subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Trivia sections must die, in all articles, period. If you see one, do
> Wikipedia a favor and move it to the talk page (or remove it
> entirely).
>

I made much the same point back in February; if I was online I'd pull
out the link to the archives.

Here's one of the useful (ie. not "OMG WP:NOT paper") replies:
>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] "Trivia" sections in articles
>> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>> Message-ID: <43FD53A3.7050804 at gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> They look ugly and unprofessional. Can we get a policy or something to
>> suggest that they be renamed "Miscellaneous information" or merged
>> into
>> the rest of the article?
>>
>> And while we're at it, can we get rid of "{{PAGENAME}} in popular
>> culture" sections?
>
> Much if not all of much of this content is unreferenced. People
> apparently just toss in stuff off the top of their head. Like lists,
> I think they become a game in which people try to think of something,
> anything that isn't there already.
>
> We should be proactive about putting {{unverifiedsect}} tags on these
> sections, {{fact}} tags on the unreferenced items, and removing them
> after a reasonable period of time and in a fair way. That will go a
> long way to solving the problem.
>
> I personally believe these items are valuable and interesting _if
> referenced._ Incidentally insisting on reference is also a reasonable
> filter against subtrivial cruft; if the Statue of Liberty appears _in
> an important way_ in some movie, Ebert or someone is likely to have
> mentioned it somewhere; if it is just a cameo appearance to establish
> that a ship is approaching New York, nobody is likely to comment on
> it outside of a personal blog or forum, and finding a reference will
> be hard.
>

My initial complaint was that "trivia" sections were ugly and stupid.
The insight of dpbsmith was that they are *harmful*. Sadly, everyone
forgot about it.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060726/ff57ee1e/attachment.pgp


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Latest board resolutions

body:
On 7/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good luck with the raising of the $60,000!
>
> Will WiktionaryZ eventually replace the current Wiktionary?

It's too soon to answer that since the new software is very much still
in the beta phase. What I'm hoping is that the current Wiktionary
communities will try it out and get involved in making that decision.

Angela.


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Latest board resolutions


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Onion article on Wikipedia

body:
Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

:)

Garion


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/25/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Hmmm.  Not what we're supposed to be for, though, is it?  Leading the
> pack in documenting things?  I thought we were supposed to collect
> information from reliable secondary sources?  Without novel syntheses?
[...]
> But we shouldn't be.  Unless we want to change our mission to being
> the *first* secondary source to document things neutrally from
> *primary* sources?

There is no policy against primary sources. In fact, [[WP:NOR]]
explicitly states: "Original research that creates primary sources is
not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and
organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources
is, of course, strongly encouraged."

People have been overinterpreting WP:RS recently (which itself is a
guideline, not policy). This is a problematic trend.

Erik


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] technical Issue with Firefox 2.0 beta

body:
While I haven't used Firefox 2, I can assure you that this is NOT the
case. Thunderbird (which is based on basically the same codebase) has
an excellent spellchecker, and I am sure that they use basically the
same code for the Firefox one (why reinvent the wheel and all that).
It has support for all languages you can imagine, just download the
dictionary like you download any extension. I personally have the
English (the US version, but there are others), French, German and
Swedish dictionaries installed and can switch between them with ease.

You know, when it comes to firefox, you really should assume good
faith (which, as I've recently discovered, not only works as an
editorial policy, but is also a pretty decent life-philosophy). The
Mozilla foundation are (is?) one the good guys! Open source,
multilingual, community-developed with people from all over the globe,
free and forkable, endlessly customizable, run by a non-profit
organization......does it remind you of any other project you might
have heard of?

On 7/25/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> What language spell checker is it? What's the bet it's just American
> English. Hooray.
>
> On 24/07/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
> > The Firefox 2.0 beta is a superb engine for editing Wikipedia. Among
> > other things, it features something web browsers have traditionally
> > lacked -- an internal spell checker that actually works. the utility fo
> > this for a wikipedia editor should be obvious -- it eliminates the
> > neccesity to go to a second application for spell checking which would,
> > in turn, foul up the wiki formatting.
> >
> > However, this might be why Firefor 2 seems to crash when switching to
> > the edit view on very large articles. Has anyone else had a similar
> > experience when switching to edit view on a very large page?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] So you think you can be a Wikipedia article

body:
Jesse W wrote:

>On Jul 24, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>>But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for
>>leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if
>>one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a
>>cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and
>>disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about
>>cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come
>>to naught.
>>
>Then don't.  Make a fork.
>
An overreaction. It's like observing a flaw in your country's
political system, and deciding that the only possible solution
is to secede, set up a competing country, and hope everybody
moves there.

But so far it's been possible to add admins, arbcom, policy
pages, RC patrols, vandalbots, etc, without having to have a
fork each time.

My goal in this particular discussion is to get people to think
about a class of interactions they see going on every day, and
ask themselves if that is as good as we want it, or if there are
fixes to be tried. An experiment in this area could be as simple
and easy as a wikiproject formally appointing a "lead editor" that
the project participants sign up to support - hardly an earthshaking
event that requires forking!

Stan


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 7/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/25/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey what's nothing wrong with American English? The differences are very
> > few. In fact, I write with American English, and there is not one word
> that
> > I typed just now that differ between the two dialects.
>
> I would have written the corresponding paragraph:
>
> Hey, [there's] nothing wrong with Australian English. There are very
> few differences. I actually write in Australian English, and none of
> the words in what I just typed are spelt differently between the two.
>
> I don't know if any of those differences are particularly significant,
> or just stylistic. Maybe "there is not one word" is the strangest - I
> certainly recognise this construction, but would never use it. I
> wouldn't say I write "with" a language or spelling system, but "in"
> it.
>
> I'm not sure I would describe AusE vs AmE as "dialects", but they probably
> are.
>
> Steve

I think the only really fundamental difference in spelt/spelled.  The other
differences seem like personal stylistic differences.  On the other hand, I
have had so much exposure to American idioms that I don't notice them as
unusual, even when the wording isn't something I'd ever use myself.

Ian


from_name: Puppy

body:
There is nothing amazing about it. The people who write for The Onion
are more intelligent than those who write for most news media.

Rob wrote:
> Amazingly, The Onion is more accurate than most news accounts about
> Wikipedia. ;)
>
> On 7/25/06, Garion96 <garion96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
>>
>> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Garion
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Pageview counters

body:
On 7/25/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also interested....but I'm concerned that a vandal could find articles
> that are never looked at and target those.  RC patrol can't get everything.

More information is a good thing, not a bad thing. If there was a
mechanism by which a vandal could target rarely viewed pages, then
there could be a mechanism whereby changes made to rarely viewed pages
(especially by anons!) are highlighted to patrollers.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Interesting "New Yorker" article about Wikipedia

body:
On 7/25/06, Mak <makwik at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Indeed, and in a similar vein, there was the cogent observation that
> > the first person to an article has the greatest opportunity to shape
> > its tone, form and structure.
>
> I completely agree with this observation, and I think it's a major problem
> with many of the articles taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. See,
> for example
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Purcell&direction=next&oldid=32534
> which has not changed significantly in form (barring big headings) since
> that first hunk of encyclopedia text. I've attempted to remove the most

As a general rule, I think this has more to do with the amount of
effort expended on the original writing compared to subsequent effort.
If one contributor puts in 100 hours on an article, and subsequent
contributors total 1 hour, it would hardly surprising that their
impact is minimal.

Certainly, our articles borrowed from 1911, Cyclopaedia, or the
Catholic Encyclopedia do have certain leanings, and focuses which do
not match our normal standards. But they're a good starting point, and
a hell of a lot better than a redlink.

Steve


body:
On 7/26/06, Garion96 <garion96 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
>
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

Good example of why I can't stand the Onion. Fact and fiction (or
satire, if you prefer) totally mixed together, with no way of knowing
which is which.  Some of the satire is well targeted, like the crack
about LCD's influence on the drafting of the US constitution (we do
have that kind of problem), but some is nonsense, like the Chuck
Norris mention or the misspelling in "American Inderpendance". The
article could make some telling points about vandalism, and other
points about inaccuracies or hoaxes, but instead mixes them together
as if they were the same thing.

Why isn't there any good satire?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories for deletion/discussion issues

body:
On 7/25/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Or autostrada or autoroute or autobahn or motorway...
>
> Limited access highway seems unlikely to be misunderstood.

Honestly, to me "limited access" sounds like only certain people are
able to use it. If what I call a freeway would actually fit into your
"limited access highway", then, yes, I would have misunderstood the
term.

But someone remind me why this overarching category (which is
presumably divided immediately into American freeways, American
expressways etc) is so important?

