body:
Brad Patrick wrote:

>>>Maybe you want to start with defining the term "community". It proved
>>>to be not so easy... (And no, the community is not just the
>>>subscribers to foundation-l)
>>>
>>>
>>That is very easy. The   "community" are the users who contribute on all
>>Wikimedia projects.
>>
>>Jeroenvrp
>>
>>
>Hmm, I think you may be missing something pretty important.  In fact, the
>definition of community is the single most difficult thing to agree upon.
>What is my community, your community, etc. does not have answers.  The Board
>retreat could not answer it with the 25 people who were there.  The Board
>itself cannot agree on the meaning.  Certainly, though, you do not have the
>hubris to think that this thing called Wikimedia exists only for editors, to
>the exclusion of the millions of people who view it every day?  I view the
>orthodox idea that the community consists of, and can only consist of,
>editors as being at least as insulting as the opposite would be to Horning.
>Millions of people *read* the site, and do not contribute a comma.  And
>that's okay!   Generators *and* consumers of free culture must be
>incorporated.  If we are philosophically opposed as people who differ on
>whether a sound is made when a tree falls in  forest, so be it.
>
"Community" is open to definition.  It can probably work with any of the
definitions given.  Then there are communities of communities.  Those
who work on any specialized WikiProject themselves can be considered as
a community.

I can grasp your vision of the wider community that includes the silent
majority of readers, but getting them involved is as much if not more of
a challenge than getting citizens involved in the electoral process.
Meantime, life goes on.

Ec


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] This is not an Advertisement


list: foundation-l

from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 12/30/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a bot posting sensitive messages into every village pump, simply in
> english, would be a solution.

How? It would work somewhere. It wouldn't work in other places. If we
care the entire community, it is not the way we are going to,
regretfully I admit that is roughly what we are doing though.
Principally I have find no difference between communications via
sitenotice and ones via VP.

On non-English projects, speically non Indo-European language
projects, I have seen some (important to some extent) messages posted
in English and left without comment. In this way the possiblity of
translation doesn't depend on its importance but genuinly availability
of volunteering translators. The next possible complaint would be "why
it came in English but not in our language?"

--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Birgitte SB wrote:

>--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The success of a communications strategy depends not
>>only on the
>>information being posted, but on people taking the
>>time and
>>responsibility to read it.  One of the reasons for
>>this reading failure
>>is the sheer volume of messages that are issued.
>>So, at least rating
>>the significance of the messages would be important.
>> A Board statement
>>about a newly adopted policy would have a very high
>>rating.  Yet another
>>person's complaint about being blocked would have a
>>very low one.
>>Putting numerical ratings on each message would help
>>those with limited
>>time to choose which ones to read first.
>>
>>If the information has been there and easily
>>accessible for a reasonable
>>time there is no valid excuse for not being
>>informed.
>>
>>Ec
>>
>>
>I am not sure rating is necessary.  The key messages
>worth reading in a thread have links from the summary
>to their archived location.  I would think everyone
>should have time to read the basic summary and if a
>particular thread is something they care about the
>should read the message(s) that are linked to.  And if
>they REALLY care they can read through that section of
>the archive completely.  Of course the archived
>messages is always in english which is a problem for
>those reading translations of the summary.  But that
>would still be a problem even if they were rated.
>
Fair enough, but the ratings could also give an idea to potential
translators about which should be translated first.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>Oldak Quill wrote:
>
>
>> But even within a representative democracy there must be a certain
>>
>>level of public consultation. Unlike a representative democracy, a
>>manifesto was not put forth to be carried out by the candidates -- one
>>would expect more consultation.
>>
>>
>Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The
>community has a voice through our elected officials.
>
Finances are indeed a Foundation issue, but editing is a projects
issue.  This leaves some site notices as orphans somewher in between.
While I would consider myself mildly against site-notice ads, it's not
an issue that I'm ready to take a strong stand about.  Each Project
needs to establish its own general parameters for what it will accept in
a site notice.  The Foundation needs to be free to enter into agreements
without significant prior consultations with the Projects.  The dynamics
of our discussions do not lend themselves very well to dynamic business
decisions.  The distinction is also importand for those who see the
Foundation as a kind of ISP.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


list: wikien-l

from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Esperanza on MfD again

body:
And that first MFD obviously had nothing to do with any such meltdown
</sarcasm>
Forcing changes down people's throats makes them irritable and will cause
disagreements. And nominating over the holiday period is just plain bad
form.

If anything gets deleted the programs and parts need to be judged for
usefulness separately.

Mgm

On 12/30/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> For those who managed to completely miss this over the holiday period
> as I did, Esperanza is on MfD again, and it looks like this time it
> probably won't survive.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza
>
> In general I have no contact at all with Esperanza, so it came as a
> surprise to me that it seems recently to have had some kind of
> internal meltdown, which has triggered this MfD.
>
> --
> Earle Martin
>            http://downlode.org/
> http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Gurch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Right to anonymity and Autobiographies

body:
Stephen Park wrote:
> And how should this be permitted? Should editors be permitted to ask CheckUsers
> to verify that a suspected auotobiographer's location is consistent with
> that of the person they're writing about?

I agree with most of what you're saying, however I don't understand this
part. CheckUser only reveals a person's IP address, that can in many
cases produce a "location" of little relevance, even on a different
continent. And even if the location supplied is correct, how exactly are
we supposed to know where in the world the subject of an article is at a
particular moment in time, anyway? Is there some ban on editing while
abroad?

-Gurch


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"Stephen Park" wrote

> I think we should allow people to maintain their anonymity but that there
> needs to be an understanding that if you want to be anonymous you can't take
> advantage of that anonymity by editing an article on yourself ie your right
> to anonymity ends once you transgress WP:AUTO.

Slippery slope. What if the edit to a biographical page was to remove something potentially defamatory, or just negative and unsourced violating WP:BLP?

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Teun Spaans wrote:

>In addition to Jeroens post, I agree with him that a borderline seems to
>have been crossed. We never mentioned the name of any other company on the
>top of any page. I regret this form of advertisement, but wont cancel my
>contribution, like many others. The borderline between sponsorship and
>advertisement is razorthin, especially with virgin unite, which is viewed by
>some as an advertisement agency for the company.
>
>I wonder:
>
>6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
>suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?
>
The difficulty here is for people who may understand their personal
finances reasonable well to extrapolate their understanding of finances
to the situation faced by a multinational non-profit with no model to go by.

A small local organization can function very well on bake sales, but
that form of fundraising does not scale well at all.  Requests about
this sort of thing tend to be met with silence.  People who think about
servers by reference to the large hard drives in their own computers
find it difficult to grasp the need for hundreds of servers.  This kind
of debate is not new; it reflects the kind of research that C. Northcote
Parkinson put into the development of his law.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
Very difficult to enforce, and not really worth the bother. If someone
starts extolling the virtues of an article subject without citing
sources, we remove them regardless of who added them.


body:
On 12/30/06, Stephen Park <stephenpark15 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The problem is when use of a pseudonym allows individuals to
> surreptitiously
> edit an article on themselves in a self-promotional or at least a
> self-interested way.

No they can't. Self-promotion has two parts. While pseudonyms may make the
self-part hard to determine, the promotional part is still self-evident and
in violation of [[WP:NPOV]] no matter who is editing the article.

Mgm


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New ideas for fundraising needed. Start here!

body:
Anthere wrote:

>We may meet come complaints if we start putting the Wikipedia logo on
>toilet paper, but it is likely many brand uses will be uncontroversial.
>
That's a brilliant idea!  Not the whole square but in a corner with a
Wikipedia article for those people who are desparate to find something
to read when they most need it.

Ec


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:56:29 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>Some time ago we had a long-running and often bitter debate over whether
>high-schools were sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia.
>They are now generally accepted.

Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting.  "All
high schools are notable" is still a doctrinal position rather than a
statement of consensus.  And it still flares up from time to time, for
example with very small church schools on which there is little or no
independent coverage.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Statistics prove it!

body:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:57:44 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/5410

And you can look that up in your Funk and Wagnall's.

Sorry, showing my age there...

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Commons-l] UI design on image pages

body:
On 30/12/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29/12/06, Chris McKenna <cmckenna at sucs.org> wrote:
> > > Is it technically possible to include a blank {{information}} template on
> > > the image description page for new uploads? Or maybe redesign the upload
> > > page to have several input fields corresponding to the template rather
> > > than one single free-form box as now? Would this require a hack to
> > > MediaWiki?
> >
> >
> > Not sure. cc: to wikitech-l for opinions.
>
> I don't think there's any way to do this without some code changes,
> no.  It would, however, probably be a good idea to make those code
> changes, specifically the possibility for distinct input fields.  I
> suggest you (or someone) open a bug report.

It was mentioned in http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3712
("Use more appropriate software for the Commons (other than
MediaWiki)", a pretty wide-ranging bug).

A MW install I did for a group, 1.6.3, at Special:Upload has distinct
fields for "Copyright status" and "Source". These are distinct to
"summary" but are just write-in fields unlike the license selector.

> > (Did the German UI review
> > cover Image: pages?)
>
> Not as I recall.

I actually thought it did... can't remember where it is to re-read it
now though.

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


subject: [WikiEN-l] Regarding the "change size" indicator in change lists

body:
Luna wrote:
> On 12/30/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Customising your own CSS style sheets is exactly the opposite of *fixing
>> it*.
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> Different people want the interface to look different. Rather than wasting
> time with endless arguments over who gets "their way," just let everybody
> see what they want to see. Everybody wins when the interface can be
> customized.
>
> I've been told the Firefox community used to be held up by flamewars over
> tabs -- specifically, when we close an open tab, which tab displays next?
> One camp wanted to display the next tab to the right; another camp wanted to
> traverse to the left; still a third camp wanted to remember the order in
> which tabs had been selected, and move to the most recently selected tab. In
> my opinion, all three of these groups missed the point: all three options
> have followings and are apparently legitimate, and it's more productive to
> just allow the user to choose their preferred method.
>
> Saves time. Saves drama. Lets us all get on with writing an encyclopedia.
>
> Why is that a problem?
>
> -Luna

Exactly. I very much doubt anyone wants their diffs to look like mine
(the stuff that's usually grey isn't even visible, they're blue and
yellow, and generally ugly as sin). I also doubt many people want the
"Go" and "Search" buttons hidden, as I have done (I just press Enter to
Go, and my browser has a search box). But that's the way *I* want
things, and because the interface can be customized that way I can have
it that way.

The numbers on Recent Changes are no different. If you want to have them
pink and orange, you can; if you want to have them them in 72-point
text, you can. If you don't want to see them at all, you can; and if you
want them to appear as they do by default in MediaWiki, rather than use
the project-specific default specified in (I assume) Common.css, you can
override it.

-Gurch


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Regarding the "change size" indicator in change
	lists

body:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:37:45PM +0000, Rob Church wrote:
> I strongly object to the assertion that the development team is in
> anyway elitist or deliberately ignorant of user opinion; that is
> simply unfair and completely untrue. If we didn't care about the user
> base, we wouldn't actually be doing this.

And I wanna throw an oar in the water here, too...

40 million users...

10 developers?

Yeah, they're not gonna roll over for everything anyone says; there
*has* to be a filtering process or they'll all catch fire, like they
were dumb enough to dance for [[Sweet (Buffyverse)]].

That's going to look to the 'civilians' like the developers are copping
an attitude, sometimes; I see no way to completely avoid it.

But yes, people are going to be expected to filter themsleves through
the funneling system if they want to get stuff done.

Wikipedia probaly serves more 'users' with fewer developers than any
other OSS project I've ever seen... and I, for one, think they're doing
a pretty decent job...

Happy Next Year to all of them....

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 12/30/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> BugZilla is the bug tracking software, and it's where we track bugs
> and feature requests. I'm sorry if it's not considered wholly visible
> to all users, but it's not our fault no-one likes to link to it in,
> e.g. the sidebar, or other visible places on Wikipedia.

Good grief, do you want us to get 250 bug reports a day?


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-31

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.9alpha (r18685).
Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test Thumbnail image caption with a free URL... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A RFC with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A mailto link with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail- we don't render math in the parsertests by default,
so math is not stripped and turns up as escaped <math> tags.... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Image caption containing another image... FAILED!
Running test Bug 3090: External links other than http: in image captions... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Fuzz testing: image with bogus manual thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'... FAILED!

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

Passed 463 of 490 tests (94.49%)... FAILED!


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 12/30/06, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 2006, at 17:41, Stephen Park wrote:
>
> > I think the problem is this: If someone challenges an editor over
> > his or her
> > adding or protecting puffery in an article or for removing critical
> > information and accuses them of violating WP:AUTO the accused
> > editor can
> > turn around and have his accusor punished for "outing" him.
>
> Does this happen often? Granted, I don't tend to edit bios, but this
> situation doesn't ring any bells. Is it hypothetical or are there
> instances in which this has happened?

That was the basis of the RFAr that I linked to - Asmodeus filed it against
ScienceApologist for precisely that reason.


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject:
[Foundation-l] foundation-wikipedia-search-project (was: wiki
	search & wikimedia foundation collaboration with Limewire and Yacy ?

body:
On 12/30/06, "Thomas M?ller" <thomasasta at gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi Ant, that?s it. We need an initial discussion that the wikipedia/wikimedia
> foundation needs an open source search engine.

The Wikimedia Foundation is not presently capable of funding,
managing, designing, overseeing or implementing such a project.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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


body:
Several. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Signpost. At
least, those are all the ones we've seen... there's probably more out there.

Titoxd.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 7:51 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Push/Pull communications (es Advertisement)

Teun Spaans wrote:

>On the english wiki, I am a member of the Military history
>WikiProject. There is a newsletter, which appears every monbth or two
>months. All members are notified on their talk page. By a bot. Surely,
>if a project can manage this, the core of wikimedia can mange this? I
>admit, some volunteers are needed to do this.
>
Although recently I have been only lurking on this WikiProject, I must
speak positively of these newsletters.  Whether they will succeed in
getting us lurkers to contribute is pure guesswork, but it will improve
the possibility.  Keep up the good work.

Do any other WikiProjects have such newsletters?

>Yes, the language is a problem. At the moment I see no alternative to
>English. Translation by babelfish gives terrible results. At least at
>start, there wont be volunteers able to translate it. You are right
>that the next complaint will be that the message is in english. When
>we have taken this step, and the complaint comes, we can invite them
>to translate it.
>
Sometimes the only answer to such complaints is, "This is a volunteer
project; what are you doing to improve it?"

>One of the problems with the current communication is that we rely a
>lot on "pull", not on "push". The information is posted somewhere, and
>it is left to the wikipedians to visiti these places frequently and
>read it. It is up to the wikipedians to discover these places. It is
>up to the wikipedians to go to these places frequently. It is up to
>the wikipedians to read them It is up to the wikipedians to act on it.
>This holds true for communication from the foundation. This is true
>for information from the local chapters. This is true for information
>from commons, such as deletions. It is true for policy changes on
>commons.
>
It took a while to realize that your push/pull analogy was taken from
the language of addressing computer stacks.  :-)

If a person goes to a page frequently but unsuccessfully to see if there
are any additions he soon becomes discouraged and stops looking there.

The stacks need sorting.  Stacks operate on a Last In First Out (LIFO)
basis.  If everything is put into one big stack the oldest entries wil
soon be lost regardless of their importance.  We need more conveniently
sized stacks.  Some of these are made available by default, others, such
as study group nesletters, require a positive effort to subscribe.
These lists could be added to the top of one's watchlist with a flag to
show that there have been new additions to the list.

