from_name: SJ Klein

references:
<egd7co$vj2$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<b80736c80610101226p4f9c1ec4h1f686fc656661304@mail.gmail.com>
	<egh5eq$vl9$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
We need a fund drive focused on robustness and reliability.

Discussion about what new projects to promote is important, but we still
lack medium-term and long-term plans for making the most basic maintenance
of the projects robust and self-sustaining.  There are serious puzzles and
issues related to technical scalability, with theoretical solutions, which
would benefit from more attention.  And part of robustness is robustness
under budget cuts.

Two+ years ago, I proposed five goals that I hoped the foundation would
address.  One of these was developing an infrastructure that could support
a thousand million hits a day with 99.9% uptime, in a self-sustaining
fashion that only required $50k/yr and 1 full-time employee for upkeep.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Three-year_plan

We are now close to a thousand million hits a day, with improving uptime;
but have made little progress in slowing, not to mention reversing, the
growth of annual upkeep (yahoo's kindness last spring has not yet become
the first of many).

I firmly believe that the foundation should be focusing on reducing the
annual cost and complexity of running core operations, and that the
Wikimedia server cluster needs an endowment.  This becomes more true
when people within the community start to feel Wikipedia is 'old hat'
and a solved problem, and become fixed on attacking new problems before
wrapping up that old one.

Basic needs which an endowment could support:

* buying the most basic infrastructure: bandwidth, machines and other
hardware (that which cannot be / has not yet been donated)
* a project to work on the scalability and reliability of the WP
infrastructure (including the capacity to accept more distributed donations
of hardware and bandwidth)
* a project to pursue bandwidth and hardware/maintenance contributions.
With proper attention, considering our support in the tech community, we
should be able to eliminate these expenses -- and safeguard their
continued coverage for the next five or ten years.

On 10/9/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>As an individual (not board member), I would like to ask if it were
>possible that the spin around the fundraising, focuses a bit on the
>other projects, perhaps the notion of virtual library, with the
>wikicommons and wikisource. We have the recent report of the german
>digitization to show up as an example as how we could push things
>forward in realm of digital libraries.

Creating a virtual library, by improving commons and wikisource, is great.
Focusing on the smaller projects, likewise.  But to make 'pushing things
forward' the spin/goal of a fundraiser, when our current dreams & projects
are not yet secure, may be like putting the cart before the horse.

Brad writes:
> If we have +/- 250 servers running now
> *and we double in traffic every four months
> *and the costs per server (for round number purposes, including racks,
> power, etc.) are $4000
> *we are talking about *starting* with a $1M computer order being
> fulfilled before March 1.
>
> If we add to that the next 500 computers, at the same rate, we are
> talking about a batch of $2M beyond that.  /me's head spins.

These are the most important and largest expenses at the moment, and growth
will not slow over the next few years unless we collectively fail.  But
rather than worrying about whether growth will level out, we should find
ways to dispose of them.

On 10/10/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am not favorable to the concept of making a joint fundraising with
> another organisation. As for OLPC, they were already part of our last
> press release in august...

I've never heard of a 'joint fundraising' with multiple groups; neither
do I see why WM should want such a thing.  Wikipedia in particular is a
primal force of our networked society - sustaining its success is as
lofty a fundraising goal as could be hoped for.  This is why we have
individuals making monthly $1000 contributions, even when there is no
fund drive.  The projects do not need to primp and showcase 'new' ideas
or initiatives.

What they need is clear articulation of their raison d'etre [WP is good
about this; other projects less so], a good description of what is needed
to sustain and propagate current success, and an explanation of how funds
will help provide what is needed.

--SJ


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising season launch


list: wikien-l

from_name: Sarah

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Where to discuss best approach to deal with
	defamitory article?

body:
On 10/11/06, bksimonb <simon at bkinfo.net> wrote:
>
> I've been tasked to deal with a defamitory article written about the
> organisation of which I am a member.
>
Which article is it?

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reliable sources: problems with [[WP:RS]]

body:
On 10/11/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Jossi Fresco wrote
>
> > The main issue here is if we are dealing with a controversial topic,
> > a biography of a living person, or an ongoing enterprise. In these
> > cases, the need for reliable sources is paramount.
>
> Correct. But some of us have always objected to having the most controversial articles driving policy. So, please, not the 'main issue'. The main issue is getting the encyclopedia written, in the large, not that some people want to write on controversial areas. Policy in this area is basically defensive, and hence rather negative.
>
I've written a proposal for a new policy that would replace [[WP:NOR]]
and [[WP:V]], and would get rid of [[WP:RS]], except as an advisory
page about how to look for reliable sources. It's more to the point
and I think easier to understand. It also accommodates Phil's point
about the need for exceptions for pop culture.

Please see [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]: a proposal

body:
On 10/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:53:02 -0500, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and
> >previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal
> >that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new
> >content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
>
> NOR and V are important in and of themselves (and need to be much
> shorter).  Attribution has the potential to replace RS and about 2/3
> of each of NOR and V, which would be good.  As a descriptive guideline
> it has great potential.  I don't see it replacing the prescriptive
> policies, but it certainly augments them well.
>
The intention is to replace NOR and V, because the last thing we need
is yet another page about sources. (I'm leaving out discussion of RS
for the moment and concentrating on the policies.)

Guy, what is missing from [[Wikipedia:Attribution]] that would need to
be there for you to feel that NOR and V were well enough represented
that we could get rid of them?

Sarah


references:
<6751264.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<4cc603b0610110027g654faea6ua8ae1ad26a497150@mail.gmail.com>
	<6751935.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<jigpi21rrc9ta2svit42cf666jvu18v89c@4ax.com>

body:
On 10/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:54:11 -0700 (PDT), bksimonb <simon at bkinfo.net>
> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University
>
> Ugh.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
Yes. I now wish I hadn't asked. :-)


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension;
	should it be changed on the commons?

body:
I don't have a strong opinion on the extension issue. However, at the
moment both audio and video are served with application/ogg _and_ the
extension "ogg".  So if I want to set up separate audio and video
players for Ogg files (say XMMS and mplayer), I have to set up an
intermediate helper application that, after looking at the file,
decides which application to launch.

I don't think this is acceptable. Having different MIME types and the
same extensions seems like a sane way forward to me.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] bug 6464

body:
Hey,

Does anyone have any suggestions about this bug?

http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6464

More and more users on our site are experiencing it and actually are
able to edit articles as other users. I can't reproduce it myself,
unfortunately.

Thanks,
Travis


list: foundation-l

body:
On 10/11/06, SJ Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> I firmly believe that the foundation should be focusing on reducing the
> annual cost and complexity of running core operations, and that the
> Wikimedia server cluster needs an endowment.  This becomes more true
> when people within the community start to feel Wikipedia is 'old hat'
> and a solved problem, and become fixed on attacking new problems before
> wrapping up that old one.

Responding briefly, more later.

1) If we agree that we need a very large amount of money for hardware,
and if we do agree that we want to raise that money from the community
at large, then we should of course communicate that, using clear facts
and figures.

2) Even so, it remains true that:
- There are now several Foundation employees or equivalents, including
a CEO, who all get salaries. We need to communicate what our staff is
doing, besides taking care of the hosting and administration.
- Money going to chapters will not necessarily have to go into
Foundation-level investments, but could also support local projects
and salaries.
- Hardware is not something people generally get very excited about.
Jimmy's personal appeal in the last fundraiser was very effective.
However, if we repeat the same kind of appeal, we also need to have a
little more to show for it this time. Hence my plea for reports and
information, which we should collect in any case, regardless of the
specific strategy we follow.

3) It may not necessarily be the best thing to raise all or even any
of the money for hardware from the community at large. An endowment,
as you say, grants, or partnerships may carry us a long way. $1M is a
lot of money for us -- but for some who might support us, it is very
little indeed. The question, of course, is -- can we raise the
necessary funds from other sources as quickly as we require them?

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


body:
On 10/10/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Will the money go to chapters or to the Foundation? Can the chapters
> transfer money to the foundation if needed?

This is a big open question. As I understand it, the current arrangement is:
1) Most money goes directly to WMF.
2) Chapters act as local fundraising agents, e.g. in Germany, where
many people don't have credit cards, a bank transfer directly to the
German chapter can be made. Some individuals might also choose to
support a chapter instead of the WMF for other reasons.
3) Some or all of the money raised through 2) (is supposed to) go back
to the WMF.

Is this correct? What is the precise status on 3)? My view is that
chapters should retain a substantial amount of donations for local
projects and infrastructure. How do we decide that amount? What is the
best strategy for transferring funds to the WMF -- could royalties for
the trademark/logo work?

