from_name: Ligulem

subject: [Wikitech-l] Using CSS display:none and speak:none

body:
People on en.wikipedia.org constantly invent new applications of the
display:none CSS client side hiding hack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ACommon.css&diff=82918497&oldid=82893154
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ALinkshere&diff=82892533&oldid=82834413
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3APagemovedtext&diff=82830035&oldid=80771474

As we know, this has some well known drawbacks as described at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HiddenStructure (which Brion also
   advised against).

It was also Graham (see also his previous thread) who also advised
against using this.

Occasionally, people revert warred hiddenStructure
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ACommon.css&diff=81176060&oldid=80212728)
back into templates with the argument that blind users are a minority.

Suggestions on how to deal with this situation are welcome.

I for one would love to simply have CSS display:none and speak:none
filtered out by MediaWiki software (possibly with a config parameter per
site installation).

--Ligulem


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Simetrical

subject:
[Wikitech-l] major accessibility problem recently introduced to
	MediaWiki

body:
On 10/22/06, Graham Pearce <grahamwp at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> My problem is that it appears that the edit link has become part of the title of each section created with wiki markup. This problem
> is compounded when using quick navigation keys to navigate between sections; in this case, JAWS will stop reading a heading title
> when it encounters a link. Therefore, each heading title will be read as either "left bracket" or "edit" when I navigate between
> editable sections on a MediaWiki page. I tested this with JAWS 5.1 and 6.0, which aren't the most recent versions but are still
> widely used and the problem appears on both of them. I am using Windows XP with IE 6 (Firefox only works well with the latest
> versions of JAWS). The headings were working fine late last night my time (about 15:30 UTC on 21 October).

Ah . . . this is my fault.  I would have preferred for the order of
the spans inside the headings to be logical (title first, then edit
link), but that didn't work with the floats.  I'll try to find a way
to fix this ASAP.  (The span was moved inside the header to start with
mainly because of poor visual display, with a secondary goal of more
logical HTML markup.)


body:
On 10/22/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please test your changes very carefully before committing them. There has
> been a lot of irritation at various projects when the user interface
> changed. Please also remember that individual projects use their own global
> javascript to manipulate MediaWiki pages (e.g. German Wikipedia which had a
> script that moves the edit-links from the far right of the page to right
> next to the heading). If you do decide to make such changes, please make
> sure it's widely announced. For reasons somewhat outside understanding,
> users seem to react more allergic to cosmetic changes to the user interface
> than actual functionality.

I did test my changes carefully before committing them.  I just don't
have access to a screenreader, so I tested them carefully in visual
browsers.  I dropped a note at the German and French Wikipedias'
Monobook.js talk page informing them of the upcoming change.

And the changes were not merely cosmetic; a usability study posted to
this list a while back found that of the two participants who tried
using section edit links, both thought they belonged to the section
above due to their misplacement, and both blanked the unexpected
sections.  This is obviously quite undesirable.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Comic book articles and fancruft (was:
 Pattern	copyvios involving...)

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 22/10/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> And even in the case of a hypothetical article that's nothing but
>> "fictional" content, I agree that the article is incomplete but strongly
>> disagree with the notion that the way to fix it is to delete the
>> fictional stuff. Just add the real world context stuff instead. Not as
>> quick and easy a solution, but better for Wikipedia in the long term
>> (which is the only term I think is significant).
>
> Oh no, I certainly didn't mean this. The attitude that it is better to
> delete content to rebalance Wikipedia rather than add content is
> always one that I've fought vigorously. I'm sorry if I indicated
> otherwise.

And I'm sorry I assumed it, since on rereading your post I don't
actually see any indication of it. At the origin of this thread people
were suggesting deleting all Marvel Comics character articles without
exception and starting them over again, which kind of polarizes the
debate into extreme camps. :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061022/97704551/attachment.pgp


body:
On 10/22/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a question: what happens in skins other than Monobook (the
> default)? e.g. does Classic do this?
>
> (Not that Monobook shouldn't be fixed, since it's the default skin.
> But this may give you something usable in the meantime.)

All skins will display the behavior until it's fixed.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editors, who are not editors

body:
geni wrote:

>On 10/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Worthwhile as it may be we have never asked admins to subject themselves
>>to reality checks from time to time.  It would be a great idea to
>>require that admins spent 10% of their work on real edits, but I doubt
>>that it would be enforceable.
>>
>>
>Define "real edits" and "work".
>
Sorry if those words weren't clear.

By "real edits" I mean edits to directly improve articles in the main
namespace.

By "work" in this context I mean a person's overall efforts in any
namespace.

Ec


body:
On 10/22/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah . . . this is my fault.  I would have preferred for the order of
> the spans inside the headings to be logical (title first, then edit
> link), but that didn't work with the floats.  I'll try to find a way
> to fix this ASAP.  (The span was moved inside the header to start with
> mainly because of poor visual display, with a secondary goal of more
> logical HTML markup.)

Okay, here's the situation.  If the editsection span is placed after
the heading proper in source, IE and Firefox don't want to reflow and
so they move the float down below any already-rendered content.
Opera, and apparently Safari, handle this correctly.  I tried fiddling
with CSS hacks to get it to display right, but gave up.  Currently I'm
thinking I'll revert to an in-source layout more like the previous
one, with the editsection span placed before the entire h# element,
and perhaps the h# element set to display as inline if that looks
helpful.  Any thoughts?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Password reminder from Wikipedia spam

references:
<op.thqdcdo1r18sbe@mainframe.lan> <ehd48k$65d$3@sea.gmane.org>
	<200610211525.22240@bloodgate.com> <ehgn9u$sfd$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 10/22/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> There really is no reason to set an arbitrary limit to the password
> reminders being sent per day.

We don't want Wikipedia being put on spam blacklists, rightfully,
because we permit people to send arbitrary amounts of spam to our
users.


from_name: John Hubbard

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Why Wiki?" - Online Video Presentation

body:
http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/courses/wiki/

This a free online screencast -- designed to review Wiki basics, the
pros and cons of Wikipedia, and how you can use Wikis or set one up.

It's likely a review for most of the people on this list, but with the
continued media flurry over Wikipedia's truthiness and the upcoming
launch of Citizendium, it could be a useful pointer for fielding
questions you may get about Wikipedia as a reliable information source.

Please pass this along to anyone you think might be interested.

Cheers,
John

--
John Hubbard
Web Services and Electronic Resources Coordinator
UWM Libraries Webmaster
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
414-229-6775


references:
<NDEPLAOJDHOKOBHKHJJOIEKMDLAA.grahamwp@optusnet.com.au>
	<7c2a12e20610221129p13c0e1aalf5ec7f6e0dd2f1aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<ehgnoi$sfd$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 10/22/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> I don't understand why they're still floats? I thought the usability
> study clearly concluded that they shouldn't be, and that the way the
> German Wikipedia has implemented them now is more usable.

The usability study concluded that people associated them with the
section above.  This should be fixed by the fact that they're now on
the same level as the header text.  It might be better to have the
edit text as de-wiki has it, but that's not a decision I'm willing to
commit to by myself; people are bound to object to a perceptible
change to the status quo.  If someone like Tim or Brion agrees, that
would certainly make the solution simpler, but I'm not doing it
myself.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Include both, with sources?

references:
<mailman.2151.1161316858.6254.wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
	<B94CCBA1-454B-405B-AA29-3849CC20A542@dpbsmith.com>
	<453A37BC.8050701@gmail.com>
	<s0pkj21mc8llmrfb6ub5no4n4r9i88mmgg@4ax.com>
	<453A7B45.4070309@telus.net> <453A7EEF.8090505@gmail.com>
	<kg9lj25dogmari6a0eh5c6ema2ggmak89m@4ax.com>
	<453AA77E.6030602@gmail.com>
	<453ADB91.1090707@shaw.ca> <453ADC5D.30300@shaw.ca>
	<pf9nj29o0nun0dr8u2baf4qelt1lfqmqd0@4ax.com> <453BB04E.8040801@shaw.ca>
	<b5knj218t3pnalgq9n2u677f4lkm3gpknc@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:54:22 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Seems to me like SPUI has finally found another editor who is as
>>> unshakeable in his certainties as SPUI himself :-)
>
>> Er? Firstly, my statement didn't indicate "unshakeability" - I said it
>> _looks_ like he's aware of the situation. I'm usually quite careful to
>> weasel-word my assertions in discussions like this (for example, I just
>> changed "always" to "usually" in this line in case there exists a post
>> where I failed to do so :)
>
> You know about the great road name war of 2006, don't you?  SPUI has a
> history of doing pretty much what he accuses the IP of.

Ah. No, I wasn't aware of that. I thought you were talking about _me_
when you said "another editor", and was quite confused. In that case
never mind then. :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061022/4a9dcb9f/attachment.pgp


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Include both, with sources?

body:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:50:05 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>Never mind, I just checked the talk page and the unregistered editor
>looks like he's fully aware of the situation.

