Wikipedia

User:Piotrus/sandbox

< User:Piotrus

👍

Search pl: [1], [2], [3].

Stefan Daszyński's bio[1].

We qualitatively analyzed the data by identifying illustrative text related to four themes:

[2]

[3]

https://prezi.com/p/l-ftr3sdefyu/ "If there's any reply to me here please [[WP:ECHO|echo]] me."

  • Calderaro, Andrea. 2011. “New Political Struggles in the Network Society: The Case of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) Movement.” Paper presented at the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) General Conference, August 26, Reykjavik, Iceland.
  • Coleman, E. Gabriella. 2012. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Kriesi, Hanspeter. 1995. “The Political Opportunity Structure of New Social Movements: Its Impact on their Mobilization.” In The Politics of Social Protest, eds. J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans. London: UCL Press, 167–98.
  • Kriesi, Hanspeter. 1995. “The Political Opportunity Structure of New Social Movements: Its Impact on their Mobilization.” In The Politics of Social Protest, eds. J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans. London: UCL Press, 167–98.
    • Within this framework, the first article in this issue, “Networked Collective Action and the Institutionalized Policy Debate: Bringing Cyberactivism to the Policy Arena?” by Milan and Hintz (2013), looks at the Internet as both a tool of collective action and an object of policy. The authors provide a comprehensive overview of how computer-mediated communication creates not only new forms of organizational structure for collective action, but also new contentious policy fields. By focusing on what the authors define as “techies activists,” Milan and Hintz explore how new grassroots actors participate in policy debates around the governance of the Internet at different levels. This article provides empirical evidence to what Kriesi et al. (1995) define as “windows of opportunities” for collective action to contribute to the policy debate around this new space of contentious politics. Milan and Hintz demonstrate how this has happened from the first World Summit of Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 to more recent debates about Internet regulation.

PSB scans to obtain: Zawisza Czarny, Stefan Grabiński, Władysław Grzymała Goślicki, Jadwiga (krolowa), Hugo Kołłątaj, Władysław Kozakiewicz, Jerzy Kukuczka, Stanisław Maczek, Pola Negri / Apolonia Chałupiec, Cyprian Norwid, Szmul Rzeszewski, Seweryn Rzewuski, Lew Sapieha, Irena Sendler, John Sobieski, Józef Sowiński, Władysław Szpilman, Florian Znaniecki

a stuff:

Hi,

I talked to several of your volunteers during the event; I am the Hanyang University professor / Wikipedia volunteer who would like to help you promote your event through Wikipedia.

First; I have written the English entry on the event at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Queer_Culture_Festival , using all the English sources I was able to find. You are more then welcome to expand it using Korean sources (which unfortunately I cannot read). In few days the article should be featured on English Wikipedia's Main Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Korea_Queer_Culture_Festival). Please note that all content added to Wikipedia should be referenced. If you want to learn how to edit Wikipedia, I recommend trying out this tutorial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure

Second, I would like to invite you to share your images with Wikipedia (and rest of the world) by changing the licensing on your page. Currently all images at http://www.kqcf.org/xe/gallery appear to be fully copyrighted. This makes it illegal for people to copy and repost them on other websites, including Wikipedia. There are several things you can do to make your current gallery have a much wider impact:

  • take a few minutes and reticence your gallery (or better, your entire website) with a free license that makes it legal for others to copy and reuse your content. This way you can benefit from viral marketing on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Here's the link to the Creative Commons Korea page that can tell you more about this: http://cckorea.org/xe/?mid=main (please note that Wikipedia accepts the CC-BY-SA and CC-BY licenses, but not any with NC and ND elements).

I have uploaded the few pictures I took during the event at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Korea_Queer_Culture_Festival , but I am not a professional photographer, and I'd expect you may have access to many pictures that would illustrate the festival better than my photos. It would be nice to get them on Wikipedia before the article is on the Main Page.

Let me know if you have any questions - I hope that together we can help to use Wikipedia to promote your festival and ensure even better attendance next year!

Cheers,

In the trivia news edit

[[WP:ITN|"In the news" section] is one of the key elements of our Main Page, and has a long history: "ITN originated in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when entries were created and put on the main page within minutes of the attacks. The entries led to an infusion of interest by editors in creating a main page section that linked to articles providing readers the context behind the news." However, I think it is time to rethink the purpose and fuctioning of this section, because in it's current format I do not believe it is doing justice to our Main Page (to be immediately clear, I think some reform will suffice to save this from disappearing). Let's however start from the section's own desription of itself: "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia."

