subject: [WikiEN-l] Idealism

body:
--- Garion96 <garion96 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Concerning option 2b. I don't think articles should reference (as a source)
> other articles...

I used to agree, but there is a problem with this idea though.

The reason "why wiki works" is due to its ease of creating [[link]]s and
making [[new pages]]. <-- See?  And because its centralised, its free (as
in freedom), and guided by NPOV, (insert Jimbo deification here... PBUH...)
(did I mention easy to edit?), Wikipedia has essentially converted all that
energy that would have gone intomaking cheezy homepage subpages into a central
resource.

Hence if we can expect some degree of quality from it, why cant we expect to
link to it? Particularly when making elemental points on talk pages, but Im
thinking in particular of article intros/ledes and recent squabbles Ive had
with SlimJay about what general formula to take. We agreed (and then she changed
their mind again), that all articles basically fall into the two categories of
objects and concepts: Concepts are harder to write because they are abstract,
rely on other concepts to define them in a relative way, and often need to be
disabiguated from other concepts. Plus they are often controversial.

I like articles which have good ledes, and Ive developed a basic methodology for
how good ledes look - which has been re-removed from WP:LEDE for some inane reason.
In such articles the distinct feature, besides structure, is heavy linking to
related concepts - and not external linking mind you. Why else do something if we
dont believe in it? This isnt to say there arent imperfections of course, but lede
links are more likely to get clicked and viewed and edited.

SV

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


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sourcery (was NAS images:NPOV..)

body:
--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> So we don't say "AIDS is gods punishment for gays" we say "Jerry
> Fallwell has stated that AIDS is gods punishment for gays [1]". We
> avoid making the judgement call, and we use text that people from many
> different perspectives can agree is true.

OK. I agree with that.

> By putting the image on [[New anti-Semitism]] we are implicitly making
> the claim that the subject of the photo is an example of New
> anti-Semitism.

Ah. I see. But have you got something better? This argument seems to be
abstractable to the point that any image could be criticised for its POV.

> To do so is original research and is rejected by
> several generally reasonable folks.

No, its representative of one particular aspect of the debate. I would
be more in favor of using the cover of Chesler's book though, because
that instead depicts a statement in the debate and hence represents the
debate. I would still keep the image though as an example of the rhetoric
and imagery about which X claims Y.

Who is X, though? Its certainly not just that web which claims that image
is a representative example thereof... I agree that the image is problematic
in that it depicts (according to the source) "anti-Semitism" and not "new
anti-Semitism," because its usage represents a failure to distinguish between
the two - according to its own distinctions! But that problem is indemic to the
entire concept, and not with the usage of the image. (!)

> Instead we can say "source X
> argues this is an example of.." and everyone sane can agree that it's
> true (although we might not agree that it's good editorial judgement
> to use that image at the top).

Alright. I can go along with that. At worst, a different image will be picked,
or the caption would say 'several POV sites claim X is representative
of Y...'

SV

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


from_name: jkelly at fas.harvard.edu

subject:
[WikiEN-l] When all you have is a hammer... (was: Images and
	original research)

body:
Quoting David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:

> The very first thing to do is to write a detailed policy outlining
> every possible outcome ahead of time. If it's not in there, we can
> form a committee committee to elect a committee to vote on what level
> of straw poll indicates consensus on a given image. Don't forget to

  ?!?

...and AfD is terribly broken.  And userboxen suck.

               Jkelly


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: novial

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Approved new language wikipedias: what's the
	situation?

body:
Hi,

The setting up of a wikipedia in the Novial language was approved in mid
May:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Novial

The contributors then agreed to suspend activity until the real wikipedia be
created.

May I ask what the situation is with making new language wikipedias? As far
as I can tell no new ones have been created since then.

Thanks,

nov_ialiste


subject: [WikiEN-l]  Instruction creep (was: Images and original research)

body:
  David,

> ...They can then be drafted to work on the consensus committee
> for voting on new procedural policy for AFD.

  It was a shame to trim your response and lose the humour of it, but this is
just the "instruction creep/can't legislate clue/consensus doesn't scale"
conversation again.

                Jkelly


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Disambiguation vs. notability

body:
A wrote

> Should there be a lower threshold for notability in cases of
> disambiguation?

Yes, for 'red links'. If an article is there, include it as blue link (in general), so that it can be found; if it gets deleted take down the red link. If red links are added which smack of vanity or other non-notability problems, they can be taken down as such.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Weird block message

references:
<ef99a4ac0608231410r4db1432et435968f96f9808b7@mail.gmail.com>
	<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKOEOMILAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<eckia3$q0o$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0608240907w483fed5enc39f13f32f1d16cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<e92136380608241012n1c2d702cw84e5e11cba60df3f@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 8/24/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> Depending upon your point of view, being able to nip into someone
> else's preferences and read their email address might be considered an
> exposure of private data.

Ah, preferences, didn't think of that.

Steve


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Idealism

body:
On 24/08/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:

> policy. A canonical example of this was IAR, which was basically a loophole which
> basically claimed itself to be above even NPOV and CIVIL.
> Re-examining that policy led to its deprecation, and I believe other policies,
> in order to be taken seriously need to be put in a formal place within the policy
> heirarchy.

This is carefully, comprehensively wrong. IAR has been ratified as
policy directly by Jimbo, as a shortcut when process is tying people
up in red tape. It doesn't supersede NPOV or CIVIL. Its "deprecation"
was an attempt at shouting it down by process fetishists.

To be taken seriously, a policy needs to (a) obviously help the actual
task (b) not be a pain in the arse in practice.

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Idealism

body:
stevertigo wrote:

>--- George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think you're misinterpreting that.
>>It would be good if every fact in WP was referenced.
>>
>>
>But are all references the same? How do we distinguish between references?
>
>"References" seems to include to other web pages which people can quickly verify
>but may not be quite authoritative. Voluminous books which may be considered
>authoritative but might only found in the dusty libraries of elite collections.
>
ALL references need to be viewed critically.  When for one reason or
another we claim this reference good and that one bad that too should be
a claim that is subject to verifiability.

>Face it: even where a source is extremely old, and therefore considered "canonical"
>such often show the limitations and biases of the time and culture wherin they
>were written.
>
e.g. 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.

>Note the difference between a reference and a quotation, either by a
>respected philosopher whose codification has come to be a canonical one, or by
>a claimed authority on the subject. There is a huge subjective variance here.
>
In some cases the "authority" represented the herd instinct of his
time.  Establishing a canonical Bible was a major political undertaking
for the church of the time.  No work of the evangelists are known to
exist in their original hand.

>For example, Augustine, who had no physics credentials whatsoever, was perhaps the
>first to explain the nature of time as having 'begun with the creation of the
>universe, before which there was no time.' His assertion was based in religious
>terms of course, but nevertheless came some years before physical theories.
>Is he not an "authority"? Or is he not a canonical authority?
>
Homeopathy as Hahneman saw it at the end of the 18th century is now
largely discredited.  His principle was that conditions could be treated
by ultra-dilute preparations.  Compare this with the concept of
vaccines, which were not discovered until long after his death, and you
find a common philosophical thread whose exploration was well beyond
what was available in the science of Hahneman's time.

Scientific discovery has many layers, and I find it amazing to go
through my old volumes of "Scientific American" and visualize the
thinking of the time.  On February 16, 1901 it reported on experiments
being undertaken by the Italian Army on the possible military
applications of automobiles.  On March 2 of the same year we see it
reported that the French were very interested in the military
applications of aviation.  We too easily forget the importance of these
early efforts in our attempt to have the newest and "best" of everything.

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Good writers always welcome (was A tidy way of
	handling "popular culture" references)

body:
On 24/08/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Feel free to edit:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Slogans
> > or to post more ideas and I'll collect them there.

> I don't know about anyone else, but my interest in this thread is
> greatly diminished by your apparent effort to step in and take credit
> for it.   If you as so supportive of this idea why was your an initial
> post a dismissive reference to an older post of yours?

Gee, perhaps reading and thinking modified his views?

> In any case, I think the discussion was working just fine prior to you
> stepping it and directing people.

I don't see that discussion here suddenly stops. A page to collect the
results on is useful and hooks the mailing list discussion into
on-wiki discussion.

Go on, see if you can take his involvement in the thread well rather than badly.

