subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

body:
On 7/17/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Yes, I do not deny that. Now -- if a user finds an admin to have done
> something wrong, does that make it likely that the admin has done
> something wrong? Obviously you'll say 'no' because there's only one user
> complaining, and everyone else sides with the admin. But read on...

Personally I think the likelihood depends on the nature of the
complaint. And one other things, while we are on this topic -- in the
end these are never just about one complaint. They are things like
"Admin X insulted me, remove their status." We look into it, and we
find that the insult is minimal if existant at all, and it comes at
the end of a long exchange in which the user has flagrantly broken
rules themselves.

Now you seem to want to interpret a situation like this as being a non
sequitur. I would object that it isn't. The real non sequitur is
committed by the user trying to use some paltry violation as an
argument for bigger repercussions. An admin's ability to be a
responsible admin is not predicated on whether or not they use polite
language with every user; it is the sum total of their work as an
admin. It is unreasonable to not take that into account.

> But we have already established on this mailing list that admins *do*
> conspire, albeit on a very subtle and subconscious level, without
> knowing it. Someone (not me!) gave this analogy with noblemen in the
> Middle Ages, who rarely if ever accused each other of a crime even if
> they knew about such a crime. If an ordinary citizen were to accuse a
> nobleman of anything, all the noblemen (who were "known to be reliable"
> and supposedly had "ability of independent assessments") would side with
> their fellow nobleman and all come to the same conclusion in his favour.

On issues of real merit there is plenty of dissention both on the list
and on WP:AN. On issues with almost no merit, there is almost no
discussion. (And no, I'm not saying that the amount of discussion is
an indicator of merit -- only the converse. There is plenty of
discussion for things without merit, too.)

> A-ha! Doesn't this explain the above effect then? If a majority of
> admins agree with a decision, then the decision is less likely to be
> questioned (and, consequently, the complaining user is taken less
> seriously). Therefore, admins will agree with each other in order to
> reduce the likelihood of being questioned. This is the "benefit of
> agreeing with each other" that you were looking for. :)

Uh, sorry, I don't see that. If you want to make an argument about
convenience, argue instead that many admins would sooner just abstain
from contributing to an issue -- even if they think another admin is
wrong -- because they have other things to do. But to claim that
people actively agree with each other just to be expedient is both
without evidence and silly. I'll admit to not paying attention to
every issue, even if I could conceivably have an opinion of it, but
I'll never fake an opinion. (You could, of course, postulate that
subconsciously I agree because I want to expedite, but now you're not
only asserting something rather large about the abilities of humans to
think freely at all, but you're also substituting abstract and
unprovable psychological explanations for ones based on individual
rational action. Take your pick; I find the latter to be simpler in
this case.)

> Now, does "the way things are done on Wikipedia" refer to the spirit of
> the policies, or the behaviour of admins in practice? We all know that
> there are significant differences between those two.

The mixture of the two which accounts for how admins generally act.
They generally do not always act to the letter of the policies, but
they often do act within the spirit of them and to the ends with which
they were developed. Which is the way that all "organizations" act.

> Such as?

Such as many of the ones which end up on this list. If you want to
start pulling out examples now, I'll let YOU start with that. You're
the one trying to make a grand theory.

> Of course it is easy for you to claim that someone has "absolutely no
> regard for policy XYZ", but surely most of the time it is more likely a
> misunderstanding of the spirit of the policy (by either side!), or just
> complete ignorance of a less obvious policy. It is, for example, not
> intuitive that we should have a policy on "notability" or
> "verifiability", so why should anyone look that up?

Sure. In my experience users usually get pointed to the right policy
pretty early on. There are nice rational reasons for that as well. If
I tell somebody about 3RR and the consequences, and they violate it
anyway, I can, with a clear conscience, block them for the violation.
If I tell them about NPOV and they ignore it happily, it just makes it
easier to deal with them. It's in my interest to tell them about the
policy, because it makes it clear that ignorance is not the cause of
their actions.

I take a lot of time to make sure that users who are obviously just
confused about Wikipedia understand how it works. Usually they are
pretty easy to spot, in comparison with people who have malicious
intent.

And yes, I'm happy to assert that there are people with malicious
intent. I could go through a list of the epithets I've had directed at
me from POV-pushers, if you're interested. They include things like
"JUDENSCWEIN TO THE OVENS ! -- LIARS ! --ALL OF YOU !" No, I don't
believe everything a user says, just because they say it.

> Not very but at least a little? ;-)

One of the reasons I think that groupthink probably has less truck
around Wikipedia than many other places is that: 1. we are all pretty
disconnected with each other, physically, nationally, politically,
etc. We share certain things, true, but the differences are pretty
stark. I don't have to tell someone to their face that I think they're
wrong when I type it in; it is pretty easy to disagree on here in
comparison with "real life". 2. there is little incentive. The only
incentive you've postulated is expediency. That's not much, especially
when it is easier to get that by just not participating. There is no
opportunity for improvement of my status by agreeing with others.
There is no real chance of punishment for disagreement. I agree where
I agree, I disagree where I disagree, and when I get tired of it I
take a break and go edit some articles or draw some pictures.

Which isn't to say that admins will generally tend to give other
admins the benefit of the doubt. But there are rational,
non-psychological reasons for that. Users could be anyone, but admins
have at least been approved by other Wikipedians. It's a very weak
form of accredation -- again, to consider admins a very homogenous
intellectual group, except perhaps by how they spend their leisure
time, seems incorrect to me, and the things which they all agree on,
the "systemic bias", generally don't come into play on these sorts of
disputes -- but it is more than you have with unknown users.

In my experience, most user complaints against admins are bogus. But
not ALL are. Even when knowing the former, we have to take care to
look out for the latter.

FF


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
We could start a nice ToFU discussion...

On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not so sure. There's only so much one (or all) can say about a
> blank message. The only chance for the continuation of this thread
> would be some kind of tangent. Open source and spam have been
> mentioned, but no one took the bait. So, what will it be?
>
> On 18/07/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > It's not unpleasant, this little conversation. We could keep going.
> >
> > On 18/07/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > > It could be... nothing else to do?
> > >
> > > Ilario
> > >
> > > ----Messaggio originale----
> > > Da: messedrocker at gmail.com
> > > Data: 17.07.2006 7.34
> > > A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> > > Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..
> > >
> > > It's incredible how much conversation there is sorrounding a blank
> > > message.
> > >
> > > On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >         ?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
> >                 sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
I don't like [[Tofu]] all that much.

On 7/18/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> We could start a nice ToFU discussion...
>
> On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not so sure. There's only so much one (or all) can say about a
> > blank message. The only chance for the continuation of this thread
> > would be some kind of tangent. Open source and spam have been
> > mentioned, but no one took the bait. So, what will it be?
> >
> > On 18/07/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > > It's not unpleasant, this little conversation. We could keep going.
> > >
> > > On 18/07/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > > > It could be... nothing else to do?
> > > >
> > > > Ilario
> > > >
> > > > ----Messaggio originale----
> > > > Da: messedrocker at gmail.com
> > > > Data: 17.07.2006 7.34
> > > > A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> > > > Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..
> > > >
> > > > It's incredible how much conversation there is sorrounding a blank
> > > > message.
> > > >
> > > > On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >         ?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
> > >                 sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

Delphine
--
~notafish


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


list: wikien-l

from_name: Zoney

subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL Templates

body:
On 09/07/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>
> Apparently, some people don't like the GNU drawing in the GFDL
> template and so, for esthetic reasons, a new template was born:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-nologo
>
> The reason given, on the edit summary, was:
>
> "some people were annoyed by the cartoon"
>
> Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's
> taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
>
>
Should Wikipedia not be including copyright notices as well as the link to
GFDL? Or is my understanding of the licence incomplete.

