from_name: Viajero

subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy on Reversions?

body:
On 11/20/03  at 02:50 AM, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> said:

> Erik wrote:
> >...
> >A code of honor works well for small projects with
> >like-minded people. Wikipedia is neither small nor
> >like-minded. That's why it needs policies which are
> >actually followed through, and not just a call for
> >WikiLove every now and then. We don't need a
> >WikiGestapo, but we need a certain amount of policy
> >enforcement and clear rules, and that's just not
> >happening. As a result, NPOV is mostly theoretical for
> >many of the controversial articles on Wikipedia.

> Sadly, I think you are right. Bureaucracy expansion.... Hm.

Any such heterogenous community needs structure but that needn't, IMHO,
imply "bureaucracy" which to me implies hierarchy and a convoluted
decision-making process. To avoid hierarchy, we need to ensure that
"power" remains a temporary priviledge and individuals don't develop
vested interests in having it. Likewise, decision-making needs to be
transparent without becoming the kind of public airing of dirty laundry
that [[Problem users]] now is.

> One possible idea:
> Somebody mentioned a "3 revert" rule where anything more than 3 reverts
> in an  article content dispute by any party (not to be confused with
> reverting  simple vandalism), is grounds for a warning. If within a
> certain amount of  time, say a month, they go pass 3 reverts on the same
> article again, then  they get a final warning. Strike three in the same
> month and they are banned  from editing for a week. After that they can
> come back on probation (3 months  long maybe?). At that point: 1
> probation violation gets an automatic 1 week  editing ban, second one
> gets 2 weeks and the third gets them a HardBan for at  least the
> duration of their probation period.

These rules seem kind of complicated at first glance but are probably a
step in the right direction. However,  some entity needs to *make* these
decisions (it can't all be coded in software!). A subset of sysops would
be the most obvious choice, but, as I suggested in an earlier post, a
small rotating team of three or five would be preferable so as to prevent
the appearance of WP being dominated by a small clique.

> But we also need a way to resolve disputes.

Yes, something urgently needs to supercede [[Problem users]], which is
currently the only recourse now available. What happened to the mediation
and arbitration teams discussed here a few months ago?

V.


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Transwiki

body:
Peter Gervai wrote:

>Ec, your mails are little dissertations itself. :-)
>
I don't know if that's good or bad.  People don't like reading long
eMails, but I like to cover many possibilities. :-)

>On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:45:52AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>Peter Gervai wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:52:54AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>
>>>>Although some of us would like to encourage other-language Wiktionaries,
>>>>so far only the English version exists.  If you have somebody who likes
>>>>writing up dictionary articles in Hungarian, maybe you can convince him
>>>>to start a Hungarian Wiktionary. :-)
>>>>
>>>Well, not that anyone would allocate time for that, but newbies usually
>>>create dictionary entries (in Hungarian), and would be useful to keep them
>>>instead of deleting. If a hu.wiktionary doesn't require much space or
>>>resources it would be nice, even if there would be only 46 articles a
>>>year...
>>>
>>All the wikis start small. :-)   Once the opportunity is presented, some
>>people will just naturally feel more comfortable working on a dictionary
>>
>[...]
>
>The basic question is whether it could be started now, because there are
>already entries, and that whether there is a planned solution for the
>language-crisscrossing.
>
Of course it should.  Since the software for hu:wikipedia is already in
place, most of it will likely remain the same for hu:wiktionary.  It
would surprise me if more than 10% would need changing.

In practical terms the language-crisscrossing issues may be imposible to
solve as long as Wiktionary only exists in one language.  I would
guessed that the second wiktionary would be in a language that is more
accessible to English readers (French, German, Spanish etc.)  Hungarian
will be full of wonderful challenges for us; at least it uses Latin
script. :-)

>Like, um, let me conjure some ideas,
>
>An article:
>Dog: blah
>[[xl:en:Dog]] (xl = cross language template insert, en = use english word as
>index)
>
>Would render on english:
>Dog: blah
>* German: Hund
>* Hungarian: kutya
>...
>
>Would render on hungarian:
>Dog: blah
>* Net: Hund
>* Magyar: kutya
>...
>
This is exactly what would happen.

>where the page [[tpl:en:Dog]] would say:
>* [[de:Hound]]
>* [[hu:kutya]]
>
>(and [[tpl:hu:kutya]] is just a redirect/symlink to [[tpl:en:Dog]]).
>
This seems to suggest a completely separate article that serves as a
kind of server for the concept.  My guess is that it wouldn't work, and
that it probably is not needed ... but I could be wrong.

>Just brainstorming.
>
Let's hope there is enough (en)lightening for people to see. :-)

>>The en:wiktionary currently show a translation for "dog" into 72 other
>>languages.  This is far more than for most words. It also gives an
>>English meaning for the Dutch word "dog".  There is a brief entry for
>>"kutya" showing it as the Hungarian word for "dog".  That entry also
>>shows the translation of "kutya" into Dutch.  I personally don't believe
>>that the Dutch rendering should be on the "kutya" article,
>>
>
>To me it looks logical to have redirect [[kutya]] to [[dog]], and [[dog]]
>informing us that "kutya" is the hungarian equivalent.
>
Redirects may only be useful in an environment of very few languages, or
with words that have a clear one-to-one corelation.  Each language has
complexities of its own.  That's why I recommend that the primary task
of each language Wiktionary should be to develop itself for the benefit
of people who speak that language.  There is a danger in being too na?ve
about the nature of translation.  That's why machine translations can so
often make us laugh, or you can tell when somebody used a dictionary too
much to produce a translation.

>>I see three functions for the LOCAL Wiktionary:
>>   1. Provide detailed definitions  of LOCAL words in LOCAL lang for
>>LOCAL speakers.
>>   2. Provide translations of LOCAL words into an indefinite number
>>of languages.
>>
>(my template thingy above helps that.)
>
>>   3. Provide entries for words in any foreign language for LOCAL
>>speakers.
>>
>(redirects help that.)
>
What makes redirects unusable is that a same word may be used in several
languages.  Hund is also used in Danish, Swedish and Norwegian but
without the capital letter.  Several slavic languages use "pes" (which
would mean "foot" in Latin); several other languages use "can" which as
a noun in English may mean a tin for storing cooked vegetables.

>I changed it to LOCAL, so, yes, basically that makes sense.
>
OK


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki installer ideas

body:
Just a quick note to say I created a meta page:

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installer_ideas

Our installation system needs improvement. I have written down some of
my ideas for how it could be improved. Feel free to add some of your own.

-- Tim Starling.


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Transwiki

body:
Ec, your mails are little dissertations itself. :-)

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:45:52AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Peter Gervai wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:52:54AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >
> >>Peter Gervai wrote:
> >>
> >>Although some of us would like to encourage other-language Wiktionaries,
> >>so far only the English version exists.  If you have somebody who likes
> >>writing up dictionary articles in Hungarian, maybe you can convince him
> >>to start a Hungarian Wiktionary. :-)
> >>
> >Well, not that anyone would allocate time for that, but newbies usually
> >create dictionary entries (in Hungarian), and would be useful to keep them
> >instead of deleting. If a hu.wiktionary doesn't require much space or
> >resources it would be nice, even if there would be only 46 articles a
> >year...
> >
> All the wikis start small. :-)   Once the opportunity is presented, some
> people will just naturally feel more comfortable working on a dictionary
[...]

The basic question is whether it could be started now, because there are
already entries, and that whether there is a planned solution for the
language-crisscrossing.

Like, um, let me conjure some ideas,

An article:
Dog: blah
[[xl:en:Dog]] (xl = cross language template insert, en = use english word as
index)

Would render on english:
Dog: blah
* German: Hound
* Hungarian: kutya
...

Would render on hungarian:
Dog: blah
* N?met: Hound
* Magyar: kutya
...

where the page [[tpl:en:Dog]] would say:
* [[de:Hound]]
* [[hu:kutya]]

(and [[tpl:hu:kutya]] is just a redirect/symlink to [[tpl:en:Dog]]).

Just brainstorming.

> The en:wiktionary currently show a translation for "dog" into 72 other
> languages.  This is far more than for most words. It also gives an
> English meaning for the Dutch word "dog".  There is a brief entry for
> "kutya" showing it as the Hungarian word for "dog".  That entry also
> shows the translation of "kutya" into Dutch.  I personally don't believe
> that the Dutch rendering should be on the "kutya" article,

To me it looks logical to have redirect [[kutya]] to [[dog]], and [[dog]]
informing us that "kutya" is the hungarian equivalent.

> I see three functions for the LOCAL Wiktionary:
>    1. Provide detailed definitions  of LOCAL words in LOCAL lang for
> LOCAL speakers.
>    2. Provide translations of LOCAL words into an indefinite number
> of languages.

(my template thingy above helps that.)

>    3. Provide entries for words in any foreign language for LOCAL
> speakers.

(redirects help that.)

I changed it to LOCAL, so, yes, basically that makes sense.

> understanding of any of those languages.  Briefly, you are limited in
> what you can do by the time you have available, and there is never any
> obligation to do more than that.  Providing the perfectionist's depth
> across a large breadth of languages is often simply impossible.

Technical help may make it consume less labour. Maybe.

grin


list: wikien-l

from_name: Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mediators

body:
Why do we even need mediators? Is there some problem which we have been unable to resolve? Yes, we have edit wars...and we resolve them. Mediators might "solve" edit wars easily, if I were the only editor Id solve them pretty quick too. What's the rush? Just relax and accept the fact that arguments are inevitable -- some "mediator" isn't going to solve the issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031120/8ca683cd/attachment.htm


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mediators (Re:Cmahan)

body:
--- Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] <[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com> wrote:
> *Mediator can say: You stay in your corner and you in yours,
> otherwise
> I'll go get Dwarf-Lord Jimbo
>
> **But we can all do this anyways. Ive got Jimbo's email in my
> address book -- we could all spam Jimbo all day long. Why do we
> need to create an official "super-sysop" position? >

But do we?

