body:
I use Wapedia. I really like it.

Gary Kirk wrote:
> Isn't there something called Wapipedia to search WP? I'm pretty sure
> I've seen a link to it from my network's content pages.
>
> Personally, I don't see the need for it. I use Opera Mini on my phone
> to browse WP and occasionally edit.
>
> The 3G phones can all surely run Opera or even simply the phone's
> native browser - Symbian-based, some of them.
>
> On 1/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [sent to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
>>
>> wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki , a third-party WAP translator for
>> Wikipedia, is gone and not coming back.
>>
>> How did I find this out? A "problem manager" for Hutchison 3G just
>> called me! 'Cos the volunteer press contact is obviously the person to
>> call about this sort of thing.
>>
>> Apparently, Hutchison promote Wikipedia as one of the things you can
>> get through their service. And apparently they were just hooking into
>> this third-party volunteer service. If you go to
>> http://wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki/ and read the WML file, the text it
>> gives is:
>>
>> "Sorry folks, the interface to wikipedia is down for the forseeable
>> future. There's a bug that crashes the webserver, and I don't have
>> free wap access any more, so I've got no incentive to fix it. I hope
>> you have enjoyed using the service."
>>
>> Apparently a Hutchison director saw that message and didn't understand
>> that it wasn't us. And this guy read that message and didn't twig that
>> it wasn't us. Ahem.
>>
>> As it happened I knew the right answer - "that'll be a third party
>> translator, we don't supply a WAP version of Wikipedia, just the web
>> version. If you want to run a WAP service, then you should contact
>> fluffypeople and pay them to run the service for you, or you should
>> get your own sysadmins to run the service for you."
>>
>> ANYWAY - it occurred to me that if we want to make Wikimedia projects
>> available to people - should we run our own WAP server? Or supply a
>> suitable feed or software as a paid feed for phone companies who want
>> to sell this to their customers? Or get them to give us the access to
>> supply knowledge to the world this way?
>>
>> (Given our fundraiser shortfall, options that involve money coming to
>> WMF are probably the nicest.)
>>
>> Does any of this sound at all feasible? Not that I'm volunteering for
>> the project ... just floating the idea.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070118/70627002/attachment.pgp>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Strauss

subject: [Foundation-l] wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki is gone

body:
I use Wapedia. I really like it.

Gary Kirk wrote:
> Isn't there something called Wapipedia to search WP? I'm pretty sure
> I've seen a link to it from my network's content pages.
>
> Personally, I don't see the need for it. I use Opera Mini on my phone
> to browse WP and occasionally edit.
>
> The 3G phones can all surely run Opera or even simply the phone's
> native browser - Symbian-based, some of them.
>
> On 1/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [sent to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
>>
>> wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki , a third-party WAP translator for
>> Wikipedia, is gone and not coming back.
>>
>> How did I find this out? A "problem manager" for Hutchison 3G just
>> called me! 'Cos the volunteer press contact is obviously the person to
>> call about this sort of thing.
>>
>> Apparently, Hutchison promote Wikipedia as one of the things you can
>> get through their service. And apparently they were just hooking into
>> this third-party volunteer service. If you go to
>> http://wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki/ and read the WML file, the text it
>> gives is:
>>
>> "Sorry folks, the interface to wikipedia is down for the forseeable
>> future. There's a bug that crashes the webserver, and I don't have
>> free wap access any more, so I've got no incentive to fix it. I hope
>> you have enjoyed using the service."
>>
>> Apparently a Hutchison director saw that message and didn't understand
>> that it wasn't us. And this guy read that message and didn't twig that
>> it wasn't us. Ahem.
>>
>> As it happened I knew the right answer - "that'll be a third party
>> translator, we don't supply a WAP version of Wikipedia, just the web
>> version. If you want to run a WAP service, then you should contact
>> fluffypeople and pay them to run the service for you, or you should
>> get your own sysadmins to run the service for you."
>>
>> ANYWAY - it occurred to me that if we want to make Wikimedia projects
>> available to people - should we run our own WAP server? Or supply a
>> suitable feed or software as a paid feed for phone companies who want
>> to sell this to their customers? Or get them to give us the access to
>> supply knowledge to the world this way?
>>
>> (Given our fundraiser shortfall, options that involve money coming to
>> WMF are probably the nicest.)
>>
>> Does any of this sound at all feasible? Not that I'm volunteering for
>> the project ... just floating the idea.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070118/70627002/attachment-0001.pgp>


list: foundation-l

from_name: "Thomas Müller"

subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:11:56 +0000
Von: "Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com>
>
> The Foundation has better things to spend ten thousand dollars on. We
> *have* a freely available search engine, which indexes Wikipedia, and
> is working well enough for now. Why should we spend money on something
> else just because you shout about it?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk

which search engine uses wikipedia? and where to download the url-database-index?, and yes, it was a demanding style / claim, but for a good open source project, and the hype about wikia--whatever-search shows that we can think about it.

Regards.

--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer


subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] special page listing pages with broken links?

body:
Ok. Cool.

That page seems to pick up pages in the user and talk namespaces as
well. Is there much value in adding a special page to the list of
extensions that lists main namespace pages that have links to articles
that don't exist in the main namespace? I know we'll use it, but we
have a different flow of creating pages and dealing with broken links
than Wikipedia.

Travis

On 1/18/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/07, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com> wrote:
> > We were looking for a special page that listed pages with broken
> > links, is there currently one available somewhere? I've created one
> > and didn't want to add a duplicate extension or functionalty to the
> > extensions.
>
> Well, you could go to Special:Wantedpages and work backwards from
> there, I suppose, off the top of my head.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
I thought this guy was on moderation.  Alphax, are you sleeping?
(Hmm...since Australia is upside down, do bats in Australia sleep
right-side-up?)

On 1/18/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jimbo,
>
> Since you haven't responded, I'm assuming you have absolutely no problem
> with my chronicling the very real procedural problems Wikipedia faces.
>
> I've started a livejournal: http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/
>
> I obviously can't leave these anywhere where you or your minions might
> want
> to change them, after all.
>
> I intend to pull no punches. I've left two Lessons for any newcomers to
> wikipedia, and I'll be leaving more in the coming days.
>
> If any of you are actually interested in honest dissent intended to
> (hopefully) make wikipedia better, you'll find it here, because you're
> certainly not going to find it on a "moderated" list where the slightest
> dissent from the groupthink is answered with cries of "troll."
>
> Parker
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Sage Ross

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Citizendium trying out not being a fork of Wikipedia
	for a while

body:
On 1/18/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/07, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Matt R wrote:
> > > As per the subject, excerpts from:
> > >
> > >
> > https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-January/000863.html
> > >
> > > Larry Sanger writes,
> > >
> > >   "After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion
> > > that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles
> > that
> > > are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to instruct our tech team to go
> > ahead
> > > and make the deletion...
> >
> > I'm a bit clueless, but does this mean they haven't used any Wikipedia
> > content, or that they have but they're hiding it?  I mean, all the
> > articles that are marked "CZ Live", are they based on Wikipedia content?
> >   And if they are, doesn't that mean they *have* to license under GFDL?
> >   Which, unless I got confused in another thread, they aren't planning
> > to do?
> >
> > Steve block
>
>
> Steve - if you poke around the Citizendium forum (there's a link to it in
> Matt's email) a lot of your questions may be answered.
>
> Apparently their first "approved" article, Biology, was a complete re-write
> - the Wikipedia article was blanked.  Other people have modified existing
> articles.  As I understand it, the CZ Live stuff is stuff that people are
> working on.
>
> Obviously they can't release work based on WP articles under a more
> restrictive license.  New material could be - it seems to me that there's a
> debate between people who want the whole project to by cc-by-nc and those
> who want it to stay GFDL.  It's certainly understandable that people would
> want their work to be only available for non-commercial uses - it's hard to
> think that people are using your work to make money.  Of course I believe
> that there are good arguments for GFDL, otherwise I wouldn't be contributing
> to Wikipedia, but NC appeals to me as well.
>
> Ian

Hopefully they will at least dual license with GFDL if they go the CC
route and start all new content.  It seems like cutting themselves off
from Wikipedia (especially, the transfer of content from CZ to WP) is
a good way to shoot themselves in the foot.  I don't see what a more
restrictive license gains them, aside from more freedom with fair use
images.  However, I think some of the Live content did start from
Wikipedia articles (correct me if I'm wrong).

