from_name: John Lee

subject:
[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is
	not	presently	classroom-safe

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>John Lee said:
>
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>[John]
>
>
>>If you think an image will offend a substantial amount of
>>people, link  it instead of inlining, or bring up the issue on the talk
>>page.
>>
>>
>
>Well, that's precisely what I am *not* seeing.  I'm seeing a substantial
>minority, nearly 40%, who are in favor of inlining.  This tells me that
>there is not a consensus that it's such an offensive image.>
>
>
40% of *editors*. Not readers. Big difference. People like us who have
so much time to spend on an online "open source" encyclopedia probably
have far more liberal mind sets than average folk.

>>What I find difficult to accept is the argument that we should never
>>ever link to images because it would inconvenience the group of people
>>who desire to view the image with the article. I could understand this
>>once we get a technical solution in place,
>>
>>
>
>The technical solution is in place.  Nearly all modern browsers can
>disable image downloads.  The most we could do with a site-based system
>would be to emulate the capability that already exists in modern browsers.
>
>
On a per-server basis. Big difference. I do not want to have to block
ordinary images from Wikipedia just not to have shock images thrown in
my face.

>>If you start thinking like the average internet user (i.e. those
>>affluent middle class people who got so riled up about the Super Bowl
>>last year)
>>
>>
>
>Only in one country.  The rest of the world was left scratching its heads
>and wondering what all the fuss was about.  US news programs even carried
>th images with the breast pixellated out, while non-US news programs
>showed the incident uncensored.  Please do not assume that the standards
>of one country are universal.>
>
>
That may be true, but our readership is generally American. I'm not
denying a substantial portion of our patronage would not be offended,
but a substantial amount *would* be offended. If we were to link instead
of inline an image, I doubt the "non-offended" would complain, and if
they did, it would be hardly as much as the furore from the other side
were we to carry the image inline.

>>I don't really buy the argument we should be forcing upon users our
>>choice of web browser and/or our choice of software either.
>>
>>
>
>This is not part of my argument.  IE is available to 95%+ of the web-using
>population and it will download images or not at the user's option.
>
>
I spent four or five years of my life using IE and I've never run across
the option to block images on an individual basis. I did find the
ability to disable all images, but I should not need to throw out the
baby with the bathwater.

>>the idea of the web is to
>>make things  accessible to people easily.
>>
>>
>
>A task that IE, Firefox, Opera and other browsers do very well indeed.
>
>
Agreed.

>>It really sickens me to hear the kind of logic used to push the idea of
>> selling people on browsers other than IE via Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>
>I have at no time mentioned IE; I mentioned Firefox solely in connection
>with a claim by a Firefox user who didn't think his browser was capable of
>being controlled in the manner that I described.  I could have said
>precisely the same thing about IE (except that the capability in question
>comes with IE, "out of the box", no additionaly downloads required).[...]
>
>
It does? Show me then. I think I must have missed it (although I'm not
sure how).

>>caterpillars (while there are a few people out there disgusted by them,
>> again, objecting to the picture of a caterpillar displayed for
>>educational purposes would have ridicule heaped on you. Objecting to a
>>picture of a man fellating himself? That's a different case...).
>>
>>
>
>I don't believe the above for one second.  Sorry, that's just silly.
>
>
I think it's just cultural. Europe and Australia have always been far
more open to these things than America and Asia. But still, I would
laugh if somebody were to tell me, "Hey, John, that encyclopedia's a
bunch of rubbish. Don't you know they have pictures of caterpillars in
the open for all to see? How disgusting!" or "Hey John, that
encyclopedia's nothing more than a dumping ground for liberal bullshit.
They actually carry pictures of naked statues like David!" I wouldn't
dare chuckle were someone to say, "Hey, that site's disgusting. I can't
believe they had the nerve to show me directly a picture of a man
sucking his dick."

A good portion of the public that has access to web browsers would be
terribly offended by a picture of a man sucking his penis. Another good
portion would be annoyed they had to view the picture, even if they
weren't particularly offended. A very small minority, on the other hand,
would be offended by pictures of caterpillars or naked art. Few would
probably even understand their position.

>
>
>>text. While perhaps there would be less laughter if you objected to it
>>this time, there would still be quite a bit, simply because...? I don't
>> know. Probably a combination of the three factors I mentioned, but for
>>a  lot of people, it's just not that offensive. Perverted, yes, but not
>> shockingly offensive like the autofellatio image.
>>
>>
>
>*I* don't see anybody laughing, John.  Also I doubt that you would find
>the average person to be more shocked by a man sucking his own penis than
>an eroticised little girl holding a teddy with a huge dildo.
>
>
There's a big difference: The former is a full-blown photograph with
vivid colours. The latter is an illustration. Technically, both are
equally disgusting, but in the real world where people's emotions don't
make sense, one is more offensive than the other.

>>Of course. However, this group would be far larger if we made it a
>>common practice of displaying shockingly offensive images _by default_.
>>
>>
>
>Which we do.
>
>
Which we shouldn't.

>
>
>
>> By not doing so, we limit the number of our enemies; they are far more
>> likely to be right-wing wackos in a small number.
>>
>>
>
>It's a little girl, John.  With a dildo.  And nobody has ever suggested
>inlining it, much less deleting it.
>[...]
>
>
Because it's emotional and mental impact is far less than the vivid and
lifelike photographic depiction of a man fellating himself.

>>>It's not my concern so much which decisions are made, so much as that
>>>the decision made should be made with open eyes.  Not by the editors,
>>>but by Jimbo and the Board, who own and ultimately take responsibility
>>>for this project.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not sure if I agree with you there. While I have a distaste for
>>letting people other than the community of editors make editorial
>>decisions, perhaps they could issue a "recommendation" we could elect
>>to  follow?
>>
>>
>
>
>My rationale for saying it's a board decision is that clearly the
>membership is not about to vote for the removal of articles that will
>render Wikipedia beyond the pale for educational use.  I mentioned the VfD
>nomination of Donkey punch earlier; this is basically an extreme,
>near-lethal physical and sexual assault described by Wikipedia as a "sex
>move."  They were voting 2 to 1 to keep, last time I looked.
>
>
I am not arguing for toning down our encyclopedia for educational use. I
am arguing for doing something to at least maintain some of our
reputation. Text has far less impact than a photograph.

>>>If Jimbo does not have an appetite for a fight with the religious right
>>>of his country, now is the time to consider toning down Wikipedia
>>>content.  Only the board could enforce such a decision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not all too sure. If the sysops rebelled, the board couldn't
>>enforce  the decision without forcibly closing down the website and
>>destroying  the community.
>>
>>
>
>I agree that it's a difficult decision.  For me, the path of least
>resistance is to permit content as extreme as Lolicon and the like, but
>use a technical fix for filtering for educational purposes and provide
>on-site cat-based filtering (because it's easy to do) and then the people
>who are really serious about filtering and who come up against how utterly
>unmanageable cat-based filtering is, well we'll tell them to do what we
>do, turn image downloads off and click "load" when we want to see a
>picture.
>
>

I absolutely agree. But until the devs get around to that, we *must* not
display shocking images inline. If they did not distract readers so
much, all right, but it was very difficult for me to focus on the text
of [[Autofellatio]] with the image inlined. I'm sure others experienced
the same thing. As I said, in Europe and Australia, you guys are
probably used to depictions of lifelike nudity and didn't really notice
the image, but the same cannot be said for those of us from America and
Asia.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Christiaan Briggs said:
>
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Christiaan Briggs said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's hardly ideal, the user needs to click on every single image
>>>>before they can see them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Only when you actually have the feature set that way. If you don't
>>>feel like it you just go ahead and download the whole lot.
>>>I like this, because it leaves me as the user in total control.
>>>
>>>
>>And with a site-based system you would have this same ability, and
>>more.
>>
>>
>
>Not more, and probably nothing like as easy to use.  If we've got people
>now moaning about clicking their browser menus once or twice every now and
>then, the complexities of navigating a form interface will bring us a
>string of moaners (and they'll moan to us instead of their browser
>designers), and the clerical task of sorting images into (and out of)
>categories will absord energy.
>
>
Based on the system I envision, for anons, there will be nothing to
change in the preferences, and viewing the image inline would be as
simple as clicking. For those logged in, it would be "set and forget" in
the preferences.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>And I know there are currencies other than USD. What I meant is, are
>there currencies other than USD, JPY, EUR, and CAN? If not, why?
>Having CAN among the four seems a bit strange to me if not
>Anglocentric - we have two for primarily English-speaking countries,
>but none for example for Chinese-speaking countries (ie, Yuan
>Renminbi, Singapore dollar, New Taiwanese Dollar, Malaysia dollar,
>etc), given that zh.wikipedia is currently the fastest-growing on the
>growth curve of all the larger Wikipedias (ie, it may be growing
>slower than en and de currently are, but it is growing faster than
>they were when they were at a similar period) and has 20k articles
>(most of the other top Wikipedias are languages spoken primarily in
>Euro countries)
>
>
If you took 10 seconds to google for "paypal currencies", you would find
that the six currencies Mav is listing for the Paypal account are
precisely the six currencies Paypal accepts payment in.  If you're aware
of any easy-to-set-up system that accepts donations denominated in other
currencies, I'm sure it'd be welcomed.

As it is, it's perfectly possible to donate other currencies, so long as
the donator has a way of converting.  Only either the sender or
receipient has to do the conversion, so between us accepting payment in
six currencies, and many people having the ability to convert their
money into one of those six, a large proportion of potential donators
are covered.  For example, we don't accept Icelandic Krona, but most
Icelanders have credit cards, and those credit cards can make payments
in Euros or US dollars.

