subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
He's gloating about it but claims it is not him.

Fred

On May 31, 2006, at 12:11 AM, Jeffrey Latham wrote:

> Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
>
>
>> Well, you can see for yourselves:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%
>> 3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol
>> did=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
>>
>> Titoxd.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Although I know nothing for certain, it seems highly plausible that
> [[User:Amorrow]] was involved in this. One of the forum members on
> Wikipedia Review claims to have recieved correspondence from Mr.
> Morrow
> that could possibly be related to this. I really can't say more at
> this
> time, but it is a regrettable situation.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 5/25/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>To name just one example: Nairobi would be a capable host city.
>>
>>
>Except that to be non-profit in the US, you have to have an office in the US....
>
>
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that we have to go out and rent a
physical office. A corner of someone's basement is enough as long as
there is a physical address where the post office can leave official mail.

Other countries have similar laws too.  They frown on the collection of
tax relieved charitable donations which are exported for use in another
country.

Ec


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] Test

body: It's the long-awaited film version of the Broadway hit. The  message  sent as  a binary attachment.


from_name: Austin Hair

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

references:
<NMENLBGDKAFGBDHEPOBNIECCDBAA.erikzachte@infodisiac.com>
	<44763E33.903@hackish.org>
	<bd4c411e0605302301l33f475f2h731cd6e939ae311d@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 5/31/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> At least one major multinational I'm aware of has its official "home
> office" in Bermuda with a staff there of one.

And through a strange organizational quirk, that's the guy who takes
down the departmental reports.  And they all have to be filed in
person.

Austin


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


list: wikien-l

from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
Eisenhower has changed his userpage.

On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Peter Ansell wrote:
>
> > I dont know how serious this one really is. If he had Dwight
> >
> >Eisenhower it may be more serious. As it is, it is likely to be more
> >disruptive to try to enforce it than it will be to let him keep it.
> >
> Years of experience around here would support that outlook.
> Unfortunately it's in direct conflict with people's right to engage in
> pointless argument.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed. (was Wikimedia main office)

body:
--- Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Geez very Americancentric.

The foundation is based in the U.S. Moving the corporation to another nation would require a
complete restart of everything. Even moving the corporation between states could be complicated.
Setting up offices anywhere we want while keeping the corporation where it is, would be fairly
easy. Just a matter of expense vs what we would get from having offices in various places.

-- mav

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


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
On 5/30/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> [[User:General Eisenhower]] is in breach of [[WP:USERNAME]] where is states:
>
> Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures ( e.g. Benjamin
> Franklin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin>;
> > Chuck Norris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris>).
>
>
> On his userpage he claims
>
>   I'm General and future president Eisenhower.
>
>
> I requested he changed his username, as to which a poll was
> started<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%253AGeneral_Eisenhower&diff=55756520&oldid=55755552>however.
>
> According to GeorgeMoney, it was a bad faith nom : how is this?
>
> Eisenhower said on my talk page: I am not changing my username. General
> Eisenhower <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General_Eisenhower> ? ( at war
> or at peace <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_Eisenhower>)
> 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC).
>
> He has not accepted he is in breach of policy, which he is. I am posting
> here to seek other people's views (as per [[WP:USERNAME]]) and to possibly
> make a namechange compulsory.
>
> Eisenhower would normally have been given a username block, however he
> slipped through the net to become fairly estabilished (albeit it not in the
> main namespace), which makes it harder.
>
> --
> Joe Anderson
>
> [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.

I dont know how serious this one really is. If he had Dwight
Eisenhower it may be more serious. As it is, it is likely to be more
disruptive to try to enforce it than it will be to let him keep it.

Peter Ansell


subject: [Wikitech-l] Hello

body: Mail  failed.  For further assistance, please contact!


subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
On 5/31/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, going by that reasoning, as was brought up before, [[User:Governor
> Bush]] or [[User:President Bush]] are allowed then?
>
> --NSLE
>

Personally I do not see what the deal about having official titles in
user names is. If I were american I may take offense to someone
putting those down. Personally I think it would not be confusing at
all to have Prime Minister Howard as a user name, although I do not
see the point in it as it is obviously not him contributing, he had a
country to run. John Howard on the other hand would only be allowable
if it were the persons actual name (and it is a common name in
australia).

Peter Ansell


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
	personal attack

body:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> Even though you repeat your "disruption" accusation five times in your
> EMail, I'm still not convinced of being disruptive. By contrast I
> consider the blocking of editors for having a different POV very
> disruptive.

Listen, Raphael. I don't really know anything about you. To my
knowledge, I have never edited the cartoon controversy page. I have
however followed it a tiny bit. All I know is that there is a strong
community consensus to include the images in the article. Not behind a
link, not "below the fold", so to speak.

I think that this article is a controversial one makes it all the more
important to treat vandalism as disruption.  Vandalism in this case
meaning removing the images.  I know you probably won't listen to me,
and I imagine you have been told this before, but I feel the need to
speak *my* mind about it.

Removing the image is considered vandalism. On a high-edit article
like this, vandalism is considered by many more disruptive than on
other articles. If you would like to try and sway the community, you
should be using the talk page to try and gain consensus. Removing the
image without discussion leads nowhere.  Continued removal amounts to
disruption.  Editors may be blocked for disruption.

It is not a matter of blocking someone for their POV.  It is a matter
of blocking them for their actions.  We have many great Muslim editors
who disagree with the inclusion of the images, yet don't remove them.
Why?  Because they know doing so is vandalism and repeated removal is
disruption.  They understand that until consensus shows that they
should be removed, that they should stay.

I know I am repeating myself here, but I think it needs to be
repeated.  I encourage you, Raphael, to keep working to change the
community's consensus.  However, do so without being a vandal or a
disruption.  Remain civil.  Compromise.  Thank you for your time, my
friend.
--LV