It seems like a stretch to describe the forum discussion about the
possible non-forking as "indicating broad support" (as Sanger does in
the Citizendium blog announcement of the non-forking experiment).
Meh.  Not my problem.

-Sage


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
Guettarda,

I waited over a week after having my account with Gmail fixed following the
major database corruption. This necessitated the creation of a new Gmail
account as the old one was beyond recovery.

I sent a personal email to Jimbo regarding this, because I knew that someone
would accuse me of making a new account to "get around" moderation.

Don't worry. You've successfully driven away all honest dissent from
wikipedia and ensured it never gets better.

Parker

On 1/18/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I thought this guy was on moderation.  Alphax, are you sleeping?
> (Hmm...since Australia is upside down, do bats in Australia sleep
> right-side-up?)
>
> On 1/18/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jimbo,
> >
> > Since you haven't responded, I'm assuming you have absolutely no problem
> > with my chronicling the very real procedural problems Wikipedia faces.
> >
> > I've started a livejournal: http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/
> >
> > I obviously can't leave these anywhere where you or your minions might
> > want
> > to change them, after all.
> >
> > I intend to pull no punches. I've left two Lessons for any newcomers to
> > wikipedia, and I'll be leaving more in the coming days.
> >
> > If any of you are actually interested in honest dissent intended to
> > (hopefully) make wikipedia better, you'll find it here, because you're
> > certainly not going to find it on a "moderated" list where the slightest
> > dissent from the groupthink is answered with cries of "troll."
> >
> > Parker
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium

body:
Fastfission wrote:

> The problem is the categorization of disciplines can be a very
>
>controversial issue even if the discipline itself does not come with
>specific and explicit political or cultural agendas, much less tied up
>in questions of identity or the ability of individuals to make
>decisions on account of their cultural heritage.
>
IOW categorization itself can introduce biases and POVs.

>There is absolutely no easy answer to it. The question of where
>ethnic/gender studies (and its variants) fall within the organization
>of knowledge has been something the American academy has been
>periodically battling with for forty years (Peter Novick's _That Noble
>Dream_ has some great accounts of how the discipline of History in the
>US struggled with these issues in the 60s and 70s). The question of
>disciplinary disputes (what sociologists sometimes call "boundary
>work") has existed since before Copernicus (the question of whether
>mathematicians could make statements which impinged on areas of
>philosophy was a big one in his era). Categorization of knowledge was
>one of the most radical aspects of the original Encyclopedie, and some
>scholars (Robert Darnton in particular) have argued that it was in
>categorizing religion in the same tree as black magic (rather than a
>source of revealed truth) that really invoked the ire of the Church
>(rather than the snippy little asides poking fun at the Eucharist).
>
The problem is older than that.  The usual arrangement of the English
translation of Aristotle's works puts "Categories" in the very first place.

>Which is just to say that while I don't think this is necessarily any
>example of systemic racism or sexism on Sanger's part (there are
>legitimate reasons for not considering these fields to be top-level
>categories, one need not attribute such opinions to philosophies of
>prejudice), it is an example of what some of the difficulties with an
>"expert-driven" system will be. The problem is, experts don't even
>agree on very basic things at times, such as whose knowledge counts as
>genuine, such as how knowledge should be organized, such as where a
>discipline stops and ends. No matter what decision is made in these
>sorts of issues, they will alienate entire disciplines of experts.
>
>I think Wikipedia gets around it, paradoxically enough, by not
>pretending to have any expert rule, as well as having a relatively
>democratic categorization system (things can be redundantly
>categorized). If you don't make the assumption that the material is
>heavily mediated by experts, then you don't feel quite as bad if it
>doesn't align with one point of view or the other. Or maybe experts
>just don't pay a lot of attention to issues like this on Wikipedia for
>one reason or another.
>
The premise that "Wikipedia is not paper" may help us on this.  We can
add redundant categories without having to rewrite or re-arrange large
quantities of data.  When a library changes its cataloging system it can
be many years before everything is upgraded.  Some old less important
material is never recatalogued.

>In any case... it will be interesting to see how Sanger works this out
>over time. He really can't afford to alienate the entire humanities
>and if he is perceived as shutting out or, god forbid, segregating
>ethnic/gender studies he will probably end up doing just about that.
>(I'm not saying he's doing that, I'm just talking about how he will be
>perceived.) If he insists on making determinations like this on his
>own (if that is indeed what he has done), he will likely end up
>stepping on a lot of toes.
>
In all fairness didn't the problem lay in his refusal to segregate
ethnic and gender studies from their larger supercategories.  When you
give special status to ethnic studies you bring attention to it.  When
there is systemic bias recognizing that bias is a first step toward
solving the problem, but if you overemphazixe a specific bias there is a
risk that you will generate new biases.  Bias against African-Americans
may be a significant problem in the United States, but other Wikipedians
in other countries may see this as a particularly American problem.  The
ethnic priorities in other countries can be quite different.  If America
is indeed the great melting pot, what indeed is the point of classifying
African-American literature as something separate from plain old
American literature.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Independent article

body:
On 18/01/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/17/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I actually spoke at some length about this with the person who called
> > me - death notices often do in fact show up on Wikipedia before almost
> > anywhere, e.g. the death of [[Andrea Dworkin]], where it went straight
> > from a feminist mailing list to her article and only hit the media
> > during the following day. Being *current* is one of our really strong
> > suits, and the readers know this.

> Andrea  Dworkin's dead? Nobody tells me anything...

There's this online encyclopedia I know that will tell you all about her ...

- d.


from_name: Nina Stratton

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
On 1/18/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Don't worry. You've successfully driven away all honest dissent from
> > > wikipedia and ensured it never gets better.
> >
> >
> > Who told him our secret plan?
>
> Shhh... there is no cabal, remember?

I'm a cabalist, just like Madonna.:P

-l
>

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


body:
phoebe ayers wrote:

>Ah, this is related to my own dream: that someday the accessibility of the
>knowledge resources that you contribute to will be taken into account as an
>important quality. Accessibility is recognized somewhat now in the academy
>for tenure, but only obliquely -- while the very prestigious journals like
>"Nature" and "Science" are also highly-subscribed to, most of the time
>people make tenure based on publications that have only seen the light of
>day in expensive journals and books that have very few holdings and thus
>very few readers.
>
The problem of accessibility is bigger than the price of journals, or
the need for some who want to have their work published need to pay to
have that done.   The high circulation journals that you mention have
their own space limitations about what they can include, so they cannot
enter into any individual science with much depth.  For the user, even
if the cost of a journal can be kept affordable it will only cover one
corner of the subject matter.  He may need to suscribe to a range of
journals.  That brings the costs back up, and can also open storage
problems.  There is an advantage to being connected to a university, and
having access to the pooled resources in their libraries, but libraries
have their funding problems too.  As well, I keep hearing horror stories
about runs of old journals being dumped because they don't have the
place to keep them.  Some of my 19th century bound volumes of
"Scientific American" once belonged to libraries.

The Renaissance Wikipedian who is not associated with a university has
to make do with what he can find.  If all he can find is internet
material it will shape and limit his perceptions.  Fact checking should
be one of our jobs, but doing that effectively depends on having access
to information.

