body:
LittleDan-
> You mean the content is offensive? I think sexually
> explicit material falls into a fundimentally different
> category. Plus, the [[Christianity]] page doesn't say,
> "Jesus Christ is our savior and he will eventualy come
> back to smite all of the people who aren't good
> christians" (sorry, I don't know much about
> christianity, I'm jewish). All it says is different
> opinions of different sects of christianity
> (hopefully) and doesn't present any as fact. If
> christianity is offensive, then so are half the
> articles in wikipedia. Just think of World Book, the
> current school encyclopedia almost everywhere. They
> report on Christianity, but they don't contain
> sexually explicit images. If we start to allow this,
> then who knows how far it will snowball?

You're missing my point. My point is that, from an NPOV perspective,
sexually explicit content is no different than any other content. It may
offend some people, it may be desired by other people. Singling out
sexualy explicit content for filtering would be a POV decision on our
part, as we would be explicitly supporting filtering in this instance, but
in no other. If we implement any filtering, it should be applicable to all
types of content.

Regards,

Erik


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] I have apoligized

body:
LittleDan-
> I don't see what's wrong with multiple consecutive
> edits on one page. Sometimes I submit the page and
> then I realise that I forgot to put in some
> information, or I forget to preview.

Do you see nothing wrong with 3 consecutive edits to the same page? Right,
neither do I. How about 30? 300? Obviously there is a point at which it
gets annoying, and Lir regularly got past this point. Please familiarize
yourself with Lir's edit history before defending him. Here are some
highlights, but these are not exceptions -- Lir frequently made 2 or more
edits *per minute* to the same page. Now if you think that isn't
excessive, then we may have slightly different standards. When this was
pointed out, Lir complained that it was the fault of the software and
refused to change his behavior in any way. He did not use the preview
function *at all*.

# 08:08 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 08:07 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 08:06 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 08:05 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 08:05 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 08:04 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 08:04 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 08:03 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 08:03 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 08:02 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation

# 16:54 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:54 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:53 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:53 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:52 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:51 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:48 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:47 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:46 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:45 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:07 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:05 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:05 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:03 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:02 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:01 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 16:01 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 15:48 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 15:48 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 15:47 Jan 18, 2003 Bail

# 18:57 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:56 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:55 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:55 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:54 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:53 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:45 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:45 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:44 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:44 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 18:43 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore

# 07:14 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:10 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:09 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:06 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:05 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:05 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:04 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:04 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:03 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:03 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 07:02 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)

# 17:20 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 17:19 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 17:17 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 17:17 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 17:16 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 17:16 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 17:15 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 17:15 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 17:14 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 17:13 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable

# 11:18 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 11:18 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 11:12 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 11:11 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 11:07 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 11:04 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 11:03 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 10:59 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 10:58 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 10:56 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 10:45 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 10:45 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie

# 16:14 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:51 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:42 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:39 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:35 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:20 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:15 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:11 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:09 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:09 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:07 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 14:40 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 14:19 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 14:18 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 14:06 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:58 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:55 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:55 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:45 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:42 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:42 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:41 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:40 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:35 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:28 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:26 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:26 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:25 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:25 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:24 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:18 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:17 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:15 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:12 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 06:12 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson

# 15:05 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 15:04 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 15:00 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 15:00 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:59 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:55 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:54 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:52 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:50 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:50 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:50 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:48 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:48 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas

# 14:03 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 14:02 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 13:20 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 13:18 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 13:17 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 13:17 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 13:13 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 13:13 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 13:06 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 12:59 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas

# 03:25 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:25 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:21 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:20 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:20 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:17 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:16 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:15 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:14 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:08 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:07 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:04 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 03:00 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:59 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:58 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:53 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:53 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:52 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:51 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:51 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:50 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:44 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:41 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:41 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 02:40 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator

# 07:08 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 07:08 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 07:07 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 07:04 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:50 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:48 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:47 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:47 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:44 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:40 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:36 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:34 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:34 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:33 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:32 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:28 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:27 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:19 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:18 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:17 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:13 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:13 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:09 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 06:09 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 04:12 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 04:04 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 04:03 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
# 03:59 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please, no more personal attacks

body:
On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 20:45, Tony Wilson wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
> > I'm just hoping Wikipedia doesn't significantly factionalize--or rather,
> > stays in factions of one. I'm mildly disturbed by the way 172 invited
> > particular people to work on an entry ("Wanted: Tannin, Sluberstien, and
> > Jtdirl")http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Industrial_Revolution&action=history
> > because I don't see that kind of behavior boding well for the future.
>
> Knock it off, Cunc.
>
> That's quite uncalled for, and I'm getting very tired of your
> relentless sniping on this list. If you had bothered to THINK about it
> for a momemt, you might have realised that the three people named were
> named for a good and obvious reason:
>
> I have a degree in that field and (before I went into business) used to
> teach it at tertiary level.
>
> Slrubenstein can also be presumed to have formal qualifications in the
> field (doubtless higher ones than mine) as he too teaches it at
> tertiary level
>
> Jtdirl has a phD in the field, and teaches it.
>
> You have a problem with professional expertise? Or are you just making
> trouble?

You don't need to take a rude and abusive tone to argue a reasonable
point. I don't have a problem with professional expertise, though it's
not clear that any of you are particular experts on the history of
technology or economic theory. I do have a problem with elitism,
rudeness, threats, and defensive cliques of likeminded people.

In my opinion, it takes a lot of naivete to believe that the only reason
172 made an explicit invitation for you and Jtdirl to contribute was
because you have academic backgrounds.

I don't have a problem with professional expertise, but I trust the
evidence of what Wikipedians contribute over what their credentials are.
There are many people in this world with PhDs. The degree, I've found in
my experience, doesn't necessarily amount to much.

Finally, being an expert historian and an expert encyclopedist--and in
particular, an expert Wikipedist--are not the same thing.

As I've said before when I've bleated negativity or words of caution in
the past: my opinions are honest, but I hope to be proven wrong.

And hey, maybe my judgment is colored by 172 yelling at me, calling me
dense, and threatening banning, and Jtdirl calling me monumentally
arrogant, illinformed, with a poor grasp of the facts, and having a
monumental ignorance of how academic research is done.

But I guess I should bow to their professional expertise.

I'm sorry if I upset you. You seem like an honorable person.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimfbleak is now a sysop

body:
There were no objections and several nods of approval, so I have made
Jimfbleak a sysop.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jtdirl sysop status

body:
Since there were a couple of objections, I will wait for Jimbo to return
and make a decision on whether or not he should be assigned sysop status.

Regards,

Erik


list: wikitech-l

from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikitech-l] space beneath headings

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

>We should never have heading tags inside a table. Headings
>should only be used for article structure, and styles should
>be used for table cells. That said, the stylesheet should
>determine the amount of space between a heading and its
>following text, and whether or not there is a blank space
>between them in the souce text shouldn't matter.
>
So we can kill off the "space after heading / no space after heading"
distinction in wiki markup?
If so -- yay!!!!
:-)

Daniel Mayer wrote:

please make normal headings
(outside of tables) have one half space following them.

margin-bottom:1ex;
should be about right :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the clitoris guy

body:
Richard-
> Ok then, consider a parallel case: For many years, the Encyclopedia
> Brittanica contained quite detailed information on the extraction of
> opitates from poppies (it may still do for all I know, but the only copy I
> have access to is 1970's) - probably enough for someone to be able to
> replicate it. Or perhaps the case of chemical recipies for explosives -
> should Wikipedia, in the interests of being NPOV and encyclopedic, include
> these?

Depends on whether they cross the threshold of potential legal liability.

> Some information is suppressed for the "public good".

This is wrong. Censorship will never increase the public good. Those who
desire the information in question to do harm will find channels through
which they can obtain it, since they are already willing to commit a
crime. Meanwhile, those who need the information in order to prevent harm
will have difficulty finding it.

The only forms of censorship Wikipedia should abide by are those demanded
by United States law (or the respective local equivalents for the
international Wikipedias).

Regards,

Erik


body:
Toby-
> I would send a 10-year-old to [[en:Peyronie disease]] without reservation.

So long as this is not the only sexual information they see, as practiced
by United States abstinence "education". Want to warp minds? Then let them
only see pictures of sexual diseases and not of natural sexual organs when
they're still young.

On topic: Whether or not we allow nudity should have nothing to do with
whether it is in a negative or positive context (again with the obvious
restriction that we have to follow laws, so illustrating [[pornography]]
with public domain porn will, for the time being, remain impossible).