It's rather annoying that often images etc. are often not tagged with the
author, and their copyright marked as well as their licencing their work
under the GFDL.

File history is not reliable - all the more so with stuff happening like
people uploading the image to Commons, keeping nothing but the GFDL notice,
and deleting the original file history at en (or wherever).

Wikipedia's attitude towards copyright seems lax at best. GFDL is not the
same as public domain, and even for pd - politeness and courtesy dictate
proper attribution.

Zoney

--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


list: commons-l

from_name: Oldak Quill

subject:
[Commons-l] Please don't spam user-talk pages with generic
	warnings

body:
I agree. This tends to happen on Wikipedia a lot. Thousands of talk
pages are full of the same subst'ed templates. Over the years, I'm
sure this will add up to several gigabytes of wasted space (and years
of wasted time).

On 18/07/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please don't spam user-talk pages with generic warnings. (No source/no
> license/copyvionote)
> Why? Because it's counter-productive and therefore a waste of your time.
>
> If you notice a user already has a dozen recent warnings, or if you've
> got 10 more to add, instead of adding another one which they're just
> as likely to ignore, take the time to write a short sharp warning
> explaining
> * specifically what they're doing wrong (not "violating copyright" -
> "uploading logos" "uploading screenshots" "uploading random images
> from the web")
> * why it's wrong (like: source is require for all images - logos are
> considered unfree - screenshots don't take any new copyright)
> * relevant policy pages (usually Commons:Licensing)
> * where they can ask for help (their talk page, if you watch it, your
> talk page, Commons:Help desk / Village pump in their language)
> * the principle of WHEN IN DOUBT, ASK BEFORE UPLOADING.
> * that if they upload any more files and ignore what you've taken the
> time to say, then they will be blocked.
>
> And if they do that, then block them. If you're not an admin, ask one
> to block them.
>
> While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page. This is a
> good chance to drill home source/licensing requirements and the like,
> if they stick around.
>
> The aim of the warnings is to try and make users understand the
> importance of various copyright requirements. Spamming their talk page
> is not further to that aim, so it should be avoided. "Notifying the
> uploader" is not the real aim: making them understand is.
>
> As a rough guide, I would say first block, 1 or 3 days. Second block,
> 3 days or a week. Third block, a week or a month. Fourth block, I'd
> want to know a very good reason why it shouldn't be permanent. It all
> depends on the specific circumstances of course, like exactly how many
> images they're uploading, if they're giving false licenses, if they're
> responding to messages and warnings, if there's a language barrier,
> etc.
>
> regards,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Stephen Bain wrote:
> > On 7/15/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident
> >> that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone
> >> does boneheaded things from time to time.
> >
> > This particular incident may only be embarrassing; what is undignified
> > is AP's reportage using a full name. What would likewise be
> > undignified would be the immortalisation of this in a biography,
> > forever linking this person's name with this event and this event
> > alone (there is no other biographical information available), as if
> > that was the sum total of their life.
>
> Exactly.  Perhaps I am surprisingly old-fashioned, but it seems to me
> that the news reporting in this case would have been _better_ had they
> simply used initials or some other literary device.
>
> For me, the amusement at the cute story (woman calls 911 to ask for a
> date) was seriously impaired by my distaste for the fact that this poor
> woman's name was being brought into the matter globally and on the
> Internet and against her will, in a way that makes it somewhat likely
> that future googling on her name for the next 30 years will bring this
> incident, and only this incident, to the forefront.
>
> --Jimbo

That may have been the point. I know that in the UK at least there has
been talk of "naming and shaming" people who missuse emergency
phonelines.

--
geni


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
In message
<f30e42de0607180135s3209b202o90f5bbf19e1d8dca at mail.gmail.com>, Stephen
Bain <stephen.bain-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3
>Indeed. In my newspaper of choice there's a section with a humorous or
>unusual story on the front page every day, called Oddspot. People's
>names are regularly omitted if the story is embarrassing such as this
>one about the 911 call, replaced with "a man from Sometown" or
>somesuch.
>
>Today's Oddspot is two Irishmen who stole a boat in Wales trying to
>get to Dublin. They sailed in circles for hours before returning to
>Wales again. They're identified simply as "Two Irishmen"
>(http://www.theage.com.au/oddspot/).

Actually, they are identified by name in this article from a newspaper
covering the area they stole the boat from:

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=1739670
6&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=they-missed-the-ferry----so-stole-a-t
rawler-name_page.html

>The reason of course is that it's not real news, it's light
>entertainment. I don't think it's wrong to be making similar
>distinctions as to what is real encyclopaedic content and what is
>something else.

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Reuters

body:
On 7/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/8/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news
> > outlets, not less.  I remember a similar mess after the death of
> > [[Jean Charles de Menezes]].  Wikipedia articles repeated
> > unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
>
> Nah, we don't do news. Getting breaking news right in the first twenty
> four hours is not in our mission.
>
True, but not getting breaking news wrong in the first twenty four
hours should be.

Maybe a guideline that new information shouldn't be added for a week
or two unless it is necessary to correct something old (adding in a
date of death, for instance).  The guideline could be part of a
template, which includes a link to the wikinews story, for those who
want to participate in such things.

It'd be a win-win for Wikipedia and Wikinews.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely
centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it?
I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine,
"notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our
efforts.

On 18/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/18/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > So why don't we delete [[John Couey]] and all the others in
> > [[Category:Convicted child sex offenders]]?  Are we punishing them?
>
> Presumably John Couey is a *notable* sex offender, although the
> article utterly fails to establish his notability.
>
> Articles on notable sex offenders is totally within our mission.
>
> > In fact, who *can* we have an article about?  Only people who give us
> > permission?  Or are there some people we're allowed to punish?
>
> Those weren't serious questions were they? Punishment is *not* our
> goal. Writing the encyclopaedia is. Keep that in mind, and your way
> will become clearer.
>
> > As for providing details on the offence he committed, I most certainly
> > don't think that's a violation of his privacy.
>
> Depending on the exact case, I think it could be. Can you imagine
> having a whole paragraph to the article on a Nobel-prize winning
> physicist like "when Smith was 21, he was arrested for fondling the
> breasts of a 17-year old neighbour. According to the police report
> <500 word description of the entire saga>..."?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/18/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> So why don't we delete [[John Couey]] and all the others in
> [[Category:Convicted child sex offenders]]?  Are we punishing them?

Presumably John Couey is a *notable* sex offender, although the
article utterly fails to establish his notability.

Articles on notable sex offenders is totally within our mission.

> In fact, who *can* we have an article about?  Only people who give us
> permission?  Or are there some people we're allowed to punish?

Those weren't serious questions were they? Punishment is *not* our
goal. Writing the encyclopaedia is. Keep that in mind, and your way
will become clearer.

> As for providing details on the offence he committed, I most certainly
> don't think that's a violation of his privacy.

Depending on the exact case, I think it could be. Can you imagine
having a whole paragraph to the article on a Nobel-prize winning
physicist like "when Smith was 21, he was arrested for fondling the
breasts of a 17-year old neighbour. According to the police report
<500 word description of the entire saga>..."?

Steve


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

body:
I may respond to the rest of the message at a later time, but I just
couldn't pass this up.
On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Timwi wrote:
> Jesse W wrote:
>> Maybe because someone else has said - "I noticed you made an edit that
>> didn't agree with our policy on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] - please
>> read that page and follow it in any future edits you make.  Thanks for
>> volunteering your time working on Wikipedia!" (paraphrase of one of
>> our
>> standard notes to new users).
>
> I have never seen a message of this kind. The kinds of messages I see
> on
> User talk pages, especially those for IPs, sound more like "You have
> repeatedly violated the [[WP:XYZ]] rule. Further violations will be
> sanctioned with a block. You have been warned."