"In horse racing, Michelle Payne (pictured) becomes the first female jockey to win the Melbourne Cup, riding Prince of Penzance." and "American Pharoah wins the Breeders' Cup Classic, marking the first-ever "grand slam" in American horse racing." Look, I understand why this happens - clearly, there is an active ITN volunteer who is a horse-racing fan. But is ITN so starved for entries that this kind of "news" is to stay on the front page for days? DYKs rotate every few hours, and most ITN entries should follow suit. And with all due respect to horse racing, it's a niche sport, and sports in general are covered in most newspapers in the back "sports" section. Having said that, in fact four out of five ITN entries right now are about sports ("In baseball, the Kansas City Royals defeat the New York Mets to win the World Series.", "Stanley Biwott wins the men's and Mary Jepkosgei Keitany wins the women's race at the New York City Marathon.") I always found ITN a bit weird (like Wikinews...), missing some major news while covering some very niche developments from around the world, but again, I understand - we have very limited space, and number of contributors, and it's good to keep systemic bias in mind. But, bias-wise - I count for out of five entries to be about English-speaking world, and three of them US. The bottom line is that two horse racing entries (and 80% sports coverage) in ITN at the same time show it is failing in its mission to "reflect recent or current events of wide interest", because, again, with all due respect, horse racing is not "of wide interest". I think it is time to seriously rethink the purpose of ITN: in it's current form it is no different from DYKs, other than it's articles focus on "things that happened recently".

On G5 or deleting good articles to spite their creators edit

On speedy deletion, namely G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users to the exclusion of its content merit)

Dead horse, to some degree - dozens of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion archives alone.

My original question: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_59#Clarification_requested_for_G5

Same concern raised: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_56#G5

Same concern raised: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_50#G5,_again. "you appear to care more about punishing malcontents than about helping the encyclopedia. If you think that helping the encyclopedia is less important than punishing malcontents Nyttend"

"Yes, any edits by banned/blocked may be removed. This is a good thing because it allows edits that are disruptive to be deleted quickly and without drama. My point is that edits by blocked/banned users that improve the encyclopaedia should not be deleted. Blocks and bans are not punitive, they are placed to protect the encyclopaedia from disruption, but the encyclopaedia does not need protecting from edits that are not disruptive. Thryduulf "


Counter-argument: "My view has largely been shaped by years of seeing persistent disruptive editors who know that they can defy blocks by just creating endless strings of sockpuppets, and although each one will eventually be blocked, a proportion of their edits will stay, so they get away with evading the blocks. However, if the editor eventually finds that everything that he or she does with a sockpuppet will be reverted, so that they achieve nothing at all by using sockpuppets, a large proportion of sockpuppeteers eventually give up. Losing a few reasonably good articles is unfortunate, but it can be a price worth paying if it results in ridding Wikipedia of a long-term disruptive editor. Apart from the copyright issue, reposting the same article is disruptive (whether intentionally so or not) as it defeats the purpose of letting the sockpuppeteer see that the fruits of their sockpuppetry are lost. -- User:JamesBWatson "

The project is about both behaviour and content, and good content cannot be used to excuse bad behaviour.—Kww(talk)

Absolutely everything created by a blocked or banned user should be deleted. The purpose is to make it fruitless for the editor to continue editing, and make him eventually leave Kww

"For most users seeing anything they do get reverted or deleted does discourage them. For the few lunatics who do things like creating an account with the specific intent of having it detected and linked to their original account pretty much nothing works, but the more we deny recognition and simply revert block and ignore them the less fun it is for them. With those nuts it has always been a question of who will get tired of it first. Of course since we have new vandal fighters and admins all the time it's likely they will, it just takes a lot longer than with "normal" banned users. Beeblebrox " -- but if banned editors are making good edits, why should we make any effort to hunt them down? We should focus on hunting socks that continue disruption, not the socks that are helpful. If a 'helpful sock' is found, ban it, but don't make it a priority to hunt such socks (when worse sock exist), and don't damage the project by removing whatever good value was created.

WP:DENY - essay

Yes, G5 has a long history: "The spirit of G5 (but not the code G5 itself) appears in the original version of this page, as item 6...." Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_59#Clarification_requested_for_G5

Maria Roszak - deleted due to the violation of topic ban by an editor who was indef blocked for this violation (strange over-reaction for an editor who seems to be mostly a topic creator of some possibly unnotable list). Subject was clearly notable in the original deleted version.

Bruce Flatt - undiscloded paid for editor, but the subject is notable. Recreated a year later by another(?) SPA.

" The only way to put a persistent spammer like User:Morning277 (240 socks and counting) out of business is to make sure that all his paying clients find their articles deleted. JohnCD " -- auto-AfD for such articles should serve the same purpose, yet allow us to save the content that is actually helpful. I have little love left for such spammers, and making them go out of business hardly breaks my heart, but putting them out of business should not put us out of ours. And deleting good articles is doing just that. Why not just close and delete the entire Wikipedia project? That will take of the spammers here quite definitely :)

Solution: G5 should not be a speedy deletion. Articles by banned or blocked editors created after their block should be automatically listed at AfD for community review. This will prevent good content (notable topics, etc.) from being deleted. It should be punishment enough for editors to have each and every of their future edits subject to deletion scrutiny, and the recognition that the community has deemed their creations so poor that each merits a harsh review. But to just delete possibly valid contributions hurts the 'encyclopedia-building' mission, which should be given precedence over WP:DENY-like education. In other words, educating editors (up to and including educating them to go the hell away and stop bothering us) should not be given priority over our primary project mission.

