from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Upgrades in progress

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> As a reminder, mails to the wikipedia lists at *wikiMedia.org* should go
> through to the backup server when pliny is down. This isn't set up yet
> for wikiPedia.org.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Now all list (so far i know) use the mail.wikipedia.org/* url. The "old"
lists use "wikipedia.org" email adress and some new lists a
"wikimedia.org" email adress.

Will this stay so? If not please announce so i can update gmane.

Walter


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: "Mental Health Service Consumer" Trolls

body:
Alex756 wrote:

>This organization is a good place to start understanding
>what "mental health service consumers" or just "mental
>health consumers" (the terms used by most individuals
>who are or should be under some kind of treatment)
>have to deal with on a daily basis:
>http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=Living_With

That's the term that's used by most of us now?
I had no idea that the consumerification of society
had proceeded to such a degree!

Since I use psychiatric counseling and prescriptions for medication,
technically I must agree that I am a "mental health service consumer".
I don't see how I could be a "mental health consumer", however.
But in any case, I don't generally identify myself with such terms.
More relevant, IMO, is that: firstly, I have a mental illness
(even more relevant is which one I have, since they vary greatly);
and, secondly, that in my case it is well treated.
Only in relatively specialised contexts does it become relevant
that I receive services in order to obtain this treatment
(although that would be a reasonable guess).

-- Toby


list: textbook-l

from_name: Wouter Vanden Hove

subject: [Textbook-l] Re: history texts

body:
Op za 11-10-2003, om 20:18 schreef Sanford Forte:
> Question: The Connexions Project at Rice http://cnx.rice.edu/ has the
> facility to be able to create printed pages quite easily, or so I've been
> led to be;ieve by several people who have participated in that project. Is
> there any possibility of hooking up this pilot project with Connexions, or
> learning from them, as regards the printing constraints in Wikipedia?

The Connexions-software platform will be released to the public in
december. Connexions uses masterfiles in XML (CNXML) that can be
converted to other formats.

Wouter Vanden Hove
www.opencursus.be
www.open-education.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/attachments/20031014/4a3bb010/attachment.pgp


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Paul Stansifer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Advertising for expert volunteers

body:
>If someone designed an A4 poster for Wikipedia I'd be happy to print off
>lots of copies and stick them up around my university. And there are
>probably wikipedians at other universities who could do the same, and it'd
>be a lot cheaper than advertising in a major journal.
>
>Imran
>
>
I've uploaded an A4 PDF of a set of four (I couldn't think of an idea to
use a whole page) flyers (with tear-offs that way "www.wikipedia.org" on
the sides) at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:wikipedia_flyers_PM.pdf .  I see
some potential problems with my design:
* those tear-offs might be inappropriate/too numerous/too small in this
case.
* the "got knowledge?" slogan might seem uncreative.
* the "Wikipedia knows more than you (don't worry -- it knows more than
us too)" might still seem pretentious.
If you have OpenOffice.org, use the source file
(http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:wikipedia_flyers_PM.sxd) to revise it.


from_name: Stevertigo

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:

> Since I use psychiatric counseling and prescriptions
> for medication, technically I must agree that I am a
>"mental health service consumer".

And the rest of us arent or have'nt at one time or
another been?  My God, what makes you so special?

: )

~S~

...the great artists of the world are never Puritans,
and seldom respectable. No virtuous man???that is,
virtuous in the Y.M.C.A. sense???has ever painted a
picture worth looking at, or written a symphony worth
hearing, or a book worth reading...   ???Mencken

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] User names

body:
Stevertigo wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>Yes, I am absolutely arguing against that policy.
>>A more detailed case, from principle, is in my most recent post,
>>which is a lengthy reply to a post from mav.

>The best policies are simple. Where subjective
>concerns are dealt with, we need consensus.  There is
>no way around it--these situations will arise, and
>there will need to be decisions made.  Either there
>will be a community consensus, on what that decision
>will be, or there will be a Jimbo consensus.  This is
>the choice.

There is another choice (although it might be included in the above).
The community could decide to try to avoid interfering in some things,
concentrating on writing articles (and to a lesser extent policy)
but ignoring random POV accumulations around individual users.
For the most part, the community does this -- such as on user pages.

Whether this decision comes through community consensus,
or is imposed by Jimbo, I don't really care. ^_^

>>According to that article, Wikifaith is faith in the wiki process.

>Its faith in people. Not the process.

Hey, I can only read what's on the web page that you linked to!
That says "the wiki model of web development".
But OK, I have faith in people too.

>Wikifaith, as I
>define it is simply an understanding that "Wiki works"
>because "people work"-- Wiki is a name for a tool that
>represents a technological extension of the human
>spirits of community and collegiality.

Ah, but this is more than simply faith in people!
Just because somebody has faith in people
doesn't mean that they'll believe that Wiki works.
I'm sure that there's a strong correlation here --
in fact, I'd be surprised if /anybody/ had faith in wiki
yet had no faith in people -- but it doesn't follow.
So there is something more to the principle,
something which you and I both think is correct,
but which others might not.

>>I also have faith that Wikipedia will generally do the right thing;

>I have no faith in the thing called "Wikipedia"
>whatsoever. My faith is reserved for the people who
>happen to be on it. Nes pa?

I have faith in people, including Wikipedians;
but many human institutions fail despite good people in them.
So I /additionally/ have faith that Wikipedia also works.

I'm not sure if it's my faith or yours that is the larger.
Do I have more faith, since I believe in Wikipedia as well as Wikipedians?
Or do you have more faith, since (according to this hypothesis)
you believe that instiutions made up of good people must work?
If the latter, then I have less faith, because I disagree!
(and cite every state in human history as my evidence ^_^).

>>To the extent that money measures faith,

>Your donation of "money" (work hours quantified,
>right) is a good thing.  Are you going to compare your
>donation in anyway to those of others?

No, my money is /not/ work hours quantified.
Indeed, work hours are measured in hours, not dollars.
But even work itself hardly corresponds well to dollars.
(For example, I wouldn't work more on Wikipedia for money.)

And I don't see any use in comparing my donation to others'.
In terms of total amounts, our levels of financial freedom
are bound to be quite different -- and Jimbo has us all beat.
Even if we could translate the donations into work (or work hours),
these don't have the same value to each person either
(and they'd have to be balanced by other work on Wikipedia).
Finally, even if a meaningful comparison did exist,
what would be the point?

OTOH, comparing this donation to my past donations is useful,
in that money means about the same to me when I donate to Wikimedia
as when I donate to various other groups.  Not entirely meaningful,
since you also have to figure in the various groups' financial needs.
But there are other groups that, like Wikimedia, don't need my donation
but could still put it to good use (a middle ground between
groups that are very wealthy and groups that are desperate for funds).
So, in the end, I think that it says /something/
that my donation to Wikimedia was much larger.

Not a huge point in the end, however;
treat my multiparagraph reply as theoretical in nature,
rambling about the nature of money more than anything else.

>>See, if that ever /really/ went through, I would leave.
>>Hell, if it were ever a serious issue, I'd lose a lot of faith
>>(in Wikipedia, but not much in the wiki process in general).

>Youre an addict, Toby. ;-) Besides-- you make my
>point-- nothing would come of it.  I can whip up some
>annoying fuss trying to get some support for it, and
>it will be over like *snap*  I'll *bet that the
>namechange page would even be deleted (as inflammatory
>vandalism )-- and you and I both know that there needs
>be "consensus" for such a thing to stand. ;-)

Actually, if the content was interesting, I might keep it.
But anyway, if your point is that nothing would come of it ...
well, the conclusion I draw is that Wikipedia isn't as bad as it could be.
Hell, I conceded that a long time ago! -- that's what all that talk
about my faith in Wikipedia is about.  But it doesn't at all follow
that a namechange proposal that something /does/ come from
is a good idea, right?  That's the debate here.

>>I suspect that the world would be a better place
>>if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules.

>Idea: Keep the discussion limited to the context at hand, eh?

Hrm?  What does that mean?

If you mean that you feel that I'm drifting off topic,
so that you don't want to respond to rest of my post,
then that's fine with me.  (But you do respond! ^_^)

>>If people couldn't do anything to change Drolsi's old name
>>/other/ than to talk to him on a personal basis
>>and try to convince him that it would be a good idea,
>>then that might have been what people tried in the first place!

>This is idealistic-- measures to enforce that which is
>best for wikipedia are in place now-- Jim can pull
>even pull the plug if its going to be good for wiki.

It's worse than idealistic; it's counterfactual!
But still interesting to me to think what might happen;
counterfactuals often give insight into reality.

>Lets keep perspective here.  This is just a name.

Isn't that the argument /against/ forcing the change? ^_^

>"There is no G-d-given right to edit Wikipedia"
>remember. (Tarquin, I think)

KQ, I think.  Also not particularly relevant.
While nobody has /any/ right to edit Wikipedia,
that doesn't mean that any rules that we impose on editors
are a /good idea/.

>If your critique is of my
>approach-- I will acknowledge that I could have been
>more cordial to JiL.

I wasn't so much criticising what /you did/ as criticising
what /Drolsi saw done/ -- although you started that, I suppose.
Drolsi may yet prove to be an old troll trying to rile us up;
I'm more concerned about the next Drolsi, who may be sincere.

>>Instituting banning and page protection -- even if necessary,
>>in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad thing too,
>>like anything that interferes with the wiki process
>>(in which I have so much faith).

>So, under it all-- you oppose banning itself? Then we
>need a namechange for this thread.  Should we take the
>step of voting on it?

Under it all, the very existence of bans and blocks is an evil.
Given the attraction of vandals, it seems to be a necessary evil.
But it is unwiki -- that is a fact (whereas as "evil" is opinion) --
and we should recognise that, to help us make wise decisions about it.
The same goes for page deletion and anything done through an SQL query,
including changing usernames.  They're edits that ordinary users
cannot make, hence unwiki -- necessary though they may be.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Godwin's Law (Was: User names (Consensus 101--again))

body:
Stevertigo wrote:

>Eclecticology wrote:

>>Toby's right, there was no problem until those who wanted a
>>changed name started one.

