from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] admin problem

body:
"Leif Knutsen" wrote

> I suspect that people are far more suspicious than is warranted by what
> actually goes on, but I think we can agree that suspicion is distracting
> and
> damaging.

I trust that people are more trusting than one might suspect from some of
the more inflammatory analyses that are put about.  I agree that suspicion
is damaging.  One of the reasons that we have 'assume good faith' is to
prevent people, where possible, from reading far too much into things, as in
'cock-up rather than conspiracy'.  And to prevent, where possible, the kind
of partisan talk prevails outside WP being imported here, as in 'leave it at
the door'.

Those who find it hard to do those things - assume good faith, and see WP
not as a partisan but as a participant - may indeed have problems.  But
their suspicion is really not so much a distraction, as a systematic missing
of the point about Wikipedian culture.  And they damage themselves, above
all.

And for those who really can't get it, I wonder what changes of current
practice would actually suffice.  The Main Page right now says en-WP has
997,857 articles.  That is a massively decentralised system, based on mutual
trust, in action.  Almost all those pages are open to editing.

Is it really surprising that with fewer than one admin to every 1000
articles there are some needs to make patrolling the site effective and
practical?

Charles


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be
>>>>"the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much
>>>>abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of
>>>>self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
>>>>
>>>>I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors
>>>>are always welcome".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom
>>>Wikipedia speaks.
>>>
>>>(Because you're not.)
>>>
>>>
>>That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our
>>view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to
>>attempt to interpret the will of "the community".
>>
>>
>
>You're right. I'm sorry.
>
>But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong.
>Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of Animal-Farm-esque
>groupthink.
>
>That attitude gives "our enemies" way too much attention and credit.
>
>It creates way too much of an us-vs.-them paradigm which I've fought
>against from day one.
>
>And Wikipedia doesn't like that.
>
>
[[WP:NOT]] a social experiment. We're not here to see if trolls or "bad"
people can be rehabilitated. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and
anyone more interested in doing "bad" things can go busy themselves on
any of the millions of other websites on the internet. While I dislike
us vs them dichotomies as much as the next fellow, I can certainly bear
those acting in good faith vs those acting in bad faith.

John


list: commons-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Commons-l] Different skins for pages within the same Wiki

body:
Jorge S?nchez Seijo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a way to use different skins for pages within the same Wiki?
>

Take a "title=" URL (eg.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page) and append
"&useskin=(name of skin)", eg:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=cologneblue
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=monobook
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=simple
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=amethyst
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=chick
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=nostalgia
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=myskin

HTH,
--
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: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060228/9f16b79e/attachment.pgp


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You still haven't responded to Fastfission's account. What dispute do
> > you have with it?
>
> Its false portrayal of ta bu shi da yu as acting without direct and
> full support, its accusatory tone, its abuse of a good and
> conscientious administrator who came directly to Jimbo for support and
> obtained it (I know this for a fact), it's blatant assumption, in
> short, of bad faith.  Its sheer unwikipedianness.  I'm completely,
> utterly shocked rigid to see this kind of thing openly on a wikipedia
> mailing list.  When I spoke of corrosive suspicion, this is precisely
> what I meant.  We cannot build an encyclopedia this way.  Well, maybe
> a huge hoard of copyright infringements, but *not* an encyclopedia.

No, not what issues with the tone do you have, but what dispute with
the facts of Fastfission's account?


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Tim 'avatar' Bartel

subject: [Wikipedia-l] EN:WP: One Meeeeellion Articles

body:
Hi Wikipedians,

SJ schrieb am 28.02.2006 22:29:
> We could at least link to an FAQ about the counting method, and what it means.
> It's certainly not meaning*less*, but does allow for confusion.

Well, Mathias 'presroi' Schindler already started one (still in the
work) for german wikipedia - perhaps you are able to re-translate it :-)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Mathias_Schindler/1m_auf_en

Bye, Tim.

--
We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or
prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station
of birth. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is
not where bodies live. (A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 548 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060228/aa6870eb/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-03-01

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 271 of 288 tests (94.1%) FAILED!


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] A request on my Talk page

body:
On 28 Feb 2006, at 18:48, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>> From my Talk page, if anyone can give me an answer:
>
> Hi. I'm working on KLF discography. To aid with formatting, I created
> two templates. The image thumbnails I am using get passed as arguments
> to the templates. I've noticed that, presumably as a result of the use
> of a template, the Image page doesn't know that the image is being
> used in an article (see e.g. Image:The KLF- Burn The Bastards.jpg).
> I'm worried that some bot will come along and say "right, they're not
> being used", and list them for deletion.
>
> If you can suggest a way round this or what might be causing it please
> leave a message on my talk page (as I've asked several people).
> Guy (JzG)

I think there is a template for images designed to notify of non-
visible uses
(its not just templates - also audio is normally linked in such a way).

Cant remember what though.

Have heard both of the KLF play solo, and know people who know them.
Wouldnt be surprised if they had edited WP.

Justinc


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia on iPod (Encyclopodia) available now

body:
Hi Wikipedians,

Daniel Mayer schrieb am 01.03.2006 00:11:
> --- Robert Bamler <Robert.Bamler.epodia at gmx.de> wrote:
>>It does have a copyright notice which includes a link to the complete text of
>>the GFDL. It also includes a list of all authors.
>
> A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you an offlist question
> about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo. Again - did you get permission to do that?

Because the iPod is an offline device, it's highly likely that the link
points to a local GFDL texftile.

Bye, avatar.

--
But we made our own fun, mostly. I recall a time, many years later, when
American children seemed unable to amuse themselves without a fortune in
electrical and electronic equipment.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 548 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060301/8943148e/attachment.pgp


from_name: Robert Bamler

body:
Hello Avatar,

> Because the iPod is an offline device, it's highly likely that the link
> points to a local GFDL texftile.

Indeed, that's eccactly what I meant. Hey, you're really smart ;-)

Robert


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

body:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/28/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Would you agree to have the arbcom remedy imposed on you?
> > >
> > > Avoid interpersonal dispute, not edit war, and discuss reverts before
> > > making them? Sure, if you do too (and VV). One month?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Nope. I deal with copyvios. I'm not ruleing out any tactic
> > (particularly when you consider I use a very broad defintion of edit
> > war).
>
> You'd just have to not deal with copyvios for a month. Couldn't you do that?

I could. I'm not going to. We are short staffed in that area already
and I'm testing a new account.

--
geni


body:
Hello Daniel,

> A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you
> an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo.
> Again - did you get permission to do that?

1. From your first sentence I really get the impression that you only want to
annoy me (you have to give in that your remark is really silly since the iPod
is an offline device)

2. I got your offlist question and I already sent a reply several hours ago.

3. Have you had a look at the website again? Or don't you have the time for
that because you're so busy looking for silly assaults against me?

Good night,
Robert


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
Katefan0 wrote:
> Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that
> information without a source may be removed.  (Perhaps it should be more
> pointed -- disputed information without a source).  Didn't Jimbo say as much
> in one of his responses to Seigenthaler?
>
> k
>
>
How about "disputed unsourced information may be removed, but you should
note this on the talk page, preferably with your reason for removing it".

-- Neil


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd say that the suspiciousness wasn't the problem, but the
> backchannel authorization. The admin was doing something that
> antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities, and rightly was
> held to account. Deleting images is a Big Deal because it's
> permanently destructive.

Those images were not ours to keep.  Why is this so difficult to understand?


from_name: Allan Hutchison-Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
Alphax wrote:
I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become
admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour
for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the
place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.

