Talk:Linux kernel mailing list

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linux (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

general question[edit]

What is intended to be in this article? Is the LKML sufficiently distinct from other mailing lists to require its own article? Or should it be discussed in a more general article discussing the development of Linux? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VfD[edit]

Article listed on vfd 14 Apr to 20 Apr 2004, consensus to keep. Discussion:

Do we really need an article on every mailing list in the world? -- Graham :) | Talk 13:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • There are a few mailing lists out there that are notable enough to have articles. LKML is probably one of them. -- Cyrius|&#9998 16:43, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important list. --AaronSw 17:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Tεxτurε 17:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Noninformative. Delete if not expanded by those who think it is important during the time-out. Mikkalai 02:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 08:06, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Controversies material merged[edit]

The problem of the skimpy LKML article has been solved, and there are lots of controversies associated with it, so here's a few pages of well researched LKML content that's very entertaining. Waya sahoni 09:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • For those new to this tedious saga, Waya sahoni is attempting to move large sections of the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article to here in order to save Jeff some embarrassment, against the consensus opinion of pretty much everyone else. Waya is probably a sockpuppet of Jeff Merkey himself, who has been permanently banned for threatening nuisance lawsuits over his page. Apologies in advance for the upcoming train wreck --Aim Here 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Investigation and amid false allegations have confirmed I am not a sockpuppet of Jeff Merkey. This user is a known SCOX sockpuppet role account Vandal, and has been repeatedly vandalizing this article and several others. This account User:Aim Here is a role account of SCOX message board users and its used by dozens of people via a proxy. Waya sahoni 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    Investigation into your history is nonconclusive, other than proving that you've been lying about the accounts you're using, and that you have a utah IP address, which is unlikely for an alleged Texan. And all that crap about proxies and role accounts is utterly false. There's only one of me. --Aim Here 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks against other users. It violates WP:NPA. Also, please stop page blanking and vandalizing the article. Thanks. Waya sahoni 08:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise edits are a good start, however, that content still belongs in this article. Let's see what the RFC concludes (which will mandate this article I believe). Waya sahoni 14:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How can it? Both the -pro and -anti positions on the RFC are rants by you. The only choice for everyone who disagrees with you is to abstain. Oh and you're banned. Get off Wikipedia, Jeff. --Aim Here 17:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed Merkey stuff[edit]

I'm reverting this back to the version before this weird edit-war. Several links were removed for no reason, and I don't see how this Merkey stuff is relevant. Especially considering how half the article space was devoted to him. AFAICT he's not a significant developer or particularily prolific poster on the list. It's non-NPOV by placing undue weight on the contributions (however controversial) of a single poster. By that rationale, the Usenet article would be full of nonsense on every single net-kook out there. --BluePlatypus 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)immediately.

Well, except that LKML materials and list fails as a primary or secondary source under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which means content about it in other articles which rely on it fail WP:V and will be deleted or moved to this article. After you receive the content from the other article, you can fight with the other editors over it and work it out with them, since they will be moving over here with it. But it will either get moved or dumped, as it fails Wikiepdia policies and is a dubious source for primary or secondary research. Waya sahoni 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

LKML posts certainly are primary sources for information on the LKML itself. Other articles are other articles, and there is no reason to bring them into this. Just because something is posted on the LKML doesn't mean is should be in the LKML article. Just because an article cites the NY Times as a source doesn't mean it's relevant to the article on the Times. And the reliability of the LKML as a source has nothing to do with that. Please take this edit war back to the Merkey article (as that's where it seems to have originated, and where the dispute is). --BluePlatypus 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Proposed Materials to merge into LKML[edit]

I propose the editors of this article review these materials for suitability of merging or combining with the LKML article. As it stands, the LKML article is seriously lacking in content. Please consider these materials for inclusion as they are not usable outside of this article and should be retained on Wikipedia. Waya sahoni 02:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[Note: there's been some back-and-forth here, but as near as I can tell the material under discussion consists of the "Linux kernel mailing list" (four subsections) and "Lawsuits and threats" (four subsections) sections of the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)]

