from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I should have said there are no good solutions.  This problem requires a
> > >working solution, and we do have one.
> > >
> > And a working solution need not be a panacea.  If it helps to solve some
> > problems it becomes a stepping stone to further solutions.
>
>
> I would never claim our current solution is the final one.  But we do need
> to take the criticism of people like Scott McCloud with a grain of salt.

Because he's a best-selling author and respected expert in his field?


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: T P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Incerdentaly has anyone thought of contacting Mr McCloud and asking
> what he thinks standards of notability should be (and I don't more
> general I mean specific criteria). At the moment we seem rather to be
> guessing.

This is a productive suggestion.

Adam


from_name: Mak

subject:
[WikiEN-l] FW: Important notice -- please confirm your
	unblock-en-l subscription

body:
First of all "ALL ADMINs MUST make public and clear their identities in the
first place." is completely false. Secondly, you can link a user account
with an e-mail account without disclosing your personal identity. Thirdly,
why not a week? As it says, you can re-join at any time. Lastly, what any of
this has to do with trusted users using sockpuppets, I really cannot fathom.

User:Makemi


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Translating the Five pillars

body:
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> No, sorry. A rule is a rule when it's clearly expressed and people are aware
> of it. A rule that is not written is... a desire, a convention if you wish.
> Whatever you'll call it, but not a rule. Otherwise there cannot be any
> warranty for anyone. Applying unwritten rules depending on judges' mood is
> the ABC of dictatorial states.

We're not a nation state but an online community of people freely
associating around a clearly identified cause (to build an
encyclopedia, to write a dictionary, and so on). We need not spell out
every single possible behavior that would be detrimental to that
identified cause, though we should be clearer about the broad
principles that help us to achieve it.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Correction: that's the way *AfD* works. You note that WP exists to serve
> the
> writers, but most (if not all) of those commenting on certain nominations
> may have never written on the topic concerned. That's not to say they
> should
> be ignored, because WP works by consensus, but if the people who know most
> about a field are writing about something, or saying that something
> deserves
> an article, then generally shouldn't it be included, unless it fails
> certain
> guidelines/policies, e.g. verifiability?

I don't see how to fix AfD to address your concerns.  We'd have to evaluate
the relative worth of different commentators based on their expertise, which
is a big can of worms.

Adam


from_name: Berto 'd Sera

body:
Hi Erik :)

>This has never been fully articulated on the Foundation level. It
>should be, in collaboration with the community, for a "Wikipedia
>mission statement" (something we should, I believe, have for all our
>projects).

I'm shocked :) Anyway, I can only welcome reality and reality says it's
Independence Day. I quit monitoring eastern wikis as there can't be any
violation where there's no rule.

I will inform my community that we have no mandatory framework that can stop
anyone from proposing whatever they will, thus including
*original research;
*possible paid ads published by template inclusion
*a Wikimedia Chapter to manage what we cash from them

Pls DO publish a draft for the mission statement asap, so that I can try and
propose it as an official PMS.wiki policy and start to spread its adoption.

BTW, how can we activate a mailing list for small wikies only? Given all
this freedom maybe it's time we forget about major sisters and start to
speak to each other more frequently than we did thus far.

Cereja
Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


list: wikitech-l

from_name: DaBuum

subject: [Wikitech-l] Ajax Search

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

Hi,

is there any reason why wfSajaxSearch is casesensitive and limited to
namespace 0? I just wondered if I can get this nifty feature to show me the
same results as the normal search without hacking core-code or using runkit
functions to redefine wfSajaxSearch?

Kind regards,
 Benedikt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFF4x/NX96C8k2LhU8RAr5KAJsGwVG5sgJ6dQ2kLqtLQglJKFNjnACeJuQM
CyFGdjytERT5YEKYbeSdQc0=
=Olce
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
The problem is that you've made multiple assertions that could be
described as "Scott McCloud is A, so B", but as has been shown, you
don't know enough about him to accurately state A, and B does not
necessarily follow from the A you have stated. [[Scott McCloud]] is a
good brief summary. I suggest reading it.

I don't think anyone's claimed he has some special power to rate the
importance of, say, webcomics in relation to the whole of human
knowledge. He is, however, the single most qualified person I can
think of to rate the relative importance of topics within the field of
comics, and among the most qualified in the broader field of
sequential art. It's up to the community as a whole to determine how
much importance that field has in Wikipedia. I think you'd find it to
have a fair amount of support.

-- Jake Nelson
[[en:User:Jake Nelson]]

On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think assuming that Scout McCloud's POV outweighs mine is bad.
>
> I am not claiming that the field is not important.  I am claiming that we
> shouldn't take Scout McCloud's word for it that it is important.
>
> This is what "a grain of salt" means, that you should not swallow someone's
> opinion whole.  It doesn't mean that you should ignore their opinion
> entirely.
>
> Adam
>
> On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:
> >
> > > > > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics
> >
> > > > That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.
> >
> > > All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts in
> > their
> > > fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
> >
> >
> > The point also stands that you're clearly assuming that if you don't
> > know about it (as you just showed you didn't) then it must not be
> > important or relevant. This is the fundamental stupidity at the heart
> > of the AFD problem.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
Well, that was the point of the email that didn't get through. In my
experience, 80% of users who request their edit counts via scapers want
their edit counts, and nothing more. Those who want really detailed analysis
of edit statistics will keep using scrapers, but adding user_editcount to
Special:Contributions will cause a significant drop in scraper requests.

Titoxd.

-----Original Message-----
From: Timwi [mailto:timwi at gmx.net]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:41 AM
To: wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

Andre Engels wrote:
>
> It's not, but it might be a reason to spend time on other things rather
than
> on giving the users X. Developer time is not a commodity we have excess
of.

Within the time you and others have spent in this thread trying to argue
against putting the edit count on Special:Contributions, it could have
been put there a million times over.

If nobody wants to do this incredibly trivial thing, do you want me to
do it? (I'm asking because I don't want to spend time on installing
MediaWiki specially for this just to have someone reject it for some
ridiculous reason.)

Timwi


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:

> Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics

That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.

-Phil


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:40 PM, T P wrote:
> > >> I noted elsewhere that, as a volunteeer effort, Wikipedia is primarily
> > >> written to satisfiy the needs of the writers.
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > >> Practically speaking, what matters is the opinions of the people
> > >> working on
> > >> Wikipedia, because you sure as hell aren't going to "fix" Wikipedia
> > >> just
> > >> because outsiders think it's broken.
> >
> > on 2/26/07 8:44 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner at gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > There's not much to say here. Both of these statements are, I think,
> > > 100% wrong. They are the polar opposite of how Wikipedia should work.
>
>
>
>
> > They represent the exact instinct that causes many of the problems
>
> > I've been describing here. I think it is vital that we do everything
> > > we can to resist these attitudes on every conceivable level.
>
>
> I think you need to distinguish between the way Wikipedia works and the way
> you think it should work.  My comments relate to the former.  Yours relate
> to the latter.
>
> If you can think of a way to make a volunteer organization like Wikipedia
> work the way you think it should work, more power to you.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the goals and desires of
the individuals contributing are not the same as the goals and desires
of the collective organization.

An individual will contribute what they want to, true, but we can
structurally set things up and guide them at the organizational level
(policies, participation in meta-discussions, etc) to encourage or
discourage individual behaviors among admins.

In general, if an expert in a field tells someone in Wikipedia
leadership (loosely, anyone who's participating actively... if you
post to Wikien-L you probably count) that they think that WP covers
their area of expertise poorly, the leader should inquire further to
find out if they understand Wikipedia (many won't, and engagement
there will be helpful).

If they do basically understand Wikipedia, then we might want to listen to them.

In particular, criticism from outside that our processes are opaque or
too complicated or too arbitrary should be listened to.  Some of the
most insightful comments on our processes come from new users who have
just encountered them for the first time.

Process evolves for reasons, both internal and external.  Process is
largely but not exclusively executed by insiders who have high degrees
of knowledge of the system.  If we intend to form an oligarchy of the
insider, we can ignore outside complaints about the process, but
that's sort of antithetical to the project's goals in the first place.

My two cents: out current AFD suffers from lack of consistent
notability guidelines.  Our notability guidelines suffer from lack of
consensus - we're in a dynamic tension between inclusionism and
deletionism.  They are not clearer and more precise because we don't
fundamentally agree about what we're trying to do with them.

This is no doubt baffling to the uninitiated.