- d.


from_name: Simetrical

subject:
[Wikitech-l] How bad is a category with 21,
	008 pages for the servers?

body:
On 8/24/06, Nick Jenkins <nickpj at gmail.com> wrote:
> E.g. you can't say "Imagine (song) 'is a' John Lennon (solo career)", or "I Am The Walrus 'is a' John Lennon (Beatles career)", or
> "Imagine (song) 'is a' British rock musicians".

That's because you haven't quite gotten what I'm getting at yet.  The
category wouldn't be called "John Lennon", because nothing is a John
Lennon (other than, presumably, John Lennon, who would be rather
lonely).  Rather, under "things related to Beatles", you would have
"things related to John Lennon" or something.  Inelegant, I know, but
I think you see where I'm going with this?

The main problem is the terminology.  I mean, it works logically, but
I don't think people will go for saying "No,
things-related-to-the-Beatles isn't a supercategory of
things-related-to-John-Lennon, things-related-to-the-Beatles is only
related to things-related-to-John-Lennon!"  But that's the fault of
the English language.  I leave it to the wordsmiths to improve upon my
terminology.  :P

> But what if when you specified a category, if you could say what the relationship was?

That's Wikidata.  We're still waiting.  I was putting forth an interim
solution, adding only one new type of category-inclusion, so that you
don't have to explicitly state all sorts of things like transitivity
and deal with arbitrary numbers of relations and so forth.  To be
honest, it probably wouldn't be that much of a time-saver, so there's
probably no point in an interim solution.

We just need to get someone to stick to one of the various
Wikidata-ish projects and finish it.  Hopefully this Semantic
MediaWiki business that was just committed as an extension will end up
in a state where the WMF is willing to use it.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [[New anti-Semitism]] and violations of NPOV re: top
	image

body:
On 8/24/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>   But this doesn't seem to be your concern.  Instead, you're arguing that the
> photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be
> identifying.  Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we do make
> an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images.  If a Wikipedian takes
> a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree first be
> published in a reliable source.

This is incorrect by being incomplete. :)

For example, I could find a picture of something that looks small
shrub which is technically a tree.. And place it on [[tree]]... But
the image would be removed, and quite rightfully so, without a
citation.

Even with a solid citation provided, it would be a poor editorial
judgement to put an image of an atypical tree which many people would
initially is not a tree.

This is pretty much what I see here... An image is being placed on an
article about anti-semitism which some rational people believe is not
a clear example of anti-semitism (but is rather a rather insensitive
and tasteless jab at isral) without a citation.  A citation can easily
be provided because the source of the image made a pretty good
argument.

I still think it's a bad editorial judgement to use that image as the
lead, but it's not a violation of NPOV unless we fail to use the image
as a meta fact rather than a fact.

(I could throw into the fire that we still have the copyright tagging
wrong, but an angry letter from the copyright holder would actually be
useful... we'd get to find out what he intended :) )


subject: [WikiEN-l] Idealism

body:
On 8/24/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ideally, Wikipedia should be developed to the point where
>
>  1) it is the canonical reference resource on the web.
>  2) a) such that articles reference other articles as sources
>       for the current discussion, or
>    b) articles should only reference outside sources and
>       never other articles.

If you're saying "Wikipedia articles should have a reference for every
statement of fact, and none of those references should be Wikipedia",
then yes, that goes without saying.

>
> Accordingly there is some disparity between those who think Wikipedia
>
>  a) should be well cited by its researchers.
>  b) should be well written by its editors.
>  ...where neither is mutually exclusive and neither has "official" status.

What do you mean by a)? Do you mean that people who perform research
using Wikipedia as a base should cite it? For any serious research,
that's not true - we would not want to be cited in an academic
journal. Or do you mean by "well cited" the articles should have lots
of references? I just don't quite get you.

> policy. A canonical example of this was IAR, which was basically a loophole which
> basically claimed itself to be above even NPOV and CIVIL.

My interpretation of IAR is basically a restatement of Be Bold: "Feel
free to perform any good-faith action once, with disregard for all
existing policy and process, if you think it will help Wikipedia
achieve its mission". Anyone who thinks IAR means "you have a license
to do whatever the fuck you want, and anyone who tries to stop you is
a policy nazi" is just dreaming.

Steve


body:
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know about anyone else, but my interest in this thread is
> greatly diminished by your apparent effort to step in and take credit
> for it.   If you as so supportive of this idea why was your an initial
> post a dismissive reference to an older post of yours?

Err, tactfully put. Perhaps we could have a centralised collection of
slogan ideas in the Wikipedia: space, rather than in the user space
though.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Date vandalism

body:
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> block.  Unfortunately we don't have a good way of closely monitoring
> the contribs of a warned user, but thats another matter.

It would be fascinating to construct a sort of dynamic trust metric
where people have trust ratings that cause all kinds of interesting
things to happen. Anons could be given 3 out of 10, and slowly start
heading upwards if they register and keep their noses clean.
Vandalism-detection bots could take into account the trust metric to
work out if a change is likely a mistake or deliberate.

Lots of fun, but probably terrible for social harmony.

Steve


body:
On 8/24/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> But you are of course clever and understand that the picture's source is
> Qdubiously POV and therefore cant be NPOV to use! Particularly upfront. Hence
> you seem to be using CITE as a tool for exclusion, which is the essence of
> the citenazi argument!
[snip]

Nah, the whole point of NPOV is that we can include POV content by
making it neutral by putting it in the right context.

So we don't say "AIDS is gods punishment for gays" we say "Jerry
Fallwell has stated that AIDS is gods punishment for gays [1]". We
avoid making the judgement call, and we use text that people from many
different perspectives can agree is true.

By putting the image on [[New anti-Semitism]] we are implicitly making
the claim that the subject of the photo is an example of New
anti-Semitism. To do so is original research and is rejected by
several generally reasonable folks. Instead we can say "source X
argues this is an example of.." and everyone sane can agree that it's
true (although we might not agree that it's good editorial judgement
to use that image at the top).


from_name: xaosflux

body:
I miss that being on the toolserver as well, heps when dealing with vandals
who have already had their edits deleted.  The problems on the tool server
were taht everyone could access it (not just admins), and of course the
issues with the tool server simply not working with en: anymore.

xaosflux
----- Original Message -----
From: "geni" <geniice at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Finding deleted contributions of a user

> On 8/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24/08/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Is there a simple way (for admins) to find the deleted contributions of
>> > a
>> > user?
>>
>>
>> Don't think so. Not even checkusers can find them easily at present.
>> Time to get coding!
>
> used to be on tool server but there are problems with that aproach
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Scott Stevenson

body:
Greetings,
Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]] that involves
[[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] surrounding an image and neutral
point of view.
The article is prominently displaying an image with a caption that does not
establish the relevance of the image to the article.
I have tried to include in the caption that the image's source believes it
to be an example of Anti-Semitism but my edit have been reverted.
Due to text in the image being small and difficult to read, at first glance
the image does appear anti-Semitic but upon further analysis it is arguably
sooner an example of anti-Zionism. My edits to establish what the image's
source has said about the image (and thereby establish it's relevance to the
article) were removed with the reasoning that we should, "let the reader
decide".
I've explained that in accord with NPOV, text saying that "Source X says Y
about Z" needs to be added to the caption but Jayjg has Wikilawyerly asked
me to show specific NPOV text that applies to images. I pointed out that
WP:NOR states as much and yet I'm still rebuffed. Since, another editor has
joined the discussion and agreed that the image should have a caption
establishing it's relevance to the article but he too has been rebuffed.
Some additional eyes on this would be very helpful. See this talk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg  and
this talk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Question_about_top_poster_image

Thanks,

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]


body:
On 8/24/06, Nick Jenkins <nickpj at gmail.com> wrote:
> I.e. you can still say Imagine (song) is a thing related to John Lennon, which is a thing related to The Beatles. The relationship
> between the Beatles and Imagine (song) is somewhat tenuous, I think.

Wave-related stuff -> Sound-related stuff -> Music-related stuff ->
Music events -> Music competitions would be a hierarchy; Music
competitions -> Eurovision Song Contest-related stuff would *not* be
used.  Instead, the Eurovision Song Contest article would be in Music
competitions, and the Eurovision Song Contest-related stuff category
would be *related to* the Music competitions category, not a
subcategory of it, so the loop would break.  Not everything related to
the ESC is a music competition.