Seems to me like SPUI has finally found another editor who is as
unshakeable in his certainties as SPUI himself :-)

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


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] School of Hard Knocks, or, what I learnt from my RfA

body:
On 21/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > > [paper admins]
> > Is that somehow harmful to the project?
>
> yes because it means that we have 500 people who can cause rather a
> lot of chaos who are not really part of the admin community.

Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?

> Comments are aimed at other editors. Neutral votes are aimed at bureaucrats.

And what exactly are the bureaucrats going to do with them? If they
influence the success or failure of an RfA, then they should be
positive or negative votes. Anything else is a comment.

> > Sorry, but making oblique references to events I did not witness
> > involving a person I've never spoken to is a remarkably useless way to
> > answer a point.
>
> It is however an excellent demonstration. Unless you know about the
> events behind that comment people will appear to be acting
> irrationally where in fact they are not doing so.

No, it's far from that. I can't click on anything in your post that
links to some page full of discussion and diff links and who knows
what and explains whatever you were talking about - which you *still*
haven't done.

> The "I promise not
> to go batshit" is meaningless unless you know what people consider to
> be going ah "batshit".

Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be
supported with expository links.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


body:
On 22/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> Modern society has evolved in such a way that "common sense" is a
> meaningless phrase, since over 90% of the population is too damned dumb to
> show any sense at all.

Sturgeon's Law writ large....

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editors, who are not editors

body:
On 10/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Worthwhile as it may be we have never asked admins to subject themselves
> to reality checks from time to time.  It would be a great idea to
> require that admins spent 10% of their work on real edits, but I doubt
> that it would be enforceable.

Define "real edits" and "work".

--
geni


body:
On 10/22/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, here's the situation.  If the editsection span is placed after
> the heading proper in source, IE and Firefox don't want to reflow and
> so they move the float down below any already-rendered content.
> Opera, and apparently Safari, handle this correctly.  I tried fiddling
> with CSS hacks to get it to display right, but gave up.  Currently I'm
> thinking I'll revert to an in-source layout more like the previous
> one, with the editsection span placed before the entire h# element,
> and perhaps the h# element set to display as inline if that looks
> helpful.  Any thoughts?

The best I could come up with was to move everything back to the old
layout, but wrap headings in a div and change h#'s to display inline,
then shift all padding/border/margin rules to affect the wrapper div
rather than the h#.  That makes the section edit link look good in
Monobook, but for some reason it does basically nothing for other
layouts.

Frankly, the only real way I can see to solve this properly is to use
a table.  That would solve this perfectly (the position of table cell
contents can be much more simply coordinates than floats plus
nonfloats), and would have the added benefit of solving
<http://bugs.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1629> (which can't be
solved at all using CSS).  It would also allow the French and German
Wikipedias to implement their changes using CSS only, not JS.

Tables shouldn't be used unless necessary, but I've come to conclude
that they're so much simpler and more effective here that this is a
case where their use is justified.  I certainly won't switch things
over to tables unless I get the okay for it, but anyway, comments
appreciated.  I've been working on this for the past five hours and
will be taking a little break now (good thing this got to me on a
Sunday).


body:
On 10/22/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > yes because it means that we have 500 people who can cause rather a
> > lot of chaos who are not really part of the admin community.
>
> Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
>

Nothing to do with that. We know that people can do a lot of damage
when acting in good faith.

> And what exactly are the bureaucrats going to do with them? If they
> influence the success or failure of an RfA, then they should be
> positive or negative votes. Anything else is a comment.
>

The Bureaucrat is going to take them into consideration. I can comment
without even being neutral let alone supporting or opposing (I would
be ah disinterested).

> No, it's far from that. I can't click on anything in your post that
> links to some page full of discussion and diff links and who knows
> what and explains whatever you were talking about - which you *still*
> haven't done.

The issue is the userbox wars I'm not going to go into detail. you
will find references to those events all over the place. Suffice to
say the lesion learned is that people's actions are a far better basis
for figuring out what they are going to do than what they say.

> Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be
> supported with expository links.

"Common sense" has no place in rational theory. To start with algebra
starts to break down and you can't do calculus. There is a reason why
intuitionism has never been widely accepted.

--
geni


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 01:27:54PM +0800, Graham Pearce wrote:
> I'm user:Graham87 on the english wikipedia. I use a screen reader called JAWS from Freedom Scientific at:
> www.freedomscientific.com
> It is the most popular Windows screen reader at the moment.

Is *that* where JAWS ended up?

I did a little work on it, away back in the DOS days; while
Henter-Joyce still owned it...

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

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


body:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 02:54:02PM -0400, Simetrical wrote:
> And the changes were not merely cosmetic; a usability study posted to
> this list a while back found that of the two participants who tried
> using section edit links, both thought they belonged to the section
> above due to their misplacement, and both blanked the unexpected
> sections.  This is obviously quite undesirable.

And I'll throw my oar in here: I'm a savvy-user, with lots of practice
intuiting from poorly designed UI's... and I often misread where an
edit link goes.

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

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


body:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 10:19:48PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
> There really is no reason to set an arbitrary limit to the password
> reminders being sent per day.

Support that assertion?

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

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 22/10/06, Graham Pearce <grahamwp at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> I'm user:Graham87 on the english wikipedia. I use a screen reader called JAWS from Freedom Scientific at:
> www.freedomscientific.com
> It is the most popular Windows screen reader at the moment.
> My problem is that it appears that the edit link has become part of the title of each section created with wiki markup. This problem
> is compounded when using quick navigation keys to navigate between sections; in this case, JAWS will stop reading a heading title
> when it encounters a link. Therefore, each heading title will be read as either "left bracket" or "edit" when I navigate between
> editable sections on a MediaWiki page. I tested this with JAWS 5.1 and 6.0, which aren't the most recent versions but are still
> widely used and the problem appears on both of them. I am using Windows XP with IE 6 (Firefox only works well with the latest
> versions of JAWS). The headings were working fine late last night my time (about 15:30 UTC on 21 October).
> I would like this fixed as soon as possible so only the section title is spoken when navigating through headings.

Here's a question: what happens in skins other than Monobook (the
default)? e.g. does Classic do this?

(Not that Monobook shouldn't be fixed, since it's the default skin.
But this may give you something usable in the meantime.)

- d.


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editors, who are not editors

body:
On 22/10/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/10/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have been increasingly worried about one editors contribution
> > history lately. The vast majority (possibly over 90%) of their last
> > 500 edits have been in Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk space. It is my
> > understanding that Wikipedia: space is for editors to use to organise
> > the development of articles.
> >
> > My question is how does an editor--who spends all their time in
> > Wikipedia space--know what they are trying to achieve?
>
> The real question is what was before those 500 edits. Are we talking
> someone who only sits in that namespace ever, or are we talking a
> several-year-standing highly active user who happens to have been
> focusing on project work in the last few weeks?
>
> The answers for the two cases are very different.
>

Hi,

Sorry for not saying which editor it is so that others can cross check
them. Basically, they have been around for 2 years. It is possibly not
so bad as they are discussions proposals constantly and possibly
finding that their best contribution to Wikipedia can be in just
discussing proposals.

They have little to do with any backlog related issues though, which
would not be so concerning, if they have an area of interest that they
were improving on the side. Which is why I put that down.

According to a contribution history from
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate , they
do not have any pages in Main space with over 10 edits, 9,7,7 are the
top three. I am wondering why they are here, then I look at Wikipedia
space and the highest page has 407, followed by 382, 326.

I just do not see how they are practically improving the encyclopedia
with these types of distributions of edits.

Peter Ansell


from_name: Sebastian Moleski

body:
On 10/22/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah . . . this is my fault.  I would have preferred for the order of
> the spans inside the headings to be logical (title first, then edit
> link), but that didn't work with the floats.  I'll try to find a way
> to fix this ASAP.  (The span was moved inside the header to start with
> mainly because of poor visual display, with a secondary goal of more
> logical HTML markup.)

Please test your changes very carefully before committing them. There has
been a lot of irritation at various projects when the user interface
changed. Please also remember that individual projects use their own global
javascript to manipulate MediaWiki pages (e.g. German Wikipedia which had a
script that moves the edit-links from the far right of the page to right
next to the heading). If you do decide to make such changes, please make
sure it's widely announced. For reasons somewhat outside understanding,
users seem to react more allergic to cosmetic changes to the user interface
than actual functionality.

Regards,

Sebastian Moleski


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Comic book articles and fancruft (was: Pattern
	copyvios involving...)

body:
On 22/10/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> And even in the case of a hypothetical article that's nothing but
> "fictional" content, I agree that the article is incomplete but strongly
> disagree with the notion that the way to fix it is to delete the
> fictional stuff. Just add the real world context stuff instead. Not as
> quick and easy a solution, but better for Wikipedia in the long term
> (which is the only term I think is significant).