Steve


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Wolf Mountain MediaWiki Appliances Released

body:
Domas Mituzas wrote:

>Hi!
>
>
>
>> and I am offering turn key systems with automated site mirroring
>>software, image sync tools, and machine
>>translators for Wikipedia.  The knowledge is free, the software is
>>free,
>>however, hardware
>>costs money ....
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure if running that hardware to support wikipedia is best
>way to do it ;-)
>I'd better support WMF to run the site! ;-)
>
>
>
Disagree. I've talked to a lot of organizatons and groups who love WMF
content but want to filter
it for in-house use similiar to CleanFlix. Most educational facilities
and religious groups who really love wikipedia want
a "clean" version of the content, with most of the sexual
revolution/pro-alternate lifestyle propoganda materials
removed from the dumps. WMF does a great job allowing all points of view
and all knowledge in the dumps -- I
respect this -- unfortunately, a lot of conservative groups who like WMF
content don't want the information overload
from much of the topics, or perceived erotic imagery in many of the
articles. My tools let you filter import XML dumps
for certain classes of content -- so there's a "clean" version of the
content. I doubt the LDS church wants to host WMF
materials with articles on beastialiy, same sex marriage, etc. It's a
matter of degrees. Making WP more pervasive also means
accomodating folks who have differing views and values. We offer a
family oriented version that's customizable as well
as Native American translation support.

The tribes hosting translations will consume a large number of these
units along with conservative religious groups and
family oriented groups. I have included a "donate now" button pointing
back to WMF in the main pages.

Jeff


subject: [WikiEN-l] more fancruft

body:
On 7/26/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg

Uh, how is this fancruft? (Btw, NOT WORKSAFE!)

Steve


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is 30 times more popular than sex (actually:
	34 times)

body:
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/07/the_mystery_of_the_golden_spru.html

I love talking about mysterious tables. But from what I can see,
wikipedia has surpassed our former most famous internet topic by far.

I am not sure how people were counted who were looking for sex related
articles in wikipedia :)

Mathias


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Uploading images should be a privilige, not a right

body:
On 7/26/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> How do we make the best free encyclopedia?  Is it by making it easier
> to upload images, or harder?

Harder.  There are too many images being uploaded each day.  Many of
the ones labeled as "free" aren't, and at the current rate of uploads,
nobody has a chance to investigate.

Which is freer?  A copyvio labeled as CC-BY-SA, or no image at all?

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/26/06, Garion96 <garion96 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
> >
> > http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
>
> Good example of why I can't stand the Onion. Fact and fiction (or
> satire, if you prefer) totally mixed together, with no way of knowing
> which is which.  Some of the satire is well targeted, like the crack
> about LCD's influence on the drafting of the US constitution (we do
> have that kind of problem), but some is nonsense, like the Chuck
> Norris mention or the misspelling in "American Inderpendance". The
> article could make some telling points about vandalism, and other
> points about inaccuracies or hoaxes, but instead mixes them together
> as if they were the same thing.
>
> Why isn't there any good satire?
>
> Steve

Interesting - the reason I like the Onion is that they mix fact and fiction
together so well that you can't tell for sure.  But "American Inderpendence"
makes me wonder if the person who wrote the article doesn't read AN/I and
WikiEn-L - that spelling makes me think of Geni's unspellchecked
contributions.  As for the Chuck Norris comment and the ERIC IS A FAG -
suggests some familiarity with basic WP vandalism.  But didn't the Onion
have a truly brilliam article about WP about a year or so ago?


from_name: Samuel Klein

body:
"Single or Dual Xeon or AMD64 based system with up to 6.0 Terabytes of
storage and 12 GB of DDR memory. Comes fully installed with the Wikipedia
Encyclopedia and a full suite of automated site mirroring and update tools
and 1 year of service and support."

Fantastic.  Wikipedia Weekly News couldn't have put it better. Jeff,
congratulations on getting Wolf Mountain ready in time for the national
holiday*.

SJ

* http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902


from_name: Adam Lorenz

body:
Category redirects don't work because, for example, if Category A is
redirected to Category B, the articles linking to Category A will populate
Category A and not B.

On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/26/06, Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps we need to stay away from any of the
> regional/national/continental
> > terms for the category name. We don't need to create a neologism--we
> could
> > use a short descriptive phrase that gives a hint as to the meaning, and
> rely
> > on text on the category page to clarify.
> >
> > Something like "Ramped roads", though I'm sure others will have better
> > ideas.
>
> How about "intersection-free highways"?
>
> Thinking about it a bit, there's really no need for a single best
> term, is there? Don't category redirections work? Or at least,
> shouldn't they? :)
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Adam J. Lorenz


body:
I wonder if transcluding works in categories... That's a good point.

Adam

On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/26/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Category redirects don't work because, for example, if Category A is
> > redirected to Category B, the articles linking to Category A will
> populate
> > Category A and not B.
>
> Be cool if it did though. Then you could go to either cat A or B and
> see the same list of articles. Actually something similar and even
> better could be done if a category could *include* another category
> (rather than becoming a subcategory of it). In that case, you could
> cat Motorways and cat Freeways, one of which actually includes all the
> entries of the other, totally transparently.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Adam J. Lorenz


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

body:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 05:10:20PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/25/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
> >I suppose "limited access" would be the same as motorways. They have on and
> >off ramps instead of at grade crossings.
>
> In Australia, that's a freeway (or a tollway!). And highways have a
> bit of both. Don't think we use the term "motorway" much, but we do
> use "motorist". I'm also not sure which of "dual carriageway" and
> "divided highway" we use more. See the confusion of Australia? We
> recognise nearly all the terms, and have trouble arbitrarily deciding
> which one to use.
>
> Steve

And to even confuse it further we have the Calder freeway in Melbourne
that has a stratch that is not limited access. There are cars coming in
from all angles and cars crossing, and lots of people killing
themselves. They have reduced the spped limit but it is stll called a
freeway.

The only think we will agree on is "Road"

--
Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) b_duke at bigbond.net.au - NB New! Old still works
       Post: 626 Melbourne Rd, Spotswood, VIC, 3015, Australia
 Phone 03-93992847. http://www.salter-duke.bigpondhosting.com/brian/index.htm
    Honorary Researcher Fellow, Dept. of Medicinal Chemistry, Monash Univ.


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

references:
<44C71BE9.7090600@wolfmountaingroup.com>	<2B28031F-E1B6-473A-B15A-AB412A79971F@gmail.com>	<44C79504.2080402@wolfmountaingroup.com>
	<ea84gl$3l7$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Domas Mituzas wrote:

>Hi!!!!
>
>
>
>>revolution/pro-alternate lifestyle propoganda materials
>>removed from the dumps.
>>
>>
>
>You forgot China and their needs!
>
>
Good point. I don;t know where to start on that one, so some suggestions
would be welcome.
Perhaps I should post the filtering code somwhere and let folks who know
better than I
on the china issue create a categories template for filtering China content.

>Anyway, I'm somewhat confused. You disagree with idea that foundation is
>more worthy cause to support Wikipedia, than buying filtering hardware.
>
>

>
>
>>from much of the topics, or perceived erotic imagery in many of the
>>articles. My tools let you filter import XML dumps
>>
>>
>
>Do your filters try to count how much pink is in picture? :)
>
>
They use an algorithm developed at U of U that detects pixel ratios of human
skin tone (the ratios are the same no matter what complexion) and tags them
for removal. From what I have seen its only a handful of images (@ 100) in
most of the dumps, and medial articles like "penis" and "vagina" I think
are
ok. Certain art images are objectionable to folks, along with articles
on words
like F__K, etc. which needs cleaning up.

>Anyway, I'm not sure censoring Wikipedia is helping Wikipedia.
>And I'm not sure anyone limiting access to proper wikipedia content is
>helping Wikipedia either.
>
>
Well, that's also my view as well, I hate censorship, but like it or
not, the conservative
element of the US comprises 98% of the folks who run these organizations
and have
real $$$ to support Wikimedia, and the criticisms I get when I talk to
folks about supporting Wikipedia are:

1). It's in the press due to inaccurate bios
2). It hosts radical left wing content
3). It is used as a lobbying platform by various political groups

Saying we support "filtering" and a "clean" version, whether its really
clean or not, shuts these people
up and at a minimum provides some level of comfort they can use the
content and have a degree of control
over certain categories of content use.

Were it up to me, I would say "let them eat Wikipedia as is", but its
not up to me, and I have to deploy
Native Translations in areas like the Cherokee Nation which is 99% hard
core Southern Baptist, and
other areas which do not have such an open view.

Jeff

>I guess there're more books which contain violence (say... smiting in
>Bible), which should be definitely filtered.
>
>Domas
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Dead wikipedians and how to really make a project
	boring to death

body:
On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/26/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I uploaded the picture of Treanna on the english wikipedia. It was the
> > picture he had on his user page. A bad image, but the only one we had
> > for him. Certainly an image which will never be reused by anyone. But an
> > image of Treanna.
> >
> > The crime : it was uploaded as a non-derivative license. So, it is
> > proposed for deletion.
> >
> > And frankly, I can not ask Treanna any more if he would be nice enough
> > to change that license to make it free by wikipedia definition.
>
> Is it not, theoretically speaking, possible for someone just to assert
> ownership of it, and upload it under public domain? They can take full
> responsibility for any (highly unlikely) challenge to their ownership
> of it coming from the family or estate or whatever?
>
> (but in any case, yes, this is a sad situation)
>
> Steve

I'd sooner make the (somewhat suspect) claim of fair use - after all, it's
an article about the subject, etc.