You prompted me to do some research - I looked at RC for the last few
minutes, in the User_talk namespace, and clicked on various IPs talk
pages to see what was on them.  Here are my results:

On
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
198.53.166.66&oldid=64574374
was the following (standardized) message:

[[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite
everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look
at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like
to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are
considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]], and if you continue in
this manner you may be '''[[Wikipedia:blocking policy|blocked]] from
editing without further warning'''. Please stop, and consider improving
rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
[[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
64.180.183.181&oldid=64574305
was one of Tawkerbot's warnings:

==Your edit to [[Grom Hellscream]]==
Your recent edit to [[:Grom Hellscream]]
([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Grom_Hellscream&diff=64574269&oldid=64560008 diff]) was reverted
by an '''automated bot''' that attempts to recognize and repair
[[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]] to Wikipedia articles. If the bot
reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies
? if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able
to improve its behavior. '''[[User:Tawkerbot2/FAQ|Click here]]''' for
'''frequently asked questions''' about the bot and this warning. //
[[User:Tawkerbot4|Tawkerbot4]] 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
67.172.174.120&oldid=64574240
was a spam warning:

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private
websites) to Wikipedia.  [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is
not]] a vehicle for [[Wikipedia:Spam|advertising]] or a mere collection
of [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]].  You are, however,
[[m:When should I link externally|encouraged to add ''content'' instead
of links]] to the encyclopedia. See the [[Wikipedia:Welcome,
newcomers|welcome page]] to learn more.  Thanks.
  —--[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] ([[User:AudeVivere|talk]] |
[[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]]) 04:34, 30
December 2005 (UTC)

At least to me, "Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome,
newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about
contributing.", " If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept
my humble creator's apologies", and "See the [[Wikipedia:Welcome,
newcomers|welcome page]] to learn more.  Thanks." do not seem like
assuming that new users are all bent on destroying Wikipedia.

And as for linking to [[WP:XYZ]] - none of the above messages use any
of the WP:WP shortcuts - they all explain what the policy is on
Wikipedia, and link to further explanations.  What more would you have
us do?

Jesse Weinstein


from_name: Ben Yates

subject: [Foundation-l] Printed on Demand Books from Wikipedia articles

body:
One major usability issue is that articles directly in a category are
added when the category is added, but not articles within
subcategories.  This can lead to some strange results.

On 7/13/06, Volker Haas <volker.haas at brainbot.com> wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> thanks for your comment about the principle author list. We try to
> improve that.
> Sorry for the inconvenience with the contact form - that bug is fixed.
>
> -- Volker
>
> Jack wrote:
> > You may want to take the minor edit
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit> flag into account when
> > determining the "at least five of the principal authors of the
> > Document".
> >
> > E.g. in the "USS Nautilus (SSN-571)" article in Tim Cruze's book "Big
> > Science", "Furry" is listed as one of the principal authors, eventho
> > user:Furry only made 2 minor edits on 2005-09-30 to the article
> > (deleting a space and a full stop). user:The Epopt completely rewrote
> > the article on 2004-01-05t23:52:26z, but is not listed as a principal
> > author.
> >
> > Ignoring edits that were reverted <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RV>
> > would also improve the authors list.
> >
> > The contact form at <http://pediapress.com/contact/> is reporting "500
> > - Internal Server Error" on send.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/18/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Stephen Bain wrote:
> >
> > This particular incident may only be embarrassing; what is undignified
> > is AP's reportage using a full name. What would likewise be
> > undignified would be the immortalisation of this in a biography,
> > forever linking this person's name with this event and this event
> > alone (there is no other biographical information available), as if
> > that was the sum total of their life.
>
> Exactly.  Perhaps I am surprisingly old-fashioned, but it seems to me
> that the news reporting in this case would have been _better_ had they
> simply used initials or some other literary device.
>
> For me, the amusement at the cute story (woman calls 911 to ask for a
> date) was seriously impaired by my distaste for the fact that this poor
> woman's name was being brought into the matter globally and on the
> Internet and against her will, in a way that makes it somewhat likely
> that future googling on her name for the next 30 years will bring this
> incident, and only this incident, to the forefront.

Indeed. In my newspaper of choice there's a section with a humorous or
unusual story on the front page every day, called Oddspot. People's
names are regularly omitted if the story is embarrassing such as this
one about the 911 call, replaced with "a man from Sometown" or
somesuch.

Today's Oddspot is two Irishmen who stole a boat in Wales trying to
get to Dublin. They sailed in circles for hours before returning to
Wales again. They're identified simply as "Two Irishmen"
(http://www.theage.com.au/oddspot/).

The reason of course is that it's not real news, it's light
entertainment. I don't think it's wrong to be making similar
distinctions as to what is real encyclopaedic content and what is
something else.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
We certainly do do news in the sense that we have articles on current events.

On 18/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/8/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news
> > outlets, not less.  I remember a similar mess after the death of
> > [[Jean Charles de Menezes]].  Wikipedia articles repeated
> > unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
>
> Nah, we don't do news. Getting breaking news right in the first twenty
> four hours is not in our mission.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/18/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Absolutely.  Of course that can't happen as long as the system
> continues to be overriden by your edict.  And no, don't bring up that
> there was already an AfD - that AfD was on completely different
> content from the new article.

I would support a modification of Jimmy's "edict" to the effect that
an indefinitely semi-protected article on BP would be subject to
regular community processes. Indefinite semi-protection would be an
expression of the belief that more harm (unsubstantiated rumors,
vandalism) is likely to come from having this particular article
edited by unregistered users and very new ones, than productive edits.

This, however, is an untested hypothesis. Is there any existing
article or set of articles which is highly comparable to BP, where we
could verify whether such a trend of inaccuracy/vandalism does indeed
exist?

Erik


from_name: James Hare

body:
Yes. And why doesn't Wikipedia get DPLs? They could prove useful for us --
they're not just for automagically displaying news articles on Wikinews.

On 7/18/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One major usability issue is that articles directly in a category are
> added when the category is added, but not articles within
> subcategories.  This can lead to some strange results.
>
> On 7/13/06, Volker Haas <volker.haas at brainbot.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jack,
> > thanks for your comment about the principle author list. We try to
> > improve that.
> > Sorry for the inconvenience with the contact form - that bug is fixed.
> >
> > -- Volker
> >
> > Jack wrote:
> > > You may want to take the minor edit
> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit> flag into account when
> > > determining the "at least five of the principal authors of the
> > > Document".
> > >
> > > E.g. in the "USS Nautilus (SSN-571)" article in Tim Cruze's book "Big
> > > Science", "Furry" is listed as one of the principal authors, eventho
> > > user:Furry only made 2 minor edits on 2005-09-30 to the article
> > > (deleting a space and a full stop). user:The Epopt completely rewrote
> > > the article on 2004-01-05t23:52:26z, but is not listed as a principal
> > > author.
> > >
> > > Ignoring edits that were reverted <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RV>
> > > would also improve the authors list.
> > >
> > > The contact form at <http://pediapress.com/contact/> is reporting "500
> > > - Internal Server Error" on send.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Ben Yates
> Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image statistics -- 374 000+ "fair use" images

body:
On 7/18/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's so much benefit to uploading them to Commons (improving the
> status of Commons as a free repository, getting images used across all
> of the Wikipedias, etc.), it seems almost criminal to not upload them
> there.

Though to be fair, uploading is only half the job. Most people don't
realise that categorising them makes them actually useful. At the very
least, a category describing the thing it's a photo of:
[[Sulfur-crested cockatoo]], [[Kilkenny Castle]] or [[MacDonalds]].
Strangely, we don't seem to mention that fact much.

> That's my take on it too. Something which seems quite natural to a
> bunch of US editors, steeped in US copyright notions and law, can
> often be quite complicated when introduced into a more international
> forum, without even taking into account language differences. But it
> generally works out, eventually.