>This is like saying "the Nazis werent a problem until
>England and Russia declared war on them."  There- I
>invoked Godwin's Law.

So you concede defeat?  Very well, I accept.

-- Toby


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] "New" logo

body:
Perhaps I missed the relevant discussion, but can someone point me to the
place where it was decided that the logo that was voted on should be
scrapped in favor of a grey sphere with glyphs?

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [WikiEN-l] "New" logo

body:
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 00:06 US/Pacific, Dante Alighieri wrote:

> Perhaps I missed the relevant discussion, but can someone point me to
> the place where it was decided that the logo that was voted on should
> be scrapped in favor of a grey sphere with glyphs?

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants

(Oh, how I wish we'd just scrapped the concept of a logo and made
everyone switch to using Lynx to browse the web. Would have been
easier. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Soft ban on IP range

body:
Aoineko wrote:
>Instead, I don't understand why admin can't ban logged user!?

Admins on the English Wikipedia can. But this is a very new feature, maybe it
is not installed on fr.wikipedia yet. Try to ban your own user name to see if
it works.

>What to do if a logged vandal attack our favourite Wikipedia???

That is why Tim wrote the feature.

-- mav


subject: [WikiEN-l] "New" logo

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
>Perhaps I missed the relevant discussion, but can
>someone point me to the place where it was decided
>that the logo that was voted on should be scrapped in
>favor of a grey sphere with glyphs?

We voted on a concept. That concept has been greatly refined and polished.
More tweaking is still welcome as far as I am concerned (the new version is
much better the the original, but it still is missing something....).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Textbook-l] textbook-l@wikimedia.org

body:
Test to see if this @wikimedia.org email address works...

--mav


subject: [WikiEN-l] "New" logo JIMBO, PLEASE INTERVENE

body:
At 12:49 AM 10/15/2003, mav wrote:
>Dante Alighieri wrote:
> >Perhaps I missed the relevant discussion, but can
> >someone point me to the place where it was decided
> >that the logo that was voted on should be scrapped in
> >favor of a grey sphere with glyphs?
>
>We voted on a concept. That concept has been greatly refined and polished.
>More tweaking is still welcome as far as I am concerned (the new version is
>much better the the original, but it still is missing something....).

With all due respect mav, this is bs. No one voted for the logo that is
currently on the 'pedia. I'd like to ask Jimbo to step in at this point and
make some sort of  decree from on high... this logo thing is getting out of
hand.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


from_name: Luc Van Oostenryck

subject: [Wikitech-l] image deletion on fr:

body:
On fr: it is impossible to delete images.
Is this related to the status of the servers?

-- Looxix


subject: [Wikitech-l] image deletion on fr:

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 17:28 US/Pacific, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>
>> On fr: it is impossible to delete images.
>> Is this related to the status of the servers?
>
>
> Image deletion is temporarily unavailable until some bugs related to it
> are fixed, sorry.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

No problem.

-- Looxix


from_name: Alex R.

body:
 From: "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu>

> Alex756 wrote:
>
> >This organization is a good place to start understanding
> >what "mental health service consumers" or just "mental
> >health consumers" (the terms used by most individuals
> >who are or should be under some kind of treatment)
> >have to deal with on a daily basis:
> >http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=Living_With
>
> That's the term that's used by most of us now?
> I had no idea that the consumerification of society
> had proceeded to such a degree!

I know a lot of mental health professionals here in NYC.
For many years the correct term has be "consumer". They
consume services, these individuals are not necessarily
"disabled" "debilitated" or "sick" any more than one with
the flu needs some medical care.

The use of this term was started by "consumer groups" about
fifteen years ago as many of the not-for-profit organizations
in the area of mental health pushed for that name. It has become
the norm. NAMI is an organization of such consumers,
it was not geared to the MHP point of view, but to be sensitive
to the point of view of those who receive services.

> Since I use psychiatric counseling and prescriptions for medication,
> technically I must agree that I am a "mental health service consumer".
> I don't see how I could be a "mental health consumer", however.

It may seem confusing, but individuals who attempt to assimilate
mental health are perhaps  "mental health consumers". In the
social services area they are known as "social services consumers".
Those who dispense services are known as "service providers".
(Interesting that the term is so similar in the internet field, what
is that saying about all us "users" Are you a user?).

I did not make up this terminology, but I understand that those
who need mental health services have been stigmatized with very
negative and charged monikers that have caused them great pain
and discrimination often based upon societal stereotypes that
may be summed up in such words as "crazy" "mad" "mentally
ill" or "mental case". It is felt that all these names are projecting
very negative stereotypes and preventing individuals who might
otherwise be treated like other human beings from being mistreated
or ignored because of problems that they face that may be beyond their
control. Even the term "client" tends to marginalize, in the opinion
of these groups (though not all mental health professionals recognize
that the only appropriate word for these people is "consumers".

Anyone who uses such terminology,  in the opinion of these
"consumer groups," continues these preconceived and
prejudicial stereotypes by encouraging these negative symbols
to circulate through the use of  language that reflects a negative
view of the situation these people find themselves in through no
fault of their own.

It may not be a violation of any law or contrary to any principle
of free speech to use such terminology, but the opinion of
those consumers who suffer from the use of these terms perhaps
should be kept in mind.. It is their opinion that when one uses
these terms indescriminately the use of them causes groups
of people to be further stigmatizated, alienated and
marginalized from society.

Alex756


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Baghdad Museum Mediawiki

body:
http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/usace/

"The Baghdad Museum Project is a public-private partnership dedicated
to preserving, protecting and further cultivating the cultural
heritage of the people of Iraq through multi-sector and
multi-disciplinary dialogue and exchange."

John Simmons of the project has approached us asking for assistance
setting up a MediaWiki for their project.  I don't have the time
myself, but I did offer them that I would make a pitch for them here
on wikitech-l.

Perhaps one of the developers will find their project interesting
enough to lend them some support?

At the present time, all of their work is being done on a voluntary
basis, as they are seeking at this point to develop a seed of their
project to potentially leverage into private or public grants of
support.  So, they can't pay you.

--Jimbo


body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
> With all due respect mav, this is bs. No one voted for the logo that is
> currently on the 'pedia. I'd like to ask Jimbo to step in at this point
> and make some sort of  decree from on high... this logo thing is
> getting out of hand.

I'm not sure what I'd decree.  My wife asked me the other day "why
does the logo keep changing?"  I had to admit that I didn't actually
know.  I just said, "Oh, you know... wikipedia... we like to change
things... and there's some kind of vote going on, or revisions or
something."

It'd be irresponsible for me to make a decree when I've given up on
following the details lately.  :-)

But I can make a meta-decree: we need to draw this to some kind of
conclusion within the next week or two.  And the conclusion, the
selected logo, should have been chosen by the process that we've been
following, including voting and what-not.  And unless someone has a
really good case that Erik has done something egregiously contrary to
the spirit of voting on the logo, I'll leave it to him to certify the
final result.  And I think we should have another logo competition of
some sort, 2 years hence.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] AstroWikipedia

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> NAI ;) But, could WIkipedia be trademark at all as it is generic
> term? Noone can trademark "Cherry Jam" as a name for cherry jam,
> could anyone trademark "Wikipedia" as a name for a Wiki
> encyclopedia?

Yes, Wikipedia is a trademark, and soon to be a registered trademark.

It is *not* a generic term.  It is a completely invented term.

--Jimbo


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikitech-l] Make Math Error

body:
While trying to install Phase 3 using mediawiki-20030829 I had the
following error while making math:

[colorado at tribal math]$ ls
CVS       html.ml    mathml.mli       tex.mli      texvc_cgi.ml
Makefile  html.mli   parser.mly       texutil.ml   texvc_test.ml
README    lexer.mll  render.ml        texutil.mli  util.ml
TODO      mathml.ml  render_info.mli  texvc.ml

[colorado at tribal math]$ make
ocamlopt -c util.ml
ocamlc -c render_info.mli
ocamlc -c tex.mli
ocamlyacc parser.mly
ocamlc -c parser.mli
ocamlopt -c parser.ml
ocamlc -c html.mli
ocamlopt -c html.ml
ocamlc -c mathml.mli
ocamlopt -c mathml.ml
ocamlc -c texutil.mli
ocamlopt -c texutil.ml
ocamlopt -c render.ml
ocamllex lexer.mll
187 states, 3221 transitions, table size 14006 bytes
ocamlopt -c lexer.ml
ocamlopt -c texvc.ml
ocamlopt -o texvc unix.cmxa util.cmx parser.cmx html.cmx mathml.cmx
texutil.cmx render.cmx lexer.cmx texvc.cmx
ocamlopt -c texvc_test.ml
ocamlopt -o texvc_test util.cmx parser.cmx html.cmx mathml.cmx texutil.cmx
lexer.cmx texvc_test.cmx
ocamlopt -o texvc_tex util.cmx parser.cmx html.cmx mathml.cmx texutil.cmx
lexer.cmx texvc_tex.cmx
Cannot find file texvc_tex.cmx
make: *** [texvc_tex] Error 2
rm parser.ml lexer.ml
[colorado at tribal math]$

[colorado at tribal math]$ ls
CVS        lexer.mll   parser.o         texutil.ml      texvc_test.cmx
Makefile   lexer.o     render.cmi       texutil.mli     texvc_test.ml
README     mathml.cmi  render.cmx       texutil.o       texvc_test.o
TODO       mathml.cmx  render.ml        texvc           util.cmi
html.cmi   mathml.ml   render.o         texvc.cmi       util.cmx
html.cmx   mathml.mli  render_info.cmi  texvc.cmx       util.ml
html.ml    mathml.o    render_info.mli  texvc.ml        util.o
html.mli   parser.cmi  tex.cmi          texvc.o
html.o     parser.cmx  tex.mli          texvc_cgi.ml
lexer.cmi  parser.mli  texutil.cmi      texvc_test
lexer.cmx  parser.mly  texutil.cmx      texvc_test.cmi

[colorado at tribal phase3]$ php install.php
Directory "/public/html/colorado/dev" exists.
Directory "/public/html/colorado/dev/upload" created.
Directory "/public/html/colorado/dev/style" created.
Directory "/public/html/colorado/dev/upload/tmp" created.
Copying files...
Directory "/public/html/colorado/dev/math" created.
Directory "/public/html/colorado/dev/upload/math" created.