from_name: Esther Fiteni

subject: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 50

body:
please could you unsubscribe me. thank you esther fiteni

>From: foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org
>Reply-To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 50
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:00:30 +0000
>
>Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
>	foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	foundation-l-owner at wikimedia.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Where we are headed (Samuel Klein)
>    2. Re: Where we are headed (Ray Saintonge)
>    3. Re: Wikimedia main office (Daniel Mayer)
>    4. Re: Where we are headed (Gavin Chait)
>    5. Re: Catalan Wikinews set up (Arbeo M)
>    6. Re: Where we are headed (Jimmy Wales)
>    7. Re: Wikimedia main office (Ray Saintonge)
>    8. Re: Wikimedia main office (Ray Saintonge)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:02:50 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605292200340.31303 at hcs.harvard.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"
>
>
>On Tue, 30 May 2006, Anthere wrote:
>
> > Jimbo says
> >
> > "... nous souhaitons g?n?rer une version
> > ? stable ? des articles, v?rifi?e et approuv?e par des experts sur le
> > sujet, tout en maintenant la possibilit? de le modifier. Il est hors de
> > question de demander aux b?n?voles de faire le plus gros du travail, et
> > de  demander ? un expert de peaufiner le rest."
> >
> > Translation
> >
> > "We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
> > approved by experts on the topic, whilst keeping the option of
> > modification of the article. It is excluded to ask volunteers to do most
> > of the bulk work, and to ask to an expert to just take care of the
> > polishing".
> >
> > What was meant here ?
>
>I don't know, but experts are volunteers too, something most of the world
>constantly forgets.  We need a list of contributors who are experts --
>divided
>into those who contribute in their field of expertise, and those who avoid
>that
>like the plague.
>
>Sj
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:44:48 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447BCDC0.3020903 at telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Gavin Chait wrote:
>
> >The most immediate concern for the Wiki Foundation is less the idea of an
> >office with furniture and windows, or even the difficulties of
> >collaboration, mostly it is continuity.
> >
> >At the moment the founders are involved.  They have an idea of what they
> >want and how to achieve that.  There are now thousands of regular
> >contributors who are influencing that direction.  There are millions of
> >occasional contributors who muddy the edges.  How do you ensure
>continuity?
> >
>This is a question with profound implications.  Accomodating these
>segments of our society without losing focus is no trivial problem.
>
> >One of the first development organisations I worked in 15 years ago was a
> >student-run endeavour at the University of Cape Town.  Every year
>hundreds
> >of students volunteer and contribute to different projects.  Each project
>is
> >run by older students.  Continuity is difficult where students graduate
>and
> >leave each year.  Sometimes entire projects vanish when the students who
> >know how to run them fail to come back.
> >
>Students enrolled in a programme of finite duration are more likely to
>make provision for their successors.  If a project vanishes when they
>leave maybe it has outlived its value.  Our senior people are here for
>an indefinite period, and may find it more difficult to envision their
>project mortality.
>
> >The solution was to employ a small band of professionals whose task is to
> >make sure that projects are properly budgeted and accounted for, keep
>track
> >of how the different projects interact, and ensure that the overall
>emphasis
> >of the organisation remains focused.  The professionals ensure
>consistency
> >while the volunteers contribute fresh ideas, fresh thinking, new
>directions
> >and lots of enthusiasm.
> >
> >It has worked well for more than 50 years for this organisation.
> >
> >Offices are far less important than continuity.  And the more you rely on
> >volunteers, the more important it is to have a solid base of
>professionals -
> >where-ever they may be.
> >
>Your conclusion is well taken.  But before this can happen there needs
>to be a fundamental understanding about the role of the professional and
>the role of the volunteer.  Larry Sanger was good for Wikipedia at the
>time that he was here, but someone like him would be totally unsuitable
>to the present circumstances.  Decisions often _must_ be made without
>waiting around debating like the Paris Commune.  The questions that then
>arise are What do we want our professional to do?  What do we want him
>not to do?
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <20060530050209.7068.qmail at web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> > > amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
> > > administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being
>a
> > > professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
> > > are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> > > nature.
> >
> > But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> > work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> > offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> > more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> > what it does best.
>
>Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the
>Wikimedia Foundation
>(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example, am
>an amateur when it
>comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it. And
>yet I'm the CFO. Which
>may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small
>budget, but not now.
>
>I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied
>responsibilities that
>require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the
>Wikimedia treasurer who does
>have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but
>there simply is a limit to
>what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or
>two - at most - a day to
>this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education
>perspective.
>
>That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into
>effect once the foundation
>finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
>
>The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
>
>-- mav
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:46:26 +0200
>From: "Gavin Chait" <gchait at gmx.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <003e01c683c0$1ccaa580$7a7219c4 at nowdomore>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>	reply-type=original
>
>Continuity is less about individuals than it is about systems and the
>organisation of information.
>
>This means that the system must be defined.  Definition does not imply
>limitation.  It is important to know how new projects are organised, run
>and
>scrutinised without declaring what they should be.  How far one goes with
>the hierarchy is also important.  Are different language versions or large
>sub-projects of a common project different projects?  Many "embarrassing"
>moments have come out of English content wikis.  How many potential
>pitfalls
>are waiting in other languages?  How feasible is it to have language
>experts
>for each of the wikis?  Recognising limitations inherent in the system is
>also important - these should be declared.
>
>The professional project manager can still be a volunteer.  There are large
>numbers of astonishingly talented people willing to work for free for
>causes
>they believe in.  The difference between a volunteer and a "professional"
>is
>not about paid / unpaid it is about the time dedicated to a project and
>their accountability.  Some projects are large enough to require full-time
>commitment.  Project managers must accept this and be responsible.  Not all
>the things that need doing are glamorous.
>
>Project management may not be about content generation alone.  It is also
>about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and answerable to
>the
>organisation at large.  If something goes wrong, they must sort it out
>immediately and understand and report back on how it happened.  They are
>also there to find their own successor.
>
>There must be a project log, and project manual that details exactly how
>things are done (thus ensuring a consistent approach).  Clearly the manual
>can evolve but it must be the DNA for the project.
>
>A simple project blog or mailing list isn't good enough since the quantity
>of information produced (and the various diversions it follows) makes rapid
>decision making impossible.  In reality, each project needs its own
>moderated (and access limited) wiki where the basics are paired down:  how
>things are done, daily / weekly / monthly ... tasks, etc.  At the moment
>projects may be run by the person who started them or someone one or two
>iterations away.  What happens in 50 years?
>
>The organisation itself requires a similar approach with a slightly larger
>set of responsibilities:  PR, legal, accounting, admin and an overall
>director.  These are the trappings of any formal development organisation.
>Having them doesn't limit the activity of the volunteers, it is simply a
>responsible way of handling information generated by the organisation.
>
>The director also needs feedback and that will come from your board.
>
>Each of the tasks can be defined and each of the roles can be filled.  A
>mechanism for recruiting and training new people to fill each task is much
>more straightforward when you know exactly what that task is.
>
>I would imagine that a simple flow could be as follows:  volunteer works on
>a project, gets more involved, gets groomed to become the project leader,
>stays in that for a year and grooms his / her replacement, gets invited to
>join the core team, gets groomed to become director, serves for a set
>period, becomes a board member.  Some of these tasks are full-time, some
>are
>not.  The person accepting major tasks does so recognising what the
>commitment is and what it will cost them (if the tasks are unpaid).
>
>This is continuity.  It doesn't limit the content, projects or creativity
>of
>the organisation.  It channels the most capable people through a system
>that
>maintains the integrity of their knowledge while still allowing the
>organisation to evolve and meet future needs.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:35:53 +0200
>From: "Arbeo M" <arbeo.wiki at googlemail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Catalan Wikinews set up
>To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID:
>	<e1406ce00605300435o2aff3f82ia2d17204ee8b8cc at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>On 5/26/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Wikinews has a bit of an unusual process. Individual Wikinews language
>editions have to meet much higher standards than, for example,
>Wikipedias to be launched.
>...
>The procedure for creating a new Wikinews edition is at:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition
>
>Thanks for the info. Didn't know about this special procedure wrt Wikinews.
>
>A.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:22:05 +0200
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447C550D.7050301 at wikia.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>Anthere wrote:
> > By the way, a citation published on a french site recently (an interview
> > from Jimbo).
> >
> > Jimbo says
> >
> > "... nous souhaitons g?n?rer une version
> > ? stable ? des articles, v?rifi?e et approuv?e par des experts sur le
> > sujet, tout en maintenant la possibilit? de le modifier. Il est hors de
> > question de demander aux b?n?voles de faire le plus gros du travail, et
> > de  demander ? un expert de peaufiner le rest."
> >
> > Translation
> >
> > "We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
> > approved by experts on the topic, whilst keeping the option of
> > modification of the article. It is excluded to ask volunteers to do most
> > of the bulk work, and to ask to an expert to just take care of the
> > polishing".
>
>"We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
>approved by the community, using a process which meets or exceeds the
>quality level of traditional encyclopedias.  Such a process should
>involve people with expertise, of course, but it would not be acceptable
>for us to take the attitude that "ah, thank you to the volunteers, but
>now we have experts to come in and finish the job".  Rather, we seek to
>extend our community process in new ways over time, always remaining
>open to new ideas for higher quality."
>
>--Jimbo
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:51:13 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>To: dmayer at wikimedia.org,	Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>	<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447CA231.90902 at telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> >>>amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
> >>>administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
> >>>professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
> >>>are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> >>>nature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> >>work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> >>offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> >>more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> >>what it does best.
> >>
> >>
> >Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the
>Wikimedia Foundation
> >(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example,
>am an amateur when it
> >comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it.
>And yet I'm the CFO. Which
> >may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small
>budget, but not now.
> >
> >I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied
>responsibilities that
> >require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the
>Wikimedia treasurer who does
> >have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but
>there simply is a limit to
> >what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or
>two - at most - a day to
> >this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education
>perspective.
> >
> >That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into
>effect once the foundation
> >finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
> >
> >The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
> >
>I don't dispute the need for the Foundation to have some level of paid
>staff.  I also feel some concern about the way you have been hung out to
>dry in the CFO job.  While you have no doubt worked at the position to
>the best of your ability, Wikipedians having a little more familiarity
>with such matters probably could see the potential difficulties, and
>avoided volunteering for the task.  I really don't think that the Board
>has ever been on top of this portfolio.
>
>The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different
>concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will
>indeed be different in these two organizations.  In many respects we
>need to start building a firewall between the two.  This would leave the
>WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while
>Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their
>innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that
>any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing.  There
>are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that
>development with great glee.  There needs to be an arm's length
>relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address
>that.
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:42:43 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>To: dmayer at wikimedia.org,	Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>	<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447CA033.8090709 at telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> >>>amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
> >>>administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
> >>>professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
> >>>are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> >>>nature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> >>work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> >>offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> >>more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> >>what it does best.
> >>
> >>
> >Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the
>Wikimedia Foundation
> >(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example,
>am an amateur when it
> >comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it.
>And yet I'm the CFO. Which
> >may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small
>budget, but not now.
> >
> >I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied
>responsibilities that
> >require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the
>Wikimedia treasurer who does
> >have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but
>there simply is a limit to
> >what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or
>two - at most - a day to
> >this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education
>perspective.
> >
> >That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into
>effect once the foundation
> >finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
> >
> >The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
> >
>I don't dispute the need for the Foundation to have some level of paid
>staff.  I also feel some concern about the way you have been hung out to
>dry in the CFO job.  While you have no doubt worked at the position to
>the best of your ability, Wikipedians having a little more familiarity
>with such matters probably could see the potential difficulties, and
>avoided volunteering for the task.  I really don't think that the Board
>has ever been on top of this portfolio.
>
>The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different
>concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will
>indeed be different in these two organizations.  In many respects we
>need to start building a firewall between the two.  This would leave the
>WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while
>Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their
>innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that
>any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing.  There
>are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that
>development with great glee.  There needs to be an arm's length
>relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address
>that.
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 50
>********************************************