>There is no information brought to the door. I think it might be time
>to change all this. We might start about thinking delivering selected
>information to the people on their talk pages. information in the
>village pumps.
>
Perhaps, but that needs to be done selectively to avoid overwhelming them.

>I dont say we should communicate everything to everyone, but we may
>start thinking about such a change in our communication strategy.
>
>We are already communicating to the outside world based on "push".
>When the english wiki reaches it n-th million article, whap, out goes
>a press release. The same for commons: when the 1 million images
>milestone was reached. We dont wait till the media visit our sites to
>discover it, we go out and tell them.
>It wouldnt be bad when we followed the same line internally.
>
Worth considering.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Push/Pull communications (es Advertisement)


from_name: James Hare

body:
We should make Wikipedia-brand toilet paper and market it towards... certain
people. You know who I'm talking about.

On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
> >We may meet come complaints if we start putting the Wikipedia logo on
> >toilet paper, but it is likely many brand uses will be uncontroversial.
> >
> That's a brilliant idea!  Not the whole square but in a corner with a
> Wikipedia article for those people who are desparate to find something
> to read when they most need it.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 12/30/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> When this feature was first introduced, some bright spark on the
> English Wikipedia edited the global CSS and made the numbers bright,
> garish green and red, and emboldened them - I didn't agree with that,
> but whatever. However, there were a huge number of not-too-polite
> complaints blaming us for doing it, and some of these failed to
> subside when it was pointed out that this had nothing to do with the
> development team.

It's not reasonable to expect the average person to differentiate
between "people who hack CSS and JavaScript" and "developers". I read
wikitech-l, know what CSS, JavaScript, PHP and MediaWiki are, and
still don't really get who is responsible for what, or what caused
each visible change. How is the average Wikipedia user supposed to
have any idea?

I don't really know how to improve this situation, but some sort of
more visible process for improvements to MediaWiki and to the
Wikipedia stylesheets might help. I don't consider Mediazilla
"visible" at all.

Hope this helps.

Steve


body:
On 12/30/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've assumed the new numbers (I'm not sure what to call them) were wrapped
> in a div or span to make them friendly to CSS customization. From there on,
> if a user doesn't like them, they're free to change the colors, text
> decoration, or anything else, or even just make them disappear. As is
> frequently the case with open source projects, if you don't like something,
> you're usually free to *fix it*.

Customising your own CSS style sheets is exactly the opposite of *fixing it*.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Move page showing double redirects

body:
On 12/29/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could use the job queue for it, although I'm pretty sure there was
> some previous discussion either on this list or the bug tracker
> regarding the issue, where the consensus was to let the user do the
> cleanup.

This user refuses to do the cleanup. Hope this helps.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] [Foundation-l] new site notice now ready

body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> is a big one) (b) trusted client problem (how to ensure rogue clients
> don't redistribute corrupted content in our name).

I bet this one has been solved a zillion times over. A CRC check
determines whether it's corrupted or not. How do you force the user to
CRC check it? Perhaps a binary decompressor/decrypter only available
from wikimedia.org?

In any case, en dumps over bittorrent sounds good. Especially if they
were readable without mediawiki.

Steve


from_name: Anthere

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Jeroenvrp wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not talking about informing every single
>>project, but the ones with a good amount of community members.
>>
>
> It llooks like your theory of community democracy is already showing cracks.
>
> Ec

Je....

Merci Ec :-)))))


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
On 12/30/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting.

I suspect that most people actually never gave a damn about the issue
in the first place - it's easy to believe every wikipedian cares about
the schools inclusion debate, but I suspect most really don't care.

-Matt


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 31/12/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good grief, do you want us to get 250 bug reports a day?

On the one hand, we have the likelihood that it will not happen,
because Wikipedians now believe us all to be blood-sucking,
infant-eating monsters.

On the other hand, I believe in the power of WONTFIX.

Rob Church


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
>
> Another thing the DNC does is have monthly contributions, which they
> call Democracy Bonds. There's no reason Wikimedia should only accept
> one-time contributions.
> _______________________________________________

I don't recall exactly how it was done, but I was able to set up a
monthly "subscription" donation to Wikipedia through PayPal. I'm pretty
sure this was through a link I followed from a Wikipedia/Wikimedia page.
Note that this was quite some time ago (over a year).

That does not appear to be an option available by following the donate
link on Wikipedia today.

-Rich


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 12/30/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> >On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 28/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a
> >>>PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite.  The Gates Foundation has
> >>>pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same
> >>>founder.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>And that they tend to donate, uh, Windows licenses.
> >>
> >>
> >They do?  {{citation_needed}}
> >
> There is a certain logic to it.  It's a very inexpensive donation for
> them.  Think of the optics of having a Bill and Melinda Gates sponsored
> site being powered by Linux. :-)
>
It would make a lot more sense for Microsoft to donate the Windows
licenses directly, which I assume is what actually happens.  If the
Gates Foundation donated the licenses, how would they obtain them?
Buy them from Microsoft?  That would involve a huge and insanely
illegal conflict of interest transaction.

No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate
Windows licenses.  And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I
requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 12/28/06, David Still <daveydweeb at gmail.com> wrote:
> What about a fundraising drive featuring matched gifts? :D
>
The Democrats actually did an innovative fundraising drive with
matching gifts -- but at the, let's call it, peer-to-peer level.

People could pledge to be matchers -- e.g. pledge to contribute $75 to
match three donations of $25, or contribute $50 for a matching
donation of $50, or pledge to contribute $5000 for 50 matching
donations of $100, etc. and had the option of having their email/name
be open to the people who matched their contributions.

Other people would come in and contribute and have their donations
matched. They could write messages to the original donor, and publish
a note online.

Another thing the DNC does is have monthly contributions, which they
call Democracy Bonds. There's no reason Wikimedia should only accept
one-time contributions.


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: pikola Thierry

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Visual wiktionary

body:
I began a few months ago in Commons a pages called
"Schemes". It should become a kind of multilingual
visual dictionary. I hope its content can be useful
for the wiktionaries.

Relevant links:
*Main page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schemes
*Human anatomy in English is the one with more content
at the moment:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schemes/en/Human_anatomy

Regards,
Javier Carro.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicit?s
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 12/31/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate
> > Windows licenses.  And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I
> > requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.
>
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva10272005.html
>
http://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=324

Started in 1997, the Library Program was Bill and Melinda Gates' first
major philanthropic venture. Since that time the program has made
grants to more than 5,800 libraries in the United States, installed
more than 25,000 PCs and trained 7,000 librarians. It is anticipated
that by the end of 2003, 10,000 libraries in 50 states will have
benefited from the $200 million total investment from the foundation.

This year, it's Indiana's turn to benefit.

The Gates Foundation plans to spend $5.8 million equipping 185 public
library buildings in Indiana with computer hardware, software, and
training. Installation and training across Indiana will be scheduled
over the next year and provided by the six SLIS interns. An additional
201 buildings--eligible for partial grants--will receive free software
and training from the Foundation by purchasing their computers.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel

body:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >If you're going to make a comparison with Apartheid, you've got a better
> >comparison looking at Saudi Arabia, where multiple cities require
> >non-Muslims to drive on different roads than Muslims, and non-Muslims are
> >barred from multiple areas of many cities, and are subject to different laws
> >and different punishments for breaking the laws.
> >
> <citation needed>

Oddly enough, there's a problem on Wikipedia with people disingenuously
slapping on "citation needed" when they very well know something is true,
but they're hoping that nobody will cite it, so they have an excuse to delete
it.

At least on Wikipedia there's a requirement to cite sources, so they have
*some* point, even if they're using the rules in a biased way.

