subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

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

grm_wnr wrote:
> That's so true it isn't even funny. It also makes one think if it really
> would be all that bad if AfD was just shut down for a month like David
> Gerard proposed.  I personally think that merging an article isn't all
> that more complicated than setting up an AfD, if you see setting up an
> AfD as more than writing "nn v -~~~~". Your mileage may vary, of course.
I recently saw "D, totally NN". heh.

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQnUQVLzO3sKvVBcRAuKCAJ9zNrsF6Aqw4AH0rxv/K1yQu5oEbACfaWVs
KjKZH1Mny6FLP9dQSS8V0H8=
=h4c5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution attempt in the Ashida Kim case

body:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Brian Haws wrote:

> > Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > Alphax wrote:
> > > Hmm, looks like Wikipedia is going to become the New Usenet, where
> > > people will scream blue murder if you don't write about them exactly how
> > > they want you to (if at all)...
> >
> > Well, let's try to avoid being the New Usenet, whatever we do. :-)
> >
> > I have (clumsily, I'm not a very experienced editor) renominated the
> > page for deletion. My essential argument is that Ashida Kim is not
> > prominent, there is no verifiable information about him (no newspaper
> > articles, no nothing other than a bunch of message board flamewars and
> > his own website).
> >
> > I have noticed a trend in my personal correspondence recently. It seems
> > that what Wikipedia is attracting these days is spillover flamewars from
> > other parts of the net. Non-notable people who have rolling pissing
> > matches all over the web end up trolling (perhaps by accident) us, in
> > our goodnatured goodwill intention of getting it right in all cases, etc.
> >
> > In many such cases, it is not clear to me why we even have an article
> > about the person in the first place. Non-notable in the extreme,
> > troublemaking in the extreme, these kinds of cases absorb rather a great
> > deal of time for a lot of good people for no good purpose.
>
> I have to ask, you used the word notable a couple times in your reply
> but in the actual AFD entry description here you used verifiable
> information as a standard to judge inclusion.
>
> Do you see notablility as a inclusion standard? Or is notability just
> a another way to express that something can be verified. And as such
> doesn't have
> a separate meaning (in AFD debates) to judge Wilipedia inclusion standards?
>
The problem is not with using the word "non-notable": I'd dare say
that most of us would agree that non-notable topics exist, & that they
should be kept out of Wikipedia. The problem with the word is that too
many AfD nominations consist of "non-notable; Delete" -- & little if
anything else.

Jimbo has done something that I believe we can all work with: he explained
*why* this person is non-notable in suitable detail that not only can
another person debate the reasoning, but if the nomination carries this
case could be used as a precedent & perhaps become a new guideline. (His
argument is quite similar to what SlimVirgin had written about using Usenet
as a source a few months back.)

Maybe the solution for nominations that consist of "non-notable; Delete"
is to respond "Keep; Why?"

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 10

body:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, geni wrote:

> On 10/4/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> > However, Geni, you have touched on another matter. If the material
> > cited is unpublished, then we can't use it in Wikipedia. The policy is
> > that if you need to depend on unpublished primary material for an
> > article, have your research published first in an appropriate forum
> > (in your case, a local history journal or monograph), *then* quote
> > from there. As burdensome as this may seem, having your research
> > published elsewhere first helps Wikipedia to offer the assurance
> > that at least one set of expert eyes has examined the material we
> > are using.
>
> What about pictures?
>
What about them? Are they from these archives? If so, are they
permitted under GDFL or PD?

Geoff


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] What Readers Say on Inclusion

body:
Snowspinner wrote:

> On Oct 4, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> These are excellent observations.  My son's Social Studies teacher
>> is an info geek who is familiar with Wikipedia.  I should ask him  if
>> he would be willing to run a survey of his class asking:  "What
>> belongs in an encyclopedia?" and "What should not be in an
>> encyclopedia?"
>
> I think it would be important to specify "Wikipedia" not "an
> encyclopedia," so as to avoid treating Wikipedia like paper.

That approach is understandable, but I would not want to prejudice the
question to depend on whether or not they are familiar with Wikipedia.

My 15 year old son avoids admitting that he ever uses Wikipedia.  To do
so would involve admitting that he listens to his dad's suggestions. :-)

Ec


list: foundation-l

from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikimania-planning-l] Re: [Wikimania-l]
	Wikimania 2006 - shortlist chat - 20.00 UTC Sunday 2 Oct.-
	#wikimania on freenode

body:
On 10/4/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cormac Lawler wrote:
>
> > On 10/1/05, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Meeting to decide of the three shortlisted city will take place Sunday
> >
> > 2nd October 2005 in the #wikimania irc channel on freenode at 20.00
> > UTC.
> >
> >
> > Did anyone think to create a log of this meeting or save it in some form?
> >
> > Cormac
>
> I still have it if you still want it Cormac
>
> Ant
>

Thanks, Anthere,

Sj already posted a link to a log here:
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~sjklein/mania-meeting-log.txt

Cormac


list: wikimedia-l


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 10/4/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Other than that, I don't think there's anything we can't handle. I'd like to
>>>
>>>
>>>see us add the name, address, telephone number, and social security number
>>>
>>>
>>>of every person in the US, for instance.
>>>
>>>
>>That is a gross invasion of privacy and probably illegal.
>>
>>
>Not if the information is verifiable, it isn't.
>
A lot of the address and phone number material is available through
on-line phone books.

Social Security Numbers are available for deceased persons through the
Social Security Death Index.

Ec


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 09:52 -0400, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>
>>Other than that, I don't think there's anything we can't handle. I'd like to
>>see us add the name, address, telephone number, and social security number
>>of every person in the US, for instance.
>>
>>
>I presume you mean everyone in the world, not the US.
>
>
I don't think that the situation is yet so bad that the US is demanding
that everyone in the world have a Social Security Number.  This would
require numbers longer than the present nine digits.  A ten digit number
may be too metric to be acceptable by the general population of the
United States. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Three levels

body:
Alphax wrote:

>Phroziac wrote:
>
>
>>Alphax wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Often when I come across untagged CSDs I'll tag them and move on,
>>>>waiting for an admin to come and delete or list on AfD...
>>>>
>>>>
>>You an't an admin? Why?
>>
>>
>Because non-admins can deny being members of the cabal ;)
>
>
As another long time non-admin (at least in Wikipedia) I can never be
accused of abusing my admin powers.

Ec


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikimania-planning-l] Re: [Wikimania-l]
 Wikimania 2006 - shortlist
 chat - 20.00 UTC Sunday 2 Oct.-   #wikimania on freenode

body:
Cormac Lawler wrote:

> On 10/1/05, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Meeting to decide of the three shortlisted city will take place Sunday
>
> 2nd October 2005 in the #wikimania irc channel on freenode at 20.00
> UTC.
>
>
> Did anyone think to create a log of this meeting or save it in some form?
>
> Cormac

I still have it if you still want it Cormac

Ant


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Alphax wrote:
> Hmm, looks like Wikipedia is going to become the New Usenet, where
> people will scream blue murder if you don't write about them exactly how
> they want you to (if at all)...

Well, let's try to avoid being the New Usenet, whatever we do. :-)

I have (clumsily, I'm not a very experienced editor) renominated the
page for deletion.  My essential argument is that Ashida Kim is not
prominent, there is no verifiable information about him (no newspaper
articles, no nothing other than a bunch of message board flamewars and
his own website).

I have noticed a trend in my personal correspondence recently.  It seems
that what Wikipedia is attracting these days is spillover flamewars from
other parts of the net.  Non-notable people who have rolling pissing
matches all over the web end up trolling (perhaps by accident) us, in
our goodnatured goodwill intention of getting it right in all cases, etc.

In many such cases, it is not clear to me why we even have an article
about the person in the first place.  Non-notable in the extreme,
troublemaking in the extreme, these kinds of cases absorb rather a great
deal of time for a lot of good people for no good purpose.

--Jimbo


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Separate directory for in-progress database dumps?

body:
Hi,

For the backups (such as at
http://download.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/ ), can I please make a
suggestion?

Can the intermediate backup files please be placed in a separate
directory (e.g.
http://download.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/in-progress/ ), and only be
moved to the real directory once they are complete and there were no
errors (such as running out of disk space), so as to avoid confusion
about what is and what is not a complete and valid dump?

The reason I ask is that the file listing for this URL currently is
very confusing - for example, here are the compressed "full.xml" dump
files at this location, and their dates and file sizes:

=========================================================
20050713_pages_full.xml.gz	2005-Jul-16 16:25:28	29.9G
20050924_pages_full.xml.bz2	2005-Oct-01 03:52:03	11.3G
20051002_pages_full.xml.bz2	2005-Oct-03 19:35:09	1.7G
=========================================================

I have to presume that the "20051002_pages_full.xml.bz2" is an
in-progress dump, because it is one tenth of the size of the file of
the week before, despite using the same compression.

Then, once you start to second-guessing whether something is a
complete dump or not, it opens a can of worms: you then have to ask
whether the 20050924_pages_full.xml.bz2 dump is complete, given that
the previous dump is nearly 3 times the size. Or maybe it's because of
the difference between gzip and bzip2 .... who can say for sure?

All the best,
Nick.


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>That's what a phonebook is mostly for. Also, yes, the world, not the
>US. But how can such a thing be verifiable. Phone numbers and
>addresses change like the plague.
>
>With the kinks ironed out it may be a Wikimedia project, but it's
>certainly not encyclopedic material.
>
It's not policy that will keep material like this out of Wikipedia, but
the incredible boredom of the task.  If somebody wants to start it,
that's fine but I doubt that they will be at it after a month.  Six
months later it can probably be deleted as an abandoned experiment.

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Dispute resolution attempt in the Ashida Kim
	case

body:
geni wrote:
> On 10/4/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki at earthling.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm ready to get rid of the whole thing right now.
>>
>
>
> It has survived AFD. I doubt you would get a different desscission a
> second time around. The article is going no where.
>
> The best paralell is probably [[sollog]].

