X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Thu Apr 30 09:05:39 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49F8A679.4060105@post.pl>
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>
	<49F8A679.4060105@post.pl>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:04:50 +0300
Message-ID: <f826636f0904300004s3e73ce56te5a21eac99c140e4@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dorin Cheptea <dorin.cheptea@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.4
X-Spam_score_int: 4
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: > > > > > 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... >
	> > [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.3 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=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0460979493548470968=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 1.7
X-Spam_score_int: 17
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:  > > > > > 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... > >
	> [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (1.7 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.0 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
	[score: 0.4685]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.0 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============0460979493548470968==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f04060ea39dc0468c04f92

--001485f04060ea39dc0468c04f92
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>
>
>
> > 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...
>
>
>

Exactly. If we can simply outperform them... Plus publically demand
accountability every time they cross the line. If to them this would look as
attacks, but not to us and to the rest of the community, the better.
(Because they would get radicalized and make more mistakes, while we can
keep cool head and have the community on our side.)

BTW, writing GA/FA status articles is not easy, needs skills and even some
talent. We need to educate ourselves in this direction (starting
with myself). A "quality editting school" might be helpful. Do you know if
WP has anything like that already?

Dorin

--001485f04060ea39dc0468c04f92
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>&gt; But those groups<br>&gt; are more vulnerable tha=
n we are, because comparatively to us, they do<br>&gt; break some rules. An=
d I believe we should &quot;attack&quot; those groups, not<br>&gt; wait for=
 them to &quot;attack&quot; us. I don&#39;t have the physical resourses to<=
br>
&gt; combat the propaganda of such groups on my own, but the fact that I kn=
ow<br>&gt; there are people like-minded as me, incourages me to undo a tiny=
<br>&gt; fraction of their propaganda, believing that i am not alone in see=
king a<br>
&gt; truthful propaganda-free atmosphere. I know I am way to idealistic, bu=
t<br>&gt; I can&#39;t help. :-)<br><br></div>What we need to define is what=
 do we mean by &quot;attack&quot;. The latest AN<br>attempt didn&#39;t work=
 out so well. Personally I know of no better strategy<br>
then to be active and keep editing, reverting, and improving content.<br>Th=
e most obvious basket cases can be banned, but the rest - we just have<br>t=
o outperform them. In the end, consider this: no propaganda article can<br>
achieve a GA/FA status...<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>=A0</div></blockquote>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>Exactly. If we can simply outperform them... Plus publically demand ac=
countability every time they cross the line. If=A0to them this would look a=
s attacks, but not to us and to the rest of the community, the better. (Bec=
ause they would get radicalized and make more mistakes, while we can keep c=
ool head and have the community on our side.)</div>

<div>=A0</div>
<div>BTW, writing GA/FA status articles is not easy, needs skills and even =
some talent. We need to educate ourselves in this direction (starting with=
=A0myself). A &quot;quality editting school&quot; might be helpful. Do you =
know if WP has anything like that already?</div>

<div>=A0</div>
<div>Dorin</div>
<div>=A0</div></div><br>

--001485f04060ea39dc0468c04f92--


--===============0460979493548470968==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============0460979493548470968==--