But on this mailing list there should be no need to cite sources for well-
known facts.  Demanding a citation for something like this is ridiculous.
Saudi Arabia's treatment of Muslims is well-known, and nobody who is the
least bit informed about the subject can deny it.  It's like requesting a
source for the Holocaust happening.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 12/31/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/31/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 31/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > > No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate
> > > Windows licenses.  And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I
> > > requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.
> >
> >
> > http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva10272005.html
> >
> http://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=324
>
> Started in 1997, the Library Program was Bill and Melinda Gates' first
> major philanthropic venture. Since that time the program has made
> grants to more than 5,800 libraries in the United States, installed
> more than 25,000 PCs and trained 7,000 librarians. It is anticipated
> that by the end of 2003, 10,000 libraries in 50 states will have
> benefited from the $200 million total investment from the foundation.
>
> This year, it's Indiana's turn to benefit.
>
> The Gates Foundation plans to spend $5.8 million equipping 185 public
> library buildings in Indiana with computer hardware, software, and
> training. Installation and training across Indiana will be scheduled
> over the next year and provided by the six SLIS interns. An additional
> 201 buildings--eligible for partial grants--will receive free software
> and training from the Foundation by purchasing their computers.

http://www.olis.ri.gov/grants/gates/pac/initdescrip.php

Interesting...  They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and
providing technical support and training.  Would they still donate the
computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on
them?  Maybe.  But would they still provide the free technical support
and training for those libraries?  Somehow I doubt it (although it
would be really cool if they did).

I'll admit it.  I was wrong when I said that the Gates Foundation
doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft.  The Foundation is
actually more slimy than I had realized.

I do still think it's inaccurate to say that the Gates Foundation
donates Windows licenses.  What they do is much more subtle than that.
 The software is actually donated by Microsoft.  From that same link
you provided:

"Part of a nation-wide program to help bridge the ' digital divide,'
known as the gap between those who have access to the power of
technology and the Internet and those who don't, the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, along with ***donated software from Microsoft
Corporation***, is about to have a state-wide impact on Indiana
libraries in qualifying low-income communities." [emphasis mine]

Anyway, point taken.  The Gates Foundation is probably worse than Virgin Unite.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Foundation-l] Christmas lull

body:
http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/reqstats/reqstats-monthly.png

The quiestest two days for Wikimedia were the 24th and 25th, straddling
week 51 and 52 on the graph. A lull in request rate has continued
throughout the week. We're still seeing significantly more traffic now
than we were in the middle of the year, but I have to wonder if it might
not have been better, in hindsight, to move the fundraising drive back a
couple of weeks.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Foundation-l] Christmas lull


subject: [Foundation-l] Christmas lull

body:
That's quite a dip!

Setting the fundraiser back a couple of weeks does not sound like a bad
idea. I have already thought that trying to get $1.5M by January 6 may be a
bit unrealistic, even -with- matching donors.

On 12/31/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
> http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/reqstats/reqstats-monthly.png
>
> The quiestest two days for Wikimedia were the 24th and 25th, straddling
> week 51 and 52 on the graph. A lull in request rate has continued
> throughout the week. We're still seeing significantly more traffic now
> than we were in the middle of the year, but I have to wonder if it might
> not have been better, in hindsight, to move the fundraising drive back a
> couple of weeks.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Christmas lull


from_name: David Strauss

subject: [Foundation-l] new site notice now ready

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/30/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Michael Noda wrote:
>>> On 12/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/28/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> 7. We are already paying a steep cost. While it doesn't appear in the  audit,
>>>>> the fact that we do not have advertising is costing us. This is  unrealized
>>>>> income at a minimum of $60k a day and probably much more. In other  words it is
>>>>> many millions a year. Yet, the Board and the community have chosen  to avoid
>>>>> ads so that we can maintain our independence.
>>>> You have a strange definition of cost. Wikipedia is missing out on
>>>> tons of money by not being in the porno business. You don't get to
>>>> write that up as a cost.
>>> The technical term Danny was alluding to but didn't use was
>>> [[opportunity cost]].
>> And opportunity cost is the measurement we should be using. There's no
>> sense in treating expenditures any differently from unrealized income.
>
> If we were a for-profit entity, I would agree. The purpose of
> Wikipedia is not to maximize income or profit. All things being equal,
> more income -> more realization of Wikimedia's goals, but the
> introduction of ads would not be keeping things equal.

Nowhere did I say the goal should be maximizing profit. Nowhere in the
concept of opportunity cost is the necessity to maximize profit.
Opportunity cost is merely a tool for considering the impact of
alternatives. Part of such consideration is that a cost is not
inherently different from unrealized income.

> Adding advertisements would fundamentally change the nature of
> Wikipedia. Additional income to the tune of $60K a day would too; but
> I believe it would be a hard argument to make that the difference from
> the increased money would necessarily be fundamentally improving. I
> rather suspect that one of Wikipedia's core reasons for success has
> been its minimal reliance on monetary transactions (related to its
> minimal reliance on experts, minimal reliance on long-term planning,
> etc.).

Such a fundamental change is part of the "cost" consideration for
running ads. Opportunity cost isn't about just money. In almost
everyone's opinion, the opportunity cost of running full-blown ads is
higher than the potential income they would generate.

>> That said, there are other reasons to not have porn ads.
>
> There are other reasons not to have any ads. (See above, or think of your own.)

Your response is built on your disputed notion of advertising.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061231/a13c70e9/attachment.pgp


body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/30/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Michael Noda wrote:
>>> On 12/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/28/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> 7. We are already paying a steep cost. While it doesn't appear in the  audit,
>>>>> the fact that we do not have advertising is costing us. This is  unrealized
>>>>> income at a minimum of $60k a day and probably much more. In other  words it is
>>>>> many millions a year. Yet, the Board and the community have chosen  to avoid
>>>>> ads so that we can maintain our independence.
>>>> You have a strange definition of cost. Wikipedia is missing out on
>>>> tons of money by not being in the porno business. You don't get to
>>>> write that up as a cost.
>>> The technical term Danny was alluding to but didn't use was
>>> [[opportunity cost]].
>> And opportunity cost is the measurement we should be using. There's no
>> sense in treating expenditures any differently from unrealized income.
>
> If we were a for-profit entity, I would agree. The purpose of
> Wikipedia is not to maximize income or profit. All things being equal,
> more income -> more realization of Wikimedia's goals, but the
> introduction of ads would not be keeping things equal.

Nowhere did I say the goal should be maximizing profit. Nowhere in the
concept of opportunity cost is the necessity to maximize profit.
Opportunity cost is merely a tool for considering the impact of
alternatives. Part of such consideration is that a cost is not
inherently different from unrealized income.

> Adding advertisements would fundamentally change the nature of
> Wikipedia. Additional income to the tune of $60K a day would too; but
> I believe it would be a hard argument to make that the difference from
> the increased money would necessarily be fundamentally improving. I
> rather suspect that one of Wikipedia's core reasons for success has
> been its minimal reliance on monetary transactions (related to its
> minimal reliance on experts, minimal reliance on long-term planning,
> etc.).

Such a fundamental change is part of the "cost" consideration for
running ads. Opportunity cost isn't about just money. In almost
everyone's opinion, the opportunity cost of running full-blown ads is
higher than the potential income they would generate.

>> That said, there are other reasons to not have porn ads.
>
> There are other reasons not to have any ads. (See above, or think of your own.)

Your response is built on your disputed notion of advertising.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061231/a13c70e9/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/30/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Michael Noda wrote:
>>> On 12/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/28/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> 7. We are already paying a steep cost. While it doesn't appear in the  audit,
>>>>> the fact that we do not have advertising is costing us. This is  unrealized
>>>>> income at a minimum of $60k a day and probably much more. In other  words it is
>>>>> many millions a year. Yet, the Board and the community have chosen  to avoid
>>>>> ads so that we can maintain our independence.
>>>> You have a strange definition of cost. Wikipedia is missing out on
>>>> tons of money by not being in the porno business. You don't get to
>>>> write that up as a cost.
>>> The technical term Danny was alluding to but didn't use was
>>> [[opportunity cost]].
>> And opportunity cost is the measurement we should be using. There's no
>> sense in treating expenditures any differently from unrealized income.
>
> If we were a for-profit entity, I would agree. The purpose of
> Wikipedia is not to maximize income or profit. All things being equal,
> more income -> more realization of Wikimedia's goals, but the
> introduction of ads would not be keeping things equal.