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Tony Wilson

subject: [WikiEN-l] sysop status

body:
Just confirming that, yes, I did nominate Jim Frost (Jimfbleak) for an
admin role. He will be an excellent addition to the team.
Tony Wilson
(Tannin)


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Two issues here: what is legal to have on the server and what is legal in the user's nation

body:
Toby wrote:
> The "international" (that is, non-English) Wikipedias
> are also subject only to US and (I think) California law.
> That's where they're located, after all.
> (Although suggestions have been made in the past
> to self-censor [[fr:]] and [[zh:]]
> in order to prevent the governments of France and the PRC
> from declaring it illegal to *view* them,
> which isn't exactly the same thing.)

IANAL

Ahem. If it is illegal for user x to do a and b in the country they are
contributing from, then that user should /not/ do that!

General comments to all:

If it is illegal in your nation to do something that would otherwise be legal
in California, then you are still taking a personal risk if you break your
own nation's laws. The simple fact that the server is in California does not
shield you from the laws of your own nation.

But what is legal for Wikipedia to have on its server in San Diego is really
only a matter of California/United States law (as Toby points out).

I don't think the first part of this point gets stressed often enough.

Of course, what is "appropriate" is a different matter and is largely dictated
by consensus and standing policy (both Wikipedia wide and language specific).

<devil's advocate>
It is here where an interesting question arises; should particular languages
have /added/ restrictions across their own language version of Wikipedia that
go beyond California/US law in order to make texts written in French, for
example, legal to have on a server in France?

Wouldn't that make the texts more useful to French-speaking peoples (well, at
least the French speakers in France)?
</devil's advocate>

I would argue that this is a dangerous idea because then the laws of
potentially every nation on earth could have veto power over what we have on
Wikipedia just to make it theoretically possible to have our text usable as
is and hosted on a server in each of those nations. The result of that would
be massive censorship in order to meet the lowest common denominator.

IMO, we should keep things simple and only concern ourselves with these two
things (as far as the legal issue goes):

1) What is legal for any one user to do in the nation they are submitting
from.
2) What is legal to have on our server in California (this applies to
everything we all submit; all text/media must be legal under California/US
law).

Both of the above factors limit what we each can individually submit. So for
example; a user writing from Germany has to respect restrictions set forth by
German law and US law in what they submit while a user writing from Australia
has to do the same in respect to Australian and US law.

Hm. This concept should be on a general disclaimer or something....

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here: what is legal to have on the server and what is legal in the user's nation


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A vision for wiki syntax, documented

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

>Here's the URL:
>
><http://www.piclab.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Wikipedia_Text_Syntax>
>
>
>
looking good :) I've left a comment.

Note: for those who find Lee's choice of background a little loud &
painful, go here: http://www.squarefree.com/userstyles/make-bookmarklet.html
to make yourself a bookmarklet which kills off backgrounds :-)
(ain't CSS great!)


body:
Daniel-
> I know it is POV, but I think it is
> nessessary in a situation like this.

If you think we should get rid of NPOV for "special situations", just say
so. I'm sure a nice discussion will follow :-)

Regards,

Erik


body:
Cunc-
> I agree that long term and in general society would benefit from minimal
> censorship, but at the same time I wouldn't want to be the one caught in
> the bind of having information valuable to me being in the wrong hands.

No, these are different issues. When someone obtains private information
from you and distributes it without your consent, you can prosecute them
for doing so. But you can't stop the further distribution of that data. If
it's out there, it's out there - deal with it.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: JFrost8401 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] sysop

body:
Thanks to all those who supported my nomination (or at least withheld their
objections).

I'm aware that I still have a lot to learn, so I don't expect the alleged
"superpowers" to change my life, least of all because I don't know what they
are, and I can;t see myself as a great ISP blocker.
 thanks again

Jim (jimfbleak)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030515/4c1a5890/attachment.htm


body:
LDC wrote:
><http://www.piclab.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Wikipedia_Text_Syntax>
>
>So as I said, this is a vision. I invite comment
>and criticism. But I think it's important to
>Wikipedia's future that we do a good job of this.

I agree - but when you said "ALL HTML is forbidden" I went ahead and looked at
the table specification part of your document and saw some things that seem
rather Spartan to me. For example, the document doesn't indicate whether or
not nested tables would be allowed and it doesn't seem to say how one would
do bgcolor-type cell fills, or how to set border width.

If those things cannot be replicated in wikicode then all the
already-converted elements, country, ship, organism and battle tables would
be broken (not to mention the main pages of fr.wiki, ja.wiki, eo.wiki and
others - including a partially crippled en.wiki Main Page) . This would be a
very bad thing and I for one would be not be too happy if much of the work
I've done with the Elements project over the past year is destroyed (not to
mention the several other WikiProjects I helped nurture).

So if the table at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium cannot be
replicated pretty much as-is in wikicode then I for will have a fit (I'm sure
many others will join me).

Also; if all HTML is going to be 'forbidden' then what do we do with all the
HTML we already have? Fire-up the Conversion Script again perhaps (just when
I was about to pass the damn thing on the Most Active Wikipedian's page! ;).

An alternative solution is to only allow HTML syntax to be rendered if it is
in a table:namespace page. So the HTML table code in [[Beryllium]] could be
placed at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table:Beryllium and in the Beryllium
article that table can be displayed by typing [[table:Beryllium]] (much like
the image:namespace now works). Your more simple table wikicode could then be
used for less complex and shorter tables.

That way the dense table code now in [[Beryllium]] won't be in the way of
users who are only concerned about editing the prose of the article (even a
wikicode table would be dense and intimidating to many people).

A more long-term solution is to have a WYSIWYG GUI - then grandma can edit
even a very complex table by clicking inside the cell she wants to write in.

Please forgive me if these things are already explained somewhere in the
document - I only had time to glance at a few sections.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] id vs name attributes and javascript

body:
While setting things up for the automated testing system, Lee made some
changes to the HTML code, adding id tags & such so the tests could find
things more easily.

I'm not sure exactly how the code should be behaving, but there does
seem to be a difference, as reported at
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANew_server_madness :

On edit pages, we've changed from:
  <form .... name='editform'>
to
  <form id="editform" ....>

However the latter form seems to break this JavaScript fragment in the
page's onLoad handler:

  document.editform.wpTextbox1.focus()

Mozilla gives the error "document.editform has no properties".
IE 5.5 gives "'document.editform.wpTextbox1' is null or not an object".

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030515/c5f3b3e0/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Anthere

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey, I didn't write that!
>
> > > >--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> > > >I feel that an encyclopedia ofour caliber can
> > > really positively
> > > >impact the lives and education of younger
> people.
> > > By which I mean
> > > >anyone who can read and click a mouse (I don't
> > know
> > > how old that is,
> > > >but my guess is around 4 years old)

ho ! My apologies Dan. I probably mixed ownership
contributions in the text. Sorry, I didnot mean to do
this.

Ant

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: james duffy

body:
I'm a bit confused, Fred. Last week you told me I was the equivalent of a
Holocaust denier, ie a right wing anti-semite (a bit bizarre, as I am not
right wing, I am not anti-semite, and I know the Holocaust happened.)
This week, in the lexicon of Fred attacks, I am a "left wing historical
revision[ist]", who is like one of the people in the Cultural Revolution who
thought "Madam Mao was real cool." Now I am in reality slightly left of wing
(ie, a social democrat, not a socialist, much less a communist - another of
Fred's theories!) but I am not a revisionist. Fred may think that I am a
right wing left wing, Holocaust-denying Madam Mao-devoted revisionist, but I
am nothing of the sort.

Given the fact that I have been called simultaneously an Australian
republican and an Australian monarchist for the same one edit, a "west-Brit"
apologist for British imperialism and a provisional IRA propagandist (for
the same article by two different people!), the truth is clear. I am simply
concerned with articles achieving high standards of factual accuracy,
relevance and NPOV.  And if that meant toning down Brit-bashing or Irish
republicanism-bashing, and/or increasing the criticism of whichever had been
let off, so replacing POV or NPOV, or stopping an article on Australia from
following either a republican or monarchist agenda, I have done it, just as
it meant stopping either pro-communist hero worship or anti-communist rants.
NPOV means using facts and language that provide balanced accurate coverage
that allows the reader to make up their own mind. It does not mean becoming
Wikipedia's fundamentalist preacher, issuing sermons in articles by lacing
them with loaded terms. Apart from anything else, loaded terms more often
than not backfire, annoying the reader and leading him or her to take the
opposite view to the writer.

Wikipedia deserves high standards and I have worked to ensure it got that.
And if I am seen as a left wing right winger, a communist-conservative, a
pro-British IRA supporting unionist republican, or a Catholic-hating
catholic apologist, that simply means I am doing my job correctly. If Fred
can write balanced NPOV articles he will have no problem from me.