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia : protection, death, transubstantiation

body:
+1, very insightful!

In particular, I like the idea of letting vandals make changes to any
page - but simply not publishing them.

Steve

On 5/31/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Protection is a hack.  When it was first implemented in early 2003, it
> was noted as such; from the start, there has been the idea of
> improving on protection by "reduc[ing] the requirements for sysop
> intervention for useful things to happen".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_protected_pages&oldid=787186
>
> Wikis are designed to be editable; the ideal wiki is as open to
> incoming content as possible -- a metric of a wikis success at
> wiki-nature might be how long it takes first-time contributors to make
> typical edits, and how long it takes them to get/see feedback.
>
> "Open to incoming content"  isn't the same as "open to changes in what
> everyone else sees as outgoing content".  We should strive to increase
> our openness to inboud content, even as we tighten quality controls on
> outbound content.  Articles for Creation is an even worse hack than
> protection, and regularly fails silently and completely [the user
> never comes back, or thinks their work is lost; their work *is* lost].
>
> Semi-protection is also a hack.  One way to make these protection
> hacks work more effectively is to recognize that they are *not* the
> desired solution, but a quick way to implement something close.
> Protection is a 'reasonable' hack because anyone can still edit the
> talk page, leave comments for page-contributors on *their* talk pages,
> &c.  New editors don't know any of this.  Old editors and vandals
> don't need to be told what protection's all about.
>
> Suggestions for improving these hacks through more information :
> * make protection templates very short and inobtrusive; not in the
> header, to maintain a clean interface : most readers don't need to
> know about them (an NPOV or Disputed template can be placed there if
> needed, that's separate.  If an article's being protected just b/c it
> was on slashdot, that's different).
> * keep the "edit" button for protected pages.  add a little icon in
> that tab if needed, to denote the protected nature.  Offer a message
> on editing, varying by protection type, explaining briefly why the
> protection, and where to post edits and suggestions (the talk page),
> with a link to a longer explanation of who can edit where, how to
> request unprotection, how to ask for help, &c.
> * update the "this page is protected from editing" message one gets
> when viewing the source of a protected page.  make it friendlier,
> again linking to where one *can* suggest changes and explaining this
> in postive rather than negative terms.
> * make it more clear than it is now who applied protection when, and
> what their protection-summary was.  pull this information into the
> notices listed above.
>
> -- SJ
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Are phone books reliable sources?

body:
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Huh????  What's nasty about it?

I really take exception to the phrase "straw man".

>Why should it seem nasty to point out
> an apparent error in logic?  There was absolutely nothing personal in that.
>
> It did strike me that your example was designed to show exactly the
> opposite of what you now claim.  This would certainly seem the effect of
> citing that there are so many Ngs in the Melbourne phone book.

Original request:
>I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.

My reply:
>The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47
>pages of the 2006 phone book...

What "I now claim":
>I was asked for an example of a phone book being a reliable source for a claim.

???

Steve


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Current version on Wikimedia servers

body:
Petr Kadlec wrote:
> Thanks, I know that, I wrote "almost directly" because of that. But
> what I'd like to know is: does the number on [[Special:Version]]
> (currently: r14374, which has been committed "6 days, 1 hour ago")
> display the version that is synchronized and running on servers?

Yes, usually. Sometimes it's a little flaky, particularly if only individual
files have been recently updated.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060531/4ebe596c/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Test

body:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 12:28:16AM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
> a) Any attachment nasties from the random virus / worm claiming my name are
> stripped automatically.

Don't forget "and writing style".  :-)

> b) I've now placed my address under moderation for this list. ;)

About damn time.

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

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
	a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice
	(Forwarded email)

body:
On 5/31/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> First submit something, then complain it's there.
> If that case ever got to court, he'd be suing himself for copyright
> infringement.

Yes, he doesn't have a case, and is of absolutely no threat to us
whatsoever. Which totally destroys any reason we could possibly have
for mocking him publicly.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
On 5/31/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally I do not see what the deal about having official titles in
> user names is. If I were american I may take offense to someone
> putting those down. Personally I think it would not be confusing at
> all to have Prime Minister Howard as a user name, although I do not
> see the point in it as it is obviously not him contributing, he had a
> country to run. John Howard on the other hand would only be allowable
> if it were the persons actual name (and it is a common name in
> australia).

I don't think it's all that obvious. Do you know, without looking,
whether "rmstallman" is really Richard Stallman? Would you expect
user:Howard Stern to be really be him?

Ultimately, famous names *are* disruptive, because some people will be
duped, and others will waste time checking.

Steve


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia

body:
"Molu" wrote

> You know as well as I do that that's not going to work. There is no old
> guy with a beard sitting on top of the Wikipedia servers and determining
> who is acting on WIkipedia's interest and who is not.

Like the man said, Please Stop Top-Posting.  It makes threads extra hard to
follow.  Especially if you are going to say 'that', rathrr than take a few
seconds to be specific.

Actually, there is the ArbCom, sitting pretty much on top of the en-WP pile.
Actually, at least one Arbitrator has a beard and is middle-aged.

Actually, I was describing the line taken in dealing by Arbitrators in
ruling on so-called 'wheel-warring' cases.  We have ruled that the admin who
is acting in (what we agree is) the interests of the encyclopedia project,
rather than one who is taking a formal and procedural line, can be dealt
with leniently.  The cases are up there for anyone to see.

>WIkipedia is not a textbook, it's a real thing and we need to give
>operational definitions instead of unrealisable abstract ones. The key
>point here IS whether there is some sort of backing for the action taken,
>not whether the action was 'clear-sighted', because the only available
>measure of whether the action was clear-sighted is whether it has the
>backing of the community.

No-no-no-no-no.  There is a substantial 'silent majority' around (one
conclusion from the January elections) and plenty of vocal stuff from people
who take a 'populist' line but don't actually have much support from solid
citizens.  We have a measure of representative democracy on the
administration, and direct democracy would not be an improvement.

