subject:
[WikiEN-l] change RS/BLP etc to not say 'blogs' (was Blog
	Entries (Bauer fork))

body:
On 3/28/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
> > In contrast,
> > websites in general are often maintained by news organizations, other
> > publications, corporations, universities, non-profit organizations,
> > etc. The number of general websites having some sort of editorial
> > oversight is vastly higher than the number of blogs having some sort
> > of editorial oversight.
> >
>
> Editorial oversight strikes me as a red herring for 99% of the web. News
> organizations may be reliable sources for facts. Ditto for academics
> publishing in their spheres of expertise. And I say "may" because there
> are plenty of shaky news organizations and academics out there. But
> there, editorial oversight does usually improve things from our perspective.
>
> But for everybody else, editorial oversight does not guarantee you
> factual accuracy. The purpose of editorial oversight there is more often
> to ensure textual quality and conformance with institutional POV. For
> many organizations, text isn't so much a means of honest communication
> as a means to an end. I'm sure whitehouse.gov has excellent editorial
> oversight, for example.

The point of editorial oversight is not just to ensure factual
accuracy, but also to ensure that you are not sued for false or
defamatory claims. The deeper the pockets of someone printing
something potentially defamatory, the greater the likelihood they will
be sued.  That's why newspapers, corporations, etc., are careful about
what they put on their websites. A blog owner is much less likely to
be sued for defamation, particularly if they remove the contentious
claims the second a lawyer's letter arrives in their mailbox. Keep in
mind we're not dealing with the general case of an individual stating
their opinion about the purported health benefits of echinacea in a
blog, but the case of a blog being used to insert information about
living persons into Wikipedia.  If a blog owner says something
damaging or defamatory, and we compound that by repeating it, the odds
of everyone being sued over it go up significantly. Organizations with
legal advisors (e.g. newspapers, corporations) do their best to avoid
that in the first place.

Jay.

Jay.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Denny Colt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still

body:
On 3/28/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked
> > user is a serious offence.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
>
> That's not what we're talking about at all.
>
> Erica

Its part of it.  People I think are  letting it slide for comments, because
there is no penalty.

But most importantly: why Brandt's free pass?

--
- Denny


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On 3/28/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed, but just because _some_ blogs are full of rubbish, doesn't
> mean that _all_ blogs should be ignored completely (which is, AIUI,
> the current BLP policy).

So let's formulate a more sensible policy:

1) Blog posts can be used to substantiate the opinion of their authors
at the time of posting.
2) Respected, widely used blogs can be used in the same manner as
other types of publications where defamation of living people is not
concerned. Of course, proof of "respect" and "wide use" must be
demonstrable.

But what do you really want to do when a respected, widely used blog
claims that some living person bribed a member of parliament, and
provides some kind of "proof"? I don't see how we could publish that.
Can anyone name a blog they would feel comfortable citing directly for
something really contentious and defamatory? If the claims are that
important, surely they will be picked up, verified and repeated by
newspapers or other media?

Steve


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
on 3/28/07 1:03 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic at gmail.com wrote:

> No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.

I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any
person - living or dead - is RESPECT.

Marc


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Stable versions (was Re:  Wikipedia,
	the encylopedia that anyone can't edit)

body:
On 3/28/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I would tend to agree.  The "stable versions" feature should make a lot
> of this unnecessary.

Where is "stable versions" at, and what exactly is the proposal being
implemented? Anyone have a definitive link? What are we going to see?
Will the community have any say over whether it is implemented? What
if we don't like it?

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] blogs vs websites - (was Bauer DRV question -
	history)

body:
On 3/28/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> Being careful with it is a fine admonision, but a lot of people take
> it too far.  A lot of writers and pundits both blog and do columns and
> so forth.  If they do a print publication column, what's the
> difference between that and a blog?  One level of editing, maybe, but
> not much.

I guess editing, oversight and legal checking. Newspapers tend (I
believe) to check columns before publishing, and reserve the right not
to publish or to demand changes. And if there was a particularly
scandalous claim, it wouldn't go through. Whereas the same columnist
could make the same defamatory, unsourced claim on their blog.

Which is why it's better to cite a real newspaper than a personal
blog, if defamatory claims are involved.

Steve


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
The reason living people should be treated with care and respect is
because things that are published about them can have real-life
implications for them. A corpse is unlikely (for example) to have a
job offer rescinded because some H.R. person googled their name and
found something negative about them in a Wikipedia bio.

Jay.

On 3/28/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
>
> On 3/28/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > on 3/28/07 10:27 AM, Andrew Gray at shimgray at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people
> > > where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable
> > > information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them;
> > > we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and
> > > length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true...
> > > but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps,
> > > no.
> >
> > My own thinking begins with why is the person being included in the
> > encyclopedia in the first place? Was it because of their work in a
> > particular field? - Contributions to the world at large? - Notorious acts
> > of
> > criminal behavior? What? Let the substance of the Article be guided by
> > these
> > criteria.
> >
> > And, if other publications wish to publish personal information, so be it;
> > that is their purpose for being - let WP stay with it's own.
> >
> > Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add
> > all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so,
> > why
> > so?
> >
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


body:
On 3/28/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The point of editorial oversight is not just to ensure factual
> > accuracy, but also to ensure that you are not sued for false or
> > defamatory claims. The deeper the pockets of someone printing
> > something potentially defamatory, the greater the likelihood they will
> > be sued.  That's why newspapers, corporations, etc., are careful about
> > what they put on their websites. A blog owner is much less likely to
> > be sued for defamation, particularly if they remove the contentious
> > claims the second a lawyer's letter arrives in their mailbox. Keep in
> > mind we're not dealing with the general case of an individual stating
> > their opinion about the purported health benefits of echinacea in a
> > blog, but the case of a blog being used to insert information about
> > living persons into Wikipedia.
>
>
> This would still be pretty much covered by [[Barrett v. Rosenthal]]
> much as I dislike that ruling.

Is that your considered legal opinion? Do you think decisions made by
the California Supreme Court regarding a specific individual
re-publishing a specific claim apply to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia
foundation, and any Wikipedia editor who might insert defamatory
material found in a blog into a Wikipedia biography? Did you read
Justice Moreno's concurring opinion?

Jay.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject:
[Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use (was Re: Foundation Licensing
	Policy)

body:
On 3/28/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> > For everything that you want to talk about?  If you are going to use an
> > example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo.  But
> > even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content
> > license.  The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project
> > (in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts.  Of course
> > such a fair use application would have to be in context.
>
> There is however the free Debian logo
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
>
> The bass logo is PD
>
> Fore adverts there is various US gov stuff and we can create images ourselves.
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I gotta point that Debian logo may not be free, as the freedom of use
is restricted
"The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any
purpose, provided that it refers to the Debian project, but does not
indicate endorsement by the project.."
So you can't use it for any purpose, only for those purposes refering
to the Debian project.

Of course, the culprit here is the template, as the logo page says
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the
Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project.

So you may or may not use it to refer to debian, whereas the tempalte
says you can use it PRIVEDED THAT you refer to the debian project
(otherwise you couldn't)

I tried fixing it at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo-notext.svg
but It got unnecessarily awkard (and probably still wrong)


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject: [Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use

body:
On 3/28/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>

> >Because of the earlier discussion about fair use that was started by Kat
> >(before this policy was written), this same bureaucrat on Wikibooks also
> >deleted and rewrote the fair use policy to simply say that fair use was
> >banned, presuming authority on the part of the WMF.
>
> A mistake on my part, which I personally reverted when I learned of my
> errors. I had been under the impression that Kat's essay carried more weight
> then it actually did, and that the forthcoming WMF resolution would be
> significantly more restrictive about fair use then our previous policy on
> the matter was. I was right, and there are significant restrictions on it.