>Sure, this is an encyclopedia, and therefore never going
>to count for original research for tenure (much as writing print
>encyclopedias or textbooks now generally doesn't get you as many tenure
>points) but it would be pretty grand to be able to make the argument that
>because you're contributing to a world-wide freely accessible resource
>you're actually helping thousands more people than you would by publishing
>any other way. If Larry or anyone else can help swing the perception of
>working on Wikipedia/Citizendium/whatever away from "wasting time on the
>Internet" and towards "helping the world learn about my field," that will be
>a good thing indeed.
>
Being on the hunt for tenure is bound to affect the way that one edits.
If one's institution support's a particular world view he will be
motivated to let that influence the way he contributes; not all of his
fellow editors will share that world view.

Ec


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>Experts, to function well on Wikipedia, need to more than just proclaim themselves an expert and regurgitate what they learned in school. Particularly they must be familiar with the literature and be able to cite it. That may be a rare talent, as is excellent teaching, the underlying skill that is involved in writing an introductory textbook, which is what a Wikipedia article is, in part.
>
Both expert and amateur in theory have the same literature available for
citation.  The important skill they learned in kindergarten: connecting
the dots in the right order.

I wish Wikiversity well, but sometimes I wonder if they have grasped
that planning an effective course is more than knowing the subject.

Ec


body:
Delirium wrote:

>Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>
>>Unless I have gotten the personalities mixed up, Stan is himself an certified expert employed in an academic setting, which is one reason he can make such an incisive comment about Larry.
>>
>>
>Indeed I think this is a general feature.  I was a lot more deferent
>towards experts before I went into academia---once you find out how the
>sausage is made, and even occasionally get deferred to yourself in an
>area where you know your word has no business being accepted
>unquestioningly, it's hard to view it in as idealized a fashion.  I'd
>say most of the academics I know on Wikipedia are *less* deferent
>towards credentials than most of the non-academics are (with some
>exceptions).
>
I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues.  "IANAL" appears
far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.

Ec


body:
George Herbert wrote:

>You can see this in how some professors are making Wikipedia articles
>be "the class writing project" for some courses...  Even they consider
>it an environment where both the process and final products are good
>practice for that.
>
Perhaps Phoebe could make this point to the high school librarian that
sought her opinions about Wikipedia.

Ec


body:
Nina Stratton wrote:

>On 1/17/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of, and
>>seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
>>
>>Someone, I don't recall who it was, wrote that they would never work on
>>something where experts were involved. Really? Who would you go to if you
>>needed heart surgery, or wanted to learn how to play a violin?
>>
>>Don't look now, but you are working with the aid of experts right now!
>>Those
>>marvelous persons behind the scenes of this computerized market place who
>>make all of this possible. Without them we would be typing into the ether.
>>
>Fair enough. As long as my intelligence, experience, and ability to learn
>aren't discounted. I've been made to feel small a lot in my life by
>"experts", simply because I didn't have one or two pieces of paper. It's all
>good now and I love my career and life, but Wikipedia is important to me
>because it's pretty much the opposite of my past.
>
>People respect my skills and insight here. It's greatly improved my
>confidence level on all fronts. In fact (why yes, it's quite ironic), I'm
>planning on going back to school and getting my long-lost bachelor's and
>masters in Human Services as a direct result of my time here (among other
>things - my job plays a big part in it too).
>
>Some of the editors that I've come to respect the most on Wikipedia are not
>only non-experts, they're teenagers. My teenage collaborators have been
>extremely active, and have gotten references to things no one else could
>find. They're also knowledgeable, helpful, and kind. When I say teenagers,
>I'm talking 14-15, not 18-19. They've impressed me in their editing and
>insight more than any "expert".
>
Great!  You and Marc approach the issues from entirely different
perspectives, and are approaching a consensus.  That's what it's all about.

Ec


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
On 1/18/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't worry. You've successfully driven away all honest dissent from
> wikipedia and ensured it never gets better.

Who told him our secret plan?


from_name: geni

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia and the search engine wars (was: Re:
	P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
On 1/18/07, thomasasta at gmx.net <thomasasta at gmx.net> wrote:
> So.. searching and providing information is the core competency of wikipedia and the >foundations mission... and this is in the next step the webcontent outside wikipedia.
>

There is a difference between providing information, indexing
information, and searching for information.

> wikipedia is a good startpoint to learn and explore, and this is not bounded to the world >outside, sic the webinks: so we need a search engine.
>

We seem to get by without one.

> The open and participation movement has to go on, for the rest of the web and correlated >to the community of wikipedia, this is why the foundation is in the boat to develop or >support a p2p search engine.

Not really.

>
> Is it too much asked, to not code this app?

We have no spare developer resources.

> to not promote this app?

We generally try to avoid directly promoting third party projects.

> Just to add the wikiedia content to the index yacy machine? This job can do 50 servers, >we do not need human resources, so this is why I asked for 10.000 dollars for the >hardware.
>

There are a lot of other things we could do with $10,000

> Sometimes I think the money is spent wrong because of a satisfied organization with a >lack of innovation and inspiration. All are satisfied with the wikipedia, which is a stable >system and the money is done to any bureau copy machine, than to invest into the >hardware for new adresesm, users get information from.

Wikipedia is hardly our only project. there is commons Wiktionary,
Wikinews, Wikiversity etc.

>Don?t missunderstand me. I tried to start a subproject to found here
as well, but it is not >granted, so we need just the hardware.

Experience suggests you would need far more than that.

>50 servers for 199 Euro, which is 150 US Dollars per each.
>

I think there is an error in you calculations.

> The foundation needs to realize it?s own core competencies: providing information and >now it is time to get rid of the boarder of wiki-urls and rest of the world urls. We need an >indexing p2p machine.
>

Why?

> The claim itself came from Jimmy Wales, himself Founder of the open participatin idea, >and generated a big hypoe in the world.
>

Umm wikis are generally credited to Ward Cunningham.

> But now, as wikiseek is out and discussions have been done, we see, that a advertising >for profit peroject is the wrong way. It should have been in the right place here discussed >from the foundation.
>

Wikiseek doesn't have much to do with us.

> I wounder, why this is not done and how we can get into it.
> Wikiasari idea is even mroe related to wikifoundation than to wikiasari.
> This shows wikiseek, which expells back to wikipedia.
>

Neither are foundation projects.

> And this is the reason I am trying to vote here for 10.000 Dollars for 50 yacy desktop >computers to index every wikipedia to this p2p network as an alternativ eopen source >search eninge.
>
> So who can decide over the dollars to buy this hardware?
>

Technically that would be within the remit of the board but they are
unlikely to do so

> Well, it need not to be 50 in the fist moth, let?s say 10 for the english wikipedia and we >create as well a demo-search portal with a big local index of wikipedia like >www.yacysearch.com
>

Have you any idea how big the en .wikipedia database is?

> Furthermore, why can?t any foudation list member answer the question, which software >for the wikipediasearch box are used right now as a centrals earch engine? is financial and >technical staff so devided?

Going by [[Special:version]] we use LuceneSearch.
--
geni


from_name: Matt R

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Citizendium trying out not being a fork of Wikipedia for
	a while

body:
As per the subject, excerpts from:

   https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-January/000863.html

Larry Sanger writes,

  "After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion
that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles that
are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to instruct our tech team to go ahead
and make the deletion...This experiment represents a reconception of our
project's basic aim.  If the experiment goes well, no longer will we be calling
ourselves a "fork of Wikipedia."  We will have, exclusively, our own identity
and our own articles.  We will still, to be sure, follow much of the Wikipedia
process--the aspects that work.  But no longer will we have as our central
aim the cleaning up and approval of Wikipedia articles.  I think it might
prove easier and more pleasant to build fresh new stables than to clean out
the Augean Stables of Wikipedia."