Charles


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

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

Ben Lowe stated for the record:

>>That's a separate issue - disruption by choosing an inflammatory (as
>>opposed to confusing) name. Sort of like we probably wouldn't allow a
>>name with the word "jihad" in it...
>
>
> What about, say, "Minister of War"?

There is a [[User:God of War]].

More analogous to "jihad" would be "crusade."

- --
 Sean Barrett     | If catapults are outlawed, only
 sean at epoptic.com | outlaws will have catapults.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEfdWdMAt1wyd9d+URAtbBAJ0RiAEn396xZfGujGkznMmT8CNJ/ACeJDqx
L4blPaCe+PKI+0GWWok+CgE=
=DXUW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a
> list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed)
> consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate
> request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider
> the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist
> points of view.

Why should "users who have strong Islamist points of view" be treated
any differently than anyone else?  As long as these user follow the
rules and work within the model of NPOV, etc., why should there be a
problem.  How do we deal with people that have stong <insert other
belief system here> point of view?

I do think we should always be open to reconsideration of a decision
on any particular issue.  Consensus once does not mean consensus
always.
--LV


subject: [Wikitech-l] Case inconsistency

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> This has the effect that it's actually difficult to create the article
> *other* than going through the redlink - if you try and type in the
> name, you get silently redirected.

Going through redlinks is how you create pages on a wiki.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060531/7c7e1320/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different
> concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will
> indeed be different in these two organizations.  In many respects we
> need to start building a firewall between the two.  This would leave the
> WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while
> Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their
> innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that
> any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing.  There
> are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that
> development with great glee.  There needs to be an arm's length
> relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address
> that.

Ray, the issue has been discussed here and there, but you clarify it
very well. Many of the heated discussions on the future of WMF have
been because of the unclear line between what the Foundation should
do, and what Wikipedians do.

The WP:OFFICE policy is a real problem in that respect. This is not to
diminish what Danny or others have been doing. They should be
commended for bridging the 'real world' phone calls and concerns with
the Wikipedia virtual community. And hiring someone to feed phone call
complaints/comments into OTRS (and stop at that) is a good step.

I'll paste in here what I sent to some of the board members last
month, since it's relevant:

"I fear that Wikipedia claiming it is a "forum" and a "common carrier"
worked before, but starts to break down when WP:OFFICE is used. That
is, with "OFFICE" oversight that has final authority, the Foundation
then takes on a liability as the ultimate editing function. This could
have dramatic implications, since the stance of WMF with the
Seigenthaler case was, "find that libelous anon, since we are not not
liable." With WP:OFFICE, the case could be made the WMF is liable for
this same case in the future."

The short version: once the WMF as an organization takes a role in the
culling and selection of editorial content, it is "on the hook." A
"firewall" separation as Ray pointed out is not only good
communitywise, but legally too.

> Ec

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> He's gloating about it but claims it is not him.
>
> Fred
>

It would be interesting if one of our admins works for a place that is edgy
about these sorts of things. Someone calling to inquire about this admin
would be in for a rude surprise. Something like, say, calling a police
station asking for information about a police officer ss not a good idea.


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
Death Phoenix wrote:

>On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>>He's gloating about it but claims it is not him.
>>
>>Fred
>>
>>
>
>It would be interesting if one of our admins works for a place that is edgy
>about these sorts of things. Someone calling to inquire about this admin
>would be in for a rude surprise. Something like, say, calling a police
>station asking for information about a police officer ss not a good idea.
>
One thing that I think editors should do is to make employers and
such aware of their WP activities as much as possible. WP's
visibility and reputation is now such that it's generally a positive
thing to be seen as an important person in WP, and should a nasty
person call, it helps the callee to recognize it as stalking
rather than anything legitimate. Be proud of your work for
Wikipedia, and let everybody know about it.

Stan


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> Yes, it's a clearly laid out warning, but it's not a policy,
> instead it actually contradicts [[WP:NBD]], which states:
>
> Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus
> that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that
> earlier decision was made by a poll or other method.

It doesn't contradict WP:NBD; in fact, it tells you exactly where to
go if you feel consensus may have changed. It simply says: get your
consensus first, change the page second.

-Matt


from_name: Petr Kadlec

body:
Hi!

I understand that Wikimedia servers run almost directly from CVS HEAD
(erm, I mean SVN trunk). If that is so, what does the revision number
at Special:Version mean (as it is quite behind SVN trunk)? And, if I
am wrong and the number is correct, how come Brion's fix to bug #6126
(thanks, Brion!) committed as r14493 seems to work on Commons, where
the special page reports 1.7alpha (r14374) ?

Thanks for any explanation,

-- [[commons:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]


from_name: Molu

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin-driven death of Wikipedia: a diatribe

body:
I notice that throughout your extended grumblings you have never managed to tell me how on Earth I'm supposed to stop this thing called top-posting.

  Molu

    On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:00:54 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:

  <snip>
  >As for why he quoted it *above* his message, it's because he knows how
>to send emails. *Please* stop top-posting.

>--
>Mark Gallagher
>"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
>- Danger Mouse

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


from_name: Nick Boalch

body:
Ben Yates wrote:
>> Trolls complain about ArbCom being 'corrupt' because, rightly if they're
>> trolls, they don't get the results they want from it.
>
> That strikes me as a dangerous line of thought -- "Trolls, by
> definition, are always wrong.  And the people who disagree with us
> must be trolls, because trolls are who we're fighting.  Therefore
> anyone who disagrees with us is wrong."

Well, that certainly isn't what I meant. What I mean is this: if you
troll Wikipedia and then take a case to ArbCom, or get taken there,
things are unlikely to work out in your favour. Hence you go off to
Wikipedia Review and complain about the ArbCom being corrupt.

However, where you extend this to mean 'the people who disagree with us
are always trolls' I don't know, because I never said or even implied that.

> I'm not saying you've taken it to that extreme

Good, because my comments aren't anywhere near it.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a community. Usually the
>> interests of the encyclopaedia and those of the community go hand in
>> hand. Where they don't, the encyclopaedia comes first. Always and
>> without exception.
>
> It will be a lot easier for a community to build an encyclopedia.

It will. You'll note I don't say 'there should be no community'. I say
that where the interests of the community conflict with those of the
encyclopaedia, the encyclopaedia comes first. This should be
self-evident and non-controversial.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


body:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:

> Yes, there have been polls in early February in which a strong
> supermajority made that decision.

> Yes, I am listening to you, but you fail to explain, why you consider
> the removal of a religious insult vandalism. I've already explained
> many times, why the (re)moval of the cartoons is *not* a deliberate
> attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Instead, altering
> the display characteristics of the cartoons would indeed increase
> the quality of the article, because it would invite editors who feel
> insulted by the cartoons to add valuable information regarding their
> side on this controversy.
>
> I'd like to add beforehand, that changes even if they'd be opposed
> by *everyone else*, do not constitute vandalism according to
> [[WP:VANDAL]].
<snip>

Okay, I'll do my best at explaining how I see the situation.  The WP
community has the goal of creating an encyclopedia.  As an
encyclopedia, it is our job to accurately describe and explain certain
issues.  In order to determine the best way to explain or describe an
issue, we use consensus (i.e. supermajority... not democracy).  In
this particular instance, the community decided that the best way to
explain or describe the issue is to show the actual images being
discussed. Images are an essential part of WP, as they say, a picture
says a thousand words (probably more). Therefore for a particular
topic, images can be very useful, no?  So since the community has
decided that the images improve our ability to explain or describe the
topic, the removal of the images reduces our ability to explain or
describe the topic, thus being detrimental to the encyclopedia.

We understand people may be offended. We would be heartless to not
"get it" on this point. But should we remove every image anyone finds
offensive? This is a serious question, not just a hypothetical.
<Modified Godwin's alert> If an image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is
offensive to Jews, should we remove it?

Including the image does not "disinvite" editors who may feel offended
to voice their opinion on the matter (You seem to be doing a great
job). There is always the talk page (which I thank you for using),
mailing list (Again, thanks), etc.

