from_name: SJ

body:
Thread convergence!

On 2/10/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> [[Neuro-linguistic_programming]] has 259
>
> On 2/10/06, Jake Waskett <jake at waskett.org> wrote:
> >
> > At time of writing, [[Medical analysis of circumcision]] has 150 inline
> > refs.
> >
> > On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 08:39 +0100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > > [[Katie Holmes]]
> > >
> > > 85 footnotes and a similar number of "bibliography" entries.
> > >
> > > Can anyone top that? :)
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
++SJ


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:PROD]] - a lightweight deletion process

body:
On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion?

Take a cross-section of {all editors, weighted by the (frequency *
size) of their edits}, and ask them to reach a decision on
keeping/deleting an article.  That's what I would call representative
of 'Wikipedia consensus' on its deletion.

Discussion before polling/voting : good.  In practice this not only
better-informs participants, it weights the opinion of those who
participiate in and follow a discussion more strongly than those who
drop in for 30 seconds and leave a 3-word comment or vote.

--SJ


body:
On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion?
>
> No one -- which is why I object so strongly to the idea that deletion should
> be treated differently from other edits; or that deletion should be regarded
> as "final" because of an AFD, as if "the community" has decided that an
> article should be deleted. That is a farce. An AFD means that the people who

Calling this idea a farce is a bit much.

Please remember that the AFD process guarantees that anyone who visits
the article over the course of a week, and anyone browsing AFD who
care about the subject, will be inclined to read the AFD
discussion/vote.  Which is a bit different from "the people who
happened to be looking at AFD at the time".

Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable;
and the system is very far from perfect.  That said, it is better than
a random process

> There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit.

Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week
should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly,
than a single edit by a single user.   This applies equally to AfD
results and to FPC/FAC selections.

--
++SJ


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikipubs Project Proposal.

body:
On 2/11/06, Kernigh <xkernigh at netscape.net> wrote:
> There are some users at Meta who think that the "Wikipubs" proposal is
> illegitimate. Thus the proposal page [1] has entered requests for deletion
> at Meta.
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipubs
<
> However, there is a valid concern here, which is that hundreds of wikis from
> the Internet will create pages for themselves at meta.wikimedia.org, simply
> by pretending that they want to become Wikimedia Foundation projects.

Is this a concern?  I personally see no problem with free and libre
projects, which are interested in merging their content with Wikipedia
content where/as appropriate, having their own page or section on
meta.  Most are not fully enough developed to deserve their own page;
but a mention certainly does not hurt.  This applies equally well to
Wikicities and to other projects.

I am reminded of eBay and its trust system.  They decided at some
point to start worrying about people attempting to use their eBay
reputation on other sites, as indication of their trustworthiness.
eBay wanted them to stay within their own walls or renounce use of
their eBay rep.  So today, even though "like eBay's system" is [sadly
enough :) ] a by-word at identity conferences, they've given up the
chance to take advantage of their early recognition.

If the free and libre knowledge-gathering projects of the world are
competing to get a page on Meta, that's fantastic.  That saves us from
having to go out and collect such lists ourselves, and convince the
site-maintainers that they care about cooperation with other related
efforts.

++SJ


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable;
> and the system is very far from perfect.  That said, it is better than
> a random process

I agree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should do deletion
randomly.

> There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit.
>
> Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week
> should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly,
> than a single edit by a single user.   This applies equally to AfD
> results and to FPC/FAC selections.

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I mean that deletion itself should
be done like any other edit, and not through any process like AFD. Since
this PROD deletion system is closer to the simplicity that I consider ideal,
I endorse it. But I think it could be improved even further.

Ryan


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn

> On 2/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Why should drawing a line be so important?  Giving users
> the maximum
> > flexibility to express who they are is good for everybody,
> because the
> > whole world then has a transparent view of where that individual is
> > coming from.
>
> OK, with the premise that some line needs to be drawn to
> regulate the content of userpages, can anyone think of a
> better line to be drawn?

What about common bloody sense?

I don't think we can draw a precise line, nor do I think that the two
alternatives of "open slather" or "exclude all" are feasible.

If I may make a point, some userboxes are like sticking up those Danish
cartoons. Is a line even possible?

Common sense tells me that if something causes significant disruption in a
goal-oriented community, then that something should be removed. By asking
politely at first and taking increasingly firmer action. But always
remaining polite and fair and understanding.

Peter (Skyring)


body:
On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable;
> > and the system is very far from perfect.  That said, it is better than
> > a random process
>
>
> I agree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should do deletion
> randomly.
>
> > There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit.
> >
> > Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week
> > should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly,
> > than a single edit by a single user.   This applies equally to AfD
> > results and to FPC/FAC selections.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I mean that deletion itself should
> be done like any other edit, and not through any process like AFD. Since
> this PROD deletion system is closer to the simplicity that I consider ideal,
> I endorse it. But I think it could be improved even further.

There's definitely room for a wiki-style 'deletion'; this would not
match many of the current uses of what we call deletion.  Perhaps we
could use a "make invisible" button that lets anyone make an article
'invisible' --
* Not cached or spidered by web-bots
* Only showing up in WP searches if the user explicitly asks to match
invisible items
* When you go to the page, in place of the standard "there is no
article with this title" text, show a "There was an article under this
title which was removed by <user> on <date> (''<reason>'') [link to
invisible text]."
* Invisibility is likewise reversible.

This would not be a substitute for deletion in all cases.   SJ


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea

body:
--- Clemens <milliondollarartwork at googlemail.com>
wrote:http://us.f516.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?box=Foundation%2dl&Mid=7499_21122199_1420311_3049_479_0_142604_-1_0&inc=&Search=&YY=47517&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b
> A few days ago I saw the Million Dollar Homepage conceived
> by Alex Tew. His website generated a gross income of
> $1,037,100 USD by selling image-based links for one dollar per pixel.
>
> So I launched the www.milliondollarartwork.com to help raise some
> money for wikimedia. I really appreciate some feedback.

Neato! However, as Erik explains, advertising is a sticky issue in the Wikimedia community. I'm
sure some people would go ballistic if they saw http://euromillonpixel.com/ as part of a Wikimedia
fundraiser.

So while I personally love the idea, I'm not sure if it is workable without causing a great deal
of rancor in the community. I'm also not certain of the legal ramifications of selling advertising
space (which this clearly is) in regards to our non-profit status.

That said, this type of thing *is* something to keep in mind as the finance committee explores
fundraising options though. We could, for example, automatically give donors who donate over a set
amount pixels based on the amount they donate. This would not be for advertising, but would be
more akin to having your name and a short message on bricks that are used to build a new building.
Doing that would be an in-house thing though.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Giuseppe Delfino

subject: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)

body:
How can I collaborate with them?

>From: Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org,Mailing list per Wikipedia in italiano
><wikiit-l at Wikipedia.org>
>CC: Lucia Clark <luciaclark at luciadentice.com>
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)
>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:17:22 +0100
>
>Hi Giuseppe,
>
>I was about this some time ago - I have some contacts when it comes to
>Griko there are already some communities caring about it - the thing is:
>you need to get them to co-operate and you will really have a great
>success.
>
>I am copying this message to the Italian wikipedia list and to Lucia Clark
>who time agou helped me with the contacts. If we could get this going, that
>would be great.
>
>Ciao, Sabine
>
>
>
>Giuseppe Delfino wrote:
>
>>Hello,i would to create a wikipedia version in Griko,that is a greek
>>dialect spoken in Southern Italy.It is disappearing and i hope to save and
>>spread it...i'll wait for your reply
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Personalizza MSN Messenger con sfondi e fotografie!
>>http://www.ilovemessenger.msn.it/
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>
>
>
>___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da
>PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
Scopri il nuovo MSN Htomail - 10MB di allegati
http://www.msn.it/hotmail/minisite_10


subject: Wikitravel (was Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipubs Project Proposal.)

body:
--- "admin at wikipubs.org" <admin at wikipubs.org> wrote:
> Yes the site currently exists, however this site was designed as a
> prototype to see if the mediawiki software and the wiki-type directory
> was appropriate. I have found that the software easily meets the
> requirements of the proposal and hence would be a possible future
> project. The demo site, email addresses and domains were purchased when
> I first came up with the idea and now am putting this forward for
> discussion as project proposal.