Warning: copy(./math/texvc_tex): failed to open stream: No such file or
directory in
/public/html/colorado/dev/mediawiki-20030829/phase3/install.php on line 157
Failed to copy file "texvc_tex" to "/public/html/colorado/dev/math"

[colorado at tribal math]$ make
ocamlopt -o texvc_tex util.cmx parser.cmx html.cmx mathml.cmx texutil.cmx
lexer.cmx texvc_tex.cmx
Cannot find file texvc_tex.cmx
make: *** [texvc_tex] Error 2

Any ideas?

Fred


from_name: sannse

subject:
"Mental Health Service Consumer" Trolls was Re: [WikiEN-l] mad
	trolls

body:
Alex wrote:

> This organization is a good place to start understanding
> what "mental health service consumers" or just "mental
> health consumers" (the terms used by most individuals
> who are or should be under some kind of treatment)
> have to deal with on a daily basis:
> http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=Living_With

Thanks for the link Alex.

In my experience (in England) we are usually known as "service users".  I've
rarely heard anyone actually use the term other than the professionals
though.  I can't say I'd like to be called a "consumer", sounds like I'm on
the way down to the shops to pick up a mental illness! (hey, maybe I can
exchange mine - the one I've got doesn't match the furniture  ;)

I understand the idea of removing terms with negative connotations, but I do
believe that that does nothing to remove the negative views, just hides them
under more and more complicated language.  I have seen (and experienced)
appallingly low levels of care from professionals that wouldn't dream of
using a negative term for their "service users".

As someone said in a different context - of all the possible versions, I
prefer to be called sannse.

Regards

san


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Idle banter department

body:
> What if I just thanked Ed for being Ed, Ed?
>
> ~S~

That would be a typically Stevious remark. ;-)

~Unc~


from_name: Björn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 24

body:
> Please recall that, in his guise as EntmootsOfTrolls, he made threats to sic Palestinian terrorists on RK.  Death threats are not grounds for reinstatement.
>
> RickK

No he didn't.

BL


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Computer mating

body:
Anthere,

If you're planning to mate your computer with another, make sure you get
the right cables.

And if their first offspring is a boy, please name him "Chip".

Edmond Le Pauvre


subject: [Wikitech-l] Don't try to ban your own username!

body:
Please don't try to ban your own username! Ban a friend's instead (with
permission, of course).

BECAUSE: If you ban yourself, I think you're next attempt to log in (to
unban yourself) will CAUSE YOUR IP ADDRESS TO BE AUTOMATICALLY BANNED.
There is no way for a sysop to unban themselves. Only ANOTHER SYSOP can
do this.

Am I right, Brion/Tim/Magnus/et al., or am I just being my usual
alarmist, over-protective self?

Ed Poor


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] Blocking logged in users in the non-english

body:
From: Tim Starling <ts4294967296 at hotmail.com>

>You can already ban logged in users on fr:, it's just
>that no-one
>bothered to tell the French that. It's just a matter
>of translating the
>interface. For example where it used to say "blocked
>IP addresses", it
>should now say "blocked users" or "blocked usernames
>and IP addresses".

>I should reiterate that this feature should only be
>used for preventing
>"simple vandalism", or enforcing bans approved by
>Jimbo.

>-- Tim Starling.

Of course.
One problem will be for Jimbo to have the information
to decide the ban :-)
And the second will be for people to refrain
themselves :-)))

New wars in perspectives :-(((

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] User names

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:

> Whether this decision comes through community
> consensus, or is imposed by Jimbo, I don't really
care. ^_^

Such is the perennial failing of attempt to develop a
civil and self-reliant society.   ;-)

~S~

==message truncated==

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:

> So you concede defeat?  Very well, I accept.

I will admit losing a pointless argument due to
fatigue and boredom, if you admit that you were just
trolling in the first place.  ^_^

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
I trust Erik (Eloquence) to certify the final result of the "conclusion"
of the logo-choosing process. He has always been fair in all his
dealings with other Wikipedians, including me.

I especially include those dealings in which he and I disgreed: his
disgreements with me have always been courteous and principled, and half
the time I realized he was right afterwards!

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] AstroWikipedia

body:
 From: "Nikola Smolenski" <smolensk at eunet.yu>

> On Tuesday 14 October 2003 14:20, Imran Ghory wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, cprompt wrote:
> > > Don't see any reason to. They're not claiming to be connected to
> > > Wikipedia, and Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and all our other sites all list
> > > which sites are ours.
> >
> > IANAL. But, my understand is that general use of the term Wikipedia
could
> > generify it, thus preventing the Wikimedia foundation from gaining a
> > trademark on the name at a later date.
>
> NAI ;) But, could WIkipedia be trademark at all as it is generic term?
Noone
> can trademark "Cherry Jam" as a name for cherry jam, could anyone
trademark
> "Wikipedia" as a name for a Wiki encyclopedia?

Is it a generic term?  Coca-cola is fanciful term created by combining
two generic terms, coca and cola. Wikipedia is not a word.   "wiki" is,
I understand, a foreign term meaning "quick" in English. pedia is part
of a word. They are combined to form the fanciful "Wikipedia".

As well, the term Wikipedia has been used in the media not to refer to
a wiki encyclopedia, but to refer to THE wiki encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
There is a well documented use of the word as having its origin on/
through Nupedia (another trademark).  This is not a legal opinion,
but it appears that Wikipedia has a strong mark that has been created
by longstanding and continous usage. If one puts the word Wikipedia
into any search engine one receives hits that refer to wikipedia.org,
not any other online encylopedia (even other online encyclopedias
have articles about Wikipedia).

Using news.google.com today I was informed that there are 55 current news
articles that use the word "wikipedia".  Not one of these sites uses
Wikipedia in any other way besides meaning "the Wikipedia"
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=Wikipedia&btnG=Search+News

While google also brings up 2,370,000 hits for google, it seems that
even other wiki sites see "Wikipedia" as a term that refers to all the
online free encyclopedias that are located at the domain wikipedia.org.

It appears there is a strong argument that the name Wikipedia
is a fanciful name that is not a word or concept, but a designator
of Wikipedia that has a well establish use "in commerce" (that
is a legal term of art and has little to do with selling anything)
as a fanciful name and mark.

Alex756


body:
LOL, thanks, Andre. I love it when someone relieves me of my worries.

Ed


body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> At the point the logo was updated, there was
> virtually unanimous consensus
> that the Nohat variant was an improvement (20 in
> favor, 2 against).

>This satisfied the condition of the last stage of our
> contest, namely,
> optimization by consensus.

Excuse any redundancy, with Erik but: He's exactly
right. The process of selecting the PM logo ( if you
were there, Dante ) had a problem in that most logos
were done by non-professionals with little eye for
detail or skill to improve them.  As such each "logo"
was understood to be an *amateur rendering of a
concept -- to have minor modifications later.

Ironically, the improvement process was a bit loose:
People took radically different approaches to the PM
logo, rather than simply improve upon the original.
All useful for generating ideas, though. And Nohat
spent a lot of time tweaking it little by little to
get a polished and professional look for the final.
I did some colorized versions of the PMNH logo here:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants/Stevertigo

>As in all such consensus
> discussions, only
> interested parties participate.

Not to mention there was a [[meta:Logo feedback]] link
on the front page -- after the change was made (until
someone took it down).  The first NH version a couple
days ago was a bit dark, and people gave feedback on
that.  And it still can use some tweaking!  There are
some jaggies in the version on wiki now that need to
be smoothed over.  Versions to be used for other
projects/ appications (posters, etc) need to be dealt
with independently.  Im not sure if Nohat is burned
out on it -- he spent a *lot* of time on it -- as did
Paul to come up with it (With GNU only software, no
less) in the first place.

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [WikiEN-l] AstroWikipedia

body:
On Tuesday 14 October 2003 14:20, Imran Ghory wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, cprompt wrote:
> > Don't see any reason to. They're not claiming to be connected to
> > Wikipedia, and Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and all our other sites all list
> > which sites are ours.
>
> IANAL. But, my understand is that general use of the term Wikipedia could
> generify it, thus preventing the Wikimedia foundation from gaining a
> trademark on the name at a later date.

NAI ;) But, could WIkipedia be trademark at all as it is generic term? Noone
can trademark "Cherry Jam" as a name for cherry jam, could anyone trademark
"Wikipedia" as a name for a Wiki encyclopedia?


body:
At 08:10 AM 10/15/2003, Erik wrote:

>At the point the logo was updated, there was virtually unanimous consensus
>that the Nohat variant was an improvement (20 in favor, 2 against). This
>satisfied the condition of the last stage of our contest, namely,
>optimization by consensus. As in all such consensus discussions, only
>interested parties participate. If you had looked around on Meta, you
>would have noticed that these discussions have been going on since Oct 1.
>What do you think where the variant submissions came from? The variant
>process was broadly advertised at least on the English Wikipedia.

That's all well and good. There's just one problem. The submission of logos
was announced on the main page of the Wikipedia. The voting for logos was
announced on the main page of the W. The second round of voting was
announced on the main page of the W. The final selection was announced on
the main page of the W.

Where was the revision process announced?

I'm sorry if I don't spend as much time on the meta as on the Wikipedia
proper, but there wasn't even (as far as I can tell) a single mention on
the Wikipedia proper that the logo was actually being CHANGED from the
initial winner to the nohat version. I was aware that there was
conversation taking place about potential revisions, but frankly, I assumed
that we would all be notified when someone was considering taking the
drastic step of actually changing the logo live. Working on something is
all well and good, but when you post it live to the 'pedia, I think you
need something a little more than a consensus of 20 behind it.

I would expect that a simple message to at LEAST the list ( "Hey, we're
trying to get consensus on a logo, please come weigh in") or on the VP or
on the Main Page. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed.