And I get that you weren't blocked for disruption.  But that is what
was being discussed at the time, so I thought I'd speak up.  Thanks,
my friend.
--LV


subject: [Foundation-l] Moving the "test Wikipedias"

body:
I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
today and start moving things over.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060531/2a8f25f9/attachment.pgp


body:
I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
today and start moving things over.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060531/2a8f25f9/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
today and start moving things over.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060531/2a8f25f9/attachment.pgp>


body:
I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
today and start moving things over.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060531/2a8f25f9/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 5/31/06, Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I notice that throughout your extended grumblings you have never managed to tell me how on Earth I'm supposed to stop this thing called top-posting.
>

It's very simple.  When you click "reply", move the cursor down to the
bottom of the email (you can do this by holding down the "down" arrow
on your keyboard), delete the signature of the person who wrote the
previous email, and type your reply.  If you want to be polite, you
can also delete the irrelevant parts of the previous email.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
Molu wrote:
> Look at it this way, we rely upon the community to decide who will work best
> for the encyclopedia in the first place.

Agreed.

> What miracle suddenly happens after the RfA concludes that the very admins who
> were chosen by the community get the power to disregard the community?

None. As I've said before, administrators can be seen as people who've
been trusted by the community to Do The Right Thing.

> It's like "Now you know you made a mistake and there's not a damn thing you
> can do about it. I AM THE TYRANT MUHUHAHAHA!!!"

It really isn't (or certainly shouldn't be). Can you actually find an
example of an admin behaving like that who hasn't been desysopped by
ruling of the Arbitration Committee? I doubt it.

> And for the trolls complaining about corrupt ArbCom, ofcourse they whine about
> it because the ArbCom tends to rule against trolls. But if we have an avenue
> of removing those invalid criticisms without any negative effects, and have
> as an additional benefit the direct accountability of the admins to the
> community without going through the indirect and unnecessarily resource
> consuming process of ArbCom or even worse, Jimbo himself.

I think what would happen is:

 (a) our hypothetical 'admin impeachment' page would get waterlogged by
     people without the time or inclination to look properly at cases
     like the arbitrators do.

 (b) a significant minority of the contributors there would be people
     with grudges against individual admins or adminship in general,
     making it almost impossible to arrive at decent consensus.

 (c) or, if by some miracle it did work properly, trolls would soon
     start complaining about 'admin impeachment' being corrupt.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

body:
Petr Kadlec wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I understand that Wikimedia servers run almost directly from CVS HEAD
> (erm, I mean SVN trunk). If that is so, what does the revision number
> at Special:Version mean (as it is quite behind SVN trunk)? And, if I
> am wrong and the number is correct, how come Brion's fix to bug #6126
> (thanks, Brion!) committed as r14493 seems to work on Commons, where
> the special page reports 1.7alpha (r14374) ?
>
> Thanks for any explanation,
>
> -- [[commons:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]
When comitted to SVN, new things/changes are not visible instantly on
the sites. There is a process called synchronization that basically
synchronizes the SVN repo with the installations on the servers. The
point is that the period between committing and syncing can vary and,
depending on the server sysops, it can be as long as a couple of minutes
(if you really bug them ;) ) or it could take more than a few days.
Filip


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

Molu stated for the record:

> I notice that throughout your extended grumblings you have never managed to tell me how on Earth I'm supposed to stop this thing called top-posting.
>
>   Molu

There is a Web site called "Wikipedia" that has articles on that sort of
thing.  Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Unfair.
 sean at epoptic.com | Unbalanced.
                  | Unmedicated.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEfechMAt1wyd9d+URArP2AJ4sMnS1rCyOrMR4Rl5cBS3+ShN/GQCcD3dW
ww2u2zd2MwKku7q1RNGg0po=
=9h/U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
 "Nick Boalch" wrote

>Can you actually find an
> example of an admin behaving like that who hasn't been desysopped by
> ruling of the Arbitration Committee? I doubt it.

In fact we have probably not 'culled' enough admins, if one were to judge
solely by management criteria.  It is not done lightly.  Also, we tend to
assume admins act in good faith, and that if they get things wrong (happens)
then it is reversible.  That is not exactly accurate: but any admin not
acting in good faith is probably a troubled person, not just a troubled
admin.  And mistakes alone don't justify a de-sysop.

Charles


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/31/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> You are absolutely correct both Foundation and Wikipedia are two
> different conceps, and this is why Gavin comments are interesting. Some
> of his comments mix the two systems resulting in a description which
> would be neither acceptable from the community (Wikipedia) point of view
> nor from the board (Foundation) point of view.

I agree, and then I don't.

>
> Gavin : "I would imagine that a simple flow could be as follows:
> volunteer works on a project, gets more involved, gets groomed to become
> the project leader, stays in that for a year and grooms his / her
> replacement, gets invited to join the core team, gets groomed to become
> director, serves for a set period, becomes a board member."
>
> Implies a pyramidal organisation of Wikipedia with the Foundation on
> top, which is absolutely not the way we are currently organised. There
> are some non-official project leaders, but they lead only by voice and
> reputation, not by authority.

I don't agree with your interpretation of this as a pyramidal
organisation. If we look at the way we have been working today, this
is exactly how things have happened, and not for the worst. In the
organisation, people have started working in the projects, and slowly
become a part of the organisation, and taken responsibilities within
the organisation. It seems a responsible way of doing things...if we
go to the end. By going to the end I mean this:

People start in the projects, they become leaders in some ways (and
yes, I agree with your assessment that people are not "leaders" of the
projects as such, ie. their leadership is a community-based one,
nothing official, and I agree Gavin probably used the wrong terms
here), they take an interest in the organisation and get involved in
the organisation. However, to go back to Ray's firewall, there comes a
time where people who are involved in the organisation *have* to
understand and accept  that heir role as an editor in the projects and
their role in the organisation need to be kept strictly separate.
Which, for most of us working in the organisation, is not the case
today. This would mean for example giving up our rights as admin or
steward, or using them wisely (ie. only for non controversial things,
and things that have *nothing* to do with the organisation) - however
I believe that  *not using* is harder than *not having* in the long
run. The difficulty is to make sure that people in the projects
understand that the organisation is *not* the answer to their edit
wars, to the troll that disrupts their project, that these things are
a community matter, to be settled by the community.

Although I am myself an advocate of bringing fresh blood in (ie. non
wikipedians aboard the organisation), I believe that not having ever
edited (and possibly not having ever been made aware of what being an
admin or a steward implies) gives you only a partial view of what
Wiki*m*edia is all about. And for some responsibility laden positions
within the organisation, that experience is needed. Not for all.

In the organisation, there will be, and there already is, a need for
outside people who do the stuff we won't do (accounting, answering the
phones, business development etc.). And there will be (and there
already is) a need for inside people to make sure that the stuff that
touches the projects in their core/directions is carried through *to*
and *with* the community. What I believe everybody needs to understand
is that whether someone working as a professional (understand: paid)
for the organisation comes from the community or not is irrelevant, as
long as they can do the job that is asked of them. And what we also
need to understand is that there comes a time when *even* if it is
said that *volunteers can do the jobs for no money*, the organisation
may have a different view, and when the organisation feels the need to
have someone who is accountable (which volunteers are not by
definition), they *have* to be able to make that choice, by their own
terms.

I do not think the organisation should be *ruled* by the projects. And
I do not think either that the projects should be *ruled* by the
organisation. I totally agree with Ray's need for a firewall. I think
however that we need to find ways to keep the projects in touch with
the organisation and the organisation in touch with the projects. This
has to go through information, and information is best carried trhough
with people who have a knowledge of both the organisation and the
projects. So the need for professionals issued from the projects is
important, as well as the need for people who are not issued from the
projects. It has to go both ways, with the understanding from both
parts that an organisation is *not a wiki*, no more than a wiki is an
*organisation*.