And is the threat pretty hollow since, like you said, jimbo could be
spammed by all of us?

But if there are 3 or 4 "Mediators" who can temp-ban you until Jimbo
comes around to review, then edit-warmongers might sit up and take
notice, knowing these are people whom Jimbo will listen to
attentively, having himself appointed them?

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

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Where went the difference between mediator and
	arbitrator ?

body:
I read you mail/proposition with interest Erik, but I
have a few questions on points which are not clear to
me. I ask in case I should have to ask for mediation
again one day, which I do not plan on an article
anyway :-)

>That being said, I think nominations should be
public, >and should be voted
>on, because this is really a matter where community
>opinion matters. We
>don't need consensus, but we need something very
>roughly like it
>85-90%
>support). Basically like the Requests for Adminship
>page.

Does that mean that only those listed on the mediator
list will be authorized to act as mediator, or may
other people go on just as usual ?

If other people are still authorized to mediate, when
(or how) is it decided that a non-registered mediator
can go on, or that he should drop the matter to leave
room to the official team ?

Who call the team ?

May the team (or one member of the team) be somehow
"forced" onto a unwilling partisan ? What will happen
if one of the opponent is not willing to see the case
be handled by someone with whom he had some
disagreement sooner ?

>The mediation team should, in my opinion, be allowed
>to make *binding*
>decisions by consensus, and recommendations to Jimbo
>by majority vote.

I remember Alex explanations of the difference between
mediator and arbitrator. Is not what you suggest
"arbitration" ? If so, could it not have an
unfavorable impact on the mediation act itself that
mediation and arbitration are confused ?

Will the partisan feel confortable with the mediator
if he knows this one is gonna judge him somehow,
rather than just trying to improve communication with
the opponents ?

>This includes most of the decisions Jimbo usually
>makes that relate to the
>enforcement of Wikipedia policy through bans,
warnings >etc. But of course they should try to avoid
using >these measures when possible.

So, when we will vote for mediator names, we will a
bit vote in reality for those who will make banning
decisions ?

I am not excited in this idea very much. I give an
example : let's say I am in an edit war with someone,
and Vicky comes along to try to help us both. I do not
know Vicky really; Why should I feel confident with
her, trying to work with her, if I know at the same
time she has the power to ban me if I am relunctant to
accept her proposition ?

The team
>should be large enough so that some members are
always >available within a
>span of 3 or 4 days.

Yes, of course. Probably available much sooner is
best.

>They could use a closed mailing list, mediation-l,
>where non-members can only post but not read. Their
>decisions would be posted on the appropriate
>talk page. Team members personally involved in a
>debate should recuse themselves for obvious reasons.
>Conflicts within the mediation team (e.g.
>"Person <x> makes consensus decisions impossible")
>should be resolved  mostly internally, with Jimbo's
>help, and taken public if necessary.

Here, I think this is really bad. Wikipedia process
should be transparent. Not hidden. It is wrong that
such decisions are not public.

That an arbitration team render "justice" privately is
already something I consider wrong. Judgements should
be public. That this team be also a mediation team at
the same time is wrong as well to my opinion. Because
mediation rely first of all on trust. What you propose
is not likely to generate trust I fear.

Also, Erik, you know quite well the 4 people you
propose, because you and them have been there for a
long time. But I fear that not only old hands are
included in conflicts. Also more recent users. I have
problem conceiving that a rather recent user finding
himself in a conflict is told "here is your mediator,
trust him, talk to him, when you have said all you
wanted, if you did not agree with the opponent, he
will secretely talk about the matter with some other
people somewhere else, and perhaps you will be blocked
by their decision". Ihmo, there is something wrong
here.
Also, I fear that since they will be given the right
to ban people, I fear that other users will not have
the "right" to give their opinion on the matter (since
it will be decided on a private list).

It is a bit as if, in the way of voting for mediator
to help with conflict, we will actually vote for those
who will take decisions for us.

If not, I understood nothing of your proposition.

>So there you have it -- an actual plan that can be
>implemented within
>days. All it needs is some kind of official go-ahead,
>and we can start
>voting/discussing who we want to put in those seats.
I >wonder if anyone
>actually reads my mails this far or if I could just
>write gibberish at
>this point. The quick brown fox jumped over the
yellow >chicken and
>caused
>a warp core breach in the process.

Changing the power structure in a matter of days ? Is
not that a bit quick ?

I think there are *very* good points in the way you
laid out the needs; people suggested are good. But I
think the idea of moving toward a structure where 4/5
people hold power while others do not, and where
decisions are taken with no transparency is not.

>Cordially,

Regards

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Download German wikipedia *including* images

body:
At
http://download.wikipedia.org/DE-Wikipedia-Setup_20031022.exe
you can download Window$ installer file (~200MB) that will set up a
local copy of the German wikipedia (plus images) using my C++ parser and
the tinyweb server. It also works as an offline editor (with preview),
but there's no auto-sync mechanism yet. Also, you get a (fulltext!)
search and a random-page function.

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Download German wikipedia *including* images

body:
Hold your breath, upload's not finished yet. Should be done at 16:00
German time. Sorry.

Magnus

Magnus Manske wrote:

> At
> http://download.wikipedia.org/DE-Wikipedia-Setup_20031022.exe
> you can download Window$ installer file (~200MB) that will set up a
> local copy of the German wikipedia (plus images) using my C++ parser and
> the tinyweb server. It also works as an offline editor (with preview),
> but there's no auto-sync mechanism yet. Also, you get a (fulltext!)
> search and a random-page function.
>
> Magnus
>


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Transwiki

body:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:14:29PM +0100, Peter Gervai wrote:
> * German: Hound

It's Hund

ciao, tom
--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
   / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mediators (Re:Cmahan)

body:
*Mediator can say: You stay in your corner and you in yours, otherwise
I'll go get Dwarf-Lord Jimbo

**But we can all do this anyways. Ive got Jimbo's email in my address book -- we could all spam Jimbo all day long. Why do we need to create an official "super-sysop" position?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031120/a74d50af/attachment.htm


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Who's a good mediator?

body:
With discussion about mediation going on again, off again, maybe we should
ask ourselves what kind of people we want to do the job, besides Ed who
regularly reminds us that *he* wants to do it. Seeing that I have a
reputation for spreading peace and justice on Wikipedia even among morons
and pathological liars, I think I am well qualified to lay out the
criteria needed for achieving the ultimate WikiHarmony. My initial thought
was to kick out all the Republicans, but I'm not sure if Jimbo would
authorize a vote on that.

So who is qualified to mediate in disputes? I think the following
attributes are crucial:
- mostly refrains from editing controversial articles because they seek
harmony or just want to get work done
- is patient and willing to listen, but also wants to make decisions
- keeps strong personal opinions and beliefs mostly to themselves
- uses clear, non-offensive language (this rules out using a Perl script)
- treats each act of mediation as a new one, i.e. forgives and forgets

Perhaps most importantly, a good mediator is accepted by the entire
community and has Jimbo's stamp of approval on his forehead in biblical
fashion.

Realistically, we probably won't find someone who meets all these
criteria. People have flaws. That's why we won't want to have a single
mediator but a team. But we probably don't want to have people on it who
fail on all or most of these counts (and I do include myself here, because
I consider myself more of a truth seeker than a harmony seeker).

That being said, I think nominations should be public, and should be voted
on, because this is really a matter where community opinion matters. We
don't need consensus, but we need something very roughly like it (85-90%
support). Basically like the Requests for Adminship page.

To get the ball rolling, I support the following people as mediators:
- Ed Poor (obviously). I think he would do a great job in a team. He does
have strong beliefs and participates in controversial articles, but he
mostly comes across as benevolent and understanding.
- Daniel Mayer (Mav). While he can be a bit brusque, he is incredibly
dedicated, pragmatic and gets things done. He would definitely be a
valuable team member.
- Martin Harper (MyRedDice). I personally think he could do the job alone
if given the authority, but he's a bit too bold in editing to have *that*
much support. I do think he is very impartial and goal-oriented, and even
if you disagree with some of the things he does, he should be involved in
the mediation process.
- Vicki Rosenzweig. She declined one of my requests for mediation because
she thought she was too partial and the subject too complex, if I remember
correctly. Being able to reflect on your own involvement is really healthy
and important, and she could prevent the team from becoming too cocky (no
pun intended).
- The Cunctator - ha, ha, just kidding.

The mediation team should, in my opinion, be allowed to make *binding*
decisions by consensus, and recommendations to Jimbo by majority vote.
This includes most of the decisions Jimbo usually makes that relate to the
enforcement of Wikipedia policy through bans, warnings etc. But of course
they should try to avoid using these measures when possible. The team
should be large enough so that some members are always available within a
span of 3 or 4 days.

They could use a closed mailing list, mediation-l, where non-members can
only post but not read. Their decisions would be posted on the appropriate
talk page. Team members personally involved in a debate should recuse
themselves for obvious reasons. Conflicts within the mediation team (e.g.
"Person <x> makes consensus decisions impossible") should be resolved
mostly internally, with Jimbo's help, and taken public if necessary.

So there you have it -- an actual plan that can be implemented within
days. All it needs is some kind of official go-ahead, and we can start
voting/discussing who we want to put in those seats. I wonder if anyone
actually reads my mails this far or if I could just write gibberish at
this point. The quick brown fox jumped over the yellow chicken and caused
a warp core breach in the process.

Cordially,

Erik the Red


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] EN SQL Dump Problem

body:
On Nov 20, 2003, at 10:24, Stuart Ayre wrote:

> I can't seem to download the english SQL dump
>
> http://download.wikipedia.org/archives/en/20031116_old_table.sql.bz2
>
> getting the message:
> "Forbidden You don't have permission"
>
> is there a problem?