-Aieeeeee! don't tell people not to stick beans up their noses!   :-)

-Allan


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem.  For the most
> > > part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel
> > > operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have.
>
>
> This is basically right, because the people who actually want to get stuff
> done don't want to go through the trouble of haggling with process
> fetishists and the 10% of people who oppose everything. Trying to convince
> everyone that a particular action is right is a waste of time. No matter
> what you do, there will always be someone who thinks you should have done
> the opposite. Back-channels are the only way to get input from only rational
> people, and cut out the trolls and so on.
>

Generaly I just ignore trolls and so on

>
> If deleting copyvios with an OK from Jimbo "antagonized a lot of other
> editors' sensibilities", I can't be bothered to care. These people will be
> offended by anything. If someone has a rational reason to object, I'll be
> more inclined to say that we should talk it out.
>
> Ryan

It is still polite to let people know what you are going to do in advance.

--
geni


list: foundation-l

from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Mailing list for Wikiversity project.

body:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Can somebody knowledgeable regarding how to get a project mailing list
>authorized and setup please provide a link to the procedure and mailing
>address for the person to be contacted?
>
>Wikiversity has been experiencing slow growth and I think much of it is
>because interested people inexperienced with the wikimedia interface
>cannot find applicable discussions or material.  I think a mailing list
>might serve as an extremely valuable community formation and
>coordination tool until we get some very active courses established to
>act as epicenters for newcomer activity.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Michael Irwin,
>aka lazyquasar or mirwin
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
While I would agree that a totally seperate mailing list for Wikiversity
might be useful, Textbook-l has been totally dead and would be a very
good place to at least start some of these discussions until such a list
is created.  BTW, there is quite a bit of discussion (from the past in
the archives) about Wikiversity on this mailing list as well.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: michael_irwin at verizon.net

body:
Thanks Robert!

I will check out the archives and subscribe to Textbook-l while we wait
for action on the Wikiversity list.

lazyquasar

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>While I would agree that a totally seperate mailing list for Wikiversity
>might be useful, Textbook-l has been totally dead and would be a very
>good place to at least start some of these discussions until such a list
>is created.  BTW, there is quite a bit of discussion (from the past in
>the archives) about Wikiversity on this mailing list as well.
>
>
>


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> What about online sources that go off-line?
> I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article
> into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are
> we supposed to fight that?
>
You encourage people to add full citations in a References section. So
if it's a newspaper article, for example, we have the byline,
headline, name of newspaper, and date of publication, which means
anyone wanting to check it can do so, even if it's taken off the
newspaper's website. See [[WP:CITE]].

Sarah


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Whereas now it's more like, "cite a source, or else someone else
> will delete your work".

And we were asking for proof that policy was being largely shaped by
those who work on contentious, war-zone articles?

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One
> > administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of
> > Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full
> > authorization of Jimbo Wales.  He was RfC'd!  When finally he obtained
> > from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received)
> > the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he
> > prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the
> > recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with
> > Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.
>
> Tony: Sorry guys! Queen Elizabeth gave me permission to tear down
> Buckingham Palace. Nothing you can do about it, nye ney!
> Tony: Evidence? What you mean I need evidence for? She emailed me and
> said I could.
> Tony: No I can't show it to you. She hasn't given me permission to
> show you the email yet. You trust me don't you?
> Tony: No I can't wait! Time is expensive and I have better things to
> do than argue with rules layers. I want this place cleared before
> tea-time.
>

Why do you make blatantly false accusations of lying against other editors?

This shocks me more than I can say.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in
> relation to the TIME magazine issue:
>

No.  I have told you the complete and unvarnished truth.  Do not dare
to accuse me of lying.  Do not dare.


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
> There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One
> administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of
> Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full
> authorization of Jimbo Wales.  He was RfC'd!  When finally he obtained
> from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received)
> the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he
> prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the
> recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with
> Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.

Tony: Sorry guys! Queen Elizabeth gave me permission to tear down
Buckingham Palace. Nothing you can do about it, nye ney!
Tony: Evidence? What you mean I need evidence for? She emailed me and
said I could.
Tony: No I can't show it to you. She hasn't given me permission to
show you the email yet. You trust me don't you?
Tony: No I can't wait! Time is expensive and I have better things to
do than argue with rules layers. I want this place cleared before
tea-time.

--
mvh Bj?rn


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> My apologies, but I suggested only that you had "stretched" things a
> bit

Well stop it.  This is completely unacceptable.  I did not stretch
anything.  Not even a tiny little bit.  I did not lie, misrepresent,
equivocate, deceive, stretch, or anything else.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think there was an accusation of lying. One can be "wrong" and
> "evasive" and "not cooperative" and "not respectful of other editors"
> and "avoiding accountability" without being a "liar" at all.

So you think you were accusing me, not of lying, but of being evasive,
uncooperative, disrespectful and avoiding accountability.

But the words you used were "I think you're stretching things a bit
here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue"

But you are not aware of the facts.  I am, and I'm telling you to stop
falsely accusing other editors of lying.  Moreover, when caught doing
so, I am saying that you must not falsely accuse them of avoiding
accountability, being evasive, uncooperative and disrespectful.  And
any other smokescreen you want to come up with.  Just stop.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My apologies, but I suggested only that you had "stretched" things a
> > > bit
> >
> > Well stop it.  This is completely unacceptable.  I did not stretch
> > anything.  Not even a tiny little bit.  I did not lie, misrepresent,
> > equivocate, deceive, stretch, or anything else.
>
> Do you admit the possibility of fallibility?

Absolutely.  But the accusation was of deception.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You still haven't responded to Fastfission's account. What dispute do
> you have with it?

Its false portrayal of ta bu shi da yu as acting without direct and
full support, its accusatory tone, its abuse of a good and
conscientious administrator who came directly to Jimbo for support and
obtained it (I know this for a fact), it's blatant assumption, in
short, of bad faith.  Its sheer unwikipedianness.  I'm completely,
utterly shocked rigid to see this kind of thing openly on a wikipedia
mailing list.  When I spoke of corrosive suspicion, this is precisely
what I meant.  We cannot build an encyclopedia this way.  Well, maybe
a huge hoard of copyright infringements, but *not* an encyclopedia.


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>What about online sources that go off-line?
>I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article
>into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are
>we supposed to fight that?
>
My library of printed books is snickering and saying "hah, guess we're not
so obsolete after all".

Stan


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have an particular argument, but this whole discussion feels
> very wrong.  Wikipedia should not be acting like a corporation -- it
> is not trying to make a profit; its mission is to spread knowledge.
> Period.

The spread of Wikipedia content is not at all hindered by protecting the Wikipedia trademark. No
reason to conflate the two.

-- mav

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


from_name: Henry Li

subject: [Wikitech-l] 13 wikipedia awaiting to create

body:
Dear developers,

Please create the following 13 wikipedia stated in
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages

    * Dutch Low Saxon
    * Vlax Romany
    * Ligurian
    * Samogitian
    * Banyumasan
    * Ripuarian
    * Pennsylvania German (prototype)
    * West Flemish
    * Norman
    * Franco-Proven?al/Arpitan
    * Cantonese
    * Tetum
    * Kalmyk

Best regards,
Henry Li


from_name: Jonathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Peter Mackay wrote:
>
>
>>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen
>>>Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not,
>>>because admins have it in their power to do really really
>>>annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks,
>>>locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on
>>>AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of
>>>immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell,
>>>a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a
>>>bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant
>>>allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV
>>>align with theirs, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>Hear hear!
>>
>>There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good
>>editors, not because they are good at being admins. When an admin uses his
>>powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time
>>to reassess that editor's role in the project.
>>
>
>I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become
>admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour
>for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the
>place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.
>
>
I something to say about that.

