Recientemente he creado un nuevo anexo aqui. Un usuario opina que el mismo es irrelevante, y yo considero es valido, ya que sigue los lineamientos del Wikiproyecto: Los invito a que opinen en la pagina de discusion, siguiendo los argumentos citados, y si lo desean incluir nuevos de su parte. Lamentablemente han borrado informacion muy util sobre la historia de un barrio como es La Boca. Seguramente estimado Kavanahg o como te llames, no sabes nada sobre la historia de los barrios de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, y te cres con derecho de borrar lo que tu ignorancia no te permite conocer.
Te invito a que vayas al barrio de La Boca y le preguntes a cualquier persona por la calle que es El Trapito, y que lugar tiene en la historia esa importante entidad. Antes de borrar cosas que no conoces, fijate las pelotudeces que escribis. La lista es antigua, pero si alguien tiene ganas de borrar, puede darse una vuelta y ver que hay para limpiar.
A los autores que son muchos , mejor concluir alguno que abrir nuevos. Un saludo, Filipo Mensajes a la botella Las cuestiones con usuarios particulares se resuelven con esos usuarios. A veces busco cosas y no encuentro lo q qiero Buscaba info sobre "tigre" pero como signo del zoodiaco chino Otro dia con mas tiempo encontre la tabla con la data sobre "tigre" Como lo esta el partido de tigre.
No se q opinen sobre este mensaje q dejo. Ahora viene mi consulta: En un curso paralelo d medicina nos daban material d estudio-cartillas- con imagenes e info muy buenas. Las imagenes son muchas y la verdad no se cual es el origen. Si las dibujo y las subo- ya sea o no con una alteracion- estaria violando derechos d autor? Si la respuesta a alguna d estas cuestiones esta en alguna ayuda, ruego me disculpen.
Yo estoy totalmente de acuerdo con que ni vida ni mi trabajo son relevantes. Hay alguien que sepa?
Una nueva plantilla para ver como le meamos las cachas a la Encarta. Muchisimos articulos son muy buenos, porque me consta. He leido bastantes, enteros, y animo a los demas a hacer lo mismo. Asi que animo a leer los articulos, en vez de leer discusiones y paginas de usuario etc. Se ve cambiado en la barra del navegador, y se ve sin cambiar en la pantalla de Wikipedia. No es lo que busco. These assertions could not be confirmed, but such perceptions undoubtedly affect editor behavior and relationships within the community.
We will return to this question of user-admin conflicts further below.
Some of the responses to this proposal the discussion was lengthy are illustrative of one set of attitudes within the community:. Sounds to me like elevating trolling to the level of a bureaucratic process. Explaining the differences around blocks and Wikiquette violations between the two editor communities is not entirely straightforward.
At minimum it would require a closer look at a good number of specific cases. In addition, it would be useful to extend the analysis above to cases of edit wars, for example. Clearly some of this is related to the relatively unconstrained powers of admins, and the attitudes among editors that support this lack of constraints.
As mentioned, some editors undoubtedly see an advantage to this, in terms of the ability of admins to deal quickly and decisively with uncivil editors and trolls, among other problems. A more mundane explanation for the differences would be a greater concern with decorum and civility in Spanish-speaking particularly Latin American cultures, compared to those of English speakers; while this can becomes something of a stereotype held by Latin Americans in particular it has a grain of truth to it.
Another question is whether blocks due to Wikiquette violations — particularly of experienced users — appear to be tied, at least in some cases, to factionalization within the community; this is an issue we will take up a bit later. It might be useful to start this section with a broader perspective. This involves making a distinction between different ways of exercising power. In one model, power is held by an office that is, a position , and is exercised and limited according to stated rules, formal procedures, and oversight.
An illustration of this might be the role of a sports referee, for example. In an alternate model, power is held by individual people, is exercised according to the judgment and virtues of the individual, and is limited by direct negotiation. An example of this might be a parent. Clearly no situation fits neatly into one of these two boxes: In most environments you find a mixture of both models, and Wikipedia is no exception to this.
They have also resisted measures that limit the individual judgment and discretion exercised by admins. Others dissent from this perspective: To explore this, we can start with the views of editors on measures taken to formalize conflict resolution, such as the now-defunct Conflict Resolution Committee WP: It never resolved anything; if anything, it augmented the conflicts. It was slow and inefficient, and it ended up in a functional stoppage two-thirds of the time.