Hi James -

It would seem to me that pub, festival and nightclub guides would be a perfect fit for Wikitravel.
Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project, but it was created by two Wikipedians. The goal of the
project is to create travel guides for every destination in the world. Each article has sections
like 'Get-in', 'Do', 'Buy', 'Eat', and 'Drink'. The 'Drink' section would be the perfect place to
talk about pubs while the 'Do' section would be the place to talk about festivals and nightclubs.

See http://wikitravel.org/en/Montreal#Drink and http://wikitravel.org/en/Montreal#Festivals

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: homey2005 at sympatico.ca

subject: [Wikitech-l] Protected deleted pages and google

body:
Can something be done to prevent "protected deleted" pages from being indexed by google? See, for instance, http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=shane+ruttle&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Thanks,
homey


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)

body:
Hi Giuseppe,

I will contact you a bit later in the day by private mail and create the
contact. I suppose you are italian due to your e-mail address.

Ciao, Sabine

Giuseppe Delfino wrote:

> How can I collaborate with them?
>

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA

body:
Perhaps it should be noted that some admins force
certain editors to become "trolls" through provoking,
but it seems that no-one cares about the provoking
part -- only about the other end that violates the
policy of this-and-that. Many people, for instance,
feel offended when they are being warned in public, on
their talkpage. Most people, I believe, don't like to
be given ultimatums. In my opinion, we should try to
protect the integrity of the Wikipedian and have them
warned in private. I also disagree with the block
images that are added on talk- and user pages.

Further more, as I said above, I don't think that it's
good to have admins that provoke editors only so that
they can block them. And yes, there are such admins.
Unfortunatelly, it seems that the people with
authority (stewards and above) are most impressed by
the work of the admins, instead of those who just want
to edit articles.

Anittas

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> charles matthews wrote:
> > The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified
> set of rules on an
> > issue, so they can subvert the spirit while
> adhering to the letter.
> > Fortunately, percentagewise,they don't account for
> a high proportion of
> > Wikipedians. Most people can get by with some
> rough idea of what is
> > expected, and the realisation that the system is
> relatively forgiving in
> > the case of good-faith mistakes.  Do we codify
> 'relatively forgiving'?
> > Hell no.
>
> I think this is extremely well put.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
#######################################################################
> #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture
> and  Free Knowledge #
> #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a
> free world         #
>
#######################################################################
> > _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] More AfD toxicity

body:
On 2/11/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
> >Hi,
> >  What I see wrong in this process is that the original author
> >couldn't/wasn't willing to "save" the article.  This seems like the
> >right order of events in these situations:
> >
>
> >Author writes hacky article
> >RC patrol tags it as crap
> >Author sees it tagged, sighs with indignation, removes tag, keeps
> working.
> >
> Current process doesn't allow for that however - once afd tag is
> added, it's supposed to stay on until all the randoms get a chance
> to vote on the article in its unfinished state. Even if you fix up
> the article, most people don't go back and update their votes.
> Even worse, if the vote is to delete, people will point to that as
> a reason not to re-create a completed article later.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

When I fix an article, I tell the people who have voted delete, if most of
the votes are in favour  of delete. Most people change their vote. I am yet
to be convinced that AfD is particularly toxic given that any possible
process will mean that articles that people have worked will end up being
deleted and will get upset.

Having said that, the proposed deletion system is working well.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not  a bad idea. It gives people time to work on an article and doesn't get
> the immediate hit your article is being AFDed, but is there some safeguard
> in place against people removing the tag?
>
> If someone removes an AFD tag, you still have the central listing. What
> happens if they remove a prod tag? Do I have to watchlist it and hope it is
> the last edit on the article if I check it?

>From the proposal page, it seems that removing the tag is the method
for contesting deletion. The remover is advised to improve the
article, to tag it for cleanup or similar, or to send it to AfD, but
these are all suggestions.

Much of it would seem to depend on the person who first addresses the
tag, and on which of these courses of action they choose. Hopefully
people will choose wisely!

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: SPUI

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> Yep.  I agree, we have a problem.  The problem is that some users are
> beginning to refuse to use common sense.

I agree. You're talking about the Arbcom, right?


from_name: David Carson

subject: [WikiEN-l] More AfD toxicity

body:
Guettarda wrote:

>Actually, it wasn't crap.  Have a look at the stub that was {{afd}}'d
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cart00ney&oldid=39073156
>
>It's tagged as a stub, it's referenced - it's far from being an FA, but it's
>nowhere near "crap" (not in a general Wikipedia context)
>
>

I don't believe the nominator ever said it was crap. He said it was a
non-notable neologism, and thus the _topic_ was not suitable for
Wikipedia (the topic was crap, if you like). This is a completely
separate issue to the quality of the article's content (which was
excellent, probably higher than 99% of the first saved versions of
articles).

Cheers!
David...


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] More AfD toxicity

body:
Hi,
  Sorry I wrote that in a state of tiredness etc. I didn't mean to
insult that article. I somehow blended the general idea of "RC should
be able to tag crap articles" with this particular article.

I might have a go with this lightweight deletion process...

Steve

On 2/10/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't see why the RC patrol should not tag it as crap, if, indeed,
> > it was crap. I don't think Sean is disputing that his article was
> > crap, just that he was planning on making it better. If he doesn't put
> > an in progress tag on it (and I've never actually seen one, to be
> > honest), then it's not unreasonable that he has to fish his
> > half-finished crap out of the bin before he can keep turning it into a
> > masterpiece.
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> Actually, it wasn't crap.  Have a look at the stub that was {{afd}}'d
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cart00ney&oldid=39073156
>
> It's tagged as a stub, it's referenced - it's far from being an FA, but it's
> nowhere near "crap" (not in a general Wikipedia context)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
Excellent, what's next?

Steve

On 2/11/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >On 2/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Maybe we need a list of priorities for edits.
> >>Number one priority: no copyvio
> >>Number two: no vandalism
> >>
> >>
> >Actually number two would be no libel, wouldn't it.
> >
> >
> Actually, no. No libel is #1. No copyright infringement is #1A. But if I
> had to prioritize, for both legal and PR reasons I would put eliminating
> libel first. No vandalism is a distant #3, assuming the vandalism
> doesn't put anyone in legal jeopardy.
>
> --Michael Snow
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
> Sam Korn wrote:
> >On 2/10/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

> >>What about common bloody sense?

> >As far as I can tell, many people have replaced IAR with ICS (Ignore
> >Common Sense).  Either that or they have real difficulties.
> >
> >Yes, this is the policy I'd like, and that I use.  But that doesn't
> >mean I think it's realistic.  After all, we do live in a real world.
> >
> When we start describing common sense as unrealistic we have
> a problem.

Perhaps we should describe it as uncommon?

Pete, seeking the triumph of reason over logic


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
charles matthews wrote:
> The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified set of rules on an
> issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter.
> Fortunately, percentagewise,they don't account for a high proportion of
> Wikipedians. Most people can get by with some rough idea of what is
> expected, and the realisation that the system is relatively forgiving in
> the case of good-faith mistakes.  Do we codify 'relatively forgiving'?
> Hell no.

I think this is extremely well put.

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


body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free
> speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and
> makes people happy.  You never did have the right to say anything you
> pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
>
> There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.

Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such thing,
even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like
SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)

But Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider.

There's no simple formula that can tell us where to draw the line on
various things, but we have looooong experience now to show that good
people can agree to disagree and will, quite naturally, adjust their
behavior for the good of the project and for the desire of harmonious
relations with others.

Irritating people like to be as obnoxious as possible to prove various
dubious points about free speech and having a tolerant culture.
Sometimes they'll cross the line, and sometimes they won't.  The rest of
us can try to be kind to them and hope they get bored with it as much as
possible.

The _last_ thing we need is a detailed legal formalism within the
project about what is acceptable.  I just ask people to, you know, knock
it off and try (a) not to annoy people and (b) not to be too annnoyed by
others.