The only real way to seriously improve things is ultimately to pick a
set of notability pillars from whence topic-specific notability
guidelines can be derived.  I do not know if there is enough common
ground for a consensus be develop on what those could be; it might
have to be imposed from without (or Jimbo fiat, or some such) to
succeed.

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


body:
Hi!

> Just because a rule is not yet written does not mean that it is not
> a rule.
No, sorry. A rule is a rule when it's clearly expressed and people are aware
of it. A rule that is not written is... a desire, a convention if you wish.
Whatever you'll call it, but not a rule. Otherwise there cannot be any
warranty for anyone. Applying unwritten rules depending on judges' mood is
the ABC of dictatorial states. I acknowledge that it's done for a good
cause, yet it cannot be accepted anyway.

>Don't disrupt Wikimedia to make a point.
It's the last thing I want to do. Pls DO publish the draft and I'll do my
best to spread it. But I will not impose any rule by asserting that there IS
a rule where in fact there is none.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
When you say that we are an on-line community, you are basically wrong. We
are many communities. We do not share one cause; as you state yourself we
have many causes. Not stating that the NPOV is an essential part of our
efforts is a major failing because there are projects that fail this
criteria. By not stating that this is essential to a Wikipedia, the
Wikimedia Foundation does not have the moral right to intervene where this
is lacking.

When you argue that we have to be clear what our principles are, when you
mean that NPOV is one of these principles. Please say so. At some stage the
WMF will say what the minimum requirements are with respect to licensed
materials in our projects. I think the notion of NPOV is more important than
the notion of freely licensed material. The notion of providing information
without bias is much more relevant than the information being Free.

I will immediately state that the notion of Freely licensed information is
dear to me. However what is its value if it is biased, when you are left
guessing if the data is intended to be the best it can be or that you have
to appreciate what the bias of any of a WMF project is. A bias that can be
different depending on the language...

No, it is absolutely vital to be clear about what the basis is of our
projects. Free and NPOV have to be core values for all of our projects in
all of our languages.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 2/26/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> > No, sorry. A rule is a rule when it's clearly expressed and people are
> aware
> > of it. A rule that is not written is... a desire, a convention if you
> wish.
> > Whatever you'll call it, but not a rule. Otherwise there cannot be any
> > warranty for anyone. Applying unwritten rules depending on judges' mood
> is
> > the ABC of dictatorial states.
>
> We're not a nation state but an online community of people freely
> associating around a clearly identified cause (to build an
> encyclopedia, to write a dictionary, and so on). We need not spell out
> every single possible behavior that would be detrimental to that
> identified cause, though we should be clearer about the broad
> principles that help us to achieve it.
>
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: David Goodman

body:
I remind people about the existence of Wikia for things that diverge
from the standards,

The point of calling something a Wikipedia is not just the inter-wiki
links, but the expectation of the type of material and authorship that
WP has been representing.
There will obviously be variation, somewhat dependent on , frankly,
national characteristics. It is not accidental that de is stricter
about V & RS than en--to give a positive illustration.  Some of it is
legal systems--the European WPs can not accept fair use images.

Whether a WP is POV depends on where you view it from. We would expect
some national POV. We would not expect it being taken over by a more
specific group pushing a point.  Whether a WP permits OR is also a
continuum--there are continual discussions about how far "common
sense" can be extended, & I wouldn't expect total agreement on that,
or on BLP, or on anything that depended upon human interpretation of a
general principle.

Some cannot be literal in execution, though they may be in principle.
Even "no ownership"--in en WP there are some topics that are
essentially owned, because the effort of the necessary editors to
overcome this is not present. I might even accept a WP that allowed a
particular state of an article to be signed. Some less-edited ones in
practice are.

Some may be cases where the original WP implementation may have been
too rigid: I would accept a WP that insisted on real names to edit
articles., though I do not advocate it.

But some things are more specific: I do not think the Foundation
should accept the use of the name by a WP that charges for access.

And even some principles have to be conceded: I would like it that no
WP is censored, but I can think of some where this might not be a real
possibility and that community would need to accept a safe degree of
self-censorship.

I simply do not know whether I would accept a WP operated by an
educational foundation of some sort--or conceivably even a  government
educational agency.

David Goodman DGG

On 2/26/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the point of your line of questioning.
>
> Is this just slippery slope, or do you feel that Original Research is
> absolutely on par with the things you suggest?
>
> -S
>
> On 2/26/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Would you accept POV Wikipedias ?
> > Would you accept Wikipedias that are not Free ?
> > Would you accept Wikipedias where articles about the same subject state
> > completely contradictory things .. one being in one language the second in
> > another language ?
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 26/02/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Wikipedia might in some way feature such original content
> > > > Which ones, for example?
> > >
> > >
> > > There are languages in which their Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia
> > > *ever* written in the language.  I can hypothetically imagine such a
> > > Wikipedia allowing original research or even signed articles,
> > > Britannica-style.
> > >
> > > ("No ownership of articles" is a rule on en:wp, but I can imagine it
> > > not being one on other WMF wikis.)
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.


subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:06 PM, T P wrote:

>
> Comprehensiveness sounds good, but there is a lot of room for
> disagreement
> about what "should" be included.  Articles also need to be focused and
> balanced, because on the Web they can't be very long.  We have
> links so
> excessive detail and tangents can be linked to.  And too many
> articles have
> long sections on one aspect while giving short shrift to other
> aspects.
>

I tend to think that, of the many things to worry about in an
article, length is a secondary concern.
> I'm not sure this is the same issue, but I had an argument with
> someone who
> wanted to include some loosely related material because it "related
> [the
> subject] to people's lives".  Frankly I don't think we need to
> "sell" a
> topic to the audience.  People look up articles in an encyclopedia
> because
> they are already interested in the subject, it's not like a
> magazine where
> you come across the topic randomly.

Most of what I've seen suggests that we have a pretty high number of
people who browse around and learn new things. We should endeavor to
teach things that are interesting.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:35 PM, William Pietri wrote:
> As for utility, I think like interestingness, it's a hard one to pin
> down because it's more about the reader's reaction. It's also somewhat
> in competition. [[Period table]] and the conversion chart on [[Ring
> size]] aren't so interesting, but they sure are useful. Personally,
> I'd
> rank utility higher than interestingness as a criterion for article
> goodness, with accuracy higher still.

I figure interesting should be broadly construed. "Useful" falls
under my conception of it.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
You do realize that Wikipedia is NOT PAPER, right?

On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts in their
> fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
>
> Adam
>
> On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:
> >
> > > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics
> >
> > That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.
> >
> > -Phil
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think assuming that Scout McCloud's POV outweighs mine is bad.
>
> I am not claiming that the field is not important.  I am claiming that we
> shouldn't take Scout McCloud's word for it that it is important.

Right, and I'm asking you why we shouldn't, considering that he is one
of the world's top experts on sequential art.

I'd take Lonnie Thompson's word for what's important with respect to glaciology.

> This is what "a grain of salt" means, that you should not swallow someone's
> opinion whole.  It doesn't mean that you should ignore their opinion
> entirely.

Were you being ironically didactic, or do you actually think I didn't
understand you?

>
> On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:
> >
> > > > > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics
> >
> > > > That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.
> >
> > > All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts in
> > their
> > > fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
> >
> >
> > The point also stands that you're clearly assuming that if you don't
> > know about it (as you just showed you didn't) then it must not be
> > important or relevant. This is the fundamental stupidity at the heart
> > of the AFD problem.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 2/26/07 10:24 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Knocking out even 10 of the hyperactives would lead to serious
> > problems unless you can find replacements (and if you can could you do
> > so now? The backlogs are getting anoying again).
>
>
> Are you saying that the quantity of the product is more important than the
> quality of the people? If so, that type of thinking is what has seriously
> contributed to the cancer in the culture.

This is a common operations problem - it's hard to say "we need to
slow down" when people start screaming that problem reports or issues
requiring resolution are backing up and not getting dealt with in a
timely manner.

It is, as far as I know, practically impossible to significantly slow
down operational responses in the process of resolving structural
issues.  It's almost always easier to make structural changes in a
nondestructive in-line manner, and work to diminish the inflow of
requests.

This is one of those organization-destroying growth phases, like the
"founder needs to hire a management team now and stop trying to do it
all directly himself" growth phase and the "we need to formalize
process now" phase.  You have to figure out how to respin the process
and policy in flight, or you tend to fall down and implode.

