from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 4/4/06, Kernigh <xkernigh at netscape.net> wrote:
> Elisabeth Bauer <elian at ...> writes:
>
> > When we started Wikimedia Deutschland, we decided to use meta-wiki to
> > host the wiki pages related to the verein instead of hosting them on the
> > german wikipedia. The effect: nothings happens there. ...
>
> That might not be the right cause. For example, I use English-language pages on
> meta.wikimedia.org mostly for interproject situations. If I want to know about
> IRC channels or new project proposals, I use Meta. However, I still mostly
> ignore the Foundation pages, and I would continue to mostly ignore them even if
> they were at en.wikibooks.org instead of Meta.
> -- [[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]]

Agreed. And I would argue that chapter work, although it needs the
input of as many editors as possible, should not happen on Wikipedia,
apart maybe from the very first steps to gather interested people.

Chapters imply people who are devoted in another kind of way than editors.

I like the way some chapters have started on meta (Wikimedia UK for
example), others have decided to have their own wiki from the start
(Wikimedia CH or Wikimedia Nederland).

I believe that if people want to be involved in chapters, they *will*
make the efforts of going to meta or some other dedicated wiki. And I
believe it is the right way to go.

If I look at the genesis of the French chapter, many people who had
millions of opinions to give while the pages were on the French
Wikipedia suddenly lost interest as soon as the Chapter was founded
and they could finally *do* something with/within the Chapter. On the
other hand, people who have an interest in organisational matters have
found their way to Wikimedia France.

Delphine
--
~notafish


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rotem Liss

subject: [Wikitech-l] Test snapshot for MediaWiki 1.6.0

body:
I installed today a clean installation of the latest SVN version with
both Hebrew and English translations (Mandriva Linux 2006.0, Apache
2.0.5.4, PHP 5.0.4, MySQL 4.0.26), and it works very good. Also, I've
installed three clean installations on the server
http://www.100webspace.com, and it worked good - except for the old bug,
I plan to detect and report, of stopping suddenly rebuildMessages.php in
the installation, without creating the last messages or
LocalSettings.php (I can of course copy LocalSettings.php from the upper
text, and the messages work also if their MediaWiki page is not exist
yet). But that is an old bug, was exist also in 1.5.3.

One request - please fix
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5409 for that release,
because it's an annoying bug, and it now has an updated, simple patch.

rotemliss

Brion Vibber wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Before I release a formal 1.6.0, I'd like if a few people would quickly test
>installation of the current snapshot.
>
>Generally 1.6 is working quite nice on our own servers, but the installation and
>updater code might not be as well exercised. I've done a few basic smoke tests
>on my own, but a few more under different conditions might be wise before we
>make a fuss about The Big Release.
>
>Download:
>http://svn.wikimedia.org/snapshots/mediawiki-snapshot-20060404.tar.gz
>MD5 checksum: 352de479b8eada133de1247badd3677a
>
>Release notes (not finalized):
>http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES
>
>
>As a reminder, we're planning to start on a quarterly snapshot release schedule;
>about every three months we'll take what's currently running, branch it off and
>release it. Security updates will continue to be made on those release branches
>for some time, but feature development and non-essential bugfixes generally will
>go on the mainline and be available in the next quarterly release.
>
>So 1.7 is tentatively scheduled for July; 1.8 for October, 1.9 (?) for January, etc.
>
>- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFEMlsmwRnhpk1wk44RAsmaAJ9YkPBKxZQfanEk3rN3kqdqSKWFiwCfU5sl
>zzm1AbpiUNZ5UCFDO3ioNfM=
>=6aXX
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Justin Cormack

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Subcategories (was: Re: Footers (WAS: Re: Deleting
	the	Lolicon picture))

body:
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 15:46 +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Obwikipedia: Subcategories really, really don't work. Why have we put
> up with them for so long? I was trying to categorise [[Brownstone]].
> First I chose [[Category:building materials]]. Then I realised there
> was a subcat [[Category:Masonry]]. But why not go the whole hog,
> [[Category:Stone]]? Because there you end up in a category with 3
> other members, none of which were real building materials. I ended up
> using both Masonry and Stone, violating the rule against using a cat
> and its subcat together.

A bit of rearranging on the categories helps. I might look at this
one later, but I am trying to fight off a proposal to have
Category:German beer and breweries etc. Some people dont understand
how to parent categories.

To do it well you need to look at the category system in a whole
subject area. It requires a lot of editing to fix. But its worth
it when its right.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Subcategories

body:
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 23:33 +0930, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
> I don't supposed you've seen the wonders that can be achieved with
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php by any
> chance?

Ooh no. I will have a play later. Looks useful.

Justinc


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Footers (WAS: Re: Deleting the Lolicon picture)

body:
On 4/4/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> It can also be difficult to follow a list with lots of topics going
> on at once if there isn't any contextual quoting (carefully trimmed)
> above the response to remind you of what is being replied to.
> Reading the context *after* the reply is awkwardly backward.

Arguments about top-quoting vs bottom-quoting on a list is almost as
bad as mentioning Hitler.

;)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

body:
On 4/4/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> True, had all the discussion on the lolicon image taken place on the
> article's talkpage (as some of the RFC endorsers have demanded) it would
> have been a mass of indentation, links to irrelevant policies etc. etc.
> whereas on the mailing list people can give a more extended, more
> rational explanation of their argument.

Yes, that RFC has really opened my eyes. There are a decent number of
comments along the lines of "I don't object to this image being
deleted. But by golly YOU SHOULD HAVE DISCUSSED IT HERE FIRST!"

Also the complaints about the irreversibility of deleting an image
pilfered from a web site are, um, *no comment*.

Steve


list: foundation-l

from_name: Tomasz Ganicz

body:
2006/4/4, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com>:

> If I look at the genesis of the French chapter, many people who had
> millions of opinions to give while the pages were on the French
> Wikipedia suddenly lost interest as soon as the Chapter was founded
> and they could finally *do* something with/within the Chapter. On the
> other hand, people who have an interest in organisational matters have
> found their way to Wikimedia France.
>

Polish chapter also started on meta, but we had put the information
about the discussion on all polish-writen Wikimedia project and there
was also discussion about it on wiki-pl-l e-mail list and IRC channel.
After establishing the chapter we have created our own wiki, which we
are trying to keep as open as possible - just few pages are blocked -
mainly with official documents, bank accounts and address information.
I think big mistake with some other chapter pages is that they are
completely blocked and very few people can edit it - there are no
place for free discussion even. Our experience is, that although our
wiki is almost as free for editing as Wikipedia there is very little
vandalism and many people - even not being our members help us to
maintain this wiki.

--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://www.ceti.pl/kganicz/poli/kontakt.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/4/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> I posted a statement of strong support for Sam there.  The key to my
> approach to this is to distinguish between (a) where we should draw the
> line and (b) what to do while we are thinking about it.  In this case,
> we have been trolled by pedophiles creating facts on the ground, abusing
> our open processes.

I don't agree with their arguments (I am glad the image is gone), but I
don't think the ones wanting to keep the picture were pedophiles. They had
other reasons for wanting to keep the image.

Garion96


body:
On 4/4/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> Perhaps it would be better if there was NO footer at all (rather
> than stripping out multiple occurences of the footer post-sending). This
> would solve the display problems you mentioned without screwing PGP
> signing. Surely the fact that [WikiEN-l] is in the subject line tells
> someone that the email is from the mailing list, without the need for
> the footer.

In any case, for me, gmail hides the footer as "quoted text". Perhaps
because of the long line above?

I kind of agree with you, but containing the unsubscription link
probably saves the mods a lot of administrivia.  (Incidentally, I'm
still trying to work out why one of my previous messages got filtered
out for containing "potential administrivia")

Obwikipedia: Subcategories really, really don't work. Why have we put
up with them for so long? I was trying to categorise [[Brownstone]].
First I chose [[Category:building materials]]. Then I realised there
was a subcat [[Category:Masonry]]. But why not go the whole hog,
[[Category:Stone]]? Because there you end up in a category with 3
other members, none of which were real building materials. I ended up
using both Masonry and Stone, violating the rule against using a cat
and its subcat together.

Steve


body:
Why does bottom posting suck?