On the CZ forums, he writes,

"One thing that I think I didn't realize sufficiently, when writing about this
question a few months ago (at embarrassing length, before the pilot project was
well under way), is that the very presence of fair-to-middling articles from WP
is actually a strong disincentive for people to get to work. It's like this:
when you get down to brass tacks, it's no fun to clean up the mediocre work of
Wikipedians.  It might be a hell of a lot more fun to start over from scratch."
 (http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,431.0.html)

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail ? Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Citizendium trying out not being a fork of Wikipedia
 for a while

body:
Nina Stratton wrote:

>On 1/18/07, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>As per the subject, excerpts from:
>>
>>Larry Sanger writes,
>>If the experiment goes well, no longer will we be calling
>>ourselves a "fork of Wikipedia."  We will have, exclusively, our own identity
>>and our own articles.  We will still, to be sure, follow much of the Wikipedia
>>process--the aspects that work.  But no longer will we have as our central
>>aim the cleaning up and approval of Wikipedia articles.  I think it might
>>prove easier and more pleasant to build fresh new stables than to clean
>>out the Augean Stables of Wikipedia."
>>
>>
>Well I am just so...he is...well...this just makes me so...hmph, pfft.
>
>
:-)   Yes. I can understand how far some go in accepting that the only
horses that don't require you to clean up after them are the ones on the
merry-go-round.

Ec


from_name: thomasasta at gmx.net

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia and the search engine wars (was: Re:
 P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:13:36 +0100
Von: Dirk Riehle <dirk at riehle.org>

> Hi Anthere,
>
> Next to smart search algorithms,
> the other critical component you need in search is raw computing power
> like Google's data centers. Non-profits will never match Google here, so
> the solution has to be a peer-to-peer community approach.

yes, this is the way to go, thanks Dirk. But is it a way to go for wikifoundation?

> Now, I think you are right when you say WMF doesn't have anything to do
> with the search wars---in principle. So people with a political
> conviction that search is a public utility should go to some other
> place. However, what I'm trying to say is that they will be back because
> Wikipedia will play a critical role in any attempt of making search a
> public utility.

Very hintful spoken, good, *IF* one social movement to openness and participation is done in these ages, then this is editing wikis, especially the wikipedia.

So saying that open search engine code and open url database is not releated to the age we live in is the same lie to say, that wikifoundation has nothing to do with wikipedia.

So.. searching and providing information is the core competency of wikipedia and the foundations mission... and this is in the next step the webcontent outside wikipedia.

wikipedia is a good startpoint to learn and explore, and this is not bounded to the world outside, sic the webinks: so we need a search engine.

The open and participation movement has to go on, for the rest of the web and correlated to the community of wikipedia, this is why the foundation is in the boat to develop or support a p2p search engine.

Is it too much asked, to not code this app? to not promote this app? Just to add the wikiedia content to the index yacy machine? This job can do 50 servers, we do not need human resources, so this is why I asked for 10.000 dollars for the hardware.

Sometimes I think the money is spent wrong because of a satisfied organization with a lack of innovation and inspiration. All are satisfied with the wikipedia, which is a stable system and the money is done to any bureau copy machine, than to invest into the hardware for new adresesm, users get information from. Don?t missunderstand me. I tried to start a subproject to found here as well, but it is not granted, so we need just the hardware. 50 servers for 199 Euro, which is 150 US Dollars per each.

The foundation needs to realize it?s own core competencies: providing information and now it is time to get rid of the boarder of wiki-urls and rest of the world urls. We need an indexing p2p machine.

The claim itself came from Jimmy Wales, himself Founder of the open participatin idea, and generated a big hypoe in the world.

But now, as wikiseek is out and discussions have been done, we see, that a advertising for profit peroject is the wrong way. It should have been in the right place here discussed from the foundation.

I wounder, why this is not done and how we can get into it.
Wikiasari idea is even mroe related to wikifoundation than to wikiasari.
This shows wikiseek, which expells back to wikipedia.

And this is the reason I am trying to vote here for 10.000 Dollars for 50 yacy desktop computers to index every wikipedia to this p2p network as an alternativ eopen source search eninge.

So who can decide over the dollars to buy this hardware?

Well, it need not to be 50 in the fist moth, let?s say 10 for the english wikipedia and we create as well a demo-search portal with a big local index of wikipedia like www.yacysearch.com

Furthermore, why can?t any foudation list member answer the question, which software for the wikipediasearch box are used right now as a centrals earch engine? is financial and technical staff so devided?

--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer


subject: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

body:
That's very well said, Mark. I agree wholeheartedly.

Delirium wrote:
> I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that
> case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can
> always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures
> removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair
> use.  What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a
> fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd
> be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've
> provided one that they could have kept in.
>
> But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing
> a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while
> the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free
> knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
>
> -Mark

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070118/d1a8890b/attachment.pgp


body:
That's very well said, Mark. I agree wholeheartedly.

Delirium wrote:
> I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that
> case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can
> always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures
> removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair
> use.  What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a
> fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd
> be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've
> provided one that they could have kept in.
>
> But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing
> a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while
> the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free
> knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
>
> -Mark

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070118/d1a8890b/attachment.pgp>


body:
That's very well said, Mark. I agree wholeheartedly.

Delirium wrote:
> I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that
> case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can
> always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures
> removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair
> use.  What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a
> fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd
> be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've
> provided one that they could have kept in.
>
> But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing
> a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while
> the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free
> knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
>
> -Mark

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070118/d1a8890b/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: cohesion

body:
On 1/18/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Larry Sanger writes,
> > >
> > >   "After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion
> > > that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles
> > that
> > > are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to instruct our tech team to go
> > ahead
> > > and make the deletion...

So, if they are making new material, will this be free content or not?

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]


body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Nina Stratton wrote:
>
>
>>I'm a 40 (almost) year old black woman who dropped out of high school and
>>never finished college. I'm also fundamentally opposed to "experts" running
>>anything I have to do with. I can read, I can write, and I can learn. That's
>>all I need and all I will ever need.
>>
>>
>You're either incredibly na?ve, or the best troll I've seen in a long time.
>
This is offensive.  Assume good faith.  When a person is open about her
personal life that should not be taken as an invitation to find fault.
Her positive attitude about herself is more important than her critical
view of experts.

Ec


from_name: Delirium

body:
teun spaans wrote:

>So the question is: what do we pursue: the dream of a free content, or a
>compromise which add some chrome/culture but inhibits the free spreading of
>knowledge?
>
>
I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that
case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can
always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures
removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair
use.  What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a
fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd
be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've
provided one that they could have kept in.

But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing
a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while
the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free
knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.

-Mark


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
On 1/18/07, "Thomas M?ller" <thomasasta at gmx.net> wrote:
> So you know who, you know the battle now
> and you know the view on wikifoundation open source intention.

Whose battle for what against whom?

> So we know, wikiseek is evel, as google and advertisements are behind it,

Pardon? And I would like to know who is we in your context...

--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 1/18/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge at telus.net]
> > >Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 05:44 PM
> > >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
> >
> > >I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues.  "IANAL" appears
> > >far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
> > >
> > >Ec
> >
> > And well it should. Listening to someone give legal advice that doesn't know squat is very painful. A good lawyer knows you have to be familiar with the facts and research the law before you start in with the advice, and even then it is likely to be wrong unless a judge agrees.
> >
> > Fred
>
> Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say
> "I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to
> almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.

This is a question of whether we're talking about WP articles ON the
law, in which case the "are you an attorney or not?" question doesn't
really matter much, or talking about how the law affects WP, in which
case the question is much more significant and less academic...

I don't mind if Fred edits an article on heart surgery, but if I need
a bypass, with all due respect to Fred, I want someone who does them
for a living 8-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Expertaphobia

body:
>
>
>
> In the article on Cheesesteak, people were constantly coming in with
> pronouncements on what kind of cheese was proper or what brand of
> roll was required, and insisting that they were Philadelphians and
> that they _knew_. But the thing was, some people that said they were
> experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had Cheese
> Whiz and coarsely cut meat, while other people who said they were
> experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had provolone
> cheese and finely chopped meat.
>
> That's the beautiful thing about Wikipedia. Why highlight the debate of,
say, any article related to science, the humanities or philosophy, when
we've got the issue right there in a fine Philly Cheesesteak?