Alternatively, if we went Music-related stuff -> Music event-related
stuff -> Music competition-related stuff -> Eurovision Song
Contest-related stuff, the loop would just break one step later: not
all Eurovision host city-related stuff is related to the Eurovision
Song Contest (the overwhelming majority is not).  Therefore, that
would also be "related to", not a subcategory, because it fails the
"all X are Y" test.  So again, no loop.  (And don't try to give me a
counterexample, because I'm saying that categories' descendants should
be a strict subset of their supercategories' descendants, and that
makes loops logically impossible.)

> So you're saying that supercategories should not imply any transitive relationship whatsoever?

Quite the contrary.  Supercategories would be exclusively transitive;
related-to categories would be nontransitive in general.

I think this is an excessively confusing conversation for a largely
pointless feature, though, so maybe we should drop it here.


body:
No one's responded to me about why NPOV shouldn't be followed in adding to
the caption the quote from the image's source (Zombie of Zombietime.com)
"Zombie of Zombietime.com describes this poster as, "the most anti-Semitic
sign ever seen at any protest rally in the United States." I've just been
presented with straw man arguments. I've got no problem with the image but
what I do have a problem with is when an image is presented outside of
neutral point of view.

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/24/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> As the article Talk: page has made quite clear, some people look at
> the image and think it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, others
> look at it and think it's anti-Zionism. The article discusses at
> length the debate over whether some (or all) anti-Zionism is
> anti-Semitism - indeed, to a degree, that is what the whole article is
> about.  Thus, again, as has been explained, the arguably ambiguous
> nature of the image is a perfect example of the topic of the article
> itself.
>
> Something about this image bothers Netscott, and he has tried to
> modify, explain, remove, etc. this image on various grounds. He keeps
> claiming it violates policy; yet when asked to explain what policy he
> thinks it violates, he keeps making vague (and changing) references to
> various policies, but refuses to actually quote the specific section
> of policy he thinks this violates.  If there's any wikilawyering going
> on, it's Netscott's claim that something violated policy, but refusal
> to actually quote the policy.
>
> In addition, I find it tiresome that people bring their article
> content disputes to this list. This is the fourth place Netscott has
> insisted on having this discussion; on the article Talk: page, on my
> Talk: page, on WP:AN/I, and now here. If he wants to raise an article
> RfC let him do so.
>
> Jay.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Idealism

body:
On 8/24/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Yes"?? Thats citenazism! Its usefulness is dubious outside of scratching libel
> out of biographies. When did this happen? How would using this policy have affected
> Wikipedia's growth from its humble beginnings when Nupedia sucked down a quarter mil?
> How are "good writers" supposed to rephrase in an explanatory way what technocrats
> plop down as fact?

Can I remind you the thread topic is "idealism"? :) Put it this way:
if there was an article where every statement of fact *was* cited,
would that be a good thing or a bad thing? A good thing, right? That
doesn't mean that every other article is a failure - we haven't
discussed minimum standards yet.

> No. I meant simply that people follow different modes of editing, one of which
> can be generally called "research."

Ok, this is a new way of thinking to me - you're distinguishing
between those who do the research and add it, and the wordsmithers who
just shuffle around material that's already there?

> > we would not want to be cited in an academic journal.
>
> We dont?

We don't have any original ideas, and we don't claim that anything is
truer than the citation linked to it. Why would you cite us?

Steve


body:
That's a rather dishonest addition to this thread there Sarah. You know
perfectly well that I've previously discussed this image and its prior fair
use status when requested to do so by [[User:Itsmejudith]] and that was some
time ago.
Here are some sensible words regarding captioning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Captions#Some_criteria_for_a_good_caption
#3 and #4 are seriously lacking.

What is the problem with citing what the source of this image is saying
about it? In terms of the image he's the only reliable source even
discussing it.

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No one's responded to me about why NPOV shouldn't be followed in adding
> to
> > the caption the quote from the image's source (Zombie of Zombietime.com)
> > "Zombie of Zombietime.com describes this poster as, "the most
> anti-Semitic
> > sign ever seen at any protest rally in the United States." I've just
> been
> > presented with straw man arguments. I've got no problem with the image
> but
> > what I do have a problem with is when an image is presented outside of
> > neutral point of view.
> >
> What I have a problem with is people turning up at articles they've
> made no contribution to, in an area they've done no research, making
> an image invisible, adding an OR tag, wikilawyering about policies,
> violating 3RR, starting a thread on AN/I, starting various threads on
> people's talk pages, and now starting another one on wikiEN-l.
>
> The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism.
> Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image.
> Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but
> believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it
> is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes. The cutline
> doesn't need commentary from someone who has done no research into the
> subject and who seems to be out to cause trouble only.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
That's not entirely correct Jkelly,

>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Original_images
"Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed,
such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus
as theorized by the uploader. All uploaded pictures are subject to
Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, notably Wikipedia:Verifiability,
and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."
Therefore image do indeed need to abide by neutral point of view.

-Scott

On 8/24/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>   Hi,
>
> Quoting Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com>:
> >Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]]...
> >... surrounding an image and neutral point of view.
>
>   I don't think that this is a very helpful way to think about this image
> usage.
> It is true that we've done very little thinking about the way in which
> images
> might give undue weight to minority or fringe positions.  I'd go so far as
> to
> say that we seem to be comfortable taking a very naive position on what
> can be
> communicated through photography, and I think it would be interesting to
> have a
> thoughtful discussion about that.
>
>   But this doesn't seem to be your concern.  Instead, you're arguing that
> the
> photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be
> identifying.  Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we do
> make
> an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images.  If a Wikipedian
> takes
> a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree first
> be
> published in a reliable source.
>
>                       Jkelly
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Surname disambiguation urgently needs its own Manual
	page

body:
(human name pages) sounds odd. What about calling them what they are:
"surname disambiguations".

Mgm

On 8/24/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> Delirium wrote
>
> > I agree---I use these all the time.  In some academic disciplines it's
> > common to refer to well-known or even moderately well-known people by
> > surname only.  If I don't happen to be familiar with the person myself,
> > I find out who they are by looking up the surname on Wikipedia, and
> > scanning down the list for someone of the right occupation and right
> era.
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> I'm hoping to start some work on [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (human name
> pages)]]: see on the Talk page of [[WP:MOSDAB]] for some discussion
> starting.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Gregory Maxwell's last edit on this article goes some way to at least
establishing the relevance of the image to the article but still the source
for the claim should be included in the caption as it is indeed arguable
what the image shows.

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's not entirely correct Jkelly,
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Original_images
> "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not
> allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the
> nucleus as theorized by the uploader. All uploaded pictures are subject to
> Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, notably Wikipedia:Verifiability,
> and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."
> Therefore image do indeed need to abide by neutral point of view.
>
> -Scott
>
>
>
> On 8/24/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> >   Hi,
> >
> > Quoting Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com>:
> > >Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]]...
> > >... surrounding an image and neutral point of view.
> >
> >   I don't think that this is a very helpful way to think about this
> > image usage.
> > It is true that we've done very little thinking about the way in which
> > images
> > might give undue weight to minority or fringe positions.  I'd go so far
> > as to
> > say that we seem to be comfortable taking a very naive position on what
> > can be
> > communicated through photography, and I think it would be interesting to
> > have a
> > thoughtful discussion about that.
> >
> >   But this doesn't seem to be your concern.  Instead, you're arguing
> > that the
> > photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be
> > identifying.  Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we
> > do make
> > an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images.  If a
> > Wikipedian takes
> > a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree
> > first be
> > published in a reliable source.
> >
> >                       Jkelly
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>


body:
On 8/24/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/24/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As the article Talk: page has made quite clear, some people look at
> > > the image and think it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, others
> > > look at it and think it's anti-Zionism.
> >
> > No orignal research Jay, I could care less what you and other random
> > spectators think of the image.
>
> Exactly. Nor do I care. Nor should those opinions be included to taint
> the caption with OR.

Jayjg,

Excuse me but how it is original research to include what the source of the
image's own view of the image is?

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
Simetrical wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>I was trying to address the security issues
>>that come from the user's ability to cause the server to perform any GET
>>request to any server.
>
> This is a problem why, provided the server is careful about what it
> does with the response?

It's not the response that's the problem, it's the GET request itself.

Suppose some stupid web programmer programmed a forum where you can
delete posts with a GET request. If you can fire GET requests to any
server from Wikimedia's servers, then the forum's servers will only log
Wikimedia's IPs, and the mass-deletion forum vandal is now untraceable.