> How will funds donated be processed? Who will process them? How will we
> recognize donors, both by what is required by law and by what is simply a nice
> way to recognize them? This is an enormous amount of work.

These are specifics that are best worked out with the FundCom at a
dedicated meeting that should take place very soon.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
[[User:Instant Karma]] recently made a posting to [[User Talk:Jimbo
Wales]] titled "The End Is Nigh", making a series of demands of
Wikipedia (such as the removal of most sex-related material, the
addition of an attempt to keep minors out of whatever remains in that
area, and the removal of most pop-cultural stuff including reducing
mention of Star Trek to a single article).  It concluded with a
threat of unspecified retribution of a "Doomsday Machine" nature
which would allegedly result in the destruction of Wikipedia.  Just
thought you ought to know that we're allegedly all doomed now... :-)

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


from_name: Peter Schink

body:
A friend in Shanghai told me, that not the whole Wikipedia, but some parts
of it are blocked now... very sophisticated.

Best,
Peter

On 10/10/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> It's time for Chinese people to learn other language :)
>
> Ilario
>
> ----Messaggio originale----
> Da: shizhao at gmail.com
> Data: 10.10.06 11.00
> A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Unblock for English Wikiepdia in China
>
> Yes. only zh wp blocked.
>
> 2006/10/10, mingli yuan <mingli.yuan at gmail.com>:
> > Good news!!
> >
> > Many people reported that English Wikiepdia is unblocked in
> China.
> > We are waiting for more infomation about the unblock.
> >
> > User:Mountain
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
> My blog: http://talk.blogbus.com
> CNBlog: http://blog.cnblog.org/weblog.html
> Social Brain: http://www.socialbrain.org/default.asp
> cnbloggercon: http://www.cnbloggercon.org/
>
> [[zh:User:Shizhao]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Unblock for English Wikiepdia in China


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Maury Markowitz

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Any suggestions for editing refs?

body:
>And if the line break after the /ref tag adds a space it's no problem
>since that's usually intended anyway.

Uhhh, no. This is a very very very bad assumption. At least 80% of my refs
do NOT appear in a place where a break is appropriate.

>I don't like this idea much, it seems likely to make the references a
>lot more "fragile" than they currently are.

I can't imagine a LESS stable system than the one we have currently! One
missplaced char in the tags and the rest of the article disappears!

There's a basic rule here that is best known in the computer industry:
longer code contains more errors. By separating the ref "markers" from the
ref "body" the main article text becomes smaller and easier to read. This
will lead to LESS errors with refs. It will also mean that cutting and
pasting will not lead to the sorts of errors we see today where someone
moves a para containing a placeholder to an earlier ref and the entire ref
system stops working again.

>If you've referenced a large
>block of text this way then one could easily wind up cutting and pasting
>chunks that might break the citations, and it goes back to the {{ref}}
>template's old problem of having to change two separate sections of the
>article when adding or removing a reference.

This is a valid concern, but was the problem worse than the terrible mess we
have now?

>I like the current system because it's so "atomic"; a reference's text
>lives in just one location

I'm not sure this is any different. If I use one ref in a couple of places
in my article (quite common) then you end up with one body text and several
pointers to it. The only different here is that ALL body text would be
pointers -- as an option, of course.

It seems to me the only reason this doesn't work now is because the original
ref body must appear before all references to it. If this were changed one
could do refs any way they want, as well as fixing the problem with editing.

Maury


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
"Sam Korn"

> In reply to the whole thread, the problem with banning sarcasm is that
> it would prevent a good proportion of British editors from editing at
> all.  Sarcasm is not inherently impolite (though of course it *can*
> be) and is an absolutely crucial part of British humour and indeed
> regular speech.

Um. It is also a major part of British culture not to know the difference between the sarcastic and the ironic. Or deliberately to forget. Or to push the envelope. Or something.

(Yeah, right, Charles.)

Charles

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


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
David Alexander Russell wrote:
> Mark Wagner wrote:
>> The problem is that the consequences of guessing wrong about if a
>> particular edit by the [[User:Danny]] account is a WP:OFFICE action
>> being kept discrete or not are so severe that nobody wants to risk it.
>> As a result, any sudden, wildly-out-of-process action by either
>> account is assumed to be Office-related.
>
>
> Simple solution: Danny should not perform ANY admin action on EITHER
> account OTHER than WP:OFFICE actions. Harsh, but if that's what is
> necessary to prevent another shitstorm like this then that is what needs
> to happen. A 'long standing and widely respected editor' (Jimbo's words,
> not mine) is expected to show MORE respect for the community, not less.
> Otherwise Citizendium will gain more contributors than it deserves.
>

In that case, we'd better create an OTRS shared account, since obviously
anything that comes to the "office" (lowercase) is going to be "against
community consensus".

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061011/e0f4ef7d/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
"George Herbert" wrote
> Can you remind us how active/inactive membership is counted, and what the
> effects on a voting plurality are depending on how many people are actually
> responsive out of the total?

There are rules. I'm the ranking mathematician on the AC, which probably explains why I can't remember them.

> How bad is it for moving forwards if arbcom members are functionally
> inactive?  Is it then just an issue of bandwidth, or do you have to spur
> some of the inactive ones to participate to get proposed decisions voted out
> and official?

There are naggers and naggees. It comes down to saying that with fewer bodies, cases are decided more slowly, and with a smaller subset of approaches.

The preparation of cases is the worst part, undoubtedly, and requires experience (more than I have). The list of 'principles' is ever-expanding, but we still need more, and some cases are marathons.

Charles

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


body:
Jossi Fresco wrote

> The main issue here is if we are dealing with a controversial topic,
> a biography of a living person, or an ongoing enterprise. In these
> cases, the need for reliable sources is paramount.

Correct. But some of us have always objected to having the most controversial articles driving policy. So, please, not the 'main issue'. The main issue is getting the encyclopedia written, in the large, not that some people want to write on controversial areas. Policy in this area is basically defensive, and hence rather negative.

Charles

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


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 10/11/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion on the extension issue. However, at the
> moment both audio and video are served with application/ogg _and_ the
> extension "ogg".  So if I want to set up separate audio and video
> players for Ogg files (say XMMS and mplayer), I have to set up an
> intermediate helper application that, after looking at the file,
> decides which application to launch.
[snip]

I've always viewed this as geek preferences (multiple players)
overriding usability for the common user.... as the realty is that Joe
Average is viewing everything in Windows Media Player.

So long as we don't use ".ogm" I won't protest the use of non-standard
mime types and non-standard extensions ... but I do think that it's
unfortunate that we're still prioritizing geek usability issues over
common user usability on the playback side of things.


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 11/10/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and
> previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal
> that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new
> content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].

They certainly do have quite a bit of unnecessary overlap and could be
contained in a single policy. Anything to streamline policy and make it
easier for new users to grasp is an improvement.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:14:39 -0700, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com>
wrote:

>If there are multiple sources and one of them is a USENET post or a
>blog, we *may* include that posting as an additional source. But if
>that is the *only* source upon which we make an assertion in an
>article, in particular when the subject is controversial,  we should
>deny the use of such source on the basis of lack of reliability.

Obviously if a Harvard professor has a blog we can treat what he says
there as fairly reliable in terms of his field of expertise, but it
has a much lower inclusion threshold than peer-reviewed journals.  Yes
is of course the messenger not the medium which is the measure of
reliability, but the medium also establishes the bar to publication
and thus the amount of external scrutiny the message has received.

I am always wary of articles where there are vanishingly few real
sources.  The Game is a classic example: the only non-Internet source
we've ever been able to find is a single mention in a Flemish
newspaper, which may well have got its information from the same blogs
as everyone else.  We don't have any idea how thorough the research
was which underlies that particular space filler.  You'd have thought
that something which is reportedly a global phenomenon would have
attracted more than one mention in real media, wouldn't you?

It comes down, I guess, to how one views Wikipedia: do we aspire to be
an accurate and verifiable source of information, or is it a place
where in the absence of anything better we can simply repeat what is
noised about, regardless of whether we can show it to be accurate or
not.

My bias is probably evident in the phrasing here :-)

>For articles that there are not controversial, and that there is
>consensus from involved and knowledgeable editors, exceptions could
>be made, of course.