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Expertaphobia

body:
On 1/18/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the article on Cheesesteak, people were constantly coming in with
> > pronouncements on what kind of cheese was proper or what brand of
> > roll was required, and insisting that they were Philadelphians and
> > that they _knew_. But the thing was, some people that said they were
> > experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had Cheese
> > Whiz and coarsely cut meat, while other people who said they were
> > experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had provolone
> > cheese and finely chopped meat.
> >
> > That's the beautiful thing about Wikipedia. Why highlight the debate of,
> say, any article related to science, the humanities or philosophy, when
> we've got the issue right there in a fine Philly Cheesesteak?

I don't know that I'd call the Cheese Whiz version "fine", but your
point is good.

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


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] In defence of Google

body:
Hoi,
Recently there has been a lot of traffic about search engines. The tone
of these discussions have been hostile towards Google. I want to remind
you all that it is because of the value Google attaches to our content
that we became the number 10 or whatever in the Alexa rankings. When
Google were to drop the value it attaches to Wikipedia in favour of for
instance Citizendium, it will become clear how important Google is for
the dissemination of our Free content. When Citizendium finally gets its
act together, and does a better job that we do, it will make sense to
Google to change its preference. We should not sit on our laurels but
innovate. Frankly we can use some competition.

The point that I am making is NOT that we might not consider dabbling in
search technology. When we are to do this, we will find a well written
proposal in Meta to consider. My point is that Google did a world of
good to the Open Content movement. It is relevant that we acknowledge
this. They are not like Microsoft who gives us a low ratings because of
us competing with their product. Google did good, Google does good.

Thanks,
     GerardM


subject: [Foundation-l] In defence of Google


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Foundation-l] In defence of Google

body:
On 1/18/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Recently there has been a lot of traffic about search engines. The tone
> of these discussions have been hostile towards Google.

I do not consider these discussions representative in how Wikipedians
see the work of the commercial search engines and their impact in how
Wikipedia developed. There has been great collaboration in many
specific problems.

I am quite worried about the lack of facts in those speculation that
usually lead to "Wikipedia vs. Yahoo/Google/whatever".

Mathias


subject: [Foundation-l] In defence of Google


from_name: Jon Anunson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Install Question - GD Library

body:
Hi everyone, sorry, newbie question, i think.

I have PHP 5.0 installed, acording to http://se.php.net/gd, GD is bundled
into the PHP install.  When i'm running the Mediawiki install, though, under
Checking invironments it says "Couldn't find GD library or ImageMagick; image
thumbnailing disabled."  Is there a certain version of GD required, or maybe
i havn't gotten PHP installed properly (?)

Thanks.


from_name: Steve Block

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Citizendium trying out not being a fork of Wikipedia
 for	a while

body:
Matt R wrote:
> As per the subject, excerpts from:
>
>    https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-January/000863.html
>
> Larry Sanger writes,
>
>   "After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion
> that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles that
> are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to instruct our tech team to go ahead
> and make the deletion...

I'm a bit clueless, but does this mean they haven't used any Wikipedia
content, or that they have but they're hiding it?  I mean, all the
articles that are marked "CZ Live", are they based on Wikipedia content?
  And if they are, doesn't that mean they *have* to license under GFDL?
  Which, unless I got confused in another thread, they aren't planning
to do?

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.14/636 - Release Date: 18/01/07 04:00


from_name: Ilia Alshanetsky

subject: [Wikitech-l] PHP 5.2.1RC3 testing

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

Hello!

You are receiving this email because your project has been select to
take part in a new effort by the PHP QA Team to make sure that your
project still works with PHP versions to-be-released. With this we
hope to make sure that you are either aware of things that might
break, or to make sure we don't introduce any strange regressions.
With this effort we hope to build a better relation between the PHP
Team and the major projects.

If you do not want to receive these heads-up emails, please reply to
me personally and I will remove you from the list; but, we hope that
you want to actively help us making PHP a better and more stable tool.

The third release candidate of PHP 5.2.1 was released today, it can
be downloaded from http://downloads.php.net/ilia/. This RC is once
again focusing on resolving bugs with another 20+ fixes since the
last iteration. We don't anticipate any regressions, however if you
spot any or come across new bugs, please notify PHP's QA team at "php-
qa at lists.php.net".

In case you think that other projects should also receive this kinds
of emails, please let me know privately, and I will add them to the
list of projects to contact.

Best Regards,

Ilia Alshanetsky
5.2 Release Master

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFsBEBLKekh381/CERAjQ8AKCaca/abC90C7bW7vvKmXdnPB93TQCglyTh
90h4MyFtwUNycUgjHg05y3Y=
=t3jv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
--- Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised if they "check in" on Wikipedia, now and then, just
> as we're apparently checking in on them. It's useful to see where similar
> but distinct projects have strong and weak points, and to see how that
> knowledge can help us to improve our own project.

Absolutely. Competition, preferably friendly, is not at all a bad thing.

> Additionally, I rather doubt it, but this couldn't be the start of some
> licensing change on their part?

Browsing the forum thread, this is apparently a possibility. There's even some
suggesting the use of a Creative Commons Non-Commercial license, an option
that's apparently acceptable to Larry Sanger. That would be a very unfortunate
development from the perspective of free content :(

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

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

Parker Peters stated for the record:
> Everything I sent was unedited and exactly as I was seeing it come in to my
> account.
>
> Whether you choose to believe the truth or not is your own choice, though it
> saddens me that you choose not to.
>
> Parker

Will it make you so sad that in your despair you give up trying to lie
to us and just go away?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Fac futuaris et caballus
 sean at epoptic.com | in quo huc equitasti.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFsD+O/SVOiq2uhHMRAhn5AKCciF0HIfaBdqfHumxxXRIGUF+17gCfTCii
YN+TfEVhAqIX3oeR0+UvZRY=
=yY9R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Expertaphobia

body:
On 1/18/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/18/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In the article on Cheesesteak, people were constantly coming in with
> > > pronouncements on what kind of cheese was proper or what brand of
> > > roll was required, and insisting that they were Philadelphians and
> > > that they _knew_. But the thing was, some people that said they were
> > > experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had Cheese
> > > Whiz and coarsely cut meat, while other people who said they were
> > > experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had provolone
> > > cheese and finely chopped meat.
> > >
> > > That's the beautiful thing about Wikipedia. Why highlight the debate
> of,
> > say, any article related to science, the humanities or philosophy, when
> > we've got the issue right there in a fine Philly Cheesesteak?
>
> I don't know that I'd call the Cheese Whiz version "fine", but your
> point is good.
>
> Hell - I always thought it was swiss, philistine that I am.

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
You saw the troubles I was having yourself, and I sent private emails to
several others explaining things as well, as well as explaining that I was
specifically NOT replying on-list because I had emailed Jimbo and was
waiting response before doing something that would cause people to falsely
accuse me of avoiding moderation.

Parker

On 1/18/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Parker Peters wrote:
> > Guettarda,
> >
> > I waited over a week after having my account with Gmail fixed following
> the
> > major database corruption. This necessitated the creation of a new Gmail
> > account as the old one was beyond recovery.
> >
>
> Without some sort of corroborating evidence, why should we believe you?
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: David Gerard

body:
[sent to foundation-l and wikitech-l]

wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki , a third-party WAP translator for
Wikipedia, is gone and not coming back.

How did I find this out? A "problem manager" for Hutchison 3G just
called me! 'Cos the volunteer press contact is obviously the person to
call about this sort of thing.

