from_name: Jakob Voss

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Conditional templates

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

> I know that at east one solution has been proposed
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:AzaToth/Logic which I personally think
> is over-egging the pudding, but is a good first step) but I have heard
> absolutely nothing as to whether anybody is ever going to actually do
> anything about it.

What the **** is that? We don't need geek-features but a simple solution.

> In the meantime, various users (Netoholic and SnowSpinner chief amongst
> them) are making vaguely threatening rumblings which imply simply destroying
> any and all templates which use anything like conditional code: the dreaded
> "meta-template" term is bandied about with wild abandon. Other users, in a
> mad attempt to escape from the [[WP:AUM]] bludgeon, are driven to perpetrate
> atrocities like this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_TV_channel&oldid=33042068
> (warning: obscene code alert).

You can never prevent authors to write bad code. I'm currently
introducing conditional templates in the German Wikipedia for some small
and simple templates with up two 3 parameters [1]. Everything else is
too complex for authors anyway.

> The only response I have heard from anybody on the development side is "we
> don't want it Turing compliant", which I assume means that they don't want
> sufficient bells and whistles to make it possible to write nasty little
> virus thingies.
>
> Well, neither do the users: we simply want something in Mediawiki which will
> perform the same function as {{qif}}
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Qif ) and {{switch}}
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Switch ) without the strain these
> templates are said to impose on the servers. Anything else (as I implied
> earlier) would IMNSHO be overdoing it and unnecessary.

I fully agree. We only need conditional branching with if-then-else,
switch and boolean operators. No additional string operations, no counting,
no math, no goto...

Greetings,
Jakob

[1] See
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage_Diskussion:Zitat
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Zitate#Layout
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vorlage:Zitat&action=edit


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Nyenyec N

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing?
I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like
to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.

BTW I wouldn't mind non-obtrusive ads (a'la gmail) if it means that
the servers are more responsive and the software is more featureful.

Several Mediawiki features are not developed or simply not enabled,
because the servers wouldn't be able to handle the load.

-- nyenyec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
Ok, let me rephrase my question.

Will these need to be deleted:
[[Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images]] or will they be re-tagged
as "fair use"?

-- nyenyec

On 1/1/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/01/06, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing?
> > I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like
> > to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.
>
> Non-commercial only images aren't (in theory) permitted anyway...
> well, certainly not on en:, and I believe it's a general rule.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 1/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  I thought the goal was to build an
> encyclopaedia - so does it matter how many people are reading it?

What's the point of an encyclopedia that no one uses?

We're not constructing a Platonic ideal of an encyclopedia, we're building
something that people use around the world every day.  I find that an
essential component of what we're doing here and we really should be doing
things with that in mind.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Servien Ilaino

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Asking for immediate set-up for new wikipedias!
	(urgent)

body:
Please start the new year with a new wikipedia, we are all so sick of
waiting for the creation of these wikipedia's... there hasn't been a
single "recent new wiki". The last must have been about 3 months back
or so...

There are ones with official ISO codes. Don't disappoint us in this
new year. We'd all like to get the wiki's started and going! So mark
this as URGENT in your diary.

Details can be found on:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages

Official ISO code:
2.1.1 Nedersaksisch/Dutch Low Saxon (22 support; 3 oppose [thereof 2
anon votes])
2.1.2 Vlax Romany (11 support, 1 oppose [anonymous])
2.1.3 West Flemish (15 support, 1 object)
2.1.4 Ligurian (16 support thereof 5 native speakers, 3 oppose)

Non-official
2.2.1 Samogitian (?emait??ka) (11)
2.2.2 Banyumasan (8)
2.2.3 Ripuarian (19 support [thereof 3 anonymus votes]; 2 oppose)
2.2.4 Pennsylvania German (17 support; 1 oppose)

Regards,
Servien Ilaino


from_name: homey2005 at sympatico.ca

subject: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement

body:
>
> From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/01 Sun PM 03:48:40 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
>
> And what about the AFD reasoning that it's a term to collect "boylove" and
> "girllove" under one name. Those terms are common

no they aren't.

>and calling them childlove > collectively makes sense (at least to me).

A neologism that "makes sense" is still a neolgoism.
H.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 1/1/06, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Point taken. However, the term "white nationalism" is much more firmly
> > established than "childlove". See for instance "The New White Nationalism in
> > America", a scholarly book by Carol M. Swain. And also, white nationalist
> > claim to be different than white supremacists thus a distiction is made
> > (though whether it's a real distinction or just a matter of hiding one's
> > views in order to make them more palatable is an issue).
> >
> > Conversely, there is no distinction between "childlove" and "pedophilia".
> > The former is a pure synonym for the latter and its purpose is not to draw a
> > distinction of some sort but to serve as a euphemism.
> >
> > Homey
> > >
> > > From: Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com>
> > > Date: 2006/01/01 Sun PM 03:17:10 EST
> > > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
> > >
> > > On 1/1/06, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a
> > particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply
> > because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white
> > nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather
> > than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".
> > >
> > > Not to put a bee in your bonnet but we do have an article on [[White
> > > nationalism]]. It actually provides a pretty good example of the best
> > > way of dealing with this sort of thing:
> > >
> > > "White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the
> > > social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people."
> > > "White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing
> > > that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage,
> > > including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its
> > > heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as
> > > racial supremacists do. Critics, however, argue that white nationalism
> > > intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy."
> > >
> > > Now obviously in all cases this level of "neutrality" is not
> > > completely warranted -- something like "Holohoax" for example which is
> > > nothing but a perjorative. I don't know enough about the case in
> > > question to have any worthwhile opinion but I think this is the sort
> > > of thing that MGM is getting at.  Other examples include distinctions
> > > like [[Pro-life]]/[[Anti-abortion movement]].
> > >
> > > When something is legitimately a proper name of a "movement" or
> > > organized campaign it should generally have an article using its
> > > established name, even if it very quickly explains that the name
> > > itself is in dispute. Generally speaking, of course.
> > >
> > > FF
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Arbeo M

body:
I can only support Servien's request. It'd really, really kind of you if somebody could take care of this matter pretty soon. Lots of people will surely appreciate it.

 Maybe some of you speak French, German, Dutch, Japanese, Italian, Russian or Swedish as a  native language.  You see, if no developer had taken the time to set up new subdomains for those languages at some point in time ... there simply wouldn't be a Wikipedia in your language by now. Please think about that for a second.

 Thanks for your consideration!

 Arbeo

 Servien Ilaino wrote:

 Please start the new year with a new wikipedia, we are all so sick of
 waiting for the creation of these wikipedia's... there hasn't been a
 single "recent new wiki". The last must have been about 3 months back
 or so...

 There are ones with official ISO codes. Don't disappoint us in this
 new year. We'd all like to get the wiki's started and going! So mark
 this as URGENT in your diary.

 Details can be found on:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages

 Official ISO code:
 2.1.1 Nedersaksisch/Dutch Low Saxon (22 support; 3 oppose [thereof 2
 anon votes])
 2.1.2 Vlax Romany (11 support, 1 oppose [anonymous])
 2.1.3 West Flemish (15 support, 1 object)
 2.1.4 Ligurian (16 support thereof 5 native speakers, 3 oppose)

 Non-official
 2.2.1 Samogitian (?emaitė?ka) (11)
 2.2.2 Banyumasan (8)
 2.2.3 Ripuarian (19 support [thereof 3 anonymus votes]; 2 oppose)
 2.2.4 Pennsylvania German (17 support; 1 oppose)

 Regards,
 Servien Ilaino

---------------------------------
Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren Freunden von PC zu PC!
Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wiktionary-l] A Christmas present on Boxing day

body:
Hoi,
For your information, this is an "as is" implementation of the GEMET
thesaurus. It does not reflect how things will be done in WiktionaryZ.
It demonstrates that we CAN host a thesaurus as GEMET. All the
problems associated with this data can be found in this
implementation.

On 1/1/06, Heiko Evermann <heiko.evermann at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Gerard,
>
> > I am extremely happy that I can inform you on Boxing day that a tired
> > Erik has produced the first tangible result of the Wikidata / Ultimate
> > Wiktionary project. It shows that we want great content in many
> > languages, that we want to include thesaurus information and that we
> > are happy to include with gratitude content like the Gemet thesaurus.
> First of all: Congratulations for the working prototype. I think that UW is a
> very important project and it is good to see that it is making progress.
>
Thanks

> > Our goal with Ultimate Wiktionary is to provide an even more complex
> > application that will make this data collaboratively editable, to add
> > dynamic user-based views, APIs, and crucial features such as
> > inflections, etymologies, complex relations and attributes, and much
> > more. This will be a huge challenge. Fortunately, more funding seems to
> > be on the horizon, allowing us to put more developers on the job.
> I have made some experiments and this led to some thoughts and questions. I
> hope that you do not mind.
>
> I have tried http://www.epov.org/wd-gemet/index.php/flower and have seen two
> Entries: en and en-US. Both seem to have independent lists of translations,
> as en lists en-US as translation but en-US does not list en as translation.
> How will this be handled? What is your way to make sure that the definitions
> and translations remain consistent? In the case of flower there should be no
> distinction between en and en-US whatsoever. I have asked this before, but so
> far I have not received a response that really solved the matter.
>
First of all en-US is NOT a different language even when it says so at
this moment. en-US is a different locale.