On 4/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Alexander Russell wrote:
> > Steve Bennett wrote:
> >> On 4/4/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Because any modification of the message post-sending would royally screw
> >>> any digital signing of the message (which me, Alphax, and a couple of
> >>> other people use on this list) which relies on a hash computed at the
> >>> time of sending by the user's encryption program
> >>
> >> Heh, in this case, there is no problem - anyone likely to use PGP to
> >> sign their messages is extremely unlikely to forget to trim their
> >> message footers. And the worst case scenario is that you do forget to
> >> trim a message footer, it gets done for you, and someone's mail reader
> >> says "this PGP message does not compute" and checks with you.
> >>
> >> So, a small number of messages from a small number of users would
> >> cause a small problem.
> >
> > True - but could I add that if everyone put their message ABOVE the
> > quoted text, rather than below, then this issue would be moot anyway
> > (since we wouldn't need to go through the endless footers in order to
> > get to the message)
> >
>
> A: Yes.
> > Q: Are you sure?
> >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>

Because you had to wade your way through all that crap just for this
stupid remark. Ok, let's move on, shall we?

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Subcategories (was: Re: Footers (WAS: Re: Deleting
	the Lolicon picture))

body:
On 4/4/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> To do it well you need to look at the category system in a whole
> subject area. It requires a lot of editing to fix. But its worth
> it when its right.

I have an immature little fantasy that "tagging" would be better than
"categorising" our articles. Would it work better in this case?
Brownstone could be +"building material" and +mineral and why not even
+architecture.

We could perhaps define parent tags, that worked like templates. Say,
tagging an article +"German beer"  would automatically (and
transparently, that is, visibly) add the tags +German and +beer.

Of course, this would require a major change to MediaWiki and massive
amounts of work to correctly implement, so I'm more than happy to be
convinced that "categories" work better than "tags".

Steve


body:
Just send a patch to Bugzilla.

rotemliss

????????? ??????? wrote:

>>Before I release a formal 1.6.0, I'd like if a few people would quickly test
>>installation of the current snapshot.
>>
>>
>
>It would be quite good to call to update language files.
>
>By the way, how can I commit translation changes into subversion? Will
>I send patch to bugzilla? Do you plan to give shell account on your
>server for this?
>
>I plan to update languagefiles for ru, os, cv, ba, xal, udm, eo.
>
>--
>?ion la plej helan,
>Alexander Sigachov (ajvol)
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Subcategories

body:
On 4/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't supposed you've seen the wonders that can be achieved with
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php by any
> chance?

I have. It is wonderful. But it's not integrated into MediaWiki.
Perhaps all I really want is that if you add some subcategory to an
article, all the parent categories are added automatically (perhaps in
smaller text or something).

Or perhaps I want a really tight definition of "subcategory", which
doesn't seem to exist. There are at least two distinct meanings (and
uses) of the relationship A = subcategory(B) (fictitious examples)

- Definitive subcategories. Every item that could be tagged B could by
definition be tagged A. For example, famous German artists/famous
Germans
- Fuzzy subsets: B itself is a kind of subdomain of A. e.g. Opera is a
subdomain of Singing, but "Sydney Opera House" is not a kind of
singing (but could well be categorised "Opera")

The problem may be that categories sometimes mean "is a" and sometimes
mean "is related to". This is weakly hinted at in the category
guidelines, which distinguish between "Operas" as an "is a" category,
and "Opera" as a "related to" category. Intriguingly, "Operas" has
three subcategories, subcategories of which are used to tag actual
operas several times. For example, Don Giovanni falls into Italian
Operas, Operas by Mozart, and Operas, as well as the "related to"
category Melodrama). And this is a *well-organised* categorisation
system.

Lastly, for some comic relief, check out the categories on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokeback_Mountain

Can you work out which categories are misapplied? :)

Steve


from_name: Александр Сигачёв

body:
> Before I release a formal 1.6.0, I'd like if a few people would quickly test
> installation of the current snapshot.

It would be quite good to call to update language files.

By the way, how can I commit translation changes into subversion? Will
I send patch to bugzilla? Do you plan to give shell account on your
server for this?

I plan to update languagefiles for ru, os, cv, ba, xal, udm, eo.

--
?ion la plej helan,
Alexander Sigachov (ajvol)


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards arbitrary client-side JavaScript execution

body:
> Well, upgrading would be nice. :)

What, and give up on Debian Woody?! Why, I've still got exactly 27
days of security support left, until (after 4 years) even the Debian
folks finally abandon it! ;-)

I'm currently holding out for Ubuntu 6.06 to be released (5 years of
support on the server - very nice)

> We're junking CVS

Cool, and I see that
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:MW_quick_download (which is
what mislead me to be looking at CVS) has been updated to point to SVN
instead.

> That'd be 1.6.0 as of tomorrow or shortly thereafter.

Sounds good, although from a quick glance the 1.6 /HISTORY, /UPGRADE
and /INSTALL readme text files seemed to be assuming 1.5 (maybe).

> I've tossed in a quick tweak to the table parser to reduce the danger of this;

Thank you!

> That's before the fixes checked in on head (which will go into 1.5.9 also).

OK, well the new stuff below is still based on 1.5.8, so these things
may or may not be resolved by the fixes that have already been checked
in (my apologies if they are):

Wiki text:
---------------------------------
== onmouseover= ==
http://__TOC__
---------------------------------

HTML output:
---------------------------------
<a href="http://

Contents

1 onmouseover=

---------------------------------
Note that the HREF string continues until the "#onmouseover.3D" bit,
which is partially user controlled (albeit escaped), so there could
perhaps be some restricted scope for attribute injection.

This idea can also be applied to the various table-related attributes:
---------------------------------
==a==
{| STYLE=__TOC__
---------------------------------

HTML output:
---------------------------------
<table style="

Contents

1
a

---------------------------------
Above two available online at http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser14 and
http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser14-table

Also, one other bit of strangeness:
---------------------------------
{|
| http://a|
---------------------------------

HTML output:
---------------------------------

" class='external free' title="http://a|" rel="nofollow">http://a|
---------------------------------
Note that somewhere along the line the Parser eats the '<a
href="http://a' string. Available online at
http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser13

As usual, if there are any ideas for improving on any this, please let me know.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:

> I assume you're American.  Only an American (or a very radical non-)
> could consider a comparison of Communists and paedophiles to be
> appropriate.

I wasn't aware that Americans were unique in thinking pedophiles were
morally comparable to communists, although to be perfectly fair,
pedophiles have never committed acts of genocide.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
I've already updated "he" (Hebrew), but there are some minor updates in
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5450 (they are for SVN
HEAD, of course). I want them to be included in 1.6.0.

????????? ??????? wrote:

>>Before I release a formal 1.6.0, I'd like if a few people would quickly test
>>installation of the current snapshot.
>>
>>
>
>It would be quite good to call to update language files.
>
>By the way, how can I commit translation changes into subversion? Will
>I send patch to bugzilla? Do you plan to give shell account on your
>server for this?
>
>I plan to update languagefiles for ru, os, cv, ba, xal, udm, eo.
>
>--
>?ion la plej helan,
>Alexander Sigachov (ajvol)
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/4/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> It's not a matter of being a "pedophile". I find the image
> interesting and appealing (even humorous). However I am well aware
> that it is not wise to share this perspective with a 12 year old
> girl. It is fundamental reality that a substantial part of our
> readership is in the junior high school range. I know from my own
> experience that I seldom consulted an encyclopedia after I was about
> 13. There is a saying, "You take your victim as you find them" We
> need to be aware and responsible.

The thought of pedophiles using Wikipedia for mass grooming is...
disturbing, to say the least. I don't think we need to be set off into a
mass panic or a witch-hunt, but it does give me that "brrrr" sensation.

Ryan


from_name: Ben McIlwain

subject: [WikiEN-l] request to Jimbo for out-of-process deletion of image

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Philip Welch wrote:
>> My second question is: how on Earth did this shit ever get to be
>> *legal*
>> in Japan?  Some people are *really* sick.
>
> Revulsive as it is, I fail to see how making an ink drawing violates
> anyone's rights. The reason child pornography is illegal isn't
> because it's sick, it's because it can't be produced without sexually
> assaulting children, and sexually assaulting children is wrong (as is
> financially supporting such assaults).
>
> Cartoons don't necessarily involve assault. They're just revolting.

Also, the OP is making a judgment value based on his own cultural biases
and preconceptions.  There's lot of "weird" stuff that goes on in
cultures different than our own ... arranged marriage, marriage of
children, marriage of adults to children, eating really strange and
weird foods, sharia/oppression of women, etc.

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEMt/6vCEYTv+mBWcRAo/FAJ9aUSF3us7lZhyNWbiqchntnaHftwCfQ+qt
SlYKjMnZwRVaieMaa4GNlFs=
=v+FP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: uninvited at nerstrand.net

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Email confirmations being sent with a return address
	of wiki@wikimedia.org

body:
Now that email confirmations have been enabled, there has been a fair
amount of traffic to the OTRS resulting from people replying to the
confirmation email they receive instead of clicking on the link in it.

