X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Apr 29 21:10:47 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <49F8A679.4060105@post.pl>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:11:53 -0400
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <226476.72978.qm@web33301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<c3b2b3db0904271114y495f9b0dl1328b86a07723d9f@mail.gmail.com>	<f826636f0904271358r8c08b23ifc2991dde9e442c6@mail.gmail.com>	<c3b2b3db0904271410w78ed56bbh730525025f0dccd4@mail.gmail.com>
	<f826636f0904290349r36789aedtb22a0243b6aed2a3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f826636f0904290349r36789aedtb22a0243b6aed2a3@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.3
X-Spam_score_int: -22
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  Dorin Cheptea wrote: > Also,
	we are not important at all
	for the three-letter organizations. We > might seriously annoy some
	small semi-amateurish group voluntarily > yielding its services to a
	larger similar group, etc, etc, i.e. we can > be a nuisance for somebody
	pretty low in the hierarchy. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.3
X-Spam_score_int: -22
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  Dorin Cheptea wrote: > Also, we are not important at all
	for the three-letter organizations. We > might seriously annoy some
	small semi-amateurish group voluntarily > yielding its services to a
	larger similar group, etc, etc, i.e. we can > be a nuisance for somebody
	pretty low in the hierarchy. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.2 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Dorin Cheptea wrote:

> Also, we are not important at all for the three-letter organizations. We 
> might seriously annoy some small semi-amateurish group voluntarily 
> yielding its services to a larger similar group, etc, etc, i.e. we can 
> be a nuisance for somebody pretty low in the hierarchy. 

Indeed.

> But those groups 
> are more vulnerable than we are, because comparatively to us, they do 
> break some rules. And I believe we should "attack" those groups, not 
> wait for them to "attack" us. I don't have the physical resourses to 
> combat the propaganda of such groups on my own, but the fact that I know 
> there are people like-minded as me, incourages me to undo a tiny 
> fraction of their propaganda, believing that i am not alone in seeking a 
> truthful propaganda-free atmosphere. I know I am way to idealistic, but 
> I can't help. :-)

What we need to define is what do we mean by "attack". The latest AN 
attempt didn't work out so well. Personally I know of no better strategy 
then to be active and keep editing, reverting, and improving content. 
The most obvious basket cases can be banned, but the rest - we just have 
to outperform them. In the end, consider this: no propaganda article can 
achieve a GA/FA status...

-- 
Piotr Konieczny

"The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in 
theory."

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