The difference is that Sollog was in fact notable, with newspaper
articles and so on.

In this case, I feel that many of the 'keep' votes were unfortunately
emotional reactions to Mr. Kim's hostility and general cluelessness.
One huge problem with the article is that virtually nothing in it is
actually verifiable by third-party sources.  All we have is back and
forth flamewars between "bullshido" and Ashida Kim himself.  And, let me
be blunt here, none of them are going to win a Pulitzer Prize for clear
communication skills.

I will of course defer to the community in this matter; it is not for me
to say what the limits of notability and verifiability are, at least not
directly.  But I do ask that people set aside any emotional desire to
fight Mr. Kim's insolence by forcing him to accept that we have a right
to have an article about him.

Yes, we have a right.  But, we don't care.  He and his little soi disant
ninja friends can go off and play their miniscule mock macho games
elsewhere.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 10/4/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If I were in such an edit war, I could carefully follow the time limits,
>>and be perfectly within the rules when my fourt revert was entered 24
>>hours and one minute after the clock started running, but the biggest
>>criticism of that practice is that I would be wasting my own time.
>>
>>
>Someone was blocked a while back for a revert at 24 hours and 8
>minutes.  The block stood, as I recall.
>
But why bother?  The claim that he was gaming the system may be
perfectly correct, but you can expect that when you have a context of
rigid rules.  Both parties are being stupid and wasting time.

Ec


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: problems with external editor: bookmarklets

body:
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Moeller
>>>>> <erik_moeller at gmx.de> writes:

   Erik> Uwe Brauer:

   Erik> Try visiting a URL like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/

   Erik> that is, add &externaledit=true after the &action=edit
   Erik> this should tell you if ee.pl is at all being called
   Erik> correctly. Make sure you are editing a wiki you have
   Erik> actually set up ee.ini to work with. Each Wikimedia wiki
   Erik> has its own user account database. The URL also needs to
   Erik> match the URL match listing in ee.ini.

Right, I was not aware of that. I created an account in
http://en.wikipedia.org, I set in preference the editor to

Use external editor by default

And I added in my ee.ini the lines

URL match=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ Username=myuserid
Password=mypasswd

Then I thought this would be enough for any wiki site in english,
like http://meta.wikipedia.org which is wrong as I understand
now.

So my I suggest to emphasise the following point:

    - create a account in the relevant wiki, say
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ (could me also
    http://meta.wikipedia.org)

    - set in preference the editor to "Use external editor by
    default"

    - set in ee.ini the following link URL
    match=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ Username=myuserid
    Password=mypasswd if it were http://meta.wikipedia.org, it
    should be URL match=http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/
    Username=myuserid Password=mypasswd

    I think this way even newcomers like me should understand it.

   Erik> The bookmarklet does nothing more than generating a URL
   Erik> like this from the page you're looking at, and telling
   Erik> your browser to visit it, so if this doesn't work,
   Erik> neither will the bookmarklet.

   Erik> Create a new bookmark/favorite in your browser and copy
   Erik> the JavaScript snippet exactly as it is into the field
   Erik> where you would normally write the URL of a webpage you
   Erik> want to visit. Visit the bookmark/favorite whenever you
   Erik> want to use the external editor. But again, make sure
   Erik> ee.pl is set up correctly first, or you will have to
   Erik> debug two things at the same time.

ok
   Erik> I've tried to expand the instructions on Meta with the above; let me
   Erik> know if it makes sense to you.

  The part about that javascript is now clear, and I think it was
  especially useful to mention, that the perl script has already to be
  installed correctly!!!

Thanks and regards

Uwe


subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 10/4/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 10/4/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists,
>>>but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even
>>>though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists
>>>wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
>>>
>>>
>>Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as
>>well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or
>>we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing
>>sides.
>>
>>
>We could call them HITLER!!!!11!
>
>
That guy was imprisoned in the 1920s and that gave him the free time to
write his literary masterpiec.  Let's be thankful that there was no
Wikipedia at that time, or he might have used it to write a version of
the AFD rules with a clarity that rivals that of the present rules. :-)

Ec


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR

body:
On 10/4/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> If I were in such an edit war, I could carefully follow the time limits,
> and be perfectly within the rules when my fourt revert was entered 24
> hours and one minute after the clock started running, but the biggest
> criticism of that practice is that I would be wasting my own time.

Someone was blocked a while back for a revert at 24 hours and 8
minutes.  The block stood, as I recall.

Kelly


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

body:
> > This would swing the balance too far in favor of the deletionists.
> > The unsourced statement would have to be unreasonable. Obvious
> > common knowledge statements should not have to be sourced, and
> > someone edit warring, demanding that every petty statement be sourced
> > is being unreasonable, and should not be rewarded by being allowed to
> > impose a burden upon other editors.
>
> Oh, I don't know - we managed to find a source for the statement "the
> Earth is round" :)

What a waste of time though, if you would rather have been making other contributions.
                   -- Silverback


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:

> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 10/4/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 10/4/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists,
>>>> but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even
>>>> though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists
>>>> wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as
>>> well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or
>>> we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing
>>> sides.
>>>
>>
>> We could call them HITLER!!!!11!
>>
>>
> That guy was imprisoned in the 1920s and that gave him the free time to
> write his literary masterpiec.  Let's be thankful that there was no
> Wikipedia at that time, or he might have used it to write a version of
> the AFD rules with a clarity that rivals that of the present rules. :-)

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of deletionists
suddenly sighed happily....

--
 Sean Barrett     | The Internet is totally out of control,
 sean at epoptic.com | impossible to map accurately, and being used far
                  | beyond its original intentions. So far, so good.


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ip range block

body:
admin wrote:
> 23:32, 3 October 2005, Talrias
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talrias> blocked 217.43.0.0/16
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:217.43.0.0/16> (expires 23:32, 5
> October 2005) (contribs
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=217.43.0.0/16>)
> (Irish republican vandal (please email User:Talrias
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talrias>).)
>
> this seems to block a range of ips?

The block did ask you to email me if it hit you.

The reason I blocked this range of IPs was to prevent the Irish
republican vandal (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.43.198.7). This user has been
inserting pro-Republican material into Wikipedia (typically
non-mainstream views such as the CIRA is the legitimate ruler of the
entirety of Ireland; rejection of various treaties between the UK and
the RoI). He's been using a number of IP addresses that fall within
217.43.0.0/16 but as I see there are other contributors within this
range of IPs.

What ISP are you using, and is it dialup? Do you get a
dynamically-generated IP address or is it the same each time?

Chris


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
In the light of the recent escalation of the Ashida Kim case on Wikipedia, I
have registered on Ashida Kim's board and made the following post in the
General forum as a good faith attempt to open a dialog as the first step in
resolving this issue. My username is Tony Sidaway.

I don't think either Wikipedia or Ashida Kim comes out of this smelling of
roses. I speak as an experienced editor and administrator at Wikipedia, and
the person who last unprotected the article Ashida Kim on Wikipedia. I do
not speak for Wikipedia, with which I have no formal connections, but as an
individual. On Wikipedia, an administrator is like a mod on forums, a
trusted editor who performs clerical tasks. Wikipedia is huge so there are
hundreds of us.

First let me explain, without defensiveness, the way in which Wikipedia
works. I'll do this solely in order that you'll understand why it behaves in
the way it does.

First, it's a wiki, so anyone can edit it, unless we take the trouble to
block them, which we can do by username or by IP. As you have found, it's
extremely easy to evade a Wikipedia block. As you have also found, Wikipedia
has immense human resources who are very vigilant, so it's difficult for
anyone to evade a Wikipedia block for long.

Second, it's run by consensus of the users. The content of an article,
subject to legal requirements such as copyright and defamation law, is
decided by consensus. This is supplemented with policies of good faith
editing, verifiability and neutrality.

Our deletion debates seem to have puzzled Ashida Kim. Contrary to his
belief, we don't automatically delete an article if it's a vandalism
target--having such a policy would make any article easy to destroy by
malicious vandalism. Scientologists could attack the article on Scientology,
creationists could attack the article on Evolution, and so on. We debate
deletion to decide whether there is a rough consensus (which is usually 2/3
or more of those voting) to delete. Editors in a deletion debate are
expected to make their decision in good faith, and if a person with few
edits appears in such a debate this may be taken as a sign of bad faith.
Votes from so-called "meat puppets", people who appear on Wikipedia as a
result of an exhortation on a board such as that we have seen from Ashida
Kim, are not counted, and their appearance to vote in this way is often
interpreted as a breach of good faith. This is because Wikipedia decisions
are supposed to be those of the community, not of outsiders rounded up to
pack a debate. Nevertheless a person who appears "out of the blue" and gives
persuasive arguments may sway others in a debate.

I'm not happy with the article at present. It falls short of the quality I
expect from Wikipedia, and I will probably take the opportunity to edit it
towards a more neutral point of view when next it is unprotected. In that
sense you can regard me as a potential friend on Wikipedia, and one whose
voice is generally respected so my opinions will be listened to. But that's
by-the-by. This doesn't mean I'm sympathetic to Ashida Kim or his methods,
only that I'm committed to Wikipedia's ethic of neutrality.

Another point on which I think Ashida Kim may have a legitimate complaint is
that the names and contact details of his friends were apparently placed
into the article and Wikipedia may have been tardy in its response to this
invasion of privacy. In my opinion that content should have been removed
from the article editing history as soon as practically possible. Without
examining what happened and when, which would take some time, I can't say
for sure, but I take Ashida Kim's complaints in good faith and accept that
there may be a case to answer. I will investigate further and recommend
policy changes if I think they will help to stop Wikipedia being used for
malicious purposes.