JT.

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
That is the position they took. But in practice their postion was that it
was "their article". They assumed a veto power (as a group) on how the
article was to be defined and what could be included in it.

Fred

> From: tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:59:48 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Please, no more personal attacks
>
>
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> When I make a link to [[mass murder]] in an article on the [[communist
>> state]] I'm not making something up. The shame is on the folks who think
>> they can delete the link under some pretext.
>>
> I'm just a bystander here. But from what I gathered, that page wasn't
> the place to discuss the specifics of what *certain* communist states
> have done, but the political system in the abstract.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Alex R.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Application for sysop status & the assocation of Wikipedians

body:
I know that LittleDan has nominated me as a sysop. After reviewing what I could find on WIkipedia about the benefits and responsibilities of being a sysop and agreeing with LittleDan's understanding of what being a sysop is I am accepting his nomination (I am not sure it needs to be seconded as in some associations it is not necessary to second nominations for any elected office, so maybe the nomination has already been made, otherwise I hope someone will either second it or object to my comment about the rules; it does seem to be the practice here that sysop applications are seconded).

In applying I would like to say that my interest in becoming a sysop is to help continue to make Wikipedia a valuable educational project that can benefit everyone. As a jurist I remember hearing that adage, 'Freedom of the Press belongs to he who owns the Press!'. These days it is more important than ever to stand up for the principle that we do not have to be controlled by the corporate forces of media that often dictate what we are supposed to know and what governments would (in certain countries) try to prevent us from knowing - by all rights everyone should have access to knowlege and the disputes regarding the neutrality of that knowledge.

While some of the recent postings about the illegality of the use of Wikipedia in other countries may be an important issue in those countries, it is true that the protections afforded under the First Amendment of the US Constitution are the broadest in the free world. So at least Wikipedia can post that information and hopefully those who live in countries where censorship is common (such as in Iran, North Korea, China and Belarus) can find a way to access the knowledge we are offering freely to anyone with an internet connection and a web browser. I am impressed of the sophistication of the discourse found here regarding such issues as censorship, pornography and the self policing of copyright issues found on Wikipedia, it is a testimony to the quality of volunteers found here.

I'd also like to point you to a page that I've  created on Meta-Wikipedia. Even if my sysop application is rejected I am proposing that we go forward as a voluntary association and become a little more organized:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Wikipedians
I would be happy to help any similar undertaking with donation of any necessary pro bono commitment of my time.
Thank you,
Alex T Roshuk
Attorney at law
Brooklyn NY
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030515/8696b1fe/attachment.htm


from_name: Richard Grevers

body:
On 14 May 2003 23:04:00 +0200, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> gave
utterance to the following:

> You're missing my point. My point is that, from an NPOV perspective,
> sexually explicit content is no different than any other content. It may
> offend some people, it may be desired by other people. Singling out
> sexualy explicit content for filtering would be a POV decision on our
> part, as we would be explicitly supporting filtering in this instance,
> but  in no other. If we implement any filtering, it should be applicable
> to all  types of content.
>
Ok then, consider a parallel case: For many years, the Encyclopedia
Brittanica contained quite detailed information on the extraction of
opitates from poppies (it may still do for all I know, but the only copy I
have access to is 1970's) - probably enough for someone to be able to
replicate it. Or perhaps the case of chemical recipies for explosives -
should Wikipedia, in the interests of being NPOV and encyclopedic, include
these? Some information is suppressed for the "public good". In fact the
scope of information that is suppressed is one of the key determinants of
whether we regard a particular political environment as being "free" or
not. -- Richard Grevers
File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)


body:
The Cunctator wrote:

> I'm just hoping Wikipedia doesn't significantly factionalize--or rather,
> stays in factions of one. I'm mildly disturbed by the way 172 invited
> particular people to work on an entry ("Wanted: Tannin, Sluberstien, and
> Jtdirl")http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Industrial_Revolution&action=history
> because I don't see that kind of behavior boding well for the future.

Knock it off, Cunc.

That's quite uncalled for, and I'm getting very tired of your
relentless sniping on this list. If you had bothered to THINK about it
for a momemt, you might have realised that the three people named were
named for a good and obvious reason:

I have a degree in that field and (before I went into business) used to
teach it at tertiary level.

Slrubenstein can also be presumed to have formal qualifications in the
field (doubtless higher ones than mine) as he too teaches it at
tertiary level

Jtdirl has a phD in the field, and teaches it.

You have a problem with professional expertise? Or are you just making
trouble?


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
--- Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hey, I didn't write that!
> >
> > > > >--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> > > > >I feel that an encyclopedia ofour caliber can
> > > > really positively
> > > > >impact the lives and education of younger
> > people.
> > > > By which I mean
> > > > >anyone who can read and click a mouse (I don't
> > > know
> > > > how old that is,
> > > > >but my guess is around 4 years old)
>
> ho ! My apologies Dan. I probably mixed ownership
> contributions in the text. Sorry, I didnot mean to do
> this.
>
> Ant

I wrote that.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Lee Daniel Crocker

body:
> I agree - but when you said "ALL HTML is forbidden" I went ahead and looked at
> the table specification part of your document and saw some things that seem
> rather Spartan to me. For example, the document doesn't indicate whether or
> not nested tables would be allowed and it doesn't seem to say how one would
> do bgcolor-type cell fills, or how to set border width.

There's no provision for nested tables. I don't think there's a good enough
case for their necessity. Cell backgrounds and borders can be done with styles.

> So if the table at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium cannot be
> replicated pretty much as-is in wikicode then I for will have a fit (I'm sure
> many others will join me).

Yeah, that nested table is a nuisance. I'll have to think about that.

> An alternative solution is to only allow HTML syntax to be rendered if it is
> in a table:namespace page.

As I said before, I want to eliminate the complexity, not just move it
around. I want newbies to have some chance of being to edit the table as
well as the prose around it.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


body:
> (Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>):
>
> However the latter form seems to break this JavaScript fragment in the
> page's onLoad handler:
>
>   document.editform.wpTextbox1.focus()
>
> Mozilla gives the error "document.editform has no properties".
> IE 5.5 gives "'document.editform.wpTextbox1' is null or not an object".

The form can have both "id" and "name" if necessary. Where is that
particular piece of Javascript defined?

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> >On topic: Whether or not we allow nudity should
> have nothing to do with
> >whether it is in a negative or positive context
> (again with the obvious
> >restriction that we have to follow laws, so
> illustrating [[pornography]]
> >with public domain porn will, for the time being,
> remain impossible).
>
> What law would that actually break?
>
>
> -- Toby

I was also wondering what was defining porn. I do not
see the pict at the origin of this discussion as a
porn pict really. More like an erotic one. Hmmm. Not
so erotic that I see any trouble keeping it (except
for the cp possible issue).
Since we are on an american server, how does the
american law draw the line between what is porn and
what is not porn ? And is porn illegal in the US ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


body:
On 5/15/03 10:26 AM, "tarquin" <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> That is the position they took. But in practice their postion was that it
>> was "their article". They assumed a veto power (as a group) on how the
>> article was to be defined and what could be included in it.
>>
>>
>>
> It seemed a fairly sensible thing to me once I read about it.
> Fred, if someone came along and sais the article "Fish" should also
> mention  "Saturn", we'd tell them it wasn't suitable. They might raise
> similar criticisms of "veto power"

Let's back up a step. You originally wrote:
> But from what I gathered, that page wasn't
> the place to discuss the specifics of what *certain* communist states
> have done, but the political system in the abstract.

For one, that's not what the text Jtdirl & 172 didn't want on the page
discussed. The text was about general/common characteristics of the
Communist state in practice. *If those exist* then it would be entirely
appropriate for that text to be on the *Communist state* entry.

This was not about "Saturn" vs. "fish".

Second: the entry title is not "Communist state as a political system in the
abstract".

Third: if you look at the entry, it contains several specifics of what
*certain* communist states have done. In other words, the claim that that
was what was wrong with the text was specious.

But if you truly see this as a "Saturn" vs. "fish" issue, then perhaps it is
me who is unclear on the concept. My impression was that 172 and Jtdirl were
upset by the claims about Communist states Fred was making and that they
then decided to use the argument that they knew what "Communist state" meant
and Fred and anyone who disagreed with them didn't. I had hoped that instead
of attacking me they would have put in the effort to make the entry clear
and convincing to me. But perhaps I'm particularly obtuse.