(Accepting CNY may be a bit more of an issue, because China strictly
controls the foreign-exchange market for its currency.)

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Desysoping

body:
Zoney wrote:

>Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view
>that some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what
>views even you can accept.
>
>
I accept that you have that view, but I oppose your acting on it.  That
is, you can think as your personal opinion that Nazis really should be
blocked on site, and that's your prerogative, but I oppose you actually
taking action to do so.  That seems consistent with the position the
"free speech" side has been taking.  You can think whatever you want,
even if I strongly disagree with it, but when you start putting it into
practice then I may well oppose you.

Similarly, nobody is arguing that Nazis have a right to turn [[Jew]]
into a propaganda piece; to engage in endless revert wars; or to do any
of the other things against general Wikipedia policies.  If they try to
do so, they'll be banned for that, just like any other POV-pusher would
be; there's no need to have special policies explicitly for Nazis, when
the problems they pose are exactly those any other POV pusher poses.

-Mark


subject:
[WikiEN-l] When goals conflict: There is no "right" for everyone
	to	edit Wikipedia

body:
Robert wrote:

>There is no God-given right to use a Wiki or work on an
>encyclopedia.  We have a rather open-minded editorial
>policy, and it does not constitute censorship.  Thus, we
>should not allow "contributors" whose admitted endgoal is
>to intimidate, or to incite violence.  If we scare away the
>blacks, the Jews, the gays and the Catholics by opening up
>this encyclopedia to violent hate groups, then what are we
>left with?  We will end up limiting the free speech of the
>many other people who will certainly be driven away, and we
>will be damaging our own reputation for no good reason.
>
>
But we're going to scare off people no matter what we do.  *Not* banning
openly gay activists scares off already a large portion of the earth's
population, namely conservative Christians and Muslims.  Obviously that
isn't a good enough argument for banning gay activists from the
encyclopedia.  There's a whole list of mutually antagonistic groups,
differing mostly in degree of antagonism.

Which of these groups would qualify?
 -- Supporters of segregation.  E.g. black separatists; white
separatists; supporters of "population transfer" of Palestinians out of
Israel; etc.
 -- Supporters of theocracy.  E.g. supporters of the Iranian government;
the Taliban; and other such groups.
 -- Supporters of Sharia law.
 -- Supporters of terrorism as a legitimate military/political tool, at
least in some cases.  (Note that Noam Chomsky and like-minded people
would fall under here.)
 -- People who argue that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural.
 -- People who argue things that are considered "blasphemous" by many
religions.

The list could go on, but with just this list here, we've already cut
out a very large percentage of the earth's population.  And one could
easily make the argument that e.g. supporting Sharia law is directly
threatening women and non-Muslims in the same way black and white
nationalists threaten non-blacks and non-whites.

-Mark


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia
	is	not	presently	classroom-safe

body:
If browser-based filtration of categorised media was possible, as
opposed to browser-based deference of all media, I would be all for it.

Christiaan

Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs said:
>> If browser-based _filtration_ was possible, as opposed to
>> browser-based blocking, I would be all for it.
>
> To describe this as *blocking* of any kind is to misunderstand the
> process of rendering a web page.  No blocking of any kind occurs;
> further requests for material are simply deferred until the user
> requests them.  This is a simple and elegant solution to the filtering
> problem; the user decides precisely what he does and does not want to
> see.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia can never be fully 'safe' and also open...

body:
>
> In George Orwell's novel, _A Clergyman's Daughter_, a schoolteacher
> inadvisedly presents "Macbeth" to her students. They reach the words
> "Macduff was from his mother's womb/Untimely ripp'd," and a student
> asks the fatal question, "Please, Miss, what does that mean." She
> explains "haltingly and incompletely--but she did explain," and the
> following evening she is confronted by angry parents who feel "it is a
> disgrace that schoolbooks can be printed with such words in them; I'm
> sure if any of us had known that Shakespeare had that kind of stuff,
> we'd have put our foot down at the start.... If I had my way, no
> child--at any rate, no girl--would know anything about the Facts of
> Life till she was twenty-one."
>
You have to look at that book carefully, too.  He wasn't talking about
imaginary stuff.  The published edition of Clergyman's Daughter (1931)
uses the "------" for the word fuck, and vagrants gathering in Trafalgar
Square to spend the cold night say things like "Come on, less ?ave a drum
of tea while we got the chance. Last we?ll get tonight?coffee shop shuts
at ?ar-parse ten."  There is no such thing as a "drum of tea", but there
is "a dram", which is a measure of liquor.  The *pubs*, which did not
serve tea or coffee, were closed at 10:30pm by law.  The contemporary
readers knew this; sometimes translators and people born in later years do
not all know that and will probably not understand the passage.
We probably shouldn't be in that branch of the censorship business, lest
some future historian should have to explain our weird euphemisms to a
future public.


body:
Christiaan Briggs said:
> If browser-based filtration of categorised media was possible, as
> opposed to browser-based deference of all media, I would be all for it.

Depending, presumably, on who you trust to do the categorization.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is not
	presently	classroom-safe

body:
I agree, but the choice not to offend people is already a part of
Wikipedia convention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity

My motivation for developing a solution that caters to end-users comes
from not wanting to get caught in the same drift net that is already
being cast.

Christiaan

Karl A. Krueger wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>> A user is not always going to know what is going to offend them until
>> they have looked at the content. By then it's too late.
>
> What's so bad about offending people?
>
> Why is it something to avoid?
>
> A reader who can open up the book of human knowledge to any page at
> all, and be certain not to be offended, has no need for an
> encyclopedia.
>
> --
> Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs said:
>> If browser-based filtration of categorised media was possible, as
>> opposed to browser-based deference of all media, I would be all for
>> it.
>
> Depending, presumably, on who you trust to do the categorization.

A bit like depending on who you trust to write an encyclopedia.

Christiaan


body:
Christiaan Briggs said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> Christiaan Briggs said:
>>> If browser-based filtration of categorised media was possible, as
>>> opposed to browser-based deference of all media, I would be all for
>>> it.
>>
>> Depending, presumably, on who you trust to do the categorization.
>
> A bit like depending on who you trust to write an encyclopedia.

I write it.  I also want to be the person who makes the final choice on
which bits I see.  I think this is a good philosophy.


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
http://www.paypalsucks.com/
http://www.paypalwarning.com/
http://www.aboutpaypal.org/

For an alternative see http://www.paypalwarning.com/alternatives but
there are many other similar services that haven't had the same type
of negative feedback, and I'm sure there is one that offers more
currencies with a similar or lower surcharge for monetary exchange.

http://www.worldpay.com/ - I don't know about their rates, but they
definitely accept more currencies than Paypal.

Mark

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:23:48 -0500, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >The "hard realities of international banking" should warrant the
> >exclusion of all currencies other than USD and EUR, should they not?
> >Why the 4 other currencies? What a drag.
> >
> >
> You seem to be willfully dense here.  We accept the other four because
> it takes us no effort to do so.  We use Paypal, and Paypal accepts six
> currencies.  There is absolutely no benefit to excluding four of them,
> since they come by default as part of Paypal's service.  Adding
> additional currencies to Paypal, on the other hand, is rather difficult,
> unless you happen to be on the Paypal board of directors.
>
> >Yuan RMB may not be "fully convertible", but it's converted many times
> >every day anyways.
> >
> >
> It is very difficult to do unless you are a multi-million dollar
> corporation.  There are controls on how and when Chinese citizens may
> convert money to foreign currency, and even more controls on when they
> may remove it from the country, and non-Chinese who visit the country
> are only allowed to convert to foreign currency when they leave exactly
> as much as they brought in with them in the first place (you must
> produce the original receipts or they won't let you exchange the
> CNY/RMB).  Currency-exchange companies generally are not permitted to
> deal in the currency, which is part of why companies like Paypal don't
> accept it---they aren't allowed to.
>
> You still have not pointed us to a credit-card processor that will
> accept payment to a US-based company in CNY/RMB and convert it to
> dollars, all for a relatively small fee (on par with Paypal's 3%).  If
> you would do this, it would make it much easier to begin accepting
> CNY/RMB donations.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.3.11 released [SECURITY]

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

MediaWiki 1.3.11 is a security release.

== Important security updates ==

A security audit found and fixed a number of problems. Users of MediaWiki
1.3.10 and earlier should upgrade to 1.3.11; users of 1.4 beta releases
should upgrade to 1.4rc1.

=== Cross-site scripting vulnerability ===

XSS injection points can be used to hijack session and authentication
cookies as well as more serious attacks.

* Media: links output raw text into an attribute value, potentially
~  abusable for JavaScript injection. This has been corrected.
* Additional checks added to file upload to protect against MSIE and
~  Safari MIME-type autodetection bugs.

As of 1.3.10/1.4beta6, per-user customized CSS and JavaScript is disabled
by default as a general precaution. Sites which want this ability may set
$wgAllowUserCss and $wgAllowUserJs in LocalSettings.php.

=== Cross-site request forgery ===

An attacker could use JavaScript-submitted forms to perform various
restricted actions by tricking an authenticated user into visiting
a malicious web page. A fix for page editing in 1.3.10/1.4beta6 has
been expanded in this release to other forms and functions.

Authors of bot tools may need to update their code to include the
additional fields.

=== Directory traversal ===

An unchecked parameter in image deletion could allow an authenticated
administrator to delete arbitary files in directories writable by the
web server, and confirm existence of files not deletable.