A bit of clarification... to call it "Kat's essay" is a bit
misleading. I did write the text -- some one had to -- but the message
was reviewed by and intended to be a communication from the whole
board; it's a general explanation of the reasoning behind the
resolution. Nothing in the message should be contradicted by anything
in the resolution, and vice versa.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


subject: [Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use


body:
On 3/28/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> He's not being given 'special treatment'; I would expect any other banned
> users with articles about themselves to be treat the same.

Why not update the banning, blocking, and BLP policies to say this is
*endorsed*, then? Is there concensus for this, then lets have concensus for
this and make the policy reflect practice...

--
- Denny


body:
On 3/28/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay:
>
>
> [[Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Allowing_banned_users_to_make_comments_on_talk_pages_of_articles_about_themselves]]

If concensus is for it I wouldn't have a problem with it PROVIDED it was
just on that article's talk page (not DRV, not AfD, other articles,
noticeboards, etc..) and all other "in their name" edits were still nuked
away. They... are banned for a reason.

--
- Denny


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
[snip]
> There are also several Wikibooks that discuss learning foreign
> languages, and I think it is very reasonable to use flags of the
> countries where those languages are spoken as elements in the cover
> images of those books.
[snip]

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, without getting
into the nitty-gritty of flag image licensing, or how someone could
match flags to languages in an NPOV manner, either of which could be
an epic conversation by itself...

Are you saying that you think it is acceptable to compromise the
wholly free content status of a wikibook in order to incorporate
non-free decorations?


from_name: Erica

body:
<snip>
> You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
> > should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki
> > method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the
> > sake of maintaining policy.
> >
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
>
>
> We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or
> support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a
> banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing?
> Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
>
> I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest
> people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as
> that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned
> people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
>
> --
> - Denny

Based on what I know so far, I agree. Is there some *reason* Brandt
and a few other banned users are allowed to post on-wiki, and others
aren't? If there is an obvious reason, then out with it. Not everyone
knows the whole backstory to this person.

Erica


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
on 3/28/07 1:30 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco at mac.com wrote:

> The problem, Marc, is how do you enforce respect? We have seen it
> again and again and more so as Wikipedia becomes such a prominent web
> destination. It is soooo tempting to the anon visitor, seeing the
> article about this "Professor John P. Smith", which the anon knows,
> to add these "tidbits" of information from the local weekly, just for
> fun.
>
> It is only when the shit hits the fan that we act and promptly remove
> that information.

Jossi,

I do hear you, and I know you are presenting to the real world here. I also
believe an honest, objective person can tell disrespectful bullshit when
they see it. But couldn't those edits, which clearly reek of such
disrespect, be treated as vandalism - and immediately deleted as such?

As a Community we don't tolerate personal attacks upon each other on either
the Talk Pages or this List, and the perpetrator is dealt with accordingly.
Equally, shouldn't any gratuitous, clearly disrespectful crap written into a
person's Article be regarded and dealt with in the same way?

Respect for another person must be an ethic in WP - it must be built into
the very culture. If a person needs to be taught how to respect someone, I
believe they need to go learn it outside of the Community - and come back
only when they are willing to practice such respect.

Marc


subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool - how to prepare for the onslaught

body:
On 3/28/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> The April 1 Main Page project has some excellent material lined up; I
> don't think people will be disappointed.

Where? I couldn't find any pointers at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page

Steve


body:
> > > We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or
> > > support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a
> > > banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing?
> > > Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
> > >
> > > I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest
> > > people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as
> > > that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned
> > > people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Denny
> >
> > Based on what I know so far, I agree. Is there some *reason* Brandt
> > and a few other banned users are allowed to post on-wiki, and others
> > aren't? If there is an obvious reason, then out with it. Not everyone
> > knows the whole backstory to this person.
>
> This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue
> editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits
> regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being
> that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy
> unnecessarily).
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>

Then let's make it about Brandt, since this is the example we are
using. What  does "banned" mean, if he's allowed to just keep editing?
The question is whether our banning policy really means anything.

I agree that it would be pointless to actually seek out edits by
banned users, but again, let's use the Brandt example: He is obviously
a disruptive user. Why don't we follow our own policy, revert his
comments, and move on? Why are some people reverting him back? -- This
is the question we are trying to answer.

Erica


body:
> >
> > Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's
> > words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said.
> > Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a
> > different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't
> > right, change the policy.
> >
> > - Denny
>
> Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked
> user is a serious offence.
>
> --
> geni
>

That's not what we're talking about at all.

Erica


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Yury Tarasievich

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old (was New language)

body:
On 28/03/07, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > It is extremely unlikely to get a tag for this version of Belarus claiming
>
> Just leave them at the existing tag and let them be, that's what I'd ask.

So, what in fact happens with the WP sitting now under be-x-old? Will
it get something more understandable after be-x-? What about having
interwikis pointing to it?

---


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] belarusian wikipedia (be and be-x-old)

body:
2007/3/28, ?? ??????? <janmarozau at gmail.com>:

> 1) it is the result of 3yrs volunteers work. it would be hard task to
> change interwikis, to renew medias

Regarding the interwikis, once I hear the interwiki under which be-x-old can
be received, I will be setting up bots to do the task, and ask others to do
the same.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
On 3/28/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Without commenting on the issue per se, it's not appropriate that four
> (and perhaps all) of the editors reverting you, Samboner, Venus Envoi,
> Kangaroo Courtier, and Weena Eloi, are all sockpuppets of User:Jon
> Awbrey.
>
> Jay.

So the concensus was just one banned person...? I don't know who that is,
unfortunately.

--
- Denny


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
Doc Glasgow came up with this, and I said I'd post it here for feedback...

Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people
where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable
information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them;
we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and
length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true...
but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps,
no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Anyway, a thought experiment. I would be very interested to know where
people think we a) should be drawing the line; and b) *are currently*
drawing the line...

----

Let's take Professor John P. Smith, the ninth-most leading Australian
contributor to the field of marine bioscience. He's written a few
books, say, and he's notable (if barely) for it and his impact on the
field.

1) Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him
of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the
on-line court reports. Do we include it?  No - and perhaps court
reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the
mainstream media ignore it.

2) OK, now, although Dr Smith isn't that notable to a world-wide
encyclopedia, he is fairly notable in  Smalltown NSW, where he once
served as an alderman. So the Smalltown Gazette runs the divorce
story. Now, do we include it? If we do, we are responsible for taking
a local story to global level - we are essentially promoting it.
Usually, if Dr Smith moves to NZ, people will only know of his shining
academic career - not his divorce. But if it makes Wikipedia - it will
follow him about. Perhaps we should exclude information based only on
local press from BLP sourcing.

3) OK, now supposing the Sydney Herald is running a story on 'sex and
stress in academia', and they use the story for the Smalltown Gazette
to illustrate it? Do we allow it now? It is still the same crappy
story.

4) And what if the Sydney Herald get the story wrong, and claim he DID
sleep with HIS sister - and he sues them. Do we report the libel case
in his biography?

How do we write policies that deal with this?

(Disclaimer: Real people were not harmed in the making of this case
study. Any resemblance to actual events or persons (or their sisters)
living or dead is purely coincidental)

Doc

----

Thoughts appreciated.

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


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created

body:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/

How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world
languages? What about the unwritten ones?

On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why?
> >
>
> Because we are going to have have a hard time claiming a release was
> legit if it was writen in a language the person could not read.
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

subject: [Foundation-l] Communications Projects Group (revised)

body:
On 3/28/07, Cary Bass <cbass at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure, but some information got lost in the original message.
> This should be "Group", not "Committee".

Why the differentiation? I.e. how is a Wikimedia Group different from
a Wikimedia Committee? On <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Glossary> I
have defined committee as:

"a group of volunteers charged with advising the Board of Trustees and
taking care of a specific part of the Foundation's activities."

Should "Group" be defined separately? Or perhaps we should rework the
above definition?

--
?ukasz 'TOR' Garczewski


body:
What is so /horrible/ about the official orthography that you can't use it?