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
--- Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was also wondering what was defining porn. I do
> not
> see the pict at the origin of this discussion as a
> porn pict really. More like an erotic one. Hmmm. Not
> so erotic that I see any trouble keeping it (except
> for the cp possible issue).
> Since we are on an american server, how does the
> american law draw the line between what is porn and
> what is not porn ? And is porn illegal in the US ?

AFAIK, it varies from state to state. Child
pornography is illegal in all 50 states. Most of the
adult anti-porn laws are in the so-called "bible
belt", comprising much of the south- and mid-west
states (not california, where the servers are
located). There, hardcore porn is illegal, but
softcore porn is legal. In case you're wondering how I
know all this (Oh no! That little boy travels around
the country buying pornography!), I read it in a book
about internet privacy.

--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Two issues here: what is legal to have on the server and what is legal in the user's nation

body:
Maveric149 wrote in part:

>Toby wrote:

>>The "international" (that is, non-English) Wikipedias
>>are also subject only to US and (I think) California law.
>>That's where they're located, after all.

>Ahem. If it is illegal for user x to do a and b in the country they are
>contributing from, then that user should /not/ do that!

OK, I wasn't thinking about the legal liabilities of the *contributor*.
That's a good point.

>If it is illegal in your nation to do something that would otherwise be legal
>in California, then you are still taking a personal risk if you break your
>own nation's laws. The simple fact that the server is in California does not
>shield you from the laws of your own nation.

Yes, a *personal* risk.

>IMO, we should keep things simple and only concern ourselves with these two
>things (as far as the legal issue goes):
>1) What is legal for any one user to do in the nation they are submitting
>from.
>2) What is legal to have on our server in California (this applies to
>everything we all submit; all text/media must be legal under California/US
>law).

I don't think that we-as-a-group (Wikipedia as an institution)
should concern ourselves (in our policies) with issue #1.
We should not, for example, declare it a bannable offence
or against Wikipetiquette to violate local laws when submitting.
We-as-individuals (each individual editor acting privately)
have to concern ourselves with #1, by our own standards of personal risk.
A contributor from France can decide what risk she wants to take
in posting potentially illegal material while in that country.
But I shouldn't use my influence on Wikipedia policy to stop her.
(I don't know if this paragraph is in disagreement with you or not.)

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Two issues here: what is legal to have on the server and what is legal in the user's nation


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>When I make a link to [[mass murder]] in an article on the [[communist
>state]] I'm not making something up. The shame is on the folks who think
>they can delete the link under some pretext.
>
I'm just a bystander here. But from what I gathered, that page wasn't
the place to discuss the specifics of what *certain* communist states
have done, but the political system in the abstract.


body:
> (Ulrich Fuchs <mail at ulrich-fuchs.de>):
>
> > Yeah, that nested table is a nuisance. I'll have to think about that.
>
> Its not a nuisance, it's an advanced feature of HTML

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT HTML. Wikipedia is a collection of free encyclopedic
content, currently being delivered to users by the technology available
to us at the time, which happens to be HTML. Wikipedia's content should
be described in unambiguous ways that preserve the content and structure
of documents, and that can be rendered readably and edited easily.  HTML
fails to meet at least some of those criteria (notably ease of editing).

> A Table - and especially a table with complex structure, nesting etc - *IS* a
> complex thing. You will not be able to eliminate that complexity. As soon as
> you are trying to do it, you will greatly reduce the flexibility. As soon as
> you add that flexibility again, you add the complexity again. So why
> re-invent the wheel by having (in the end) the same problems in just another
> markup language?

Believe me, I won't let that happen. I have no interest in translating the
complexity into a different language just for the hell of it either. If I
can't make it simpler, I won't change it.

Yes, I think we might have to give up some "flexibility", if it's only
the flexibility to do things that don't really improve the user experience.
Tables in general are important: they organize information neatly and
ease comparisons of similar things. But I'm not at all convinced that
nested tables are of any use other than to show off coding skills.

> I strongly support the table:namespace concept: It offers all the the HTML
> flexibility you need, and you keep the article source clean of the table
> code.

The contents of the table IS IN THE ARTICLE, whether you hide it off in
another page or not. The tables are part of Wikipedia's content, and if
they aren't easily editable, they aren't useful.

That said, I'm still open to the idea of transclusion in general: that
is, having pages whose whole contents are included into a referencing
page. That would allow us not only to separate things like tables, but
also things like boilerplate text. A syntax like [[include:xxx]] could
be used. That would also get us nested tables (and it might also be a
performance nightmare!)

> If we can have the table syntax proposed additionally, thats just fine: A
> newbie will start with a simple table, as soon as it gets more complex, an
> experienced user can move it into a full-fetaured html-table in the new
> namespace and link it from the article.

I don't like that idea much either.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


subject: [Wikitech-l] space beneath headings

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

>We should never have heading tags inside a table.

Indeed.

Where do we ever have a heading tag inside of a table,
except as an example in the table of basic wiki markup
on [[en:Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]?

-- Toby


body:
Adding "my ass-crack will suffer the consequences of the bong-hole!" to an
article on the French Revolution is well beyond the limits of any doubt. The
only thing that might hold back a ban is if that is the address of AOL, MSN
or some similar large isp.

Fred
           From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:26:53 -0400
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] How do I use my newfound powers, and not abuse them?

French Revolution

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030515/77639cca/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiPedia use in other applications...

body:
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Forrest Aldrich wrote:
> What I have in mind might be more akin to a free-form database, but I don't
> think that's out of the league of a Wiki, from what I understand thus
> far.   In fact, for what I want to do, I think a Wiki would be more
> appropriate - but there seems to be some contention about file attachments
> and efficient ways to do (and index) them.

I haven't used it myself, but it sounds like TWiki will be better suited
to what you're trying to do than trying to hack a different workflow
onto Wikipedia.

See: http://twiki.org/

If you decide to try it out, let me know how it goes...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
> I'd also like to point you to a page that I've
> created on Meta-Wikipedia. Even if my sysop
> application is rejected I am proposing that we go
> forward as a voluntary association and become a
> little more organized:
>
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Wikipedians
> I would be happy to help any similar undertaking
> with donation of any necessary pro bono commitment
> of my time.
> Thank you,
> Alex T Roshuk
> Attorney at law
> Brooklyn NY

I...err...well...looked at that page...and must
admit...I did not really understood it :-((

My only feeling is that I was not concerned by it :-(

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


body:
LDC wrote:
>There's no provision for nested tables. I don't think

>there's a good enough case for their necessity. Cell
>backgrounds and borders can be done with styles.

Well I and many other very hard-working Wikipedians
think there is a very real need for nested tables.
They are used in each these converted articles;
organisms (that nested table has a border=0),
countries, heads of state, elements, and sub-national
entities. And this list doesn't include the many other

non-project related nested tables.

>> So if http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium
>>cannot be replicated pretty much as-is in wikicode
>>then I for will have a fit (I'm sure many others
>>will join me).
>
>Yeah, that nested table is a nuisance. I'll have to
>think about that.

There are two nested tables; the obvious one in the
isotopes section and the navigation nested table in
the first cell of the larger table (which in turn has
an image embedded in it). Both are necessary to the
functioning of the table and are not a "nuisance" at
all.

>> An alternative solution is to only allow HTML
>> syntax to be rendered if it is in a table:namespace

>> page.
>
>As I said before, I want to eliminate the complexity,

>not just move it around. I want newbies to have some
>chance of being to edit the table as well as the
>prose around it.

Do you have /any/ idea about how much work would be
undone and have to be redone in a diminished format if

the document as is were implemented? Thousands of
pages will be broken and many users, including me, may

get fed-up with Wikipedia and leave.

A table is going to be dense and intimidating to
nontechnical users no matter what but tables are very
useful when it comes to effectively presenting tabular

data (something we have a lot of). Thus putting this
complexity on a separate page seems to be a good
compromise between preventing newbies from not being
intimidated by hordes of markup and allowing more
seasoned users the ability to present tabular data in
a table.

How the page functions for the reader is just as
important as how it functions for the writer. And just

as different writers have different abilities to
contribute prose to an article, we have different
coders with different abilities to add markup
to articles.

We don't dumb down the prose of articles to reach the
lowest common denominator reader/writer (except for
intro paragraphs) and we should not similarly dumb
down the markup just to make things a bit easier for
the lowest common denominator coder. Just segregate
the tables from the prose and both the markup-
phobic and the markup gurus will be happy (that's not
to say that I advocate for full HTML support; just
move the HTML off of the regular article page and into

its own namespace).