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=307067

Download:
http://prdownloads.sf.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.3.11.tar.gz?download

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

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

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

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

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCGYHOwRnhpk1wk44RAhlzAKDSk3J8cRhBxD/arNc84uaLqeKAtgCfcJ2m
VRX58OZ0qf0b1dqhmfMFFe4=
=oYqv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4rc1 released [SECURITY]

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

MediaWiki 1.4rc1 is a security and bug fix release for the 1.4 beta
series.

== Important security updates ==

A security audit found and fixed a number of problems. Users of MediaWiki
1.3.10 and earlier should upgrade to 1.3.11; users of 1.4 beta releases
should upgrade to 1.4rc1.

=== Cross-site scripting vulnerability ===

XSS injection points can be used to hijack session and authentication
cookies as well as more serious attacks.

* Media: links output raw text into an attribute value, potentially
~  abusable for JavaScript injection. This has been corrected.
* Additional checks added to file upload to protect against MSIE and
~  Safari MIME-type autodetection bugs.

As of 1.3.10/1.4beta6, per-user customized CSS and JavaScript is disabled
by default as a general precaution. Sites which want this ability may set
$wgAllowUserCss and $wgAllowUserJs in LocalSettings.php.

=== Cross-site request forgery ===

An attacker could use JavaScript-submitted forms to perform various
restricted actions by tricking an authenticated user into visiting
a malicious web page. A fix for page editing in 1.3.10/1.4beta6 has
been expanded in this release to other forms and functions.

Authors of bot tools may need to update their code to include the
additional fields.

=== Directory traversal ===

An unchecked parameter in image deletion could allow an authenticated
administrator to delete arbitary files in directories writable by the
web server, and confirm existence of files not deletable.

== Changes since 1.4beta6 ==

* Fix notice error on nonexistent template in wikitext system message
* (bug 1469) add missing <ul> tags on Special:Log
* (bug 1470) remove extra <ul> tags from Danish log messages
* Fix notice on purge w/ squid mode off
* (bug 1477) hide details of SQL error messages by default
~  Set $wgShowSQLErrors = true for debugging.
* (bug 1430) Don't check for template data when editing page that
doesn't exist
* Recentchanges table purging fixed when using table prefix
* (bug 1431) Avoid redundant objectcache garbage collection
* (bug 1474) Switch to better-cached index for statistics page count
* Run Unicode normalization on all input fields
* Fix translation for allpagesformtext2 in LanguageZh_cn and LanguageZh_tw
* Block image revert without valid login
* (bug 1446) stub Bambara (bm) language file using French messages
* (bug 1432) Update Estonian localization
* (bug 1471) unclosed <p> tag in Danish messages
* convertLinks script fixes
* Corrections to template loop detection
* XHTML encoding fix for usernames containing & in Special:Emailuser
* (for zh) Search for variant links even when conversion is turned off,
~  to help prevent duplicate articles.
* Disallow ISO 8859-1 C1 characters and "no-break space" in user names
~  on Latin-1 wikis.
* Correct the name of the main page it LanguageIt
* Allow Special:Makesysop to work for usernames containing SQL special
~  characters.
* Fix annoying blue line in Safari on scaled-down images on description page
* Increase upload sanity checks
* Fix XSS bug in Media: links
* Add cross-site form submission protection to various actions
* Fix fatal error on some dubious page titles
* Stub threshold displays correctly again

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=307068

Download:
http://prdownloads.sf.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.4rc1.tar.gz?download

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

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

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

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

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCGYICwRnhpk1wk44RAp4SAJ9tUo4wzkeAwe7uJ3tQbKI2ZBYNXwCgyK1a
T6y4UfuG7ejvIOzyiOGq85Q=
=idOV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] alphabetical order

body:
Hey,

            Is there any way to alter the alphabetical order used to sort
lists of articles?  In the OE wiki, the letter ? (a and e together) should
be alphabetized after a, so that ??etan, ?niman, ?fter? show up in that
order, and ? and ? are arranged after d and t, respectively.  There are also
accented vowels that should show up in their unaccented versions as well, so
that and, ?niman, and ?nl?epig are all under the letter ?A?.

James


subject:
[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is not presently class-room
	safe

body:
David Gerard said:
> Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com) [050221 02:18]:
>
>> stories, are much more to the point than the darker corners of
>> sexology, of which no one can possibly expect 'complete coverage'.
>
>
> On this point, how complete would you expect to go? Since you raise it.

As a person previously acquainted with terms like felching (though not, I
admit, the experience), I have found Wikipedia's coverage broad if not
deep.
One thing that is beginning to change my mind about [[Donkey punch]],
which I VfD'd the other day, is a dim memory of my youthful and rather
eclectic readings in which I read, in a description of the writings of de
Sade, an account of a man copulating with a ewe and slitting its throat so
as to benefit from the vaginal contractions induced by its death throes.
The Donkey punch article cites a similar reason for a man striking his
sexual partner as he buggers her.
This is brutal, horrid stuff, but we've got articles on more brutal acts.
Clearly the folklore (which I don't expect to see confirmed empirically
for obvious reasons) about death spasms bearing on the penis is of some
considerable persistence.  It's encyclopedic.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Clarification of ArbCom rulings (was Everyking again)

body:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport at bluebottle.com) [050220 21:46]:

> I think the recent incidents involving Everyking's reverts on
> [[History_of_SNL:2000-2010]] and [[October 24]] suggest that we need a
> mechanism whereby we can ask ArbCom to clarify its rulings.  There is
> debate on this on
> [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Everyking_Reverting_Again]],
> but as far as I can see no current member of ArbCom has commented yet.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Everyking_Reverting_Again
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SNL:2000-2010
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_24

I'd think that given the ambiguity, it would be unfair to penalise
Everyking in this instance. However, I'd think it'd be a fair enough
question, given I think we *meant* something like that. (This sort of thing
is why AC rulings increasingly bristle with subclauses of "NO, AND NOT THAT
EITHER."). You might want to write up a request on WP:RFAr for a clarifying
vote.

- d.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
--- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Are we only getting comments in English? That doesn't seem right,
> considering how much of our donations were in Euros and Yen.

No - look at the link provided.

> Does PayPal not accept any other currencies? Or are the numbers just
> too insignificant to include?

No - look at the fundraising page.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
--- Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we / should we give recognition of significant contributions?  My
> wife works for a university  advancement office, and they have various
> ways of acknowledging significant contributions.

We have a benefactors page on the foundation wiki that could list
people/organizations that donate at least a certain amount.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
--- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I meant is, although undoubtedly they do exist, why are they
> excluded from the daily brief reports? Especially since the content of
> some should be fairly obvious to a monolingual English speaker.

If I can't read it, I can't make a determination of its content, so I don't
list it. You are welcome to post a follow-up email that selects other comments.

> And I know there are currencies other than USD. What I meant is, are
> there currencies other than USD, JPY, EUR, and CAN? If not, why?

Because those are the only currencies that PayPal accepts.

-- mav

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


from_name: Petr Kadlec

subject: [Wikipedia-l] alphabetical order

body:
Note that there is a bugreport about that in Bugzilla:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164
You can at least throw in a vote. :-)

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>The "hard realities of international banking" should warrant the
>exclusion of all currencies other than USD and EUR, should they not?
>Why the 4 other currencies? What a drag.
>
>
You seem to be willfully dense here.  We accept the other four because
it takes us no effort to do so.  We use Paypal, and Paypal accepts six
currencies.  There is absolutely no benefit to excluding four of them,
since they come by default as part of Paypal's service.  Adding
additional currencies to Paypal, on the other hand, is rather difficult,
unless you happen to be on the Paypal board of directors.

>Yuan RMB may not be "fully convertible", but it's converted many times
>every day anyways.
>
>
It is very difficult to do unless you are a multi-million dollar
corporation.  There are controls on how and when Chinese citizens may
convert money to foreign currency, and even more controls on when they
may remove it from the country, and non-Chinese who visit the country
are only allowed to convert to foreign currency when they leave exactly
as much as they brought in with them in the first place (you must
produce the original receipts or they won't let you exchange the
CNY/RMB).  Currency-exchange companies generally are not permitted to
deal in the currency, which is part of why companies like Paypal don't
accept it---they aren't allowed to.

You still have not pointed us to a credit-card processor that will
accept payment to a US-based company in CNY/RMB and convert it to
dollars, all for a relatively small fee (on par with Paypal's 3%).  If
you would do this, it would make it much easier to begin accepting
CNY/RMB donations.

-Mark


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
--- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> For an alternative see http://www.paypalwarning.com/alternatives but
> there are many other similar services that haven't had the same type
> of negative feedback, and I'm sure there is one that offers more
> currencies with a similar or lower surcharge for monetary exchange.

We already have a MoneyBookers account that serves as an alternative. If you
would have spent 2 seconds looking at the fundraising page, then you'd know
that already. :)

We also are now a customer of a direct credit card payment processor. I'm not
yet aware of all the currencies they accept, but Jimmy tells me that we should
be able to go live with this within a month, perhaps even during the later part
of the current fund drive.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>John Lee said:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>40% of *editors*. Not readers. Big difference. People like us who have
>>so much time to spend on an online "open source" encyclopedia probably
>>have far more liberal mind sets than average folk.
>>
>>
>
>We take votes to try to gauge consensus of *editors*.  We should take into
>account the sensibilities of readers, but it would be wrong to base
>decisions on the presumed opinions of people who have not expressed any.
>
>
Of course. I'm just arguing that the decision made seems to be more
reflective of people's *personal* opinions instead of their opinion as
to what most readers would prefer. I could be wrong, but I'm just
saying, you know?