Your language needs help. I think at this point you need to forget
your divisions, and do whatever is necessary to keep above water,
which for me seems to be adopting official orthography and pitching in
tothe new be.wp.

Mark

On 28/03/07, Jan Marozau <janmarozau at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/3/28, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> > So, *personally* I wouldn't mind if the alternative version Be:WP
> > would retain its previous be.wikipedia.org, AS LONG AS the standard
> > language Belarusian wiki gets ISO standard code, with no tails or
> > suffixes, too, -- here it would be *bel.wikipedia.org*. Shouldn't be
> > too hard to organise making of this small exception??
> >
> > ---
> >
>  Thanks, Yury, for that remark!
> I hope foundators would make such an exception.
>
> and i really strongly appreciate an idea of re-uniting. it seems to be
> useful for Belarusian common cause.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20765] trunk/phase3/includes

body:
On 28/03/07, aaron at svn.wikimedia.org <aaron at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Revision: 20765
> Author:   aaron
> Date:     2007-03-27 23:28:21 -0800 (Tue, 27 Mar 2007)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Don't show rev_deleted usernames

Please don't touch extension code again without checking with the
extension author. It's rude, and several of the extensions I've
written are intended to be backwards-compatible. Such changes often
break this.

Rob Church


from_name: Ян Марозаў

body:
it was very unfair pace to remove Belarusian Wikipedia to the domain
be-x-old, because

1) it is the result of 3yrs volunteers work. it would be hard task to
change interwikis, to renew medias
2) Belarusian Wikipedia isn't written in old grammar. both grammars are
allowed to use in that variant of wikipedia.
the difference between grammars is less than between American and British
English
3) creators of wikipedia only in official belarusian grammar have insisted
on getting three-letters ISO-code domain bel.wp.org, leaving two-letters
ISO-code for Belarusian wikipedia. Belarusian language is one.

so, i strongly reccomend:
- to move Belarusian Wikipedia back to be.wikipedia.org
- to give for belarusian wikipedia in official grammar domain
bel.wikipedia.org and move it there

waiting for your kind reply


body:
On 28/03/07, ?? ??????? <janmarozau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> it was very unfair pace to remove Belarusian Wikipedia to the domain
> be-x-old, because
>
> 1) it is the result of 3yrs volunteers work. it would be hard task to
> change interwikis, to renew medias
> 2) Belarusian Wikipedia isn't written in old grammar. both grammars are
> allowed to use in that variant of wikipedia.
> the difference between grammars is less than between American and British
> English

If you want to get any support on this, don't give us such hype.

Even alphabets are different in these two versions of Belarusian
language. And to tell about "difference of less than of British and
American" is just insulting to the intelligence of the readers.

*However*, I support the motion that the previously existing interwiki
links to the articles media etc. should be retained somehow.

---


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard at gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 09:46 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study
>
>On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly
>> mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or
>> however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article
>> about him.
>
>
>If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in
>an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish),
>then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise
>it'll be readded and readded and readded.
>
>
>- d.

This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular editors.

Fred


from_name: Jan Marozau

body:
2007/3/28, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>:
>
>
> Even alphabets are different in these two versions of Belarusian
> language. And to tell about "difference of less than of British and
> American" is just insulting to the intelligence of the readers.
>
> ______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

You mean letter ?, don't you? But it's not used widely by belarusian
wikipedians, who write in tarashkevica.
The difference is really quite small. Mostly in usage of ?, declension of
nouns and some other trifles.
The point is that both grammars are used in old variant of wikipedia.


body:
Actually, there *is* one interesting way to retain both work and interwikis:

People come here and tell us that this alternative version has fewer
differences than British-American. Well, why then have a separate
language version at all? If it's "all one Belarusan", why not merge
the be-x-old: into be: with conversion of the language to the standard
form? Why retain the artificial wantonly separation from the standard
version of the language which gets the iso 639 etc.? All links hold
then, content multiplies, etc etc.

And now, by the ensuing uproar will you know how small are the
differences, really, and how one is Belarusan. :)))

However, my motion holds, that it's no good to cancel people's work
just like that and interwiki must function too.
---


subject: [WikiEN-l] A nice article (to change the topic...)

body:
I enjoyed this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_agility

Talk about informative...I especially love the photos!

Steve


references:
<op.tpwgyxm1ojc6w1@vladimir>
	<9f3c41b10703280606k25ae6467m3f9040d68a2e9cab@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b366e370703280622y5ee06ab6y93bec2ab52d8e02a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 28/03/07, Jan Marozau <janmarozau at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/3/28, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>:

...
> You mean letter ?, don't you? But it's not used widely by belarusian
> wikipedians, who write in tarashkevica.

It's used quite widely. Anyway, it's there, and it's introduced in the
places even the Belarusian phonology doesn't know about.

> The difference is really quite small. Mostly in usage of ?, declension of
> nouns and some other trifles.

Oh yeah. People study for years to get all those "trifles" right, and
you forget revamping half the vocabulary, anyway.

> The point is that both grammars are used in old variant of wikipedia.

No, they are not. Standard version was from beginning kept as the
second grade language. No categories, no interface, no rules etc.

Rules imposing maintaining of the version of the language article's
written in, with clause mandating asking the permission of the
previous author -- in Wikipedia, good grief! That was the whole point
of the 2006 yeras discussions on Meta and be: -- see archives.


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On 3/28/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > If the claims are that
> > important, surely they will be picked up, verified and repeated by
> > newspapers or other media?
>
> That might be true if it's actually about a member of parliament, but
> there
> are claims that can have limited audiences, and yet be "important" in the
> sense that they are still encyclopediac subjects.  It may be that nobody
> picks up the claim because nobody picks up most claims related to the
> topic,
> rather than because this claim is particularly unimportant.

Thus we arrive at the problem of systemic bias - certain aspects of the
things we cover may not be sufficiently covered in full by secondary
sources. The question is, do we loosen our definition of ourselves as an
encyclopaedia, i.e. a tertiary source, for the sake of becoming a knowledge
base which becomes the first secondary source for particular topics, or do
we remain rigid and refuse to accept information which has yet to be
published/cited in any secondary source?

There's no clearcut answer, but I lean towards the latter. Maybe I'm a bit
biased, but from my experience, loosening our sourcing requirements for
areas with lacunae due to systemic bias (e.g. Malaysian topics - being a
Malaysian editor, I frequently run into articles with questionable content)
only leads to people running wild with republishing claims from primary
sources such as blogs, without regard for whether the content is actually
from a decently reliable source.

It's just my opinion, but I would lean against opening the floodgates here.
If the information in a primary source has been cited in secondary sources,
there shouldn't be anything particularly wrong with citing the primary
source - but we should never be the first primary or secondary source for
anything.

Johnleemk


body:
Ah, sorry forgot to add. You know, of course, I'm one if the
inititative group of the standard language Belarusian wiki.

So, *personally* I wouldn't mind if the alternative version Be:WP
would retain its previous be.wikipedia.org, AS LONG AS the standard
language Belarusian wiki gets ISO standard code, with no tails or
suffixes, too, -- here it would be *bel.wikipedia.org*. Shouldn't be
too hard to organise making of this small exception??

---


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly
> mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or
> however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article
> about him.

If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in
an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish),
then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise
it'll be readded and readded and readded.

- d.


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 28/03/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) OK, now, although Dr Smith isn't that notable to a world-wide
> encyclopedia, he is fairly notable in  Smalltown NSW, where he once
> served as an alderman. So the Smalltown Gazette runs the divorce
> story. Now, do we include it? If we do, we are responsible for taking
> a local story to global level - we are essentially promoting it.
> Usually, if Dr Smith moves to NZ, people will only know of his shining
> academic career - not his divorce. But if it makes Wikipedia - it will
> follow him about. Perhaps we should exclude information based only on
> local press from BLP sourcing.