JzG replies in another email:    "Some people think it has "

There was a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia 3RR. Some of it
spilled over into my talk page. JzG was part of it and, among his
complaints of me "gaming the system," he left this message about me:
"Yes, wasting everyone's time. Including removing the part of
[[Wikipedia:Revert]] which supports the content you want to remove from
[[WP:3RR]]. Do it again and you ''will'' be blocked from editing
Wikipedia. [JzG]  00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)"

I didn't remove any content from Wikipedia:Revert, but that is what JzG
claimed. That was also based on the time when Katefan0 dropped an e-mail
here and claimed I edit-warred after an edit of the 3RR page. Every
change made by a few editors was reverted.

I have yet to see on bit of attempt of genuine compromise on the issues
the we have presented. However, it would be hard to fine. Without too
much more detail of that issue, we do see there are admins, like JzG,
that have crossed the line and harassed users, like me, of a block if
one tries to edit.

The first question I raise about it is: did I vandalize the page?
Absolutely not.

Did I try to revert war?  I made 4 different distinct edits. (1) to add
a comment about to use to the talk page conservatively after being
reverted once, (2) I removed a piece on the Wikipedia:3RR that is
clearly redundant and has caused problems with confusion over the 3RR.
(That was "Revert in this context means..." which is also stated again
later in the "Detail" section.) (3) to add the tag "Contradiction"
because Wikipedia:revert clearly defined a revert one way but the 3RR
page tries to redefine it with "Reverting is this context means..." (4)
tried to add a tag "ActiveDiscuss" to advertise these issues that other
editors and me see either as holes in the 3RR or as consfusion.

Each edit I made above was reverted. Very little, if any, explaination
was given on the 3RR talk page. There was a lot of unproductive talk
with other that accused us as "gaming the system," "edit warriors," and
other things. Not that I won't, but I have yet to make another edit to
Wikipedia:3RR to try to resolve where I found people to have issues with
the text.

We don't have to fear of the day to come because it is hear. It happens.
Just that the notion of "trash" is where the harassment is used to push
a point or to get other editors not to be bold.

Personally, I feel it is utter childish for anybody to protect a page so
dearly to even cast any form of harassment. Wikipedia is still under
development. There are goals and plans already stated of where the
software aims to go. For admins or other users to blow up over those
that edit pages is really a horror.

I remember when I used to get onto LambdaMOO long time ago. There where
lots of people that could logon and change things around. Some
permissions existed to prevent total openness, but anybody could create
objects and program them. There one user that really made the headlines.
He decided to make an "experiment room." He invented people to his chat
area on LambdaMoo. Once in the chat area, he had permissions to control
objects in his area -- even the "characters" object. He had an object
called "the jar." He would act like a clown and "stuff" people into the
jar. Those that were submersed into the online context got a "probed"
type of alien abduction experience. It's quite normal to get submersed
into a book or movie, and this is interactive fiction -- or, at least,
the story is but the reality of the text being display that effects the
persons stimuli is FACT.

The clown guy eventually got kicked-out and a few investigations of
online abduction in context took place. It's real.

This is what I see happen at Wikipedia. People are pretty drawn into the
conversations that develop. Once some "action" is taken by an admin or
ArbCom or such, the submersion leads to such "probed" and other
undesired stimulation. Not everybody gets submersed by the context, but
the fact is that it happens and we should take care. Even the little
flame wars and such can have effects that trigger likewise behavoir of
this clown stated above. It wasn't a funny clown, and this "trash" isn't
either.

I haven't lost hope for Wikipedia. Even as popular as it has become,
it's still under development. Most admins and other users I run into are
very friendly.

I feel that sometimes the admins options have become a matter of
convenience rather than a continued need to discuss issues. If this
wasn't true, there would be no wheel wars.

People have different ways to edit articles. Instead of "suspicious
admin behavior," we can specifically find that there are admins (as well
as non-admins) that try to force people to edit in a particular style.
We should have the freedom to choose our own style -- it's a wiki.


from_name: Ben Yates

body:
Poking my head in:

I don't have an particular argument, but this whole discussion feels
very wrong.  Wikipedia should not be acting like a corporation -- it
is not trying to make a profit; its mission is to spread knowledge.
Period.

On 3/1/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Before anything, Robert, Wikipedia on ipod looks wonderful.
> I do not have an ipod myself, so I can not *test*, but the very idea is
> great.
> Thank you for taking care of this.
>
> Now, far from being willing to annoy you, I regret to tell you that Mav
> is correct in his questions.
>
> You mentionned on the web page "Wikipedia content (screenshots): (c)
> 2001-2006 Wikipedia Contributors Permission is granted to copy,
> distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free
> Documentation License, etc...."
>
> This is just correct. BUT, while the content is free to use, the logo
> and the brand name are not free to use by anyone. So, you need to have
> an authorization for this.
>
> So, I would be happy that something is done about that. You may contact
> board AT wikimedia.org on the topic. Please, do not feel "assaulted",
> this is just basic requirement...
>
> A suggestion I would make as well concerns the call for donation you are
> making. While it would be a donation for the work you did to have the
> projects on the ipod itself, I think there might be a confusion in the
> public mind that the donation is somehow related to the encyclopedia
> itself. This is in particular due to the fact you called the software
> "encyclopodia". Have you thought of providing a link for donations to
> the Foundation currently supporting the Wikipedia project itself ? If
> not, I can certify it would be appreciated ;-)
>
> I should have an ipod someday...
>
> Ant
>
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > --- Robert Bamler <Robert.Bamler.epodia at gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> >>>A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you
> >>>an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo.
> >>>Again - did you get permission to do that?
> >>
> >>1. From your first sentence I really get the impression that you only want to
> >>annoy me (you have to give in that your remark is really silly since the iPod
> >>is an offline device)
> >
> >
> > My intent is not to annoy you, but to clarify some legal issues. You said link. Given widespread
> > improper usage, that could easily be interpreted as stating the network location. For example,
> > just writing http://gnu.org/fdl.htm - the link need not be active.
> >
> >
> >>2. I got your offlist question and I already sent a reply several hours ago.
> >
> >
> > You only said that you removed the image from the website. Is the image also on the iPod database
> > you provide? I don't have an iPod so can't check. But the much, much larger issue is trademark
> > related. IANAL, but the way you have used the trademarked term 'Wikipedia' seems to me to require
> > some sort of permission from the trademark holder (the Wikimedia Foundation).
> >
> > Asking if such permission had been sought and given is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
> >
> >
> >>3. Have you had a look at the website again? Or don't you have the time for
> >>that because you're so busy looking for silly assaults against me?
> >
> >
> > Please don't feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want to make sure that your
> > great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held trademarks. Trademarks *must* be
> > proactively protected or they could be lost.
> >
> > -- mav
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Edit/read ratio goals,
	was Re: "Trivia" sections in articles

body:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> I certainly hope it's our goal. I'm not a huge fan of consumerism or
> elitism, which follow from a goal of not including everyone in the
> potential editorship pool.

I thought the goal, as Jimbo put it, was about putting encyclopaedias
in the hands of poor African communities. Are we then expecting them
to log onto wikipedia.org to become editors? Similarly, most people
see the publication of wikipedia in paper format in the next year or
two as an appealing goal - do we expect purchasers of this version to
come back here and start working away?

It might be nice if they did, to "counter systemic bias", but it's not
at all realistic to expect that, is it?

Steve


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
I don't think you're reading your e-mails very closely. You're not
even the subject of the one below.

And I think I was aware of the facts, and you certainly have given me
no reason to think otherwise, nor that you have any real interest in
the facts. You're the one throwing up a big hissyfit about being
offended for it being implied that you are wrong, rather than simply
stating where it is that you are not. It's really pretty shameful and
I'm surprised at you.