The From: address of the confirmations is wiki at wikimedia.org, an address
which is being redirected to the info-en OTRS queue.

There is nothing we at OTRS can do to help these people.

I would like to suggest that perhaps another From: address be used,
ideally one that produces an automatic bounce.

The Uninvited Co., Inc.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nature replies to Britannica

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> zero 0000 wrote:
>
>> The current issue of Nature has a reply to Britannica.
>>
>> Zero.
>>
>> =============================
>>
>> Editorial
>>
>> Last week, Encyclopaedia Britannica issued a statement, ... and
>> this week published a half-page advertisement in the London Times
>> criticizing our study and demanding that we retract our story.
>>
> It seems that management at EB has been taken over by PR experts and
> gravediggers rather than encyclopedia editors.
>

So, the rumours of Britannica being taken over by Wikimedia are false
then :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060404/f0596f17/attachment.pgp


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>> Read Alphax's mail. There is a free alternative.
>>
>>
>
> Can I get a link?
>

Thanks to Tony Sidaway for finding them for me (scroll down in thread):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060404/c22f84a9/attachment.pgp


body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Tony,
>
>> On 4/3/06, Garion1000 <garion1000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With this article using the other less offensive image
>>> [[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.
>> That is still a non-free image.  We do have at least two free images
>> that could be used to illustrate that article:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg
>
> I don't get it.  What justification did the, ahem, good-faith editors
> use to argue that we needed fair-use close-ups of kiddie porn instead of
> the photograph (also, admittedly, of kiddie porn ... but more
> appropriate and tasteful, if that word can be applied here).
>

Geez, and here I am thinking you're only the 6th most active person in
#wikipedia... how could you have missed the discussion about it? I don't
see how a montage of magazine covers taken from a distance is more
offensive than a picture of a kid with her pants down...

Actually I think that the image on the article atm.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Final_Solution-chan.jpg) is a good
compromise. Not overtly offensive, and what's more it's free.

> My second question is: how on Earth did this shit ever get to be *legal*
> in Japan?  Some people are *really* sick.
>

There's an interesting discussion about that on [[m:bash]]. Search for
"losing powers"...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060404/15ebc996/attachment.pgp


from_name: wilinckx

subject: [Wikitech-l] Making non ugly URL's breaks my wiki

body:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 09:46:10 -0400
"Govardhanen Gopal" <govardha at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Everybody,
>
> I have tried in vain searching around but haven't found a solution for
> my problem.  Hence my post here.
>
> I am attempting to use the url found below to make my wiki(located on
> an intranet) a)look pretty b)make sphyder my indexing tool work
> better.  I use the method outlined in section 1.1
>
[...]

Can you post
* the kind of URL you'd like to have
* the URL's MediaWiki links to when he links to an Article
* the URL MediaWiki says in it's HTML output the MonoBook CSS files should be found
* the name of the directory MediaWiki is installed in
* the part of LocalSettings.php containing $wgScriptPath, $wgStylePath , etc
* and the mod-rewrite rules you've setup in httpd.conf ?

Wilinckx.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> Hey... let's go for the record of the most useless list footers
> quoted back beneath a top-posted message!!!
>
<snip>

:)

I've seen 7 in a row on a private mailing list I administer...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060404/4c0b1ac2/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/3/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> We need to keep [[Britannia]] in mind where it says, "Early portraits of
>> the goddess depict Britannia as a beautiful young woman, wearing the
>> helmet of a Centurion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion>, and
>> wrapped in a white toga with her right breast exposed."
>>
>> IIRC Britannica had an arrangement of the trident and shield in its
>> logos before it adopted a thistle with which to nourish goats.
>
> I wonder if the next edition of Britannica will have: "Early logos for
> Wikipedia depicted a young girl, of approximately seven years of age,
> buttocks exposed and seemingly yearning for the erect penis about to
> penetrate her".
>
> </bad taste>
>

Don't forget that there were stuffed animals involved...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060404/4e4c4956/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Beyond this image, there are lots of problems with pedophilia-related
articles.

I don't think that most of the censorship stalwarts in the Lolicon debate
were pedophiles, but it's certain that there are pedophiles fighting for
certain things to be included in articles like [[NAMBLA]], [[Childlove
movement]], [[Curley v. NAMBLA]], etc.  An infusion of experienced, neutral
editors into fights over articles like these would be appreciated.

k

On 4/4/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/4/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> >
> > It's not a matter of being a "pedophile". I find the image
> > interesting and appealing (even humorous). However I am well aware
> > that it is not wise to share this perspective with a 12 year old
> > girl. It is fundamental reality that a substantial part of our
> > readership is in the junior high school range. I know from my own
> > experience that I seldom consulted an encyclopedia after I was about
> > 13. There is a saying, "You take your victim as you find them" We
> > need to be aware and responsible.
>
>
> The thought of pedophiles using Wikipedia for mass grooming is...
> disturbing, to say the least. I don't think we need to be set off into a
> mass panic or a witch-hunt, but it does give me that "brrrr" sensation.
>
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Katefan0 wrote:
> Beyond this image, there are lots of problems with pedophilia-related
> articles.
>
> I don't think that most of the censorship stalwarts in the Lolicon debate
> were pedophiles, but it's certain that there are pedophiles fighting for
> certain things to be included in articles like [[NAMBLA]], [[Childlove
> movement]], [[Curley v. NAMBLA]], etc.  An infusion of experienced, neutral
> editors into fights over articles like these would be appreciated.

I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of
Communists, this time it's pedophiles.  Where exactly are these alleged
pedophiles?  I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown
about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really
seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the
anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!"  Do you have any
specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass
grooming" or whatever?

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEMvG9vCEYTv+mBWcRAmhWAJ97ueRNODUHI4LYOpMBrmLYFieaBgCfdVue
wCRY4Um+R4T3fS7jtCPC5oQ=
=wjg4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of
Communists, this time it's pedophiles.  Where exactly are these alleged
pedophiles?  I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown
about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really
seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the
anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!"  Do you have any
specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass
grooming" or whatever?

I never said anybody is trying to coopt Wikipedia for mass grooming; that
was someone else.  What I said is that there are people with agendas on
Wikipedia.  By that I mean painting the "childlove movement" in the most
flattering, least-critical light possible.  And neutral editors would be
most welcome to participate in the current wars on these types of articles.

k

On 4/4/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Katefan0 wrote:
> > Beyond this image, there are lots of problems with pedophilia-related
> > articles.
> >
> > I don't think that most of the censorship stalwarts in the Lolicon
> debate
> > were pedophiles, but it's certain that there are pedophiles fighting for
> > certain things to be included in articles like [[NAMBLA]], [[Childlove
> > movement]], [[Curley v. NAMBLA]], etc.  An infusion of experienced,
> neutral
> > editors into fights over articles like these would be appreciated.
>
> I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of
> Communists, this time it's pedophiles.  Where exactly are these alleged
> pedophiles?  I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown
> about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really
> seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the
> anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!"  Do you have any
> specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass
> grooming" or whatever?
>
> - --
> Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
>
> ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFEMvG9vCEYTv+mBWcRAmhWAJ97ueRNODUHI4LYOpMBrmLYFieaBgCfdVue
> wCRY4Um+R4T3fS7jtCPC5oQ=
> =wjg4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Katefan0 wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>> I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of
>> Communists, this time it's pedophiles.  Where exactly are these alleged
>> pedophiles?  I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown
>> about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really
>> seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the
>> anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!"  Do you have any
>> specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass
>> grooming" or whatever?
>
>
> I never said anybody is trying to coopt Wikipedia for mass grooming; that
> was someone else.  What I said is that there are people with agendas on
> Wikipedia.  By that I mean painting the "childlove movement" in the most
> flattering, least-critical light possible.  And neutral editors would be
> most welcome to participate in the current wars on these types of articles.

Can you point out some specific people with these agendas?  Because I'm
just not seeing it.  And I have been getting involved (and I'm decidedly
anti-pedophilia), but my thanks was an accusation of being a "pedophile
troll".  Gahhhrrr.