Consensus from involved and knowledgeable editors is very dangerous.
Look how many involved and knowledgeable editors think that crop
circles are of paranormal origin, the "Church" of Scientology is not a
cult, Remote Viewing is a science, the World Trade Center was brought
down by the Evil Corrupt Gubmint (TM).  Here of course we have others
involved, but consensus does not scale well; in the case of a minor
crank theory it is very possible to find a consensus of 100% of all
three involved editors agreeing that it most certainly is valid.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 10/11/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/06, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Given that these mailing lists are available to be read by potential
> > adversaries, it's probably not a good idea to speculate here about what
> > those countermeasures might be...
>
>
> One important point that escapes many is that when you try to explain
> "it's a website the readers can edit", some people immediately go OH
> NOEZ and list every obvious reason it can't possibly work and the
> enterprise is provably doomed. Wikipedia cannot possibly work in
> theory.
>
> Yet somehow it keeps working, pretty much. This is because every
> single one of the doomsday scenarios has happened and keeps happening
> and we've learnt to deal with them as part of the normal course of
> events.

We thought that about Usenet spam too, once.

We lost that one.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:31:21 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Of course.  It's just a bizarre coincidence that every time an article
>>> on something from teh internets is deleted as unverifiable, it's
>>> always our policies which are wrong, and never the users arguing for
>>> the retention of stuff which is discussed exclusively by other people
>>> like them.
>
>> But you just used the exact same fallacy again. What does it matter what
>> the motive is (which, BTW, you're still only making guesses at) when the
>> argument itself is still sound?
>
> I don't regard the argument as sound.  Anything which is verifiable
> *only* from sources with absolutely no bar to publication is not, in
> my view, formally verifiable at all.

So please attack the argument, then, instead of bringing up pointless
innuendo about people's possible motives for making it.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061011/3364e765/attachment.pgp


body:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:31:21 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>> Of course.  It's just a bizarre coincidence that every time an article
>> on something from teh internets is deleted as unverifiable, it's
>> always our policies which are wrong, and never the users arguing for
>> the retention of stuff which is discussed exclusively by other people
>> like them.

>But you just used the exact same fallacy again. What does it matter what
>the motive is (which, BTW, you're still only making guesses at) when the
>argument itself is still sound?

I don't regard the argument as sound.  Anything which is verifiable
*only* from sources with absolutely no bar to publication is not, in
my view, formally verifiable at all.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] Ogg videos that aren't.

body:
It would appear that about 11% of the Ogg videos on commons aren't Ogg
at all, they mostly seem to be renamed AVI and the like...

Is there any reason I shouldn't run through all these and transcode
them in mass to Ogg/Theora?


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 10/10/06, mingli yuan <mingli.yuan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Many people reported that English Wikiepdia is unblocked in China.
> We are waiting for more infomation about the unblock.

A triumph for the policy of masterly inactivity, I see ;-)

(There's some suggestion that en.wp is partially blocked in Singapore,
however; there was a post on en.wp's village pump about it which I
can't seem to find now. Swings and roundabouts.)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:41:29 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>>> I'm not understanding this point -- why then do we have articles on
>>> things such as [[Pipe organ]] or even people such as [[Donald Knuth]]
>>> -- both of these can be easily looked up online, and they take up some
>>> much more disk space than [[Fleshlight]]

>> I think the answer to this question is to check the availability of
>> recorded media celebrating skilled operators of the pipe organ versus
>> the fleshlight.  Organists are notable, wankers are not.

>How many celebrated skilled operators of [[Donald Knuth]] are there?
>This is kind of a weird criteria for establishing "notability", I don't
>think it's widely applicable.

I was addressing the specific question: if not fleshlight then why
pipe organ.  Pipe organs have been made for centuries by many
different companies and individuals; the comparison is simply invalid.

How many non-trivial independent sources are there for fleshlight?
Mainstream publications?  Has it been reviewed in Loaded?  Or is it
just advertising plus a load of "hur hur, look at that, that's so
smutty, hur hur"?

The inflation of this to the level of some product of transcendent
global importance is patently absurd.

>Personally, I have no idea whether Fleshlight is notable or not without
>doing further research I probably don't care to perform. But that's what
>talk page debates, AfD, RfC and such are for. We have ways of reaching
>community consensus on such things.

Sure.  Debate it.  But let's wait until we have all the facts before
starting, rather than second-guessing Danny and crying that the sky is
falling because one wank-o-matic got deleted.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>
	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com> <452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:41:29 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> I think the answer to this question is to check the availability of
>>> recorded media celebrating skilled operators of the pipe organ versus
>>> the fleshlight.  Organists are notable, wankers are not.
>
>> How many celebrated skilled operators of [[Donald Knuth]] are there?
>> This is kind of a weird criteria for establishing "notability", I don't
>> think it's widely applicable.
>
> I was addressing the specific question: if not fleshlight then why
> pipe organ.  Pipe organs have been made for centuries by many
> different companies and individuals; the comparison is simply invalid.

But "the comparison is simply invalid" was _my_ point. Why are you
taking the reasons for pipe organs being important enough to include in
an enclopedia and checking to see whether they also apply to a _sex
toy_, of all things? It can't possibly apply in a meaningful way.

> How many non-trivial independent sources are there for fleshlight?
> Mainstream publications?  Has it been reviewed in Loaded?  Or is it
> just advertising plus a load of "hur hur, look at that, that's so
> smutty, hur hur"?

I don't know. My point is that this was something for interested editors
to decide via the standard mechanisms (talk pages, AfD, etc), and that
Danny was flat-out wrong to unilaterally deleted it like he did.

Considering that the article was kept by AfD, which I consider to be
deletionism-leaning in general, it seems likely to me that there is more
to this article than just advertising.

>> Personally, I have no idea whether Fleshlight is notable or not without
>> doing further research I probably don't care to perform. But that's what
>> talk page debates, AfD, RfC and such are for. We have ways of reaching
>> community consensus on such things.
>
> Sure.  Debate it.  But let's wait until we have all the facts before
> starting, rather than second-guessing Danny and crying that the sky is
> falling because one wank-o-matic got deleted.

Why couldn't Danny have waited for all the facts before he deleted it?
It's generally not a good idea to delete first and act questions later,
especially when you're in a privileged position where your seemingly
capricious acts can sometimes be enforced with the strength of the
highest "law" on Wikipedia.

As it turns out that this wasn't an Office action, second-guessing it is
entirely appropriate. Danny isn't magic.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061011/3e0b4c27/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com>
	<452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>

body:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:47:32 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>It's based on the premise that we have an obligation to accommodate the
>company's concern over the dilution of the advertising value of their
>article. We actually have guidelines and policies _against_ that sort of
>thing; Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral
>point of view.

We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent
level of human compassion.  Here I think we can accommodate the
company's concerns by redirecting to artificial vagina, which means
that their Google presence will not be tainted by directly associating
their product with competitors.

>And by the way, disagreement with your arguments is not automatically an
>assumption of bad faith even though in this case it was a bit harshly
>worded.

The bad faith was directed at Danny, in my view.  There is a world of
difference between "hey, Danny, what's the story here?" and "ZOMG! You
deleted fleshlight! The encyclopaedia is suddenly of no value to
humanity" or words to that effect.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight and the Voice

body:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 09:58:33 -0700, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>It's not particularly suprising that searches through mainstream press
>don't catch many sex-related brand names.  Most sex-related products
>don't show up in mainstream press.

A product review in Loaded or Playboy would be fine, I don't insist on
the New York Times.  Any three or four non-trivial *independent*
articles focusing primarily on the subject will do.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

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

Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:

> We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent
> level of human compassion.

{{citation needed}}

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I am a senior philosophunculist on active duty.
 sean at epoptic.com | Haven't you studied amphigory? Gad, what they
                  | teach in schools these days! ---Jubal Harshaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFLS0c/SVOiq2uhHMRAlltAJ9d/n7p+ULee08TRRGEJT4QcbfX8ACfd3T1
LEcM9Sb/mbjv56/gCU0+5Xo=
=O0ad
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com> <452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>
	<9qepi2d3qtpqgtr1e7b1vh811igmc6a3vf@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:47:32 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> It's based on the premise that we have an obligation to accommodate the
>> company's concern over the dilution of the advertising value of their
>> article. We actually have guidelines and policies _against_ that sort of
>> thing; Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral
>> point of view.
>
> We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent
> level of human compassion.

Since when? Perhaps you're thinking of Wikinfo's "sympathetic point of
view" policy, which is incompatible with NPOV and IIRC the reason why
Wikinfo split.

There's nothing wrong with showing compassion but it has to fit within
our more fundamental NPOV policy.

>> And by the way, disagreement with your arguments is not automatically an
>> assumption of bad faith even though in this case it was a bit harshly
>> worded.
>
> The bad faith was directed at Danny, in my view.  There is a world of
> difference between "hey, Danny, what's the story here?" and "ZOMG! You
> deleted fleshlight! The encyclopaedia is suddenly of no value to
> humanity" or words to that effect.