I'm also a bit offended at the implications that I'm hearing that I must
not have really been interested, because I wasn't able to find the
discussion. Frankly, I don't spend my entire life on the Wikipedia, and if
something is happening in a back corner with no advertisement, I may not
find it, even if I care about it.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [Wikipedia-l] wired news article (print & online)

body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html

"At 37, Jimmy Wales has already established his legacy on the Internet."

Gosh, I'm blushing at that.  Maybe I should retire now.

--Jimbo


body:
Dante wrote:
>With all due respect mav, this is bs. No one voted
>for the logo that is currently on the 'pedia.

Well I'm sure you already know that I have a BS in BS
(in more ways than one!). ;)

Again, they voted for the *concept* - an unfinished
puzzle ball that gave the impression of many languages
(Erik kept on saying that the concept-implementations
can and and should be improved). A great many people
simply *hated* the particular PM implementation of
that concept, so it was improved by a professional
designer. Still the same concept.

>Where was the revision process announced?

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-October/012323.html
(wikipedia-l post by Erik)

And uh, the announcements page, perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Announcements

Before that it was on the Main Page for a while but I
moved it to the announcements page (one of the Nohat
logos was already "live" at that point; see my
complaint below).

Making announcements is what the announcements page is
there for! Only very major announcements go on the
Main Page. Improving the logo is not major enough to
warrant that, IMO, but choosing the concept was.

Its also been on the Main Page of
http://meta.wikipedia.org/ for some time.

Alas, it should have been also inputted into Wikimeida
News.

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_News

>I'm sorry if I don't spend as much time on the meta
>as on the Wikipedia proper, but there wasn't even

If you are concerned about meta issues and policy then
you should pay attention to Wikipedia-l (*cough*
Erik's post) and meta (Main Page link). If you are
concerned with general Wikipedia-related issues then
read the Wikipedia Announcements page (*cough* link to
meta page on this issue). Also, the word
"Announcements" is bolded on RC whenever there is a
new announcement.

>(as far as I can tell) a single mention on the
>Wikipedia proper that the logo was actually being
>CHANGED from the initial winner to the nohat version.

I was also a bit surprised that Nohat's logo found its
way on en.wikipedia so fast. I would have preferred to
have the nohat logo go onto test.wikipeida.org first
so that people could see how it looked on a MediaWiki
installation (same for the original PM winning logo).
It is simply bad form and looks amateurish to keep
changing the logo on a website with over 200,000 pages
- as if some type of 'logo variant war' were going on.
Even the most recent version of the nohat logo can and
probably will be swapped for another, even better
version.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> The Mediator role account is a danger to the community

There are *NO* "role-accounts" on Wikipedia, and anyone who is using
one to masquerade as if they are carrying out some official function
is doing something very un-wiki indeed.

We can talk about the idea of role accounts *here* if people are
interested in the concept.  Maybe it's a good idea.  But it must not
happen in this way.

Since that account was EofT, 24, etc., it was banned already.  It
looks like Martin unbanned it, which was a bad idea.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> There are *NO* "role-accounts" on Wikipedia, and anyone who is using
> one to masquerade as if they are carrying out some official function
> is doing something very un-wiki indeed.

Let me add to this for emphasis -- creating new accounts such as
"TheMediator" or anything of the sort is something that I will frown
on mightily as well.  If there's a policy proposal, then it should be
proposed and discussed.  There is zero need for a special account that
would mislead people into thinking that there actually is already some
sort of policy of this type.

I think it is *highly* unlikely that the "Mediator role account" is
something that could achieve community consensus.  It's just a stupid
idea proposed by a user who has proven impossible to deal with.

But in any event, there's no need of the account to already exist to
pretend to fulfill a role that doesn't exist and probably won't exist.

By all means, though, let's discuss it and find the merits in the
proposal.

--Jimbo


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Sascha Noyes wrote:
> >There's an excellent article entitled
> >"Open Source Everywhere" over at wired news:
> >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html
>
> >From the article:
> "and some areas [of Wikipedia] have been locked down -
> the front page, for instance, because, Wales says,
> "people kept putting giant penis pictures on there."
>
> I haven't laughed so hard at work in a long time!

Me, too, espeically given my well-known concern about my mom coming to
Wikipedia.  :-) Should I let her read the article, ha ha?

> Did Jimbo interview for this, or is the author just a
> damn good researcher?

Both!  I was interviewed at length, but I could tell he knew his stuff
already.

If he researched all of this from the mailing list, then he probably
should have written "Wikipedians are planning to discuss how to move
to a 1.0 version, as soon as they end their 37-month-long debate over
the much more important and divisive issue of exactly what the logo
should look like."  :-)

--Jimbo


body:
Anthere wrote:
> One problem will be for Jimbo to have the information
> to decide the ban :-)

Anthere is completely right about that.  I can listen to people who I
trust, Anthere included among a few others, but really I couldn't do
much more than that.

I really investigate pretty hard before I agree to bans, and I can't
do that at all in other languages.

It is actually likely, therefore, that other languages are going to
need 'arbitration committees' long before English really HAS to have
it.

--Jimbo


body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
>There's an excellent article entitled
>"Open Source Everywhere" over at wired news:
>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html

>From the article:
"and some areas [of Wikipedia] have been locked down -
the front page, for instance, because, Wales says,
"people kept putting giant penis pictures on there."

I haven't laughed so hard at work in a long time! But
that whole section was very well-researched - it
mentioned things that are in the yet-to-be-distributed
press release (passing Britannica.com on Alexa) and
other things that we have only talked about on the
mailing list (Wikipedia 1.0 and certain quotes by
Jimbo).

Did Jimbo interview for this, or is the author just a
damn good researcher?

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

>Alex756 wrote:
>
>>This organization is a good place to start understanding
>>what "mental health service consumers" or just "mental
>>health consumers" (the terms used by most individuals
>>who are or should be under some kind of treatment)
>>have to deal with on a daily basis:
>>http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=Living_With
>>
>
>That's the term that's used by most of us now?
>I had no idea that the consumerification of society
>had proceeded to such a degree!
>
>Since I use psychiatric counseling and prescriptions for medication,
>technically I must agree that I am a "mental health service consumer".
>I don't see how I could be a "mental health consumer", however.
>
The terms that we use can easily have unwanted implications.  "Mental
health service consumer" seems clear enough.  Stress could be seen as a
"mental health consumer." ;-)

Ray


subject: [WikiEN-l] AstroWikipedia

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:

>On Tuesday 14 October 2003 14:20, Imran Ghory wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, cprompt wrote:
>>
>>>Don't see any reason to. They're not claiming to be connected to
>>>Wikipedia, and Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and all our other sites all list
>>>which sites are ours.
>>>
>>IANAL. But, my understand is that general use of the term Wikipedia could
>>generify it, thus preventing the Wikimedia foundation from gaining a
>>trademark on the name at a later date.
>>
>
>NAI ;) But, could WIkipedia be trademark at all as it is generic term? Noone
>can trademark "Cherry Jam" as a name for cherry jam, could anyone trademark
>"Wikipedia" as a name for a Wiki encyclopedia?
>
The claim that "Wikipedia" is a generic term presupposes that others
have used it before. Please name some.

Ec


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] [OT by now] Re: "Mental Health Service Consumer" Trolls

body:
Alex756 wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>Alex756 wrote:

>>>This organization is a good place to start understanding
>>>what "mental health service consumers" or just "mental
>>>health consumers" (the terms used by most individuals
>>>who are or should be under some kind of treatment)
>>>have to deal with on a daily basis:
>>>http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=Living_With

>>That's the term that's used by most of us now?
>>I had no idea that the consumerification of society
>>had proceeded to such a degree!

>I know a lot of mental health professionals here in NYC.
>For many years the correct term has be "consumer". They
>consume services, these individuals are not necessarily
>"disabled" "debilitated" or "sick" any more than one with
>the flu needs some medical care.

Firstly, mental health professionals (in NYC or elsewhere)
are not "individuals who are or should be under some kind of treatment".
I'm confident that /most/ of those individuals don't /use/ that term;
although I'm sure that many of us (like the people in NAMI) do.
I will chalk this up to your writing "used by most individuals [...]"
rather than "used by most professionals to refer to individuals [...]",
which I guess is what you meant.

But besides that ... yes, I am sick! (that's "ill" to British readers).
Like somebody with the flu is sick (although asthma --
a chronic disease with treatment but no cure -- is a closer analogy).
And in certain periods in the past, I was even disabled and debilitated,
like somebody with heart trouble who isn't able to move around very well.
There was even a brief period where I was sick, disabled, debilitated,
/and/ a consumer of mental health services -- but that was short,
and the disability and debilitation left as the services improved.
However, before I began consuming mental health services,
I was already disabled and debilitated (and of course sick),
and it would have been a great help had I been under treatment.
Yet I was not under treatment, and not consuming mental health services.
So it would've been silly to call me a "mental health service consumer".

>The use of this term was started by "consumer groups" about
>fifteen years ago as many of the not-for-profit organizations
>in the area of mental health pushed for that name. It has become
>the norm. NAMI is an organization of such consumers,
>it was not geared to the MHP point of view, but to be sensitive
>to the point of view of those who receive services.

I think that it's very important to realise that
those of us that consume mental health services
/are/ consumers, like people that consume vacuum cleaners,
and we deserve the attendant consumer rights to go with that
(like consumer choice, and information about the product).
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that "mental health service consumer"
is an appropriate /generic/ term for people that should have treatment.
To say, in your words, that one "should be under some kind of treatment"
is to make a judgement, not a statement of clear-cut fact,
and an appropriate term would reflect that status,
such as (maybe?) "desirable mental health service consumer"
(?It would be desirable if they were a mental health service consumer.?).
And even that's not the same as the "mentally ill"
that you were responding to.

>>Since I use psychiatric counseling and prescriptions for medication,
>>technically I must agree that I am a "mental health service consumer".
>>I don't see how I could be a "mental health consumer", however.