>>I do not want to have to block
>>ordinary images from Wikipedia just not to have shock images thrown in
>>my face.
>>
>>
>
>Nor do I.  There should not be shock images on Wikipedia.  All images
>should be there solely because they appropriately illustrate an article.
>
>
Shall I illustrate our article on shock sites with Goatse and Tubgirl then?

>>our readership is generally American.
>>
>>
>
>So are our editors, but a minute ago you were using their liberal cultural
>bias as a reason to ignore the 40% minority who favored inlining a
>potentially objectionable image.  Now you seem to want to use the
>conservative cultural bias of some Americans who complained about the
>half-time entertainment in a televised football game as an argument for
>linking it.
>
>
...I was? Perhaps we've misunderstood each other.

>>If we were to link
>>instead  of inline an image, I doubt the "non-offended" would complain,
>>and if  they did, it would be hardly as much as the furore from the
>>other side  were we to carry the image inline.
>>
>>
>
>I agree completely.  But I still don't think we should be making such
>content decisions on the basis of American public's problems with nipples.
> Presumably those who voted in the way the did were fully aware of the
>Janet Jackson incident but felt that comparisons between an article on
>Autofellatio and an annual televised football final traditionally watched
>by families as a group were inappropriate.
>
>
Of course we shouldn't. But we should be making them while keeping in
mind a good portion of our audience is offended by such depictions, even
if they would never view the article in question. Merely hearing that we
inline such images would turn them off to the rest of Wikipedia.

>
>
>>I spent four or five years of my life using IE and I've never run
>>across  the option to block images on an individual basis.
>>
>>
>
>I found it in about thirty second on Internet options.  Now pages download
>images as placeholders and each image can be displayed or hidden at will.>>
>
>
That's not blocking them on an individual basis. That's _unblocking_
them on an individual basis. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Nigh on completely useless.

>>>*I* don't see anybody laughing, John.  Also I doubt that you would find
>>>the average person to be more shocked by a man sucking his own penis
>>>than an eroticised little girl holding a teddy with a huge dildo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>There's a big difference: The former is a full-blown photograph with
>>vivid colours. The latter is an illustration. Technically, both are
>>equally disgusting, but in the real world where people's emotions don't
>> make sense, one is more offensive than the other.
>>
>>
>
>I think we differ on which one is more offensive.  I'd be very surprised
>if more people agreed with you than with me.
>
>
Yeah, let's just agree to disagree on this.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs said:
>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>> Christiaan Briggs said:
>>>> If browser-based filtration of categorised media was possible, as
>>>> opposed to browser-based deference of all media, I would be all for
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Depending, presumably, on who you trust to do the categorization.
>>
>> A bit like depending on who you trust to write an encyclopedia.
>
> I write it.  I also want to be the person who makes the final choice
> on which bits I see.  I think this is a good philosophy.

So then you would choose in your Wikipedia preferences to have
'potentially offensive content' linked to by default when you are
browsing.

Christiaan


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> John Lee wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't dare chuckle were someone to say, "Hey, that site's
>> disgusting. I can't believe they had the nerve to show me directly a
>> picture of a man sucking his dick."
>
>
> I would, absolutely I would. They would have been reading an article
> about sucking your own dick.
>
> Christiaan

Hm, yes. Perhaps I misphrased it. How about this? "Hey, that site's
disgusting. Don't you know they show pictures of a guy sucking his
dick?" Were I to respond "Er, but isn't it on an article about the
practice of autofellatio? Who asked you to go there?" They'll splutter,
but most people I know of that opinion would hit back with "So? It's
just inappropriate!" Even though that completely disregards all the
facts, people are emotional beings. They don't think logically.

Considering we are smart enough to be discoursing over email and writing
an encyclopedia, I don't think any of us are slouches intellectually.
The problem is, sometimes we unconsciously expect people to be as
logical and intelligent as us. Not all the time of course, and when we
do, usually it's of little consequence, but when it happens in cases
like this, it's quite damaging. A mostly intellectual person reasoning
with a mostly emotional person will get nowhere. That's essentially what
we try to do when we say "Oh, you can configure your browser to avoid
that," or "But then we'd have to delete articles like those about dirty
Sanchez!"

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


body:
Christiaan Briggs said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>> I write it.  I also want to be the person who makes the final choice
>> on which bits I see.  I think this is a good philosophy.
>
> So then you would choose in your Wikipedia preferences to have
> 'potentially offensive content' linked to by default when you are
> browsing.

Never.  That would mean that I could not view the images inline.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> We have a benefactors page on the foundation wiki that could list
> people/organizations that donate at least a certain amount.
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors

I'm awfully tempted to add a Malefactors page, but some people on this
list might be offended. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20050220/7615eb20/attachment.pgp


from_name: Sebastien BARRE

subject: [Wikitech-l] I need to defeat the cache

body:
At 2/20/2005 01:12 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:43:58 -0500, Sebastien BARRE
><sebastien.barre at kitware.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > In my extension callback, I tried the following code:
> >    $wgOut->addMeta("http:Pragma", "no-cache");
> >    $wgOut->addMeta("http:no-cache", NULL);
> >    $wgOut->addMeta("http:EXPIRES", "TUES, 31 DEC 1996 12:00:00 GMT");
>
>The problem is (possibly) that there are multiple levels of caching
>within MediaWiki, some of which are completely independent of the HTTP
>dialogue with the browser. Don't ask me what they all are, or how they
>do work, but I gather that they are many and complex. :)

I think I nailed it though:

   global $wgTitle;
   if ($wgTitle)
     {
     $ts = mktime();
     $now = gmdate("YmdHis", $ts + 60);
     $ns = $wgTitle->getNamespace();
     $ti = wfStrencode($wgTitle->getDBkey());
     $sql = "UPDATE cur SET cur_touched='$now' WHERE cur_namespace=$ns AND
cur_title='$ti'";
     wfQuery($sql, DB_WRITE);
     }

Note that this code is slightly identical to Title::invalidateCache.
The difference here is that if I call invalidateCache in my extension code,
it sets cur_touched to 'now', *then* create the cache, so the cache is
newer than cur_touched anyway. The trick here is that I set cur_touched in
the future, something not too intrusive, let's say 'now' + 60 seconds,
provided that I expect the cache to be created within 60 or 120 secs once
my extension code has been executed. That way, cur_touched is always
fresher than the cache, and the page always gets re-created. Am I missing
something ?

I also throw the following code that I found on various threads. Does not
hurt I guess.
   global $wgOut;
   $wgOut->enableClientCache(false);
   $wgOut->addMeta("http:Pragma", "no-cache");
   $wgOut->addMeta("http:no-cache", NULL);
   $wgOut->addMeta("http:EXPIRES", "TUES, 31 DEC 1996 12:00:00 GMT");

--
Sebastien Barre


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs said:
>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>
>>> I write it.  I also want to be the person who makes the final choice
>>> on which bits I see.  I think this is a good philosophy.
>>
>> So then you would choose in your Wikipedia preferences to have
>> 'potentially offensive content' linked to by default when you are
>> browsing.
>
> Never.  That would mean that I could not view the images inline.

So then we might code it so that image place holders were used instead
of links, and when you clicked on the place holder the image appeared.

Christiaan


from_name: Nicholas Knight

subject:
[WikiEN-l] One reason why
	Wikipedia	is	not	presently	classroom-safe

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Christiaan Briggs said:
>
>>Jesus Tony, come on man. This function is NOT available in any browser;
>> you cannot filter images based on categorisation using a web browser.
>
>
> Well, not by categories chosen by someone else, no.  But you can say "I
> want to see *that* picture."  And hey presto, you see it.  Perfect.

You've still yet to elaborate on how.


from_name: Zoney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Desysoping

body:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:12:42 -0800, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> Zoney stated for the record:
>
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:21:49 -0800, Nicholas Knight
> > <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Zoney wrote:
> >>
> >>>There are views which are unacceptable in civilised society.
> >>
> >>There are actions which are unacceptable in civilised society. Any
> >>society that holds a given view/opinion to be unacceptable is not civilised.
> >>
> >
> > No, rather than just actions, the expressing of such views is also unacceptable.
> >
> > Zoney
>
> If you want to hang out with us, you are required to accept our right to
> express such views.
>
> --
>   Sean Barrett     | Modern art is what happens when painters stop
>   sean at epoptic.com | looking at girls and persuade themselves
>                    | that they have a better idea. --John Ciardi

Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views. I don't
intend running the risk of being judged to have abused admin powers by
quashing a Nazist user (e.g. by blocking for no specific reason), but
nevertheless I will support those who do take a hard line on this and
other issues.

Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view
that some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what
views even you can accept.

Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>John Lee said:
>
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nor do I.  There should not be shock images on Wikipedia.  All images
>>>should be there solely because they appropriately illustrate an
>>>article.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Shall I illustrate our article on shock sites with Goatse and Tubgirl
>>then?
>>
>>
>
>That may be appropriate.  I'd have to see the illustration and its use in
>the article.
>[IE]
>
>
Isn't it kind of obvious? I'd place appropriately resized screencaps of
both sites, and caption the Goatse one "Goatse is one of the most
commonly used shock site on the internet" and the Tubgirl one "Although
not as commonly used as Goatse, Tubgirl is also used on a regular basis
to shock unsuspecting users".