FF

On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think there was an accusation of lying. One can be "wrong" and
> > "evasive" and "not cooperative" and "not respectful of other editors"
> > and "avoiding accountability" without being a "liar" at all.
>
> So you think you were accusing me, not of lying, but of being evasive,
> uncooperative, disrespectful and avoiding accountability.
>
> But the words you used were "I think you're stretching things a bit
> here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue"
>
> But you are not aware of the facts.  I am, and I'm telling you to stop
> falsely accusing other editors of lying.  Moreover, when caught doing
> so, I am saying that you must not falsely accuse them of avoiding
> accountability, being evasive, uncooperative and disrespectful.  And
> any other smokescreen you want to come up with.  Just stop.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of The Cunctator
>
> But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong.
> Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of
> Animal-Farm-esque groupthink.

Some of the "good people" just aren't that good. In many cases, whether you
are seen as good or not depends more on *who* says you are good than on any
intrinsic standard of goodness.

Peter, doubleplus


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen
> Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not,
> because admins have it in their power to do really really
> annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks,
> locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on
> AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of
> immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell,
> a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a
> bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant
> allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV
> align with theirs, etc.

Hear hear!

There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good
editors, not because they are good at being admins. When an admin uses his
powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time
to reassess that editor's role in the project.

Having said that, one must also consider the question - what is the highest
priority? Building an encyclopaedia or having a good working community of
editors?

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of charles matthews

>  "Leif Knutsen" wrote
>
> > * Admins should strive for transparency in their workings.
> Backchannel
> > communications should be an exception limited to very
> specific problems.
>
> That at least is not really practical.  There is constant
> need to share information, that should not be posted on the
> Wikipedia sites.  (Think about it - so we really want
> discussions of users by admins, including necessary detective
> work, on the site?).

Because the alternative is that admins are seen as arbitrary and callous by
the general community of editors. Nothing is quite so poisonous as a group
of privileged people telling the population "We had good reasons for doing
what we did, but we can't tell you what they are."

The reaction after hearing that line two or three times is pure cynicism.

Now, I'll exempt privacy issues from any need to be open, and I think
Wikipedia has a pretty good handle on that, but the sort of thing that
builds trust and confidence is what we usually see on WP:ANI where issues
get investigated, links and diffs are posted, and a complete picture
emerges.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Whereas now it's more like, "cite a source, or else someone else
> > > will delete your work".
> >
> > And we were asking for proof that policy was being largely shaped by
> > those who work on contentious, war-zone articles?
>
> Which in many ways is understandable, as those who work on
> non-contentious articles with like-minded editors don't really need
> policy.

Understandable but unfortunate. It would be healthier if the
aggressive policy versions were back in the "guideline" category -- or
put into the dispute resolution sections. The general policy for the
site should be friendlier, I think.


body:
On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I certainly hope it's our goal. I'm not a huge fan of consumerism or
> > elitism, which follow from a goal of not including everyone in the
> > potential editorship pool.
>
> I thought the goal, as Jimbo put it, was about putting encyclopaedias
> in the hands of poor African communities. Are we then expecting them
> to log onto wikipedia.org to become editors? Similarly, most people
> see the publication of wikipedia in paper format in the next year or
> two as an appealing goal - do we expect purchasers of this version to
> come back here and start working away?
>
> It might be nice if they did, to "counter systemic bias", but it's not
> at all realistic to expect that, is it?

Note what I say above about expectations versus goals. I certainly
would think that having poor African communities editing Wikipedia
would be a goal of the project.


body:
I agree (and sorry for being so unspecific and harsh).  I guess what
bothers me is the tone of urgency: Balmer's done a service for
wikipedia (though also for himself, since he's collecting donations =)
) and it's important to encourage that kind of thing.

On 3/1/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't have an particular argument, but this whole discussion feels
> > very wrong.  Wikipedia should not be acting like a corporation -- it
> > is not trying to make a profit; its mission is to spread knowledge.
> > Period.
>
> The spread of Wikipedia content is not at all hindered by protecting the Wikipedia trademark. No
> reason to conflate the two.
>
> -- mav
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. There should be more people with
> > admin rights.
> >
>
> On Wikipedia you have exactly *TWO* rights:
>
> 1. The right to leave.
> 2. The right to fork.
>
> Editing Wikipedia is privilege which we extend to all who do not abuse
> it. Once you abuse the editing privilege, you are no longer entitled to
> edit.

Okay, SORRY for using the word "rights".

Gosh, I love sysadminthink.


subject: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Article surveys, revisited

body:
Hi Mark,
  Just wanted to say "keep up the good work". This is really
brilliant. Well, not necessarily the results, but, you know.

Do you have any ideas for a next stage? Should we look at targeting
specific kinds of articles? Instead of selecting randomly, choosing
say 20 highly controversial topics, 20 former featured articles, 20
pop culture, 20 maths/science...etc etc?

How can I help?

Steve

On 3/1/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've finished my review of the 100 randomly-selected articles I surveyed
> back in November: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100  Of the
> original 100, seven have been deleted, and another three have been turned
> into redirects.
>
> Over the past three months, there were 1,121 edits to the articles on the
> list, giving a mean of 11.56 edits per non-deleted article.
>
> Not much happens on most articles: of the 93 articles remaining in the
> survey, the median number of edits was 3. Nine articles were completely
> unchanged since November, and all but 18 of the articles had fewer than ten
> changes.  About 99% of the edits were minor things: adding interwiki links,
> fiddling with categories and stub tags, adjusting wikilinks, and
> spelling/grammar fixes.  Only a few edits added a paragraph or more of
> information.
>
> At the other extreme of editing are the four articles with 100 or more
> edits.  Unfortunately, this does not neccessarily translate into an increase
> in article content.  Of the four articles, only [[Midfielder]] was expanded
> significantly.  [[Aleksandr Pushkin]] and [[Lawrenceville School]] were
> cleaned up, with some addition of information.  [[List of Barney & Friends
> stage shows]] merely suffered prolonged vandalism.
>
> Overall, quality has improved, but not by much. Out of the original 20
> substubs, five have been deleted, and four have improved to "stub" status.
> Three articles originally classified as "low" have improved to "good".  None
> of the stubs has improved beyond stub status, and there are still no
> articles considered "high" quality.  No article declined significantly in
> quality.
>
> The sourcing situation hasn't changed much: two articles gained sources,
> while one article is now unsourced.  [[General Semantics]], the messiest,
> most over-referenced article in the previous round of the survey, gained
> another three sources, for a total of 17.  Fortunately, it also gained a
> great deal of improvement.
>
> The image situation has changed significantly.  Originally, free images
> outnumbered non-free ones by 2:1, with only a few images of unknown
> copyright situation.  The ratio of free to non-free images hasn't changed,
> and the total number of images has gone up.  Of the six unsourced images in
> the original survey, all of them have been sourced or removed.  However,
> there are also 17 images with apparently-incorrect free-license tags: 16
> images from Commons with disputed PD-self tags, and a GFDL tag on an image
> that is probably not eligable for copyright.
>
> --
> Mark
> [[User:Carnildo]]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
What about online sources that go off-line?
I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article
into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are
we supposed to fight that?

Mgm


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
Slim Virgin wrote

> The editors on a page are not allowed to reach a consensus to include
> original research, just as they're not allowed to decide to ditch
> NPOV. NOR and NPOV do override consensus.

But drive-by edits are not policy, and are never going to be policy, in
contentious matters.  It is completely sound policy that edits which cannot,
in the medium term, be supported by good sources cannot stand on the page.
My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is
unsourced, and only because of that.

Best efforts may be needed to find sources for queried statements.  The page
history may reveal something serious about why something appears to be
without a leg to stand on.  It is naive to think that good policies are not
used to 'win' edit wars, in a way that is not at all a win for the
encyclopedia.

The fact that proper efforts to get consensus versions of page cannot be so
tightly defined - where's the acronym? - does not mean that the policy that
we edit collectively is trumped.  We need to take care on this.  The
'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits
in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> What about online sources that go off-line?
> I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article
> into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are
> we supposed to fight that?