Nowhere did I say the goal should be maximizing profit. Nowhere in the
concept of opportunity cost is the necessity to maximize profit.
Opportunity cost is merely a tool for considering the impact of
alternatives. Part of such consideration is that a cost is not
inherently different from unrealized income.

> Adding advertisements would fundamentally change the nature of
> Wikipedia. Additional income to the tune of $60K a day would too; but
> I believe it would be a hard argument to make that the difference from
> the increased money would necessarily be fundamentally improving. I
> rather suspect that one of Wikipedia's core reasons for success has
> been its minimal reliance on monetary transactions (related to its
> minimal reliance on experts, minimal reliance on long-term planning,
> etc.).

Such a fundamental change is part of the "cost" consideration for
running ads. Opportunity cost isn't about just money. In almost
everyone's opinion, the opportunity cost of running full-blown ads is
higher than the potential income they would generate.

>> That said, there are other reasons to not have porn ads.
>
> There are other reasons not to have any ads. (See above, or think of your own.)

Your response is built on your disputed notion of advertising.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061231/a13c70e9/attachment.pgp>


body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/30/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Michael Noda wrote:
>>> On 12/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/28/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> 7. We are already paying a steep cost. While it doesn't appear in the  audit,
>>>>> the fact that we do not have advertising is costing us. This is  unrealized
>>>>> income at a minimum of $60k a day and probably much more. In other  words it is
>>>>> many millions a year. Yet, the Board and the community have chosen  to avoid
>>>>> ads so that we can maintain our independence.
>>>> You have a strange definition of cost. Wikipedia is missing out on
>>>> tons of money by not being in the porno business. You don't get to
>>>> write that up as a cost.
>>> The technical term Danny was alluding to but didn't use was
>>> [[opportunity cost]].
>> And opportunity cost is the measurement we should be using. There's no
>> sense in treating expenditures any differently from unrealized income.
>
> If we were a for-profit entity, I would agree. The purpose of
> Wikipedia is not to maximize income or profit. All things being equal,
> more income -> more realization of Wikimedia's goals, but the
> introduction of ads would not be keeping things equal.

Nowhere did I say the goal should be maximizing profit. Nowhere in the
concept of opportunity cost is the necessity to maximize profit.
Opportunity cost is merely a tool for considering the impact of
alternatives. Part of such consideration is that a cost is not
inherently different from unrealized income.

> Adding advertisements would fundamentally change the nature of
> Wikipedia. Additional income to the tune of $60K a day would too; but
> I believe it would be a hard argument to make that the difference from
> the increased money would necessarily be fundamentally improving. I
> rather suspect that one of Wikipedia's core reasons for success has
> been its minimal reliance on monetary transactions (related to its
> minimal reliance on experts, minimal reliance on long-term planning,
> etc.).

Such a fundamental change is part of the "cost" consideration for
running ads. Opportunity cost isn't about just money. In almost
everyone's opinion, the opportunity cost of running full-blown ads is
higher than the potential income they would generate.

>> That said, there are other reasons to not have porn ads.
>
> There are other reasons not to have any ads. (See above, or think of your own.)

Your response is built on your disputed notion of advertising.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061231/a13c70e9/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>Guy Chapman wrote:
>> Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting.
>
> That's pretty much how consensus based decision making is meant to
> work. You keep arguing until one side stops, either because they're
> convinced by the others arguments, they've reached an acceptable
> compromise, or they simply don't think it's important enough to worry
> about.

"Is meant to work", or, "ends up working in practice"?

The problem, of course, is that you can end up with decisions
biased pretty heavily towards people with obsessive personalities
and waaaaaaay too much time on their hands.


body:
On 12/31/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > On 12/30/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Noda wrote:
> >>> On 12/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/28/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> 7. We are already paying a steep cost. While it doesn't appear in the  audit,
> >>>>> the fact that we do not have advertising is costing us. This is  unrealized
> >>>>> income at a minimum of $60k a day and probably much more. In other  words it is
> >>>>> many millions a year. Yet, the Board and the community have chosen  to avoid
> >>>>> ads so that we can maintain our independence.
> >>>> You have a strange definition of cost. Wikipedia is missing out on
> >>>> tons of money by not being in the porno business. You don't get to
> >>>> write that up as a cost.
> >>> The technical term Danny was alluding to but didn't use was
> >>> [[opportunity cost]].
> >> And opportunity cost is the measurement we should be using. There's no
> >> sense in treating expenditures any differently from unrealized income.
> >
> > If we were a for-profit entity, I would agree. The purpose of
> > Wikipedia is not to maximize income or profit. All things being equal,
> > more income -> more realization of Wikimedia's goals, but the
> > introduction of ads would not be keeping things equal.
>
> Nowhere did I say the goal should be maximizing profit. Nowhere in the
> concept of opportunity cost is the necessity to maximize profit.
> Opportunity cost is merely a tool for considering the impact of
> alternatives. Part of such consideration is that a cost is not
> inherently different from unrealized income.
>
> > Adding advertisements would fundamentally change the nature of
> > Wikipedia. Additional income to the tune of $60K a day would too; but
> > I believe it would be a hard argument to make that the difference from
> > the increased money would necessarily be fundamentally improving. I
> > rather suspect that one of Wikipedia's core reasons for success has
> > been its minimal reliance on monetary transactions (related to its
> > minimal reliance on experts, minimal reliance on long-term planning,
> > etc.).
>
> Such a fundamental change is part of the "cost" consideration for
> running ads. Opportunity cost isn't about just money. In almost
> everyone's opinion, the opportunity cost of running full-blown ads is
> higher than the potential income they would generate.
>
> >> That said, there are other reasons to not have porn ads.
> >
> > There are other reasons not to have any ads. (See above, or think of your own.)
>
> Your response is built on your disputed notion of advertising.
>
You should tag the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising)
then. I didn't realize there was anything disputed.


body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> You should tag the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising)
> then. I didn't realize there was anything disputed.

Your wisecracks aren't productively furthering this discussion. It's
your interpretation that's disputed, not the article.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061231/dbefff14/attachment.pgp


body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> You should tag the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising)
> then. I didn't realize there was anything disputed.

Your wisecracks aren't productively furthering this discussion. It's
your interpretation that's disputed, not the article.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061231/dbefff14/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> You should tag the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising)
> then. I didn't realize there was anything disputed.

Your wisecracks aren't productively furthering this discussion. It's
your interpretation that's disputed, not the article.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061231/dbefff14/attachment.pgp>


body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> You should tag the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising)
> then. I didn't realize there was anything disputed.

Your wisecracks aren't productively furthering this discussion. It's
your interpretation that's disputed, not the article.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061231/dbefff14/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel

body:
On 12/31/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > >If you're going to make a comparison with Apartheid, you've got a better
> > >comparison looking at Saudi Arabia, where multiple cities require
> > >non-Muslims to drive on different roads than Muslims, and non-Muslims are
> > >barred from multiple areas of many cities, and are subject to different laws
> > >and different punishments for breaking the laws.
> > >
> > <citation needed>
>
> Oddly enough, there's a problem on Wikipedia with people disingenuously
> slapping on "citation needed" when they very well know something is true,
> but they're hoping that nobody will cite it, so they have an excuse to delete
> it.
>
> At least on Wikipedia there's a requirement to cite sources, so they have
> *some* point, even if they're using the rules in a biased way.
>
> But on this mailing list there should be no need to cite sources for well-
> known facts.  Demanding a citation for something like this is ridiculous.
> Saudi Arabia's treatment of Muslims is well-known, and nobody who is the
> least bit informed about the subject can deny it.  It's like requesting a
> source for the Holocaust happening.