I agree with Mgm on this one.

Presumably the Wikipedian who adds this information accesses Smalltown
Gazette online. Having put the article online, Smalltown Gazette has
made the information available to anyone who cares to look for it. It
has already been taken "to [a] global level".

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
2007/3/28, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>:
>
>
> So, *personally* I wouldn't mind if the alternative version Be:WP
> would retain its previous be.wikipedia.org, AS LONG AS the standard
> language Belarusian wiki gets ISO standard code, with no tails or
> suffixes, too, -- here it would be *bel.wikipedia.org*. Shouldn't be
> too hard to organise making of this small exception??
>
> ---
>
 Thanks, Yury, for that remark!
I hope foundators would make such an exception.

and i really strongly appreciate an idea of re-uniting. it seems to be
useful for Belarusian common cause.


body:
On 28/03/07, Jan Marozau <janmarozau at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/3/28, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>:
...
> > So, *personally* I wouldn't mind if the alternative version Be:WP
> > would retain its previous be.wikipedia.org, AS LONG AS the standard
> > language Belarusian wiki gets ISO standard code, with no tails or
> > suffixes, too, -- here it would be *bel.wikipedia.org*. Shouldn't be
> > too hard to organise making of this small exception??
> >
> > ---
> >
>  Thanks, Yury, for that remark!
> I hope foundators would make such an exception.
>
> and i really strongly appreciate an idea of re-uniting. it seems to be
> useful for Belarusian common cause.

Now this is day-dreaming, no such re-uniting is possible of course. I
won't go into tedious culturological details now.

But re-iterating, *as long the standard language version gets clean
standard code (in this case, it would be bel:), I personally wouldn't
mind.*

I don't see how such non-major exception would hurt, given this
particular situation. The starting-up of our project from incubator
was made in a bit of a rush, some info was lost in the transfer. Small
correction then would be in order?

Not that we aren't grateful of course for that cutting the Gordian tie
in the first place!
---
---


subject: [WikiEN-l] On a lighter note for a change

body:
On 28/03/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> On the other hand, I have in my library some of the very early
> professional publications in Naval Architecture, and they all
> reference using splines when they talk about designing and lofting,
> back into the late 1700s at least.

Quoth the OED:

Spline, n. [Orig. E. Anglian dial.: perh. for splind (cf. older Da.
splind, NFris. splinj) and related to SPLINDER n.]

1. a. A long, narrow, and relatively thin piece or strip of wood,
metal, etc.; a slat.
1756 S. WHITE Collat. Bee-Boxes (1759) 26, c. c. are two Splines of
Deal to keep the Boards even and strengthen them.

"to spline" doesn't appear until the 1890s, and "spline curve" in
maths not until 1946.

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


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 3/28/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> > As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a
> > call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair
> > use content on all Wikimedia projects.
>
> No, only for content claimed to be fair use but which actually is not.
> The resolution explictly acknowledges that projects can host fair use,
> but only if they develop an specific policy and show that an image is
> covered by it.
>
> So if it's claimed to be fair use, and it actually qualifies for fair
> use, content won't be removed.

That's an interesting claim by Pedro, since only a judge can make the
determination whether content claimed to be fair use actually is or
not.


from_name: Robert Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use (was Re: Foundation Licensing
 Policy)

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> There are also several Wikibooks that discuss learning foreign
>> languages, and I think it is very reasonable to use flags of the
>> countries where those languages are spoken as elements in the cover
>> images of those books.
>>
> [snip]
>
> I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, without getting
> into the nitty-gritty of flag image licensing, or how someone could
> match flags to languages in an NPOV manner, either of which could be
> an epic conversation by itself...
>
> Are you saying that you think it is acceptable to compromise the
> wholly free content status of a wikibook in order to incorporate
> non-free decorations?
>
No.  I don't mean to go that far, and the number of exceptions can be
kept very minimal.  Flags of various political jurisdictions are an
exceptional and very narrowly focused type of image (assuming that you
rendered the image of the flag yourself and are not talking about other
copyright complications) and there are certainly restrictions as to when
they can be used and how.  There certainly are reasons why these images
may not be on Commons and require exceptions on an individual project.

Again, if you are talking about if this should be allowed within the
Wikibook community, that is something I can debate there.  I am giving
the kinds of images that have been suggested as needing fair use, and
what is currently permitted within Wikibooks... or at least what has
been used by Wikibooks content developers.

As far as jepordizing the free content status of the Wikibook, how is
that again?  Fair use is fair use.  If you can use some content under
fair use principles, then downstream users can also use that fair use
content under the same principles.  Richard Stallman said as much on
this very mailing list (though admittedly a few years ago).  You can
have fair use content mixed with GFDL'd content.... but it must be used
in context and other fair use restrictions.  The main issue is not
jepordizing GFDL'd content but making situations where people in one
country can't use that same content somewhere else.  However, there is
content (like a swastika or a burning of the Koran) that simply would
cause problems no matter where you go or what you do.  Or pictures of
public nudity.

This is not a simple cut and dried argument here, and has been pointed
out, even banning fair use entirely does not kill all of the problems
with trying to decide if an image is legal to use or not.  Obviously
with flags it is very close to that border as to if copyright even
applies on self-generated works.

-- Robert Horning


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For everything that you want to talk about?  If you are going to use an
>>> example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo.  But
>>> even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content
>>> license.  The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project
>>> (in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts.  Of course
>>> such a fair use application would have to be in context.
>>>
>> There is however the free Debian logo
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
>>
>> The bass logo is PD
>>
>> Fore adverts there is various US gov stuff and we can create images ourselves.
>>
>
> I don't find it hard imagining a justifiable context in which a big
> corporate logo needs to be used in a book about logo design,
> advertising, a history of corporate America,  &c.
>
>
How about a book on the history of the Ford Motor Company?  The Debian
logo has no use in that situation, but it would very much be reasonable
to use the official Ford logo.  And that is done in the commercial
publishing world without explicit permission of the organization who
"owns" the logo.  That is fair-use.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly
mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or
however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article
about him.

Mgm

On 3/28/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Doc Glasgow came up with this, and I said I'd post it here for feedback...
>
> Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people
> where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable
> information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them;
> we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and
> length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true...
> but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps,
> no.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
>
> Anyway, a thought experiment. I would be very interested to know where
> people think we a) should be drawing the line; and b) *are currently*
> drawing the line...
>
> ----
>
> Let's take Professor John P. Smith, the ninth-most leading Australian
> contributor to the field of marine bioscience. He's written a few
> books, say, and he's notable (if barely) for it and his impact on the
> field.
>
> 1) Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him
> of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the
> on-line court reports. Do we include it?  No - and perhaps court
> reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the
> mainstream media ignore it.
>
> 2) OK, now, although Dr Smith isn't that notable to a world-wide
> encyclopedia, he is fairly notable in  Smalltown NSW, where he once
> served as an alderman. So the Smalltown Gazette runs the divorce
> story. Now, do we include it? If we do, we are responsible for taking
> a local story to global level - we are essentially promoting it.
> Usually, if Dr Smith moves to NZ, people will only know of his shining
> academic career - not his divorce. But if it makes Wikipedia - it will
> follow him about. Perhaps we should exclude information based only on
> local press from BLP sourcing.
>
> 3) OK, now supposing the Sydney Herald is running a story on 'sex and
> stress in academia', and they use the story for the Smalltown Gazette
> to illustrate it? Do we allow it now? It is still the same crappy
> story.
>
> 4) And what if the Sydney Herald get the story wrong, and claim he DID
> sleep with HIS sister - and he sues them. Do we report the libel case
> in his biography?
>
> How do we write policies that deal with this?
>
> (Disclaimer: Real people were not harmed in the making of this case
> study. Any resemblance to actual events or persons (or their sisters)
> living or dead is purely coincidental)
>
> Doc
>
> ----
>
> Thoughts appreciated.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


body:
Angela wrote:
> On 3/28/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> There is however the free Debian logo
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
>>
>
> Wikimedia also has a free logo.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg is
> public domain.
>
> Angela
>

Keep in mind that this particular logo is not the WMF logo, and it was
explicitly designed for use when the community needed to use a logo that
was to be used in places where the main WMF logo could not be used
because it would even violate fair use principles.  There are very
legitimate fair use situations where the WMF can be used without
explicit permission of the WMF.  Just as logos of other organizations
can also be used under the terms of fair use.  And I'm not talking
within just Wikimedia projects either.


from_name: Sean Whitton (Xyrael)

subject: [Foundation-l] Communications Projects Group

body:
We were considering comprocom to distinguish from the special projects
committee, how does that sound?