There's always archive.org (maybe).

Steve


body:
What, you don't think they should have internet access?

On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Really? If so, that's, well, interesting. :) I wonder what Jimbo has
> to say on that - he often refers to African communities, without
> elaborating much.
>
> I suppose I'm just considering the lack of infrastructure. Getting
> paper copies is one thing. Getting cheap, disposable laptops that
> require electricity is a bit harder. But cheap internet access?
>
> Steve
>
> On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Note what I say above about expectations versus goals. I certainly
> > would think that having poor African communities editing Wikipedia
> > would be a goal of the project.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] <ref> and {{reference}}

body:
How do I cite sources? There is no clear, concise guide that I've been
able to find.

In short, can reference templates and the <ref> tag be used together?


from_name: Anthere

body:
Before anything, Robert, Wikipedia on ipod looks wonderful.
I do not have an ipod myself, so I can not *test*, but the very idea is
great.
Thank you for taking care of this.

Now, far from being willing to annoy you, I regret to tell you that Mav
is correct in his questions.

You mentionned on the web page "Wikipedia content (screenshots): ?
2001-2006 Wikipedia Contributors Permission is granted to copy,
distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free
Documentation License, etc...."

This is just correct. BUT, while the content is free to use, the logo
and the brand name are not free to use by anyone. So, you need to have
an authorization for this.

So, I would be happy that something is done about that. You may contact
board AT wikimedia.org on the topic. Please, do not feel "assaulted",
this is just basic requirement...

A suggestion I would make as well concerns the call for donation you are
making. While it would be a donation for the work you did to have the
projects on the ipod itself, I think there might be a confusion in the
public mind that the donation is somehow related to the encyclopedia
itself. This is in particular due to the fact you called the software
"encyclopodia". Have you thought of providing a link for donations to
the Foundation currently supporting the Wikipedia project itself ? If
not, I can certify it would be appreciated ;-)

I should have an ipod someday...

Ant

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Robert Bamler <Robert.Bamler.epodia at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>>>A link?? You need the full text of the GFDL on the iPod. Also - I sent you
>>>an offlist question about the use of the Wikipedia trademark and logo.
>>>Again - did you get permission to do that?
>>
>>1. From your first sentence I really get the impression that you only want to
>>annoy me (you have to give in that your remark is really silly since the iPod
>>is an offline device)
>
>
> My intent is not to annoy you, but to clarify some legal issues. You said link. Given widespread
> improper usage, that could easily be interpreted as stating the network location. For example,
> just writing http://gnu.org/fdl.htm - the link need not be active.
>
>
>>2. I got your offlist question and I already sent a reply several hours ago.
>
>
> You only said that you removed the image from the website. Is the image also on the iPod database
> you provide? I don?t have an iPod so can?t check. But the much, much larger issue is trademark
> related. IANAL, but the way you have used the trademarked term ?Wikipedia? seems to me to require
> some sort of permission from the trademark holder (the Wikimedia Foundation).
>
> Asking if such permission had been sought and given is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
>
>
>>3. Have you had a look at the website again? Or don't you have the time for
>>that because you're so busy looking for silly assaults against me?
>
>
> Please don't feel assaulted since that is not my intent. I simply want to make sure that your
> great use of Wikipedia content does not jeopardize Wikimedia-held trademarks. Trademarks *must* be
> proactively protected or they could be lost.
>
> -- mav
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this worth requesting?

body:
When looking at an editor's contributions history, deleted edits do
not show up.  That makes it a little tricky to find proof of editors
who create multiple (speedied) attack pages or other contentious and
quickly removed content.

Is it worth raising a feature request to add a "show deleted edits" as
with articles?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:46:43 +1030, you wrote:

>I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become
>admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour
>for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the
>place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.

Some people think it has :-)
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] <ref> and {{reference}}

body:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How do I cite sources? There is no clear, concise guide that I've been
> able to find.
>
> In short, can reference templates and the <ref> tag be used together?

I don't have an answer to your question, but I've just started seeing <ref>
used in articles, and it is far and away the easiest to use, clearest and
most professional looking way of providing citations in articles.  I'm very
positive on it.

Jay.


body:
Oops -- sorry, I didn't see Ant's email before I wrote.  That explains
it, then.  But if over-reaching use of wikipedia logos et al is
getting pretty common, maybe there should be a system with a philosphy
similar to that of the system used to notify potential vandals: that
is, assume good faith, and begin with very friendly notices, then
scale up to more urgent warnings.

On 3/1/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree (and sorry for being so unspecific and harsh).  I guess what
> bothers me is the tone of urgency: Balmer's done a service for
> wikipedia (though also for himself, since he's collecting donations =)
> ) and it's important to encourage that kind of thing.
>
> On 3/1/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't have an particular argument, but this whole discussion feels
> > > very wrong.  Wikipedia should not be acting like a corporation -- it
> > > is not trying to make a profit; its mission is to spread knowledge.
> > > Period.
> >
> > The spread of Wikipedia content is not at all hindered by protecting the Wikipedia trademark. No
> > reason to conflate the two.
> >
> > -- mav
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Ben Yates
> Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


body:
When subsaharan internet access becomes more widespread, it is likely
to be on mobile-phone-per-village basis rather than a
computer-per-person one -- it'll be interesting to see what the added
chokepoint will do to the article-writing process.

On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> What, you don't think they should have internet access?
>
> On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Really? If so, that's, well, interesting. :) I wonder what Jimbo has
> > to say on that - he often refers to African communities, without
> > elaborating much.
> >
> > I suppose I'm just considering the lack of infrastructure. Getting
> > paper copies is one thing. Getting cheap, disposable laptops that
> > require electricity is a bit harder. But cheap internet access?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Note what I say above about expectations versus goals. I certainly
> > > would think that having poor African communities editing Wikipedia
> > > would be a goal of the project.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


from_name: Jorge S�nchez Seijo

subject: [Commons-l] Noise when executing texvc

body:
Hi

I'm running Mediawiki version 1.5 in Microsoft Windows XP Professional.
I have successfully compiled the .ml files and created the 'texvc'
executable using MinGW 3.8 and Objective Caml version 3.09.
To run 'texvc', I use MiKTeX version 2.4 and ImageMagick version 6.2.6.
I'm running 'texvc' directly in the shell using the operator ' ' (equivalent
to shell_exec).
The problem is that I can't remove the "noise" generated by the different
transformations required to create the '.png' image. Therefore, the output
of 'texvc' includes all this "noise" when it's called from 'Math.php' and so
an error is raised, even though the image is actually created.
For example, I get all these messages before the html and mathml code that
'texvc' gives as output:

"entering extended mode (C:\texmf\tex\latex\base\article.cls Document Class:
article 2004/02/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX document class
(C:\texmf\tex\latex\base\size12.clo)) No file
2996_b9ae0993d885de5b479973758b8aba0d.aux. [1]
(2996_b9ae0993d885de5b479973758b8aba0d.aux) ) Output written on
2996_b9ae0993d885de5b479973758b8aba0d.dvi (1 page, 268 bytes) . Transcript
written on 2996_b9ae0993d885de5b479973758b8aba0d.log"

It seems that the '-quiet' option of latex is not working ... Any ideas?

Best

Jorge


subject: [WikiEN-l] admin problem

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen

> >That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem.  For
> the most part
> >our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel
> operations,
> >are the best and the most trustworthy we have.
>
> I suspect that people are far more suspicious than is
> warranted by what actually goes on, but I think we can agree
> that suspicion is distracting and damaging. If admins made it
> an explicit practice that they would communicate privately
> only about certain, clearly defined issues; it might reduce
> some fo the mystery (though I'm sure some suspicion and
> paranoia would always persist).