The file is slightly over 2 gigabytes which seems to have confused
Apache, which now refuses to send it out. If I can't resolve it soon,
I'll split the file in two smaller chunks.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031120/66c12535/attachment.pgp>


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Documenting locale translation. (Was: The vietnamese
	Wikipedia have to use Unicode)

body:
On Nov 20, 2003, at 09:28, Aliter wrote:
> On 12-11-2003 you (Brion Vibber) wrote:
> BV> For woefully underdocumented info on translating the interface,
> see:
> BV> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locales_for_the_Wikipedia_Software
>
> Would that page be the right place for adding translation help or is
> there a
> more appropriate one?

That'd be a great place, yeah.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031120/7c327d85/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia public relations

body:
Three points:

o Unesco
o TakingItGlobal
o Google AdSense

I was thinking the other day that the goals of
Wikipedia are in line with those of Unesco and I was
wondering if we could somehow try to become officially
connected with Unesco to gain a better reputation.  We
might also be able to get significant financial grants
from them in this way.

Also, I think it would good if we could put the
Wikipedia project and the Wikimedia foundation in the
TakingItGlobal database which is a database for
activists, so that we can connect.  TIG works as an
umbrella organization for other non-profits.

I know people are going to yell at me, but I think
Google AdSense would produce an incredible amount of
money for the project.  We could show them to
anonymous users and people who log in could turn them
off if they wanted.  Well anyway, it's just a
suggestion, don't bite my head off.

So, what do you think?

Chuck

=====
We are the Esperanto speakers who say "Ni!"
http://www.esperantomobilo.org/

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Informaci?n de Estados Unidos y Am?rica Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Vis?tanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] EN SQL Dump Problem

body:
On Nov 20, 2003, at 15:15, Brion Vibber wrote:
> The file is slightly over 2 gigabytes which seems to have confused
> Apache, which now refuses to send it out. If I can't resolve it soon,
> I'll split the file in two smaller chunks.

Ok, for the meantime:

http://download.wikipedia.org/archives/en/xaa
http://download.wikipedia.org/archives/en/xab

cat xaa xab > 20031116_old_table.sql.bz2
or
cat xaa xab | bzip2 -dc | mysql .....

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031120/bd45502f/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Current Events Format (was: Reddi's POV edits of Current
	Events)

body:
This discussion of the Current Events page reminds me of a question
concerning its preent format.

Once upon a time (okay, a couple of weeks ago), there were links from
the current version of the [[Current Events]] page to previous months.
Last night, I went looking for these older Current Events pages to
update the Enron Timeline (I was feeling guilty that I made several
additions to it that were perhaps too tightly focussed on one of
its subsidiaries -- Portland General Electric -- & wanted to broaden
its coverage), but could not find links to those pages.

Was there a discussion to stop archiving them, am I just incapable
of finding the links to them, or did a herd of etherbunnies hop into
Wikipedia one night & devour them all? (And if the last case is
what happened, is there a way to use hungry etherbunnies as a
force for good?)

Geoff


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reddi's POV edits of Current Events

body:
James,

Try saying, "How's that again?"

Ed Poor


from_name: Dan Carlson

subject:
[Wikitech-l] How do I install MediaWiki using only FTP and HTTP
	access?

body:
(I apologize if people are receiving this message twice -- I sent it
out earlier, but I don't think that it was posted to the list.)

I am looking to create my own wikiwiki website using the MediaWiki
software, but I'm uncertain as to how I should proceed, because I do
not have access to the command line.  I first attempted to have my
host's support people run the install.php script for me, but they ran
into errors and told me that they ran into errors when they ran the
script from the backend, and to look for errors in the code.  (You'll
have to forgive my ignorance here -- I'm pretty good with websites, but
server management isn't something I know anything about yet!)

So, I'm looking for a way to install MediaWiki and set up my site using
nothing but FTP upload, phpMyAdmin access (full admin/dba permissions),
and a normal Web browser.  Can anyone provide some assistance with
this?

Thank you,
Dan Carlson


from_name: Alex T.

body:
From: "Anthere" <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>

<...snip...>

Does that mean that only those listed on the mediator
> list will be authorized to act as mediator, or may
> other people go on just as usual ?

Mediation is a consensual process, there is nothing stopping
two editors who are at loggerheads from asking someone to
mediate their differences and try to come to a consensual
conclusion.

> If other people are still authorized to mediate, when
> (or how) is it decided that a non-registered mediator
> can go on, or that he should drop the matter to leave
> room to the official team ?

I think that what is being suggested is not really mediation,
but it is arbitration, called mediation.

> Who call the team ?

Once again, in some contexts mediators can be chosen or
even authorized to mediate (some courts have mediation
programs), but that never stops parties who cannot
agree from mediating and coming to a compromise.

<...snip..>
> >The mediation team should, in my opinion, be allowed
> >to make *binding*
> >decisions by consensus, and recommendations to Jimbo
> >by majority vote.
>
> I remember Alex explanations of the difference between
> mediator and arbitrator. Is not what you suggest
> "arbitration" ? If so, could it not have an
> unfavorable impact on the mediation act itself that
> mediation and arbitration are confused ?
>
> Will the partisan feel confortable with the mediator
> if he knows this one is gonna judge him somehow,
> rather than just trying to improve communication with
> the opponents ?

Once again, yes Anthere, you are right, this is really arbitration,
not mediation. It might be called mediation arbitration where
the mediator turns into an arbiter at some point, but calling
it mediation is not only confusing, I think it is misleading to
someone who comes upon this process for the first time (i.e.
a newbie who finds hierself in what s/he thinks is mediation,
only to discover, much too late, that it is arbitration).

 <...snip...>

> So, when we will vote for mediator names, we will a
> bit vote in reality for those who will make banning
> decisions ?
>
> I am not excited in this idea very much. I give an
> example : let's say I am in an edit war with someone,
> and Vicky comes along to try to help us both. I do not
> know Vicky really; Why should I feel confident with
> her, trying to work with her, if I know at the same
> time she has the power to ban me if I am relunctant to
> accept her proposition ?

Good point, it is really arbitration in this scenario, and in
such a case you shouuld at least have some ability to chose
amongst a few arbitrators, or, if not, they should be well
qualified to fulfil their roles as arbitrators and should be
appointed through some legitimate process.

<..snip..>

> That an arbitration team render "justice" privately is
> already something I consider wrong. Judgements should
> be public. That this team be also a mediation team at
> the same time is wrong as well to my opinion. Because
> mediation rely first of all on trust. What you propose
> is not likely to generate trust I fear.

Hear, hear (or here, here!).

<...snip...>
> >So there you have it -- an actual plan that can be
> >implemented within
> >days. All it needs is some kind of official go-ahead,
> >and we can start
> >voting/discussing who we want to put in those seats.
> I >wonder if anyone
> >actually reads my mails this far or if I could just
> >write gibberish at
> >this point. The quick brown fox jumped over the
> yellow >chicken and
> >caused
> >a warp core breach in the process.
>
> Changing the power structure in a matter of days ? Is
> not that a bit quick ?
>
> I think there are *very* good points in the way you
> laid out the needs; people suggested are good. But I
> think the idea of moving toward a structure where 4/5
> people hold power while others do not, and where
> decisions are taken with no transparency is not.
>
> >Cordially,

Mediation and arbitration are legal issues, or at least they
are issues that have an essential legal component (i.e. they
effect the legal rights of volunteer/editors/members of the
Wikimedia community. As such IMHO they should be
discussed on the wikilegal-l list, I am cross posting this
there.

Alex756 concurs with Anthere


from_name: Stuart Ayre

subject: [Wikitech-l] EN SQL Dump Problem

body:
I can't seem to download the english SQL dump

http://download.wikipedia.org/archives/en/20031116_old_table.sql.bz2

getting the message:
"Forbidden You don't have permission"

is there a problem?

or is there anywhere else I can get the dump?

Stuart

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends?  Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Switching everything to UTF-8 (Peter)

body:
From: Peter Gervai <grin at tolna.net>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Switching everything to

Hi Peter, that was a long and interesting message.

I thought of perhaps adding a couple of words to
complete what you wrote.

>What was the memory footprint of opera 4,5 or
whatever
>you use? What browser do you use regularly, under
what
>operating system? How much memory do you have?

>I just checked: opera 7.21 uses 35MB virtual (20MB
>resident) memory, I believe this is not outrageous
>for a graphical browser. (Latest opera is 6.03 for
>Mac as far as I see, but I won't downgrade mine.)

I will first reassure you, I finally found a solution
with Netscape 7.02. Not perfect (slow in particular,
and sometimes unexpectedly crash, but that was my best
option). My mac is a 128 mo, and I use a bit of
virtual memory. System 9.04. I can't check memory
requirement of Opera 6. It was so desastrous I put it
in the trashcan. Netscape 7 is currently at 53 Mo.
Opera 5 is at 25 Mo. The system is at 34 Mo. IRC at
nearly 1 Mo. And Photoshop is at 47 Mo...hum...I would
have said Photoshop would require more than Netscape.
Curious. But no images are open. I get in trouble when
on top I open QuarkXPress and Canvas :-)

>> The upgrade is perfectly ok if you have a recent
>> computer. But you cannot expect every user to have
so.
>> There was a big campaign about 4 years ago in
France,
>> and many many people bought some imacs.

>That's a problem. I can't tell you about Mac
browsers,
>apart from the fact that I see "Mac OS/X" (whatever
it
>might be) in Mozilla download pages. Don't Mac have
>any more recent browsers than Opera 6.03 or Netscape
>4.xx? (I see netscape 6.2.xx for MacPPC.)

OS 9 is the previous system. X is the new one.
Requires quite a bit of memory. Running system X on my
computer would be problematic. Many machines are still
in OS 9. Opera 6 is the most recent one. Netscape 7 as
well. And there are plenty of good browsers, but they
work only on X. The jump between 9 and X was
...well... it is really different.