No, this is simply wrong. I was responding to you accusing Jeff Raymond
of bad faith when he called your argument "a load of hooey." Danny's
actions weren't the subject here.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061011/101f6c3b/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Pledge of personal commitment

body:
As required per the conflict of interest policy of the Wikimedia
Foundation, I am hereby posting the pledge of personal commitment to
foundation-l and wikimediafoundation.org:

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC.

'''PLEDGE OF PERSONAL COMMITMENT'''

As a member of the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, I,
Erik M?ller, am committed to Wikimedia Foundation's goal to establish
and maintain the highest level of public confidence in its
accountability. I have personally committed to follow the standards
set out below, which represent the Wikimedia Foundation's conflict of
interest policies:

I will conduct my activities with the board of trustees of Wikimedia
Foundation so that I do not advance or protect my own interests, or
the private interests of others with whom I have a relationship, in a
way that is detrimental to the interests of, or to the fundamental
mission of, Wikimedia Foundation.

In every instance in which I represent the Wikimedia Foundation, I
will conduct my activities in a manner to best promote the interests
of Wikimedia Foundation.

In all matters that come before the board of trustees for a vote that
may favorably impact my own financial interests, or the private
interests of others with whom I have a financial relationship, or any
organization of which I am a part, I will reveal that relationship and
abstain from a vote in the matter.

When a conflict of interest arises, or when a potential conflict of
interest emerges, I will promptly disclose that conflict, or potential
conflict, to the Executive Director of Wikimedia Foundation and to the
Chairman of its board of trustees and seek a resolution of that issue.

Entered into on this the 11th day of October, 2006.

Erik M?ller
Member, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.


body:
On 10/11/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> I think the issue about whether the standard _should_ exist should be
> discussed elsewhere, e.g. the ogg mailing list.

Where is the urgency?

Why not get a standard established before we change our behavior?


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 9:40:52 +0100, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>It is also a major part of British culture not to know the difference
>between the sarcastic and the ironic. Or deliberately to forget. Or to
>push the envelope. Or something.

Careful, Charles, some of the people reading this might be from
Leftpondia :o)

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Spam, Office et al

body:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:01:44 +0200, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

>It is confusing for Danny as well, who is pressured by the phone calls
>and otrs messages. Who is either left alone making a decision, and later
>is blamed by Jimbo, Brad or whoever.

Obviously I missed the bit where Jimbo "blamed" Danny.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Inclusion of unmaintainable articles

body:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:02:54 +0100, "Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com>
wrote:

>should Wikipedia keep articles which the community is unwilling to maintain?

For what value of "the community"?

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:53:02 -0500, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
wrote:

>In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and
>previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal
>that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new
>content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].

NOR and V are important in and of themselves (and need to be much
shorter).  Attribution has the potential to replace RS and about 2/3
of each of NOR and V, which would be good.  As a descriptive guideline
it has great potential.  I don't see it replacing the prescriptive
policies, but it certainly augments them well.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


references:
<6751264.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<4cc603b0610110027g654faea6ua8ae1ad26a497150@mail.gmail.com>
	<6751935.post@talk.nabble.com>

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:54:11 -0700 (PDT), bksimonb <simon at bkinfo.net>
wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University

Ugh.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Tim Starling

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Regarding Ogg Theora and its file extension;
 should it be changed on the commons?

body:
Clarence Risher wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>> I know, I've read the spec. But presumably it is fairly rare for Ogg files
>> to consist of chained audio and video streams. Most Ogg files can be easily
>> categorised as either audio or video. It's not a problem that you can
>> construct a file which can't be, and it's not a problem that at present, it
>> may be difficult to automatically distinguish between the two.
>
> I disagree.  Almost every ogg file that contains video also contains
> audio (the "normal" definition of a "video file" implicitly includes
> audio).  But not every, just almost.  I have seen many scientific
> publications, videos of experiments and such, with no audio.
>

I never said otherwise. I said that a file containing video should be ogv,
regardless of whether it contains audio.

[snip section that Simetrical answered]

>>> Proper desktop systems have been doing the right thing for ages now,
>>> for example the Gnome file manager doohicky (nautilus) correctly shows
>>> a thumbnail and movie strip views on video files, while it shows a
>>> music icon on audio files.
>>>
>>> Even Windows Vista can happily differentiate files with file magic...
>> Scanning files for stream headers is slow, and you can't expect every
>> application to support it. Gnome does, Windows Vista does, but what about
>> the directory list module in Lighttpd? What about the unix ls command? What
>> about FTP clients, archivers and older desktop systems?
>
> Why would any of those applications need to support it?  File extensions
> are archaic, a dying anachronism in today's world of file magic and/or
> MIME types.  Let them go.

These applications need to support it because they are responsible for
delivering information about the file to the user. File magic is slow and
unreliable.

[snip section that Nick answered]

> And, to make a final inquiry...  What players are you people using that
> can play OGG+(Vorbis/MP3/AAC/FLAC) but cant play OGG+(Theora/MPEG4)?  I
> have a half dozen media players installed on my machine, including
> mplayer, xmms, totem, and xine, and every one of them can play every
> media file I have, video, audio, or otherwise.

Maybe there is some player that can play audio but not video. Who knows? My
main concern is rapidly delivering information about the file to the user.

Imagine a world without extensions. You could name your files like this:

~/quantum/data/The_Matrix
~/movies/The_Matrix
~/soundtracks/The_Matrix

But it soon becomes obvious that this system is inadequate. You move your
files around a lot, by email, DCC, bittorrent, etc., and that directory
information is easily lost. People are complaining that they downloaded a
file from bittorrent called The_Matrix, looking for the movie, and they just
got a 10^6 x 10^6 Hamiltonian. So you decide to attach suffixes for
disambiguation:

~/quantum/data/The_Matrix_data
~/movies/The_Matrix_movie
~/movies/The_Matrix_soundtrack

Hmmm, but is the title "The Matrix movie" or "The Matrix" which is a movie?
This is all very confusing. And "soundtrack" takes quite some time to type.
So let's use "." instead of "_" to separate the title from the type, and
let's use a standard set of abbreviations.

~/quantum/data/The_Matrix.data
~/movies/The_Matrix.video
~/movies/The_Matrix.audio

Oh no, extensions! The anachronism returns! So why would anyone advocate
.ogv over .video? The container format probably matters about as much to the
user as the codec and encoding parameters. I can think of two reasons to
include the container format in the filename:

* Momentum, existing standards, support for legacy systems, etc.
* Branding. We all love open source and want to make sure everyone knows
that we're using it. There are lots of codec names which can also be used
for branding, such as Theora and Vorbis, but Ogg is the umbrella brand.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Andy Rabagliati

subject: [Wikitech-l] Getting pictures to show up in mediawiki

body:
Folks,

  In support of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team
  I am trying to automate the cutting down of the English Wikipedia dump.

  This would be used to create a CD or DVD with content from a chosen
  list of articles.

  I have documented the steps I take on the page above, and one of my
  problems is that I cannot get pictures to show up.

  I have tried adding enwiki-20060518-imagelinks.sql.gz to my mediawiki
  installation, but I think this just provides the reverse - indicating
  from a picture page which articles link to it ?

  If I upload a picture, it works.

  What I would like is to put all the pictures where the uploaded one
  would go, and have it all 'magically' work.

  At the moment all pictures show up as redlinks, like
  http://localhost/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Lunar-Phase-Diagram.png

  Which XML dump should I add, or what else could I include from the
  enwiki-20060518-pages-articles.xml.bz2 file to make pictures work ?

Cheers,     Andy!


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 10/11/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/10/06, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Given that these mailing lists are available to be read by potential
> > > adversaries, it's probably not a good idea to speculate here about what
> > > those countermeasures might be...
> >
> >
> > One important point that escapes many is that when you try to explain
> > "it's a website the readers can edit", some people immediately go OH
> > NOEZ and list every obvious reason it can't possibly work and the
> > enterprise is provably doomed. Wikipedia cannot possibly work in
> > theory.
> >
> > Yet somehow it keeps working, pretty much. This is because every
> > single one of the doomsday scenarios has happened and keeps happening
> > and we've learnt to deal with them as part of the normal course of
> > events.
>
>
>
> We thought that about Usenet spam too, once.
>
> We lost that one.