There's the old Chinese proverb about how the wise man does not stoop to tie
his shoelaces in his neighbour's vegetable garden.
>
> I am curious, however, what is the measure of the "best and
> the most trustworthy" admins. My observation is that being
> elected to an admin role depends on not having too many
> detractors; and being deadmined is a result of truly
> egregious offenses. The corollary to that is that an editor
> who wants to be an admin must avoid contention in order to be
> elected; but can let loose once he/she is in. I'm not saying
> that it's common, but it bothers me to see how a lot of
> well-meaning editors can't bombarded when they ask to become
> admins by people they've had content disputes with; and then
> see that established admins more or less abandon the caution
> that got them their role to begin with.

Spot on. Most admins get their heads down, work hard, and do the right
thing, but a few, well it just sickens me to see the diference between their
humble notices of acceptance and the arrogance that appears a few months
later.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: EN:WP: One Meeeeellion Articles... and accounts

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of SJ

> for some definition of "article", we're approaching 1E6 .
> And we seem to have broken 1E6 user accounts today.

"Broken" is such a negative word. Far better to say we've hit a million
users.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Noise when running texvc


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> But drive-by edits are not policy, and are never going to be policy, in
> contentious matters.  It is completely sound policy that edits which cannot,
> in the medium term, be supported by good sources cannot stand on the page.
> My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is
> unsourced, and only because of that.

I agree. I am somewhat staggered that with the number of times that
terms like "verifiability" and "no original research" are bandied
about, we can not as a community agree on two simple matters:

1. Should we remove material which would be perfectly acceptable in
Wikipedia if only the (presumed existing) source was actually cited?
2. Should we remove material which presents verifiable facts simply
because those facts have not been published by another source?

In the first case, I'm talking about removing common knowledge or
non-contentious material which no one is actually disputing. In the
second, I'm talking about removing information like content of
computer games, movies, or websites, where sufficient information can
be given to make it verifiable, but for which no secondary source
exists.

These are pretty fundamental questions, but I've only seen a small
amount of discusson on them (and lots of disagreement about other
issues which arises from unstated differences of opinion on these
issues).

I would love to hear some discusson on this.

> The fact that proper efforts to get consensus versions of page cannot be so
> tightly defined - where's the acronym? - does not mean that the policy that
> we edit collectively is trumped.  We need to take care on this.  The
> 'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits
> in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.

Yes. The old versions of the verifiability policy were extremely
enlightening. Especially the "Help people out, don't make other
editors try and find a source for you" line of thinking. Whereas now
it's more like, "cite a source, or else someone else will delete your
work".

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this worth requesting?

body:
At the very least, it would be handy to see the presence of deleted
edits. Whether or not you should see their content is debatable...

Steve

On 3/1/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> When looking at an editor's contributions history, deleted edits do
> not show up.  That makes it a little tricky to find proof of editors
> who create multiple (speedied) attack pages or other contentious and
> quickly removed content.
>
> Is it worth raising a feature request to add a "show deleted edits" as
> with articles?
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

references:
<20060228212803.RBAI15112.omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com@skyringstudy>
	<44052E3B.5050806@gmail.com>
	<qvra02l7aa4otap96s067aam0vbmtdu173@4ax.com>

body:
On 3/1/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:46:43 +1030, you wrote:
>
> >I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become
> >admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour
> >for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the
> >place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.

Well, admins can't exactly trash the place. Developers, maybe.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What about online sources that go off-line?
> I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article
> into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How
> are
> we supposed to fight that?
>
>
You reference it with the name and URL of the page, and the date accessed.

Jay.


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this worth requesting?

body:
"Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:f1c3529e0603010158y70249440k5c4299c848a290aa at mail.gmail.com...
> On 3/1/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG
> <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> When looking at an editor's contributions history, deleted edits do
>> not show up.  That makes it a little tricky to find proof of editors
>> who create multiple (speedied) attack pages or other contentious and
>> quickly removed content.
>> Is it worth raising a feature request to add a "show deleted edits" as
>> with articles?
> At the very least, it would be handy to see the presence of deleted
> edits. Whether or not you should see their content is debatable...

Brion is currenlty working on a facility to extend the definition of
"deleted": http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bitfields_for_rev_deleted

This will presumably enable the handling of deleted edits on contributions
summaries in new and exciting ways :-)

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Slim Virgin wrote
> My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is
> unsourced, and only because of that.
>
> The
> 'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits
> in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.
>
Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being
bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If
their edit is correct, why can't they source it?

Sarah


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, not what issues with the tone do you have, but what dispute with
> the facts of Fastfission's account?

The facts that he omits.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen
>>Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not,
>>because admins have it in their power to do really really
>>annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks,
>>locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on
>>AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of
>>immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell,
>>a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a
>>bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant
>>allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV
>>align with theirs, etc.
>>
>>
>There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good
>editors, not because they are good at being admins.
>
Some get it because they are better at political games, not because they
are good editors.

>When an admin uses his
>powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time
>to reassess that editor's role in the project.
>
>Having said that, one must also consider the question - what is the highest
>priority? Building an encyclopaedia or having a good working community of
>editors?
>
Of course, building an encyclopedia has first priority, but a good
working community of editors is essential to accomplishing that goal.

Ec


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this worth requesting?

body:
On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At the very least, it would be handy to see the presence of deleted
> edits. Whether or not you should see their content is debatable...

I don't think there can be a debate about it really. If deleted edits are
publically viewable, then personal information, libelous claims, and
copyright violations would be stored forever, for all to see. That's exactly
the opposite of what we use deletion for.

Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Whereas now it's more like, "cite a source, or else someone else
> > will delete your work".
>
> And we were asking for proof that policy was being largely shaped by
> those who work on contentious, war-zone articles?

Which in many ways is understandable, as those who work on
non-contentious articles with like-minded editors don't really need
policy.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> I am somewhat staggered that with the number of times that
> terms like "verifiability" and "no original research" are bandied
> about, we can not as a community agree on two simple matters:
>
> 1. Should we remove material which would be perfectly acceptable in
> Wikipedia if only the (presumed existing) source was actually cited?
> 2. Should we remove material which presents verifiable facts simply
> because those facts have not been published by another source?
>
> In the first case, I'm talking about removing common knowledge or
> non-contentious material which no one is actually disputing.

Such cuts can even descend into vandalism.

>In the
> second, I'm talking about removing information like content of
> computer games, movies, or websites, where sufficient information can
> be given to make it verifiable, but for which no secondary source
> exists.

There is an issue here about 'ephemera', certainly.  Without splitting hairs
too much, it is clear that websites are ephemeral (updates are out of our
control), and even films are released in different cuts, making assertions a
bit harder than might seem.

> These are pretty fundamental questions, but I've only seen a small
> amount of discusson on them (and lots of disagreement about other
> issues which arises from unstated differences of opinion on these
> issues).

Bear in mind that there are the versions we want to present to those who
have been editing for three days; and the versions that will make more sense
to those who have been editing at least three months and seen some
contentious matters come up.  It is highly desirable that no one has to
unlearn anything, in passing from the first to the second.  So it is fine to
say 'don't include your own slant in the article': that doesn't change.  It
is not 'upwardly compatible' to say 'you may cut unsourced claims', while it
is OK to say 'please back up your edits with good sources'.

Charles


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 3/1/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Poking my head in:
>
> I don't have an particular argument, but this whole discussion feels
> very wrong.  Wikipedia should not be acting like a corporation -- it
> is not trying to make a profit; its mission is to spread knowledge.
> Period.
>

The Wikimedia Foundation *is* a corporation, and it should act like
one.  That said, I'd describe the problem here is more a lack of
Wikimedia acting like a corporation.

A corporate response to this would be simple, they'd refer the
situation to their licensing department - not argue about it on a
public mailing list.  A corporation would have a written trademark
licensing policy which any volunteers who want to poke their heads
into things could refer to (the referral Ant gave to
board at wikimedia.org serves nearly the same purpose, though).