On 3/28/07, ?ukasz Garczewski <lgarczewski at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Cary Bass <cbass at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Call for volunteers:
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers to contribute to
> > forming a Communications Projects Committee, for the purpose of acting
> > on specialized communications requests, such as researching press lists,
> > analyzing media coverage, as well as other functions not presently
> > covered under ComCom.
>
> Great to see this is getting off the ground. To all those of you who
> do not have any experience with Wikimedia committees - try it, it's
> rewarding, fun and gives you real influence over a part of the
> organization. Note, however, that it is also hard work. :)
>
> On a side note: Cary & Sandy (and the committee, once it's formed) -
> try making the shortened name a bit more 'readable', ComProjCom is a
> bit longish and complicated. E.g. 'CPCom' (like SPCom) or ComPCom
> (might be too similar to ComCom).
>
> --
> ?ukasz 'TOR' Garczewski
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
?Sean Whitton (Xyrael/xyr)
sean at silentflame.com
http://xyrael.net/


body:
On 28/03/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The April 1 Main Page project has some excellent material lined up; I
> > don't think people will be disappointed.
>
> Where? I couldn't find any pointers at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page

Apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page

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


from_name: Reid Priedhorsky

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Article hit rates -- research at the University of
	Minnesota

body:
Dear Wikitechnicians,

My name is Reid Priedhorsky, and I'm a Ph.D. student at GroupLens
Research, which is the human-computer interaction group at the
University of Minnesota.

We are currently working on some research which is investigating
Wikipedia contribution and vandalism. To this end, statistics on the
view rate of different articles would be extremely helpful to us --
something along the lines of Leon Weber's WikiCharts tool, but with a
larger limit (ideally all 1.7 million articles).

It seems to me that the easiest way to accomplish this would be to get
copies of your sampled Squid logs (as described on
<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2007-January/029000.html>
and its links). We do not need the client IP or any other similarly
sensitive data, though if you gave it to us we would protect it
carefully as we protect the other sensitive research data we handle.

Would it be possible for us to have access to these log files?

If not, I would love to begin a discussion on what it would be possible
for us to access.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you have
any questions.

Thanks,

Reid


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/28/07, Sean Whitton (Xyrael) <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> We were considering comprocom to distinguish from the special projects
> committee, how does that sound?

Why not have done with it and call it com-org?

Wikimedia project communications would be more in common with our
standard naming conventions and might encourage an organisational
setup that will result in less conflict the the current proposed one
seems likely to.
--
geni


body:
On 3/28/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/28/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The April 1 Main Page project has some excellent material lined up; I
> > > don't think people will be disappointed.
> >
> > Where? I couldn't find any pointers at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
>
> Apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page
>

That would be last years.

--
geni


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

references:
<W981729922225361175098291@webmail20>
	<fbad4e140703281254t2b2e8513qec9beaa801e8f48@mail.gmail.com>
	<p1ll03p0853hra3r5datcbjharkk8thi52@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140703281510u56577ae9o3fdfb59aa082e6ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<bfrl03tbcpd3hrrs9a5oibijabgsn9hsmv@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:10:16 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me
>> how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the
>> press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.
>
> The press?  A bunch of dunces.  They print all kinds of crap.  But -
> if they print *bad* crap they have to pay Actual Money so they tend to
> be at least marginally careful.

Bloggers can also be sued for Actual Money. In the case of the Bauer
lawsuit aren't the sources we're citing in the article also being
targeted directly as well?


body:
> setup that will result in less conflict the the current proposed one
> seems likely to.
May I ask what conflict you expect? :-)

On 3/28/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Sean Whitton (Xyrael) <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > We were considering comprocom to distinguish from the special projects
> > committee, how does that sound?
>
> Why not have done with it and call it com-org?
>
> Wikimedia project communications would be more in common with our
> standard naming conventions and might encourage an organisational
> setup that will result in less conflict the the current proposed one
> seems likely to.
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
?Sean Whitton (Xyrael/xyr)
sean at silentflame.com
http://xyrael.net/


body:
On 28/03/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a
> Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale
> is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is
> absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of
> it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made
> curious :) ) Thanks.

Use of logos and example adverts in a book about advertising?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bringing this up again, as it's getting silly. Daniel Brandt posts here, and
> I rv him per policy as a banned user:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=118543746&oldid=118543037
>
> I get undone here with the comment "it is ridiculous that brandt should not
> be allowed to comment on his own article":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=118544957&oldid=118543746
>
> I then refactored out his commentary (Brandt's), reported his IP to AIV as
> posting by a banned user, and that IP is now blocked.
>
> My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if "some
> people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking
> policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.

Surely the issue is whether people should be allowed to comment on
articles about themselves, regardless of whether or not they are
banned? What is more important: allowing individuals to notify us
about errors in articles about themselves or maintaining our block
policy regardless of everything else?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 3/28/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> >
> > This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will
> > always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise
> > that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular
> > editors.
>
> I think you misunderstand the argument David is making here, which is
> along the lines of "if a reasonable person with knowledge of the
> topic of the article would be surprised to see something not
> mentioned, we should mention it."
>
> -Phil
>

Ah the reasonable person. Can the man on the Clapham omnibus be far behind?

While as an aproach it has been shown to be kinda workable under some
conditions on wikipedia rather lose things like that tend to just end
up resulting in massively long arguments (see the Darwin-Lincon
birthday issue).

--
geni


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Stable versions (was Re: Wikipedia,
	the encylopedia that anyone can't edit)

body:
On 3/28/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Yes; we are building a feature that is flexibly configurable according
> to the wishes of any project community that wants to try it out.

Is there a project webpage?

Steve


body:
On 3/28/07, Sean Whitton (Xyrael) <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > setup that will result in less conflict the the current proposed one
> > seems likely to.
> May I ask what conflict you expect? :-)

The usual conflict between top down systems and wikipedia's more
generally bottom up systems.

In this case there appears to be no need to use a top down system
(certainly none of the tasks mentioned require it) thus a bottom up
system should be used at least initially.

--
geni


body:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a
> > Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale
> > is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is
> > absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of
> > it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made
> > curious :) ) Thanks.
>
> Use of logos and example adverts in a book about advertising?
>

There are PD logos and adverts around.

--
geni


subject:
[WikiEN-l] change RS/BLP etc to not say 'blogs' (was Blog
	Entries (Bauer fork))

body:
On 3/28/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The point of editorial oversight is not just to ensure factual
> accuracy, but also to ensure that you are not sued for false or
> defamatory claims. The deeper the pockets of someone printing
> something potentially defamatory, the greater the likelihood they will
> be sued.  That's why newspapers, corporations, etc., are careful about
> what they put on their websites. A blog owner is much less likely to
> be sued for defamation, particularly if they remove the contentious
> claims the second a lawyer's letter arrives in their mailbox. Keep in
> mind we're not dealing with the general case of an individual stating
> their opinion about the purported health benefits of echinacea in a
> blog, but the case of a blog being used to insert information about
> living persons into Wikipedia.

This would still be pretty much covered by [[Barrett v. Rosenthal]]
much as I dislike that ruling.