> I have also had a look at the entries for "color" and "colour". The
> interesting thing here is that one (en) has a definition and one (en-US)
> doesn't.
>
See above

> And when I navigate to the different translations, (e.g. German: Farbe), I get
> the same list of definitions in several languages. However, when we translate
> Farbe back into English, we would have to make the distinction between two
> different meanings: color (hue) and paint (for the wall). As all the
> different translations seem to be forming one ring, I wonder, how the meaning
> would be split in the German entry, and how one would select the translations
> into pl, sl, gb onto these two meanings.
>

For this I have to refer you to the data design. Farbe will be
associated with two DefinedMeanings. These are not both defined at
this moment.  Translations are associated with a specific
DefinedMeaning (again see the data design)

> Kind regards,
>
> Heiko Evermann
>
Happy New Year,
GerardM


from_name: Ed Peschko

subject:
[Wikitech-l]
	named, registered accounts for mediawiki before posting

body:
hey all,

I was wondering if there was any ready-made patches available for mediawiki requiring
registration w/named accounts before posting, as well as maybe a 'karma' feature to
rate users by the quality of their postings.

Also, is there an easy way for admins to see all changes to wikis on one page,
as well as an easy way to revert these edits?

Thanks much,

Ed


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia micronation - Tirben

body:
charles matthews wrote:

> "Jimmy Wales" wrote
>
>> Don't you know?  Wikipedia _is_ a micronation.  We've got a
>> constitutional monarch, laws, nobles, democracy, rioting in the streets,
>> lynch mobs, local fiefdoms, everything.
>
> In 2006, WPAir - the only national airline where the passengers are in
> charge, and the planes are reconfigured by complete amateurs from the
> moment of take-off.

Every flight an adventure.  You never know where it's going to land.

Ec


from_name: Frando

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Tasks extension can now create tasks upon article
	creation

body:
Hello,

I've just tested the tasks extension (btw: amazing work so far, should
be launched in the wikipedias ASAP!) and found a rather important bug in
Opera 8.1:
On the "Tasks"-page on any article, the SELECT-List containing the task
types for creating a new task is just not visible ;)
It's visible on the left side in firefox and IE, but in opera there's
just a white space...

So what has still to be done until it can be launched?
Just testing or are still features missing?

best regards,
Frando


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Confessions of a image-maniac.

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> SP wrote:
>
>> Confessions of a image-maniac.
>>
>> I have a image that needs to go. It's license is dubious.
>> I love the image so much, even if its color's ridiculous.
>>
>> I promised myself it would go on New Years Day.
>> If I tag it speedy delete will someone make it go away
>> Before I change my mind?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:0184_Lantern_slide_woman%2C_Ford%2C_pipe2.jpg
>>
>
>
> Public domain is about the most non-dubious "licence" we've got. Or is
> it not actually public domain? If so, relabel it with the correct
> licence information. I suspect if I saw a nice public-domain image like
> this tagged for deletion I'd first ensure it was moved to Commons before
> deleting it.

PD with no reason is actually one of the /most/ dubious image tags -
anyone can say "This is in the public domain" and everyone else will say
"oh, okay then", but without a reason it's hard to be certain.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060101/d9098ab5/attachment.pgp


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] On Transparency

body:
On 12/27/05, Steven Ericsson Zenith <steven at semeiosis.com> wrote:
> A brief contrarian point of view.  If Wikipedia is to succeed in any
> measure to move beyond its tabloid status then transparency is essential.
>
> That is, every admin must necessarily have their identity exposed and it
> surprises me somewhat to see the resistance here - and I find it hard to
> justify.
>

I am geni. That is my identity.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 12/31/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I recall having made this comment on a talk page somewhere but anyway :)
>
> Personally I find wikipedia 'strange' in not having ads. I'm not sure I
> can think of any other site on the web with a similar popularity without
> ads. Even microsoft.com has ads for Microsoft products. All newspaper
> sites do, slashdot does etc etc. So the precedent is certainly there.
>

www.bbc.co.uk/news

Now you can. Very simular popularity in fact. Ok poor example.

How about:

http://www.craigslist.org/

--
geni


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Tomoko OHOYA

subject: [Wikipedia-l] TOCの一部が欠けてしまいます

body:
????? ?
???????????

Nga_Na_Ba_Tu?n_Th? ????????:
>????
>
>===?
>
>??????????????
>
>=== ?
>
>???????????
>
>????????
????????????????????

???????????????????

----
// Tomoko OHOYA
// idic at kcn.ne.jp
// http://www.kcn.ne.jp/~idic/


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 1/1/06, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> Then there is the cost of marketing Wikipedia ads . . . which
> leads to a group of people with a vested interest in monitoring
> article content (for example, adding pressure to remove or
> rewrite articles about sexuality so that Wikipedia isn't
> blocked by potential eyeballs).

This is I think the only serious criticism in your list (the others
can be mitigated without too much difficulty, I think, with the
exception of the "older Internet" which I'm not sure is intended to be
a convincing argument and the "community" one which seems rather
dependent on the type of advertising path chosen). It would be of the
utmost imperative that any potential advertiser know that their
advertisement would be displayed on all pages -- good and bad,
long-termed and short-lived, featured articles and vandalisms --
unless there were some way to disable that which I'm not seeing. Of
course they would be without liability but nevertheless I think the
idea would probably cull out quite a lot of advertisers, given the
extremes of content which exist around here.

FF


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Rob wrote:

>On 1/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I thought the goal was to build an
>>encyclopaedia - so does it matter how many people are reading it?
>>
>>
>
>
>What's the point of an encyclopedia that no one uses?
>
>
It's not necessary for people to get it from *us*.  Our goal is to write
an encyclopedia.  Once an encyclopedia starts emerging, the distribution
task can be done by anyone, by the nature of open/free content
licensing.  And it's a valuable enough resource that that is virtually
guaranteed to happen---we've already started seeing high-quality
3rd-party redistribution, such as the German paper version.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 1/1/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a very strong connection between adlessness and credibility.
> Adfree stuff appears to me as much more reputable and trustworthy than
> other media riddled with ads. I believe that that is one of the
> reasons for Wikipedia's success. If Wikipedia had ads, there would be
> absolutely no reason for me, as a reader, to use Wikipedia instead of
> any other random site.

I think this is false on a number of levels.

1. Adlessness and credibility have no real correlation. CNN has ads,
BBC does not. This is not what determines their credibility,
neutrality, or reliability. Most sites run by cranks and nuts do not
have ads; most sites providing reliable content do have ads.
Advertising generally indicates a need for commercial overhead,
something most mainstream outlets require at some point. Exceptions on
both points can be found, of course. At the very least there is no
correlation between credibility and adlessness; at most one could make
an argument that most internet sites deemed "credible" include
advertising.

Now the more complicated correlation would be between things in the
same "genre" as Wikipedia. Unfortunately for our case that is rather
hard to do -- there are not many free encyclopedias out there with the
sort of success of WP, and most non-free encyclopedia-like-resources
are either provided as a pay service (and require no advertising),
advertising, or both (i.e. http://m-w.com has both a free and premium
area, the former has advertising).

2. What other "random site" would you use that did the same thing as
Wikipedia? The pickings are pretty slim in my opinion. I think the
emotion you mean to express is one more along the lines of "Without
advertising, I feel I am contributing to a real common good," or,
inversely, "A site with advertising does not contribute to the common
good."

Now I don't think this sentiment is completely misplaced. Advertising
has the whiff of big capitalism about it, usually on a model of
individual profit. Why help someone profit if your work is volunteer?
The instinct is sensible but in this case I think misplaced. The money
would not be used to line Jimbo's pockets, it would be to buy servers
and further the great collective experiment. The encyclopedia would
still be "free" in the basic sense -- freely licensed -- and I don't
think it would be much affected in the alternative sense -- users
would be "charged" with some of their attention but that's about it.

Now I address this in particular not because I think it is some sort
of error which needs to be snuffed out (and certainly not to be
hostile to you Bj?rn!) but more because I think it is the sentiment at
the heart of this argument and it needs to be taken seriously, because
it is what a large number of users who use Wikipedia are going to
think if they see ads on the site (let's not deceive ourselves about
who our primary editor demographics are -- computer literate,
left-leaning, U.S. and European 20-40 somethings, likely middle class
and with a bit too much higher education). I think their unconscious
is going to say, "Hoo boy, somebody is trying to make a buck off of my
labor here." And that's the sort of sentiment which COULD have major
effects, because I do think the "working on humanity's greatest
achievement" ethos is a major motivator to people on this sort of
project.

Any advertising/sponsorship solution would have to take that very
seriously and proceed very carefully, at the risk of alienating the
user base, which is the real reason that Wikipedia succeeds and will
succeed. Servers are important, but they wouldn't be necessary if we
didn't have the support of thousands of people who could surely find
other ways to spend their time if it came to it.

FF


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Day 17 Fund Drive Report

body:
Copied from:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fund_drives/2005/Q4/Day_17
--------------------------------------------------------------

=Sunday 1 January=
A total of 719 donations were made through PayPal on '''Day 17''', yielding the equivalent of
$22,694.77 USD. This is about $10,000 over Day 16 and an all time record for any day in any drive
the Wikimedia Founation has ever had! Much of the increase is likely due to Jimmy Wales' posting
of a [[Personal Appeal]]. The average donation this day was $31.56.

CafePress commissions from the start of the drive are $616.84. A total of $54.09 was donated
through MoneyBookers since yesturday, bringing that total to $1476.67. All these updates bring the
grand total above $200,000!