Anthony


body:
Are you being facetious?

On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, I smell someone trying to start a controversy here. I don't think
> it's Wikipedias goal to supply internet access to the third world.
> Kind of beyond the scope of our mission.
>
> Steve
>
> On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What, you don't think they should have internet access?
> >
> > On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Really? If so, that's, well, interesting. :) I wonder what Jimbo has
> > > to say on that - he often refers to African communities, without
> > > elaborating much.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] The admin problem

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Delaney

> > > That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem.  For
> the most
> > > part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel
> > > operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have.

> This is basically right, because the people who actually want
> to get stuff done don't want to go through the trouble of
> haggling with process fetishists and the 10% of people who
> oppose everything. Trying to convince everyone that a
> particular action is right is a waste of time. No matter what
> you do, there will always be someone who thinks you should
> have done the opposite. Back-channels are the only way to get
> input from only rational people, and cut out the trolls and so on.

We've been through this before with the notion of an admin-only mailing
list.

Input from trolls and otherwise isn't important and may usually be safely
disregarded. For the most part, they are NOT admins and although they might
SAY something, they will not be able to DO anything. In the case of an
admin-only discussion area, they could not even say anything.

But it is important that admin actions and decisions be as open and honest
as possible, so that all members of the community may be sure that
administrative actions are not dependent on flawed or incomplete or
malicious inputs.

Two analogies spring to mind, neither completely apposite, but good enough.
Although proceedings in chambers, in a closed courtroom, or in the jury room
are not open to the public, the bulk of the judicial process is transparent
and the public may be satisfied that it isn't just a bunch of lawyers in
private nutting out a solution to suit themselves or acting on a whim or
whatever. Likewise, although discussion in caucus or cabinet is private,
debate and voting is conducted in open Parliament, so that voters may see
for themselves how their representatives act.

In neither case do members of the general public get an input except in
limited and controlled circumstances. Statements from the gallery have no
effect and are not recorded in evidence.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] <ref> and {{reference}}

body:
What I want to be able to do is

a) have the reference list automatically generated at the bottom
b) use templates in the body of the text to make references/footnotes
c) be able to use named references so I don't have to type the same
reference info every time i use it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] <ref> and {{reference}}

body:
I think you can do this in the manner described by Phil above, with
<ref>(reference)</ref> inside the article text and then <references/>
in the ==References== section. The probable way to do named references
is to just make sure you type out the full reference once and then
just refer back to it by the author and date. The only upkeep in this,
presumably, would be to make sure that the first reference with that
information in it was not deleted (leaving an unnamed citation
fragment), but that shouldn't be too hard to keep track of.

I've never used the <ref> templates and do agree that some better
documentation could be in order (or at least made easier to find, if
it exists already). I really dislike the {{ref}} and {{note}}
templates, because it's so hard to keep them in sync with the footnote
numbers and very annoying to have to toggle between two separate
sections of an article in order to cite things. Hopefully
<ref></ref><references/> will fix all that! I am optimistic to try it
out.

FF

On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I want to be able to do is
>
> a) have the reference list automatically generated at the bottom
> b) use templates in the body of the text to make references/footnotes
> c) be able to use named references so I don't have to type the same
> reference info every time i use it.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] The new verifiability policy

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/27/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and
>>>encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's
>>>contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
>>>
>>>
>>Agreed.  This is policy wording driven through on the basis of
>>controversial, edit-warred articles.
>>
>>
>
>Here's some further thoughts:
>
>I have only mild disagreements with the "policy in a nutshell":
>
>{{Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints,
>theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have
>already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles
>should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material
>may be challenged and removed.}}
>
>However "The Policy" is a different matter.
>
>a) The Policy says nothing about controversiality.
>b) The Policy says nothing about making challenges.
>c) The Policy says nothing about asking for a verifiable source.
>
>Instead, the policy as stands says that unsourced entries can be
>immediately and officially deleted. The policy should reflect the
>"policy in a nutshell" that *all* editors have a responsibility to
>cite a source whether or not they were the one adding material.
>Removing valid information just because it wasn't sourced smacks of
>distrust of fellow editors and paranoia. I think that both neutrality
>and full sourcing are critical ultimate goals--that is, the Platonic
>Wikipedia is one which is perfectly comprehensive, perfectly written,
>and perfectly sourced. But the Wikipedia in actuality is only an
>imperfect approximation, but as long as the statistical effect of all
>edits is in the right direction, we can be happy (if not satisfied).
>We don't expect that *every edit* improves the encyclopedia, but we
>expect that most will. And our policies should reflect that approach.
>
A precise definition of "reliable and reputable" is also missing.

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mail server blacklisted by SpamCop

body:
For some lovely reason our new mail server has been blacklisted by SpamCop,
allegedly for sending mail to spamtrap addresses. (They provide no details by
policy, of course, so there's no way to verify it.)

Since there's a tiny possibility that the user-to-user email feature actually
could be abused, I've gone ahead and enabled the e-mail confirmation requirement
for using email features. This is a bit annoying for the moment since you have
to do it separately on each wiki.

I've disputed the listing, so hopefully we'll get it removed soonish and those
who aren't getting email will, uh, start getting it again.

-- 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/20060301/636ebffc/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [WikiEN-l] A request on my Talk page

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> Hi. I'm working on KLF discography. To aid with formatting, I created
> two templates. The image thumbnails I am using get passed as arguments
> to the templates. I've noticed that, presumably as a result of the use
> of a template, the Image page doesn't know that the image is being
> used in an article (see e.g. Image:The KLF- Burn The Bastards.jpg).
> I'm worried that some bot will come along and say "right, they're not
> being used", and list them for deletion.

Matt Brown wrote:
> "What links here" for images is already known-unreliable.  A note on
> the image description page should suffice.

It should be perfectly reliable for pages edited since the job queue was deployed, on February 24 or
thereabouts. I'll take any bug report related to link tables very seriously. The problem in this
case appears to be that the cache of the image description pages is not invalidated when the list of
links changes. I'll see if I can fix it right now.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
Katefan0 wrote:

>Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that
>information without a source may be removed.  (Perhaps it should be more
>pointed -- disputed information without a source).  Didn't Jimbo say as much
>in one of his responses to Seigenthaler?
>
Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too
often read as though it were "shall".

Ec


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> There is an issue here about 'ephemera', certainly.  Without splitting hairs
> too much, it is clear that websites are ephemeral (updates are out of our
> control), and even films are released in different cuts, making assertions a
> bit harder than might seem.

Sure, and if that happens, you can reevaluate the information. It
comes down to: Do you believe the information on the page to be true?
Take the example of a fictional pokemon character, Poopy. Say that the
statement is made, "Poopy's character made its debut in episode 13 of
series 6 with the line 'I love cheese'". This may not have been
published in a reliable publication. You may not know whether it's
true or not. And you could probably, without too much effort, track
down series 6 and discover whether the line is correct or not (if not
whether that was indeed the character's debut).

But: Do you think for an instant that the thousands of pokemon fans
that pass through Wikipedia would let that information sit there if it
wasn't?

> Bear in mind that there are the versions we want to present to those who
> have been editing for three days; and the versions that will make more sense
> to those who have been editing at least three months and seen some
> contentious matters come up.  It is highly desirable that no one has to
> unlearn anything, in passing from the first to the second.  So it is fine to
> say 'don't include your own slant in the article': that doesn't change.  It
> is not 'upwardly compatible' to say 'you may cut unsourced claims', while it
> is OK to say 'please back up your edits with good sources'.

Can't we just keep it simple and direct? Anyway I'll have a look at
this latest version that has been proposed and see how it addresses
the problem.