>I'm sure you going to have troubles with that "fine
>for internet" soon. dmoz.org is going to be changed
>to utf-8 "real soon now" (see
>http://dmoz.org/Test/World/
>utf8 categories, like Catalan or Arabian), and most
>international project are either already utf-8
>or going to be soon.

As I said, I solved the problem. What I fear is that
most people I know who bought macintosh around 3 to 4
years, are usually quite "unable" with computers, and
have no idea how to upgrade a browser or a system.
They really do not. It is no joke. These people use
the computer they brought from the shop, and they do
not change anything on it, unless they have a nephew
able to fix the stuff for them. They will keep the
computer as is, till the they change it because the
dvd reader is dead because kids put chewing gum in it.

These people are also our public. Better even, as far
as I am concerned, they are the people I try to reach
to be editors.

Also, some people only have access to computers in
public libraries (there are two in my city...computers
in the main library I mean...not much he ?), or in
school (there are more in my kids school than in the
library).

Most of these computers are *not* changed very often
(understatement). Even in universities. Students do
not pay very expensive fees for their studies, the
drawback is that material is not great, not replaced
often.

Though I am quite a joke in computer stuff, I was the
one who explain my daughter teacher how to use her
computer last year; she have some pedagogic games for
the kids on it. Good stuff. The least I can say, the
computer was not brand new...but it was connected to
internet. Just seeing how she approached the "thing",
I can tell you she won't upgrade the stuff. Which does
not mean she will not show the kids great stuff.

But I think she, and the kids, are also our public,
and perhaps our editors.

>Can your browser edit utf-8 articles which does NOT
>contain non-latin1 characters?

>> I know it is not possible for these users to use
>Opera
>> 6, and not possible to switch to system X.

>I believe you, but then, they are in a dead end, and
>they can expect more and more problems as unicode
>gets used more widely. usemod wikis just being
changed
>to utf-8, we'll see what happens.

They are not in a dead end, they are just "old"
computers. Newer ones do not have problems.

>Come:
http://narya.grin.hu/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UniCodeTest

>Edit, enter your browser and opsys, and see what
>happens.

I did. Of course, this will work well, since my
browser is now working.

Peter, *my* problem is solved now, or I promise I
would be screaming with the idea of switching the
french wikipedia utf 8 *now*.

All what I say is that there are still people with
these, and I really do not feel like telling them, "go
away". That is all I mean.

>> I do not understand that comment.

>If the iso8859-1 encoded page contains illegal
>characters,
>it breaks if you edit it with a standards compliant
>browser.

I did a good old edit with my favorite browser on your
test page as well :-))))

>> > Can you figure manually correcting each time
after >a
>> user ?

>Well, I'd revert it and tell the user to use a
>different
>browser. :-/

I understand. This is not a good option to my opinion,
but I am sure Brion and co will find a good solution
that will be acceptable to all of us :-)

>> and perhaps those editing
>> wikipedia right now are people technically better
>> equipped that the average human being connected to
>> internet,

>Definitely, if you count in the Albanian orphans and
>the chinese peasants.

Hum...about 6 months ago, I was at the technical level
of an albanian orphan then :-)

I could perhaps launch a subscription for a new
computer ?

>Otherwise no. I can run opera well on a pentium 233
>with
>32 MB of memory (and on 16MB either, but it's much
>slower).
>How much is a P233 nowadays? $10? (convert to FFR at
>will :))

Peter...we are in euros...

Peter...I have no idea what a P233 is. I suppose
memory. But in truth, Peter, some people just *do not
know anything* about all this.

>Most end-users are using windoze, and it is well
>equipped
>with utf-8 conform browsers.

I would regret it if we gave another motive for
windows to win over other systems :-)

>I stay silent, and let the old timers decide. If I
can
>be any technical help, I'll start talking again.

I do as well, because I can't help at all :-(

>Hoping the best,
>Peter

Thanks Peter :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Mirko Thiessen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Who's a good mediator?

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> So there you have it -- an actual plan that can be implemented within
> days. All it needs is some kind of official go-ahead, and we can start
> voting/discussing who we want to put in those seats. I wonder if anyone
> actually reads my mails this far or if I could just write gibberish at
> this point. The quick brown fox jumped over the yellow chicken and caused
> a warp core breach in the process.

Yes, we do read your mails, and this definitely does not sound like
gibberish. I support these ideas, and we should give it a try.

FYI: The "hero who got Nico and Szopen to kiss and make up" (to use
Ed's words) was Kosebamse (who would be my first nomination for a
mediation team).

Mirko.


from_name: Aliter

body:
Hello,
On 12-11-2003 you (Brion Vibber) wrote:

BV> For woefully underdocumented info on translating the interface, see:
BV> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locales_for_the_Wikipedia_Software

Would that page be the right place for adding translation help or is there a
more appropriate one?
I'm sure most of the translators gain experience personally, by making the
mistakes themselves that they could pass on to those who as yeet havve to
go through this. (And I wouldn't mind the opportunity to see what I missed
myself either.)

Sincerely,
--
Aliter


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Switching everything to UTF-8

body:
Hello,

On 18-11-2003 you (Erik Moeller) wrote:

> Tomasz-
>> * broken browsers - they should be upgraded, if someone has browser so
>> old
>>             that it doesn't grok UTF-8, it's not going to grok CSS,
>>             PNGs, and other things we're using either.
>>             Unless we want to remove all CSS and PNGs, there's
>>             no point in not using UTF-8.

> Is this true?

No, it isn't. Though in some bowserd these developments were in the same
timeframe, in others they weren't. It also ignores two other obvious
points:

- Without CSS a page should stll be readable. Without PNG a page should
still be readable. Mess up the encoding and the page becomes a rebus, at
best.

- The gift of looking through the Ethernet wires and telephone cables into
all the computer rooms in the world is sufficiently rare that one should
never demand a user to upgrade. Feel free to tell the user you're too lazy
to support their software but blaming the break on them is quite insulting.

So, what are our plans of doing this in a way that will allow the W to
adapt, so as to not drive away anyone?

EM> All I know is that we had a *lot* of problems with broken
EM> special chars on the Meta-Wiki during the logo contest. I have no idea
EM> which browser broke them, but it seems to be a not totally uncommon one,
EM> perhaps in the 5% range. Given that a single edit by such a person will
EM> break an entire page, it might not be so wise to switch (but perhaps I'm
EM> missing something -- is Meta running UTF-8?).

We, Fy:, are having this problem now, but here it appears it has something
to do with our language files. One language file is OK, though the
localisation is less than perfect, the next improved version is not.

(There are also still some English-language strings that I can't seem to
find in the language-file, but that's probably another matter.)

Sincerely,
--
Aliter


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Switching everything to UTF-8


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mediators (Re:Cmahan)

body:
> From: Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:14:58 -0800 (PST)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mediators (Re:Cmahan)
>
>
> --- Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] <[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com> wrote:
>> *Mediator can say: You stay in your corner and you in yours,
>> otherwise
>> I'll go get Dwarf-Lord Jimbo
>>
>> **But we can all do this anyways. Ive got Jimbo's email in my
>> address book -- we could all spam Jimbo all day long. Why do we
>> need to create an official "super-sysop" position? >
>
> But do we?
>
> And is the threat pretty hollow since, like you said, jimbo could be
> spammed by all of us?
>
> But if there are 3 or 4 "Mediators" who can temp-ban you until Jimbo
> comes around to review, then edit-warmongers might sit up and take
> notice, knowing these are people whom Jimbo will listen to
> attentively, having himself appointed them?
>
> =====
> Christopher Mahan

Heh, maybe he's not fool enough to do that.

Fred


from_name: James Duffy

body:
>James-
>
> > Reddi had added many links to [[Current events]]. Most are OK but s/he
>has a
> > habit of adding highly questionable stuff -
>
>Your analysis is correct and I have had conflicts with Reddi over this in
>the past. He replied with an incomprehensible block of text (and also has
>the annoying habit of removing a comment when replying to it).

So true, Erik. I can never make head nor tail of these 'mysterious' replies!

>On the
>other hand, he is/was one of the most active editors on CE, so I think we
>should make reasonable efforts to work with him.
>
>Reddi has good intentions, but when it's so obvious where he stands
>politically from his edits, something needs to be done.

I agree 100%.
>
>I would support an official warning to the effect that:
>- POV language needs to be avoided -- will everyone agree with the
>summary?
>- Sources should be reasonably objective, e.g. Voice of America is a US
>government funded operation, and AP/Reuters are therefore preferable
>- "Current events" should concentrate on factual information, not mere
>statements of opinion
>- When available, summaries should contain facts/"opinions" from all
>relevant sides
>
>As for the entertainment news, I believe these *could* be salvaged, but
>not in the current format which has no clear distinction between different
>news categories. They could either be on a separate page or in a separate
>section. This includes sports, movies, music etc. I do support growing the
>"Current events" section beyond its present format, we can always spin it
>off if it gets too dominant.
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik

I could not agree more with Erik. I think Reddi is a serious and genuine
contributor. I am simply at a loss as to how to convince him of the problem
when his replies are gobbledigook and he just keeps doing it (with snide
comments about 'Irish drunks' thrown in!). I think sister articles to
[[Current events]] will eventually come into being. But in the meantime we
have to tell him/her clearly, "look, we know you are a genuine and serious
contrubutor, but please be very careful what you put here." So far, attempts
to say that have simply produced bizarre responses that leave the reader
utterly bewildered as to what they mean.

JT.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


from_name: Peter Bartlett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cliques considered anti-wiki?

body:
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Poor, Edmund W

>Maveric and Chris Mahan have both suggested formulas for blocking
>signed-in users from editing, if abandon cooperative editing and engage
>in excessive reversion.
>
>I agree in principle, and I trust someone like mav or Eloquence or
>Angelas or (oddly enough, even myself) to:[...]