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's the entirely seperate issue of approaching copyright
> infringement (Wikipedia, your source of TV and movie scripts on teh
> intarwebs!), but I suspect that the point will be lost on you.
>
I had mentioned that, but someone claimed that plots aren't
copyrightable.  I suspect that's incorrect, but don't care enough to
prove it wrong.

Anthony


body:
On 7/25/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> >My response was to someone who was suggesting that locking down the
> >site so that people can't even upload free content without having
> >gained the privilege is necessary to "keep WP out of legal peril".  If
> >locking down the site helps Wikipedia create the best free
> >encyclopedia, then I'm all for it.  I haven't been convinced that it
> >would.  And arguments that not locking down the site would put WP into
> >legal peril are certainly not going to convince me otherwise.
> >
> Sometimes it seems that those who would impose such drastic measures for
> the sake of "keeping WP out of legal peril" know as little about
> copyright law as their opposite numbers who are regularly uploading the
> material.  They only differ in being on opposite sides of the issue.
>
> Ec
>
I think this is absolutely the case.  And I also think that's why
legal compliance issues should be left to the official agents of the
organization to worry about.

The focus of the rest of us should be on how to make the best free
encyclopedia.  Sure, this means not including copyright violations,
but not with the sense of urgency that some seem to be suggesting.
Such a focus would also imply that images which aren't included in any
pages, and images which are only included on user pages (for
instance), are an even lower priority.

How do we make the best free encyclopedia?  Is it by making it easier
to upload images, or harder?

Anthony


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jacky PB

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Fwd: RE: Abuse - Impersonation - dpotop1
	(KMM34737469V27186L0KM)

body:
Hello everybody,

As you may remember, Mark Williamson pretended some
time ago I sent him an ethnic hate message. Given this
was a serious accusation, I forwarded the message to
the yahoo.com customer service, and I have just
received the following reply.

As you can see, the yahoo.com customer service does
certify the e-mail Mark posted here was forged.

Yours,
en:Dpotop

--- Yahoo! Mail <mail-abuse at cc.yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:24:14 -0700
> To: Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: Abuse -  Impersonation - dpotop1
> (KMM34737469V27186L0KM)
> From: Yahoo! Mail <mail-abuse at cc.yahoo-inc.com>
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Mail.
>
> We have investigated your report, and, based on the
> information you've
> given us, your account does not appear to have been
> accessed by the
> sender of this email.
>
> The sender seems to have forged your email address
> in the "reply-to"
> and/or the "from" field of the message they sent
> out. Please know that
> we are currently aware of this type of spam and are
> investigating it.
>
> Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Yahoo! Customer Care
> 24402472
>
>
>
> Original Message Follows:
> -------------------------
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm sorry to say, but your reply is completely
> unsatisfactory.
>
> The whole point in my complaint was that I knew I
> did
> not sent this message, and I needed you to certify
> this. Instead, you tell me that:
>   "The situation you describe has been resolved".
>
> This sentence means strictly nothing by itself.
>
> Yours,
> Dpotop
>
>
> --- Yahoo! Mail <mail-abuse at cc.yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.
> >
> > The situation you describe has been resolved.  We
> > apologize for any
> > inconvenience this issue may have caused you.
> > Please be assured that
> > we'll do our best to prevent such problems in the
> > future.
> >
> > If you continue to experience this problem, or if
> we
> > can be of
> > assistance in another matter, please let us know
> by
> > replying to this
> > email.  If you can describe in as much detail the
> > problem you are
> > having, any steps you take leading up to it, how
> > frequently it occurs,
> > and the exact text of any error messages you
> > receive, it will help us to
> > provide a solution more quickly.
> >
> > Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer
> Care.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> > Yahoo! Customer Care
> > http://www.yahoo.com/
> >
> > 24402472
> >
> >
> >
> > Original Message Follows:
> > -------------------------
> >
> > >>REDFRMCON
> >
> > >>REDFRMADV
> >
> > >>REDFRMCON
> >
> > >>REDFRMADV
> >
> > >>REDFRMCON
> >
> > >>REDFRMADV
> >
> > >>REDFRMCON
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Could you tell me how much time the investigation
> > will
> > take? I really need to know whether the e-mail has
> > been sent from my account, or if it was simply
> > forged.
> >
> > Can you keep me informed of the steps you are
> going
> > to
> > take?
> >
> > The problem is that my reputation took a blow due
> to
> > the impersonating message, and I need to explain
> > what
> > happened (I need at least a confirmation of the
> fact
> > that the message did not originate from my
> account).
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Dumitru
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Yahoo! Account Services
> > <account-security at cc.yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Thank you for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.
> > >
> > > I appreciate the opportunity to address your
> > report
> > > regarding Account
> > > Security. My goal is to provide you the best
> > service
> > > possible,
> > > especially when it comes to safeguarding your
> > > account. I've sent you
> > > this auto-generated response as confirmation
> that
> > my
> > > team has received
> > > your report and also to provide you with
> > information
> > > dealing with the
> > > most common Account Security questions.
> > >
> > > INVALID PASSWORD -
> > > If you are unable to login to your Yahoo!
> account
> > > due to an Invalid
> > > Password error please visit:
> > >
> > > http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/edit/edit-10.html
> > >
> > > REQUEST A NEW PASSWORD -
> > > If the above information did not assist you,
> > please
> > > attempt to request a
> > > new password. Remember that our team may not
> reset
> > > your password or
> > > remind you of your current password.
> > >
> > > 1) To request a new password visit:
> > >
> > > http://edit.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > > 2) Click the Password lookup link and follow the
> > > instructions to request
> > > a new password.
> > >
> > > If you have followed the directions above, and
> are
> > > still unable to
> > > obtain a new password for your account or feel
> > that
> > > your account may
> > > have been compromised, please reply to this
> email
> > > with the following
> > > information you supplied during your Yahoo!
> > > registration.  Please know
> > > that we do have access to original account
> > > information and that we will
> > > be unable to provide login or other assistance
> > > without completely
> > > verifying your account.
> > >
> > > 1. Yahoo! ID (This is the single most important
> > > piece of information
> > > that allows us to access your account. Without
> the
> > > ID, we will be unable
> > > to assist you.)
> > >
> > > 2. Your name
> > >
> > > 3. Date of birth (mm-dd-yr)
> > >
> > > 4. Your alternate (non-Yahoo!) email address
> > >
> > > 5. Secret Question and Answer
> > >
> > > 6. Your city and state
> > >
> > > 7. ZIP Code or Postal code you entered during
> > > registration
> > >
> > > 8. Your country
> > >
> > >
> > > PROTECTING THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF YOUR
> > ACCOUNT
> > > -
> > > http://security.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > > COMPUTER VIRUSES -
> > > http://security.yahoo.com/malware.html
> > >
> > > GENERAL ACCOUNT SECURITY ISSUES -
> > >
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/security/index.html
> > >
> > > SPOOF INFORMATION
> > > If you received an email impersonating Yahoo!
> and
> > > would like to report
> > > it please forward the email to
> > > mail-spoof at cc.yahoo-inc.com. If you have
> > > already been tricked into giving your password,
> > > please visit
> > >
> >
>
http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/security/cgi_feedback
> > > and supply as much detail as possible.
> > >
> > > For more information visit:
> > > http://security.yahoo.com/password_scams.html
> > >
> > > I hope this email has been of assistance to you.
> > If
> > > you have found that
> > > your Account Security issue was not addressed
> > within
> > > this message or if
> > > you are trying to reach another area of Yahoo!
> > > support, please reply to
> > > this email and include a brief description of
> the
> > > problem you are
> > > encountering. Im happy to assist you in any way
> I
> > > can or send your
> > > email to the appropriate support area.
> > >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>

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


from_name: Stephen Forrest

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category redlinks

body:
On 7/26/06, Tels <nospam-abuse at bloodgate.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 18:24, Steve Bennett wrote:
>   Currently, when linking to a category that "does not exist", a
> redlink is shown. However, the definition of "does not exist" is "has
> no text describing the category". However, the category actually
> functions perfectly well. Since many categories are self-explanatory
> (especially for small wikis), I suspect this redlinking acts as an
> unnecessary brake on the use of categories. That is, people are
> discouraged from pre-emptively linking to a category that doesn't
> "exist" yet. Redlinks in the category bar look like mistakes, they
> don't look like you've actually done something that is highly
> encouraged.
>
> Would it be possible to change the definition of "does not exist" to
> > be "has no text, and no articles"? Or maybe something else entirely?

But if the mere act of category inclusion caused a category to "exist"
in this way, then there would never be any redlinked categories at
all, except during preview, no?

Redlinking of categories does serve some useful purpose.  Though an
uncreated category may contain articles, it will by definition never
have a place in the category hierarchy and never have interwiki links
to equivalent categories in other wikis.  These last two things are
also very important for small wikipedias.  Though "blue-linking"
doesn't guarantee either will be the case, it's useful to have
redlinking to spot when they're definitely not there.

That said, you have a point.  It is a bit odd that the first thing one
does to "create" a category is submit a blank edit field.

Steve


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] more fancruft

body:
Isn't that just reposting of deleted content?