>>That's not blocking them on an individual basis. That's _unblocking_
>>them on an individual basis. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>>Nigh on completely useless.
>>
>>
>
>
>I have no idea why you would say that.  All images are available, but none
>of them are displayed unless the user selects them.  I find this to be the
>optimal way of browsing.
>
>
Not all people do. Is it possible to do this on a per page basis? If so,
there may be some derivable benefit from it, but otherwise, it's just
throwing the baby out with bathwater. Not all people would care to have
to click a few times every time they visit a webpage just to view its
images.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


body:
Christiaan Briggs said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> Christiaan Briggs said:
>>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I write it.  I also want to be the person who makes the final choice
>>>>  on which bits I see.  I think this is a good philosophy.
>>>
>>> So then you would choose in your Wikipedia preferences to have
>>> 'potentially offensive content' linked to by default when you are
>>> browsing.
>>
>> Never.  That would mean that I could not view the images inline.
>
> So then we might code it so that image place holders were used instead
> of links, and when you clicked on the place holder the image appeared.
>
Fine, although that function is already available at least in Firefox and IE.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] One reason
	why	Wikipedia	is	not	presently	classroom-safe

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>Well, not by categories chosen by someone else, no.  But you can say
>>>"I want to see *that* picture."  And hey presto, you see it.  Perfect.
>>
>>You've still yet to elaborate on how.
>
>
> Indeed.  I don't want to see this thread hijacked into a browser war.

How can a browser war be triggered by you showing that Firefox has a
capability you have repeatedly claimed it does?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Desysoping

body:
Zoney said:
>
> Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views.

Wikipedia is probably the wrong place for you.  We don't do advocacy but
we do give expression to all significant views.>
> Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that
> some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views
> even you can accept.

Is this a plural "you"?  I think you will find that your view can also be
expressed, but not advocated on Wikipedia.  We adopt the neutral point of
view here.


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Changes in the Python Wikipediabot framework

body:
The following changes have been made to the Python Wikipediabot
framework since the previous overview of February 6. As always, the
new files can be downloaded at
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/pywikipediabot/pywikipedia/, and
one can of course use a newer version as well. Furthermore, changes
have been done to the Wikimedia software early February, and to the
bot as well. Therefore:
* versions of wikipedia.py older than 1.391 (February 5) do not work any more
* If you use a version of anything from February 6 or later, you
should use a version of everything (more precisely, wikipedia.py,
config.py and the specific bot you are using) from that date or later.

But on to the newer changes. For the bugfixes I will describe which
bot(s) is or are affected, and what goes wrong with older versions.
"int." means that the bug has been introduced in some earlier version.
Bugs both introduced and solved in the current period have not been
mentioned. For all changes the files and versions that are needed are
mentioned.

Andre Engels

== Dependencies ==
In general, if error messages occur upon downloading a new version of
a bot, getting a new version of wikipedia.py as well would be the
first idea. Versions of wikipedia.py 1.405 and higher need family.py
1.21 (and vice versa)

== Bug fixes ==
* general  *   wikipedia.py 1.397 (int. 1.392 - does not count number
of bot processes correctly)
* general  *  wikipedia.py 1.397 (int. 1.392 - cannot edit redirect
pages and cannot create new pages)
* general  *  wikipedia.py 1.406 (is unable to edit after having been
dormant for some time)
* catall.py   *   catall.py 1.13 (int. 1.12 - gives an error message
before ending)
* category.py  *  category.py 1.62 (int. 1.61 - major disfunction)
* category.py (and others) * catlib.py 1.32 (finds at most 200
articles in a category)
* interwiki.py  *  family.py 1.20 (does not find pages on csb:)
* interwiki.py  *  family.py 1.21, wikipedia.py 1.406 (does not
recognize [[{xx:PAGENAME}]] interwiki links and a few redirects)
* interwiki.py  *  interwiki.py 1.135 (crashes when the -continue
option is used with an empty dumpfile)
* interwiki.py  *  interwiki.py 1.136 (chance of not being removed
from the list of bot processes if stopped *very* soon after being
started)
* interwiki.py  *  titletranslate.py 1.38 (crashes when a non-existing
language is given as a hint)
* pagefromfile.py  *  pagefromfile.py 1.7 (int. 1.6 - gives error
message at end and is not removed from the list)
* pagefromfile.py  *  pagefromfile.py 1.8 (the option "-end" is not recognized)
* redirect.py  *  redirect.py 1.19 (int 1.18 - major disfunction)
* replace.py  *  replace.py 1.35 (int. 1.6 - gives error message at
end and is not removed from the list)

== Major changes ==
* interwiki.py can now, when asking for hints, be asked for the text
of the page by typing "?" or adding the "-showpage option  *
interwiki.py 1.136
* replace.py and solve_disambiguation.py now give their diffs colored
(Unix only)  *  replace.py 1.37, solve_disambiguation.py 1.128,
wikipedia.py 1.404
* Two new features of sqldump.py: findr finds regular expressions; the
function of baddisambiguation is not clear to me  *  sqldump.py 1.17
* interwiki.py uses nb: instead of no: in presence of an nn: link or
on the nn: wiki  *  interwiki.py 1.139

== Minor changes ==
* Swedish translations for interwiki.py: interwiki.py 1.137
* Change of Icelandic text for category.py: category.py 1.63
* Hawaiian and Chichewa added to known languages (wiktionary only
Hawaiian yet): wikipedia_family.py 1.89, wiktionary_family 1.21

== Cosmetic changes / invisible changes ==
* Multiple alternative redirect texts for one language are supported:
wikipedia.py 1.406
* Special care for zh-cn/zh-tw difference removed: interwiki.py 1.139,
wikipedia.py 1.408


subject: [Wikitech-l] Changes in the Python Wikipediabot framework


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs said:
>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>> Christiaan Briggs said:
>>>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I write it.  I also want to be the person who makes the final
>>>>> choice on which bits I see.  I think this is a good philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> So then you would choose in your Wikipedia preferences to have
>>>> 'potentially offensive content' linked to by default when you are
>>>> browsing.
>>>
>>> Never.  That would mean that I could not view the images inline.
>>
>> So then we might code it so that image place holders were used
>> instead of links, and when you clicked on the place holder the image
>> appeared.
>>
> Fine, although that function is already available at least in Firefox
> and IE.

Jesus Tony, come on man. This function is NOT available in any browser;
you cannot filter images based on categorisation using a web browser.

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Desysoping

body:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:10:52 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Zoney said:
> >
> > Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views.
>
> Wikipedia is probably the wrong place for you.  We don't do advocacy but
> we do give expression to all significant views.>
> > Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that
> > some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views
> > even you can accept.
>
> Is this a plural "you"?  I think you will find that your view can also be
> expressed, but not advocated on Wikipedia.  We adopt the neutral point of
> view here.
>

No we don't give expression to all significant views. We write about
them - but we don't attempt to get the reader to emphasise with them.

Possibly one or both of us have merely mis-interpreted the others
meaning. I am in no way suggesting that Nazism shouldn't be written
about down to the last detail in Wikipedia. (Any sensible person will
see it for what it is, just as with [[Xenu]]). But I do not consider
that people should be allowed to express a Nazi POV on Wikipedia (not
just in articles - but generally speaking) or anywhere else.

Oh - and could you dispense with the condescending attitude?

Zoney

--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


subject:
[WikiEN-l] One
	reason	why	Wikipedia	is	not	presently	classroom-safe

body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>>>> Well, not by categories chosen by someone else, no.  But you can say
>>>> "I want to see *that* picture."  And hey presto, you see it.  Perfect.
>>>
>>>
>>> You've still yet to elaborate on how.
>>
>>
>>
>> Indeed.  I don't want to see this thread hijacked into a browser war.
>
>
> How can a browser war be triggered by you showing that Firefox has a
> capability you have repeatedly claimed it does?

Perhaps you are under the impression I am attacking Firefox. I am not. I
use Firefox exclusively and love it, and recommend it to everyone. This
is not about AnyBrowser v. AnyOtherBrowser, this is about you explicitly
claiming a certain browser has features that I can't find as an excuse
to not use server-based filtering on Wikipedia. You need to show that
the features exist if you're going to use their existance as a basis for
your argument, because others don't see them.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Desysoping

body:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:19:36 +0000, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:10:52 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
> <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> > Zoney said:
> > >
> > > Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views.
> >
> > Wikipedia is probably the wrong place for you.  We don't do advocacy but
> > we do give expression to all significant views.>
> > > Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that
> > > some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views
> > > even you can accept.
> >
> > Is this a plural "you"?  I think you will find that your view can also be
> > expressed, but not advocated on Wikipedia.  We adopt the neutral point of
> > view here.
> >
>
> No we don't give expression to all significant views. We write about
> them - but we don't attempt to get the reader to emphasise with them.
>

That should read "empathise" of course.

--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>
>>How can a browser war be triggered by you showing that Firefox has a
>>capability you have repeatedly claimed it does?
>
>
> Your question answers itself.

What are you _talking_ about?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Vandal on the loose on Wikispecies

body:
Done.

On 21 Feb 2005, at 12:19 am, John R. Owens wrote:

> This isn't the right list for it, I know, but I only just found
> Wikispecies and started exploring it, and found that almost all the
> first page of its Recent Changes is vandalism replacing or creating
> pages with crude ASCII "art" and remarks about mooning. I could go
> through and replace them all manually, but if anyone on this list can
> do
> the easy reversions there, that'd be much simpler.
> Meanwhile, I'll go looking to see if there's a proper wikispecies-l or
> whatever.
> http://species.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
>
> --
> John R. Owens


from_name: geni

body:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:35:53 +0000, Christiaan Briggs
<christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
> Done.

Sadly no there is a load more further down. They even hit the general
dissclaimer. Does this project have anyone watching for vanderlism?