We have important work to do. :)

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


body:
SPUI wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
>>> correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
>>> disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
>>> the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
>>> "disreputable" until I am blocked.
>>
>>
>> It's been done. It took quite a while for [[User:Deeceevoice]] to get
>> blocked.
>
>
> Apparently she had various issues with calling others honkeys and the
> like though.

Deeceevoice didn't get blocked, either.  She's editing today in fact,.
You can be quite annoying without getting blocked.  That doesn't make it
a good idea to be annoying.  We put up with a lot, but that doesn't make
trolling a good thing.

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


body:
>>I believe what he's getting at is the fact that the Wikimedia
>>Foundation's database servers all reside in St. Petersburg, and the
>>content on them is thus subject to United States and Florida law.

My own opinion that a discussion of what it is _legal_ in the United
States to advocate on userpages doesn't get us very far at all, since in
most regards, the US has the strongest protection for freedom of speech
in the world.

It's perfectly legal to do a lot of things that still amount to
preposterous trolling that can and should cause us to ask someone to
either knock off or leave the community.

We don't need to be tyrants about people's userpages.  We don't need
extensive rules and regulations about it.  But at the same time we do
need to remind people that, hey, this isn't a radical free speech zone,
and really, trolling others by writing the most outrageous things is
really pointless behavior.

--Jimbo

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


from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> charles matthews wrote:
>
>>The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified set of rules on an
>>issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter.
>>Fortunately, percentagewise,they don't account for a high proportion of
>>Wikipedians. Most people can get by with some rough idea of what is
>>expected, and the realisation that the system is relatively forgiving in
>>the case of good-faith mistakes.  Do we codify 'relatively forgiving'?
>>Hell no.
>
> I think this is extremely well put.

Apologies for bluntness, but I think it is sophistry to explain why
admins who followed process and precedent were 'punished' while those
who did not weren't.

That being said. We have now established new standards. It is decreed by
both yourself and the ArbCom that userpage statements similar to 'This
user is a pedophile' bring the project into disrepute and editors who
harm the project in this way have no right to contribute.

Since this has not been the case to date quite a number of such
'verbotten' comments and users have accumulated and must now apparently
be be purged. Has any thought been given to how this pogrom should be
accomplished?

As I understand it the following statements (going back months and even
years) are now expressly forbidden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon
"Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on
pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since I
am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL
"Lux is male, and is a girl orientated, non-exclusive pedophile. This
means that he is attracted (both sexually and otherwise) to both adult
and non-adult females.
His primary attraction is pre-pubescent females."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silent_War
"And, as any who know me by this alias know, I am a pedophile, mainly a
girllover."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rookiee
"I'm an activist in the Childlove Community. I am a pedosexual and
boylover. I host a podcast titled Pedologues which aims to objectively
look at the issue of multi-generational relationships and how it relates
to child sexuality, western society and law. I'm a self-admitted pedant."

No doubt there are others. Also, have any other 'categories of
disrepute' been established? Should self-described NAZIs, rapists,
and/or Menudo fans be similarly excised from the community?


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] OpenID Support

body:
Evan Prodromou:
> I realize you think it will bring the entire Wikimedia community closer
> together, but I'm dubious. Wikimedia projects have always had a very
> wide berth as far as policy is concerned; my guess is that this top-down
> social engineering effort is going to be poorly accepted. Most people's
> first and perhaps only experience with the feature will be finding out
> that their username has been taken away.

The current specs as well as the implementation strategy are aimed at
minimizing conflict and harm to the community as much as possible. More
active users will receive preference in conflict resolution; there will
be at least one site-level announcement of the transition and its
implications. We will use e-mail addresses where available to send out
transition-related information.

The number of active users who will have to change their username will
hopefully be small. The number of users who have accounts on multiple
projects is higher than you would think -- Commons alone has >25,000
registered users, almost all of which can be assumed to have an account
on the other projects. It's true that me being active on the Ossetian
Wikipedia is unlikely, however, _every_ user is a potentially useful
contributor to other projects in their language, particularly Commons
and Meta.

With a single namespace, it will still be possible to see that users are
new to a project because they don't have userpages yet. You will still
get a nice welcome message, and you will still be treated in the ways of
the wiki. We might eventually make it easier to see existing userpages
of a user across projects, but preserving the "newness" aspect is
important for community dynamics.

 From a usability point of view, the constant hassle of having to deal
with prefixes in many different places of the UI would be a major
drawback. These prefixes would invite false conclusions ("Aha, a
Wikibooks user! Therefore .."), and distract from the idea of a
Wikimedia community.

Not to mention that you want a consistent contributions history. If I
authenticate as Meta:Eloquence tomorrow to Wikipedia, what about my
contributions as EnWikipedia:Eloquence today? Identical users using
different authentication across projects would screw up contribution
histories in a big way and be _really_ confusing.

Being able to look at a user's history across all projects/languages is
a feature that will be really useful for things like Wikimedia-wide
votes, where we want to know exactly what a user has done. Given the
existing contributions histories, and the fact that users might use
different authentication prefixes on different days of the week, this
would be next to impossible without a single namespace.

Every single time I see a username, I would also have to see its prefix
and, if I'm not sure, double-check if they really are the person I think
they are. Every new user would have to understand the concept of
prefixes and how accounts work across multiple projects. It's much less
intuitive than a single namespace.

You could address these problems by offering ways to link accounts, and
only allowing Meta as a prefix, but if you start doing things like that,
you might as well go all the way to complete conflict resolution and a
single namespace.

The cost of multiple namespaces is constant, as opposed to the one-time
cost of transition to a single namespace. Finally, a single Wikimedia
namespace is beneficial to the other OpenID projects as well. If we
support OpenID, all the benefits of uniqueness will be transferred to
projects you authenticate against from Wikimedia. When Jimbo
Wales at Wikimedia comments on your blog, you know that it's His Royal
Highness and not Willy on Wheels.

Erik


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright complaints

body:
Kim Bruning wrote:

>On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:23:34PM -0500, Patrick, Brad wrote:
>
>
>>To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
>>copyvio.  It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
>>delete.  The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
>>actual systemic copyvio problem.
>>
>>
>While I thank you for that statement, it's not yet sufficient.
>
>The english wikipedia community currently does not accept
>"unilaterally deleting out of process" and has severly punished those
>who do so.
>
>
For copyright infringements where we have an actual complaint by an
affected party, nobody has ever given me any difficulty about
unilaterally deleting pages. In some cases I've done so even without a
complaint in hand in order to clean up page history before it gets more
infected, but I try to let the community process do its work otherwise.

--Michael Snow


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright complaints


from_name: Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]])

body:
Just looking through the ist of articles on PROD, and seeing how they
have been handled, you can see that the process is having a positive
effect. It seems to be all about less talk and more positive action.
If someone gets awkward about *their* article being on PROD, then it's
time to take to AFD, isn't it?

Gareth Hughes.

On 11/02/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable;
> > > and the system is very far from perfect.  That said, it is better than
> > > a random process
> >
> >
> > I agree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should do deletion
> > randomly.
> >
> > > There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit.
> > >
> > > Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week
> > > should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly,
> > > than a single edit by a single user.   This applies equally to AfD
> > > results and to FPC/FAC selections.
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I mean that deletion itself should
> > be done like any other edit, and not through any process like AFD. Since
> > this PROD deletion system is closer to the simplicity that I consider ideal,
> > I endorse it. But I think it could be improved even further.
>
>
> There's definitely room for a wiki-style 'deletion'; this would not
> match many of the current uses of what we call deletion.  Perhaps we
> could use a "make invisible" button that lets anyone make an article
> 'invisible' --
> * Not cached or spidered by web-bots
> * Only showing up in WP searches if the user explicitly asks to match
> invisible items
> * When you go to the page, in place of the standard "there is no
> article with this title" text, show a "There was an article under this
> title which was removed by <user> on <date> (''<reason>'') [link to
> invisible text]."
> * Invisibility is likewise reversible.
>
> This would not be a substitute for deletion in all cases.   SJ
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
charles matthews wrote:

> Apologies in return.  I made it abundantly clear during the ArbCom elections
> that I didn't think precedent is a good basis for Arbitrators having their
> hands tied.  Therefore I also don't think much of your extrapolations.
> Asking that each case be treated on its merits is a much better bet.