I'm sure there are even more significant cases that I haven't thought of.

Timwi


body:
Gregory Maxell,

Ah ok, well per his agreement with Wikipedia he must additionally be cited
as the source of the image there.

Other than that... your edit makes the caption much better! Thanks!

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Gregory Maxwell's last edit on this article goes some way to at least
> > establishing the relevance of the image to the article but still the
> source
> > for the claim should be included in the caption as it is indeed arguable
> > what the image shows.
>
> "A writer at Zombietime argues[3] that this poster, seen at a February
> 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco, is an example of modern
> anti-Semitism."
>
> I provided a link to the source, but I couldn't tell what the writers
> name was from the page. I would have said "an anonymous writer" but
> I'm unsure if the authors name is given at some other part of the site
> that I was deeplinked past.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
On 24/08/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > Suppose some stupid web programmer programmed a forum where you can
> > delete posts with a GET request. If you can fire GET requests to any
> > server from Wikimedia's servers, then the forum's servers will only log
> > Wikimedia's IPs, and the mass-deletion forum vandal is now untraceable.
>
> 1) Most web programmers aren't that stupid.

Pfft. No, most web programmers are worse.

> 2) Even if they were that stupid, they wouldn't be stupid enough to
> allow an IP address completely unknown to their server to do anything
> bad to it.

Yes they bloody would...
>
> 3) Even if they were *that* stupid (and we're currently talking
> serious, serious stupid), they would have

Would have what?

Rob Church


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Images and original research (was: [[New
	anti-Semitism]] and...)

body:
On 24/08/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

>   I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I
> failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make.  If I state that
> my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that?  What
> level of interpretation are we comfortable with?

The very first thing to do is to write a detailed policy outlining
every possible outcome ahead of time. If it's not in there, we can
form a committee committee to elect a committee to vote on what level
of straw poll indicates consensus on a given image. Don't forget to
sneak in something on page 36 about how the Foundation takes control
of their first born.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
On 24/08/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> See point 3 above.  If there were good reasons for not following
> arbitrary GET requests, Google would not exist.

GOOGLE DELETED MY WIKI! THIEVING INFORMATION-SCABBING VANDALS!111oneone

You're correct, of course, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful, too. :)

Rob Church


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-08-25

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

Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Template infinite loop... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 412 of 429 tests (96.04%) FAILED!


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2006/8/24, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com>:

> They seem to have lots of uses, and the better the model, and the
> better the implementation, probably the more uses we will come up
> with. Saying "Categories are only good for X" is unnecessarily
> restrictive.

I haven't seen another use from you where dividing up one category in
numerous smaller ones is a gain. I have come up with a very logical
use where it is a loss. I'm not saying that categories are *only* for
finding similar pages, but it's still one of the main uses. You
haven't come up with any other major uses yet, yet apparently you see
them, because you seem to support greatly diminishing their use for my
usage. You must have reasons for that. Tell them.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Sherool

subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia category

body:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:53:38 +0200, hzzhang <hzh003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know if wikipedia has a downloadable file for all its
> categories
> information?
> Just like dmoz's one?
>
> http://rdf.dmoz.org/

Well if you go to <http://download.wikimedia.org/> you can pick up the
latest raw SQL dump of the categorylinks table. That's probably the
closest you will get. There are tools like
<http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryTree.php> but it's
not practical if you want to download info on ALL the categories, pluss
the toolserver still have a corrupted out of date copy of the enwiki
database.

--
[[:en:User:Sherool]]


from_name: Frederik Eaton

subject: [Wikitech-l] problem with statistics

body:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:55:45AM +0200, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Frederik Eaton wrote:
> > Every page load in my MediaWiki installation actually turns into two
> > requests, one with header
> >
> > Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
> >
> > and one with header
> >
> > Accept: image/png,*/*;q=0.5
> >
> > both for the same URL (e.g.
> > GET /~frederik/pfcq/wiki/index.php/Domain_theory/Homomorphism_of_preorders
> > )
>
> Did you do something like setting $wgLogo to ""?
>
> It sounds like the browser is trying to load the same URL as an image.

You must be telepathic. That is exactly the value of $wgLogo.

Thanks,

Frederik

--
http://ofb.net/~frederik/


body:
On 25/08/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:

> Where's that assumption of good faith we're always talking about around
> here?

I believe the wording goes "It is absolutely required to Assume Good
Faith in someone taking an argument all over the net and accusing you
of deliberate POV-pushing, particularly when they demand you assume
good faith in them." I might have some of the later bits of that quote
wrong, but the early bits are spot-on.

- d.


body:
You can be sure I'll be getting to the other images soon. I've already
noticed how many of them are violations of [[WP:FU]].

I always find it strange how folks will argue, "well it's wrong over there
so it can be wrong over here". Wrongness elsewhere never lessens wrongness
regarding the given item of discussion.
Now there are quite a few editors agreeing with what I was saying about NPOV
and the lead image as the article's edit history shows (even two editors
going so far as to outright remove the image from the article).

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/25/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The image cutline shouldn't say anything beyond the basic description
> > > of where and when taken.
>
> No one is fretting about the cutlines on any of the other images on
> that page, which also don't say who's claiming they are or aren't
> examples of anti-Semitism. Dozens of other images are used on
> Wikipedia in the same way.
>
> This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ColoredDrinking.jpg
> used in [[Racism]] doesn't have a cutline saying "this is regarded as
> an example of racism by X."  This image,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Races_and_skulls.png used as an
> example of scientific racism, doesn't say "according to X." This image
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1900sc_Postcard-Watermelon_04.jpg
> is called a "racist postcard"; we don't say "according to X." This
> image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg is labeled
> anti-Semitic without saying who says so. Must this image
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LeedsUniversityNAS.jpg now have a
> cutline saying "anti-Semitic according to the Community Security
> Trust"? Does this image
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yankee_go_home_Liverpool.jpg  used
> to illustrate anti-Americanism, have to say it's anti-American only
> according to X? This
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bomb_iran_thong.jpg is used to
> illustrate anti-Iranianism without attribution. This
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tokio_Kid_Say.gif is used to show
> anti-Japanese sentiment, with no attribution, as is this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poster_Japan_flag_stabbed.jpg
>
> Some others, all making a stated or implied claim, with no attribution:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hands_of_victory.JPG alleged to
> show anti-Persianism
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Golliwogg2.jpg  for Afrophobia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Francisco_de_Goya_y_Lucientes_023.jpg
> Francophobia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antiruss.jpg Russophobia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Merridien_Web.png  ditto
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:YellowTerror.jpg  Sinophobia
>
> And there are many more. So the question is, of all these images
> allegedly depicting prejudices of various kinds, why is this one image
> being singled out for different treatment?
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 25/08/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Quoting David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:

> > The very first thing to do is to write a detailed policy outlining
> > every possible outcome ahead of time. If it's not in there, we can
> > form a committee committee to elect a committee to vote on what level
> > of straw poll indicates consensus on a given image. Don't forget to

> ...and AfD is terribly broken.

Obviously it just needs more detailed process. That'll get it working right.

> And userboxen suck.

It's marvellously useful to know that a user believes that the
placement of bumper sticker-style slogans in a small box on one's user
page is an effective and clearly simplified way of communicating the
nuances of one's views on a variety of issues as reduced to a pithy
slogan. They can then be drafted to work on the consensus committee
for voting on new procedural policy for AFD.

- d.


body:
No, not illustrations of anti-Semitism removed but the editing out of fair
use violations so that they are left to the articles where they qualify.
Fair use on Wikipedia has become a new area of editing interest for me. The
[[Mel Gibson]] article would be a good example of this. The new
anti-Semitism article has a number of images who's fair use rationale is not
compliant. Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion_2005_Syria_al-Awael.jpgfor
example. It's fair use tagged as , "to illustrate an article
discussing
the book in question" which obviously the [[new anti-Semitism]] article is
not doing.

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/25/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can be sure I'll be getting to the other images soon.
>
> You'll be getting to which other images soon? All the images I listed
> on all the other pages? Or are you going to continue to concentrate on
> trying to have illustrations of anti-Semitism removed?
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Article and info for Interview on The Right Hook

body:
For those who care:

http://static.rocknerd.org/david/newstalk106-20060822.mp3

18 minutes, 5.6 MB, 40kbps mp3, sounds like it's recorded under water.
Pretty sympathetic.