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEMvcpvCEYTv+mBWcRAnzwAJ9vMcJYoFiRIWg3Xcr05sQYP9l5PwCfQ2Lx
3qj2vNqpNIncU5jiXO0RDs4=
=gxGC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
I'd rather not name any names over an open listserv; no need to needlessly
antagonize. But if you'd like to have a private conversation, I'd be glad
to.

k

On 4/4/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Katefan0 wrote:
> > Cyde Weys wrote:
> >> I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of
> >> Communists, this time it's pedophiles.  Where exactly are these alleged
> >> pedophiles?  I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown
> >> about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really
> >> seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the
> >> anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!"  Do you have any
> >> specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass
> >> grooming" or whatever?
> >
> >
> > I never said anybody is trying to coopt Wikipedia for mass grooming;
> that
> > was someone else.  What I said is that there are people with agendas on
> > Wikipedia.  By that I mean painting the "childlove movement" in the most
> > flattering, least-critical light possible.  And neutral editors would be
> > most welcome to participate in the current wars on these types of
> articles.
>
> Can you point out some specific people with these agendas?  Because I'm
> just not seeing it.  And I have been getting involved (and I'm decidedly
> anti-pedophilia), but my thanks was an accusation of being a "pedophile
> troll".  Gahhhrrr.
>
> - --
> Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
>
> ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFEMvcpvCEYTv+mBWcRAnzwAJ9vMcJYoFiRIWg3Xcr05sQYP9l5PwCfQ2Lx
> 3qj2vNqpNIncU5jiXO0RDs4=
> =gxGC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:

> Now I really dont want to join into this but.
>
> We were talking UnAmerican Activities I think as to the view of
> communists.
>
> Rather than the actual behaviour of actual Russian communists.
>
> It is not necessarily a reasonable comparison...

Right. I guess a more meaningful response is to say that we're not
comparing the pedophiles directly to communists, but rather the
remarks about pedophiles to similar anti-communist activity in the
1950's.

Long story made short, in the 1950's, certain Congressmen decided
that communists had infiltrated American government, the American
entertainment industry, and other important parts of American
society. At the time this was considered a bad thing, as the United
States was in the midst of the Cold War against all the communist
countries, most notably Soviet Russia. You might remember Soviet
Russia from those stupid Yakov Smirnoff jokes everyone keeps
repeating on Slashdot...

Long story made short, no vast conspiracy was ever uncovered, and a
lot of people were harassed and had their lives ruined for, most
believe, no good reason. So McCarthyism (named after McCarthy, one of
the guys who started this whole hunt for communists) has gone down in
history as a bad thing. (1)

At the time, McCarthyism was compared to the old witch hunts that
used to take place in old Europe and early colonial America, because
witch hunts similarly disrupted society in order to chase after an
imaginary threat. This point was perhaps best made by Arthur Miller,
whose play "The Crucible" portrayed the witch hunts during the
McCarthy era, leading many to draw the comparison.

I think the argument is that in worrying about pedophiles, we're
disrupting Wikipedia's operations just to chase down some imaginary
threat. There's a fear that suspected pedophiles (or even actual
pedophiles (2)) will be harassed needlessly for no useful end,
severely damaging Wikipedia's social fabric.

1. Some people are apologists for McCarthyism, believing that
communist infiltration was enough of a threat to justify this. Since
the fall of Soviet Russia, declassified information proves that the
Soviets did try to infiltrate American society in order to subvert it
towards communism. Needless to say, they failed for reasons largely
unrelated to the congressional hearings.
2. Similarly, some of the victims of McCarthyism were, in fact,
communists. This does not justify, in many people's eyes, the
harassment and disruption of their lives that occurred. It is a
matter of record that there are some self-declared pedophiles who
contribute to Wikipedia.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject:
[WikiEN-l] What surprised me about Britannica's response to
	Nature...

body:
...was that they thought it was advantageous to respond to it at all.
Their response struck me as being lame and as tending to call
attention to the very things they'd just as soon have people forget:
that Nature, which has a stellar reputation among its readership,
even put Britannica and WIkipedia in the same category.

It is as if Nature were to say "Britannica eats shit and bays at the
moon," and Britannica were to respond by saying "That conclusion is
false, because Nature's research was invalid. We don't eat nearly as
much shit as Nature claims we eat, and some of what we ate, which
Nature imprecisely referred to as 'shit,' was actually putrescent
offal, and as for baying at the moon, we take issue with that
characterization of our vocalizations, and anyway we only do it when
the moon is full, which is less than 3% of the time. So, when Nature
says we eat shit and bay at the moon, our response is that we do not
eat shit and bay at the moon, so when you think of eating shit and
baying at the moon, don't think of us, and when you think of us,
don't think of eating shit and baying at the moon, because it is
really not very true at all, hardly. Eating shit. Baying. Moon. Not
us. Not really. Not much. Did I mention we don't eat shit and bay at
the moon? Even though Nature says we do?"


from_name: Drini drini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/4/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
>
> > I assume you're American.  Only an American (or a very radical non-)
> > could consider a comparison of Communists and paedophiles to be
> > appropriate.
>
> I wasn't aware that Americans were unique in thinking pedophiles were
> morally comparable to communists, although to be perfectly fair,
> pedophiles have never committed acts of genocide.
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Well, capitalists have as well, and I'm betting money on some
paedophiles being capitalists    /*duck*


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Markus Krötzsch

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] A List Apart: "Anonymity and Online Community:
	Identity Matters"

body:
John M. Grohol at ALA writes about online communities, and refers a lot to
Wikipedia and provides "Six Steps to Better Online Community Through
Membership":

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/identitymatters

Probably interesting (though not uncontroversial) from a Wikipedia point of
view.

--
Markus Kr?tzsch
Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe
mak at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de        phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/     fax +49 (0)721 693  717
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060404/e4186ad0/attachment.pgp


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 4 Apr 2006 at 15:54, "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why does bottom posting suck?
>
[crap flushed]
>
> Because you had to wade your way through all that crap just for this
> stupid remark. Ok, let's move on, shall we?

That would be the fault of... oh, I don't know, the person who
*failed to trim* the crap when quoting it?

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: thomas Armstrong

subject: [Wikitech-l] http://mydomain.com//Main_Page (double Slash)

body:
Hi.

Using WikiMedia, I've got problems to access my main Page:
http://mydomain/Main_Page

And I get an error message:

----
/Main_Page
>From MyWiki, the free encyclopedia.

(There is currently no text in this page)
Retrieved from "http://mydomain.com//Main_Page"
------

I use this RewriteRule on my httpd.conf:
-------
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /index.php?title=$1
--------

Why I get a double slash on the URL?

Thank you very much.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Speaking of bad quote/reply formats...

body:
How about Katefan0's format of 4 Apr 2006 18:30:44, which consisted
of quoting back a paragraph from an earlier message without
attribution line or quoting markers, followed immediately (with no
indicator of where the quote ended and the reply began) with the
reply... and then *that* was followed by a fullquote of the original
message (including a second copy of the paragraph already quoted
above it).  Can *anybody* come up with a coherent defense of such a
quoting format as *that*?

They really ought to bring back the punishment of tying people up in
stocks in the village square and pelting them with rotten fruit, and
apply it to people who post to e-mail lists in senseless formats.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


body:
Go have a drink. It's not that serious.

k

On 4/4/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> How about Katefan0's format of 4 Apr 2006 18:30:44, which consisted
> of quoting back a paragraph from an earlier message without
> attribution line or quoting markers, followed immediately (with no
> indicator of where the quote ended and the reply began) with the
> reply... and then *that* was followed by a fullquote of the original
> message (including a second copy of the paragraph already quoted
> above it).  Can *anybody* come up with a coherent defense of such a
> quoting format as *that*?
>
> They really ought to bring back the punishment of tying people up in
> stocks in the village square and pelting them with rotten fruit, and
> apply it to people who post to e-mail lists in senseless formats.
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark Gallagher stated for the record:

> I assume you're American.  Only an American (or a very radical non-)
> could consider a comparison of Communists and paedophiles to be appropriate.

Got that right.  There's at least six orders of magnitude difference in
the number of murders committed by those two forms of evil.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Honk if you hate peace and quiet.
 sean at epoptic.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMzjoMAt1wyd9d+URAk5eAJoCX9xmzeYWGoI41fAIwryHPlmLDACfYT5K
2FjhhVWhM0nHNnWxTJ+APhg=
=kBcW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
I don't think we have banned or even considered banning any
"pedophile" from Wikipedia, at least not in formal proceedings. We
have just deleted a pornographic image. Most of us are familiar with
the viewpoint that almost anything ought to be included and have
never assumed that taking that position implied that the user was
attached to any particular piece of mischief, although investigation
often show that they are.

I suppose, however, that we would ban someone who insisted on point
of view editing taking a positive view of pedophilia.

