient claim to notability that was not properly explored in the previous VfD. Therefore I am recreating this article. --malathion ^talk 05:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am re-creating a bio stub at Gregory Wright as well. I probably should go through VFU but I think the VfD was such an obvious mistake that I believe I'm in the right to ignore the rules on this one. --malathion ^talk 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the deliberation (you and Malathion aka Ryan)

Thanks for deliberating on this one -- I'll obviously leave it alone and we'll see what the general concensus is. Please see Ryan's talk page as well (for commentary and also for a factual correction on the Christopher Rose and Gregory Wright entries (very minor -- tagline on the Nature cover)

I'd have copied you directly but I don't know how to copy more than one user at once. I've read your note regarding wiki and generally agree (and look foward to having fun with it while adding to the pool of carefully vetted knowledge when I know what I'm talking about :) ). My comment about "intellectual remuneration" was really one of general interest not my own. That is, I cannot JUSTIFY editing wiki articles, but I will do so anyway. But given the reward structure for intellectual "experts" it will be tough (I think) to attract "experts" in numbers large enough to ensure good coverage of the vast range of topics.

However, maybe an "underground" economy will develop around things like wikipedia where tenure cases will be decided on how effective a wiki-editor folks have been. In that case, there would be a large influx of academic types. Of course, that's not necessarily a good thing, especially in the "softer" sciences where there could be exactly the type of credential-bludgeoning you and Ryan mentioned).

If you take a look at my note on Ryan's page, you might also want to look at a letter I wrote to Bill Safire of the NY Times some while back on the somewhat Orwellian "LifeLog" the DoD was proposing a while back. I think it's a fascinating topic where something like Wiki might have a lot to say as an operating principle.

Cheers,

Chris 08:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kerry.JPG

[edit] Subject Categorization

Hello! We are working on a new system that will categorize the users. Please take a moment to move your user page into the category Category:Wikipedians in Virginia and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Virginia page.

To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Wikipedians in Viginia|Binadot]] to sort yourself correctly.

--skraz (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Plait.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Plait.JPG. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 12:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ball lightning image

Please can you privide information about the source of this image?64.173.252.34 20:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Alcubierre.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alcubierre.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 13:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Machiko_Kyo.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Machiko_Kyo.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Hsu yun1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hsu yun1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism!

I am pleased to announce the creation of the first ever atheist wikiproject. The project is still in its infancy, and will need some love before it begins to take shape. Please help in any way you can. Thanks! Hezzy 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Raul.JPG

Jkelly 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Quonset_hut.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Quonset_hut.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Clive Owen.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Clive Owen.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duodecimal image

Hi, I wrote the duodecimal multiplication table as text in the duodecimal article, and so I listed your image (Image:Duodecimal Multiplication Table.PNG) for deletion. Hope this is OK. Happy editings, –Mysid^(t) 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Conical hat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Conical hat.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tim dalton.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Tim dalton.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Combination 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)