Ashida Kim's response to the situation, using private details about the
founder of Wikipedia in a tit-for-tat attack, is in my opinion
understandable although I do not condone it and hope that he will
reconsider. This kind of escalation makes problem resolution more difficult
to achieve. However I admit that in one sense it has been productive--it has
focused my attention on Ashida Kim's legitimate complaint of invasion of
privacy.

I think that we can arrive at a compromise that all will be happy with. We
have tens of thousands of biographical articles of living people on
Wikipedia, and only a tiny handful have ever been the cause of any serious
problems.

I hope to start a dialog with a view to solving these problems. If email is
preferred, please use the email address minorityreport at bluebottle.com,
otherwise respond here. *

Edited by: Tony
Sidaway<http://p206.ezboard.com/bashidakimmessageboards.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tonysidaway at ashidakimmessageboards>at:
10/4/05 8:46
*


list: commons-l

from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: Fwd: [Commons-l] Re: failure notice

body:
Nope, just a typo in the address. There's no such thing as
club-intrenet. However, there is a provider called : club-internet :P

I have answered to the guy on his talk page and will be sending him an email.

Best,

Delphine

On 10/4/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> je pense que ceci r?sout le probl?me...
>
> Ant
>
> --- MAILER-DAEMON at yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
> > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to
> > the following addresses.
> > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it
> > didn't work out.
> >
> > <zivax at club-intrenet.fr>:
> > Sorry, I couldn't find any host named
> > club-intrenet.fr. (#5.1.2)
> >
> > --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
> >
> > Return-Path: <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> > Received: (qmail 47074 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Oct
> > 2005 11:45:51 -0000
> > DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
> >   s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
> >
> >
> h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
> >
> >
> b=h8klirIjqTMjZaFQj+cipeNvudZrAntEbrYfOfVYlQQD0HP7q/Lx10owTNb4LdqVrNrr+oLm8r2s506WvVOeSWVchWyF7yluMJxTFhoxSd0ddOeZuhZVH9eBh1qt5fbNbt4ayiTHdpoHrilb4ev91SdeL++u/T5sKCyzHec7Tgk=
> >  ;
> > Message-ID:
> >
> <20051004114551.47072.qmail at web32907.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> > Received: from [83.205.50.250] by
> > web32907.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 04 Oct
> > 2005 04:45:50 PDT
> > Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 04:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: courriel envoy? depuis Wikimedia
> > Commons
> > To: Zivax <zivax at club-intrenet.fr>
> > Cc: commons-l at wikimedia.org
> > In-Reply-To:
> > <200510041043.j94AhhAJ001690 at srv15.pmtpa.wmnet>
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >
> >
> > Bonjour,
> >
> > Je crois que les habitants de Wikicommons ont une
> > politique tr?s "ferme" vis ? vis des licences.
> >
> > Je ne sais pas trop ce que tu as fait... tu ne
> > pouvais
> > d?j? pas ?diter sous ip, puisqu'? priori l'upload
> > des
> > images requiert un compte utilisateur.
> >
> > Y a t-il un francophone qui puisse aider ?
> >
> > Anthere
> >
> > --- Zivax <zivax at club-intrenet.fr> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > J'ai implant?(c) des images de wiki Anglais sur
> > > commons...j'ai eu mon I.P de retir?(c), et depuis je
> > > me retrouve dans la panade compl??te, car
> > certaines
> > > photos m'?(c)taient donn?(c)es par leurs auteurs.
> > > Les articles cr?(c)?(c)s sur wikip?(c)dia n'ont plus
> > > d'images autoris?(c)es...j'ai commis qqlqs erreurs
> > > mais tout retirer je trouve cela peu
> > diplomate...je
> > > suis nouveau sur wiki mais honn??te. Je fais mon
> > > mea-culpa pour les erreurs mais j???apprends au
> > fur
> > > et ? mesure.
> > > Comment rattraper le coup.. ? ? ?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

--
~notafish

--
~notafish


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>In the light of the recent escalation of the Ashida Kim case on Wikipedia, I
>have registered on Ashida Kim's board and made the following post in the
>General forum as a good faith attempt to open a dialog as the first step in
>resolving this issue. My username is Tony Sidaway.
>http://p206.ezboard.com/bashidakimmessageboards.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tonysidaway at ashidakimmessageboards

Nice one :-) If they're amenable to reasonable discussion, this should
be just the thing.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
geni stated for the record:

> On 10/4/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>>I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of deletionists
>>suddenly sighed happily....
>
>
> Pleaze hitler was the guy who felt that a street thug (horst wessel)
> was worthy of his own song. As a result we have anb article on this
> otherwise nn street thug.

Ooo!  Let's have a flame war about whether Hitler would have be an
inclusionist or a deletionist!  He collected countries, but deleted
people ... hmmm....

--
 Sean Barrett     | The Internet is totally out of control,
 sean at epoptic.com | impossible to map accurately, and being used far
                  | beyond its original intentions. So far, so good.


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 09:52 -0400, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> Other than that, I don't think there's anything we can't handle. I'd like to
> see us add the name, address, telephone number, and social security number
> of every person in the US, for instance.

I presume you mean everyone in the world, not the US.

Personally even if this was accepted, you would want a bot to do it (and
update it). If I now added my phone number it would be afd pretty
quickly.

Justinc


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abandon hope banner on subscription page

body:
Phroziac wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Alphax wrote:
>
>
>>Can one of the list admins edit the subscription page to put a big
>>header saying "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"?
>>
>>
>
>Use {{abandon hope}} to do it!
>
>
I tried that once, on AFD, didn't go over so well, even though it was
funny for the 1 miniute before the revert.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Ryan Norton

body:
>
>> Maybe the solution for nominations that consist of "non-notable;
>> Delete"
>> is to respond "Keep; Why?"
>
> *nod*
>
> "Non-notable; delete" is a pretty lame vote. :-)  But so is "notable;
> keep".
>
> --Jimbo

----
*Delete, not notable Fred Bauder 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
----

That will now be memorialized on my user page!!!!

> Thanks,
Ryan

[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN
Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org


body:
David Gerard wrote:
>Tony Sidaway wrote:

>>In the light of the recent escalation of the Ashida Kim case on Wikipedia, I
>>have registered on Ashida Kim's board and made the following post in the
>>General forum as a good faith attempt to open a dialog as the first step in
>>resolving this issue. My username is Tony Sidaway.
>>http://p206.ezboard.com/bashidakimmessageboards.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tonysidaway at ashidakimmessageboards

>Nice one :-) If they're amenable to reasonable discussion, this should
>be just the thing.

Looks like he's, er, not:

===
 Tony,
I could care less about your policies.
By your own admission my friends are not allowed to vote. In fact,
they are blocked every time they even try to say something nice about
me, so they game is rigged.
Hiding behind pleasantries doesn't make it right. This is the same
circular logic as Clinton trying to defend himself by defining "what
is, is."
I don't want to "open a discussion on the subject." We have already
had more than enough of that waste of time on the Wiki board.
I ask one thing: to be taken off your website altogether and not to be
put back up when you think we aren't looking. That is the only way
SOME of the slander of Bullshido will stop. I am not the Church of
Scientology or any other big outfit. Just a humble guy who loves
martial arts and has a lot of fun in my life studying, practicing and
teaching them. Been really lucky to have written a few books and made
a lot of friends along the way.
Bullshido is just jealous, you are just helping them. Stop it. End of story.
Ashida Kim
===

Ah well.

- d.


body:
On 10/4/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> >Nice one :-) If they're amenable to reasonable discussion, this should
> >be just the thing.
>
>
> Looks like he's, er, not:
>
>
Oh well, I gave it my best shot. If anyone else has some ideas?

My opinion is that this guy has legitimate privacy complaints we can and
should act on, but we shouldn't expect him to thank us for it, because he
wants the article gone from Wikipedia.


body:
On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, at 02:31  PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> Ashida Kim may be a popular author, and we should note his books, but
>> we
>> don't need to host his interminable catfights.
>
> And if he _is_ a popular author, we ought to be able to find some
> evidence of it.  (Finding isbn numbers in amazon for admittedly
> self-published books is not sufficient for me personally.  There's
> nothing wrong with self-publishing, but if I'm interested in
> notability,
> I'd want some sort of external verification.)
>
> --Jimbo

Yeah - just remember that AfD isn't a one-time process. Often with all
the mirror hits and whatnot wikipedia gets it makes it difficult for
people to verify what's real and what's not (this applies to every
subject, especially original research).

The Ashida Kim nomination is a good case. If someone looks at the last
VfD it was nearly to keep. Now in this one it was initially all to
keep, then the regulars like myself began to come in, and now as you
see the deletes are starting to pile on. Probably won't result in that
though - one of the things is that a lot of people don't change their
vote much (I and some regulars do though), so often a subject has to be
renominated a few times before there is finally a consensus on the
issue, as many times it finally gets deleted mostly because the people
who voted keep in the last discussion see the "new" arguments there (it
would be either if they kept a close eye on the conversation though).

So, it works more or less... sometimes it just takes a few tries for
either deletion or keeping :). Its not perfect though :\.

Thanks,
Ryan

[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN
Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org


body:
>
>
> So, it works more or less... sometimes it just takes a few tries for
> either deletion or keeping :). Its not perfect though :\.
>

Oh yeah - and you're supposed to wait a month after the last VfD...
that alone might tank this one too...

Thanks,
Ryan

[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN
Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org


subject: Fwd: [Commons-l] Re: failure notice

body:
On 10/4/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Anthere wrote:
> > yes, but did you notice that I received the mail with this broken address ?
> > I did not make a typo in copying the address to answer him...
> > How could he send it then ?
> >
>
> It's possible to set the "from:" header to anything you want. If you
> view the full headers of the message you can learn all sorts of
> interesting things, eg. what program was used to send the email.
>

And funnily enough, I did a reply to the mail Anthere sent and
although the from addresse was wrong,t he reply to was good.

:-)

Delphine
--
~notafish


from_name: geni

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Becoming more encyclopedia-like: 1: Encephalon's
	comments

body:
On 10/4/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> So speedy it and ban the user(s)/IP(s) who keep adding it.