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller

>To get the ball rolling, I support the following people as mediators:
>- Ed Poor (obviously). I think he would do a great job in a team. He
does
>have strong beliefs and participates in controversial articles, but he

>mostly comes across as benevolent and understanding.
>- Daniel Mayer (Mav). While he can be a bit brusque, he is incredibly
>dedicated, pragmatic and gets things done. He would definitely be a
>valuable team member.
>- Martin Harper (MyRedDice). I personally think he could do the job
alone
>if given the authority, but he's a bit too bold in editing to have
*that*
>much support. I do think he is very impartial and goal-oriented, and
even
>if you disagree with some of the things he does, he should be involved
in
>the mediation process.
>- Vicki Rosenzweig. She declined one of my requests for mediation
because
>she thought she was too partial and the subject too complex, if I
remember
>correctly. Being able to reflect on your own involvement is really
healthy
>and important, and she could prevent the team from becoming too cocky
(no
>pun intended).
>- The Cunctator - ha, ha, just kidding.

Just happened to read these two messages one after another and felt it
necessary to respond. I personally think the introduction of such
"super-sysops" would be unnecessarily anti-wiki in its intent. It also a
bit of a slap in the face to the dozens of users who've made thousands
of edits each without getting it an edit war or NPOV dispute, but go
rather unnoticed compared with the higher-profile policy-makers rather
article-writers.

Pete


body:
On Nov 21, 2003, at 00:25, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> IIRC he said that there were no /plans/ for ads in the forseeable
> future. I
> think that that is the best we can all hope for. But donations alone
> may not
> be able to always pay the bills. In that case I wouldn't mind having
> something smart like Google AdSense serve ads to anons. In that
> scenario an
> added benefit would be to give anons another reason to log-in: no more
> ads!

The last time this was suggested we lost most of the Spanish-language
contributors to an acrimonious fork.

If you want to set up your own Wikipedia mirror with ad banners and
send the money to the foundation, go for it; but the day there are
advertisements on the main Wikipedia site we'll lose a lot of people,
including me.

Our primary resource is people, not money; we'd be better off with not
enough cash donations from people who care (plus offers of technical
help and free hosting) than rolling in dough without people. One of the
benefits of the license model after all is that it explicitly allows
the content, and thus the project, to live on if the current host
folds.

To bring a little extra cash into the foundation without pissing a lot
of people off, we might look into merchandizing. An actual usable
CD-ROM version could sell at least some token copies (think in
particular of those folks in countries where internet access is largely
limited to pay-per-minute dial-up), and hey, who doesn't want a
Wikipedia T-shirt? :)

(Which reminds me -- Jimbo, do you still have a hojillion Nupedia
coffee mugs lying around as was once rumored?)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031121/6174afff/attachment.pgp


from_name: Alex R.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mediators (Re:Cmahan)

body:
 From: <jheiskan at welho.com>

> Look, folks. Can I make this very simple for you. There are only two
powers a
> mediator needs. One power is the power to convince (through trust) that
> everything revealed during the mediation process will be held strictly
> confidential, and *never* brought to light otherwise.

I agree 101% with this -- the mediation process is a confidential
"negotiation"
between those who do not agree. That is all. If they come to an agreement,
great,
if not, nothing lost, maybe something gained (there has been some
communciation,
isn't that always a positive thing?).

> The other power a mediator needs is the power to suggest, convincingly,
that the
> next step, and a next step much more traumatic, is to bring in
*arbitrators*
> with *much* more powers, and that mediation is much better than
arbitration.

Mediation can be a stand alone procedure, so I am not sure where this is
coming from. I think that anyone who goes into mediation knows that if an
agreement
is not reached that there will be consequences, though some people do use
mediation as a stalling tactic, most see it as a good faith attempt to get
their
point across to those they do not agree with. The consequence of not
mediation
does not have to be arbitration.  It can be arbitrary power (i.e. someone
decides
to ban if there is no mediation resolution without any kind of further
process
after mediation involving the persons making the disputed edits).

Alex756


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
Arvind Narayanan wrote:
>No way!! Many people, me included, contribute to wikipedia
>because of a spirit of freedom/communist zeal/whatever that
>would largely evaporate if wikipedia started serving ads. Even
>a symbolic thing like the change from wikipedia.com to
>wikipedia.org was a big motivation for me. Anyway didn't Jimbo
>promise us long back that there would *never* be ads on
>wikipedia? :)

IIRC he said that there were no /plans/ for ads in the forseeable future. I
think that that is the best we can all hope for. But donations alone may not
be able to always pay the bills. In that case I wouldn't mind having
something smart like Google AdSense serve ads to anons. In that scenario an
added benefit would be to give anons another reason to log-in: no more ads!

I think that would work out OK, because the freedom/communistic feelings you
talk about (and I share) are far more prevalent in contributors than they are
in readers. In fact readers expect to see some form of advertising on content
websites like Wikipedia (some have expressed unease over the /absence/ of
advertising, thinking that Wikipedia would one day disappear due to a lack of
income). So if needed I think we can have advertisements if it is done right
and it isn't distracting (ala smart Google text ads). Oh and banner ads,
skyscrappers and especially pop-ups should be avoided like the plague.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Geoff wrote:
>Was there a discussion to stop archiving them, am I just
>incapable of finding the links to them, or did a herd of
>etherbunnies hop into Wikipedia one night & devour them
>all? (And if the last case is what happened, is there a way
>to use hungry etherbunnies as a force for good?)

I don't know why the archive links were removed but they are still linked at
the top of [[2002]] and [[2003]] in [[{month} {year}]] format.

Going through these to make themed timelines is a great idea.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Mediawiki-l] Gimme something to do

body:
On Nov 20, 2003, at 17:11, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, I've been coming up with great ideas for MediaWiki -- or, rather,
> great ideas for enhancements for MediaWiki for Wikitravel's needs. But
> I figure it's probably going to be easiest to get into the code if I
> start working on some bugs instead.
>
> Are there any bugs that an interested volunteer could start working on
> and submitting patches for? The huge list on sourceforge is a bit
> much.

Some things off the top of my head...

Login doesn't actually check that the session cookie is present, so
someone coming in with cookies disabled is told their login is
successful but it's lost when they visit the next page. We really
should check for this condition! It's a fairly frequently reported
problem, and probably not that hard to fix. In all probability, simply
checking for the existence of the session cookie at the top of
SpecialUserlogin.php and complaining if it's not there will be enough.
(Bug #770011)

The "Cologne Blue" skin has a few minor problems where useful/important
links are missing, and various stylistic issues. The structure of the
current skin code is kind of difficult to grasp, but the individual
bits are fairly not too insane, I think. (Bugs #825774, 827160, etc)
See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_Blue_skin_problems

If you want an ugly but simple and important job... we'd like to remove
our dependency on register_globals (the option, formerly on by default,
in which GET/POST parameters and cookies are dumped into the global
variable namespace). Since PHP 4.2 this option is off by default, as it
can lead to security problems when there's sloppy coding and you use a
variable that turns out to be uninitialized -- until someone slips it
into a URL or cookie.

Moving from the globals to the $_GET and $_POST arrays would let us
remove that configuration dependency and potentially clean up some
security trouble if there are any more surprises. (Also related to bug
#842921)

It's drudge work, but if you pick it up you'll get a quick overview of
the whole codebase! :)

Another thing that would be nice would be proper locking and/or use of
transactional BEGIN/COMMIT wrappers and handling of errors with
rollbacks where multiple SQL statements are required to perform a
read/write operation. We do have race conditions where simultaneous
actions could perhaps interfere with each other, or where an operation
that fails partway through leaves the database in an inconsistent
state. Again, that's kind of drudge work, sorry. :)

See also here:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_tasks

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031121/8e911850/attachment.pgp>


body:
Peter Bartlett wrote:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008568.html

My response it at:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2003-November/000061.html

Please respond there ( wikilegal-l at Wikimedia.org ). Any talk about arbitration
is a legal issue and is of interest to all of Wikimedia.

WikiLegal-l sign-up page:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: jheiskan at welho.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mediators (Re:Cmahan)

body:
Look, folks. Can I make this very simple for you. There are only two powers a
mediator needs. One power is the power to convince (through trust) that
everything revealed during the mediation process will be held strictly
confidential, and *never* brought to light otherwise.

The other power a mediator needs is the power to suggest, convincingly, that the
next step, and a next step much more traumatic, is to bring in *arbitrators*
with *much* more powers, and that mediation is much better than arbitration.

It is just that simple.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mav and developer status?

body:
I think what he's really asked for is a login account so he can
work on wikimediafoundation.org?

Anyhow, if this hasn't been done already, I'd like to enthusiastically
endorse Mav for this.

--Jimbo


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> (Which reminds me -- Jimbo, do you still have a hojillion Nupedia
> coffee mugs lying around as was once rumored?)

And t-shirts, yes.

--Jimbo


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Switching everything to UTF-8

body:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:09:26AM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Here's a breakdown of browsers used to save edits over a day on
> de.wikipedia.org. I checked de because it's the largest non-English
> non-UTF-8-using Wikipedia.
>
> Total posts in the day: 2861
>
> Browsers known to work with editing UTF-8:
>   MSIE/Win: 1146
>   Gecko: 966 [549 Windows; 379 Linux/Unix; 31 Mac]
>   Opera 6+: 331 [291 Windows; 40 Linux]
>   Konqueror: 216
>   Safari: 137
> total: 2796 (98%)
>
> Browsers which can be problematic with UTF-8:
>   old Netscape: 25
>   ELinks: 20 (not tested, but it's a text-mode browser and these tend
> to have problems in this area)
>   MSIE/Mac: 10
>   Lynx: 4 (text-mode again)
>   Opera <6: 2
> total: 61 (2%)
>
> There's some margin of error; my regexps lost track of 4 hits or so
> somewhere in that mess.
>
> I'm actually surprised that the Internet Explorer/Mac quotient is so
> low, though it's a pleasant surprise. :)
>
> Anyway, adding a notice and/or doing some extra conversion for those 2%
> shouldn't be a huge server burden.