That's because Usenet didn't have any good way of reacting quickly to
changing threats, or of undoing actions taken by users.  Wikipedia has
the advantages that any action can be undone faster than it can be
done, and that the whole system is centrally managed.  If all else
fails, the system can be put in read-only mode to give people time to
come up with a fix.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 10/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> This user is obviously a nut-job, but this is something we should
> atleast consider. I remember a while back when a vandalbot started
> attacking ANI, which effectively shut it down for a long period of
> time. This was before semi-protection, so today that specific threat
> could be easily dealt with, but what if he had attacked random
> articles instead?
>
> It's a fact that there are botnet-operators out there with tens of
> thousands of computers, and they demand money from websites in
> exchange for them not being DDoSed. This is not even rare, it's fairly
> common in this brand new world.

Top-ten websites tend not to be DDoSed with any level of success.  As
a general rule, if your website can survive a Slashdotting, it can
survive anything a botnet operator can throw at it.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [Wikitech-l] "Search in Category" function for MediaWiki

body:
Virgil Ierubino wrote:
> I would really like to see a function like this developed into MediaWiki,
> either an an extension or into a new version. Put simply, one should be able
> to perform searches, limiting the field of search to articles in a given
> category. The reasons why this would be useful are probably obvious. If not
> - the simplest one is just that categories split articles into topics - and
> this would allow a user to search in a given topic.
>
> I see two ways of enacting this, and I think both should be looked into.
> Firstly, an "advanced search" option, which I think is not as favourable.
> Secondly, and this is what I think would really be good, a search box
> automatically appears on a category page.
>
> Alternatively, when one is viewing a category page, the normal search box
> (on the left) acquires a check box - "search in this category".
>
> Additionally, a further checkbox could be interesting: "also search
> subcategories".
>
> I can't imagine this would be too difficult to implement, but would
> certainly be very useful and would make more use of the categorisation
> system in MediaWiki.

Category search could be implemented fairly easily using Lucene fields. But
I think the results would be counterintuitive unless subcategories were
included by default, and that's rather more difficult to implement. A
top-level category in Wikipedia does not contain a collection of articles on
that topic, it contains a list of subcategories and a few miscellaneous
articles.

To implement subcategory search, MW could recursively load parent categories
on page save, and put them in a "parent category" lucene field. Circular
reference detection and resource limits would have to be in place.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
On 10/11/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Sam Korn"
>
> > In reply to the whole thread, the problem with banning sarcasm is that
> > it would prevent a good proportion of British editors from editing at
> > all.  Sarcasm is not inherently impolite (though of course it *can*
> > be) and is an absolutely crucial part of British humour and indeed
> > regular speech.
>
> Um. It is also a major part of British culture not to know the difference
> between the sarcastic and the ironic. Or deliberately to forget. Or to push
> the envelope. Or something.
>
> (Yeah, right, Charles.)
>
> Charles
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

There's a difference?

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
>> But we don have quite a number of different defence options that would
>> handle the senario you talk about.
>
> Like what?

Well, we'd certainly turn on the registration captcha, for one thing.


from_name: Steve Bennett

references:
<dc107ee70610020633n1b9a1501l398313b052dfe125@mail.gmail.com>
	<e692861c0610020646j2db51573ue88280925ceeaae6@mail.gmail.com>
	<efsb7o$of6$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<e692861c0610021834yae5c193ge83ad907d6748bef@mail.gmail.com>
	<efsjf0$a34$1@sea.gmane.org> <egegpm$4bm$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<eghghg$mn$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 10/11/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> * Branding. We all love open source and want to make sure everyone knows
> that we're using it. There are lots of codec names which can also be used

Heh, speak for yourself. Wikipedia's preference for .ogg has been a
major pain in the arse for me. My success rate with being able to
listen to Wikipedia audio files on various machines is less than 50%.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 10/11/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This user is obviously a nut-job, but this is something we should
> > atleast consider. I remember a while back when a vandalbot started
> > attacking ANI, which effectively shut it down for a long period of
> > time. This was before semi-protection, so today that specific threat
> > could be easily dealt with, but what if he had attacked random
> > articles instead?
> >
> > It's a fact that there are botnet-operators out there with tens of
> > thousands of computers, and they demand money from websites in
> > exchange for them not being DDoSed. This is not even rare, it's fairly
> > common in this brand new world.
>
> Top-ten websites tend not to be DDoSed with any level of success.  As
> a general rule, if your website can survive a Slashdotting, it can
> survive anything a botnet operator can throw at it.
>
> --
> Mark
> [[User:Carnildo]]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Please don't say that.  Some of the botnets out there have enough firepower
to nuke any website in existence, if you don't apply reactive measures
upstream.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> Tim - when are the static dumps going to be ready?
>
It's out of disk space. The images are using over 600GB already, not
including image tarballs which will require that much again. Also I'm
out space for text, srv31's 230GB is full. The project really needs
either a dedicated 2TB or some software changes to reduce disk usage.

So in answer to your question, I was intending on waiting until the new
image servers arrive. Then I could try to grab one to finish the present
dump. Then I would do the software changes and run the subsequent dump
on a lower-specced machine. I don't know when the image servers will
arrive, but we're all hoping it will be soon.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.8.1 released

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

October 11, 2006

MediaWiki 1.8.1 fixes several issues in the Fall 2006 snapshot release:

* Fix PHP notice and estimates for dumpBackup.php and friends
* Improved register_globals paranoia checks
* (bug 7545) Fix PHP version check on install
* Experimental web API disabled by default
* Disable PHP exception backtrace printing unless $wgShowExceptionDetails
  is set. Backtraces may contain sensitive information in function call
  parameters.

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_8_1/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_8_1/phase3/HISTORY

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.8.1.tar.gz

MD5 checksum:
9693c36a139715c9984495cb6ebc5646  mediawiki-1.8.1.tar.gz

SHA-1 checksum:
7220b680809ca8ac8830ab1c77b2f29d12a115eb mediawiki-1.8.1.tar.gz

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
(Please subscribe to receive announcements of security updates.)
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFLUNqwRnhpk1wk44RAoy/AJ4+lhxTluwd4nQ3VxY7xlbqxd31nQCdHeh9
WXIn7Q9S/pOMsqe9nm7aIjI=
=9bWi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> ...when you try to explain "it's a website the readers can edit",
> some people immediately go OH NOEZ and list every obvious reason
> it can't possibly work and the enterprise is provably doomed.

"People who believe a thing to be impossible should not stand
in the way of those who are doing it."


from_name: Friends Committee

subject: [Foundation-l] PDF of Fundraising

body:
Hi,

  Where can I find a PDF or a printable copy of Wikimedia Fundriaisng?

  I can find it on the fundraisng page.

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1?/min.


subject: [Foundation-l] PDF of Fundraising


from_name: bksimonb

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Where to discuss best approach to deal with
 defamitory article?

body:
Hi Oldak ,
Thanks for responding.

As the article stands there are factual inaccuracies, uncited or poorly
cited statements and allegations, sarcastic wording, bias and "weazel
words".

This has been discussed at length in the discussion pages but no one who has
tried can get anywhere without being dismissed, ignored and abused. If you
like I can expand on this with links, examples and quotes.

I would just like to discuss strategy for dealing with this. I know
Wikipedia has it's own systems, which I am following, but I am also looking
for a suitable forum to just talk with other wikipedians as to where best to
channel time and energy into this.

For example, for this particular case,

Do I take one point at a time and only discuss that one point?

Do I refute every questionable point in the article all at once (a lot of
work!)?

Is it the right time to involve mediators?

If so what are the pros and cons of the official mediating team vs the
mediation cabal?

Is the editor in question's behavior so blatant I should go straight to the
arbritrators?

As part of an organisation, where is the line between raising awareness of
this issue and encouraging "meatpuppets"?

If this is the wrong forum then I am open to suggestions for a more
appropriate place to discuss this.

Thanks & regards

P.S.
What does "Ugh" and "wish I hadn't asked" mean? It sounds kind of
discouraging ;-)

Oldak Quill wrote:
>
> On 11/10/06, bksimonb <simon at bkinfo.net> wrote:
>
>> I tried reasoning with the main editor but as I, and others who have
>> tried,
>> have found that the guy acts like a tyrant and won't budge an inch. Even
>> to
>> the extent of reverting NPOV warnings.
>
>
> I haven't looked at the article in question but reverting NPOV warnings
> can
> be justified if the article is already seemingly NPOV.
>
> What do you suggest is wrong with the article as it stands?
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Where-to-discuss-best-approach-to-deal-with-defamitory-article--tf2421558.html#a6762943
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


body:
Hi Oldak ,
Thanks for responding.