While there must always be room for flexibility and re-assessment there
are also reasons that every established legal system on the planet
relies heavily on precedence. No, I am not suggesting that ArbCom should
follow a legalistic design (any moreso than it does already), but the
logic behind the principle of precedence applies in any case.

A few months back there was an intense discussion about pedophiles on
Wikipedia... which allowed them to stay openly. That was a precedent.
The various user pages where editors have identified themselves as
pedophiles yet not had these statements removed or their accounts
blocked over long periods of time were precedents.

We CAN change the situation (and apparently now HAVE done so), but the
precedents should not be ignored. The 'bad actors' in this were largely
following what were, in truth, the established norms... but were then
judged against standards which simply did not exist at the time they
made their decisions. That is capricious and inherently destructive.

As for 'extrapolations':

"While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit
there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring
the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls
into this category. Note that this should not be construed to bar
reasonable criticism of the project."

That's from the final decision. The pedophile userbox, as I recall,
contained the text 'This user is a pedophile'. Thus, the only
'extrapolation' here is that the statements I listed were "like" that
one. I can't imagine that anyone would claim they are not. So... why are
exceedingly similar statements being treated in completely different
ways? Again, it seems capricious... did we establish standards solely
for the purpose of shaping the outcome of this single case?

No, ArbCom should not have their 'hands tied' by precedent. However,
acknowledgement of it's EXISTENCE would probably help them to arbitrate
without being arbitrary.


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 2/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
>
> >On 2/10/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What about common bloody sense?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >As far as I can tell, many people have replaced IAR with ICS (Ignore
> >Common Sense).  Either that or they have real difficulties.
> >
> >Yes, this is the policy I'd like, and that I use.  But that doesn't
> >mean I think it's realistic.  After all, we do live in a real world.
> >
> When we start describing common sense as unrealistic we have a problem.
>
> Ec

Yep.  I agree, we have a problem.  The problem is that some users are
beginning to refuse to use common sense.

--
Sam


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Re: Guardian article: Doctoring the
	past - Wiki style(Patrick Barkham)

body:
On 10/02/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote in message
> news:43ECABD3.8000109 at wikia.com...

> > Angela's mum saw me on Channel 4. :)

> Available here:
> http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=141

Nice one! Anyone who can watch this should.

- d.


from_name: Clemens

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea

body:
A few days ago I saw the Million Dollar Homepage conceived
by Alex Tew. His website generated a gross income of
$1,037,100 USD by selling image-based links for one dollar per pixel.

So I launched the www.milliondollarartwork.com to help raise some
money for wikimedia. I really appreciate some feedback.

Thanks!
Clemens


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea


body:
charles matthews wrote:
> No, no.  There has to be a connection with a reality principle: bad
> judgement leads to consequences.  Otherwise we cannot get on with the big
> project.  'Capricious' is managing to look down the telescope the wrong way.
> There has _always_ been the principle that 'be bold' applies to editing, but
> admin powers are to use with great caution.  I mean, this goes back to the
> days Larry Sanger was on the project!

<sigh> But Charles, that clearly isn't the principle on which
'penalties' were based. If it were then why did David Gerard receive no
penalty? Physchim62? Doc glasgow? MarkSweep?

David Gerard has stated that he did not know that there was already a
wheel war going on when he first deleted the template... he saw it and
nuked immediately without checking. He also described both the template
creator and the person using it as 'vile trolls'... and the people
discussing the matter on WP:AN as 'a consensus of the stupid'
(paraphrasing in both cases, but accurate) - he has since, laudably,
acknowledged that he was surprised to find that they WEREN'T actually
trolls and that he (and many of us) could have been more diplomatic. How
does all that square with the need for "great caution" which ostensibly
got the others into trouble?

El C was clearly not particularly 'cautious' in making nasty comments to
Carnildo and retributively blocking him, but received only a "reprimand".

Et cetera.

The fact that every admin who was on 'Jimbo's side' was given a pass
(except for El C's 'reprimand') seemed to suggest THAT as the dividing
line rather than 'caution'. Yet, of those receiving penalties, only
Karmafist took action after Jimbo had stepped in. Hence my statement
that most were judged against a standard that did not exist at the time
they took their actions. To me the 'cautious' approach would be to
follow procedure... NOT indefinitely blocking someone for things not
covered under blocking policy and which a strong consensus (whether 'of
the stupid' or no) opposed / NOT deleting templates out of process while
a vote is going on and no applicable 'speedy' criteria exists (again, T1
was created after the fact). THAT'S cautious. Stopping to discuss and
follow process. Mocking such as 'wiki-lawyering' seems to reduce
"caution" to 'correctly guessing how the powers that be will rule on the
situation'... with none of those nasty 'hand tying' precedents to serve
as guides for such a guess. :]


from_name: Philip Welch

body:
> And prod or PWD isn't representative of the Wikipedia community
> either. It
> just happens to involve people who know it was tagged and have the
> energy to
> stay involved and ward off edit warriors.

As soon as the tag is removed the timer is reset. "Warding off edit
warriors" is insufficient to make PROD work?in fact, any disputed
deletion should operate like DFA and not like PROD.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Giuseppe Delfino

subject: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)

body:
yes,i am...but im'a griko-speaker,so i have greek ascendence...

>From: Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)
>Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:36:15 +0100
>
>Hi Giuseppe,
>
>I will contact you a bit later in the day by private mail and create the
>contact. I suppose you are italian due to your e-mail address.
>
>Ciao, Sabine
>
>Giuseppe Delfino wrote:
>
>>How can I collaborate with them?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi
>e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
Personalizza MSN Messenger con sfondi e fotografie!
http://www.ilovemessenger.msn.it/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)

body:
*i'm
>From: Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)
>Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:36:15 +0100
>
>Hi Giuseppe,
>
>I will contact you a bit later in the day by private mail and create the
>contact. I suppose you are italian due to your e-mail address.
>
>Ciao, Sabine
>
>Giuseppe Delfino wrote:
>
>>How can I collaborate with them?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi
>e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
Ricerche online pi? semplici e veloci con MSN Toolbar!
http://toolbar.msn.it/


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea

body:
If I could travel back in time, the Million Dollar Homepage is one idea
I would immediately implement. :-) Unfortunately, I think it really only
works once to full effect. Certainly, this type of advertising does have
advantages over more traditional forms, the relative permanence of the
ads being one of them. But there are good reasons why most people who
have traffic-heavy sites wouldn't accept permanent ads for a one-time
fee. It worked for the original Million Dollar Homepage because it had
no content except for the ad itself, which had novelty value and
attracted much media hype.

Good luck in generating hype for this -- it seems unlikely that the
Foundation would directly promote it, given the associated community
risks (check out the Answers.com controversy), the fact that it's
separately controlled, and the relative uncertainty of revenue compared
to more traditional forms of advertising. Perhaps you'll find an
interesting spin, such as 250 (and up to 500K total) free pixels for
open source or free content projects. That could fill the canvas a bit
and provide an incentive for others to invest, given that it'll also
generate pageviews.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea


from_name: Evan Martin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Protected deleted pages and google

body:
You can't control off-wikipedia links to deleted pages, either.
Definitely prefer the meta tags.
See also:  http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html

On 2/11/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
>  To avoid this, it should have the <meta name="robots"
> content="noindex,follow" /> tag on head.
> However, i don't think there is a method to generate meta tags with the wiki
> code. Maybe we should make a new page-status non-indexable to avoid google
> indexing of such pages?
>
> Another aproach wouldbe avoiding the links to that page to make google not
> finding it but it is linked only by pages as  Wikipedia:Articles for
> deletion/Log/* and  Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation
> so no way because it should stay. We could set that pages to not following
> the links... if we had the method previously explain, so.. no way.
>
> <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> escribi? en el mensaje
> news:20060211132825.UMBW15582.tomts46-srv.bellnexxia.net@[209.226.175.82]...
> > Can something be done to prevent "protected deleted" pages from being
> > indexed by google? See, for instance,
> > http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=shane+ruttle&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
> >
> > Thanks,
> > homey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Alfio Puglisi

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea

body:
You have 1000x1000 pixels at $1 each, but you are selling a 10x10
pixels box at $10? The price of a box should be $100.