Reasonably recent Lynx doesn't have problem with Unicode,
and so I don't expect ELinks to have it either.
All other problematic browsers are really ancient software,
and there's nothing wrong with expecting people to upgrade.
We're not the only website that doesn't support them.

Just placing a notice if problematic browes was found would suffice.


from_name: Stephen Gilbert

body:
> Chuck Smith <msochuck at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I was thinking the other day that the goals of
> Wikipedia are in line with those of Unesco and I was
> wondering if we could somehow try to become officially
> connected with Unesco to gain a better reputation.  We
> might also be able to get significant financial grants
> from them in this way.
>

Looks good on the surface. However official connections with other
organizations may bring certain responsibilities and restrictions we
would be better off no dealing with. It's something to look into.

> Also, I think it would good if we could put the
> Wikipedia project and the Wikimedia foundation in the
> TakingItGlobal database which is a database for
> activists, so that we can connect.  TIG works as an
> umbrella organization for other non-profits.

Well, maybe. I don't know anything about TIG.
>
> I know people are going to yell at me, but I think
> Google AdSense would produce an incredible amount of
> money for the project.  We could show them to
> anonymous users and people who log in could turn them
> off if they wanted.  Well anyway, it's just a
> suggestion, don't bite my head off.

Yell, yell, rant, flame, etc, etc. No ads, please. It's not that I think
that all advertising in all forms is evil, but it's really nice to
have an ad-free space for everyone to work in. Plus, many people will
quit on principle. The possibility of advertising seems to have been a
major factor in the Spanish fork.

Stephen Gilbert


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mav and developer status?

body:
On Nov 21, 2003, at 07:33, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Anyhow, if this hasn't been done already, I'd like to enthusiastically
> endorse Mav for this.

It's set up.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031121/724577e3/attachment.pgp>


body:
On Nov 21, 2003, at 07:35, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> (Which reminds me -- Jimbo, do you still have a hojillion Nupedia
>> coffee mugs lying around as was once rumored?)
>
> And t-shirts, yes.

Coooooool. If I buy one, will it help fund getting Nupedia back online?
:D

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031121/e54ba14f/attachment.pgp


body:
Chuck Smith wrote:
> I was thinking the other day that the goals of
> Wikipedia are in line with those of Unesco and I was
> wondering if we could somehow try to become officially
> connected with Unesco to gain a better reputation.

My primary concern is that our independence is very likely to be
hampered by any such association.  I'm not sure what you have in mind
by our being 'officially connected', but I certainly can't envision
that we could become entangled with the UN and retain our neutrality.

> We might also be able to get significant financial grants from them
> in this way.

I have a general philosophical disagreement with our purely volunteer
effort being corrupted with money taken by force, which is what UN
money would be.  I am not a complete hardliner about this, but I am
not particularly eager to do anything of the sort except possibly as a
very last resort.

> Also, I think it would good if we could put the Wikipedia project
> and the Wikimedia foundation in the TakingItGlobal database which is
> a database for activists, so that we can connect.  TIG works as an
> umbrella organization for other non-profits.

I've just looked at their site, and I have no particular objection to
our being listed there.  Actually, it looks like I can do it right
now, so I will.

> I know people are going to yell at me, but I think Google AdSense
> would produce an incredible amount of money for the project.  We
> could show them to anonymous users and people who log in could turn
> them off if they wanted.  Well anyway, it's just a suggestion, don't
> bite my head off.

I know that not many people share my curious political views, but to
me, it's much worse to seek money from governments, i.e. to ask them
to take money by force from others, than it is to accept advertising
money.

However, it is not clear to me that ads would produce "an incredible
amount of money".  I should look at the traffic and make an estimate,
just so we have some awareness of what we're giving up.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Safari browser cookie vulnerability

body:
Just FYI for Mac OS X users: Safari has a bug (also present in some old
versions of Mozilla / Netscape 6.x) which makes it possible for
third-party sites to steal domain cookies.

Hypothetically, this could allow a site you visit (even accidentally,
or as an inline image) to steal your temporary session cookies and your
stored password (if you selected "remember my password") from
Wikipedia. A stolen password cookie could be used to login to the wiki
with your user name; hijacking a session cookie may be possible as
well.

I've tightened up the cookie settings on all other Wikipedias so that
if you clear any old cookies you might have from them, the new cookies
should no longer be vulnerable to this bug (because they will be set
only for a specific hostname, eg fr.wikipedia.org, and the technique
doesn't work on such a cookie). However the
en.wikipedia.org/en2.wikipedia.org setup currently requires using the
domain cookie to share sessions between the two servers and remains
vulnerable. (Not to mention all those other web sites out there!)

If you're using Safari, consider clearing your stored cookies and
disabling accepting new cookies until Apple releases a fix. Mozilla 1.5
and Camino 0.7 are not vulnerable and are very functional browsers.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031121/f88de856/attachment.pgp


from_name: A

from_email: A

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik

body:
2 weeks ago I noted my situation with Wik, at this mailing list. This situation continues; most recently at [[death camp]] and [[extermination camp]] where I was trying to apply the naming convention on most common usage. Google uses "death camp" with a frequency of 6:1. I hear "death camp", in my daily life, with a much higher frequency.

No matter what I edit, no matter what subject, no matter what sort of edit, and no matter how controversial -- Wik almost invariably comes and reverts it. I then appeal for assitance from the community, and nothing happens.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031121/8490f706/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik

body:
A [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> No matter what I edit, no matter what subject, no matter what sort
>of edit, and no matter how controversial -- Wik almost invariably
>comes and reverts it.

Adam is right about this, and I apologize to him for my own delay in
writing this letter to the list.

I was skeptical and then he and I did an experiment with the
[[Johannes Brahms]] article, history page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Johannes_Brahms&action=history

Essentially, as you can see there, Wik and Lir were in a revert-war
over the version of the article first timestamped 4:20, 13 Nov 2003.
Lir's version here suffered from a significant grammatical error in
the first paragraph, which is presumably the reason for the revert.

I advised Lir to the effect that I thought that if he changed the page
again, but made the change better, that Wik would not revert it.  I
even asked Lir to email me his proposed changes, so that I could help
to ensure that the version he wanted to install was unobjectionable.
He did so, and I made one minor recommendation, and then he installed
his version on the site.

Additionally, when he did so, he made a comment explaining the change.
On top of that, he left a note on Wik's talk page: "I have corrected
my fragmented sentence: [[Johannes Brahms]] [[User:Lir|Lirath
Q. Pynnor]]"

I conclude that in this case, Wik acted unfairly to Lir.  I am
inclined to believe Lir's accusation that Wik continues to simply
revert him, in part because on his talk page, Wik insists to me that
Lir is a troll, and says that we'll have to "agree to disagree" on
that.

--Jimbo


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ahoermeister blocked a signed-in user (was: Blocked
	user: HeadCase)

body:
++>> From: Poor, Edmund W
++
++>> Well, if you say so, I'll unblock him.
++>>
++ I just want to make it clear I have no idea whether or not
++ HeadCase should be >blocked or not. It's just that from
++ how Ed described the situation, Ed should not have been
++ the one to take such an action.

> 05:36, 21 Nov 2003, Ahoerstemeier blocked Rothwellisretarded
(contribs)
> (unblock) (account only created for vandalism)

I think Andy was correct, although Cunc might not.

Opinions?

Uncle Ed


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Nov 21, 2003, at 00:25, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>> IIRC he said that there were no /plans/ for ads in the forseeable
>> future. I
>> think that that is the best we can all hope for. But donations alone
>> may not
>> be able to always pay the bills. In that case I wouldn't mind having
>> something smart like Google AdSense serve ads to anons. In that
>> scenario an
>> added benefit would be to give anons another reason to log-in: no
>> more ads!
>
> The last time this was suggested we lost most of the Spanish-language
> contributors to an acrimonious fork.
>
> If you want to set up your own Wikipedia mirror with ad banners and
> send the money to the foundation, go for it; but the day there are
> advertisements on the main Wikipedia site we'll lose a lot of people,
> including me.

I expect that this trial balloon will come up from time to time, and I
agree wiith Brion that the results could cause more harm than good.  I
support the view that the project should eventually become financially
self-sufficient without being dependent on one single person, but any of
us who have been here for any length of time are bound to have an idea
about what annoys the public.

> Our primary resource is people, not money; we'd be better off with not
> enough cash donations from people who care (plus offers of technical
> help and free hosting) than rolling in dough without people. One of
> the benefits of the license model after all is that it explicitly
> allows the content, and thus the project, to live on if the current
> host folds.

Not having the money .makes people more creative and inventive.
 Depending on a single source sounds like an argument for Wiki-Welfare.
 Cutting off the stable funding (whether in cash or in kind) would be
disruptive.  The content would survive, but the project itself would be
severely set-back while waiting for new hosting to be established and
publicized so that people would know where to find it.  NPOV could be
the biggest victim.

> To bring a little extra cash into the foundation without pissing a lot
> of people off, we might look into merchandizing. An actual usable
> CD-ROM version could sell at least some token copies (think in
> particular of those folks in countries where internet access is
> largely limited to pay-per-minute dial-up), and hey, who doesn't want
> a Wikipedia T-shirt? :)

Yeah!  Who's working on the 1.0 project?  The VfD debate showed that we
have a lot of people who might be better suited to the kind of
atmosphere that that project requires.  Going through all the articles
to determine what is suitable is going to take a lot of work.  Those
editors will also need to call on Wikipedians to write articles to fill
in what is missing; that too will take time.  A 1.0 editorial board that
started meeting to-day, would likely still be at least a year away from
having a marketable product.   20,000 CDs with a budgeted profit of
50cents each is $10,000 net.

T-shirts with the new logo would also be a great marketing device.

> (Which reminds me -- Jimbo, do you still have a hojillion Nupedia
> coffee mugs lying around as was once rumored?)