It is a very tough call though, because the organisation (and here I
mean the organisation at large, chapters included) also works on
bringing new editors (academics, scientists, professors, you name it)
in Wikipedia or in the other projects to edit, and doing this and
leaving these people be treated as vandals because they make a mistake
does not help the organisation in its goal of "spreading the word" and
"supporting" the Wikimedia projects. Projects and organisation have to
work hand in hand. A clear(er) definition of the roles, the do's and
dont's of both should help find a way.

>
> Gavin : "Project management may not be about content generation alone.
> It is also about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and
> answerable to the organisation at large."
>
> Precisely mixes the two jobs. Collecting, organising and creating
> content PLUS settling disputes between editors is entirely a Wikipedia
> job and should not involve Foundation. It does only because there is a
> confusion between a role at the Foundation and a moral authority AND
> because the Foundation hosts the project (so, is liable, has access to
> logs, can block etc...). Budget or being answerable to the organisation
> at large is a Foundation issue and absolutely not a Wikipedia one.

Here I don't know if you are right or wrong in your understanding of
Gavin's sentence. My take is that his "disputes settling" applies to
the disputes *the organisation* could be thrown into, not to an edit
war in Wikipedia. But if he meant what you say, then I agree with you
completely.

>
> This does not remove in any sense the value of his comments on the need
> for continuity. But the fact is that he seems to see one system... where
> there are several systems. Wikipedia is one. Wikibooks is another.
> Wiktionary a third one. These three are tightly related and work under
> rather similar rules. Foundation is an entirely different system.
>
> Wikipedia system is free to join. Editors may stay anonymous.
> Foundation system is very closed, based on peer approval. Real names are
> registered. Foundation is NOT a democracy.
>
> Roughly, all editors are equal in terms of decision making on wikipedia.
> On Foundation, some have a voting voice, others have an advising voice.
>
> Wikipedia organisation is very flexible and its rules change without
> much pain, upon editors push. Foundation is pretty static, relying on
> bylaws which are not easily changed, with decisions made through votes
> and resolutions; through official delegations to individuals and
> committees. And all this with the weight of history.

*nods*

>
> Wikipedia editors are all volunteers. They have no legal obligations. If
> unhappy, they can easily quit anytime for a wikibreak or definitly.
> Foundation has paid staff or board members earning money through
> speaking fees. Others are only volunteers. Earning a living does not
> imply working harder, so, to the contrary of Wikipedia, people working
> on Foundation issues have to manage with the concept of mixing
> volunteers with paid members. Whether paid or not, people are expected
> to be available 7/7 24/24. For most, there is a binding relationship.
>
> Wikipedia editors may feel accountable... or not. They can actually do
> many stupid things and not be embarassed by more than losing a sysop
> status. Foundation activity is scrutinized (an audit has been going on
> for several weeks now), the board is accountable and lawsuits DO happen.
>
> In most cases, Wikipedia can run at its own peace. Nothing is really
> urgent, everything can be delayed. It is easy enough to call for more
> volunteers as well. Editors may go on a rant for days.
> On Foundation, this is not true. If a bill is not paid, the site stop
> working. If a cease and desist is not answered, we can get in big
> troubles. When a japanese editor complains at 4 am that personal data is
> posted on the website and should be *immediately* removed... it must be
> *immediately* removed. When there is too much work to do, one reduces
> its sleep time. Foundation people are expected to behave professional.

I agree fully with the general "pace" thing here.

However, I believe you are the one who is mixing both roles in your
example of the personal data. I do not agree that if a {{timezone}}
person believes that their problem must be taken care of *at once* it
has to be taken care of *at once*. If the firewall was in place, there
would be office hours, and yes, it would be the role of the people in
the office to take care of the thing first thing in the morning. But
you cannot expect an office to run 7/7 and 24/24. I believe the fact
that most of us in the organisation are *also*
editors/admins/stewards/developpers has thinned the line between what
is acceptable and what is not. The fact that the separation between "I
am an editor" and "I have responsibilities in the organisation" is not
obvious enough, that the line is not drawn clearly enough makes those
who are in the organisation feel responsible 24/24. And that should
*not* be. This implies a change of mentality both in the organisation
and in the community of the projects.

>
> And I could go on forever.
>
> One of the hardest things is to identify the needs of "system
> Foundation", talk about these needs, and read criticism from people
> belonging to "system Wikipedia", who have no beginning of an idea of
> where the need comes from, why it is critical... but who considers they
> have a say nevertheless.

*nods*
And again, a clearer separation would also imply better expectations
on both parts. If everybody knows what everybody's role is, and
information flows both ways, there is no need to challenge anybody's
decisions.

>
> I think Ec, that you are correct in saying we need a firewall between
> the two systems; You, as an editor, feels this need. Me, as a board
> member, feel it as well. I think it is slowly being put into place.

I feel it too. And yes, I agree that it is slowly coming.

>
> A huge limitation for the construction of the firewall will stay the
> legal considerations.

I am not so sure. If we gave ourselves the time to understand and
explain what legal implications there *really* are in editing the
projects as a member of the organisation, I believe that could be
solved very easily. It only takes time that we probably have not given
ourselves.

>Contrary of what you say, much have been said, but
> it has been said in other places than public mailing lists (precisely
> due to our paranoia :-)). The WP:Office issue is still unsolved though.

See above.

Delphine

--
~notafish


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Template:spoiler

body:
Jesse W wrote:
> On May 29, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>> Hmm, now the trick is how to get that to
>> pop up automatically whenever I go to Wikipedia.
> Use Greecemonkey (google it); it's a extension to Firefox that allows
> arbitrary javascript to be automatically run on arbitrary pages.  Very
> nice thing.
>

You can find it at http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/

--
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/20060531/f8a958bc/attachment.pgp


body:
On 31/05/06, Filip Maljkovic <dungodung at gmail.com> wrote:
> When comitted to SVN, new things/changes are not visible instantly on
> the sites. There is a process called synchronization that basically
> synchronizes the SVN repo with the installations on the servers.

Hi!

Thanks, I know that, I wrote "almost directly" because of that. But
what I'd like to know is: does the number on [[Special:Version]]
(currently: r14374, which has been committed "6 days, 1 hour ago")
display the version that is synchronized and running on servers? Or,
what other number does it display? (And, in that case, is there a
place I could learn the exact revision number of the version running
there?)

-- [[commons:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re : sanger on 'open meritocracies'

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/29/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, as said, for Wikipedia wiki worked very well. That doesn't mean
>> it works as well for other projects. A wiki means several things at
>> once, and it is one of them (the wiki philosophy of free editing and
>> control afterward instead of in advance) that made Wikipedia work
>> where Nupedia did not. Wiktionary would I think work better in an
>> environment with the same philosophy but a different technology (more
>> database-like rather than marked up text). Wikiquote and Commons might
>> well profit from a similar switch. For Wikisource the whole 'free
>> editing' concept itself does not seem as suitable, or at least, not as
>> necessary.
>
> Largely true, however, one should never underestimate the advantages
> of even the simple technology we have. We take the ability to edit and
> improve the description of an image on Commons for granted, but that
> is something you only get from a wiki-like system. Similarly, at least
> some degree of consistency within our taxonomy can be maintained
> because people can add/remove categories as they please. Compare
> Flickr's tags, where keywords are rarely consistent across images of
> the same type.
>
> As for Wikisource, I continue to hold that one of its great promises
> are free translations of public domain texts, and this is where wiki
> becomes quickly indispensable.
>

... but the *original source* should be protected at the steward level,
which requires a software change.

--
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/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060531/c2bf4eb3/attachment.pgp


from_name: Austin Hair

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 5/31/06, Gavin Chait <gchait at gmx.net> wrote:
> * Chapters - I'm assuming this has some oversight of the projects?

Oversight and coordination of [[m:Wikimedia chapters]], which have no
direct connection to projects.  See [[m:Chapters committee]],
[[m:Wikimedia chapters]].

[[m:Wikimedia committees]] were created to allow the Board to delegate
responsibility for certain necessary, day-to-day Wikimedia operations,
providing for more effective management while still retaining final
authority.  They don't yet have any legal status, so this delegation
is currently de facto only, but as a practical matter they operate as
originally conceived.