The article [[George Hook]] is still unlocked, at the subject's
request ;-) The history is interesting. The article's doing fine.

- d.


body:
Always nice to see a demonstration of the assumption of good faith there
Jayjg. What's an ambigous image doing as the lead image for [[new
anti-Semitism]] anyways? Wikipedia's doing a disservice to it's readers when
doing this, particularly when the caption of the image doesn't spell out
what it's source is saying about it. As others have expressed with an image
like that as the lead Wikipedia is expressing the POV that it is an example
of "new anti-Semitism".  If the image stays then editros should at least
ensure that the image's caption is in accord with NPOV and cite the source
as it being an example of anti-semitism (the source doesn't even say "new
anti-Semitism... just anti-Semitism see:
http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_february_16_2003/ ). Sounding more and
more like original research to include it on the new anti-Semitism article
isn't it?

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/25/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I always find it strange how folks will argue, "well it's wrong over
> there
> > so it can be wrong over here". Wrongness elsewhere never lessens
> wrongness
> > regarding the given item of discussion.
>
> However, that was, of course, not the argument made. Rather the
> argument was the exact opposite.
>
> > Now there are quite a few editors agreeing with what I was saying about
> NPOV
> > and the lead image as the article's edit history shows (even two editors
> > going so far as to outright remove the image from the article).
>
> Yes, many people find the picture disturbing, as you did, and will try
> to think of almost any imaginable rationale to make it disappear
> somehow (again, as you did). Of course, like you, the people actually
> removing it can't actually quote any policy that would require its
> removal. But it's a very powerful image, and people just *know* they
> have to get rid of it somehow.
>
> Jay.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Sarah, please show your good faith and don't describe my edits as vandalism
and my efforts as "trolling". Also don't revert my good faith edits with an
edit summaries like "rvv". My attention has been drawn to this article and
so I will edit in good faith towards ensuring that it is in accord with
Wikipedia policies. You should see my work over on [[Islamophobia]] by the
way. The article has come a long way towards being in accord with Wikipedia
policies since when I first started editing on it.

Sincerely,

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/25/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, not illustrations of anti-Semitism removed but the editing out of
> fair
> > use violations so that they are left to the articles where they qualify.
> > Fair use on Wikipedia has become a new area of editing interest for me.
>
> In order to show your good faith, please begin exploring your new
> editing interest by challenging images other than those depicting
> anti-Semitism.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Instruction creep (was: Images and original research)

body:
On 25/08/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>   David,

> > ...They can then be drafted to work on the consensus committee
> > for voting on new procedural policy for AFD.

>   It was a shame to trim your response and lose the humour of it, but this is
> just the "instruction creep/can't legislate clue/consensus doesn't scale"
> conversation again.

The Zionist Conspiracy told me it would be a fantastic piece of
wikijudo to keep them safely occupied out of harm's way.

- d.


body:
I see so the article's title is "new anti-Semitism" and of course one would
expect to glance over and see an image demonstrative of such a concept but
no they see an image that a few Wikipedia editors are saying (without a
citation that is) is demonstrative of "new anti-Semitism" when no source can
be shown stating as such? Like I said even the photo's source labels it as
mere "anti-Semitism".
I haven't argued for the image's removal as other have (although I'm
becoming convinced of their arguments) all that I've required is that the
image's source "Zombie" from "Zombietime.com" be cited as saying that the
image was demonstrative of anti-Semitism. That is normal when bias is
ambiguous in articles. I've shown you how WP:NOR states that NPOV applies to
images and I've shown you the section of what NPOV says about attribution of
biased content.  Now a good number of editors are agreeing with my concerns
as the talk page and edit history show.

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/25/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Always nice to see a demonstration of the assumption of good faith there
> > Jayjg. What's an ambigous image doing as the lead image for [[new
> > anti-Semitism]] anyways?
>
> Um, the whole article is about the disputed and possibly ambiguous
> nature of New anti-Semitism. It could hardly illustrate the concept
> better, as has been explained multiple times by multiple editors.
>
> > Wikipedia's doing a disservice to it's readers when
> > doing this, particularly when the caption of the image doesn't spell out
> > what it's source is saying about it.
>
> No, the continual attempts to suppress or reframe this powerful and
> illustrative image, without any backing in policy, is what does a
> disservice to Wikipedia.
>
> > As others have expressed with an image
> > like that as the lead Wikipedia is expressing the POV that it is an
> example
> > of "new anti-Semitism".
>
> What do you mean by "New anti-Semitism"? A new kind of Anti-Semitism?
> Modern anti-Semitism? Or an attempt to reframe criticism of Israel as
> anti-Semitism? Because arguments are made for all these definitions.
>
> Oh, wait, the picture perfectly illustrates that.
>
> > If the image stays then editros should at least
> > ensure that the image's caption is in accord with NPOV
>
> Sorry, again, could you cite the specific words of NPOV that apply to
> this image?
>
> Of course not. Because your objection has nothing to do with *actual*
> policy.
>
> Jay.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: geni

body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Zionist Conspiracy told me it would be a fantastic piece of
> wikijudo to keep them safely occupied out of harm's way.
>
>
> - d.

Won't work. The userbox crowd are not really policy wonks its just
that policy was the only thing protecting their userboxes from the
nasty admins.

In any case most AFD procedure would be pretty trivial. Minium voter
requirements would be the only real cause of debate.

--
geni


body:
Sarah,
I'm beginning to see that you really have no qualms about misrepresenting
facts in attempts to benefit your cause. You've already said in effect that
I was coming out of nowhere and disrupting the article when you were fully
aware that I've edited in regards to this article previously. Now, when I'm
primarily counseling a fellow editor to not edit war you're describing it
nefariously as my "leaving instructions as to what they should do". Well of
course it's not in the project's interest that editors edit war so it makes
sense that I'm advising a fellow editor against it.
If I've spent the best part of the day on this, what have you done?

Where's that assumption of good faith we're always talking about around
here?

-Scott [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/25/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sounding more and
> > more like original research to include it on the new anti-Semitism
> article
> > isn't it?
> >
> There are multiple sources who say this image is an example of
> anti-Semitism. There's no need to rely on the photographer, and if you
> had done even two minutes of research (literally), you'd know that.
> But you haven't, because your interest is not NPOV and Wikipedia and
> encyclopedic standards. You object to the image for political reasons,
> pure and simple, and you're trying to wikilawyer your way to either
> getting it removed or adding a cutline that will lead to edit wars in
> the future and instability. You've spent the best part of the day on
> this, and now, not satisfied with involving AN/I and wikiEN-l, you're
> leaving notes on talk pages trying to involve others too (because
> you've already violated 3RR), leaving instructions as to what they
> should do.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AYArktos&diff=prev&oldid=71691926
> I think this will be my last response to you.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Website

body:
On 8/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> You're wrong. They are overlapping sets, but neither fully contains the
> other; there are things which exist in the digital world which aren't in
> the real world, and things in the real world which aren't in the digital
> world.

assumeing a objective shared reality the digital world has to be part
of the real world. There have been a few lible cases against people
who assumed otherwise. I think by real world you mean what some groups
call meatspace.

--
geni


list: wikimedia-l


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

body:
Woot, I have a prototype! Please have a look and try it out:

http://www.brunsbug.dreamhosters.com/testing/index.php?title=COM:DR

It utilises these features:
* user-centred: based on what the user wants to do, rather than the
technicalities of how we actually do it
* template-per-request approach
* use of DynamicPageLists to generate on-the-fly lists of open
requests of different types
* super-easy processes for archiving, looking up and reopening debates.

Good for new users because they don't need to know anything about
Commons, they just need to follow the step-by-step instructions.

Good for admins because archiving means changing a category from
'open' to 'closed'.

Good for casual users with CommonsTickers because they will be able to
find deletion debates in one step.

Good for COM:DEL regulars because they can build a personal page to
show them only the debates they're interested in.

Please have a play around with it (you're welcome to create an account
or edit anonymously - it's my test wiki) and let me know what you
think.

cheers
Brianna


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know about anyone else, but my interest in this thread is
> greatly diminished by your apparent effort to step in and take credit
> for it.