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


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
T P wrote:

> I despise the current FA practice that "everything needs an inline
> citation".  Basically all you need to pass FA is a lot of citations.

I was a history major, so that requirement doesn't really bother me
except when people somehow think a statement isn't sourced even though
there's a reference at the end of the topic.  Anyhow...

Can we slay this myth once and for all?  Sources are a quick and easy
way to get junked or lose FA status, but it's not all you need.  My
first real FA try ended up being twice as long as the article I was
nominating because of the "brilliant prose" requirement - talk about
subjective.  I have no hard numbers, but I bet a lot more struggle due
to that then because of inadequate sourcing.

> I'm not sure this is the same issue, but I had an argument with someone who
> wanted to include some loosely related material because it "related [the
> subject] to people's lives".  Frankly I don't think we need to "sell" a
> topic to the audience.  People look up articles in an encyclopedia because
> they are already interested in the subject, it's not like a magazine where
> you come across the topic randomly.
>

Yeah, but I have a feeling we're heading in a direction where we're
going to begin failing at this.  Part of Wikipedia's awesomeness (and
why I started contributing originally) was because...

a) Wikipedia probably has an article on what you're looking for.
b) If Wikipedia doesn't have an article on what you're looking for, you
can probably make it.

If we lose that, we lose our audience.  Long tail, or something.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
T P wrote:
> I think assuming that Scout McCloud's POV outweighs mine is bad.

I don't.  I stay away from all science discussions because I don't know
science.  People may be smart to do the same regarding webcomics,
especially when we have people who DO know webcomics who have more
significant input.

>
> I am not claiming that the field is not important.  I am claiming that we
> shouldn't take Scout McCloud's word for it that it is important.

The idea that an "expert" (I put it in quotes for a reason) wouldn't
better understand the importance of something is somewhat insane, Adam.
  This isn't our traditional content debate, where we're discussing
whether something is verifiable - verifiability doesn't really change
depending on whether a person is an expert or not - but it's a
discussion as to something's significance in the absence of traditional
reference.  Maybe in 15 years, people will write books and papers on
webcomics, and we'll be able to refer to seminal webcomics the way we
can with seminal emo bands now - bands that were significant 15 years
ago, but only got written about recently.  Until then, do we look stupid
and ignore it, or invite input from people who know better than us?  We
talk about "common sense" here, this seems like a no-brainer to me.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] rebuildImage.php MIME detection error 1.9.3

body:
On 26/02/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Log excerpt attached. rebuildImage.php is detecting all png files as
> "text/plain" and updating the wiki database
> with this information. This causes the viewer to fail with "possible
> malicious code" errors when the system tries
> to render the png images.

Can you try setting $wgMimeDetectorCommand = "file -bi" in
LocalSettings.php? It sounds like MediaWiki is messing this up because
PHP itself is messing it up, which implies there's no detection module
available.

Rob Church


from_name: William Pietri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
George Herbert wrote:
> This is a common operations problem - it's hard to say "we need to
> slow down" when people start screaming that problem reports or issues
> requiring resolution are backing up and not getting dealt with in a
> timely manner.
>
> It is, as far as I know, practically impossible to significantly slow
> down operational responses in the process of resolving structural
> issues.  It's almost always easier to make structural changes in a
> nondestructive in-line manner, and work to diminish the inflow of
> requests.
>
> This is one of those organization-destroying growth phases, like the
> "founder needs to hire a management team now and stop trying to do it
> all directly himself" growth phase and the "we need to formalize
> process now" phase.  You have to figure out how to respin the process
> and policy in flight, or you tend to fall down and implode.
>

That's very well put.

When I deal with this problem with clients, one option we look at is
temporary help. Is there some way we could alleviate the problem enough
in the short term to give people the space to find long-term solutions?

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:10 PM, William Pietri wrote:

>
> If Scott McCloud were making the Encyclopedia of Sequential Art,
> wouldn't we want an entry on every single topic he thought important
> enough to include?

Exactly.

-Phil


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

body:
On 2/26/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:15:02PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
> >> On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> >>> Someone vastly misunderstands the nature of copyright law, I think.
> >>>
> >>> (Though, admittedly, IANAL, either.  I just play on on the net.)
> >>>
> >>> If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> >>> wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> >>> a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> >>> none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> >>> licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.
> >>>
> >>> The situation is pretty much identical to my *taking a photograph* of
> >>> the screen displaying said browser.
> >> Well, I can say that that's certainly not how Wikipedia interprets
> >> copyright in such works.  Screenshots of copyrighted programs are
> >> generally considered fair use, because the layout/coloring/general
> >> appearance of the browser is deemed creative.
> >
> > Fair use of *what*?
> >
> >>                                                Whether this is the law
> >> I don't know, but certainly a photo of a copyrighted work is
> >> derivative of it (if even that).
> >
> > Derivative is a word with a fairly specific definition as a term of art
> > in copyright law.  TTBOMK, only two very narrow categories of
> > things-you-can-photograph require care on the part of the photographer:
> > Fine Art, and architectural renderings (ie: fancy buildings :-)
> >
> > I'm off to read the article someone linked to now.
>
> IANAL either, but I think this is blatantly wrong.  Photography and
> screenshoting are both forms of copying, and all copying (partial or
> total) are covered under copyright law.  If the photo includes little
> previously copyrighted material, it is probably fair use.  A screenshot
> of Wikipedia, however, includes an entire page of copyrighted material,
> so it is not likely fair use.
>
> Think about it.  By your logic, I could copy a whole book by taking
> pictures page by page.

Brion asked that this discussion be taken to
wikilegalargumentsbynonlawyers-l or something.  It's not relevant to
wikitech-l.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In particular, criticism from outside that our processes are opaque or
> too complicated or too arbitrary should be listened to.  Some of the
> most insightful comments on our processes come from new users who have
> just encountered them for the first time.

I would never argue that we should ignore outside criticism.  But there's no
need to panic.

The only real way to seriously improve things is ultimately to pick a
> set of notability pillars from whence topic-specific notability
> guidelines can be derived.

Stan Shebs' point (which is how I got involved here in the first place) is
that deriving a notability policy from first principles is impossible.

Adam


list: foundation-l

from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Foundation-l] WikiSym 2007 Call for Papers

body:
Sabo, Edmond wrote:

> The link to my suggested project is:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esabo

I think you can help your chances by describing exactly why this
should be a new project under the Wikimedia Foundation instead of
just another wiki hosted by yourself or a company such as Wikia.
Is there any international/multi-lingual dimension?  Is there any
open content dimension?  How big is it supposed to become?

And why is the Subject of this message "WikiSym 2007"?

I'm not speaking for the foundation.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:19 PM, T P wrote:

> There's nothing wrong with taking into account the opinions of
> people who
> know nothing about webcomics.  They have the advantage of
> objectivity, which
> Scout McCloud does not.

I tend to think that someone who knows nothing about webcomics is
just as biased as someone who knows a lot, just in the other direction.

If somebody doesn't know anything about the subject, I'm unconvinced
they have anything useful to say on the subject beyond, perhaps, some
attention to style, structure, etc.

This sort of "experts are worse than clueless people" attitude pops
up occasionally. It is, I think, worth ignoring entirely.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:27 PM, T P wrote:

>
> If you want a project where experts have more say than the rest, go to
> Citizendium.

This misunderstands something kinda fundamental.

The difference between Wikipedia and Citizendium is not that
Citizendium wants to be respected by experts and Wikipedia doesn't.
Both projects aim to write encyclopedia articles that experts can
look at and say "Yeah, that's pretty good."

The difference is in approach. Citizendium believes that the best way
to do this is to have only or primarily experts write the articles.
Wikipedia believes that we can write good articles without having to
worry about credential checking.

That doesn't mean that "what do the experts say" loses its validity
as a test. It's just that our solution to the problem that our
coverage of comics (not just webcomics, it should be noted) is crap
is not to say "Oh, well let's just have Scott McCloud write all the
articles." It's to say "OK, the experts say we blew this. Let's go
back and fix it."

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Presentation to readers

body:
On Feb 24, 2007, at 9:35 PM, William Pietri wrote:

>
> Setting aside the painful topic of notability, is this a sign that we
> could use a different division between what restaurants call "front of
> house" and "back of house"? I'm looking at the various maintenance
> templates:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates
>
> Some are important warnings that really belong at the top of pages,
> either because they are about unreliable content or because it's only
> fair to let people know that an article might be axed.
>
> Putting them all at the top of an article made sense early on, when
> the
> ratio of editors to readers was higher. But at some point, wouldn't we
> want to hide more of the plumbing where the average reader never
> sees it
> unless the go looking?