Fred

On Apr 4, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Philip Welch wrote:

> I think the argument is that in worrying about pedophiles, we're
> disrupting Wikipedia's operations just to chase down some imaginary
> threat. There's a fear that suspected pedophiles (or even actual
> pedophiles (2)) will be harassed needlessly for no useful end,
> severely damaging Wikipedia's social fabric.


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

body:
Am 04.04.2006 um 19:47 schrieb thomas Armstrong:

> Hi.
>
> Using WikiMedia,

You are using Mediawiki.

> I use this RewriteRule on my httpd.conf:
> -------
> RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /index.php?title=$1

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Make_non-ugly_URLs

--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
http://verlag.tomk32.de/c/wrdigest


body:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:47:09 +0200
"thomas Armstrong" <tarmstrong at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Using WikiMedia, I've got problems to access my main Page:
> http://mydomain/Main_Page
>
> And I get an error message:
>
> ----
> /Main_Page
> >From MyWiki, the free encyclopedia.
>
> (There is currently no text in this page)
> Retrieved from "http://mydomain.com//Main_Page"
> ------
>
> I use this RewriteRule on my httpd.conf:
> -------
> RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /index.php?title=$1
> --------
>
> Why I get a double slash on the URL?

         http://mydomain/Main_Page
It comes from here: ----^

Try
RewriteRule ^/?(.*)$ /index.php?title=$1

 Wilinckx.


body:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Ben McIlwain wrote:

>> Revulsive as it is, I fail to see how making an ink drawing violates
>> anyone's rights. The reason child pornography is illegal isn't
>> because it's sick, it's because it can't be produced without sexually
>> assaulting children, and sexually assaulting children is wrong (as is
>> financially supporting such assaults).
>>
>> Cartoons don't necessarily involve assault. They're just revolting.
>
> Also, the OP is making a judgment value based on his own cultural
> biases
> and preconceptions.  There's lot of "weird" stuff that goes on in
> cultures different than our own ... arranged marriage, marriage of
> children, marriage of adults to children, eating really strange and
> weird foods, sharia/oppression of women, etc.

Oppression of women and pedophilia are good things as long as you
have different "cultural biases and preconceptions"?

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- "Daniel P. B. Smith" <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> ...was that they thought it was advantageous to respond to it at all.
> Their response struck me as being lame and as tending to call
> attention to the very things they'd just as soon have people forget:
> that Nature, which has a stellar reputation among its readership,
> even put Britannica and WIkipedia in the same category.
>
> It is as if Nature were to say "Britannica eats shit and bays at the
> moon," and Britannica were to respond by saying "That conclusion is
> false, because Nature's research was invalid. We don't eat nearly as
> much shit as Nature claims we eat, and some of what we ate, which
> Nature imprecisely referred to as 'shit,' was actually putrescent
> offal, and as for baying at the moon, we take issue with that
> characterization of our vocalizations, and anyway we only do it when
> the moon is full, which is less than 3% of the time. So, when Nature
> says we eat shit and bay at the moon, our response is that we do not
> eat shit and bay at the moon, so when you think of eating shit and
> baying at the moon, don't think of us, and when you think of us,
> don't think of eating shit and baying at the moon, because it is
> really not very true at all, hardly. Eating shit. Baying. Moon. Not
> us. Not really. Not much. Did I mention we don't eat shit and bay at
> the moon? Even though Nature says we do?"

I thought the same thing, but without the hilarious analogy. They also created a strawman argument
; implying that Nature was dishonest when it did not exclusively use the adult version of
Encyclopedia Britannica when the study was very clearly comparing the online edition of
Britannica's products with Wikipedia. Not to mention that the reviewers were blind to the source
of what they were reading and thus there was little to no opportunity for bias on that level. Nor
did EB even try to prove actual bias for Wikipedia by comparing reviewers comments on the
Wikipedia version vs what the acticle said and what the real facts were. They just implied bias.

That said, I really would have liked to see a more substantial study done; a 42 topic comparison
is very small and they were only looking for errors. Being comprehensive is almost as important.
Readability, layout, user-friendliness, links to other topics (esp subtopics that go into more
detail) is also important.

--- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatically put text on a non existing page?

body:
Yes, I think there is: the English Wikipedia has an "exists" template
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Exists> to check if a particular
page has been created yet.

Jan Vanoverpelt wrote:
 > 2006/4/4, Jan Vanoverpelt
<jan.vanoverpelt at gmail.com>:
 >> Thank you all for the help: it works now!
 >
 > ...BUT 1 practical problem is still there:
 > Scenario:
 > 1) The user clicks on an image, which refers to a non-existing page.
 > 2) The user is linked to the non-existing page's edit-box in which the
 > preloaded text is written.
 > 3) The user adds some additional text and saves the page.
 > 4) The user leaves the pages, surfs around on the wiki and goes back
to the
 > image through which he previously created the new page.  This is the
point
 > where the practical problem jumps in: the user clicks on the image,
BUT he
 > is AGAIN taken directly to the edit-box INSTEAD OF being taken to the
actual
 > page (which exists now, so he does not have to be linked directly to the
 > edit-box of the page).
 >
 > I think this problem is due to the fact that i have created some kind of
 > "hard link" behind the image, so that the user is always forced to go
 > directly to the edit-box with the preloaded text in it. Is there a way to
 > fix this, so that the user (after he/she visited the non-existing
page for
 > the first time, added something and saved it) is directly taken to the
 > actual page the second time (like is done in case of "normal" links) ??
 >
 > Thanks!
 >
 > JAN

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


body:
David Alexander Russell wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>> On 4/4/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because any modification of the message post-sending would royally screw
>>> any digital signing of the message (which me, Alphax, and a couple of
>>> other people use on this list) which relies on a hash computed at the
>>> time of sending by the user's encryption program
>>
>> Heh, in this case, there is no problem - anyone likely to use PGP to
>> sign their messages is extremely unlikely to forget to trim their
>> message footers. And the worst case scenario is that you do forget to
>> trim a message footer, it gets done for you, and someone's mail reader
>> says "this PGP message does not compute" and checks with you.
>>
>> So, a small number of messages from a small number of users would
>> cause a small problem.
>
> True - but could I add that if everyone put their message ABOVE the
> quoted text, rather than below, then this issue would be moot anyway
> (since we wouldn't need to go through the endless footers in order to
> get to the message)
>

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060404/d66652b0/attachment.pgp


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/4/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>> It can also be difficult to follow a list with lots of topics going
>> on at once if there isn't any contextual quoting (carefully trimmed)
>> above the response to remind you of what is being replied to.
>> Reading the context *after* the reply is awkwardly backward.
>
> Arguments about top-quoting vs bottom-quoting on a list is almost as
> bad as mentioning Hitler.
>

What about digest vs. non-digest? Honestly, I don't see how anyone can
continue to use those horrible antiquated things - any message you send
invariably starts a new thread because your reply lacks the proper
references, which are specified by *multiple* RFCs.

I started off on digest, but after getting around 20 digests about
autofellatio in one day, I grew dispirited and went to individual messages.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060404/ed637122/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Subcategories

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 15:46 +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Obwikipedia: Subcategories really, really don't work. Why have we put
>> up with them for so long? I was trying to categorise [[Brownstone]].
>> First I chose [[Category:building materials]]. Then I realised there
>> was a subcat [[Category:Masonry]]. But why not go the whole hog,
>> [[Category:Stone]]? Because there you end up in a category with 3
>> other members, none of which were real building materials. I ended up
>> using both Masonry and Stone, violating the rule against using a cat
>> and its subcat together.
>
> A bit of rearranging on the categories helps. I might look at this
> one later, but I am trying to fight off a proposal to have
> Category:German beer and breweries etc. Some people dont understand
> how to parent categories.
>
> To do it well you need to look at the category system in a whole
> subject area. It requires a lot of editing to fix. But its worth
> it when its right.
>

I don't supposed you've seen the wonders that can be achieved with
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php by any
chance?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060404/380291c7/attachment.pgp


body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day David,
>
> (You just top-quoted a reply to Dan Tobias.  Nice knowing you ...
> quoting fixed, by the way)
>

Hate to say it mate, but Gmail broke it for you :) See
http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html for some potentially useful
info...

>> Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
>>> It can also be difficult to follow a list with lots of topics going
>>> on at once if there isn't any contextual quoting (carefully trimmed)
>>> above the response to remind you of what is being replied to.
>>> Reading the context *after* the reply is awkwardly backward.
>>
>> Perhaps it would be better if there was NO footer at all (rather
>> than stripping out multiple occurences of the footer post-sending). This
>> would solve the display problems you mentioned without screwing PGP
>> signing. Surely the fact that [WikiEN-l] is in the subject line tells
>> someone that the email is from the mailing list, without the need for
>> the footer.
>
> Naw.  People suddenly jack up and decide to leave mailing lists
> (particularly one of such, erm, "variable" quality as this one) all the
> time, and often they forget exactly how.  A nice little footer is *very*
> helpful.
>

Yes.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060404/1fa06e69/attachment.pgp


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Meta and the dick

body:
On 4/4/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I doubt none english are really using this page... while english editors
> refer to it quite a lot. So, why not moving it (back ?) to the english
> wikipedia... which will avoid it being listed for renaming every couple
> of months ?

If people are interested in why it was moved in the first place, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_a_dick

"Move to meta (historically the place where such things reside) or
BJAODN, only Delete if supporters refuse to agree with either of first
two options (yeah, I know, it's an Iasson-esque vote, but not much
other way of handling this). It is a quasi-humorous expression of the
frustration many of us feel with the inability of current policy to
deal with POV-pushers who game the rules, dance close to personal
attacks, and generally seek to anger/annoy admins into doing something
remotely wrong so that spurious RFCs and RfARs can be filed. As such,
it might be good to preserve it, but it can't be anywhere that makes
it look like official policy. m:The Wrong Version is a classic example
penned by Angela -- it is funny, it expresses a frustration we often
feel, and it lives somewhere that makes it clear it's not actually
site policy. Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

--
Sam


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
G'day David,

(You just top-quoted a reply to Dan Tobias.  Nice knowing you ...
quoting fixed, by the way)

 > Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
 >>It can also be difficult to follow a list with lots of topics going
 >>on at once if there isn't any contextual quoting (carefully trimmed)
 >>above the response to remind you of what is being replied to.
 >>Reading the context *after* the reply is awkwardly backward.
 >
> Perhaps it would be better if there was NO footer at all (rather
> than stripping out multiple occurences of the footer post-sending). This
> would solve the display problems you mentioned without screwing PGP
> signing. Surely the fact that [WikiEN-l] is in the subject line tells
> someone that the email is from the mailing list, without the need for
> the footer.

Naw.  People suddenly jack up and decide to leave mailing lists
(particularly one of such, erm, "variable" quality as this one) all the
time, and often they forget exactly how.  A nice little footer is *very*
helpful.

Cheers,

--
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 3/04/2006


body:
G'day Steve,

> Why does bottom posting suck?
<snip stuff some silly sausage forgot to snip />
> Because you had to wade your way through all that crap just for this
> stupid remark. Ok, let's move on, shall we?

Naw, hang about a bit.  Nobody's actually stupid enough to literally
bottom-post without snipping anything ... well, some people are, I
guess, but what do you expect?  They're made of straw.

Top-posters don't snip.  Also, they eat kittens and have scaly skin.
Bottom-bosters (also known as "interleavers" or "the chosen ones") snip,
smell really nice, and are good friends in time of need.  Remember that.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 3/04/2006


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-04-05

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!

Passed 298 of 301 tests (99%) FAILED!


body:
G'day Alphax,

> Hate to say it mate, but Gmail broke it for you :) See
> http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html for some potentially useful
> info...

Thunderbird (appropriately enhanced, of course), broke it too!
Evidently I wasn't paying attention :-(

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 3/04/2006


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Meta and the dick

body:
Ryan Norton wrote:

> P.S. "Don't be a dick" is up for being moved AGAIN. Really, this thing
> should just be on english because while it is tolerable there in
> non-english languages it can be unnecessarily unruly. "Don't be a jerk"
> is probably a decent replacement, albiet less traditional.
>
> Your en and meta administrator
> [[w:User:RN]]
> [[m:User:RN]]

Hold on...

This is brillant...

After all, several of the emails to the list mentionned that some of the
pages of this type were on meta, while others were on the english
project. It is unclear why some are here and others are there...

I doubt none english are really using this page... while english editors
refer to it quite a lot. So, why not moving it (back ?) to the english
wikipedia... which will avoid it being listed for renaming every couple
of months ?

Ant

(who absolutely do not care where this page is - just care that the
issue just keep coming up)


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] wiki2xml/php xml2xhtml.php, NONE,
 1.1 mediawiki_converter.php, 1.11, 1.12 w2x.php, 1.29, 1.30 wiki2xml.php,
 1.37, 1.38

body:
The CVS repository on SourceForge is no longer being used. Send me a SSH public
key so I can set you up with SVN access.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060405/db8e4cef/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> How about Katefan0's format of 4 Apr 2006 18:30:44, which consisted
> of quoting back a paragraph from an earlier message without
> attribution line or quoting markers, followed immediately (with no
> indicator of where the quote ended and the reply began) with the
> reply... and then *that* was followed by a fullquote of the original
> message (including a second copy of the paragraph already quoted
> above it).  Can *anybody* come up with a coherent defense of such a
> quoting format as *that*?

I have one!

If you can't understand it, what business do you have trying to create
an encyclopaedia for god's sake? :)

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 5 Apr 2006, at 00:56, Philip Welch wrote:
> I wasn't aware that Americans were unique in thinking pedophiles were
> morally comparable to communists, although to be perfectly fair,
> pedophiles have never committed acts of genocide.

Now I really dont want to join into this but.

We were talking UnAmerican Activities I think as to the view of
communists.

Rather than the actual behaviour of actual Russian communists.

It is not necessarily a reasonable comparison...

Justinc


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2006 at 21:43, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> Bravo!  We can have a serious discussion of the photo without it on the
>> site.
>
> "Shoot first, ask questions later", huh?

It is a wiki, after all. :)

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject:
[WikiEN-l] External links to image boards with images of a
 child engaged in sexually explicit acts.

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> Sydney Poore stated for the record:
>>> Instead of a single image that can be presented in a context to make it
>>> clear it is educational , a bigger concern is external links to image
>>> boards with images of a child engaged in sexually explicit act.  These
>>> appear on Wikipedia on a regular basis. When I went  to image board web
>>> sites to look for inappropriate images, I felt disgusted that another
>>> Wikipedia editor would put it on Wikipedia. I think we need to modify
>>> our policy/guidelines dealing with images with children engaged in
>>> sexually explicit acts. They should not be permitted in my opinion.
>>> Editors that repeatedly add them should be blocked for being disruptive.
>
> Certain sites stand out as excellent starting points for such a policy.
>  The worst offender is something called "Google," which has innumerable
> links to inappropriate material.

I am not fully persuaded by this argument.  I think that editorially
speaking we can and should make sensible judgments, even difficult
judgments, about the usefulness and appropriateness of various links to
our end users.

I do think, though, that we have had much less of a problem with
inappropriate external links (of various kinds) than we have had with
inappropriate images (of various kinds).  To move this out of the realm
of a discussion of pedophilia and 'censorship', let's consider a much
simpler case of fair use images that are on the site when free
alternatives would be easy to come by.

If I put an irrelevant bit of text into an article, including a link, a
bit which is problematic on any sort of grounds at all, then anyone can
come along and delete or change it.  It takes *one person* to eliminate
the problem, though of course an edit war or a long discussion might follow.

With images, though, there has grown this bizarre culture that we must
not delete anything until we have a consensus to do so.  This is partly
because images can't be easily restored, and there is some legitimacy to
that as a factor in how we do things, but I think it has gotten much
worse.  Wildly inappropriate images which do not even have a majority
support for keeping are kept in articles in a way that similarly
inappropriate text would be shot on sight.

--Jimbo


subject:
[WikiEN-l] External links to image boards with images of
 a	child engaged in sexually explicit acts.

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> Children involved in sexually explicit acts is illegal in all the ways
> that come to mind. Most picture gallery links are non-encyclopedic
> spam. I don't see why we would need new policies to cover this.

I agree about not needing new policies, although I do think that some of
the default assumptions may need to be moved, with respect to images
which have been uploaded.  I think a move of default assumptions would
go a long way toward nuking a ton of fair use images that we would
prefer not to have in en.wikipedia.

But the one thing that I hope can healthily come out of this discussion
is a general feeling of empowerment by admins to actually *enforce*
policy in the face of trolling by pedohiles and the like, or the sorts
of people who think that merely by camping out and pushing POV on an
article, they should have more of a say of what goes into it than admins.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> At least those appear to be legal in Japan and they at least
> illustrate the article. That's slightly less of a problem than
> photographs, though not very much less.