As the article stands there are factual inaccuracies, uncited or poorly
cited statements and allegations, sarcastic wording, bias and "weazel
words".

This has been discussed at length in the discussion pages but no one who has
tried can get anywhere without being dismissed, ignored and abused. If you
like I can expand on this with links, examples and quotes.

I would just like to discuss strategy for dealing with this. I know
Wikipedia has it's own systems, which I am following, but I am also looking
for a suitable forum to just talk with other wikipedians as to where best to
channel time and energy into this.

For example, for this particular case,

Do I take one point at a time and only discuss that one point?

Do I refute every questionable point in the article all at once (a lot of
work!)?

Is it the right time to involve mediators?

If so what are the pros and cons of the official mediating team vs the
mediation cabal?

Is the editor in question's behavior so blatant I should go straight to the
arbritrators?

As part of an organisation, where is the line between raising awareness of
this issue and encouraging "meatpuppets"?

If this is the wrong forum then I am open to suggestions for a more
appropriate place to discuss this.

Thanks & regards

Oldak Quill wrote:
>
> On 11/10/06, bksimonb <simon at bkinfo.net> wrote:
>
>> I tried reasoning with the main editor but as I, and others who have
>> tried,
>> have found that the guy acts like a tyrant and won't budge an inch. Even
>> to
>> the extent of reverting NPOV warnings.
>
>
> I haven't looked at the article in question but reverting NPOV warnings
> can
> be justified if the article is already seemingly NPOV.
>
> What do you suggest is wrong with the article as it stands?
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Where-to-discuss-best-approach-to-deal-with-defamitory-article--tf2421558.html#a6762943
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


from_name: George Chriss

body:
Just poking around on #theora, I was told by a dev that:

1) The file extension was not going to be changed, and
2) It had been discussed to death.[1]

Hope this helps, George
[[:en:User:GChriss]]

[1] http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2004-June/000580.html

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:45:11 -0400  Wikimedia developers  wrote:

On 10/11/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> I think the issue about whether the standard _should_ exist should be
> discussed elsewhere, e.g. the ogg mailing list.

Where is the urgency?

Why not get a standard established before we change our behavior?
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
"George Herbert" wrote

> There are
> around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia
> WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat
> loosened up?  Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5
> million total articles?  Is mere listing on a major stock exchange
> enough notability?

Good question.

I wouldn't say we need every NASDAQ listing.

It is a bit odd for companies not to be able to qualify at all by capital value. Of course if there really were _no_ sources, for a secretive private corporation, the article could reduce to 'secretive private corporation'.

People who come to Wikipedia in a search for information on what equities to buy - what can one say? Cheapskates, and foolish investors, almost by definition.

Charles

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


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [Wikitech-l] Insight into users' behaviour

body:
On 10/10/06, Nick Jenkins <nickpj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Page 13, the "[Edit]" links are too far up from the horizontal line that marks a new section (thus leading new users to think they are for the section above, not the section below).
>
> Tried adding:
> ----------------
> div.editsection { vertical-align: bottom; }
> ----------------
> to main.css ; that made no difference (in Firefox). Any CSS guru want to indicate whether it's possible to do this (move the "[Edit]" text down closer to the horizontal new section line), and if so maybe how ?

The div containing the edit link is the first element in the HTML in
each section. Then comes a <p> containing the anchor to the section,
then the section heading itself. So the edit link is really not
aligned with anything, it's just set to float:right, underneath the
clearing <p> at the end of the section above.

The div can be pushed down with margin-top, but that's not a very
elegant solution:

div.editsection {margin-top: 10px; }

On one of the projects, I forget which one, the edit link appears not
at the right hand edge, but next to the heading text. That makes it
clear which section the link refers to, and prevents the problem of
images or other elements overflowing preceding sections displacing the
floating editsection links.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Joakim Larsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Coordinates in Wikipedia

body:
2006/10/10, Stefan K?hn <kuehn-s at gmx.net>:
>
> Hello,
>
> I produce the KML-Files for Google Earth and the CSV-Files with all
> coordinates from DE and EN.
>
> http://www.webkuehn.de/hobbys/wikipedia/geokoordinaten/index.htm
>
> See also dynamic file from Tim:
>
> http://www.alder-digital.de/wiki/index.php/Wikipedia_in_GoogleEarth_%28en%29
>
> At the moment I write a new script. It will read also coordinates from
> other languages. If we use all the other languages with the regional
> knowledge for the data mining, we get a better result.
>
> In the English and German Wikipedia we have a category with all
> coordinates templates. Also CS, FI, KO and FR has this category.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Coordinates_templates
>
> What is with other languages?
> Did some other language use coordinates templates?
>
>
> Thanks for information,
> Stefan Kuehn

sv doees at least not.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
On 10/11/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "George Herbert" wrote
>
> > There's a difference?
>
> Irony: :-;
>
> Sarcasm: No, of course, there is _no difference_ at all. If you are at the
> bottom of a pond. And talking only to fellow tadpoles. In semaphore. With
> your tail. And then your tail falls off, leaving you without a viable means
> of communication. Then and only then does the distinction between sarcasm
> and irony become a distinction without a difference. I have been teaching
> this to frog-faced pupils like you for forty years and you still haven't got
> the point.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Usually the replies to that straight line don't come with nearly that visual
and compelling a response.  Bravo, Charles.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight and the Voice

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:08:23 +1000, "Keith Old" <keithold at gmail.com>
wrote:

>How about this list of mentions available through Google News Archives?
>http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Fleshlight&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives

Not many of them seem to pass the test non-trivial mention in external
source of at least some repute.  For values of not many that include
all the ones I looked at.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 11/10/06, bksimonb <simon at bkinfo.net> wrote:

> I tried reasoning with the main editor but as I, and others who have
> tried,
> have found that the guy acts like a tyrant and won't budge an inch. Even
> to
> the extent of reverting NPOV warnings.

I haven't looked at the article in question but reverting NPOV warnings can
be justified if the article is already seemingly NPOV.

What do you suggest is wrong with the article as it stands?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight and the Voice

body:
On 10/11/06, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> How about this list of mentions available through Google News Archives?
>
>
> http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Fleshlight&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives
>
> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old
> _______________________________________________

I am surprised, it does have some mention. I do like page two of that list,
the Decatur Daily Review. "Miss Barbaia received a pencil and the boys a *
fleshlight*". * *And that already in 1928. :)

Garion96


from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 10:01:17AM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 10/11/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > I don't have a strong opinion on the extension issue. However, at the
> > moment both audio and video are served with application/ogg _and_ the
> > extension "ogg".  So if I want to set up separate audio and video
> > players for Ogg files (say XMMS and mplayer), I have to set up an
> > intermediate helper application that, after looking at the file,
> > decides which application to launch.
> [snip]
>
> I've always viewed this as geek preferences (multiple players)
> overriding usability for the common user.... as the realty is that Joe
> Average is viewing everything in Windows Media Player.
>
> So long as we don't use ".ogm" I won't protest the use of non-standard
> mime types and non-standard extensions ... but I do think that it's
> unfortunate that we're still prioritizing geek usability issues over
> common user usability on the playback side of things.

It doesn't strike me as simply a "geek" issue.  This is about trying to
make Ogg as usable as possible.  While you may think that insisting on
using Ogg instead of WMA and WMV is "geeky", some of us care about the
use of open formats for reasons of future compatibility and freedom from
legal entanglements.  It's something that could affect more than just
the "geeks" in the long run.

Unfortunately, having decided to use a truly open format, some of these
apparently "geeky" discussions and decisions are necessitated by these
circumstances.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts." - Paul Graham


body:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 04:05:15PM +0100, Mark Clements wrote:
> "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote
> in message
> news:e692861c0610110745w6317721aj8c5ee70572c6d138 at mail.gmail.com...
> > On 10/11/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I think the issue about whether the standard _should_ exist should be
> > > discussed elsewhere, e.g. the ogg mailing list.
> >
> > Where is the urgency?
> >
> > Why not get a standard established before we change our behavior?
>
> I agree - but it's a standard that should be established by the wider ogg
> community, not by wikitech-l.

What's wrong with getting some idea of what the Wikimedia technical
community would like to do, in terms of determining a direction for
potential future involvement in the Ogg community?

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary
to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 10/10/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>> * Momentum, existing standards, support for legacy systems, etc.
>> * Branding. We all love open source and want to make sure everyone knows
>> that we're using it. There are lots of codec names which can also be used
>> for branding, such as Theora and Vorbis, but Ogg is the umbrella brand.
>
> Well proposing a nonstandard extension (like OGV, or worse one which
> is 'standard' for propritary video) certantly won't help with user
> confusion or branding...
>
> How about  filename.video.ogg as a compromise?