--
geni


body:
On 21 Feb 2005, at 12:46 am, geni wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:35:53 +0000, Christiaan Briggs
> <christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
>> Done.
>
> Sadly no there is a load more further down. They even hit the general
> dissclaimer. Does this project have anyone watching for vanderlism?

yeah I'm onto that. Looks like Wikispecies is going on my watchlist.

I must say Safari makes it very simple to rv vandalism.

Christiaan


subject: [Wikitech-l] I need to defeat the cache

body:
At 2/21/2005 12:40 AM, Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:

>  You may want to look at
><http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/14068>
>
>for a somewhat simpler way of doing the same.

No, that simple way does not work for extensions. It was reported by other
people than me on mediawiki-l too. Neither does Title::invalidateCache().

I'm not 100% sure why, but I will give it a shot: once you call that
enableClientCache(), it's already too late. The decision that is being made
about serving the page from the cache, or re-creating it from scratch, is
most probably done *before* the extension code is ever executed, since,
basically, the extension is only executed to create the contents of the
page (makes sense). My solution works since I'm not saying "don't use my
cache now", but "don't cache me next time". And the next time, of course,
it re-executes "don't cache me next time", etc. etc.

--
Sebastien Barre


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Stats Wiktionary

body:
Yann Forget wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The stats onf the Wiktionary are not updated since October 30, 2004.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/wiktionary/EN/Sitemap.htm
>
> Can it be updated ?
>
> Thanks,
> Yann

For all stats queries, please read Erik Zachte answer:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-February/027688.html

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Creating broken wikis

body:
Yann Forget wrote:
> Hi Brion,
>
> Le Friday 18 February 2005 23:37, Brion Vibber a ?crit :
>
>> Someone or something has been making new wikis with the 1.3 schema.
>>  These appear to work on 1.4 until someone tries to create a login
>> account, at which point changes to the user tables cause a failure.
>>
>>
>> One recent example is bm.wiktionary.org.
>>
>> If some person is setting these up manually on the server, I need
>> to know what procedure you're following so it can be fixed. If
>> there is still some sort of automated wiki creation script running,
>> I need to know about it so it can be tracked down and fixed.
>
>
> Just to help tracking the problem, there was a button "create the
> wiki" on the "Main Page" of bm.wiktionary.org a few days ago, so
> someone may have created it that way.

Maybe someone following our howto:
  http://wp.wikidev.net/Add_a_language

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [ANN] New Eclipse Wikipedia Plugin version

body:
Axel wrote:
> Does someone has a list of typical "evil" Wikipedia syntax constructs
> and how they should be rendered in (x)html?

In mediawiki sources, have a look at ./maintenance/parserTests.txt .
That's a serie of test we use to check if the parser behave correctly.

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Not quite. I'm left with the funny feeling that you think it's a ''good''
> thing to permit other editors to control which parts of an article I will
> see, and a ''bad'' thing, or at least very inconvenient and messy, to
> exert that control myself. --~~~~

All you have to do is disable the filtering in your user preferences,
assuming the default even ends up being that the filter is on.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language request, and Chinese Wikipedia
	again

body:
Sheng Jiong wrote:

>Singlish, like Cantonese, are widely used in informal dialogues and
>writings. But it not "natural" for Singaporeans or Hong Kongers to
>write formal essays using Singlish or Cantonese, and neither are they
>accustomed to read any formal written works (such as an encyclopedia)
>that are published in languages that they think should only occur in
>daily conversations.
>
>
While this is true, several other languages and language dialects for
which it's also true are very recently being used in formal settings.
For example, the Scottish Parliament has a version of its webpage
translated into Scots [1], which is to a first approximation a phonetic
way of writing English spoken with a Scottish accent, plus some modified
grammar and vocabulary.  Similarly, Northern Ireland distributes
election materials written in Ulster Scots [2].  If anything, Singlish
is less mutually intelligible with "standard English" than either Scots
or Ulster Scots are.  The main difference seems to be that, while the
Scottish government wishes to promote the use of Scots as a legitimate
language, the Singaporean government takes the opposite view of Singlish.

Other, more creole-like examples are the Haitian mentioned earlier, and
even modern Greek, which until the 1970s was considered an informal
language not worth writing down, and all formal communication was
written in an official standard Greek that few people actually spoke in
daily life.

I guess this brings up the question of how we distinguish between
these.  Should we care what the relevant governments think?

-Mark

[1] http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm
[2] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/languages/ulsterscots.cfm


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Isn't there a policy against libel on this list??

body:
RK wrote:
> Zero 0000 _again_ defended Nazi hatespeech and harassment,
> and called for its acceptance on Wikipedia.
and various other vintage-RK lies and insults.

As anyone can check by looking at the block log, I was actually
the first sysop to block the Nazi user NSM88.  I was also the
first to bring the issue to the attention of this list.

For the record, I blocked NSM88 because it was a new account
which had only made edits like changing "Many empires and
rulers have sought to liquidate the Jews" to "Many empires and
rulers were forced to liquidate the Jews".  I don't believe that
merely identifying as someone who holds obnoxious beliefs
is sufficient cause for a ban, but I thought he was crossing
the line by pushing those beliefs into articles in such a
blatant manner.  I'm conflicted on where the boundary is;
that's why I initiated this discussion.

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: Anders Wegge Jakobsen

subject: [Wikitech-l] I need to defeat the cache

body:
"Sebastien" == Sebastien BARRE <sebastien.barre at kitware.com> writes:

> Hello,
> I wrote a couple of tag extensions that really need to bypass the
> cache mechanism, i.e. any page that uses that tag should always be
> re-created.

> I know, this obviously impact performances, but we are talking "small
> server" here, not Wikipedia :)

> Nevertheless, there must be a way to achieve that, am I wrong ? I
> mean, it seems pretty reasonable that an extension might perform SQL
> queries, or inspect the current context, return time-dependent values,
> etc., and therefore the caching mechanism will just make them useless
> most of the time.

> So far, the only two settings that I know that disable the cache are:
> - User preferences: misc settings: Disable page caching
> - DefaultSettings.php: $wgCachePages

> In my extension callback, I tried the following code:
>    $wgOut->addMeta("http:Pragma", "no-cache");
>    $wgOut->addMeta("http:no-cache", NULL);
>    $wgOut->addMeta("http:EXPIRES", "TUES, 31 DEC 1996 12:00:00 GMT");

 You may want to look at
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/14068>
for a somewhat simpler way of doing the same.

--
/Wegge <http://wiki.wegge.dk/>
<http://wiki.wegge.dk/Folk_jeg_ignorerer_paa_usenet>
mailto:awegge at gmail.com - Invitationer p? FCFS basis


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Stats Wiktionary

body:
>From Wiktionary-l

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:15:24 +0100, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The stats onf the Wiktionary are not updated since October 30, 2004.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/wiktionary/EN/Sitemap.htm

Can stats of other projects be also avaiable? Even once a tremester?
 (I mean Wikiquote strongly, but those statics automatically produced
would be helpful for Wikimedia Quarto, the Foundatio newsletter .....
Ir was very annoyed to count all project from Special:Statistics ...)

Cheers,

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: David Monniaux

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] National Public Radio (US): "Wikipedia's Growth
	Comes with Concerns"

body:
 > The new Britannica FUD was interesting: Their new take is that
Wikipedia is too detailed and one of the things that makes EB great is
that they make careful

Well, I think that some of Wikipedia's articles suffer from imbalances
and lack of focus. This is probably the result of cooperative editing
without restructuring:
- when there's an "edit war" on a particular aspect of the topic, this
aspect usually gets documented by quotes, references etc by both
parties, leading to an inflated coverage of the opinions surrounding
this aspect
- some editors have pet peeves and will over-document whatever is
related to it.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia
	is	not	presently	classroom-safe

body:
Christiaan Briggs said:
>
> Jesus Tony, come on man. This function is NOT available in any browser;
>  you cannot filter images based on categorisation using a web browser.

Well, not by categories chosen by someone else, no.  But you can say "I
want to see *that* picture."  And hey presto, you see it.  Perfect.


from_name: Arno M

body:
As regards that Macbeth story, I think sheer common sense applies as to what an encyclopedia should have. I'm certainly not against an article on wombs.