Which is why I almost never respond to Ray's posts. Nevertheless:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/Saudi%20Arabia/religious%20apartheid%20in%20sa.htm

Jay.


from_name: Michael Wechner

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Regarding the "change size" indicator in change
 lists

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 12/31/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you're suggesting that we need to start asking for permission
>>before we commit every single improvement to the software, then you
>>can forget it; a lot of them have to be done to make the site more
>>stable.
>>
>>
>
>Asking permission? No. But the current situation looks to me like:
>
>1) Developers randomly without any warning make unannounced changes
>that affect users.
>2) CSS and Javascript hackers randomly without any warning make
>unannounced changes that affect users.
>3) Users get peeved due to their feeling of powerlessness, and not
>knowing any better, blame developers or CSS/Javascript hackers at
>random.
>4) Developers consider this unfair.
>
>How do you think this can be improved?
>
>

one could introduce a RTC (review then commit) process instead CTR,
whereas one could do the review on a "staging branch" in order to
be more efficient.

I am a developer myself and I also would prefer to commit every time
I do a change and consider it good, but I had to come to realize that
software in general is for people using it and hence the user is king/queen
and all good intentions are worthless if such a gap arises.

Just my 2 cents

Michael

--
Michael Wechner
Wyona      -   Open Source Content Management   -    Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com                      http://lenya.apache.org
michael.wechner at wyona.com                        michi at apache.org
+41 44 272 91 61


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 12/31/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Asking permission? No. But the current situation looks to me like:
>
> 1) Developers randomly without any warning make unannounced changes
> that affect users.
> 2) CSS and Javascript hackers randomly without any warning make
> unannounced changes that affect users.
> 3) Users get peeved due to their feeling of powerlessness, and not
> knowing any better, blame developers or CSS/Javascript hackers at
> random.
> 4) Developers consider this unfair.
>
> How do you think this can be improved?

I don't think it can be.  Twenty-nine times out of thirty, step 3
never happens, and any further review processes or whatever will hold
up those twenty-nine times as well as (even more than) the last.
Generally the only criticism of developers is failure to institute
desirable things, not institution of undesirable things.  People are
happy with almost every change we make, and in fact, in this case
almost everyone was happy as well as far as I can see.

On 12/31/06, Michael Wechner <michael.wechner at wyona.com> wrote:
> one could introduce a RTC (review then commit) process instead CTR,
> whereas one could do the review on a "staging branch" in order to
> be more efficient.

Review by whom, the users?  How would you get the general body of
users to review even a few changes a week without making them live?
Real businesses and whatnot get around this by market studies and so
forth, but we don't have those.


body:
On 12/31/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > On 12/30/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Noda wrote:
> >>> On 12/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/28/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> 7. We are already paying a steep cost. While it doesn't appear in the  audit,
> >>>>> the fact that we do not have advertising is costing us. This is  unrealized
> >>>>> income at a minimum of $60k a day and probably much more. In other  words it is
> >>>>> many millions a year. Yet, the Board and the community have chosen  to avoid
> >>>>> ads so that we can maintain our independence.
> >>>> You have a strange definition of cost. Wikipedia is missing out on
> >>>> tons of money by not being in the porno business. You don't get to
> >>>> write that up as a cost.
> >>> The technical term Danny was alluding to but didn't use was
> >>> [[opportunity cost]].
> >> And opportunity cost is the measurement we should be using. There's no
> >> sense in treating expenditures any differently from unrealized income.
> >
> > If we were a for-profit entity, I would agree. The purpose of
> > Wikipedia is not to maximize income or profit. All things being equal,
> > more income -> more realization of Wikimedia's goals, but the
> > introduction of ads would not be keeping things equal.
>
> Nowhere did I say the goal should be maximizing profit. Nowhere in the
> concept of opportunity cost is the necessity to maximize profit.
> Opportunity cost is merely a tool for considering the impact of
> alternatives. Part of such consideration is that a cost is not
> inherently different from unrealized income.
>
> > Adding advertisements would fundamentally change the nature of
> > Wikipedia. Additional income to the tune of $60K a day would too; but
> > I believe it would be a hard argument to make that the difference from
> > the increased money would necessarily be fundamentally improving. I
> > rather suspect that one of Wikipedia's core reasons for success has
> > been its minimal reliance on monetary transactions (related to its
> > minimal reliance on experts, minimal reliance on long-term planning,
> > etc.).
>
> Such a fundamental change is part of the "cost" consideration for
> running ads. Opportunity cost isn't about just money. In almost
> everyone's opinion, the opportunity cost of running full-blown ads is
> higher than the potential income they would generate.
>
So, then "opportunity cost" does not equal "unrealized income".
"Opportunity cost" equals "unrealized income" minus "unrealized
costs".  And that means that "expenses" *are* fundamentally different
from "unrealized income".

Now, factor in the fact that many "unrealized costs" are completely
intangible and can't easily, if at all, be expressed in terms of
money, and it makes the whole concept of opportunity costs extremely
limited in potential application.

The "minimum of $60k a day" Danny was alluding to is a pure gross
income figure.  It doesn't reflect any of the costs of that $60k/day -
both out of pocket costs as well as costs in terms of lost
contributors and lost goodwill.  And not even beginning to consider
the fact that advertising in ways which don't fall under the
"qualified sponsorship" exceptions in the IRS code could cost the
Foundation its charititable status.

> >> That said, there are other reasons to not have porn ads.
> >
> > There are other reasons not to have any ads. (See above, or think of your own.)
>
> Your response is built on your disputed notion of advertising.
>
Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?

Anthony


body:
Anthony wrote:
> Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
> or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
> include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
> Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
> the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
> attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
> definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?

Apparently, you do.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061231/f1a37fc2/attachment.pgp


body:
Anthony wrote:
> Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
> or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
> include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
> Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
> the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
> attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
> definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?

Apparently, you do.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061231/f1a37fc2/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Anthony wrote:
> Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
> or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
> include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
> Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
> the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
> attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
> definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?

Apparently, you do.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061231/f1a37fc2/attachment.pgp>


body:
Anthony wrote:
> Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
> or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
> include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
> Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
> the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
> attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
> definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?

Apparently, you do.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061231/f1a37fc2/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 31/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:

> The Democrats actually did an innovative fundraising drive with
> matching gifts -- but at the, let's call it, peer-to-peer level.
> People could pledge to be matchers -- e.g. pledge to contribute $75 to
> match three donations of $25, or contribute $50 for a matching
> donation of $50, or pledge to contribute $5000 for 50 matching
> donations of $100, etc. and had the option of having their email/name
> be open to the people who matched their contributions.

That's a great idea!

> Another thing the DNC does is have monthly contributions, which they
> call Democracy Bonds. There's no reason Wikimedia should only accept
> one-time contributions.

Any sensible charity makes arrangements to try to subscribe
contributors. I'm sure, in Danny's copious free time ...

- d.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Statistics prove it!

body:
On 30 Dec 2006 at 22:49:47 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:57:44 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/5410
>
> And you can look that up in your Funk and Wagnall's.
>
> Sorry, showing my age there...

Some more findings which are relevant here:
http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/5892

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


body:
On 12/31/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
> > or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
> > include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
> > Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
> > the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
> > attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
> > definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?
>
> Apparently, you do.
>
Witty retort.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 31/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate
> Windows licenses.  And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I
> requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.

http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva10272005.html

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


body:
On 12/31/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > You should tag the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising)
> > then. I didn't realize there was anything disputed.
>
> Your wisecracks aren't productively furthering this discussion. It's
> your interpretation that's disputed, not the article.
>
I was quite serious; not making any wisecracks.

You had written:
>
> Your response is built on your disputed notion of advertising.
>
Okay, what notion are you referring to, and what's the dispute?