Examples probably help.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/18/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would support a modification of Jimmy's "edict" to the effect that
> an indefinitely semi-protected article on BP would be subject to
> regular community processes. Indefinite semi-protection would be an
> expression of the belief that more harm (unsubstantiated rumors,
> vandalism) is likely to come from having this particular article
> edited by unregistered users and very new ones, than productive edits.

This makes sense. But bear in mind two important points:
*It takes less time to undo harmful edits than to make them (if the
page is sufficiently watched)
*Wikipedia would never work.

(I mention the last point as a reminder to always react to empirical
evidence, not to try and predict how a complicated system involving
anonymous users would work...)

Steve


body:
On 7/8/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news
> outlets, not less.  I remember a similar mess after the death of
> [[Jean Charles de Menezes]].  Wikipedia articles repeated
> unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.

Nah, we don't do news. Getting breaking news right in the first twenty
four hours is not in our mission.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] OT question about spam

body:
Sorry for this totally off topic question about spam, but there seem
to be some pretty cluey people on this list.

In the last couple of months, I've been getting a lot of email replies
to emails I never sent, including a lot of spam challenge-responses
and a few "I'm out of the office" type messages. I have two theories:
* I have some malware on my computer sending out emails.
* Someone is forging mails with my address as the sender.

I should point out that any mail at the stevage.com domain gets to me,
so quite a few messages are addressed to asdfdasd at stevage.com etc.

If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them (probably
reply off list...?). Mostly I just want to know if it's something I
should do something about, and whether I should feel responsible for
all this spam that is apparently being sent under my name...

Steve


from_name: ScottL

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely
> centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it?
> I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine,
> "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our
> efforts.

   I don't know the "I know it when I see it and I'll vote that way"
approach does not seem to me to be the biggest problem we have.  I think
a bigger problem is focusing on notability too much to the exclusion of
such questions as: "Is there enough verifiable information on this topic
for an encyclopedic article?",  "Is this topic fit or appropriate for an
encyclopedia?", "If this topic were covered completely and throughly
would it be worth reading?".  In the case of people article I would also
say "Is a single transitory cultural event that the person was involved
in the only reason for the article to exist?"  There are other questions
things to consider other than if the topic or person meets some
arbitrary bar of notability and I suspect that putting much effort into
rigidly defining notability would exacerbate the tendency to ignore
other considerations (like human dignity).

Dalf


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

body:
Jesse W wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Timwi wrote:
>
>>Yes, I do not deny that. Now -- if a user finds an admin to have done
>>something wrong, does that make it likely that the admin has done
>>something wrong?
>
> Certainly it does.   If no-one has objected to an action, it's more
> likely that action is correct than if anyone has.  There - the rest of
> your argument has just foundered on the rock of people not behaving as
> you predicted.  Sorry.
>
>>Obviously you'll say 'no' because there's only one user
>>complaining, and everyone else sides with the admin. But read on...
>
> As I said - sorry - you guessed wrong.

I'll be frank: you appear a little conceited here. If you agree with the
original statement, you are only confirming my theory even more, but you
are blindly assuming that contradicting me makes you "win" and so you
say "sorry, you lost, nee-ner".

>>But we have already established on this mailing list that admins *do*
>>conspire, albeit on a very subtle and subconscious level, without
>>knowing it. Someone (not me!) gave this analogy with noblemen in the
>>Middle Ages, who rarely if ever accused each other of a crime even if
>>they knew about such a crime.
>
> Mailing list archive citation?  Or at least a name, or a subject line?
> Otherwise I'll have to consider that it *was* "you" you gave this
> analogy, with all the lack of support that entails.

If it had been me, I would obviously be more likely to know precisely
what I typed, especially the subject line. This way, however, all I
remember is the gist of the thought, not the subject line and not the
author's name. Also, Google's coverage of the mailing list archive
appears to be notoriously incomplete (searching for a randomly-chosen
subject line from last month gives no results), so it is no surprise
that I cannot find it. It is unfair of you to allege that this means it
doesn't exist.

> Wait, wait - now you are jumping to claim that admins agree with each
> other to prevent people from getting through RfA?  Evidence?  Argument?
> Something other than "proof by assertion"?  Please?

What do you expect? A link to an RfA in which someone says, "Oppose --
If I gave support for this one, I'd be less popular in the admin
community so I better side with everyone"???

Rather, look at the kinds of arguments that are brought forward to
justify the rejection of candidates who have never done anything wrong.
These arguments go something like, "We don't need that many admins", "We
already have enough admins", "There is no point in making him admin if
he's not going to be active", etc. Everyone copies these arguments from
everyone else, and nobody actually thinks about them to realise that
these arguments are stupid and make no sense.

Anyway. I do not follow RfA. The only RfA I have followed closely is the
only one I have ever nominated myself. That RfA (Spottedowl,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Spottedowl)
is a prime example of adminship refused solely on the basis of edit
count (which I'm sure you'll agree is not an indication of any
wrong-doing and therefore not a valid criterion for opposition). By
extension, it's an example where admins collectively act contrary to the
spirit of policies ("adminship is not supposed to be a big deal") and
all of them get away with it because only one person complains about it
(me) and everyone else defends each other.

>>A-ha! Doesn't this explain the above effect then? If a majority of
>>admins agree with a decision, then the decision is less likely to be
>>questioned (and, consequently, the complaining user is taken less
>>seriously). Therefore, admins will agree with each other in order to
>>reduce the likelihood of being questioned.
>> This is the "benefit of
>>agreeing with each other" that you were looking for. :)
>
> Why is this a benefit?  As far as I can see, a lack of questioning is a
> detriment to proper functioning, and the benefit of Wikipedia.

It is a benefit to _them_ (their social standing in the community), not
to Wikipedia. If you assert that people subconsciously act solely and
only for the benefit of Wikipedia, you are quite na?ve.

>>Now, does "the way things are done on Wikipedia" refer to the spirit of
>>the policies, or the behaviour of admins in practice? We all know that
>>there are significant differences between those two.
>
> Sigh.  Not this again.  "the way things are done on Wikipedia" means
> the practices which typically occur on the website with the DNS address
> of http://en.wikipedia.org.  Drop the dead horse, please.

I'm surprised at this reaction... and slightly offended, because I have
never argued this way before, and don't consider it a particularly
often-cited argument. Either way, your reaction indicates that you
understand "the way things are done" to mean "the way people actually
behave in practice", irrespective of what policy dictates people should
behave like. Therefore my argument, which you conveniently removed, applies:

>> If you mean "the way admins behave in practice", then you have
>> confirmed my theory. Several admins come to the same conclusion,
>> /therefore/ you do the same (and presumably accept and defend their
>> arguments but not the complaining user's).

.

>>Of course it is easy for you to claim that someone has "absolutely no
>>regard for policy XYZ", but surely most of the time it is more likely a
>>misunderstanding of the spirit of the policy (by either side!), or just
>>complete ignorance of a less obvious policy.
>
> Well, ignorance doesn't fly after the policy has been pointed out

With something like 3RR, you are right. The rule is dead clear and
spot-on. However, with something like "notability" or "verifiability" or
even "no personal attacks", this is a bit unfair. There is no clear
logical definition for those rules, therefore it is obvious that a large
number of people will come up with a large variety of interpretations.
The variation in interpretations is much smaller in admins because they
are selected to be the type of people that is prepared to learn from the
"more experienced ones", and so they homogenise their "experience" with
each other.

>> It is, for example, not intuitive that we should have a policy on
>> "notability" or "verifiability", so why should anyone look that up?
>
> Maybe because someone else has said - "I noticed you made an edit that
> didn't agree with our policy on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] - please
> read that page and follow it in any future edits you make.  Thanks for
> volunteering your time working on Wikipedia!" (paraphrase of one of our
> standard notes to new users).