Grand total at end of day: '''$202,786.72'''

Breakdown of Day 17 PayPal donations:

 AUD     312.64      (234.64 USD)
 CAD 	861.54 	    (708.97 USD)
 EUR 	2,972.57   (3,610.75 USD)
 GBP 	990.76 	    (1,776.73 USD)
 JPY 	9,947.00   (89.87 USD)
 USD 	16,273.81
 Total 	22,694.77 USD

==Special thanks to those who gave large donations==
Peter Hamilton gave the largest donation today, $1000. Three anonymous donors gave $500.00 each.
There were also many donors who gave the equivalent of about $100 or more (listed in no particular
order); Kyprianos Theocharides, Andries Krugers Dagneaux, Ajit Jaokar, Ethan Bradford, John Flynn,
Emily Pike, Juan Nuno, Dan Jones, Scot Colburn, Jaco Rheeder, Charlie Wiederhold, John Wilson III,
Todd Griffith, Dave McClure, Leonard Lin, Hansung Jung, Kenneth Kantor, Chris Cole, Maurice Weeks,
Michael Roberts, Alexander Jackl, Jessen Bredeson, Kan Chou, Chris Sun, Randall Seratte, and 33
anonymous donors.

:<small>Note: While large donations are great, it should be noted that about 70% of all the money
donated to the Wikimedia Foundation comes from donations that are the equivalent of $50 or less
and the average donation is about $25.</small>

==Selected donor comments==
Let's all thank everybody who donated on this day by reading their comments.

:Full listing at: http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/index.php/2006-01-01/detail/

*"First you take my time, now you take my money, and I STILL love Wikipedia. Feels almost like
being married ;) -- Chris 73" by anonymous
*"Wikipedia's power is in its' contributor's clear, accurate prose." by Christopher Cormie
*"Freedom of information! What a novel idea! ;-) Go Wiki - lets take the power back!" by Adriel
Neal-Ogilvie
*"Libert? di sapere, volont? di sapere" by anonymous
*"The Best Thing on the Intenet. Jimmy - I'll hold you to the African child comment." by Mwangi
Wamae
*"Knowledge lifts up all mankind and improves the world for all" by Timothy McMullen
*"Difficult to imagine how I did in the past without Wikipedia" by anonymous
*"This site is amazing...if I could give ten times as much, I would!" by Tricia Maas
*"my absolute favourite website of all times" by Vasily Myazin
*"Gegen die Kommerzialisierung von Information" by anonymous
*"there goes my salary :-)" by Daniel Wool
*"Wikipedia is clearly the Soul of Hylozoism" by Peter Hamilton
*"This site helps me out alot with school. Thanks guys!!!!" by  anonymous
*"Wiki is the future. Information without boundaries, physical or otherwise." by Jason Spratt
*"I have learnt so much from wikipedia. Its time to give something back. Keep up the good work!"
by Ajit Jaokar
*"Wikipedia can save lives with its medical pages. It's helped me. Great reason to donate!" by
anonymous
*"Wikipedia: Behold the generosity of the human race!" by Anthony Chisholm
*"for the most useful website ever." by G?tz Fabian
*"Wikipedia is amazing! It's so easy to use and you can use it to help you with school, business,
hobbies and just about anything. Viva la Wikipedia!" by Hannes Johnson
*"Wikipedia is the best thing to happen to the Internet since the web." by Thomas Horsten
*"Wikipedia is one of the best laid out resources online that I have spent countless hours
browsing. I look forward to joining your contributors, and I encourage others to do the same. Much
appreciation" by anonymous
*"Wikipedia is the first place I look when I want to know something. Thanks!" by anonymous
*"Libero Sapere, Libera societ?!" by anonymous

Some of my personal favorites:
*"Eventually, the skeptics will use it, and see what all the buzz is about. Informed opinion is
priceless." by Susan Richardson
*"Long live freedom of information! Long live Wikimedia!" by Joe Aston
*"Thank you for showing us that the Internet isn't all about banner ads or how many pages a search
engine can index, but about presenting accessible and relevant information in the languages that
we speak." by anonymous
*"Wikipedia is the most important development to human knowledge and understanding since the
printing press. Thank you to everyone that contributes and improves it." by Charlie Wiederhold
*"Words are weapons of peace" by Kjetil Teige Ulbaasen
*"Wikipedia is one of the best treasures of the information age." by Michael Skallas
*"You should pay ME for all the time I've wasted err spent on Wikipedia!" by anonymous
*"Wikipedia has grown to be a major collective cultural achievement.!" by anonymous
*"I really want to appear on the selected donor comments list!" by Jeffrey Chang

-- Daniel Mayer

__________________________________
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Day 17 Fund Drive Report


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 17 Fund Drive Report


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 04:17:23PM -0600, Nyenyec N wrote:
> Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing?
> I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like
> to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.

If you run ads, you're engaging in commerce, even if you're a nonprofit.

So yes, running ads and carrying "non-commercial only" content would be
a copyright violation.  I suspect that it would even be the sort that
could invoke statutory damages.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
I think what you are trying to ask -- and I don't know the answer --
is whether or not a not-for-profit organization in the U.S. would be
allowed to generate revenue by hosting advertising. I can't imagine
Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its
not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem. It'd still be
"non-commercial" in both a legal and ethical sense.

FF

On 1/1/06, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing?
> I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like
> to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.
>
> BTW I wouldn't mind non-obtrusive ads (a'la gmail) if it means that
> the servers are more responsive and the software is more featureful.
>
> Several Mediawiki features are not developed or simply not enabled,
> because the servers wouldn't be able to handle the load.
>
> -- nyenyec
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> On 12/31/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > Wikipedia is *supposed* to be strange compared to the rest,
> though.
> > In addition to being strange in having no ads, we're also
> strange in
> > licensing our content under the GFDL, rather than the more standard
> > "All Rights Reserved" that Microsoft, Slashdot, CNN, et al use.
>
> That and that "you can edit this page" nonsense...

With respect, this is a fairly strange line of argument. Objectively,
there is nothing particularly bizarre or strange about Wikipedia as an
online community. There are other wikis, there are other collaborative
projects, there are other online forums etc etc. So all of that is not
in itself a reason to say "Wikipedia is so different that it makes sense
for it to continue being different by having no ads".

Or maybe there's an ideological connection between GFDL and adlessness
that I (and slashdot, linux.org and others...) don't (yet) see.

Steve


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
 "Daniel Mayer" wrote

> And to continue writing that encyclopedia we need to keep our financial
> house in order. Numbers
> are farily important in that regard. Let't not forget that. :)

Actually we need to do cost-benefit analysis before making _any_ major
change.  Not just count the money.

It's the road-building argument all over again (familiar in the UK,
doubtless less so in the USA).  Traffic congestion: if you automatically
fight it by building roads, you just get more cars.  Since all the server
bandwith gets used up over a timescale of a few months, there is no
'solution'.  Until, as I say, some indication of saturation is there.  Then
one could indeed speak of a 'house in order'.  The site is not mature, as of
2006 Jan 1.

I would argue that editors are _less_ deterred by the slowness than casual
users.  Don't get me wrong: when it's fast I can do large numbers of quick
minor edits, when it's slow 'just' research stuff and get it posted somehow.
So, slowness (I say) differentially discourages people who are coming to WP
via a search engine, and who have no patience with a wait.  They go and look
at a mirror, maybe.  Not such a bad solution.  History shows they aren't
lost forever.

Therefore ... be very careful about offending the editing community (a few
thousand, Jimbo says).  Geese and golden eggs.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> Or maybe there's an ideological connection between GFDL and adlessness
> that I (and slashdot, linux.org and others...) don't (yet) see.

There is such a thing as a free lunch.  If you require a proof, look around.

Charles


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Year of African Languages

body:
Looks like UNESCO has declared 2006 to be the Year of African
Languages.  See

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4536450.stm for more

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Gift of knowledge:" having it both ways

body:
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:

>>MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We should teach people to be critical.
>>>Far too often people take what they read for granted without any
>>>thought or double-checking. We should work to keep featured articles
>>>accurate (because they're supposed to be the best). To get rid of
>>>other inaccuracies we should look for sources. If we don't have any,
>>>people should be naturally untrusting and try to verify the info
>>>another way.
>>>
>>>NO ONE can guarantee absolutely correct info. Look at Britannica.
>>>
>>>
>>Teaching people to be critical is itself a process.  In all but the most
>>advanced educational systems that is contrary to centuries of
>>established habit.  Before a person can be effectively critical he needs
>>to believe that his opinions matter.
>>
>>
>The process isn't helped when most of the education system we have in
>this world frown upon any student below postgraduate level from making
>any opinion whatsoever. How can we teach a person to be effectively
>critical when everyone else is saying you can't have your own opinion
>unless you have a PhD (or are working on one), all you can do is
>summarize what others have said already.
>
The first tool is patience.

Ec


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement

body:
And what about the AFD reasoning that it's a term to collect "boylove" and
"girllove" under one name. Those terms are common and calling them childlove
collectively makes sense (at least to me).