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 12/31/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 31/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, I'm fairly certain that the Gates Foundation *doesn't* donate
>>>Windows licenses.  And the fact that I haven't gotten that citation I
>>>requested makes me think David Gerard just made that assertion up.
>>>
>>>
>>http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva10272005.html
>>
>>
>http://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=324
>
>Started in 1997, the Library Program was Bill and Melinda Gates' first
>major philanthropic venture. Since that time the program has made
>grants to more than 5,800 libraries in the United States, installed
>more than 25,000 PCs and trained 7,000 librarians. It is anticipated
>that by the end of 2003, 10,000 libraries in 50 states will have
>benefited from the $200 million total investment from the foundation.
>
>This year, it's Indiana's turn to benefit.
>
>The Gates Foundation plans to spend $5.8 million equipping 185 public
>library buildings in Indiana with computer hardware, software, and
>training. Installation and training across Indiana will be scheduled
>over the next year and provided by the six SLIS interns. An additional
>201 buildings--eligible for partial grants--will receive free software
>and training from the Foundation by purchasing their computers.
>
This makes excellent business sense.  I'm sure that Bill is smart enough
not to fall into some obviously stupid Conflict of Interest trap.  The
Gates Foundation can by whatever it needs at the best available market
rates as a bulk buyer.  When it gives away the software to institutions
the users there become familiar with the software.  That can be a big
influence on their future personal software purchase.

Only a small minority of computer purchasers are techno-geeks.  They
want their computers to work.  If that means Microsoft + AOL they don't
want to look any further.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Foundation-l] Christmas lull

body:
On 31/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's quite a dip!
>
> Setting the fundraiser back a couple of weeks does not sound like a bad
> idea. I have already thought that trying to get $1.5M by January 6 may be a
> bit unrealistic, even -with- matching donors.
>
> On 12/31/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

Even without the dip, I don't think we would have made $1.5M by Jan 6.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Christmas lull


from_name: Luna

subject: [WikiEN-l] Not so broken after all, perhaps

body:
On 12/31/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
> One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day
> attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
>
> Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
>

Currently, new nominations are added to the bottom, which means people who
stroll by and don't bother to scroll down fifty pages will only see the
oldest nominations which are probably already filled with comments.

What say we add new nominations to the top, instead? Might get them a bit
more attention.

Unless that's already been tried, and I'm silly. :p

-Luna


from_name: Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð

subject: [Wikipedia-l]New ideas for fundraising needed. Start here! (F.B. Dýrfjörð)

body:
I haven't fallowed the discussion so I might be repeating an old idea,
if so just ignore my comment.  In any case this is an old idea, this is
a business model you have probably seen before if you are familiar with
The Hunger Site (thehungersite.com) and The Million Dollar Homepage
(milliondollarhomepage.com).  I was thinking we could have a button on
the fundraising-page that people would be asked to click if they wanted
to support Wikimedia (this is not advertising).  Clicking that button
would send you to a side project of the Foundation (hopefully with a
special domain name) which would essentially be a page full of ads like
the Million Dollar Homepage.  So in this way we do not advertise on
Wikipedia but instead offer people who whish to support the Foundation
to support us in this way (and in this way make use of our traffic).

- F.B. D?rfj?r?


body:
On 31/12/06, Fri?rik Bragi D?rfj?r? <dyrfjord at gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't fallowed the discussion so I might be repeating an old idea,
> if so just ignore my comment.  In any case this is an old idea, this is
> a business model you have probably seen before if you are familiar with
> The Hunger Site (thehungersite.com) and The Million Dollar Homepage
> (milliondollarhomepage.com).  I was thinking we could have a button on
> the fundraising-page that people would be asked to click if they wanted
> to support Wikimedia (this is not advertising).  Clicking that button
> would send you to a side project of the Foundation (hopefully with a
> special domain name) which would essentially be a page full of ads like
> the Million Dollar Homepage.  So in this way we do not advertise on
> Wikipedia but instead offer people who whish to support the Foundation
> to support us in this way (and in this way make use of our traffic).

It's a good idea, but I don't think this would overcome many of the
problems that placing adverts on Wikimedia projects (esp. Wikipedia)
would have. One of the main reasons I have for opposing advertising is
the bias, or perceived bias, this may introduce. If [Corporation] is
giving us $1 million a year in advertising, how could readers be sure
that Wikipedia's article on [Corporation] was unbiased? I don't think
abstracting the advertising a layer would remove this problem.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Anthony wrote:

>Interesting...  They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and
>providing technical support and training.  Would they still donate the
>computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on
>them?  Maybe.  But would they still provide the free technical support
>and training for those libraries?  Somehow I doubt it (although it
>would be really cool if they did).
>
Why would those libraries _want_ to install Linux?  The primary reason
for free software evaporates when they are spared the costs of
proprietary licences.

>I'll admit it.  I was wrong when I said that the Gates Foundation
>doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft.  The Foundation is
>actually more slimy than I had realized.
>
>I do still think it's inaccurate to say that the Gates Foundation
>donates Windows licenses.  What they do is much more subtle than that.
> The software is actually donated by Microsoft.
>
It comes down to a question of whatever works.

>Anyway, point taken.  The Gates Foundation is probably worse than Virgin Unite.
>
I'm not familiar enough with the business operations of Virgin Unite to
make the comparison.  The Gates/Microsft gifts are sure to include a lot
of other proprietary material such as access to databases, along with
the subtle IP propaganda that goes with it.  In terms of strategic
marketting I think that Gates is at least as capable as the tobacco
companies.  If free software and open access are to be long term
successes they're going to have to pay attention and understand that
mode of thinking.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rotten tomatoes invited

body:
Well Daaaveeeey,

I read it and it looks great!

On 12/31/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For those who are aware of the mess relating to Giano, a modest proposal:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop#.28Dec_2006.29_A_Modest_Proposal
>
> For those who aren't, you betta off. Ya rly.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rotten tomatoes invited

body:
Ain't that the truth.

On 12/31/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 31/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well Daaaveeeey,
> > I read it and it looks great!
>
>
> "I DON'T CARE WHO'S WRONG. THIS IS STOPPING NOW. YOU'RE BOTH GROUNDED.
> GO TO YOUR ROOMS!"
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
> Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting.

That's pretty much how consensus based decision making is meant to
work. You keep arguing until one side stops, either because they're
convinced by the others arguments, they've reached an acceptable
compromise, or they simply don't think it's important enough to worry
about.


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel

body:
Earle Martin wrote:

>On 31/12/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But on this mailing list there should be no need to cite sources for well-
>>known facts.  Demanding a citation for something like this is ridiculous.
>>Saudi Arabia's treatment of Muslims is well-known, and nobody who is the
>>least bit informed about the subject can deny it.  It's like requesting a
>>source for the Holocaust happening.
>>
>>
>I'm sorry, but to compare Saudi Arabia not allowing non-Muslims to
>drive on the highway that happens to lead into Mecca - the holy city,
>who would have thought? - with the Holocaust is both grotesque and a
>piece of gratuitous trolling.
>
To be more precise the turn off to the left is to "Arafat Makkah", the
actual holy site in Mecca.  The sign going to the right has two arrows,
which suggests two lanes.  Why, in a country that is predominantly
Muslim, would the infidel minority get two lanes while the dominant
religious group get only one?  Traffic control can be a serious problem
at the time of the Hajj.

The Latter Day Saints do not allow non-Mormons into their inner temple
in Salt Lake City, and I find no reason to be upset about that.

The photo adds no commentary, and is accompanied by a misleading title.
Looking further into the website gives me the impression that it is run
by fundamentalist hate mongers.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Christmas lull

body:
On 31/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's quite a dip!

> > http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/reqstats/reqstats-monthly.png

Is it reflected in previous years, normalising for trend?

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Christmas lull


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
> "Is meant to work", or, "ends up working in practice"?

Is meant to work. The whole point of consensus is that you should
never have to determine what it is, because once you've reached
consensus, people stop arguing. (We actually go for "rough consensus"
on Wikipedia, which ends up being closer to "supermajority" than
"consensus".)