>It may seem confusing, but individuals who attempt to assimilate
>mental health are perhaps "mental health consumers".

I don't see that.  Linguistically, I mean.

>In the
>social services area they are known as "social services consumers".
>Those who dispense services are known as "service providers".
>(Interesting that the term is so similar in the internet field, what
>is that saying about all us "users" Are you a user?).

Linguistically, I would want to insist on the word "service".
Anyway, same comments apply here -- if one /does/ consume social services,
then one ought to realise that one /is/ a consumer,
but this isn't the same thing as "poor" (or whatever we're trying to replace),
since such a person might not, in fact, consume any social services.

>I did not make up this terminology, but I understand that those
>who need mental health services have been stigmatized with very
>negative and charged monikers that have caused them great pain
>and discrimination often based upon societal stereotypes that
>may be summed up in such words as "crazy" "mad" "mentally
>ill" or "mental case". It is felt that all these names are projecting
>very negative stereotypes and preventing individuals who might
>otherwise be treated like other human beings from being mistreated
>or ignored because of problems that they face that may be beyond their
>control. Even the term "client" tends to marginalize, in the opinion
>of these groups (though not all mental health professionals recognize
>that the only appropriate word for these people is "consumers".

If these groups, whatever they are (you mentioned NAMI)
think that they can stop us from being marginalised by using new terminology,
then they are badly mistaken.  What do they think "mentally ill" is?
That used to be a nice PC term that replaced "crazy" and "mad",
implying that a person was merely unhealthy -- like an asthma sufferer --
rather than a dangerously different breed of human being.
Yet the term "mentally ill" has become stigmatised anyway.
What a shock! what a surprise! and when "MHSC" is like that in 20 years,
then I hope that I'm not the only person to tell NAMI ?Toldja so!?.

>Anyone who uses such terminology, in the opinion of these
>"consumer groups," continues these preconceived and
>prejudicial stereotypes by encouraging these negative symbols
>to circulate through the use of language that reflects a negative
>view of the situation these people find themselves in through no
>fault of their own.

I have a different opinion.  I like to use words that /mean/ something.
I would like the second paragraph in this post to be comprehensible,
so that "mentally ill" (or "sick" in US usage), "disabled",
"debilitated", and "mental health service consumer"
all mean different things, so that it makes good sense
to say that I was one at some time and another at another time.
After all, to say such things actually says something meaningful
about me, and about the history of my life, which maybe I'd like to say.
I don't appreciate it when organisations (much less organisations
that claim to represent my interests) try to change words,
saying that I was a "mental health service consumer" for several years
before I actually began consuming any mental health services.
I'll try to explain my life history to them, and they'll be confused.
No thanks!

>It may not be a violation of any law or contrary to any principle
>of free speech to use such terminology, but the opinion of
>those consumers who suffer from the use of these terms perhaps
>should be kept in mind. It is their opinion that when one uses
>these terms indescriminately the use of them causes groups
>of people to be further stigmatizated, alienated and
>marginalized from society.

I'll keep NAMI's opinion in mind; and I hope that you'll keep in mind
/my/ opinion, the opinion of somebody that doesn't want to be referred to
except by terms that literally (or figuratively) actually mean
something that actually applies to me.

I /am/ mentally ill, and I /am/ a mental health service consumer,
although I am /not/ disabled, and I am /not/ debilitated;
15 years ago, I was /less/ mentally ill and /not/ a MHSC;
7 years ago, I was /more/ mentally ill but still /not/ a MHSC,
as a result of which I /was/ disabled, for about a year.
(The precise meaning of "debilitated" is less clear to me,
so I won't try to predict its applicability in 1996 October.)

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Godwin's Law

body:
Stevertigo wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>So you concede defeat?  Very well, I accept.

>I will admit losing a pointless argument due to
>fatigue and boredom, if you admit that you were just
>trolling in the first place.  ^_^

Well ... in some sense, I'm always trolling when I argue with you.
Because how does that get us anywhere ^_^?  (Although I'm not seeking
a /reaction/ from you, so I believe that it technically doesn't qualify.)

However, the broad statements of principle -- nature of freedom,
what Wikipedia has a right to do versus what is a good idea,
the gap between individual responsibility and enforced rules --
I stand by them.

And nothing that I wrote in response to mav was trolling;
I would never troll mav.

-- Toby


from_name: Matthew J. Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] AstroWikipedia

body:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> The claim that "Wikipedia" is a generic term presupposes that others
> have used it before. Please name some.

Technically, not necessarily.  If you came first but other people came
after, used the name without your permission, and you didn't protest, THEN
it's also a generic.

I don't think either applies here.

-Matt


subject: [Textbook-l] http://wikibooks.org/

body:
I'm way behind.  Is there something I should do, or have Jason do?

Daniel Mayer wrote:

> LDan wrote:
> >Cool! Thanks, Brion. Is it possible to do the same for
> >http://www.wikiquote.org/ ?
>
> He would have if he had access to the admin interface to manage those domain
> names. Only Jason and Jimbo have the username and password info for those
> domains so far.
>
> --mav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo confession

body:
I have a standing promise to read every message on wikipedia-l,
wikien-l, wikiintl-l, and wikitech-l.

But I just deleted 100 messages about the logo.  I wrote a bit earlier
about it today, a pseudo-meta-decree.  If I missed anything like
REALLY REALLY urgent, don't hesitate to write me about it.

But most of that didn't seem to pertain to me, and I was tired of
being so far behind.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Mozilla 1.5 and <hr>

body:
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 13:14 US/Pacific, Allan Crossman wrote:
> Mozilla 1.5 (Windows version at least) seems to have toasted support
> for
> however Wikipedia is implementing the
 tag...
>
> A problem with Mozilla or with our HTML/CSS?

There was a bug in older versions of Mozilla which trashed our
s
once the code was fixed up to use "standards-compliant" rendering
instead of "quirks" mode; there's a hackish workaround that forces the
rendering of
 back to the quirks version, but I'm told it messes
things up again on the latest greatest Mozilla, where allegedly the bug
is fixed.

I haven't had a chance to investigate in great detail yet. The fixup
function is in wikibits.js.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community

body:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Jake Nelson wrote:

> Role accounts are a very, very bad idea. I'm quite surprised the discussion
> about them actually had some support. Huge security risk, and goes against
> building trust. I've always found pseudonymity (ie, usernames) far superior
> to anonymity... and besides, it'd be folly to believe any role account would
> reliably mask you: if you have enough experience with someone's style and
> mindset, it can become very easy to recognize them in whatever guise.

Very much agreed.  However, an idea I've seen used before is to flag users
'in a role' with a different (but non-anonymous) username, to make the
point that this is user A acting in the role of X, rather than just as
their regular selves.  This is sometimes useful.

I'm not sure it is going to be useful on Wikipedia, but IF we ever have
officially anointed anythings (mediators, arbitrators, whatever) then it
is probably a good idea for edits made 'under that role' to be flagged as
such.

I'd be loath to give up Wikipedia's relatively flat and uncomplicated
structure for such a thing.  We currently have a 4-level structure (anon
IP -> logged-in user -> admin -> Jimbo (if one considers developer status
'outside' this system)) but we have over time set up a system where a very
few powers are (by consensus or fiat) assigned to Jimbo and everything
else is pushed out as far as we can.  Anon IP users can do almost
everything a logged-in user can do and (by consensus) the power of admins
extends only so far as some extra housekeeping/janitorial functions a
little too dangerous to hand out to everyone, plus the power to block
vandals in extremis.

Creating another special class of users is not IMO required; keeping a
list of people willing to step in and mediate / arbitrate controversial
issues on a basis of no real extra power is probably good enough.

I certainly strongly oppose the User:Mediator idea of a solitary,
unknown-to-everyone mediator.  A solitary known-to-few anonymous-to-most
is not AS bad, but I still don't like it.  Do we need an empowered
anonymous 'Voice-of-Jimbo' individual?  I'd rather have known,
non-anonymous individuals take up tasks.  There is, as suggested by some,
a problem with people not accepting mediation by someone they think has
ideological 'baggage', but the fact remains: they might be RIGHT in their
rejection of such a person.

-Matt


subject: [Textbook-l] http://wikibooks.org/

body:
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 13:24 US/Pacific, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I'm way behind.  Is there something I should do, or have Jason do?

I think it's all set up.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Sascha Noyes

body:
Hi all

There's an excellent article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" over at wired
news: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html

Needless to say it has a section on wikipedia (second page). Unfortunately
there are no hyperlinks to wikipedia in the online article, which will
decrease the "click-through rate". But it is still an excellent source for
possible new contributers.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
(in wikiland: snoyes)


subject: [WikiEN-l] re: user:mediator

body:
Martin Harper wrote:

> > It looks like Martin unbanned it, which was a bad idea.

> Not I. Anthere unblocked the account, after receiving the password
> to it from our anonymous friend in some manner.

Oh, I'm sorry about that, I misread the page.

> She tells me that she's changed the password to lock him out: see
> user:mediator for her explanation. Anthere's a bona fide
> contributor, so I don't think we need to be fearful about the issue.

Absolutely.  Anthere is good.

> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_account

I'll try to read that, but really major policy discussions
need to happen here.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community

body:
The Mediator role account is a danger to the community

I worry intensely about how this "role account" got started, and where
it's heading. Although the concept of mediation sounds very nice, please
note that the person who conceived of it was banned for extremely
anti-social on-line behavior: User:EntmootOfTrolls (or "EofT"). This
user scares me more than any other user; I came close to putting an
emergency 'block' on his account when he seemed to be physically
threatening user:RK (the 'sharia law' remark sounded like a real threat,
not at all akin to Rampton's obvious jest).

It is this contradiction between the "nice" sound of the concept and the
"nasty" character of its proponent that worries me so much. Given that
EofT has caused so much heartache and fear in the past, I worry that
this scheme could be some sort of trick to cause similar trouble in the
future. I'm especially suspicious of the aspect of anonymity; at a
minimum, I'd want the developers to keep an IP log of who's using the
account at any time; but I worry that this won't be enough. I would feel
somewhat better if I myself knew who the 'Mediator' was at all times,
but that raises other issues and does not settle all my current
concerns.