Mgm

On 1/1/06, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Point taken. However, the term "white nationalism" is much more firmly
> established than "childlove". See for instance "The New White Nationalism in
> America", a scholarly book by Carol M. Swain. And also, white nationalist
> claim to be different than white supremacists thus a distiction is made
> (though whether it's a real distinction or just a matter of hiding one's
> views in order to make them more palatable is an issue).
>
> Conversely, there is no distinction between "childlove" and "pedophilia".
> The former is a pure synonym for the latter and its purpose is not to draw a
> distinction of some sort but to serve as a euphemism.
>
> Homey
> >
> > From: Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com>
> > Date: 2006/01/01 Sun PM 03:17:10 EST
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
> >
> > On 1/1/06, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a
> particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply
> because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white
> nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather
> than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".
> >
> > Not to put a bee in your bonnet but we do have an article on [[White
> > nationalism]]. It actually provides a pretty good example of the best
> > way of dealing with this sort of thing:
> >
> > "White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the
> > social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people."
> > "White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing
> > that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage,
> > including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its
> > heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as
> > racial supremacists do. Critics, however, argue that white nationalism
> > intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy."
> >
> > Now obviously in all cases this level of "neutrality" is not
> > completely warranted -- something like "Holohoax" for example which is
> > nothing but a perjorative. I don't know enough about the case in
> > question to have any worthwhile opinion but I think this is the sort
> > of thing that MGM is getting at.  Other examples include distinctions
> > like [[Pro-life]]/[[Anti-abortion movement]].
> >
> > When something is legitimately a proper name of a "movement" or
> > organized campaign it should generally have an article using its
> > established name, even if it very quickly explains that the name
> > itself is in dispute. Generally speaking, of course.
> >
> > FF
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 01/01/06, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing?
> I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like
> to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.

Non-commercial only images aren't (in theory) permitted anyway...
well, certainly not on en:, and I believe it's a general rule.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> Im guessing that growth projections would show that if
> Wikipedia didnt have any server problems whatsoever, it would
> now rank about 10 (instead of 30). So once the server

Just out of curiosity, has it ever been stated that one of WP's goals is
to become a top X website? I thought the goal was to build an
encyclopaedia - so does it matter how many people are reading it?
Perhaps it would be more valuable to look at how active membership has
increased over time? Rather than looking at page views, which are more
detrimental to the project than beneficial.

Steve


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 1/1/06, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, let me rephrase my question.
>
> Will these need to be deleted:
> [[Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images]] or will they be re-tagged
> as "fair use"?

They are already to be deleted in the near future.

--
Sam


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 1 Jan 2006 at 16:17, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW I wouldn't mind non-obtrusive ads (a'la gmail) if it means that
> the servers are more responsive and the software is more featureful.

But would the ads always stay "non-obtrusive"?  Google has, so far,
been pretty good at keeping its ads from interfering with its
content, but they seem to be the rare exception.  All too many sites
that have gone the "ad-supported" route, even ones that started out
in a solidly noncommercial way with no ads of any sort, have been
unable to resist going ever further down the path of intrusiveness,
including popups, popunders, flashy animations, and all sorts of
silly tricks with layers and scripts that make the ads jump all over
the place and get in the way.  Furthermore, the entire design of the
site starts being made with the ads in mind rather than the users,
for instance breaking articles up artificially into bite-size chunks
where you have to keep following "Next" links, in order to serve more
ads, and using fixed-pixel-width layouts so they always know exactly
where the ads fit in, and the main content ends up in a narrow bacon-
strip column.

If you've got problems with unresponsive servers on Wikipedia, just
try using a site that gets ads from various remote servers, and when
they're running slowly (as happens often) the whole site stalls in
its loading and rendering until the ad manages to load.  The ads'
scripting keeps getting more devious all the time in order to try to
force popups and animations on users with browsers that try to block
that stuff, and sometimes it even manages to totally crash or hang
some browsers.

--
== 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/


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
It's good that we're aware of the potential downfall of ads, but I'm not
sure a lot of these negative
scenarios are relevant.  I'd think WP would be in a strong enough position
to dictate terms to prevent flashy obtrusive blinking ads which would slow
down the servers.


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Personal donations to Wikipedia

body:
Lisa Thurston wrote:

>Further to my email about ads on Wikipedia, I want to point out some
>concerns I have about the current Wikimedia fundraising drive too.
>
>Why haven't tax professionals been consulted to specify exactly what the
>tax-deductibility status donations to Wikipedia have in the top donor
>countries? It should be found out and explictly specified on the home page.
>I for one won't donate without knowing my donation is tax-deductible in
>Australia. And if, for instance, it did say "tax deductible in Australia"
>Aussies *would* notice it instantly seriously consider donating!
>
>In fact, if the answer for Australia or Canada or Sweden or whatever is "not
>deductible" then Wikipedia should make a request for Wikipedians in those
>countries to form local chapters to obtain the NGO/charity status. This
>wouldn't just help Wikimedia out by generating more revenue, but create a
>stronger Wikipedian community outside US and central Europe.
>
>
While we're interested in having tax deductibility for as many donors as
possible, it is not the Wikimedia Foundation's business to provide tax
advice for anybody. We should stay far away from this. Even in the
obvious case, plugging tax deductibility in the US is somewhat
problematic because quite a few people will not realize that this is
only worth something to them if they itemize their deductions. That's
why the better approach is to simply say, "Donations may be tax
deductible, consult a professional for details."

Incidentally, regarding the specific case, I believe Tim Starling's
preliminary investigation suggested that tax deductibility in Australia
may not be all that likely.

--Michael Snow


from_name: GerardM

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Tasks extension can now create tasks upon
	article creation

body:
Hoi,
When important bugs are not resolved, it seems obvious that it may
need more testing. Is that not obvious ??

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 1/1/06, Frando <frando at xcite-online.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've just tested the tasks extension (btw: amazing work so far, should
> be launched in the wikipedias ASAP!) and found a rather important bug in
> Opera 8.1:
> On the "Tasks"-page on any article, the SELECT-List containing the task
> types for creating a new task is just not visible ;)
> It's visible on the left side in firefox and IE, but in opera there's
> just a white space...
>
> So what has still to be done until it can be launched?
> Just testing or are still features missing?
>
> best regards,
> Frando
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> With respect, this is a fairly strange line of argument. Objectively,
> there is nothing particularly bizarre or strange about Wikipedia as an
> online community. There are other wikis, there are other collaborative
> projects, there are other online forums etc etc. So all of that is not
> in itself a reason to say "Wikipedia is so different that it makes sense
> for it to continue being different by having no ads".
>
> Or maybe there's an ideological connection between GFDL and adlessness
> that I (and slashdot, linux.org and others...) don't (yet) see.

There is a very strong connection between adlessness and credibility.
Adfree stuff appears to me as much more reputable and trustworthy than
other media riddled with ads. I believe that that is one of the
reasons for Wikipedia's success. If Wikipedia had ads, there would be
absolutely no reason for me, as a reader, to use Wikipedia instead of
any other random site. As for the monetary problem, Jimbo definitely
is a hero and a saint for funding Wikipedia which probably has costed
him a fortune. But he can't be the only philantropical millionare out
there who would love to fund Wikipedia.... right?

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Jean-Christophe Chazalette

subject: [Foundation-l] I expect a desyssoppingprocedure soon

body:
Well whatever was your point of view Walter, I  can't really see why you
couldn't ignore assholes nor, at least, why you weren't able  to told them
how much their point of view was interesting and was a call for further
reflexion (and then, of course, you don't move at all). There's something to
improve regarding diplomacy, Walter, which is, extremely often, the art of
being deaf and mute. villy ~~ Jean-Christophe

2006/1/1, Kyle Lutze <kylelutze at cox.net>:
>
> well, besides the language used in there (damn you must be pissed) it
> sounds like the dutch wikipedia is starting to turn into the english
> wikipedia. Perhaps time to do some an audit of some sort?
>
> Kyle12`
>
> Walter van Kalken wrote:
> > I have totally had it with the dutch wikipedia so in a reactio today I
> > let myself go and told them how I felt. I expect the quite large
> > political correct brigade on nl.wikipedia to desyssop me soon. In which
> > case I will voluntarily step down from all my work in wikimediaprojects.
> > I am getting sick and tired of the debateclimate that seems to become
> > more and more common. To spoil the fun of the political correct brigade
> > here is the dutch original and english translation of what I said:
> >
> > /English:
> > The guidelines suck they leave us no room to deal with pissheads like
> > Verrekijker/Versieck. And on top of that someone threatened to desyssop
> > me. Walter please mail that person that they have to do what they cannot
> > let go. Please. I am sick and tired of the threatening behind my back,
> > No one can blackmail me. I am doing everything that I feel is necessary
> > to keep nl: wiki a good place voor the users that come here to edit and
> > write an encyclopedia (99,99% of the users) and that they have
> > discussions every now and then ... that is normal, it goes with the
> > territory. I do not give a flying fuck though for the ruleinterpreters,
> > the talkpage knights who only discuss because they like to discuss and
> > the trolls. I hope that their computers will give them a deadly
> > powershock.  We have only one rule as far as I am concerned and that is
> > that we are writing an encyclopedia and everyone who is not helping with
> > that can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
> >
> > Dutch original:/
> > /De richtlijnen zuigen en laten ons totaal geen ruimte om adequat met
> > etterbakken als Verrekijker/Versieck en anderen te dealen. En dan is er
> > iemand die gedreigd heeft met een desysopprocedure voor mij. Walter mail
> > die persoon dat ze vooral hun gang moeten gang. Alsjeblieft. Ik ben het
> > eeuwige achter mijn rug gedreig zat. Ik ben niet chanteerbaar. Ik doe
> > alles wat ik nodig acht om de nl: wiki een goede plaats te houden voor
> > de gebruikers die hier serieus komen om te editten (dus 99,99%) en dat
> > die wel eens een discussie hebben ach wat dat is normaal dat hoort
> > erbij!..... ik geef echter geen ene malle moer om de
> > regeltjesinterpreteerders de overlegridders die overleggen voor het
> > plezier en de trollen. Ik hoop dat die allemaal een dodelijke
> > stroomschok krijgen vanachter hun computer. We hebben hier maar een
> > regel en dat is dat we een encyclopedie aan het schrijven zijn en
> > iedereen die daar niet aan meedoet kan wat mij betreft naar de hel
> lopen.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year

body:
Bonne annn?e 2006 ? tous ! Et pour Foundation, plus de transparence, plus de
sinc?rit? et longue vie ! villy ~~Jean-Christophe