Apparently, Hutchison promote Wikipedia as one of the things you can
get through their service. And apparently they were just hooking into
this third-party volunteer service. If you go to
http://wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki/ and read the WML file, the text it
gives is:

"Sorry folks, the interface to wikipedia is down for the forseeable
future. There's a bug that crashes the webserver, and I don't have
free wap access any more, so I've got no incentive to fix it. I hope
you have enjoyed using the service."

Apparently a Hutchison director saw that message and didn't understand
that it wasn't us. And this guy read that message and didn't twig that
it wasn't us. Ahem.

As it happened I knew the right answer - "that'll be a third party
translator, we don't supply a WAP version of Wikipedia, just the web
version. If you want to run a WAP service, then you should contact
fluffypeople and pay them to run the service for you, or you should
get your own sysadmins to run the service for you."

ANYWAY - it occurred to me that if we want to make Wikimedia projects
available to people - should we run our own WAP server? Or supply a
suitable feed or software as a paid feed for phone companies who want
to sell this to their customers? Or get them to give us the access to
supply knowledge to the world this way?

(Given our fundraiser shortfall, options that involve money coming to
WMF are probably the nicest.)

Does any of this sound at all feasible? Not that I'm volunteering for
the project ... just floating the idea.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki is gone


subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
Everything I sent was unedited and exactly as I was seeing it come in to my
account.

Whether you choose to believe the truth or not is your own choice, though it
saddens me that you choose not to.

Parker

On 1/18/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com wrote:
> > On 1/18/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Without some sort of corroborating evidence, why should we believe you?
> >
> > You saw the troubles I was having yourself...
>
> We saw you accidentally replying as "Bob" from your
> "onmywayoutser" address, or vice versa; then hand-editing
> a response or two in a clumsy attempt to cover it up; then
> disingeniously claiming that there had been some kind of bizarre
> gmail failure.  (I mean, +1 for creativity in a desperate
> situation, but minus several million for believability.
> Though I suppose you get a few more points for brazen chutzpah
> for having somehow convinced the moderators to let messages from
> your new account through; I can't imagine how you managed that.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Expertaphobia

body:
>> On 1/17/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear
>>> of, and
>>> seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.

The problem with expertise on Wikipedia is how to judge whether or
not someone is an expert.

In the article on Cheesesteak, people were constantly coming in with
pronouncements on what kind of cheese was proper or what brand of
roll was required, and insisting that they were Philadelphians and
that they _knew_. But the thing was, some people that said they were
experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had Cheese
Whiz and coarsely cut meat, while other people who said they were
experts said that an authentic Philadelphia cheesesteak had provolone
cheese and finely chopped meat.

I couldn't judge their degree of expertise from their usernames. Nor
could I judge it from the plausibility of their statements, how
articulate or confident they sounded, or how good their grammar was.

Similarly, I accept that there _are_ people who _really know_ which
movies and publications are authentic parts of the _Nightmare on Elm
Street_ canon, but I don't know which of the people confidently
making conflicting claims are the people who really know.


from_name: Gary Kirk

body:
Isn't there something called Wapipedia to search WP? I'm pretty sure
I've seen a link to it from my network's content pages.

Personally, I don't see the need for it. I use Opera Mini on my phone
to browse WP and occasionally edit.

The 3G phones can all surely run Opera or even simply the phone's
native browser - Symbian-based, some of them.

On 1/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> [sent to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
>
> wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki , a third-party WAP translator for
> Wikipedia, is gone and not coming back.
>
> How did I find this out? A "problem manager" for Hutchison 3G just
> called me! 'Cos the volunteer press contact is obviously the person to
> call about this sort of thing.
>
> Apparently, Hutchison promote Wikipedia as one of the things you can
> get through their service. And apparently they were just hooking into
> this third-party volunteer service. If you go to
> http://wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki/ and read the WML file, the text it
> gives is:
>
> "Sorry folks, the interface to wikipedia is down for the forseeable
> future. There's a bug that crashes the webserver, and I don't have
> free wap access any more, so I've got no incentive to fix it. I hope
> you have enjoyed using the service."
>
> Apparently a Hutchison director saw that message and didn't understand
> that it wasn't us. And this guy read that message and didn't twig that
> it wasn't us. Ahem.
>
> As it happened I knew the right answer - "that'll be a third party
> translator, we don't supply a WAP version of Wikipedia, just the web
> version. If you want to run a WAP service, then you should contact
> fluffypeople and pay them to run the service for you, or you should
> get your own sysadmins to run the service for you."
>
> ANYWAY - it occurred to me that if we want to make Wikimedia projects
> available to people - should we run our own WAP server? Or supply a
> suitable feed or software as a paid feed for phone companies who want
> to sell this to their customers? Or get them to give us the access to
> supply knowledge to the world this way?
>
> (Given our fundraiser shortfall, options that involve money coming to
> WMF are probably the nicest.)
>
> Does any of this sound at all feasible? Not that I'm volunteering for
> the project ... just floating the idea.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Gary Kirk


from_name: Harish TM

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiDump Parsing

body:
This is actually quite a cool solution!!!

It is a little roundabout but its good to know I have alternatives!!

Harish

On 1/18/07, Anthony <wikitech at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/17/07, Harish TM <harish.tmh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just to further clarify what it is that I am looking for - Lets say I
> > want to PRINT out a copy of wikipedia ( I know thats insane - but I
> > need text to be as clean as if I were printing it out ), with the
> > articles indexed as per Title and category, how would I get that
> > data??
> >
> The easiest way would probably be:
> 1) download the dumps
> 2) install mediawiki
> 3) have a bot scrape from *your own* mediawiki installation (printable
> version)
> 4) use the categorylinks table to sort by category (or scrape the
> categories at the bottom of each article)
>
> On the other hand, you could always write your own parser :).
>
> Anthony
>


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 18/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

(...)

> ANYWAY - it occurred to me that if we want to make Wikimedia projects
> available to people - should we run our own WAP server? Or supply a
> suitable feed or software as a paid feed for phone companies who want
> to sell this to their customers? Or get them to give us the access to
> supply knowledge to the world this way?

We have been contacted about a direct feed for such services in the
past - it's a not uncommon mail to info-en - but I don't know if we
ever arranged something with anyone in the end.

wapedia.org and wapipedia.org have both run similar mirrors - might be
worth seeing what they're up to, as well.

Running our own en-wap.wikipedia.org (or something) would be a lot of
hassle from the technical side, but an interesting one to try.

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


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com wrote:
> On 1/18/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Without some sort of corroborating evidence, why should we believe you?
>
> You saw the troubles I was having yourself...

We saw you accidentally replying as "Bob" from your
"onmywayoutser" address, or vice versa; then hand-editing
a response or two in a clumsy attempt to cover it up; then
disingeniously claiming that there had been some kind of bizarre
gmail failure.  (I mean, +1 for creativity in a desperate
situation, but minus several million for believability.
Though I suppose you get a few more points for brazen chutzpah
for having somehow convinced the moderators to let messages from
your new account through; I can't imagine how you managed that.)


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 17/01/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> I took a look at the xenu article and dont see any reason for including the
> bbc screen shot. Likewise, the artcile remains perfectly understandable
> without the book covers and handwriting. Hence, there is no need to include
> these fair use images, and make the article undistributable in large parts
> of the world.

Looking at those pictures, and speaking more generally, the book
covers and handwriting images, despite being Fair Use, do add to the
article. Such images reflect the culture surrounding subject of the
article.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Jon Harald Søby

body:
On 1/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> ANYWAY - it occurred to me that if we want to make Wikimedia projects
> available to people - should we run our own WAP server? Or supply a
> suitable feed or software as a paid feed for phone companies who want
> to sell this to their customers? Or get them to give us the access to
> supply knowledge to the world this way?
>
> (Given our fundraiser shortfall, options that involve money coming to
> WMF are probably the nicest.)
>
> Does any of this sound at all feasible? Not that I'm volunteering for
> the project ... just floating the idea.