I put it in the User: space so it could start as unformatted, raw
data. Feel free to move it elsewhere.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Idealism

body:
On 8/24/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Ideally, Wikipedia should be developed to the point where
> >
> >  1) it is the canonical reference resource on the web.
> >  2) a) such that articles reference other articles as sources
> >       for the current discussion, or
> >    b) articles should only reference outside sources and
> >       never other articles.
>
> If you're saying "Wikipedia articles should have a reference for every
> statement of fact, and none of those references should be Wikipedia",
> then yes, that goes without saying.

Concerning option 2b. I don't think articles should reference (as a source)
other articles, I recently sourced a people with some disease list and
noticed how far the list and the articles included in the list were
different. Some had indead the disease sourced, some didn't mention the
disease, some had sources removed etc etc.

Garion96


body:
Well [[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] managed to get me blocked for a
week surrouding this despite my good faith efforts towards ensuring that
policy was met on this article.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Netscott_reported_by_User:Jayjg_.28Result:1_week.29

I've requested an {{unblock}} as this block was neither justified nor
preventative (I clearly stated that I'd stopped editing on the article hours
ago and haven't since).  The blocking admin's reasoning was that I'd been
blocked "many times for 3RR". I've been justifiably blocked twice for 3RR
and a third time despite my efforts at reverting vandalism surrounding the
last block (User:William M. Connolley) expressed, "Its quite possible that I
could have checked a bit more carefully" (meaning prior to blocking me for
the last 3RR) see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&diff=70569335&oldid=70566672This
hardly qualifies as "many times".

If someone could take a look at this case, that'd be appreciated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netscott#Unblock
Thanks,

-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]

On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> [snip]
> >   But this doesn't seem to be your concern.  Instead, you're arguing
> that the
> > photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be
> > identifying.  Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we
> do make
> > an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images.  If a
> Wikipedian takes
> > a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree
> first be
> > published in a reliable source.
>
> This is incorrect by being incomplete. :)
>
> For example, I could find a picture of something that looks small
> shrub which is technically a tree.. And place it on [[tree]]... But
> the image would be removed, and quite rightfully so, without a
> citation.
>
> Even with a solid citation provided, it would be a poor editorial
> judgement to put an image of an atypical tree which many people would
> initially is not a tree.
>
> This is pretty much what I see here... An image is being placed on an
> article about anti-semitism which some rational people believe is not
> a clear example of anti-semitism (but is rather a rather insensitive
> and tasteless jab at isral) without a citation.  A citation can easily
> be provided because the source of the image made a pretty good
> argument.
>
> I still think it's a bad editorial judgement to use that image as the
> lead, but it's not a violation of NPOV unless we fail to use the image
> as a meta fact rather than a fact.
>
> (I could throw into the fire that we still have the copyright tagging
> wrong, but an angry letter from the copyright holder would actually be
> useful... we'd get to find out what he intended :) )
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Lars Aronsson

subject:
[Wikitech-l] How bad is a category with 21,
 008 pages for the servers?

body:
Simetrical wrote:

> The main problem is the terminology. [...] the fault of the
> English language.  I leave it to the wordsmiths [...]

As I started to look into categories recently, I wanted to draw
the category tree and print it like a mindmap on a poster.  I'm
realizing now that this is a not going to be possible.  Instead we
have an archipelago of categories, loosely linked in a misty sea
of subcategory relationships.  And some of the subs can be our
enemies.  What I need here is a radar screen.

Hmm... can anybody morph this
http://web.archive.org/web/20010604173556/www.jimmywales.com/jimmy.jpg
with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Hunt_for_Red_October_movie_poster.JPG

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


from_name: Andreas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Java applets for Wikiversity

body:
Simetrical wrote:
> On 8/22/06, Andreas <awolf002 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> But before I go off "into the deep" to figure that out, does this
>> question entail that JavaScript sections for the purpose of running
>> interactive labs  *will* be accepted?
>>
>
> Well, you could already include them in Monobook.js (page-specific
> Javascript is also possible: just check the page's name from the
> globally-available variables and compare it to a list, and write the
> page-specific JS file to the current JS if applicable).  So yes, of
> course.
>
Okay, I found out a few things...

Let me say first, I now agree with Juca's early comments that the
example I linked to was too simple. Most of the people that responded
seem to have taken this one example applet as the lab I wanted to run,
which can be done with Java script (JS) reasonably well. However, when
contemplating how to use JS to make labs for the important
force-velocity concepts of Newtonian mechanics (a must for any
Wikiversity physics course) JS will drag us down a road with very
complex and poorly performing code, because I can *not* draw a simple,
arbitrary length arrow in JS without coding the actual rendering of the
lines pixel by pixel. This is very underwhelming, so say the least!!

If anybody knows differently, please educate me! But JS is just not
appropriate for drawing any complex geometrical forms, like a "lab
course" at Wikiversity will need.

Back to square one: How can we deliver applets within Wikiversity pages,
safely. Please, re-read my suggestions I gave as an answer to Brion's
email, on how to manage code and deliver JAR files to Wikimedia servers.
Then we just need to decide on a "type" and mechanism to integrate a
single applet into a wiki, say something like
'[[Interactive:PhysLab101.jar]]' similar to '[[Image:Portrait.png]]'...

Andreas =:-)


from_name: mpoe

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia:Verifiability

body:
Aleksandr, if you are interested in the history of the pillars, you might
read the following:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia

I wrote this article, so if you have further questions contact me. Larry
Sanger also wrote an excellent memoir (originally published on Slashdot)
that touches on the pillars. See:

http://www.memoryarchive.org/en/The_Origins_of_Wikipedia%2C_2001%2C_by_Larry
_Sanger

There are also good accounts of Wikipedia's history on Wikipedia itself, for
example, at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia

All the Best, Marshall Poe

On 8/24/06 10:39 PM, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ????????? ??????? wrote:
>>> NPOV is non-negotiable. It is one of the "pillars" of Wikipedia. Most
>>> policies are just the verbose version of what is already present
>>> thanks to the pillars. If a policy is not approved, you can always
>>> refer to them.
>>>
>>> FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
>>
>> Why are the "pillars" non-negotiable?
>> Who created  the "pillars"?
>> Who approved them?
>>
>> I need sources to use them in discussion.
>>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
>
> NPOV and Freedom of content are listed here and date back to Nupedia.
> "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" has been around since early 2002.
> "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" and "Wikipedia does not have firm
> rules" have been established over time (in the last 3 years or so) by
> the English Wikipedia community as a way of ensuring that the entire
> thing actually works.


from_name: Anthony

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Blocking anon page creation was an experiment,
	wasn't it?

body:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/06, dmehkeri at swi.com <dmehkeri at swi.com> wrote:
> > On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if it is precisely these obstacles
> > which also cuts down on the nonsense.
>
> Damn straight. :) Seriously, what gets posted at AfC is sludge. And
> that's from the newbie editors who actually made the effort to wade
> their way through the process and make a submission!
>
> The only benefit in allowing anons to create articles is in stroking
> their egos long enough for them to become good editors (while deleting
> their creation in the meantime). We should attempt to quantify that
> benefit.
>
> Steve

I think it is a very poor assumption to think that anything which
would have been created by users not logged in will find its way to
AfC.  In fact, I believe that the AfC process tends to filter out
exactly those submissions which are preferred - casual submissions by
someone trying to improve things, and does very little to discourage
people who are trying to push a viewpoint from wasting people's time.

I've especially found the AfC process to be ridiculous when I run
across a redirect that needs to be created.

Anthony


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
On 8/25/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> You're correct, of course, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful, too. :)

In any case we obviously wouldn't allow this for anon users, and
presumably we would do something nasty to anyone who caused us to get
a complaint like "Your user X deleted my website using GET requests!"

Steve


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
--- Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've always liked "Wikipedia - the people's encyclopedia"

As in "Wikipedia - The People's Republic of..."

SV

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


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Want to collaborate on writing a feature?

body:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 02:45:18PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> More collaborative editing tools in general might be nice. We see so
> much discussion on this list about the few really controversial
> articles that get dozens of edits a day that we forget that the vast
> majority of Wikipedia is a very quiet place where you rarely bump into
> anyone at all.

And while we're tangentially on the topic of my favorite hobby horse:

Are we *ever* going to get a way to edit ledes without having to lock
the whole page?

(Tim: could your thing show which section they're editing, too?)