Another thought on this topic.

What if we replaced all of our problem tags with something generic -
{{notverygood}} or something. I'm thinking wording along the lines of:

"This article isn't very good yet. If you came here to learn about
this topic, we apologize that we aren't able to help you as well as
we'd like. If you know a bit about this topic already, please feel
free to help to fix it. Some concerns people have are probably
located on the talk page."

And then the mass of other stuff - {{npov}}, {{unverified}},
{{notability}}, etc could all move to the talk page. This puts a
reader-friendly face forward, while retaining the information about
what's wrong for editors.

-Phil


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

references:
<445562e00702191954vd25b5cetb23c303addcf8073@mail.gmail.com>
	<6faf39c90702211055w381e93f4pa8f55dcdc84a38bc@mail.gmail.com>
	<eri7c8$t6d$1@sea.gmane.org> <ern1iu$mpr$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<7c2a12e20702231042l7bb31e9bs3926850788e0dc22@mail.gmail.com>
	<erqptf$n0k$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<6faf39c90702242333w3aa9e585h3ec62a299ebd98fc@mail.gmail.com>
	<errsio$19a$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6faf39c90702250353pecbc6dybe9ff81af9b5814b@mail.gmail.com>
	<00fc01c75966$46e88bd0$6401a8c0@TitoLap>

body:
On 2/26/07, Titoxd at Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> From my experience, for every ten Special:Contributions requests made, eight
> or nine are just to find out the raw edit count, and the rest are used to
> find namespace distributions, edit summary and minor edit usage. So,
> displaying user_editcount on Special:Contributions will cause scrape
> requests to take a substantial hit...

Doesn't any kind of edit count, with or without detailed statistics,
require exactly one request per page of contributions?  You can't know
how many edits the person has without figuring out how many pages
there are, but that requires going through every page, which hopefully
you've used to scrape all of the contributions into some kind of
internal data structure, from which you can then divine whatever
statistics you want, no?  Is it that statistics only care about the
last 1000 edits or whatever, so there's a limit on how many page
requests they'll need if not for wanting the full edit count?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:34 PM, T P wrote:

> On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You appear to be unable to support your attitudes when they are
>> described back to you. Perhaps you need to communicate better.
>> Particularly having claimed excellence in writing.
>
>
> You appear to be unable to understand what I say.  If you responded
> politely, I would try explaining to you.  Since you choose to
> respond with
> insults, I have no desire to talk to you.

I've read David's replies, and honestly, I don't think he's insulting
you. I think he has no respect for your viewpoint as it's presented
thus far. That's a valid response, albeit one that you're probably
not that fond of.

Truth be told, I can't find many points in your last few e-mails that
I agree with on any level either.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:40 PM, T P wrote:

>
> I noted elsewhere that, as a volunteeer effort, Wikipedia is primarily
> written to satisfiy the needs of the writers.

and

> Practically speaking, what matters is the opinions of the people
> working on
> Wikipedia, because you sure as hell aren't going to "fix" Wikipedia
> just
> because outsiders think it's broken.

There's not much to say here. Both of these statements are, I think,
100% wrong. They are the polar opposite of how Wikipedia should work.
They represent the exact instinct that causes many of the problems
I've been describing here. I think it is vital that we do everything
we can to resist these attitudes on every conceivable level.

-Phil


body:
Hi!

>We're not a nation state but an online community of people freely
>associating around a clearly identified cause (to build an
>encyclopedia, to write a dictionary, and so on).
Sorry, Erik. I do NOT mean to be polemic, yet I don't see how this can be
understood from anyone not being an average western open source activist. We
ask the planet to be telepathic, and that's more than I can accept.

Writing an encyclopedia is not enough to get rid of POV (cfr soviet
encyclopedia, fascist Treccani, catholic encyclopedias, etc). It's not
enough to get rid of advertising, as many such online publications DO show
ads. And it's not enough to get rid of original research, since it's
perfectly normal for other encyclopedias to publish (sometimes even to
prepare) such material.

>We need not spell out every single possible behavior
My asking for 4-5 clear mandatory pillars is not the same as asking for a
1200 articles constitution. It's not about turning wikimedia into a
bureaucratic nightmare; it's about establishing a clear framework.

People MAY have a different idea of what an encyclopedia is (should be).
Failure to understand this is but western integralism. We either DO explain
the basics of what is "defined as correct" within this private property of
ours or remain exposed to people applying THEIR cultural standards in
absolute good faith.

Once you have two such conflicting visions it's going to be "my idea wins
because I got friends in the Board" or "we win because we can send so many
flame emails that we will tire everyone to death". This is not democracy,
it's e-creeps vs e-bloods.

I will not write a report against a person/edition that possibly was in good
faith but is "not complaining with my Glorious Party's ideology". I have
lots of bad sides in my character, but being a spy because of
racial/ideological reasons is not one of them.

I do believe that if you take a minute to think about it you will see what I
mean. It takes no more than 100 chars to write a clear version of the
pillars and it takes but a mandatory link in the submission page to have all
our users informed (as we do with copvios).

After that yes, I will defend the pillars as I did so far, because any
violation will have become a voluntary violation. But I will not prosecute a
person because of his/her opinions. After all, as Chomsky once said "I'm not
God, so maybe I always was wrong".

Peace & love 2 U, too :)

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
geni wrote:
> On 2/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The point also stands that you're clearly assuming that if you don't
>> know about it (as you just showed you didn't) then it must not be
>> important or relevant. This is the fundamental stupidity at the heart
>> of the AFD problem.
>
>
> Sadly it isn't that simple (there are various ways that problem could
> be solved). Most people don't know about [[Titanium tetrachloride]]
> but I doubt you could get it through AFD.

Yeah, I think you're right. My guess is that, since most people can read
and at least at some level appreciate a comic, they begin to develop
opinions about the comics they read in specific, and all comics in
general. On the other hand, with a topic like [[Titanium
tetrachloride]], most people will have no particular opinion about it or
it's relatives. Most people may have heard of some chemical names, may
know a thing or two, but also realize that there's a whole bunch of
important chemical names they've never heard of.

Besides, Titanium tetrachloride sounds so much more important than
"Sparky the Wonder Flea" (made up name, I hope).

-Rich


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:40 PM, T P wrote:
>
>>
>> I noted elsewhere that, as a volunteeer effort, Wikipedia is primarily
>> written to satisfiy the needs of the writers.
>
> and
>
>> Practically speaking, what matters is the opinions of the people
>> working on
>> Wikipedia, because you sure as hell aren't going to "fix" Wikipedia
>> just
>> because outsiders think it's broken.

on 2/26/07 8:44 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner at gmail.com wrote:
>
> There's not much to say here. Both of these statements are, I think,
> 100% wrong. They are the polar opposite of how Wikipedia should work.

Absolutely!

> They represent the exact instinct that causes many of the problems
> I've been describing here. I think it is vital that we do everything
> we can to resist these attitudes on every conceivable level.
>

This is also much of what I have been trying to say.

Marc Riddell
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: darthvader1219 at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Presentation to readers

body:
On 2/26/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> Another possibility that occurs to me. Could we do a little stylesheet
> and JavaScript magic to hide the specific warning templates unless
> people click on something in the {{notverygood}} box? That would let us
> keep them as part of the main article, but make them invisible to casual
> readers. Further magic would make them by default available to logged-in
> editors.
>
> William
>

I really like the idea of hiding the specific warning templates in the
{{notverygood}} box at the top of the article. It could work similarly
to {{Template:WikiProjectBanners}}.
It would have some standard message concerning how the article is not quite
up to par, with all the specifics hidden inside it. It would be far more
visually attractive for those articles that have three or four maintenance
templates at the top, but would still keep those templates on the main
article page.

--

Dycedarg


body:
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Writing an encyclopedia is not enough to get rid of POV (cfr soviet
> encyclopedia, fascist Treccani, catholic encyclopedias, etc).

Well, we're not the Catholic Encyclopedia, we're the free
encyclopedia. There is no POV implicit in our mission. That said, the
most recent version of our mission statement (which is currently in
the resolution stage for voting by the Board) states that our mission
is to create "neutral educational content"; making this part of the
WMF Mission Statement seems to be uncontroversial among the Board and
I expect that this will become official soon.

> It's not enough to get rid of advertising, as many such online publications DO
> show ads.