Oh no, I certainly didn't mean this. The attitude that it is better to
delete content to rebalance Wikipedia rather than add content is
always one that I've fought vigorously. I'm sorry if I indicated
otherwise.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editors, who are not editors

body:
On 10/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > By "real edits" I mean edits to directly improve articles in the main
> > namespace.
>
> Does removeing deleted images count?
>
> > By "work" in this context I mean a person's overall efforts in any
> > namespace.
>
> Can I count the effort that goes towards getting certian pics?

Why even worry about the distinction? The notion that we should be
micromanaging other people's editing habits, or really entertain the
notion that one sort of editing is more "real" than the other, seems
totally counterproductive to me. Last time I checked this was a
volunteer enterprise with no shortage of database space, so who cares?

More damage seems to be caused by the periodic attempts by people to
enforce their own "Wikipedia norms" onto others than by any of the
"deviant" behaviors by themselves. We must accept that something as
decentralized and sprawling as a massive wiki will not be a
tightly-run ship. It can't be, and it doesn't need to be. It's a
bazaar, not a cathedral, to use Raymond's terms.

If two dozen editors want to use Wikipedia to play Sudoko all day, it
is easier to let them do it than it is to bother with trying to create
complicated metrics, guidelines, and rules, and then enforce them and
deal with adaptation, resistance, and frustration.

FF


from_name: Graham Pearce

body:
I've checked out the html source for the new layout of edit links, and found that the link title is informative: "edit section: foo"
or name of transcluding template. However, JAWS never reads the link title unless it's asked to; it will *always* read the screen
text of a link (in this case always "edit") by default. All I really want is for the section editing link not to be part of a
heading so JAWS can read the actual heading title of the page. As for display:none, I'd like it nuked; and speak:none isn't
recognised by all versions of JAWS so shouldn't be used either.

Graham

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Graham Pearce
Sent: Sunday, 22 October 2006 1:28 PM
To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikitech-l] major accessibility problem recently introduced
toMediaWiki

I'm user:Graham87 on the english wikipedia. I use a screen reader called JAWS from Freedom Scientific at:
www.freedomscientific.com
It is the most popular Windows screen reader at the moment.

My problem is that it appears that the edit link has become part of the title of each section created with wiki markup. This problem
is compounded when using quick navigation keys to navigate between sections; in this case, JAWS will stop reading a heading title
when it encounters a link. Therefore, each heading title will be read as either "left bracket" or "edit" when I navigate between
editable sections on a MediaWiki page. I tested this with JAWS 5.1 and 6.0, which aren't the most recent versions but are still
widely used and the problem appears on both of them. I am using Windows XP with IE 6 (Firefox only works well with the latest
versions of JAWS). The headings were working fine late last night my time (about 15:30 UTC on 21 October).

I would like this fixed as soon as possible so only the section title is spoken when navigating through headings.

Thanks,
Graham

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


body:
On 22/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/22/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
>
> Nothing to do with that. We know that people can do a lot of damage
> when acting in good faith.

So you are saying, in effect, that we should consider the people that
you describe as "paper admins" as potentially damagingly stupid? I'm
sure they'll be very happy to hear that.

> > And what exactly are the bureaucrats going to do with them? If they
> > influence the success or failure of an RfA, then they should be
> > positive or negative votes. Anything else is a comment.
>
> The Bureaucrat is going to take them into consideration. I can comment
> without even being neutral let alone supporting or opposing (I would
> be ah disinterested).

If you're motivated enough to comment, you can't be disinterested, by
definition.

I don't understand what is to be taken into consideration from a
neutral comment when making a verdict (sorry, I mean "tallying
votes"). From reading my RfA, quite a few of the "neutral" votes
seemed to actually be mealy-mouthed "oppose" votes. Is the
bureaucrat's job to divine what the voters were actually trying to
say?

> The issue is the userbox wars I'm not going to go into detail. you
> will find references to those events all over the place. Suffice to
> say the lesion [Freudian slip? -- Earle] learned is that people's
> actions are a far better basis for figuring out what they are going
> to do than what they say.

It would have helped this conversation a lot if you had deigned to
mention "the userbox wars" in the first place instead of making me
force it out of you like this.

> > Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be
> > supported with expository links.
>
> "Common sense" has no place in rational theory. To start with algebra
> starts to break down and you can't do calculus. There is a reason why
> intuitionism has never been widely accepted.

Straw man. This is an encyclopedia written by consensus, not mathematics.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Comic book articles and fancruft

body:
On 22/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> It was disappointing to realize that I was only dealing with
> poetaster theology.

Congratulations, you've demonstrated to us that you are erudite. Have a cookie.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Include both, with sources?

body:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:54:22 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>> Seems to me like SPUI has finally found another editor who is as
>> unshakeable in his certainties as SPUI himself :-)

>Er? Firstly, my statement didn't indicate "unshakeability" - I said it
>_looks_ like he's aware of the situation. I'm usually quite careful to
>weasel-word my assertions in discussions like this (for example, I just
>changed "always" to "usually" in this line in case there exists a post
>where I failed to do so :)

You know about the great road name war of 2006, don't you?  SPUI has a
history of doing pretty much what he accuses the IP of.

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: effe iets anders

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposed guidelines in our IRC channels

body:
Would it be an option to move the channel to #wikimedia-info or a
similar not-so-english-centric-name without losing the people who help
others out? (I though it was possible to make a redirect?) Are you
guys very attached to the channel-name? It's just that -info is easier
to remember and find for non-native english people.

Effeietsanders

2006/10/22, Tangotango <tangotango at wikignome.net>:
> This topic might be a little old, but as a regular in #wikipedia-bootcamp, I
> can definitely say that this channel is dedicated to helping users out. We
> do occasionally get users from other Wikimedia projects, and although our
> level of expertise in languages other than English may be lacking depending
> on the time and users active, we are always friendly and attempt to help
> anyone who comes in. The channel is also largely free of off-topic
> conversation.
>
> If we can get a combination of (1) more experienced and friendly Wikimedians
> with expertise in languages other than English and (2) more users from
> different projects who need help, then I think we would do great as a
> multilingual support channel.
>
> Tangotango
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> Sent: October 13 2006
>
> On 10/13/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Last time I was using IRC (quite a few months), #wikipedia was the
> juvenile,
> > off-topic channel and #wikipedia-en (the official support channel for
> > en.wikipedia) was largely quiet. But, mainly for non-English speakers, it
> > may be useful to create an multilingual support channel free from
> off-topic
> > conversation.
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
> #wikipedia-bootcamp would probably come closest.
>
> --
> geni
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


body:
On 10/22/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > Nothing to do with that. We know that people can do a lot of damage
> > when acting in good faith.
>
> So you are saying, in effect, that we should consider the people that
> you describe as "paper admins" as potentially damagingly stupid? I'm
> sure they'll be very happy to hear that.
>

Unaware would be a better term. Certainly not stupid.

> If you're motivated enough to comment, you can't be disinterested, by
> definition.

No I can comment (say making a factual correction) and still be
completely disinterested in the result.

>
> I don't understand what is to be taken into consideration from a
> neutral comment when making a verdict (sorry, I mean "tallying
> votes"). From reading my RfA, quite a few of the "neutral" votes
> seemed to actually be mealy-mouthed "oppose" votes. Is the
> bureaucrat's job to divine what the voters were actually trying to
> say?
>

No. Neutral !votes are normally ignored. They only come into play when
there is a close result.

> > > Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be
> > > supported with expository links.
> >
> > "Common sense" has no place in rational theory. To start with algebra
> > starts to break down and you can't do calculus. There is a reason why
> > intuitionism has never been widely accepted.
>
> Straw man. This is an encyclopedia written by consensus, not mathematics.

The problem is that once you adopt a system within which maths breaks
down everything else breaks down (of course maths isn't the only thing
that breaks down under a system based on "common sense" but it is a
fairly critical example). I would be happy to defend the position that
it is foolish to use a system in which maths does not hold.

It would be advisable to use logic rather than "common sense".

--
geni


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Hoi,
Your whole point centers around your assertion that we standardise on
ISO-639-2. This standard is rapidly being replaced because it is
deficient.MANY languages are just not in there. ISO-639-3 warts and all
is an immense improvement. With ISO-639-2 the bat code has been deprecated.

The point that you fail to understand is that the code is not for our
own use only. By coming up with proprietary codes we lose the connection
to what is done elsewhere. As much as anything it is important that what
we do is connected.. We want to be found in Google for instance and to
do this we have to have standardised language codes. With a lav-**** we
have a better chance of finding the content that is in Latgalian. I am
at the moment finding out how to find what dialects have what code.