I have never seen a message of this kind. The kinds of messages I see on
User talk pages, especially those for IPs, sound more like "You have
repeatedly violated the [[WP:XYZ]] rule. Further violations will be
sanctioned with a block. You have been warned."

Timwi


from_name: Sean Whitton

subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
Quoting below is great, and then copying certain points of interest
above makes it far easier to check things out imo.

On 18/07/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
>
> Ilario
>
> ----Messaggio originale----
> Da: oldakquill at gmail.com
> Data: 18.07.06 14.46
> A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..
>
> What is this "ToFU discussion"? The only tofu I know about is the
> coagulated soy milk...
>
> On 18/07/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We could start a nice ToFU discussion...
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
	?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] New spam?

body:
Perhaps contact their SMTP server?

On 7/18/06, Garion96 <garion96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/18/06, John Lyden <rasputinaxp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >From an email I just got:
> >
> > Herringdoppler  <frustrated_wiki_user at yahoo.com> to me 1:33 pm(12
> minutes
> > ago)
> >
> > RasputinAXP
> > I have figured out a way to make profit on wikpda with only a one-time
> > time investment of about 10 minutes.  If you are interested, please
> > respond with a blank email message to frustrated_wiki_user at yahoo.com
> >
> > Perhaps we could buy you a new laptop.
> >
> > Herringdoppler
> >
> > -=-=-=-
> > What in the heck?
> >
> > -Ras
>
>
> See also here
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Spam_.2F_phishing_by_Herringdoppler
> The
> editor is currently blocked. But that doesn't stop him/her from sending
> more
> e-mails right?
>
> Garion
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] New spam?

body:
On 7/18/06, John Lyden <rasputinaxp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From an email I just got:
>
> Herringdoppler  <frustrated_wiki_user at yahoo.com> to me 1:33 pm(12 minutes
> ago)
>
> RasputinAXP
> I have figured out a way to make profit on wikpda with only a one-time
> time investment of about 10 minutes.  If you are interested, please
> respond with a blank email message to frustrated_wiki_user at yahoo.com
>
> Perhaps we could buy you a new laptop.
>
> Herringdoppler
>
> -=-=-=-
> What in the heck?
>
> -Ras

See also here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Spam_.2F_phishing_by_Herringdoppler
The
editor is currently blocked. But that doesn't stop him/her from sending more
e-mails right?

Garion


subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
I can't seem to edit anything on that site. Is much content going to
be developed there before it is shipped over to Wikimedia servers?

On 18/07/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> As tofu is getting some notoriety, I thought this might be a good moment to
> add some depth to the article.. http://wiktionaryz.org/WiktionaryZ:tofu is
> where you can add how you would call tofu tofu in your language.. that is to
> say .. when you know about the [[DefinedMeaning]] .. and have a userprofile
> with the Babel templates in ISO-639-3..
>
> Yes, it is hard .. tofu ..
>
> :)
>
> GerardM
>
> On 7/18/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting below is great, and then copying certain points of interest
> > above makes it far easier to check things out imo.
> >
> > On 18/07/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
> > >
> > > Ilario
> > >
> > > ----Messaggio originale----
> > > Da: oldakquill at gmail.com
> > > Data: 18.07.06 14.46
> > > A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> > > Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..
> > >
> > > What is this "ToFU discussion"? The only tofu I know about is the
> > > coagulated soy milk...
> > >
> > > On 18/07/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We could start a nice ToFU discussion...
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >         ?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
> >                 sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
Hoi,
As tofu is getting some notoriety, I thought this might be a good moment to
add some depth to the article.. http://wiktionaryz.org/WiktionaryZ:tofu is
where you can add how you would call tofu tofu in your language.. that is to
say .. when you know about the [[DefinedMeaning]] .. and have a userprofile
with the Babel templates in ISO-639-3..

Yes, it is hard .. tofu ..

:)

GerardM

On 7/18/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
>
> Quoting below is great, and then copying certain points of interest
> above makes it far easier to check things out imo.
>
> On 18/07/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
> >
> > Ilario
> >
> > ----Messaggio originale----
> > Da: oldakquill at gmail.com
> > Data: 18.07.06 14.46
> > A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> > Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..
> >
> > What is this "ToFU discussion"? The only tofu I know about is the
> > coagulated soy milk...
> >
> > On 18/07/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We could start a nice ToFU discussion...
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
>         ?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
>                 sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
I am not online, or I would just edit this myself.  But I thought it
sort of sadly humorous enough to mention here. :)

I am offline, reading our biography of Desmond Tutu.  A great man, a
Nobel Peace Prize winner, instrumental in the fight against apartheid,
and of incredible cultural importance and impact on our era.

I quote our article:
>In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as
>saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same
>stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they
>got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop
>Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."

I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a
very long time.  (And, I note, there is no source. :))

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Israel News Agency

body:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:

>No, Google News affiliates are all hand-picked by Google.
>
>Although the other problem with their "bar" is that they have a large number
>of middle eastern and liberal employees who seem to think that Hezbollah's
>"news agency" and other racist "news" sources ought to be let in, while
>politically conservative news sources constantly get dropped.
>
I can tolerate the Israel News Agency and the large number of
conservative sources that Google already uses, and I expect no less
tolerance for differing points of view.  Fabricating claims that these
other views are "racist" does little to promote Wikilove.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-07-19

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 409 of 426 tests (96.01%) FAILED!


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
Well, if you don't have a user profile and you don't have a proper set
of babel templates and if you haven't read about the defined meaning we
have problems in giving edit rights to you. Please understand that we
are in pre-alpha version and therefore much functionality is still
missing, but editing of course is possible.

Before anything can be shipped to wikimedia servers certain things have
to happen, like implementing wikidata and with that wiktionaryz into the
Mediawiki software. Then agreements must be made and some other stuff.
Yes, we are preparing quite a lot of data.

Wishing you a great evening!

Ciao, Sabine

Oldak Quill schrieb:
> I can't seem to edit anything on that site. Is much content going to
> be developed there before it is shipped over to Wikimedia servers?
>
> On 18/07/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> As tofu is getting some notoriety, I thought this might be a good moment to
>> add some depth to the article.. http://wiktionaryz.org/WiktionaryZ:tofu is
>> where you can add how you would call tofu tofu in your language.. that is to
>> say .. when you know about the [[DefinedMeaning]] .. and have a userprofile
>> with the Babel templates in ISO-639-3..
>>
>> Yes, it is hard .. tofu ..
>>
>> :)
>>
>> GerardM
>>
>>

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
James Hare wrote:
> Yes. And why doesn't Wikipedia get DPLs?

Because we don't want to spend a million dollars on servers to keep the site
from crashing when people cross multiple 200-thousand-page categories?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060719/3a4fbbfc/attachment.pgp


body:
James Hare wrote:
> Yes. And why doesn't Wikipedia get DPLs?

Because we don't want to spend a million dollars on servers to keep the site
from crashing when people cross multiple 200-thousand-page categories?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060719/3a4fbbfc/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
James Hare wrote:
> Yes. And why doesn't Wikipedia get DPLs?

Because we don't want to spend a million dollars on servers to keep the site
from crashing when people cross multiple 200-thousand-page categories?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060719/3a4fbbfc/attachment.pgp>


body:
James Hare wrote:
> Yes. And why doesn't Wikipedia get DPLs?

Because we don't want to spend a million dollars on servers to keep the site
from crashing when people cross multiple 200-thousand-page categories?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060719/3a4fbbfc/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Please don't spam user-talk pages with generic warnings

body:
Please don't spam user-talk pages with generic warnings. (No source/no
license/copyvionote)
Why? Because it's counter-productive and therefore a waste of your time.