Wikimedia doesn't and has no intention to. That said, it doesn't seem
appropriate in a mission statement.

> And it's not enough to get rid of original research, since it's
> perfectly normal for other encyclopedias to publish (sometimes even to
> prepare) such material.

Indeed, and the boundaries are very hard to define as well -- this is
why it is important to be careful with blanket statements that apply
to all projects in all languages. Both Wikinews & Wikiversity do
permit original research within limits, and Wikipedia might in some
way feature such original content.  I'm not saying it shouldn't be in
a Wikipedia mission statement -- I'm saying it shouldn't be rushed.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 26/02/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:

> > Wikipedia might in some way feature such original content
> Which ones, for example?

There are languages in which their Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia
*ever* written in the language.  I can hypothetically imagine such a
Wikipedia allowing original research or even signed articles,
Britannica-style.

("No ownership of articles" is a rule on en:wp, but I can imagine it
not being one on other WMF wikis.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] wikihow firefox toolbar

body:
Think this might be useful for us? I expect the numbers on en:wp would
be frightening ;-)

Possibly an adapted version for smaller Wikipedias?

- d.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com>
Date: 26-Feb-2007 21:49
Subject: [Wikitech-l] wikihow firefox toolbar
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

Hey,

I put together a firefox toolbar to help out our editors, if anyone is
interested:

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-the-wikiHow-Editor%27s-Toolbar

It's pretty basic, but gives a notification when an unpatrolled edit
has been made to a featured article and gives some stats on how many
total unpatrolled edits there are and how many logged in users have
edited in the past 30 minutes. A new talk page message indicator also
lights up when you receive a new talk page message.

So far the results have been promising, vandalism on featured articles
has been short lived, and the backlog of unpatrolled edits has gone
way down from consistently over 500 to less than 25 on average.

I'm not sure if other wikis could benefit from this functionality or
if a more general toolbar could be made out of it, but I thought I'd
pass it along.

Travis

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
Hi!

> I don't
> feel that Not Writing Every Rule Down From Day One is automatically a
> failure of that system, though I agree we could be doing more to
> emphasise what is fundamental principles and what is administrative
> stuff.

It's a matter of deciding whether there is something gluing all projects
into one or not. This common glue cannot come from en.wiki, it must come
from wmf, because wmf is the only thing that really holds us together
(trademark + hosting service). It's definitely NOT about administrative or
local stuff.

BTW, my request for a list dedicated to small wikies is not provocative.
It's just a matter of recognizing that since WMF fails (so far) to give this
glue it will probably be better if at least try and make this glue all
together, since none of us will ever have the numerical force needed to
fight against en.wiki's POV.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
geni wrote:
> On 2/27/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> on 2/26/07 10:24 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Knocking out even 10 of the hyperactives would lead to serious
>>> problems unless you can find replacements (and if you can could you do
>>> so now? The backlogs are getting anoying again).
>>
>> Are you saying that the quantity of the product is more important than the
>> quality of the people? If so, that type of thinking is what has seriously
>> contributed to the cancer in the culture.
>
> I'm saying that if you want a situation where the maintenance side
> continues to remain in any way shape or form under control you cannot
> afford to follow any course that would result in the loss of the
> hyperactive admins.
>
> This is simply a description of the current sitution.
>

How may "hyper-active" admins are there? And if I'm following things
corrects (and maybe I'm not), it seems that you're assuming that these
hyperactives are likely candidates for losing their admin status. Am I
right about that?

-Rich


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
T P wrote:

> There's nothing stupid about a prestigious reference work (as
> Wikipedia has
> become) waiting for a field to become significant before writing about
> it.
> If it becomes significant in fifteen years, we can write about it in
> fifteen
> years.  [[WP:MASTODON]]

Please enlighten me - what does "No angry mastodons" have to do with
whether any field is significant enough to be covered in Wikipedia?
Either now or fifteen years from now?

As a sidenote, I would add that for any field due to become significant
fifteen years in the future, we should already be covering, right now,
the building blocks that field will ultimately study. For example,
there's a bit of a push these days for Hip hop studies to gain
recognition as an interdisciplinary academic field. Argue if you like
about its legitimacy - I'm sure Citizendium would reject it; I observe
that no Wikipedia article exists yet. But if you can imagine what
Wikipedia would have looked like in 1992, I can assure you that it would
have included detailed articles on Public Enemy and N.W.A, and the
articles we have might look better for it today.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
on 2/26/07 10:24 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:

> Knocking out even 10 of the hyperactives would lead to serious
> problems unless you can find replacements (and if you can could you do
> so now? The backlogs are getting anoying again).

Are you saying that the quantity of the product is more important than the
quality of the people? If so, that type of thinking is what has seriously
contributed to the cancer in the culture.

Marc Riddell


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, Robth <robth1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The above is an argument for some form of reliable sources guideline,
> obviously, and not a notability guideline.  The latter I'm more up in
> the air on; in the long run, I see no real need for one, but in the
> short run there is something to be said for limiting our size sheerly
> for reasons of manageability (although realistically we crossed the
> borders of where we had any really effective quality control long
> ago); some sort of rolling notability guideline that we could
> progressively loosen over the years as our ability to cope with more
> and more content developed would be an interesting possibility.

Wikipedia decided to take the road of not controlling growth some time
ago, and I think overall it has worked out well.  I think we cope with
the mass of content well enough.

I see it as concentric circles, like a target; the center is the
high-quality articles, and each ring outward is progressively lower
quality.  All these rings are expanding.  The sum total of crap
articles is inexorably expanding, but so is the total of useful stubs,
the patchy but promising, the serviceable but short, and even the
excellent ones.

Over time, the number of serviceable encyclopedia articles has
steadily increased, and I see no signs of that stopping.  The
percentage of articles that are high-quality may not go up, but the
quantity and coverage of those articles is constantly increasing.

-Matt


body:
Hoi,
Would you accept POV Wikipedias ?
Would you accept Wikipedias that are not Free ?
Would you accept Wikipedias where articles about the same subject state
completely contradictory things .. one being in one language the second in
another language ?
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/02/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
>
> > > Wikipedia might in some way feature such original content
> > Which ones, for example?
>
>
> There are languages in which their Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia
> *ever* written in the language.  I can hypothetically imagine such a
> Wikipedia allowing original research or even signed articles,
> Britannica-style.
>
> ("No ownership of articles" is a rule on en:wp, but I can imagine it
> not being one on other WMF wikis.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
Gwern makes many a point here I agree with.  In many respects, the
hyperactive admins are a problem, for entirely the reasons he makes.
These are the people who burn out.  These are the people who are most
likely to fall victim to 'Wik's disease' - the I Am Irreplaceable
conviction.

They're also the people who are most likely to be cut too much slack
on account of all their efforts, so that they're not checked early on,
and only face censure when they do something incredibly bad.

Some of them will have the strength to resist the stress; many will not.

-Matt


from_name: roman.spitzbart at liwest.at

subject: [Wikitech-l] Meta tags for keywords

body:
Thanks for the hint about extending the Parser. What I don't understand yet how I can replace the existing parser without touching the files that come with MediaWiki. I try to get this in as extension without modifying files...