It is common knowledge that our community is very concerned about copyright (meta:copyright paranoia...) but even even Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations does not blanked delete articles of problematic users, they are reviewed and deleted case by case. Yet somehow socking is seem as an even bigger danger.

WP:BANREVERT is better worded: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." - revert ambigious cases, but don't revert good ones

WP:BMB "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. A number of banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Even if such editors only make good edits, they will be rebanned for evasion". This is also reasonable. Disruptive editors will be banned. But their good edits won't be reverted. If a banned editor reverts vandalism, are we going to restore the vandalized version to spite one problematic and encourage another, endorsing the vandalized version? Of course not. Deleting good content should follow the same logic. Restoring a vandalized version is no different from deleting an otherwise fine article; both destroy value (encyclopedic content).

It's about what's more important: content or limiting disruption. There's no disagreement that disruptive editors can and should be blocked and told to go away until they reform, if they can. But cutting the nose to spite the face is not the ideal strategy.

On canvassing edit

to write why this is another stupid policy one day...

On notability edit

Almost every game Each vehicle (Px27-775, TES 28 Magnam) and vehicle producer? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aero Ltd. Each animal Category:County legislators in New York? Gadgets Ameprod TVG-10

Not all professors, likely many more sportpeople [13] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kacper Laskoś - arguments that GNG is not met and NSPORT is not enough are simply ignored, so most people stop bothering

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesg

CEO? Businesspeople? Too many or too few?

Guns? Canon de 100 mm Modèle 1891

Why beauty pageants are denied notability? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee Jepsen

Seasons of TV series Ex on the Beach Poland (series 2)

What do do when some but not all events in a series are notable? Template:Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival; solar eclipses

While tiny but "hot" and marketing-savvy startups have a lot of business-as-usual coverage (Bitcoin spam...) 200-years of history for mid-tier companies may not be enough Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symington's

On useless projects edit

Edu edit

R1

Roland Robertson and Kathleen E. White, “What Is Globalization?”

  • No consensus among scholars. No one definition
  • the antiglobalization movement arose in the 90s and most of its base comes from the Western societies. "As the protest against capitalistic globalization grew rapidly, so too did the sense that the movement itself was a part of the globalization process. Hence, the distinction that emerged in the early 2000s between the notions of globalization from above (the ‘enemy’) and globalization from below (the ‘good guys’)."
  • neoliberalism - a policy promoted by many rich nations, in favour of the desirability of open markets, free trade, deregulation and privatization.
  • growing importance of transnational corporations, iconic representation of the bad side of globalization
  • the most important single defining feature of globalization is that of increasing connectivity (interconnectedness), often focused on by political scientists and economists. A related concept of global consciousness (a shared sense of the world as a whole) has been studied more by sociologists, anthropologists and historians.
  • "Many books and articles on globalization, not least written by sociologists, stipulate that there are three major dimensions of such: the economic, the political and the cultural."
  • cultural globalization - globalization of social practices and relations, with the most common example being McDonaldization, tempered by glocalization
  • notes that it is possible to distinguish an under-researched social dimension
  • argues that environmental globalization can be seen as part of cultural globalization as "words, the concern with the environment is part of contemporary human culture."
  • the concept of the world system
  • nation state is changing due to multiculturalism and immigration

R2

  • John Tomlinson, “Cultural Globalization”
  • start with definitions
  • globalization is increasing connectivity
  • understanding globalization only in economic terms is too limited, capitalist system is very important but it is not everything
  • cultural globalization is shaped by globalized goods (related to common criticism of McDonaldization etc.) but local culture also shapes globalizations, people are producers, not just consumers
  • culture is a very complex term, a way of thinking about life, Reflexivity (social theory)
  • deterritorialization - culture is no longer tied to national borders
  • we consume local or international goods or media, and we produce them with new media
  • tensione exists between pro-globalizationc cosmopoliticans and nationalistic, traditonalists view of older culture being assaulted by globalization
  • cultural identity can be multi-faced and has many dimensions

R3

  • Gerard Delanty and Chris Rumford, “Political Globalization”

R4

  • Peter Dicken, “Economic Globalization”

Glob reading / article source(s) edit

Template test edit

Piłsudski

[[File:|thumb|300px|center]] [[File:|thumb|40px|center]]

Piłsudski

[[File:|thumb|300px|center]] [[File:|thumb|40px|center]]
File:Dutch.png

Dutch

Lenin

[[File:|thumb|300px|center]] [[File:|thumb|40px|center]]
 

Russian

Lenin

[[File:|thumb|300px|center]] [[File:|thumb|40px|center]]
 

Russian

Bismarck

[[File:|thumb|300px|center]] [[File:|thumb|40px|center]]
 

German

Bismarck

[[File:|thumb|300px|center]] [[File:|thumb|40px|center]]
 

German
  1. ^ "Daszyński Stefan Witold". z-ne.pl. Retrieved 2023-08-09.
  2. ^ Ivey, Bill (2008-05-10). Arts, Inc.: How Greed and Neglect Have Destroyed Our Cultural Rights. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520930926.
  3. ^ https://www.tvp.pl/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Piotrus/sandbox&oldid=1172339832"