Steve


body:
Ben Yates wrote:
> Poking my head in:
>
> I don't have an particular argument, but this whole discussion feels
> very wrong.  Wikipedia should not be acting like a corporation -- it
> is not trying to make a profit; its mission is to spread knowledge.
> Period.

I *do* understand your argument Ben.
However, there are two points that could not be emphasized enough and
which explain at least Mav and my reaction.

First, Wikipedia mission is to gather knowledge and make it available as
much as possible. However, the name itself is becoming quite famous and
some people (I am not particularly talking about Robert here) or
organisations or corporations are trying to use this fame for their own
benefit. If that benefit is essentially to increase knowledge collection
or knowledge distribution, fine. So much the better. However, some are
trying to use the logo or the brand only to make financial benefits or
are using them in such a way it gives a certain coloring to our project
(which could damage our claim of neutrality). We must avoid this. Which
means we must to a certain extent control the uses made of the
name/logo. This is for our protection and for the protection of our
work. If for some reasons the name becomes associated to a political
party or to a commercial firm, we'll be the losers.

Second. It is not because the content is free of charge and not because
the greatest majority of us working to make that resource and to make it
available are working for FREE, that the whole tower is living of water
and love exclusively. Just as most philantropic activities, it needs
financial input. To the best of my knowledge, we are NOT making profit
of Wikipedia content. We are constantly looking for money to support its
goals. To support the wiki and servers running is a minimum (the ongoing
server purchase is of 140 000 dollars). And to find way to further
distribute content would be better. And this requires money. Better face
it :-)
The organisation (Wikimedia Foundation, not Wikipedia) needs money. And
needs in many ways to be run as a "corporation". That does not mean its
goal is to *make* profit.

Ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] A request on my Talk page

body:
I wrote:
> It should be perfectly reliable for pages edited since the job queue was deployed, on February 24 or
> thereabouts. I'll take any bug report related to link tables very seriously. The problem in this
> case appears to be that the cache of the image description pages is not invalidated when the list of
> links changes. I'll see if I can fix it right now.

Done. Reproduced and fixed.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>On 3/1/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Slim Virgin wrote
>>My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is
>>unsourced, and only because of that.
>>
>>The
>>'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits
>>in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.
>>
>>
>Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being
>bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If
>their edit is correct, why can't they source it?
>
Are they actually refusing to source it.  Or is the material simply
being removed without so much as an attempt to engage in serious dialogue?

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
charles matthews wrote:

>For example, plenty of music theory must exist in this sort of 'limbo'.
>It's just not going to be true that jazz harmony is limited to what one can
>find in the books.
>
I can't be sure if a pun on "limbo" was intended. :-)

Ec


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. There should be more people with
> admin rights.
>

On Wikipedia you have exactly *TWO* rights:

1. The right to leave.
2. The right to fork.

Editing Wikipedia is privilege which we extend to all who do not abuse
it. Once you abuse the editing privilege, you are no longer entitled to
edit.

The same applies to administrative privileges.

--
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: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060301/f26bd0d4/attachment.pgp


body:
Really? If so, that's, well, interesting. :) I wonder what Jimbo has
to say on that - he often refers to African communities, without
elaborating much.

I suppose I'm just considering the lack of infrastructure. Getting
paper copies is one thing. Getting cheap, disposable laptops that
require electricity is a bit harder. But cheap internet access?

Steve

On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Note what I say above about expectations versus goals. I certainly
> would think that having poor African communities editing Wikipedia
> would be a goal of the project.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>
>>On 3/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in
>>>relation to the TIME magazine issue:
>>>
>>
>>No.  I have told you the complete and unvarnished truth.  Do not dare
>>to accuse me of lying.  Do not dare.
>
>
> Don't make Tony Sidaway angry. You wouldn't like Tony Sidaway when
> he's angry...
>
> TONY SMASH!
>

Or worse, a dev will run nukeUser.php and all records that you ever
existed will be wiped from the database...

--
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: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060301/92c2f066/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] Changing interface's language by hacking code

body:
admin Yellowikis wrote:
> Any idea when it will be ready?

A few months, at the earliest, if someone eventually works on it.

-- 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/20060301/caf84819/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen
>>Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not,
>>because admins have it in their power to do really really
>>annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks,
>>locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on
>>AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of
>>immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell,
>>a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a
>>bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant
>>allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV
>>align with theirs, etc.
>
>
> Hear hear!
>
> There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good
> editors, not because they are good at being admins. When an admin uses his
> powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time
> to reassess that editor's role in the project.
>

I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become
admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour
for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the
place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.

> Having said that, one must also consider the question - what is the highest
> priority? Building an encyclopaedia or having a good working community of
> editors?
>

Since the encyclopedia is still being written by humans, having a good
working community of editors is a neccessary evil. Remember, Wikipedia
is a project with a community, not the other way around.

--
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: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060301/59f10771/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>On 3/1/06, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Katefan0 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that
>>>information without a source may be removed.
>>>
>>>
>>Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too
>>often read as though it were "shall".
>>
>>
>We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced
>edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or
>SHOULD be.
>
Of course they're different, but most people don't read with that degree
of precision even though they have been reading English for most of
their lives. When in "The Amazing Race" they say, "The last contestant
to arrive may be eliminated" it sets up an air of uncertainty.  This
situation is not much different.  Obviously, we can't forsee every
possibility that can arise, but the affected contributor needs the
reassurance that the matter will be discussed with him, rather than left
to the whim of some individual admin who may be on some kind of
crusade.  That assurance need not be there with "shall".

Ec


from_name: Minh Nguyen

body:
thomas Armstrong wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'd like to allow users to change Wiki interface's language, by clicking a link,
> instead of modifying their preferences.
>
> I've been browsing the code, and I guess I must change a property of
> $wgContLang, but I don't find which one.
>
> Any suggestion? Thank you very much.

You can tack "?uselang=xx" onto the end of the URL, where xx is the
language code, to display a particular page in xx language. So you could
create links like:

[{{fullurl:Foo|uselang=es}} Foo en espanol]

This approach has a problem, though: the change isn't permanent, so as
soon as the reader clicks on a link at the Foo page, the interface
reverts back to the default language. Perhaps you could modify
[[MediaWiki:Monobook.js]] (and all the other skin scripts) to tack the
uselang parameter onto every URL in the page.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

>> We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced
>> edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or
>> SHOULD be.
>>
> Of course they're different, but most people don't read with that
> degree
> of precision even though they have been reading English for most of
> their lives.

Rules and policies are meant to be written precisely, Ray. They have
precise meanings.

The fact that stunningly large amounts of people have poor reading
comprehension does not detract from this.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
What is the point of a vote when the result of a vote has no
consequences. People who were against voted, they were outvoted. When
they then create a lot of mayhem and nastiness to express their
dissatisfaction should we give in because of that ?

The only thing that might justify NOT creating a Cantonese wikipedia
would be to have another vote because of there having been such a lack
between the vote and the implementation of its result. This is return
would be correct when new insights have come to light. When there are
none, it only shows that voting is evil because not only does it create
divisions, it does not even lead to a conclusion of disputes.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Andrew Lih wrote:
> Please don't create the Cantonese language Wikipedia based simply on
> that vote. It's very old and has been the root of much contention on
> these lists.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>
> On 3/1/06, Henry Li <henrysyli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear developers,
>>
>> Please create the following 13 wikipedia stated in
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
>>
>>     * Dutch Low Saxon
>>     * Vlax Romany
>>     * Ligurian
>>     * Samogitian
>>     * Banyumasan
>>     * Ripuarian
>>     * Pennsylvania German (prototype)
>>     * West Flemish
>>     * Norman
>>     * Franco-Proven?al/Arpitan
>>     * Cantonese
>>     * Tetum
>>     * Kalmyk
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Henry Li
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>