- MICHAEL MONKEY SAVES THE DAY;
- Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman (Synthese Library).
- Related Resources.
- Mutual Empowerment: A Theology of Marriage, Intimacy, and Redemption.
Then they would produce resolutions in one fell swoop that were poorly considered and a few scandalously contravening Wikipedia policies. It is clear, however, that it was not merely an experiment in democracy. The CRC had its origins, in part, in a desire to limit and provide oversight to the power of admins. In a discussion on the associated talk pages, one supporter argued that: One editor argued during the vote that: Admins and their supporters of course fired back against these views.
In one discussion of the CRC an admin mocked them as follows: Thus according to one admin:. Does it make sense to have a body within Wikipedia itself that has as its purpose officially placing a newbie with an admin face-to-face? She added that the existing noticeboards were far more effective: Another admin strongly agreed about the admin noticeboard: There are thus editors who feel that more formal procedures for conflict resolution simply creates more opportunities for wikilawyering WP: Wikilawyering , and needless disputes.
It is moreover a faulty mechanism to address a problem that can be best resolved by allowing the admins to do their job, and use their powers for more direct and immediate resolution of conflicts. Others, however, believe that wikilawyering is a lesser evil to leaving conflict-related matters entirely in the hands of admins. In short, despite the criticisms or even irrelevance of the CRC, and the fact that it was voted to be abolished, editors are still of two minds as to how to address conflicts in Wikipedia.
The most sensitive issue still appears to be the power to block users held by admins, a point of contention that continued after the suspension of the CRC. But a consensus has never been possible, so that each admin does what they want, with all the drama that goes along with it. The response by critics of the proposal was pointed. There is also some important context to this proposal: Nonetheless, he undoubtedly began to frustrate a few more experienced users and admins. His response was to say that. Hierarchies that go against common sense, consensus and finally the whole spirit of communion and overcoming of differences which this Free Enyclopedia project points to.
Discussions with this editor often became very pointed. For example, one admin with more two years tenure , when debating this editor, would repeatedly reference his list of previous blocks when making his own arguments. Was this user merely a tendentious and disruptive editor, who deserved the firm hand that admins often employ? Or did he anger an influential admin, one who might have himself crossed the line as far as civility? Nonetheless, this did not prevent an attempted permanent ban. Whatever the source of the argument, there is clearly a great deal of impatience among some editors and admins with such proposals.
Meanwhile, there continues to be unease, contentiousness, frustration, and even some soul-searching about blocking and banning. NSW , which included: An editor troubled by the whole affair captured one argument found among the users who objected to the harsh punishment. It seems to me that in Wikipedia in English … it is not exactly the collective of admins who makes this decision, but rather the whole community that makes the determination as to whether to ban the difficult user, in certain pages. This ban, however, appears to have stood.
The extent of the polarization among certain editors around the role of admins blew up recently, in a dramatic case of sabotage on Spanish-language Wikipedia. To build up the group, private emails were sent to editors who they believed would be sympathetic, to obtain their participation. At the same time, this was not the only external forum in play.
Significantly, the forum is also publicly accessible to users not formally registered with it that is, if one knows the URL, something relatively easy to obtain. As a result, everything posted there can be read by anyone, and many participants in the forum use the same usernames as on Wikipedia. On the forum the participants coordinated their arguments, and discussed whether it would be possible to obtain additional votes against.
Also on their list of future plans was the initiation recall elections WP: RECAB for certain admins. That at times we have to use its weapons and play dirty, […] but with some strategy please. One included nominating an article written by a rival the ally of an objectionable admin to be deleted WP: CDB , while the rival was blocked. This scheme apparently went more or less according to plan.
Care had to be taken however: The identity of those admitted was confirmed by asking the interested party to place a particular word on their user talk page. Any suspicious parties would surely not have been allowed in, but it seems likely that they relaxed their guard admitted a mole. However it transpired, the reaction was swift. Canvassing and, of course, sabotage. All easily fell into the category of very-active editors. Particularly contentious was the expulsion of the most active of these, a user who had averaged more than edits a month and was well-liked. Critics maintained — including a pair of dissenting admins — that her participation had not been conclusively proven.