If you notice a user already has a dozen recent warnings, or if you've
got 10 more to add, instead of adding another one which they're just
as likely to ignore, take the time to write a short sharp warning
explaining
* specifically what they're doing wrong (not "violating copyright" -
"uploading logos" "uploading screenshots" "uploading random images
from the web")
* why it's wrong (like: source is require for all images - logos are
considered unfree - screenshots don't take any new copyright)
* relevant policy pages (usually Commons:Licensing)
* where they can ask for help (their talk page, if you watch it, your
talk page, Commons:Help desk / Village pump in their language)
* the principle of WHEN IN DOUBT, ASK BEFORE UPLOADING.
* that if they upload any more files and ignore what you've taken the
time to say, then they will be blocked.

And if they do that, then block them. If you're not an admin, ask one
to block them.

While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page. This is a
good chance to drill home source/licensing requirements and the like,
if they stick around.

The aim of the warnings is to try and make users understand the
importance of various copyright requirements. Spamming their talk page
is not further to that aim, so it should be avoided. "Notifying the
uploader" is not the real aim: making them understand is.

As a rough guide, I would say first block, 1 or 3 days. Second block,
3 days or a week. Third block, a week or a month. Fourth block, I'd
want to know a very good reason why it shouldn't be permanent. It all
depends on the specific circumstances of course, like exactly how many
images they're uploading, if they're giving false licenses, if they're
responding to messages and warnings, if there's a language barrier,
etc.

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
I was getting at what you have put across: notability is indefinable
and we rely on it far too much. Verifiability and factual accuracy are
my two greatest concerns.

On 19/07/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>
>
> Oldak Quill wrote:
> > Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely
> > centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it?
> > I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine,
> > "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our
> > efforts.
>
>
>    I don't know the "I know it when I see it and I'll vote that way"
> approach does not seem to me to be the biggest problem we have.  I think
> a bigger problem is focusing on notability too much to the exclusion of
> such questions as: "Is there enough verifiable information on this topic
> for an encyclopedic article?",  "Is this topic fit or appropriate for an
> encyclopedia?", "If this topic were covered completely and throughly
> would it be worth reading?".  In the case of people article I would also
> say "Is a single transitory cultural event that the person was involved
> in the only reason for the article to exist?"  There are other questions
> things to consider other than if the topic or person meets some
> arbitrary bar of notability and I suspect that putting much effort into
> rigidly defining notability would exacerbate the tendency to ignore
> other considerations (like human dignity).
>
> Dalf
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Borderline notable bios (yes, again)

body:
On 7/19/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> You have done a good job stating the position that I support.
>
> It is of note that we are not really writing *full* biographies on most of
> these people. And many of these blp that we do have something approaching a
> full biography will quickly because outdated. We have little chance of
> obtaining the updated information on these folks. Yet a number of users
> supported the arguement that once notable always notable.
>
> Take care,
> Sydney
>
> ---- Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it
> > that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is
> > of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as
> > no consensus - keep.
> >
> > This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see
> > why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it
> > and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as
> > standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the
> > public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the
> > people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that
> > we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders.
> > Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself
> > into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article
> > that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but
> > if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very
> > important.
> >
> > We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really
> > notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if
> > they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime.
> >
> > I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I
> > think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want
> > one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right
> > to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think
> > there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who
> > does not want their privacy breached in this way.
> >
> > I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach
> > that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and
> > implemented in the en WP.
> >
> > Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not
> > specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up
> > rather late.
> >
> > Brian.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Brian and Sydney,

Thank you for your views.

However, I think that your positions are too restrictive for mine.

Our main task is to put together an encyclopedia. As such, we need to
include significant figures such as leading business people such as founders
of companies and eminent scientists such as fellows of the Royal Society and
we should not wait until their deaths.

Privacy and their wishes should be a consideration in cases where there is
not enough  verifiable material available  to publish a  full biography.
There is no good reason for a biography of Brian  Peppers for example given
that there is so little material available from reliable sources. Similarly,
I supported the deletion of the article on Angela Beesley on the grounds
that there was little verifiable material from Third Party sources available
about her and notability outside Wikipedia. If it was a board member of
Microsoft, I would have taken a diifferent view.

Development of a good encyclopedia should be our first priority, however.

Regards

Keith Old


from_name: Sydney aka FloNight

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
---- ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>
>
> Oldak Quill wrote:
> > Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely
> > centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it?
> > I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine,
> > "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our
> > efforts.
>
>
>    I don't know the "I know it when I see it and I'll vote that way"
> approach does not seem to me to be the biggest problem we have.  I think
> a bigger problem is focusing on notability too much to the exclusion of
> such questions as: "Is there enough verifiable information on this topic
> for an encyclopedic article?",  "Is this topic fit or appropriate for an
> encyclopedia?", "If this topic were covered completely and throughly
> would it be worth reading?".  In the case of people article I would also
> say "Is a single transitory cultural event that the person was involved
> in the only reason for the article to exist?"  There are other questions
> things to consider other than if the topic or person meets some
> arbitrary bar of notability and I suspect that putting much effort into
> rigidly defining notability would exacerbate the tendency to ignore
> other considerations (like human dignity).
>
> Dalf

Dalf,

Agree that more thought needs to go into these decisions.

Sydney


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

body:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 05:05:18AM +1000, Keith Old wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> >You have done a good job stating the position that I support.
> >
> >It is of note that we are not really writing *full* biographies on most of
> >these people. And many of these blp that we do have something approaching a
> >full biography will quickly because outdated. We have little chance of
> >obtaining the updated information on these folks. Yet a number of users
> >supported the arguement that once notable always notable.
> >
> >Take care,
> >Sydney
> >
> >---- Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >> My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it
> >> that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is
> >> of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as
> >> no consensus - keep.
> >>
> >> This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see
> >> why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it
> >> and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as
> >> standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the
> >> public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the
> >> people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that
> >> we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders.
> >> Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself
> >> into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article
> >> that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but
> >> if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very
> >> important.
> >>
> >> We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really
> >> notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if
> >> they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime.
> >>
> >> I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I
> >> think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want
> >> one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right
> >> to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think
> >> there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who
> >> does not want their privacy breached in this way.
> >>
> >> I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach
> >> that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and
> >> implemented in the en WP.
> >>
> >> Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not
> >> specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up
> >> rather late.
> >>
> >> Brian.
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> Brian and Sydney,
>
> Thank you for your views.
>
> However, I think that your positions are too restrictive for mine.
>
> Our main task is to put together an encyclopedia. As such, we need to
> include significant figures such as leading business people such as founders
> of companies and eminent scientists such as fellows of the Royal Society and
> we should not wait until their deaths.
>
> Privacy and their wishes should be a consideration in cases where there is
> not enough  verifiable material available  to publish a  full biography.
> There is no good reason for a biography of Brian  Peppers for example given
> that there is so little material available from reliable sources. Similarly,
> I supported the deletion of the article on Angela Beesley on the grounds
> that there was little verifiable material from Third Party sources available
> about her and notability outside Wikipedia. If it was a board member of
> Microsoft, I would have taken a diifferent view.
>
> Development of a good encyclopedia should be our first priority, however.

It is a question of recognising that not everybody shares our priority
and that individuals have their own priorities. If a person does not
want an article in WP then it is an invasion of their privacy. The
question is whether under all circumstances they have to put up with
that. If they stand for elected office, yes, they do. I am not convinced
in other cases.

The way other encyclopedias handle this would be interesting. "Who's
Who" is a kind of encyclopedia restricted to bios. I think they allow
people to opt out, but I'm not certain. Does Britannia insist on
publishing an entry on a living person if that person states clearly
that they do not want it to do so. What about other encyclopedias? What
about other wikipedias? We have already heard about a different policy
on the Japanese WP. Is anybody in a position to give some of this
information?

Brian.

> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old

--
          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
 Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, WikiNews, WikiBooks and Commons


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Israel News Agency

body:
On 7/13/06, A. Nony Mouse <mousyme at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, Google News affiliates are all hand-picked by Google.

Not very carefully hand-picked. They have, in the past, spidered white
supremacist propaganda and Holocaust denial.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
"The defining moment for Sergey, however, was when he met future
co-president of Google, Larry Page. Sergey was assigned to show Larry
around the university on a weekend tour. Reportedly, they did not get on
well to begin with, arguing about every topic they discussed, and even
throwing a few pies at each other."

Is that true?  Is it not true?  As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy
way to know.  If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference.
If it is not true, it should be removed.

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is
better to have no information, than to have information like this, with
no sources.  Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
of a barnstar.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


from_name: Volker Haas

body:
I believe that adding all articles in a category and also in all
subcategories would result in many unwanted articles in the book. By
carefully selecting a category with only a few subcategories this
problem could be avoided, but I believe in most cases adding
subcategories as well has undesired effects.

By using the "suggested articles" button on the build page you should
ideally get the "best" articles in the subcategories as well (after you
added some articles you want in your book). I am aware that currently it
is not possible to add all suggested articles - we are thinking about
adding this functionality.

-- Volker

Since many categories have lots of articles assigned to them and also

Ben Yates wrote:
> One major usability issue is that articles directly in a category are
> added when the category is added, but not articles within
> subcategories.  This can lead to some strange results.
>
> On 7/13/06, Volker Haas <volker.haas at brainbot.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jack,
>> thanks for your comment about the principle author list. We try to
>> improve that.
>> Sorry for the inconvenience with the contact form - that bug is fixed.
>>
>> -- Volker
>>
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>> You may want to take the minor edit
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit> flag into account when
>>> determining the "at least five of the principal authors of the
>>> Document".
>>>
>>> E.g. in the "USS Nautilus (SSN-571)" article in Tim Cruze's book "Big
>>> Science", "Furry" is listed as one of the principal authors, eventho
>>> user:Furry only made 2 minor edits on 2005-09-30 to the article
>>> (deleting a space and a full stop). user:The Epopt completely rewrote
>>> the article on 2004-01-05t23:52:26z, but is not listed as a principal
>>> author.
>>>
>>> Ignoring edits that were reverted <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RV>
>>> would also improve the authors list.
>>>
>>> The contact form at <http://pediapress.com/contact/> is reporting "500
>>> - Internal Server Error" on send.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity (warning: verbosity follows...)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 7/18/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Superficially "human dignity" is a fine standard, but like notability it
>>is a subjective standard.  This makes it difficult to narrow the scope
>>of its application.
>>
>>
>We could try. We haven't tried very hard with notability. Read
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability - it basically says "after 5
>years of Wikipedia, we still have no consensus whatever on what should
>be in or out, or even, whether a policy on what should be in or out
>should exist". That's a pretty major failing.
>
In many ways yes.  There was a tendency at one time to consider
notability and verifiability as closely associated, but I still view
them as distinct.  Notability can often depend on context and local
interest.  Even if the information is meaningless to most people on the
other side of the world it can be interesting to the residents of a town
and to that town's expatriates who may otherwise have difficulty finding
information about their home town.

The discussion about whether we should have Angela's biography is
curious.  Being a director of an organization that runs a top-100
website alone makes her notable.  Of course, the same standards for
accuracy should apply as for any other living person.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>On 7/17/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You openly admit that you regularly get into situations involving
>>several users saying the same thing about you, without ever considering
>>the possibility that this bunch of people who all came to the same
>>conclusion about you might actually have a point?
>>
>>
>Most of what they say is "you are a fascist because you won't let my
>creationist/neo-Nazi/racist/conspiracy theory/anti-Semitic/etc. FACTS
>into Wikipedia!"
>
>...
>So yeah. I enforce the rules at Wikipedia, and the rules at Wikipedia
>say that a lot of content that dedicated and nutty users want to add
>can't be added. In such cases, I am often GLAD to be the target of
>their common complaints -- to be told that you do a good job in
>keeping out nonsense is no insult at all.
>
Putting "FACTS" in all caps can be an ominous sign.  Putting "GLAD" in
all caps seems a little invitational. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Anthony wrote:
>
> Maybe a guideline that new information shouldn't be added for a week
> or two unless it is necessary to correct something old (adding in a
> date of death, for instance).  The guideline could be part of a
> template, which includes a link to the wikinews story, for those who
> want to participate in such things.
>
> It'd be a win-win for Wikipedia and Wikinews.

Hmm...  "This article is related to a current event.  The information
given here may be outdated.  For up-to-date information, see [[SUBJECT]]
on Wikinews."?

Sounds good to me.

There's some existing discussion about a similar proposal (sans actual
guideline) at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Current>.
Might not be a bad idea to revive it, though.  Do we actually _have_ a
policy/guideline on current events?  All I can find is links to the portal.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Unknown SQL error while running command like
	maintenance script

body:
Hi,

I've been getting a unknown SQL error for any function that uses the
DB_SLAVE database (I only have 1 database) when running a script from
the command line.  The script is pretty basic, it's just cleaning up
some talk pages that have broken HTML in them.  I've done what
maintenance/cleanUpSpam does with

        $dbw =& wfGetDB( DB_MASTER );
        $dbw->immediateBegin();

and then

        $dbw->immediateCommit();
        wfDoUpdates();

but am getting this error:

any ideas?

PHP Warning:  mysql_query(): Unable to save result set in
/var/www/html/wiki16/includes/Database.php on line 435

Warning: mysql_query(): Unable to save result set in
/var/www/html/wiki16/includes/Database.php on line 435
A database error has occurred
Query: SELECT old_text,old_flags  FROM `text`  WHERE old_id = '197785'
  LIMIT 1
Function: Revision::loadText
Error: 2000 Unknown MySQL error (10.234.169.196)

Backtrace:
GlobalFunctions.php line 602 calls wfbacktrace()
Database.php line 473 calls wfdebugdiebacktrace()
Database.php line 419 calls databasemysql::reportqueryerror()
Database.php line 806 calls databasemysql::query()
Database.php line 825 calls databasemysql::select()
Revision.php line 667 calls databasemysql::selectrow()
Revision.php line 435 calls revision::loadtext()
Revision.php line 424 calls revision::getrawtext()
Parser.php line 2805 calls revision::gettext()
Parser.php line 2642 calls parser::fetchtemplate()
- line - calls parser::bracesubstitution()
Parser.php line 2231 calls call_user_func()
Parser.php line 2319 calls parser::replace_callback()
Parser.php line 2725 calls parser::replacevariables()
- line - calls parser::bracesubstitution()
Parser.php line 2231 calls call_user_func()
Parser.php line 2319 calls parser::replace_callback()
Parser.php line 824 calls parser::replacevariables()
Parser.php line 231 calls parser::internalparse()
Article.php line 2303 calls parser::parse()
Article.php line 1493 calls article::editupdates()
cleanupTalkPages.php line 18 calls article::updatearticle()
cleanupTalkPages.php line 35 calls cleanuparticle()


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>I think it is more to do with Wikipedia's ability to adapt and change
>with developing technology. If Encyclopedia Britannica had created a
>wiki back in 2000, Wikipedia may not exist and Britannica would have
>extended their lifetime by a few decades.
>
I've read that Encarta represented the first shoe to drop for EB; it
could not easily adapt to that technology shift.  Now, with the benefit
of hindsight this does not seem as though it would have been such a big
change.

The major paradigm shift lay in the enabling of two-way online
communications.  The passive consumer could now also become a content
producer.  This wasn't quite what ISP's had hoped for in an asymmetrical
technology that assumed that the public would want to download far more
than they would upload.  Their model also presumed that they would
profit from also providing the content.