Can't remeber it would not even have been through AFD once.

> (Another one to add to the blocking policy: Users who add Total Bullshit
> /WILL/ be banned, no questions asked.)

Could be a honest mistake.

--
geni


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Afd nominations

body:
"Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote in
message news:4341D9A6.4090806 at telus.net...
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>>It only gets problematic if people fail to provide enough information
>>in the first place. You can't expect AFD voters to spend more than 10
>>minutes of research on their argument. In such a case simply expanding
>>and providing such info to the voters is much more productive than
>>arguing against deletion.
>>
> If they fail to give sources it doesn't even take 10 minutes to figure
> that out.  It's easier to use that criterion than to try to establish a
> lack of notability.

...in which case, {{Not verified}} is a better tool to reach for than
{{afd}}
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
On 10/4/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists,
> but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even
> though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists
> wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
>
>
> - d.

Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as
well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or
we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing
sides.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Do 3RR rules favor the contributer or the deletionist?

body:
On 10/4/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> ABCD wrote:
> > On 10/4/05, Alphax wrote:
> >
> >>You mean the cabal isn't like that already?
> >>
> >>I must be in the wrong cabal...
> >
> >
> > TINC.
> >
>
> What! Then who have I been paying membership fees to?
>
>
That's what I've been wondering, ever since I got that email that started
"Worshipful Sir, I am the widow of former Nigerian President Sanni Abacha,
and I wish to prevail upon your bounteous goodwill in recovering his cabal
worth millions of US dollars..."


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikitech-l] makesysop, steward interface and a request

body:
Hello,

So as I learned stewards are now inactive due to the disabled
steward interface, but I cannot really find info (apart from the
brief "it may break replication", whatever "it" might be), so if someone
would be so kind as to share what happened or the details would be great.

More importantly I have to ask whether it's possible to set
rights manually by a developer or it breaks replication (however
may it happen) as well as the steward interface did? Shall I
keep trying to find someone to set the flag or shall I wait
for how long (a good guesstimation is okay).

Thanks,
Peter


body:
Brian Haws wrote:

> I have to ask, you used the word notable a couple times in your reply
>  but in the actual AFD entry description here you used verifiable
> information as a standard to judge inclusion.
>
> Do you see notablility as a inclusion standard? Or is notability just
>  a another way to express that something can be verified. And as such
>  doesn't have a separate meaning (in AFD debates) to judge Wilipedia
> inclusion standards?

Yes, I very strongly think that notability is a valid inclusion standard.

And the best way to judge notability, socially, is verifiability.  But
even things which are verifiable can and should in many cases be
deleted.  It would be quite possible to start posting detailed
information about private individuals by combing through online tax
records.  We could even have a bot to do it.  And it would all be
verifiable from reliable sources.  But I think it clear that we would
not do that because detailed information about private individuals is
not notable.

And we should recognize that some social problems we have been having
lately can be traced back to flamewars between non-notable people on the
Internet spilling over into Wikipedia.  This case is probably the best
example.

--Jimbo


body:
Geoff Burling wrote:
> Jimbo has done something that I believe we can all work with: he explained
> *why* this person is non-notable in suitable detail that not only can
> another person debate the reasoning, but if the nomination carries this
> case could be used as a precedent & perhaps become a new guideline. (His
> argument is quite similar to what SlimVirgin had written about using Usenet
> as a source a few months back.)

And additionally, I should note, my presumption of non-notability could
be easily defeated by pointing to an article or two in legitimate
mainstream martial arts magazines.  Or, as in the case of Sollog, a
newspaper article or two about him being eccentric would suffice.

> Maybe the solution for nominations that consist of "non-notable; Delete"
> is to respond "Keep; Why?"

*nod*

"Non-notable; delete" is a pretty lame vote. :-)  But so is "notable; keep".

--Jimbo


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Ashida Kim may be a popular author, and we should note his books, but we
> don't need to host his interminable catfights.

And if he _is_ a popular author, we ought to be able to find some
evidence of it.  (Finding isbn numbers in amazon for admittedly
self-published books is not sufficient for me personally.  There's
nothing wrong with self-publishing, but if I'm interested in notability,
I'd want some sort of external verification.)

--Jimbo


body:
On 10/4/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki at earthling.net> wrote:
> I'm ready to get rid of the whole thing right now.
>

It has survived AFD. I doubt you would get a different desscission a
second time around. The article is going no where.

The best paralell is probably [[sollog]].

--
geni


body:
On 10/4/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> geni wrote:
> > On 10/4/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>So speedy it and ban the user(s)/IP(s) who keep adding it.
> >
> >
> > Can't remeber it would not even have been through AFD once.
> >
>
> What about the undelete history?
>

Can't see how to fit that in with policy.

--
geni


from_name: Phroziac

subject:
[WikiEN-l] I ask you to consider whether this block was
	not	malicious and frivolous

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

Herschel Krustofsky wrote:
> To whom it may concern:
>
> I believe that I have been blocked by an administrator for frivolous reasons, as part of a campaign of personal animosity that constitutes [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]. The administrator in question is Willmcw, and the ostensible reasons for the block are posted at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FLyndon_LaRouche_2]. My initial responses are also available at that location and at [[Talk:American System (economics)]]. Further response on those pages by me has, of course, been blocked.
>
> If you will examine this exchange: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Willmcw#LaRouche] ...on Willmcw's talk page, you will note that, despite the rather furtive language, the topic is the best means to prevent "H", that is, myself, from editing. Willmcw and his correspondent, SlimVirgin, are clearly aware of the impropriety of either of them banning me, since they have both engaged me in protracted POV conflicts. They also make reference to recent discussions of "WikiCliques or POV posses," indicating that they are aware that their behavior is under scrutiny. SlimVirgin advises Willmcw to persuade a third party, Snowspinner, to block me.
>
> In this exchange: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snowspinner#ArbCom_enforcement] ...Willmcw approaches Snowspinner on this matter. We have only Willmcw's side of the discussion, but it is apparent that Snowspinner is unwilling to be a party to it. Willmcw then decided to block me himself that same day.
>
> The portion of the relevant ArbCom decision which is used to justify the ban is the following:
> "4) Herschelkrustofsky is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week." In the talk page in question ([[Talk: American System (economics)]], there are a grand total of two participants: Willmcw and myself. Therefore it is certainly questionable as to whether "a majority of those commenting" took Willmcw's side in the matter. Willmcw apparent sought to obfuscate this matter in this edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_System_%28economics%29&diff=24356839&oldid=24353961]. Willmcw had the option of posting a Request for Comment in hopes of soliciting some allies, but he did not avail himself of this option.
>
> My request to readers of this list, is that they examine the relevant talk page and other exchanges, to determine whether this ban by Willmcw was not made frivolously and maliciously.   -HK
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! for Good
>  Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
By the way, wikimarkup doesn't work on email. :)

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQr8wVLzO3sKvVBcRAuhXAJ0Wtg9ZHkcmj/0OvffjshjMX67iTwCeIlzk
kSCT2NeBY/eWPkA+ZFyCeaw=
=AJlV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia as community service

body:
On 04/10/05, Greg Andrews <gregandrews at gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, another idea of mine was to write an article on doing just this,
> using Wikipedia for school community service.  Does such an article
> exist already?  Would it be suitable for Wikipedia, or might it be
> better placed on Wikibooks or similar?

Perhaps put something at [[Wikipedia:School and university projects]]?

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 10/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's what a phonebook is mostly for. Also, yes, the world, not the
> US. But how can such a thing be verifiable. Phone numbers and
> addresses change like the plague.

Where can I download a free phonebook on the web? How can a phone number be
verifiable? Add a date.

With the kinks ironed out it may be a Wikimedia project, but it's
> certainly not encyclopedic material.

That's certainly arguable, and in most cases probably true.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
Alphax wrote:

>Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>
>>Just as a quick thought/addendum/pointing-out-thing, it might be
>>important to keep in mind that readership of webcomics waxes and wanes,
>>and webcomics "die" from time to time. This should probably be specified
>>as a 5000-person audience at any point in the webcomic's run, since
>>otherwise webcomics might get unfairly deleted based on current
>>popularity as opposed to "historical" popularity.
>>
>>
>
>Oh good, that means we can delete all the articles on Pokemon, B-grade
>afternoon soaps, one-hit wonders, and the Roman Empire, right? *ducks*
>
>
I think one of us is failing to understand the other somehow - my
addendum was supposed to make it _harder_ to delete webcomic articles
(by reminding people not to forget about historical popularity as
opposed to just what the readership happens to be right at this moment),
and it had nothing to do with any of those other things you mention at
all. I don't see any connection.

Of course, the "*ducks*" at the end of your comment also suggests that
this wasn't meant seriously, so perhaps I'm simply failing to get the
joke. :)


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

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

geni wrote:

>On 10/5/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>>Here's a plan. What if we lower the threshold for speedy deletion, but keep
>>speedily deleted articles viewable by all logged in users for one week?
>>
>
>Increases the pressure on admins.

I'd be happy to accept that pressure.

- - Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQyuI6MKb8lYmCtcRAqOjAJ967EQ5igckwq7D4g0SFU9l3sYGJgCgrAc4
VFrx1XSHCJKQSEQ+uuao9NY=
=8rjX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Alphax wrote:
> Nope, now it's a day behind...
What timezone are you in? I'm in GMT-4, and it's set right here.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQssXVLzO3sKvVBcRAif+AJsGKp8Hi20CpwE97YMrchiqUcEOiACcDTNW
b8sZ0s9qa+G5ZbWRIB9QAMI=
=84aP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

geni wrote:
> On 10/3/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>adding the "afd" template
>>creating the nomination page
>>transcluding the nomination page on the day log
>>discussing, examining, researching, and extending the article
>>scanning the day log to find the unclosed AfD
>>determining a consensus, closing the debate and deleting or removing the tag
>>performing redirects and merges that may result.
>
>
> You missed reading through the instructions for listing since the seem
> to change more often than I list stuff.
>
>

What if the instructions change when you are halfway through listing it? :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0JF3rMAAH8MeUlWAQhj/wf/W86aIHhCpayftEeYidU6zUVCmTxq/cp8
bAe03gS9JcBc26qW0X1OdY0pCOgIwIQKhYqXMbYwx8lAH+yfpdscuZDxpx+trelS
/uYbwZEFW55XjkW+KdOwOwR632u56YUDfZAV/xBur4SXe2G0H1O5gQVIxzydX+9i
uBA4jZ4KJQIybkH8e1VMVqrQR8olf+KIvRr3EWXWN+hIRoOFmPOt4oI69dmttMhs
Z3BUNkiPdKsYwjCvuaL154asJKE0uAJfeWqvYYJLZjrMlXlNwn4eoTHfbNGZ+k2F
GlL7eI1PdfJrmrFhlsHf5HBSOUZtEPbcWNevdDgF+b51TdkDPCTyug==
=FjQQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Bryan Derksen wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>> For example, books should have a 5000 people audience according to
>> current guidelines. Since webcomics don't have the limitation of being
>> released in one country and not in another, the potential audience for
>> it is larger, so I see 5000 people audience as a reasonable criterion
>> for inclusion of a certain webcomic.
>>
>>
> Just as a quick thought/addendum/pointing-out-thing, it might be
> important to keep in mind that readership of webcomics waxes and wanes,
> and webcomics "die" from time to time. This should probably be specified
> as a 5000-person audience at any point in the webcomic's run, since
> otherwise webcomics might get unfairly deleted based on current
> popularity as opposed to "historical" popularity.

Oh good, that means we can delete all the articles on Pokemon, B-grade
afternoon soaps, one-hit wonders, and the Roman Empire, right? *ducks*

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0JGYrMAAH8MeUlWAQjU0ggAtcGyzxJd6IPRhhU+kmPBJuWyl+DHYNHg
Lwn5aT5p9wqxLQ+9O8LAJM1Mww6DbiqLyIPy0nYsWAc5r4i2k/XLiI+8XM3o3qJC
Y7SNygNKkPsWBYGMby/Vy9QZCPduLjtybfFaZO+bn9/uFkpwhSDtL8CMt6RSj/eZ
LYJpRhYcygX6SwalxfGCrFEEWMqswNz+U6+vOBVgRLRFHpzKn+oKmnulsLZoo7R6
GJhEf5hlNhWm/TJYz0McW8+Pvdt2D2uaeaFGPZbehUVLshjMGG0lP9Yfac0FGMEO
thLo2GUbUzOOzvXWlxJeC4aFLEZFOsGVvQg8h/B8fjZ5sFCULRC/Lw==
=KD8B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
It is frequently said that Wikipedia is not paper. Specifically,
"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no
practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than
verifiability and the other points presented on this page."

But paper is not paper, either. That is, paper encyclopedias are NOT
physically limited in size. Some encylopedias (Columbia) have one
volume. Some have more. The first edition of the Encyclopedia
Britannica had three volumes; the Eleventh Edition had 29. The
current Britannica 3 has 32 volumes.

(By the way, the Britannica states, rather hyperbolically, that those
32 volumes offer "a boundless range of information.")

Is the print Britannica limited to 32 volumes by some kind of
physical law? Certainly not. In fact, tens of thousands of households
that purchase print encyclopedias wisely or foolish subscribe to
yearbook programs, often for many years, until they get tired of
gluing little cross-reference stickers into their volumes. So the
number of books on the shelf actually grows.

But there is a practical limit of about thirty volumes for a print
publication, isn't there? No, there isn't. The existence proof is any
journal. Journals can and do grow linearly, year after year, into
long rows of bound volumes which libraries, if not homes, manage to
find room for on their shelves. I am sure that some homes have more
than 30 bound-volumes-worth of the National Geographic neatly stacked
up in attics or basements.

So what DOES set the limit to what an encyclopedia can include? It is
not any physical characteristic, whether measured in quarto leaves or
in bytes.

It is that little detail, "verifiability and the other points
presented on this page."

The limit to what an encyclopedia can include is governed basically
by the available labor of editors to integrate, synthesize, verify,
copy-edit, and fact-check.

What this tells me is that it should be possible to get some kind of
reasonable estimate of an appropriate size for Wikipedia by
estimating the number of work-hours WIkipedias volunteers put in, and
comparing it with the number of work-hours available to the Britannica.

If we're putting in three times as much work, we should be able to
cover three times as much content.

If we try to cover more content than the Britannica without putting
in more work than the Britannica, then our reach is exceeding our grasp.

I have no idea how to even begin estimating these numbers, but I
think it would be instructive to try.


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

geni wrote:
> On 10/3/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>The other recommendation that I would make is that any substantive
>>change to an article after it has been nominated for deletion would
>>reset the clock for the deletion timetable.  Perhaps all "votes" made
>>prior to that change should be declared void, allowing those voters to
>>cast a new vote.
>>
>>Ec
>
>
> Person produces hoax. Listed on vfd. After 4 days they change the
> hoax. Repeat untill we get fed up. Also look for arguments over the
> defintion of substantive.
>
>

So speedy it and ban the user(s)/IP(s) who keep adding it.

(Another one to add to the blocking policy: Users who add Total Bullshit
/WILL/ be banned, no questions asked.)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0JHXLMAAH8MeUlWAQhecgf/ZRe7R5K2SzBap6MEDf3fm5FU3om8Gsq6
A7ZgnKFtQ8Di+3Thunn8UYn7yPRVaxFeaBeHO8RLUTA3VDdVYyLwxAfOYIK+LUCW
06cd9+T50IObXprjIrf8rUqiRhz5n3CpW3JD9GV+UXNncL43tzuzBB6OD3H8jtcz
h2v+G5dv/K/bwPraLP142QRD2i0YSOafabzix1gl3BeXeII6fLZVL77IHsNTeT0+
ZE2Lvn20zIlwvHhuKTyoljJ5m6KuQyPNp+fN7m54IxWTEKF9FRrh0vN0XE5yp+3p
kJTb4so7SLYZScQlSNao/TTHG3zrrld4TlVJ3k0vLNjlz3h81RLPxA==
=na4q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> That's what I've been wondering, ever since I got that email that started
> "Worshipful Sir, I am the widow of former Nigerian President Sanni Abacha,
> and I wish to prevail upon your bounteous goodwill in recovering his cabal
> worth millions of US dollars..."
Nigerian advance fee cabal?

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQs2dVLzO3sKvVBcRAj+uAJwOKJB6PX6SihLUC7bc4cz6+p/V5ACfQxnk
uz19PYzARU0aobQvbLDMCvk=
=zgH1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 34

body:
>> On Oct 4, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>> These are excellent observations.  My son's Social Studies teacher
>>> is an info geek who is familiar with Wikipedia.  I should ask
>>> him  if
>>> he would be willing to run a survey of his class asking:  "What
>>> belongs in an encyclopedia?" and "What should not be in an
>>> encyclopedia?"
>>>
>>
>> I think it would be important to specify "Wikipedia" not "an
>> encyclopedia," so as to avoid treating Wikipedia like paper.

WHAT?

I've suspected for some time that there is a faction that does not
think Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, but this is the first time
I've seen this stated in so many words.

So much for "five pillars."

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Three levels

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Michael Turley wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Michael Turley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I previously didn't like the idea of public article rating schemes,
>>>> but I was wrong to express my opposition before waiting to see what
>>>> would develop.  This could be a very good use indeed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think that articles which fall below a certain threshhold (eg.
>>> - -100) should be deleted, or just hidden? Or should the current article
>>> rating be displayed in big red numbers at the top of the article?
>>>
>>
>> Deletion should never be an automatic process.  I've seen far too many
>> articles "saved" while on AfD to support that.
>>
> That impatient drive for automation and decisions that require minimal
> thoughtful effort is a big part of the social problem around deletion.
> Before I trust an editor I look to see the work that he is doing.
> Deletions and proposed deletions are a subset of one's edits.  If that
> subset takes up too big a proportion of his edits I become suspicious.
> So I look at his deletion practices to see how he exercises judgement.
> I've lurked at numerous VFD/AFD entries and done nothing, mostly because
> the subject matter was only marginal to my interests.  But my
> observations would certainly note the reccurrence of certain editors'
> names, and my trust would be affected accordingly.
>

Same here. Hence I was a bit dubious at suggesting auto-deletion...

> The problem with automated process is that they do not require the
> intervention of a brain.  It is conceivable that some deletions could be
> done automatically, but we are nowhere near having criteria to which we
> could all agree.  I don't mind at all if the process is a little slow.
>

Often when I come across untagged CSDs I'll tag them and move on,
waiting for an admin to come and delete or list on AfD...