Roman

>What you want to do is extending the Parser. You should take a look there.
>
>Bryan
>
>On 2/25/07, roman.spitzbart at ...
><roman.spitzbart at ...> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I try to write an extension for Mediawiki that allows users to influence >the keywords that are added as meta
>tags to the HTML code:
>>
>> <meta name="keywords" content="Find out which table relates to a SYS LOB >Segment" />
>>
>> I already figured out that these tags are written OutputPage.php and are >generated by the addKeywords
>function. I have found the 'OutputPageParserOutput' hook, that allows me to >add more keywords
>(unfortunately it does not allow any access to the existing keywords to >remove them). What I'm not sure if
>how to get the keywords the user entered into the function. What I thought >of was a special tag that users can
>use to specific keywords that override the generated keywords...
>>
>> Any ideas or hints where I should start looking?
>> Roman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at ...
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> geni wrote:
>>> On 2/27/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> on 2/26/07 10:24 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Knocking out even 10 of the hyperactives would lead to serious
>>>>> problems unless you can find replacements (and if you can could you do
>>>>> so now? The backlogs are getting anoying again).
>>>> Are you saying that the quantity of the product is more important than
>> the
>>>> quality of the people? If so, that type of thinking is what has
>> seriously
>>>> contributed to the cancer in the culture.
>>> I'm saying that if you want a situation where the maintenance side
>>> continues to remain in any way shape or form under control you cannot
>>> afford to follow any course that would result in the loss of the
>>> hyperactive admins.
>>>
>>> This is simply a description of the current sitution.
>>>
>> How may "hyper-active" admins are there? And if I'm following things
>> corrects (and maybe I'm not), it seems that you're assuming that these
>> hyperactives are likely candidates for losing their admin status. Am I
>> right about that?
>>
>> -Rich
>>
>
> I would argue that hyper-active admins are more likely to have a short admin
> career (whether that be because of desysopping or just leaving), and further
> that the likelihood is greater than proportional to their edits. As you take
> on herculean backlogs and amounts of work, your stress level increases and
> the attention you give to each instance is less. This is a case both of
> giving them less time (even if you double your time spent on Wikipedia, it
> is easy to inadvertently increase your workload by an even greater factor -
> new pages alone is basically almost uncatchable these days), and of making
> more mistakes. So, you wind up more stressed, with disproportionately more
> mistakes and thus complaints, which are easy to react badly to (after all,
> aren't you practically single-handedly holding at bay backlogs at CSD/New
> pages/ANI/Requested Moves/PROD/AfD/etc.? Don't you deserve a little
> gratitude or at least understanding?). One may well be able to handle it
> perfectly fine most of the times, and not add to one's stress by becoming
> too addicted to Wikipedia or damaging your regular life - but it only takes
> one blow up or major mistake.
>
> You hyper-active admins on the list - am I entirely wrong here?
>
> My ideal situation would be that admins would be very active initially so
> they can learn the ropes, and that they would then settle down to an
> activity level more characteristic of the long tail, where they are not so
> much admins but editors with admin powers who regularly (but not
> excessively) help out the current batch of very active new admins and once
> in a while clear out backlogs.
>

I can think of a few types of organizations/businesses that are heavily
reliant on a small group of over-worked people...but I don't think
Wikipedia should be one of them.

FWIW, I think that decreasing the average workload of the "hyperactives"
should be a major priority. The quality of their work will improve, the
number of fatigue-related problems will decrease, and there may be less
hesitation in de-sysopping one of them.

-Rich


from_name: Berto 'd Sera

body:
Hi!

> "neutral educational content";
Good for me :) LOLOL, why didn't you say so right from the start?

> Wikipedia might in some way feature such original content
Which ones, for example?

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 26/02/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would never claim our current solution is the final one.  But we do need
>>>to take the criticism of people like Scott McCloud with a grain of salt.
>>>
>>>
>>Because he's a best-selling author and respected expert in his field?
>>
>>
>Exactly. Obviously, if you ask his expert opinion on comics, you have
>to Assume Bad Faith and assume he'll ... I dunno, do something
>obviously bad. You know those comics experts.
>
Yeah.  Comic experts are funny that way. :-)

Ec


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/26/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:40 PM, T P wrote:
> > >> I noted elsewhere that, as a volunteeer effort, Wikipedia is
> primarily
> > >> written to satisfiy the needs of the writers.
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > >> Practically speaking, what matters is the opinions of the people
> > >> working on
> > >> Wikipedia, because you sure as hell aren't going to "fix" Wikipedia
> > >> just
> > >> because outsiders think it's broken.
> >
> > on 2/26/07 8:44 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner at gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > There's not much to say here. Both of these statements are, I think,
> > > 100% wrong. They are the polar opposite of how Wikipedia should work.
>
>
>
>
> > They represent the exact instinct that causes many of the problems
>
> > I've been describing here. I think it is vital that we do everything
> > > we can to resist these attitudes on every conceivable level.
>
>
> I think you need to distinguish between the way Wikipedia works and the
> way
> you think it should work.  My comments relate to the former.  Yours relate
> to the latter.
>
> If you can think of a way to make a volunteer organization like Wikipedia
> work the way you think it should work, more power to you.
>

I think you need to distinguish between the way Wikipedia works and the way
you think it should work.  My comments relate to the former.  Yours relate
to the latter.

If you can think of a way to make a volunteer organization like Wikipedia
work the way you think it should work, more power to you.


from_name: Gwern Branwen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> geni wrote:
> > On 2/27/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> on 2/26/07 10:24 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Knocking out even 10 of the hyperactives would lead to serious
> >>> problems unless you can find replacements (and if you can could you do
> >>> so now? The backlogs are getting anoying again).
> >>
> >> Are you saying that the quantity of the product is more important than
> the
> >> quality of the people? If so, that type of thinking is what has
> seriously
> >> contributed to the cancer in the culture.
> >
> > I'm saying that if you want a situation where the maintenance side
> > continues to remain in any way shape or form under control you cannot
> > afford to follow any course that would result in the loss of the
> > hyperactive admins.
> >
> > This is simply a description of the current sitution.
> >
>
> How may "hyper-active" admins are there? And if I'm following things
> corrects (and maybe I'm not), it seems that you're assuming that these
> hyperactives are likely candidates for losing their admin status. Am I
> right about that?
>
> -Rich
>

I would argue that hyper-active admins are more likely to have a short admin
career (whether that be because of desysopping or just leaving), and further
that the likelihood is greater than proportional to their edits. As you take
on herculean backlogs and amounts of work, your stress level increases and
the attention you give to each instance is less. This is a case both of
giving them less time (even if you double your time spent on Wikipedia, it
is easy to inadvertently increase your workload by an even greater factor -
new pages alone is basically almost uncatchable these days), and of making
more mistakes. So, you wind up more stressed, with disproportionately more
mistakes and thus complaints, which are easy to react badly to (after all,
aren't you practically single-handedly holding at bay backlogs at CSD/New
pages/ANI/Requested Moves/PROD/AfD/etc.? Don't you deserve a little
gratitude or at least understanding?). One may well be able to handle it
perfectly fine most of the times, and not add to one's stress by becoming
too addicted to Wikipedia or damaging your regular life - but it only takes
one blow up or major mistake.

You hyper-active admins on the list - am I entirely wrong here?

My ideal situation would be that admins would be very active initially so
they can learn the ropes, and that they would then settle down to an
activity level more characteristic of the long tail, where they are not so
much admins but editors with admin powers who regularly (but not
excessively) help out the current batch of very active new admins and once
in a while clear out backlogs.

--
Gwern


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Works cited in Wikipedia

body:
...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.

http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php

Quite an interesting idea to play with, there.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 26/02/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I would never claim our current solution is the final one.  But we do need
> > to take the criticism of people like Scott McCloud with a grain of salt.

> Because he's a best-selling author and respected expert in his field?

Exactly. Obviously, if you ask his expert opinion on comics, you have
to Assume Bad Faith and assume he'll ... I dunno, do something
obviously bad. You know those comics experts. Far better to ask
obnoxious teenage nerds who have no subject-area knowledge at all but
sure can't tolerate grey areas.

- d.


from_name: howard chen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Is wikipedia using MogileFS?

body:
I found a php class in the SVN which is MogileFS client, so it that
mean wikipedia is using MogileFS?

If yes, any experience to share?

thanks.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-02-27

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20068).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 493 of 511 tests (96.48%)... 18 tests failed!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Works cited in Wikipedia

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

>Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>
>>...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.
>>
>>http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php
>>
>>Quite an interesting idea to play with, there.
>>
>>
>What a coincidence - I was just today pondering how it was that many of
>the books in my librarything collection seem not to be referenced by WP
>articles, even some of those to which I personally added the reference.
>Not necessarily vandalism though, one thing we learn quickly from
>librarything is just how many dozens of ISBNs can be associated with a
>particular work...
>
>An interesting future possibility is to provide a route for article
>checkers to get in touch with people who actually own the book being
>referenced.
>
I added a couple of books to this site in December 2005 just to get the
hang of it, but never got back to it.  With others now interested I can
now take a second look

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Works cited in Wikipedia

body:
On 27/02/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
> > ...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.
> >
> > http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php
> >
> > Quite an interesting idea to play with, there.
> >
> What a coincidence - I was just today pondering how it was that many of
> the books in my librarything collection seem not to be referenced by WP
> articles, even some of those to which I personally added the reference.
> Not necessarily vandalism though, one thing we learn quickly from
> librarything is just how many dozens of ISBNs can be associated with a
> particular work...
>
> An interesting future possibility is to provide a route for article
> checkers to get in touch with people who actually own the book being
> referenced.