I am on a plane at the moment (to Japan, ironically enough) and so I
can't look at that link until I land.  So I can only speak generally a
few thoughts about this sort of thing.

One way that we have sensibly handled difficult external links in the
past, is to print them, but as text, not as links, along with
appropriate warnings.  This could be the right answer in some cases.

Consider GNAA's [[Last Measure]] as an example.  There is absolute no
way we should ever have an actual link that sets off this monstrosity
(*) for an end user, but we might merely print the link with sufficient
warning to the end user about what will happen to them if they are
foolish or experimental enough to paste it into their browser.

Why?  This helps ensure that no user ever absentmindly clicks on this
thing by accident.

--Jimbo

(*) In case you don't know about it, Last Measure takes advantage of
Evil Javascript Tricks to pop up dozens or hundreds of windows on your
computer, of various sorts of not-safe-for-anyone images, along with a
loud voice saying 'Hey everybody, I'm looking at gay porn!'  You have to
kill your browser or perhaps even reboot your computer to make it stop.
 It is evil.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
>>> With this article using the other less offensive image
>>> [[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.
>> That is still a non-free image.  We do have at least two free images
>> that could be used to illustrate that article:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg
>
> I don't get it.  What justification did the, ahem, good-faith editors
> use to argue that we needed fair-use close-ups of kiddie porn instead of
> the photograph (also, admittedly, of kiddie porn ... but more
> appropriate and tasteful, if that word can be applied here).

I think 'appropriate and tasteful' absolutely can be applied here.  The
differences in culture between Japan and the rest of the world are a
valid topic for an encyclopedia article, and so the *subject* is one
which we ought to cover, and some sort of *illustration* can certainly
improve the article.

I think the best way to understand 'what justification' is to understand
a certain sort of POV pushing... one of the goals of pedophiles is to
make the case that such materials are perfectly normal and healthy and
should be viewed as being completely routine.  One way to achieve that
goal is to be sure that such materials are published widely.

This alone is not an automatic argument against including the image, of
course!  Many images might be included in many articles by people who
want to push a POV, but might also be accepted by virtually all editors
as being important and relevant to the article.

And this is not an argument that anyone who wants to include this
picture rather than another one is a pedophile POV pusher.  Indeed, I
think a part of the rhetorical trolling that goes on this way is to push
people who are opposed to censorship to stand up for editorial nonsense
by recasting a serious editorial debate as being merely about censorship
or the alleged prudishness of (usually) Americans.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Language versions' popularity vs. number of
	articles (vs. number of speakers)

body:
Assuming you're speaking about complex script rendering, part of this
is dependent on software -- There is nothing that will make Internet
Explorer properly render traditional Mohawk hieroglyphic narrative
script, for instance, unless it is represented as an image. Even if a
font existed, the rendering is simply so complex that it would really
need some programmers to concentrate on it, and there is really no
economic motivation for this.

Hebrew is generally well-supported nowadays in software. Arabic,
Farsi, Hindi, etc. are a little bit farther behind.

But I think in many of these cases, it's not our issue so much as it
is the issue of developers of browers and operating systems. Granted,
we do have problems with BiDi, which Gangleri is always working on.
But even with that, only a tiny fraction of the problems with BiDi
have ever been on our end, many of them simply aren't fixable by us.

That aside, none of the languages of South America that I know of, a
minority of the languages of Africa, and really mostly only the
languages of South and Southeast Asia (ie, excluding languages of
Central Asia, North Asia) are written in complex scripts. This means
that population-wise, if we concentrate on complex scripts, we are
more specifically concentrating on Indic languages, Southeast Asian
languages (Thai, Lao, Khmer, Burmese), minority languages in China
(Tibetan, Mongolian), and Arabic-script languages (Arabic, Farsi,
Urdu, Uyghur, Balochi, S. Azeri). Certainly these are very
population-heavy languages. But I think the root of the issue is
internet access. With many of these languages, it seems that people
are trying to resolve script problems before access is really
widespread, which is certainly lamentable, but at the same time makes
it clear that problems with rendering are certainly not one of the
major reasons for current numbers for most of these languages.

Mark

On 05/04/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I have read the thread as it was published so far and I am amazed that
> nobody mentioned one simple reason why people do not edit or add content
> to the Arab, the Farsi, the Hebrew and Assamese projects .. It is too
> bloody hard. When you say "everybody can edit", it is as if it is the
> same effort is involved. I read somewhere where an African president
> said; "we do not have scripts yet for all of our indigenous languages.
> When the yi.wikipedia celebrated its 1000th article Gangleri was thanked
> for his hard work to make this technically possible. When I created some
> Farsi training material on Wikibooks, I needed two browsers to complete
> certain tasks; both Internet Explorer and Firefox were not up to the task.
>
> Gangleri does a great job, he is imho one of the most valuable
> Wikimedians because he tries to make it possible to have information in
> all languages. To take things to the next level, we need more
> developers; people of all the language families and make sure with them
> that MediaWiki is up to the task. So far we have been self
> congratulatory about how well we do. We profess that we want to do
> better in Africa Asia and South America. We can if we make it a priority.
>
> For me improving these issues /is/ a priority. http://WiktionaryZ.org
> requires good support for all languages. I am happy that we initiated
> the "Multilingual Mediawiki" project as it will further improve the
> multilingual capabilities of MediaWiki. It will still not do all the
> things that are necessary to make MediaWiki as easy to edit as it is for
> us. For that I need people that speak Hindi Assamese Twi Farsi Arab
> Hebrew and help us define what /their /problem with our software is and
> when we are lucky help us fix these issues.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > While it's sort of obvious, given the digital divide, that the number
> > of articles in Wikipedias is not proportional to the number of
> > speakers, for example Hindi has a much smaller number of articles
> > compared to speakers than most active Wikipedias; German has more.
> >
> > However, something that people may not notice as much is the
> > incongruency between popularity of a particular language version and
> > the number of articles in that version.
> >
> > The most visited Wikipedias, in order, are:
> >
> > 1 English (65%)
> > 2 German (10%)
> > 3 Japanese (6%)
> > 4 Spanish (3%)
> > 5 French (2%)
> > 6 Polish (2%)
> > 7 Chinese (2%)
> > 8 Arabic (2%)
> > 9 Italian (1%)
> > 10 Hebrew (1%)
> > 11 Turkish (1%)
> > 12 Dutch (1%)
> > 13 Portuguese (1%)
> > (all others combined total 1% of visits)
> >
> > On the other hand, the list of Wikipedias ranked by number of articles is:
> > 1 English (1048.7K)
> > 2 German (376.9K)
> > 3 French (261.1K)
> > 4 Polish (223.8K)
> > 5 Japanese (196.3K)
> > 6 Dutch (156.9K)
> > ...
> > 8 Italian (146.8K)
> > 9 Portuguese (123.8K)
> > 10 Spanish (105.0K)
> > ...
> > 12 Chinese (61.48K)
> > ...
> > 17 Hebrew (34.35K)
> > ...
> > 29 Turkish (19.94K)
> > ...
> > 37 Arabic (12.03K)
> >
> > What this says to me is that these Wikipedias are not attracting new
> > pages proportional to views when compared with other Wikipedias. This
> > may be because people don't want to write new pages, but it seems to
> > me more likely that people simply don't know they can.
> >
> > How can this be fixed? Perhaps a site notice inviting people to write
> > quality pages or register, or a drive to recruit new Wikipedians from
> > the academic community.
> >
> > Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: kent emerson

subject: [Foundation-l] statistics

body:
I am preparing a Masters thesis on wikipedia and am
questioning whether
> wikipedia users are representative of the regular
population. I would
> like to know what demographic uses wikipedia? Have
you collected any
> statistics on the representative makeup of those who
work on your site
> including gender, age, geographic location, income,
education, ownership
> of home, marital status? If so, would you feel
comfortable sharing it
> with me for the purposes of my research.
>
> I would appreciate if you can help.
>
> Kent Emerson.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] statistics


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [Foundation-l] statistics

body:
Are you primarily concerned with Wikipedia /readers/ or Wikipedia
/contributors/ ?

-Matt


subject: [Foundation-l] statistics


from_name: Aerik

subject: [Wikitech-l] Specialpages and overdue note

body:
Rob Church <robchur at ...> writes:

> Exactly what are you having trouble with? I presume you're writing an
extension?
>
> Rob Church
>

Yes, I'm wrting an extension to create a special page.  I have successfully
created special pages for mediawiki 1.4.x, and I'm slooowly migrating to 1.5,
but I'm STUCK.  I tried following the example on Meta,
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Writing_a_new_special_page and I also looked at
the code mentioned on the talk page, in
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Writing_a_new_special_page#Outdated?