On 7/26/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg
>
> Its back.
>
> SV
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Mark Wagner wrote:
>
>
>>On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely  a [[Bulbasaur]] article
>>>isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and
>>>reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something
>>>fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be
>>>explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on
>>>it.
>>>
>>>
>>Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author
>>were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.
>>
>>
>
>Precisely. My preferred writing style for the lede of an article on a
>"special subject" is:
>
>"In (context) (subject) is..."
>
>with the article going on to explain the subject not just in it's
>specialised context, but with relation to the broader context it resides
>in. This should be *strongly* enforced with respect to articles on
>fictional subjects; otherwise, we're going to end up with ledes along
>the lines of:
>
>"In 'real life' (subject) is..."
>
I wouldn't object to some kind of fictional material graphic that could
be at the head of each relevant article.  It doesn't have to be really big.

Ec


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

>Oldak Quill wrote:
>
>
>>On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For
>>>instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions
>>>appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their
>>>edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy
>>>I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm
>>>going to keep doing it?
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not saying there should be no reward. As you say, the reward is
>>helping the project, getting a featured article, getting a policy
>>through, or devising a new way to collaborate.
>>
>>My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because
>>they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient,
>>changing leadership are those who want to do something for the
>>project, or believe the project should have some feature or device.
>>Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be
>>lazy.
>>
>>
>Your repeated references to "perks" are revealing; leadership is
>not about the leader getting some kind of unfair advantage over
>others, it's about getting groups of people to work together, rather
>than at cross-purposes. Transient leadership is ineffective - think
>of the Italian government - instead of working out compromises,
>people who disagree simply wait for the leader to be gone and the
>group to disperse, then undo everything that they accomplished. We
>see this every day, in the endless circular arguments on notability,
>verifiability, userboxes, fair use, capitalization of species names,
>AfD, and on and on and on, which are in turn reflected in a continuous
>churn of edits that never actually add any new content. We could be
>a lot more effective at the ultimate goal if we actually encouraged
>people to make tough decisions, then backed them up rather than
>tore them down.
>
I fundamentally agree.  Political leaders with an eye on the perks are
too likely to have their decisions affected by this perspective.
Leadership is a quality of personality, and not something that is
automatically generated in the appointment process.

Transient leadership is one of the biggest failings in democratic
systems.  When the motivation for taking actions derives from the
ability to get re-elected on the next ballot public policy suffers.  The
ability to view things beyond the next election is especially important
in environmental matters.

Four years ago the compromise understanding about the capitalization of
species names was that you could use either form as long as you allowed
for a redirect of the other.  I hadn't realized that people were still
whining about that. :-)

There's a lot of support for tough decisions where those decisions
support one's own POV. ;-)

Perhaps my biggest complaint about 3RR was the imposed artificiality.
It serves well for cooling down an immediate battle, but offers no long
range solution for settling a dispute.  If you apply it often enough
perhaps no-one will notice that all you have done is sweep the problem
under the rug.

Ec


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 25/07/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people
>>will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too
>>large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on
>>issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is
>>the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by
>>a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as
>>rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).
>>
>>Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts,
>>and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and
>>possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the
>>whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do
>>so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in
>>its ability to make effective decisions.
>>
>>The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related
>>privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it
>>should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an
>>essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers"
>>model.
>>
>>
>Importantly, Wikipedia is not a nation state and can't be compared to
>one.
>
Surely we would not want to be compared to an obsolete concept.
Corporations have learned to transcend the boundaries of nation states
for the greater benefit of the corporations.  Offsetting those forces is
not easy.

>Our "judiciary" simply settles a few fights and determines a few
>basic punishments: partial exclusion and total exclusion). Since
>Wikipedia is a digital project with only hundreds of active editors,
>representative democracy is not necessary. Direct democracy has thus
>far served our needs well, and will continue to do so for the
>foreseeable future.
>
How do you propose to thwart the tyranny of the majority in a direct
democracy?

>Just out of interest, who are you suggesting plays the role of
>executive/cabinet?
>
>
Looks like you still need to figure out how a monarchy works. :-)

Ec


body:
maru dubshinki wrote:

>Wouldn't any democracy-variant simply invite even more sock-puppeting?
>I think perhaps voting through one's edits is the only feasible
>method, as edits require effort and so put up a barrier to entry
>(which in the real world is supplied by the minor barrier that one
>cannot easily replicate oneself).  Which is essentially what we
>already do.
>
The effects of sock-puppetry are perhaps bes neutralized by
marginalization.  As long as you have votes where one or two ballots can
alter the result they will always matter.

Ec


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 7/26/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Single or Dual Xeon or AMD64 based system with up to 6.0 Terabytes of
>>storage and 12 GB of DDR memory. Comes fully installed with the Wikipedia
>>Encyclopedia and a full suite of automated site mirroring and update tools
>>and 1 year of service and support."
>>
>>
>
>Why so much storage?
>
>Uncompressed enwiki text is 680GB. All images in total are about
>300GB. Loaded into postgresql with a normal set of indexes enwiki
>takes about 400GB, I can imagine that a mysql load would be any larger
>(in mysql mediawiki uses zlib batch compression).
>
>I guess the 3TB makes sense to have some growth room.. but 18TB?
>
>

With all revision pages its around 3 TB total. Room for growth and
mirroring
of 5 + 1 or 0 + 1 configurations. Using RAID 1 + 5 Mirrored RAID 5
arrays really boosts
read performance about 60%, so the extra storage are for these fault
tolerant and
performance options.

Jeff

>:)
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>mboverload wrote:
>[fixed top posting]
>
>
>>On 7/21/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an
>>>>episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of
>>>>Friends).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>An article about an episode that cites nothing but the episode itself
>>>is a poor article. It amounts to an article about the Mona Lisa simply
>>>putting a high resolution copy of the image and saying "you can see
>>>for yourself". In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little
>>>about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't
>>>say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were
>>>funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
>>>
>>>We could say "The episode lasted 23 minutes". We could offer a plot
>>>summary. We could describe some of the gags. How boring.
>>>
>>>
>>I don't see the problem with bending the rules a bit for episodes.
>>Who's it going to hurt?
>>
>>
>Ultimately, it will hurt the rest of Wikipedia; instead of doing
>*useful* editing, people will be adding /every single detail/ about
>/every single episode/ of /every single TV show that ever was/, instead
>of focussing on areas where we have no information, very little
>information, or information that is inaccurate or doesn't make sense.
>
This is pure speculation

>There's the entirely seperate issue of approaching copyright
>infringement (Wikipedia, your source of TV and movie scripts on teh
>intarwebs!), but I suspect that the point will be lost on you.
>
Completely irrelevant.  Summarizing the plot is about the content, and
not about the detailed expression in the script.  No-one has suggested
that we include entire scripts.


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 7/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So that we may never have to buy another server for decades... or until we
>>need more processing power.
>>
>>
>
>I wish you luck in keeping the disks running that long. ;)
>
>

3 x 1 power supplys and high output fans. These are the same units I
sell through Solera Networks (I am
using the same manufacture I contracted with for Solera),
They are installed with Wikipedia instead of solera networks software
(forensics tracking software is optional),
and these units seem to go for about 4 years before needing hard drive
swapouts in only 2 % of cases.
The massive airflow keeps the drives cool and they seem to go over 48
months before I start to see any sector failure issues
even in the most severe writing cases (which DSFS the file system I
wrote for Solera is extremely write intensive).

Jeff

>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


body:
geni wrote:

>On 7/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why so much storage?
>>
>>Uncompressed enwiki text is 680GB. All images in total are about
>>300GB. Loaded into postgresql with a normal set of indexes enwiki
>>takes about 400GB, I can imagine that a mysql load would be any larger
>>(in mysql mediawiki uses zlib batch compression).
>>
>>I guess the 3TB makes sense to have some growth room.. but 18TB?
>>
>>:)
>>
>>
>
>If you are doing mass computerised translations you could burn through
>it pretty fast.
>
>
>
I have to host three instances of Wikipedia, so my storage for
WikiGadugi is at 2 TB at present. I use the a shared images
setup just like the Commons, and an automated syncrhonizer that checks
for new images in a non-obstrusive way.

Wikimedia may want to consider setting up a subscription service through
cogento for folks using these appliances to
increase their revenues by offering a private mirror link for images and
content. Folks could buy appliances then purchase
a subscription to Wikimedia's images and commons setup via rsync or http
in a similair setup to Red Hat's setup for
support. Would allow a lot of MediaWiki appliances to move and also
provide Wikimedia additional sources of revenue
with little to no investment on their end.

Jeff


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
mboverload wrote:

>I'm not sure why you're mentioning it, but I recently changed every mention
>of Pokemon to Pok?mon.
>
>mboverload
>
>On 7/25/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>A single sentence in your Pok?mon article could be, "The names of the
>>Pokemon characters are 'Pikachu, Bulbasaurus, ...'."   :-) In deference
>>to an other class of luddites I would then omit the accent from "Pok?mon".
>>
I'm not sure what your arguing about in your top post to an out of
context quote.  It's not important enough for me to trace that back.  I
need to assume that the "you" in my comment referred to you, and IIRC
you wanted to limit the article to one paragraph.  I was merely making a
suggestion for one sentence that that paragraph could include.