Alfio

On 2/11/06, Clemens <milliondollarartwork at googlemail.com> wrote:
> A few days ago I saw the Million Dollar Homepage conceived
> by Alex Tew. His website generated a gross income of
> $1,037,100 USD by selling image-based links for one dollar per pixel.
>
> So I launched the www.milliondollarartwork.com to help raise some
> money for wikimedia. I really appreciate some feedback.
>
> Thanks!
> Clemens
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] WMF lawyer on copyright: if in doubt, delete.

body:
Short quotes are probably not, on the whole, a major issue, as they
don't seem to be in most other forms of media. (I could see problems
in individual cases, but barring that, I think our policy on them is
probably adequate on the whole.) Media is another story, though;
outside of the internet (in which image copyvio is rampant), most use
of media is much more constrained on this issue, and we should feel
similarly constrained, I think.

FF

On 2/9/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> >On 09/02/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Like this is news?
> >>
> >
> >It's not news, but it's rather nice to be able to point and say "Look,
> >our *lawyer* says we should be doing this!"
> >
> If you look at the whole thread, it's not really a legal opinion;
> all he's saying is that the issue of copyright should be taken
> seriously, which is a long ways from saying whether we're allowed
> to have even short quotes of copyrighted text in articles.
>
> (We don't even have a way to identify copyrighted quotes
> that might need to be scrubbed out.)
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On Feb 11, 2006, at 3:22 PM, SPUI wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such
>> thing,
>> even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people
>> like
>> SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
>
> Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that
> convinced me to stop contributing.

Jimmy, thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced SPUI
to stop contributing ;)

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Jitse Niesen

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-10

body:
On 2/11/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> The optional use of tidy is a temporary hack that got put in rather than fix up
> the parser's own HTML balancing code, which is a horrible piece of crap that I
> wrote in 2002 when I didn't know what the hell I was doing. :)
>
> If you'd like try rewriting it so it balances end tags properly, detects illegal
> nesting cases, and understands MathML, that would be super awesome.

Hmm, I think it would be easier for me to change tidy so that it
understands MathML. Why do you want to get rid of tidy?

The MathML is generated by ourselves and is not under control of the
user. Hence, we can assume that it is correct, and in principle, it
does not need to go through the sanitizer (this also holds for the
HTML generated by Parser.php, for instance in wikitables). However,
the search-and-replace design of Parser.php makes it impossible to
separate the tags generated by the MediaWiki and the tags included by
the user in the wikitext, which is why everything has to be run
through the sanitizer. Is this correct?

I'm asking to make sure that I understand how
Santizer::removeHTMLtags() ties in with the rest of the code. I do not
want to criticize the design of the parser; it must be good because it
runs the best website of the world.

Cheers,
Jitse


from_name: SJ

subject: [Foundation-l] Open meeting today?

body:
There is another open meeting scheduled for today, in just 10 minutes.
 If you were thinking of coming, you might get something out of the
partial minutes from last week's discussion:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_meeting%2C_February_5%2C_2006/Minutes
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings

++SJ


subject: [Foundation-l] Open meeting today?


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Angela wrote:
>
>
>>>You've come in months after I was trying to sort this out and
>>>completely contradicted what was thrashed out then. It really would
>>>have been helpful if you had actually participated in things months
>>>back. There are going to be more than a few rather annoyed Wikisource
>>>users at this news.
>>>
>>>
>>Can you please point out where Wikisource agreed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND
>>text? I don't recall any mention of it on any of the mailing lists I'm
>>on. It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all
>>Foundation projects require freely licensed text.
>>
>>
>Totally.  That's been foundation policy forever.
>
IIRC the issue was about whether resolutions of the UN Security Council
were copyrightable.under US law.  If they are not copyrightable the
issue of licences doesn't matter.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright complaints

body:
Kim Bruning wrote:

>On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 12:12:53PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>>For copyright infringements where we have an actual complaint by an
>>affected party, (...)
>>
>>
>The problem is where there is no such complaint as yet, or where
>people incorrectly claim "fair use" in an attempt to escape
>deletion.
>
It presumes bad faith to say that they claim fair use to escape deletion.

Presuming good faith would put a motivation to improve the article first.

How do you distinguish between a "correct" and an "incorrect" fair use
claim.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright complaints


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright complaints

body:
Kim Bruning wrote:

>On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 12:12:53PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>>For copyright infringements where we have an actual complaint by an
>>affected party, (...)
>>
>>
>The problem is where there is no such complaint as yet, or where
>people incorrectly claim "fair use" in an attempt to escape
>deletion.
>
>
If there is no such complaint, what's the urgency that requires you to
unilaterally delete things? Unless you wish to argue, as some people
have about the regular deletion process, that it regularly reaches
incorrect results, I'm not sure why it's so important to short-circuit
the normal procedures for removing copyrighted material that isn't
properly licensed.

--Michael Snow


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright complaints


from_name: charles matthews

body:
"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA" wrote

 >In my opinion, we should try to
> protect the integrity of the Wikipedian and have them
> warned in private.

Neither you nor I nor anyone knows all the private email that goes on.

That would be because it's private.  In fact there is a high premium put on
the transparency of doing the business in public.  What do you think?  Are
people more polite in private, or on the site where everyone could see?

> Further more, as I said above, I don't think that it's
> good to have admins that provoke editors only so that
> they can block them. And yes, there are such admins.

Maybe you're right.  We should all show restraint.

The basic rule that experience teaches is that when good behaviour matters
most, it is least likely.

> Unfortunatelly, it seems that the people with
> authority (stewards and above) are most impressed by
> the work of the admins, instead of those who just want
> to edit articles.

If it comes to a dispute, the record of what admins write on the site is of
great importance.  I don't find your position entirely consistent.

Charles


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
>>> That's impossible--PROD can't handle contested deletions, only
>>> uncontested.
>>
>>
>> Any particular reason why?
>
>
> All you need to stop PROD is one person to remove the tag. In a
> dispute, people would edit war over the PROD tag until finally  settling
> down and having a consensus-finding discussion?i.e.,  engaging in the
> AfD process.
>
> This is why PROD is only a partial replacement. That said, we can
> reform AfD so that we don't launch headfirst into the voting (yes.
> VOTING)  process and actually discuss our concerns first, with the  help
> of an impartial admin-facilitator whose job is to carry out the
> ultimate decision. This sounds laborious but if PROD can handle most  of
> the load we can spare the resources.
>

A few thoughts on the matter:

- Complementary to the {{prod}} tag is {{prod-2}}, which says "I agree
with this nomination".

- For articles that have been tagged with {{prod}}, but the deletion is
disputed for reasons which cannot immediately be expressed in the
article, {{hangon}} (currently used to contest CSDs)

- Inspired by DFA, AfD should be changed from 7 days of voting to 5 days
of *discussion* followed by 2 days of /straw polling/; remember,
[[m:Voting is evil|]].

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060211/6cd69ffe/attachment.pgp


body:
"Jimmy Wales" wrote

> My own opinion that a discussion of what it is _legal_ in the United
> States to advocate on userpages doesn't get us very far at all, since in
> most regards, the US has the strongest protection for freedom of speech
> in the world.

Or, are _we_ more worried about incitement to serial bigamy, or
carefully-constructed hate speech?

Charles


from_name: Platonides

body:
 To avoid this, it should have the <meta name="robots"
content="noindex,follow" /> tag on head.
However, i don't think there is a method to generate meta tags with the wiki
code. Maybe we should make a new page-status non-indexable to avoid google
indexing of such pages?

Another aproach wouldbe avoiding the links to that page to make google not
finding it but it is linked only by pages as  Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/Log/* and  Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation
so no way because it should stay. We could set that pages to not following
the links... if we had the method previously explain, so.. no way.