--
geni


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still

body:
On 3/28/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&limit=500&action=history
>
> So multiple people have RV'd back in his comments. Is this appropriate?

Without commenting on the issue per se, it's not appropriate that four
(and perhaps all) of the editors reverting you, Samboner, Venus Envoi,
Kangaroo Courtier, and Weena Eloi, are all sockpuppets of User:Jon
Awbrey.

Jay.


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a
Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale
is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is
absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of
it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made
curious :) ) Thanks.

Lodewijk

2007/3/28, Robert Horning <robert_horning op netzero.net>:
> Kat Walsh wrote:
> > On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning op netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >> As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a
> >> call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair
> >> use content on all Wikimedia projects.
> >>
> >> -- Robert Horning
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, it's not a call to ban all fair use. But it *is* certainly a call
> > to minimize it as much as possible and to treat it as inferior to free
> > content -- and an individual project is more than welcome to decide
> > that it does not want to use fair use at all. If Wikibooks does not
> > need it then by all means it should remove it; most of the Wikibooks I
> > have seen don't need non-free media as illustration, but perhaps there
> > are others that do. (And looking back now Greg has posted -- going by
> > the subject matter of the book is an interesting idea.)
> >
> > Actually I find that people have been reading all sorts of things into
> > the resolution -- I have been throwing up my hands in frustration at
> > some corners of en.wikipedia proclaiming that because fair use was not
> > banned entirely it must mean we wanted more of it. The policy should
> > not actually be much of a change of anything, just set out a bit more
> > formally.
> >
> > The basic idea is that this is what we have adopted as the definition
> > of free content; projects should treat everything else as very much
> > inferior to it, and use things outside that definition only where it
> > is not reasonably possible to avoid it.
> >
> > -Kat
> >
> There are several Wikibooks users who indeed want to keep fair use, and
> I believe this should be something that can be resolved through the
> normal policy building process that already exists within the Wikibooks
> community.  The problem I see here is that radical solutions are being
> suggested on the authority of this new policy, and I want reassurances
> (like you have done here) that this is not intended to be a massive
> change of existing polices and content.  Certainly not giving license to
> eliminate thousands of images (as do exist on Wikibooks) that are
> currently available only under fair-use terms, and have been selected
> for deletion by only a small handful of individuals acting on the
> authority of this policy that has been put forward by the WMF.
>
> I agree that if we as a community want to move toward eliminating fair
> use, that we can come and decide that for ourselves and move in that
> direction.  I am of the philosophical camp that some fair use ought to
> be permitted and that there are legitimate reasons for including it in
> our projects, but such fair use ought to be significantly restricted and
> encompass what is legally permissible even in countries that don't have
> fair-use legislation or comparable legal concepts.
>
> I do agree with the general philosophy that more free images ought to be
> sought after, and that Wikimedia project contributors ought to find
> illustrations either in the public domain, available under free content
> licenses, or be able to generate those illustrations themselves when
> possible.  I don't think this is always possible, and that we can find
> some reasonable exceptions that most people can live with that don't
> compromise the basic values of trying to create content that meets the
> basic philosophical principles of the GFDL and other free content builders.
>
> --Robert Horning
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a
Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale
is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is
absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of
it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made
curious :) ) Thanks.

Lodewijk

2007/3/28, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>:
> Kat Walsh wrote:
> > On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >> As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a
> >> call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair
> >> use content on all Wikimedia projects.
> >>
> >> -- Robert Horning
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, it's not a call to ban all fair use. But it *is* certainly a call
> > to minimize it as much as possible and to treat it as inferior to free
> > content -- and an individual project is more than welcome to decide
> > that it does not want to use fair use at all. If Wikibooks does not
> > need it then by all means it should remove it; most of the Wikibooks I
> > have seen don't need non-free media as illustration, but perhaps there
> > are others that do. (And looking back now Greg has posted -- going by
> > the subject matter of the book is an interesting idea.)
> >
> > Actually I find that people have been reading all sorts of things into
> > the resolution -- I have been throwing up my hands in frustration at
> > some corners of en.wikipedia proclaiming that because fair use was not
> > banned entirely it must mean we wanted more of it. The policy should
> > not actually be much of a change of anything, just set out a bit more
> > formally.
> >
> > The basic idea is that this is what we have adopted as the definition
> > of free content; projects should treat everything else as very much
> > inferior to it, and use things outside that definition only where it
> > is not reasonably possible to avoid it.
> >
> > -Kat
> >
> There are several Wikibooks users who indeed want to keep fair use, and
> I believe this should be something that can be resolved through the
> normal policy building process that already exists within the Wikibooks
> community.  The problem I see here is that radical solutions are being
> suggested on the authority of this new policy, and I want reassurances
> (like you have done here) that this is not intended to be a massive
> change of existing polices and content.  Certainly not giving license to
> eliminate thousands of images (as do exist on Wikibooks) that are
> currently available only under fair-use terms, and have been selected
> for deletion by only a small handful of individuals acting on the
> authority of this policy that has been put forward by the WMF.
>
> I agree that if we as a community want to move toward eliminating fair
> use, that we can come and decide that for ourselves and move in that
> direction.  I am of the philosophical camp that some fair use ought to
> be permitted and that there are legitimate reasons for including it in
> our projects, but such fair use ought to be significantly restricted and
> encompass what is legally permissible even in countries that don't have
> fair-use legislation or comparable legal concepts.
>
> I do agree with the general philosophy that more free images ought to be
> sought after, and that Wikimedia project contributors ought to find
> illustrations either in the public domain, available under free content
> licenses, or be able to generate those illustrations themselves when
> possible.  I don't think this is always possible, and that we can find
> some reasonable exceptions that most people can live with that don't
> compromise the basic values of trying to create content that meets the
> basic philosophical principles of the GFDL and other free content builders.
>
> --Robert Horning
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Okay, the group has been renamed to the Communication Projects Group,
as this has a informal air in addition to fitting with your
suggestions. We also have a (very sparse) page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communication_Projects_Group

--Sean/Xyrael

On 3/28/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Sean Whitton (Xyrael) <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > > setup that will result in less conflict the the current proposed one
> > > seems likely to.
> > May I ask what conflict you expect? :-)
>
>
> The usual conflict between top down systems and wikipedia's more
> generally bottom up systems.
>
> In this case there appears to be no need to use a top down system
> (certainly none of the tasks mentioned require it) thus a bottom up
> system should be used at least initially.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
?Sean Whitton (Xyrael/xyr)
sean at silentflame.com
http://xyrael.net/


list: commons-l

from_name: nilfanion wiki

subject: [Commons-l] COM:FP and QI problems

body:
This stems from discussion in the Commons IRC channel last night, and has my
own thoughts expanded somewhat.

Both of the procedures are somewhat broken, they basically come down to the
opinions of the reviewers. I feel the current system somewhat
disenfranchises people who are not regulars; both when nominating imagery or
when commenting on nominees. Part of this is it is *extremely vague* what
the two processes actually want.

Ignoring the difficulties that multiple languages bring lets compare the
English-language guidance for the three processes of interest to
English-language contributors: 1. Commons FPC, 2. Commons QI and 3. the
English WP FPC.

Firstly, COM FPC. It has two sections providing information to help people
inexperienced with the process:
[[COM:FPC#Guidelines for nominators]] and [[COM:FPC#Guidelines for
Evaluating Photographs]].

The first gives *very* brief details about what sort of imagery is expected
and the second drones on and on about technical details. This makes it hard
for new users to begin participating in either side of the process. A lot of
the votes are [[w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] or [[w:WP:ILIKEIT]], which isn't
objective - and leads to inconsistency (it depends who votes and what they
like). For example, images of animals taken in a zoo are frowned by some
regulars upon *merely* for being in a zoo. It is not clear from the criteria
why it is a big deal, or if it should be a big deal. Likewise, if you have a
stunning picture of an unidentified beetle, it will fail for being
unidentified - it is not clear from the guidance *why*.