So am I safe to say that you made your above comment so that you could
get a virtual pat on the back for your efforts?  If so I hereby offer
that to you.

A few years ago there was a big debate over whether names should include
accents, and I believe that was settled back then.  This doesn't meant
that we don't have a few retro-luddites who would still believe that the
results should have been different.

:-)
Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:58:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge
><saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>If there are no secondary sources I'd say it was unencyclopaedic
>>>anyway.  Mind you, for my money we'd have a single one-paragraph
>>>article on the entire subject of Pok?mon...
>>>
>>>
>>What makes something encyclopedic is that there are people who want to
>>read about the subject.
>>
>>
>Not really.  Judging by teh intarwebs most people want to read about
>reality TV and porn ;-)
>
For some people Pok?mon is reality TV. :-)
The Pok?mon characters are sufficiently secretive thsat any pornographic
interaction between them is unlikely to be verifiable. :-)
Ec


body:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:

>geni wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 7/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Why so much storage?
>>>
>>>Uncompressed enwiki text is 680GB. All images in total are about
>>>300GB. Loaded into postgresql with a normal set of indexes enwiki
>>>takes about 400GB, I can imagine that a mysql load would be any larger
>>>(in mysql mediawiki uses zlib batch compression).
>>>
>>>I guess the 3TB makes sense to have some growth room.. but 18TB?
>>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>If you are doing mass computerised translations you could burn through
>>it pretty fast.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I have to host three instances of Wikipedia, so my storage for
>WikiGadugi is at 2 TB at present. I use the a shared images
>setup just like the Commons, and an automated syncrhonizer that checks
>for new images in a non-obstrusive way.
>
>Wikimedia may want to consider setting up a subscription service through
>cogento for folks using these appliances to
>increase their revenues by offering a private mirror link for images and
>content. Folks could buy appliances then purchase
>a subscription to Wikimedia's images and commons setup via rsync or http
>in a similair setup to Red Hat's setup for
>support. Would allow a lot of MediaWiki appliances to move and also
>provide Wikimedia additional sources of revenue
>with little to no investment on their end.
>
>Jeff
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
And one more thing. If we are truly going to challenge google and yahoo
at some point for internet search engine
supremecy, this is the path to go. Google got there by seeding the
internet with appliances which skulk and harvest
content from the web with massive storage. I am currently adding search
engine capabilities combined with
automated translation and wiki formatting so we can construct a search
engine over time. It will take us about two
years to get where google is, but I have more powerful technology than
they use, so over time, I think we can
eventually get there and wikify the internet. That's where this is going
long term. Native Language preservation is
a huge deal right now -- one step at a time.

Jeff


from_name: mboverload

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN user

body:
Wait, does this mean Mediawiki is going to get some AJAX elements?  Has that
been tried outside of Google in a large scale?

On 7/26/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I've given Daniel Kinzler (Duesentrieb) subversion write access, for work
> relating to an AJAX category tree extension which he has written. Daniel
> has
> been a known and respected member of the community for some time.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
If thats true this term is shitty and shouldn't be use.

I've made up my mind.  The term is not correct, confusing, and should not be
used.

On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/25/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > Or autostrada or autoroute or autobahn or motorway...
> >
> > Limited access highway seems unlikely to be misunderstood.
>
> Honestly, to me "limited access" sounds like only certain people are
> able to use it. If what I call a freeway would actually fit into your
> "limited access highway", then, yes, I would have misunderstood the
> term.
>
> But someone remind me why this overarching category (which is
> presumably divided immediately into American freeways, American
> expressways etc) is so important?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] more fancruft

body:
On 7/26/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg
>
> Its back.
>
> SV
>

It never went away

--
geni


subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN user

body:
I meant on a thosand-hit-an-hour (minute?) website.

On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/27/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wait, does this mean Mediawiki is going to get some AJAX elements?  Has
> that
> > been tried outside of Google in a large scale?
>
> I'm disappointed to report that our Wikipedia article doesn't actually
> contain a list of sites that use AJAX. But, I believe it's pretty
> common these days.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN user

body:
Ok, well I'm excited to see what he can bring to the table.  I think the
edit box could use some work IMO...

On 7/26/06, Ivan Krstic <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> mboverload wrote:
> > I meant on a thosand-hit-an-hour (minute?) website.
>
> Yes.
>
> --
> Ivan Krstic <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> My initial complaint was that "trivia" sections were ugly and stupid.
> The insight of dpbsmith was that they are *harmful*. Sadly, everyone
> forgot about it.

The sort of people that add trivia to non-trivial articles are not the
sort of people that can easily be stopped. Hence my harm minimisation
strategy: Regularly prune these sections without guilt.

Steve


body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Wagner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wait a second, are we talking about copyright infringement,
>>>>plagiarism, or legal use of non-free content?  These are three
>>>>separate problems.  I thought the original post was talking about
>>>>copyright infringement, but this new post talks about "taking somebody
>>>>else's writing and passing it off as their own".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Most people don't distinguish between "plagiarism" and "copyright
>>>infringement" when it comes to writing: the school system is very
>>>effective at training people that simply copying the contents of the
>>>Encyclopedia Britannica isn't an acceptable way of writing a report,
>>>which is why we don't get very many instances of copyright violations
>>>with text.
>>>
>>>
>>Using the work of a PD author without credit would still be plagiarism,
>>but not copyvio.
>>
>>
>As I understand it, under French (and possibly also German) law a
>content creator has "moral rights" (ie. right to attribution) even after
>copyright expires, which are (somehow) part of the copyright law.
>
Yes, there's even a loosely worded section about this in the US
copyright law.  Neverthelesss, the actual term "copyright" is defined
separately.  The confusion is understandable, but complying with the
moral rights should be a lot easier.  It's good scholarship even for
those works which have no protection at all.

Ec


body:
On 7/26/06, Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps we need to stay away from any of the regional/national/continental
> terms for the category name. We don't need to create a neologism--we could
> use a short descriptive phrase that gives a hint as to the meaning, and rely
> on text on the category page to clarify.
>
> Something like "Ramped roads", though I'm sure others will have better
> ideas.

How about "intersection-free highways"?

Thinking about it a bit, there's really no need for a single best
term, is there? Don't category redirections work? Or at least,
shouldn't they? :)

Steve


from_name: Domas Mituzas

body:
Hi!

>  and I am offering turn key systems with automated site mirroring
> software, image sync tools, and machine
> translators for Wikipedia.  The knowledge is free, the software is
> free,
> however, hardware
> costs money ....

I'm not sure if running that hardware to support wikipedia is best
way to do it ;-)
I'd better support WMF to run the site! ;-)

--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/26/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> People have been overinterpreting WP:RS recently (which itself is a
> guideline, not policy). This is a problematic trend.

Yes. There is very much confusion between the concepts of
"verifiability" (we can determine where information came from),
"verifiable sources" (we can actually get hold of the sources of the
information), and "reliable sources" (those sources aren't hate
blogs).

It might help to establish some kind of scale of good to bad:

1. Information is cited to a high quality source which is easily obtained.
2. Information is cited to a high quality source which is not easily obtained.
3. Information came from a high quality source, but was not cited.
4. Information is cited to a low quality source which is easily obtained.
5. Information is cited to a low quality source which is not easily obtained.
6. Information came from a low quality source, which was not cited.

Do people agree with that ranking?

I place 3 above 4 because at least in 3 the information is, at the end
of the day, very likely correct. And I imagine we prefer having high
quality, unsourced information, rather than low quality, sourced
information. Though it's certainly better to have low quality sourced
information than low quality unsourced information.

Interestingly, when I reanalyse that list, it gives the following priorities:
1. Use high quality sources [[WP:RS]]
2. Cite your sources [[WP:CS]]
3. Use sources that are easily obtained [[WP:V]]

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia number 2 on Sydney Morning Herald list of
	music sites

body:
On 7/26/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Haven't downloaded many, but the ones I found were all cheap MIDI
> synthesised versions.

MIDI classical music. For anything other than a Bach fugue, it doesn't
get much worse.

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is 30 times more popular than sex
	(actually: 34 times)

body:
On 7/26/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that table is actually about the top search terms that
> Wikipedia receives traffic from. So "Wikipedia" is used in just over
> 3% of searches which end up in a hit to Wikipedia, and "sex" is used
> in 0.1% of searches which end up in a hit to Wikipedia.

It's bizarre. I did a search for "sex" (with trepidation - I'm at
work) and didn't see any links to Wikipedia. It's also strange that so
many companies go to such a lot of work to get in the top few results
for "sex", while we apparently get in quite easily, with no effort?

Steve


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 7/26/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 7/26/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And one more thing. If we are truly going to challenge google and yahoo
>>>at some point for internet search engine supremecy, this is the path to go.
>>>
>>>
>>No real reseason to do that. In any case the Open Directory Project
>>has been going since 1998 (about the same length as google) and has
>>never really challanged for the lead position in search technology.
>>
>>
>
>A directory isn't a search engine, so I wouldn't expect it to do so.
>
>A wiki is also not a search engine... But what I think Jeff is
>thinking about isn't so much directly competing in the search space
>but instead supplanting the world wide web with the world wide wiki.
>
>It is interesting to ponder the social implications of a massive
>switch to highly participatory systems like Wiki...  perhaps
>delivering on some of the promises that people used to promote
>'blogging'...  In any case, it's interesting.. but off topic.
>
>

Greg got it ....