I can get a new special page to show up in the list of special pages (so I
guess Addpage() is working?) but when I click it, it says:

"You have requested an invalid special page, a list of valid special pages
may be found at Special:Specialpages.

Return to Main Page."

And I'm really stumped...

Thanks!

Aerik


from_name: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Email confirmations being sent with a return
	address of wiki@wikimedia.org

body:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 05:13:50PM -0700, uninvited at nerstrand.net wrote:
> Now that email confirmations have been enabled, there has been a fair
> amount of traffic to the OTRS resulting from people replying to the
> confirmation email they receive instead of clicking on the link in it.
>
> The From: address of the confirmations is wiki at wikimedia.org, an address
> which is being redirected to the info-en OTRS queue.

It's not send to info-en directly. It goes into another queue first and
only those that are not just 'thank you', 'I like wikipedia', 'where can
I buy plane tickets' etc pp go to info-en.

> There is nothing we at OTRS can do to help these people.

The ones going to info-en should contain real questions. Like 'how do I
edit?', 'what is this?', 'I used our university computer to sign up, is
this bad?', 'This is all to complicated, can you please delete my
account?'. Those should be answered by info-en people.

> I would like to suggest that perhaps another From: address be used,
> ideally one that produces an automatic bounce.

We'd need one per language, and a language specific bounce message. Or
we should add a 'DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!' to the email
confirmation mails.

And proper loop detection - we receive dozens of 'please click this link to
release your mail from the spam jail'.

Regards,

jens


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

body:
However, they don't lend themselves to top-posting vs. bottom-posting
arguments! -- PhilipWelch - 4/4/06
:I totally agree with JohnSmith -- BobPeanut
::You should have posted after JohnSmith, not before!!!! -- SomePrune
:Yes they do -- JohnSmith
:See? -- Steve


body:
On 4/5/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> How about Katefan0's format of 4 Apr 2006 18:30:44, which consisted
> of quoting back a paragraph from an earlier message without
> attribution line or quoting markers, followed immediately (with no
> indicator of where the quote ended and the reply began) with the
> reply... and then *that* was followed by a fullquote of the original
> message (including a second copy of the paragraph already quoted
> above it).  Can *anybody* come up with a coherent defense of such a
> quoting format as *that*?

Oh jeez. I just found the relevant message, and I don't see the issue.
Your explanation is complicated, but basically it was like this:

Quote
Newtext in response
Signature
Quote header
Quote with > signs

The formatting was certainly original, but all the original
attribution was retained, and there was no difficulty whatsoever
working out who wrote the text being replied to.

Now, as punishment for having this retarded conversation, I suggest we
all go and destubify an article related to lolicon or something.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/5/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> Got that right.  There's at least six orders of magnitude difference in
> the number of murders committed by those two forms of evil.

Is today April Troll's day? What's going on?

Steve


body:
On 4/4/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> Revulsive as it is, I fail to see how making an ink drawing violates
> anyone's rights. The reason child pornography is illegal isn't
> because it's sick, it's because it can't be produced without sexually
> assaulting children, and sexually assaulting children is wrong (as is
> financially supporting such assaults).
>
> Cartoons don't necessarily involve assault. They're just revolting.

Simulated child porn (involving photoshop etc) can be illegal, too.
The basic argument goes along the lines of it making the line of
acceptable/unacceptable blurrier, people could end up thinking child
abuse is acceptable etc etc.

All of which is irrelevant to WP - we shouldn't have anything vaguely
resembling child porn because it makes us look really bad, which gets
in the way of our mission. People were willing to argue at length for
the inclusion of one image over another, claiming that the
encyclopaedia was suffering. Whereas they could have just been working
on some other article.

Steve


body:
On 4/5/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Britannica's products with Wikipedia. Not to mention that the reviewers were blind to the source
> of what they were reading and thus there was little to no opportunity for bias on that level.

I seem to recally from the original report a quote saying the
reviewers, in practice, did know which one they were reading, because
the styles were so different. Am I misremembering?

Steve


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] statistics

body:
kent emerson wrote:

>I am preparing a Masters thesis on wikipedia and am
>questioning whether
>
>
>>wikipedia users are representative of the regular
>>
>>
>population. I would
>
>
>>like to know what demographic uses wikipedia? Have
>>
>>
>you collected any
>
>
>>statistics on the representative makeup of those who
>>
>>
>work on your site
>
>
>>including gender, age, geographic location, income,
>>
>>
>education, ownership
>
>
>>of home, marital status? If so, would you feel
>>
>>
>comfortable sharing it
>
>
>>with me for the purposes of my research.
>>
>>I would appreciate if you can help.
>>
>>Kent Emerson.
>>
>>
>
>
>
There is a huge amount of raw information that can be gleaned from the
user pages to help prepare such a demographic cross-section, but it is
not organized into neat tables and is only raw data.  It is also
self-proclaimed, so it is somewhat suspect as well.  Some of the users
put up special "templates" (especially on Wikipedia) that proclaim
different skills, with the most typical announcement being the
proclaimation of what language skills you have (the Babel templates).
 This has since been expanded to computer programming languages,
political leanings including internal politics on Wikimedia projects,
schools of thought, marital status, hobbies, geographic origin and other
different interests.  Some of the information can also simply be found
right on the user page in raw text.

Doing statistical analysis on this very rich set of information on user
pages might be a very interesting study, but it is going to take quite a
bit of work to pull all of the information together and will be a very
tedious process.  Rather than waiting for people to e-mail you with
responses, this would give you a much larger set of data to work with,
and can be cross referenced to articles and activity levels to give
extra dimensions of research variables to look at.  If you are really
interested in doing something like this (and worthy of a master's
degree), I would strongly recommend that you obtain a full dump of one
of the Wikipedia databases and get a skilled database guru to help you
out in terms of allowing you to "mark up" various users according to
criteria that you want to use in the study, and compare that to other
factors including their status as administrators, articles they have
edited, and activity level.  This isn't going to be handed to you on a
silver platter, but there is data available if you are willing to do the
work of organizing it.

One other place to look in terms of seeing what other statistical data
has been developed for Wikimedia projects is to see the collection of
statistical analysis pages that were developed by Eric Zachte and can be
found here:  http://stats.wikimedia.org/

These tables are more oriented toward measuring the growth of Wikimedia
projects instead of demographic comparisons, but there is multi-lingual
data available here as well that might be useful for you to review as
well.  Chronological information is also available in the raw database
dump, and another factor to consider with this sort of study.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] statistics


from_name: Platonides

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Email confirmations being sent with a
	returnaddress of wiki-AeOJrEpdGNeGglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org

body:
"Unknown" <nobody at nowhere.invalid> escribi? en el mensaje
news:20060405060457.GE14796 at mormo.org...
> And proper loop detection - we receive dozens of 'please click this link
> to
> release your mail from the spam jail'.
>
> Regards,
>
> jens

Those emails "click to release email" are supposed to only come if an email
was sent to that address before. And OTRS would only email the user if that
user previously emailed to OTRS so the spam jail program shouldn't treat the
email as 'from an unknown sender (spammer)'.

If you're talking about that kind of email being received as answer to the
email confirmation, that should be filtered on the first list. If it gets
marked as spam, the user should be able to found it in the spam folder.

I agree. Verifciations shouldn't go from wiki at wikimedia.org but from a
MediaWiki:  configurable email.


from_name: Rich Morin

subject: [Wikitech-l] finer control of Hover Box?

body:
I would like to be able to put arbitrary text into a
hover box (aka, HTML title tag), to give the user a
short precis of where a link will go.  Looking at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Link, I don't see
any way to do this.

If I'm missing something, please let me know.  If not,
perhaps we should discuss the possible syntax for this.'

-r
--
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm            Rich Morin
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume     rdm at cfcl.com
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog     +1 650-873-7841

Technical editing and writing, programming, and web development


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/5/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> \I don't think your description is particularly fair or objective. I
> support the removal
> of the image in question, but I recognise that at least some of those who
> argued
> for it to be it kept did so out of good faith and a desire to create the
> best encyclopedia
> possible. I don't think they were trolling or motivated by a desire to
> supply pedophiles
> with child porn.
>

I think this meta-debate is not doing anything constructive. It's pretty
clear that the image is staying deleted at this point. Arguing about who
said what to whom isn't going to accomplish anything for us besides
toxifying the evironment even further. I think it's time we walked away from
this one.

Ryan