I would still like to know if a conversion script
would be run. If not, then disabling HTML would make
Wikipedia look badly broken with the displayed text of

tens of thousands of instances of HTML markup. And all

that would have to be re-coded in the new syntax by
hand. If it is run then the script is going to
mangle any table that has markup in it that is no
supported in the proposed wikicode. Either way we are
talking about changing masses of content that somebody

is going to have to repair.

Why in the world is it necessary to break so many
things and therefore create so much added work? The
negative side-effects of the proposed WikiSyntax will
cause far more problems than it purports to solve,
IMO.

Please replicate in WikiCode the HTML we currently
support (well, maybe not the obscure stuff that is
hardly ever used) and/or create a table:namespace.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

PS - We've seem to have done fine during the past 2+
years with tolerating HTML where it makes sense (such
as tables).

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: cprompt

body:
Are you seconded yet? You're seconded now. :-)

Alex R. wrote:

> I know that LittleDan has nominated me as a sysop. After reviewing
> what I could find on WIkipedia about the benefits and


body:
--- "Alex T." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> From: "Anthere" <anthere6 at yahoo.com>
> I don't understand your response are you saying
> that you are not conerened something because you
> do not understand it?

I did not really understand everything in the content
of your page on meta.

I hope someone will comment it, so it will become
clearer.

I also think this does not belong to the english list,
unless there is need to show the association does only
concern the english wikipedia.

(I think that "I did not
> really
> understood it" is not proper English)

Yes. You are right :-)
I did not really understand it
I have not understood it
Really, this was not clear
Perhaps did I not understand it very well
I think I misunderstood it
Misunderstanding is under way

Pick up you choice

This further make me think I am not concerned :-)

> alex756
> >
> > I...err...well...looked at that page...and must
> > admit...I did not really understood it :-((
> >
> > My only feeling is that I was not concerned by it
> :-(
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Application for sysop status & the assocation of Wikipedians


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] How do I use my newfound powers, and not abuse them?

body:
64.163.22.53 has been vandalizing French Revolution.  At what point should
I block the user?  I understand that this number IDs a computer, not a
person, and non-vandals may use this computer.  Can someone give me the
basic policy?

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030515/bf64bb8b/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>You're missing MY point. From a relistic perspective,
>sexually explicit images are in a different category
>than articles describing christianity in Western
>culture. I know it is POV, but I think it is
>nessessary in a situation like this.
>
Each category has its own range for what is objectionable.  "Sexually
explicit" runs from suggestive almost nudity to goatse.cx.  Others might
find the extreme views of "creation science" and "holocaust denial" to
be just as objectionable.

Ec


body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I was also wondering what was defining porn. I do
> > not
> > see the pict at the origin of this discussion as a
> > porn pict really. More like an erotic one. Hmmm.
> Not
> > so erotic that I see any trouble keeping it
> (except
> > for the cp possible issue).
> > Since we are on an american server, how does the
> > american law draw the line between what is porn
> and
> > what is not porn ? And is porn illegal in the US ?
>
> AFAIK, it varies from state to state. Child
> pornography is illegal in all 50 states. Most of the
> adult anti-porn laws are in the so-called "bible
> belt", comprising much of the south- and mid-west
> states (not california, where the servers are
> located). There, hardcore porn is illegal, but
> softcore porn is legal. In case you're wondering how
> I
> know all this (Oh no! That little boy travels around
> the country buying pornography!), I read it in a
> book
> about internet privacy.
>
> --LittleDan

Little boys and little girls have to learn that one
day. I hope you did more than read but also look :-)

Note that if I see quite well what children porn can
be, I am still wondering how these states define
softcore porn from hardcore porn. Is this soft porn
then ? (I get it what you label soft is erotic ?)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


body:
On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:22:04 -0700, Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> gave utterance to the following:

> Richard Grevers wrote in part:
>
>> Some information is suppressed for the "public good".
>
> Hmm ... who here believes that suppressing anatomical photographs of
> genitals
> is in fact in the "public good"?  I guess LittleDan -- who else?

I don't - although if their inclusion results in W being banned from
schools etc then it becomes debatable as to whether inclusion is in
Wikipedia's best interests.
>
>> In fact the
>> scope of information that is suppressed is one of the key determinants
>> of
>> whether we regard a particular political environment as being "free" or
>> not.
>
> I vote to keep Wikipedia "free". ^_^
Well in the "free" United States since recent regulations, if someone
posted information that certain agencies decided were an aid to terrorists,
could not those agencies arrest Jimbo for refusing to disclose information
on the user who posted it?
--
Richard Grevers
File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)


body:
>Richard Grevers wrote in part:
>
>>Some information is suppressed for the "public good".
>>

There's a paradox here.  Who defines the public good if not the public?
But if the information is suppressed from the public, how can the public
make an informed choice about what to suppress?  As Juvenal asked "Who
watches the watchers?"

Ec


body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> A contributor from France can decide what risk she
> wants to take
> in posting potentially illegal material while in
> that country.
> But I shouldn't use my influence on Wikipedia policy
> to stop her.
> (I don't know if this paragraph is in disagreement
> with you or not.)

Why do you use a "she" ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: tarquin

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>That is the position they took. But in practice their postion was that it
>was "their article". They assumed a veto power (as a group) on how the
>article was to be defined and what could be included in it.
>
>
>
It seemed a fairly sensible thing to me once I read about it.
Fred, if someone came along and sais the article "Fish" should also
mention  "Saturn", we'd tell them it wasn't suitable. They might raise
similar criticisms of "veto power"


from_name: Forrest Aldrich

body:
Ach Tung, it's all in German :)

What I have in mind might be more akin to a free-form database, but I don't
think that's out of the league of a Wiki, from what I understand thus
far.   In fact, for what I want to do, I think a Wiki would be more
appropriate - but there seems to be some contention about file attachments
and efficient ways to do (and index) them.

Seeing working examples that are close to what I'm doing (in English :) )
would be helpful.

Thanks alot.

At 11:00 PM 5/14/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> > (newbie here, so excuse any ignorance in the wiki-ism's)
>
> > I want to set up a full documention base, using Wiki<something>, to
> > supplement my work as a Sysadmin.   I wonder if someone has done this
> > before - for example, from things of compile time flags, to system notes,
> > to upgrade instructions, etc. etc...  I see Wiki as a potentially good
> > application/tool for this.
>
>You may want to check out
>
>http://openfacts.berlios.de
>
>which is a Wikipedia/PhaseIII based open source knowledge base.
>Alternatively, everything you need to set up your own can be found at
>
>http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Alex T.

body:
From: "Anthere" <anthere6 at yahoo.com>
I don't understand your response are you saying
that you are not conerened something because you
do not understand it? (I think that "I did not really
understood it" is not proper English).
alex756
>
> I...err...well...looked at that page...and must
> admit...I did not really understood it :-((
>
> My only feeling is that I was not concerned by it :-(
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
> (Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu>):

>> 1) What is legal for any one user to do in the nation they are
>>    submitting from.
>> 2) What is legal to have on our server in California (this applies
>>    to everything we all submit; all text/media must be legal under
>>    California/US law).

> I don't think that we-as-a-group (Wikipedia as an institution)
> should concern ourselves (in our policies) with issue #1.
> We should not, for example, declare it a bannable offence
> or against Wikipetiquette to violate local laws when submitting.

Indeed, I would consider it heroic to violate local laws to post
useful information on Wikipedia, such as first-hand descriptions of
the acts of despotic governments, or information about how to
defeat net access restrictions.

A more tricky issue is postings that are legal elsewhere but not
legal in California, such as the posting of information that is
public domain in places whose legislature isn't owned by Disney.
We probably have to supress such information, which is a shame.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia for education

body:
--- Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > For wikipedia to be an valid educational source,
> it
> > needs to have some kind of approval system. From
> what
> > I understand, this has been discussed since Day 1
> of
> > Wikipedia, but I think it is time to impliment it.
> If
> > wikipedia is ever to be printed or used in
> schools, it
> > must be scrutinized and validated (or invalidated)
> on
> > an article-by-article basis.
>
> you mean the way google results are?
>
> Sorry for being flippant, but isn't our process,
> worldwide and by
> real experts actually better and less prone to
> ceonsorship than
> state-sponsored child-proofing committees?
>
> =====
> Christopher Mahan
> chris_mahan at yahoo.com
> 818.943.1850 cell

Indeed, a search for clitoris on Google brings up much
worse results, but a search for peryonie's disease
brings up no pictures or diagrams whatsoever on the
condition. We need to stay somewhere in the middle.