2006/1/1, Dennis Dikkerboom <dennisdikkerboom at gmail.com>:
>
> Folle lok en seine yn it nije jier!
>
> Dennis Dikkerboom
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
>>
>>
>>>In 2006, WPAir - the only national airline where the
>>>
>>>
>>passengers are in
>>
>>
>>>charge, and the planes are reconfigured by complete
>>>
>>>
>>amateurs from the
>>
>>
>>>moment of take-off.
>>>
>>>
>>Every flight an adventure.  You never know where it's going to land.
>>
>>
>Land? Every time we think the flight is complete, someone hauls back on the
>stick, gooses the throttle and we're off again!
>
And what happens when the passengers run out of gas? :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal donations to Wikipedia

body:
Lisa Thurston wrote:

>Why haven't tax professionals been consulted to specify exactly what the
>tax-deductibility status donations to Wikipedia have in the top donor
>countries? It should be found out and explictly specified on the home page.
>I for one won't donate without knowing my donation is tax-deductible in
>Australia. And if, for instance, it did say "tax deductible in Australia"
>Aussies *would* notice it instantly seriously consider donating!
>
>In fact, if the answer for Australia or Canada or Sweden or whatever is "not
>deductible" then Wikipedia should make a request for Wikipedians in those
>countries to form local chapters to obtain the NGO/charity status. This
>wouldn't just help Wikimedia out by generating more revenue, but create a
>stronger Wikipedian community outside US and central Europe.
>
The natural preumption in regards to tax deductibility is that unless it
is clearly stated that something is deductible it isn't.

I can speak foor the Canadian situation.  In current circumstances these
donations are not now deductible except to the extent that the person
has US source income.   Even if we were to to have a formal Canadian
shapter, it will be a couple of years befor the donations can be made
tax deductible.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l]TOCの一部が欠けてしまいます

body:
??????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????Wikitech-l
at wikimedia.org ????????????????????
??????????????????????????
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ ???????????????
????????

MediaWiki FAQ?????????????????2.7?2.8??
TOC?????????????????????

(rough trans. in English)
Hi. I came across your post. If there is something I could help
resolve the problem, please let me know. I'm not so sure if I could
be much of help, but at least I understand Japanese and English.
If you could explain the problem more in detail in Japanese, I
might be able to translate it and repost it to this list. But if
the question is technical in nature, you may want to ask on
Wikitech-l. And if it is clear that it is a bug in the software,
we might just file a report at bugzilla and wait the fix.

I took a look at the Japanese MediaWiki FAQ page, and
it seems that the TOC correctly lists sections 2.7 and 2.8
as of now.

Best,

Tomos


body:
Tim Starling wrote:

> Lisa Thurston wrote:
>
>> Why haven't tax professionals been consulted to specify exactly what the
>> tax-deductibility status donations to Wikipedia have in the top donor
>> countries? It should be found out and explictly specified on the home
>> page.
>> I for one won't donate without knowing my donation is tax-deductible in
>> Australia. And if, for instance, it did say "tax deductible in
>> Australia"
>> Aussies *would* notice it instantly seriously consider donating!
>>
>> In fact, if the answer for Australia or Canada or Sweden or whatever
>> is "not
>> deductible" then Wikipedia should make a request for Wikipedians in
>> those
>> countries to form local chapters to obtain the NGO/charity status. This
>> wouldn't just help Wikimedia out by generating more revenue, but
>> create a
>> stronger Wikipedian community outside US and central Europe.
>
>
> We discussed this on foundation-l in August. See this post and the
> rest of the thread:
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-August/003884.html
>
> If my reading of the ATO website is correct, donations to Wikimedia
> are not tax deductible in Australia. In fact, donations to any entity
> which primarily aims to maintain an international website will not be
> considered tax-deductible in Australia, whether the organisation is
> based in Australia or not. This is because the activities being
> supported are not "in Australia", and they don't qualify under either
> of the exception categories. See http://tinyurl.com/c3rdc under "What
> does in Australia mean".
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but you'll have to pay your taxes even if you
> do give money to Wikimedia.

 From what you quote from the ATO there is certainly plenty of room for
Australian tax deductibility.  It all depends on getting the homework
done correctly, particularly in how the Australian chapter(s) is legally
structured.   Having funds spent in Australia instead of sending the
funds to the US would be important.

That's probably not very different from our situation in Canada.  Don't
expect the deductions to be available quickly in either country.

Ec


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia vs CNN

body:
CNN goes to history, too ;)

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=2y&size=large&y=r&url=wikipedia.org#top


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
charles matthews wrote:

> "Anthere" wrote
>
>> Might another solution in the future be to really have two websites.
>> One "stable", for readers only (a mirror we would run ourselves) with
>> light advertisement. And the editable one with no ads (and much less
>> traffic) ?
>
>
> Questions:
>
> (i) If the market is really saying that there is a huge revenue
> available since people 'in general' don't mind ads (the good French
> verb is 'mithridatiser', I recall), why is no corporation not
> sincerely chasing this money with a high-quality WP clone?

Since there are already mirrors with ads, yes, there are people
chasing that money now. A high-quality clone that could compete with
WP's name recognition would require significant investment up front,
and take several years to establish itself in the public's mind;
there are a hundred easier ways for entrepreneurs to make money with
the net. Even so, venture capitalists are probably getting WP-related
proposals every week.

> (ii) If WP added advertisements, what would its attitude be to GFDL
> licencees of WP material who would be 'diverting' income?  Would it be
> _absolutely unchanged_, i.e. 'go ahead, we give this stuff away'?
>
It would have to be. WP's copyright is jointly held by thousands of
individuals, all of whom would have standing to take the Foundation
to court. Need more plaintiffs? Just have them edit for a day... :-)

Stan


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: CheckUser log

body:
Someone asked [1] if the log could be formatted in reverse order. I've
implemented this in the CheckUser extension, but I've no idea what the
done thing is when coaxing people to synchronise from the extensions
module.

Anyway, done that.

Rob Church

[1] => http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-December/033308.html


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] MediaWiki Handbook, i.e. Help pages

body:
I've been trying to find out the origin of a "policy" on Wikimedia
projects, and I'd like some help to see just where the discussion about
this is at and where the origins of the policy came from.  Most of the
Wikimedia projects copy the help pages from Meta, usually with a strong
disclaimer that you shouldn't edit the copied pages but instead try to
contribute to the pages on Meta.

My question is this:  Why are the pages copied to the other projects at
all?  Is there a strong technical reason to have this content duplicated
multiple times across multiple projects?  Who made the decision to have
all of this content duplicated?  Where is an appropriate forum for even
discussing this policy and where is the policy even written down?

I got into an editorial dispute with another admin on Wikibooks, where I
was having the help pages simply redirect to Meta (including the
MediaWiki:Edithelppage location) to point users directly to the original
source rather than trying to duplicate the content on Wikibook.  These
changes were reverted back, so I started a VfD on Wikibooks over this
whole thing to get community input on the concept.  So far, it is
accepted as gospel fact that this content must be duplicated, but I am
challenging that assertion and trying to find out why it is done in this
manner.

My main argument for getting rid of these pages on Wikibooks (and
perhaps other Wikimedia projects) is that not only do they take up
server space, but they are also vandalism targets and seldom on the
watchlist of any users.  In addition, because the editorial effort is
taking place on Meta they tend to go stale rather quickly and don't the
the attention of the active regular users on the project.  Making the
help pages protected may be an option, but that keeps the pages "frozen"
with no ability to update the content if it improves on Meta except
through direct admin intervention.  I am not advocating the removal of
the Help namespace, just the end of duplication of the MediaWiki handbook.

Right now a user on Wikibooks has created a 'bot (without the bot flag
in place as well... another issue for another day) that occasionally
duplicates the help content on Meta and copies it over to Wikibooks and
other Wikimedia projects as well.  As this is just a single user's pet
project, there is no scheduled update for transfering the help pages
either.  This also causes problems typical of a 'bot like overwriting
talk page discussions, but it does help keep the help pages coordinated.

Mind you, I'm not trying to disparage the very valiant effort of those
who have been writing this content for the MediaWiki handbook.  This is
a largely thankless job that is critical to all of the MediaWiki users,
beyond just the Wikimedia sister projects.  Steady improvements in the
content have occured over this past year, together with minor changes in
the MediaWiki software that have generally been reflected in the
documentation as well.  A general thank-you to all who have been
involved with its development is certainly in order.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
On 1/2/06, Lisa Thurston <lisathurston at gmail.com> wrote:
> No I'm not suggesting that, Peter. I'm suggesting that, if Wikipedia was
> genuinely threatened with collapse because of money issues, donations, both
> corporate and personal would naturally flow in because they know how
> important it is.
>
The collapse of Wikipedia would hurt the companies reusing its
product.  But that's not how it's likely to play out.  First Wikipedia
will slow down and become less reliable, and that slowdown will only
*help* the reusers because it'll shift traffic to their sites.  It's
also somewhat of a self-correcting problem, because the shift of
readers off Wikipedia and onto the mirrors will lighten the load.