Jeff

>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/26/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Single or Dual Xeon or AMD64 based system with up to 6.0 Terabytes of
> storage and 12 GB of DDR memory. Comes fully installed with the Wikipedia
> Encyclopedia and a full suite of automated site mirroring and update tools
> and 1 year of service and support."

Why so much storage?

Uncompressed enwiki text is 680GB. All images in total are about
300GB. Loaded into postgresql with a normal set of indexes enwiki
takes about 400GB, I can imagine that a mysql load would be any larger
(in mysql mediawiki uses zlib batch compression).

I guess the 3TB makes sense to have some growth room.. but 18TB?

:)


from_name: James Hare

body:
So that we may never have to buy another server for decades... or until we
need more processing power.

On 7/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/26/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Single or Dual Xeon or AMD64 based system with up to 6.0 Terabytes of
> > storage and 12 GB of DDR memory. Comes fully installed with the
> Wikipedia
> > Encyclopedia and a full suite of automated site mirroring and update
> tools
> > and 1 year of service and support."
>
> Why so much storage?
>
> Uncompressed enwiki text is 680GB. All images in total are about
> 300GB. Loaded into postgresql with a normal set of indexes enwiki
> takes about 400GB, I can imagine that a mysql load would be any larger
> (in mysql mediawiki uses zlib batch compression).
>
> I guess the 3TB makes sense to have some growth room.. but 18TB?
>
> :)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I wouldn't object to some kind of fictional material graphic that could
> be at the head of each relevant article.  It doesn't have to be really big.

Encyclopedia. We don't need any such graphic, as it should be obvious
that the subject matter is fiction.  --LV


body:
On 7/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> So that we may never have to buy another server for decades... or until we
> need more processing power.

I wish you luck in keeping the disks running that long. ;)


body:
I wouldn't know -- I think the longest I kept a computer was 3 years before
I got a new one. I'm highly impatient with old computers.

On 7/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So that we may never have to buy another server for decades... or until
> we
> > need more processing power.
>
> I wish you luck in keeping the disks running that long. ;)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN user

body:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:46:31PM -0700, mboverload wrote:
> Wait, does this mean Mediawiki is going to get some AJAX elements?  Has that
> been tried outside of Google in a large scale?

A great many, actually.

My biggest gripe with many AJAX implementations is the supid
character-by-character preview rendering that is done on many smaller
sites, such as blogs.  On a slow system, this means that in the time it
would take me to type a 750 word essay the friggin' thing might have
only completed showing me a sentence and a half.

Whatever AJAX enhancements are made, let's try to stay clear of stuff
that changes the appearance of the page with every single keystroke.
Please.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.


subject: [Foundation-l] Latest board resolutions

references:
<ea4uh1$tso$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<43348cda0607250855n255a3311i2421dd56b9ed14c6@mail.gmail.com>
	<ea5qik$5m9$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 7/25/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> James Hare wrote:
> > Good luck with the raising of the $60,000!
>
> We have that sum in the bank. So do not worry :-)
>
> The last purchase was done in february :
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Hardware_Purchase_Feb-06
>
>
> ant
>
Someone needs to suggest Resolution Stop Acquiring So Many Assets,
considering all the legal issues that still aren't resolved.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Latest board resolutions


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The Onion on Wikipedia

body:
We are all cracking up here at the office.  Well done!

On 7/26/06, Dirk Riehle <dirk at riehle.org> wrote:
>
> Just saw this:
>
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Dirk
>
> PS: In case you wonder what kind of magazine The Onion is, try our
> favorite reference:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


body:
Domas Mituzas wrote:

>Um. You could share your technology, for common good, sure!
>
>
What does this mean exactly?  Whose good?    Commerce is not evil,
Wikipedia was born from it .... and is supported by it.

>I did not :(
>
>
That's clear....

>I just opened Five Pillars article, and I know that I may fail at
>'code of conduct' sometimes, sorry, but, Wikipedia has neutral point
>of view.
>No 'please donate' buttons will make filtered forks (a.k.a. mirrors)
>worth mentioning as "helping Wikipedia".
>
>
Wikipedia usage as a credible resource is the standard for measurement
of its success.  If folks don't think its credible,
or view it as a novelty, then it has failed.   Personal soapboxs aside.

>Filtered resource/mirror does not give full power to edit the free
>content.
>
>
I can think of nothing more powerful than every person on the planet one
day owning
their own personal wikipedia mirror.  Now that's freedom to edit.

>Sure, $$$ attracts business people, and we have few business people
>here, but we have the pride of not taking that with strings attached.
>
>
Food costs money, rent costs money, computers cost money, hosting costs
money,
internet connectivity costs money -- the strings are that Danny and
Jimbo have to pay
everyones bills to keep it going.  How about those who wish to funnel
$$$ into their efforts
by creating some viable revenue generating initiatives around it.

>We have pride to make free information resource ;-)
>
>
I have pride in creating translations to bring it to every native tribe
in the US and Hawaii.  And I
can back up what I promise with action and solid delivery  -- not hot
air :-).

>It would be an easy task to make a list of countries worth visiting
>to provide wikifilter (I'm quite amused to find wikifilter.org is
>still free ;-) - there're lots of things people should not know
>(because it is all very very depressing (c) Colbert ;-)
>
>
< But I hope foundation has more noble causes to exist. >

You have missed the point and I don't think understand my intentions.

Jeff

Thread taken off line ...

>Cheers,
>Domas
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 7/26/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
> Category redirects don't work because, for example, if Category A is
> redirected to Category B, the articles linking to Category A will populate
> Category A and not B.

Be cool if it did though. Then you could go to either cat A or B and
see the same list of articles. Actually something similar and even
better could be done if a category could *include* another category
(rather than becoming a subcategory of it). In that case, you could
cat Motorways and cat Freeways, one of which actually includes all the
entries of the other, totally transparently.

Steve


body:
On 7/26/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> fixes to be tried. An experiment in this area could be as simple
> and easy as a wikiproject formally appointing a "lead editor" that
> the project participants sign up to support - hardly an earthshaking
> event that requires forking!

"Coordinator".

Steve


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's bizarre. I did a search for "sex" (with trepidation - I'm at
> work) and didn't see any links to Wikipedia. It's also strange that so
> many companies go to such a lot of work to get in the top few results
> for "sex", while we apparently get in quite easily, with no effort?
>

Search on google.com for "sex" -
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-18,GGGL:de&q=Sex

1. www.sxetc.org/ - 15k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
2. www.salon.com/sex/index.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex - 41k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse - 52k - Cached - Similar
pages - Note this
4. www.playboy.com/ - 50k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN user

body:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:22:50AM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 7/27/06, Edward Z. Yang <edwardzyang at thewritingpot.com> wrote:
>
> > > Whatever AJAX enhancements are made, let's try to stay clear of stuff
> > > that changes the appearance of the page with every single keystroke.
> > > Please.
>
> > Well, about the edit preview, don't worry about. Our Parser is
> > complicated enough that anything like that isn't happening soon.
>
> It already has:
> http://wikiwyg.org/wysi/

This actually works much more smoothly than most of the examples of
misuse of AJAX to which I referred.  At least it doesn't make each
character in the entry field wait on each character being rendered
before proceeding in the entry field (thank goodness).  It's still kind
of slow and cumbersome, but not nearly as bad as what I'd previously
encountered.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent:  a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/


body:
On 7/26/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/26/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> > And one more thing. If we are truly going to challenge google and yahoo
> > at some point for internet search engine supremecy, this is the path to go.
>
> No real reseason to do that. In any case the Open Directory Project
> has been going since 1998 (about the same length as google) and has
> never really challanged for the lead position in search technology.

A directory isn't a search engine, so I wouldn't expect it to do so.

A wiki is also not a search engine... But what I think Jeff is
thinking about isn't so much directly competing in the search space
but instead supplanting the world wide web with the world wide wiki.

It is interesting to ponder the social implications of a massive
switch to highly participatory systems like Wiki...  perhaps
delivering on some of the promises that people used to promote
'blogging'...  In any case, it's interesting.. but off topic.


body:
On 7/26/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/26/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I uploaded the picture of Treanna on the english wikipedia. It was the
> > > picture he had on his user page. A bad image, but the only one we had
> > > for him. Certainly an image which will never be reused by anyone. But an
> > > image of Treanna.
> > >
> > > The crime : it was uploaded as a non-derivative license. So, it is
> > > proposed for deletion.
> > >
> > > And frankly, I can not ask Treanna any more if he would be nice enough
> > > to change that license to make it free by wikipedia definition.
> >
> > Is it not, theoretically speaking, possible for someone just to assert
> > ownership of it, and upload it under public domain? They can take full
> > responsibility for any (highly unlikely) challenge to their ownership
> > of it coming from the family or estate or whatever?
> >
> > (but in any case, yes, this is a sad situation)
> >
> > Steve
>
>
>
> I'd sooner make the (somewhat suspect) claim of fair use - after all, it's
> an article about the subject, etc.