The best alternative you proposed is latg because it is manifestly not
an ISO-639 code. But as I explained it is a sub-standard option.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Sulev Iva wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Standardising on iso-639-2 one will find there "bat" code is for other
> Baltic languages. I think it is normal and neutral to use it in such cases
> like Latgalian, when it is not absolutely clear can it be considered a
> dialect of other language or not.
>
> Using codes like "lav-latg" is not neutral because it claims Latgalian a
> dialect of Latvian - which is unclear and disputed claim.
>
> The explicity of the Ethnologue on claiming Latgalian to be just a dialect
> of Latvian without any further explanations can be caused by lack of
> information (or interest?).
>
> However, one can propose absolutely neutral code variants:
>
> 1. bat-ltg
> 2. bat-latg
> 3. latg
>
> Variants 1 and 2 say only that it is Latgalian which is a Baltic language
> (or variety).
>
> If it is not still neutral enough, lets take variant 3 which says only
> that it is Latgalian.
>
> Regards,
> Sull?v
>
>
>
>> Hoi,
>> When you standardise on ISO-639-3 you will find that the bat code no
>> longer is used. Slavic (other) is a deprecated code. It is therefore not
>> a good idea to use it. The description of the Latvian entry at
>> Ethnologue is explicit; Lagalian is considered a dialect.
>>
>> When Latgalian's status as a dialect is to be disputed, I am quite happy
>> to help. We are at this stage looking into how this can be done in a
>> friendly but also linguistic way. It has to be clear to all that this is
>> a lot of work and that the heavy lifting will have to be done by those
>> who propose the change. In the mean time, the codes have there use as
>> they articulate to others and particular to automated processes what the
>> language is. When the codes that are used are a mess and are chosen for
>> political reasons, you prevent this process from happening smoothly.
>>
>> What is of relevance is what languages or dialects we choose for new
>> projects. The codes used are a technical issue. When you make them more
>> than that, it only becomes political and it does not help at all. I am
>> opposed for all the above reasons and all the reasons that I have given
>> before to any code that are not consistent with the standard. I am
>> opposed to the creation of Latgalian under the code bat-ltg.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>>
>> Mark Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> I think everybody agrees that we shouldn't use 3-letter codes that
>>> belong to
>>> other languages.
>>>
>>> When people propose to use codes that belong to other languages, it's
>>> out of
>>> ignorance, not malice.
>>>
>>> However, to be able to use bat-ltg instead of lat-ltg is a different
>>> debate
>>> -- "bat-ltg" doesn't belong to another language, and it likely never
>>> will.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 20/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> Please explain what the arguments are NOT to accept a standard that is
>>>> the only viable way of making sure that other people understand what
>>>> language we are using. Please explain what alternative exists given the
>>>> all too frequent choice of codes that are the codes for languages given
>>>> by the standards organisation when new projects are proposed. Please
>>>> explain what is gained by going against what is the standard for the
>>>> acceptance of languages and measure it against what it would cost us to
>>>> do it in an idiosyncratic manner. Please explain what is wrong to use
>>>> either codes that comply with the standard and when we do not want to
>>>> use such a code, a code that is manifestly different.
>>>>
>>>> It is fine to have a different opinion but please let there be some
>>>> method behind the madness.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>     GerardM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ScottL wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ScottL wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an
>>>>>>> official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that
>>>>>>> language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should
>>>>>>> not.  Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable.  Several
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> constructed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> should be higher.  For languages without a code there is still a
>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>> swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> other criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> From a practical approach you have a point but I hesitate to adopt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the POV of an external organization even a standards body unless the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> POV
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> is can be reasonably supported.  Which means it should still be a
>>>>>> case
>>>>>> by case thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely.  That's why I emphasize that such a POV is only a starting
>>>>> point.
>>>>> .
>>>>> Ec
>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Sulev Iva

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Hi,

Standardising on iso-639-2 one will find there "bat" code is for other
Baltic languages. I think it is normal and neutral to use it in such cases
like Latgalian, when it is not absolutely clear can it be considered a
dialect of other language or not.

Using codes like "lav-latg" is not neutral because it claims Latgalian a
dialect of Latvian - which is unclear and disputed claim.

The explicity of the Ethnologue on claiming Latgalian to be just a dialect
of Latvian without any further explanations can be caused by lack of
information (or interest?).

However, one can propose absolutely neutral code variants:

1. bat-ltg
2. bat-latg
3. latg

Variants 1 and 2 say only that it is Latgalian which is a Baltic language
(or variety).

If it is not still neutral enough, lets take variant 3 which says only
that it is Latgalian.

Regards,
Sull?v

> Hoi,
> When you standardise on ISO-639-3 you will find that the bat code no
> longer is used. Slavic (other) is a deprecated code. It is therefore not
> a good idea to use it. The description of the Latvian entry at
> Ethnologue is explicit; Lagalian is considered a dialect.
>
> When Latgalian's status as a dialect is to be disputed, I am quite happy
> to help. We are at this stage looking into how this can be done in a
> friendly but also linguistic way. It has to be clear to all that this is
> a lot of work and that the heavy lifting will have to be done by those
> who propose the change. In the mean time, the codes have there use as
> they articulate to others and particular to automated processes what the
> language is. When the codes that are used are a mess and are chosen for
> political reasons, you prevent this process from happening smoothly.
>
> What is of relevance is what languages or dialects we choose for new
> projects. The codes used are a technical issue. When you make them more
> than that, it only becomes political and it does not help at all. I am
> opposed for all the above reasons and all the reasons that I have given
> before to any code that are not consistent with the standard. I am
> opposed to the creation of Latgalian under the code bat-ltg.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>> I think everybody agrees that we shouldn't use 3-letter codes that
>> belong to
>> other languages.
>>
>> When people propose to use codes that belong to other languages, it's
>> out of
>> ignorance, not malice.
>>
>> However, to be able to use bat-ltg instead of lat-ltg is a different
>> debate
>> -- "bat-ltg" doesn't belong to another language, and it likely never
>> will.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 20/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Please explain what the arguments are NOT to accept a standard that is
>>> the only viable way of making sure that other people understand what
>>> language we are using. Please explain what alternative exists given the
>>> all too frequent choice of codes that are the codes for languages given
>>> by the standards organisation when new projects are proposed. Please
>>> explain what is gained by going against what is the standard for the
>>> acceptance of languages and measure it against what it would cost us to
>>> do it in an idiosyncratic manner. Please explain what is wrong to use
>>> either codes that comply with the standard and when we do not want to
>>> use such a code, a code that is manifestly different.
>>>
>>> It is fine to have a different opinion but please let there be some
>>> method behind the madness.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>     GerardM
>>>
>>>
>>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>
>>>> ScottL wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ScottL wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an
>>>>>> official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that
>>>>>> language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should
>>>>>> not.  Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable.  Several
>>>>>>
>>> constructed
>>>
>>>>>> languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> should be higher.  For languages without a code there is still a
>>>>>> large
>>>>>> swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> other criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>> From a practical approach you have a point but I hesitate to adopt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the POV of an external organization even a standards body unless the
>>>>>
>>> POV
>>>
>>>>> is can be reasonably supported.  Which means it should still be a
>>>>> case
>>>>> by case thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Absolutely.  That's why I emphasize that such a POV is only a starting
>>>> point.
>>>> .
>>>> Ec
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Platonides

body:
"Simetrical" wrote:
> On 10/22/06, Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
>> Agreed. Also, I think it is just a matter of time before Joe Random User
>> gets really annoyed about this, and reports us to a spam blacklist.
>
> It's already implemented.  Blocked IPs can't request new passwords
> anymore.

Probably a finer system is needed. Blocked ips can still login, mail users
and edit their talk page in order to complain (or elude soft blocks). So if
such user loses his password... well, it's unprobable all of each at the
same time but i think you see the point.


from_name: Jeffrey Jones

subject: [Wikipedia-l]  Dream a little...

body:
The obvious choice from a cultural standpoint is sheet music.  Today's
composers are faced with an unfriendly market which limits their ability to
express themselves freely, and the few contemporary composers who have made
it into the pantheon are little-played by young musicians because the scores
are so expensive and difficult to obtain.  A compendium of sheet music
covering the 20th and 21st centuries is sorely needed.

-Jeffrey Jones

_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline


from_name: Timwi

references:
<op.thqdcdo1r18sbe@mainframe.lan> <ehd48k$65d$3@sea.gmane.org>
	<200610211525.22240@bloodgate.com>

body:
Tels wrote:
>
>>If you'd filter them out and not make a peep about it, he'd lose
>>interest quickly.
>
> By your line of reasoning vandals would go away if everyone would just
> ignore them.

And indeed they do, and indeed this is what Wikipedians recommend to
each other! Revert their edits (equivalent to deleting the spam mails),
but otherwise ignore them.

> There really is now reason to allow more then X password reminders being
> sent per day.