Anthony


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
>see ads on the site (let's not deceive ourselves about who
> our primary editor demographics are -- computer literate,
> left-leaning, U.S. and European 20-40 somethings, likely
> middle class and with a bit too much higher education). I

Would ads be a way of correcting that systemic bias then? Speaking as
your model demographic...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 1/2/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Anthere" wrote
>
> > Might another solution in the future be to really have two websites. One
> > "stable", for readers only (a mirror we would run ourselves) with light
> > advertisement. And the editable one with no ads (and much less traffic) ?
>
> Questions:
>
> (i) If the market is really saying that there is a huge revenue available
> since people 'in general' don't mind ads (the good French verb is
> 'mithridatiser', I recall), why is no corporation not sincerely chasing this
> money with a high-quality WP clone?

Quality is in the eye of the beholder, but Answers Corporation
(http://www.answers.com/) is an $80 million public company.  Of course
if Wikipedia ran its own mirror it would likely be much more popular
than answers.com, because people would know that all the net profits
go back to the WMF (also because of the synergies such as being able
to hook up an ethernet cable directly between the two sites for a live
feed).  The costs would probably be lower, too, because at least some
Wikipedians would likely be willing to work on the mirror site (even
though it has advertisements) and there would be no need to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars on the top executive salaries.

Anthony


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
> Given the large number of reasons why there should not be ads (I won't
> repeat all of them), Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation should be funded
> by donations or other sources which can have no special influence over the
> content.

While there are many valid reasons to not have ads, this is not one of them. Something like Google
AdSense uses a computer algorithm to find out what a page is about and then to serve appropriate
ads. An article about Java the coffee will have ads for coffee while an article about Java the
programming language will have ads for that. No humans are involved so no influence can be
applied.

However, it should be noted that I am personally opposed to having ads on Wikipedia itself due to
current widespread community rejection of the idea *and* my own concerns over the possibility of
losing our soul. But I strongly believe that the community needs to base their decision on this
matter on real facts and a consideration of what we are missing out on along with the potential
pitfalls.

I think a good compromise is to create our own mirror of stable and vetted Wikipedia content at
nupedia.org. That site would have ads so no wiki would ever need them. It would take some time
before there are enough stable/vetted articles to make that a useful place for readers to go to,
but that's fine.

That mirror would be optimized for reading while the wikis would be as they are - optimized for
writing. The mirror will be constantly out of date but stable while the wikis would be constantly
up to date but unstable (the instant display of vandalism will need to be snuffed out though).
There would also be plenty of prominent back-links to and from each. Yin and Yang.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 1/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think what you are trying to ask -- and I don't know the answer --
> is whether or not a not-for-profit organization in the U.S. would be
> allowed to generate revenue by hosting advertising. I can't imagine
> Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its
> not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem. It'd still be
> "non-commercial" in both a legal and ethical sense.
>
> FF

If the WMF just started slapping ads on Wikipedia and generated tens
of millions of dollars of revenue they'd be in a precarious situation
when tax time rolled around.  I'm sure the directors of the foundation
would get professional legal advice and possibly an official IRS
private letter ruling, before they'd do such a thing.

Of course everything I've read on this topic seems to point to the
fact that advertising *is* UBTI, and therefore it *can* jeopardise the
foundation's tax-exempt status (the revenue generated from it would
have to be disproportionate, such as the millions of dollars a quarter
that is being hypothesized).  See, for instance,
http://www.unclefed.com/ForTaxProfs/irs-regs/2000/20960192.html, which
is talking about an exception to the classification for something
called "qualified sponsorship payments".

I've started out skeptical about this point, but the more I look at it
the more it seems like the only legitimate way for Wikipedia to start
advertising like this is for it to create a separate for-profit
organization (which could be wholly owned by the foundation).  But
maybe some genius legal minds can come up with some other loophole,
maybe I just completely misread the regulations and rulings, or maybe
there were some laws passed recently which overrides what I've been
reading.

"I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would
endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem."  The
thing is, I doubt very many people are aware of all the intricacies of
US non-profit tax laws.  Most people don't know what UBTI even is.

Anthony


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why is my IP Blocked?

body:
On 01/01/06, Canadian Kid <canadiankid2001 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> *snip*
> And as for your cute comments on devinity and magic I think
> your tone, as an administrator, could be a bit more professional.
> *snip*

The user who you are trying to insult is not, in fact, an
administrator. It's pretty bad form to attempt to insult the only user
who could be arsed responding to your banal post.

> *snip*
> And I would point out that it has
> been the administrator who has had a problem with these two issues and not
> residents who actually live in the riding.
> *snip*

Well, the residents who live in the "riding" are not the people
writing Wikipedia. We don't ask communities for their opinions on our
articles as we write them.

> *snip*
> All I ask is that your administrators ... leave my posts alone!
> *snip*

Sorry, no-can-do I'm afraid. Whenever you submit an edit to Wikipedia,
there is a notice which says "If you don't want your writing to be
edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." The
chances of your edits to be left alone are exceedingly slim.

~Mark Ryan ([[User:Mark]])
Wikipedia Administrator; WikiEN-l mailing list admin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 1/2/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> charles matthews wrote:
> > (ii) If WP added advertisements, what would its attitude be to GFDL
> > licencees of WP material who would be 'diverting' income?  Would it be
> > _absolutely unchanged_, i.e. 'go ahead, we give this stuff away'?
> >
> It would have to be. WP's copyright is jointly held by thousands of
> individuals, all of whom would have standing to take the Foundation
> to court. Need more plaintiffs? Just have them edit for a day... :-)
>
> Stan

I suspect Wikipedia's attitude toward commercial GFDL licensees would
actually improve if Wikipedia has to "eat its own dog food", so to
speak.  Of course the majority of Wikipedians are already committed to
creating a product which can be used for both non-commercial and
commercial uses.

Anthony


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
"Fastfission" wrote

> I think the
idea would probably cull out quite a lot of advertisers, given the
extremes of content which exist around here.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall - in a meeting where ad placement on one of
the most popular pages on WP-English is discussed, and the executive of the
multinational corporation realises half-way through that it's all about some
four-letter word.  (Not that I call the inclusion of such pages extreme.)

Charles


body:
> And what happens when the passengers run out of gas? :-)
>
> Ec

A big discussion: if we painted a Window on the tail, perhaps Gates would
arrange mid-air refuelling?

Charles


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year

body:
?????????????????
Frohes jeue Jahr zu uns allen und der ganzen Welt (knuddeln)
Buon nuovo anno a tutti (baccioni)

Aphaia / Kizu Naoko

On 1/2/06, Jean-Christophe Chazalette <aurevilly at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bonne annn?e 2006 ? tous ! Et pour Foundation, plus de transparence, plus de
> sinc?rit? et longue vie ! villy ~~Jean-Christophe
>
> 2006/1/1, Dennis Dikkerboom <dennisdikkerboom at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Folle lok en seine yn it nije jier!
> >
> > Dennis Dikkerboom
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year


body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Mackay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In 2006, WPAir - the only national airline where the passengers are in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>charge, and the planes are reconfigured by complete amateurs from the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>moment of take-off.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Every flight an adventure.  You never know where it's going to land.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Land? Every time we think the flight is complete, someone hauls back
>>>on the
>>>stick, gooses the throttle and we're off again!
>>>
>>>
>>And what happens when the passengers run out of gas? :-)
>>
>>
>Some new ones hop aboard mid-flight, of course...
>
After applying all the serious thought that this problem deserves, I
have a solution:  Start a mailing list.  That should generate enough hot
air to keep the aircaft flying.

Ec


from_name: Jon B

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 30, Issue 2

body:
> Everything else is
> too complex for authors anyway.

Clearly people want features in the software that the developers are
too busy or unmotivated to implement.  The barrier to becoming a
Mediawiki developer is high, but the barrier to creating a conditional
template is not.  Authors/editors/endusers *don't need* to edit the
complex templates; they need to edit the articles, which are becoming
more and more daunting the more features are added to the syntax.  If
the intermediately-skilled programmers can make editing simpler and
easier for the end users, isn't that a good thing?

Of course, the best solution would be to implement infoboxes and the
like directly in the Mediawiki software, in a way that doesn't require
end users to code anything.  But until that happens, people are going
to use as many shortcuts as they can to make it easy on newcomers.

> What the **** is that? We don't need geek-features but a simple solution.
>
> > (warning: obscene code alert).

Stop being so hostile to people trying to improve the Wikipedia.