There was clearly some disagreement among admins regarding the whole affair. In another case the saboteurs hoped for the intervention of a particular admin seen as sympathetic. Admins on Spanish-language Wikipiedia are not an especially large group — it numbers people at the time of writing. Any who might have been tainted by the scandal appear to have not faced any consequences for a presumed association, at least not as of yet. To some editors the punishment also seemed far too harsh given the offense, and given the consequences of expelling four very-active editors. Norms that we accept as a community have been violated, but I think the gravity of the deed does not justify the quantity of harm to the users.
What was discussed publicly was the extent of the punishments, however. One of these who had previously left the admin listserv argued:. The closed nature of the arguments [made there] prevents me from knowing what the comments of the rest [of the admins] were. It is a shame that so few can see these wise arguments, and that they only see the consequences. It should be noted that as admins were are not very transparent… and worse, measures are being taken without knowing the full extent of the facts. According to another admin: It also appears that not only those who were against the verdict were concerned.
I think that from this muck have come both kinds of mud, […] although the line had not been crossed until this point. The expulsions have held, although a door was left open to one user to appeal for readmission the most active, whose ban was most questioned.
- Charlie Rabbits Adventures - The First Collection.
- At The Close Of A Long, Long Day!
- Ebook Textbook Download Free Confianza Miscelánea Nº 1 Spanish Edition B008mnm0ve Ibook.
- Shattering the Crystal Face of God.
- Wikipedia:Café/Portal/Archivo/Miscelánea//07 - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre.
Meanwhile, the fallout from the affair seems to have continued, given the fact that not all the participants were identified. Nonetheless, the conjecture and accusation of sabotage that you make with respect to [admin A] is unacceptable. Retract it immediately and abstain completely from forum-izing on the topic. If not, you will garner yourself a block of considerable duration given your long history of offenses.
You have been warned. Around this time, yet another admin admin C also publicly accused the same editor of being part of the plot. Admin C was highly troubled by the fact that the plot had included an attempt to recall him from his admin position. In this instance, the accused editor offered to send his private email correspondence to admin C to prove his innocence, by demonstrating he had rejected the requests of the faction to join the external forum where the plot was hatched.
One thing was certain however: Nearly a month later, the same editor opened a case on the Administrator's noticeboard WP: He alleged Wikihounding WP: The Wikihounding case was quickly declared to be spurious, and within an hour of his allegation the editor was blocked for six months. The admin who banned him Admin A, who had posted the warning almost a month earlier noted in announcing the block:. Have a nice day. The blocked editor in question is a relatively experienced contributor: Or was he the target of an admin witch-hunt?
- La lengua que heredamos: Curso de español para bilingües, 7th Edition.
- Related Content;
Again, members of the community are likely highly divided. It would take considerable research to unravel the lengthy background to this case, and the others. Moreover, it is difficult for a non-participant to pass judgment in a situation like this one, nor is that the objective here. What can be said is that it has clearly had a profound impact on the community. Leaving aside the bans, it seems that there are also users who have retreated from Wikipedia in despair or even disgust. As far as the basic facts of the matter, it is clear that some group of editors formed an explicit faction to achieve certain goals on the site, very likely breaking Wikipedia policy in the process.
It also seems evident that the faction was born of longstanding tensions and conflict — de facto factionalization — between different groups of editors, which broke in part along admin and non-admin lines. The non-admin critics strongly believe that certain admins function as arbitrary tyrants.
Research:WikiHistories fellowship/Spanish - Meta
The critics have also been previously involved, it appears, in efforts and arguments to constrain admin powers on Spanish-language Wikipedia. There have always been groups, and groups. Admins versus non-admins, Spaniards versus Argentines, etc. What there is are periods of peace where one group gets tired and leaves the rest in peace, but with time groups get reactivated because new people arrive who clash with the old, or what have you.
Moreover, although factionalization might be the result of a lack of formalized means of conflict resolution, according to this editor, factionalization in fact provides an explanation for the lack of these means: Thus for many users, leaving matters in the hands of powerful individual admins might be the least of all evils.
Yet while it is widely agreed that Wikipedia is not a democracy WP: NOT , a question remains: Spanish-language Wikipedia continues to grow and improve, and it boasts a population of highly-committed editors.