I wasn't really intending to propose a nonstandard extension, I only
proposed it because it was recommended in the theora mailing list post I
read. I just want to use the extension which will be most widely understood.

VLC player, for instance, registers the .ogm file extension by default, but
not .ogv. A web search for "ogm extension" shows no apparent support for
Ivo's assertion that .ogm is only used for MPEG, there are lots of hits
discussing Theora codecs. It's unclear to me how many of these are
discussing standard ogg files and how many are referring to the format
described here:

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

I suspect they are routinely confused, the players will obviously be happy
either way. If we can find enough evidence that .ogm is routinely used for
Ogg/Theora, then that would be my choice.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Liz Kim

subject: [Wikitech-l] !! edit tool bar missing on safari !!

body:
My edit toolbar is not visible on just safari....
It shows up on mozilla, ie, netscape, camino...
Checked out wikipedia which uses mediawiki as well - I can see their edit
toolbar..
Any ideas?


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
Following up from a discussion on unblock-en-l...

How much effort would it be to add an enhancement to treat blocked
user redlink clicks like we currently treat anon user redlink clicks
when anon article creation is disabled?

We're trying to minimize the number of people who are fundamentally
just readers, who click on a redlink and see a block message (mostly
AOL users, but it happens to others).  If they click on the "edit" bar
and get it, that's fine, but if the default redlink behavior didn't
show the block message then that would be great.

Thanks.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Mark Clements

body:
"Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:e692861c0610110701g26a83f68ib50b5f46639cfe25 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 10/11/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> > I don't have a strong opinion on the extension issue. However, at the
> > moment both audio and video are served with application/ogg _and_ the
> > extension "ogg".  So if I want to set up separate audio and video
> > players for Ogg files (say XMMS and mplayer), I have to set up an
> > intermediate helper application that, after looking at the file,
> > decides which application to launch.
> [snip]
>
> I've always viewed this as geek preferences (multiple players)
> overriding usability for the common user.... as the realty is that Joe
> Average is viewing everything in Windows Media Player.
>
> So long as we don't use ".ogm" I won't protest the use of non-standard
> mime types and non-standard extensions ... but I do think that it's
> unfortunate that we're still prioritizing geek usability issues over
> common user usability on the playback side of things.

I think this is pretty off-topic now.  Perhaps we can bring the discussion
back to the point...

We have established that there is currently no standard file extension that
differentiates .ogg video/audio/etc.

So, should we change the file extension for .ogg video on Commons even
though there is no standard extension, and if so what extension should be
used.

I think the issue about whether the standard _should_ exist should be
discussed elsewhere, e.g. the ogg mailing list.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: Silas Snider

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>
	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com>
	<452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com>
	<452D1DB6.7050309@shaw.ca>
	<rarqi25tfj8qvm318d6smccfaeq2dvvgs7@4ax.com>

body:
On 10/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:37:10 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >But "the comparison is simply invalid" was _my_ point. Why are you
> >taking the reasons for pipe organs being important enough to include in
> >an enclopedia and checking to see whether they also apply to a _sex
> >toy_, of all things? It can't possibly apply in a meaningful way.
>
> You would need to ask Silas why he originally made that comparison.

I was responding to the implication that the standard for inclusion
was "...the project is not measurably
poorer as a result, it being trivially easy to find the product on the
internets should one be so inclined."

The project would not be measurably poorer without an article on Pipe
organs by this definition, since a ton of information is available
through a mere google search. Yes, the example was a bit hyperbolic,
but it is still valid, I believe.

>
> >> How many non-trivial independent sources are there for fleshlight?
> >> Mainstream publications?  Has it been reviewed in Loaded?  Or is it
> >> just advertising plus a load of "hur hur, look at that, that's so
> >> smutty, hur hur"?
>
> >I don't know. My point is that this was something for interested editors
> >to decide via the standard mechanisms (talk pages, AfD, etc), and that
> >Danny was flat-out wrong to unilaterally deleted it like he did.
>
> Or not, depending.  There is, after all, no measurable damage to
> Wikipedia's reputation from *not* having an article over which two
> apparent spammers are fighting.
>
> >Considering that the article was kept by AfD, which I consider to be
> >deletionism-leaning in general, it seems likely to me that there is more
> >to this article than just advertising.
>
> Afd is absolutely not deletionist when it comes to sexcruft.  It's
> really hard to get rid of any sex-related article - look at all those
> Google hits!  Must be notable.  Hence we have abysmal articles like
> donkey punch on which sane editors essentially give up trying to apply
> any standard of quality whatsoever.
>
> >Why couldn't Danny have waited for all the facts before he deleted it?
>
> I think he had them.  Spammers edit warring over product placement.
>
> >As it turns out that this wasn't an Office action, second-guessing it is
> >entirely appropriate. Danny isn't magic.
>
> No, it's always best to wait for clarification.  There is no deadline
> to meet.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who
Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category
of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad
Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
(AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious
Editing Club of Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


body:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 05:21:02PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> I must apologise, because somehow I managed to make myself so unclear
> that you completely misunderstood my position.

Thanks for clarifying, then.

>
> I couldn't imagine a more inapropreiate person for you to direct your
> complaints about free formats to, except perhaps Monty himself.

I could, but maybe that's just me.  Heh.

>
> .OGM, as I mentioned, is widely kludged hack to encapsulate  MPEG4
> (usually of the xvid flavor) in something that mostly resembles an ogg
> bitstream.  It has been suggested here that we use .ogm for movies
> encoded with Ogg/Theora.  I am strongly opposed to using this
> extension because of two primary issues 1) it is widely used for a
> proprietary format which we would not accept, 2) it is widely used by
> tools which are incompatible with the free codecs we do accept.

Agreed -- .ogm is probably not the "right" file extension to use.  I
like .ogv better for that, if we're going to invent an extension.

>
> I also regard the desire to have different media players for different
> media files to be something of an esoteric geek issue, as typical
> viewers use a single media player... and that having standardized
> behavior is simply more important.

If there's a way to satisfy both needs, however, I think it should be
adopted.  Prioritizing one need as being more important than another
doesn't necessarily require ignoring the other entirely.

>
> It really strikes me as disappointing the people here are expending so
> much effort arguing about such trivial matters, .. and going
> full-flame-on-mode over simple misunderstandings when so little work
> is being done to aid in actual usability (via optional inbrowser java
> playback, tutorials for contributors, advocating support for free
> formats in things like firefox etc....).  Today I pointed out that
> something like 1 in 10 videos on commons are broken because they
> aren't oggs at all (most of the broken ones seem to be renamed
> AVI/WMV) the thread didn't manage to get but a fraction of the
> attention that this thread has had.

People are probably expending "so much effort" because the decisions
made on this issue will affect them directly, with a few exceptions
where people are arguing based on principle because they believe their
position represents a "pure" adherence to standard or something like
that.  For those arguing in favor of something that will affect them
personally, I'm sympathetic, whether I agree with them or not.

I think the reason the one-in-ten-broken issue hasn't received as much
attention is pretty simple and obvious, though: nobody disagrees that
it's bad, and should be fixed.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your
hammer, everything starts to look like your thumb."


body:
Liz Kim wrote:
> My edit toolbar is not visible on just safari....
> It shows up on mozilla, ie, netscape, camino...
> Checked out wikipedia which uses mediawiki as well - I can see their edit
> toolbar..

You have an old, buggy version of Safari. Upgrade to Mac OS 10.4 and/or install
the updates trough Software Update; Safari 2.0 supports the toolbar
functionality properly. (Some limited toolbar features were once supported on
the old broken Safari but no longer is; only the actually functional toolbar is
available to avoid confusion in current versions of MediaWiki.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061011/901a0984/attachment.pgp>


body:
"Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:e692861c0610110745w6317721aj8c5ee70572c6d138 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 10/11/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk>
wrote:
> [snip]
> > I think the issue about whether the standard _should_ exist should be
> > discussed elsewhere, e.g. the ogg mailing list.
>
> Where is the urgency?
>
> Why not get a standard established before we change our behavior?

I agree - but it's a standard that should be established by the wider ogg
community, not by wikitech-l.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 11/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's a fact that there are botnet-operators out there with tens of
> thousands of computers, and they demand money from websites in
> exchange for them not being DDoSed. This is not even rare, it's fairly
> common in this brand new world.
> What if one of these people wrote a script and installed it on all of
> their bots so that they register an account and then randomly attack
> and vandalise articles? I mean, there could be literally thousands of
> edits flowing in every minute. Not only would this probably make the
> servers screech to a grinding halt, it would cause huge damage to the
> content of the site.