> I like the big red number, but I would be satisfied if only the lower
> numbers were red.  Articles rated in the top and bottom 20% will always
> get attention, either because they are so bad or because the rating is
> too good to be true.  Rating the first entry in an article at a
> mandatory 10 will have the effect of drawing eyes to that article.
>

Well, it depends how the article validation system works. If we use a
system like Slashdot's karma system... :)

>> Further, it is the existence of "poor quality" or nonexistent articles
>> that gets us new editors.  If all of the articles we allow the public
>> to view are near perfect, few will join.
>>
>>
> There's ironic truth to that.  Few people edit Britannica because it's
> so perfect. :-)   A very poorly rated article will also get attention,
> preferably from people who understand what it means to improve something
> rather than those who want to prevent improvement.
>

I have to agree with this; sometimes it's just too damned hard to change
something.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0JJCbMAAH8MeUlWAQimqgf9GEESpdXxOqiy9YxRw3DUhslZgZBY/7BO
EFWraI2ERFXEnz2dGf/fWSsWXh4ukg3PO8nZGnuaG6QOYnW6ZmOqP2tE11VXXYx/
0RDOHr1Vr7mpFMDajYmAXuk1yrpkvO9xSVsRIAGQsL3LobUS3y+x9/YbVfvzABT7
z9wRqLNN8je+L12CWirlcHV7yKFKm/hqbsbcrormJwtXzSj07BQQ3A8HCkASesfO
dGP5Pn2ntvljhWzQX1zCK+R+LoYvsn4yXelkYB/ZGoqEjOOA7RKOMbPcLN9PUnnu
B+O3eiMpYI96kOgzqHQ69SsxPDjB+rWGpXsQVuT7jaADdH3rZmulOA==
=vk+n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 10/3/05, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>It's easy to write a stub; it's hard to write a
>>>comprehensive, well referenced article (which is what we *should* be
>>
>>aiming for,
>>
>>>not medeocrity).
>>
>>But it is certainly much easier if you start with a stub.
>>
>
>
> Quite. That's what wikis are all about.

Because if you know a little bit about something, someone else can come
and write some more.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0JJ47MAAH8MeUlWAQiw6wgAh0hEVjJHaER40HfbYHeNQVzvt5J9+BJO
UNlQrUs3WsJBoQW/bu2vuThZ5vKzLqCJc9ihbGvHyi1mYdY7nWt4kYPayJr4hFY8
doRmbTGJgypbcxGRc6KfPAKs5bWV0kxify6eVObCd6ON8I4d8SaSO7lUMMV7ifpd
yUIhjcjjTn5K7/D231R5oRDgmizTchaPoWHMMVEtg271uGTclL/ulVpPOD4oOvZT
h2TKB4X1zJ+780bNcWw/jqvvhnxUEMYk2ywKnMae2sUHM9vrPt6GjQ2PDfpawZUE
2WgYmptneEVVZU6+7q+ntaPo0STm2QcAgG4LJy9mSRlIrvhAy5PP+w==
=eR6a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 10/3/05, Michael Turley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anyone have any good ideas of how better to encourage people to
>>>> cite sources?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Make verifiability a key policy, and egregious edit-warring to
>>> insert unsourced statements a blockable offence.
>>>
>>
>> Great idea!
>
>
> This would swing the balance too far in favor of the deletionists.
> The unsourced statement would have to be unreasonable.  Obvious
> common knowledge statements should not have to be sourced, and
> someone edit warring, demanding that every petty statement be sourced
> is being unreasonable, and should not be rewarded by being allowed to
> impose a burden upon other editors.

Oh, I don't know - we managed to find a source for the statement "the
Earth is round" :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0JKJbMAAH8MeUlWAQi15AgAhw5s74JhuEzfymAeAVpMZr3aHTHavzBz
kKbNidxyE2Ot7D0iFPnuFNMC8jfVfTH6RzYj90A2g+Auk6tVc70jS0112KYp7c01
h6RYX58s8ipjDN2I8ZcDsA8z8jT1zuKFZHOaqE5RpklzxJ0iHqjkNaUzzNHjQXdX
2+mBElu3pgtJ7byMwgE8PEbndE6xBBfrKEKtzV96BnIYR0TFKTAQxM625NHPQWWH
Fu+HmG+jMXsugXVQb5ySBBATAiE2vcNjnKus6t/KTp27juI1AW/MLy0ycRJUmcpq
f+I2HrndZyCwJ9/OvxOK/6rlgNdhLZ3qaIAMt9mW/COXuaIdZ0zR/A==
=hPcV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 10/3/05, Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>The thing is - let's face it - we have all the bases covered. We already
>>have
>>articles on more-or-less all the topics you would expect in a traditional
>>encyclopedia.
>
>
>
> Actually, no, but that's by-the-by. Why this insistence on reference to
> paper encyclopedias? Why is it important to cripple Wikipedia by removing
> content? I say "removing content" because it looks to me that in violating
> deletion policy through the insistence on deleting articles that could be
> merged, the intention of some parties is to destroy certain wikipedia
> content, to declare it, by edict of four or five editors who happened to be
> around during a debate, beyond the reach of Wikipedia.
>
> A discussion is now taking place on Wikipedia Votes for undeletion. An
> article about a developing games forum website was deleted a few months ago
> on the grounds that it was "crystal ball gazing". Now the website is up and
> running and someone asks for the article, with some 40 edits by to be
> deleted. People are sitting on VFU right now and seriouslyarguing that it
> should be kept deleted because "at the time, the VfD discussion was valid.
>
> That beggars belief.

I agree. AfD and VfU need serious overhauls. (I remember when I started
the VfU on [[Elf Only Inn]] to recover about a dozen deleted edits, and
the article had to go through AfD again as a result...)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0JKjLMAAH8MeUlWAQjkXQgAhNqJpggNr9YHXFN8m1FDAjEeqHTxb8n7
Stnv8ne/Pb/ZxsMtrkhkp+TneO8HnYiJ+4xTi2nfnXF6d45LkkgHy9MNeHBOKLQo
bec5XpCmrIdJjc9oEqk9KvrKQpow/Xh7myxR+LUDpMaIAQnTgh5efpbV2PC7dHwZ
XDKgf8bAieiyxbjI6PgbzhmRWaejqhojGbEjABVOWOMcWtRghIYlXYzo8NRadK8N
1oc0vFePhJpNatImKCQKCxbNlostY0XuFNCAGXslD7dEL0E3Www/+oTr1TwtvFky
rM4FhGMF8oNCmcS3gg3KMl9Bv7uzqXNX3mpN5/LwIeydQvkOcBfnng==
=oCyN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] New Wikimediach-l for Wikimedia CH

body:
Hello all.

(de, fr, it follow - beware, cross post to many potentially interested
lists, avoid reply to all)

=EN=

I have created a wikimediach-l mailing list to accompany the creation
of Wikimedia Switzerland, which seems to have taken a good pace. (see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH for more info).

Membership is open, archives are public. List can be found here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l

Do not hesitate to contact me for further info about the list.

=DE=
(bitte kein reply to all machen, denn diese email an verschiedene
listen geschickt wurde).

Ich habe eine wikimediach-l Liste erstellt um die Gr?ndung von
Wikimedia CH zu begleiten, denn die ja mittlerweile fahrt aufgenommen
hat.(siehe http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH f?r mehr info).

Die liste befindet sich an:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l

Ich bleibe zu verf?gung f?r Ruckfragen auf diese Liste.

=FR=
(attention, crosspost sur beaucoup de listes, merci d'?viter les
r?pondre ? tous)

Je viens de cr?er une liste wikimediach-l pour accompagner le
lancement de Wikimedia Suisse, qui semble prendre un bon tour. (voir
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH pour plus d'info)

La liste se trouve ici :
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l

=IT=
(per favore non fare un "rispondere a tutti, che questo massaggio ? un
crosspost su molte liste)
Ho creato una nuova mailingliste wikimediach-l per accompagnare la
creazione di Wikimedia Svizzera, che sembra bien partita. (vedere
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH per piu info)

La lista si vede qui: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l

Cheers, bis sp?ter, ? bient?t, ciao :-)

Delphine
--
~notafish


body:
On 10/4/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> However, Geni, you have touched on another matter. If the material
> cited is unpublished, then we can't use it in Wikipedia. The policy is
> that if you need to depend on unpublished primary material for an
> article, have your research published first in an appropriate forum
> (in your case, a local history journal or monograph), *then* quote
> from there. As burdensome as this may seem, having your research
> published elsewhere first helps Wikipedia to offer the assurance
> that at least one set of expert eyes has examined the material we
> are using.

What about pictures?

--
geni


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

steve v wrote:
> Im naive and idealistic, so Ive been trying reason and
> responsiveness. I guess you could say it hasnt been
> working, so maybe youre right and now its time to
> finally form that anti-tyranny/pro-liberty cabal that
> people have been waiting for.
>

You mean the cabal isn't like that already?

I must be in the wrong cabal...

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0JMfrMAAH8MeUlWAQgeCggAnK01vpQV8yED/jXGtnzMkbFKRaR2afge
cRptv38vh38DNaGvmLdmAax9fi6XNi6WQtsI4QBSQMYl8PO2P8jy6wwk8hP7GBCC
C4cMuYQztKAwR9gscF4xj9v6DE3SWduuolO+3O9bjtGp3OlMBOkCppEz7VrfvsL7
Umadoyl2aKI3mP8rFgEK5vXncGIrYOlPEDqAk4oJsugmHHK3Q6tXIcaTE0vWaeFb
sa1fFTeQy8NOJ/IbOsuVE3MU+gki7/0GV9YNYWtWH/u+o1N7OsZrUrgSUhaBvJDx
7Hu0xTtIt7gx9H2ugM8/O2X9qppcLSeYv1Uj8jI48dHrd1uM3KpaMg==
=+KZi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 20

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Theresa Knott wrote:
> On 10/3/05, Jeff Willis <simsgenius069 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Hi, everyone. Not sure exactly how this works yet, but I'll
>>> learn. :-) I'm new to the mailing list, so hi, everyone!
>
>
> Hi Jeff welcome to the madhouse!
>

Can one of the list admins edit the subscription page to put a big
header saying "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"?