How committees organize and conduct themselves is generally left up to
them, and varies considerably.  Chapters, for instance, comprises five
members and two advisers, with the committee officers (chairman and
vice chairman) holding mostly "administrative" roles rather than
governing ones, in a primus inter pares sense.  Other committees may
have a more hierarchical approach, with the chairman steering the
direction of the committee and taking on more of a leadership role.

What's important is that the system, which is still very new and
working itself out, is an improvement over relying on the overtaxed
Board to micromanage WMF operations.

Austin


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked for disruption and trolling?

body:
On 31 May 2006, at 00:44, Anittas Hatti wrote:

> The recent days have been very confusing to me. I'll keep it short.
> User:Zoe demanded a certain part of the article to be sourced. That
> part of the article was sourced, but had no footnotes attached to
> it. Zoe asked what the sources were, and I gave them the two
> souces: one was a book and another was a Doc-file. These sources
> had been included in the article.
>
>   Zoe claimed that they didn't have the book and that the Doc-file
> could not be accessible for all people. After much discussion, Zoe
> agreed to restore the part of the article, until it was found that
> the text was plagiarized from another site and was again removed.
> All was fine.
>
>   Meanwhile, I went to a few articles started by two other users
> and removed the unsourced material. I was reverted and warned for
> being disruptive. After some negotiations, I started instead to
> discuss the issue, as Zoe said that I should do. I  went to ANI to
> ask questions about the Wiki policy on sources. I didn't care about
> the text that was removed due to plagiarization, as I deemed the
> decission to be a correct one. I went to ANI to ask whether an
> article about a comicbook could use that same comic as a source. I
> then asked if an article about a movie could use the same movie as
> a source. I thought it was original research, because the author of
> the article needs to interpret the art by himself and then write
> about it. No-one gave me any answer to the topic; instead, Zoe
> blocked me for disruption and trolling.
>
>   I'm sure that most admins will agree with Zoe's decission, even
> tho I was being polite the whole time and even tho I was ultimately
> blocked for asking questions on ANI (which ironically, saw a couple
> of admins contradict themselves) by an admin who was involved in
> the dispute. That's fine with me: you can agree with Zoe and
> everyone else that disagreed with me. Perhaps I was being
> disruptive by asking too many questions. But I would still like to
> know if an article about a movie can use the movie as a source; and
> if an article about a comicbook can use that same comicbook as a
> source. If the answer is no, can any action be taken against such
> articles? And where can this info be found?

I havent looked at all your links, but I do think User:Zoe was being
rather odd. I would footnote if people
get that peculiar. I think you were perhaps less polite than you
could have been perhaps, but not sure that
blocking was the right answer.

However when your block expires, just bear in mind that lots of
wikipedia is unsourced at present. Its
usually best to just request sources on the talk page if you cant
find them, and give people plenty of
time. If you have reason to believe something is false or misleading
or POV say, remove it and add the
removed text and a note to the talk page. And show how to do things
by example, by always giving good
references by example. [Note these are not meant to be criticisms of
you, just suggestions].

In terms of what is original research, plot summaries etc and
generally not OR - summarising anything is
what encyclopaedias do, whether it is a primary or secondary source
("Napoleon was a pig"). If you start
to give opinions or interpretations ("Animal Farm is a satire of the
Soviet Union") then you should be
citing secondary sources.

Justinc


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

subject: [Wikitech-l] Article vs. EditPage functionality

body:
"in the last couple years." - lol @ dat

On May 31, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Travis Derouin wrote:
>> Is there any plan in the future to move more of the functionality
>> from
>> the EditPage class to Article? It seems like a lot of the
>> functionality that's currently in EditPage (at least in the 1.4
>> version)
>
> Please don't look at 1.4 for anything. That code is extremely
> outdated; lots of
> things have been totally restructured in the last couple years.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
charles matthews wrote:
>> Can you actually find an example of an admin behaving like that who hasn't been
>> desysopped by ruling of the Arbitration Committee? I doubt it.
>
> In fact we have probably not 'culled' enough admins, if one were to judge
> solely by management criteria.  It is not done lightly.  Also, we tend to
> assume admins act in good faith, and that if they get things wrong (happens)
> then it is reversible.  That is not exactly accurate: but any admin not
> acting in good faith is probably a troubled person, not just a troubled
> admin.  And mistakes alone don't justify a de-sysop.

Yes, I agree -- and that wasn't what I was trying to imply. One of the
advantages of Wikipedia is that almost every action can be undone.

The part of my message referred to as 'behaving like that' (which you
snipped) was quoting Molu describing admins acting in a power-hungry manner:

>>> It's like "Now you know you made a mistake and there's not a damn thing you
>>> can do about it. I AM THE TYRANT MUHUHAHAHA!!!"

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: Ben Lowe

subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
G'dafternoon Steve,

>
> That's a separate issue - disruption by choosing an inflammatory (as
> opposed to confusing) name. Sort of like we probably wouldn't allow a
> name with the word "jihad" in it...

What about, say, "Minister of War"?


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
>>> keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
>>> today and start moving things over.
>
>> +2
>
> +3 ;-). It would also be nice to have an agreement on where
> MediaWiki-related content should go; currently it's split between Meta
> and mediawiki.org

New software stuff should all go on mediawiki.org.

Old software stuff should get moved or rewritten there.

This'll give Meta the chance to get back to its roots for meta-discussion of
Wikipedia, its sister projects, the foundation, where we're going, where we've
been, etc.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060531/c38a9c62/attachment.pgp


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
>>> keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
>>> today and start moving things over.
>
>> +2
>
> +3 ;-). It would also be nice to have an agreement on where
> MediaWiki-related content should go; currently it's split between Meta
> and mediawiki.org

New software stuff should all go on mediawiki.org.

Old software stuff should get moved or rewritten there.

This'll give Meta the chance to get back to its roots for meta-discussion of
Wikipedia, its sister projects, the foundation, where we're going, where we've
been, etc.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060531/c38a9c62/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
>>> keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
>>> today and start moving things over.
>
>> +2
>
> +3 ;-). It would also be nice to have an agreement on where
> MediaWiki-related content should go; currently it's split between Meta
> and mediawiki.org

New software stuff should all go on mediawiki.org.

Old software stuff should get moved or rewritten there.

This'll give Meta the chance to get back to its roots for meta-discussion of
Wikipedia, its sister projects, the foundation, where we're going, where we've
been, etc.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060531/c38a9c62/attachment.pgp>


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
>>> keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
>>> today and start moving things over.
>
>> +2
>
> +3 ;-). It would also be nice to have an agreement on where
> MediaWiki-related content should go; currently it's split between Meta
> and mediawiki.org

New software stuff should all go on mediawiki.org.

Old software stuff should get moved or rewritten there.

This'll give Meta the chance to get back to its roots for meta-discussion of
Wikipedia, its sister projects, the foundation, where we're going, where we've
been, etc.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060531/c38a9c62/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Gavin Chait

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
>> Gavin : "Project management may not be about content generation alone.
>> It is also about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and
>> answerable to the organisation at large."

> Here I don't know if you are right or wrong in your understanding of
> Gavin's sentence. My take is that his "disputes settling" applies to
> the disputes *the organisation* could be thrown into, not to an edit
> war in Wikipedia.

Here I can clarify.  What a project does is irrelevant in terms of the
system as long as it meets the general objectives of the organisation.  The
project manager alone is responsible for what happens there.  If a dispute
looks as if it will involve the organisation then it is the duty of the
project manager to bring that to the organisation's attention.  If it is
merely an edit war or copyright or local dispute then it is part of their
daily problem and not the Foundation's.

If you think of it in terms of regular charitable foundations:  they
research and select projects to fund, projects are championed by outsiders
or are initiated by the foundation, they offer advice and know-how (where
possible), they monitor the activities of their funded projects, and they
dive in if things go wrong (if they choose to).  If a project gets caught
doing something illegal (or even just awkward) they can intervene, isolate,
amputate, ... or risk looking foolish.