An excellent idea! Which reminds me... there's a "union catalogue"
group for the German wikipedia with much the same goals. I've set one
up for enwp; where would be best to spread the word? A sizable number
of users could produce an interesting reference resource...

http://www.librarything.com/groups/englishwikipedia

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:

> > > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics

> > That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.

> All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts in their
> fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.

The point also stands that you're clearly assuming that if you don't
know about it (as you just showed you didn't) then it must not be
important or relevant. This is the fundamental stupidity at the heart
of the AFD problem.

- d.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> The point also stands that you're clearly assuming that if you don't
> know about it (as you just showed you didn't) then it must not be
> important or relevant. This is the fundamental stupidity at the heart
> of the AFD problem.

Sadly it isn't that simple (there are various ways that problem could
be solved). Most people don't know about [[Titanium tetrachloride]]
but I doubt you could get it through AFD.
--
geni


body:
On 27/02/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:

> I simply do not know whether I would accept a WP operated by an
> educational foundation of some sort--or conceivably even a  government
> educational agency.

The Wikimedia Foundation is an educational charity, isn't it?
Wikimedia UK certainly aims to be. (one day.)

- d.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
I think "given the sensitive personal information that is sometimes
discussed on this mailing list." explains all there is to say.

Mgm

On 2/26/07, Simon Whydah <discussconcretely at hotmail.co.jp> wrote:
>
> I am studying your problematic system.
>
> Why are you eager to hide all the contents of Unblock-en-l suddenly?
>
> Why "within one week"?
>
>
> >From: Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com>
> >Subject: Important notice -- please confirm your unblock-en-l
> subscription
> >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:52:37 -0800
> --------
> Dear unblock-en-l subscriber,
>
> We've recently decided to establish some membership criteria for this
> mailing list, and are in the process of removing subscriptions which do
> not
> meet those criteria. In particular, we need to associate your email
> address
> with a particular Wikipedia account or identity. In order to do that,
> please click on this link:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Prodego
>
> PLEASE use "unblock-en-l identification" as your subject heading, to allow
> faster processing of your email.
>
> Do not email the user directly -- you MUST use the Special:Emailuser
> feature, or your identity will not be confirmed.
>
> If you have not replied to this message within one week, your subscription
> will be cancelled. You can request to re-join the list at any time. We
> apologize for this inconvenience, but hope that you understand the need
> for
> privacy and security, given the sensitive personal information that is
> sometimes discussed on this mailing list.
>
> Thank you,
> -Luna
> --------
> I don't believe it.
> Luna, Prodego, Mindspillage( Kat Walsh ) and/or essjay are abusing
> sockpuppets ?
>
> ALL ADMINs MUST make public and clear their identities in the first place.
>
> --Simon Whydah
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> ???????????????????? 24????????
> http://livesushi.jp/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
T P wrote:

>I think assuming that Scout McCloud's POV outweighs mine is bad.
>
>I am not claiming that the field is not important.  I am claiming that we
>shouldn't take Scout McCloud's word for it that it is important.
>
>This is what "a grain of salt" means, that you should not swallow someone's
>opinion whole.  It doesn't mean that you should ignore their opinion
>entirely.
>
If all we are arguing about is whether the field is important,and whose
word is strong enough to attest to that we might as well grow tails so
that we can have something to chase.  The subject is at least important
enough for us to have a debate about it.

Since I have not studied the subject I have no basis for attributing
weight to anybody's opinion within the field. but recognized "experts"
would be a good starting place.  If you dispute a specific opinion of
his I would take that into consideration; eventually experience would
let me know whose views to believe.  I have always been cautious about
expert opinion, but I am not inclined to prejudicially reject their views.

Ec


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Translating the Five pillars (Was:
 Important	Issue toHebrew Wikipedia and AdminAbuse)

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Now this is an interesting subject. AFAIK, pillars ARE mandatory for all
>>editions. If not just let me know, pms.wiki will be extremely happy in
>>getting rid of the "no original research" limit. I'm sure most soviet wikies
>>will be very happy to get rid of the NPOV principle, as well.
>>
>>
>This has never been fully articulated on the Foundation level. It
>should be, in collaboration with the community, for a "Wikipedia
>mission statement" (something we should, I believe, have for all our
>projects).
>
>
I can agree that it would be good to articulate the five pillars at the
foundation level.  They should be examined more closely before that it
done.  Each pillar shhould be expressed in a single short sentence.
What we have now on en:wp is a statement followed be a paragraph of
elaboration and explanation.  That elaboration is not the principle, and
it should always be clear that where the principle and its elaboration
appear to differ the principle takes precedence.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> You know, I don't feel the need to talk to you anymore.

Or you could, you know, actually address the points raised.

AFD's endemic attitudes and the almost entirely spurious, subjective
and arbitrary notion of "notability" as it's applied are a major and
ongoing disaster for relations between Wikipedia and the outside world
it's supposedly serving, and you can't pretend otherwise. It's spent
about two years now singularly failing to get its own house in order
and I think I'll happily start encouraging whatever needs to be done
to force it to. You can ignore this if you like.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
Yes, every editcount, regardless of what one is looking for, is the same
request. If a user wants to find the edit summary usage of another user
throughout his *entire* editing history, it's still the same number of hits
to /w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=5000 from a scraper than
to request a user's raw edit count. Since there aren't that many users who
want to know the minor edit usage of an editor with 75,000 edits (only RFA
and RFB in en.wp comes to mind), but there are more that want to see that
the editor indeed has 75,000 revisions to his credit, there's where the
problem lies.

A total editcount can be calculated by a simple database lookup to
$wgDBname_user.user_editcount; for those who want to know whether they're
close to making their 1000th edit or whatever, making a SELECT of 1000
revisions is overkill. While some smart edit counters have a built-in memory
and store revisions in an internal database, the most popular ones do not.
The number of requests for a relatively-new user is indeed the same: one.
However, again, making a SELECT query for the user's row is much faster, and
much less expensive, than a SELECT on the revision table for tons of
revisions.

I'd be interested in seeing this enabled, and measuring how many times the
5000-revision requests on Special:Contributions drop. That would be the best
estimate as to the impact of scrapers on the site.

-----Original Message-----
From: Simetrical [mailto:Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 6:37 PM
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

On 2/26/07, Titoxd at Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> From my experience, for every ten Special:Contributions requests made,
eight
> or nine are just to find out the raw edit count, and the rest are used to
> find namespace distributions, edit summary and minor edit usage. So,
> displaying user_editcount on Special:Contributions will cause scrape
> requests to take a substantial hit...

Doesn't any kind of edit count, with or without detailed statistics,
require exactly one request per page of contributions?  You can't know
how many edits the person has without figuring out how many pages
there are, but that requires going through every page, which hopefully
you've used to scrape all of the contributions into some kind of
internal data structure, from which you can then divine whatever
statistics you want, no?  Is it that statistics only care about the
last 1000 edits or whatever, so there's a limit on how many page
requests they'll need if not for wanting the full edit count?


subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
T P wrote:

>On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I tend to think that, of the many things to worry about in an
>>article, length is a secondary concern.
>>
>>
>As a writer, I endeavor not to waste the reader's time.  If they want to
>know more, it's easy to click on a link. Clearly large topics need long
>articles, but every word should count.
>
Making every word count is a matter of stylistics, and not everyone is
capable of the tight economical prose that would be thus required.

Ec


from_name: Stephanie Daugherty

subject: [Foundation-l] RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution

body:
teun spaans wrote:
> I like several elements in this approach.
>
> First, such a "no free image" template is a very clear invitation for people
> to donate one.
>
> Second, if the board would express a clearer view that fair use is not what
> we aim for, that in itzelf is a clear signal.
>
> A gradual approach would be more acceptible on the english wiki than an all
> out attack on all fair use images. For example, there could be a move where
> person photos would be allowed first, and dealing with other categories such
> as historical events later.
>
> i wish you health and happiness,
> teun spaans
>
>
As a technical solution, I'd say it would be good to go one step
further. Watermark nonfree images in such a way that they do not lose
their illustrative value, are clearly identified as nonfree, and that
they lose enough of their aesthetic value that there's a strong
incentive to replace them.

Thoughts?


body:
On 2/27/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I found a php class in the SVN which is MogileFS client, so it that
> > mean wikipedia is using MogileFS?
>
> we're not using it.
>
> In theory it could be nice, but in reality not that many people here
> speak that kind of Perl. ;-)
>

so what kind of hardware/software are being used by wikipedia to host
images or other resources?