These seem a little dated now. :-)

Ec


from_name: Arvind Narayanan

body:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 03:39:12PM -0600, Chuck Smith wrote:
> Three points:
>
> o Unesco
> o TakingItGlobal
> o Google AdSense
>
> I was thinking the other day that the goals of
> Wikipedia are in line with those of Unesco and I was
> wondering if we could somehow try to become officially
> connected with Unesco to gain a better reputation.  We
> might also be able to get significant financial grants
> from them in this way.
>
This is a great idea!
> Also, I think it would good if we could put the
> Wikipedia project and the Wikimedia foundation in the
> TakingItGlobal database which is a database for
> activists, so that we can connect.  TIG works as an
> umbrella organization for other non-profits.
>
I don't know what TakingItGlobal is, so I have no opinion.
> I know people are going to yell at me, but I think
> Google AdSense would produce an incredible amount of
> money for the project.  We could show them to
> anonymous users and people who log in could turn them
> off if they wanted.  Well anyway, it's just a
> suggestion, don't bite my head off.
>
No way!! Many people, me included, contribute to wikipedia because
of a   spirit of freedom/communist zeal/whatever   that would
largely evaporate if wikipedia started serving ads. Even a
symbolic thing like the change from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org
was a big motivation for me. Anyway didn't Jimbo promise us
long back that there would *never* be ads on wikipedia? :)

Arvind
--
Its all GNU to me


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Nov 21, 2003, at 07:35, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> Brion Vibber wrote:
>>
>>> (Which reminds me -- Jimbo, do you still have a hojillion Nupedia
>>> coffee mugs lying around as was once rumored?)
>>
>> And t-shirts, yes.
>
> Coooooool. If I buy one, will it help fund getting Nupedia back
> online? :D

They might as well be sold, for cost recovery unless there is a plan to
revive the Nupedia name for the 1.0 project.  They can't be very useful
just sitting in Jimbo's basement. :-)

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Mav and developer status?

body:
Thanks, Brion.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Chuck Smith wrote:
>
>>I was thinking the other day that the goals of
>>Wikipedia are in line with those of Unesco and I was
>>wondering if we could somehow try to become officially
>>connected with Unesco to gain a better reputation.
>>
>My primary concern is that our independence is very likely to be
>hampered by any such association.  I'm not sure what you have in mind
>by our being 'officially connected', but I certainly can't envision
>that we could become entangled with the UN and retain our neutrality.
>
The strings attached may be more like a load of spaghetti.

>>We might also be able to get significant financial grants from them
>>in this way.
>>
>I have a general philosophical disagreement with our purely volunteer
>effort being corrupted with money taken by force, which is what UN
>money would be.  I am not a complete hardliner about this, but I am
>not particularly eager to do anything of the sort except possibly as a
>very last resort.
>
There are enough arguments to make us suspicious of this kind of funding
source, without even getting into the issue of how thay get *their*
funding.  I tend to look at some of these sources as some kind of
corporate welfare that perpetuates "corporate welfare bums".

>>I know people are going to yell at me, but I think Google AdSense
>>would produce an incredible amount of money for the project.  We
>>could show them to anonymous users and people who log in could turn
>>them off if they wanted.  Well anyway, it's just a suggestion, don't
>>bite my head off.
>>
>I know that not many people share my curious political views, but to
>me, it's much worse to seek money from governments, i.e. to ask them
>to take money by force from others, than it is to accept advertising
>money.
>
"Curious" political views are essential, no matter where they fall in
terms of traditional political spectra.  Similarly, Wikipedia does well
to accomodate and document offbeat views without taking sides.

Volunteer organizations change when they have government funding.  There
may be no explicit strings, but that does not protect from the implicit
unspoken ones.  When I'm travelling by car I make a point of visiting
small local museums.  There's a big difference between museums that are
government controlled or operated, and locally controlled museums.  Last
summer I visited museums in Ludington, Mich. and Hardin, Mont.  The only
significant government support that they had was property tax
concessions from local governments.  Hardin didn't even charge an
admission fee.  Both were excellent facilities.

Government facilities often have an air of advanced sterility.  This
diminishes when municipal operations are based in small towns.  Many
volunteer operation have a cluttered appearance, and seem sorely lacking
in expertise.  They leave you with the feeling that you just want to
pitch in and help even though you're a thousand miles from home.
 There's a lesson to be drawn from this kind of situation.

>However, it is not clear to me that ads would produce "an incredible
>amount of money".  I should look at the traffic and make an estimate,
>just so we have some awareness of what we're giving up.
>
Exactly.  If we have objective measures that show us that it doesn't
provide any significant resources, then we don't even need to go into
great detail about the more complicated social and moral arguments.  If
there is no benefit, we don't need the cost.

Ec

>


from_name: Peter Gervai

body:
Apart from the discussion about whether do it
or not:

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:46:50PM -0800, Anthere wrote:

> I will first reassure you, I finally found a solution
> with Netscape 7.02. Not perfect (slow in particular,
> and sometimes unexpectedly crash, but that was my best
> option). My mac is a 128 mo, and I use a bit of
> virtual memory. System 9.04. I can't check memory
[...]
>
> As I said, I solved the problem. What I fear is that
> most people I know who bought macintosh around 3 to 4
> years, are usually quite "unable" with computers, and
> have no idea how to upgrade a browser or a system.
> They really do not. It is no joke. These people use
> the computer they brought from the shop, and they do
> not change anything on it, unless they have a nephew
> able to fix the stuff for them. They will keep the
[...]

Since I partially work for the technical support
of an internet service provider I assure you that
I know what you mean.

One thing we (or actually YOU Mac people) could do is
to write an article (preferably in the Wikipedia:
namespace) about how to upgrade a browser, with
_extremely_ easy steps ("step by step guide") for
the computer illiterates. I'm not sure whether it
could be done with Mac, I sometimes did that for
Windoze people who are probably the most clueless
persons in the known universe. :-) If a vet
aged 50+ can upgrade its Internet Exploder by
following the guide, anyone can. :-)

> These people are also our public. Better even, as far
> as I am concerned, they are the people I try to reach
> to be editors.

It is not impossible to help them to upgrade their
system - parallel to developing the solution to
make it possible to use the old browsers, too.

> Most of these computers are *not* changed very often
> (understatement). Even in universities. Students do
> not pay very expensive fees for their studies, the
> drawback is that material is not great, not replaced
> often.

When I was in school we offered upgrading the machines.

> Though I am quite a joke in computer stuff, I was the
> one who explain my daughter teacher how to use her
> computer last year; she have some pedagogic games for

If someone regularly uses the computer and the internet,
s/he gets more familiar with it, that's my experience.

> >Most end-users are using windoze, and it is well
> >equipped
> >with utf-8 conform browsers.
>
> I would regret it if we gave another motive for
> windows to win over other systems :-)

By no means did I want to say to _switch_over_ to that
shitty system. I just told that those who are using
that piece of crap should and could use recent
browsers. Unix systems are okay as well.
I believe some other systems may have problems,
like Mac or OS/2, and I can't say anything about
nice wares like Amiga. I just hope they can find
their upgrades well. :-o

Maybe we could have a list for every wikipedian's
architecture with short descriptions of the
useable browsers and their URL (place on the 'net).

Peter


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> They might as well be sold, for cost recovery unless there is a plan to
> revive the Nupedia name for the 1.0 project.  They can't be very useful
> just sitting in Jimbo's basement. :-)

Well, the cost was low, and that was back in the dot-com mania
era when I was making the big bucks.  ;-)

But you're right, they aren't doing any good where they are.  The big
problem with selling them is that for any _reasonable_ prices, I'd
rather just give money to Wikipedia than earn money for Wikipedia by
schlepping junk to the post office.

What I mean is, if I sold 100 coffee mugs at $10 apiece, that'd be
$1,000.  But it'd also be a huge personal problem for me, since now
I've got to make labels and do postage and everything for 100 coffee
mugs, plus set up a way to take orders and what not.  And
international sales require me to fill out customs paperwork.

I might as well have a bake sale, if you see what I mean.  :-)

But if someone has a burning desire to give $1000 to the Wikimedia
Foundation, but doesn't have that kind of dough, but does have the
time and energy to do mailorder house work, then it could make sense
for us to do this, if someone else wants to volunteer to take the
goods and ship them out.

It isn't just the money, it's also the community spirit, but for
community spirit, what we ought to do is just setup with a service
like CafePress and use the new Wikimedia Logo.

Or, maybe we should have a vote on whether we need a separate logo for
mugs and shirts. (Jimbo ducks and runs. :-)

--Jimbo


body:
Please no one interpret my comment here as endorsing this concept.
I'm merely making a technical comment to help further the discussion.

Carl Witty wrote:
> I don't know how much ad space is worth, so this is probably way too
> much effort for way too little money, but how about this:
>
> en.wikipedia.org gets a sister site en.ads.wikipedia.org (or .com).
> This is exactly the same, except that it serves ads.  Part of the "how
> to donate" links explain that you can give wikipedia a little extra
> money by browsing the with-ads version.  Every page on the with-ads
> version has a link to the corresponding without-ads page ("Click _here_
> to see this site without the ads").  The with-ads version sets up
> robots.txt to avoid search engines.

This scheme could be implemented more cleanly by using a cookie rather
than a separate domain.  A person visiting the donate page could find
a link to set a cookie that says 'ads=true'.  After that, they would
see ads until they turned them off.  Alternatively, this could be an
option in user preferences.

I think that the amount of money that such a setup would generate
would be extremely tiny, since most people would not ever even see the
link.  The vast majority of pageviews on the site are people surfing
in randomly from all over the web.

Even so, I will say that from a technical perspective this would not
be hard to setup fairly seamlessly.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Server ships!

body:
The server has shipped!

http://www.fedex.com/cgi-bin/tracking?tracknumbers=051041110012303&action=track&language=english&cntry_code=us

It isn't in the tracking system yet, but I think it will be very
shortly.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Server ships!


subject: [Wikitech-l] SQL queries

body:
On Nov 21, 2003, at 13:14, Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> Since many of the special: pages have been disabled for quite a while
> now, some people want updates on those info.