>As long as we are willing to embrace changes and developments (such
>as, at the moment, Wiktionary Z and Semantic MediaWiki) and don't
>object for reasons of familiarity, we should do fine.
>
One should not presume that any specific technology will be the one that
leads to the big steps forward.

>On 16/07/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The Encyclopaedia Britannica As We Know It has existed from, say, the
>>ninth edition (1889) to the present, and is probably in sharp decline
>>now. Let's say it's had about a 150-year life. I don't think it has
>>another twenty years in it. And I don't think the Boston Globe will
>>be available as smudgy ink on pulp paper delivered to front porches
>>in twenty years, either...
>>
>>The slide rule as we know it--as a working tool for engineers--lasted
>>from about 1860 into the 1970s... a bit over a century.
>>
>>Carbon paper... didn't really come into its own until the invention
>>of the typewriter... it's lasted a bit over a century, too.
>>
This technology is nowhere near as important as it once was, but its
residual applications are likely to last for some considerable time yet.

>>"New media" though, have had a shorter life.
>>
>>The text adventure game: Colossal Cave, early 1970s, to about 1990
>>and the folding of Infocom. About twenty years?
>>
>>The soap opera: 1930 to present. The _radio_ soap opera, though,
>>obviously had a much shorter life. Thirty years?
>>
In a sense soap operas are much older.  In the 19th century many novels
were first published in serial form.  This social phenomenon may change
the medium that carries it, but is likely to remain in some form or other.

>>Wikipedia is much harder to predict, though, because it is changing
>>over time and will continue to do so. I'd give good odds that ten
>>years from now there will be a recognizable "website" on something
>>called the "Internet" named "Wikipedia" that will be an online
>>encyclopedia, but I wouldn't bet that its culture and policies will
>>be closely similar to those in existence today.
>>
It's importance as an encyclopedia is likely to fade long before its
role in the development of open data.

Ec


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is
>better to have no information, than to have information like this, with
>no sources.  Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
>back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
>of a barnstar.
>
In practice (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I don't
see much resistance to someone taking the initiative to remove
unsourced material. The problem is more that the scribbling is
outpacing the reviewing.

Also, with articles that already have references (which is true of
many of them now), it's usually not obvious whether newly-added
material is coming from the listed references, or from an unlisted
reference, or is simply made up, and often only people with the
physical works open on their laps are in a position to check.

I don't have any answers, just noting the daily quandaries.

Stan


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 7/18/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> True enough. The biggest problem with Commons is that the MediaWiki
> software is not really set up to be an image repository. What works
> very well for articles does not work so well for groups of files -- it
> is hard to find things which are uncategorized, it is hard to tell
> when new things have arrived, and unless you have 200 images on your
> watchlists it is hard to tell when image descriptions are changed (or
> vandalized) or the images themselves have been re-uploaded.

Yeah, we do suffer a lot from the "man with hammer/problem looks like
a nail" syndrome. MediaWiki is our only tool, so we use it for
discussions, storing images, source texts, etc, for which it's really
not well suited in many respects.

Steve


body:
On 7/18/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> There can be no serious argument against the concept of verifiability,
> but verifiability standards can vary according to the subject matter.
> To be sure the standards must be highest when we are dealing with the
> biography of a living person.  For the walk through of a video game or
> the plot outline of a movie the game or the movie itself should be
> adequate verification.

I think we've been through this one a few times. Movie yes, video game no, IMHO.

> Superficially "human dignity" is a fine standard, but like notability it
> is a subjective standard.  This makes it difficult to narrow the scope
> of its application.

We could try. We haven't tried very hard with notability. Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability - it basically says "after 5
years of Wikipedia, we still have no consensus whatever on what should
be in or out, or even, whether a policy on what should be in or out
should exist". That's a pretty major failing.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and
>I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be
>expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being
>an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is
>this reference worthy?
>
Yes. Either you have a one-sentence stub article, in which case its
one required reference could be almost any textbook or webpage
mentioning tyrosine, or else you have additional material in the
article, whose required source will also happen to mention tyrosine's
amino-acid-ness.

Incidentally, one of the interesting side-effects of looking up
references is that one regularly discovers that the "common
knowledge" from secondary education days is now many years out
of date, and no longer correct.

Stan


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unsourced biographies

body:
IMHO, delete as "Unsourced attack article" and have done.
-kc-

Andrew Gray wrote:
> So, I've been going through the endless barrel of fun that is
> [[Category:Rapists]], slapping prod tags on the people of no
> encyclopedic significance ("X priest got two years in jail for groping
> some choirboys") and, in a couple of cases, encountering entirely
> unsourced articles. Perhaps the most obvious of these was:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedley_Alley&oldid=64313689
>
> What ought we to do with them? I mean, policy is aggressively attack
> anything unsourced that would be defamation if it was false; where
> there were other avenues of notability, I've done that.
>
> But in this case, when we remove all forms of the negative material, we get
>
>
>> Sedley Alley (August 16, 1955 ? June 28, 2006) was married to a military person
>>
>
> ...which is in and of itself a candidate for speedy deletion, though I
> suspect doing that would get me brickbatted for nefarious deletionism.
>
> What I've done in the three or four cases where I ran across this was
> put a prod tag on, saying that we simply cannot have any article of
> this form without sources. Better, I feel, to have it deleted than to
> have a dodgy article left up (even if the subject's dead, it's still
> ethically iffy) I've been told this is "impatience"; I'm jumping past
> normal cleanup procedures and slapping a "fix in X days or else"
> warning on.
>
> Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with
> things like this that actually works...
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> Please use the proper channels to raise your concerns.
>
> I'm forwarding this e-mail to the WikiEN-l mailing list.
>
> On 19/07/06, Rptng03509345 <barbecue43564 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
This will make the third time I've received this email... *sigh*
-kc-


from_name: Adam Lorenz

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
No problem, I replied this to him:

 yes, well I am not sure what I can do, I don't want to get involved in
this.

Adam

On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then I apologise, I thought I'd better show the list this spam.
>
> On 19/07/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hey, I think this was spammed to many admins. I got it too.
> >
> > Adam
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Adam J. Lorenz


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Guettarda wrote:

>
>
>Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is
>better than providing a source.  Recently there was a discussion at
>[[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered
>to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to
>source that statement.  It's very easy to find someone who has said that,
>but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it
>implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the
>source.  If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the
>sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea.  Just
>sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
>
Scientific papers manage this by citing common textbooks or well-known
survey-type monographs or articles, maybe even several of them to
emphasize the commonness of the knowledge; I don't think we can go
much wrong by following their example.

Stan


body:
On 7/18/06, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no good reason for a biography of Brian  Peppers for example given
> that there is so little material available from reliable sources. Similarly,

There's no good reason for a real biography - it's quite unlikely that
anyone really wants to know anything about his life, and if they do,
there would be no shame in Wikipedia not having that information. The
only real interest in BP is the internet meme, like the numa numa guy,
etc. A short article detailing when the meme took off, when it died,
some sources examining why he became famous, and maybe a sentence or
two on "the man behind the photo" would be appropriate.

Sorry if we're still beating this dead horse, but the BP article is
quite a good example of someone being "famous in spite of themselves".

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:34:18 -0700, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>In practice (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I don't
>>see much resistance to someone taking the initiative to remove
>>unsourced material. The problem is more that the scribbling is
>>outpacing the reviewing.
>>
>
>Depends.  I have been involved in several extremely bitter edit wars
>over the insertion of highly questionable content whose removal is
>condemned as "suppressing information".
>
Yeah, I've been working more in the science area these days, and
not only does it tend to have fewer rabid partisans, but there is
an ever-so-gradual influx of professional scientists for whom adding
citations is as natural as breathing. (Not long ago, I narrowly saved
myself from embarassment when I was about to disagree with an editor
on a fine point, then realized he was the very author of the printed
material open on my lap...)

Stan