There really is no reason to set an arbitrary limit to the password
reminders being sent per day.

Timwi


body:
Simetrical wrote:
>
> Ah . . . this is my fault.  I would have preferred for the order of
> the spans inside the headings to be logical (title first, then edit
> link), but that didn't work with the floats.

I don't understand why they're still floats? I thought the usability
study clearly concluded that they shouldn't be, and that the way the
German Wikipedia has implemented them now is more usable.

I agree with them. I say nuke the floats, and place the span after the
section title into the h# element.

Timwi


references:
<NDEPLAOJDHOKOBHKHJJOIEKMDLAA.grahamwp@optusnet.com.au>
	<7c2a12e20610221129p13c0e1aalf5ec7f6e0dd2f1aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<ac81562b0610221134w35928eb6ve38f1d289befde20@mail.gmail.com>
	<7c2a12e20610221154w3e715d2ft21d2d1747ed803cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<ehh6j8$55a$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:40:55AM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> Simetrical wrote:
> > I did test my changes carefully before committing them.  I just don't
> > have access to a screenreader, so I tested them carefully in visual
> > browsers.
>
> I wonder if Freedom Scientific would be prepared to donate a few licenses
> for the [Wikipedia] developers.

One of my compatriots who was the lead developer in the HJ days, and
went to Microsoft may have a contact; I'm carboning him on this.

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

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
This is thread is the top story at Slashdot at the moment:
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/10/22/215238.shtml

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Hi,
According to SIL International
(http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/relationship.asp) all substandards: iso639-1,
-2 and -3 are existing and will be exist. Nowhere is said that -2 will
replaced by -3. iso639-3 is said to be just an (huge) addition to the
previous substandards.

Therefore one can freely standardise Latgalian according to iso639-2 as
bat-*** or lav-***. The first choise representing better neutral pont of
view and the will of proposers of Latgalian Wikipedia. The other can be
possibly more reasonable thinking on search systems (as Gerard said).
Anyway both are just temporary codes and will be replaced with official
code (probably ltg) as soon as Latgalians will get their code. As much I
know they have requested a code long time ago, but (it's my own experience
requesting code for V?ro) SIL and ISO are very far and very-very slowly
functioning bodies, so it can take years to have even answer to your code
request.

Regards,
Sull?v

> Hoi,
> Your whole point centers around your assertion that we standardise on
> ISO-639-2. This standard is rapidly being replaced because it is
> deficient.MANY languages are just not in there. ISO-639-3 warts and all
> is an immense improvement. With ISO-639-2 the bat code has been
> deprecated.
>
> The point that you fail to understand is that the code is not for our
> own use only. By coming up with proprietary codes we lose the connection
> to what is done elsewhere. As much as anything it is important that what
> we do is connected.. We want to be found in Google for instance and to
> do this we have to have standardised language codes. With a lav-**** we
> have a better chance of finding the content that is in Latgalian. I am
> at the moment finding out how to find what dialects have what code.
>
> The best alternative you proposed is latg because it is manifestly not
> an ISO-639 code. But as I explained it is a sub-standard option.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> Sulev Iva wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Standardising on iso-639-2 one will find there "bat" code is for other
>> Baltic languages. I think it is normal and neutral to use it in such
>> cases
>> like Latgalian, when it is not absolutely clear can it be considered a
>> dialect of other language or not.
>>
>> Using codes like "lav-latg" is not neutral because it claims Latgalian a
>> dialect of Latvian - which is unclear and disputed claim.
>>
>> The explicity of the Ethnologue on claiming Latgalian to be just a
>> dialect
>> of Latvian without any further explanations can be caused by lack of
>> information (or interest?).
>>
>> However, one can propose absolutely neutral code variants:
>>
>> 1. bat-ltg
>> 2. bat-latg
>> 3. latg
>>
>> Variants 1 and 2 say only that it is Latgalian which is a Baltic
>> language
>> (or variety).
>>
>> If it is not still neutral enough, lets take variant 3 which says only
>> that it is Latgalian.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sull?v
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> When you standardise on ISO-639-3 you will find that the bat code no
>>> longer is used. Slavic (other) is a deprecated code. It is therefore
>>> not
>>> a good idea to use it. The description of the Latvian entry at
>>> Ethnologue is explicit; Lagalian is considered a dialect.
>>>
>>> When Latgalian's status as a dialect is to be disputed, I am quite
>>> happy
>>> to help. We are at this stage looking into how this can be done in a
>>> friendly but also linguistic way. It has to be clear to all that this
>>> is
>>> a lot of work and that the heavy lifting will have to be done by those
>>> who propose the change. In the mean time, the codes have there use as
>>> they articulate to others and particular to automated processes what
>>> the
>>> language is. When the codes that are used are a mess and are chosen for
>>> political reasons, you prevent this process from happening smoothly.
>>>
>>> What is of relevance is what languages or dialects we choose for new
>>> projects. The codes used are a technical issue. When you make them more
>>> than that, it only becomes political and it does not help at all. I am
>>> opposed for all the above reasons and all the reasons that I have given
>>> before to any code that are not consistent with the standard. I am
>>> opposed to the creation of Latgalian under the code bat-ltg.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>     GerardM
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think everybody agrees that we shouldn't use 3-letter codes that
>>>> belong to
>>>> other languages.
>>>>
>>>> When people propose to use codes that belong to other languages, it's
>>>> out of
>>>> ignorance, not malice.
>>>>
>>>> However, to be able to use bat-ltg instead of lat-ltg is a different
>>>> debate
>>>> -- "bat-ltg" doesn't belong to another language, and it likely never
>>>> will.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On 20/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> Please explain what the arguments are NOT to accept a standard that
>>>>> is
>>>>> the only viable way of making sure that other people understand what
>>>>> language we are using. Please explain what alternative exists given
>>>>> the
>>>>> all too frequent choice of codes that are the codes for languages
>>>>> given
>>>>> by the standards organisation when new projects are proposed. Please
>>>>> explain what is gained by going against what is the standard for the
>>>>> acceptance of languages and measure it against what it would cost us
>>>>> to
>>>>> do it in an idiosyncratic manner. Please explain what is wrong to use
>>>>> either codes that comply with the standard and when we do not want to
>>>>> use such a code, a code that is manifestly different.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is fine to have a different opinion but please let there be some
>>>>> method behind the madness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>     GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ScottL wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ScottL wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> not.  Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable.  Several
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> constructed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in
>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>> should be higher.  For languages without a code there is still a
>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>> swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> other criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a practical approach you have a point but I hesitate to adopt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the POV of an external organization even a standards body unless
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> POV
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> is can be reasonably supported.  Which means it should still be a
>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>> by case thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely.  That's why I emphasize that such a POV is only a
>>>>>> starting
>>>>>> point.
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> Ec
>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Editors, who are not editors

body:
On 10/23/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> By "real edits" I mean edits to directly improve articles in the main
> namespace.

Does removeing deleted images count?

> By "work" in this context I mean a person's overall efforts in any
> namespace.

Can I count the effort that goes towards getting certian pics?

--
geni


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject:
[Commons-l] Poll to make all future POTDs FPs or QIs (from Jan 1
	2007)

body:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Poll
POTD: picture of the day (appears in a nice template that people often
add to their talk page, as well as on the main page)
FP: featured pictures
QI: quality images (somewhat akin to 'good articles' on en.wp, but
only for Wikimedian-created works)

Feel free to translate at will (on the poll page).

There is some discussion about it at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day too.

I personally rather like the fact that POTD is so open, and anyone can
add anything they want whenever they want, including anons. I'm sure
plenty of good FP nominations have come out of  POTDs. I would like to
see the creation of an "alternative POTD" process that allows this
ad-hoc contributing to continue. (but doesn't appear on the main page)
If this current poll succeeds, and other people think it's a viable
idea, I will probably set it up.

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editors, who are not editors

body:
On 10/22/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> According to a contribution history from
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate , they
> do not have any pages in Main space with over 10 edits, 9,7,7 are the
> top three. I am wondering why they are here, then I look at Wikipedia
> space and the highest page has 407, followed by 382, 326.

Those kind of stats, without anything else, doesn't necessarily mean
much. If you're a person that do alot of RC-patrol and/or other
gnomish activites, you don't usually get that many edits per article.
Also, many people do substantial improvements in just one edit (I tend
to do that, and thus I have similar numbers). These situations are not
uncommon. I know a number users who have improved a thousands of
articles with just one edit. Many people edit that way. My point is
that you need to look at fuller picture of an editors activites before
you can judge him.

As some other people have pointed out, if this editor did substantial
work before his latest 500 edits, even if that work was just cleanup
or RC-patrol and such, he has earned his position in the community.
And with that, his rights to influence policy.

Again, I can't really say whether this is the case here. I'm just
saying, numbers can be decieving.