If you slip "magic=yes" into the URL, it'll temporarily disable miser
mode for that page load. For the pages that cache an old copy, it'll
update the cached copy. Please use in moderation.

eg, http://.....org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Lonelypages&magic=yes

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031121/47dce009/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Server ships!

body:
On Nov 21, 2003, at 13:11, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> The server has shipped!

Woo-hoo!

If it would be useful to have another pair of hands onsite to assist
when installation time comes 'round, let me know.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031121/e1eb6ccb/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
> This scheme could be implemented more cleanly by using a
> cookie rather than a separate domain.  A person visiting the
> donate page could find a link to set a cookie that says
> 'ads=true'.  After that, they would see ads until they turned
> them off.  Alternatively, this could be an option in user
> preferences.

Easiest yet: serve all the obnoxious ads you want, just serve them all from another subdomain; eg, inyoface.wikipedia.com.  Doing so would encourage the adoption of filtering proxies or browsers that implement easy image- and flash- blocking.

(This suggestion is close-smilied for the humor-impaired.)

--
 the Epopt


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik's views

body:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Tim the Enchanter wrote:

> I have only been on Wikipedia for about a week so I don't suspect that my
> views are going to carry much weight.

Well, I've been on Wikipedia for over a year, & there are times when my views
don't carry much weight either. ;-) But it never hurts to state them;
sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised.

> However, I have spent a good bit of
> today reviewing some of these edit wars and some of the talk pages so I
> think I'll put in $.02 worth.  Wik, I would say, does not act out of spite,
> but simply wants to contribute what he can to the wikipedia ensure that the
> entries he works on are correct.

It is true that Wik appears sincere.
>
> The problem is he is very stubborn, refusing to even give an inch when he
> has decided he is correct about something.  This does show a sign of
> immaturity in him, but I would not say that is a bannable offense.  He has
> been in numerous edit wars with various users where both continuously revert
> each others edits.  Wik's attitude seems to be that he'd rather completely
> remove the contributions that he disagrees with rather than adjusting them
> to be more neutral (sense that seems to be the major reasoning behind his
> changes).

If this your analysis is correct (& I would agree that it is), then Wik
misunderstands not only the use of article reverting, but the whole
concept of the Wikipedia. Articles are written by consensus, not by the
fiat of one or two authors; even when someone insists on inserting an, er,
*alternative* viewpoint into an article (as a hypothetical example, let's
say a user insists on inserting language into the [[Earth]] article that
asserts the Earth is actually flat, & its roundness is the result of a
conspiracy), further research to explain the cause of these multiple
POVs can actually lead to better content (as in my hypothetical example,
a section in that article on the proof of curvature by observation, &c.)

This won't be the result for every disagreement, but the possibility of
this beneficial result should encourage all of us to at least *try* to
reach a consensus on an article before resorting to other approaches.

And has anyone remembered that the whole point of Wikipedia is to produce
something useable for an external audience? When an article is hobbled
by two factions reverting each other's work routinely, it is keeping
all of the information in that article -- the good, bad & mediocre --
from that audience.

Helping other people is the point of this whole excercise, *not* getting
another two-bit ideology in front of the Internet. (And if that is
someone's reason for contributing, then make a web page & put your
opinions there. It's not that hard to do, & a lot easier to attract
people to read it than you might think.)

> I have observed that such actions has caused other problems such
> as portions of articles, that had no reason to be removed, being deleted
> accidentally.

And has this been brought to Wik's attention?

And then there is the concept of Wikilove. What does Wik think of it?

[snip]

> [A] more immediate action to address this situation would
> be to issue a warning from the site owner (Jimbo I believe) stating that Wik
> must start using other methods besides reversions for a certain amount of
> time to see if he can learn to be more [[diplomatic]], leastwise he would be
> banned if not permanently then at least temporarily.
>
Jimbo has just posted that he has tried to reason with Wik, & with
discouraging results. Obviously Wik isn't aware of the Golden Rule --
"He who owns the gold, makes the rule" -- & that if one disagrees with one
of the few rules Jimbo insists on for Wikipedia, one should have at least
carefully thought out the reasons for the disagreement.

And I'm disturbed also by his treatment of Adam/Lir. Admittedly, Adam/Lir
has an unfavorable reputation from his earlier activities, but all of his
contributions I've seen from Adam/Lir in recent months are not the work of a
"troll" or a "vandal"; even a cursory reading of his contributions do
not support the earlier reputation. To require Jimbo to intervene in
order for Adam/Lir to make a single change is unconscionable.

I've said all I can think of on this point. Where do we vote to put Wik
under a temporary ban?

Geoff


from_name: Tim the Enchanter

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik's views

body:
I have only been on Wikipedia for about a week so I don't suspect that my
views are going to carry much weight.  However, I have spent a good bit of
today reviewing some of these edit wars and some of the talk pages so I
think I'll put in $.02 worth.  Wik, I would say, does not act out of spite,
but simply wants to contribute what he can to the wikipedia ensure that the
entries he works on are correct.

The problem is he is very stubborn, refusing to even give an inch when he
has decided he is correct about something.  This does show a sign of
immaturity in him, but I would not say that is a bannable offense.  He has
been in numerous edit wars with various users where both continuously revert
each others edits.  Wik's attitude seems to be that he'd rather completely
remove the contributions that he disagrees with rather than adjusting them
to be more neutral (sense that seems to be the major reasoning behind his
changes).  I have observed that such actions has caused other problems such
as portions of articles, that had no reason to be removed, being deleted
accidentally.

Obviously this situation should be dealt with in a timely fashion.  I think
the best answer would be a stricter policy on reversions and edit wars.
There have to be consequences to dissuade users from getting into these
pointless disputes.  I more immediate action to address this situation would
be to issue a warning from the site owner (Jimbo I believe) stating that Wik
must start using other methods besides reversions for a certain amount of
time to see if he can learn to be more [[diplomatic]], leastwise he would be
banned if not permanently then at least temporarily.

[[User:T-Money|T-Money]]

----- Original Message -----
From: <kosebamse at gmx.net>
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik's views

>
> Although there is a seemingly constant debate about [[User:Wik]]'s
conduct,
> people do not seem to care too much about the consequences of tolerating
his
> behavior. I would like to raise some concerns.
>
> It is not particularly easy to analyse Wik's contributions, as he rarely
> comments his edits and does a great number of minor changes. It is however
> obvious that he has a tendency to get involved in reversion wars, is
generally
> unwilling to discuss his views, frequently uses words like "vandals" and
> "trolls", and refuses to talk to people whom he has declared as such. I
had a long
> conversation with him over a few days (see [[User talk:Wik]], where all
the
> following quotations are taken from) and would like to report my
impressions,
> because I believe that some of the more distressing points about Wik are
not
> too obvious but should be discussed.
>
> Wik: "There is no way to reconcile POV and NPOV". When we discussed this,
he
> has made it clear that he sees it as his right to decide what "the NPOV
> version" of an article is, and to engage in reversion wars to "defend" it.
Wik:
> "As far as I know NPOV is the community norm, and I am its staunchest
> defender. And this inevitably (and regrettably) involves getting into edit
wars. What
> is the alternative, just leaving the POV version there?" He refuses to
> accept that reversion wars create unstable articles, while NPOV measures
create
> stable articles. He refuses to enter conversation with his adversaries and
has
> stated his goal of continuing reversion wars to victory. Wik: "Edit wars
> aren't endless, at some point one side gives up." Behind this attitude is
> apparently his conviction that respecting other's views is somehow "POV
relativism",
> as he likes to call it. He also seems to believe that a gradual
improvement
> of an article should not be pursued once he has unilaterally declared what
> "the NPOV version" is.
>
> Wik has a list of users he doesn't like and with whom he refuses to
discuss
> anything and whom he calls "vandals and trolls" rather frequently. He does
> not accept the hard-and-fast policy of "no personal attacks" and insists
that
> his use of such vocabulary is purely descriptive. Wik: "I'm always
talking,
> except with those people where it would be wasted time. I'm using the
terms
> vandals and trolls exactly where appropriate."
>
> When some articles where he had been engaged in reversion wars were
> protected, and others started discussing them, bridging their differences
and working
> on a compromise, Wik outright refused to ever participate in this approach
> but stated his freedom of reverting any result of their work. Despite
clear
> evidence to the contrary, he wrote: "It is a fundamental misconception to
think
> that edit wars can be solved by protecting the page and telling the people
> to discuss." This seems to be related to his condescending view of people
who
> disagree with him, as he maintains that once having declared his opinions,
> further talk would be useless, even while others were now actively
debating
> points that had been the subject of his reversions before.
>
> Wik's attitude towards his fellow Wikipedians is often rather reckless,
and
> he demonstrates disrespect of  many of Wikipedia's very foundations (NPOV,
> cooperation, policies, respect for others, Wikiquette). He has often been
told
> (by Jimbo Wales, Stan Shebs, and Angela to name only a few) that his
conduct
> is not acceptable but I can see no tendency of his to change his ways.
> Although one may try talking to him, my experience with him makes me
believe that
> he is unwilling to accept advice. He has even declared his will to "make
> [Wikipedia] less lame or be banned in the attempt". Given that by saying
"lame" he
> seems to refer to our fundamental dogmas, I see little hope that he can be
> convinced to become more collegial. I do not think that we should set a
> precedent by continuing to tolerate such conduct.
>
> Kosebamse
>
> --
> GMX Weihnachts-Special: Seychellen-Traumreise zu gewinnen!
>
> Rentier entlaufen. Finden Sie Rudolph! Als Belohnung winken
> tolle Preise. http://www.gmx.net/de/cgi/specialmail/
>
> +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>