Next, COM QI. This process is designed to be below FP - and is treated that
way. Unlike FPC it has a whole page giving useful guidance on the sort of
things that should be expected of a QI at [[Commons:Quality images
guidelines]]. These focus solely on the technical stuff, which seems
reasonable as QI is about the technical quality of the imagery first and
foremost.

Finally, en FPC which I'm using this for comparative purposes here. Compared
to its counterpart on Commons, enwp FPC seems a much more hospitable
environment for new contributors. There is clear guidance on what is
expected at [[w:WP:WIAFP]]. The comments tend to be significantly more
wordy. Even more positively, when images show flaws regulars there will
often upload edited versions. Currently there are 46 images on COM FPC and
36 on enwp FPC. Over 12 of the en nominations have multiple images, but I
only count about 5 versions with edits on COM FPC.

My conclusion from all this is that enwp FPC is a more collegial process
than Commons. Of course its not perfect, but there are clearly lessons to
learn which we should apply. The fact it is English-only and we are
multilingual is a hindrance for us, but we can work with that. One thing I
noticed, and I think is bizarre is the following. On enwp FPC there is a
section [[w:WP:FPC#Is my monitor calibrated correctly?]] This gives
instructions to on how to carry out gamma correction; which is of key
importance before you can assess technical quality. COM:QI uses one of the
image on its guidelines page. COM FPC doesn't even mention it.

Actually, after an examination of what we "on paper" want from QIC and FPC,
I believe QIC has the more concrete definition and it is *harsher*. This is
clearly back to front. QI is the lesser of the two simply because of
inconsistency in review; its process is designed that way.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the problems as they currently exist with
these processes. Now what to do about them?

Firstly, lets get Featured picture *criteria* analogous to en's WIAFP.
Obviously our requirements are different (encyclopedic value isn't a major
issue), but a set of concise, precise criteria makes it easier for all
people with any interest in the process. I'll expand on my thoughts as to
what we should include further on. The guidance for monitor calibration
should be copied across ASAP for the obvious reasons.

Secondly, reform is needed in how FP works. If the criteria become more
transparent and less precedent based, that encourages a broader community
giving input. Basically, we want positive feedback given and when a minor
fix is possible, for example reducing noise, ideally it should be carried
out by a reviewer; and the other voters would then review the edit. As well
as improving the atmosphere on the process - it will also improve the
quality of the output.

QIC is in better shape, but needs simplification and clarification. Is it
only about technical quality? If so it should say that. If not what else
matters? If it is only about technical content, should we really expect
everything to be *perfect* - what is reasonable leeway? How about some
enforcement of consistency allow a transparent method of review for
uploaders to say "I disagree with the review by X, I think it was a QI".

As for FPC: Here's my thoughts as to initial criteria - in no order of
importance.
1. Technical quality. Any FP should be able to pass the QI guidelines on
this front, and probably held to even tighter rules. It might be worth
explicitly stating low-resolution is bad.
2. Licensing. We don't actually *say* the image must be free. If we do, we
might actually get the reviewers investigating that properly...
3. A good caption: at a minimum the info needed for a POTD description. If
geo-data would be helpful, it should be included.
4. Value of image. We want to reward good images of difficult subjects and
we should probably give really hard subjects a bit of leeway on technical
quality to get it.
5. Neutrality and accuracy. This would be particularly relevant to maps and
similar images, but would be true for photographs too. In general, the image
should not promote a specific agenda or POV.

Opinions?

Nilfanion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070328/ee7c9962/attachment.htm


body:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> For everything that you want to talk about?  If you are going to use an
> example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo.  But
> even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content
> license.  The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project
> (in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts.  Of course
> such a fair use application would have to be in context.

There is however the free Debian logo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg

The bass logo is PD

Fore adverts there is various US gov stuff and we can create images ourselves.
--
geni


body:
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Surely the issue is whether people should be allowed to comment on
> > articles about themselves, regardless of whether or not they are
> > banned? What is more important: allowing individuals to notify us
> > about errors in articles about themselves or maintaining our block
> > policy regardless of everything else?
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
>
> OTRS, oversight, mail admins, mail arbcom. Why let them post on-wiki? If
> that is desired, change the policy to say-so.

Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that
you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?

You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki
method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the
sake of maintaining policy.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 3/28/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add
> all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so, why
> so?

I've been thinking about the same thing myself. Should BLP guidelines
apply to the "recently deceased"? They are the most likely to have
plenty of living relatives to get pissed at you and a lawsuit from
someone's estate is just as bad as one from the someone.


body:
On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> > For everything that you want to talk about?  If you are going to use an
> > example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo.  But
> > even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content
> > license.  The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project
> > (in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts.  Of course
> > such a fair use application would have to be in context.
>
> There is however the free Debian logo
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
>
> The bass logo is PD
>
> Fore adverts there is various US gov stuff and we can create images ourselves.

I don't find it hard imagining a justifiable context in which a big
corporate logo needs to be used in a book about logo design,
advertising, a history of corporate America,  &c.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.

On 3/28/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> on 3/28/07 10:27 AM, Andrew Gray at shimgray at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people
> > where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable
> > information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them;
> > we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and
> > length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true...
> > but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps,
> > no.
>
> My own thinking begins with why is the person being included in the
> encyclopedia in the first place? Was it because of their work in a
> particular field? - Contributions to the world at large? - Notorious acts
> of
> criminal behavior? What? Let the substance of the Article be guided by
> these
> criteria.
>
> And, if other publications wish to publish personal information, so be it;
> that is their purpose for being - let WP stay with it's own.
>
> Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add
> all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so,
> why
> so?
>
> 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
>


body:
On 3/28/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is that your considered legal opinion?

No I don't do considered legal opinions. Was your email based on your
considered legal opinion?

>Do you think decisions made by
> the California Supreme Court regarding a specific individual
> re-publishing a specific claim apply to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia
> foundation,

There are closer matching precedents for those cases. Wikipedia
doesn't really have a legal existance seperate from the foundation so
it is hard to say.

> and any Wikipedia editor who might insert defamatory
> material found in a blog into a Wikipedia biography?

No to start with we have all those users who live outside the US.

> Did you read
> Justice Moreno's concurring opinion?

Yes. Anyone getting themselves into the situation where that could
have an effect really has only themselves to blame.

--
geni


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
Greetings, describe for me what you ideal data would look like.

On 3/28/07, Reid Priedhorsky <reid at umn.edu> wrote:
> Dear Wikitechnicians,
>
> My name is Reid Priedhorsky, and I'm a Ph.D. student at GroupLens
> Research, which is the human-computer interaction group at the
> University of Minnesota.
>
> We are currently working on some research which is investigating
> Wikipedia contribution and vandalism. To this end, statistics on the
> view rate of different articles would be extremely helpful to us --
> something along the lines of Leon Weber's WikiCharts tool, but with a
> larger limit (ideally all 1.7 million articles).
>
> It seems to me that the easiest way to accomplish this would be to get
> copies of your sampled Squid logs (as described on
> <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2007-January/029000.html>
> and its links). We do not need the client IP or any other similarly
> sensitive data, though if you gave it to us we would protect it
> carefully as we protect the other sensitive research data we handle.
>
> Would it be possible for us to have access to these log files?
>
> If not, I would love to begin a discussion on what it would be possible
> for us to access.
>
> Your help would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you have
> any questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Reid
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Angela

body:
On 3/28/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > even the WMF logo is not public domain

> There is however the free Debian logo
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg

Wikimedia also has a free logo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg is
public domain.

Angela


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium to launch this week

body:
On 3/28/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Citizendium doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, they can just
> look at wikipedia and see how we handle copyright.

How is it that Wikipedia handles copyright?  And are you suggesting
that there aren't any copyright violations on Wikipedia?