In Wiki Foundation's case, you have overlap.  You are directly involved in
terms of infrastructure, methodology and physical involvement.

Delphine writes:  "I believe that *not using* is harder than *not having*"

Creating a firewall between the foundation and its supported projects
implies *not using* and that will be very hard.  Legally, what happens if
you host and have the capacity to intervene?

This means you need to structure the Foundation in such a way that you can't
intervene without the approval of a project leader (for instance, you create
/ nominate a head of Wikipedia who has absolute power).  Reporting and
accountability become even more important in such a distributed hierarchy.

And that comes back to what I suggested at the beginning.  A loose
collection of independent organisations / projects (and forgive me for using
terminology that may not be appropriate) that are accountable to a central
Foundation.

Before you start hiring office space it is essential to know what will be
done there.  And before a lot of the ideas presented in this mailing list
get lost, perhaps it is a good idea to create a closed wiki to build the
organisation structure, tasks, methodology, conflict resolution, job
descriptions ... and a constitution.

The Economist states boldly on every contents page:  first published in 1843
to take part in "a severe contest between intelligence, which presses
forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."

We could do worse than start from there.  Once you have everything, then you'll
know where your office should be, how big it needs to be, and what will be
done there.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Lord Voldemort

body:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> In theory you are right, but experience shows, that most editors
> who feel offended by it, will get blocked sooner or later, because
> no policy tells them, that the results of 3 month old poll is a
> binding decision and ignoring it will as likely as not result in
> a block.

>From the page in question:
<!--

  NOTE ABOUT THE IMAGE: For many days, discussions occurred and polls
were conducted on the talk pages of this article and in February 2006
the super majority (over 80% of contributing editors) decision was to
keep the image displayed as it currently is without a "linkimage" and
with no added warning template or text. Thus based upon this,
unilateral (without general consensus) removal, hiding, relocation or
resizing of this image (particularly in a repetitive fashion) will be
considered disruptive editing, detrimental to Wikipedia, and may
result in a block of your account and/or IP address.
 Additionally, polls were taken regarding adding image warnings to
this article with the polls deciding that like the rest of Wikipedia's
articles, no warning shall be added to this one. If you wish to
discuss aspects of the display of the image of the cartoons, please do
so in a civil manner by posting in the image discussion area of this
article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display

Do not unilaterally remove images or add image warnings. Thanks!

If you wish to hide the image of the cartoons on this article, follow
these steps:
  * Create an account
  * Edit the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YOURUSERNAME/monobook.css
  * Add #mi{display: none;}

Aferwards the image will not show. Following these steps does not edit
the article itself, just how it is presented to you personally.
However there is a slight risk of disrupting your browser's
presentation of other articles which contain similar code. Further
details available on the above Image-Display Talk Page.-->

Is this not ample enough warning?  Seems fairly clearly laid out to me.
--LV


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
On 5/31/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is General Eisenhower aka, Dwight Eisenhower, still alive? Would it be
> logical for someone to mistake this user with the famous american?
> Famous live people may be disruptive, but how famous is famous?

That's a separate issue - disruption by choosing an inflammatory (as
opposed to confusing) name. Sort of like we probably wouldn't allow a
name with the word "jihad" in it...

Steve


from_name: Jeffrey Latham

subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism
 userbox

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration, of a userbox
>that said the owner was a satanist.  I have canceled it on the grounds
>that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute.
>
>I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal
>of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging,
>though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the
>like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and
>coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only
>bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse.
>Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where
>traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors
>vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of
>votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be
>appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be
>made for this particular template
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
OH NOES! The sacred userbox! To the gallows!

Actually, I no longer have strong views either way on the userbox issue.
I can see such a statement as being potentially useful, but I really
wish that Wikipedia could come up with a concrete policy on these cute
little boxes that would satisfy both sides of the issue.

Personally, I think all userboxes but the generics should go, and that
people would just use {{userbox|WhateverStatementIwantHere}}. It would
seem to solve the problems regarding the promotion of userboxes in
template space, would leave (relatively) simple code on userpages, could
still be indexed on the subpages of the userbox "Wikiproject", and
wouldn't have the bothersome qualities associated with transclusion of
most userboxen. Of course, people would have to agree to get rid of
those bloody useless categories that go with them, too...

Then again, some people just like using Wikipedia as a battleground.
(I'm guilty, myself, of falling into this mindset)


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 31/05/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 5/29/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, as said, for Wikipedia wiki worked very well. That doesn't mean
> >> it works as well for other projects. A wiki means several things at
> >> once, and it is one of them (the wiki philosophy of free editing and
> >> control afterward instead of in advance) that made Wikipedia work
> >> where Nupedia did not. Wiktionary would I think work better in an
> >> environment with the same philosophy but a different technology (more
> >> database-like rather than marked up text). Wikiquote and Commons might
> >> well profit from a similar switch. For Wikisource the whole 'free
> >> editing' concept itself does not seem as suitable, or at least, not as
> >> necessary.
> >
> > Largely true, however, one should never underestimate the advantages
> > of even the simple technology we have. We take the ability to edit and
> > improve the description of an image on Commons for granted, but that
> > is something you only get from a wiki-like system. Similarly, at least
> > some degree of consistency within our taxonomy can be maintained
> > because people can add/remove categories as they please. Compare
> > Flickr's tags, where keywords are rarely consistent across images of
> > the same type.
> >
> > As for Wikisource, I continue to hold that one of its great promises
> > are free translations of public domain texts, and this is where wiki
> > becomes quickly indispensable.
> >
>
> ... but the *original source* should be protected at the steward level,
> which requires a software change.

Incidentally, this implies we ever have the "original source". For
most of the material likely to be on Wikisource, by virtue of it being
comfortably over a hundred years old, we don't; we have a scan of one
particular edition. Much of that particular edition will have been
silently altered several times between us and the author; indeed, even
with contemporary editions, the author may never have seen it since
manuscript.

And that's even before contemplating the effects of which
public-domain source (and hence which iteration of expurgation) we
have used...

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


body:
Travis Derouin wrote:
> Is there any plan in the future to move more of the functionality from
> the EditPage class to Article? It seems like a lot of the
> functionality that's currently in EditPage (at least in the 1.4
> version)

Please don't look at 1.4 for anything. That code is extremely outdated; lots of
things have been totally restructured in the last couple years.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060531/beabf146/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> Lord Voldemort wrote:
> > On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> >> In theory you are right, but experience shows, that most editors
> >> who feel offended by it, will get blocked sooner or later, because
> >> no policy tells them, that the results of 3 month old poll is a
> >> binding decision and ignoring it will as likely as not result in
> >> a block.
> >
> >>From the page in question:
> > <!--
> >
> >   NOTE ABOUT THE IMAGE: For many days, discussions occurred and polls
> > were conducted on the talk pages of this article and in February 2006
> > the super majority (over 80% of contributing editors) decision was to
> > keep the image displayed as it currently is without a "linkimage" and
> > with no added warning template or text. Thus based upon this,
> > unilateral (without general consensus) removal, hiding, relocation or
> > resizing of this image (particularly in a repetitive fashion) will be
> > considered disruptive editing, detrimental to Wikipedia, and may
> > result in a block of your account and/or IP address.
> <snip/>
> > -->
> >
> > Is this not ample enough warning?  Seems fairly clearly laid out to me.
>
> Yes, it's a clearly laid out warning, but it's not a policy,
> instead it actually contradicts [[WP:NBD]], which states:
>
> Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus
> that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that
> earlier decision was made by a poll or other method.

 Except you snipped the key part: "If you wish to
discuss aspects of the display of the image of the cartoons, please do
so in a civil manner by posting in the image discussion area of this
article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display
 Do not unilaterally remove images or add image warnings. Thanks!"

If consensus changes, by all means, remove the image.  But until
consensus shows differently, it should probably stay.  And frankly,
I'm not sure this is even the right place to be discussing this. On
that note, I am done. I'll give you the last word if you want it.
Cheers.
--LV