Arno

----- Original Message -----
From: dpbsmith at verizon.net
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia can never be fully "safe" and also open...
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:44:02 -0500

>
> Even if there were total agreement among Wikipedians proper
> content, so long as Wikipedia is open to "zero-threshold" editing,
> it will always contain a certain among of material that does not
> belong. The equilibrium between the rate at which such material is
> inserted and the rate at which it is removed guarantees this.
>
> Even if we had a consensus so clear that "obscenity" could be a
> valid speedy candidate, removal would still not be _instantaneous._
> As things stand, questionable articles will remain visible for at
> least five days--and the very existence of the VfD discussions
> makes it easy for anyone who wishes to attack Wikipedia to find
> them.
>
> No matter what technical mechanism we put into place, tagging an
> article as offensive likely to be considered debatable and require
> several days to ascertain consensus before the tagging becomes
> stable.
>
> This doesn't affect the broad questions we've been discussing, but
> it does mean that Wikipedia will _always_ be vulnerable to those
> who wish to attack it for containing offensive material. The only
> way to change this would be to subject every article to _prior_
> review before release into the main namespace.
>
> I think it's pointless to discuss making Wikipedia "safe for
> classrooms." Any teacher who lets his or students access Wikipedia
> will always be taking some risk with their career. The risk is
> small, and that a prudent teacher in the right circumstances might
> deem it acceptable, but it will always be there. The risk of a
> student running across one of these pages _by accident_ is very
> small, but in the fifties my little friends and I were certainly
> getting _our_ giggles looking up "rape" and "carnal" and "vagina"
> in the dictionary, and discoveries are quickly shared.
>
> In George Orwell's novel, _A Clergyman's Daughter_, a schoolteacher
> inadvisedly presents "Macbeth" to her students. They reach the
> words "Macduff was from his mother's womb/Untimely ripp'd," and a
> student asks the fatal question, "Please, Miss, what does that
> mean." She explains "haltingly and incompletely--but she did
> explain," and the following evening she is confronted by angry
> parents who feel "it is a disgrace that schoolbooks can be printed
> with such words in them; I'm sure if any of us had known that
> Shakespeare had that kind of stuff, we'd have put our foot down at
> the start.... If I had my way, no child--at any rate, no
> girl--would know anything about the Facts of Life till she was
> twenty-one."
>
> Fast forward to Holden Caulfield's tombstone, and Wikipedia.
>
> --
> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
> "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
> Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
> Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> Christiaan Briggs said:
>>
>>>Jesus Tony, come on man. This function is NOT available in any
>>>browser;
>>> you cannot filter images based on categorisation using a web browser.
>>
>>
>> Well, not by categories chosen by someone else, no.  But you can say
>> "I want to see *that* picture."  And hey presto, you see it.  Perfect.
>
> You've still yet to elaborate on how.

Indeed.  I don't want to see this thread hijacked into a browser war.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:

> How can a browser war be triggered by you showing that Firefox has a
> capability you have repeatedly claimed it does?

Your question answers itself.


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject:
[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is not presently
	class-roomsafe

body:
David Gerard wrote

> Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com) [050221 02:18]:
>
> > stories, are much more to the point than the darker corners of sexology,
of
> > which no one can possibly expect 'complete coverage'.
>
>
> On this point, how complete would you expect to go? Since you raise it.

Well, if we are going to discuss this, I'm a sceptic about how much of what
is really the sex industry's way of compiling menus is actually encyclopedic
(where it is in reality a way of selling punters something).

Maybe that should read 'I'm a cynic'.

By the way, if that makes me sound ignorant about what's currently there,
that would be because I am.

Charles


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs said:
>>
>> This function is NOT available in any browser; you cannot filter
>> images based on categorisation using a web browser.
>
> Well, not by categories chosen by someone else, no.

Good I'm glad we can finally agree.

Christiaan


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia can never be fully 'safe' and also open...

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>>In George Orwell's novel, _A Clergyman's Daughter_, a schoolteacher
>>inadvisedly presents "Macbeth" to her students. They reach the words
>>"Macduff was from his mother's womb/Untimely ripp'd," and a student
>>asks the fatal question, "Please, Miss, what does that mean." She
>>explains "haltingly and incompletely--but she did explain," and the
>>following evening she is confronted by angry parents who feel "it is a
>>disgrace that schoolbooks can be printed with such words in them; I'm
>>sure if any of us had known that Shakespeare had that kind of stuff,
>>we'd have put our foot down at the start.... If I had my way, no
>>child--at any rate, no girl--would know anything about the Facts of
>>Life till she was twenty-one."
>>
>>
>You have to look at that book carefully, too.  He wasn't talking about
>imaginary stuff.  The published edition of Clergyman's Daughter (1931)
>uses the "------" for the word fuck, and vagrants gathering in Trafalgar
>Square to spend the cold night say things like "Come on, less ?ave a drum
>of tea while we got the chance. Last we?ll get tonight?coffee shop shuts
>at ?ar-parse ten."  There is no such thing as a "drum of tea", but there
>is "a dram", which is a measure of liquor.  The *pubs*, which did not
>serve tea or coffee, were closed at 10:30pm by law.  The contemporary
>readers knew this; sometimes translators and people born in later years do
>not all know that and will probably not understand the passage.
>We probably shouldn't be in that branch of the censorship business, lest
>some future historian should have to explain our weird euphemisms to a
>future public.
>
Eric Partridge's "Dictionary of Slang" does refer to a "drum" as having
developed the meaning of a tin for making tea in tramps' cant from the
1890s. In the 20th century the term also became used among railwaymen.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] alphabetical order

body:
Petr Kadlec wrote:

>Note that there is a bugreport about that in Bugzilla:
>http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164
>You can at least throw in a vote. :-)
>
I can sympathize with the idea, but one has to keep in mind that the
sort order should vary between one language and another.  In English we
would alphebetize "?" as though it were "ae" while Danish treats it as a
separate letter tagged on at the end of the alphabet.

Ec


from_name: Richard Holton

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [Bug 1569] New: HTML comments in wikitext can
	cause extra spaces in rendered HTML

body:
***Intentional Top-post***

Gmail placed this message into my SPAM folder (I'm guessing it looked
like an on-line pharmacy ad). Those using Gmail may want to retrieve
it.

-Rich Holton

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:00:19 +0000 (UTC),
bugzilla-daemon at mail.wikimedia.org
<bugzilla-daemon at mail.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1569
>
>            Summary: HTML comments in wikitext can cause extra spaces in
>                     rendered HTML
>            Product: MediaWiki
>            Version: 1.4beta6
>           Platform: All
>                URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madge_Oberholtzer
>         OS/Version: All
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: minor
>           Priority: Low
>          Component: Page rendering
>         AssignedTo: wikibugs-l at wikipedia.org
>         ReportedBy: jbonham at mail.utm.utoronto.ca
>
> Wikitext such as:
>
> Madge then purchased mercuric chloride tablets under the guise of shopping for
> something else,? <!-- my sources disagree whether it was a hat or makeup --silsor -->
> and consumed them in another attempt at [[suicide]].
>
> can result in two spaces being visibly rendered in the HTML, one of which is a
>   as follows:
>
> Madge then purchased mercuric chloride tablets under the guise of shopping for
> something else,  and consumed them
>
> This is a bug because the default behaviour of HTML rendering agents is to ignore
> extra whitespace, but the presence of the   prevents this.
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikibugs-l mailing list
> Wikibugs-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
>

--

en.wikipedia:User:Rholton


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is not presently class-room
	safe

body:
Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com) [050221 02:18]:

> stories, are much more to the point than the darker corners of sexology, of
> which no one can possibly expect 'complete coverage'.

On this point, how complete would you expect to go? Since you raise it.

- d.


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:33:48 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
<maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The new Britannica FUD was interesting: Their new take is that Wikipedia is too
> detailed and one of the things that makes EB great is that they make careful
> decisions on what is most important to include.
>
> So that looks to me like they are giving up and declaring their much smaller
> size and long time between updates to be 'features.' :)

Mav, I found that new argument curious as well. In general, I think WP
articles already do a good job of not "burying the lead." If not, it's
easy to fix.

For Britannica, it's going to be much harder to come to grips with the
two things you mentioned.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


from_name: Matt R

subject:
[WikiEN-l] When goals conflict: There is no "right" for everyone
	to edit Wikipedia

body:
--- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rich Holton writes:
<snipped>
> > 2. Banning users due to their professed beliefs or
> associations
...
> > However, the second is also beyond question -- in the
> > negative. There is no way to reconcile such banning of
> > contributors by POV with Wikipedia's mission and culture.
> > How would we be able to claim NPOV when certain groups
> > are not allowed to participate?.
>
> In general, I agree. For most people, in most groups, this
> would be true.   Yet some people are members of groups
> whose goal is that which you described in issue 1 - part of
> their goal is to make such threats!  If someone is a member
> of an organization whose very goal is to make threats - and
> eventually carry them out - then (in these cases) wouldn't
> we be obligated to ban such users?
>
> How can we say that it is wrong to make threats, let alone
> harm people - but then allow Wikipedia to be used as a
> forum to help strengthen Nazis and other groups who do make
> threats as policy, and who do carry out violent acts?
>
> There is no God-given right to use a Wiki or work on an
> encyclopedia.  We have a rather open-minded editorial
> policy, and it does not constitute censorship.  Thus, we
> should not allow "contributors" whose admitted endgoal is
> to intimidate, or to incite violence.  If we scare away the
> blacks, the Jews, the gays and the Catholics by opening up
> this encyclopedia to violent hate groups, then what are we
> left with?  We will end up limiting the free speech of the
> many other people who will certainly be driven away, and we
> will be damaging our own reputation for n#o good reason.

I would argue that it is quite sufficient to do what we normally do -- examine
the conduct of each individual editor, his actual edits, and react accordingly.
Guilt by association makes me very uneasy. I believe it's quite unwise -- and
unnecessary -- to interpret the wider goals of a group with which an editor
affiliates, and block them preemptively.

Clearly, we know from experience that people with extreme views are much more
likely to be badly-behaved and ignore policy than others (particularly when the
groups they associate with calls for POV-pushing at Wikipedia). So is there any
reason to bother with these people? Yes. To build an NPOV encyclopedia, it is
helpful to attract contributors from a wide variety of viewpoints -- the
diversity is healthy and helps us maintain neutrality. I posit that Wikipedia
would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than without;
could such an individual exist?

-- Matt

[[User:Matt Crypto]]

___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] currency POV

body:
I was being perfectly literal.  Of course now there are some malls that
cater to Canadian business, and the merchants in those malls would fall
in line with the mall's policy.  Apart from that, and a few others who
are a little more knowledgeable, rather than informing themselves of
exchange rates they tend to look at Canadian currency as some kind of
multicoloured play money.  Canadians quickly adapt and don't bother
trying to use Canadian currency there.