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
Steve Bennett schrieb:
> On 8/25/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You're correct, of course, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful, too. :)
>>
>
> In any case we obviously wouldn't allow this for anon users
AFAIK, we don't allow uploads for anon users anyway...
> , and
> presumably we would do something nasty to anyone who caused us to get
> a complaint like "Your user X deleted my website using GET requests!"
>
The only punishment severe enough for letting random IPs GET-delete
stuff would be to flood that server with mote GET requests ;-)

Magnus

-------------- 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/20060825/c74474bf/attachment.pgp>


references:
<ecmm8b$3hc$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecmpg7$e21$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ecmqe8$h9n$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0608250536w2878e27x4ab035254fd5105a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 02:36:09PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 8/25/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> > It would save a lot of edit conflicts.
>
> If this is the goal, why not consider allowing true section editing
> where editing section A doesn't conflict with an edit to section B?
> Could be more work though :)

Color me confused: I thought we'd had *this* for *years*...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
Steve Bennett schrieb:
> On 8/24/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a problem why, provided the server is careful about what it
>> does with the response?  It could potentially be used for, e.g.,
>> flooding a third party's server, but it wouldn't be hard to restrict
>> the harm that could do (by throttling), and no one could do much more
>> damage that way than they could do without the WMF's help.  An
>> overwhelming number of massive, reputable sites are willing to execute
>> arbitrary GET requests -- it's necessary for spidering, to begin with.
>>
>> Given that this feature is *not* currently implemented, I see no
>> reason not to discuss its possible implications openly.
>>
>
> I was trying to think of reasons too, and couldn't come up with much.
> Maybe since the GET operation is not exactly the same as the HTTP
> upload operation (again I don't know what I'm talking about), there
> would be a way of forcing MediaWiki to download something harmful to
> itself, such as an executable, or a file that would cause a buffer
> overrun? What if you set up a dodgy server that said it was going to
> download you a nice little .gif file, and instead sent you 10 gig of
> executable?
>
My implementation uses a hard limit (default: 100MB) and won't copy any
more data than that, even if the size is reported wrong (maliciously or
otherwise).

Magnus

-------------- 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/20060825/567aac32/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Stefan Sittler

body:
On 8/20/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> (I'm quoting from
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033880.html)
>
> Jimbo wrote once:
> "Today, as an experiment, we will be turning off new pages creation for
> anonymous users in the English Wikipedia."
>
> This was way back in 5 Dec 2005. Has the experiment run long enough?
> What sort of experiment varies the independent variable only one way?

Thanks for asking this, I was wondering too.

Yeah, I would have much preferred a statement more like

"Today we are starting an experiment-- we are turning off new page
creation. This experiment is to last until (t). Analysis of (typeA),
(typeB), and (typeC) will be done by (userA), (userB), (userC). If you
have other ideas for analysis, please let us know. Also we are looking
for someone to do specialized (analysisZ). Please see the discussion
at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_Anonymous_Page_Creation)
if you would like to comment on or discuss it."

(or something like that...)

Instead, it's an experiment of indefinite duration with analysis (of
an unknown kind? where is this analysis described?) presumably being
done by some person or persons, probably, and the results to be
revealed at some later unspecified date.

Most  distressingly, as far as my (admittedly quick) search turned up,
there's no particular place that this experiment is being discussed by
the community. The archive page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Archive-2005-12
is the closest thing to a discussion I could find in the WP:
namespace, but it's no longer a discussion. It's an archive.

Am I missing a discussion of this kind somewhere obvious?

Thanks,

-Stefan
user:kiaparowits

>
> Let's turn page creation back on for anons. We turned it off, so let's
> see what happens when we turn it back on; otherwise we're simply
> running on sheer blind inertia and unthinking myopia. Every month
> since Dec. 2005 we should have been asking whether the costs have been
> worth the benefits.
>
> "1. Annoying anons may simply decide to create accounts and make annoying
> nonsense pages anyway.  This will certainly be true in some cases, but
> it is an empirical question as to how many."
>
> Quite a few. I haven't seen much of a reduction in PROD or AFD or
> speedies ([[User:Dragons flight/Category tracker]] shows that Speedy
> has at times reached 349 entries, and it tracks back to late July
> 2006).
>
> "2.  We will lose good new pages created by anons of good will.  This may
> cause the growth of English Wikipedia (in terms of the number of
> articles) to slow a little bit.  With 800,000+ articles, and
> ever-increasing traffic to the website, this seems to be a worthwhile cost."
>
> PR-wise, turning off page creation wasn't good, to say the least; it
> has forced all sorts of ugly hacks to pages and annoyed many many
> people (such as persons like me; one cannot even create a simple
> redirect when not staging out of one's computer/account).  Take a look
> at the monumental failure that is AFC sometime, which turning off page
> creation has forced on us. Valid, good articles are being entombed
> there.
>
> There's no time like the present. It's summer now, so dedicate
> Wikipedians have plenty of time, and the September deluge is not yet
> upon us; there are even more Wikipedians than ever, and more articles,
> and better tools. How much have the anti-vandal tools (too many to
> name now, even excluding bots) proliferated and improved since that
> long-ago December?
>
> "But preveneting [sic] anons from creating new pages is a different
> matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it."
>
> Yes, let's. Experiments go both ways, remember...
>
> ~maru
> _______________________________________________
> 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: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Surname disambiguation urgently needs its own
	Manual	page

body:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote

> (human name pages) sounds odd. What about calling them what they are:
> "surname disambiguations".

Currently the issue at policy level, as I see it, is that the approval by a vote earlier in 2006 of the {{hndis}} template (human name disambiguation) has not been matched by guidelines for hndis pages, separate from the {{disambig}} guidelines.

Discussion on the Talk page at WP:MOSDAB shows much support in principle for keeping disambiguation of names separate from what you could call general disambiguation. That I agree with in broad terms, though I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it: the appearance of some names on a general dab page strikes me as possibly useful for a reader. (People in the past have told be _not_ to move surnames elsewhere, and now other people tell me it's a must - I want to break out of such a lose-lose situation.)

I do think surnames are a special case. It seems quite clear to me that chasing up a reference in some academic text, which gives just surname, or initials with surname, is an everyday use of WP as reference. Special pleading, with surname pages just an isolated case, doesn't strike me as the best way to go. It would be much better than having to fight off AfD nominations for listings by surname, though.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
On 8/24/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> (human name pages) sounds odd. What about calling them what they are:
> "surname disambiguations".

Agreed, let's keep it real.

Steve


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good
> enough to be useful*."
>

That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"


subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy lawyering  (was:NAS, NPOV, 3RR)

body:
--- jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:

> [[WP:3RR]] is policy, and you didn't make good faith efforts towards
> ensuring that policy was met on this article.  You were given many
> opportunities to revert yourself; practically begged to do so, but you
> insisted you would not. *You* managed to get *yourself* blocked.

Translation: We use 3RR in tandem, so as to cleverly avoid tripping
             3RR and then we like to tattle on the opposition really
             quickly, so that they get blocked and then we win the
             (edit) war. Its not "harrassment" or "POV tag-teaming" if
             its a policy loophole - Its fair game.

Now that thats understood....

> > I've requested an {{unblock}} as this block was neither justified nor
> > preventative (I clearly stated that I'd stopped editing on the article
> > hours ago and haven't since).

This appears to be on the up and up. I know quite well the nature of two, no \
three aspects of this case... the topic, two core people opposing Netscott, and
the subjective usage of 3RR as an edit warring too.

Some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#New_anti-Semitism_and_WP:NPOV_concerns
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71703100&oldid=71698939

> You stated you wouldn't edit the article so that you would not be
> forced to undo your violation. You were quite defiant about it.

Defiance is a notable property of you two as well, so its odd that you
both use it and decry it. It then becomes a simple addition problem to figure
out how much defiance there is on either "side," at a particular point 1/1+1...

> Blocks like this prevent people from violating 3RR in the future;
> otherwise they think they can continue to get away with "I've reverted
> 5 times now, and I refuse to revert myself, but I promise I won't edit
> again for 24 hours" nonsense.

Entirely false representation of 3RR as a punitive.

3RR is simply a way to slow down reverts and force discussion.
By not directly engaging in actual problem-solving, as you two have become
habitually accustomed to, and then using policy lawyering to block people
for 3RR, you are essentially using 3RR as an edit warring tool.
Hence you are adhering to the letter of the policy, while entirely circumventing
its spirit. And of course every little edit has to become an intense operation
with you two.