Why can't people who want to mediate, simply do so under their own
names? Or just create a dummy account and mediate under that (each with
his own dummy account)? I worry that there's some trickery or treachery
brewing: EofT is very smart, and he scares me. I don't like or trust
what's happening now.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Soft ban on IP range

body:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:33:05 +0100, sannse <sannse at delphiforums.com> gave
> utterance to the following:
>
> > Erik wrote:
> >
> >> Poor,-
> >> > How hard would it be to create a "soft ban" on certain IP number
> >> ranges?
> >> > To thwart a troll, we may have occasion to block, say, all IP's from
> >> > 142.177.0.0 to 142.177.255.255 -- to prevent someone like EofT from
> >> > posting anonymously to Wikipedia and thereby evade a hard ban.
> >>
> >> If necessary, can be done using a small script, but I'm strongly
opposed
> >> to it. That's the IP of an entire large Canadian ISP with thousands of
> >> customers. I also find it a bit problematic how easily it is assumed
> >> these
> >> days that two users with somewhat similar IP numbers are the same
> >> person.
> >> Let's try to establish strong standards of evidence here.
> >
> > I feel the same.  It always worries me to see people accused of being a
> > repeat account on what appears to be very circumstantial evidence.  But
> > /are/ there any ways to improve this?  Presumably ISPs could give exact
> > identities - but I guess they are difficult (and maybe expensive?) to
> > persuade to help in IDing problem users.
> >
> > So what other options are there?
> >
> In New Zealand at least nothing short of a police request or warrant will
> persuade the ISP's to divulge such information - we have strong Privacy
> laws.
> --
> Richard Grevers
> Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried

Imho, when ban are really necessary, they must be short in time and well
targeted.

I think range IP bans are really unfair.

If ban many IP is fastidious, we can try to make easer for admin to ban a
IP.

The intent is:

- Protect the Wikipedias against vandals

- Don't bother innocent editor

- Give a new chance to a banned IP

- Make easy the ban of vandals even if they use many IPs

We can also create an auto-un-ban system that automatically un-ban IP after
a while (24 hours is enough in my point of view).

Instead, I don't understand why admin can't ban logged user!?

What to do if a logged vandal attack our favourite Wikipedia???

Pray for our gods (Brion, etc.) are not sleeping is the only way I actually
see ;o)

Aoineko


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bannie donc partie

body:
From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community

>The Mediator role account is a danger to the
community

>I worry intensely about how this "role account" got
>started, and where
>it's heading. Although the concept of mediation
sounds >very nice,
>please
>note that the person who conceived of it was banned
>for extremely
>anti-social on-line behavior: User:EntmootOfTrolls
(or >"EofT"). This
>user scares me more than any other user; I came close
>to putting an
>emergency 'block' on his account when he seemed to be
>physically
>threatening user:RK (the 'sharia law' remark sounded
>like a real
>threat,
>not at all akin to Rampton's obvious jest).

>It is this contradiction between the "nice" sound of
>the concept and
>the
>"nasty" character of its proponent that worries me so
>much. Given that
>EofT has caused so much heartache and fear in the
>past, I worry that
>this scheme could be some sort of trick to cause
>similar trouble in the
>future. I'm especially suspicious of the aspect of
>anonymity; at a
>minimum, I'd want the developers to keep an IP log of
>who's using the
>account at any time; but I worry that this won't be
>enough. I would
>feel
>somewhat better if I myself knew who the 'Mediator'
>was at all times,
>but that raises other issues and does not settle all
>my current
>concerns.

>Why can't people who want to mediate, simply do so
>under their own
>names? Or just create a dummy account and mediate
>under that (each with
>his own dummy account)? I worry that there's some
>trickery or treachery
>brewing: EofT is very smart, and he scares me. I
don't >like or trust
>what's happening now.

>Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

I can only put that in perspective with your reaction
to this idea, just a few days ago, Ed

You wrote

:I support this idea wholeheartedly. It is the answer
:to my prayers. (I have an idea about who the
anonymous :current mediator might be, but "further
deponent :sayeth not", heh heh.) --Uncle Ed 14:57, 10
Oct 2003 :(UTC)

I will be frank Ed, in the past 18 months I have been
there, I have been terribly trying to open my ears. To
all of you. To the cunctator a lot (he was there a lot
at that time), to Mav, to Toby, to Ec, to Martin, to
Erik, to you, and to many others (don't want to hurt
some I did not list); Some are considered very good
and trusted members of this

          , so are just more neutral. Others are
thought bad, if not dangerous.

I care about this, but I mostly care about ideas, and
when I read an idea I think hold interest, I am
willing to work on it.
When I realise, I am alone, or there are some powerful
forces against the idea, I usually gave up.

The other day, I read you were interested by the idea.
Ec obviously was interested as well. Alex criticized
it, but also admitted it was not in antagony with his
own proposal.

And several hinted that many points were bad. And I
agreed with that.

So, seing that at least 3 persons were interested in
pursuing the discussion on this idea (and this is
really on an idea), I thought it would be acceptable
to go on with this discussion.

I have often problems with lengthy discussions on
mailing list, because soon enough, we loose track of
others opinions; Perhaps no one ever noticed that I
usually rather quickly drop discussions when they get
lengthy, because I can't assume looooooog text very
well.

I thought it was best to go on discussing the matter
on wikipedia. Also, it is written no where that
discussion over meta option should ONLY happen on this
mailing list. Quite many discussions only occur on
wikipedia itself, and no one seems to complain about
that.

I can't help putting in perspective what you wrote the
idea day, and this so hurting mail and comment from
you here.

I am not very good at that, but I tend to like
mediating. When I proposed myself to Jimbo some two
weeks ago, mostly in case of issues with non-english
speakers (because I remember how good it was when some
people soothed me talking to me in french when I was
in conflict with RK), he did not dismissed me. Or so I
thought.

But usually I prefer mediating ideas rather than
people.

Today, I took most of the afternoon, not to mediate
between people, but to start mediation over ideas. I
thought that if there were two concepts, and at least
a minimum of people declaring themselves interested in
both concept, it might be beneficial by at least those
interested to remove all what was clearly
controversial in the idea, to clarify where the two
concepts were meeting, and where they were being
different. I had no idea this could be so scarry to
you, just discussing, removing the bad points, putting
in light the good one, not even as a proposition, but
just as a clean-up.

In short, you mention how much heartache EoT has
caused in the past. Do you have any idea of how much
heartache you caused me today ?
Because, if I did this, it was because YOU, EC and
perhaps Alex, are thinking of options. It was for you.
As I indicated both on the account today, and to
Martin yesterday, I intended it to be my last
participation over meta topic on en.
Last it indeed is.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:30:46 -0700
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <20031015183046.GH31966 at joey.bomis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>There are *NO* "role-accounts" on Wikipedia, and
>anyone who is using
>one to masquerade as if they are carrying out some
>official function
>is doing something very un-wiki indeed.

At the top of that page is written

:Note: this user is not any kind of "official"
:Wikipedia mediator - The account currently exists to
:support a proposition to improve mediation on
:Wikipedia

It is clearly labelled as being a proposition, a place
for discussion. It is clearly labelled that this is
not official in the least. Pretending otherwise is
disingenous; I left that note clearly in evidence. No
one could miss it.

>We can talk about the idea of role accounts *here* if
>people are
>interested in the concept.  Maybe it's a good idea.
>But it must not
>happen in this way.

>Since that account was EofT, 24, etc., it was banned
>already.

When the account was banned, it was very clearly said
on this very list that the reason why it was banned
was because of who was using it. It was written no
where the user account was banned for making threats,
insulting people, making pov statement in articles. It
was not even a vandale. This account made nothing to
hurt wikipedia, and nowhere in the rules of Wikipedia
is there one that may justify the banning of this
account in itself.
Apparently, the rules changed, and the reason given
when the account was blocked was false. The reason is
given nowhere in the current rules. I am afraid this
set a precedent which will have to be noted. In any
case, it was not noted in the rules this afternoon, so
if it was not a rule at that moment, I did not break
any rule

>It looks like Martin unbanned it, which was a bad
idea.

Martin certainly did not. I did. I explained it in
length on the user account page. And Martin read my
justifications and thought them valid enough not to
ban again the account. He could have. He could have
told me he thought it wrong, but he did not. I would
probably had stop if he had. But do not accuse him of
anything.

The only user who complained when I was around was
Rick. That is, he complained by reverting a page, then
did nothing more.

I explained in length on the user page, why I thought
the account could be unblocked, basing myself on the
reason that was given for the block, which was not
relevant any more.

I will copy below what I wrote them. (It was reworked
by Martin later, and that was sign for me what I was
doing was admittable).

You may find this edit in the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Mediator&diff=1568875&oldid=1568450

>Let me add to this for emphasis -- creating new
>accounts such as
>"TheMediator" or anything of the sort is something
>that I will frown
>on mightily as well.  If there's a policy proposal,
>then it should be
>proposed and discussed.  There is zero need for a
>special account that
>would mislead people into thinking that there
actually >is already some
>sort of policy of this type.

As I already said, this can't currently mislead
anyone.
I edited only the user page and subpages, and it is
clearly labelled at the top it was a proposition to
discuss.

>I think it is *highly* unlikely that the "Mediator
>role account" is
>something that could achieve community consensus.
>It's just a stupid
>idea proposed by a user who has proven impossible to
>deal with.

In the real life, where I work, we work essentially
with decision making per consensus.
One of the key thing we were told, is that during the
first phase of a discussion, brainstorming, any idea,
even the craziest, should be given.
Because even if crazy, they might enlighten other
people, and lead to another idea, this one being great

Somehow, giving "stupid" ideas is highly regarded :-)
At least, at the end of the year, when salary raises
are discussed, it is better you are remembered for
crazy ideas, that no ideas at all.