To say that ALL Canadian merchants accept US currency would be a little
absolute.  One can always find exceptions to a rule.  It should come as
no surprise that a British study a few years ago about jokes determined
that the most popular joke topic among Canadians was Americans. :-)

Of course too, New Zealander comments about Australians aren't always
kindly. ;-)

Ec

Robin Shannon wrote:

>At the risk of flaming race riots, this intrigues me. What do you mean
>they are confused by canadian $s. As in they do not know the exchange
>rate? And do all canadian merchants accept US$, or all merchants near
>the border? Either way that seems very strange (then again as an
>Australian land borders seem very strange)
>
>if this is getting too offtopic, then you can reply to me personaly.
>
>paz y amor,
>-[[User:The bellman]]
>
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:36:45 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It's not a matter of NPOV at all.  It's a matter of avoiding
>>ambiguities.  Canadians are far more experienced at recognizing which $
>>is intended by the context than people in the US who get very confused
>>when any curency than their own is mentioned.  It's quite common for US
>>merchants, even ones near the border, to refuse Canadian currency
>>because they don't understand it.  A Canadian merchant will except the
>>US currency, and have some idea about what to do with exchange rates.
>>
>>This leaves Canadians bemused, and contributes much to putting our
>>streotypes about confused Americans on a solid footing.
>>
>>Ec
>>
>>
>
>
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] currency POV


body:
Andrew Lih wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:33:48 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
><maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The new Britannica FUD was interesting: Their new take is that Wikipedia is too
>>detailed and one of the things that makes EB great is that they make careful
>>decisions on what is most important to include.
>>
>>So that looks to me like they are giving up and declaring their much smaller
>>size and long time between updates to be 'features.' :)
>>
>>
>For Britannica, it's going to be much harder to come to grips with the
>two things you mentioned.
>
The broad popular participation in Wikipedia, and the deep pockets that
support Encarta suggest that EB's attitude is based on desparation.
Where is their growth potential?  I'd love to look at their financial
statements.  As Bill Cosby's God once chastised Noah: "How long can you
tread water?" :-)

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] When goals conflict: There is no "right" for
	everyoneto edit Wikipedia

body:
Matt R wrote

> I would argue that it is quite sufficient to do what we normally do --
examine
> the conduct of each individual editor, his actual edits, and react
accordingly.
> Guilt by association makes me very uneasy.

Certainly editors should be judged by what they do, not what they are - as a
general rule.  Most such general statements do get shot down.

>I posit that Wikipedia
> would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than
without;
> could such an individual exist?

The question is really more like: suppose an editor had far-right views and
that the _only way_ that was apparent was a small annoucement on his (male
is more usual) user page.  Something like 'I belong to [[X]]', where X is an
organisation documented in an article that included, uncontested, the usual
dreary hate items.

Well, this is a hypothetical.  We would more likely get someone saying they
were a member of, for example, an anti-immigration lobbying organisation in
a country where immigration is a political issue.  In this latter case there
is fairly clearly a case that we have to go by behaviour, even though
statements like, say,  'I vote Le Pen'  in the French context, can cause
very grave offence.

Charles


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language request,
	and Chinese Wikipedia again

body:
Baihua itself is a transcription of modern Mandarin, which not long
ago was considered by people like Sheng Jiong to not be worth writing
down to use Wenyan instead.

Mark

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:21:27 -0500, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Sheng Jiong wrote:
>
> >Singlish, like Cantonese, are widely used in informal dialogues and
> >writings. But it not "natural" for Singaporeans or Hong Kongers to
> >write formal essays using Singlish or Cantonese, and neither are they
> >accustomed to read any formal written works (such as an encyclopedia)
> >that are published in languages that they think should only occur in
> >daily conversations.
> >
> >
> While this is true, several other languages and language dialects for
> which it's also true are very recently being used in formal settings.
> For example, the Scottish Parliament has a version of its webpage
> translated into Scots [1], which is to a first approximation a phonetic
> way of writing English spoken with a Scottish accent, plus some modified
> grammar and vocabulary.  Similarly, Northern Ireland distributes
> election materials written in Ulster Scots [2].  If anything, Singlish
> is less mutually intelligible with "standard English" than either Scots
> or Ulster Scots are.  The main difference seems to be that, while the
> Scottish government wishes to promote the use of Scots as a legitimate
> language, the Singaporean government takes the opposite view of Singlish.
>
> Other, more creole-like examples are the Haitian mentioned earlier, and
> even modern Greek, which until the 1970s was considered an informal
> language not worth writing down, and all formal communication was
> written in an official standard Greek that few people actually spoke in
> daily life.
>
> I guess this brings up the question of how we distinguish between
> these.  Should we care what the relevant governments think?
>
> -Mark
>
> [1] http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm
> [2] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/languages/ulsterscots.cfm
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
So, Mr Formulax, now do you claim to speak for these Singaporeans and
Hong Kongers? I find this extremely insulting.

Mark

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:26:24 +0800, Sheng Jiong <sheng.jiong at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I see no particular reason not to, if it's the case (which I don't know)
> > that a significant number of people communicate largely in Singlish and
> > find it more natural than "standard English".  We already have a
> > ht.wikipedia.org for the Haitian creole, which is basically a French
> > dialect with significant influences from a number of African languages.
> > For a long time it was considered basically "improper French", and
> > people spoke it but didn't write it---indeed, writing in it would earn
> > you an F on your essay in school.  More recently, that's been recognized
> > as a sort of cultural elitism, and it's becoming recognized as an
> > acceptable language to write in, and in fact the standard language of Haiti.
> >
> > It might be worth pointing out that "standard English" for Wikipedia's
> > purposes is itself already different from what your English teacher
> > might say is standard.  We tend to avoid (for the most part) not only
> > local dialects that are "improper" but also avoid "proper English" that
> > is not commonly used, or is only used in some regions of the world.
> >
> > This is in some sense basically the [[en:Prescription and description]]
> > debate.  Should we be enforcing handed-down rules of "correct language",
> > whatever that might mean, or should we merely be documenting language as
> > it is actually used by real people?
> >
> > (Of course, whether written Cantonese and Singlish are used by many
> > people or not is another issue.  I'm just arguing that the fact that the
> > Chinese and Singaporean governments dislike them and consider them
> > "improper" shouldn't be the deciding factor.)
>
> I cannot agree with you. I agree that we should not use "proper
> English" that no one today understands. But if we accept languages
> that are not commonly used in formal writings, we bear a danger of
> undermining the credibility of Wikipedia, and credibility is one of
> the most important considerations for readers.
>
> Wikipedia has long been doubted for its credibility. I personally do
> not agree with the view that Wikipedia cannot be trusted because
> everybody can edit. I have this trust in Wikipedia because since I
> discovered Wikipedia I have always seen it as a serious effort to
> build an encyclopedia, despite its unconventional way to writing it.
> But if I am told today, that Wikipedia has a version written in
> Singlish or Cantonese or other spoken languages that are rarely or
> even never used in formal writings and academic discussions, I will
> begin to doubt if the aim of the Wikipedia is serious and its goal is
> to build a trustworthy encyclopedia. And this in turn will undermine
> my confidence in the credibility of Wikipedia.
>
> Singlish, like Cantonese, are widely used in informal dialogues and
> writings. But it not "natural" for Singaporeans or Hong Kongers to
> write formal essays using Singlish or Cantonese, and neither are they
> accustomed to read any formal written works (such as an encyclopedia)
> that are published in languages that they think should only occur in
> daily conversations.
>
> formulax
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:50:28 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And I know there are currencies other than USD. What I meant is, are
> there currencies other than USD, JPY, EUR, and CAN? If not, why?
> Having CAN among the four seems a bit strange to me if not
> Anglocentric - we have two for primarily English-speaking countries,
> but none for example for Chinese-speaking countries (ie, Yuan
> Renminbi, Singapore dollar, New Taiwanese Dollar, Malaysia dollar,
> etc), given that zh.wikipedia is currently the fastest-growing on the
> growth curve of all the larger Wikipedias (ie, it may be growing
> slower than en and de currently are, but it is growing faster than
> they were when they were at a similar period) and has 20k articles
> (most of the other top Wikipedias are languages spoken primarily in
> Euro countries)

This is an issue of the hard realities of international banking, and
not of political correctness.

Also, the yuan/RMB of the PRC is not a fully convertible currency.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 2 Fund Drive Report

body:
As I said, "some should be fairly obvious to a monolingual English speaker".

For example, "Votre site est magnifique" is obviously not an
inappropriate sexual reference but rather a compliment to the website.

Mark

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:14:55 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
<maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I meant is, although undoubtedly they do exist, why are they
> > excluded from the daily brief reports? Especially since the content of
> > some should be fairly obvious to a monolingual English speaker.
>
> If I can't read it, I can't make a determination of its content, so I don't
> list it. You are welcome to post a follow-up email that selects other comments.
>
>
> > And I know there are currencies other than USD. What I meant is, are
> > there currencies other than USD, JPY, EUR, and CAN? If not, why?
>
> Because those are the only currencies that PayPal accepts.
>
> -- mav
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Desysoping

body:
>From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>

>Zoney said:
> >
> > Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views.
>
>
>Wikipedia is probably the wrong place for you.  We don't do advocacy but
>we do give expression to all significant views.>
> > Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that
> > some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views
> > even you can accept.
>
>Is this a plural "you"?  I think you will find that your view can also be
>expressed, but not advocated on Wikipedia.  We adopt the neutral point of
>view here.

Is that the royal "we"? ;-)

Jay.