I like the Wapedia project [1] a lot - it supports a lot of languages
(most languages with more than 1000 articles), and is (afaik)
non-commercial, and is, of course, a really handy tool. How about
giving it "official status" and financial support?

[1] http://wapedia.mobi/

--
Best regards,
Jon Harald S?by

Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
Skype - jon.harald.soby


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
> From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:41:01 -0800
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
>
> Thank you for your very kind words, Marc. I will treasure them in the
> grueling toil and beauracracy that is  Higher Education in America.:)
>
> Nina

You inspired the words, Nina. As for Higher Education in America: give it an
ulcer, before it gives you one ;-).

Marc
>
> On 1/18/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:20:23 -0800
>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
>>>
>>> On 1/17/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
>>>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:20:48 -0800
>>>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
>>>>>
>>>>> +!
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/17/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Sandifer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...] If Larry wants an encyclopedia free of its biases, he should
>>>>>>> work on one. But he shouldn't call it an encyclopedia run by experts
>>>>>>> if he's going to dismiss the experts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are plenty of experts going at each other with knives on WP;
>>>>>> expertise is simply a fund of knowledge, and does not magically
>> confer
>>>>>> diplomatic, communication, or collaboration skills. In fact, great
>>>>>> knowledge tends to breed arrogance, making conflict more likely, not
>>>>>> less so. CZ adds real names and attributions to the mix, raising the
>>>>>> stakes even further by introducing the possibility of effect on one's
>>>>>> careers. The organizer would need the superior political skills of an
>>>>>> Ivy League dean to make it all work, but Larry's forum postings don't
>>>>>> evidence much improvement at diplomacy since the times he was
>> angering
>>>>>> editors on WP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stan
>>>>
>>>> Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of,
>> and
>>>> seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
>>>>
>>>> Someone, I don't recall who it was, wrote that they would never work on
>>>> something where experts were involved. Really? Who would you go to if
>> you
>>>> needed heart surgery, or wanted to learn how to play a violin?
>>>>
>>>> Don't look now, but you are working with the aid of experts right now!
>>>> Those
>>>> marvelous persons behind the scenes of this computerized market place
>> who
>>>> make all of this possible. Without them we would be typing into the
>> ether.
>>>>
>>>> Ease up!
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fair enough. As long as my intelligence, experience, and ability to
>> learn
>>> aren't discounted. I've been made to feel small a lot in my life by
>>> "experts", simply because I didn't have one or two pieces of paper. It's
>> all
>>> good now and I love my career and life, but Wikipedia is important to me
>>> because it's pretty much the opposite of my past.
>>>
>>> People respect my skills and insight here. It's greatly improved my
>>> confidence level on all fronts. In fact (why yes, it's quite ironic),
>> I'm
>>> planning on going back to school and getting my long-lost bachelor's and
>>> masters in Human Services as a direct result of my time here (among
>> other
>>> things - my job plays a big part in it too).
>>>
>>> Some of the editors that I've come to respect the most on Wikipedia are
>> not
>>> only non-experts, they're teenagers. My teenage collaborators have been
>>> extremely active, and have gotten references to things no one else could
>>> find. They're also knowledgeable, helpful, and kind. When I say
>> teenagers,
>>> I'm talking 14-15, not 18-19. They've impressed me in their editing and
>>> insight more than any "expert".
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nina
>>
>> Nina,
>>
>> Long before there were university degrees, there was the human being?s
>> ability to reason, and, most importantly to empathize. A formal education
>> can help you fine tune the first one of these, but no type or amount of
>> this
>> education can give you the second one. You seem to have it. Nurture it,
>> use
>> it ? you?re already far ahead of the game.
>>
>> Whatever formal degrees I may have, I consider them as things I?ve
>> accumulated on the way to learning something. And, as necessary keys that
>> provide me access to the most important part ? the persons I am trying to
>> reach.
>>
>> If someone is trying to put you down, they must need you to be there, so
>> they can be where they are.
>>
>> Best of luck in your studies and work in Human Services. The field could
>> use
>> many more like you. You appear to have a particular feel for adolescents.
>> I
>> don't know what your present work is in now, but perhaps your self is
>> trying
>> to tell you something about a career change. Consider adolescent
>> psychology;
>> the teens could use someone like you.
>>
>> Perspective:  B.S. = Bull.Shit. ? M.S. = More.Shit. - Ph.D. = Piled high.
>> &
>> Deep. :-)
>>
>> Be healthy,
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>>
>>>>> "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to
>> us
>>>> and
>>>>> conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul
>>>> Kalam
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Nina
>>> "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us
>> and
>>> conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul
>> Kalam
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Nina
> "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
> conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
> > Don't worry. You've successfully driven away all honest dissent from
> > wikipedia and ensured it never gets better.
>
>
> Who told him our secret plan?

Shhh... there is no cabal, remember?


subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com wrote:
> Everything I sent was unedited and exactly as I was seeing it come in
> to my account.

You saw the message from onmywayoutster at gmail.com, that was
signed as being from "Bob"?  And the reply to that message,
three minutes later, also from onmywayoutster at gmail.com, where
the attribution line "On 1/9/07, Parker Peters wrote:" was crossed
out, and "Bob Petrovich<wrestfan01 at gmail.com>" written above it
in crayon?  You're right, I am getting unduly cynical in my old
age; I ought to believe that both of those were due to a gmail
error.  Such very natural database failure modes, too, if you
come to think of it.


from_name: Manuel Schneider

body:
> ANYWAY - it occurred to me that if we want to make Wikimedia projects
> available to people - should we run our own WAP server? Or supply a
> suitable feed or software as a paid feed for phone companies who want
> to sell this to their customers? Or get them to give us the access to
> supply knowledge to the world this way?
>
> (Given our fundraiser shortfall, options that involve money coming to
> WMF are probably the nicest.)
>
> Does any of this sound at all feasible? Not that I'm volunteering for
> the project ... just floating the idea.

see:
http://en.wikipedia.7val.com/
http://de.wikipedia.7val.com/
...

--
Regards
Manuel Schneider

Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
www.wikimedia.ch


body:
> So which is worse for them: Using a source you can't acknowledge, or
> acknowledging a source that you can't use?

For them? The 2nd one. For everyone else, the first. There is only one
law: don't get caught.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>>From: Ray Saintonge
>>
>>
>>I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues.  "IANAL" appears
>>far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
>>
>>
>And well it should. Listening to someone give legal advice that doesn't know squat is very painful. A good lawyer knows you have to be familiar with the facts and research the law before you start in with the advice, and even then it is likely to be wrong unless a judge agrees.
>
That a good lawyer knows about facts and research does not logically
imply that a person who is not a lawyer doesn't.  That the  lawyer is
likely to be wrong before a judge (who is himself a lawyer) does nothing
to build confidence in lawyers.

Listening to poor advice is indeed painful, but that experience is not
limited to law.  Law does not begin and end with the statutes.  For
every statutory provision there are people willing to give multiple
interpretations where you would not expect them, and precedents often
appear contradictory.  I believe that people have to accept the direct
consequences of their actions, and ignorance of those consequences is no
excuse.  It also comes down to a matter of risk tolerance, and I find
most people to be not risk tolerant at all.

Ec


from_name: teun spaans

body:
Certainly. Book and album covers do reflect the culture and in that way
enhance the article, but i do not find them indispensable. The articles
generally remain perfectly understandable without them.
If there was a free alternative, I wouldnt object to adding them. If someone
would donate a huge sum to buy all Sony album covers in the public domain,
and Sony would be willing to sell those rights, I'd be perfectly happy with
them. But alas I dont see anyone donating such a gift, and if someone did, I
doubt the major music publishers and book publishers would be willing to
sell them.

If an image, free or fair use, didnt add to an article, we wouldnt have a
discussion, we would probably already have it removed.