Do they unnecessarily load down the servers?  Fine.  Then they should
be killed, for now.  (But don't call it "killing" and don't be an ass
about it.)  Is the code obscene?  Fine, but don't call it "obscene".
These people are just trying to help, in ways that you are unable or
unwilling to do.  Be nice.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] List of authors for each article

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 1/2/06, Robert Bamler <Robert.Bamler at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>>By the way, another question comes to my mind: If a contributor to an article
>>wasn't logged in, do I have to mention his IP-number in the list of authors?
>>I don't think this would make much sense, but perhaps it's legally required
>>by the GFDL. Or is it sufficient to make the reader application display the
>>string "There might be other (anonymous) contributors to this article"?
>>
>>
>Personally I take the position that someone who contributes to
>Wikipedia without providing a name or pseudonym has waived her right
>to attribution under the GFDL.  That may or may not be a correct
>interpretation of the law.  But anonymous contributions are legally so
>dubious anyway - a third party has basically no evidence that the
>content was ever released under the GFDL in the first place.  If
>someone complains about an anonymous contribution you've basically got
>to just meet their demands or remove the contribution, hope they don't
>sue you for past damages, and hope that if they do sue you that you
>can convince the judge to award some miniscule amount in damages.
>Frankly, if someone complains about a non-anonymous contribution you
>should probably do the same thing.  Relying on a third party
>click-through licensing agreement is not likely to hold up in court.
>
That seems like a reasonable analysis, but not to the point that I would
be so alarmist about being taken to court.  With an identified and
active contributor we at least have the opportunity to seek out his
opinion on the situation.  If someone complains of a copyvio that was
submitted anonymously we have to give that complainer the benefit of the
doubt as long as he can identify the rights that were violated.  The
threat of an immediate lawsuit should not need to be the primary
concern; ethics and integrity should be.  When things get that far it
becomes clear that one or both of the parties has decided to be a jerk.
Suing in such situations is not an easy process.  As a condition of
joining  the rest of the world of copyright law the United States had to
accept that registration was not a pre-condition to having work validly
copyright; nevertheless, one can only collect for damages that took
place after registration.

As long as the problem lies with the original Wikipedia article it is
much easier to deal with we can go to the history, and see who
contributed what.  This is not available downstream.  A mere list of
contributors provides no opportunity to isolate the work of any single
contributor.  Lately, when things have been transwikied for completely
valid reasons to Wiktionary a contribution history list is also put on
the talk page, but that history is completely useless because it may
have related to an edit war over points that are of absolutely no
interest to Wiktionary.  It would be much nicer to drop all the
irrelevancies from that list.

Ec


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Puddl Duk wrote:
> On 1/1/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>And to continue writing that encyclopedia we need to keep our financial house in order. Numbers
>>are farily important in that regard. Let't not forget that. :)
>>
>>-- mav
>>
>
>
> Do we have any idea of the income ads will produce? If so, how
> accurate is the projections? How about income projections for limited
> ads (prohibited from article namespace, for example).

This is a good question.
Next is to be realistic.

As soon as we begin collecting money from advertisement, the revenues
from other sources will be plummeting. Typically, we can expect a drop
of revenues from direct donations.

Consequently, we need not only to estimate how much advertisement will
bring in, but how much will not get in anymore. It would be a total
shift in business model.

The other point is this one : advertisement is likely to bring in a lot
of money, much more than we currently have available (and which is
unsufficient compared to our real needs). Aside from any consideration
of the "source" of money, I do not think the organisation is ready to
handle an amount of income of, say, 10 times what it is right now. We
are working on that however.

Ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Fastfission wrote:
> Just a few thoughts on advertising:
>
> * It wouldn't have to be banner ads in the obnoxious sense. Surely
> there could be some sort of quality control and discreteness about it.
> I'm sure we could find someone willing to shell out a lot of funding
> for a small ad on the lower left hand corner of each page. If every
> set of advertisements had to be approved by some small board of
> thoughtful people, it would probably keep out the "You may be a
> winner!" and "Mortgage your house online!" ads.

Agreed

> * What if ad content could be controlled through user CSS pages? Those
> who are 'in the know' could outright disable them without difficulty.
> People without accounts could never disable them. What's the ratio of
> logged-in to non-logged in page hits?
>
> * I think that "targetted" schemes along the lines of Google Adsense
> are a bad idea. If we have ads, they should be as little connected to
> the content being viewed as possible, as a matter of integrity.
> Article content and article titles should have NO relation to
> advertising content. If it does, we are not only inviting some raised
> eyebrows about content validity, but we're inviting people to try and
> game the system by modifying articles in oh-so-clever and minor ways
> to get their specific advertisements listed first.

Good point.
However, current advertisement models show that the best revenues are
gathered from targetted advertisement.

> * Perhaps there are other revenue models we should consider first
> before advertising. At the moment the only ones on the table seem to
> be 1. selling hard-copies, 2. begging, and 3. advertising. I have the
> business acumen of a pigeon but surely there must be alternatives to
> these three.

Agreed.
Well, current appeal could be called "begging". As Mav explained
already, we are far from having enough right now to fulfill our first
trimester needs. And we finished the year on our reserves. So, "begging"
makes sense.

The problems associated with "selling hard copies" are
* making a partnership with a firm or organisation to "produce the hard
copy" and then to "distribute" the content. Or should we set up another
organisation to do that ourselves ?
* filtering content to put on the hard copy (removing copyvios... we
need many editors to get involved here)
* assuming all legal possible consequences (copyvios again), which
implies having financial reserves to assume this.

Other models may involve
* finding more sponsors (but, who will take care of this ?)
* writing grants (which is also a job in itself, with few people
motivated and experienced to do it)

We might have employees to do these two tasks, but again, we need to
"invest" to get these guys.

Ant

> FF
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tomoko OHOYA

subject: [Wikipedia-l] TOCの一部が欠けてしまいます

body:
???????????

????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
???????TOC??????????????????
???????????????????
?http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%81%AE%E7%B7%A8%E9%9B%86
?7?10????????
?????????????????????????????????????

>MediaWiki FAQ?????????????????2.7?2.8??
>TOC?????????????????????

?????????????????????????
?HTML?????????
??

??

????????????
?????????TOC?????????????????????
???????????????????????????????
?http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E3%83%98%E3%83%AB%E3%83%97
??????3 ????????? ???????????
???????
?Windows XP Home Edition Version 2002 Service Pack 2
?IE6.0.2900.2180.xpsp2_gdr.050301-1519
?Norton Internet Security 8.0.5.14

????????????????????????????
??????????????????????
????????????????????????

>(rough trans. in English)
>Hi. I came across your post. If there is something I could help
>resolve the problem, please let me know. I'm not so sure if I could
>be much of help, but at least I understand Japanese and English.
>If you could explain the problem more in detail in Japanese, I
>might be able to translate it and repost it to this list. But if
>the question is technical in nature, you may want to ask on
>Wikitech-l. And if it is clear that it is a bug in the software,
>we might just file a report at bugzilla and wait the fix.
>
>I took a look at the Japanese MediaWiki FAQ page, and
>it seems that the TOC correctly lists sections 2.7 and 2.8
>as of now.
>
>
>Best,
>
>
>Tomos
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>

----
// Tomoko OHOYA
// idic at kcn.ne.jp
// http://www.kcn.ne.jp/~idic/


body:
Jon B wrote:

>>Everything else is
>>too complex for authors anyway.
>>
>>
>Clearly people want features in the software that the developers are
>too busy or unmotivated to implement.  The barrier to becoming a
>Mediawiki developer is high, but the barrier to creating a conditional
>template is not.  Authors/editors/endusers *don't need* to edit the
>complex templates; they need to edit the articles, which are becoming
>more and more daunting the more features are added to the syntax.  If
>the intermediately-skilled programmers can make editing simpler and
>easier for the end users, isn't that a good thing?
>
>Of course, the best solution would be to implement infoboxes and the
>like directly in the Mediawiki software, in a way that doesn't require
>end users to code anything.  But until that happens, people are going
>to use as many shortcuts as they can to make it easy on newcomers.
>
Certainly the passion which some prople have for creating yet another
template should be seriously controlled.  Knowing which template to use
under what circumstances can be intimidating to the newcomer.  It can
even be frustrating for long term users.  People shoulkd be encouraged
to replace templates with plain text whnever it works.

>>What the **** is that? We don't need geek-features but a simple solution.
>>
>>
>>>(warning: obscene code alert).
>>>
>>>
>Stop being so hostile to people trying to improve the Wikipedia.
>
>Do they unnecessarily load down the servers?  Fine.  Then they should
>be killed, for now.  (But don't call it "killing" and don't be an ass
>about it.)  Is the code obscene?  Fine, but don't call it "obscene".
>These people are just trying to help, in ways that you are unable or
>unwilling to do.  Be nice.
>
I agree.  "Obscure" would be a much nicer term than "obscene"

Ec


from_name: Peter Mackay

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
> Sent: Sunday, 1 January 2006 05:56
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia micronation - Tirben
>
> Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> > Hi, a group of us have decided to found a micronation,
> formed of the
> > Wikipedia community.
>
> Don't you know?  Wikipedia _is_ a micronation.  We've got a
> constitutional monarch, laws, nobles, democracy, rioting in
> the streets, lynch mobs, local fiefdoms, everything.

Would that be a definitive head of statement?