Of the nine sections you propose to move, it appears to me that only three have any reference to LKML posts at all. I don't believe any of this material should be moved, but clearly the excuse you are giving would not apply to most of this text, even if you had a valid point. — MediaMangler 03:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to cut-and-paste the entire Merkey article here. Secondly, no this material isn't suitable for the simple reason that the material is not about the LKML in itself. It's about Jeff Merkey and whatever he's been doing on the LKML. If anywhere, it belongs in the article on Merkey, not here. If you want to add information about notable LKML posts and posters to the article, that's fine. But Jeff Merkey is not one of the more notable posters, nor are his posts particularily noteworthy in the larger context of the LKML. They're probably noteworthy in the context of explaining the perception of Merkey within the Linux community, but that belongs in the Merkey article, not here. They are usable within that article, they are not usable within this article, in particular as it is a short article, and adding a large amount of information about any single poster is going to make it prone to selection bias. I already explained this. Waya Sahoni, you seem to be getting yourself into edit wars over the Merkey article. For the second time, I ask you to leave this article out of it unless you can better explain why the history of this one poster is so significant that it deserves mention in this article, when more well-known LKML posters are left out. --BluePlatypus 10:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have already explained the reasons, you simply do not agree and feel you can resort to page blanking and removal of the content from a talk page. You also do not WP:OWN the LKML article. Like it or not, you need to get used to the idea of other editors placing content in the article you may not agree with. I always give people a voice to express their arguments and views, and I try to listen, but the moment an editor resorts to page blanking and other forms of vandalism, the discussion is over, IMHO. You are demonstrating you are willing to not listen or discuss and just run over people. Waya sahoni 18:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
For the second time, it isn't page-blanking to remove cut-and-pasted wikipedia content which can just as well be linked to. Like so. You've failed to explain why that material needs to be here. Firstly, it's not relevant to the article, secondly, it's not necessary to reproduce the article on the this talk page to discuss merging it, had it been relevant. It clutters up the page. Use the correct merge tag. --BluePlatypus 18:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that the material in question would be inappropriate here. The most this LKML article could use would be a once-sentence mention of the controversy, with a reference to the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article for the full story. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, this is a reasonable response to the notability of the materials, unfortunately, LKML material are barred by WP:RS in other articles. Linking to the other article is a temporary solution since those materials are going to be removed from that article. They belong here, and if the editors feel they are not notable, then they should not belong on wikipedia.
See the following:
Wikipedia defines reputable sources as:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources define prohibited sources as:
Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet
Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.
Because there is no way we can know for certain who has written them.
Personal websites as primary sources
A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.
Personal websites as secondary sources
Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.
Unattributed material
Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they don't have any other corroborating information. It's important to seek credible sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete them.
It's always appropriate to ask other editors, "How do you know that?", or "Can you cite your source?" If they didn't have a particular source in mind when they wrote the material originally, someone will have to find a credible source. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question.
For advice about dealing with unattributed material when you find it, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words which are policy, and Wikipedia:Cite sources, which is a style guide.
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence
Certain "red flags" should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Surprising or important facts which are not widely known.
Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media.
Claims which are not supported, or which are contradicted, by the prevailing view in the scientific community. This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy of "official science" to silence them.
Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues).
Based upon these definitions, weblog content, emails on LKML, websites which are "mirrors" of disputed content, blogs, and other publications are not reputable sources are do not constitute verifiable information. in fact, the information is specially barred and characterized as without enclyclopedic merit. Waya sahoni 06:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The LKML does not fall into any of the above categories. Further, the fact that Merkey posted extensively and verifiably makes it pertinent to the Merkey article.Vigilant 07:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, lets analyze this position. LKML Article states:
The Linux kernel mailing list (LKML) is a electronic mailing list focusing on the discussion of Linux kernel development. Many other mailing lists exist to discuss the different subsystems and ports of the linux kernel, but LKML provides the glue that holds the kernel development community together. It is a very high volume list, usually receiving between 200-300 messages a day.
And "electronic mailing list is defined as:
Electronic mailing lists are a special usage of e-mail that allows for widespread distribution of information to many Internet users. Software is installed on a server which processes incoming e-mail messages, and, depending on their content, either acts on them internally or distributes the message to all users subscribed to the mailing list. Popular examples of mailing list software include GNU Mailman, LISTSERV and Majordomo. Today, mailing lists are most often used for collaboration on various projects and as a way of distributing current news and other such information. One very popular mailing list is Bugtraq.
Sometimes these take the form of what is termed a "discussion list": a subscriber uses the mailing list to send messages to all the other subscribers, who may answer in similar fashion. Thus actual discussion and information exchanges can happen. Mailing lists of this type are usually topic-oriented (for example, politics, scientific discussion, joke contests), even if the topic can range from extremely narrow to "whatever you think could interest us". In this they are similar to Usenet newsgroups, and share the same aversion to off-topic messages. The term discussion group encompasses both these types of lists and newsgroups.
Based upon these descriptions and comparisons to Usenet and similiar mediums, and the fact it employs and allows anonymous posters with potentially forged email headers, LKML is placed within the same class and is therefore unsuitable as a primary or secondary source outside an article about itself.
Waya sahoni 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Request for comments which is a vote on this very subject,where you edited both the proposing and the opposing position, then re-edited the opposing position AGAIN after a number of votes were cast, and you STILL lost. --Aim Here 19:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. --cesarb 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The material doesn't belong here. And the place to discuss the question of its validity on the Merkey article is, of course, over at the Merkey article, not here. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)