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0JM8bMAAH8MeUlWAQh8tQgAoulHj/MFTismYeeQKkIm9n1cqvXbCvF+
khbRgZx8Npjuh1BpldczPT7FZEYDh5liKdJOsHeAYpQr5lQBiqFocQIGS7l8Wet2
mmIHOowAPP5l+FPRdyXpCXL/RhzP8zDsC52TBuoEtFCX3k+hy3ouPJ/rFL3aNRNj
pSxiOhopuZGMrg5RpiqocVFxIoLY3P58NTkpToXTvQc2/WaDGwhT/mPi2nSNZSQ5
U/KDzOFXn5KbYkurR74Vy52WehAZwVD+UDoBfvehZdQWfsoGF4QVNjNIUEcRjD4D
4cGHfQLx9cHuHtR7qUr14Kz1bk7VNz5gR3ofYnjNxf7jSLFevqJpGw==
=kROv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Michael Bimmler

body:
Hello Notafish,
thank you very much for creating this list, it'll make life a lot easier!
Regards,
Michael

2005/10/4, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com>:
>
> Hello all.
>
> (de, fr, it follow - beware, cross post to many potentially interested
> lists, avoid reply to all)
>
> =EN=
>
> I have created a wikimediach-l mailing list to accompany the creation
> of Wikimedia Switzerland, which seems to have taken a good pace. (see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH for more info).
>
> Membership is open, archives are public. List can be found here:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>
> Do not hesitate to contact me for further info about the list.
>
> =DE=
> (bitte kein reply to all machen, denn diese email an verschiedene
> listen geschickt wurde).
>
> Ich habe eine wikimediach-l Liste erstellt um die Gr?ndung von
> Wikimedia CH zu begleiten, denn die ja mittlerweile fahrt aufgenommen
> hat.(siehe http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH f?r mehr info).
>
> Die liste befindet sich an:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>
> Ich bleibe zu verf?gung f?r Ruckfragen auf diese Liste.
>
> =FR=
> (attention, crosspost sur beaucoup de listes, merci d'?viter les
> r?pondre ? tous)
>
> Je viens de cr?er une liste wikimediach-l pour accompagner le
> lancement de Wikimedia Suisse, qui semble prendre un bon tour. (voir
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH pour plus d'info)
>
> La liste se trouve ici :
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>
> =IT=
> (per favore non fare un "rispondere a tutti, che questo massaggio ? un
> crosspost su molte liste)
> Ho creato una nuova mailingliste wikimediach-l per accompagnare la
> creazione di Wikimedia Svizzera, che sembra bien partita. (vedere
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH per piu info)
>
> La lista si vede qui:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>
> Cheers, bis sp?ter, ? bient?t, ciao :-)
>
> Delphine
> --
> ~notafish
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Never use a preposition to end a sentence with. (Winston Churchill)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
> So what DOES set the limit to what an encyclopedia can include? It is
> not any physical characteristic, whether measured in quarto leaves or
> in bytes.

You don't think it has anything to do with the cost of publishing?

The limit to what an encyclopedia can include is governed basically
> by the available labor of editors to integrate, synthesize, verify,
> copy-edit, and fact-check.

I think you make an excellent point, with regard to the true limit of what
Wikipedia can include, but I disagree that that carries to what a dead-tree
encyclopedia can include.

The thing is, under the current process it takes more labor to delete an
article than it would to integrate, synthesize, verify, copy-edit, and fact
check it.

This is one reason I think something like a pure-wiki deletion system is the
best way to handle deletion. If deletion is relatively easy to undo, then we
don't have to waste so much time making sure we get it right. Even if a
deleted article were only kept around for a week, or a month, for review by
any interested party, I think we'd waste a lot less time.

Here's a plan. What if we lower the threshold for speedy deletion, but keep
speedily deleted articles viewable by all logged in users for one week?

What this tells me is that it should be possible to get some kind of
> reasonable estimate of an appropriate size for Wikipedia by
> estimating the number of work-hours WIkipedias volunteers put in, and
> comparing it with the number of work-hours available to the Britannica.

This also neglects the fact that people are more likely to spend time
working on some things than working on others. Allow people to contribute
information about pokemon, and you're going to get more people willing to
contribute (as sick as that is).

If we're putting in three times as much work, we should be able to
> cover three times as much content.
>
> If we try to cover more content than the Britannica without putting
> in more work than the Britannica, then our reach is exceeding our grasp.

Perhaps, but throwing away a large portion of that work isn't going to
resolve the problem. I think your primary premise is flawed here. Wikipedia
is not paper, and that means a lot. Besides the cost of publishing, there's
the ease of searching, and the ability to use technical tools to exclude
certain areas. Think about it this way: if we excluded all the non-notable
or unfinished articles from everyone except those specifically looking for
it, what is the harm in having them?

The only thing I can think of is that you want to force editors to edit
certain things. And I don't think that's a very good idea.

I have no idea how to even begin estimating these numbers, but I
> think it would be instructive to try.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:

> It is frequently said that Wikipedia is not paper. Specifically,
> "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no
> practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than
> verifiability and the other points presented on this page."
>
> But paper is not paper, either. That is, paper encyclopedias are NOT
> physically limited in size. Some encylopedias (Columbia) have one
> volume. Some have more. The first edition of the Encyclopedia
> Britannica had three volumes; the Eleventh Edition had 29. The
> current Britannica 3 has 32 volumes.

The 12th edition from 1922 also had 32 volumes.

> (By the way, the Britannica states, rather hyperbolically, that those
> 32 volumes offer "a boundless range of information.")

And we run out of bounds from the boundless

> Is the print Britannica limited to 32 volumes by some kind of
> physical law? Certainly not. In fact, tens of thousands of households
> that purchase print encyclopedias wisely or foolish subscribe to
> yearbook programs, often for many years, until they get tired of
> gluing little cross-reference stickers into their volumes. So the
> number of books on the shelf actually grows.
>
> But there is a practical limit of about thirty volumes for a print
> publication, isn't there? No, there isn't. The existence proof is any
> journal. Journals can and do grow linearly, year after year, into
> long rows of bound volumes which libraries, if not homes, manage to
> find room for on their shelves. I am sure that some homes have more
> than 30 bound-volumes-worth of the National Geographic neatly stacked
> up in attics or basements.
>
> So what DOES set the limit to what an encyclopedia can include? It is
> not any physical characteristic, whether measured in quarto leaves or
> in bytes.

IIRC there was a time when the Britannica was sold door-to-door in
communities where reading was not a routine practice. One had to impress
the neighbours.  So along with the books you would receive a lovely
wooden bookcase to contain them.  The set of books had to fit in the
bookcase, with a little room left over for the next few yearbooks that
could be part of the subsciption.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

references:
<20051004180438.D31E11AC17B0@mail.wikimedia.org>
	<BAEFAA9A-9C83-4C85-B62E-3A5AE01D8EE2@verizon.net>
	<f3fedb0d0510041555u5288cccck@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 10/4/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/10/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > But there is a practical limit of about thirty volumes for a print
> > publication, isn't there? No, there isn't. The existence proof is any
> > journal. Journals can and do grow linearly, year after year, into
> > long rows of bound volumes which libraries, if not homes, manage to
> > find room for on their shelves. I am sure that some homes have more
> > than 30 bound-volumes-worth of the National Geographic neatly stacked
> > up in attics or basements.
>
> Newspapers (not that many places still keep bound copies) are an even
> worse case.
>
> Or bibliographies. The British Museum "Catalogue of Printed Books" to
> 1900 was 95 volumes; to 1905 was another 13-volume supplement. (Four
> million books, if you're wondering). The Library of Congress /Catalog/
> was 167 volumes for 1899-1942 (covering two million books; it was far
> less because it reproduced the actual catalog cards) - and 1942-7 was
> another forty. The Bibliotheque Nationale "Catalogue g?n?ral" ran to
> 172 volumes as of 1948, and had only got up to 'Sim-' in the alphabet!

National Geographic, newpapers, and bibliographies, all have a greater
breadth of information than Wikipedia, though.

If I put all the information from the Tampa Tribune into Wikipedia, even
ignoring the time-sensitive information, don't you think most of it would be
nominated for deletion? Do we have an information in Wikipedia on [[Tampa
Bay SalsaFest]], [[Ray Perdomo]], [[Marco Santi]], or [[Town 'N Country
Hospital]]? I couldn't find any. Maybe the Tampa Bay Tribune is too local,
but I'm sure the same could be said of the stories in the USA Today.

I'm also not so sure the number of work hours put in by Wikipedians isn't
many many times the number of work hours put in by the staff of the USA
Today. It would be interesting to try to guestimate these figures, I
suppose.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
The 3RR was made to avoid personal edit wars and promote community
discussion. The NPOV version should stay because the majority of
editors support it.

If the article is subject to POV edits you are not the only one able
to revert it. If it's the reasonable thing to do, there's enough
people willing to help out. All you need to do is point out the POV
pushers aren't responding to a request for discussion  and that their
edits are indeed POV.

--Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hypothetical print version (was Paper is not paper)

body:
On 10/4/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > Here's a plan. What if we lower the threshold for speedy deletion, but
> keep
> > speedily deleted articles viewable by all logged in users for one week?
> Lower? Certainly it's ok now, other then the controversial new copyvio
> stuff. And most speedily deleted articles either should not be viewable,
> or just wouldn't be very useful. Almost all speedied articles look
> something like "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" (which needs to be removed very
> quickly, as we will run out of these letters!), or otherwise are patent
> nonsense. And there are attack pages, etc, etc.

Obviously the threshold for speedy deletion isn't OK now if we still have
all those articles nominated for VFD. Does it help to keep patent nonsense
viewable by logged in non-admins for a week? Well, actually, I'd say yes, it
does, because it makes the process more open. But either way, I certainly
don't see the harm. We're only talking about a week.

Additionally, since we have been talking about wikipedia not being
> paper, and paper not being paper, and publishing costs, etc...don't
> forget that there could (and SHOULD) eventually be a print version of
> wikipedia. If the foundation doesn't do it, someone else probably will.
> Of course, to be comprehensive enough in the mainstream topic areas that
> would be expected in an encyclopedia, we will also gain a lot of extra
> stuff that would not be expected in an encyclopedia.