--Oskar


from_name: Puzzlet Chung

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Korean news portal links to Wikipedia articles

body:
Somebody found that Naver News, the biggest news portal in Korea,
provides news articles with a link to the related article on Korean
Wikipedia:

http://news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSD&office_id=052&article_id=0000131189

(Scroll down - it's about on the two third of the page. The news is
about the North Koreans celebrating 80th anniversary of the
establishment of [[Down-With-Imperialism Union]].)


from_name: dbenzhuser

subject:
[Wikitech-l] major accessibility problem recently introduced
 to	MediaWiki

body:
Timwi schrieb:

> I agree with them. I say nuke the floats, and place the span after the
> section title into the h# element.

Even though I agree with you and would like to see the behavior from de
and fr to be default, there should be a possibility to switch to the old
style. Most people on de.wiki like the new position of the links (or at
least don't dislike it), but there are quiet some people that don't want
to use it
(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Search?ns2=1&search=oldEditsectionLinks&fulltext=Suche)


from_name: Tangotango

subject: [Foundation-l]  Proposed guidelines in our IRC channels

body:
This topic might be a little old, but as a regular in #wikipedia-bootcamp, I
can definitely say that this channel is dedicated to helping users out. We
do occasionally get users from other Wikimedia projects, and although our
level of expertise in languages other than English may be lacking depending
on the time and users active, we are always friendly and attempt to help
anyone who comes in. The channel is also largely free of off-topic
conversation.

If we can get a combination of (1) more experienced and friendly Wikimedians
with expertise in languages other than English and (2) more users from
different projects who need help, then I think we would do great as a
multilingual support channel.

Tangotango

-----Original Message-----
From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
Sent: October 13 2006

On 10/13/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Last time I was using IRC (quite a few months), #wikipedia was the
juvenile,
> off-topic channel and #wikipedia-en (the official support channel for
> en.wikipedia) was largely quiet. But, mainly for non-English speakers, it
> may be useful to create an multilingual support channel free from
off-topic
> conversation.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)

#wikipedia-bootcamp would probably come closest.

--
geni


from_name: Don Green

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
I wonder if $100 million dollars could change the law itself in the US... that could free up a lot of resources especially ones that are orphaned.

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editors, who are not editors

body:
On 10/23/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Well said. The problems with division of labour aren't significant at the sort of level
> that has been implied.

IMO, the actual problem is that now en-wp has grown to the degree that
nobody knows everything that's going on.  It's easy for someone who
participates in the project - even quite actively - to miss major
changes that are happening.

This is true no matter what participation pattern one has.

-Matt


from_name: blah blah

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
I think that there is enormous untapped potential in colleges and
universities. With the proper amount of funding, it would be possible to
convince schools to force their students to contribute their collective
knowledge to wikibooks/wikipedia as part of their classwork or homework. It
would have to start out small, a few schools experimenting with the idea
here and there. Students would have to login from a .edu address for
accountability purposes in order to avoid plagarism/idiots. They would have
to be distinct from the rest of the wiki community. Professors should also
get involved somehow but I have not thought out their role yet.

It would also kill many birds with one stone. Students can contribute about
subjects that are fresh in their mind as well as learn more about them as
they write. They will also be able to write their own FREE textbooks that
future students can use instead of paying ridiculous sums of money for the
latest books. Just imagine the potential if we could get every school in the
country (or the world) involved... Text books would constantly evolve over
time. Schools can print out copies for students who prefer something
physical at significantly reduced prices while they make a profit. It's a
win-win situation for all (except publishers, poo on them)

Schools should create their own educational content instead of forcing
students to fill publishers coffers. I believe that this would be the
quickest and cheapest method for freeing educational textbooks.

_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more?then map the best
route!  http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Cooperation from the schools would have to be there. I envision a time where
contributing to free textbooks is a part of college that everyone goes
through. It should be no different then typical classwork that students get
now. What makes typical classwork/homework anymore forced then contributing
to a wiki? Legal hassles would have to be sorted out but I am certain that
it could work. The mistakes that happened in Germany should be learned from,
not forgotten in contempt. They had a great idea going that has unrealised
potential

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us


from_name: Zordsdavini iz Litvy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
GerardM wrote:

We want to be found in Google for instance and to
> > do this we have to have standardised language codes. With a lav-**** we
> > have a better chance of finding the content that is in Latgalian. I am
> > at the moment finding out how to find what dialects have what code.
>

I posted "Tel??" in google (it's Samogitia capital). In thirst place was
http://bat-smg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel?iai. I still don't understand why
lv-ltg is more clearly. I'm looking to the future and to know that bat-smg
and bat-ltg is not sisters languages (because bat-ltg could be lv-ltg) do
bad things such as there is idea to have wikibook but both languages are to
small so it could be in one wikibook "bat" may be prg (there are some
enthusiasts for Old Prussian language) could be with too.
In eurominority (
http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/languages3.asp?id_groupeethnique=1&id_langues=1)
latgalian is been shown.

Arns Udov???


from_name: Maury Markowitz

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
>Spending all this money on changing the law in the USA is imho largely a
>waste of money.

And resources. I contribute to the Wiki to help provide an alternative to
the marketingspeak and lawyer-writen short-term memory that forms a
surprising amount of the 'web. Political lobbying is the sort of thing I
come to the wiki to avoid.

I still think everyone is much too focused on "big content". I'm much more
concerned about the huge amount of non-commercial content that gets stamped
with a copyright without the author having any idea of how that works. I
have posted on this before, and the answers were always "well that's what CC
is for". True as that may be, no-one's ever heard of it. _I_ never heard of
it until coming to the wiki.

Consider the millions of snapshots that are taken every week and posted on
the 'net. One or two of them would improve the wiki, I'm sure, but we can't
use them. Not because the snapshot-taker has any intension of making money,
but because it was copyrighted "by default" and they are completely unaware
of it. This has happened to me repeatedly when trying to get images for
articles. And contrary to the claims here, most librarians and archivists
are completely unaware of either the problem or the solutions.

So I still think education would be a good use of these funds. Who cares
about the big media houses when there is so much content out there that's
free but shackled? Let's try to fix THAT problem, lets make sure people know
there is a better way.

Maury

_________________________________________________________________
Experience Live Search from your PC or mobile device today.
http://www.live.com/?mkt=en-ca


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 23/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> When the $100 million dollars is spend in the United States, we have
> achieved something for the United States.. At this moment the amount of
> traffic is slowly but surely moving away from the English language
> domination in both our traffic and in in content. Given that there is a
> lot available in English in the first place, I expect that we have a
> better return on investment from what we do for other languages and
> cultures.
> The other cultures are underfunded relatively to the huge amounts of
> money that are spend on English language content in the first place.

The reason for changing the laws first in the US is because they tend
to pressure the rest of the world into 'harmonising' with their
copyright laws.

- d.


body:
On 23/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com> wrote:

> > sure it's widely announced. For reasons somewhat outside understanding,
> > users seem to react more allergic to cosmetic changes to the user interface
> > than actual functionality.

> This probably goes a long way to explaining why the GUI evolves so
> slowly - every change pisses off *someone* who is usually vocal about
> it. For some reason, skins don't seem to be solving this problem like
> they should - it should be possible to introduce changes to skins, so
> they only affect people who want to live on the bleeding edge. But in
> reality, everyone uses monobook.

I'd rather use Classic, but there are actually interface buttons
no-one bothered putting anywhere but Monobook; saying "hey, I can't
see the button" gets the response "use Monobook." So I've ended up
having to switch to Monobook.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] David Gerard is off on holiday

body:
Right, I'm off to Wales and Whitby for the next week and a half or so.
Try not to have any really stupid userbox RFCs or whatever the
currently fashionable equivalent is while I'm away.

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 23/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>When the $100 million dollars is spend in the United States, we have
>>achieved something for the United States.. At this moment the amount of
>>traffic is slowly but surely moving away from the English language
>>domination in both our traffic and in in content. Given that there is a
>>lot available in English in the first place, I expect that we have a
>>better return on investment from what we do for other languages and
>>cultures.
>>The other cultures are underfunded relatively to the huge amounts of
>>money that are spend on English language content in the first place.
>>
>>
>The reason for changing the laws first in the US is because they tend
>to pressure the rest of the world into 'harmonising' with their
>copyright laws.
>
I don't see that as necessarily the case.  For a long time US copyright
law had renewals.  Despite some completely understandable difficulties I
think this was a good idea in general.  That is gone.  The US also based
copyright terms on date of publication rather than the death date of the
author; that too was changed in 1976 to conform with international
rules.  The US has not (yet) adopted database protection laws that could
result in keeping some material protected indefinitely even when it is
already in the public domain.