I'm sorry for the comment on my previous post; when I
talk about wikipedia in schools, I usually try to
think realistically. But you have a point. Maybe
Wikipedia needs to be shown to schools somehow. Google
and the internet have demonstrated to be good
educational resources; now we should do the same.
There could be a side project, say, edu.wikipedia.org,
that we would set aside for educational purposes,
although not censored much, if at all (although porn
is still not allowed). The goal would be to have 1000
articles simple enough for the 10-year-old interested
in diseases to understand, yet still complete, and
with no broken links. Then, we could have a sample for
schools and educational institutions to look at, as a
sample for when Wikipedia is complete. The small
number of articles would keep each article in great
shape, reducing the need for designated editing and
approval commitees. The 1000 articles would each hold
information previously spread over many articles, as
many "real" encyclopedias do. There would be no rambot
pages or anything made by a bot. Even though there
would be only 1000 articles, an infinite number of
redirect pages would be allowed. Would this plan work?

I change my opinion far too frequently.

--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


body:
--- Richard Grevers <lists at dramatic.co.nz> wrote:
> > Hmm ... who here believes that suppressing
> anatomical photographs of
> > genitals
> > is in fact in the "public good"?  I guess
> LittleDan -- who else?
>
> I don't - although if their inclusion results in W
> being banned from
> schools etc then it becomes debatable as to whether
> inclusion is in
> Wikipedia's best interests.

That's exactly what I mean. Just imagine if AOL's
filters decided to block wikipedia? Wouldn't it be in
the "public good" to not have wikipedia blocked? I
know what you're going to say: "So we should listen to
the filters?" I'm going to be a realist: Yes.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 17:25, Jens Frank wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:23:25PM -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > Adding "my ass-crack will suffer the consequences of the bong-hole!" to an
> > article on the French Revolution is well beyond the limits of any doubt. The
> > only thing that might hold back a ban is if that is the address of AOL, MSN
> > or some similar large isp.
> >
> > Fred
>
> If it's only one edit, don't ban. He just tried whether he can hit the
> "Save"-button. A ban only raises the vandals interest in messing around
> even more. I usually open a "User contributions" page and reload it after
> 5 to 10 minutes. If the user has made more edits, I revert them. I repeat
> this 2 or 3 times. If he's still around, I ban him. This is less work
> then looking up the IP and check whether it's a permanent or dynamic IP
> or a web proxy or so.
>
I wholeheartedly agree. Only if someone is persistent for several days
(or is slamming the server) should one consider banning the ip.


body:
You had a bad biology textbook. There should still be
drawings of what it looks like on the outside. But I
guess an adequate warning is OK. Maybe the images
should be kept outside Wikipedia, as external links
for more information. We don't put pictures of
everything on Wikipedia, but there are often external
links that provide more information including
photographs. I think this should be no different.

--LittleDan

--- Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Regarding the issue of photographs of genitals, we
> can distinguish
> three classes of people:
>   * those who wish to view them
>   * those who don't wish to view them
>   * those who don't wish others to view them
> The first two classes are perfectly accomodated by
> having the
> photographs hidden behind links that unambiguously
> describe their
> content; the third class does not deserve any
> accomodation.
>
> Drawings are important in anatomy, because they
> allow to show hidden
> and internal structures and allow to emphasize
> distinctions by using
> separate colors. At the same time, they can be very
> misleading when not
> accompanied by a real-world photo.
>
> Personally, I was raised on biology-textbook
> drawings of the female
> anatomy. They were terribly confusing: it was
> impossible to tell what
> was inside and outside, what was visible and
> invisible, how big things
> were. They made the first porn I got my hands on
> that much more
> valuable.
>
> Axel
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] SCO vs. IBM

body:
We should follow the SCO vs. IBM case closely, because in a few years
there might be a similar attempt to sue Wikipedia. For the paranoids
among us: Maybe the Encycloedia Britannica employees have already begun
entering masses of EB snippets into Wp articles ... ;-)

 From
http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_to_linux_customers.html :

"As you may know, the development process for Linux has differed
substantially from the development process for other enterprise
operating systems. Commercial software is built by carefully selected
and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure
software. This process is designed to monitor the security and ownership
of intellectual property rights associated with the code.

By contrast, much of Linux has been built from contributions by numerous
unrelated and unknown software developers, each contributing a small
section of code. There is no mechanism inherent in the Linux development
process to assure that intellectual property rights, confidentiality or
security are protected. The Linux process does not prevent inclusion of
code that has been stolen outright, or developed by improper use of
proprietary methods and concepts."

"As a consequence of Linux?s unrestricted authoring process, it is not
surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of
the Linux code provided to customers. Therefore legal liability that may
arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user."


body:
Hmm... I guess I've lost my prtection from severe
critisism from my young age I used to have on this
list. Actually, I'm glad I'm being treated as an
equal. But I disagree with what you said.

--LittleDan

--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Hmm ... who here believes that suppressing
> anatomical photographs of genitals
> is in fact in the "public good"?  I guess LittleDan
> -- who else?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The clitoris guy

body:
Toby said:
I have no idea, but then I have little idea
why the photo offends in the first place.

People (parents and schools mostly) wont come or let
people come to this site if nudity is on it. Be
realistic.

--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


body:
I completely agree. (someone, respond to this or Erik
and I will conspire to make all of Wikipedia POV)

--LittleDan

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Daniel-
> > I know it is POV, but I think it is
> > nessessary in a situation like this.
>
> If you think we should get rid of NPOV for "special
> situations", just say
> so. I'm sure a nice discussion will follow :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


body:
Does that mean anything, or is it just an empty meme?

--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> All this is better discussed in Transparent Society,
> by the way.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
NOTE: This is the third time today I've sent this email and it still hasn't
found its way into the archive. Hopefully this one will get through.

LDC wrote:
>There's no provision for nested tables. I don't think

>there's a good enough case for their necessity. Cell
>backgrounds and borders can be done with styles.

Well I and many other very hard-working Wikipedians
think there is a very real need for nested tables.
They are used in each these converted articles;
organisms (that nested table has a border=0),
countries, heads of state, elements, and sub-national
entities. And this list doesn't include the many other

non-project related nested tables.

>> So if http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium
>>cannot be replicated pretty much as-is in wikicode
>>then I for will have a fit (I'm sure many others
>>will join me).
>
>Yeah, that nested table is a nuisance. I'll have to
>think about that.

There are two nested tables; the obvious one in the
isotopes section and the navigation nested table in
the first cell of the larger table (which in turn has
an image embedded in it). Both are necessary to the
functioning of the table and are not a "nuisance" at
all.

>> An alternative solution is to only allow HTML
>> syntax to be rendered if it is in a table:namespace

>> page.
>
>As I said before, I want to eliminate the complexity,

>not just move it around. I want newbies to have some
>chance of being to edit the table as well as the
>prose around it.

Do you have /any/ idea about how much work would be
undone and have to be redone in a diminished format if

the document as is were implemented? Thousands of
pages will be broken and many users, including me, may

get fed-up with Wikipedia and leave.

A table is going to be dense and intimidating to
nontechnical users no matter what but tables are very
useful when it comes to effectively presenting tabular

data (something we have a lot of). Thus putting this
complexity on a separate page seems to be a good
compromise between preventing newbies from not being
intimidated by hordes of markup and allowing more
seasoned users the ability to present tabular data in
a table.

How the page functions for the reader is just as
important as how it functions for the writer. And just

as different writers have different abilities to
contribute prose to an article, we have different
coders with different abilities to add markup
to articles.

We don't dumb down the prose of articles to reach the
lowest common denominator reader/writer (except for
intro paragraphs) and we should not similarly dumb
down the markup just to make things a bit easier for
the lowest common denominator coder. Just segregate
the tables from the prose and both the markup-
phobic and the markup gurus will be happy (that's not
to say that I advocate for full HTML support; just
move the HTML off of the regular article page and into

its own namespace).

I would still like to know if a conversion script
would be run. If not, then disabling HTML would make
Wikipedia look badly broken with the displayed text of

tens of thousands of instances of HTML markup. And all

that would have to be re-coded in the new syntax by
hand. If it is run then the script is going to
mangle any table that has markup in it that is no
supported in the proposed wikicode. Either way we are
talking about changing masses of content that somebody

is going to have to repair.

Why in the world is it necessary to break so many
things and therefore create so much added work? The
negative side-effects of the proposed WikiSyntax will
cause far more problems than it purports to solve,
IMO.

Please replicate in WikiCode the HTML we currently
support (well, maybe not the obscure stuff that is
hardly ever used) and/or create a table:namespace.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

PS - We've seem to have done fine during the past 2+
years with tolerating HTML where it makes sense (such
as tables).


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [WikiEN-l] Testing

body: Sigh.


subject: [Wikitech-l] testing

body: whee


subject: [Wikitech-l] Testing

body: sigh.......


subject: [Wikitech-l] Hmm, does this work?

body: Fun with mail servers...