Pete, quill at the ready


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
charles matthews wrote:
> "Daniel Mayer" wrote
>
>> And to continue writing that encyclopedia we need to keep our
>> financial house in order. Numbers
>> are farily important in that regard. Let't not forget that. :)
>
>
> Actually we need to do cost-benefit analysis before making _any_ major
> change.  Not just count the money.
>
> It's the road-building argument all over again (familiar in the UK,
> doubtless less so in the USA).  Traffic congestion: if you automatically
> fight it by building roads, you just get more cars.  Since all the
> server bandwith gets used up over a timescale of a few months, there is
> no 'solution'.  Until, as I say, some indication of saturation is
> there.  Then one could indeed speak of a 'house in order'.  The site is
> not mature, as of 2006 Jan 1.
>
> I would argue that editors are _less_ deterred by the slowness than
> casual users.  Don't get me wrong: when it's fast I can do large numbers
> of quick minor edits, when it's slow 'just' research stuff and get it
> posted somehow. So, slowness (I say) differentially discourages people
> who are coming to WP via a search engine, and who have no patience with
> a wait.  They go and look at a mirror, maybe.  Not such a bad solution.
> History shows they aren't lost forever.
>
> Therefore ... be very careful about offending the editing community (a
> few thousand, Jimbo says).  Geese and golden eggs.
>
> Charles

Might another solution in the future be to really have two websites. One
"stable", for readers only (a mirror we would run ourselves) with light
advertisement. And the editable one with no ads (and much less traffic) ?

Ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Rob wrote:
> On 1/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought the goal was to build an
>>encyclopaedia - so does it matter how many people are reading it?
>
>
>
> What's the point of an encyclopedia that no one uses?
>
> We're not constructing a Platonic ideal of an encyclopedia, we're building
> something that people use around the world every day.  I find that an
> essential component of what we're doing here and we really should be doing
> things with that in mind.

True, but is the goal for the content only to be used on the internet
through our website.

Or is that goal for the content to spread, be used, reused, through
thousands of supports (cd, dvd, newspaper, other websites, books...) ?

ant


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Developer help
	needed

body:
Please consider my request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/
Developer help needed

The problem is that semi-protection as now coded relies on % of users
rather than on measurement of edits. This permits stockpiling of
sleeper accounts which can later be activated as sockpuppets
defeating semi-protection.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:
>>With respect, this is a fairly strange line of argument. Objectively,
>>there is nothing particularly bizarre or strange about Wikipedia as an
>>online community. There are other wikis, there are other collaborative
>>projects, there are other online forums etc etc. So all of that is not
>>in itself a reason to say "Wikipedia is so different that it makes sense
>>for it to continue being different by having no ads".
>>
>>Or maybe there's an ideological connection between GFDL and adlessness
>>that I (and slashdot, linux.org and others...) don't (yet) see.
>
>
> There is a very strong connection between adlessness and credibility.
> Adfree stuff appears to me as much more reputable and trustworthy than
> other media riddled with ads. I believe that that is one of the
> reasons for Wikipedia's success. If Wikipedia had ads, there would be
> absolutely no reason for me, as a reader, to use Wikipedia instead of
> any other random site. As for the monetary problem, Jimbo definitely
> is a hero and a saint for funding Wikipedia which probably has costed
> him a fortune. But he can't be the only philantropical millionare out
> there who would love to fund Wikipedia.... right?
>
> --
> mvh Bj?rn

Right... this said, while Jimbo had made it possible for the project to
born and has funded it on his own money for a long time, for which we
should all be greatly thankful, I hope you are aware that we are no more
using Jimbo's money *at all* to run the site, yes ?

Money right now comes from individual donations in large part, sponsors
such as Yahoo, selling DVD's (such as the german one) and tee-shirts.

Q1 income

CafePress Commissions  $1,207.71
Credit Card Service    $0.00
MoneyBookers Donations $914.19
Other Donations        $57,440.14
PayPal Donations       $100,853.00
Foreign Exchange Gain  $243.93
Interest Income        $37.71
TOTAL                  $160,696.68

Q2 income
Wikimania tickets      $6,320.95
CafePress Commissions  $510.09
Credit Card Service    $1.00
MoneyBookers Donations $201.56
Other Donations        $64,938.52
PayPal Donations       $19,842.96
Foreign Exchange Gain  -$2,826.69
Interest Income        $77.33
TOTAL                  $89,065.72

No philanthropical millionaire is helping us right now.

Ant


body:
Lisa Thurston wrote:
> Further to my email about ads on Wikipedia, I want to point out some
> concerns I have about the current Wikimedia fundraising drive too.
>
> Why haven't tax professionals been consulted to specify exactly what the
> tax-deductibility status donations to Wikipedia have in the top donor
> countries? It should be found out and explictly specified on the home page.
> I for one won't donate without knowing my donation is tax-deductible in
> Australia. And if, for instance, it did say "tax deductible in Australia"
> Aussies *would* notice it instantly seriously consider donating!

Why have not tax professional been consulted?

Who says they have not ?
In the current situation, it is pretty simple. The Foundation is a USA
based organisation. We are working in being registered in all USA
states. Having funds given to a *USA* organisation leading to tax
exemption in say Spain... is a bit of a dream I fear...

Several local chapters have already been set up, so that tax exemption
of donations to some of these local chapters is now possible (such as in
Germany and France).

> In fact, if the answer for Australia or Canada or Sweden or whatever is "not
> deductible" then Wikipedia should make a request for Wikipedians in those
> countries to form local chapters to obtain the NGO/charity status. This
> wouldn't just help Wikimedia out by generating more revenue, but create a
> stronger Wikipedian community outside US and central Europe.

I see not how *Wikipedia* should make a request for a local chapter in
say Canada. Who is Wikipedia here ?
On the other hand, several chapters are currently under discussion : one
in netherlands, one in switzerland, one in England and I saw other
discussions (I think in Canada is the case). But this is to Wikipedians
to take their future in their hands and to create associations. This is
not a top down decision. *Wikipedia* can not say "please, guys, create a
chapter in China". Only local editors can decide this.

The Foundation is helping this however, first in setting up an official
position, chapter Coordinator, who is Delphine M?nard (notafish) who you
can contact anytime to help, second in setting up a budget and rules to
help start new chapters (I proposed myself these rules for chapter
creation budget), third in having a internal mailing list and internal
wiki as well as OTRS email address to try to handle chapter creation.

You are welcome any time to get involved in this; this is totally open.
Just contact us to see how we can help. And this is correct, local
chapters will help much to sustain our goals.

cheers

ant

> Lisa
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Lisa Thurston wrote:
> Further to my email about ads on Wikipedia, I want to point out some
> concerns I have about the current Wikimedia fundraising drive too.
>
> Why haven't tax professionals been consulted to specify exactly what the
> tax-deductibility status donations to Wikipedia have in the top donor
> countries? It should be found out and explictly specified on the home page.
> I for one won't donate without knowing my donation is tax-deductible in
> Australia. And if, for instance, it did say "tax deductible in Australia"
> Aussies *would* notice it instantly seriously consider donating!

Why have not tax professional been consulted?

Who says they have not ?
In the current situation, it is pretty simple. The Foundation is a USA
based organisation. We are working in being registered in all USA
states. Having funds given to a *USA* organisation leading to tax
exemption in say Spain... is a bit of a dream I fear...

Several local chapters have already been set up, so that tax exemption
of donations to some of these local chapters is now possible (such as in
Germany and France).

> In fact, if the answer for Australia or Canada or Sweden or whatever is "not
> deductible" then Wikipedia should make a request for Wikipedians in those
> countries to form local chapters to obtain the NGO/charity status. This
> wouldn't just help Wikimedia out by generating more revenue, but create a
> stronger Wikipedian community outside US and central Europe.

I see not how *Wikipedia* should make a request for a local chapter in
say Canada. Who is Wikipedia here ?
On the other hand, several chapters are currently under discussion : one
in netherlands, one in switzerland, one in England and I saw other
discussions (I think in Canada is the case). But this is to Wikipedians
to take their future in their hands and to create associations. This is
not a top down decision. *Wikipedia* can not say "please, guys, create a
chapter in China". Only local editors can decide this.

The Foundation is helping this however, first in setting up an official
position, chapter Coordinator, who is Delphine M?nard (notafish) who you
can contact anytime to help, second in setting up a budget and rules to
help start new chapters (I proposed myself these rules for chapter
creation budget), third in having a internal mailing list and internal
wiki as well as OTRS email address to try to handle chapter creation.

You are welcome any time to get involved in this; this is totally open.
Just contact us to see how we can help. And this is correct, local
chapters will help much to sustain our goals.

cheers

ant

> Lisa
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 1/2/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's good that we're aware of the potential downfall of ads, but I'm not
> sure a lot of these negative
> scenarios are relevant.  I'd think WP would be in a strong enough position
> to dictate terms to prevent flashy obtrusive blinking ads which would slow
> down the servers.

Not really. The people who buy advertiseing space want ads that work.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
"Anthere" wrote

> Might another solution in the future be to really have two websites. One
> "stable", for readers only (a mirror we would run ourselves) with light
> advertisement. And the editable one with no ads (and much less traffic) ?

Questions:

(i) If the market is really saying that there is a huge revenue available
since people 'in general' don't mind ads (the good French verb is
'mithridatiser', I recall), why is no corporation not sincerely chasing this
money with a high-quality WP clone?
(ii) If WP added advertisements, what would its attitude be to GFDL
licencees of WP material who would be 'diverting' income?  Would it be
_absolutely unchanged_, i.e. 'go ahead, we give this stuff away'?

Charles


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Please remove user data and talk pages from database
	dumps!

body:
On 12/30/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What are we supposed to do about Nazipedia, they're basically twisting
> our words and still attributing those words to us. While separate
> dumps would solve future problems it does nothing to address the issue
> at hand.

Well, to be fair, they ARE Nazis, but I don't think they did this
deliberately. I can't really speculate on what they would have done if they
had had the option of not copying over all our userpages, but I suspect they
wouldn't have.

Ryan