I thrive on crazy ideas. I listen to people, anyone,
and try to see what is good, and what is not. Just as
on Wikipedia, I learn devil advocate from The
Cunctator, consensual behavior from Mav, wise comments
from Ec, juridical comments from Alex, fallacies
by...oh, so many people, professionalism from Erik,
warmth from KQ, fun from many
I learned a lot. And I also learn from bad people as
well. Because, even though bad, no one is entirely
bad. There is good to take in any person. Sometimes,
it is not what is required at the very moment, but no
one should assume that a difficult user is just one
that is 100% bad, just as the perfect user is never
100% good.
Which is why several of the trusted users around here,
sometimes make mistakes. That is no big deal.

>But in any event, there's no need of the account to
>already exist to
>pretend to fulfill a role that doesn't exist and
>probably won't exist.

We do not know that for sure. And that is no way to
think within a consensus process.

>By all means, though, let's discuss it and find the
>merits in the
>proposal.

>--Jimbo

Jimbo
I am sure of one thing, because I trust you to be a
very careful person. I am sure that before banning
someone, you carefully assess why you are banning this
person. I am sure that you review the pages written by
this person, in order to distinguish what you were
told in the mailing list. I know this is also why it
sometimes take you a long time to take a final
decision. Because not being on wikipedia all the time,
you can't take a decision just over a couple of
comments on the mailing list; Of course, you have to
go and see the extent of the problem

So, for this reason, I know you have read what was
written today by User:Mediator, and obviously, you
have read as well the comment left at the top of the
user page, to justify the unbloking, to explain what
was gonna happen, the clearing of the controversial
stuff, the removal of what was purely associated to
the EoT, then the intent to hand over the password to
those who had said they were interested by thinking on
the matter.

It can't then have escaped you that I wrote all that.
It can't have escape you that it was not EoT writing.

I especially wrote

I am not banned, have never abused anyone, nor being
offensive at an unreasonable level, never threatened
anyone afaik. I don't think I need to prove I am not
142. You know who I am; my poor language skills should
be enough; if necessary, I can make an anonymous edit
per request to show my ip (leading to a middle-size
french city :-); or any developper can check of
course. If it is still necessary, I will email Jimbo
:-)

And Martin indicated my name if that was not enough.

At the top of the page, you put a lign. You wrote

Note: this account is blocked again, and should not be
unblocked. Any discussion or debate about the concept
of a role account should take place in the proper
forum, the wikien-l mailing list. We do not set policy
by unilateral assertion, particularly not by
unilateral anonymous assertion by a banned account.
Jimbo Wales 18:37, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I especially notice the "particularly not by
unilateral anonymous assertion by a banned account".

So, I understand that my additions, the ones that
justified the blocking of this account today, are said
to be ones made by a banned account.

That is me. The banned account now. My assertions were
not anonymous. They were not unilateral. And this
afternoon, they were not by a banned user. The notice
makes reference to the current edits, so that is me.

I dont know policies very well, but there is one I am
aware of, the fact a banned user, should not edit
under other accounts. I saw that rule inforced enough
times.

Since I am someone who tend to obey rules, I will of
course comply. So, I will not edit wikipedia any more
from now on. I dearly hope that at least one user will
ask upon what motive I was banned, and that Martin
will update the policy pages upon banning accordingly.

I have talked to you privately enough to have the
weakness to believe that as a kindness, you will not
revert my user page to place a ban notice on it. Many
people know my user name, and I would feel quite
humiliated.

Well, I would lie if I did not admitted I feel
terribly humiliated right now. I am thinking of the
huge number of hours I spent on wikipedia in the past
18th months (really huge, but perhaps english users do
not realise that), and I would have thought I would be
granted good faith at least. Even if you disagreed
with me editing that page, you could have just told me
on the talk page to stop, and I would have complied
(or discussed). I thought you knew me enough not to
think I would go on if you ask me to really stop. Hard
is the fall.

I hope this example of you banning me will be
enlightening for those who think there is no need for
more mediation between people on wikipedia. Somehow, I
think the biggest issue between people, not only
Wikipedia, is the lack of discussion, lack of
understanding. I tried this afternoon to stimulate
discussion, I am here trying to explain to you again,
that I was acting in good faith, because the account
had been said blocked only because it was edited by a
banned user, not for any other reason.

You did not take the time to discuss with me, you did
not even take the time to put a word on the talk page.
I supposed you had no time, you thought it unecessary,
it was easier that way.

I will copy one paragraph I wrote on that page today

...the worst problem at Wikipedia is that more and
more banning seems to be occuring, which could be
interpretated in several ways : perhaps more traffic
is bringing more vandals and difficult users. However,
it seems as well, that more and more people are just
banned because some think it the quickest, easiest,
less painful, or more reliable way to deal with
problematic users. This could also a sign of less
tolerance, less willingness to work out issues, lesser
capacity of listening to what others have to say, and
less desire to help Wikipedia:users in conflict solve
them through discussion.

So true I was, when you prove my point about 3 hours
later.

------

I should probably shut up now. I remember that banned
users are asked to make their case of the list. So
here is mine. I need no private mediation for that.
Neither anonymous. I always told you with my heart
open what I thought. Just as Ed, I do not think you
can perceive the pain you are giving tonight. I do not
think so. And for Erik, who will not miss saying I am
doing an appeal to pity, no, I am just honest. And
terribly disheartened.

The last thing I will say is, I intend to go on
editing the french wikipedia. I do not think french
wikipedians  would support my banning. If you think
the opposite, at least ask and respect their opinion.
Please.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] one more thing

body:
Could someone please blank my user page ?
As a favor ?

Thanks

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Delirium

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>If he researched all of this from the mailing list, then he probably
>should have written "Wikipedians are planning to discuss how to move
>to a 1.0 version, as soon as they end their 37-month-long debate over
>the much more important and divisive issue of exactly what the logo
>should look like."  :-)
>
>
I believe the 1.0 version discussion is being pushed back until after
the completion of the similarly important and divisive username debate. =]

-Mark


body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>LOL, thanks, Andre. I love it when someone relieves me of my worries.
>
It's good somebody's keeping track somewhere.  As they say: "A log is a
ban's best friend." :-)

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] installing mediawiki

body:
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 14:02 US/Pacific, Tomoaki Watanabe wrote:
> Hi. I and others are trying to install a mediawiki into iBiblio's
> server for a project, and I would like to get some help.
>
> It seems that installation requires command-line php, which is not
> available at their server.
>
> Is there any quick work-around that I am missing? Or is this the way
> it is? (Or am I simply wrong?) I would appreciate any input.

As a workaround for the installer script, you can do it manually. I'm
assuming you've got a way of running batch SQL commands, either through
the mysql command-line client or through some administrative tool such
as phpMyAdmin.

First, create the database:
CREATE DATABASE wikidb;
(or whatever you'd like to name it)

into this database run the table creation SQL scripts, which are in the
maintenance subdirectory: tables.sql and indexes.sql. These create an
empty wiki database.

You may wish to create a separate MySQL user for the wiki, if so adapt
users.sql to the username and password you want to use and run that on
the table as a MySQL user with administrative privs.

Put wiki.phtml and redirect.phtml into the destination install
directory. You can put the rest of the .php files there if you like (as
the installer does), but I prefer to put them in a separate directory
which I then add to the PHP include path so multiple wikis can be run
from the same code (and the other source files aren't exposed to the
web on the off chance that something weird can be done by executing
them alone).

Create your LocalSettings.php and put it into the same directory with
wiki.phtml. If the sample file isn't clear, refer to
DefaultSettings.php and override anything that isn't going to turn out
right for you.

Copy the *.js and *.css files from the 'stylesheets' subdirectory into
an appropriate place, which should be accessible as $wgStyleSheetPath.

Security notes:

* the wiki code currently requires that register_globals be on. You may
not wish to turn this on server-wide because some programs may be
insecure using that mode. See http://php.net/register_globals for how
to enable it.

* If your LocalSettings.php contains a password for the database user,
make sure you're not saving backup files that will be accessible via
the web served as text files.

* Interpretation of PHP in the upload directory really should not be
enabled, since anyone could execute arbitrary code as the webserver
user. It's also recommended that you set HTML files to server as plain
text to prevent cookie-stealing attacks. As an example apache config
fragment:
   <Directory "/usr/local/apache/htdocs/wiki/upload">
     php_admin_flag engine off
     AddType text/plain .html .htm .shtml
   </Directory>

* There's a bug in the upload code that may make it possible to delete
files with an appropriately crafted URL. Until this is fixed, you
should comment out the call to unsaveUploadedFile() in
SpecialUpload.php. This may occasionally leave temporary files around
from uploads that are discarded.

Other notes:
* iconv support is required, but it's not compiled into PHP by default.
If you don't have iconv support, you can work around it by defining a
dummy function like so: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconv_hack

* the $wgDebugLogFile must either be writable or be set to "" or you
get ugly error messages.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Link style vote

body:
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 14:56 US/Pacific, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Thomas-
>> Oh, no... voting again. Ask Jimbo! Or throw a dice!
>
> Alright, I've thrown a dice and the result is .. no underlining! I'm
> sure
> nobody will protest as I change the default configuration of all the
> wikis, right?

Well, I'd just change it back. ;)

If you want to create an exciting new skin in which non-underlining
looks good, then do so. The present "1994 state of the art web design"
skin should stick with underlining in order to be legible.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [WikiEN-l] AstroWikipedia

body:
>NAI ;) But, could WIkipedia be trademark at all as it is generic term?
Noone
>can trademark "Cherry Jam" as a name for cherry jam, could anyone trademark
>"Wikipedia" as a name for a Wiki encyclopedia?

Yes. You already said what the generic is: "Wiki encyclopedia". Anyone can
say they're one of those. Wikipedia is not generic.

-- Jake


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Dante-
> With all due respect mav, this is bs. No one voted for the logo that is
> currently on the 'pedia. I'd like to ask Jimbo to step in at this point and
> make some sort of  decree from on high... this logo thing is getting out of
> hand.