<homey2005 at sympatico.ca> escribi? en el mensaje
news:20060211132825.UMBW15582.tomts46-srv.bellnexxia.net@[209.226.175.82]...
> Can something be done to prevent "protected deleted" pages from being
> indexed by google? See, for instance,
> http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=shane+ruttle&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
>
> Thanks,
> homey


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] RE: Using MWdumper

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Incidentally, I've uploaded a new version of mwdumper.jar. This doesn't yet
> include a GUI frontend, but does:
> * bundle the Xerces XML library so it works on Java 1.4
> * bundle the MySQL connector, so it _might_ work to connect to a database
> directly without fetching a separate driver jar (not tested)
> * should run through our dumps on the default heap size
>
> http://download.wikimedia.org/tools/mwdumper.jar

Hope this is OK, but I've always had a niggling feeling that there was
something just slightly wrong with the MWDumper documentation /
README.txt, but I could never quite put my finger on why. And then it
hit me: at a philosophical level, it just does not fit. It's written
documentation, about a wiki tool, created by wiki gurus, and discussed
on a wiki mailing list, but yet it is completely static read-only
information: At the risk of preaching to choir, this documentation
really needs to be on a wiki - just like everything else - so that
it's users can expand it, clarify it, and improve it.

Hope you don't mind, but I grabbed the README and copied it to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MWDumper , and then I added
some bits that I thought were missing.

Assuming you don't object, you may wish to make
http://download.wikimedia.org/tools/README.txt either redirect to the
above URL (or just change the text to say: "see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MWDumper").

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
And prod or PWD isn't representative of the Wikipedia community either. It
just happens to involve people who know it was tagged and have the energy to
stay involved and ward off edit warriors.

Mgm

On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion?
>
>
> No one -- which is why I object so strongly to the idea that deletion
> should
> be treated differently from other edits; or that deletion should be
> regarded
> as "final" because of an AFD, as if "the community" has decided that an
> article should be deleted. That is a farce. An AFD means that the people
> who
> happened to be looking at AFD at the time thought the article should be
> deleted. Those people can and do make mistakes, which is why those
> mistakes
> should be easily reversible.
>
> No edit on Wikipedia, including deletion, should be regarded as final or
> as
> having a mandate from some immutable process. There is no good reason to
> treat deletion differently than any other edit.
>
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote

> Apologies for bluntness, but I think it is sophistry to explain why admins
> who followed process and precedent were 'punished' while those who did not
> weren't.

Apologies in return.  I made it abundantly clear during the ArbCom elections
that I didn't think precedent is a good basis for Arbitrators having their
hands tied.  Therefore I also don't think much of your extrapolations.
Asking that each case be treated on its merits is a much better bet.

Charles


body:
On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable;
> > and the system is very far from perfect.  That said, it is better than
> > a random process
>
>
> I agree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should do deletion
> randomly.
>
> > There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other
> edit.
> >
> > Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week
> > should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly,
> > than a single edit by a single user.   This applies equally to AfD
> > results and to FPC/FAC selections.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I mean that deletion itself
> should
> be done like any other edit, and not through any process like AFD. Since
> this PROD deletion system is closer to the simplicity that I consider
> ideal,
> I endorse it. But I think it could be improved even further.
>
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
If deletion was done like any other edit, we would have to somehow stop
wheelwarring about deletion (which is now greatly confined). There'd be
people deleting articles about Penises and certain Cartoons just because
they disagree with it. I find a tag on the article a lot less intrusive than
finding an article deleted by one user's whim. The opinion of one user is
hardly representative of the community.

The whole point that the actual deletion button is given to admins is that
they know the deletion guidelines and are supposed to be trusted members. If
deletion/invisibility  powers were given to anyone, we'd end up with a mess
- useful articles deleted because one person didn't like them. And then
there's the strain on the server when substantially large articles get
deleted and undeleted multiple times.

Mgm


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] Open meeting today?

body:
Hmm, I probably won't make it.  Can someone ask for me if the deal
with Answers Corporation is on or off and if it's on when it's going
to start happening.

Anthony

On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is another open meeting scheduled for today, in just 10 minutes.
>  If you were thinking of coming, you might get something out of the
> partial minutes from last week's discussion:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_meeting%2C_February_5%2C_2006/Minutes
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings
>
> ++SJ
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Open meeting today?


body:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>- Inspired by DFA, AfD should be changed from 7 days of voting to 5 days
>>of *discussion* followed by 2 days of /straw polling/; remember,
>>[[m:Voting is evil|]].
>
>
>
> I think I'm not understanding the difference between a straw poll and a
> vote. And it still doesn't address concerns that the editors who frequent
> AFD may not be representative of wikipedia consensus on deletion.
>

Who /is/ representative of Wikipedia consensus on deletion?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060211/bac61786/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Open meeting today?

body:
The meeting wasn't quite that open; just about matters related to the
recently created committees.

-- SJ

On 2/11/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Hmm, I probably won't make it.  Can someone ask for me if the deal
> with Answers Corporation is on or off and if it's on when it's going
> to start happening.
>
> Anthony
>
> On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is another open meeting scheduled for today, in just 10 minutes.
> >  If you were thinking of coming, you might get something out of the
> > partial minutes from last week's discussion:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_meeting%2C_February_5%2C_2006/Minutes
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings
> >
> > ++SJ

--
++SJ


subject: [Foundation-l] Open meeting today?


from_name: SPUI

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such thing,
> even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like
> SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)

Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me
to stop contributing.


subject: [Foundation-l] Open meeting today?

body:
Ah, and as it turns out I was apparently about an hour late anyway.

Anthony

On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The meeting wasn't quite that open; just about matters related to the
> recently created committees.
>
> -- SJ
>
> On 2/11/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Hmm, I probably won't make it.  Can someone ask for me if the deal
> > with Answers Corporation is on or off and if it's on when it's going
> > to start happening.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > On 2/11/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There is another open meeting scheduled for today, in just 10 minutes.
> > >  If you were thinking of coming, you might get something out of the
> > > partial minutes from last week's discussion:
> > >
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_meeting%2C_February_5%2C_2006/Minutes
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings
> > >
> > > ++SJ
>
>
> --
> ++SJ
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Open meeting today?


from_name: Angela

body:
> I possibly misunderstood it, by I think that if I have some noncommercial or
> no-derivates license (such as CC-BY-NC-ND), then I am allowed to upload
> that source text to en.Wikisource.

No, you are not allowed to do that. The text under the edit box states
"Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be
released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not
compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't
be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.

Angela.


body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

>Are you thinking of [[Wikipedia:No binding decisions]]?

No.

Charles


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
Are you thinking of [[Wikipedia:No binding decisions]]?

Steve

On 2/11/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote
>
> > Apologies for bluntness, but I think it is sophistry to explain why admins
> > who followed process and precedent were 'punished' while those who did not
> > weren't.
>
> Apologies in return.  I made it abundantly clear during the ArbCom elections
> that I didn't think precedent is a good basis for Arbitrators having their
> hands tied.  Therefore I also don't think much of your extrapolations.
> Asking that each case be treated on its merits is a much better bet.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote

> The 'bad actors' in this were largely following what were, in truth, the
> established norms... but were then judged against standards which simply
> did not exist at the time they made their decisions. That is capricious
> and inherently destructive.

No, no.  There has to be a connection with a reality principle: bad
judgement leads to consequences.  Otherwise we cannot get on with the big
project.  'Capricious' is managing to look down the telescope the wrong way.
There has _always_ been the principle that 'be bold' applies to editing, but
admin powers are to use with great caution.  I mean, this goes back to the
days Larry Sanger was on the project!

Charles


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Angela wrote:
>>You've come in months after I was trying to sort this out and
>>completely contradicted what was thrashed out then. It really would
>>have been helpful if you had actually participated in things months
>>back. There are going to be more than a few rather annoyed Wikisource
>>users at this news.
>
>
> Can you please point out where Wikisource agreed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND
> text? I don't recall any mention of it on any of the mailing lists I'm
> on. It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all
> Foundation projects require freely licensed text.

Totally.  That's been foundation policy forever.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] RE: Using MWdumper

body:
> I think I'd rather see that at www.mediawiki.org, as the tool is not specific to
> English-language Wikipedia.

Done - now at: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MWDumper

> (Incidentally, a basic GUI for importing direct to a database now works in CVS.
> When I get a chance I'll poke it up to be able to create tables, and release a
> friendly package.)

Sounds good - I personally won't use the GUI, at least in the short
term (although I'm quite sure others will, given the recent OSX person
that was asking how to run it), but the ability to create the relevant
tables from nothing would IMHO be very useful.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And prod or PWD isn't representative of the Wikipedia community either.