Some say this has already occurred and the arms race between the bad
idiots and the good idiots is really quite advanced now.

- d.


from_name: Julian Fleischer

references:
<452AE1BE.20901@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu>
	<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKCEDBJAAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<f30e42de0610101936w2b808d0rd3cfebc0a552b41e@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Am Mittwoch, 11. Oktober 2006 04:36 schrieb Stephen Bain:
> On 10/10/06, Nick Jenkins <nickpj at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Page 13, the "[Edit]" links are too far up from the horizontal line that
> > marks a new section (thus leading new users to think they are for the
> > section above, not the section below).
> >
> > Tried adding:
> > ----------------
> > div.editsection { vertical-align: bottom; }
> > ----------------
> > to main.css ; that made no difference (in Firefox). Any CSS guru want to
> > indicate whether it's possible to do this (move the "[Edit]" text down
> > closer to the horizontal new section line), and if so maybe how ?
>
> The div containing the edit link is the first element in the HTML in
> each section. Then comes a <p> containing the anchor to the section,
> then the section heading itself. So the edit link is really not
> aligned with anything, it's just set to float:right, underneath the
> clearing <p> at the end of the section above.
>
> The div can be pushed down with margin-top, but that's not a very
> elegant solution:
>
> div.editsection {margin-top: 10px; }
>
> On one of the projects, I forget which one, the edit link appears not
> at the right hand edge, but next to the heading text. That makes it
> clear which section the link refers to, and prevents the problem of
> images or other elements overflowing preceding sections displacing the
> floating editsection links.

it's in the german wikipedia, exactly because of that open usability study.

greetings
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061011/61c6c50c/attachment.pgp>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 10/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:

> In such an event, what would we do? Semi-protect the entire
> encyclopedia? Lock the database and quickly install a version control
> thing, like the germans? Is there anything else? Let's face it,
> wikipedia is a high-profile target, we need to consider such things.
>
> --Oskar

[[WP:BEANS]]

But we don have quite a number of different defence options that would
handle the senario you talk about.

--
geni


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 10/11/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've always viewed this as geek preferences (multiple players)
> overriding usability for the common user.... as the realty is that Joe
> Average is viewing everything in Windows Media Player.

Having different audio and video players may be geeky, but it's not
"Linux hacker" level geeky. It's "ordinary user who plays around with
a few programs and chooses the ones they like best" level geeky. And
to require, for that kind of user, to set up a helper application so
they can launch the right player when they load a video or music file
from Wikimedia -- would be very geeky indeed. IMHO to have both the
same extension _and_ MIME type for clearly different types of media is
very misguided.

Addressing one usability issue does not preclude us from addressing another.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


body:
I am using
Mac OS 10.4.8
Safari 2.0.4
Mediawiki 1.6.7

After googling, I found this:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4663..
Seems that it was fixed after 1.6?
But the edit toolbar is still missing on my safari..

On 10/11/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Liz Kim wrote:
> > My edit toolbar is not visible on just safari....
> > It shows up on mozilla, ie, netscape, camino...
> > Checked out wikipedia which uses mediawiki as well - I can see their
> edit
> > toolbar..
>
> You have an old, buggy version of Safari. Upgrade to Mac OS 10.4 and/or
> install
> the updates trough Software Update; Safari 2.0 supports the toolbar
> functionality properly. (Some limited toolbar features were once supported
> on
> the old broken Safari but no longer is; only the actually functional
> toolbar is
> available to avoid confusion in current versions of MediaWiki.)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> On 10/11/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In such an event, what would we do? Semi-protect the entire
>>> encyclopedia? Lock the database and quickly install a version control
>>> thing, like the germans? Is there anything else? Let's face it,
>>> wikipedia is a high-profile target, we need to consider such things.
>>>
>>> --Oskar
>>>
>> [[WP:BEANS]]
>>
>
> Ohh, no, there can't possibly be any bad person in the world who has
> ever heard of a DDoS attack! They don't exist! Infact, I just invented
> the term!
>
>
>> But we don have quite a number of different defence options that would
>> handle the senario you talk about.
>>
>
> Like what? This is what I was wondering about. In such an event, is
> there any way to defend ourselves and still be the same encyclopedia.
>
Given that these mailing lists are available to be read by potential
adversaries, it's probably not a good idea to speculate here about what
those countermeasures might be...

-- Neil


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
This user is obviously a nut-job, but this is something we should
atleast consider. I remember a while back when a vandalbot started
attacking ANI, which effectively shut it down for a long period of
time. This was before semi-protection, so today that specific threat
could be easily dealt with, but what if he had attacked random
articles instead?

It's a fact that there are botnet-operators out there with tens of
thousands of computers, and they demand money from websites in
exchange for them not being DDoSed. This is not even rare, it's fairly
common in this brand new world.

What if one of these people wrote a script and installed it on all of
their bots so that they register an account and then randomly attack
and vandalise articles? I mean, there could be literally thousands of
edits flowing in every minute. Not only would this probably make the
servers screech to a grinding halt, it would cause huge damage to the
content of the site.

In such an event, what would we do? Semi-protect the entire
encyclopedia? Lock the database and quickly install a version control
thing, like the germans? Is there anything else? Let's face it,
wikipedia is a high-profile target, we need to consider such things.

--Oskar

On 10/11/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> [[User:Instant Karma]] recently made a posting to [[User Talk:Jimbo
> Wales]] titled "The End Is Nigh", making a series of demands of
> Wikipedia (such as the removal of most sex-related material, the
> addition of an attempt to keep minors out of whatever remains in that
> area, and the removal of most pop-cultural stuff including reducing
> mention of Star Trek to a single article).  It concluded with a
> threat of unspecified retribution of a "Doomsday Machine" nature
> which would allegedly result in the destruction of Wikipedia.  Just
> thought you ought to know that we're allegedly all doomed now... :-)
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 11/10/06, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:

> Given that these mailing lists are available to be read by potential
> adversaries, it's probably not a good idea to speculate here about what
> those countermeasures might be...

One important point that escapes many is that when you try to explain
"it's a website the readers can edit", some people immediately go OH
NOEZ and list every obvious reason it can't possibly work and the
enterprise is provably doomed. Wikipedia cannot possibly work in
theory.

Yet somehow it keeps working, pretty much. This is because every
single one of the doomsday scenarios has happened and keeps happening
and we've learnt to deal with them as part of the normal course of
events.

- d.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 10/11/06, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> It doesn't strike me as simply a "geek" issue.  This is about trying to
> make Ogg as usable as possible.  While you may think that insisting on
> using Ogg instead of WMA and WMV is "geeky", some of us care about the
> use of open formats for reasons of future compatibility and freedom from
> legal entanglements.  It's something that could affect more than just
> the "geeks" in the long run.
>
> Unfortunately, having decided to use a truly open format, some of these
> apparently "geeky" discussions and decisions are necessitated by these
> circumstances.

I must apologise, because somehow I managed to make myself so unclear
that you completely misunderstood my position.

I couldn't imagine a more inapropreiate person for you to direct your
complaints about free formats to, except perhaps Monty himself.

.OGM, as I mentioned, is widely kludged hack to encapsulate  MPEG4
(usually of the xvid flavor) in something that mostly resembles an ogg
bitstream.  It has been suggested here that we use .ogm for movies
encoded with Ogg/Theora.  I am strongly opposed to using this
extension because of two primary issues 1) it is widely used for a
proprietary format which we would not accept, 2) it is widely used by
tools which are incompatible with the free codecs we do accept.

I also regard the desire to have different media players for different
media files to be something of an esoteric geek issue, as typical
viewers use a single media player... and that having standardized
behavior is simply more important.

It really strikes me as disappointing the people here are expending so
much effort arguing about such trivial matters, .. and going
full-flame-on-mode over simple misunderstandings when so little work
is being done to aid in actual usability (via optional inbrowser java
playback, tutorials for contributors, advocating support for free
formats in things like firefox etc....).  Today I pointed out that
something like 1 in 10 videos on commons are broken because they
aren't oggs at all (most of the broken ones seem to be renamed
AVI/WMV) the thread didn't manage to get but a fraction of the
attention that this thread has had.


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Liz Kim wrote:
> I am using
> Mac OS 10.4.8
> Safari 2.0.4
> Mediawiki 1.6.7
>
> After googling, I found
> this:http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4663..
> Seems that it was fixed after 1.6?

You're two major versions behind. Upgrade if you want to see fixes and features
since then.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061011/d188e845/attachment.pgp>