So the question is: what do we pursue: the dream of a free content, or a
compromise which add some chrome/culture but inhibits the free spreading of
knowledge?

teun

On 1/18/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 17/01/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I took a look at the xenu article and dont see any reason for including
> the
> > bbc screen shot. Likewise, the artcile remains perfectly understandable
> > without the book covers and handwriting. Hence, there is no need to
> include
> > these fair use images, and make the article undistributable in large
> parts
> > of the world.
>
> Looking at those pictures, and speaking more generally, the book
> covers and handwriting images, despite being Fair Use, do add to the
> article. Such images reflect the culture surrounding subject of the
> article.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Searching an article history

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>>From: zero 0000
>>
>>If an article is pretty active, it can be quite a chore
>>to locate the edit where a particular text was added.
>>Is there any sort of tool to help with that?
>>
>>
>This would be a daunting coding problem, but would be very useful. It would be a search of diffs I guess.
>
>
What helps is a good search strategy.  Batching the diffs into
successively smaller groups is faster than looking at every one
individually.

Ec


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject:
[Wikitech-l] SVN: [19463]
	trunk/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt

body:
hashar at svn.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Revision: 19463
> Author:   hashar
> Date:     2007-01-18 14:45:42 -0800 (Thu, 18 Jan 2007)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> assuming which should close them as they are opened

Should be read as:
  'assuming we should close them as they are opened'
            ^^

Now, I am heading to bed. Committing asleep is bad =)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-19

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19464).
Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  16 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.
Passed 489 of 505 tests (96.83%)... FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Independent article

body:
On 19/01/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 2007 at 12:10, "Abigail Brady" <morwen at evilmagic.org>
> > wrote:
> >> On 1/17/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> [[Marti Pellow]] had some vandalism that made the media - it said for
> >>> five hours on Friday that he was dead. If people could watchlist it,
> >>> that would be good (that should be enough for now).
> >> Note, same IP claimed that Dec, of Ant and Dec, was dead: and this
> >> stayed until yesterday. :(
> > [[Kellie Pickler]] was listed as dead on her article recently too.

> /me goes to check [[Francisco Franco]]...

And [[Abe Vigoda]]?

- d.


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reliable sources (Guy Chapman aka JzG)

body:
> From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:48:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge
> <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> >This sounds sensible.  Perhaps what we need some where is a list of
> what
> >would be "standard" information in a biographical article.
> Essentially
> >we would be looking at the kind of boring data that would be found
> in a
> >"Who's Who" that chose to include the individual: date and place of
> >birth and marriage, where they went to school, etc.  Any of ths
> stuff
> >could still be disputed, put it would be presumed valid unless that
> happens.
>
> Actually I think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual
> is encyclopaedically notable.  If there are no sources for basic
> biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other
> words
> if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile,
> then I don't believe we can have an article.

This would include minor actors and exclude famous scientists.
Even scientists who have a large number of scientific achievements
are rarely the subjects of published biographies.  Being famous
enough to get a mention in newspapers doesn't help either, since
such articles rarely provide information like place of birth.

Zero.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/19/07, rfrangi at libero.it <rfrangi at libero.it> wrote:

> Same applies to NC images.
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)

There arew very few NC images for which a free equiv is not posible.

--
geni


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
When it is painful that things are not available in Wikipedia because we
do not allow for fair use, it will stimulate the debate about the way
copyright is an offence to bringing information and science to the
people. By using fair use pictures you allow the status quo to maintain
it self. The dearth of material about certain subjects makes them even
less relevant. For the parties like the RIAA it is important to realise
that without the availability of material like this, many of their
artists will only be forgotten that much quicker. Not that they are
likely to care because there is always the next boy band or girlie group
to hype.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Delirium schreef:
> teun spaans wrote:
>
>
>> So the question is: what do we pursue: the dream of a free content, or a
>> compromise which add some chrome/culture but inhibits the free spreading of
>> knowledge?
>>
>>
>>
> I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that
> case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can
> always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures
> removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair
> use.  What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a
> fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd
> be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've
> provided one that they could have kept in.
>
> But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing
> a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while
> the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free
> knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
>
> -Mark


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

body:
> Mark wrote

> But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing
> a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while
> the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free
> knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
>
> -Mark

Same applies to NC images.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada19gen07


body:
On 1/19/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues.  "IANAL" appears
> far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
>
> Ec
>

Lawyers can hurt you more than most academics. It is also not normaly
illegal to practice say maths without a lisence. It is illegal to
practice law without a lisence.

--
geni


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge at telus.net]
>Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 05:44 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium

>I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues.  "IANAL" appears
>far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
>
>Ec

And well it should. Listening to someone give legal advice that doesn't know squat is very painful. A good lawyer knows you have to be familiar with the facts and research the law before you start in with the advice, and even then it is likely to be wrong unless a judge agrees.

Fred


body:
On 1/19/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge at telus.net]
> >Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 05:44 PM
> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
>
> >I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues.  "IANAL" appears
> >far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
> >
> >Ec
>
> And well it should. Listening to someone give legal advice that doesn't know squat is very painful. A good lawyer knows you have to be familiar with the facts and research the law before you start in with the advice, and even then it is likely to be wrong unless a judge agrees.
>
> Fred

Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say
"I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to
almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.
--
geni


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising drive closed

body:
As you've probably noticed, the fundraising drive is over. It was
officially completed on January 15. The current "thank you" notice
will stay up until January 22 (and hopefully be translated into a few
more languages over the next couple of days).

Jeremy Tobacman has been so kind to compile a graphical report on the
fundraiser:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising_report

You can also continue to retrieve results from our reporting engine:
http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/

The Virgin Unite donation is not accounted for yet (should happen in
the next few days). Overall, the fundraiser has been a success, and
some exciting new possibilities are being discussed on the
Board-level.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising drive closed


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Nina Stratton wrote:
> I'm a 40 (almost) year old black woman who dropped out of high school and
> never finished college. I'm also fundamentally opposed to "experts" running
> anything I have to do with. I can read, I can write, and I can learn. That's
> all I need and all I will ever need.
>

You're either incredibly na?ve, or the best troll I've seen in a long time.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070119/52f34d08/attachment.pgp


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 17/01/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>> Indeed I think this is a general feature.  I was a lot more deferent
>> towards experts before I went into academia---once you find out how the
>> sausage is made, and even occasionally get deferred to yourself in an
>> area where you know your word has no business being accepted
>> unquestioningly, it's hard to view it in as idealized a fashion.
>
>
> "I am what passes for an expert in field x. This is a frightening concept."
>

In your case, it's true in TWO fields. Be afraid, be very afraid...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070119/56d2a0b2/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] PDA browsing and large pages

body:
Alai Wiki wrote:
> Gmaxwell points out that one issue with viewing WP on PDAs is large
> pages, and this has also been reported to be an occasional problem
> even for desktop browsers -- admittedly generally only for _very_
> large pages, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WSS/ST, seemingly.
> It occurs to me that we _nearly_ have a fix for this:  if one edits by
> section number, which one can do by suffixing the page URL by
> &action=edit&section=N, and then previews, one gets a view of that
> section, by itself.  Obviously there's the difficulty with finding the
> right section without being able to view the TOC, and the nuisance of
> this requiring more than one step and generating an unwanted edit box.
>
> What I'd like to suggest, then, is an added action (or else some sort
> of integrated mode) to render only the lead section and TOC; and an
> action to render a single section, by number (as with section-editing,
> but without the edit box, and the separate preview step).  Then,
> rather than #-style links in the TOC, have links to the section-view
> actions.  As my PHP is non-existent I've no idea if this would be
> difficult to implement, but it doesn't sound mega-complicated.  Make
> sense to anyone else?
>

Something similar was coded back in November:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Labeled_Section_Transclusion

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070119/315a2b4c/attachment.pgp>