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Mailing lists temporarily down

body:
In the fun and excitement it seems we've broken the mailing lists. :)

This should be fixed shortly; in the meantime you can send mail on the
lists by adding a "pliny." in front of the wikipedia.org in the address.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Two issues here: what is legal to have on the server
 and what is legal in the user's nation

body:
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Toby wrote:
> > The "international" (that is, non-English) Wikipedias
> > are also subject only to US and (I think) California law.
> > That's where they're located, after all.
> > (Although suggestions have been made in the past
> > to self-censor [[fr:]] and [[zh:]]
> > in order to prevent the governments of France and the PRC
> > from declaring it illegal to *view* them,
> > which isn't exactly the same thing.)
>
> IANAL
>
> Ahem. If it is illegal for user x to do a and b in the country they are
> contributing from, then that user should /not/ do that!
>
> General comments to all:
>
> If it is illegal in your nation to do something that would otherwise be legal
> in California, then you are still taking a personal risk if you break your
> own nation's laws. The simple fact that the server is in California does not
> shield you from the laws of your own nation.
>
> But what is legal for Wikipedia to have on its server in San Diego is really
> only a matter of California/United States law (as Toby points out).
>
> I don't think the first part of this point gets stressed often enough.
>
> Of course, what is "appropriate" is a different matter and is largely dictated
> by consensus and standing policy (both Wikipedia wide and language specific).
>
> <devil's advocate>
> It is here where an interesting question arises; should particular languages
> have /added/ restrictions across their own language version of Wikipedia that
> go beyond California/US law in order to make texts written in French, for
> example, legal to have on a server in France?
>
> Wouldn't that make the texts more useful to French-speaking peoples (well, at
> least the French speakers in France)?
> </devil's advocate>
>
> I would argue that this is a dangerous idea because then the laws of
> potentially every nation on earth could have veto power over what we have on
> Wikipedia just to make it theoretically possible to have our text usable as
> is and hosted on a server in each of those nations. The result of that would
> be massive censorship in order to meet the lowest common denominator.
>
> IMO, we should keep things simple and only concern ourselves with these two
> things (as far as the legal issue goes):
>
> 1) What is legal for any one user to do in the nation they are submitting
> from.
> 2) What is legal to have on our server in California (this applies to
> everything we all submit; all text/media must be legal under California/US
> law).
>
> Both of the above factors limit what we each can individually submit. So for
> example; a user writing from Germany has to respect restrictions set forth by
> German law and US law in what they submit while a user writing from Australia
> has to do the same in respect to Australian and US law.
>
> Hm. This concept should be on a general disclaimer or something....
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ulrich Fuchs

body:
> > So if the table at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium cannot be
> > replicated pretty much as-is in wikicode then I for will have a fit (I'm
> > sure many others will join me).

Just joining

>
> Yeah, that nested table is a nuisance. I'll have to think about that.

Its not a nuisance, it's an advanced feature of HTML

>
> > An alternative solution is to only allow HTML syntax to be rendered if it
> > is in a table:namespace page.
>
> As I said before, I want to eliminate the complexity, not just move it
> around. I want newbies to have some chance of being to edit the table as
> well as the prose around it.

A Table - and especially a table with complex structure, nesting etc - *IS* a
complex thing. You will not be able to eliminate that complexity. As soon as
you are trying to do it, you will greatly reduce the flexibility. As soon as
you add that flexibility again, you add the complexity again. So why
re-invent the wheel by having (in the end) the same problems in just another
markup language?

I strongly support the table:namespace concept: It offers all the the HTML
flexibility you need, and you keep the article source clean of the table
code.

If we can have the table syntax proposed additionally, thats just fine: A
newbie will start with a simple table, as soon as it gets more complex, an
experienced user can move it into a full-fetaured html-table in the new
namespace and link it from the article.

Uli


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia for education

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

 >For wikipedia to be an valid educational source, it
 >needs to have some kind of approval system. From what
 >I understand, this has been discussed since Day 1 of
 >Wikipedia, but I think it is time to impliment it. If
 >wikipedia is ever to be printed or used in schools, it
 >must be scrutinized and validated (or invalidated) on
 >an article-by-article basis.
 >
I believe it already is a "valid educational source".

Waiting for approval from educational bureaucrats, and being restricted
by their political whims would destroy Wikipedia as we know it.  The
scrutiny would be not just on an article by article basis, but on a
school district by school district basis.  The range of these from
permissive open-minded to Christian or Islamic fundamentalist is so wide
that we would never have the resources to do all the needed editing.

Wikipedia's primary value is not as a static source in the way that a
printed book or CD wuld be.  It is as a growing, dynamic and editable
source.  In the perpetual battle between the irresistable force and the
immovable object we are on the side of the irresistable force.  Here in
British Columbia the provincial department of education (at least in
theory) bases education on three principles of learning.  The one that
is relevant in this context is that education requires the active
participation of the learner.  The learner is not there to just
passively vacuum up knowledge; he needs to contribute to that knowledge
interactively.  The old model based on respecting the elders who
painstakingly amassed a precious body of knowledge is not working as
well as it used to.

In the economic terms of supply and demand the supply of knowledge has
been made higher than ever by electronic means.  The last time knowledge
got such a boost came with Gutenberg in the 15th century.  Taking an
example from a modern 18th century democracy like the United States, we
have the Electoral College.  It reflects a time when Gutenberg's
revolution had taken hold, but before the revolutions in transportation
of the 19th century.  Communicating the results of elections from
Georgia and New Hampshire was not a simple task.  It would have
stretched the imagination of the drafters of the constitution to
conceive that some day a far larger and more populous country would be
able to have all the results in one place before the end of voting day.
  (The Florida anomaly would have been no less baffling to them as to the
modern person.)

Returning to education, the opportunity that we offer is in dynamically
learning the skills of democratic participation.  Focusing on the
negative act of controling sexually explicit material or the positive
act of promoting religious or patriotic values would both have us
missing the opportunity.  Part of the skill too is learning to cope with
the disruptive elements in the society.

I could maintain this rant a lot longer! :-)

Eclecticology


from_name: james duffy

body:
There is no point in clogging up the wiki list with a constant re-analysis
of the [[Communist state]] debate. But for the record, The Cunctator's
statement that his "impression was that 172 and Jtdirl were upset by the
claims about Communist states Fred was making and that they
then decided to use the argument that they knew what "Communist state" meant
and Fred and anyone who disagreed with them didn't" is factually incorrect.
I made it clear on over thirty occasions (if not forty occasions - I stopped
counting after a while) on the talk page that my problem was that Fred was
adding in material to the wrong page. I said it. 172 said it. Tannin said.
Tarquin said. Others said it too. If I was trying to censor Fred, I would
not have created a linked page containing his text.

That there was a problem with Fred's text was admitted by Fred himself who
called it "unbalanced". I deliberately did not intervene in the debate on
the linked page. My only interventions there were in fact to recreate it
when The Cunctator decided to remove it and plonk it back on the wrong page.
The issue Fred was writing about was about a practical analysis of how how
communist governments behaved. That is an issue worthy of in depth
discussion, and has been discussed on the linked page, on which Fred and
others contributed. As that page would not exist if it was not for me, I can
hardly be accused of censoring Fred's opinions. All I did, as other people
did, was to point out that Fred was putting his text on the wrong page and
put it onto the right one.

Now can we all please move on to other issues, and stop having to respond to
blatent mispresentations of what happening and wild, unsubstantiated and
demonstrably untrue accusations.

JT

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: Jens Frank

body:
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:23:25PM -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Adding "my ass-crack will suffer the consequences of the bong-hole!" to an
> article on the French Revolution is well beyond the limits of any doubt. The
> only thing that might hold back a ban is if that is the address of AOL, MSN
> or some similar large isp.
>
> Fred

If it's only one edit, don't ban. He just tried whether he can hit the
"Save"-button. A ban only raises the vandals interest in messing around
even more. I usually open a "User contributions" page and reload it after
5 to 10 minutes. If the user has made more edits, I revert them. I repeat
this 2 or 3 times. If he's still around, I ban him. This is less work
then looking up the IP and check whether it's a permanent or dynamic IP
or a web proxy or so.

Regards,

	jens


body:
On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 17:45, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> That's exactly what I mean. Just imagine if AOL's
> filters decided to block wikipedia?

Don't get our hopes up, man -- that would block a large portion of our
vandals. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030515/7392daf9/attachment.pgp


body:
On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 16:00, Daniel Mayer wrote:
[snip]
> I would still like to know if a conversion script
> would be run.
[snip]

Of course there would be, just as there was a conversion for the
replacement of subpages with the talk namespace, and a conversion for
the replacement of direct-URL images with the local upload space and
[[image:]] links.