Citizendium has a firm policy to acknowledge Wikipedia when using text
from Wikipedia in an article.  In fact, when you edit any page there
is a checkbox at the bottom which says that there is text from
Wikipedia in the edit, and if you check the checkbox text
acknowledging Wikipedia is given.

Not everyone follows these rules, of course.  So just like on
Wikipedia, there are copyright violations on Citizendium.

Anthony


body:
On 28/03/07, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > even the WMF logo is not public domain
>
> > There is however the free Debian logo
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
>
> Wikimedia also has a free logo.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg is
> public domain.

Is this logo proposed or is it in place? en.Wikipedia doesn't have an
article about "community logo"s. I can only assume it is an attempt to
bridge the divide between those who believe everything should be free
and those who see free logos as unrealistic and practically harmful?

Most of the uses for that logo on Commons is as the logo for Planet Wikimedia...

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that
> > you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?
>
>
> I was and am. I was just re-reverted for removing the Brandt comments on his
> talk page, and RV'd it back out again. I don't want to get into an edit war
> on this, but I don't understand why out-of-policy permission is granted to
> banned users to freely post under their own name.
>
>
>
> You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
> > should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki
> > method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the
> > sake of maintaining policy.
> >
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
>
>
> We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or
> support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a
> banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing?
> Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
>
> I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest
> people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as
> that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned
> people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.

Would this be problematic? I'm not suggesting we overlook the
behaviour of all banned users, but I have never seen why exceptional
edits (such as those which are of benefit to Wikipedia, are about the
individual them self, &c.) can't be pragmatically accepted (not
explicitly accepted, but let go). Doing so wouldn't incentivise
editing while being banned since the vast majority of edits are still
against our policy.

I posted a couple of weeks ago about an admin deleting a useful
redirect because it had been created by a user while they were banned.
Surely, to expend our energy deleting and recreating such redirects is
allowing the banned user to continue to disrupt the project?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 28/03/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
> > > should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki
> > > method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the
> > > sake of maintaining policy.
> > >
> > > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> >
> >
> >
> > We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or
> > support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a
> > banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing?
> > Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
> >
> > I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest
> > people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as
> > that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned
> > people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
> >
> > --
> > - Denny
>
> Based on what I know so far, I agree. Is there some *reason* Brandt
> and a few other banned users are allowed to post on-wiki, and others
> aren't? If there is an obvious reason, then out with it. Not everyone
> knows the whole backstory to this person.

This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue
editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits
regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being
that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy
unnecessarily).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
> Or, perhaps, we could consider that if there are no indisputably reliable
> sources about a living person, we should not have an encyclopedia article on
> that person until such reliable sources are available. Or is that too
> difficult a concept to grasp?
>
> Loosening our "reliable sources" criteria is all well and good when
> considering something like Pokemon or Star Wars characters, but we're
> talking about the lives and reputations of real people, and I am vehemently
> opposed to weakening the criteria for biographical sources.
>
> What we write appears on one of the most popular Internet sites in the
> world, and there is a moral and ethical imperative for us to be responsible
> and prudent when talking about real people. Yes, that means accepting only
> sources which are clearly reliable to support information of a negative
> nature.

You have my full and unreserved support in this.

--Jimbo


body:
On 3/28/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue
> > editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits
> > regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being
> > that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy
> > unnecessarily).
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
>
> Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's
> words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said.
> Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a
> different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't
> right, change the policy.
>
> - Denny

Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked
user is a serious offence.

--
geni


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
on 3/28/07 8:19 PM, doc at doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com wrote:

> Why did my case study get hijacked by another blog thread? The
> Smallville Gazette was not a blog.

VERY good question. Also, the very basic issue itself of including personal
data in Articles.

Marc


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 28/03/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or
> > > > support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a
> > > > banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing?
> > > > Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
> > > >
> > > > I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest
> > > > people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as
> > > > that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned
> > > > people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > - Denny
> > >
> > > Based on what I know so far, I agree. Is there some *reason* Brandt
> > > and a few other banned users are allowed to post on-wiki, and others
> > > aren't? If there is an obvious reason, then out with it. Not everyone
> > > knows the whole backstory to this person.
> >
> > This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue
> > editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits
> > regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being
> > that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy
> > unnecessarily).
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> >
>
> Then let's make it about Brandt, since this is the example we are
> using. What  does "banned" mean, if he's allowed to just keep editing?
> The question is whether our banning policy really means anything.
>
> I agree that it would be pointless to actually seek out edits by
> banned users, but again, let's use the Brandt example: He is obviously
> a disruptive user. Why don't we follow our own policy, revert his
> comments, and move on? Why are some people reverting him back? -- This
> is the question we are trying to answer.
>
> Erica

If we are to make this discussion explicitly about Brandt, then we
need to clarify what has happened. To say that he is "allowed to keep
editing" is a mischaracterisation of what has occured: he posted some
concerns about his article on the talk page. He did not hide behind a
sock puppet to do so (he fully disclosed that he was Brandt). His
comments didn't seem disruptive and may well be valid and should be
investigated.

There seem to be those who believe that banning should be absolute and
those who pragmatically believe that exceptional edits may be accepted
if they benefit the project. The question isn't at all "whether our
banning policy really means anything".

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue
> > editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits
> > regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being
> > that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy
> > unnecessarily).
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
>
> Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's
> words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said.
> Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a
> different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't
> right, change the policy.

Do you not think that such an absolute policy drives people to using
sock puppets? I don't think this is something we want to encourage.

If someone has concerns about an article on them, they should be able
to express them on wiki in a non-disruptive fashion. I am not
suggesting we give out free passes (this discussion isn't about
removing his block), I am suggesting we be pragmatic and make
exceptions when those exceptions are to the project's benefit.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can't edit

body:
On 28/03/07, Chaz B <chazbeck.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> While it's true that newly registered editors can't edit semi-protected
> articles, I'm sure that Daniel is aware of this. I agree with him that it's
> not really violating basic principles by placing reasonable limits
> on editing .1% of our articles. I also agree that it would make sense to
> modify the protection defaults so that admins don't inadvertently
> semi-protect articles longer than intended.

I'd say "anyone can edit" as a base rule is a major part of
Wikipedia's success: being as absolutely open as we can stand to be,
and possibly a bit more, and cleaning up the rubbish after the fact
rather than trying to limit it before the fact. Everything Wikipedia's
gotten, it's gotten from being as open as possible. Most of the actual
content appears to be written by newbies. Regular wikicrack addicts
frequently start as trepidatious anons. As such, keeping pages as
unlocked as possible is important to the health of the wiki.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On 28/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> What sort of editorial oversight do you believe is in place for an
> interview in a normal publication? My understanding is that when a
> newspaper or magazine says you said something, then the fact-checker
> verifies that you said it, not that it is true.

If they bother with the fact checking.

The notions of the reliability of printed media in this thread are
ridiculous in my experience.

> As to the latter, there's no technical barrier for web publishers of any
> sort, blogs or magazines. The main protection is convention; in both
> realms it is customary to note changes on the page, and you risk
> ridicule if you don't do that. But the original text is not sacrosanct.
> To overcome this would it be sufficient in your eyes to cite from the
> Internet Archive or WebCite?

I do that when citing the words of organisations with a history of
paid PR writing, e.g. on [[AdTI]].

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 28/03/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard at gmail.com]
> >On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly
> >> mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or
> >> however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article
> >> about him.

> >If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in
> >an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish),
> >then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise
> >it'll be readded and readded and readded.

> This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular editors.

I'm somewhat conflating what should be in the article and practical
management of the article. WP:BLP deals (or dealt) with an example
like this - the messy stuff is noted only if it's notable in itself.
If it is notable, it's notable, even if it's rubbish. This is
problematic in cases like [[Peter Hollingworth]], of course. And the
blind idiot worship of print sources in [[WP:RS]] doesn't help make us
a better encyclopedia.

- d.