In thoery you could ask his estate but they might be difficult to get hold of.

--
geni


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Dead wikipedians and how to really make a project boring
	to death

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Image:Norbert3.jpg_listed_for_deletion

Norbert was a much appreciated wikipedian on the french wikipedia. He
contributed a lot.
Wikipedia is not produced by machines. But by living beings. We should
value people and we should value good contributors.

Norbert died some time ago. It was the first wikipedian we lost on the
french project. At that point, he was the editor with the largest number
of edits. And it was not only typos. He left us a last word just before
he had an operation and did not survive it.

We sent flowers to his burial. We told his family how important he was
for us and they were proud of what he did for Wikipedia.
A text was written about him. And for some reasons, it was translated on
the english signpost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-10-10/News_and_notes.

I uploaded the picture of Treanna on the english wikipedia. It was the
picture he had on his user page. A bad image, but the only one we had
for him. Certainly an image which will never be reused by anyone. But an
image of Treanna.

The crime : it was uploaded as a non-derivative license. So, it is
proposed for deletion.

And frankly, I can not ask Treanna any more if he would be nice enough
to change that license to make it free by wikipedia definition.

--------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians

This page is also part of our history. People matter. Please do not
delete editors pictures because they uploaded an image of them under a
non-derivative licence. please try to find the balance between dogma and
wikilove.

Anthere


subject: [Wikitech-l] Category redlinks

body:
Hi,
  Currently, when linking to a category that "does not exist", a
redlink is shown. However, the definition of "does not exist" is "has
no text describing the category". However, the category actually
functions perfectly well. Since many categories are self-explanatory
(especially for small wikis), I suspect this redlinking acts as an
unnecessary brake on the use of categories. That is, people are
discouraged from pre-emptively linking to a category that doesn't
"exist" yet. Redlinks in the category bar look like mistakes, they
don't look like you've actually done something that is highly
encouraged.

Would it be possible to change the definition of "does not exist" to
be "has no text, and no articles"? Or maybe something else entirely?

Steve


body:
On 7/26/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I think this is absolutely the case.  And I also think that's why
> legal compliance issues should be left to the official agents of the
> organization to worry about.
>
> The focus of the rest of us should be on how to make the best free
> encyclopedia.  Sure, this means not including copyright violations,
> but not with the sense of urgency that some seem to be suggesting.

Copyviois disscourage people from going to the effort to create free content.

> Such a focus would also imply that images which aren't included in any
> pages, and images which are only included on user pages (for
> instance), are an even lower priority.
>

They are however easy targets. Dealing with boarderline fair use stuff
is a pain so we tend to focus on the easy stuff first in order than
limited rescources have the biggest impact.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Precisely. My preferred writing style for the lede of an article on a
> "special subject" is:
>
> "In (context) (subject) is..."
>
> with the article going on to explain the subject not just in it's
> specialised context, but with relation to the broader context it resides
> in. This should be *strongly* enforced with respect to articles on
> fictional subjects; otherwise, we're going to end up with ledes along
> the lines of:
>
> "In 'real life' (subject) is..."

Yep, "In the fictional universe of Star Wars, " works very well for me.

Steve


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

body:
Domas Mituzas wrote:

>I somehow stay at the idea that there's more freedom, when you can
>edit wikipedia without owning a mirror. Unless you want to fork ;-)
>
>
>
I think that's what I was talking about. I forked and now there exists a
Cherokee Wikipedia and
soon a Uto-Aztecan Wikipedia. Read
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Clans. Forking
is how we established settlements all over the Southeast in ancient
times - banishment was a good thing
-- a sign of new beginnings. Forking seeds new communities -- without
the conflict.

>Now strings are defined by community, as community supports Wikipedia.
>I'm not CFO, so I'm quite happy about that ;-)
>
>
I thought they were defined by Society and Economics? The community
unfortunately
apparantly operates in a vacuum (based on my empirical observation) and
does not seem to
listen to the outside world much. Society seems to awaken it once in a
while with USA today
articles, then it scratches, rolls over, and goes back to sleep to the
outside world. Not a bad
model for keeping focus, but one that prevents its members from seeing
the forest for all the trees --
reminds me of the old Novell culture in the mid 1990s which was also a
self contained isolated
island in the middle of Utah Valley.

>
>
>Wikify the world? Intentions are clear, now the methods are not.
>I guess concepts of distributed wikis might be better discussed at
>wikitech-l rather than foundation-l. There it would be really more on
>topic!
>
>BR,
>
>
I find I work better alone on projects like these until the dinner is
prepared and ready to serve.
I am happy to share, but I want to get 98% of the way there before I
have to deal with the
organizational issues. I've done this stuff for 25 years and people slow
me down at times.

All my Wikilove,

Jeff


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> But, better than just saying "oh yes, it's such a shame that some of our
> articles are complete crap" and doing nothing, we need to look at /why/
> this happens. Here is a short true/false quiz which you should fill out
> and submit (and pass!) before you will be allowed to continue this thread:
>
> 1. Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are cooler than Star Wars and Gundam

<snip>

Speaking for myself, most of those comparisons are true. The
"perspective" one is closest to the truth, probably, as Red Dwarf and
Doctor Who don't take themselves seriously. It's hard *not* to notice
the continuity problems in Red Dwarf, and hence it's hard to really
believe in the fictional universe. Whereas the Star Wars universe
"exists" to a greater extent.

Which doesn't mean that Wikipedia exists in the Star Wars fictional
universe. And I don't see a good reason why the same approach should
not be followed for both: Liberal use of "According to the film X, Y
is a ..." and especially "Between series A and B, the producers chose
to introduce...".

I'm undecided on whether it's generally better to say "X happened
because of Y (an explanation invented to cover the real life death of
Z)" or "Z died. This was explained by the scriptwriters as Y
happening".

Steve

Steve


body:
On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> You're not looking in the right place.
>
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Heh! Now we're talking.

Steve


from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category redlinks

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

Moin,

On Wednesday 26 July 2006 18:24, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi,
>   Currently, when linking to a category that "does not exist", a
> redlink is shown. However, the definition of "does not exist" is "has
> no text describing the category". However, the category actually
> functions perfectly well. Since many categories are self-explanatory
> (especially for small wikis), I suspect this redlinking acts as an
> unnecessary brake on the use of categories. That is, people are
> discouraged from pre-emptively linking to a category that doesn't
> "exist" yet. Redlinks in the category bar look like mistakes, they
> don't look like you've actually done something that is highly
> encouraged.
>
> Would it be possible to change the definition of "does not exist" to
> be "has no text, and no articles"? Or maybe something else entirely?

Even worse in my opintion is that you _have_ to fill some text into the
category page, or otherwise links to it wont work. Usually the text thus
reads along the lines "All foo articles:" for Category:Foo.

Best wishes,

Tels
- --
 Signed on Wed Jul 26 18:36:45 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Now, _you_ behave!"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRMeaY3cLPEOTuEwVAQKdXAf+P/rostGq/4Y3U281WpVIN91qQB+KToQo
3PHwpMOLh/dP36G85O1xv70GmT8S/uEfhzW02PgdMkFlsDetDhPxyYTIRICe58Xx
X2u7YWMix8GssOYPkCD2Eiv+2SmAQhl4bPcIflIrK5L7VdIjHZBKJ6xQPoWpV17L
O6xZQDLfLymcAD1owY1lvTY7dIzeAEhnZ/2YAVDBazrlnHPrmKwAjfXkPgqulPj8
JWE1qYJyUvzKF8MKBGBhH0wlVkG+TAt12HFyI3S8/ajoxNRWyaA5BYUrtKkAiD++
Y2/fznsr77fj9jgZZ0zHRXIM1TOdF7OdEFYmd1X+vp9l80HW6/KZlw==
=A65a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 7/26/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I uploaded the picture of Treanna on the english wikipedia. It was the
> picture he had on his user page. A bad image, but the only one we had
> for him. Certainly an image which will never be reused by anyone. But an
> image of Treanna.
>
> The crime : it was uploaded as a non-derivative license. So, it is
> proposed for deletion.
>
> And frankly, I can not ask Treanna any more if he would be nice enough
> to change that license to make it free by wikipedia definition.

Is it not, theoretically speaking, possible for someone just to assert
ownership of it, and upload it under public domain? They can take full
responsibility for any (highly unlikely) challenge to their ownership
of it coming from the family or estate or whatever?

(but in any case, yes, this is a sad situation)

Steve


body:
On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, under French (and possibly also German) law a
> content creator has "moral rights" (ie. right to attribution) even after
> copyright expires, which are (somehow) part of the copyright law.

"Moral rights" don't usually include the right to force others to
attribute you, but they include the right to attribute yourself. For
example, you write some open source code for company X. They own the
copyright. You have moral rights. You can go to company Y and tell
them "I wrote that awesome code". They ask for a copy. You say "sorry,
that would violate X's copyright".