I agree absolutely. There is no process that is representative of community
consensus and that is why there can be no edit* that should be treated as
immutable or impossible to reverse, as AFD is treated.

*possible exceptions could be admin deletions of illegal/defamatory content

Ryan


body:
SPUI wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such thing,
>> even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like
>> SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
>
>
> Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me
> to stop contributing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332

Good riddance.

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


body:
On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> If deletion was done like any other edit, we would have to somehow stop
> wheelwarring about deletion (which is now greatly confined).

And if you made an encyclopedia that anyone could edit, you would have to
somehow stop
edit warring about content disputes. I know I am being sarcastic about this,
as I have been in
the past, but I really can't believe that anyone on a Wiki seriously raises
this objection. We don't
have votes to determine how any other edits should be done, that are
regarded as final once the
vote is completed-- and with good reason. But we do with deletion. Why?

The whole point that the actual deletion button is given to admins is that
> they know the deletion guidelines and are supposed to be trusted members.
> If
> deletion/invisibility  powers were given to anyone, we'd end up with a
> mess
> - useful articles deleted because one person didn't like them. And then
> there's the strain on the server when substantially large articles get
> deleted and undeleted multiple times.

1) This still begs the question why deletion should be treated differently
than other edits. We don't
require that only people who understand the editing guidelines can use the
"edit" button, but we do
require it for deletion. Why?

2) Please ask the devs if it strains the server to have articles blanked and
unblanked. This is already
the case with vandalism, yet the servers seem to chug along fine. I want to
know if there actually
is any evidence that this would be any serious problem for the servers that
isn't already the case with
vandals.

Ryan


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 2/11/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>>Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such thing,
>>>even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like
>>>SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
>>
>>Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me
>>to stop contributing.
>
>
> You weren't banned because of moral panic.  Your userpage wasn't
> deleted because of moral panic. Your talk page hasn't been protected
> because of moral panic.  All these things happened because you decided
> to engage in trolling instead of discussion.  And trolling isn't
> allowed on Wikipedia.

I was having some fun in my userspace. You decided to react badly to it.


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> SPUI wrote:
>
>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such thing,
>>>even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like
>>>SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
>>
>>
>>Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me
>>to stop contributing.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332
>
> Good riddance.

Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year ago,
I would never have wasted my time here.


from_name: Snowspinner

body:
On Feb 11, 2006, at 7:31 PM, SPUI wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> SPUI wrote:
>>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such
>>>> thing,
>>>> even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from
>>>> people like
>>>> SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that
>>> convinced me
>>> to stop contributing.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332
>> Good riddance.
>
> Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year
> ago, I would never have wasted my time here.

Dammit, Jimbo, why didn't you make your stance clear a year ago?

-Phil


body:
On 2/11/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > SPUI wrote:
> >
> >>Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such thing,
> >>>even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like
> >>>SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me
> >>to stop contributing.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332
> >
> > Good riddance.
>
> Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year ago,
> I would never have wasted my time here.

Thank God Jimmy doesn't speak German very well.  Now if only I can learn it.

Anthony


body:
Snowspinner wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2006, at 7:31 PM, SPUI wrote:
>
>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>> SPUI wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such
>>>>> thing,
>>>>> even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from  people
>>>>> like
>>>>> SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that
>>>> convinced me
>>>> to stop contributing.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332
>>> Good riddance.
>>
>> Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year
>> ago, I would never have wasted my time here.
>
> Dammit, Jimbo, why didn't you make your stance clear a year ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/Archive#Statement
Hello, lynch mob.


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 2/10/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm willing to listen to any ideas about reforming AFD, but I tend to
> think
> that the whole idea of AFD is like putting a round peg in a square hole,
> and
> that it is probably a better idea to just scrap the whole thing rather
> than
> waste time fixing something that is fundamentally broken.

It astonishes me that people are still making these kinds of obviously false
assertions; is it simply the hope that repeating them often enough will
somehow make them true?

The truth is that 95% of the decisions made by AfD (and perhaps even more)
are correct ones; unencyclopedic articles are deleted, and good articles are
rapidly kept.  Even those people who consistently assert that AfD is "toxic"
admit that.  All systems have flaws, and I've never seen any evidence that
*any* other system would have a higher accuracy rate.

Is there any way these threads could avoid this kind of rhetoric in the
future?  Or is it just a lost cause?

Jay.


from_name: Kim Bruning

subject: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

in_reply_to:
<5E85BEBD53B83F45B2B52761ED963FE607D0963C@tpaex1.us.firm.fowlerwhite.com>;
	from bpatrick@fowlerwhite.com on Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:23:34PM -0500

body:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:23:34PM -0500, Patrick, Brad wrote:
> To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> copyvio.  It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> delete.  The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> actual systemic copyvio problem.

While I thank you for that statement, it's not yet sufficient.

The english wikipedia community currently does not accept
"unilaterally deleting out of process" and has severly punished those
who do so.

Due to the nature of the wiki, I can get people to listen to me, but
I cannot give orders. I have to come up with reasoned arguments why
people would voluntarily want to take some course of action.

Could you help me by providing those? Preferably we could do this by
creating a page on the english wikipedia, detailing such reasoning.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

body:
charles matthews wrote:

> Sorry, I just switch off when people start up with the 'given a pass' talk.
> I don't think there was ever a question raised against David Gerard's
> judgement.  If you can't see why, it's the end of the conversation.

Oh, I think I can see why, but yes... that'd be the end of the conversation.


from_name: David Newton

body:
>No, you are not allowed to do that. The text under the edit box states
>"Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be
>released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not
>compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't
>be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.

>Angela.

Funny, I was trying to find out whether that was the case a few months
ago with respect to Wikisource. What happened back then suggested that
it was NOT the case. Have a look at the mailing list archives for
November and December 2005 and you will see what I mean.

I posted about the Wikisource copyright licence ambiguity to
foundation-l and the Wikisource Scriptorium and got very unhelpful
answers. I therefore went ahead and started and consultation about
what the terms of the Wikisource copyright page should be. The
conclusion of that consultation was that it was not only free licences
that people wanted on Wikisource. Free licences are certainly
prefereable, but there are things that are not available under free
licences. We also have a serious problem with "fair use" at Wikisource
where people are posting copyvios and then claiming "fair use".
Personally I'm in favour of banning "fair use" contributions to
Wikisource given that Wikisource reproduces the whole of a work.

You've come in months after I was trying to sort this out and
completely contradicted what was thrashed out then. It really would
have been helpful if you had actually participated in things months
back. There are going to be more than a few rather annoyed Wikisource
users at this news.

David Newton


body:
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote

> The fact that every admin who was on 'Jimbo's side' was given a pass
> (except for El C's 'reprimand') seemed to suggest THAT as the dividing
> line rather than 'caution'.

Sorry, I just switch off when people start up with the 'given a pass' talk.
I don't think there was ever a question raised against David Gerard's
judgement.  If you can't see why, it's the end of the conversation.

Charles


from_name: Jake Nelson

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> We've discussed adding a parser tag such as __NOINDEX__, which would cause the necessary meta tag to
> appear in the header, but we were worried about abuse, such as using it to mark POV disputes, sneaky
> vandalism, misguided attempts to systematically de-index the entire wikipedia namespace, that sort
> of thing.

Parser tag might be easier to work in, but I think non-indexing is
something we should probably limit to admins. Maybe a checkbox when
protecting a page ("[] Prevent search engine indexing of this page")?

-- Jake Nelson


body:
On 2/11/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The truth is that 95% of the decisions made by AfD (and perhaps even more)
> are correct ones

I agree absolutely. But I think this is more of a function of the fact that
95% the time,
it's obvious that an article should either be deleted, or it shouldn't; not
any particular
quality of AFD. In these cases, the same decision would have been reached
under any
deletion system. The only real difference is that under PWD it would have
been reached
faster, but I'll be willing to say that is a trivial contrast.

The basis upon which I'm judging the various possible deletion systems is
the 5% of
articles where it isn't clear whether it ought to be deleted.