:)

howa


subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> One of the unusual characteristics of Wikipedia is that, as a volunteer
> effort, articles are primarily written to satisfy the needs of the writers,
> not the readers.  Where those needs overlap (and usually they do) everything
> is fine.  But a lot of problems come up when they don't.

I think the problems we're talking about in this thread are some of
the writers versus some of the other writers. Or non-writers.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
T P wrote:

>There's nothing stupid about a prestigious reference work (as Wikipedia has
>become) waiting for a field to become significant before writing about it.
>If it becomes significant in fifteen years, we can write about it in fifteen
>years.  [[WP:MASTODON]]
>
The world is moving faster than that.  One unique feature about
Wikipedia is that it is contemporaneous with its content. Some of the
details which make our time what it is are ephemeral, and may not be
researchable in fifteen years.

Ec


from_name: Robth

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> If Scott McCloud were making the Encyclopedia of Sequential Art,
> wouldn't we want an entry on every single topic he thought important
> enough to include?

Well...maybe.  If he had already written said encyclopedia, thus
creating a very solid (printed, even!) source, then sure.  Otherwise,
it would depend on the degree to which we could do so while
maintaining some sort of across the board standards.  I know there are
some folks here who don't like the notion of across the board
standards, but as I've explained before on this list I think there are
good reasons to limit ourselves to subjects on which something has
been independently published, with some kind of editorial process or
at least some sort of putting-a-reputation-on-the-line-ness to it.
Wikipedia is a general project, and I think this means that we will
inevitably leave some degree of envelope-pushing in specific areas to
specialist projects; this is the niche that the countless specialist
wikis around the web look to fill, and that works well, I think; there
is a forum for forms of content that are problematic to fit into a big
general system, but its differentiated to mitigate spillover issues.
We can't be all things to all people

The above is an argument for some form of reliable sources guideline,
obviously, and not a notability guideline.  The latter I'm more up in
the air on; in the long run, I see no real need for one, but in the
short run there is something to be said for limiting our size sheerly
for reasons of manageability (although realistically we crossed the
borders of where we had any really effective quality control long
ago); some sort of rolling notability guideline that we could
progressively loosen over the years as our ability to cope with more
and more content developed would be an interesting possibility.

--
Robth
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 27/02/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> This sort of "experts are worse than clueless people" attitude pops
> up occasionally. It is, I think, worth ignoring entirely.

It verges on policy at AFD and DRV, which is a big problem with those
areas. Our friend T P typifies the attitude: apparently proud of
knowing nothing rather than the curse of subject area expertise.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think people are jumping to conclusions about my point.  My point is not
> that webcomics should not be included.  My point is that Scout McCloud's
> evaluation of notability should not carry more weight than the consensus of
> the people writing Wikipedia.  If he wants to change Wikipedia he's welcome
> to join us in writing it.

This again completely dodges the point that the row is between the
writers on the subject and those who want to discourage them from
writing on the subject by, apparently, any means necessary.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the insult.

You appear to be unable to support your attitudes when they are
described back to you. Perhaps you need to communicate better.
Particularly having claimed excellence in writing.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> In my case it's not such a strongly held opinion that I want to spend a lot
> of time explaining it.  But if I think of anything I'll let you know.

Although I expect you won't answer, I'm now wondering what the hell
you thought the point of participating so avidly in this thread was.

- d.


from_name: Michael Noda

subject: [WikiEN-l]  JuryBot (was: Scott McCloud on Wikipedia)

body:
On 2/27/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I think that decreasing the average workload of the "hyperactives"
> should be a major priority. The quality of their work will improve, the
> number of fatigue-related problems will decrease, and there may be less
> hesitation in de-sysopping one of them.

I wholeheartedly agree.  One thing that jumps out from the list of
deleters that geni posted
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/deleterlist> if you
missed it) is that about a third of the 840 admins listed have not
made a single deletion in the last 500,000.  Hardly an example of
leveraging of the long tail!

This is not to say that these admins aren't doing their jobs.  Indeed,
Charles Matthews and Mindspillage are both in the first screenful of
0.00% admins, and both are quite busy enough with more important
things than deletions.  :-)  However, there might be plenty of admins
(and non-admins, for that matter) who wouldn't mind doing a few
deletion-related tasks a week, even if (especially if?) they don't
want to focus on deletion full time.

What might work is to have a process similar to jury duty: have a
registry of volunteer admins who are assigned a very small, manageable
number of tasks randomly by bot once per week.  This would clear
backlogs, and take a lot of the pressure off the current top workers
to clear backlogs.  Anyone who screws up, of course, would be stricken
from the list of volunteers in minor cases, or could face desysopping
in cases of flagrant error.

The coding of the assignment bot is certainly beyond any of my skills,
but there are other other processes that currently rely on an
overworked core of regulars who tend to burn out, which could be
improved by introducing capable but non-daily-regular editor input.
These are (I believe not coincidentally) the same processes that are
most frequently described as "broken": !votes in RFA, AFD, and to a
lesser extent the other xFDs.

By explicitly balancing more of the editors' load, we can prevent
various bad things like burnout and criteria drift that result from
overwork at the core.

Implementation of any of this would, of course, require some (mostly
social) shifts in the affected process(es), but as this is not a
finished proposal, I will assume that the community is smarter than I
am and is capable of ironing out most bugs beforehand.

--Michael Noda


from_name: T P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Please enlighten me - what does "No angry mastodons" have to do with
> whether any field is significant enough to be covered in Wikipedia?
> Either now or fifteen years from now?

It means there's no hurry.

As a sidenote, I would add that for any field due to become significant
> fifteen years in the future, we should already be covering, right now,
> the building blocks that field will ultimately study. For example,
> there's a bit of a push these days for Hip hop studies to gain
> recognition as an interdisciplinary academic field. Argue if you like
> about its legitimacy - I'm sure Citizendium would reject it; I observe
> that no Wikipedia article exists yet. But if you can imagine what
> Wikipedia would have looked like in 1992, I can assure you that it would
> have included detailed articles on Public Enemy and N.W.A, and the
> articles we have might look better for it today.

If you can predict which fields will become significant in fifteen years, as
opposed to which will become forgotten and make Wikipedia look foolish, you
can make a lot of money.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/27/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> I have always been cautious about
> expert opinion, but I am not inclined to prejudicially reject their views.

I've said it several times now, I am not advocating prejudicially rejecting
anyone's views.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
On 2/27/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Making every word count is a matter of stylistics, and not everyone is
> capable of the tight economical prose that would be thus required.

Well what do we mean by "brilliant prose"?

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> This again completely dodges the point that the row is between the
> writers on the subject and those who want to discourage them from
> writing on the subject by, apparently, any means necessary.
>
>
> - d.

More discourage them from writing on wikipedia before writing somewhere else.

Incerdentaly has anyone thought of contacting Mr McCloud and asking
what he thinks standards of notability should be (and I don't more
general I mean specific criteria). At the moment we seem rather to be
guessing.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Presentation to readers

body:
On 2/27/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another thought on this topic.
>
> What if we replaced all of our problem tags with something generic -
> {{notverygood}} or something. I'm thinking wording along the lines of:
>
> "This article isn't very good yet. If you came here to learn about
> this topic, we apologize that we aren't able to help you as well as
> we'd like. If you know a bit about this topic already, please feel
> free to help to fix it. Some concerns people have are probably
> located on the talk page."
>
> And then the mass of other stuff - {{npov}}, {{unverified}},
> {{notability}}, etc could all move to the talk page. This puts a
> reader-friendly face forward, while retaining the information about
> what's wrong for editors.
>
> -Phil

I suggested this about a year ago. The main problem is that non
specific warnings are not very useful. Thus things like {{NPOV}}
{{hoax}} really do need to be at the top of the article.

Things like {{notability}} whatever the tags are for cats needed and
total lack of citations tags can go on the talk page but ah it didn't
catch on last time so I assume there is some oposition somewhere or
that people don't really care about the problem.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/27/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Correction: that's the way *AfD* works. You note that WP exists to serve the
> writers, but most (if not all) of those commenting on certain nominations
> may have never written on the topic concerned. That's not to say they should
> be ignored, because WP works by consensus, but if the people who know most
> about a field are writing about something, or saying that something deserves
> an article, then generally shouldn't it be included, unless it fails certain
> guidelines/policies, e.g. verifiability?
>
> Johnleemk

Problem is that those argueing for deletion are baseing thier
arguments on the article failing [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].

--
geni