Steve


body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>
>>Disagree. I've talked to a lot of organizatons and groups who
>>love WMF content but want to filter it for in-house use similiar
>>to CleanFlix. Most educational facilities and religious groups
>>who really love wikipedia want a "clean" version of the content,
>>with most of the sexual revolution/pro-alternate lifestyle
>>propoganda materials removed from the dumps.
>>
>>
>
>You're confusing the issue.  Those groups *don't* love Wikipedia.
>We're not here to accomodate and please.
>
>
It sounds like you are not here to accomodate and please, but I doubt
this reflects
everyones views.

>Just consider the "conservative group" in Germany only 70 years
>ago that didn't want all this "propaganda" for interracial
>marriage, etc.  How would you adopt Wikipedia to suit them?
>
>
Since I am married to a German Citizen I can answer that. I am not
adapting it
to serve anyone, I simply provide filtering mechanisms they can use to
filter the dumps.
That's up to the users, not me. I personally don't care what's in it.

Jeff

>
>
>


from_name: Erik Garrison

subject: [Wikitech-l] Pageview counters

body:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 09:37:05AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/25/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm also interested....but I'm concerned that a vandal could find articles
> > that are never looked at and target those.  RC patrol can't get everything.
>
> More information is a good thing, not a bad thing. If there was a
> mechanism by which a vandal could target rarely viewed pages, then
> there could be a mechanism whereby changes made to rarely viewed pages
> (especially by anons!) are highlighted to patrollers.
>

Exactly.

I think there are a lot of tools of this nature which could be created
to aid the WP community in general, researchers (of which I am one), and
site admins in creating, understanding, and maintaining this community.
I've set up a page (Wikipedia:Pageviews) to discuss possible problems
with maintaining such data, tools to counter them, and tools that use
pageview sampling to do useful things for the community.

Wikipedia's individual articles are immensely dependent on readership
for their survival, stability, and improvement.  It would be a shame to
continue to stall on this crucial issue.

As Jeremy writes, this is something which will be discussed now and through Hacking Days.  If you are interested please contribute te the pages he mentions, as well as WP:Pageviews.

I and others who have taken part in this thread have ample time and
resources to solve this problem.  I _refuse_ to let this issue die again.

-Erik


from_name: Ivan Krstic

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN user

body:
mboverload wrote:
> I meant on a thosand-hit-an-hour (minute?) website.

Yes.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category redlinks

body:
This was discussed extensively and a decision was made by the
contributors: the categories shouldn't be blue all the time, i.e. red
categories are red for a reason (misspellings being one of the reasons
that I can remember). As a matter of fact, categories were all blue for
a couple of days, but then reverted back to normal after a huge (IMO)
outburst of users.

Cheers
Filip

Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi,
>   Currently, when linking to a category that "does not exist", a
> redlink is shown. However, the definition of "does not exist" is "has
> no text describing the category". However, the category actually
> functions perfectly well. Since many categories are self-explanatory
> (especially for small wikis), I suspect this redlinking acts as an
> unnecessary brake on the use of categories. That is, people are
> discouraged from pre-emptively linking to a category that doesn't
> "exist" yet. Redlinks in the category bar look like mistakes, they
> don't look like you've actually done something that is highly
> encouraged.
>
> Would it be possible to change the definition of "does not exist" to
> be "has no text, and no articles"? Or maybe something else entirely?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN user

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

mboverload wrote:
> Ok, well I'm excited to see what he can bring to the table.  I think the
> edit box could use some work IMO...

But that's not AJAX...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEx/S2qTO+fYacSNoRAtNEAJwLDMrtrer1/1VI9IeICkyce0Va0ACfQ6XW
PCAQA7ZAHGUWF3uEU4BqJjI=
=DEn0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 7/26/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> >>Because of copyright laws, the site doesn't have much by contemporary
> >>artists but its classical collection is growing daily. Mozart and Beethoven
> >>are best represented, with more than 20 pieces each. Other composers have
> >>fewer files, and they are in the "Ogg Vorbis" format, which won't play on an
> >>iPod although they are compatible with most computer players.
> >
> > Where are we getting these copyright-free recordings from?
>
> Haven't downloaded many, but the ones I found were all cheap MIDI
> synthesised versions.
>
> Timwi

Actually, there is some really great stuff on wikipedia. A list can be
found at [[Wikipedia:Sound/list]]. All of them are properly licensed
(many, I notice come from a site called Free music!) which might be
due to the fact that the majority of them were uploaded by Raul654.

Check it out, it's really cool! Some of them live converted on my iPod
right now.


subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN user

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

Chad Perrin wrote:
> Whatever AJAX enhancements are made, let's try to stay clear of stuff
> that changes the appearance of the page with every single keystroke.
> Please.

Well, about the edit preview, don't worry about. Our Parser is
complicated enough that anything like that isn't happening soon.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEx/U5qTO+fYacSNoRAtl/AJ4nbuHwOuMHekN2jU4XVyEytWnExgCfUwPl
9Awq+cY4EfMbWh/1JVz7z5I=
=OJTA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Hi!!!!

> revolution/pro-alternate lifestyle propoganda materials
> removed from the dumps.

You forgot China and their needs!

Anyway, I'm somewhat confused. You disagree with idea that foundation is
more worthy cause to support Wikipedia, than buying filtering hardware.

> from much of the topics, or perceived erotic imagery in many of the
> articles. My tools let you filter import XML dumps

Do your filters try to count how much pink is in picture? :)

Anyway, I'm not sure censoring Wikipedia is helping Wikipedia.
And I'm not sure anyone limiting access to proper wikipedia content is
helping Wikipedia either.

I guess there're more books which contain violence (say... smiting in
Bible), which should be definitely filtered.

Domas


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 7/26/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I uploaded the picture of Treanna on the english wikipedia. It was the
> picture he had on his user page. A bad image, but the only one we had
> for him. Certainly an image which will never be reused by anyone. But an
> image of Treanna.

I've tagged the photo as fair use and delisted it from IfD.

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN user

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

Erik Moeller wrote:
> It already has:
> http://wikiwyg.org/wysi/

I meant a "true" preview:

http://wikiwyg.org/wysi/Disadvantages

Even WikiWYG concedes that it's highly unlikely that it will get
integrated into the official MediaWiki codebase.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEx/pmqTO+fYacSNoRAu/KAJ9/SEpv+/mlICcyR92QEaMqLKzQ1ACfeRir
MdA8Xh9EmPGjYHyKizWUivE=
=YbVu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: maru dubshinki

body:
On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/26/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think that table is actually about the top search terms that
> > Wikipedia receives traffic from. So "Wikipedia" is used in just over
> > 3% of searches which end up in a hit to Wikipedia, and "sex" is used
> > in 0.1% of searches which end up in a hit to Wikipedia.
>
> It's bizarre. I did a search for "sex" (with trepidation - I'm at
> work) and didn't see any links to Wikipedia. It's also strange that so
> many companies go to such a lot of work to get in the top few results
> for "sex", while we apparently get in quite easily, with no effort?
>
> Steve

Apparently there is a large market for quality and non-titillating
sexual information in article format... Entry into this engorging
market need not be stiff.

Digital Universe, you listening? This would be an attractive and
excellent niche, especially for people who make a fetish of reliablity
they've paid for. Although they would have to beat us off first, so
perhaps the first mover advantage makes such a proposition unalluring.

~maru


subject: [Wikitech-l] Category redlinks

body:
On 7/26/06, Stephen Forrest <stephen.forrest at gmail.com> wrote:
> But if the mere act of category inclusion caused a category to "exist"
> in this way, then there would never be any redlinked categories at
> all, except during preview, no?

Well I was thinking of a middle ground, whereby if two pages linked to
the same "non-existent" category, it became "existent" - well, blue at
least. It would be nice to encourage people to think about ways of
dividing up big categories. I've come across some monsters on EN
lately, such as [[Category:Poetic form]] and [[Category:XML-based
standards]].

A lot could be done to make category reorganisation easier. I don't
have many concrete ideas yet, but displaying local hiercharies is
another thing that would be cool...

> Redlinking of categories does serve some useful purpose.  Though an
> uncreated category may contain articles, it will by definition never
> have a place in the category hierarchy and never have interwiki links
> to equivalent categories in other wikis.  These last two things are

Yes, but there are many problems like (eg, pages that aren't linked
to, pages that don't link to anything, pages that aren't categorised)
that best dealt with through "special pages". "Category has no
super-category" does not seem an appropriate reason for the category
to be a redlink - especially since it's easy to have a category with
no super category that *isn't* a redlink.

> also very important for small wikipedias.  Though "blue-linking"
> doesn't guarantee either will be the case, it's useful to have
> redlinking to spot when they're definitely not there.

I actually meant wiki in the general sense when I said "small wikis".
Not very clear I admit :)

> That said, you have a point.  It is a bit odd that the first thing one
> does to "create" a category is submit a blank edit field.

Yep. When users have to do strange, non-intuitive things to reach
normal situations, you know something is probably not quite right.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yep, "In the fictional universe of Star Wars, " works very well for me.
>
> Steve

Well, actually you should really be specifying whether it is from the
movie SW universe, the [[Expanded Universe (Star Wars)]] or whether it
is [[fanon]], [[fanfiction]], or [[Star Wars canon|non-canonical]].

~maru