> What, putting an unblock request on your Talk: page isn't good enough
> for you? It's back to this list again any time you find yourself in
> conflict?

And there is something wrong with that?  In addition to supporting the
misreprestation of sources, you denounce the use of Wikien?
And then you have the nerve to cry "defiance, defiance, defiance."

> Anyway, Bastique, the admin who was so offended by the image
> in question that he twice deleted it from the page altogether, has now
> reduced your block to 24 hours. I'm sure the former has nothing to do
> with the latter.

Oh of course, 'We're the angels - *they are the POV trolls.' Its so simple.
'We never collude and mix our roles as the supreme guardians of NPOV with
our roles as administrators.' No, of course not.

Its sad, too because this... confusion between roles is not limited, and
probably a just as much a factor of wiki's growth entropy as it is an
opportunistic attempt at POV-pushing policy-lawyering.

-SV

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


from_name: Warhog

subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
The problem could easily be solved. When we recommend the user to upload a
text-file containing the information, we can also recommend which name that
file should have. For example if user X wants to load a file from
ftp://name:pw at example.org/~user/myfile.ogg mediawiki could automatically
search for a file ftp://name:pw at example.org/~user/mediawiki_access_id.txt (or
something like that). So the user cannot enter a specific GET-Target -
thereby prohibiting the behaviour we fear.

greetings

Am Freitag, 25. August 2006 00:33 schrieb Timwi:
> Simetrical wrote:
> > On 8/24/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> >>I was trying to address the security issues
> >>that come from the user's ability to cause the server to perform any GET
> >>request to any server.
> >
> > This is a problem why, provided the server is careful about what it
> > does with the response?
>
> It's not the response that's the problem, it's the GET request itself.
>
> Suppose some stupid web programmer programmed a forum where you can
> delete posts with a GET request. If you can fire GET requests to any
> server from Wikimedia's servers, then the forum's servers will only log
> Wikimedia's IPs, and the mass-deletion forum vandal is now untraceable.
>
> I'm sure there are even more significant cases that I haven't thought of.
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060825/c1b5df6c/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] Open question from an Election Official: on
 voters' elibiglity

body:
Aphaia wrote:

>Thank you for your interest on Election.
>
>Today I would like to invite you to an open question from me. About
>voters' eligibility. There is no discussion among three, mainly
>because two of them have been not available since the midst of this
>month, hence no opinion, there is no consensus based conclusion.
>
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elections_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%2C_2006/En#Open_question:_on_voters.27_elibiglity
>
>I could rather say "we will do so-and-so because of lack of
>consensus", without bother you with my question, but even if I should
>say so at that time, I think it would be nice to know what kind of
>trends are found among us, the community from hundreds projects,
>people from hundreds lands and languages.
>
>Cheers,
>
>
In America, only convicted felons loose the right to vote, and only in
certain states. People on probation have the right to vote, and people
from every social class and range of offenses have the right to vote
(except for convicted felons). No "Concensus" of citizens can strip from
any individual the right to vote in this country. This is because we are
an "enlightened society", not the forum of the Roman Senate where
splinter groups assassinate the emperor and and citizen or senator with
views we don't like, or the Court of Queen Elizabet in the 1500's where
you could loose your head for wearing the wrong color clothes on the
wrong day or criticize the queen. I thank God America doesn't run this
way, or most countries in modern times (except for a few in the middle
eastern countries).

Ultimately, the finanacial contributors to the Foundation will vote with
their $$$ to confirm your choices and practices. Banned users from the
whole of Wikimedia should not vote. Banned users from a particular
project should vtoe just not on that project. This isn't an article for
deletion, it's board members for the community. All the communities
should vote. I am glad you raised this issue because it shows exactly
where you stand, and I'm happy to know it.

Jeff


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
--- stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've always liked "Wikipedia - the people's encyclopedia"
>
> As in "Wikipedia - The People's Republic of..."
Should have a ? at the end...

"Wikipedia: Does Britannica have a soggy biscuit article?"

SV

> SV
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Stephen Streater

subject: [WikiEN-l] Licence request

body:
Hi!

Someone [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%
3AJimbo_Wales&diff=71723381&oldid=71704559 suggested] I post this
here. The original in on Jimbo Wales' talk page.

I am looking into licensing some Wiki IPR. Who should I talk to?
[[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 19:46, 24 August 2006
(UTC)
: I've been asked to be a bit more specific. My ideas often sound
controversial at first, so I'd appreciate it if you could work with
me on this one.
: So, to be more specific, I run an award winning service which
allows web-based editing and publishing of video, often uploaded over
the air from camera phones such as the [[Nokia N93]]. These can be
output in a variety of formats, and I would like to add a button
which will publish video directly in the free format supported by
Wikipedia, upload the videos directly from our servers to Wiki
Commons, and sort out all the licensing forms ready for signing off
by the user. Current publishing icons look like:
* a world (for web publishing / hosting with a built in Java player)
* a mobile phone (for mobile phone publishing / hosting)
* [[timecode]] (for [[EDL]]/[[XML]] text output for further editing
on other systems)
* [[iPod]] (for publishing/hosting video podcasts)
* MPEG (for MPEG 2 output)
* Ogg (for [[Ogg]] open video/audio formats - this is a new addition,
not reflected in the [[FORscene]] article yet as I've stopped editing
the article now following a suggestion at my RfA)

In order to add them to Wikipedia articles, Ogg videos currently have
to be downloaded over the web to a local computer, and then uploaded
manually to Wikipedia. This is significantly more work than users
have come to expect from the other formats, and not necessarily
possible on locked down / firewalled computers such as at work or in
a library or cybercaf?. I would like to add a new publishing option
which automatically uploads Ogg videos to Wikipedia. You can see a
couple of manually downloaded and uploaded videos made in this way
(shot on a mobile phone, and edited on the web) [http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bungy.ogg here] and [http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Medical.ogg here]. Given the
impoverished nature of video on Wikipedia (I couldn't find any other
videos uploaded this year), I feel this would help to the project by
encouraging editors to contribute their original video content under
the free licences here.

As this development would exclusively be used for publishing free
content to Wikipedia, I think it would be nice to use the Wikipedia
logo for this button. What do you think about this idea?
[[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 22:14, 24 August 2006
(UTC)

:See the wikitech-l thread starting at [http://mail.wikipedia.org/
pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-August/038163.html]. There's a discussion
there about allowing "upload" directly from another server. --
[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Thanks - an interesting thread. Luckily technical issues can be
solved :-) The largest video I've uploaded so far is 10MB, though
I've got some harder/longer ones to add. I've just set a longer one
off to test it. Coincidentally, people don't seem to watch long
videos on the web, so encouraging people to edit their material more
concisely may not be a bad thing. I'm new to Ogg, so haven't got a
feel for file sizes yet, but when I've converted a dozen or so
videos, I'll know how things compare with my usual web format.
[[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 23:20, 24 August 2006
(UTC)

::: The biggest video I've made so far is 47.9MB  in Ogg. Is the
upload limit 20MB or 100MB? [http://pro.forscene.net/ss1/published/
gIsa4-1152810274.can/ Here] is the current external Java streamed
version so you can see it now (size and frame rate adapt to your
connection speed). [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]]
08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That is specific enough to get the responses you need. I recommed you
also post the above details to http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/
wikien-l/ and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/ as it
seems to be a very interesting idea and worthy of consideration.
[[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen


from_name: Ryan Dabler

subject:
[Foundation-l] REMINDER: Skypecast - Wikipedia Conversation
	from Florida

body:
Will there be any way to record this conversation and upload it to Commons?
I'm not all that familiar with Skype, so I don't know if it's even
possible.  But this might be something worthwhile to make available to
everybody, especially since not every person will have the option of tuning
into the Skypecast for various reasons, regardless of if they wanted to.

Z


from_name: Austin Hair

body:
On 8/25/06, Ryan Dabler <zhaladshar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Will there be any way to record this conversation and upload it to Commons?
> I'm not all that familiar with Skype, so I don't know if it's even
> possible.  But this might be something worthwhile to make available to
> everybody, especially since not every person will have the option of tuning
> into the Skypecast for various reasons, regardless of if they wanted to.

On 8/25/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you cannot join online, I plan to make a podcast available.

Austin