The EU has done a fine job of building laws to support bureaucracy, and
there is an unfortunate unwillingness on the part of EU members to adopt
legislative positions that would run contrary to the bureaucratizing
trends of the EU administrators.  While it is important to keep US
legislation moving in the direction of openness, it is as illusory to
believe that this openness will trickle down to other countries as it is
to believe in trickle-down economics.  Far more effort needs to be
directed at the EU, whose administration only magnifies the
amateurishness of our own AfD clique.

Too often when the issue of making information available to everybody
the brick wall is not in the US but in the EU.  In many respects other
activities by the US in other unrelated matters have pointed to an
abandonment of moral leadership.  The effect of that is toward a
disinclination on the part of other countries to follow the US lead,
even when it would be beneficial to do so.  I don't see Europe doing
anything to accept leadership.  I see one fat orange cat sitting in
Brussels ignoring its herd of Odies.

Unlike Gerard I don't think this should become a matter of the English
language versus other languages.  If the issue is a question of laws
that has nothing to do with the language in which those laws are
written.  If it has to do with the language of material to be put into
our databases, there are non-English materials in US depositories that
can as easily be put into the database.  The fact nevertheless remains
that it takes people familiar with a language to make informed decisions
about what should be included.  I understand the lack of support for OCR
in other scripts, notably those of Asia, but again don't expect people
whose everyday life is exclusively in a Roman script to have the ability
to develop that technical support.

Ec


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Hoi,
When the $100 million dollars is spend in the United States, we have
achieved something for the United States.. At this moment the amount of
traffic is slowly but surely moving away from the English language
domination in both our traffic and in in content. Given that there is a
lot available in English in the first place, I expect that we have a
better return on investment from what we do for other languages and
cultures.

The other cultures are underfunded relatively to the huge amounts of
money that are spend on English language content in the first place.

Thanks,
   GerardM

Don Green wrote:
>
> I wonder if $100 million dollars could change the law itself in the US... that could free up a lot of resources especially ones that are orphaned.


from_name: George Herbert

subject:
[Foundation-l] Allegations of Wikipedia plagurism by
	Brandt/Websites he has stirred up sending nasty notices

body:
On 10/23/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mr. Brandt has posted a long listing of articles to his website making
> allegations of plagurism
> of wikipedia articles from copyrighted sources.
>
> http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html
>
> Some editors may want to investigate these claims to determine if the
> articles were copied from
> (Wikipedia -> these sites) or the other way around (these sites ->
> Wikipedia).
>
> I did receive a notice on a couple of the articles I had uploaded to
> Wikigadugi from the XML dumps
> along with some comments about "looking into possible copyright
> infringement" from one of the sites
> Brandt references which brought this matter to my attention in the first
> place.  Someone should probably
> go over these articles and determine if these claims have merit.
>
> I am not going to take down anythig from Wikigadugi right now since I am
> unable to determine if the
> articles were copied FROM Wikipedia or the other way around.
>
> Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I picked two at random - I can't get to his info page on [[John Glover
(general)]], and the info on the [[Julius L. Meier]] page does at first
glance seem a copyvio, but someone seems to have nuked the WP page
recently.  The text Brandt cites seems to be consistent with Google's cache.

Can someone with an admin bit inform us who's deleting these articles (or if
that was the only one, that one...)?

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
I'll be off to Morrisville, North Caroline (first time in the US) from next
Thursday October 26 to Tuesday. Don't let Wikipedia explode while I'm away
:)

Mgm

On 10/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Right, I'm off to Wales and Whitby for the next week and a half or so.
> Try not to have any really stupid userbox RFCs or whatever the
> currently fashionable equivalent is while I'm away.
>
>
> - 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
>


body:
On 10/23/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/23/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I picked two at random - I can't get to his info page on [[John Glover
> > (general)]], and the info on the [[Julius L. Meier]] page does at first
> > glance seem a copyvio, but someone seems to have nuked the WP page
> > recently.  The text Brandt cites seems to be consistent with Google's
> cache.
> >
> > Can someone with an admin bit inform us who's deleting these articles
> (or if
> > that was the only one, that one...)?
>
> Me to a large extent with help from W.marsh.
>
> We sorted this out last night:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Plagiarism_Detector_Bot
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Are you sure that the removals were appropriate?  On first inspection,
several of them seemed to be relatively minor and repairable plagarism.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] Allegations of Wikipedia plagurism by
 Brandt/Websites he has stirred up sending nasty notices

body:
Mr. Brandt has posted a long listing of articles to his website making
allegations of plagurism
of wikipedia articles from copyrighted sources.

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html

Some editors may want to investigate these claims to determine if the
articles were copied from
(Wikipedia -> these sites) or the other way around (these sites ->
Wikipedia).

I did receive a notice on a couple of the articles I had uploaded to
Wikigadugi from the XML dumps
along with some comments about "looking into possible copyright
infringement" from one of the sites
Brandt references which brought this matter to my attention in the first
place.  Someone should probably
go over these articles and determine if these claims have merit.

I am not going to take down anythig from Wikigadugi right now since I am
unable to determine if the
articles were copied FROM Wikipedia or the other way around.

Jeff


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Simetrical wrote:
> I did test my changes carefully before committing them.  I just don't
> have access to a screenreader, so I tested them carefully in visual
> browsers.

I wonder if Freedom Scientific would be prepared to donate a few licenses
for the developers.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Nick Jenkins

body:
> Please test your changes very carefully before committing them. There has
> been a lot of irritation at various projects when the user interface
> changed.

That's a bit harsh. The changes were made in response to user requests, plus a separate user-interface study that indicated new
users frequently got confused about what the [edit] links were editing, because they were too high off the line. So the changes were
made to reduce user-interface irritation.

Furthermore those changes were made in subversion on Wednesday, but were not rolled out to be live for approximately 4 days, which
is probably a longer delay that usual. And in that time, the developers (who use a variety of platforms and browsers) had time to
test it, and report/fix any problems found before they impacted general users. I certainly tested it before it was rolled out in the
browsers that I use, and I didn't find any problems, and as far as I'm aware neither did anyone else.

It's easy to be wise after the event, but the unfortunate fact is that sometimes you only find out about problems after you've gone
live. If anyone wants to help reduce this by testing SVN head, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear of any problems they find.

All the best,
Nick.


subject:
[Foundation-l] Allegations of Wikipedia plagurism
 by	Brandt/Websites he has stirred up sending nasty notices

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 10/23/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mr. Brandt has posted a long listing of articles to his website making
>>allegations of plagurism
>>of wikipedia articles from copyrighted sources.
>>
>>
>
>Good fortune is when you can count on your detractors to help you with
>your goals. :)
>
>In any case, I wish Brandt had done a little more homework because
>while I have no doubt that some of his findings are legitimate
>problems, some of them quite clearly are not.
>
>For example, his second case, [[Charles Wheatstone]], has a large
>amount of text copied from Heroes of the Telegraph by John Munro
>(1849-1930) [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=979].
>This has been documented on the talk page all along. Brandt claims the
>text came from some other site but what we have is a case of another
>site copying the PD text without attribution.  A good example of why
>attribution is important even when not required by law.
>
>In any case, waiting a week or two then taking those articles from the
>next dump should resolve any problems which you've had.
>
>I find it interesting that people would complain to you prior to
>complaining to Wikipedia.
>
>
I suspect the complaints came both directions. Also, remember, My site
is watched
like a hawk from a large list of detractors. They fire off emails to my
ISP is a constant
deluge. The complaint came from my ISP directly after they received an
email
from someone (Al Petrofsky I suspect).

Jeff

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


body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 10/23/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mr. Brandt has posted a long listing of articles to his website making
>>>allegations of plagurism
>>>of wikipedia articles from copyrighted sources.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Good fortune is when you can count on your detractors to help you with
>>your goals. :)
>>
>>In any case, I wish Brandt had done a little more homework because
>>while I have no doubt that some of his findings are legitimate
>>problems, some of them quite clearly are not.
>>
>>For example, his second case, [[Charles Wheatstone]], has a large
>>amount of text copied from Heroes of the Telegraph by John Munro
>>(1849-1930) [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=979].
>>This has been documented on the talk page all along. Brandt claims the
>>text came from some other site but what we have is a case of another
>>site copying the PD text without attribution.  A good example of why
>>attribution is important even when not required by law.
>>
>>In any case, waiting a week or two then taking those articles from the
>>next dump should resolve any problems which you've had.
>>
>>I find it interesting that people would complain to you prior to
>>complaining to Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I suspect the complaints came both directions. Also, remember, My site
>is watched
>like a hawk from a large list of detractors. They fire off emails to my
>ISP is a constant
>deluge. The complaint came from my ISP directly after they received an
>email
>from someone (Al Petrofsky I suspect).
>
>Jeff
>
>
They also have me listed in several image sites claiming I have images
from Wikipedia
that are copvio and both my site and WP are in violation. Since I have
not seen any DMCA
takedown notices, I don't know which images they are referring to.
Again, more of the
detractors and their whining.