At the point the logo was updated, there was virtually unanimous consensus
that the Nohat variant was an improvement (20 in favor, 2 against). This
satisfied the condition of the last stage of our contest, namely,
optimization by consensus. As in all such consensus discussions, only
interested parties participate. If you had looked around on Meta, you
would have noticed that these discussions have been going on since Oct 1.
What do you think where the variant submissions came from? The variant
process was broadly advertised at least on the English Wikipedia.

True, a person was more likely to participate if they disliked the winning
logo. But that is the whole point -- those who were not happy with the new
logo tried to find ways to improve it. Now it would be nice for those who
do not like these improvements to comment.

Most involved persons agree that the Nohat logo has a much cleaner, more
refined and logo-like look. It is a logo that you can actually print on a
letterhead without making an idiot of yourself when people ask you what
"kallo" means (no offense to the artist, who agrees that the logo needed
optimization and likes the Nohat variant). It has been our agreement that
we would try to find ways to refine the winning logo concept after the
contest was closed. This had been decided when it became clear that almost
half of the voters on the English Wikipedia strongly disliked the winning
logo (enough to vote not to ratify it at all). So what we are trying to do
now is, instead of entering more and more stages of voting, find something
approaching consensus on the logo.

You get complaints from the consensus folks when you use voting and you
get complaints from the voting folks when you use consensus. What I want
to know is whether you have any substantial remarks regarding the logo
itself -- how to improve it to satisfy your personal aesthetical concerns.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community

body:
Role accounts are a very, very bad idea. I'm quite surprised the discussion
about them actually had some support. Huge security risk, and goes against
building trust. I've always found pseudonymity (ie, usernames) far superior
to anonymity... and besides, it'd be folly to believe any role account would
reliably mask you: if you have enough experience with someone's style and
mindset, it can become very easy to recognize them in whatever guise.

-- Jake


from_name: Louis Kyu Won Ryu

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Danger to the community

body:
> The Mediator role account is a danger to the community
>
> I worry intensely about how this "role account" got started, and where
> it's heading. Although the concept of mediation sounds very nice, please
> note that the person who conceived of it was banned for extremely
> anti-social on-line behavior [...]

I believe that we have reached the point where we should be evaluating
the idea on its merits alone, rather than on the basis of its source.
We have danced around the "good contributions from bad people" conundrum
and never reached any sort of consensus, and I don't think it's
necessarily important here.

I would also point out, as a brief aside, that EofT's behavior falls
short of the criminally threatening behavior that has been ascribed to
him.  I recall  getting this message on my answering machine some years
ago from an anonymous caller: "I'm going to blow up your fucking house,
man."  Literally.  Those exact words.  Now, that was a little troubling,
but the cops didn't follow up on it much and said that they hear about a
lot of calls like that.  The point being, that the stuff that EofT wrote
fell considerably short of that rather more direct message I once received.

There is plenty that 24/142/EofT did that justified a ban.  There is no
need to exaggerate or make stuff up.

> Why can't people who want to mediate, simply do so under their own
> names?

Well, yes, they can and should.  And many do just that.

One of the things I would like to change about the Wikipedia community,
if I could, would be to cause there to be greater overall support for
those who step in and try to mediate edit wars and other content
disputes.  Generally, it is a thankless job today.  A real tarbaby.  You
try to help out with some neutral, reasoned involvement, and you tend to
get a bunch of gooey tar stuck to yourself and your clothes.

By way of example, I have made a genuine attempt to help out with the RK
and JiL matters.  I have so far been called a heavy handed, an
anti-semite (by RK), and a troll (this last by two separate users).  My
words have been called unfair.  I have been accused of having a hidden
agenda.  I believe there are about half a dozen contributors who have
generally been disparaging in their comments about my activities, and
one (Ed Poor) who has been publicly supportive.

I suppose I should learn to have a thick skin and not pay any attention
to this sort of thing.

But even if I do, such responses serve to discourage people from
mediating or otherwise getting involved in messy conflicts.  It scares
the well-balanced, sensitive, moderate, rational people away from tough
articles.

== Discussion about the mediation process ==

The discussion of mediation and arbitration process reached something of
a sequence point a week or two ago when Jimbo asked for nominations and
volunteers for these roles.  I for one have been waiting to see what
happens next before continuing the conversation about
mediation/arbitration process.

I continue to believe that the project would be well served by some sort
of article dispute resolution process, and that many of our more
intractable problem users have become what they are in part out of
frustrations with disputes over articles.

Louis


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Alex R. wrote:

> From: "sannse" <sannse at delphiforums.com>
> > Stevertigo wrote (in part)
> >
> > > Not to mention-- a "mentally ill" "diagnosis" should
> > > not be taken pejoratively -- it may in fact be a very
> > > NPOV term to use for people whose behaviour is
> > > extremely irrational. Compare this to calling "jerks"
> > > for example.  Theres a difference.
> >
> > A very good point.  I think such a "diagnosis" /is/ often taken
> > pejoratively, but you are very right that it shouldn't be.  And as Jimbo
> > said (paraphrasing) some speculation about causes and motives can be
> useful.
> >
> > I guess I need to look at my own attitudes to mental illness here.
> >
> This organization is a good place to start understanding
> what "mental health service consumers" or just "mental
> health consumers" (the terms used by most individuals
> who are or should be under some kind of treatment)
> have to deal with on a daily basis:
> http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=Living_With
>
Uh, what is wrong with the term ``patient"?

If I see a doctor or LPN about a broken arm or hayfever, I am
considered a patient. If I see a therapist or psychiatrist about
depression, schizophrenia, or Attention Deficit Disorder, I
should also be considered a patient.

We are talking about illness, yes?

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Bannie donc partie

body:
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 15:13 US/Pacific, Louis Kyu Won Ryu
wrote:

> What happened?  Did someone ban Anthere?  Or did her IP get banned
> when she logged in with User:Mediator?
>
> This is ridiculous.  Maybe we need some tighter controls on the use of
> the "ban a user id or ip range" feature.  Like, three sysops have to
> approve the ban for it to take effect.
>
> Will someone please do something about this right away so that Anthere
> can edit, and will the responsible party please step forward and
> apologize?

I don't see an IP block on en that would hit Anthere; I presume it's
already been removed if there was an autoblock to her IP. The
'Mediator' username was blocked by Jimbo.

As Anthere is a sysop on en she should be able unblock herself if she
accidentally gets caught like this again, unless there's a technical
problem I don't know about (Tim set up the new blocking stuff and I'm
not very familiar with it.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] usemod "del " url

body:
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 15:20 US/Pacific, Walter Vermeir wrote:

> What is the usemod del-url?
>
> (I have the admin passwd)

See:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AdminFeatures

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Bannie donc partie

body:
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 15:35 US/Pacific, Angela wrote:

> Brion wrote:
>> I don't see an IP block on en that would hit
>> Anthere; I presume it's
>> already been removed if there was an autoblock to
>> her IP.
>
> That is because I removed two automatic IP blocks that
> I assumed were Anth?re's.

Thanks!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikitech-l] installing mediawiki

body:
>Hi. I and others are trying to install a mediawiki into iBiblio's server for
>a project, and I would like to get some help.
>
>It seems that installation requires command-line php, which is not available
>at their server.

the command:  php install.php worked for me at ibiblio. Did you try that
and what happened when you did? I am having some trouble with make math so
it did not complete but it worked up to the missing math part.

Fred

>
>Is there any quick work-around that I am missing? Or is this the way it is?
>(Or am I simply wrong?) I would appreciate any input.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Tomoaki  aka Tomos (on wikipedia)
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Enjoy MSN 8 patented spam control and more with MSN 8 Dial-up Internet
>Service.  Try it FREE for one month!   http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion policy needed

body:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, [iso-8859-1] Angela wrote:

> 2) Change the policy
>
> *Reduce the waiting time (there is vast support for
> this idea)

Agreed.  Of course, decisions that have not reached a stable state by that
many days are obviously too complicated for discussion on VfD and should
go off somewhere else.

> *Delete things after three days where no-one has
> objected.

Agreed.  There's a stage just above 'obvious junk' but that are
uncontroversial.

> *Stop anyone with less than (for example) 200 edits
> from commenting. This might get around the issue of a
> huge number of supposed users voting whose only
> contribution ever is to the VfD page, and once the
> page is deleted or kept, that user is never heard of
> again. I strongly believe ballot stuffing is becoming
> a real problem here. Without it, there would be way
> less discussion and a much smaller page.

Well, maybe not COMMENTING, but certainly having anything tallied in a
final count?

> *Stop attacking people who try to help on the page. I
> don't deny that I have made controversial deletions,
> but I am attacked for absolutely non-controversial
> ones

After all, all deletes are undeleteable.  It's not the end of the world if
someone deletes an article over-hastily -- a better route would be simply
to vote for undeletion.

> *Give up on the idea of attaining consensus and set an
> actual percentage of votes required to delete (75%
> sounds good). This makes everything more clear-cut and
> more people will be willing to take action if backed
> up by a policy that isn't interpreted differently by
> everyone reading it.

Given the presence within the community of those philosophically opposed
to deletion of anything on any grounds, and those who will always vote for
certain categories of stuff to be deleted -- I think any attempt to get
100% consensus is impossible on the vast majority of articles placed
there.  75% sounds as good as any.

-Matt (User:Morven)


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> Please don't try to ban your own username! Ban a friend's instead (with
> permission, of course).
>
> BECAUSE: If you ban yourself, I think you're next attempt to log in (to
> unban yourself) will CAUSE YOUR IP ADDRESS TO BE AUTOMATICALLY BANNED.
> There is no way for a sysop to unban themselves. Only ANOTHER SYSOP can
> do this.
>
> Am I right, Brion/Tim/Magnus/et al., or am I just being my usual
> alarmist, over-protective self?

I have done it (to check the messages banned players get on nl:), and if
one has banned oneself (or has been banned by another sysop), one can
unban oneself, then unban one's own IP address without any problems. Problems
only occur if one tries to unban one's IP address while still being banned
oneself, the IP address will then automatically be re-banned. But this is
easily solved by _first_ unbanning oneself as a registered user, and only
_then_ unbanning one's own IP address. That way there is nothing to worry
about.

Andre Engels