Ryan


from_name: John Lee

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>>> That's impossible--PROD can't handle contested deletions, only
>>> uncontested.
>>
>>
>> Any particular reason why?
>
>
> All you need to stop PROD is one person to remove the tag. In a
> dispute, people would edit war over the PROD tag until finally
> settling down and having a consensus-finding discussion?i.e.,
> engaging in the AfD process.
>
> This is why PROD is only a partial replacement. That said, we can
> reform AfD so that we don't launch headfirst into the voting (yes.
> VOTING)  process and actually discuss our concerns first, with the
> help of an impartial admin-facilitator whose job is to carry out the
> ultimate decision. This sounds laborious but if PROD can handle most
> of the load we can spare the resources.
>
In other words, ala Discussions for Adminship (DFA)? Hell, yeah. Right
now I often end up relisting debates because an article was
substantially rewritten and so the bulk of the "votes" to delete/keep
lack proper rationales.

John Lee


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] So much for GFDL compatibility with cc-by-sa

body:
Yeah, I don't see anything in that which implies that CC-BY-SA isn't
compatible. The exact wording is:

"As your question illustrates, people have a tendency to disregard the
differences between the various Creative Commons licenses, lumping
them together as a single thing. That is as mixed-up as supposing San
Francisco and Death Valley have similar weather because they're both
in California.

"Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at
least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling
Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, don't even permit that,
which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these
licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that
common label for something substantial.

"I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative
Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable. It
would be self-delusion to try to endorse just some of the Creative
Commons licenses, because people lump them together; they will
misconstrue any endorsement of some as a blanket endorsement of all. I
therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons
entirely."

I'm not sure that's meant to imply license incompatibility. It sounds
to me like RMS is just saying, "I don't support Creative Commons as a
project, because some of their licenses are not free at all." However
it's clearly not the case that all CC licenses are non-free, and
whether RMS supports CC as a project may not mean anything in terms of
license compatibility.

(Personally I think it is clear that RMS would never really support
something like CC; he's very absolutist and CC is very much about
finding various forms of compromise.)

FF

On 2/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>     http://www.linuxp2p.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10771
>
> Who was the main sticking point in discussions so far? Oh yes, that's right.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:

>Perhaps it should be noted that some admins force
>certain editors to become "trolls" through provoking,
>but it seems that no-one cares about the provoking
>part -- only about the other end that violates the
>policy of this-and-that.
>
Generally admins who are misbehaving are more difficult to deal with
than newbies.  They tend to believe that their experience makes them
right, or that a discussion that went their way several months ago is
the final word.  Occasionally newbies have good ideas about an old way
of doing things; they should be given a fair hearing.  I am often
hesitant about calling a sysop on his behaviour when I know his
reputation for arguing; it may not always be right, but such disputes
can be exhausting.  I would prefer spending my time on more creative
contributions.

>Many people, for instance,
>feel offended when they are being warned in public, on
>their talkpage.
>
The warning should be preceded by a polite comment about what you see as
the problem, and offering to open a discussion on the matter.
Respectful "Please"s are very helpful.  Leaving room for the possibility
that the person may be even remotely correct gives a positive
impression.  Punitive consequences should only rarely appear in the
first notice.

>Most people, I believe, don't like to
>be given ultimatums.
>
Especially when it's done rudely.

>In my opinion, we should try to
>protect the integrity of the Wikipedian and have them
>warned in private.
>
Nothing wrong with making the comments public if they're done politely.

>I also disagree with the block
>images that are added on talk- and user pages.
>
I'm not familiar with this practice.

>Further more, as I said above, I don't think that it's
>good to have admins that provoke editors only so that
>they can block them. And yes, there are such admins.
>
Admins who make premature blocking threats should probably be blocked
themselves for the same amount of time that they use in their threats.

>Unfortunatelly, it seems that the people with
>authority (stewards and above) are most impressed by
>the work of the admins, instead of those who just want
>to edit articles.
>
Impressed?  ... or just plain fatigued?

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] More AfD toxicity

body:
geni wrote:

>On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that AfD nominators
>>recognize the names of the longtime active editors, and to guess
>>that there might be a good reason for the article being in such
>>a state.
>>
>>
>How many of the names on the admin list do you recognise?
>
All the more reason for that newbie to check the person's edit history
before taking drastic action.

Ec


from_name: Adrian Buehlmann

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-10

body:
"Jitse Niesen" <jitse.niesen at gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:8a93c6a0602110726u576ae63eqd40d1181570e53a2 at mail.gmail.com
> On 2/11/06, Brion Vibber
> <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> The optional use of tidy is a temporary hack that got put in rather
>> than fix up the parser's own HTML balancing code, which is a
>> horrible piece of crap that I wrote in 2002 when I didn't know what
>> the hell I was doing. :)
>>
>> If you'd like try rewriting it so it balances end tags properly,
>> detects illegal nesting cases, and understands MathML, that would be
>> super awesome.
>
> Hmm, I think it would be easier for me to change tidy so that it
> understands MathML. Why do you want to get rid of tidy?

Don't beat me (with the big stick): but could tidy be kept?

It is currently co-abused for the CSS trick described at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:hiddenStructure

(But this time I'm fairly innocent)

BTW if you extend tidy it would be interesting if tidy could
remove the hiddenStructure elements from the html. We would then have a
conditional without doing any change to the wiki syntax (guaranteed no
turing completeness :-).

The current hiddenStructure hack does not work for
non-CSS browsers and older screen readers.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-12

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 264 of 281 tests (93.95%) FAILED!


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 2/11/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Also very well put.  We've always been quite relaxed about such thing,
> > even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like
> > SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
>
> Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me
> to stop contributing.

You weren't banned because of moral panic.  Your userpage wasn't
deleted because of moral panic. Your talk page hasn't been protected
because of moral panic.  All these things happened because you decided
to engage in trolling instead of discussion.  And trolling isn't
allowed on Wikipedia.


from_name: Pawe³ Dembowski

body:
> Can you please point out where Wikisource agreed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND
> text? I don't recall any mention of it on any of the mailing lists I'm
> on. It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all
> Foundation projects require freely licensed text.
> Angela.

Actually, ND might make sense at Wikisource. But definitely not NC.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright complaints

in_reply_to:
<43EE4545.8010302@earthlink.net>;
	from wikipedia@earthlink.net on Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 12:12:53PM
	-0800

body:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 12:12:53PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:

> For copyright infringements where we have an actual complaint by an
> affected party, (...)

The problem is where there is no such complaint as yet, or where
people incorrectly claim "fair use" in an attempt to escape
deletion.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright complaints


body:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 08:59:02PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:23:34PM -0500, Patrick, Brad wrote:
> > To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> > copyvio.  It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> > delete.  The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> > actual systemic copyvio problem.
>
> While I thank you for that statement, it's not yet sufficient.

Oh dear, in fact, I originally was going to make this statement
somewhat stronger, along the lines of that people would respond "why
should we listen to some lawyer on some mailing list" and basically
ignore what you were saying.

I deleted that because I thought it'd be too inflammatory to
seriously put on the list.

In the mean time however, reality has caught up with me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_exposure_by_straw_poll

See especially the comments by Mel Etitis, and also note Jkelly.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


from_name: Jesse W

subject:
"more people keeping the idiots at bay" (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia
	slated in the Sunday Times)

body:
On Feb 12, 2006, at 12:00 AM, Jon wrote:
>   Mind you, when WP has more people keeping the idiots at bay rather
> than writing content (as most likely is the case now), something has
> gone wrong.
My first thought was, No, wait - it means something has gone *right* ,
we have so much already covered that the balance shifts to defending
what we have, rather than adding more.  But then I thought, yeah, in
that case, why are we keeping it in a wiki format?  If it's actually
stable, then put it in straight HTML, mirror it everywhere (oh wait, we
already do that), and shake hands on a job well done... ;-)

In any case, what evidence do you have that suggests this?  What comes
to mind could be: percentage of RC edits that are reversions, rather
than additions - this is invalid because people may add content in
large pieces, not in lots of edits.  Any other measurements people can
think of?

Just wanted to bring this up,
	Jesse Weinstein


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/12/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, lynch mob.

Need to update your wikispeak dictionary

lynch mob=bunch of people who those with power want to ignore and
indeed can ignore.

I am dissapointed by the behaviour of a number of people in this thread.
--
geni