... "Like being gummed to death by guppies...I just ignore them unless I
see something
more official".

Jeff

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


from_name: Petr Kadlec

body:
On 23/10/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Per-IP limits are prone to false
> positives due to shared IPs, and can be evaded to some degree by
> technically
> capable users, but the per-user limit is quite secure.
>

Also, consider the situation when you are not sure about your registered
username on Wikipedia -- you might try to fill in a few usernames and click
"mail me a new password" on each, which is quite a valid use case. (Another
solution to the problem would be a requirement to fill in your e-mail
address to use this functionality.)

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]


from_name: Traroth

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re :  Dream a little...

body:
Translations of free content. Public domain works are available in many languages, but usually the translation are still copyrighted and no free translation exists. In result, free content would exists in other languages than english, french, german, spanish and some few other languages.

Traroth

----- Message d'origine ----
De : Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
? : wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org; commons-l at wikimedia.org
Envoy? le : Dimanche, 15 Octobre 2006, 17h27mn 41s
Objet : [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

I would like to gather from the community some examples of works you
would like to see made free, works that we are not doing a good job of
generating free replacements for, works that could in theory be
purchased and freed.

Dream big.  Imagine there existed a budget of $100 million to purchase
copyrights to be made available under a free license.  What would you
like to see purchased and released under a free license?

Photos libraries? textbooks? newspaper archives? Be bold, be specific,
be general, brainstorm, have fun with it.

I was recently asked this question by someone who is potentially in a
position to make this happen, and he wanted to know what we need, what
we dream of, that we can't accomplish on our own, or that we would
expect to take a long time to accomplish on our own.

--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

___________________________________________________________________________
D?couvrez une nouvelle fa?on d'obtenir des r?ponses ? toutes vos questions !
Demandez ? ceux qui savent sur Yahoo! Questions/R?ponses
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> When the $100 million dollars is spend in the United States, we have
>> achieved something for the United States.. At this moment the amount of
>> traffic is slowly but surely moving away from the English language
>> domination in both our traffic and in in content. Given that there is a
>> lot available in English in the first place, I expect that we have a
>> better return on investment from what we do for other languages and
>> cultures.
>> The other cultures are underfunded relatively to the huge amounts of
>> money that are spend on English language content in the first place.
>>
>
>
> The reason for changing the laws first in the US is because they tend
> to pressure the rest of the world into 'harmonising' with their
> copyright laws.
>
>
> - d.
Hoi,
Spending all this money on changing the law in the USA is imho largely a
waste of money. There are so many productive things that can be done
with it. There is so much content that is need of preservation. Things
that are not available in any US repository. There is so much even in US
repositories that is NOT English that needs preservation..

The Wikimedia Foundation is about content. By doing what we do best, the
creation of content and making this content available, we make the
business model of proprietary knowledge more and more problematic. By
becoming an ever important factor for the availability of knowledge, our
position will be such that we will have as a consequence increased
influence on the politics behing copy right. Combine this with the
growing realisation that science is hampered by the effects of copyright
the momentum is ours anyway.

If there was one situation where I would agree that some action was
warranted, it would be when the USA decides the copyright period yet
again. This would be a good moment to move the Wikimedia Foundation to a
more benign country. Being realistic however, it would have more
symbolic meaning than actual effect given what American judges to
organisations that are clearly outside their jurisdiction like in the
Spamhouse case.

Thanks,
     GerardM


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editors, who are not editors

body:
Fastfission wrote
>The notion that we should be
> micromanaging other people's editing habits, or really entertain the
> notion that one sort of editing is more "real" than the other, seems
> totally counterproductive to me.

Well said. The problems with division of labour aren't significant at the sort of level that has been implied.

Charles

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 10/23/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com> wrote:
> sure it's widely announced. For reasons somewhat outside understanding,
> users seem to react more allergic to cosmetic changes to the user interface
> than actual functionality.

This probably goes a long way to explaining why the GUI evolves so
slowly - every change pisses off *someone* who is usually vocal about
it. For some reason, skins don't seem to be solving this problem like
they should - it should be possible to introduce changes to skins, so
they only affect people who want to live on the bleeding edge. But in
reality, everyone uses monobook.

Steve


from_name: Tim 'avatar' Bartel

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Hi,

blah blah schrieb am 23.10.2006 13:14:
> I think that there is enormous untapped potential in colleges and
> universities. With the proper amount of funding, it would be possible to
> convince schools to force their students to contribute their collective
> knowledge to wikibooks/wikipedia as part of their classwork or homework.

Besides the legal issues: Never force someone to contribute his
(home-)work under a free license to Wikimedia projects. This will cause
a lot of rejection like we had seen in a single case in German wikipedia
where pupils "were forced" to contribute to Wikipedia. This caused a lot
of trouble inside the community.

Bye, Tim.

--
http://wikipedistik.de


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Articles for

body:
On 10/23/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> What is the usefulness threshold when it comes to writing episode articles?

For me, (a) sufficient sourcing, and (b) sufficient editors willing to
work on the articles to lift them above "terrible".

-Matt


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] Include both, with sources?

body:
I just posted an email I got from FDOT that confirms what their data shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Road_913_%28Florida%29#SQUIDWARD.21
The IP claims that this is original research and won't accept it; is he
correct?


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 10/23/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Brandt has posted a long listing of articles to his website making
> allegations of plagurism
> of wikipedia articles from copyrighted sources.

Good fortune is when you can count on your detractors to help you with
your goals. :)

In any case, I wish Brandt had done a little more homework because
while I have no doubt that some of his findings are legitimate
problems, some of them quite clearly are not.

For example, his second case, [[Charles Wheatstone]], has a large
amount of text copied from Heroes of the Telegraph by John Munro
(1849-1930) [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=979].
This has been documented on the talk page all along. Brandt claims the
text came from some other site but what we have is a case of another
site copying the PD text without attribution.  A good example of why
attribution is important even when not required by law.

In any case, waiting a week or two then taking those articles from the
next dump should resolve any problems which you've had.

I find it interesting that people would complain to you prior to
complaining to Wikipedia.


body:
James Hare wrote:

>Mr. Merkey, you just may have what it takes to win a free box of cookies
>from Greg Maxwell.
>
>On 10/23/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 10/23/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski <tomasz.wegrzanowski at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Brandt is nothing more than a troll.
>>>Any genuine anti-plagiarism bot would at least look
>>>at article histories whether the allegedly "plagiarized" part
>>>was added at once (possible plagiarism) or build step by
>>>step (definitely plagiarism the other way). The trollbot
>>>doesn't do that because it's not interested in truth, just
>>>in building an impresive list of mostly false cases to
>>>attract attention.
>>>
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>No need for emotion. When he is helpful (intentionally or otherwise)
>>we should take his help, when he is not we should ignore him.
>>
>>Having a bot check the history isn't so trivial, in any case.
>>
>>More on topic:  A box of cookies for whomever ports the recent enwiki
>>automated detection advances (wherebot for example) to some of the
>>other languages which may currently be getting less oversight.
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
I can take care of Cherokee and the Native Languages.

They will have a hard time evern KNOWING if its a copyvio in Cherokee
since only we can read it.

Jeff


body:
On 10/23/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski <tomasz.wegrzanowski at gmail.com> wrote:
> Brandt is nothing more than a troll.
> Any genuine anti-plagiarism bot would at least look
> at article histories whether the allegedly "plagiarized" part
> was added at once (possible plagiarism) or build step by
> step (definitely plagiarism the other way). The trollbot
> doesn't do that because it's not interested in truth, just
> in building an impresive list of mostly false cases to
> attract attention.
[snip]

No need for emotion. When he is helpful (intentionally or otherwise)
we should take his help, when he is not we should ignore him.

Having a bot check the history isn't so trivial, in any case.

More on topic:  A box of cookies for whomever ports the recent enwiki
automated detection advances (wherebot for example) to some of the
other languages which may currently be getting less oversight.


from_name: James Hare

body:
Mr. Merkey, you just may have what it takes to win a free box of cookies
from Greg Maxwell.

On 10/23/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/23/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski <tomasz.wegrzanowski at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brandt is nothing more than a troll.
> > Any genuine anti-plagiarism bot would at least look
> > at article histories whether the allegedly "plagiarized" part
> > was added at once (possible plagiarism) or build step by
> > step (definitely plagiarism the other way). The trollbot
> > doesn't do that because it's not interested in truth, just
> > in building an impresive list of mostly false cases to
> > attract attention.
> [snip]
>
> No need for emotion. When he is helpful (intentionally or otherwise)
> we should take his help, when he is not we should ignore him.
>
> Having a bot check the history isn't so trivial, in any case.
>
> More on topic:  A box of cookies for whomever ports the recent enwiki
> automated detection advances (wherebot for example) to some of the
> other languages which may currently be getting less oversight.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>