There will eventually be a print version of a subset of Wikipedia. Most
likely a very small subset of it. As for whether or not there should be one,
I'm actually not so sure of it. Yeah, Jimbo wants to hand them out to people
in third world countries, but maybe it'll be possible, by the time the print
version is ready, to just include the digital version on the $100 laptops
being handed out by that MIT project (http://laptop.media.mit.edu/). I guess
you could argue that dead trees are less expensive, but are they really that
much less expensive? How much would it cost just to print a single volume
1200 page encyclopedia? I'm thinking $50 or so in heavy bulk, but maybe I
have no clue what I'm talking about. Then add in the distribution costs, and
maybe we'd be better off just hitching a ride on a laptop.

Incidently, has someone from Wikimedia talked to the MIT group about
including Wikipedia on the laptops? They'd be kind of crazy not to - I think
the two projects fit together perfectly.

No way would we fit in the 30 volumes of Britannica for this
> hypothetical print release! Anyway, what if we had a feature in the
> Wikipedia 1.0 idea, where we could rate how useful the inclusion of an
> article in a print version would be. This would allow anyone making a
> print version, be it the foundation, or someone else, to trim wikipedia
> easier. Certainly you could do it by hand, but eek. that's huge. With
> our current database dumps, it would already not be unreasonable to make
> a script to automatically remove articles with stub tags in them.
> Obviously these would be worthless in a print version.
>
What do you all think?
>

Actually, when I think about such a question, I come to the conclusion that
it's too much work to be worth it. Even for a 1200 page encyclopedia (I use
this figure because I have one in front of me), most articles wind up being
about a paragraph long. That would be an insane amount of work cutting down
all those articles. You could include fewer articles, and make them longer,
but I doubt you'd be able to include any of the Wikipedia articles in their
entirety without producing a focussed encyclopedia (e.g. encyclopedia of
baseball players) rather than a general purpose one.

I used to be really keen on the whole print encyclopedia thing. I started to
reconsider when I realized you could buy an encyclopedia from Goodwill (a
thrift store) for less than money than you could print one (even in bulk, I
paid $3 for this 1200 page encyclopedia in front of me). After tying this in
with the MIT Media Lab's $100 laptop project, and thinking about it all
right now, I'm now convinced that a print Wikipedia is a bad idea.

Anthony


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
On 10/4/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists,
> > but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even
> > though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists
> > wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.

> Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as
> well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or
> we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing
> sides.

We could call them HITLER!!!!11!

- d.


body:
That's what a phonebook is mostly for. Also, yes, the world, not the
US. But how can such a thing be verifiable. Phone numbers and
addresses change like the plague.

With the kinks ironed out it may be a Wikimedia project, but it's
certainly not encyclopedic material.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
On 04/10/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as
> > well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or
> > we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing
> > sides.
>
> We could call them HITLER!!!!11!

"Pro-content" versus "pro-encyclopedia", perhaps? The best bit is that
at a glance it's tough to tell which side each is meant to be...

and, hey, content! who doesn't like content? or encyclopedias? perfect...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 10

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>>Linking references to spscific parts of an article is important, but I
>>would be less concerned about that than about articles that have no
>>references at all. Adding references is indeed a pain in the ass, and
>>even more so when you did not write the article. Someone who encounters
>>an article with no references at all may have no idea where to look for
>>information about it. The original contributor presumably had references
>>right there when he wrote the article If he didn't, and wrote from
>>memory, we have no way of knowing whether he is perpetuating some sort
>>of urban myth. Your idea is constructive, and it makes the physical
>>process of adding references a little easier, but I don't see the
>>problem of references as primarily at that level of the process. The
>>writers just need to do their own basic research.
>>
>>
>I think it makes the process a lot easier in many ways, though. For
>instance, if one is merely adding to a single section, adding a reference
>takes two edits, one to the section, and then one to the references section.
>And then, if you're going to go through that trouble, you really should
>remember the format. Being able to stick a url or an ISBN into a field and
>have the reference generated automatically would be a *huge* time saver.
>
>I wonder how much Google Print and the others are going to help this task. I
>don't use Google Print that often, but it seems this would greatly improve
>the likelihood of finding a reference for all but the most obscure of facts.
>
>
I've referred to Google Print for words that come up in Wiktionary, and
it can be very helpful.  For an editor who is checking someone else's
work incorporating that research is a painstaking job.  Copy-and-paste
doesn't work because their pages are graphic images of the book, so you
need to copy the quote the hard work.  Then one still has to take the
trouble to go elsewhere in the site to get the more general information
about the book.  I recently checked for the word "nationist" and got 102
hits.  The usages there don't support the definition that the user gave,
and I have no idea where he found it.  Sorting that out for one word can
easily take a couple of hours.

Ec


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 4 Oct 2005, at 18:19, Geoff Burling wrote:
> Finding documents in Britain is half of the challenge: as I understand
> it, records of a given locale are scattered across the country -- &
> over the ocean to the US & beyond -- due to historical connections,
> accidents of history, vagarities of how family papers are disposed of,
> as well as previous researchers who did not try hard enough to
> remember
> to return what they have borrowed.

Its not that bad. Although some stuff is dispersed, most isnt. It
depends
what kind of records you are looking for to some extent. Before the 19th
century can vary, but most parish records are still where you would
expect I believe.

> However, Geni, you have touched on another matter. If the material
> cited is unpublished, then we can't use it in Wikipedia. The policy is
> that if you need to depend on unpublished primary material for an
> article, have your research published first in an appropriate forum
> (in your case, a local history journal or monograph), *then* quote
> from there. As burdensome as this may seem, having your research
> published elsewhere first helps Wikipedia to offer the assurance
> that at least one set of expert eyes has examined the material we
> are using.

I think if you have real source materials wikisource should be
sufficient.

Justinc


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Hypothetical print version, and using Google to rank
	articles

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> Phroziac wrote:
>
>> No way would we fit in the 30 volumes of Britannica for this
>> hypothetical print release! Anyway, what if we had a feature in the
>> Wikipedia 1.0 idea, where we could rate how useful the inclusion of an
>> article in a print version would be. This would allow anyone making a
>> print version, be it the foundation, or someone else, to trim wikipedia
>> easier. Certainly you could do it by hand, but eek. that's huge. With
>> our current database dumps, it would already not be unreasonable to make
>> a script to automatically remove articles with stub tags in them.
>> Obviously these would be worthless in a print version.
>
> In my opinion, an article ranking system would be an ideal way to
> start collecting data for trying to place articles in rank order for
> inclusion in a fixed amount of space.
>
> One interesting possibility is, in addition to user rankings, using
> the number of times the article's title is mentioned on the web -- the
> Google test -- as an extra input to any hypothetical ranking system.

The thing to remember if a ranking system is used is that it is a tool
rather than a solution.  It can point to problem articles that need
work.  We don't need to be limited to a single algorithm for evaluating
an article.  The Google test can be added, but so can others too.

Ec


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27,
	Issue 20/ Copyroght libraies as a source

body:
On 10/4/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>
>
> Unless we can verify that the source exists, then we might as well
> allow every kook in who cites this certain book that was printed a
> few years ago, but almost every copy has been destroyed, & the
> publisher was forced out of business.

Quite. We should deprecate, or perhaps even eliminate, all reports that
depend on obscure primary sources. We're an encyclopedia and if we cannot
find a reliable secondary source that we can cite then we may have to accept
that we've ventured too far away from the realm of verifiability.


body:
On 10/4/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> What about them? Are they from these archives? If so, are they
> permitted under GDFL or PD?
>
> Geoff
>

Well it did occure to me that the archives would be a way of getting PD maps.

--
geni


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The New Cliche: "It's the Wikipedia of..."

body:
Thought you all would find this amusing - Jeremey Wagstaff, WSJ tech
columnist, had a great piece about the Wikipedia as a new cliche...

http://loosewire.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/the_new_cliche_.html

The New Cliche: "It's the Wikipedia of..."

You know something has arrived when it's used to describe a
phenomenon. Or what people hope will be a phenomenon. Here's a
sampling:

    * Laptops This from Nicholas Negroponte, describing his $100
laptop for the developing world (via Andy Carvin's Waste of
Bandwidth): "It's the Wikipedia equivalent (of hardware)," he said,
describing the spirit of the laptop initiative.

    * Gasbuddy  Poster at ezboard: "It's the Wikipedia of Gas pumps. I
use it whenever I need gas. I can't believe I forgot about it until
now."

    * New York Times ? This from a Xanga blogger: "It's the Wikipedia
of newspapers: great resource with plenty of interesting but useless
content. For goodness' sake, it's a newspaper, not Cosmo Girl."

    * The UK Good Food/Good Pub guide, described on Wikipedia chat as
"It's the wikipedia of food guides"

    * Urban Dictionary ? described by this blogger as "the Wikipedia
of the streets beyach!"

    * Sushi World Guide ? "it seems the community is still growing. It
is the 'Wikipedia of Sushi'.

    * Pure Energy Systems ? " We will be the Wikipedia of alternate
energy technology."

    * Wondir ? hailed on the unofficial google blog as "the Wikipedia
of answer sites"

    * Dermatlas ? described here as "the Wikipedia of dermatology atlases"

    * Math World ? described here as "the wikipedia of math"

    * GuitarWiki ? described by a visitor as possibly becoming "the
Wikipedia of the guitar world"


subject: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution attempt in the Ashida Kim case

body:
This is where I speak up and put the mergist solution, which will probably
surprise those who incorrectly believe me to be an inclusionist.

I've put in a proposal to merge the indisputable bibliographic information
to a suitable martial arts article and redirect there. If there is more
fuckwittery the redirect can be protected. The problem can be contained
without compromising the verifiable information. This also addresses Jimmy's
perfectly sensible remark that the flame war stuff is unverifiable, the same
kind of tripe we said goodbye and good riddance to in the Edmond Wollmann
case.

Usenet and web forums breed endless nonsense like this. Even a comparatively
stable forum like Urban75 breeds trolls of such ferocity and such invincible
stupidity that some days you feel like you'd rather stab your eyes out with
a broken bottle than go to look at the history of the last 24 hours edits.

Ashida Kim may be a popular author, and we should note his books, but we
don't need to host his interminable catfights.