Limiting / stripping / segregating HTML now will be a huuuuge advantage
in the future, when HTML is replaced by QLZML and nothing supports HTML
anymore and we still want people to be able to read and edit the 10
million articles in Wikipedia. Much better to clean up our act now with
a clean, well-understood syntax than when the burden will be much much
greater.

I leave issues of particular table syntax to those who are interested in
such.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030515/7d34b157/attachment.pgp


body:
On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 16:00, Daniel Mayer wrote:
[snip]
> I would still like to know if a conversion script
> would be run.
[snip]

Of course there would be, just as there was a conversion for the
replacement of subpages with the talk namespace, and a conversion for
the replacement of direct-URL images with the local upload space and
[[image:]] links.

Limiting / stripping / segregating HTML now will be a huuuuge advantage
in the future, when HTML is replaced by QLZML and nothing supports HTML
anymore and we still want people to be able to read and edit the 10
million articles in Wikipedia. Much better to clean up our act now with
a clean, well-understood syntax than when the burden will be much much
greater.

I leave issues of particular table syntax to those who are interested in
such.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030515/7d34b157/attachment-0001.pgp


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
> Ach Tung, it's all in German :)

Actually, no, see the little "English" link at the top.

> What I have in mind might be more akin to a free-form database,

Can you elaborate? Like http://www.everything2.com ?

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Mailing lists on ibiblio?

body:
On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 19:58, Erik Moeller wrote:
> We don't want the servers on ibiblio, but how about the mailing lists?
> Putting all your eggs in one casket .. basket .. is never a good idea, no?

As long as we can do this transparently (changing the MX record again
and/or making a mail.wikipedia.org alias so the @wikipedia.org addresses
don't need to be changed; and moving the existing subscriber base,
archives, etc to the new location), I'm all in favor.

A static-page mirror would also be awesome, but we haven't coded that up
yet. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030516/54502556/attachment.pgp>


body:
Lee-
> WIKIPEDIA IS NOT HTML. Wikipedia is a collection of free encyclopedic
> content, currently being delivered to users by the technology available
> to us at the time, which happens to be HTML. Wikipedia's content should
> be described in unambiguous ways that preserve the content and structure
> of documents, and that can be rendered readably and edited easily.  HTML
> fails to meet at least some of those criteria (notably ease of editing).

True. But I agree with Uli that the flexibility of HTML tables is
important. I also do not think the proposed {{style}} syntax really makes
things easier. Case in point: I did not really understand it before
reading it a second time. I think the idea of weak attachments, e.g.
{{red}}foo, is a counter-intuitive one. On the other hand, the HTML-style
<math> tag is in wide use on Wikipedia -- people seem to grasp it easily.

I think having styles usable with a <foo></foo> syntax is perfectly
acceptable. Those who do know HTML will find it immediately easy to use,
and those who do not know only have to learn one thing: <xy> starts
something, </xy> ends something. I think that's more than simple enough,
whereas the "What does {{xy}} refer to" question raised by your syntax is
more complex. And it has the additional disadvantage that those who do not
know HTML have to learn an entirely new syntax. Also, {{}} looks ugly,
code-ish.

I think retaining HTML tables within their namespace, while ignoring all
HTML outside of it would be the best solution. I know what you think: It
would be cleanest to get rid of all HTML. But consider this case more like
having TeX or SVG support. We want to support existing markup languages
where they provide us with better results than hacking our own. We can
view HTML-tables as one such markup language, even if they are only a
subset of one.

The table namespace does not necessarily have to be a real namespace whose
contents would be transcluded (eat your heart out, Ted Nelson), it would
also be possible to use a syntax like

[[Table:Periodic table]]
<table>...
</table>

Where the table is hidden in the editable wikitext (user option), and a
small "edit" link is added at the bottom of the table in the rendered
HTML. No impact on server performance, no silly "Table talk" namespace,
but the same effect. Existing tables could be converted easily simply by
adding a [[table:name]] link at the top.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The clitoris guy

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
Toby said:
I have no idea, but then I have little idea
why the photo offends in the first place.

People (parents and schools mostly) wont come or let
people come to this site if nudity is on it. Be
realistic.

--LittleDan

Rephrasing :-)

Some parents and some schools may prefer not to let the kids see nudity.

It is perhaps up to us to give them the ability to give access or not to give access to religious topics/political topics/sexuality topics...but it is not up to us to decide for them what they should do. By restricting information offered, one decide for others instead of letting people decide for themselves. Very bad.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030516/518915d4/attachment.htm


body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

>
>Indeed, I would consider it heroic to violate local laws to post
>useful information on Wikipedia, such as first-hand descriptions of
>the acts of despotic governments, or information about how to
>defeat net access restrictions.
>
>A more tricky issue is postings that are legal elsewhere but not
>legal in California, such as the posting of information that is
>public domain in places whose legislature isn't owned by Disney.
>We probably have to supress such information, which is a shame.
>
One of the online text outfits has some of its materials on an
Australian server where the copyright term is life + 50 years.  It
advises Americans that they may be breaking their own laws if they dare
to look at these texts.  Having an aditional Wikipedia server outside
the US to hold this kind of material could be useful.

Eclecticology


body:
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:08:18PM -0500, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> The contents of the table IS IN THE ARTICLE, whether you hide it off in
> another page or not. The tables are part of Wikipedia's content, and if
> they aren't easily editable, they aren't useful.
>
> That said, I'm still open to the idea of transclusion in general: that
> is, having pages whose whole contents are included into a referencing
> page. That would allow us not only to separate things like tables, but
> also things like boilerplate text. A syntax like [[include:xxx]] could
> be used. That would also get us nested tables (and it might also be a
> performance nightmare!)

We discussed this on #wikipedia some days ago. There would be another namespace
for HTML-Snipplets. Those snipplets can contain variables, e.g. enclosed by
%%. A snipplet might be a piece of code to include an image with a label,
it might be a table, or a boilerplate text. The snipplet ImageFloatingRight
might perhaps look like this:

[[Image:%%Image%%]]

''%%Label%%''

In an article, it can be used by its name:

{{ImageFloatingRight
Image=Eiffel tower.jpg
Label=The Eiffel Tower in Paris
}}

A Countrybox might start like this:
{{CountryFactBox
Flag=usa.png
Motto=In God We Trust
Capital=Washington D.C.
...
}}

This is more flexible than just stylesheets:
- More features of HTML can be used.
- More users can edit the HTML snipplets than edit the CVS-based stylesheets.
- It's easier to edit than having various stylesheet elements in the text.
- Layout and Content are strictly divided.

Possible later additions:
- Factsheet wizard that users without HTML-Skills can use to generate
  the normal factsheet tables used in so many variants
- Fill-in wizard that shows the rendered snipplet and has input fields
  where the variables are.

Regards,

	jens


body:
Brion-
> I haven't used it myself, but it sounds like TWiki will be better suited
> to what you're trying to do than trying to hack a different workflow
> onto Wikipedia.

> See: http://twiki.org/

I advise against it. TWiki uses CamelCase, which makes it impossible to
store data in a normal form -- EverythingStartsLookingLikeThis soon
enough. It also requires registration before editing and has a terrible
user interface (with lots of curly braces and inexplicable link names).
Very geeky, lots of features, but quite user-hostile.

If you want a simple wiki, stick with UseMod. It has all the features you
need, there are lots of cool hacks, it's super-easy to set up, uses almost
the same syntax as Wikipedia (which formerly used UseMod) etc. UseMod is
still an extremely cool general purpose wiki. To see what you can
accomplish based on it, take a look at UnrealWiki, which uses a beefed up
parser and lots of CSS (the parser is open source):

http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki
http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/Wookee

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop Status - CatherineMunro

body:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:10:52AM -0700, Catherine Munro wrote:
>
> I've occasionally wondered if it's been wise to use my real name as my
> username, given how easily unpleasantness can arise at Wikipedia and
> argumentative trolls can cause trouble for real people, but if people like
> Brion Vibber can do so, I suppose I can too.  Just for my own curiosity,
> would it be possible to change my username without creating a new account,
> and retain my watchlist etc.?
>
It is possible to change the username. What's difficult to change are the
signatures you made to Talk:-page contributions. While the username is only
one field in the database that can be easily changed by a developer, the
signatures are text in the middle of an article. It would take very long
to replace all those.

Requesting a user name change should not be done easily. We currently need
our developers time to improve wikipedia's performance!

	Regards,

		JeLuF