> The problem, of course, is that you can end up with decisions
> biased pretty heavily towards people with obsessive personalities
> and waaaaaaay too much time on their hands.

Yes, some people having louder voices than others can skew consensus,
but you're more likely to end up with simply no consensus rather than
the wrong consensus in such cases.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Statistics prove it!

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:33:18 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias"
><dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
>
>>Some more findings which are relevant here:
>>http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/5892
>>
>>
>That's flat wrong.  The real value is: 87.3% of statistics are made
>up.
>
Ergo there is an 87.3% probability that the 87.3% statistic is wrong. :-)

Ec


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 31/12/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>
>>> Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
>>> or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
>>> include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
>>> Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
>>> the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
>>> attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
>>> definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?
>
>> Apparently, you do.
>
>
> I think it's clear that even if someone can mathematically prove that
> "sponsorship" is technically not identical to "advertising", it looks,
> walks and quacks enough like it to risk similar objectionableness.
>
> Arguing the definition of the word "advertising" is missing the point
> of the objection.

That's not what I'm saying. There's a distinction between 1) whether the
site notices constitute advertising and 2) whether the foundation should
run advertisements.

My positions:
1) The site notices are not advertising because the donors do not
control their representation.
2) I don't think the technical status of "advertisement" matters. All
that matters is how much income the foundation receives versus how the
action affects Wikipedia and other project's effectiveness and perception.

Just because I'm expressing an opinion on #1 doesn't mean I think #2
hinges on it.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061231/e5addbe8/attachment.pgp


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 31/12/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>
>>> Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
>>> or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
>>> include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
>>> Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
>>> the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
>>> attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
>>> definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?
>
>> Apparently, you do.
>
>
> I think it's clear that even if someone can mathematically prove that
> "sponsorship" is technically not identical to "advertising", it looks,
> walks and quacks enough like it to risk similar objectionableness.
>
> Arguing the definition of the word "advertising" is missing the point
> of the objection.

That's not what I'm saying. There's a distinction between 1) whether the
site notices constitute advertising and 2) whether the foundation should
run advertisements.

My positions:
1) The site notices are not advertising because the donors do not
control their representation.
2) I don't think the technical status of "advertisement" matters. All
that matters is how much income the foundation receives versus how the
action affects Wikipedia and other project's effectiveness and perception.

Just because I'm expressing an opinion on #1 doesn't mean I think #2
hinges on it.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061231/e5addbe8/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 31/12/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>
>>> Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
>>> or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
>>> include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
>>> Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
>>> the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
>>> attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
>>> definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?
>
>> Apparently, you do.
>
>
> I think it's clear that even if someone can mathematically prove that
> "sponsorship" is technically not identical to "advertising", it looks,
> walks and quacks enough like it to risk similar objectionableness.
>
> Arguing the definition of the word "advertising" is missing the point
> of the objection.

That's not what I'm saying. There's a distinction between 1) whether the
site notices constitute advertising and 2) whether the foundation should
run advertisements.

My positions:
1) The site notices are not advertising because the donors do not
control their representation.
2) I don't think the technical status of "advertisement" matters. All
that matters is how much income the foundation receives versus how the
action affects Wikipedia and other project's effectiveness and perception.

Just because I'm expressing an opinion on #1 doesn't mean I think #2
hinges on it.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061231/e5addbe8/attachment.pgp>


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 31/12/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>
>>> Who cares if it falls under some artificial definition of advertising
>>> or not?  I'm sure you could find 100 dictionary definitions which
>>> include what's going on, and 100 other definitions which don't.
>>> Answers.com says "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in
>>> the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public
>>> attention or patronage."  I'd say sitenotice qualifies under that
>>> definition.  Whoopdedoo, who cares?
>
>> Apparently, you do.
>
>
> I think it's clear that even if someone can mathematically prove that
> "sponsorship" is technically not identical to "advertising", it looks,
> walks and quacks enough like it to risk similar objectionableness.
>
> Arguing the definition of the word "advertising" is missing the point
> of the objection.

That's not what I'm saying. There's a distinction between 1) whether the
site notices constitute advertising and 2) whether the foundation should
run advertisements.

My positions:
1) The site notices are not advertising because the donors do not
control their representation.
2) I don't think the technical status of "advertisement" matters. All
that matters is how much income the foundation receives versus how the
action affects Wikipedia and other project's effectiveness and perception.

Just because I'm expressing an opinion on #1 doesn't mean I think #2
hinges on it.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061231/e5addbe8/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>I've compared the standard of some current deletion debates with some
>from a year back, only informally of course and without much system,
>but it seems to me that:
>
>* really obvious deletions are much less common, suggesting that PROD
>is doing its job
>* blatant spam and band vanity is no longer a significant contributor
>to AfD
>* quality of debate seems higher, with more references to policy and
>guidelines and much less bald !voting
>* more contextual knowledge is evident now, suggesting that
>categorisation may also be working as intended
>
>One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day
>attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
>
>Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
>
Apply a random number generator to determine the order in which they
appear each time they are downloaded.

Ec


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 12/31/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This user refuses to do the cleanup. Hope this helps.
>
> Superb attitude.

With Wikipedia, and wikis in general, one of the basic principles is
that if some improvement can be broken down into several different
independent improvement work units, then it's fine to carry out one of
those units and not the others. There's no shame in adding {{stub}} to
an article, and leaving the job of recategorising it
{{brazil-music-stub}} to someone else. I improved a page by renaming
it. Someone else - preferably a bot - can do the mind-numbingly
tedious job of updating double redirects.

> The problem we'd face if, for instance, 200 or even 2000 redirects
> needed to be corrected in an autonomous, atomic fashion, is that the
> software has to do the same as the user - open the page for editing,
> make the changes without disrupting other content on the page (e.g.
> categories, or cute little templates), save the page, handle edit
> conflicts, rinse and repeat.

How ever long it takes the server to do it, it takes a lot longer for
the user, and pisses them off a hell of a lot more. That's why we even
have computers, remember. Your paragraph might serve as an argument
against renaming heavily redirected-to pages. It might serve as an
argument for some improvement to MediaWiki. But how does it argue
against getting a bot to update double redirects instead of a human?

> It might be much faster on the server side, but it's still a
> time-consuming operation, which could well time out for large sets -
> leaving us with a worse mess to clean up. Then there's the problem
> that it might be desirable to have some of the redirects left intact,
> etc.

There are times when we want to leave double-redirects left intact? So
that we're on the same page, we have redirects:

A->B

Page B gets renamed to C, creating a redirect at B:

A->B->C

Some page x that used to link to A can still link to A, even after the
double-redirect is fixed:

x->A->C

Why would you want "some of the redirects left intact", ie, A still
pointing to B?

> I'm not against some kind of automated assistance for such operations,
> but it will have to work in a robust fashion, taking into
> consideration that we don't want to make the situation worse.

Worse than what? A bunch of double redirects?

Steve


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 31/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> I do still think it's inaccurate to say that the Gates Foundation
> donates Windows licenses.  What they do is much more subtle than that.
>  The software is actually donated by Microsoft.  From that same link
> you provided:

Yeah, I was speaking way too loosely. I meant that so far, rather too
much of what they do entrenches Microsoft. I expect this will change
with time.

> Anyway, point taken.  The Gates Foundation is probably worse than Virgin Unite.

OTOH, if the Gates Foundation offered us cash, I'd say "PLEASE PLEASE
TAKE IT!" as long as it didn't mean running Windows on the Squids!

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


subject: [Foundation-l] Illegal IP blocking on the Dutch wikipedia

body:
On 12/31/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2007/1/1, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Open proxies are banned from all Wikimedia projects.
>
>
> No, they are not. On nl:Wikipedia they  have not been blocked, partly
> exactly for the reason Waerth mentions. Apart from that, if they are
> blocked
> everywhere, then who has decided this?

 My understanding is that there is such a prohibition:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:OP
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:NOP

Beyond that, I don't have the answers.

-Luna